ing, 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 in a

special way. >> it could be two things -- yes, it would have to be a relatively prominent reference. so if you were under this proposed legislation. so if it's tiny it wouldn't trigger the reporting any way. if somebody say, the name, speaker, event, that would likely trigger the reporting. >> right >> does that answer -- >> so nonprofits are required to report a host committee name if we were to not have this exemption, that i would would be required to report how a candidate is presented in a prominent way in their event, like being a speaker or getting an award at the event that's the difference. i don't think -- or is it any mention of the candidate would have to be

reported >> you are right. to the extent it was a small reference to the candidate. it wouldn't trigger the reporting any way. the way we have it structured is you would look at the general set up of the mailer or whatever it was, if somebody was like taking up a tiny bit of the real estate, you would only allocate a small amount of the amount spent to that person. really what we're looking for more is the person takes up sort of a substantial portion of a mailer that goes out really, you are featuring that person. >> i believe if if there's a nonprofit every year or an event that happens, nonprofits are going to be -- the person running for office and will be

weary about given someone an award, or a prominent position in aan event, or advertising that event, knowing they would appear to be promoting that candidate's candidacy. >> i think it does depend. i hear what you are saying if they do it the same time every year, and the person is up for election every four years you run into that problem. the if the person ran is elected, the next year in october, he or she is speaking at a fundraiser prominently peachered as the keynote speaker does it again, no problem. but then that 4th year, there is nothing out of the ordinary it's what they do every year at that time but it would trigger the lex nary communication rule >> they would report >> they report, and put the

disclaimer on the invitations, so they make sure to put it on their invitations. >> okay so i duplicate the file i would be okay with one file going forward >> and just to clarify, one file, again, as i mention, i'm okay with the vendor language put back in i don't know if you want to send that version to the full board >> we can't send it to the full board, then we have to send it back to the ethics commission we send it as is to the full board, i can live with i'm not totally happy with the way it's written, i can live with the vast majority of it and move it to recommendation then i would like the duplicate version stays in committee, that i hope we can send back to ethics commission, for follow up restoring the language around vendors, i would

like to delete the exemption for nonprofits as well, i will agree on, let's duplicate a file to committee, we can go back to ethics, and restore the language for vendors, we also take that motion without objection. i would like to motion that we strike the exemption for nonprofits, which is page four lineses 19-23, that we might have an agreement on are >> right, again i think it's going to be incredibly burden some, for nonprofits, to put this on their invitation, it might taint their event, to feature a speaker and have to put incredible -- a lot invitations are small, you will have to put this 12 point font

disclaimer, i don't support the nonprofit went for the vendor one. >> okay. mr. minority you have something else to add? >> thank you for your thoughtful consideration of this one thing i would clarify, which was brought up earlier, by the deputy attorney when we're talking about featuring prominently, i understood you are taking about a host committee, right? so you have a list of people so you would be, the real estate would be divvied up among the list of people, but if there is really one speaker, then that person, the entire cost would be allocated to that person apologize if i didn't make that clear. even the it's a small reference, but it's only one candidate, the whole cost is attributed to that candidate, if there say list of candidates

you divide it by whatever 6, 7, 8 whatever it is. i hope that makes sense and clarifies. >> thank you. so we have -- duplicate. we send one for registers, one to exit committee, we have restored the language for the vendor we don't have the votes to actually delete the exemption, i will withdraw my motion mr. john ston please come forward. >> i wanted to say briefly, thank for your attention to detail on that and sending the file to the board, it's important for supervisor breed to get the crux of it through for the 2015 election, i have two friends, running for the community college board, and the process can be intimidating, i'm sure as you know complying with all this so it's important for

her to get it through for 2015 and she prefer the nonprofit organization to be in there, it's not a hill to die on but i thank you for moving it forward. >> thank you. we will commit the item to ethics commission? is that automatically happen or keep it in committee? that's a question for mr. [inaudible] >> any amendments you make in committee, will be referred to >> great. we have put this item to the full board with recommendation. yay and next item please >> the duplicated file you need to the chair? >> yes. >> next item number three.

administrative code-daily calanders of elected officials and department heads include information about the identity, of people attending meetings or events. >> thank you. so this ordinance is going to add the board of supervisors to the public calendar requirement of the sunshine ordinance and to identify people attending their meetings with exceptions for privacy, such as whistle blower, in 1999, they approved the sunshine ordinance, which makes official calendar to official meetings for some reason the board of supervisors were not included to the public calendar requirement, the grand jury, recommend the board take this objection, so we know where we are, as public officials, and

members of the board of supervisors, earlier this year the board voted against this because supervisors in dwoet quotes willingly disclose their calendar calendars, we're free to ignore public request for calendar i don't think we should be free, if the public is asking for calendars, we should provide though as a requirement. is a critical way to check lobbying activities if the public doesn't know who we're meeting with there is no way to verify lobbyists are accurately reporting when they meet with elected officials i understand this will create additional work for my staff my staff and i have already been working really hard to keep track of who we meet with we can adjust to the process, of passing around a sign in sheet to the meetings,

and adding the names to the calendars, since this time i introduced legislation in my office has kept track in the meetings, i think actually it helps me to really keep track of who i meet with and my commitments are to people when i do that. and we know that people have a great distrust for government and transparency helps the public to understand what we're doing, and helps to recreate the trust we often lose. so there is a great deal of need for legislation like this. especially when we look at other elected officials, like the mayor who are required to share their calendars, i have a couple amendments to the legislation, that address the underlying questions, that some of my colleagues have had, ewith

the knewence how we enact this legislation, and read those into the record. excuse me. so on page one, i have amendment to share. a copy to you supervisor tang. so on page one, i have a couple words here to line 24 on the page that says, the calendar shall identify the individual thes present, and we have the word disclosure and the word information as new. will reveal the i tenty of a confidential whistle blower. then we go on later, i will read the whole section. will interfere with individual

rights, and pe edition the government where the person has sought confidentiality, would adding the language would disclay. (audio cutting out) discuss matter within the scope of representation that representation has been defined, by the california government code. 30514, or disclosed from state law, we shawl disclose members, from the labor organization, we meet with as wl, that would require disclosure, the next section we're requiring for provide clarity for organizations, is line ten, page two. a large section, i will read. [reading] inside or outside of our offices, attendees, subject to subsection a of this section,

67.295 shall attempt to identify names of attendees, present in the organizations they represent. provided that an official shall not require any attendee, to identify themselves so we're not foring anyone to identify themselves unless they're campaign consultants, under campaign and government conduct code article one chapter five lobbyists, with the [inaudible] article two, chapter two. permit consultants, conduct code, article three, chapter four, and developers of major projects, as in campaign and government code 3.510. is discussed at the meeting, in this case we're only asking for a major donor we're identifying

the major donor, when they're discussing the project that's before the board of supervisors, and the subject of that meeting after this meeting or event the official shall update the attendees, by the officials of the organization they represent. that is the new language we have in here. we want to make sure we're following what is elsewhere in our ethics legislation, identifying consultants lobbyists, developers, and developers of major projects i think this is actually is able to not saying we're casting a wide net, but con porming with existing legislation, most recently, under former president, david choose major developers, were

identified in this case sh and supported by the full board unanimously, as keeping to disclose and identify themselves, so we're just making sure when there is a meeting, specifically about a project they're interested in getting se port on they're mentioned in that meeting. so those are my amendments part of the amendment of the whole a motion we would like to accept. >> chair? >> thank you very much i agree with this legislation, even without this new regulation, our office has complied with the request for a calendar and provide the information to everyone. i don't have a problem with that i do have a problem with the implementation with

that i appreciate the amendments were made for example, especially that you will need to identify people at our meeting, if it's ten or less -- i sorry, you don't have to disclose if it's ten or less however, we attend events with large amounts of people, do we have send a sign-up sheet for the amendment, that might be an over site in the language, so i wanted to address that. >> let me respond to that in that language, we're not requiring any attendees, to identify themselves to me since there is no requirement there, i think the rile requirement is, we say what the meeting is about, who is at the meeting, but i don't think it's

onis, on anyone's prooifty to come forward and say who is there, to us it makes sense we're providing information about what the meeting is about, and generally, who is at a meeting that is outside of, you know a large event we might attend in our district or around the city. >> okay so in your amendment, page two, line ten, any meeting or event with ten or fewer, the officials shall attempt to identify the the name, maybe this is a question for the city attorney, do you feel we need to include the language to distinguish, between a large event, we're not discussing a particular topic, it's just an event. >> deputy attorney john gib ner the goal of this ten or fewer is

to try to address the concern you are raising, which is if you in a large event and you recognize a handful of people you are talking to those people should be you know who they are -- put them on your calendar but you don't have to circulate a sign in sheet, if it's an event with more than ten people, if there's 15 in the room if you know john gib ner is one of them you should put job begin ner's name on your calendar but you shouldn't have to ask anyone to sign up to add their name to the calendar >> this again would apply to telephone call, if i'm on a conference call with ten or fewer people i would have to ask them to state their name and write them down with the calendar >> yes that's what the amendment would require >> in terms of page two, lines

12-21, where it talks about you know we're not going to compel people to identify themselves if they don't want to, however, we have to identify campaign consultants registered etc. this list what if i don't know they're registered on this list? i try to disclose as many people as possible. i can't help it if someone doesn't show up or they change -- swap out a person i don't anticipate that how do i know these people are registered? some i know some i don't. >> it seems like the issue you are raising is a policy implementation type question i think what this ordinance would require is if you are in a room with say six other people that you say i'm handing out a sign-up sheet. you don't have to

sign your name but if you are a consultant lobbyist campaign consultant or manager, you do. whether that is something that is feasible, that would be implement i will leave that to your judgment >> there is also the requirement that you made the attempt to say who is there, people identify themselves, you have the name on the record, you may not know that that person is um, a consultant or lobbyist, but if they're registered, that can be compared to what is presented in the ethics commission when they register >> for example, it says can't compel, require attendees, to identify themselves for whatever reason they decide they don't want to disclose themselves, we don't know they're on this list or not, and they don't identify they had a

contact with us. again, i mean this is just a situation where someone may be playblatantly recorded they don't want to identifying themselves they're are on one of these lists, what happens, then >> we recorded the names that is on our calendar, we share that with the public that's what we're expected to do i think in our role as supervisors, there are a lot of places where there is a lot of gray area, we do our best to match the letter of the law, we doe that. that's what the law requires to do we share information about who is in our meetings. some might give a different name we provide the name that is given to us that's what we have to do >> i'm not disputing what are

you trying to do here i'm saying in terms of the reality of what may occur, it may be difficult to enforce what you are trying to achieve here so i will try my best to comply with what you have laid out here, knowing we're trying o dress all the types of situations that may come up. one other question i have. let's say someone say it's part of a meeting, you have to disclose if it's ten or less people. people with partial time have you to disclose as well? >> yeah most meetings i have people don't stay most the time, there is a lot of coming and going, >> i want to clarify so we know what we're supposed to do. some of us are trying to comply with this >> you dimensioned conference calls, i think generally the

you are on a conference call, you know who is on the conference calls, most conference calls i'm on i know who is on there, and i ask who is on the conference call so to me, it doesn't seem different meeting of people face to face in your office in your cones frens call there say certain goal you are taking part of the public should know what you are working on >> all right. one other question that i had was about page two of your amendment, line two where it says in a case where something, revealing your identity to petition -- government and confidentiality, i wanted to clarify what that really means, >> well that could be like a whistle blower or someone who

perhaps has information about experience that person has had with a particular service the government provides they need to get advice from our offices, and ourselves, i think that person's anonymity is important for this their security safety or sense of well being that happens, quite frequently i get a lot of people who want to talk with me about how they have been treated, i don't assist anyone in trying to sue the city but i do assess people to make sure they get the best service they can, or have a complaint how they were treated, they can be heard about that and i can provide advice about how they can proceed, that happens, quite frequently, with matter, how they're treated by the police

or human services agency, or the mayor's, office of housing, those are common occurrences, that is happening, in all of our offices, >> through the chair to the state attorney if a constituent comes to us they have a matter, they would like to report, and act on their behalf and they don't want to identify them as per the language in the legislation, we don't have to list that >> that is right. my office suggested adding this particular language in because there is individuals, have the right to pe edition their elected representatives, and doing anonymously without having their names disclosed. this is the same rule that applies to e-mails you received from con stish want say a a

constituent emales you i includes their name and said, i don't want my name to be public but they're selling drugs, in my neighborhood, and i'm concerned, you receive information about drug sales on that corner you apply the same analysis there, to determine whether to redact that individual's name from the e-mail because that person has sought and received assurances of confidentiality when contacting you. so it's the same kind of analysis that i think supervisors and departments engage in regularly, although under this ordinance, you have to engage in that a lot more often because you are going to have figure out whether to list individual's names every day. >> thank you. again, i'm not questioning, your intent or goal for this i want to make sure

how we can comply with this it can be burden some and complicated for certain sit weighings, again i have always turned over my calendar when people asked for is even though i was never required to. >> okay. so we will save the votes on the amendments until after public comment, any member of the public would like to comment, please come forward. >> hello, i'm larry bush for friends of ethics i'm also the civil grand juriy, that made the recommendation to the ethics board, i think avalos amendments are important and worthwhile, i understand supervisor tang's point if you have a constituent come in with a dispute whether or not they qualify for some sort of health care, and the department says no, and the supervisor says,

can you help negotiate that with the health department that is under the privacy issues in the language here. obviously, the point of this is not to enact. a, "go you", we met with supervisor weiner so we're not caught in a bind if somebody doesn't sign up. there is a group of 20 people, you have 15 name, and somebody files a complain, and suddenly, we're in sunshine court i think supervisor's avalos amendments address that well it is important that members of the regulartive commune are identified, that's why campaign consultants, or people that handle permits, where they have to make a disclosure lobbyists of who they meet with would be a way of checking that everything is fully disclosed.

last night at the ethic's commission meeting, there say closed section, with a lobbyist who did not make those disclosures, this is a way to help the public to make sure everything is done in a transparent way. thank you. are >> thank you. next speaker please. >> good afternoon, supervisors, susan guard, i'm the chief of policy, with the department of human resources, we did submit a memo, which you have in the committee packet i wanted to speak to a few points today. first of all i wavented to say thank you to supervisor avalos your staff and the city attorney's office for working with us on some of the concerns we have. of course we do support transparency and open government initially, we had two concerns with the changes, one was about labor meetings that are governed by the