killing pain like to cause, relationship -- >> if you want to. you did mention election, i think you got close to asemiblens of what this item is about i appreciate if you can keep your comments close to this. next speaker please >> i hope i didn't get the lined mixed up my name is stacy owens, i'm a campaign treasurer, i have been doing this for 16 years, i'm in favor of simplifying this i work with a lot of localities around the state, i got to say san francisco is the most difficult ordinance we work with, not in terms of the law we follow, and disclosure, i have been doing this for 16 years and say, okay, just making sure we need to file this we need to file

this and this type of communication to you, on this form and on this form and this deadline. there are state forms for this, the state has regulations, when you are doing expenditure, election year communication, all of these things have state rules, it would be nice to have it a standardized form if i can't figure it out, i'm concerned somebody who can't pay me can't pay that. you might be thinking saying, more disclosure, i get paid by the hour, but i'm very much for simplifying this. paperless finding, and simplifying this would go along with that, the forms you currently have are papers, we need to fax to the ethics commission side. i think my time is almost up. thank you.

>> thank you very much. >> good afternoon, supervisors any thaem is albony ryne district one resident i'm in favor, i'm a proponent of the proposed legislation, i would also like to name my association, i'm a member of the california political association. i'm a treasurer of the harvey milk lgbt club i'm not speaking on behalf of those organizations today, but i will say from my experiences, this kind of legislation and reform is very much welcome to the process of fair and equitable disclosure to the public i think the current format for disclosing on multiple porms, the same information is con vel luted and not clear to the end

user, i think simplifying by standardized forms, will make it more transparent to the end user, and is the appropriate type of reform to continue down the road of progress in terms of a more democratic process, and getting people involved in the political process. i have worked of course on low budget campaigns, including in my capacity with the the harvey milk, rgbt democratic club and certainly, i know con vel luting the process, limits clubs like this, and the involvement of nonorganized clubs, who have no legal expertise, or experience, in professional accounting who cannot hire time teams of consultants to do the work for

them. i think this type of reform is necessary. >> thank you. next speaker please? >> my name is larry bush i'm here on behalf friends of ethics taking the position asking this to be put over, with seven ethics commissioners -- investigate committee on ethics as well as the passed chapter chair for common cause, we have several points we felt were the reason to be put over we testified about this at the ethnics commission itself. the issue you raised about 501 c three nonprofits we understand the point about contribution cards, and so forth one mentioned, among several. this deals with material 90 days, befr the election otherwise,

you can do it any time of the year, and nothing is triggered. we think that a 90 day restriction black out period is reasonable. secondly we're asking for a deletion of the election communication, disclosure, which they're calling to have that deleted, we think it shouldn't be so we know who gets paid for noncommittee the issue of the swa city ka, was brought up, that was a specific incidence with supervisor sandival it's the this law they're now trying to appeal. >> thank you very much >> supervisor alia dulni, with parks [inaudible]. i want to reiterate, with a sense of this say clean up bill, that is going

to make it easier for other people who can't hire firms that have a lot of experience in this law, and navigating through these complex rules, so the smaller organizations can read the law themselves understand what they need to do to comply and not get caught up in an ethics investigation so fully support the proposed changeses, i think these are necessary and well intended clean ups, i strongly encourage you to pass along right now. if there are additional changes or disclosures, you can see, consider those at a separate time rather than slowing down this process, i would like to see these in effect for the upcoming election. thank you. >> supervisor thank you for the opportunity to speak, my name is rob hoj, i have been working in

campaign reporting for six years now, i strongly support these changes, but i want to highlight, not so many reasons, why they should be changed, but just to emphasize, just because you hear the term simplification, that we're taking away from the public's right to hear, or understand how their elections are being influenced rather i believe changing these rules to simplify them, to make them easier are going to encourage people to participate, they're going to encourage not only in more disclosure, but accurate disclosure, with the activities going on with elections and this information going to the ethics commission website, the san francisco public is going to have a better understand of what is going on in their elections right now trying to review the mixture of e filed and paper filed documents that are uploaded, it does take a considerable amount of times, and you have to have a

considerable understanding of what you are looking for, i think simplifying, creating a streamline is going to create greater transparency in san francisco elections, which i think all of us in politics in the public can benefit from greatly, i hope you will strongly consider these changes, thank you again for your time. >> thank you. next speaker please? >> hello, supervisors, my name is hope johnson, i didn't come to speak on this item, after listening to people speak on this before, i will urge you to hold this over the committee until you have a full committee here if supervisor cohen thought this was pretty important. the ethics commission was not told by the court to enforce this law, to be enacted, but they assumed, they they

enforced it before they were told that, they made an agreement, even though the voters didn't make an agreement, this requires a bit of discussion and i would like to see a full committee here since it's something the voters enacted, we know campaign contributions are a huge issue on both sides of the aisle. thank you. very thank you very much. no further comments? actually, i do support creating greater standardzation, simplification of our campaign finance laws as a former grass roots candidates to get into public office, it was very mystifying fulfilling all of the -- to understand all of the different requirements moving forward for candidates so i think simplification is important. i support the corpus

of the legislation. i do have concerns about particular parts of it that i think didn't need to necessarily get changed as part of the whole effort around standardzation. it is unfortunate, we don't have the full contingency of the boards to engage in the discussion; the discussion of the amendments i would like to have. i also believe there was original legislation approved by voters, on top of that are lawyers that have been amended into campaign finance laws that called for simplification as well so the idea that as -- was saying, the vote voters have approved this is partly true, on top of what the vote rs had approved. i think it's important that voters who want us to make changes, that would help streamline the process as much as possible while still safeguarding their right to know how our campaigns

are financed. supervisor tang? >> i don't know if you want to close public comment first? >> yes, we will close public comment. supervisor tang? >> thank you. one question i did have for the city attorney given the public comment we heard last, in terms of the city moving forward suspended enforcement of certain rules, of certain court rulings, if you could repond to that that would be great. >> sure deputy city attorney john bib ner. there are two -- one is the supporting or opposing candidates, that we discussed earlier in the meeting, two independent committee sued the city, challenging that particular

provision, we lost that case in the trial court and ultimately, as a result of citizens united settled that case, and agreed not to enforce, that is a situation where a court told us you cannot do this, you cannot enforce this provision. the second piece mrs. johnson may have been referring to is the cumulative contribution that mr. minority described earlier, the rule that no individual can con tribe ut more than $500, for the seats in that election for all combined for all seats in a year. >> that is mccuchin >> yeches it doesn't address the san francisco, it addressed an analogous law. to the ethics

and commission, and the board, to enforce that law and the ethicics, commission concludes, on that and the mckuchun decision, is not to enforce that provision, and they haven't in years, since mckucha n this would remove that provision -- if the board decided not to remove, they will continue to not enforce it, unless there is a change at the supreme court level. >> thank you. so i actually -- if we were making the amendments to this legislation they're approved approved. we have to go back to ethics because of the full board, or there is discussion at the ethics commission, because of mr. bush, that is considered

and sent back to the ethics commission with amendments? >> um this -- any amendments have to go back to the ethics commission. because this chapters of the campaign on conduct code was initially adopted by voters the board said, you can make amendments, but you have to follow the process, of the ethics ordinance that is board is going to adopt. if you take what the ethics board gave you, even taking out a few lines, you should then continue it ethics commission can hear it again recommend it again to and you can recommend it onto the full board. >> okay supervisor tang >> question about timing there is election coming up in 2015 i respect that folks like to see this in place, for the upcoming

election i don't know if it's you or someone from the ethic, commission that will speak to how long this will take effect or have the availability to change the forms all of that to apply to this november's election. >> mr. minority can speak to what the commission needs to make sure they get this into place, the ordinance will take effect 30 days after the mayor signs it which means, the commission was hoping that it would get through the board process, by late june. you can speak to that better, in order to have it in effect 90 days before election day. >> >> thank you jeff, jeff minority, deputy director, we're hoping to have it by late june that mean, reporting after the midyear reporting deadline starting july 1st would be under

this regime. in terms of ramping up for it we're prepare the to do that we would be creating a couple of forms, and a couple of guidance fact sheets for folks, and publicizing them. >> okay. supervisor tang >> thank you. given that information, i think that perhaps what we can do is something similar to wa we did with the appointments earlier, move this to a full board so we can have a full discussion with the full board, this is not just about this committee, it's broader than that, i would be willing to move to a full board, with or without recommendation for a robust members there. that would be my recommendation overall, i do support the changes, proposed here as i mentioned before i have to have

-- i pay so much money on my compliance team alone, to understand this so i don't break the rules i can't imagine someone who can't do this how they would achieve this without calling the ethics, commission ten times a day, overall these are changes that will make things easier for people. >> thank you for sharing that. i actual actually don't think the full board is the place to make amendments amendments would take longer to do. i support the general, underlying legislation the gray part of it, i do. i have three items i would like to make amendments on that are very small changes. so to me, i would rather see if we can i don't know, possibly keep a file on committee, and move forward,

follow up with changes if they're able to be supported. so i do think it's important to put something in place for this election. i don't think these issues that are highlighted here, that i'm making amendments on are ones i think should hold up legislation going forward, but i would like to see them incorporated to changes to finance law here in san francisco. i would still be trying to make these amendment, i'm not sure we have the votes at all even here to move amendmentses forward, so let me discuss what those would be. my concerns are what mr. bush has highlighted, i did talk about the first ones, highlighted page four lines 22-23. that is the

communication, the exemption for nonprofits, that might be putting on an event, they're not promoting, so much candidacy, but they are putting out a nice photo of the candidate, or mention the candidate's name, ensuring when the candidate is up for election i think that type of activity does help promote the candidate or some level, i don't think that gets under the scrutiny of the irs but it does play a role especially in voters minds there could be some kind of backing of the candidate, i don't think it makes any harm to keep this legislation to keep things the way they are right now, without the exception. because we're just making sure there is any semiblens of any support for candidates for

advertising of events that go forward, with the candidate's image or name. for me i would like to delete these lines from the ordinance so it will be lines 22-23, section ten, i will read those. exempt for taxation per sunt to title. 501 c three. code for it's own fund raising event. that would be my motion to exempt that language. i have other language i also want to add to my motion as well. on page 31, lines 19-24 this is around disclosure of surrender information. right now, i want to have that language restorted,

it's been deleted, it's 19-24, section d, in here, it's deleted, i'm hoping to add to my motion, this language be restored. this says detailed description of each paid, maid by the person in election hearing communications during the calendar year, provided the person has not reported payments on the disclosure statement, filed under this section it would be whenever there has been no mention whatsoever of this description of the payment to vendors, it's covering what has not been covered, if they haven't provided disclosure already, we're making sure they do provide that i want that language restored. this is also would conform with los angeles where they keep this disclosure

during this time in the elections. i think the other piece i would like to -- i think it's a minor thing as well, it's not a major piece i hope to have support on the other is page 36. this is regarding robo calls, currently, robo calls made to more than 500 people have to include paid for by statement, and the person paying them, must maintain a transcript, and the number of calls that are made, robo calls are regulated by the state we want to make sure we're keeping the process here in san francisco to mv forward. i would like to keep the language in the way it is. 36, line 22. also on page 37 as well.

disclosure requirements, recorded any recorded telephone mesopotamiaages mesopotamiaages, to 500 or more households include the following statements -- it goes onto describe the typical language, i would like to keep that language in there, and maybe we can get mr. minority from the ethics commission to explain a little more why that language has been deleted and why it makes sense even if there is state law that covers this hearing, why we wouldn't koob rate that with local law.corroborate that with local law. >> thank you -- about money in politics, so basically, any call

is likely going to be over $1,000, which is the trigger, if you are not a committee. right? if you are a committee, you have to comply with this any way. so it's basically redundant, this is introduced to the board before, this is redone tant of state law, in a real sense, so we took it out. that is one of the five sections, somebody would have to look at they're going to look at state law and say, oh, yeah that's what we have to do >> this is before the board before you said? then the board >> 2011 >> what did the board do with this? >> i could be wrong, but i'm pretty sure >> there was an earlier version. similar kind of ordinance of this that was trying to simplify the third party reporting, i believe the recommendation of ethics, was to do exactly this delete this provision, because it duplicated state law, the

clean up is to try to get rid of state law in a number of places in the code. the board didn't act on that ordinance for a few reasons, among others i recall it eliminated the commutative contribution before mccluchin -- i don't recall this question coming in this ordinance. but mr. bush may >> it's redoneundant i can withdraw that. >> i would agree with you, they're minor in the overall grand scheme of things, we put it in there for a reason, but

people can disagree in terms of -- our experience with the surrender stuff, just as an fyi when people call us and ask for information, they're asking for who is spending the money and how much they're spending that's what they're asking for, what we try to do is just make the requirements for the ie reporting, the 496 and the member communication the same given that no one is calling about the vendor stuff. but people may disagree >> if they're not calling, that doesn't necessarily mean we have a law >> you are right. >> thank you. so i would like to motion that those two sections, page four, line 22-24, and page

31 -- for nonprofit exemption for nonprofit communications, first i will do this i will duplicate the file >> for the chair, i would like to try to address some of the amendment, you have suggested, we can talk about that first, maybe? >> yes but i think -- i'm okay sending a version of the file forward i support with the legislation for the changes i would like to make i can duplicate the final without a second to that, is that correct? so duplicate the file then on one file we can talk about the amendments >> that is fine i wanted to address it so you didn't have to go there. in any case you have withdrawn the amendment

regarding robo calls, on the vendor issues, even though it doesn't come up with the ethics commission, i'm wondering if there is a way to compromise on this, to reference, other requirements, we have where people disclosure vendor information, rather than striking it out, people know or can get information on it or reference where someone else can obtain this information, or where it's submitted. again as a compromise for not completely move it from this section. >> i think this is where it would be. if it's going to be disclosed it would be on this form pursuant to the chair's motion. unlike independent expenditure, where you are like a pac, committee, you could get that on other different reports,

this would basically where it would be disclosed. >> on this one, i'm okay with keeping the language in then. but in terms of the nonprofit information, you know, one of my concerns is just that let's say a nonprofit is hosting an event that falls within that 90 day period, for the whole 90 day period they can never list without filing or disclosing certain things, about listing a supervisor, who may happen to be a race i do worry about those kind of situations. what gives me i guess confidence in supporting the exemption for nonprofits, is people can report to the ethics, commission. during the election season, people will be looking out for things and support it i think that is that mechanism for it

rather than burdening, a nonprofit event that wanted to list all of the supervisors on the committee, for various requirements we have for a regular campaign, i support the vendor amendment, but not the nonprofit 1. >> thank you. it's not just listing committee, but it's where the candidate can play a large role in an event, that the nonprofit puts on. i mean yeah. there are a million nonprofits that have events that -- not a million, but a lot. that put our names on a host committee, but it's when that person is a speaker, i thought that's where this legislation is creating an exception for not just the name on a flyer. but the promotion, or mention of that person