that point we'll go ahead. >> i thought we authorized you and the having to talk to any recruiting firm if you like alliance we don't have a proposal we'll go that one reason one week is not enough h.r. says there's no way you'll get another week i don't know but it is better to think about it we can ask questions but don't have to talk about it as a formal agenda item where we are in the process of getting the recruiter. >> i thought that was the reason. >> i want to be clear are you saying that you want commissioner vice president andrews and myself to just go forward with the process select

the recruiter and just report book to you and is this is what we've done but not getting approval from anyone this is fine if you want that. >> that's fine with me. >> that's fine with me. >> subject to the budget issue. >> all right. >> that's what i thought. >> we have our marching orders i don't know - i don't understand but i understand it whatever commissioner vice president andrews and i meet in the vetting process it is a meeting the commission and requiring notice to the public ; is that correct. >> that's correct. >> in terms of clarifying the action by the commission tonight are you resending the prior notation motion. >> no. >> is there an additional motion that the chair and vice

chair are dleshtd with the responsibility of selecting a search firm. >> i'm not sure what the motion was item it's a slightly different motion for the sake of transparency there's a lot of consent to that concept. >> maybe we should make another motion. >> that would be helpful. >> i move to deliberate to the chair and vice chair the decision on choosing the search firm. >> second. >> any discussion? any that is call the question >> all in favor, say i. >> i. >> > opposed? motion is carinii guess you and i can vote on it 5 0. >> all right. let's move to

item 5 which is discussion and possible action on commissioner president keane's vote and recommendations for the rewrite of prop j and the restoration of the commission oversight of the ballot measure for upcoming elections and attachment commissioner president keane's report and draft for the lobbying ordinance i think the most recent draft of our proposal is circulated whether or not with our agenda? okay so commissioner president keane i'll ask you to report >> thank you, mr. chair in my report itself it pretty much sets out the history of what we've done since the last meeting you've appointed me as

an ad hoc committee recommending to two matters whether or not prop j should be rewritten in different enacts with the ballet this year, and, secondly, whether or not we should put together a regulations of expenditure lobbyist i'll submit it to the ballet this year as said in the report with my discussions with the chair the chair and i came to agree that the effort was two big to do all of this this year we couldn't do it to have it on the november ballot so in regards to prop j that is put off to another day hopefully, we'll under take this in the late summer for whatever rewriting write you think it appropriate and to submitted a

ballet measure for 2016 church lobbying regulation is not a simple matter as purple heart put forth it creates a category of expenditure lobbyists which had existed really before the commission had struggle everything down into on lobbyist that had a triggering effect one contact between the lobbyist the lobby civil grand jury and friends of ethic this commission back in 2013 had recognized as something that was lost there it was two narrow and one could be a lobbyist a

very powerful lobbyist by expenditures in fair of things on behalf of someone that was in power without having contact with that person and doing it for the purpose of influencing that individual in legislation and other matter so what this does this creates a category of an expenditure lobbyist where the single can get is not necessary as a triggering aspect of whether or not respond is in the category of an expenditure lobbyist if someone the actual expenditures it e that can be identified for the purpose of influencing someone in legislation or other civic action someone in power and someone is doing that that

person has to register as a lobbyist and file reports in regard to the disclosure of who is a lobbyist and not a lobbyist this is one of the areas happily that the supreme court has left alone the most part in terms of citizens united which drew from the ability of government to regulate expenditures and saying no. you can't make those expenditures this didn't do that this goes with the question only of the disclosure which the supreme court said that's all in you'll right if they're indeed acting as a lobbyist for influencing people in power in the interest of transparent and good government the citizens within the jurisdiction should

know that person is doing i'm not saying you can't spend but the fact you're doing it should be known and that is all that this measure will do in terms of creating a category of expenditure lobbyists so it is something that has been drafted i've had the good fortune of having people looking at this thing loopy and friends of ethic and the members of the civil grand jury helped me in the drafting of the particular lobbyist revision and super competed it on the exist legislation that related to lobbyist it's been priority good input in regard to thing that he

sees as suggestions for the wording and his input has caused changes in regard to how the actual wording of measure should be i would request that the commission tonight authorize us to continue with this diagonal with the staff over the course of the next month and further craft the language we want for an expenditure lobbyist and then at the next meeting have before us the actual what we all see we're not going to agree on everything but the preferred language we come to for an expenditure the

commission then will have the opportunity to examine it for several weeks the commission had a mass of material thrown at it in the last couple of device so it's a lot to suggest but by the time the commission their thoughts will have jelled in regard to this and we can look at it and come up with a yay or nay as to who we want to put this on the 2015 ballot so that's where we are with this. >> question. >> i have one question if we were precede as commissioner president keane suggests isn't there a requirement for us to hold some kind of a hearing to make a finding as to the need for this

legislation? >> there's no specific legal requirement that the commission needs to have a hearing to justify the need for this proposal are set of amendments certainly will be in keeping with the commission past practices for any regulations prior to proposing language that will address that issue but no specific legal requirement i certainly we'll not at least have a discussion or at least one more discussion at the end of the june there will be two times in which the commission considered the matter. >> commissioner hur. >> first of all, thanks to commissioner president keane so for going above and beyond as a commission to work to draft the legislation and i agree with the idea we

need to do something about it the future lobbyists it is important we need to further regulation for commissioner president keane identified i have a couple of concerns i want to raise regarding the specific language that's been proposed i think it is two board and i know that commissioner president keane will go back and work with the staff on it but i'm very concerned of the definition of lobbyists is two board and two difficult to enforce i really think we should humane it more narrowly and give more thought in how this is fits into the rest of the array i have questions what it means to register and how this process works as one is no longer screwdriver a lobbyist like if

they spend 5 thousand dollars in a month they don't spend oath money for a year it apparels they are they still a lobbyist they have to register as a lobbyist before they spend another dime on conditional efforts to influence local administrative action that's a high-level of my concerns my second main concern is the process concern typically and i'm glad the staff has been involved but typically the staff is responsible for doing the drafting their you know they're the ones that are doing the analysis we get a memo describe why the change is made and the pitfalls and where it came from how it compares to previous language i'll suggest we have even more involvement in it if we can on it

i know we have lots of things on the list to do i'm not sure how that works in the timing point but especially, if we are going to go to the ballot we have to make sure that is right it can't be easily amend i want the staff and public i'd like a lot of input we're getting this right further to that point i wonder where we shouldn't try to run this go through the board then you know it can be more easily amended and further vetted there from the board guts it are does something we don't like we can go to the voters the board may provide us with more ability to see what this looks like in a couple of years and amend to

further as need unfortunately, the timing has is not dispositive i'll not been able to attend the june 5th meeting i'm in trial if it can't be rescheduled i understand the commission will do the most appropriate thing. >> any other commissioners. >> let me ask commissioner president keane give me an illustration of an expenditure lobbyist just so i clear - >> what it is that we're trying to get another. >> you want supervisor x to favor a particular position for you you then go ahead and have a

conference in the four seasons hotel in needs france you sponsor and sxifr x is someone you sponsor and number of individuals that speak on various topics supervisor x is someone who is invited you have had no contact with supervisor x but supervisor x by consequence is spend two weeks in the south of france in about how far weather enjoying the amenity of the four seasons and comes back you've had no dealings with supervisor x

but it you're doing it clearly to influence his legislation. >> i use on strom but you see within the extremes you might be able to pick out certain things that have happened in san francisco with other individuals in power if somebody to this may have to be disclosed if someone were to finance a rally purportedly a ground swell on some piece of legislation that some entities or some individuals and the city was interested in and his or her financed putting this together

his or her is a lobbyist. >> if they're going it for the purpose of influencing the actions of the city official. >> they can do it fine if we want to spend the money fine but the public should know about it. >> you want to state your motion as to what you want the commission. >> i'd like the commission to approve the process going forward that we continue the drafting of the measure with myself the staff and other interested members the public and that our next meeting we then will come back to the

commission with language with a proposed ballet initiative for the commission to vote yay or nay on i ask the commissions to approve that process. >> second. >> second seconded public comment? >> hello larry bush from the friends of ethics you asked for a example of a lobbyist as you meet it the democrat working party on the agenda is the question of the mission moratorium i have articles that have appeared recently in the paper on examples of expenditure law in october of 2014 airbnb having hired a lobbyist to quote

so recruit people to rent out their homes for supervisors to vote on a bill they were not contacting the supervisor they were paying other people to do it i have a copy for each of you. >> you're saying they paid they hired who contacted. >> wouldn't the lobbyist have to be imposed. >> the lobbyists into have to be quoted but reaching out for example, a group called row sf along with another group sf behavior i'm not trooibt value the bay area renter federation what they do they are helping people prepare to give public

comment at upcoming center meeting they're having a for turtle having to do public comment this is happening in part because of the growth of the share community of the sharing destroy which has a lot of people that are individuals they come you've heard as home sharers they're one of the groups and other groups that show up and they are not disclosing what it is they're being paid and who is paying them, in fact, in the business times they write about the fact they don't have to disclose who is paying them over and over how much is spent those are articles for you folks. >> just to recap the history in 2010 this was what provision in san francisco's lobbyist laws and what the commission met at

this point the staff suggested the lobbyist law do could be citywide by reporting to the public they were asked the deputy city attorney san francisco do those changes have to act in the minutes there is no requirement when it comes to lobby laws that changes the purposes of the act only to simplify the process has nothing to do with with who you're providing the public or the commission. >> your time is up. >> i have a p.s. if i could. >> good evening, commissioners i'm paul i served phone number on this commission for 8 years from 1995 to 2003 and it was during that period for the first

time the ethics commission put a ballet measure on the ballot i want to aid why the public depends on the ethics commission to take the leadership and the ethics commission to put this measure on the ballet rather than going to the board of supervisors i'm the commissioner who made the motion to put the motion on the brake light proposition o and also for the first time regulate extend contributions to independent expenditure committees it was judged the president of the commission urged me to make the motion initially she thought oh, out of respect for the supervisors we should go to the supervisors and present this proposal and get their input we unanimously

allowed judge grant to make a presentation and to our surprise she was rebuked by visually all the supervisors i found it shocking those of you who are letters know that judge grant was not an activist type a distinguished mild-mannered person but the reaction of the supervisors how dare those non-elected commissioners we're subject to corruption by money they gave no positive input the reason i realized all the supervisors across the spectrum have interest groups and constituents that like to spend money on lobbying but don't want to report that is precisely the types of issue that the commission needs to take the

lead on you commissioners are not subject to not depending on campaign tricks from those interest groups and i'm also the conspires that worked with the city attorney's office and it was resoundly passed by the voter so i urge you to move ahead as quickly as possible to put this measure on the ballot and thank you for all your service on the commission i know what a thank also position it is. >> hello, i'm vivian i strongly support moving forward with the ballot measure to require the disclosure it is the apparent many citizens are unaware that

powerful forces are behind what seems to be lobbying we need to know what financial and political influences are at play behind the action of what seems to be well intended groups acts on their own on behalf of may not any resistance for full disclosure is superintendant in itself let's change the pub picture as the pursuing public has a right to know the financial investments thank you for your work on this. >> any other? >> charley again i wanted to report what i sue in the sacramento boo not more than

3 would weeks ago they did a first page report on the current quarter of lobbying activity in sacramento and the numbers were very large but that was not role what caught my use this large paragraph of health care reform activists and the picture was illustrating essential steak what we're talking about a grassroots effort that is supported by a lobbying organization for the purposes of influence administrative and perspective action by the elected officials under the guys it is a grassroots currency they wanted the elected officials to know about the truth was that

this was expenditure lobbying and i'll be happy to send mr. sincroy this picture i thought about blowing it up and bring it in i was advised by my computer people that the pictures will be distorted as it got larger i should have sent to you by e-mail i'll go ahead and and do that now. >> good evening commissioners i'd like to clarify the information and the history section of the report to the proposed legislation it appears because san francisco lobby lieu didn't regulate the expenditure loicht the city is not capturing hundred of thousands of dollars in lobbying activities it is not the case in the prior position

in all of the jurisdictions listed in the report sacramento snowing and language it is an entities that spends 5 thousand dollars in a calendar year on public relations activities to urge the public to lobby the public officials like adds and, etc. their commonly referred to as grassroots lobbyists it excludes compensation by lobbyists. >> i think did you say payment by organization the expenditure lobbyists in all the jurisdictions noted in the report are not required to register and in addition those reports are only recorded when a 5 thousand dollars threshold has been met it typically includes the matters the lobbyists

thought to influence sacramento and santa fe doesn't require the payments and others los angeles and san diego and the state require disclosures the payments the definition of the proposed legislation is not the typical definition it appears to add the element of some sort of payment rewards or gifts for lobbying this is typically xhutd included from the definition such a definition will create concussion it imposes a regular monthly reporting regardless of activity that de8s from the jurisdictions and finally that's now understanding if when the lobby law was amended and the category was deleted from the law it was done because of you individuals or