circumstances. >> okay. >> commissioner. >> i had more but ged. >> relatively in section 2.00 maybe the nexus can be made here but it relates to the same concern the expenditure lobbyist should be to disclose at that time they're doing the urging of others to communicate with elected officials. >> i'll accept that also a friendly amendment mr. chair. >> i was a little bit confused with activities expenses so if you look at page 14 and excuse me. commissioners so was there a change made to the text in 2.10.

>> i'm not sure what the best language but i'll propose something after the word studies that ties those activities to actually communicating with an officer of the city and county. >> i understand that point did you propose someone else leaving aside the definition. >> i want to make sure i'm not losing anything. >> i didn't propose language to 2.11 a if you fixtures it in the lobbyist definition. >> got it. >> it can done with active it expenditures a couple of things. >> what page. >> i'm sorry page 14.

>> so activity expenditures for a expenditure lobbyist may not be inclusive enough in other words, for a contact lobbyist it make sense you have active expenses and active expense to find in part a gift to an officer or aid within 3 months of a came back but kind of main not by definitions but an exposure e expenditure lobbyist to extend we are trying to encompasses any sort of kind of payment or gift to a candidate or their immediate family or aid i'm not sure we're capturing that if we

use the definition in this contact of lobbyist. >> now i'm sorry. >> when it comes down to the actual elected person it may not make a difference you can't make any gift totally more than $25 under any points of the statute but for those who are you know the immediate family or the aide or others there may be a will that unintended will that. >> one thing commissioner hur you recall if our profess discussion the question related to relate to gifts and having to do with contract lobbyists that's in the language this amendment is a very secret amendment that has to do with with the category of expenditure lobbyists setting up that category it of the not intent to

make a change to contact lobbyists so your remarks just now in regards to we don't contract that we're not deal with contract lobbyists so i'll be hesitant to the scope we've said all along we're proposing and amending something that has to do with with expenditure lobbyist we're not touching any contract lobbyists whatever is there is there now to make the jump and make some kind of chapping in contract lobbyists it not appropriated in terms of our tafblg. >> i understand and agree i probably was the not clear in my point but i'm not trying to change the contract lobbyists but if we use the term activity

lobbyist is the same term for contract lobbyists it maybe under inclusive the definition of a acceptance is how close in time one that contact with an elected or with the elected aid so that really didn't apply for an expenditure lobbyist you may excluding payments so i make a you know enlist to an aide and never see that aid and probable want to capture that it wouldn't be captured bails they wouldn't have made the contact within 3 months i don't know how we want to address that. >> i see mr. minority and mr. chin nodding they are heads i agree with the point so. >> right we were actually brainstorming there are a few

points raised so right now as you mention the activity extensions well, an expenditure lobbyist will never report an activist expense an expenditure lobbyist is not making contact they'll be requiring a monthly reporting that is not happening. >> let me stop you through if i make - if i'm an expenditure lobbyist and provided some benefit to the supervisors aid. >> yep. >> why isn't that an activist expense. >> because the activity acceptance or expense only counts if it is made within 3 months of a contact and expenditure lobbyist didn't make contact their indirectly lion so we're requiring the reporting of

something that is not be recorded i totally understand our point. >> a few opening statements i think that first option one is that you decide not to require the reporting activities one option and option two we could have a definition for expenditure lobbyists option 3 is to change the definition of activity expense as a months reference in the - and second sense the definition on page 4 line 3 through 7 has a 3 most time limitation we can remove that altogether because they're both expenditure lobbyists for the proposal so the 3 month didn't make sense for contact lobbyists. >> because you'll only be reporting activities during that

most. >> that sounds like they sound like okay. about the third, that makes we had the we're not here to amend the contact lobbyists provisions and make sure that we should do that given the notice and the liquor. >> so at least two options maybe there are others tell you what language first, the not requiring the reporting activities from the expenditure lobbyist or coming up with a definition for the purpose of expenditure lobbyist and time loimths 1, 2, 3 months or what have you what the starting point is months from what. >> it could be 3 months from the date of payment was made that trirgdz the expenditure lobbies or the final decision

was made a whole variety of things but we need a trigger. >> that makes sense to me. >> my last thank you for the deluges my loose question is the employers that employ people to perform some of those actions i did not said how it works so let's say you're a company that has an employee that is governmental relations and that person makes hundred thousand dollars a year and you know 10 percent of their time percent of their time is spent on the city and county of san francisco activities to encourage people to talk to or appear at meetings relating to the city and county it that employer an expenditure lobbyist and how are other

employers to know when and how their employees have made the employer an expenditure lobbyists? >> i think some of this such as that mr. minority we used other jurisdictions definition of expenditure lobbies - lobbyists in order to arrive at a number of those things sacramento los angeles san diego other - and do we have guidance on commissioner hur's point in regards to the language that we used here? from other jurisdictions? or how did we come up with that >> i don't think we'll have guidance from the jurisdictions

where we took this language from there are jurisdictions that do recognize that employee time obviously can be used for those types of efforts and those are the state for example where they said a threshold so to the extent the employee spends time in a given month that employees time would be used - the compensation his or her received will be used to see if someone triggers this is the regulation so you know it is something that you know we could deal with but it is i think commissioner hur is right not particularly called out here in the statutory language would it be something that would

be appropriate to be dealt with any regulation of other jurisdictions what i'm saying as we get more and more into the weeds of this stuff we can get find ourselves paralleling things down into areas that are not necessarily required in a drafting type of situation in terms of the other jurisdictions from what in my discussions with mr. mr. minority and mr. chin and the other people that are involved at the statewide level and los angeles and sacramento and the other places increase a level of those concerns those dpifgz and activity that is appropriate level of the to regulation i'm wondering whether or not the point you raised is one of those

and if as we get to those we can express what our desires would be geared towards future regulations this what every administrative body does we can't write 10 volumes of stuff leave some of the details for the regulations is that appropriate mr. minority. >> it has happened it is something it is up to you, i mean there are obviously listing anti xmgsdz for example is here in the statute that's another thing that can be accomplished through regulation but it is completely - it happens in other jurisdictions we were getting into the weeds and you deal with that. >> the reason i'm bringing up

that up is because colleagues this is the first time we've put something on the ballot we're not full-time legislation terrors who spend all our time drafting legislation we are doing the best we can what i think is an effort that is desirable and what many of the people who appeared at our interested parties and the friends of ethics says it commendable we could spend a lot of time - i'm not in terms of legitimate stuff i'm fine with that in terms of 6 our dealing with that amending and dwooek it but if it is a question of getting so far into the weeds we allow to be left to the direction of our staff with

regulations i would say in the interest of the fact we don't want to be here for 6. >> yes. weeks going through every detail we've got to do some stuff we may want to consider that but we showed you address the concerns as they come up i'll throw that out as something it be ignited by mrblg yeah. it is interesting we find ours at this point that what we're discussing where it is a particle person for profit has a job title that is time is spent with interfacing with the government officials for proposed legislation for administrative outcome

we can leave is it to regulation for that to address that you and commissioner vice president haney rightly brings up airbnb and uber i'm sure they have regulations they spend 10 percent off their time going just that and in the 10 percent of time achieve exactly what we want to achieve and i6789 we're leaving it to regulations they've spent 90 percent of the time and get what they want and we haven't addressed that the double-edged sword i wanted to touch on based on the nonprofit that ultimately hold many contracts with the city city's work gets down through the nonprofits conversation and engagement with the city

department and such i know there are exemptions that are made and contact i believe on the contact by not under the expenditures i wanted to hear a couple of examples of nonprofits that has expenditure activities and i can't they're not exempt would the coalition to end i think equality for those who's who has as series of town hall meeting offender pizza that are impacted by the equality in san francisco play that one out or a couple of example of nonprofits that falling under this particular legislation or proposals >> i think they'll definitely

fall under that proposal and no real onerous in regards to having them come there this regulation because they are groups no matter how salary and desirable they maybe and how much we might love them their groups that are effecting policy and statutes and government in san francisco and i think the people of san francisco should know whoever they maybe and there's no real harming them by them being we're not saying we're putting you in a museum with al capone you're a group that comes under a category that is effecting policy and city laws we should

know about you and where you're good government groups or groups that are suspect and in order to get the public's knowledge of all of the groups including maine the suspect groups we have to go ahead and cast that net so i think we were involved with those nonprofit groups our talking about and i saw this i would say none is prohibiting me from doing something i'm effecting what is happening to the people of san francisco and the policies of the city and county of san francisco so they know i'll doing that i'm not afraid of that and i don't think any ripable nonprofit group is

going to say hey wait a minute you're doing something terrible i don't see that coming forward. >> just to segue a bit from commissioner vice president andrews questions or comments just a cigarette way from what commissioner vice president andrews has said i have a couple of concerns one is as you described an expenditure lobbyist i mean aren't you describing the process by which all citizens lobby government agents and elected officials in the nature of community organizing and political organizing during campaigns or another times and i don't - i question the need to regulate that, yes maybe some books you keep referring to

average and uber fine they're the current villains we need to know what their up to but do we really not know really? i think the public is well aware their playgrounds nevada religious i didn't say behind the scenes pushing agenda we're not stupid i'm not convinced that more regulations are somehow going to change this scenario people will always be trying to influence our elected officials in that in terms of contract lobbyists it is really you know, i think a preliminary rule and those instructions make sense but you're talking about you know your example of buying pizza and nonprofit it is onus

on nonprofits nonprofits have training sessions educational sections >> they cross-out members of the community to then have them you know have this additional onerous of having to report all of that on a regular basis i have to question that so could i don't know why does there need to be a ballot measure you know fine i mean, we have regular people that come here and bring us their comments and their wise comments and i respect the vast majority of people that share their of point of view one top of the word and issues but reality from where i sit the vast majority of san franciscans voters or otherwise they don't knows what an expenditure lobbyist and not

going to read there this stuff and vote is that i live see the first couple of words and is this sounds good or bad they don't know it is a layer of regulation that makes live difficult for after all us involved in unaware one way or another it actually will create at atmosphere where nonprofits would do want to influence and probable for the right reasons are going to hold back and prachs it is going to be i think inhibited in participating in the political process that concerns me. >> well, this didn't prohibit anyone from doing anything. >> no, but i mean it - is it can i think inhibit people. >> all it does it says that if

you are involved in effecting public policy in terms of ordinances that are for people elected and do certain things that are come up to the point of expenditures in that on behalf of voters of city and county of san francisco the people that are going to be voting on this they're going to know you're doing it what's brown wrong with that to say that's a tremendous butch for us to have transparent and informed democracy that's a terminators burden that's the first time i've heard burden and things being done towards making sure that we have informed voters and transparency and

democracy being well, that is burdensome we don't not that i'm a little bit taken back you categoryize that. >> look there's a balance between burden and what your getting for the transparent my view you want the right transparent; right? we don't want to create a system that is that criminally expensive and all in the name of transparentcy that's not the answer there's a balance i reject the notion that transparent is an ultimate good. >> well, i reject the notion that this very modest effort which is done in sacramento it's done in los angeles san diego it's done on a state level and done on you know in terms of

of the major political jurisdictions in california that someway this it be burdensome and for us to go ahead and follow that same line and opt for the kind of transparency that on the jurisdictions have this is not any kind of radical measure that impose burdens on people it is in line with people of other jurisdictions that are acceptable ways for transparent san francisco stands out among those jurisdictions as something as an anti liar that is somehow completely lacking in some of the most basic actions of transparent this one is one of them and saying we don't give a

damn because people sort of they're going to find out this stuff maybe they are or not and if people are manipulated that's part of the game for us in the ethics commission to take that line very unfortunate. >> well i might say i do not think the activities of an nonprofit share falls under expenditure lobbyists what you're after here is where whether it is airbnb or it is one of the high tech belittle nefarious are paying people to try to influence it is what the public has a right to know who

is behind we hear the ads everyday on about airbnb and how good it is for the knew they don't say they're paid for by airbnb and they're part of the individual they're saying i'm a retired school teacher and retired social worker this is a good thing who is paying for that they're not doing that on their own. >> it's an ad clearly a commercial. >> but who is paying for it. >> whoever they're talking about that is objective. >> it comes down on and says this ad has been paid for by mothers for apple pie and healthy children. >> that's one it will say not airbnb is paying to do this or

it is not going to do that 0 that's the whole point you have this complete hiding of the transparent it is not a question of oh we're making transparent we're opening up transparent and showing some of the things that commissioner renne said a whole system of real really devus politicizing and will advertising and actually, the powers that be and the money behind it is no way apparent and hidden oh somehow that's okay. >> i'm not against transparent commissioner vice president haney i need to voice. >> i understand and i we're going at it in a nice robust way that is the way. >> just to be clear that

effects innocence; right? >> as it lays it auto on page one beyond why it can lead to the same echo in terms of elective movement or administrative movement why we felt as the nonprofits can be excluded there and is now 0 somehow not within an expenditure of this proposed legislation not have that i believe that how nonprofits do business is different than airbnb and uber that is in the course of work they do detail while they're working for the budget system and educating their constituents the voluble san franciscans i'm struggling with them and this is arguably full disclosure i work for