that are put forth the third one wasn't no doesn't it effected did contact contact people and what was the second the second one was the one i found attractive. >> according to any notes one friendly amendment your amenable directly or indirectly was the definition of a expenditure lobbyist page 5 line 6 to the preceding line follow the phrase who makes payment that is one friendly amendment your amenable to and the second one it would be helpful to hear which route. >> you then told us of 3 options and the third one was one that effected contact lobbyists so i can't went the

language of the second one as you recall you were outlining them the second one that appeal. >> so the first one the was to remove the reporting good faith altogether and the second a different months timespan or other time which expenses need to be recorded for an expenditure lobbyist. >> i think for simplicity i propose we amend it to the first one that takes it out then so rather than get hung up so we don't have to get catch up union street up in the drafting. >> those are the two for the purpose of drafting. >> i'll not support it i think we need to change the 2.1013 cit out the appeal language in the

section 2.3101 a. >> i agree and i would alsonot support it unless we tie it to the reports analysis, etc. to the actual communication that there has to think a nexus between the two and i thought that commissioner vice president haney you were agreeable to those. >> i accept those. >> okay. so there's 4 friendly amendments could clarify rome the language 2.1013 tying the public relations media recommendations e to actually urging the public to directly lobby their officers and remotely the expenses from the expenditure lobbyist and fourth the moving the phrase directly or indirectly as

previously mentioned the definition of expenditure lobbyists those four amendments thank you for clarification. >> so the motion is then off the record is clear that the - we we - agree to going forward with the proposed expenditure lobbyist as contained in the proposed ordinance with the four amendments to it yes. >> and i seconded it and i'll seconded it with the four amendment and i guess call for public discussion.

>> larry bush for friends of ethics i'd like to remind the commission a few years ago you forwarded a measure to the board which they didn't put up the ballot that awe limited for the purposes of act it was overwhelmingly defeated from the republican to the democratic party to the skooesh every group defeated it you'll have done all this for nothing in common trusts what it means when you say for the purposes of the act for example, you all took the position it was okay. not to have go reporting on contracts to the commission from city officials and the opinion was that that freed up other staff

time so you didn't need to take the time to do it none agreed the reason our going through this by line by library another commissions inadequately changed the law with the mrmths look at the chamber of commerce they said the chamber used to be considered a lobbyist and but the board of supervisors changed the law there are larry that was the law passed by this commission in 2010 and it gutted any reporting from the chamber of commerce you have not fixed it you're trying to fix what was done wrong in the fail to do so it will be a problem for this commission i would like to point out in terms of of the issue of nonprofit your confusing 501-c 3

and 4 3s can spend a southern percentage and have to report to the irs are you saying to the sfifkts that has to be recorded to the irs but we don't have to report to the people of san francisco that's nuts. >> i'm bob planet hold i want to advocate for pga 24 pretty much in the form it is again, we're going going back to once was in the event and when it was in the event the sky doesn't fall and city government if freeze it is inappropriate to talk about the speculative problems now, one reason to pass this we've heard the example of airbnb bush your

chart our agency showed on lobby expenditures showed for 6 and a half months in 2014 they spent $604 yet the staffers were talking to different people and reporters was talking to people in the planning commission the point is that's a dubious claim you only spent $604 why couldn't the big developer and big contractor and an architecture firm that designs high-rise why couldn't they put money into developing astro turf you've got to nip this in the buddy want to go to 2.1013 there is a procedure part you missed with regards to the claim of

commissioner vice president haney accepting swapping directly or indirectly from line 6 to 57 he heard you accepted it but i doesn't didn't hear taking out from line 6 we heard you folks couldn't come up with africa example what if airbnb posted on analysis proclaiming all the problems with regulations and then they said we encourage you to monitor news stories and make our views known well someone posted on the facebook and some might write a letter or call the supervisor or mayor that's indirect we didn't say we urge you to contact our supervisors or planning commissioners there are indirect reasons that's why you take

outline 67 the dribble or indirectly only applies to making payment listings directly or indirectly to the making payment if you take out directly or indirectly you'll cause a problem still the astro turf possibility of the developers and real estate people architect additional contractor all can festivity on us thank you. >> good evening commissioner mark solomon i urge you to forward this to the voters for the election in november there are issues raised commissioner hayon mentions in the like its third reading come stay and airbnb advertising is not you need to go ahead and talk to your supervisors that's police views and has to happen here we

need to have finding if things are duplicate ini improperly for the purpose can go to court and we've seen that happen in the past that why it needs to be in this legislation and as the nonprofits that's a tough nut to crack are we're going to look at the properties which allows people to seek protection sf bart is a national group don't live in san francisco and they're talking about supervisor bustos into a 601-c or 4 had they be seeking the flupts of law we have a lot of city funded nonprofit that have those city groups they'll jam-up political issues it didn't get resolved from the issue getting better but more money from the

city to use to do lobbying to get up public option for more funding that's the essential of corruption our tax dollars are used that gets transcend into policy increase got to be a nexus between this kind of lobbying issue lobbying activities and tying it to a nexus of some kind of gain for the actors that are in the chance of cad can say katdz that's the nexus of the public interest are public communicating and still not in the public interest this needs to include we need this this year we need this because it is the reshaping the policy and the board whether not diesel with it

you're the isolated body you need to send this to the voters do this thank you. >> charley again bob planet hold was our former chair of that body under a different constituency of members but i think his expertise paralyzed a testifying that appears to have problems plus the environment has changed so while we didn't need grassroots reporting in the time or in the 90s we ended up now seeing a need for that so there's nothing wrong with changing the law you have to

keep in mind that there's a dollars threshold if you're not happy put an a a different threshold but not everybody is going to be captured by this and have to register as a lobbyist that includes a lot of nonprofits providing pizza on a monthly basis unless you're running of $2,500 bills in pizza my concern is this if you don't put this on the ballot and this goes to the board in this political environment with those types of see what do they call those - sharing economies which is a bit of a u telling him if you do that and it goes to the board it will be a political football if something counts it

will not be the bill that was written it was be a horrible bill and you'll be back here when our doing our reviews of the lobbyist ordinance we writing that just as we are now so my view better to put on the ballot the bill you want then to defer it to the board in this environment and i'm not tarnish africa scheme i'm not an extreme person only a reform that is trying to get registration and disclosure a new type of lobbying as we had it in the law in the past that's all we're asking thank you. >> thank you.

>> patrick brad shaw i'm speaking 40 in support of the motion on the floor although i having would have preferred some of the family amendment had not think adapted you know if it is covered goodwill stale if we have anything commiserating we have a drought not because we have a procedure in place to identify improper expenditures san francisco is an out layer you need to fix it is what your job is i attended the interest persons meeting and was quite concerned about allowing the board of supervisors to make any amendments to it and the reason

for that is back in 1989 the voters passed prop q requiring the health commission to be notified with the health facilities wanted to reduce the sodas the voters passed it given the health commission a marking order they could only reach a fine point of the reduction would or would not use will or using will or not having a detrimental impact on health care that law stood until june 10th when the house commission in its wisdom and wouldn't release an attorney past, present, and future it communications not a written city attorney thinking outside

the box p opinion they've said we'll have issued a formal opinion the health commission over turned it and instead of reaching the finding of when it will or will not have a detrimental effect of eliminating beds at&t st. mary's they've approved that without ruling one way or another in fact over thank you, your honor the will of the voters i don't want the board of supervisors having any snowball chance in hell of being able to overturn this i absolutely agree with the gentleman and the friends of ethic you you need to do that tonight and stop all this

quibbling about nonprofit larry bush is right they have to report it to the irs they should be reporting it to you, too. >> thank you. >> good evening, commissioners i'm bob i'm a member of the friends of ethics and on this commission from 96 to 2000 i'm speaking in support of the proposed legislation that you've got before you and this commission has always had a problem of exerting it's power this commission has a lot of power and afraid to project that power it is sub servant it bows down to all the appointed officials it bows counsel to the board the chapter didn't say that you folks have a lot of power you need to exert

as commissioner vice president andrews pointed out the nonprofits could be a problem i have a problem nonprofits are not what they were a few years ago mop can be a nonprofit and hide under all kinds of legal jargon so it is not the same group that were bringing or going after city funding unfortunately, many of the nonprofits are residents on city and 71 funding they don't have the contribution basis to be self-sufficient you know this is you've got 8 hundred thousand people plus in this town and you're the only wall between them and about maybe 8 or 9 hundred lobbyists many of who don't live in the

city you need to protect the citizens of san francisco and you folks are the only ones to do it you have the power you just need to do that thank you. >> mr. chairman and members of the commission i'm john a residents of san francisco since eight hundred 6 during of the last year i've been concerned the politics and especially in the debate concerning proposition g that opened my eyes to what about going onion think it is correct that members of the community know that the lobbying effort with bag made what they don't know the magnitude and the magnitude matters when i write a check for a local campaign i have to disclose any name and the amount of the contribution

loorlg correspondence are making 20 and thirty and $4050 million for lobbying and we're entitled to know thank you. >> including but not limited to a sue hester i'm an attorney who deals with land use and government things from the city and i'm it has evolved there is a lot more hidden today then in the past as a lawyer i did continue with the education this past week about the effects of the citizens united decisions the whole escape in the country was changed by the supreme court and people are rush limbaugh to death over the country

evil to hide expenditures and able to hide lobbying as long as it is through not through a candidate to people in corporations address entities are having there will in the city in the united states right now they shouldn't have it in san francisco you have a responsibility and other local governments and california has a responsibility strong laws you are the people that have to state that this kind of efforts needs to be disclosed you're not the supreme court but the local level the local level needs reporting i listened to xherldz on the radio all the time the past week you would think that pan i didn't see are growing and pick

up i didn't see are being held by nonprofit non-disclosed interests oh, i get to stay in the city i can host people and it is at the same time i'm very well aware many of the hosting done in the city is not my neighbor down the block but taking unit after the rental market that's just one example you have a responsibility and you have power you should utilities tour powerful to put that on the ballot and gives the people of san francisco the right to say their needs to be more disclosure in san francisco it is been taken away at the federal level but we're not the federal government we are san francisco and we can do it right i would ask you to put that on the ballot and be careful of

waiting what is before you in this written version don't water it down thank you very much >> thank you. >> good evening, commissioners from pacific islander berry want to make a few comments on the property ballot for the regulation of expenditure lobbyists as i've testified month lobbying is accomplished through the compensation of people to lobby city officials dribble the category was deleted from the law in 2010 because in part very few entities qualified since it appears that you have decided to move forward with adding back the expenditure lobbyists category to the ordinance i would like to thank

commissioner renne and city stiff tar stimuli simplifying the definition of city lobbyist it provide for clarity over the previous versions and is consistent with the terminal in the lobbying laws i want to bring your attention one matter not previous discussion since the term expenditure lobbyists will apply inform any person pa makes payment of $2,500 to urge others to lobby the city officers this law my a apply to vendors of major projection in san francisco that may file 5 reports with the notification approve or disapprove under the developer disclosures law a major project as a real estate

project in san francisco where the planning commission or other lead agencies are certified an eir under the cool environmental ceqa and the estimated construction exceeds one million dollars within thirty days of the eir certification or the adaptation of a final environmental determination the developer must pay the $5,600 following fee and disclosure a nonprofit to whom the developer and others have may donations of $5,000 or more since the date one year before the environmental application was filed if that nonprofit massachusetts has made more than one contact with the city officers or testified regarding the projections projects they'll file 4 querulously recorded recorded and since the

developers are required to file reports it will impose a tremendous burden on developers to file reports as expenditure lobbyists i urge you to exempt from the proposal proposed ballot measures those restraining order who are subject to the developer law and woven finally comment the nonprofit there was a consensus and a at the meeting all individuals and nonprofits had equally quality as expenditure lobbyists and the burden not only on profit making thank you. >> thank you. >> commissioners with nelson i urge you to continue this great constitution regarding this legislation and not rush to place this on the ballot immediately i have no issue

going to it eventually but the meeting shows how important to talk about the law how it impacts different lobbyists commissioner renne you're the legislative body your drafting while i get we shouldn't get catch up in all nuances those are big issues we're discussing with respect to the ballot awhile i get targeting the ubers and airbnb the oneus on nonprofit need not maintains in the long run those are things we should continue to discuss the implications discussion about the pretty sure lobbying regime we're picking parts from the previous liquor regime and those

parts don't fit well, we're hearing issues of double reporting i think in some ways the airbnb that hires hires the big fancy lobbying firm putting those ads and doing this information their filing as contract lobbyists and only closer the conversation for the firm whereas the nonprofit has to itemize all expenditures at one thousand delores we're not on equal footing i urge you to continue the discussion no rush i encourage you to take more months maybe only another meeting and hash outlets put things with work on the ballot or before did board thank you. >> thank you. >> good evening, commissioners

my name is chris wright the executive director of the committee on jobs and registered contact lobbyist just to i guess refer to some of the comments before i'm concerned about double report as a contact lobbyist i have to file which is fine i love the net file system it is great i would hope that the commission and the staff are combrrnd in this legislation to make it as seem also as possible not to file another paper reports or have to pay another fee or whatever it should be incorporated within the net filing system we currently have i also want to point out that an issue on section 2.110 which is payment 11 lines