>> >>[gavel] >> welcome ladies and gentlemen to the regular november 23, 2015 meeting of the san francisco ethics commission. i will first take wool and i will say that ms. hayon unfortunately is not going to be able to attend due to illness and she's been excused. mr. andrews can council member hur commissioner ?. all commissioners are present and accounted for. i will ask for public comment on matters appearing or not appearing on the agenda. you have anyone who wishes to make public comment at this time?

>> mary bush on behalf of friends of ethics. we had a discussion this weekend but the fact that the commission's budget will be due in separate as i recall. which means essentially on your january meeting which is the first chance you have to look at what's being produced. i want to recommend-we want to recommend-the commission name to members of the commission to serve as a committee in the interim. in particular, to take a look at the budget that would include the commission secretary position and secondly, to create a relationship with the controller's office. to see, if in fact they might be able to do in making asses from their office available and whether they might be able to come on their own, create the internet

capability that would benefit ethics as well as the controller's office. so, i suggest that be something you all think about doing. >> let me ask you, do you still see a need for a two-person committee. we are going to meet for a two-person committee. we are going to meet on january 5. that's going to replace our normal december eating where we meet at nine and room for 16 from nine-11:30 am and the primary subject of the meeting will be its omission from the staff of a proposed budget and we will then have the month the month of january 2 massage it and get public comment probably have some kind of a interested persons at meeting in between to allow comments to come in before we finalize it at our

meeting, the regular meeting in jenin. >> i think that sounds pretty complete. one point that i had discussed with the controller is that when a department head changes there is often a brief audit that looks at what's happened, with a budget and what's happened with the department get it hasn't happened-we haven't had a change here for 10 years. prior to that there was not a review of the budget. i think since 1995. so, if you ask them, at this point, you could do that without waiting agenda to initiate a review get the time for a full audit of some of the duties the phone into the commission and what it would take to staff that. it would help you then as you have discussions amongst yourselves and if you go to-harvey rose about why he would need more money, and i'll just give you

one example. because budget considerations the prior executive director decided to hold off on these audits and reviews of major donors. and major donors are people make $10,000 or more in contributions. those are pretty much the heavy hitters. they were just sort of swept to the side in terms of reviewing circuit that would be an example of what you might ask the controller to take a look at terms of performance needs. >> thank you. >> charlie-give it all you've been through these last several years, particularly commissioner hur, the budget will be a piece of cake in relative terms. i did want to say that if you wanted to discuss this matter further but the missing public funds from the campaign finance public financing account, that dates back to 2010, i'm willing to

discuss that, but i didn't see it on today's agenda hope your season kind of a reform memo on that subject because it's something that i think you definitely need to give some attention to. thank you. >> thank you. anyone else? >> that eating too many missed kevin-director of policy for children youth and secure in san francisco get we been around for about 40 years, serving children and their families around issues i just want to comment around the implementation of opposition c later in the meeting and really ask that you consider nonprofits such as ours when you think about it implemented to make sure the low income student impaired numbers that work our organization don't lose their ability to speak to the representatives and have your voice heard. a lot of the work that we do falls into some of the categories put forth in the ballot measure that was approved. the title work we do is the type of work you're

trying to stamp out and to monitor more and assign more financial fees and obligations. which were concerned to prevent our membership from being able to engage with the representatives really have their voices heard. so, we just ask you really consider us. will reach out to different community groups and how we can make sure that we are monitoring lobby us but we aren't minimizing the voices of low income families and young people in san francisco. thank you. >> thank you. any other-trying to item number two,--item number three, discussion and public action-possible action regarding the commissions appointment of a new executive director. possible close session. i would say what i can have a close session. i am prepared to announce that the ethics commission has selected

ms. leeann helen to serve as the new executive director. she will assume her duties on january 4. just to give you some background information, ms. hallam served from 2011-2011 the executive director as the los angeles ethics commission. where she had been employed for the nine years prior to assuming her duties as the executive director is a staff member. of the ethics commission did so she is a total of 19 years with the los angeles ethics commission get glass, but she was the executive director. she was forced out because los angeles had a 10 year term limit so, after leaving los angeles ethics commission she moved back to the bay area from where she originally grew up and has

most recently from 2013 until july of 2015 served as a santa clara valley water district director of ethics and corporate governance from which she resigned in july of 2015. as most of you know, the commission recruiting agency delivered to us 32 potential applicants and commissioner andrews and i went through those 32 and selected five that we felt met the criteria of what we needed of a new executive director and interviewed the five by skype and then recommended to the full commission three of the

applicants, all of whom were exceedingly well qualified. any one of whom certainly met what we were looking for could however, i think that the commission, in their hearing made the decision to select ms. hallam because of her proven track record as an effective and independent nonpartisan leader and manager of the la ethics commission. and for obvious energy, enthusiasm and passion for the work of ensuring good governance that we believe that makes her the right choice for this commission at this time. we look forward to working with her in the coming years and we are confident that staff, the community and all other stakeholders in the community at large will find that we have chosen well. as i said, she will assume her duties on

january 4 and until that date acting executive director jesse-will continue in that role and we want to thank him on behalf of-i want to thank them on behalf of the full commission for having performed his duties as the acting executive director in a highly professional and competent manner. i will now entertain a motion for the commission to appoint, formally appoint ms. hallam as our new executive director. moved and seconded. any comments from the public? hearing no comments from the public although the question. all those in favor say, aye. opposed, nay. is unanimously accepted. and welcome ms. hallam and i'm going ask you, if you step to the podium and maybe give us a few words of your vision for the future.

>> good evening. it's really an honor to be arrogant this is a very kind and welcoming place to be. i know there's a lot of work ahead. >> you may change your mind. >> will go with that for now. i very much appreciate the effort it takes for our commission to select a new executive director and appreciate fully the time like this is great transition for an organization. as i look forward to stepping in this role am very aware this body and san francisco voters have continued to express a very strong interest in the goals that the ethics commission is established by voters there in the city and county to pursue. i'm really looking forward to the challenge that we have had working together to achieve those ends as the commission begins its next chapter as an organization. i think as i'm

sure you're also appreciate bert organization that's in transition, there are opportunities. first, there's an opportunity to build on past successes. also, to really look to how we can strengthen our organization going for. toward that end, i think there are three areas they've expressed and we talked about that i think will be primary for us. first, supporting what we do well and organizationally and continuing to support that. also, looking to align resources were might be necessary to improve areas where we can better deliver on voters mandates for this commission. secondly, strengthening our ability as an agency and our capacity as an agency to be a trusted and effective enforcer of the laws within the jurisdiction of the commission. that would come from insurance policy and procedures maximized fairness and objectivity in the process.

the rules apply it consistently and of course with appropriate transparency. so these are challenges for any organization. i appreciate but i think working creatively and energetically with you and the staff and others who care deeply about the work of this commission, there's a success i had for the work of the ethics commission here in san francisco. finally, to both initiate and shape public policy but am really looking progressively at the laws under the jurisdiction that you've invested with by the voters working to see how we can strengthen the rules that we all want to live by here in the city going for. so, looking for a conference and review of that and make some recommendations for how we can enhance that and to work in partnership with the voters to continue providing opportunity for them to directly speak make sure the rules continue to stay workable and that their strong in practice. i am very privileged and honored to be here. i know

this is hard work, but i'm very excited by the possibility working with you all and appreciate your optimism and your confidence in me and very much look forward to working with you and the staff and others here in the city that we care so deeply about this work in general. so happy to answer any questions, but i realize you are busy agenda tonight and i look forward to that work starting with you in january. >> thank you very much and we're all looking forward to january. >> as i am. thank you so much. >> thank you. >>[applause] >> turning to item number four, discussion and possible action regarding the commissions implementation of the provisions of proposition c. we have, for the record we have received a communication from the san francisco human services network concerning proposition c and its implementation. as well as the public comment that was made

redisplay. i would ask mr.-do you want to bring us up-to-date on where we are on that? >> well, as the commission of public notice proposition c was approved by the novembers november 3, 2015 collections with staff has done is try to identify the issues that need to be addressed by the staffing commission. in the interim between now and the effective date of february 1, 2016. so we just have a brief memo setting forth what are the merely apparent issues and for more we will pop up. most of those are things like drafting the necessary forms, dealing with questions and preliminary guidance pending the commissions adoption of more extensive regulations, connecting outreach and education to the community

about the new requirements and then ultimately because this ballot measure did provide for funding for electronic filing system, we will have to execute or amend our contact. currently our conduct is with net-filed in the given us based on past experience, they usually takes up to a year just to sort of execute the contract and the amendment. then, it may take anywhere from 6-9 months them to actually sort of build the system. so, in the meantime, though be filing via paper forms which is what we have to get out by february 1 time on. so those are the general overview of the muted issues. some are raised in the e-mail that was received today, but my

understanding that the point of this hearing is to further solicit comments from the public regarding in limitation issues. >> regarding the nonprofit issue, have you talked to members of the public anti-you have any thoughts or recommendations on increasing the limit for nonprofits before which they would have to register? >> the threshold? >> yes. >> so, i think one of the main issues raised by the community has been that nonprofits that already have a number of compliance obligations that might be generally low staffed have to for spending relatively limited amount of funds within and for this reporting obligation. i do think that one way-it would require of this

lease amendment of the ordinance but one way to balance both that concern as well as the concern that nonprofits can be used effectively for this type of lobbying, is due as commissioner hur said is to raise the pressure get reporting threshold whether registration trigger so that folks really doing basic grassroots stuff would not have to register. so, that would require another trip to the board basically at this point. the commission would have to approve it by four votes in the board by two thirds vote but that in my mind is one effective way of doing this is striking that balance between two grassroots and nonprofits that might be established by let's say other means by this type of lobbing triptych because we will lose you at the

end of the year, do you have any thoughts on what that number should be? >> i don't have a specific number offhand but uncertainly willing to give that to folks and think about it more. >> thank you. >> you your conclusion-you're assuming facts not in evidence. >> may mean i'm being pessimistic. >> thank you. i think what we might do is just take a moment, since we have actually-since the election, the commission itself has not publicized all the fact that he put a proposition on the ballot, opposition c by unanimous vote of all the commissioners that said 75% of the voters of san francisco voted for that. 75% of the people san francisco

approved that. the voters liked what we did. it was the first time in over, more than a dozen years that this commission exercised its power and authority and mandate under the charter to put things on the ballot, and i think the voters approving it and the fact that it was backed by all of the major entities in the city,, the chronicle, the examiner, several former mayors, members of the board of supervisors, other types of good governmental organizations, indicates that we did a pretty good thing. i think we ought to blend our own horn for. this is the first-i would've liked to seen something that had gone out in regards to our general

materials that go out on a regular basis at least acknowledging that we had put proposition c on about. this is the first opportunity to do it and i'm taking a little time to crow about it because i think we should on behalf of all of us and the people of san francisco are well served by you. it will talk later on about some the things were waiting--i would like to state to the gentleman from coleman, an organization i've known for a long productive time and worked with over many years tragically when i was in the san francisco public defender's office and respect very much, you don't have a thing to worry about it you absolutely nothing to worry about in regard to this. it affects nonprofits like yours from doing the kinds of civic

involvement that you been doing over the course of the last 40 years or so and will continue to do. i think much of the examiner and the chronicle and other entities that look at it, and look at all issue of nonprofit is some sort of chicken little type thing that this guy was cut off all for nonprofits, is simply not true. there's really nothing to worry about.. the little things that we may have to tinker with having to do with exemptions, other types of things, we can do quite easily through regulations and we will. so, i just want to take that few minutes for us to just sort of sit back and bask in the glory of the fact that we have on the ballot in november in the election a measure that one by more than any other measure on the ballot. i think we did some pretty good work.

>> congratulations. >> i would echo commissioner keane comments. it seems to me that in drafting regulation, rather than trend one which would require to get 4/5 commissioners agreement and the board of supervisors super majority agreement, to think in terms of how we define members. so that we can understand, so that the nonprofits, the small ones like the one i was mentioned, there members communicating are not expend your lobbyist. that's not what the ordinance was aimed at. but

it is, by some regulation we can definition may we can circumscribe and deal with their problem. it's a matter of the staff coming up with a set of regulations, and trying to deal with the concerns that these, not small nonprofits may have, but yet stay within the spirit of the ordinance so that we don't have to start watering it down. that's where i would view that we can use regulations as a way to protect against an adverse impact on low income organizations that are doing good work. >> so, i am in agreement with chairman renne. when we had a fuller discussion a few months

back i ultimately did vote for proposition c because i do believe generally is a good or less could i did raise my concern around nonprofits. i think what remains out here in the community is how well we did and reaching out for community input. i think if there is an opportunity to do that, i think we probably should seek to get a little more input as we look at possibly amending to address some of these concerns we have for nonprofits. again, i'm fully in support of the spirit of it but at the same time i think back then i said i just want to make sure we just don't do scorched-earth because i do not pay attention to some of these smaller nonprofits. in taking out some of the smaller nonprofits and never actually getting to the larger nonprofits

is that on a new interesting innovative way of circumventing even proposition c. i'm sure they're working on right now for those probably seeking whether they know or cannot violate it or not. whether that is a full discussion board and have at this meeting or whether were able to put something on the agenda at the upcoming meeting possibly in january, one of the two meetings, i think we should, at least, white in the doorway for community conversation and input as we seek to make these whether we did a good job or not in the first round we certainly have an opportunity to do it now. so, that is my recommendation to the commission. >> i agree with commissioner andrews, that we have to here with the public has to say. get a lot of input and then evaluate the best way to address any concerns whether that be by amendment or by

regulation. >> i will take any public comment. >> perry bush from-a few points. the memo on implementation suggests way of looking what's defined as a member using estate code. but if you go back in time to at the commission did 10 years ago or so, when they look at the committee on jobs they came up with a definition that the commission accepted that would would include all those companies were members of the committee on jobs as well as other employees. they were doing member communications. that's a very broad definition of a member. secondly, the same issue came up with the democratic party. the democratic party was us sending

mailers to registered democrats in los angeles and the state party but not for the rest of the state. so, the question came out is can you cherry pick which part of your membership do you want to reach or yet to reach all the members if you drink a member communication. the result was you can go ahead and cherry pick. what i'm suggesting a look at this issue obviously it's critical you listen to people who are affected by this were members of the potential regulated community but give them some other options that show another way as chairman renne said, through regulations of the findwhat is a member. that's one issue. the second issue is what is a work product for design for lobbying? isidore product that's normally done for example what-does on a housing down study that's a routine they've regulate you were was a product created specifically to lobby the board and the public like b&bs study

about how much taxes they were paying as a result. there is a difference between those two things and you can pretty well short they are. then, the third thing is the was another approach to this in los angeles , which is they have an exemption from nonprofits from receiving funding from state local or federal--but then who do not receive who do not make any payments for those services. they are exempt under la's expenditure license. so, there are number of options you can look at. i am just suggesting had this discussion with the nonprofits know that your research will tell him options they might not have thought of and help you move forward. >> thank you.

>> good evening. eileen hansen former commissioner. i do think it's important to appreciate, and i do appreciate, the commission focuses on first time in many years put something on the ballot, is proactive. the core of this is critically important. unfortunately, i have great concern about the implementation for nonprofits and i appreciate that commissioner andrews and commissioner hayon at the time express their concerns but i was troubled and that was a vote that was unanimous. i asked if we could stop the train , if we could tinker with it before when on the ballot, or poet until we address this issue and unfortunately, i was a lone voice in the wilderness. it did not happen. sure we are could i wish i could've said the commission from doing with this challenge because, as we saw, in the election, there were many many organizations-and i don't think it's fair to blow it off and

this proposition c got a majority of the sport they got much support from big names. it got much support from the public. it's not get a lot of support from nonprofits. in fact, there is an assumption that we did a good deal of outreach to nonprofits, to unions, to the public before this went on about. that's not to. in two months from suggested it was ready to go on the ballot. there have been no targeted outreach to nonprofits were unions. there was no effort to include those groups in the interested person meeting. the list that goes out to invite people to our regular meeting or interested persons is woefully short or at least it was. i think we've done some work sense. to increase the number of nonprofits and unions on the list but at the time, was very few-i'm not sure if any

unions and nonprofits they do not know about it. i unfortunately was not able to participate. by the time i heard about this was almost too late. i merely notified nonprofits. there immediately concerns. we could've dealt with it at the time. now that it has passed his water under the bridge but i would ask is it needs to be implemented in february. i understand there's not a commission meeting in december. i don't know if you're willing to have interested persons meeting in december part if not i would ask that we have at least two interested persons meetings in january,, specifically targeted to nonprofits and unions to talk what this issue. wondering today and one during the evenings of people could come when those times that we do it very yeoman's job getting

people to that meeting and having a discussion about what to do. nonprofits are some from being contract lobbyist at why that are exempt from being expenditure lobbyist? there are some reasons but we've never had a discussion. tonight was of this national nonprofit so far. thank you. >> thank you. >> good evening. my name is debbie lemmon synthesis document services network. first of all, i like to graduate you for the passage of proposition c and we applaud putting good measures on the ballot. 75% of exciting but frankly, i think good government measure in san francisco should have received any 7% of the vote. why did nick? nonprofits. i think you probably all heard the human services network and the council of housing organizations we were out there very visibly. once we found out about the measure, which wasn't until sometime in the middle of august by which point was already a long list of policymakers and political

clubs that had endorsed the measure. when we found out about it we went to our endorsement process, which takes a couple weeks then we hit the bricks started going out to clubs and talking to people and support started to drop. we actually have quite a long list of nonprofit organizations that did oppose proposition c in the end but we are already way behind the curve before we even heard about it. i submitted to you a memo and i thank you for considering it. it lays out why we think that proposition c will harm the ability of nonprofit organizations to advocate in san francisco and particularly those who represent the most wonderful voices in our city and it also lays out several other concerns about how proposition c does not harm nonprofits you we wish we been are this conversation from the beginning. we are

smart on the only staff at hsn. juju has to stop it we are tiny. we try to keep track of what's going on at city hall and now i'm on your e-mail list but they're about 128 bodies that meet regulate in san francisco that we can keep our eye on all of them. we do look forward to participating in the process as time goes on and were thankful you will hear now are concerns, but we have are making a specific request that you schedule a hearing and specifically consider and hear from members of the nonprofit community at that hearing and do that before the implementation is will start out and that you make an effort to outreach to our sector and bring us into this process. we do also ask that you consider using the amendment process as it is laid out in the measure and hold the vote on whether to

bring forward those amendment to the board of supervisors to exempt nonprofits from proposition c is just as they are exempted from the contract lobbyist legislation was approved by the board of supervisors last year. thank you so much. >> thank you. >> good evening chairman renne commissioners and congratulations on a job well done. proposition c. i have more of a question that a comment. relative to reporting and disclosure laws. i noticed under performance measures in the ethics commission summary and report, you mentioned that there were 17 campaign committees that were audited,

but in the report the annual report under arctic program, it mentions were says here from the controller's office the commission auditors reduce its audit backlog by completing 31 audits during the fiscal year. could you please explain the discrepancy, because under performance measures it says 17. where in the annual report it says 31. >> do you have a response for? >> don't have it immediately in front of me, but the station is likely between those performed by the ethics commission itself, staff itself, and what was performed by the controller's office. the controller's office do i think about exactly 14 of those. so this section is between what our office did and what was

basically farmed out to the controller's office. >> thank you. >> thank you. any other public comment? i don't think this item calls for any specific action. but, i guess, i've two questions. one is, do you think that it would be beneficial before you start drafting regulations to have the public interested persons meeting draft a set of proposed regulations dealing with what you understand to be the concerns of the nonprofits and then said the meetings? >> usually it would be the preferable route you doing ip meeting first. solicit, and to the extent you get, and you draft regulations then you send them out the people comment on them as well. either at the

meeting were preferably the second meeting. i think the challenge is going to be i don't think would have rakes in place by february 1 so, this can be this is what happened with the permit consulting and major developer reporting. that went into effect last year. this can be a little bit of lag time for say a month or two where would have to issue some preliminary guidance that's not a regulation that sort of our best guess as to where we are going. the commissions-the question is to they want to be a little more loose audit or below her sort of stuck on it in terms of what staff does. because drafting a regulation is kind of a-it doesn't take exceeding long but it's a little bit of a process. >> suppose you or to schedule an interested persons meeting

for some time in december, recognizing were running into the christmas holiday, so it would have to be somewhere in the middle of december, i would think. with the idea that, in addition to the budget you might report on what's been said and what you may propose to do and set another interested persons needing between the january 5 meeting and a regular meeting at the end of january? does that seem doable? >> sure. >> any discussion or comments the commissioners have? let's try and go that route. i think you have expended the interested persons list so that

it hopefully covers those nonprofits that are concerned. we have heard from two tonight the survey should be given notice of when were going to have it. >> with the iv idea then chairman renne we would consider regulation in january? >> if the staff can come up with some proposed regulations that you at issue that don't require amending but are simply implementation regulations, i would think, yes, by the end of january so their lease some guidance because we have an election coming up again next year. >> so, are you contemplating comrades of regulations for implementation or just relating to this issue? >> i would just say i think we

can certainly by the fifth get a rundown of what happened to the interested persons meeting the week and sort of go from there because there probably will be issues that are identified as well that are identified it right here at this time. but i think we have a good idea of what the general universal issues are to get feedback. >> i guess, i would say to those of you who are here from the nonprofits, to the extent that you can propose regulations as opposed to amendments it probably would be a more-it would be quicker for us to solve your problems, but if you tell us it can be done except by amendment then we will have to-you run the risk that you are not going get for

members of the commission or you aren't going to get a super majority of the board of supervisors. so that, my suggestion is maybe a half a loaf that is consistent with the spirit them up i think this commission in proposition c felt that the public, there should be transparency to the public as to who is lobbying government officials for government action. and whether it is in the best of voters or the worst of motives, the public has a right to know who he is putting pressure on their elected officials. scott necessarily a bad thing, but that somebody wants to do it, but the public has a right to know. >> i think it's an issue of cost.

>> right. all right. turning to item 5, items for future meetings. commissioners may propose items for future advantages and the commission may determine the priority. any recommendations or proposals in that regard? >> we are going to have two interested persons meetings, but will ultimately this would be agenda for the second january meeting. at a regular meeting. >> yes. >> okay, i'm fine. >> turning to item number six, >> i'm sorry.

>> public comment. >> larry bush. i like to suggest two things considered by the commission. under future actions. one is expanding your outreach. as we've been talking about nonprofits no one has mentioned unions. in late september i sent a memo on behalf of-and asked that a that she be put together to explain to units out proposition c might affect them and their spotlight back from the commission was that there wasn't on the agenda for the commission. it needs to be put on the agenda and you need to reach out to unions because unions do not support proposition c. some of them were neutral and some were actually opposed. second, i want to let you know that sons of ethics is developing a database of all the organizations that took a position on proposition c or who didn't we normally would endorse. we'll make that available to you in hopes that you might reach out to people

on whatever side they were on were of a war on no side so they have an opportunity to be included in the interested persons meetings on this or any other issues. >> thank you. it's my understanding that the list was expanded and does include unions and i believe it includes those organizations that communicate with us concerning proposition c. is that correct? >> we did so in two batches of e-mails out to political clubs which will include the folks that larry is talking about as well as a list of all the unions. we invited them to join the interested persons was. response was not particularly large but we did reach out to them. there's a separate batch of nonprofits,, which we've not reached out to yet. bert waiting pending our

understand when the new-as you start thinking that he or she is time they want to do that we consume a go-ahead and send it this week. >> is there a reason why that's what he has to actively say they want to receive it the interested persons list before we can send it to them? >> what happens is that if we had a new people don't sign up with some people up the service that we use which is mailed champ, it starts going out to people and it starts falling into their spam box at a certain point male chimp would just drop us. so stephen,, our it guy has said that we have to for purposes-as lungs were abusing the no-cost service like this, that we need to extend the invitation and us have people sign up. >> on our website, is there a way in which parties are made

aware of the fact that they can sign up so they'll get communications from us? >> that's right. >> yes? >> eileen hansen again. thank you. a couple things. if i could get a copy of the outreach list for unions and nonprofits. i'll be happy to work with the commission expanding dallas. i've done my own outreach to try to get people to sign up but if i know who sign up and you hasn't a be happy to try to get more people to proactively respond and sign up. i wasn't clear why we are waiting to do outreach to the nonprofits but we do outreach to the end i hope proposition was on the agenda for tonight we would've done outreach and we could've gotten more here but certainly now interested persons meeting, and surely we should do that outreach immediately. i am not clear on

how the interested person meetings are going be scheduled and seems very tight to try to schedule those,, too regulations, get everything in place by february. maybe were not going to do that, but i know the law has to be implement it in february. sweating something in place. i guess i would ask because i know how long bc stay, if there's some way of creating preliminary regulation that allow the law to be instituted, but it doesn't require people to start reporting, doesn't require people to start changing the way of doing business in terms of reporting and thinking critically nonprofits have not reported in the past so that they don't really start doing that as of february but instead they can wait until the regulations are finalized and in place. >> thank you.

>> good evening. my name is peter: with the council to meet housing organization. was able to make the earlier item but i hear it's been said here unless you have at least some inches party meetings. i'm not sure whether this tightening the regulations and tinkering is can help,, but i'm glad you're at least been able to discuss an amendment. i think this is just a matter of how to comply and whether or not the reporting requirements can be met at this very chilling effect, which assured debbie lerman has explained, on nonprofit advocacy. is the intimidation that is imposed by this which needs to be discussed openly as part of these interested party meetings and explain that it doesn't

just apply equally to all organizations. there's some very small organizations that are going to be completely chilled out of our public policy debates and that is what were primarily concerned about here. but, we understand the good intent. we want make sure there's no unintended consequences as a result of good intent. i will tell you in the course of proposition c which of course won handily there were 29 organizations that took a position opposing the measure. was a principal position at after much with its intent but again the measure was an design one of to hit its target. 29 organizations, many of the nonprofit some if you get a be having outreach in asian parties at minimum the story of mrs. shelby on your list but they're generally concerns and as you heard from the last speaker can help you make sure your reach out to folks but i can tell you in the course of designing displeasure with all due respect, there was no outreach to the nonprofit community because the council organizations as one has 23 very well known housing organizations in the city and none of us knew about it get to look for to working with you going for. it's very important step. >> thank you. any other public

comment? item 6. discussion.. >> rob-friends of ethics and former grand jury never get those working on the civil grand jury report will be recommended something like proposal c the board of supervisors was concerning a rather large change in the lobbies ordinance and big chains and the concepts, the content lobbyists and so forth. basically, in between versions between closed doors amendment was put into that ordinance that took nonprofit lobbyists, nonprofits out of the lobby ordinance. they would not lobby ordinance before and then they

were out. this is exactly what you are accused of doing during the campaign over proposal c. i think you've got to kind of look at the whole context of what's going on here because there's this effort to just kind of legal business interest is evil lobbyists and everybody else isn't really a lobbyist, but it's the same kind of communication with elected officials. you have to think carefully about. yes, there are some small organizations that you got to think about thresholds of things like that and that's appropriate for regulation, but when you get into amendments you have that language in there that talks about furthering the purpose of the ordinance, and i really would hope you would consider that as you consider any amendments to the ordinance itself. thank you. >> thank you.

>> i apologize for coming up one more time. >> i think you almost use your time. >> i know we have talked in the past about putting something on the ballot that was basically look at proposition j and the commission decided not to do that. last november instead they created a narrowly targeted ballot measure, but i hope that the revision of proposition j is still on your calendar in it like to ask that the meeting discussion happen as soon as possible because there would be a chance of putting it on the ballot in june or november and i think especially needs to be had onto which of those dates takes the most sense if were talking about

june escarole really fast. >> i think if you look at our prior minutes when the subject was delegated to commissioner keane the decision was made after what became proposition c were still there look at the issues that were raised out of proposition j and their elimination. so it is still on the agenda, but one of the things it was waiting for is the new executive director, who we hope will be helpful in helping us walk through that process. >> terrific. so i might suggest it be placed on the january agenda. >> i think that may be too optimistic and the idea of getting something on the june ballot, again may be too

optimistic considering we may want to look at a fairly wholesale revision of some of the reporting requirements. >> thank you. >> mr. keane >> effective follow and address ms. hansen's concern. at the time the chair appointed to many an ad hoc committee of one at the time. it was to look at whether or not as to whether not proposition j would be examined substantially revised along the lines of what ms. hansen's concerns and many others have been. my original report back was that should be done and we should definitely do that and we will do that and were in the process of doing that, but only because it was

such a short time before the november ballot to get anything on it we should first go piecemeal at something that we knew we could accomplish. that was the c expenditure lobbyist. so, my understanding in terms of the mechanics of where this commission is now from the mandate of the chair is that we are very fully involved and will continue to go forward in determining major recommendations relating to proposition j and those recommendations will come out of this commission, and likely go on future ballots in order to be implemented. and really be a prophet in regard to that, but that was sort of the-that and the direction we been having all along since chairman

renne very wisely undertook the mandate to go ahead and do this . look at proposition j and revise it to fill in some of the concerns that had arisen when proposition j stewart did the scorched-earth policy in regard to many of the things relating to transparency of government in san francisco. we want to restore those things. and we intend that i think we intend to restores the question is when and hopefully, we'll do it as soon as possible. >> are turning out to item 6, discussion and possible action on executive directors report. >> annual report. >> yes. >> addressing the minority

acting at the last meeting the commission considered the proposed annual report and actually suggested a few changes, and then give chairman renne the ability to approve and those changes so those changes have been made. a number of them have it maybe i can highlight a couple of appeared that chairman renne.we should bring him back the commission to review again for further comment. so, there were a number of changes at the bottom of page 3, in connection with the campaign finance reform ordinance we mentioned the consideration of proposition j and decided that would be addressed in the following year given what

ultimately became proposition c at the bottom of page 3, again, we also indicated the amount of public financing dollars were distributed over the course of the two--of the fiscal year in connection with two elections. moving over to page 5, the connection with the lobbying section we noted again proposition j expenditure lobbyist sort of analysis as well as a little bit what happened with respect to the meetings, with respective expenditure lobbyist ordinance. on page 7, with investigations and enforcement we mentioned the mark ferrell matter in the forfeiture of $190,000. and i'm highlighting through the big ones. on page 11 with respect to the budget