>> welcome, ladies and gentlemen to the regular meeting for january 25, 2016 of the san francisco ethics commission. i will call be roll call. >>[call of the roll] commissioner anders, cohen hur

keane. let the record reflect all the commissioners are here. item number two, public comment on matters appearing were not appearing on the agenda. i would urge if you have comments that relate to the matters on the agenda, to hold them until we get to them because i think this may be a long meeting tonight and i'd like to minimize the repeat statement. but, anyway, let's go. >> we have missed you for a few months. >> i've missed you. i'm patrick --. i'm not appear to thank commissioner hur over all four years of service on the ethics commission as his term is set to expire in early february. many of her-have been problematic but i would be

remiss by not thinking him for his seminal boat when [inaudible] when he cast the ethics commission sold vote when behavior had not [inaudible]. as i wrote the time in our analysis which eventually turned out to be offered, i think i think the private practice attorney stephen burke [inaudible] before the respective hearings clearly demonstrated the mayors trumped up charges did meet the definition of official misconduct. thankfully, along with commissioner hur,

supervisor campos, the same reach the same conclusion. now with hur's term expiring next month perhaps the ethics commission can finally get around to [inaudible] illegal campaign contributions [inaudible] involving [inaudible] and now that the district attorney is filed many charges against the pair. along with former school board president keith jackson did you charges against jackson are apparently tony's. but it's not yet clear if there-are facing a felony charges. with commissioner hur a partner and the law firm is reportedly going to represent on a pro

bono basis-as soon as his term expires. this commission must make it a priority to investigate all campaign contributions and money laundering charges against jones and-[inaudible]. the ethics commission investigation is long overdue. everyone knows in the court of public opinion ed lee was in bed with-and the fbi agent and he knew it was about paying down his campaign. you have to investigate this. >> good evening. david-. i do want to recognize the soon to end the term of commissioner hur and i was going to mention

under item 8 rats in the future meaning of an appropriate recognition for commissioner hur and his good work over many years. thank you. >> i should tell you that the assessor has asked commissioner hur to remain beyond the february 1 date to our next meeting, while she has an opportunity to that a replacement. so all of the compliments that are very deserved for commissioner hur, we can save until february 22. his term may officially end. >> members of the ethics commission, you have not seen me in a while. i guess that's something you're not too

unhappy about. i would like to refer this commission to the decision of the united states courts of appeal for the ninth circuit which is of course the circuit. the case is robert norse versus the city of santa cruz in particular. i would like to suggest reading the concurring opinion of justice kaczynski. each of you has received a copy of that. his opinion reads in part, listeners reactions to speech is not a content for neutral basis regulation. speech cannot be punished or band simply because it might offend a hostile member of the santa cruz city council. the council members should have known that the government may never suppress viewpoints it doesn't like. the defendants point in reaction to councilman vince morris that wanted counsel carting them off to the

junkyard norse, surgeon of his constitutional rights was not the least bit disruptive to the first amendment would be meaningless if constitutional councilman fitzwater justified the removal. on the copies i gave you if i look that she'd judge also said they do not have qualified immunity for their actions because they had gone-they knew that they were not allowed to stop the comments. now, the reason i mention this, i talked about this before. can i get the overhead please? my time is running away. they are not doing it. okay. this won't fit

in december of 24 orders of determination. 24 times i've taken city agencies and officials to the sunshine passports they were actually found in violation. you know how much of this board of supervisors has manipulated the task force to make their job difficult, and yet i still managed to go and went 24 times which is a 70% success rate.

the reason i'm saying this is because it seems to be some sort of a belief that if you chair a committee or task force something in the city, if you don't like what someone says you can shut them up. you can interfere with them. you can say they're doing this or that we have to draw them into the task force. the taskbar comes out and say, yes they validated your rights under the law. they pass it to you and you don't hear it. by mike, the last time i had one point over here i was out-of-state it was convenient was announced today that i left the state and the hearing was held before i got back and i mentioned to this before you and not one of you seems to have a conscience. he also reason i mention it- >> i went to the city council 1a because i started to walk up to the podium as the next speaker, i said a lower work. that's what i got. since when does breaking a rule of a committee justified amending-i

mean supporting her some them and writes? unusual punishment. >> thank you. any other public comment? turning to item number three on the agenda, discussion and possible action on a request for waivers from local postemployment restrictions submitted by evan gross, a former deputy city attorney. is mr. crosier? gross here? you want to come up and make a presentation? >> commissioner, if i could make a brief comment about the process under the commissions

ordinance it's a process for individuals to seek a waiver from existing postemployment lobbying restrictions that may apply to their circumstances. when the commission receives a request for waiver from an individual there is a requirement that the commission consider and determine whether the waiver should apply. so we received at the staff request from mr. gross earlier this month. the program requirements the regulations require we can achieve at the next commission meeting which we don't get we have a recommendation in the materials tonight agenda item number three and at the staff level we recommend the-waiver not be approved but if the commission has an opportunity to hear from the individual and others who mail the points they might share with you.. the commission has certain factors to look to to determine whether not the waiver should be granted and then is required to make some findings in order to waive the imposition of the

postemployment restriction. we can get that perhaps after the discussion. >> thank you. i do want to complement the executive director and staff for the thoroughness of the presentation that you did make in the packet. laying out these various statutory provisions and the areas of which we must make findings. but, unless any commissioner feels otherwise i'm inclined to let mr. gross make his statement or presentation and then we'll take discussion at the commission level and then at the public level. go ahead. >> good evening, commissioners. thanks for your time and your willingness to hear from you. i want to thank everyone who's taken the time to speak or write e-mails on my behalf.

there's quite a number people here to speak on my behalf. i hope you give them time to speak their piece. i would like to especially thank the mayor of housing and community development and the city attorney's office. and the diamonds that are most affected by my request. i just want to quickly mention that this evening the organizations that support my request and make sure using those e-mails. all from the affordable housing community in san francisco. this ability can a service. treasure island homeless initiative. st. anthony foundation. bridge housing tenderloin neighborhood corporation. and community housing partnership. they all are in support of my waiver

requests. culturally, the information i provide to you now you will hear from some of them will help you just see how important this is for san francisco portal housing community. i want to make a few points to give you a little more context so that you can clear up some misconceptions that include an executive directors report. so i can show you because of the unique relationship and mutual interest shared by the city and by my nonprofit affordable housing provider clients, granting this waiver would not create potential for undue influence or unfair advantage in that denying this waiver would not protect the public interest would actually hurt it. i just want to apologize in advance for the length of this. all get through it as quickly as i can but this is incredibly important to me. that's my one chance to present to you all the reasons why you should grant this waiver.

>> how lucky are we talking about? >> articulate as quickly as i can. 10 min. or so. i knew stand you got along again. this is my life and live it and affordable housing in san francisco. i like the opportunity to speak my piece because i don't feel the directors report fairly represents what you're being presented with. >> mr. chairman we have many important items and we keep them to 4 min. i don't see why we should make an exception in regard to this case. >> i don't think there's a four-minute limit for these particular waiver request. i think the sunshine matters-a run through it as quickly as they can. >> the concern i have is that there are errors in the executive directors report. what are the errors?

>> i apologize. not errors. just misconceptions and i think there's some context missing from the executive directors report that i can provide for you to better understand how the affordable housing community works here in san francisco and howard works with respect to how the city works with them. and how the interests are mutually aligned between the city and affordable housing nonprofit providers that i would represent. also, to present elitist a little bit more context of what i'm doing and what i have done for the city and what i will do for the city. that's all i like to present to you. i can do that very quickly >> do it as quickly as possible. >> i appreciate your time. first and foremost, i want to say i want to point out the city attorney's office mayor's office of housing inc. may develop all the significant nonprofit portal housing developers in san francisco unanimously and emphatically

support my request. the only two city departments that i'd be working with that are impacted by this and everyone who works in the affordable housing development world, are telling you that the nonprofit developers and the city share mutual interest and not adverse parties. they're telling you preventing me from working on the city's most significant or portal housing project at a time when affordable housing is the number one priority issue in the city, it would severely hurt the city and public interest. they are also tell you allowing me to communicate with the city and work on these projects were not create potential for undue influence or unfair advantage and allow me to continue this work would be beneficial to the city and the public interest. i believe that should matter more than a rigid reading of the ethics rules.. you'll not hear single voice of dissent out here

except the session of the executive directors report which with all due respect, not as familiar with the photo housing world or the nature my work and gave no weight to the fact the city attorney's office mayor's office of housing were, again this 82 city to province of the communicating with both emphatically supports the request. i think it's especially significant in the case with the city attorney's office, as an attorney, i'm held to a higher standard of ethics that most of the employees because rules of special responsibility, and so the city attorney's office has to make its own independent determination that there are no conflicts that having it's appropriate to waive my conflicts of interest and allow me to do this work address matters that i worked on before with the city. the city attorney's office knows the city interests are not adverse to eight public nonprofit for

the housing developers because of the unique nature of the work and collaborative relationship i cannot possess any material confidential information that could possibly be used to my advantage. the city attorney's office, was held to a higher ethical standard and me, the city attorney's office already has determined that a waiver is appropriate here and has provided me with a conflict of interest waiver, which is in your packet, which was already approved by the city attorney's office. the executive directors report provides no expiration as to why the city attorneys determination that a waiver is appropriate here is being second guessed and considered irrelevant. they've given absolutely note weight. i implore you to give way to the city attorney's determination and to the opinions and information shared by people actually do this work every day will be most affected. second point, as the report itself

points out, and the city attorney confirms him over the past several years of this commission has obtained the same waivers and many times in most cases far less compelling than mine. there were only, waiver was not granted it was actually not denied and not granted. it was because the waiver request was considered to be not right because the person did not have a job already. the report provides absolute no definition as to my request is so uniquely different than all the waivers the past years that have been granted. in particular, this commission granted the same waiver for deputy city attorney thomas along on the potential for this note influence for undue advantage and there's no conflict of interest. significantly the board of directors staff report in that

case gave greatly to the fact that mr. long was an attorney would still be required to obtain a conflict waiver from the city attorney's office. well, in this case a party received that waiver from the city attorney's office. thomas long's case which are granted here yet was still given great weight by the commission. in fact, i can quote it to you granted a waiver in this case, this is from the staff report-granting the waiver in this case would [inaudible] on behalf of his client on a matter that the city is a party or have a financial interest. for that reason and because of the mutual mutuality of interest, granting this waiver would not create the potential for undue influence or unfair advantage. as you hear from people, supporting me here today, there's that same general mutuality of interest between the nonprofit housing developers i represent now in the city. and before the housing world. to me, with the

city attorney has already determined the conflict of waiver is appropriate, identify that mcgibbon zero deference. particularly, where it was given great weight in that recent granting of the waiver. so, i will skip had no. what will be doing it's a small form. it is for full-time attorneys clean myself. two part-time attorney. all are signs are nonprofit housing developers throughout california. it's only people we represent. other work will do is transactional. we don't go before committees. we don't represent the proceedings. we don't do litigation it just transactional work. we help them with all the work related to financing and real estate

assets unaffordable house. that's all we do. as you know, there's an affordable housing crisis in the state and especially in the city. now, more than ever, we need all the resources we can get to deal with this crisis. this complex work. it's challenging work. there's not a lot of people that do it and i've been doing now for over 10 years and consider somebody who is clearly knowledgeable and expert in the figure one of the reasons i was offered the job is because it's hard to find people that do this kind of work. a photo housing, legal work in this country but certainly in the state and in the city. if you deny my request, to put someone who has a lot of expense permanently on the sidelines in respect to all the affordable housing projects because i worked here for eight years. i've been the only person doing all the legal work for the mayor's office of housing and i've touched every one of those projects. so every

project that's coming up now, other redevelopment of the public housing sites, every mission bay, everything, transbay, hunters point, every photo housing project i would not be able to work on. you be taking away from the city from the affordable housing committee and for me personally. the last-again, you hear from some other people about how affordable housing community is a private public side a small tightknit family. will common goals and shared interest. we collaborate and treat each other as partners on the city side and on the nonprofit affordable housing side. everybody moves around, changes organizations interchangeably. doug shoemaker who is the housing director in the mayor's office until a few years ago is now the executive director of housing in

california.--now she's a director. [inaudible] what that tenderloin neighborhood development corporation get so did most of the mayor's housing project managers. it's very specialized field of work. everybody stays in the field and everyone is dedicated to it. everybody moves around constantly. it's also really really important that i say, i don't have confidential information that would somehow be used for mike client advantage. again as shown by the fact the city attorney's office made that same determination. folks from the mayor's office of housing point out that it's not how the city works with the nonprofit. they don't hide information from each other. kate hartley pointed out in her e-mail

earlier today that i hope you've seen and read them all this work is subject to multiple layers of review by the public, other government agencies. the public scrutiny on these deals is so great that there really isn't any-there's no confidential information that's hidden from it that wouldn't at some point be revealed anyway. the work we do is so transparent, so much in the full view of the public, the likelihood it's publicly perceived at some undue influence or unfair advantage is so small, especially when balance against public interest in having me work on these deals. you know, it's not like me going from the planning department to work for a for-profit developer. i'm trying to use city connections to make money again the system or going to work for some big corporate law firm. i'm trying to continue to do the important work i started here in the city.

the executive directors report again with all due respect provides no analysis. it gives no weight whatsoever to any of the points i've raised. during all these considerations in denying the waiver basically on those statements would effectively be migrating the waivers out of the law. it would mean there can never be a waiver because until you could always argue that to be some potential appearance of undue influence. it's leading that i'm being punished person. the city is being published. because i'm simply good at this work and am expert and have a lot of knowledge that again. i just can't understand how that would happen. anyway, to sum up, the truth is, granting this waiver would not create potential undue influence or unfair advantage so there's

nothing adverse about the relationship between the city and nonprofit developer client and, in fact, having unique perspective again from representing the city, should actually benefit the public interest and the advantages for the city because it would allow me to be a more perceptive problems over and work towards our common goal of building and preserving affordable housing. instead take one more minute and tell you a little bit about me. my whole career, all you care about his affordable housing. in law school in dc is in my entire last year helping low income tenants to purchase their building in order to keep it from being converted to condos. i spent three years year of presenting nonprofit developers. before coming to the city attorney's office. i came to the city attorney's office not to be a city attorney. not to be a politician but to do a formal housing work.. it's a specific position i applied for and i

wanted to do. it's all i want to do. i just want to help get affordable housing built here in san francisco get my data back so that i'm the only professional that he knew delivered delivery choosing jobs that pay less than the job i had before. >> is that true this time? >> know it's not true this time. but when i was offered the job it wasn't about money. you can ask anyone here. i struggled deeply with indecision and i spent weeks of not sleeping because i love this job. i love the job. >> if we were to grant this waiver, and say a few months from now you received an offer from a big corporate firm giving you a lot of money, very

tempting? >> no >> i have not finished. you, as white, someone professional and wants to move up in the world might have family needs, other types of things, say i'm going to take a job. let's say you made that decision. what would be the effect? with the waiver be off? >>: the apprentice waiver. gremio waiver to do a specific work at a specific firm for nonprofit developers. that's fine with me. i don't have a problem with that because i know this is the only job i will have enough i don't have this job i'll have another job for the housing world. this is what my life is dedicated to. i truly did not make any decision in my professional career improving including this one about my. the reason i took this up with this opportunity

was given to me is because i felt them after weeks of hemming and hawing about it and struggling it was an opportunity for me to make a larger impact throughout the entire state of california and, more important,-i can't emphasize this enough-the deciding factor for me was the after talking to the lease city attorney's office about it and knowing the mayor's housing that i would be with to continue to do all the work here in san francisco. i can honestly tell you i do not think i would've taken this job that i knew you guys would deny this waiver for me. because i put my blood sweat and tears in the last eight years towards doing this work here in san francisco. i have just sat here and watched as things have got worse here in san francisco. there is so much going on now in their stomach that i put

into that is just in their early stages, that i can't even imagine not being able to work on those projects. the idea that i would be denied the opportunity to do that-sorry. >> when you took the position that the city attorney's office, you are aware, were you not, of the one-year ovation >> dealing with the city? >> yes >> there are two things you're asking for. one would be a permanent, which is where you are directly working on something and now you're going to the other side and working on something in your same there's not really an other side were all one big family. i guess the code of the factual as perfect ethics is very clear that it's an unwavering bull

conflict if you're representing a client and you go to the other side and represent a client. >> can i ask into-maybe say something about that? >> let me make a brief explanation. just to confirm, as mr. gross said, my office has granted him a professional responsibility waiver to continue his work for his clients. it is owed a global conflict under the rules of california. we believe our waiver was completed appropriately. >> you are saying that under your interpretation of the rules of professional conduct that a lawyer can be a one side, and then go to the other side and represent them in the same matter and its waiver will?

>> yes. it's a waiver global conflict that we granted a waiver to that effect >> i don't agree with. someone that teaches professional responsibility in law school and i talked it over the course of the last 15 years, that would be never waiver of all in terms of a lawyer, for one party, then going in the same matter, over being a lawyer for the other party. you are simply totally wrong good that's one of the complete mortal sins of conflict of interest. you are wrong. >> ashley commissioner it is a way verbal conflict in the rules of professional responsibility it does nothing in here that prohibits switching sides. certainly, if you have doubts about my view of the law, i'm happy to provide you with written advice and of the sub if you want to

continue this matter but i know of no authority that imposes such a rule that you and commissioner steve rennie seem to otto. >> so there's litigation i'll put the cities involved in which mr. gross is an advocate on behalf of the city and that litigation, directly involved in that litigation, and he then we get this waiver and he then goes and joins in the other side in that litigation, just walked across to the other table and sits down and starts represent him, that is okay? >> no,. the key here is that we've offered consent to that arraignment conflict of interest are subject to consent. >> the client here is not your office. the client are the people of the city and county of san francisco. so the fact you're at the attorney for the people in the city and county of san francisco the fact that

you are saying it's okay with you-on not talk about you personally-but your law office, it's okay with your law office that the client the pity people of the city and county of san francisco have a lawyer on the other side was a conflict of interest as to them in a particular piece of litigation, that they are going to be haunted by it, that that is all right because the lawyer says it is? that's nonsense. >> you're absolutely correct. on behalf of the city and county of san francisco iapetus does have the authority to consent to the waiver of conflict of interest. as to this particular waiver i can assure you, as you recognize, it's not stop at me. went up to the chain of command and my office >> has a gun to the state bar of california as for an opinion as to what you would be doing as ethical for you as a deputy city attorney in a piece of litigation with the city is being sued, the city and county

of san francisco involved in litigation will be ethical for you as a lawyer for the that client to get up in the middle the child say while going across. i'm going to represent the other side should have begun to the state bar of california and asked them whether or not it is something that is appropriate under the rules of professional conduct? not talk about you asking people in your office. i'm telling you you're wrong. have you gone to the state bar of california? >> before he answers that, one thing to point out, the waiver is not for litigation. i'm not a litigator. i'm not asking for that. from you or the city attended of not done any litigation work in my computer i would know the first thing about it. that is not even something that our clients at

our firm engage a sintered we would never do litigation it we don't know how to do litigation. we are simply transactional attorneys. that only to real estate and financing transactions on affordable housing work. that's all we do. that is what the waiver was granted for. if you look at the waiver, the ashley carved out except for matters of litigation against the city. i would be perfectly fine with you having that out of litigation is your concern, i'm never get you litigation in my life. so, i don't know if that makes a difference in this discussion but i want to point that out. >> it's a lot more comforting than a general totally long statement that was made here by the deputy city attorney. that kind of conflict did the lawyer could just give up any conflict on behalf of a client. that's nonsense. so, your statement is somewhat comforting. >> thank you. i understand

litigation is a completely different matter and i'm happy for you guys to give me a limited waiver that only allows me to do the transactional work on affordable housing projects of nonprofit clients. >> the difficulty i'm having, the whole purpose of the one-year requirement is the public's perception. you are saying there isn't any showing that the city is going to be prejudice or there's going to be undue influence, but the public's perception is, here is a city attorney who's working on projects, who says he so valuable to the city, but i'm going to go across the street and get more money for the private firm i'm going to do the same work i did with the city, but now it is the

perception the public has that it's a revolving door. summary works for the city. they walked out and there asked the ethics commission give us a waiver so we can keep on doing what we're doing rather than saying we are going to when you took the job you knew there was this requirement. a one-year waiting period. now you're asking us that there some reason why we should waive that requirement when the perception is that what you're bringing to your firm is your expertise that you gained at the city's expense. >> at the city's expense am not so sure at this phase expense >> they paid you. >> okay. there's a few things in there i do understand. i think, if you want to read-i

provided all the reasons why i think that the waiver should be great. if you want to read the ethics rule in the narrowest of senses you're absolutely correct. there's a perception there then you should not grant that waiver. however, the waiver is there for a reason. if you read it that narrowly, there will never ever be a time that you could ever grant a waiver like that because there's always going to be a theoretical perception when somebody goes from the city to private practice to do the same type of work that they are doing. i also think if you read it that way to be honest, do so larger conversation but you can have a hard time recruiting people, can the city attorney's office if they think their area of expertise suddenly-of becoming experts are going to be punished. the one-year waiver, quite frankly i'm a little less concerned about that. i don't want there to be a one-year cooling off or not.

i like to be able to conduct business with the city attorney's office and help them because there's a lot of crucial projects, including what you hear from from the mayor's office of housing. the rabbit program which is happening in the next six months. and something i've been working hard on. for the last two years. that work is being finished over the next settlement i liked it will to continue to work on that. quite frankly, i'm less concerned about that than about the permanent ban from doing the work because again i worked here for eight years. for the housing projects as you can imagine, they take a very long time to go from inception to completion. many many years. there are projects that when i came in to the city over eight years ago, we were talking about them and today were still talking about them and we have

not started the work it. i would not be with to do any real of oil housing work in san francisco for the next 5-10 years at least maybe longer. some these projects are picking your projects at least. and i started to get some of their more concerned about although i will say that i'm sure in the city attorney's office supported this waiver, and folks were here today to speak on behalf of them, i know that they are very concerned about mine not being able to communicate with them because of my expertise and my ability to palms all on these complex issues. they need my help on that. i will say, from being on both sides of it, it really is-i was hard to believe when you don't actually practice in this specialized area, but it really is a partnership. it's not an adverse relationship.

you have to look at it from a different context from a different perspective and understand, the work we are striving for a common goal which is to build affordable housing in san francisco. for low income families. and for the public benefit. that is our focus at the city attorney's office. that's our focus at the mayor's office of housing. the nonprofit and that's our focus at my firm. >> mr. andrews >> mr. gross, you referenced in your presentation a waiver that the commission granted in 2011. ms. pound, do we know more about that? under what justification we used to grant that? other similarities and in what ways are they different? can we take that without objection? without objection i think mr. gross as indicated we referenced it in the memo because there was a

alignment mutuality of interest between the city and the organization that the former employee went to to represent the city's interests before another body. i can't recall the details forget we have to look at the actual-dig into the actual was provided to the commission at the time. so, i think the question is a fair question about where the city of interest mutually aligned with another's. i fully appreciate the collaborative nature of the work that mr. gross is doing and the importance of the work he's doing good i think the challenge is setting aside those very worthy goals and looking to at least understand as a basis for your consideration was the purpose of postemployment lobbying districts serve. i think there's a distinction between

on a legal basis and a different purpose with the provisions in the law for postemployment restrictions. i think one of things i just want to insert into the conversation as well, in terms of the permanent ban, the language of the ordinance talks about a permanent ban as relates to particular matters. i think one of the areas of difficulty we have at the moment is understanding for all of the list and litany of projects that mr. gross worked on within that list, some matters that in fact which would permit him to work on those other matters, even if they relate to the same party. so, it's a bit of a nuanced question. i don't know we have actually had full information. perhaps mr. gross can enlighten us on that but the intent certainly the permanent banister not prevent

somebody gainful employment with her expertise, but to restrict that revolving door on direct matters where they have a direct personal involvement in a financial way both of all working for the taxpayers and the public. >> why isn't it compelling that the city attorney and the entity that mr. gross have both way the conflict and what he's advising has gone so far to affirmatively state it would be beneficial for him to be involved? can we take that without objection? without objection i think those are factors that should be given weight in your consideration. i think the section on china make is that there still is a potential that when an employee has been in public service moves to private sector employment and is being paid by

private-sector organization, to come back and shape those governmental decisions, there's always potential to have a conflict that a legal conflict of interest but the potential that his or her former colleagues may be unduly influenced because of the-if there year within a year. or so involved in the matter that might carry undue weight in the discussion. i think the other question is, undue influence or undue axis. that's the new employer met that there may have been a number of employers potential employers for somebody who wish to hire somebody with mr. gross's expertise, but they're not a part. can we take that without objection? without objection i get that, but if you're the client can we take that without objection? without objection i get that but if you affirmatively make a waiver and the clients as we need this guy,

why then so much risk of undue influences the works the client presumably has his own best interest in mind. it isn't about mr. bush. the client cares about himself and the client is going out and affirmatively saying it's okay, you need to let him do this, that doesn't compelling to me. the weather that resolves waving a one year ban on not sure but my concern about the undue influence of certain lesson the situation. i can understand what the client would waiver otherwise. if anybody has information about that. i'm all years. >> i just wonder if we could not get a little more explanation about how in the low-cost housing area the city and the nonprofit developers work together. i do know that

the three special area in both parts, the community and the city, are working together so that, essentially, everybody is on the same side. there are technicalities that have to be addressed and perhaps that's the role that you are playing by moving over to the nonprofit sector. i don't know, but perhaps of the director of the mayor's office of housing could enlighten us on that. >> yes. not just them but the paper mayor's office of housing as well as some of the more prominent portable housing developer [inaudible] >> if the director of the mayor's office can explain it, i don't know who else >> i be more than happy to see the microphone. >> ultimately on the directors of the mayor's office of housing. but in the directors

of the mayor's office of housing for the past five years so i am the employer of mr. gross. i am his client. i've been in the city for 25 years. i'm working in the field of affordable housing. i have not gone from one side to the other conductors worked on affordable housing because i believe in affordable housing as passionately as evan does. i think the question that you all raised, is there indeed a conflict. from our standpoint, is the question of the mutual interest that some of the commissioners have raised. we have a very unique system of building affordable housing in san francisco. we have a lot of repeat nonprofit developers could we work with them over extended period of time. we work with some of the developers behind us for over 30 years. we've established a relationship of cooperation and mutual self-interest that were all in it together. were not

going to screw each other. because were going to have to work with each other anyway. so we go through this process being extremely transparent and really working for our own best interest. what the law firm that mr. gross is going to work at, but they also do is working also for the city's best interest. they negotiate with investors in our affordable housing. they tried to get the best possible deal on behalf of. developer clients, which also means i pay less in terms of the gap financing for our affordable housing. we shared that absolute goal of building affordable housing because the developers don't often find the projects by themselves. the developers fund the projects through our, either our rfp for

a specific site, or we've already decided what were going to build. there's not a negotiation about whether they're going to build for the housing. it's a requirement. there's no discussion about with the developer feed is. sorry been set. there's no discussion about how were going to write the transaction could be of underwriting criteria that the developer and the lenders have to meet. because of the unique nature of this, because you're doing this for such a long time, we had to build all the set procedures they're basically, the developers coming. they know the fees and the requirements. there's a little negotiation on the edges with the lenders and investors, but again, it's to get the best possible rate. best possible terms for the developer. in terms of reserve requirements and things like that. it's also been, again benefits the city because the city doesn't have to put up

those additional reserves. so there's an incredible mutual interest between our developers and the city. we need to developers to go out and make this housing happen. we need developers to stay in business extended period of time because of they go out of business, during the period of the agreement is the responsibility of the city as the backstop lender because were the lenders of last resort and we also have, in most of these cases, the underlying ground lease. and the goal of keeping whatever our developer partners produce as affordable housing pre-much in perpetuity. so there's this incredible commonality of interest the real work together we all try to beat up the lenders and investors and the contractors to the benefit of the city overall. for the developers to be successful, we have to make

sure that the buildings are financially feasible, but all that underwriting is generally done in terms of what the city would accept when the work terms prior to the developer coming into the transaction and the attorneys come into their transaction. so, much of this information, because of the long time we worked with all these developers, is very very public. you can go to any bar transactions and look at what we've asked what the developer fees were. with percentage of the cash flow was good with type of reserves we allowed. it's very transparent. there's no confidential information in those particular transactions. in fact, we often go to the board of supervisors to issue bonds and we talked entirely about what the structure of the transaction is, prior to actually closing the transaction with the individual

developer. the transactional work the actual closing the loan with the city and ground lease and the bond documents, happens at the tail end. were in front of the other public bodies whether it's the loan committee or the board of supervisors and we have a level of public scrutiny on those transactions, on those developers, on the mayor's office of housing that would highlight any conflict of asia. if anything falls out of the norm the question these public bodies would be, why? was different about this particular transaction? it's not going to be because evan gross happens to be the attorney because of this particular transaction or not. i don't think anybody in the photo housing fields would say i play favorites. it's really been the role of the mayor's office of housing truly be standard operating procedure for everybody. that's the safest

way we've done our business whether it's any particular developer, any particular attorney, any particular conduct. lender or investor is the standard operating procedure for everybody because that is the only way we are successful in doing our work and maintaining the integrity of the program overall. so, and evan asked us whether we would sign onto the waiver, i said yes because of this mutual interest and the mutual goal of building and preserving affordable housing. i would take-he probably got smarter and is learn more about before to housing development and in part because we have this mutual self-interest along with the developers and counsel. we

want them to be the smartest developers possible. we want their counsel to be the smartest counsel possible because they love working together. there's so many roars. >> there some a lawyers what you need him? can we take that without objection? without objection >> is not that many lawyers in the specific field. his firm has been in the affordable housing fields >> the parties are using his firm. other members of his firm, right? >> part of it is the size of this firm started in the field of affordable housing for those low income tax credit. they were doing syndications in the early 80s or mid-80s. then they followed this field during this whole period of time. they have three lawyers. it's not a big front. they're all really stretched trying to do the work that they were set up to do. they only do affordable housing.

they only do affordable housing. they won't even do a photo housing for for-profit developers. the only do affordable housing for nonprofit developers. that's why we find feel comfortable in terms of doing the waiver. having more information, more expertise on the other side doesn't hurt us. it helps us. were not afraid of it because we had good attorney did and we have a good staff and we restructure that basically has created frameworks for all of our transactions. so, we don't feel there's going to be conflict as we go through this process because the attorneys from the other side are not involved as we set the policies, as we set the and writing. we talk with our developer partners about that but it's not a bunch of attorneys in the room lobbying us to give them the most favorite nation status or anything about and along those lines. it's really about working together this common goal. i would also say, we are

in a time when my office can't build enough for the housing fast enough. whenever i go to any public building is about why have you built it already? actually, i'll be perfectly honest the loss of them from the office the loss of evan from now this is a big loss. the fact that he's on the other side mitigates that the disease taken that expertise to help, move the process along. so i can close my big deals by public housing rebuilt my other transaction. i don't feel that i'm going to be at risk of having somebody on the other side know something secret about my structures or strategies in part because we've been so transparent about what we do already. there's no secret to what we do get is just a lot of hard work. so, we

would plead to this commission that this waiver not only would help my ability is i'm going to be judged on really not whether works for the city attorney or-my ability to get housing done. i supported this waiver in part because it would be helpful to my goal of getting affordable housing done. >> commissioner keane can we take that without objection? without objection this is really unique and cries out with a lot of inequities. no question about it. let me ask you this. you say everything is transparent. he knows what's in your mind at all times by virtue of what he's been doing for you know. when you're boosted the other side are still in negotiating situation

with the other side the matter how much both sides might love each other, you still ingratiating on behalf of of the city to get the best deal for the city. correct? >> yes. >> let me finish. now your negotiating with someone who sort of-who's got your family jewels, who's been with you and knows all your tactics. not saying there's anything nefarious or anything,, but rather than negotiate at arms length, you're negotiating with someone who has all of your strategies, your tactics, the way you play your cards. those everything about them. on behalf of someone who's doing something trying to get

something from the city of particular contract from the city. are you at a disadvantage in negotiating with someone like that then you would be just with someone at arms length who doesn't know all of this information strategy tactics that you have, and being at a disadvantage than isn't the city at a disadvantage because they're not going to make the best deal in every respect because-not because you're going to get your pocket picked or anything dishonest-but it's not an arms length negotiation in the transaction. is metro? beat let me put it in context. i talked a little bit about the structure in which transactions occur. were not to be negotiating about the bond issue be. were not to be negotiating about developer fee, about cash flow about underwriting requirements or all those other things that we

would typically negotiate. but the city might negotiate with a private developer because those are set. we are the lender of last resort and were going to set those terms. so, there's not as much in negotiation that goes on. i would think in some respects, and having experience in my decision-making about what i like and don't like, i think simplifies the negotiations with the developers. they will not bring to me what i don't like. because evan will know that i will consistent my decisions and if i said no before, unlikely, very very likely to say no again because i want to be very consistent in my decision-making. some respects it helps me. i don't get stuff

from the new attorney wants to break new ground who has not worked in san francisco and says i work with so-and-so in santa clara county and we negotiated the developer fee. you would have to go through the high welcome to spare him. we have a system. let's talk about how you are-makes it into the system because this is our structure. in some respects there's both sides of it. he does know the system, which is actually good because it facilitates our discussions with the other side he does know by decision-making on certain policy issues but again that facilitates moving to yes as opposed to butting heads with a brand-new counsel from god knows where and who may or may not have experience working in san francisco. the city is

san francisco affordable housing community in the work we do is pretty unique around the state. there's no other city that supports the affordable housing in the manner the city and county of san francisco does. there's no other city in the state that has their hands on the transactions as much as the city does. at the staff level. not at the attorney level. we don't leave it for the attorneys negotiated transactions the principles in my office, my staff who are here as independent individuals, not on time,-they are the people negotiate these transactions and we don't rely on the attorneys for negotiation transaction to the attorneys will be there to document it. they sure were doing it right but they're not -attorneys are not leading the transaction. principles understand the business points and negotiate up.

>> the revising the principles, are they? in terms of the attorney advising the principles, that attorney knows what your cards are, that you're holding, and the pencil is going to know what's in your cards, right? can we take that without objection? without objection as i said my cards are very transparent. >> my cards are pretty transparent to not only evan but to any outside counsel who actually takes the time to understand what san francisco does. >> any other commissioners, any questions? at this time, alaska for public comment. i will ask for public comment can we take that without objection?

without objection thank you. i'm patrick--and for over a year of and trying to work with the mayor's office of housing and community development to obtain data regarding their down payment alignment system program. particular, investment to the tried into san francisco retirement system and i can tell you they are not transparent. i've had to pull teeth. i'm getting basic excel spreadsheets. i can't get them. i get them in pdf. they are incomplete. the datasets are a mess. mr. gross says about hiding information public scrutiny is great. mr. gross

and mr.-say they're completely transparent. i kind of agree with him. i don't think you should agree with them either. it smells. people are already concerned about the undue influence the nonprofit sector has on the affordable housing. i believe the last time you heard a complement waiver request was for supervisor tony hall. i think in 2011. i advised him, don't do it. if you go to tee it up and use [inaudible] it's not that big long before the mayor gets you forced out. with or without a

waiver. tony hall lost that job really rapidly. he made one mistake granting a postemployment waiver than taking another one. >> i would like to first say i understanding of the deputy city attorney's recommendation and use member keane corkage. if i was a public participant in my attorney said to me i like the court represents you and represent the other side is that okay with you tech thank you i could tell him, yes no problem. what i? no. i'm not an idiot. basically, that argument makes no sense at all. i don't want my attorney knows

everything about my side of the case to go to the other side. as far of this idea in the world were one big happy family that would ask a bunch of cry. the fact is the mayor's office doesn't agree the board of supervisors. if significant difference and i can see the mayor's office wanting to go to work for these companies because the mayor's point of view will be given to those people and the other members of the city government might have different point of views will not. i think it's also unfair to the people who'd be hiring. there are a lot of nonprofits in the city and i will talk about nonprofits that have access to information that none of the other nonprofits were competing in the open market for city dollars and they will have an advantage over those other nonprofits. because they will no ways to talk about

things where they will know how to phrase them. they'll know how to put it in a certain way so that the commission or whenever knows who to talk to, who do a nap. which member of the commission is in our favor and how can we give them ammunition to fight on our behalf. the private sector they have a noncompete agreement. everybody understands the noncompete agreement-if you send one it's a done deal. it's protect proprietary information and everything else that goes along with that. allowing a deputy city attorney who knows all about the city's position to go work for somebody who is to go shooting as mr. kean said with the city, is just nonsensical. it's something that nobody who has their own self interest in mine would be willing to agree with. >> thank you. >> i still 30 seconds. the

public is look at phoenix and i've been coming here for your simplest waivers be granted and i thought what is going on here parks and recreation you sign a waiver when you take a job. it is a condition of your employment now you're coming in and saying don't do what i agreed to do in the first place. mr. gross agreed to have to follow these rules don't exempt him. >> thank you. >> good evening for my name is winnie jones dir. of housing developments. in response to the housing crisis the city of san francisco has taken on too momentous tasks. trying to erect thousands of units and [inaudible]. both are important challenges both are straining the affordable housing

resources. particularly human power and expertise of the city and practitioners within the city. evan gross is an important resource in that effort. one of a handful-a small handful-of people able to do this work. the work is not adversarial or collegial or filled with secrets. as witnessed by the fact my nonprofit side and my city adversaries are here in support of mr. gross. we argue to waive the restrictions in wave let him practice immediately. >> good evening, commissioners. i'm barbara--i'm director of housing developments from percy housing. we own over 3000 units in san francisco with currently hoping to start construction on 200 new units as well as all the other work were involved. the need for housing is staggering as we recently received over 5000 applications for 70 affordable units in transbay.

mercy is a very strong supporter of evan gross's request for a waiver. we desperately need legal talent is to develop affordable homes. our work is pretty specialized. partnership and collaboration, which you've heard a lot of that is really the way we get it done. i wish we could negotiate more but really, with the amount of free money him a need to put together in order to build affordable housing both at the state and federal level. what we do is problem solve. we really problem solve. we work together to try to figure out how that said we have to spend this much money by this much date or have housing built by this date we can use this money for that use, we sit around and figure out how to get it done. it's really not a negotiation. it's really following the most unbelievable set of rules and

regulations that govern our funding as you can imagine. very different from the for-profit for housing development. so, we need evan. there really is a handful of great legal expertise the knows how the federal funds, the pod funds, section 202 funds, prop a funds all work together. so i implore you to please grant him this waiver. we really hope to start construction on 200 units this year, but we need his help to do it. thank you very much. >> good evening, commissioners. my name is david schnoor rector of real estate development. i also request you grant the waiver that will allow evan gross to continue doing this work. committee housing partnership has a 25 year history for developing supportive housing here in san

francisco. firmly most people and were part of the group of nonprofits working to transform public housing to mental assistance demonstration program. there's a lot of housing the bowman activity in the former housing world in san francisco reynaud him up with the passage of proposition but also created a new affordable housing bond with all the public housing revitalization going on, there was a lot of work and previous person has commented, not enough bodies to do the work it will trust at every stage to find enough people with specialist knowledge to make sure all this work can move forward. evan gross is part of that specialized body of knowledge. we are excited by the prospect of having him be able to understand the city's perspective as we work on the loan documents, the transactional documents, lease agreements and so forth.

because it's indeed a cooperative process. we rely on the partnership we have with the city to fulfill our mission. they rely on the partnership they have with us to fulfill their mission. our mission are very similar to any of the organizations can state our mission statement it would sound very similar to those community development. were all working towards the same goal. the great affordable housing here in san francisco. i understand the cities conflict of interest is designed to protect the city's interest in the appearance of season to spend in this case it failed to grant the waiver were actually from the city's interest because we need as much knowledge as we have right now to address the critical affordability problems that san francisco faces. i request the city grant the waiver. >> good evening, commissioned

my name is sharon christopher work with percy housing california as a project management is not to mention, anderson mercy supports the request. that he not work on saturday for one year. as work with evan for 10 years now. i will share an example of how haven't worked with us and represented the city's interest in working with her. and freshest we worked at a project on sixth and howard street. the building had found the scene the state financing, i worked very closely with us to help hard understand the cities ground lease and the city's requirements and helped us negotiate and be comfortable with the ground beef which is something not comfortable with. barbara mentioned, or evan mentioned, physical committee service, tight eyes about the support and work with evan on a previous project. i know you're

aware of the critical housing price. i hope you be able to consider this waiver because i think it would help. >> good evening, commissioned my name is benjamin mccaul street the decadent deputy director of finance for the mayors office of housing and many development. i strongly support the request. this waiver request should be approved due to the nature of affordable housing in the bay area and specifically is given. it's not a traditional adversarial relationship. additionally, photo housing feels it's very very specialized requiring years of work experience to fully understand it isn't part of the city be able to hire experts in the field and also to let them leave when it's time. the best candidate to replace mr. gross would be someone with a depth

of experience in this field. the city employees are not allowed to leave sitting from and to work with other parts in the san francisco for the housing sector to recruit the best and brightest will be severely hampered not approving this waiver would've a chilling effect to accrued notches housing attorneys, but also housing development employees for our office. the standard for proving the waiver is that the commission must determine by granting the waiver does not create potential for undue influence or unfair advantage. the standard is met in this case. i urge you to approve mr. gross's waiver request >> the me ask you a question. it comes to deciding who's going to get the contract to do the affordable housing that you talked about there is mercy and tenderloin neighborhood. is

that competitive? >> it is competitive, yes sir. >> was mr. gross involves? >> the attorneys are not involved in the competitor process. >> but certainly having mercy having him as an attorney is an advantage. i'm not sure the attorney the type of work the attorneys do in the firm are in any way related to how the nonprofit would respond. my boss can more elaborate better on that. >> who their attorneys are, is not a scoring factor in our selection of the proposal. it's about the quality of the design, the cost, the fact that they're qualified to be-we

never identified with their attorneys are as part of their quest for-nor do we score that. >> with respect to that our firm does not actually get engaged on the project until after they been awarded the project. we don't do any of the work at that level. at the early stages. the nonprofits, what they actually are awarded a project and they know there's going to be a project that's when they engage because we only do the transactional work. >> i just want to ask a clarifying question. with her being opportunity for any of the affordable housing providers during that rfp process to hire you so that you would consult with them as they write their proposal whenever a key area you can provide? >> i suppose, to radically but

i've never heard of such a thing happening, nor do i know how our legal expertise would have any bearing. also, that rfp process, whatever those -this but the design of the project and other factors that i don't even know because i wasn't involved in the prosecutor so, i have no idea what in that process and attorney would be able to provide in terms of-especially me because i do not do that stuff. >> that's kind of my point. because you do not do that at the city and because these rfp can be comprehensive, there's probably some section in there that wants to hear from soup to nuts how it's going to go from conceptual ultimately been built, and there could

potentially be some reference to discuss some legal matters they may need to create a methodology around to get rationale around. again, you're not i'm not a part of the rfp process. you're not part of the rfp process but the fact is, there is a x factor that. there is nothing that would preclude any of them to hire you to give counsel? >> i suppose, not. again, i don't know what counsel i will provide in that situation. i think that folks from the mayors office of housing can provide more illumination is to work those into those rfps that i don't think it's the kind of thing where it would matter whether not i was consulting with them, nor again in the 20

years 22 years there is in a single time they consulted with on that kind of process. >> anymore public comment? >> hello. when the stacy capacity on the project manager of mayors office of development but i'm here in support of evan's request. i worked in affordable housing in 10 years. i worked as a developer before i work for one of those tax credit invested. now i work at the city. i just want to echo my all he other colleagues have said but the nature of her industry at its very transparent. in highly regulated. so i think i understand all your questions.

they seem like good ones. they don't seem appropriate to our industry which is what a lot of influence of evan would have in contracts and getting awards just not how we work. so i want to diminish the work he does but it's not closing deals so that we can start construction and get things though. i will give you an example. mostly tax credit investors who want to put something that does not benefit the-and doesn't benefit the city as well they want to exit a partnership after a compliance period you take a bunch of money with them. so we'll say no the city doesn't want to. the developers don't want that either. so are usually aligned in those ways so for those reasons i support the waiver. >> members of the commission, minus-i'm the director of housing development at the mayors office of housing to meet him. i'm also resident of san francisco have been in the field of affordable housing for more than 15-less than 20 years.

i'm sure, to sport evans request for the two waivers like to explain one of the reasons why we think he should do that. i also want to make the point that with respect to the development of the affordable housing and discussion about whether we have these different-i didn't want to remember what would doing is developing affordable housing for low income people and not respect to be quite mutually aligned. it's also the case you can no longer build affordable housing without other funders that include the city but include credit bank and talk to credit investors like-those other parties about the nonprofit and the city of san francisco are very aligned

and looking into the best interest of people who live in the buildings in the future. i think is important for us to remember that. so, looking for to build high-quality affordable housing. looking to serve people and looking to create the best possible deal that uses the least amount of local city and county-so we can use whatever we have left over to build less. we have thousands of the thousands of units in the pipeline and many people like evan to be working with us in partnership supporting amazing group of nonprofit, a federal housing developers so you meet a tremendous needs here in san francisco. hopefully you'll consider prompting printing those letters. >> good evening, commission from robert-i was on the

2013-2014 civil grand jury and we had concerns about the process where decisions like this were being made. i think you're confronting some of these palms right now. this is an important decision. as bad optics to it because it involves steady real property, use of bond proceeds, things of that nature. but it may be the details of what's going on here are so threatening. this is not a popularity contest. is not just a situation where people can come in and make assertions did nothing is being said under oath. and you've got to wait all these different things. i'm hearing gives me concern, we elect the city attorney. i don't see anything signed by the city attorney. just for one. the one your weight is pretty standard and people can

still work on matters. it's a matter for you talk to. if you talk your clients the clients talk to the city. do somebody in between you and the city. it does mean you're not doing work for the clients. but it can all work out. i think the staff memo expresses some concern. they have not had a lot of time to look at the matters that are listed here. and there's a long list of existing matters that are attached to this waiver of request. as i hear people talk what the transparency of the process and things like that, it may well be is transparent enough. may well be there is a lot of confidential information. it may well be the work he is doing on these matters is with public information. there's no need for a lifetime bar.i think you're in a difficult position to have to make a decision

right away on this. i think maybe you want to get some more information about the lifetime ban issues so people can sort it out. if people know this coming apostolate this in the future when waiver requests come up. i think you have a framework here for a good process and a clear decision. i got to use that opportunity. >> good evening, commissioner kevin-good luck 15 year resident of bernal heights. i the pleasure of being housing director many years back. i now work for the mayor's office

of house and i think some of things you may virtue previous speakers may need out. or this incredible team you come out and support this effort. i rescued to grant the waiver to mr. rose for number of reasons. you heard a lot of transparency to get a photo housing development in terms of regular by federal and state programs as well as our own, your ddirector lee talk about underwriting those deals-at no time an attorney-that have to tell you i'm not issued hearing opposing attorney. about developer fees, rent, compensation or anything in the developer's best issue. i can imagine in the years i've been doing this job that i happen

attorney exercise undue influence whether an attorney of the scalper the city is really shooting itself in the foot to lose an attorney of the scholar with a legacy knowledge. i mention we do our own underwriting. we do a lot to make sure those deals are fully transparent and actually discussed at length with not only our internal loan committee on internal peer review process from the structure points out we have the stickies deals so there's a lengthy public process that goes into analyzing these deals. to make a connection, this attorney has somehow going to change the game is hyperbolic at best. i would say there is

no attorney i've met that could influence individual deal points a little and this attorney. i desperately ask you to prove mr. gross's waiver. thank you. >> good evening, commissioner. my name is olivia my job right now is to manage the urgent conversion of 3500 lap a housing units. this project is called that. enjoys national recognition as a city priority for the dozen or so the department working on. several offices involved in this huge effort. last year we converted 14 of the 20 projects and will do another 14 this year. that's a lot of work for us. we were part but that's a lot even for us in the workload has required

us to work more efficiently and cooperate more closely with our city's affordable housing developers. we had to work with them as we negotiate with the bank, bank of america is the project lender for the entire portfolio-our mutual goal to developers and decent safe housing affordable in the long run. this is also the goal of a little over 5000 residents of these dilapidated units. a key reason to success what happened to date and i hope in the future is growth. the capacity as city attorney evan authored and she owns a vote when transaction. he raked worked to protect residents. he was able to do this because of his deep and broad knowledge in affordable housing finance. and

the funding programs and government agencies that are regulating our work. while it's no longer a city attorney, evan specialized expertise in complex deals such as the rat project is still absolutely critical luck at one of the best affordable housing orders in the country when we need him the most will make our difficult work even harder. >> could even give him sophie hayward. i'm here on my own time. to speak in support for the waiver request made by adding the gross. i respect very much of the role of this commission in considering waivers vertically the time they spend considering special circumstances that may justify

such request as these. it could go as same, but i'll say it, evan the scrupulous dissolves beside the point. we hope the comments here tonight to help provide additional information for you and for the public. but the specific role of evan's work before the housing development both in his previous work in the city attorney's office and in his current position. as director lee and many others have eloquently described, basically when evans current clients get a good deal the city also gets a good deal. we have our interests along. the city pays less in gap financing for the development of affordable housing. >>the majority of our financing

for affordable housing the roman and san francisco it comes from the long-term housing tax credit. we then tax-exempt bonds. money from the state. money from the home loan bank. each of those carries with it very strict requirements so that by the time a developer comes to us with a financing plan and requesting the cd money the developer has been said by those stout federal state requirements. the castle has been determined that the occupancy rates have been defined. the rents have been established. there's no room for an individual attorney to negotiate a better deal because were all reliance on the funding from state and federal sources that are so restrictive could

we do make our loans it's a very public process. the citywide loan committee approves or underwriting guidelines to the terms we put forth as my boss director lee talked about, our priest out again there's very little room to negotiate. in fact, no room. what we need great attorneys were the mutuality of interests occurs most importantly is in the nonprofit developers negotiation with conventional lenders with tax credit investors. if they negotiate a good deal it's a good deal for the city. we are lied in that because it reduce the amount of public funds that have to go into these projects. the question was asked, doesn't put us at a disadvantage as negotiating table with evan on the other side of the table knowing how we work, what we think about what our priorities are? the answer is emphatically no. were not at a disadvantage because those

terms are prescribed. leslie is so helpful to us is having someone who understands the regulatory labyrinth we have to sort through and get help us get our mutual goal faster and more efficiently and that is the production of affordable housing, is the great benefit to the city and one we should not give up. >> my name is katie lamont. i'm the director of development -we provide supportive housing in the housing and senior housing in the tenderloin and other neighborhoods in spain san francisco. i speak in support of evan gross's waiver request and agree with the statement he made to many others before me regarding away affordable housing developers partner the city to realize shared goal of providing

housing to low income people. i struck an example of the staff report of the deputy city attorney long leaving to work for turn. the facts are parallel. the city forwarding for the housing developer of mutual interest and their advocacy for the approval housing project in terms of prices of the california state of california [inaudible]. an example of the mutual interest as mentioned earlier the city of san francisco but that's a ground lease structure to prevent launching the affordability in future negotiations negotiationswithout wonders [inaudible]. when doing transactional work both parties are better served when each side has knowledge and experience in the associate competence and creativity need to work together to solve problems. our job is basically

problem-solving. i appreciate that-once to develop the next-generation of its leadership is of an earlier mentioned that omega-3 attorneys. in san francisco is of a particular place to work the current partners the coven have come to know and understand mike this serves the city because there is a built-in understanding of its position alignment of goals and of both kate mentioned earlier it's more efficient earlier if we know the ground rules and operate with them. we appreciate out evan olsen and kate and interacted with everyone is that they listen and operate in a fair manner. i do what i enjoy working this feels that everyone in our development financing team shares the mission of adjusting the great need for affordable housing in our city so we can preserve it as a diverse place for all cards of people to live and a will to solve problems as they arise. witness the 14 coatings in december and that

was the sheer force of will of literally hundreds of people. i urge you to please plan this waiver request and i want to adjust briefly in a question about whether working with evan poses a competitive advantage in our the stage? i would create it does not. nearly every nonprofit developer works with that firm and really there focuses on omega ground lease work. how to make a commercial base work and these are common questions and not special. i think of your time. >> my name is tom-senior housing project manager at-i'm supporting evan grosses lisa request. the challenge, i don't think is a negotiation between the city the affordable housing developers. it's really between the city and the developers together with all the other

regulatory agencies. i just spent the last two years working on the project from the housing authority conversion and the real challenge came when all the legal documents are all being here finalized in but it shows up at the table. the permanent lender shows up at the table and start saying, we can't do these certain things. evan gross was able to concretely provide specific examples and responses to their concerns that put those to rest as well as they could be. i think that in this city, this work is not confrontational. it's problem-solving. you heard several of us use that phrase.

i think the mandating evan gross from the pool of participants, including, and probably especially the rat projects this next year who emanates very val legal resource to the city and developers. >> i'm bob-. i'm the beneficiary of affordable housing but also rose on ethics i did a lot of delving in my own time wrestling with the question of waivers. you put a lot of arguments on deficiency. you posed questions on solid ethical professional case statement we heard ucky read-out for over 10 min. of this in detail overlooked in this analysis. this law firm

already exists has three full-time attorneys and two part-time attorneys. you're not here in the case statement that absolutely none of these full-time entry to both him can adequately and professionally serve these clients. you do not hear that. that doesn't mean mr. gross can't do a good job but can they do a good job? further, some of the people supporting these waiver requests are statewide agencies. the skills are so parent could heal them with our dirt jurisdictions because of his facility? then, within any agency, any organization, yours want a backup. just in case somebody gets sick. if mr. chris is so skilled, what happens he gets critically injured by a drunk driver, and errant tourist bus.

does that really wait out that law firms skill and the ability of these firms to get adequate professional representation? could he help his firm by doing in-service trainings from his skill to import in part to them. at this point you have a solid case that nobody else can do it within that firm that he can't help some of these providers now to better jobs outside. that's why, to stop the idea of waivers being the common revolving door you might consider that maybe also not to rush to judgment tonight we've got a lovely come located agenda. >> lengthy complicated agenda >> my name is-. i served on to civil grand sureties and code of ethics. this commission has entered a new error of higher

standards of performance. san francisco is a city littered with conflict of interest, ruby developers, and lobby groups that masquerade as nonprofits. director lee from the mayor's office on how to use the word unique, not traditional to describe san francisco affordable housing contracts. however, civil grand jury work revealed is not something unique but instead filled with irregularities that beg investigation. many building contracts in san francisco are tainted and that includes affordable housing contracts. mr. gross signed on with the city attorney's office was advised of restrictions and might view no exceptions of a waiver in this instance should be granted when possible conflict of interest hangs in the balance. >>david-. i listen carefully to

the presentation. i don't know -evan-i don't know he seems like a nice guy. nevertheless, the question before you is on the waiver request. i think your question suggested concerned about both the instant of the request and the precedent it would set in other similar situations. i think that the city, overall, is not well served in generalwestside apartments, excuse me, midtown

apartments, that's a complicated situation may result in litigation with the city and the nonprofit developer may not have the same interest. in fact, in general although they have the same goal as developing housing don't necessarily have the same interest in terms of how the transaction roll out. so, in summary, i'm not with granting the waiver. i think it at a minimum should ask more questions and consider and continue this but if the votes are there shall write tonight tonight. i think leeann and the staff got it right and i don't think the city is well served here. just a couple other things i want to mention. when tom on matter came before the commission, tom long is working for a firm largely representing

public ratepayer in just the state puc. i'm not aware the city does development deals with turned so it's a different situation. i would also point out was another deputy city attorney, a lady who advised the sunshine ordinance who left the office just over a year ago to work for gold fiber and women which i believe does this work in this area. again a very highly specialized area. i don't believe she made any request for a waiver. to not come before this commission found other ways to be gainfully employed as an attorney, former having worked for the city attorney's office in this related field didn't need a waiver. i think of heaven is as talented as we hear that he could work on these projects in other jurisdictions would you other solo work and there's no public

people granting these waivers. >> i've not said this often but i agree with the staff report and i think you should follow. i've experience in this area. i worked with director lee 15 years ago on the san francisco wanchese. with a seat purchased [inaudible] put the policy charges made here to go through this rube goldberg machine to assemble huge amounts of funding to build new affordable housing it that some most efficient way to day public dollars and transform them to the public we want. so we want to get affordable housing we got a bunch of folks to make a certain [inaudible] outside of

government and inside to ensure that those are viewed as the private property for construction of the widgets they produce when they may or may not be the best kind of a form housing we need to devote scarce public resources to. someone involved along, i've never heard of a public meeting the mayor's office of housing talks about a competitive process to allocate affordable housing to developers. it may happen somewhere but it doesn't happen in public. the reason lies in the mayor's office is to keep that basically in the dark to see you get 4000 people that make up their life's work to do this work and ostensibly desirable work but the outcomes never seem to quite get there. that guide the party tries to play the guitar issue near 15-20 years later seen the production of affordable housing in the way scaling to meet the crisis we face. so what we have. so skimpy to do this

work,, plodding along slowly, and the displacement pressure are increasing so rapidly not up to the pastor do it. so we need to have this commission stand for what the staff has said and take a stand on ethics permit the previous waivers should not serve as precedent in this commission should repudiate those bad acts of the past. let people just know because your say you're doing god's work this commission is going go ahead and do the investigation to the analysis and stan here represent the interests by commissioner keane said of the clients. we the taxpayers the citizens voters of san francisco. it's time to go ahead and blow the lid off what we had here. that's where the ethical not is. they advocate for the money they get. that has to be knocked out right now.if it's too complicated then you're doing it wrong.

>>, larry bush. i'm speaking for myself. i spent 15 years at the apartment housing and urban development. working on affordable housing issues. including in san francisco. have a great deal of respect for mayor lee and i worked at a lower spec for spec for mercy housing nt and easy. the reality is, here takes a 20-30 organizations to fund a reasonable affordable housing development. some of the places it can only take three or four if you're in the basket. here, you have a problem with site acquisition. we have problems with the cost of housing production. in many cases the site that's been chosen about

remedial needs that have to be taken care of and that's a whole other can of worms. in the meantime, all this is going on, is a great deal in flux but the funding sources. so you saw gov. brown lemay the redevelopment agency as a funding source for affordable housing. at the federal level the republican congress limited funding for senior and disabled housing. what you have is in the middle of all this, trying to reinvent clear funders are going to be. it's a constant juggling act. to come up with something that's going to pay off in the end. there's obviously going to be conflicts because some of the people that sign on as lenders would drop out and sometimes go drop out because they don't meet the standards one way or the other that the city has. so, while we all think of ourselves as partners together, and how it

certainly thought that way, we also recognize there is differences in our sensibilities and differences in our oversight and they should not wash over into each other. i cannot imagine the situation where a hard attorney for affordable housing within take on a job like this. they do talk take other jobs obviously. after all that has been defined for all practical purposes they do not go to the other side of the table as fast as this. >> i would propose we do with these separately. one, the request for the waiver of section 3.234 a1 which is the permanent disqualification, and i would ask if we-if i hear

motion concerning whether not we should grant a waiver of that section? >> commissioner, i will say i have persuaded we should grant the waiver with perspective 3.24 3.2481. as i stand. the potential for confluence undue influence is taken seriously. this does sound like a unique situation to me. hearing so many from the and await cd come and testify why specifically and so important for mr. gross to participate, it's compelling. the fact that the city attorney has given a waiver as long as it's not litigation, i also find compelling. not only it doesn't

appear to me specific potential for undue influence or vantage there appears to be a specific and significant advantage to the city. which i think is also compelling especially in light of our housing crisis. i do like we have a different view than the one year man but on the permanent stand i think we should grant the waiver. >> moved and seconded. >> discussion? >> this is difficult for me because i feel tremendous affinity for mr. gross in regard to some of the is doing the lords work. as someone who's been a lawyer for 50 years in many years as a public defender and always saw my students go for something

worthwhile and helpful to people in general rather than help money, i see mr. gross as an example of a reverse in this situation. i commend him for his career and what he's been doing. i can see him taking advantage of anything or doing anything untoward, but even with that, i can't vote for granting a waiver. because there is some substantive meaning to the fact that where you have two sides to things and there are two sides we've seen tonight, and you have representation for each of those sides, that under the rules of professional conduct and under the standards for ethical representation, there should be a crossover. in this situation, even though we be

doing it just for the one-year period, there is indeed the other factor that's been referred to that in this city, the idea of the revolving door is something that has been become almost pestilential in terms of doing business with the city aspects of things which have a reason for the standpoint of corruption. that's not what's happening here. that's not what happened here. but it is something that's real and receipt in the headlines just quite recently. the conflict of interest that's involved, the fact that mr. gross did indeed join the city attorney's office knowing this was the rules of the game. he did not have to take the job. he did and i commend him for taking the job. the fact that

he now he wants to move on, that is fine. but, that was the rules of the game. those are the rules of the game. and they're important rules. i think we should stick to them. even when were looking at something and say, well, this is really on the side of the angels, we should keep consistent on it. so, having said that i'm going to vote against the waiver. >> and the other commissioners >> i will say in hearing from so many summers like this is your life. you got to hear about wonderful things about himself we don't get to hear about things like that so that's nice. what i thought was a little late in the argument i want to hear was i want to hear about--i understood what value

he will bring to the community and in particular to the city and county of san francisco. i want to hear from his colleagues and the partners and the part-time folks at the law firm tell us, convince us, what unique skill ability and expertise he's bringing and how that will increase the capacity that ultimately was certainly facilitate the larger effort of affordable housing in san francisco. many things are in hindsight it would've been great to hear from his professional colleagues to tell us a little bit more about that. that said, i will vote for a waiver in the permanent restriction. i just would say

for sure, if you move forward with this enough understanding of the work you're going to do, it's important to have the support of your colleagues will be working with on a daily basis not necessarily your clients. your potential clients. >> i would intend to support commissioner hur's motion as to the permanent waving the band. i think that provision was put into the statute to deal with the case where there was a direct litigation matter, where it be a direct conflict in the attorney sort of switching sides as we've talked about. so, i don't think, based on what we've heard, there's a justification for saying he's permanently banned from representing clients in this area.

>> a point of clarification. the waiver of the city attorney jim assured litigation. minor standups imputed to the firm that mr. gross is now going to so that the firm could not represent any of these nonprofits in litigation against the city? it's his current firm >> nothing in the waiver that we grant addresses the firm nor other is a default imputation idea. but i think, if what i was hearing, it am i doing those here and i don't think they do any litigation up. >> they don't now. i like to amend my motion that it only applies to nonlitigation matters. so mr. gross would want

this turn into a litigator against the city, these kinds in these matters, the waiver would not apply to that. >> so consistent with the city attorney's office. okay. >> does somebody second that amendment >> i will second that. >> thank you. >> i think the only comment i want to add because i'm always surrounded by lawyers, here i have a problem sitting in judgment of someone's career and livelihood. the idea that i could vote to permanent ban him

to keep them from seeking his professional goals seems ridiculous. the result of a loving door in terms of lobbyists and influence peddlers but i think there's something wrong with the rules or laws that somehow are so broad that they apply to people were not going to be doing anything like that. this guy has said it. he works he works with transact. he's a numbers guy. he's a finance guy. he's working out the details of something that's artie been decided. i just am not willing to do that. i think it's something we need to look at and perhaps at some point we need to review and fix the rules. we are, within city government they do apply. clearly google business of influence and unfair knowledge and being able to determine things that are in heaven

influence of course we need to look at that. but i'm not willing to ruin somebody's total career. so, i'm very much in favor of passing the lifelong waiver because that seems wrong to me. >> i'll call the question. all in favor of granting a waiver to section 3.234, aye. opposed? let the record reflect the waiver was granted as to that section 4-1. i turn now to the one-year restriction, which is section 3.234. do i hear a motion

concerning whether or not the commission will grant a waiver of that section? >> i move we deny the waiver request with respect to the one-year ban as the staff and chairman steve any point of perception does not did i think mr. gross can still do the work that's benefiting the city without communicate with his former colleagues for one year. on that basis, i think the potential there is not-i'm not convinced he's not t [inaudible] and would move we deny it

>> second >> any discussion? i will call the question. all in favor of denying the waiver of section 3.234, aye. opposed? the record should reflect the motion was passed to not grant the waiver, 4-1. i will call a 10 min. recess to allow

>>[gavel] >> i want to come home and the staff and ms. helen for what i think is a good job to respond to the interested persons meeting in the comments they received, but you want to briefly give us a report on that item >> yes. thank you chairman brandon. the documents you have on the agenda item for present a first take at trying to address the issue that have been made with regard to implement in regulation for proposition c. we tried to stay within the commission's directive to looking at this as an opportunity to clarify language in the existing

language of the ordinance. we note where there are likely recommendations requiring legislative change. so the attachment you have in this item presents regulations that we have attempted to craft for your consideration and discussion tonight an additional input by the public about key terms that affect the interpretation of proposition c can help you understand for the expenditure of lobbyists. i think the question is balancing a number of things. specifically, the charge for proposition c to make the registration and disclosure requirements as similar to the language that applies to the lobbyists under the cities ordinance. also, we were trying to respond to questions about what counts towards the

threshold for becoming an expenditure lobbyist group we tried to define what kind of activities and how they count and also how they give some guidance about the registration required or the regular disclosure that's required under the language of the ordinance. i would say we've had some constructive conversations friday some of us on the staff met with additionally some representatives at the nonprofit community to walk through in detail how these regulations were. is after our regulations were completed and going to circulation because we want to rush out ideas and try to understand concerns. so, they stop all the information we have here and received, this

is our first take. our hope is begin actually come to an agreement as an organization to enact the regulation as soon as possible but we want to make sure you're comfortable with it and you got it as right as we can for the moment. were hoping to get additional feedback on this language although we have nothing specific that we would continue to urge folks to give a specific language. i don't think we've received amendment language on this front. i believe we heard some comments from the front of ethics yes it. one of the things i do want to point out before receiving more public comment, we grappling with is question what kinds of activities count. the language of the ordinance is actually pretty clear a lot of regards in terms of what counts. one of the key issues that kept coming up how the staff counts. has

that count towards the 2500 per month qualification. one of the things we don't have in the regulations before you both want to parenthetically know for conversation this evening, is another approach is look further into the language today . we might see some alternatives for how you connect the activities that are undertaken with the $2500 special. i guess we'll leave that until we get to the specific points in the regulation. q1 a lot of them would take public comment first? that provide baby alternative person language we have before you? >> before taking public comment, i do want to give the commissioners an opportunity to ask whatever questions or comments they have on the draft proposition c implementation that's a part of the package. does anyone have any questions or comments or concerns?

commissioner hur >> thank you for your hard work on this. i have some a bunch of questions and i think i'll start with the attachment to, the proposed language. in particular, 2.105 one but a and b. when not understanding is how you determine a person makes payments expenditure for qualifying activity is incurred when that might not fall upon at the expenditure that would have to be reported until to 12 months later. >> i think the example there was same organization. at the

time of the report that studying an issue. they have a particular viewpoint and i want to present information on that issue. then say, one month or six months later that reportage should it to public urging action on the recommendations that the report contains, urging others to communicate with the board of supervisors may use that report in that context. the question is whether when and whether that would get an expenditure would count. so, we tried to do is put in some sort of temporal connection to suggest it's within 12 months of developing that report and used as an attempt to get others to communicate, that cost should count towards the 2500. >> when do they report it? >> i think in this case they reported at the time that the communication urging others to communicate happened. until

communication with others, urging others and soliciting others to communicate to lobby in official happens, there really isn't one of the key elements of expenditure lobbyists definition that's been reached. >> that make sense to me, but i'm not sure he's implement these regulations say that. person makes payments at the time and expenditure prequalifying activities if incurred. though, i pay for the report on day one. i don't use it to publicly communicate until day 364. doesn't it suggest that i report on day one? internet >> yes. it does. i think we

have some tweaking to do. >> i don't know about tweaking but that seems to be a fundamental disconnect. you have to say the opposite, basically. the activity becomes a qualifying activity. it doesn't become a qualifying activity, necessary speed >> i think i understand your point. i am struggling to come up with the question as i sit here. >> i do think we need to figure out how to make that work. >> isn't what you're seeking to do for this language to respond to the concerns that were expressed by a number of

the persons. if they repaired a report but at the time they repaired it, it's not for the purpose urging action by a public official taking action on public matter, and then they said-does that bring them in as expenditure lobbyists and the question was that's more than 12 months the presumption would be was not done-that report was not prepared for that purpose. once 12 months were added and if etienne then issued a report it would not count as an expenditure. because that was something that had artie been

spent but not spent for that intention. >> yes. i think commissioner hur slightly different. >> i agree with what you said. i get that the point is, when you have to disclose it. if you don't know, at the time you do the report and you do six months later- >> a and b are not what we described that i understand your point. >> my other main point- question, had to do with this pro rata salary attribution. very curious to hear what the view is on how we make that happen. it sounds incredibly difficult.

>> this is under subsection where dr.? >> yes >> if you have individuals who are essentially in-house were doing activities that could count towards a qualifying threshold, the developing public relations materials during outreach, doing reports, urging others to communicate, the first question was, should those completely be exempt because their in-house activities are not making a payment. this approach suggests they should be treated the same. whether you make a payment for in-house services were making a payment for the next consultant or organization to do that work. the second question is to when you count

toward the $2500,-and this is what i was getting a earlier, -does the counting toward $2500 tied to a specific matter of legislative or administrative action or is it $2500 and activities spent towards any and all legislative and administrative matters? our first take was it appeared to read to us that was any and all combined. if you're spending time on any and all matters to urge others to clinic eight example of the board of supervisors it didn't matter what matter that on one strip the level of $2500 you met that threshold. overlooking today again more closely at the engineering some of the approaches of the los angeles major file requirement, who delves a bit deeper and trying

to look at which we need in the definition of legislative administrative action when it speaks to any. the items that are subject potentially influenced it speaks to any matter any resolution but the emphasis is on the word i'm a any. we look to that look at how los angeles model is drafted and interpreted. as weird comments from how you count towards the 2500, we think there's some room to look at that to recrystallize the issue that the $2500 counts on the particular on any resolution. sort of a one-to-one relationship i'm not sure i'm being clear >> i think i understand what you're saying. >> it sounds like the requirement may speak to-you have to be $2500 or urge others to communicate on any resolution or approval but it's a singular matter that has to

trigger the expenditure lobbyists which is what were talking about early in this first draft. >> what were you thinking about how the pro rata amount would be determined? >> could you clarify what you mean by pope pro rata? >> sure. i have a job of company a. a small part of my job is helping the expenditure lobbying. i do it for 10 different organizations. am i supposed to track my time for each one? and divide by my total hours that i spent that year that month? >> every month i think this would assume individuals are tracking the time they're spending on developing materials to urge others to communicate on any particular matter. contracting the time by

matter so if it reaches-if my time reaches $2500 than i have tripped the requirement. >> this strikes me as an incredible burden, especially on nonprofits. i track my john all day every day. it's hard and to have its report-i don't doing this expenditure lobbying my is different but this is not easy. for nonprofit to do that it seems a recipe for disaster in my viewpoint. why not have it be outside [inaudible] >> it's an approach that the commission could take. our view is that regardless of how an organization chooses to do expenditures, if they are drafted or developed with the

purpose of its urging others to communicate with an official to urge a certain outcome on legislative administrative action, it doesn't matter how they do it. the same kind of activity. as we were thinking about how the $2500 is counted that seems to alleviate some of the burden because they may never get to that level on any matter or in a particular resolution or any item. >> potentially but if they do, wow. i think it's going to dissuade in-house people from doing grassroots lobbying they want to do. the other thing is, when you put this together, at least for me my cane main concern about this company is paying people to show up at a meeting in their hiring buses. they're feeding them great meals and really coming to this

meeting are not there because they care about the issue. they're there because company a is incentivizing them to be there. those are the types of things that to me i really have a big concern to the public. if you have an in-house person that does public relations i mean how much are we really getting by knowing-how they even divided? they get paid x amount of years of the report -it just seems onerous and information optically useful, personally. but i had her stand. thank you. my last question has to do with-i want to make sure i'm understanding it, in the memo-i'm sorry. on page 2 under fee at the top of the page, i guess it's 2.105

six, is it right that an organization distributes a non-wriggly scheduled newsletter to its members, but that is excluded? >> under c this is payments and organization makes other than a regular scheduled item to both members and nonmembers. >> if it's just a matter >> if it's just a members that is of course yes x squared. >> i found the language confusing. [inaudible] to make it clear. >> i think that's under b. is b address the question? >> in the b there's more than

one distinction. really, the point is not members it's nonmembers. there's a irregular newsletter to nonmembers whether or not you're sending it to members. that's the point i'm trying to get at. >> understood. >> are you saying that if there is a newsletter sent to members but not in the regular course, it's a special one, that would not be covered under expenditure lobbyists unless it also included distribution to outside people? >> let me read this for a moment. >> commissioner, i think that's true because the provision itself [inaudible]. the actual ordinance >> member communications are

exempt under the ordinance itself. >> because it sounds like b's talk about- >> we were trying to get a quantity of members reach and quantity of nonmembers. does that change- >> okay. any other questions? >> this is all incredibly detailed for me to check. track. who words with the sioux massacred. specifically on the nonprofit i'm going to tell you it's a nightmare. i get in principle what were doing this but it feels like we are

shooting every chicken in the coupe in order to get one good chicken to eat. he just feels awful because i know out of the totality of nonprofit sector, when you map them on the size of the organization and nature of the service they're providing the people we alter me seek to target and hold under regulation who having these astroturf activities, it just feels so incredibly-i don't know what it feels like a broad shot that amanda go on record and say it has-it will have unintended concert. i attended courses mean a lot of problems are that find themselves in violation who don't know they're going to be in violation don't have the infrastructure to have a specific traffic tracking system to do that. so the salary piece, with intro salary

tracking, it's unfortunate i can tell you it's one unfortunate piece. it's going to be very very hard in order these nonprofits to track it the piece i would say-i know a ton about these things, but i don't know fully overcame two-it seems to me out of hand we went and decided that $20,000, lake would have to go legislatively as not amendments or to raise to 5000, but i feel it's worth contemplating or deliberating if some of this could be this broad shop were doing by raising the number is some kind of way and understand it's another administrative action to do that but it's a lot of work for such a low number. it seems like a lot of administrative work for such a low threshold to meet. so the internal feed i struggle with and the threshold. i nursed in the threshold has to be solved in a different way. the

unintended consequences are clear. they're not going to be in the long-term. these would be short-term consequences. the moment we put these regulations in effect. those folks won't have time to figure out what a tracking system looks like to do that. surly on the salaries. >> the salary thing is also in the state. the state regulations. >> i think the state has for lobbyists registration purposes has the sims or provision for certain percentage of time that is eight that is 8/2 before they start qualify but again we do not look to that here. that's not what our contact lobbying requirements include. again we were looking to see you for trying to be as

comparable as possible and still having reasonable regulations. we didn't think have a 10% test was going to be easier for people to trot. >> would be inconsistent with proposition c to illuminate the charge of internal salaries as being an expenditure? >> i think on that issue the commission has some flexibility. they can focus versus internal versus external payment issued. i think there are several commissioners or start circling back. it's not something precisely answered by the proposition itself. >> so what commissioner andrews is concerned about is the problem of limit it expenditure lobbyists, to

actual payment out as opposed to what salaries are being paid,. >> i think that something we can do via regulation. >> i will call for public comment. >> good evening, commission. i'm here to say, sadly, we have very deep concerns about the vast majority of these draft regulations. particularly in seven areas. i went to one and a little bit of another there's about 40 people total that came and other than the nonprofit

fee exception and the fiscal provision most of the regulations are contrary to the vast majority of the public expressed in those meetings. they address regulations will exacerbate the impacts we been so concerned about on community engagement and public policy particularly in a low $2500 threshold. also, where the ordinance was unclear staff chose to interpret the regulations as strictly as possible. for example, in the member-nonmember medications area we believe that if the communication is going to our numbers and include some nonmembers in the communication that should be exempt because we would be doing it anyway is virtually little or no additional expense for the nonmember piece and it's too hard and burdensome to try to track that. this

twelve-month rule is very confusing and could be very arbitrary and unfair. if we do a study is totally not for the purpose of lobbying and were going to do it, why, and then months down the road part or all or even a little piece of that research becomes relevant, all of a sudden you can find yourself forced to register because of a study never in your wildest dreams would be a lobbying piece. we have concerns about the definition of members. the lack of a clear definition of administrative action. other concerns. what i most want to say is we hope you will not approve these tonight. these regulations cannot did most of our colleagues have not had a chance to look at them. we like to have the opportunity to comment. we like to see other interested persons meeting were we finally have

something to react to have a broader conversation and we like to see a revised version come back to this commission in favorite. >> i stopped 30 seconds. i'm not going to leave yet. lobbying needs to be regulated for purpose of transparency basically done with a scalpel so that we do not infringe on the right to expect our first amendment rights to petition our government. >> good evening. the one narrow issue of who should be looked at by regulation about internal versus external staff time. the question about what if an employee either of the nonprofit corporation goes on

company time to testify before commission such as yourself? it's an interesting issue because while under the contract lobbyists rule this person will not have to register as a lobbyist because public testimony before the commission is exam. in situations where they're spending staff time. that's one very narrow issue but speak to the larger issue about what really was the intent of the law. are we really trying to track this internal versus external ties? i hope that something you'll consider because i don't believe the intent about to make them register to make a payment constitute expenditure [inaudible] not a contact lobbyist report and alec. thank you. >> good evening,. i want to

talk about a few of the provisions with regards to the proposed regulations. regarding the expenditure lobbyists definition, subsection a that a person makes payments for the purpose of $2500 threshold. the time and expenditure for qualifying activity is incurred. first whom i think it's important that the term qualifying activity be clearly defined. second, the time a person makes payment should not be when expenditure for qualifying activity is incurred, but rather at the time the communication is sent soliciting their quest or urging of the person to lobby city officers. a person should not be deemed to make payment for qualifying activity if the communication is never sent. some section b the panfried tvs

will count towards the $2500 threshold if the payment was incurred within 12 months of the communication urging others to lobby. i believe a more reasonable time for the presumption would be six months rather than the 12. the internal staff time toward the 2500 threshold and one proposition two was being debated, the were no complaints regarding internal cost to various organizations. the complaints on the external cost of organizations for transporting members of the public to city hall. so imposing a requirement to determine prorated staff 12 months. regarding member communications, the definition of the term member includes among other things, any person who takes affirmative steps to receive an organizations

communication. that's an extremely broad definition. it would present every organization was the provides an opt in mechanism to persons who wish to receive the organization communication. subsection b sub freely distributed newsletters as counting towards that $2500 threshold. it's uncertain whether or not when the newsletter was distributed to anyone were just to an organization members. that should be clarified. i think based on the plain language of proposition c this regulation should also clarify payments regardless of content to an organization will not count towards the $2500 threshold. finally, the car to the registration reporting proposed regulation, subdivision b provides payments during eight payment period. as i noted

earlier, those payments should not count towards the $2500 threshold. thank you. >> thank you. my name is sarah-i'm up. to a nationwide occasion on offer technical assistive attacks loving and election law. to nonprofit advocacy groups. alliance for justice is ready concerns up proposition c so were grateful for the understand the commissioners so far spoken has demonstrated about the complexity of compliance. i would like to raise concerns about proposition c implemented

the pcs procedure. i'm happy to hear it sounds like there's our intention to try to pass or not as these regulations tonight. because we have serious concern of possible violation of due process. because these regulations were published on friday, january 22 and a business they will later the commission must be considering a vote on these proposed regulations. i would not allow the committee to have a free and open discussion about the pros regulations to research them to study unintended consequences. we ask you to table any vote on proposed regulations until more than just a handful of people had a chance to peek at the proposed regulations. the second stern is substantial. we sulfur lobbying organizations to cover about new procedures are currently proposed regulations and enforcement or community

education policies or procedures. so, as we can tell fortunately long they cover referring the victim of employment discrimination to the san francisco human rights commission to file claim against a private employer. it could also potentially motioned to-before judge elected to san francisco superior court. this can't be what the voters attended they proved proposition c. i think what's the ethics commission-number specialist in this field of advocacy. but i can't figure out if these types of interlock productions [inaudible]. the

ethics commission showed up the care of fine lobbying legislative administrative action and the definition of expenditure loving should not include specific individuals with specific cases but rather, it should talk about new laws galatians new policies and not specific cases enforcement. i'll be happy to answer any questions before the commission. >> good evening. my name is kevin-director of policy and we been around for 40 years. we work with parents and students around issues affecting them in schools. we primarily work with families in district 10 and 11. the south part of the city. what we essentially do is help students be campaigns to transform their schools and

proposition c turns our members into lobbyists. expenditure lobbyists are trying to spend their rights to get high-quality education. i'm here to ask you to be champions for parents and students and families we work with san francisco has one of the highest performing urban school districts with african-american latino students are left out of that. we have one of biggest gaps between white and african-american students. i'm worried this legislation could potentially harm our ability to work with students and parents to actually put pressure on the school district to address these wrongs and fix these issues. i ask for the commission to support us and the students of the parents we work with to make sure their voice can be heard in these kinds of issues of don't get bogged down in the bureaucracy that sometimes comes with having to file an additional report. that's not come to us for the expenditure lobbyists were members are trying to advocate for the right, i high-quality education to

improve their lives. i do want to say appreciate the efforts. to engage in these conversations even though we haven't got all the things we wanted that bus far, we do appreciate time and energy you've taken to listen to us. we hope you take our concerns and consideration and make sure students parents and other people don't typically have access to people in power still can have their voices heard. thank you. >> thank you. >> i think this is a difficult process to interpret and provide guidance on a while this commission moved to the ballots very quickly. i think perhaps without considering fully all of these consequences.

i think staff has done a good job under the circumstances. i think there's more work is needed. i leave you a copy of some markups i made to the proposed regulations. i think anita got some sections here that don't quite work particularly when it expenditure is incurred the timing of incurring an expenditure and reporting it it i think there also needs to be a section added in 2.110 10 either b or d but the time of reporting requirements. so the timing of one would report is appropriate. i think the

overall intent was to capture more of the activity is not currently being reported and the way it's rich and really affects everybody and relatively low level. so, if someone my understanding is if someone is getting $25,000 per working for nonprofit after spending 10% of their time creating communications to urge others to communicate with an officer local legislative omission of action that 2500, 10% of their $25,000 salary qualifies that is reportable activity. if i'm not understand that correctly like to have that clarified. >> [inaudible] >> okay, thank you. on the

question of believe-i don't believe the frame someone to a appropriate agency to file a claim go through some of the activities she discussed is the type of urging someone to communicate with an officer of the city-those officer pretty narrowly defined-for purpose of influencing local administrative or legislative actions. if someone wants to organize a campaign to influence your decisions that i sit on or the committee that larry sits on, then those would be administrative and legislative actions. but if not everyone. >> i work with chinatown

committee said that part of my job is to make sure our organization complies with the law to look at the rules and try to figure out how they're complying because i don't think you schools match-these rules are clear examples of where these should apply. if we went out and hired a consultant to the poll on legislation that's before the board, clearly, that's an expenditure and it would appear we should report that. we should indicate that. similarly, if there's pending legislation and we commission report, research, whatever on the topic and some other port ends up before you or some other commission, we should report it. those are court case. the problem for us on what we do on a day in day out basis, where eyes and ears of

the community. we are doing research all the time. we produce reports. last year we produced stars i know the only report calculating what the rates are, their rates are for residential hotels in chinatown. we did a collaborative project with organization throughout the city evaluating the living conditions. those rookies had we had no idea during the time we do this research were not talking everybody. we work-it's not with the intention were doing advocacy in the sense of some piece of legislation. so, the way the rules are set right now i'm supposed to predict or

anticipate what piece of the work were doing. were talking declines were doing surveys in the neighborhood. whether this might be legislative activity activity 12 months away and we don't know. that's not the purpose for most of what we do. again, there's clear examples which may be expenditure lopping but the day in jail operations of our organization, if the legislation-which on piece of research that have been become the catalyst for an agency to take action and then we have the report. it seems to us the idea of a look back is very problematic for organizations that are not anticipating that research or work were doing in the field is

subsequently going to become the topic of administrative or legislative antic advocacy. we do propose specific language. around hsn and-. respect to research it seems to us with the idea of this legislation to those folders are, then if our names are piece of research that were the true source of funding and we vindicate and are him reportable there's no specific reference to legislation that were not sure why that research even if it's you six months or seven months from now but public service in the what additional requirements there should be for us to go back and figure out how much various that people went to publishing the report. if the purpose of this legislation is to ensure that the public knows their information is coming from and who comes from it. tofu is no

other additional requirements we need to go back. >> larry bush for friends of ethics. i appreciate the work the commission is done to this as well as the many comments from many of the public. there's a couple of points re: sentimental. i must repeat everything in the memo but in terms of comments i've heard tonight, i want to say a few things. in terms of keeping track of internal staff, spending money, take a look at comcast. comcast reach out to all the nonprofits and asked them to show up and lobby on behalf of comcast dispute over internet axis. that was a direct example. you know that

comcast is paying someone in the stub a lot of money to put that together. in terms of abdicating on policy issues as was just about the school thing, it depends. what say you about policy at the police department on kaser's. it artie exists. mostly the new guys put together regulations. there's also sort of a q&a where people can ask questions and make it put into the record if i do this does that count but i don't do that by doing something wrong. some of questions raised tonight would fall into that category. i does one make one other point. that is, the size of nonprofits is relevant to some extent. if you

take a look at the ethics page per major developers, where they are required from last year to disclose their pain $5000 or more to a nonprofit for specific purpose of going before city agency and advocating for the developers projects they have to list quote groups and much money we give them. i look at that list. getting $25,000 to major developers to push their project. the does it nonprofits are members of the association spoken here today. those are only disclosures on development projects. the disclosures on contracts. not disclosures on policies that may take place. so: opposition c expands the

kind of disclosure that you see in part in the major developers. i recommend you take a close look at the points we make and include those you find valuable. >> i'm bob stanhope. our speak on three points it in the cup over the strait of process suggestions. the suggested definition of members is way too broad. seeking information. by contact a senior housing provider in sale to get on your list of when there's openings i'm seeking information. i'm not a member. there's no business contract between them and me. i think you can't do that. and whether or not to exclude internal senses, there again-you should not be exempt. you may need to better define it. $2500 is your current

threshold now. so, if a person working for an agency is testing august to develop a report that's used by supervisor for hearing october or paid in august of that report and there's a dead on. were for a ballot measure and you develop a report that jimmy has off to the voters the beginning of november. it's going to hurt. it pays the salad. if we go to the fact that baby becomes skeletal and make it up with

the call for six months while you work out something in detail potentially that gives you some leeway. you might even say, during that interim time you may not levy fines until things are worked out. people shouldn't feel harassed clinton not clear. i also want to sport the ideal that you should not exempt some groups as larry mentioned were getting $5000 or more from the developer because some of these groups get multiple 5000 for multiple developments. i think the blanket exemption again is too broad. many see studied carefully. though 72 hours may seem sparse, that what complies with sgt. ordinance. that doesn't give people a lot of time but that might be another reason why you should adopt skeletal interim legs so more people of time to get acquainted, the great workshop sessions and that staff do more

research on what our jurisdictions have and then come back with a better framework. >> bruce wolf. i want to apologize to ms. competition probably has not been here since the beginning. she may not be aware of all the details and dynamics that brought proposition c ford and what we been dealing with. there is california president to delay the implementation of a voter approved law. princes of the same-day voter registration law in 2014. it's a to go in effect this year because were various

aspects of it that could not put together in time to implement it. i would like for you to take that under consideration and research that. staff recommendations are concerned. first come is not the publics or spots ability to provide actual language in legislative form. i'm not suggesting their specific agenda here but more so the interest of persons meeting was opportunity to brainstorm concerns and come to some agreements him a call to all parties so that your process would move forward smoothly and expeditiously. these recommendations are provided by staff introduce provisions were just learning about and what not mentioned in any vip meetings. forte stuffs response to testimonies at the last hearing here the following ip meeting not take any of our concerns really seriously. instead, the way i read it staff segregation proposition c

should move forward on change and unfettered. this is unacceptable and frankly on unfair. the request that a full open forum with all of you come a commission's, present beholden a collaborative format to ensure and achieve some uniformity and consistency. now i continue to stand up to proposition c is for fun groups . primarily funded by private corporations and shield those third parties from liability. we've heard from somewhere you the interest of this commission to wrangle bad actors. i assure you we are not bad. the nonprofit groups your hearing from today provide direct service and/or advocacy and not fun groups or astroturf on behalf of third parties with potentially nefarious motives to shield themselves from liabilities and public opinion.

not to be able to get through all this but it was a great article by dan buescher points out in its efforts to defunct av 32 was the major climate change bill created 16 groups that have no members were no interests until themselves. they only had interest in the western states controlling associations. that's the definition you should go by. thank you. >> commissioners. i'm going to do something-i'm going to congratulate both commission and the staff on the fact that this law was passed in november and we have a solid proposal right in front of us to look at. i agree with a lot of people tonight though proving tonight

would be appropriate because there should be a lot more discussion and public input for two reasons. one, although subject to the law have a very clear understanding or least a fairly good understanding of what they're expected to do and some suggestions from perhaps staff on how they might effectuate those responsibilities. the question raised about when you have to report a report. suppose, i like to use the opposite opinion. suppose i decide and commission reports because the $7500 in my full attention at the time is to use it for the purpose of influencing legislation. i get the report and i realize 60% of it is not going to be in favor of what i want to do and i check it off to the side. if i'm required to report it when i do it now would reduce? to go back and

sarah reported this and it's never going to be used. so doesn't comply anymore. can i withdraw my filing? rcu can see that would be a nightmare. the questions here have to be ones where not only are the public and the people subject to this law need to have clarification. you need to have clarification. i think we saw in the last issue where you are discussing a lifelong waiver or whatever. you have to be clear on what the law is so that when you do come to enforce it you can do that with some degree of confidence in your decision. >> the last thing i like to say one of the things i've like to say suggestive every single

city agency took every document not subject to restriction and put it on the website, they could cut down all her concerns about having to answer public record request. i could go to the website by seven document type printed copy or pager would ever be no requirement, no expenditure of the city at all. michael the charles has been fighting to get this scheduled elected officials and they resisted meagerly. if there required to tell everybody in the public they met with, we some of us in the public would see those names look at your list of things and help you with your job. >> your time is up. thank you. >> good evening. peter cohen.

i will repeat what you further from several folks tonight which is we ask you not adopt anything right now. this is obviously a piece that needs a lot more work and discussion that you direct staff to hold at least one more interested persons meeting so we can actually discussed the draft in front of us know if we revise it and see some of our concerns incorporated into her vision. that's where i'd like to end. let me accurate you've also heard which is for nonprofit committee generally we have a lot of concerns with this first draft. it's perhaps not her intention is the most sweeping interpretation of proposition c which has a number of significant impacts, unintended consequences. and of course i does not reflect on what we think is been a very good dialogue for lasix reads with you and it seemed to take again every conservative sweeping interpretation doesn't reflect

that dialogue nor the public debate that happened during the ballot measure. so, i want to focus on what you are he talked about yourself is one of the most fundamental red flags which is staff time is expenditure loving. this is dated a chockablock work a lot of. organizations do across all staff and all function of the organization. i can't even imagine how that would work in the practical level might let alone less than a questions bit is that the intent of voters expected could either you further for many others it's heartening to hear the cats will tell you whether this really was about payments to others to do that kind of work. and influence legislative activity. not about the organization's own internal work and the work they do on a day-to-day basis. i think that

one bright line can be part of what you direct that will be a significant relief and will speak to the kind of world we operate in. it's not the only concern. the other other 2.2 and are sure to credit set for bringing this up tonight, the revised proposal to you, which is counting expenditure should be around specific legislation activity. much is the aggregate of nickels and dimes is always 2500. clearly this is about spending large amounts of money on specific legislative activity i think of that intimidation is what you embrace along with excluding internal and focusing on external payments tries to get out what i think is the heart of proposition c. we want to work with you come back work with you and come back and every >> let me say it was never

contemplated when this item was on the agenda. that we adopt the regulations. with staffs understand derrida do a first draft that should give everybody a chance to express their concerns were their agreement and to then go back and i anticipate that on the february 22 agenda you will see essentially the same agenda item and at that time we may take action, but in the meantime,-and i'll leave this up to the executive director as to whether or not she wants to schedule traditional interested persons meeting between now and th, certainly if you think you'd be helpful i would encourage it. but, in so far i

think you got some comments tonight from some. i don't know if any the commissioners what a just additional [inaudible] but i think insofar as implementation date, which i think is 1 march, i think it was envisioned whatever galatians we have will be interim with an understanding each commissioner can amend or modify them or do they want with them. commissioner hur >> a couple additional questions came up based on the public comments. i measure what happens and what has to be reported after the initial time

a person becomes a lobbyist asked to make a $2500 disclosure? i understand they would continue to have to say what-but it seems like they would have to report and subsequent months even if they did not reach the $2000 thresholds is that right? yes. as we understand the language that is the case. that's because this contemplative registration rather than a simple reporting requirements. that's exactly the outcome. the weight be proposed in the draft form is to enable if somebody were registered for that month a report they can also check off on that report that this is the termination because they want to consider the report or they could simply reports. as long as somebody is considered registered, it sounds clearly that the ordinance assumes people will provide reports for

every month following their registration. >> i'm not sure what the intent is. basically, you're saying, nonprofit. i spent $27 and this month because of doing a specific activity. every other month, no matter how much i spend $50, i need to disclose the total amount many payment over $1000 could you to track your time for every matter going forward in every month the report that even if it's not $25? to get back to this issue discontinuing obligation for the monthly reports i think it's pretty clear it's contemplated by the board. as you're all aware spinner manager was modeled after [inaudible] once you register in their after five months they terminate your registration.

>> but am i right that no matter how much you say in that subsequent meeting you need to be tracking and reporting it, whether it's by specific matter or aggregate. and if were going to require employee keep track of the time that all would have to be disclosed. >> that's correct. it doesn't sound like it's determined right but they would need to be a way to track pro rata staff time it would exasperate those administrative categories. it would make it more difficult because it's an ongoing obligation report. >> that sounds like a big concern. the other thing i got quite appreciated into one of public commenters, i like this idea maybe you didn't think you

really use this to study for lobbying on day one but sometimes it later you do use it for lobbying, and understand why want to capture that, and maybe this goes again to the staff time issue. how does the nonprofit-there to track every single thing they do pick up potentially be used for lobbying because if they don't have a clinical back and determine how much they spent? i'm not quite appreciated how difficult that would be. why like this idea of a lag and recapture some like i think we need to figure how we draft that issue. >> if there's no other comments by the commissioners let's move to item 5. >> discussion and possible action regarding the assessment

of the city whistleblower's protection ordinance. in this regard i want to thank commissioner hur who, when this issue first came up in the middle of the 2015 number i asked him as a committee subcommittee of one, to look at it and come back with a recommendation and that's what we have before us. i guess i want to thank commissioner hur the work you did on this. he did a great job and i'll let you make whatever comments you want on your proposed changes to the whistleblower. >> thank you chairman steve rennie the idea was to take

the grand journey report and analyze it and take it seriously and try to figure out what we can do to make this ordinance better. i think the civil grand journey had some good points and try to address them. i do however recognize that a lot of people in the public have strong views and views that can help make this proposal better so the idea is to hear you today, figure out what we can do to make this memo better and come back with regulations hopefully next month. >> soapy commissioner hur's swan song. do any of the commissioners have any comments on the draft?does the

requirement be in writing [inaudible]. do want to give mere thought process of why you required to be in writing? >> it's mostly because of the section 4.1 55a which is a complaint written complaint to a department. so, in that regard, it seems like that was- >> but wasn't-is make a complaint to some other government >> sure. also refers to filing

the complaint. i've never heard the term filing used in an oral context. my interpretation is that when they're saying filing that same something in writing. i'm not sure why they would want this with the deterrent is for filing. there should be a deterrent. if you're required to put it in writing to your own department i don't see why it wouldn't apply laws broadly? this does contemplate oral representations made, for example during investigations by the ethics commission. before conducting an investigation and we interview

someone and make oral statements and retaliated against for those this would cover those kinds of statements. >> did you have the occasion to talk with the controller's office who also is the whistleblower hotline. any thoughts they might have on your proposed changes? >> i think he referenced some of those conversations in here or some of the overlap. i can't speak to on every issue. >> there's no other comments i will call public comment.

>> i'm patrick-. i never [inaudible] but am a victim of retaliation driving used that free speech rights while i was employed at the hospital. i support most recommendations in the proposal presented tonight. recommendation-may authorize [inaudible]. was concerned by

this wrongful termination lawsuit. under a justice [inaudible]. it ignores judge wilkins concerned and dr. spears termination case no connection for exercising free speech rights among which this connection must fix-as i

testified government audit, here we are 13 years later directly the board of supervisors to enact a meaningful wpo. for over a decade saw been added. it's long overdue and i urge you to amend the recommendation to incorporate first amendment free speech for any employee. the reason i retaliated i was writing a newspaper column after hours on the weekend and every time a new issue hit the press [inaudible].

>> bob plant holder. on behalf of friends of ethics, i recommend to you the seven-page memo we sent him not to go through all of that. we definitely think to point out to be stress. when the dollar value wage wage from five-$10,000 it doesn't address attorneys fees to prosecute on the complaint inside the complaint menu legal cuts. if

the point is retaliated against. there's another issue i want to suggest that you're missing the point is good to be in writing. american youth samples from the time i was on ethics. not everybody works for the city as a contractor is really good at writing english. some people have a sixth-grade education as they rode out something very fact of their simplified phrases might tipoff somebody in the department who it is because they heard that person speak and use that phrase. so, the question of writing can out a whistleblower. semi, on the very last night my term after i left the meeting is about fighting person who's not fluent in english and halting only the problem that i try to get them to go into the commission office the next morning. but he was afraid. he

thought i'd be the reporter before. there's another problem with putting it in writing. this was a story that made the newspapers. a person said she went to make an anonymous complaint. she came into the office. she filled out the forms . the form had a signature signature block. she got her to get the complaint dealt with several matters she had to sign it. the interpretation by staff was by signing it did not seek anonymity. there was no distinction in the form of signing it means it. getting

missiles were signing it means you willing to make it public. she's got to be very careful to the guests say anything about having it orally submitted just seems appropriate also considering some of the people in the city are not fully fluent in english or may not write well and could risk being outed by waiting to limited language capacity. >> i agree. the city has a significant portion of people whose language emotion is a second language. some not fluent in english and some are not able to speak english to a degree. saying there is a writing requirement for them is putting an undue part burden. and it's actually what if i don't have hands. i can write.

must have the ridiculous but the bottom line, there's a lot of reasons why insisting it be in writing is not something that is a good idea. the second thing about the confidentiality. the city is notorious-i myself gone to a task force of police 40 times. the first five or six times i went up with the little box where it says do you wish to remain anonymous and i checked the box. within a week person i was found a complaint against let everybody know, wrote a letter to the task for saying mr. hart's complaint. it can be simply i have a little form. i want to be anonymous. and then the other side is perfectly free to let the cat out of the back. i myself was a subject of a similar

retaliation. i work for very large national company here in san francisco. i called her human resources office in new york which was an associate confidential line. give them a rundown of the problem in my area supervisor was in my office the next day wanting to know why i was calling new york about him. you can have a program where somebody is asked to come out and put their reputation, their name and sometimes their physical self on the line to improve government and put them in a position with maybe no confidentiality at all. i was the case with dr. hur he did everything he could in houston and he had to go out of house. and they treated him like a dog. he was nothing he could do

about it and the city has to pay a $350,000. i sounds honestly wonder what the city attorney's idea protected city is. is it protecting the city by making sure all its employees and committee members follow the law so they're not in trouble by breaking the law or is it simply to find a way to excuse the fact that when they break the law that they have an excuse. as far as free speech i know the answer is. stop him and will find same way of explaining why it was okay. >> this is a matter i did not expect we would make a decision on the recommendations tonight. it will again be on the agenda in february for final implementation. any further input the commissioners have

two staff? turning to item number six, discussion and possible action on proposed ethics commission-i complement ms. powell for a very interesting and informative discussion of the budget. i take it these are recommendations for considering making some final determination were putting it off to february 22, which is after the time limit. do you want to address this question? can we take that without objection? without objection yes.

>> this budget document was intended to provide the public with my best estimation of what i believe the commission needs to be right sized. it is a very ambitious budget document of course and it speaks to a variety of priorities and recommendations. that i would look for in the input you have feedback for better alloys. my hope would be without guidance having had a chance to talk about it more depth this evening there will be able to to submit specific budget document as requested by the mayor's office on the 22nd. again depending on the feedback you all have, that is something on the 22nd of this additional comment we could amend will we submitted but my hope would be there be some general consensus that the requests were looking

for be submitted as requested by the mayor's office. now this document also does addition to being ambitious, it does identify its art department has to cut 1.5% this year. as well as for the following year. as i said, if the document is meant to be a blueprint will be building on assuming that is not an opportunity to build [inaudible] some of the key areas essential for us to do our work in the most cost-effective way in the most smartest way possible and certainly with some of the technology issues we talked about in the package. this is an overview. if you check on pages 3, four, and five, excuse me, pages 3, and four, outlines what summers priorities were.

the filing conversion project that speaks to bringing all of our public disclosure processes into 21st-century. we've identified and submitted to the city committee on information technology and request to start doing this project development. to start project development and implementation that would create a template for people to more simply comply the requirements we have. that involves also some additional staffing we would need to help accomplish that. the second priority is in terms of effective investigation. we do have one position that suppan fully funded. we would like to be requesting about-the organization is able to attain the balance of some without being necessary to-if we were

able to keep that we would be able to fill that position that's been vacant for too long. but it's also critical for us to be able to deliver on our investigative and enforcement mandate. as you can see, were also an additional position as serve as an investigator. then some funds to with the resources we need to do the job that we have with existing resources.[inaudible]

to create a team of individuals provide public policy analysis and compliance outreach to people understand the laws to bring people a lot of feedback or hearing into the policy development arena that we will to harness the ministry of work we know and enforcement work attempted to do into shaping public policy at the front end. finally, the mr. support and transparency area. we do have a vacant position. there's no new funding request for that. i

would like to be reclassified a couple positions provide us with a higher level of work that can be done. so those are the to other areas. my view is if are able to rightsizing realign our positions will be able to meet with the ministry to support and have more effective than the coupled with the ability of doing more of an electronic filing online filing framework overall could be significantly reducing [inaudible] provided much more helpful support to the public and other sunni public information and also support for all the work we need here and to do all the commissions. so, that is in a nutshell is the recommendations that i want to outline. we also provide some basic information about our current snapshot. one of the things that's important this document is the introductory meeting. as we go

forward putting any pets together it's very important from my perspective that we get as much detail and documentation justification for these requests as possible. this document is an overuse of commissioner has this policy view of where we want to go. if so the plan to move forward and put together the most solid data to back up other medications took the mayor's office and others be ready for these resources. they'll be the plan: four but i want to find out your input and get reaction. it's obviously very ambitious but i think it's the direction that we should be heading in to deliver fully on the mandate the voters have set for us. can we take that without objection? without objection

>> i want to complement our executive director for doing an excellent job get long overdue that submitting a budget that does the job of the ethics commission to the best extent it can be done rather than going along in the lackadaisical way. in commission not being able to carry out many the functions that are nested. i think it's clear as to what's going on, who's been charged with crimes, that san francisco has developed in the course of the last couple of decades a fairly widespread system of

corruption. that is not been addressed by this commission. one of the things the mayor said in being shot dead three people were charged with corruption by the dist. atty. is he would not tolerate any type of page played type situations that most people believe are really prevalent throughout the town and have been for a wild. he simply was could do everything in his power to make sure that doesn't happen that san francisco should not turn into the soft corruption. if that is the case, mr. mayor, you should pass our budget. are fully funded budget. give us the tools to address the kinds of corruption, pay to play you say should not take

place here. again, this does it for us. it's a full amount put the executive director has outlined as necessary to do the task could i think we should push it as hard as we can with the mayor to go ahead and fully fund this commission. to do all of the jobs that you identified that need to be done in the idea of a cut is just totally a disgrace to any aspect of san francisco hennie show of honest government whatsoever. so, i want to thank you for what you've done. >> i do want to echo commissioners keane's

sentiments. a well put together document very clear. i appreciated. the couple things i want to have some confirmation on as we deliberate on this budget. basically, he filing effective investigations is generally capacity building. you wouldn't happen to know-you may or may not have done miscalculation the percentage increase from the current budget year to propose budget year to know that budget increase? would it be a 10% increase of the budget ? some these are in the hundreds of thousands. can we take that without objection? without objection it's roughly a 30% increase. that does include the bargain were getting of administrative support for a savings of $15,000 >> over two years?

>> yes for each of the two years. not that it >> there were, the next two years, i'm assuming? so, another question, are you able to do under the mr. support and transparency what you would like to do if we took the most conservative-were to listen to the mayor and took the most conservative position and submitted reductions of 1.5 and 17 and 1.5 and 18? can you do all your looking to do under administration support and transparency?? parks and recreation? no, we went. we be able to

compass the first two bullets. the third one the junior management assistant, that would happen in fy 15 >> we like to do as soon as possible but i think she's proposr the upcoming fiscal year. can we take that without objection? without objection

>> so the last thing i want to ask about was what was said or upside for proposition c. did you want to say anything about that? >> isn't something part of our operating budget. the funds are there. they're intended for electronic filing system for proposition c implementation. the one question for the tech people as well as our legal staff is to what extent could that 560 be used for youth on

projects that are not related to proposition c is that of fun unreserved that has flexibility. i don't know the answer to that question. >> good question. the last question i have is, if we take this position submitting a fully capacity building budget mandated by our voters, did you decide let's say some depending on where the mayor is he could potentially come back with partial. have you prioritized and 80s to say, going in for this. i'll probably get that in that regard if you're here the areas [inaudible]. >> that's an important

question any budget is going to have to prioritize. i would say the electronic filing conversion project is our number one priority as an organization. the taken that executive liberty mess we can free up our resources from doing paper processing, we will be continually in the 20th century.. there's a trickle-down effect or trickle up. people who are administering programs are doing other things including investigative work. if you're able to at least at a minimum start tackling this week then to start freeing up other resources do some of these other pieces of work. that said, again i want to emphasize this discussion have an additional policy resources is critical for the volume of work this

commission needs to look at in the coming couple of years. that's can be critical as well. i'm hopeful hiring of a position we currently have allocated all of this will also help us in investigative and policy work but again, that's what we have two in my view be driving home and try and increase in or to do work >> to be clear this is capacity building to build an optimal level of functionality for the department. it's not that we just one more. we've been lacking for quite some time. i will push for my commission secretary later. you telling me of all displayed out the many ways to be administrative time freed up to

do all of that. >> yes. some of the areas of responsibility ideally under reaction we hired public outreach making sure this information flow between [inaudible]. >> my last point. if there's a way we could create a cogent argument that is rational within the bounds of proposition c that could address some of the electronic filing conversion project. that would be great in which case i would-really get an understanding of that because

that helps you recalculate the cost savings you had. >> to butyrate a appreciation. hard work on this. a lot of things need to be done and you did a great job of addressing it. is stephen maffei back from his leave? >> soon. >> i have to say that has tremendously illuminated very encouraging a lot of [inaudible]. so this tuner $50,000 project how much of that is expense you think will be paid out that's not staff?

>> i think this is a rough estimate. i don't know why the specific breakdown. this is probably the through the development of external programming and support to develop. so we have an internal staff to help develop the divine scope and so forth but this could be done by external people helping me to design the system itself or upgrade the system. >> samosas project development [inaudible] i think you alluded to this but on the enforcement piece are you contemplating your deputy being a director of it of enforcement are you

contemplating the deputy traditionally staff that the commission. how does that affect how your budgeting for your >> this is not assuming any of those funds i would hope that program. in fact their primary focus would be on managing. >> going back to the proposed cuts again-i think you may have entered for this last time-if you don't make a proposal what happened? >> departments do not identify cuts and that is the choice

that the mayor's office then go then fight cuts force. my philosophy and view experience if there is a cut to be made department is always in the best position to identify where that should come from to minimize the impact. for example, if a cut were made and this is a figure from the mayor's office, fy 17 it would be illumination of the part-time funding we have. in fy 18 i alluded to this earlier though acquire $70,000 and change. also as in our campaign finance area. debbie the

elimination of one position that's considered management assistant at the position. that is as i mentioned currently a three-year project position. our hope would be you we could use that position to reallocate it for electronic filing conversion project. if we are forced to get $70,000 in fiscal 18 we not be able to use that position. >> if the mayor gives us more than we had last year and some of the class are implemented, i presume these cuts don't apply. in other words, we get more than last year there were not worried about these cuts or are we?

>> before able to be successful with some of our budget request we would not be looking at having to cut these two positions. >> i know that sounds like a strange question but am wondering given how aggressive our budget is why we have these in your? for actually going to get cut to this year to next year in light of what we have to do it would be surprising and also i don't know we want to make it [inaudible]. though not as savvy on the budget issue >> can i follow up on that. i think that's an excellent point. strategically that is keyed. i think we should go for the all or nothing type situation. if we outline there

are these ways you could not give us what were asking for. that's what's going to happen. so, commissioner, here. put his finger on one of the primary aspects of budgeting in regards to what were trying to do. let's ask that's tell him what we need in terms of the totality and what were using it for and then leave it at that. don't suggest ways to make it easy for them at all. in any respect. it becomes around the notes how you do not make the decisions themselves. so, ask for the whole enchilada.

>> i'm almost there. they believe over follow the directions we submit to budgets. >> tell them what we need for crying out loud. >> the fact is would have moderator percent increase from year over year, over the next two years, the fact is look at the real number. if the public health has increased that to $2.2 billion outfit. that's a large number of general fund. if it turns out this is important work and it's important work of the ligand classes. about sellers as compared to whatever the parks

and recreation then that's a big bang for the buck. our role and responsibility, our burden is to make our cases as best we can for why you would want to spend that $300,000. this is a good investment for you. money is money and every dollar counts but in terms of the larger city budget is less than a rounding error. it's important for us to make our case >> a staff member today pointed out. recently remembered a 2013 article about the city and county person muni bustles. the cost is roughly $730,000. i think your point is

exactly right. it's a large percentage increase in weave in flat from the decade. in the larger scheme of things, the cost of a bus. >> in terms of the city chart saving money. if by doing this whole perception of the commission is that people who try and fool around with campaign finance reports shave it here and she would there in order to give phony types of reporting for contributions and payoffs, if that doesn't happen and as a result of that those people are not charged with crimes, then the city doesn't have to go to paint all the money to prosecute and investigate and do other things that could in the long run turn

us into a money-saving operation for the city, not to mention whole aspect of morality and honesty that is the overriding thing. >> i would say ms. paolo and i met later. have a good half hour 45 min. about the commission and how could they be helpful to us and i also told them we were trying to confront him with the budget but that we had concerns and so i don't have any problem with the idea that we prepare a budget that we think is consistent with the division. talking about. and submit it and maybe in advance see if we

can get another meeting with the mayor. say, this is what we've done all they can do is turn us down. so do i hear a motion as to direction? >> i move we go forward. >> moved and seconded. >> public comment >> i miss some of the discussion. i do agree with much that i think the techno term technical term. i think we should ask for what you think you need and that the judge chips fall where they will. but it's important for the staff to

i figure be helpful if you would craft a cover letter perhaps from chairman steve any as you say that's billions small investment here reaps great rewards. i think you make the case to the mayor and then you make the case for certain case for the board of supervisors and that's the process. i'm not sure the commissioners can to get everything that is asked for it here but if you make incremental improvements instead of getting a half-million, half billion would go a great distance. it's whatever additional resource you can get to meet the staff

needs the proper priorities and the commission priorities. regular chance to meet with steve is keyed to everything around here. those are my thoughts. again, if you authorize the chair with staff i think they'll be helpful to both include with the submission put on the website. make clear notches with the plan is put your joint view on making that happen and finally if there's anything that happens in subsequent months investment is on february 22 you might have a need to tweak anything bring something back to the february meeting. >> any other public comment?

>> budgets are policy statements. for the recent past policy of the city has been don't do the things that voters have told you to do. you can see that in the controller's report about the ethics commission that only about 50% of the complaints, to the ethics commission are resolved in the course of a year. in fact, in that report it says in two years it will decline to 40% good to very troubling statistic to say the complaints are not to be resolved. so, in another context it was also said the mayor proposes an board disposes. you shouldn't

have to place to go the board of supervisors of additional funds are needed. the on with the mayor proposed. this is an exxon document that begins to pick up some pieces that are missing. it's true we don't have a commission secretary and i should do make an argument that should be one book the meantime with a policy statement you're coming close to what the charter requires of an annual reports on san francisco's laws on what needs to be done. that is not begun in 20 years. so, you're picking up pieces that then laying there at which the voters told you to do and you do not have the resources for. so i think ms. pelham and the commission for moving forward. >> i agree with mr. bush in the sense that the budget administratively are very clear policy message. since 2008,

will have second worst economic crisis since the great depression the city budget has picked up very rapidly have worked all the departments ask for more money and get more money. yet, for some strange reason the former executive director the budget stayed flat. i think that's in a clear message of those no intention of supporting the efforts of the ethics commission. i'm very encouraged to see that both the commission and the staff are looking forward to what is it voters want us to do. how well have we been doing it and what we need to do as far as resources in other words to move in the direction the city needs to move. if you ask most -most want to be involved in politics. they do not want to

vote because they figure politics is something intractable. it's dishonest. it's whatever. the ethics commission is a place where people can bring concerns and get answers and also the fact that the cases seem new. very honestly the past i've had to file couple complaints with the ethics commission and met with nothing but resistance. i don't think there's a basis for a complaint. if you have your investigators telling him all the reasons why you should file the complaint doesn't make you very confident that the investigation will be one of any of fact. the fact. one of the things and you probably may not have thought of it-maybe you did this only one i thought of was put mayor lee on the spot. this a lot going on in the news right now the most

citizens in the city really do feel we have a fairly corrupt system. it such a large system, a billion-dollar budget. a lot of corruption in there for $1 billion without becoming a major player. the bottom line is, let the mayor showed his true colors. you need having priest-it's been flat for years. now you're asking just to catch up. the mayor decide whether not he does once to decide to make a statement to the public that eyes for the ethics commission were i do not. this decision is one he alone can make. given his own position regarding some ethical questions, he needs a very clear. >> i appreciate the late-night

even working on this. it's been a big day for you. interesting. other watching you on television enjoying my häagen-dazs. it was coffee. i did want to say on the budget you did a great job in the staff obviously has worked hard on this. the executive director has done me well. we clearly flat lines in 06 and i think you're very good competitive advantage in the mayor's office because you can show how you leveled off on your funding. now we need to bump up. we have a new era. we also have a lot of international money coming into the city. i think the allegations that some the latest developments put you in a good position is i think the

public would agree. and support significant increase in your budget over the next two fiscal years. i would not go to the mayor's office with proposed cuts. i would go in as i hoped i would see you do tonight and as i say, i think you would be you be a fool not to give you deference of his budget. this next two fiscal years. i think they're going to be a slam dunk . so, on that good note. >> i will call the question. all in favor of the motion, aye. opposed? the motion is

carried unanimously. turning to item number seven, discussion and possible action regarding the ethics commissions referral to the bureau of delinquent revenue of forfeiture concerning supervisor mark farrell. i guess the first question do i hear a motion >> point of order. i object to us take up this matter. we have finished with this matter. we litigated mark farrell's illegal campaign contribution. we made our findings relating to his illegal campaign contribution. and we also came up with the penalty for supervisor farrell four is taking an illegal campaign

contribution to a committee that was a sham committee. all of that stuff is done. this of collateral estoppel aspect that it's clear on the face of this in terms of the attachments, what's being asked of us as a committee is to relitigate in some way. the last words that i remember when we went through this and want to a full litigation of it is the chairman saying it now goes to collection. it is out of our hands. mr. chairman you are correct. we finished our task. i would submit it would be totally improper for us to revisit this. in terms of what's before us essentially

what's before us on the open aspect the attachment of the same arguments made to us. statue of limitations. he did not do anything wrong or if he did do it wrong he did not know about it. we went over that exhaustively. this is, in effect a motion for new trial at this point. i object to it. i think perceptually procedurally it's improper issue go off calendar. >> and in the commons on it >> that your motion? >> that is my motion >> moved and seconded. >> can i understand-can you

tell us what it is? >> the reason why it appears back in the calendar is because the matter as you said was referred to the department of delinquent revenue which is in the treasurer's office. having met with the treasure says that their procedure is that to proceed on it is a determination of the ethics committee. they follow the agency. the determination to file a complaint or to proceed

requires a direction from the commission to tell him that's the way they want to proceed and they will follow our instructions. so, the purpose of this item is for a discussion of proposed litigation and how it should be handled. >> we've already told him how to proceed >> we send it to them. if i said it's out of our hands the treasurer's office know, it's not out of our hands. we are the ones who call the shots as to whether he is settlement were house that's hannah. the

treasurer's office will follow our directions. >> are you saying that the question before us is to tell him go forward and collected use your efforts to collect it or don't go forward and don't use your efforts to collected? >> the purpose is to give the treasurer's office and the city attorney input as to how we want it to be disposed of. >> we did that. we said that the penalty was has to

reimburse the city and county of san francisco the $190,000 which is the legal contribution agent. he owes it to the cities of the city should be out there collecting it. were not a collection agency. >> the point is, he's asking for directions from us. this communication from mr. sutton's office indicating a willingness to want to talk about it. she wants directions from us as to should there be communications with them. should there be discussions about settlement? should there be any discussions or should it just be-he's asking for advice >> iv is asking us to do his job. there the collection agents. i would imagine any debt they go after they've had mechanisms in the past to demand the whole thing or

perhaps get eight installments or settle for less. that's not our job. >> he told me is the agency is seeking the death that controls the disposition. not the treasurer's office. >> so what is it were being asked to do? >> to give him directions. i don't think we need to go into closed session for that. i think we should recommend accordance with our findings to go ahead and collect the debt. that's my motion. >> i love the motion was to take it off calendar notes a different motion? >> i'll withdraw the motion in light of the chairs!

>> if they want us to drop down the rabbit hole with him and to play in the house in wonderland game, i'll go along and put it in that kind of language and they need direction they should collect the debt. that's my motion. >> what role do we play beyond this.? to replay an active role along the way. is this the normal operating procedure every time every time it's passed before collection? >> do we have anything more,

yes. what he is saying he's got a letter saying we want to talk about it and he saying should we talk about it? it's not the treasurer who's the client. the client and he's asking us for any input as the client how we want to proceed. [inaudible]. i'm saying the purpose of putting this on was to give a commission opportunity to decide how, what instructions they want to give to the treasurer's office. as to how they should proceed. >> i'm sorry that doesn't make sense to me. we now have to be

in the position tallies the cities collection agency had a good about steps of collecting a debt. that's beyond in competence. >> it sounds to me is not to file a complaint unless the commission says that's what we want you to do. he's not paying the debt. the way to enforce it is in courts. sort of gathering is he saying, ethics commission if you tell me about a complaint of file a complaint but if were giving him some other direction try to settle the case then that's what i'm gathering he's looking for. >> my motion as he files a complaint. there's no reason whatsoever to go into closed session on this. it would just

give the appearance that somehow were knuckling under to supervisor farrell good share of the budget committee which gives it a greater appearance of genuflecting to an instrument of power. we finally decided to in a discussion that went on quite exhaustive and agonizing way we have the public involved in it, as long as we don't go back into the merits of this it's fine with me. but we've got stuff here from sutton who represents supervisor farrell in which if we, he misrepresents the record entirely in terms of what we as a commission did. i we can get into that in terms of mr.

sutton's misrepresentation of the record of what we did in saying that mr. st. croix., indeed, wade and we overruled him. that's a lot by mr. sutton. he points to a letter and said mr. st. croix the language is not in that letter. i we to get into this all of a sudden or what? why? >> have the same understanding of what the treasurer's office seeking from the chairman has described. this particular item was a close session. because as an option so you don't need to go and close session if you don't want to but to facilitate any possible discussion of legal issues if you want to have such discussions. the me

also say, i by no means had a plan to make a lengthy presentation or to have a long item or discussion that this particular matter. but we understand the commission set many meetings about this. i understand the lateness of the hour. so you don't have to go into class close session but if we do go into closed session i sure you all make the most efficient use of your time possible. >> if are going to talk about what we should to in the litigation we have to do it in closed session. otherwise,-this is a different procedural posture we dealt with the last time. last time we were trying to decide whether we should withdraw something, a forfeiture requested that was made by the executive director.

that to me is a different procedural posture and whether and how to pursue litigation in a matter. i think it's a different standard of how confident you need to be in your litigation position. only went to last time is pretty unprecedented procedure. this is a pretty standard procedure about whether pursue litigation. i think we know very clearly how and when you would want to go and do that. so, i think it's a very different. i don't think everything was fully decided in terms of what you would do as a litigation plaintiff in our last meeting. >> i move my original motion. that this is out of order and go off calendar. it's been seconded it.

>> public comment >> as far as i know it's unprecedented since went back to this body. have a list of outstanding debts that are owed to kevin been fined by the ethics commission. not one of those has ever been sent back to this commission to ask you want us to do something about it. they been on the books for a year. nothing has come back to this commission saying what about these, what about these, what about those. furthermore, in some cases you have a system of someone having to pay 1000 word $2000 and from that point on $500 a month. you never get reports in those $500 amounts

are being collected. are they being corrected? there's no report. there's also nothing that shows a vast you to do this. it's word-of-mouth. nothing was provided to the public to tell us that they were asking you to revisit what to do. it seems to me that makes this an inappropriate issue for the commission. >> i strongly agree. it's inappropriate at this time. i have mr. sutton's letter here. if you read that last page letter sent to stephanie prophet esquire, so she's an attorney, or stop she should've advised the treasurer this matter was coming up as a possible litigation issue to see what should be done, and if i would have if i was the treasurer i would've sent it back to you notification that

we were going to proceed with a lawsuit to collect pursuant to what the law says. unless you hear anything to the contrary, please be advised that's what's going on. my view is that when mr. sutton requests we therefore request this of your original letter demanding $190,000 and asked we formally closes matter, it seems to me they should have said, you have to make that request to the ethics commission. in a way that will reopen the case and perhaps at that point it would be appropriate for mr. farrell to personally make that request because everything is going to

his representative. even this letter is exchanged. it's never gone to mr. farrell directly. i would say at this point if mr. farrell wants to reopen this matter before you and appears here in person then i'd be interested to see what he has to say. i would also be interested in your ability to talk to him and asking questions, whatever those questions whether appropriate or not appropriate whatever you want to do. but i'm thinking that at this point, it's between mr. farrell and his conscience to raise this issue again before you. really it is inappropriate to be back in your shop i think you should advise the treasurer that he's collected that like you normally would like in this case probably litigate it and then negotiate accordingly. >> this matter was discussed

at great length with several past commission meetings. i think i agree with barry and commissioner keane_get would have an active selective exchange of letters. is nothing for the treasurer tax doctors office explaining what a sprained earlier in terms of their procedures. i'm actually not up to speed on the code and their own internal procedures for how they handle debts of any size including ones this large. at a minimum, i think you should've got the public

should see pork from the treasurer's office what's been done in the last six months to collect. it was an exchange of letters. i don't know what was sent the treasurer to supervisor farrell or jim sutton and whatever else or maybe a whatever avenues are to resolve this. i heard there was a request to discuss and resolve the matter and actually read that in the sutton letter unless a misunderstanding it, if there was some other letter the public certainly has not seen that.. i'm not deeply interested in the litigating the matter. i think that between the commission and the city attorney somebody got it wrong and i actually think common sense of voters is the entity we speak going after because they're the one that received the contribution and they should be made to forfeit but that wasn't my call to the extent anyone made a judgment was mark farrell the mets the judgment. i would need to see more information the treasurer's office all happened in the last six months and what the options are. i don't think this issue if rampant public so

i agree with commissioner keane's motion to not take action tonight. >> i agree with some of the previous speakers. the bottom line is, if the treasurer sent a letter to this commission saying we cannot proceed until you tell us a, b, and c give me clear information as to what the problem seems to be, then it's really nothing the public has been noticed about nothing even noticed about you should've appeared on the agenda and out to say on the sun-dried ordinance it's not properly agenda iced. this is nothing what the heck this is about. organ of a close session and discuss something. now as far as the relitigating we talk

about that perception. we can't want this and from public as there might be a question or two related to legal issues. everything i see people going to private session to come back and say were going to disclose. no. i wondered to myself, your same 1% of what you talk about in a close session is nothing you can disclose. that happens all the time. it gives the perception we went in the back room and made a deal. will come out here and try to justify it to you. the bottom line, he had his day in court. if many appearances. he didn't have -i'll be honest with you the integrity to show up and explained himself why he did what he did and why he felt he was not responsible. he sent a bunch of other people try to explain why they think he's not responsible. he's responsible.

you found him responsible to hold him responsible. going into the back and having another meeting i get the feeling from your discussion that you don't know what the treasurer wants. so what are you going to do? go back and sit there for an hour, hour and a half what is with to do to say to the treasurer? obviously, the treasurer probably does normal things. he follows in order to pay the money. they come back and say we negotiate. in all vacherie handled by the treasurer because that's what they're paid to do. if this isn't-number one it should be handled tonight definitely does is not properly on the agenda. this no information here that we actually have that we can see with the treasurer has said and again it's hearsay. i'm not

denying anybody's honesty. i'm simply saying the public has a right to know why the treasurer is raising this issue is made to have a problem with the treasurer. >> commissioners, any comments? commissioner hur >> on this question or read litigating, i hope everyone knows not to enforce the get in course matter will be litigate. it's not a real litigation of anything. that is the point at which you will be litigated. what i'm also understanding from the chairman, the treasurer will not file a lawsuit unless he gets direction from the ethics commission to do so. so the result of not doing anything when taken this item off the agenda is that no lawsuit will be filed. so, i'm a little bit

confused frankly about what everybody is saying here especially in light of what you have said in previous meetings, but that is my hair standing of this agenda item. it came out of a discussion with the treasurer's office.'s >> how do you know this >> because i believe that chairman. >> let me say, i'm going to speak out against the motion that the purpose-and clearly this is a session to discuss litigation. not to be litigate but to discuss litigation and how it should be handled. and we are the clients. under all

procedures, that is always done in closed session. the results of that will become apparent as the matter proceeds. to drop it from my calendar, i was asked -the treasurer asked what commissions of view is. i said i can't give you an answer for the commission. i can give you only my own personal preference. that howard might be handled. but it's up to the commission, the five of us, and that is the purpose of it being there. to come out of that meeting having had a full discussion about the pros and cons of how the treasurer should proceed. if

the answer is proceed full barrel, that is fine. but i think there's never been a discussion by the commission of how they want--what instructions they want to get to the treasurer if there's overture's to settle, if there's overtures to do alternate dispute resolution, whatever it is, the treasurer will look to us to give them an answer. >> with all due respect were not the treasurer's-that's not our job. if the treasurer is trying to pass the buck to have us do its job for it, i don't think we should accept that. i call the question on my original motion. >> call the question. all in favor say aye. opposed? the

motion fails. now, the question is to have a motion to go in closed session? public comment? can we take that without objection? without objection >> i think you should make clear what the vote is. only had three or four members of voting. >> it was 1-4. >> i pose the motion for some of the reasons commissioner keane out early. i think you, public discussion height of proceed. as was stated earlier. the stuffing in writing from the treasurer. as a representative from the treasurer's office. it's not clear what their processes when

something is referred to them so as a matter been referred back to the commission and the commission would initiate litigation. if so then maybe your property discuss it but that's not clear and if you're not initiating litigation but only urging the treasurer to do so i'm not sure if client and i'm not sure you should be in closed session. if you're not actually plaintiff in the action. there's a lot of questions about where we are procedurally and i would resolve them by not dealing with this further tonight but putting something in writing and having staff prepared a memo so we know where we are procedurally. at the end of the day, i think supervisor farrell

will continue to contest this matter and is unlikely to pay all the amount in my view is occupied any the amount and the question is, how much in terms of public resources should be going in-should we additionally put in to collect was likely an uncollectible debts. i think that's a strong consideration but how much money the staff the city attorney the treasurer how much money will put into this effort and where does this end. where is the public benefit to any of this? is the setting of good signal for the future to deter others from this condo. i'm not sure. >> i also oppose going into closed session. the bit of an irony in having mr. sutton make

a request since he is himself the person who received the largest fine ever done by this ethics commission. which was $800,000. we certainly never saw him come back and say, to the department of delinquent revenue, if you back to the ethics commission and asked them if they really want us to take to pay the money we decided we all. it just got done. i think you have to ask the treasurer's office show us where you've ever done this. this ethics with the health department with a part of building inspection with planning with anybody and said we want to know whether you want us to collect the debt. i don't think it happens. >> i'm still unclear the commission chairman did contact the treasurer. and asked and was this the treasurer himself

-did ask what the next step is in the treasurer said the commission needs to give me advice on how to proceed with the collection with this client whose apparently whose agent is refusing to proceed further and is demanding we resend these orders and close the matter. if that is the case, it seems like the next step is litigation and that you'll take up an executive session and have to discuss this, but i would urge you to skip stick by your guns and i would urge you to consider the reality this was a very egregious offense the way this happened. this cost or change the outcome possibly of an election. i think you have

to understand this is not a minor matter that now can be dropped. however, a little concerned the treasurer's nonappearance in all this. he obviously doesn't want anything in writing so i don't think he's going to be a particularly robust litigator. it may be this body would have to initiate the suit itself through the city attorney. in that case you probably want to call mr. herrera and vitamin and vitamin to your executive session. my thought is you might want to hold that session tonight. you might want to scrub it a little bit more. think about it. >> just so there's no mystery about it, i think the treasurer's asked what i wanted, what the commission wanted to do the reset send a

letter. is referred to in mr. sutton's letter. if the treasurer wrote a letter demanding collection and that is that mr. sutton's letter is a response to and the treasurer has us now for any further guidance as to what commission wants to do. i can't give him that guidance without talking with all five members as to what the guidance is. >> the letter for mr. sutton is going back to the treasurer requesting dismissal after september 30 demand letter. and the luck matter be formally closed that his client has never been convicted of anything. sfpd has cleared him.

this last paragraph was pretty insulting frankly given what we know. >> the question is, do you stand by your decision. he stood by your decision in front of the public summary make a motion to say but it's direct the treasurer to proceed as would normally proceed in any other such step or any other such matter. if you do not i can see it coming back again and again, every step of the process whether it's arbitration or whether it's negotiation or whatever, back from the chores. they came and said this. what do you want us to do. they did this. what you want to do. the bottom line is he broke the law. you agree to it. you found. you find them and you send it to the treasure which i think is the normal procedure. i have

to agree with one of the other speakers, many commission never heard any treasurer machen say anything about any debts that were collectible. if you send it to them accept it and they go collect. but why are they coming back here at st. giving you instructions and frankly what again are you could go back and discuss. you don't really know what it is the treasurer wants. if you go back and come back with some jerryrigged thing with rent the treasurer saying this is what i need. again the most important thing is we need something, the public can see that you treasurer put you in this position not that the treasurer had a private conversation with one individual and as a result of that now going to these machinations. that's what it looks like to me. somebody had

a private one-on-one conversation now all of a sudden this is on the agenda.. there's nothing to support it. nothing from the treasurer and again i'm not saying anybody is telling a lie but that's not the way you do business. it's not professional. you don't have a private discussion with nobody even other members of the commission know what was said because very frankly it's possible the chairman may be misunderstood with the treasurer was saying. i don't know. do you? frankly, all takes is one of you to have all the integrity to say i move we instruct the treasurer to proceed as would normally do in such a matter. get a second, pass it and it will be done. >> i think rather than argue with my colleagues we should at

least take the time now. the public as well as they do know what this is about. i didn't know what it was about until you told me a few minutes ago, mr. chairman. we-i moved to the calendar this to the next meeting. so that we can have a little bit of time out and have it framed in some way that we know what it is we are doing and why were doing it and were also is on the agenda in terms of that so that the public knows. >> i call the question. all in favor of going into closed session? aye. nami session? aye. naminay. will

not go into closed session. >> i believe commissioner hardeman cohen andin light of what commissioner keane said i want a recount. >> it's 3-2 to go into closed session. all right. you want to take a break before we go into closed session we will stay in recess for 10 min. and return in closed session. good afterno

thank you for joining us i'm bryan stretch the acting united states attorney in the northern california i'm joined by to my right is by ron davis the director of community oriented policing services office the division of the dictionary o g in one way or another director district attorney's office has been appointed by the president to be the executive director of president task force on 21st century policing and as the director noble ray to my far right chief ray reports drabl to director davis and the chief of the policing practices and other initiative division also

known as p pa i say creation follows the rumsz of the president task force on the 21st century policing and it l will oversees and evaluate the rocky mountain for strategies that implement the president's task force recommendations throughout the country transportation authority i'm joined by mayor ed lee as well as tsthe chief greg suhr this anyone city officials and federal authorities are jointly now and then the spark the doj acholic beverage reform initiative for technical assistance fireman to the sfod the review is in response by requests by the mayor, from the chief, from elected city officials and community members asking the

justifying to look at the san francisco police department and their use of force and practices the acholic beverage reform will focus on san francisco's police departments operations e operational policies and training and practices and accountability system for pertaining to stops and searchers and for the use of force and importantly there review will examine whether racial and ethic disparliaments exists with respect to the action taken and not taken by the san francisco police department director davtsz will explain in future detail by about the program the mayor and chief have requested an exhaust transparent review of the san francisco police department of justice and that is what they're going to get new let me say b a quick

word that calls for an investigation into the shooting death of mario woods immediately following the shootings our office and the district attorney's office were in close communication and jointly determined that the district attorney's office will pursue and lead an investigation into the shooting following well established doj civil rights protocols the fbi and our office communicates with the district attorney's office and we're monitoring the investigation at the conclusion of the investigation the federal authorities will is a full review fifth after that full review we have identified an unvindicated federal interest we'll pursue a separate fell investigation at that time and now i'll ask director davis for the details abou