government teacher for most of my career. i stepped out of the classroom to take my role as political director and guess what. virtually, every staff person in united educators who interface with government officials is actually classroom educator who stepped out of the classroom to represent their colleagues and the students and families we serve. it goes without saying that the people of san francisco are certainly very very weary of the activities of folks like the cocoa brothers and voted for this proposition c in order to contain the influence of corporate money, secret money, astroturf groups on the decisions that are government makes. united educators of san francisco has nothing secret about it. when i went out to work in high school to meet with a group of classroom teachers and counselors last week i was a political director of their union. what did we talk about at that high school

meeting? we talked about the needs to increase afterschool program. we talked about the problems with special ed, and the number of teachers there and staff who are freaked out by their inability to stay in san francisco, and thus, as their political director became a amateur part-time housing advocate. now, let's say a few months from now we are in melia cohen's office talking about the plight of teachers in their inability to afford to stay in san francisco. them i supposed to go back in to the meeting i had last week at burton high school and say, let's see, i spent half an hour talking about housing issues and then we spent another 20 min. on special ed issues. the only

folks that you would create a burden, if you continue down this path of reporting staff time is, the nonprofits and the labor unions that make our democracy work, which ironically, standing in the path of the cocoa brothers and their ilk from turning our democracy into something else. thank you. >> thank you. >> if there's anyone who can address this issue of whether you already nonprofits are we have to report this. that would be helpful. that's potentially pretty compelling arguments. i don't want to disrupt the flow of this. i just want to let it be known that was a concern i had. >> on the policy director of otto i spoke the last year and imagine my job is compliance masking this very question. it is absolutely true that an organization nonprofit organization 501(c)(3) needs to keep track of their. advocacy hours, not their-administrative

advocacy is not within the scope of the irs rules for c threes. we have no mechanism for tracking here we go to the number we have specific ways of designating staff were going to do the legislative work and report back. we are report annually. there's different methods for allocating time. it's quite different than what's being proposed here. but most importantly, legislative advocacy, administrative advocacy is not covered. we don't report it. it's not something we have to try. track. in addition, the form of calculation is different depending on which i think there's different selection status of these organizations who don't to a certain election

we do track our time. others track it in a different way by budget and don't necessarily have to track the time. so, the hourly increments and zone. it is-these are different standards we are mixing up reporting requirements that don't match and it's imposing particularly expansive approach with respect to this, this definition of lobbying its far far in excess of what we have to now. >> thank you. >> good neither of 501(c)(3) or c-4 but if you think were deep pocket organization i invite you to our union hall on golden gate. or the website and see what we pay each and every staff person every year. every last penny of our budget is

paid for by housekeepers and dishwashers and workers in hospitality industry and if you think putting more obstacles and more burdens on them furthers democracy are mistaken. those women and men facedown giant corporations every single day and risk their livelihoods to do so. if this law poses a threat, it addresses the cause of democracy you'd see more corporations here testifying in opposition to some of the rules you're presented with. now, let me make some concrete examples. just in the last couple of weeks we have stopped documenting wage abuses, health and safety issues, disability access, corporate perjurers, any number of which could be matters for legislation or regulation in the city anytime. now, you may be equipped to document how well every single staff person at this commission

spends every minute of their time. we are not. i could not come back 10 months from now and tell you if there's a discussion arising around revising gross receipts wools that we had a staff person spending two weeks of their time documenting issues that became germane months later. the idea that a bus documenting everything. persons time down to the minute is the only design-it can only be designed to hamstring community and worker-based organizations that are trying to promote public advocacy. i used up unqualified respect for this commission and the work it does because the overriding problem in our society is the imbalance of power between rich corporations and working people. that was certainly the rhetoric the voters hurt when they voted for proposition c. i strongly urge you to keep the elimination of

staff time as reporting and keep the restriction on single issue tallies toward the $2500 limit. doing anything less than that only puts more burdens on the working people of this city and we don't need more obstacles. >> thank you. >> i got into this work because i care about civic engagement and i personally think that's the biggest single obstacle we have to having a fair society is money in politics. what this the proposition c in its current form it hurts us. it does not hurt big business. as you are from representative from-i apologize-this is why you're not from seeing pg&e here. they don't have organizers on socket we do. what we want to do,

where we-none of our money comes from big corporations get number novick comes from developers. none of it comes from the city at all that comes from small members donation. when we get $100 we consider that a major don't get what this would do to us is prevent us from sending out organizers to building when we heard there are problems in that building and checking in with other tenants to see if there's a problem. this would prevent us from sending people to the rent board to testify about actually purging laws already passed to be of help. upheld. we don't have anyone on staff could we one 1.75 people on subdued even our accountant is a bond. we want to follow the existing laws of putting more burden on us could shut us down. these, i

think this language is being sprayed ddt to get rid of our deep but it kills the grassroots. think about that. >> thank you. >> good evening, commission. we organize and work with low income chinese immigrant families all across the city. folks may note i work through our coming to an beechcraft where we worked with countless low-wage workers who in the restaurant sector basically through hundreds of community surveys we trained committee members to talk to their coworkers, talk to other people on the committee and found out one into restaurant in chinatown are not getting paid minimum wage could so they are encountering wage theft is just the norm. we found that out we

lease the results of our survey. we have recommendations that how the city could address this problem and we engaged these workers to fight for their rights. for us, as a small organization we are also staffing fluctuates year-to-year based on the funding available in our budget, we are under 15 staff and the job of most of our staff is to work with community members. is to talk with these monolingual immigrant workers who are working hard just to put their kids through school i tried to survive in san francisco, getting harder and harder every year and our job is organizers basically to talk with these folks, help them understand their role in fighting for the right and bring them to places like commissions and to department heads into the board of supervisors to hold our elected officials accountable to what

is a basic law saying that every worker should at least be paid a minimum wage in the city. some inherent about these regulations proposed in proposition c accounting staff time as part about loving i think for us it's crippling. we cannot just imagine sitting down with the worker being able to translate a letter they got from their employer were helping them understand what their rights are. that's all staff and we were nice people. work closely working with people in the community and try to bring them into spaces in the public way can advocate for themselves as well. so, i think we took this report and recommendations we took it to that apartment. we took it to the office of labor force and standards regenerative health commission and we talked to a lot of other non-legislative lobbying bodies that are currently counted and for us to look back on the report and will be achieved with it and be with to raise the education of

the committee and also the whole city bulk waitstaff, i don't know how we would've been able to do all that if we are under these kinds of regulations that were accounting staff time. so i urge the commission to consider this particular issue doing that negatively impacts a lot of nonprofits organizations trying to help the community. i do want to say that there's going to be some recommendations language amendment coming from peter had that we strongly support and urge you to consider it. >> thank you. >> good evening. i'm from housing rights committee with citywide tenants rights organization. we are mostly city funded. we are definitely not funded by developers. we really supportive of reigning in big-money and the way these big companies and even like, huge organizations lobbying

forms and spend money to-no one i know voted for proposition c thought coupes like us were a problem. i want to tell you about one situation which sort of shows this. 1049 market. it was good to be 150 units in three buildings. the landlord was trying to advocate out of. that would've been the largest ovation in san francisco since the i hotel in the 70s. those tenants rented. units thinking they were legal. they got a letter from their landlord saying they had to be out in 60 days. there's just a few of the hundreds of tenants out early, when we talked to said fees invite me to a meeting. please call me because they don't have access to the computer system that will tell them what time the meeting is moved to last minute. that's staff time. with

the tenant and 49 market st. tennis, we turn them out to meetings. coming to talk to dbi, talk to planning commission to recall the mayor's office was actually supportive on the some good supervisors offices in the rent board trying to solve a really complex problem. many of those tenants are still in their homes. we are small nonprofit could i want to say to some of the folks advocating this for small nonprofits, which is staff should take time away from the task doing to do this reporting? which building of tenants being thrown out will we not help because were sitting in an office trying to figure out which 10 min. segment we were talking to about? honestly, looking at you guys argue about a subsection it so complicated would have to get legal counsel so we can figure out which task we are doing. part of our

funding, most of our funding from the city is to do these very tasks. how are we going to do this? we support the amendment that peter cohen sent is going to present to you so please, please look at small nonprofits as different from huge organizations. it's really a different ballpark >> thank you. >> good evening. my name is debbie larman with the san francisco human services network. first of all i like to express support for draft language that peter cohen will submit on behalf of the group here tonight. i also want to object to suggested alterations to the single matter and staff time parts of the draft regulations. i want to focus on the research and report piece tonight. the current staff version would have any work product cited for

grassroots lobbying purposes in 12 months create retroactive obligations to register and report expenditure. this is arbitrary and outraged. i was as c and no language over transform and unbiased non-loving reports into lobbying expenditure because of a call to action many months went. these expenses are hard to track particularly if staff time is reportable because you don't know what reports might be used down the road. very unpredictable. even in jurisdictions that have similar rules 12 months goes far beyond what other jurisdictions require. there needs to be proximity between the reports and the later use to show the some nexus, some lobbying purposes behind get we urge you to adopt a three-month wool is an appropriate time period it we also ask originally was not accepted by staff, to accept reports if the true source of funds is disclosed because that shows transparency. i am

suggesting alternate proposal that tourist action often commonly have two exemptions for reports research that are currently not lobbying could use widely accepted as an exemption for nonpartisan research analysis and report. these are educational materials. funds of ethics even cited that exemption in their comments. there's also equally common exemption for examinations brought social concerns. this is not lobbying even if it's use away. this report in 2001 it's a conference of the survey of our -we surveyed a couple hundred nonprofits of over 200 data points in a few those points have been used in the advocacy many times since then but was not that no lobbying whatsoever in the idea that this would transform into expenditure lobbying because of a call for

action on one data .10 months later is absolutely absurd nature menace overage above and beyond what any other jurisdiction requires. i ask that you take a look at these reasonable exemptions accepted by many other governments and peters language but i did make some separate copies of this line was that on guesstimate for your consideration here tonight. >> thank you. >> good evening. my name is lauren kohn. i'm a housewife teresa. a nonprofit provider of substance abuse disorder treatment and mental health services to homeless and low income san francisco. i also support the amendment grilling was that peter cohen will be presenting in a few minutes. i'm here to specifically expressed concern about the proposed regulations that expenditures on research today they be required to be reported as lobbying up to 12 months

went. we are an agency constantly learning and participating in research with the dual aim of improving healthcare services that we provide and being good stewards of the public dollars that fund our services. we have many reasons to share these information reports with our agency stakeholders which can be defined as anyone interested in healthcare services for homeless individuals including those in key decision-making capacity. the regulation that the publication and distribution of a non-loving reports can be considered lobbing is less than 12 months later seems to discourage nonprofits from sharing actual nonpartisan or relevant information to the decision-makers. i urge the commission to adopt an exemption for nonpartisan research reports and reduce the 12 month timeframe for other reports to a shorter period such as three months. thank you for your time >> thank you.

>> good evening. my name is kevin-dr. charles anointed at coleman advocates we believe education is a human right and all students and families deserve to have their cake to high-quality education that sends him to college allows them to have a career to live in san francisco and be successful. when we see the san francisco that's not the case for a lot of african-american and latino students especially here allow learners and special education students. they don't seem to have the same education outcomes a lot of other students could last week, bunch of students from lowell high school walked out because the bulletin board at their school filled with races but through about black people. been a small minority group in the school they felt they had a voice or an avenue to get the support they needed. what we see here is a barrier to the work we do with our student

compared numbers in schools to make sure they get a high-quality education. people don't know this but san francisco education system is great if you're not african-american or latino. you're more likely to be arrested or suspended more likely to not be in school, more likely to not graduate college and career ready. so i ask you today to take that into consideration as you make your decision today and understand these of real-life applications in harm for people don't have a voice right now and are being denied the right to what we do is try to make sure that everyone is treated fairly these regulations prevent that and create barriers to make it more difficult for us to do what it is we do which is make sure that low income families have access to education. i don't think that's what the voters voted for. i don't think voters want to see a school district that is the worse and educated african-americans compared to white students that we have never we've had a lot of successes that actually passing policies and getting

things to get us moving in the right direction. these regulations greater barrier to making sure those things get implemented and could be to students not having a right to get a high-quality education going back to the school district i graduated from that didn't prepare me to go to college going to have counselors about me that put african-american students in special education class because teachers do not have the support to deal with them. these beware these regulations can cause a lot of harm to a lot of communities and families could i know that's not the intention but i could be the possible outcome. these take our thoughts and consideration and peter has some amendment the wild address these things and protect the voice of students and their parents and the communities they're being left out. >> thank you. >> good evening, commissioners. thank you for the opportunity to speak before you tonight. i'm rachel richmond and i am here

representing professional and technical engineers local 21. we are a nonprofit a 501(c) five and our mission is to help our members remain in the middle-class and not get pushed out of san francisco. by advocating on their behalf. i want to address two issues. staff time and registration and reporting threshold. i strongly urge you to adopt the draft regulation option a, page 3, line 23-26 of the proposed regulation that is also referenced the couple of other places in the regulation. staff time is already largely reported under the contact lobbying requirements. requiring again does not really give a whole lot more information except that you might know more people are doing more things. concerns

have been raised that large corporations within an expensive in-house capacity will use this exemption to avoid reporting when they have a major push going on. this concern is based on a hypothetical advocacy model in which a organization would theoretically call people on the phone or talk to them in meetings and somehow to mobilize them that would never incur an external expenditure. i know of no organizing model, or organization or business, who when working on a major local issue manages to avoid all external expenditures. for example, can you imagine even if they had great in-house capacity, which they do, they're going to spend money externally on things like consultants, on teachers,

signs, buses, bart tickets, sending stuff to the milhouse, postage to get things out. what will cause. leaflets and most importantly, lots of food for attendees sitting through another five-hour board of supervisors meeting. a corporation that reports $30,000 in postage is definitely up to something very big. that's what the goal is. you see the contract lobbyists have a lot of contacts with the supervisors then you look at that expenditure and you can tell they're spending a lot of money and time on something. it is much simpler to do it this way. i hope that you adopt that. thank you very much >> thank you. >> good evening. i was a floor

person pro tem of the 2013-14 civil grand jury. entity ethics reporting. i got some comments here. i'm just a focus on this question of the reporting threshold and the assertion of language of a single matter constituting the threshold. because this has the effect of amending the language that was passed by the voters. and whether $2500 is the right threshold or not, and that's subject to amendment by you in the board of supervisors and sony has been debated to some extent, that's where it is right now. there's no concept of a single matter. the reporting entity is the organization. it's not you shall report on single matter. if you look at the draft forms

that are in the pocket you are looking at, they're all talk about organizations reporting. when you start breaking it down by single matter or which isn't defined anywhere, and certainly can be subject to a lot of different interpretations might think again about really hard time enforcing this ordinance. if you put it in a regulation. in general, i'm singing some these draft regulations maybe should not be a regulation at this point. maybe you get the ball rolling, get people reporting they come in for an interpretive guidances. staff gives a better sense of what the real problems are, whether skip issues and things like that and you break things down by regulation and potential amendment to the ordinance. you proceed from that but from where i sit the important thing is you get this process rolling

and then see where we are and what the issues might be. so, i would strike a single matter of on line 13 and 17 page 1 of the draft regulations. strike, a matter of, on the line 9, line 25, page 1 am and 922 of page 3. it shows up in a different bunch of different place. you're sort of square with the language was passed by the voters. >> thank you. >> accessibility seems to be an ongoing issue with that but to continue advocating about.

my name is jessica lehman executive director of senior disability action. while about civic engagement as seniors and people with disabilities. especially those who are poor and people of color lgbt these are among the most alienated and disengaged groups. people don't have computers and internet access to be able to to the research. people don't have transportation to be able to get around easily. people who just are not familiar with the working of administrative or legislative advocacy don't necessarily think it's worth speaking out because they haven't traditionally been heard. he's the folks we work with to say we also need seniors and people with disabilities to be heard in our community. on the issues that affect their lives. we provide direct services. we provide a lot of information and education. we talk to people

about issues they care about that so you get people involved. you ask him what they care about. i know that is housing. that's healthcare, and navigating the complex system. it home care. were looking at a subsidy for people we don't qualify for government but it is good to get out they need so they can stay in their own homes not go to nursing homes. what about programs is senior and disability university we train people how to go speak at a hearing how you put together your story. i do think about your story. how do you tie your extension with major policy issues. we can talk what those separated from actual policy issues. so we had a conversation about this issue specifically a staff meeting this morning and i gave people an update and people were really worried and nervous about what this could mean. and confuse. i realize this could have people really afraid, our staff, afraid to talk to people about getting involved. afraid to call it senior or disabled member about what's going on in our community and about what they can do about it to cairo what they care about. i know

that's not what you commissioners are trying to do tonight. we have a solution to exempt internal staff time and other internal costs. that's how we can preserve an environment where senior disability action and others can continue to get people involved in our community and i think we all agree that's the kind of community we want. >> thank you. >> my name is bruce-i also work many other nonprofits. just to reiterate i support and we support the amendment about to be presented to you shortly. first off, i want to notate that san francisco has public disclosure laws for nonprofits.

that are contracted with the city. specifically, they direct that the work of the reporting should be cost neutral. that means, not costing them any money. that has been-my question to you then, has there been a study on the cost effective proposition c on all nonprofits including those not contacted by this. i want to read it first, and to this body on the subject on proposition c's intent for exactly commissioner keane's groups and get the nonprofits in the room represent san francisco could in fact, most are not in the business as you put it. those are set up specifically for and only perform legislative and political action. overgeneralizing what the voters voted for we all know is

also very simplistic. some very concerned about the belief in intent of the proposition on about in the first place. that said, which nonprofit designations are we really referring to hear? agile? state has its own to. so, i'm not quite sure talk about c-3 and some about c-4 but there's c-six, c 12, his oldest of them. i'm not quite sure what designation with regard to nonprofits this is referring to. also, having times can report be gained from expenditure? would've the same report was being used in multiple different pieces of legislation? do you have to report the same thing each and every time? what about if only part of that report is being used not all the report cubic the report covers many different times. for instance, at how call justice we might have done a study on powdered alcohol and the harm it does to

young people and the general public. all of a sudden, there's some interest in making banning it in the state of california and they're going to use that report. do we have to count that? has no legislative part to it at all except that honestly, we should ban it. that's what the society would want. so, if report was done sometime prior, even a year to not get tension of addressing any legislation does not used or spun for legislative purposes, it should be exempt. medical journal articles on the harms of all kinds of things or the good things about it should also be exempt. >> thank you. i am going to ask for a 10 min. recess and we will reconvene at 8:15 pm. >>[recess]

>> thank you ladies and gentlemen for your patience and letting us take a break. and i will now ask for additional public comment. >> leaving, commissioners. peter >>[adjournment] for the council of community organization. we have 24 member nonprofit organizations and were all in the housing advocacy and housing the vomit world. i had submitted copies i think it's a two-page set of amendment. commissioners, over the course of the last two months and several hearings you been asking for specific

language in the regulations that might address some of the issues we brought forth so that's what we have here in front of you could know you're taking section by section so really the first page are amendment jermaine to what you just discussed in the second age is the other two sections. in listening to you deliberate and also hearing the series of speakers talking about if you will, the real world, the world of grassroots advocacy and civic engagement ring in people into the public conversation. that's what san francisco's democracy and the san francisco model is all about. we feel that these amendment are very fair and speak to that kind of real world thing we do. whether it's the reporting provision that debbie thurman talk specifically about, we do think the single payment thing single issue thing is very important you to talk more about that. the idea of shortening that

period from 12 month down to three with two which is what our proposal is talk about real-time to activity, the additional at that bottom of the page of provision specific without advocacy related to the enforcement of existing laws, which we do not think is what proposition c was about which was walls changing on the policy and legislation or before relating to enforcing existing rules and would like that called out and lastly and most important he section d which is about staff time and internal expense. this is the crux of it for a lot of these labor and nonprofit organizations you heard from. this is the day to day work that happens to engage people again in the public policy process to start covering that and saying that's what proposition c is all about is really baffling to a lot of us. we do ask you again really consider that is fundamentally the most important issue on the table. lastly, i hate examples brought up good i wrote notes. at&t, the coke brothers. whole

foods. then we hear about the ron conway's the big givers, they're not in this room. they are not in this room. the irony of what happened with proposition c white a lot of us took it visible addition i guess it becomes suddenly about what we're doing the little foot soldiers tried to push against the coke brothers and the ron conway's. they are not here. we are the ones that feel like we're fighting for our survival. we really ask you to make these amendment to help you help us continue continue to do what we do in the spirit of proposition c. >> good evening, commission money was jonathan-an attorney at the law firm. i'm not here to speak about any of the actual legislative or regulatory language is being proposed. but my concern is

that the effectuation of this. as you may be aware is your hopefully aware, this lot is currently ineffective when to affect february 1 and today is that close the reporting deadline. by march 15 regardless of whether regulation was passed for not this lot would require nonprofit all expenditure lobbyists to file reports with the ethics commission. i previously expressed concern that would not have regulations in place for the effective date of this. i believe it's very difficult for any entity to track their requirements under this law because they don't know whether to count staff time were not big no-no when the expenditure date is reported. my only concern-i want to express this now before later in the night to the extent you guys decide not to adopt any regulations today, again because the next meeting will not be until the report is due, i strongly strongly strongly encourage you to consider a be postponing the date or not requiring reports be filed by

march 15. this is not a political issue. this is simply having everyone in this room and everyone not in this room know what their obligations under the law are. something to consider. i hope that you guys do. i actually did not plan on commenting about how this law should be in effect but i'm kind of--i kind of realized that a thoughtful issue for whatever because of the way constitutional concerns, speech consumes whatever it may be, you are not able to treat a large corporation or small nonprofit substantially similar and substantially different ways to save the goal issue. now you have two is just a line drawing issue. the point you want to cover an action by

large organizations whatever you do them we covered by nonprofits and then you have to apply to smaller nonprofits. now you have the balance plunkett if you cover one and the others. people we pull back a little bit in order to give leeway to smaller nonprofits but unfortunately your goodies based with the same issue that will be the same we wait for large organizations that may want to regulate however you make it so i think you're doing with a fun mental line drawing process and while it won't be a perfect process, i urge you to think about it in those terms may be some solution will be found on these give or take issues. like said before it's all cost benefit for every action there's a reaction. i'm not saying anything but my main concern the march 15 report will be due currently. >> thank you. >> good evening, commissioners. briefly comments as the last speaker on this issue, i did submit written comments on february 16

and have the following comments. i like to comment on when the payment is made. i've advocated that the draft regulation should provide the payment is made when the communication is sent. staff recommends a regulation should provide a payment is made when the expense is incurred. however, in status memo they indicate the payment alone will not trigger qualification as an expenditure. there also must be activity to solicit request or urge for the persons to lobby but that does not really mean when the communication is sent? second, i still believe 12 months is a long time for a look back period to determine services were whether the product was used urging others to lobby. the lobby law already uses a three-month or not to define an activity expense and similar three-month period

could be used in this context. third, and finally, there's the issue as to whether salary payments will count towards the registration threshold based on the legislative history of proposition c such payments should not count. in addition, excluding salary payments will not result in the nondisclosure of an organization's effort to influence the public to lobby. even if the organization has in-house communications and public affairs staff which prepare and conduct the outreach to san franciscans, only salary payments would be excluded from the calculation of the $2500 threshold. all other payments made to communicate with the public would count touches your advertisements your mailers etc. >> thank you. >> i was answering the previous question and i want to just complete my comment to my original comments were addressing different matters. i want to address the question of the language of proposition c. there's nothing in the language of proposition c which directs

that we regulate staff time. i think the comment that the city attorney at the last meeting was that was up to the commission to decide. it's a question of interpretation. suddenly, a valid argument presented of the discussion did not mention that staff time would be included good there's nothing in the language itself. there is one little-one aspect of the legislation which i think suggests was not the intent. suddenly, when we read the legislation coming through was not based upon that the state. in the legislation and the mechanics for reporting there are two structures. one for contact lobbyists and another for expenditure lobbyists. date expenditure lobbyists said nothing about salaries or compensation to staff. however, the contact lobbyists section does. so, you have two reporting schemes for

the contact lobbyists and expenditure lobbyists. one speaks to salaries and the other is the expenditure does not. the reason why that is important is the question you're going to have to address later today and that is a question of the disclosure requirement. under proposition c, if staff are expenditures that we have two reports, then we have to identify the staff. identified according to the forms name and also the amount of tainted this raises significant issues for hr and confidentiality. what's interesting is that the contact lobbyists provision addresses that issue specifically pricing you don't have to say the specific amount that is paid. so, in other words, what we seen very in equitable is it

was an attempt intended on one hand you have a more a broad and less stringent requirement for reporting salaries with perspective contact lobbyists which everyone agrees are exactly the genie and someone and on the other hand, for expenditure lobbyists we have to basically name our staff were doing this work and tell the public what they're being paid. that seems very unfair. it cannot of been the intent. there's nothing in the legislation that's proposed that gave the voters idea that we will have to call out our staff to report how much they're getting paid. >> avenue spoken before? >> not understand. i spoke previously. good evening. mark solomon again. i like to raise

chairman stephen possible conflict in the partner resource center gets about six figures and stop funding from the city. the commissioners not just on the hsn and spoken today bolstering hsn's position. the contractors) should be dealt with. the nonprofits there a moment secret from us. older advocacy is a group that biases nonprofits in the hsn has used it. deal with her advocacy says nonprofits need to keep records of their lobbying activities and expenditures in order to demonstrate compliance with federal limits. track your total lobbying expenditures including staff time is what a nonprofit consultant says it would have these people same weekend do it. the language were hearing today the sky would fall at the language of the law were not vetted for their convenience but the sky is falling in san francisco and the nonprofits are doing practically nothing to stop it.

they may be working hard themselves but compared to the task they're not up to the challenge by any means. they could not be passive moratorium in the mission. there's a lot of sound of your signifying very little. all the profit organizers and omission riled up we remain terminally unorganized and people are paying a price for it and there's no feasible move to stop it. tired of going meetings myself full nonprofits from the only resident in a meeting. folks who don't live in the city are coming in the same, we in the mission think this. when they're really work for nonprofits whole goal of the operation is to organize the community go ahead and demand more a more policy decisions but in general more money for the nonprofits to keep the game going. the fact that refer themselves as the community, they're not the community. the people who work for corporations get paid by the city to do things. i think that offends us all. dr. member nonprofits are also private corporations could there not the public. their private entities not even shareholders

just would board says that wholly unaccountable. good to go prior out to meetings from the idea of how our dollars are being spent. get to talk about the [inaudible]. her conglomerate cartel of a bunch of very large nonprofits which a quarter million dollars cycles through per year and are going for more of it. with that kind of money, i think there's sufficient resources for -especially to do with a need to do to make sure we know how they're organized. this idea of hiding behind tiny nonprofits for this is really a nonstarter. but i think we should do is get a government to open nonprofits to meet their obligations under the law so that san franciscans can know how our tax dollars are being cycled through a nonprofit economy to influence public policy and really insulate government from real demands for change could not only do these nonprofits lobby for money they also insulate their preferred from demands negative to the public. >> thank you.

>> well, any comments by the commissioners? >> thank you mr. chairman. i would like to just address one thing. i said the last time that when we were taking this up. here, i speak as a professor of constitutional law. who's taught it for many years. in addressing the first amendment, in terms of who is speaking, it doesn't make any difference what the size of the corporation is, with the motivation behind the corporation is, what the motivation beyond the entity

is, or much good one entity is doing as opposed to another. as we adopt the general theory that we want transparency in government and wants reporting of expenditure lobbying, to make distinctions between one group of organizations and another would be content-based distinctions violating the first amendment. the entire ordinance would be struck down by anyone who challenged it. it would be struck down in the first court hearing. the example-there are number of cases on this area, but the main example has to do with picketing. in terms of where number of communities act in the 50s adopted laws that you can't pick it in residential areas. communities can do that because they have an interest in not disrupting the quality of life in a residential area. in a number of these communities, however, labor unions then that lobbied, as

the law was going through, wait a minute here we have a legal dispute relating to things like whether or not people have been thrown out of jobs, whether they are scabs working, whether there's all sorts of terrible injustice is being done good we should be able to do the good things that labor unions do because you are really not-it's really not us your concerned with. in regard to many of the things that you said about many of the organizations that have spoken tonight, you are quite correct. it's not you we are concerned with. however, in order to have-by the way those cases in regard to those ordinance past, say no picketing in residential areas, however, for labor unions is okay. they were struck down. by the us supreme court in all series of cases. if anyone is

in chicago happy to give you the citation saying that you can't make content-based discrimination when you are regulating speech. that's what we are doing here. we are regulating speech, the manner in which groups can advocate and lobby. if were going to do it would have to do it for everyone. we can't pick and choose. the ordinance we wrote and that 75% of the voters of san francisco past would be thrown out the first time it was challenged on the basis of the fact that it is content-based and therefore a violation of the first amendment. that is our starting place would any of this. so, in terms of every one of us up here, i am sure all the things you talked about, in terms of the need for injustice not to be visited upon hotel workers,

the need for there to be advocacy for gay and lesbian people and bisexuals transgender individuals, none of us up here would disagree with you on any of that address to be strong advocacy on this. but there also has to be this general transparency of the dark money and all the other things that are driving politics here in san francisco as well as around the country san francisco has become very corrupt in a lot of ways in my opinion is that watching over the course of the last 50 years, could it become extremely corrupt and become corrupt much of it because of what we're trying to do it here. so, what you are saying our hearts are with you, but there isn't a damn thing we can do about it. we want to meet our sons abilities as individuals who are charged with having an ethical system of government in

san francisco. >> any other comments? >> chairman renne i'm not an attorney it's hard for me to say this is not a damn thing we can do about it. i think there's something we can do about it and i guess commissioner sp keane how you square this with an exception for contact lobbying because contact lobbying can get you the same outcome that expenditure lobbying can do. you are mentioning this concept of the actual content of the particular, certainly a proposition c. why is it different for contact, or for expenditure and for contact? >> it's not. i wasn't on the

board when the board passed whatever it had to do with contact expenditure lobbying. contact lobbyist. if there is -if there are content-based distinctions for various groups within that, the law is unconstitutional under the second amendment. this is the question-first amendment. it just a question of when someone attacks it. if i were here when that was being taken up i would be saying the exact same thing as now. >> i think historically was not of the commission level. it happened at the board of supervisors. >> that's your answer then. >> the board of supervisors inserted in media exemption. >> i don't think it's him and attack it would stand up >> what provisionally talking about? >> the larger component of

exempting nonprofits? >> i wasn't talking about any provision. the whole tenor of what i said was,, if you're going to regulate groups that advocate,, you have to, based upon the meeting the definition of expenditure lobbyist, you have to do it to all of the groups in the same way. who come under that definition. >> i don't necessarily disagree with that. i don't disagree with that. my concern is practical. you have a benefit, which would be you would have 501(c) four, other

organizations are we want to know this information, and we have a number of groups, nonprofits and labor unions, for whom this is going to be quite burdensome. so, to me balancing the benefits and burden i think we are getting a lot of benefits from proposition c even without this i think we eliminate the vast majority of the burden if we agree with the staff on b and that's why i propose we adopt it and i move that we adopt 2.105 five with the amendment i propose in a, b and b-one. >> having to do with the $25 must be single matter in all those? >> i propose we eliminate that. a single matter. >> i think i propose that >> you agreed with me but that's fine. i close we amend

so a payment is made at the time of inactivity takes place. an amendment that 12 months is reduced to six months. >> those off-line >> i propose we adopt 2.105 five. one thing that the public mentioned, single matter of the identified a number of places and staff should make that consistent >> none of the things you talked about has anything to do with picking out one group of organizations and treating them differently than others. what you're talking about is what the definition will be in regard to the expenditure of a $2500. >> that's why i started by saying i agree with you. >> maybe were talkin

each other. we may be. if so we apologize >> so motor >> asked for clarification on subsection b. is your motion he would be d as reagan's in lines 23-36 >> as staff proposed >> so not including additional language? >> that's right >> thank you. >> one of the concerns i have- >> i'm sorry. under subsection e if i could clarify the amount on line 3 this provision was intended essentially to say things that happened before the operative date of the law won't get with this is right out only speaks to registration expenditures. we intended i think is to say this would not count for either registration or reporting purposes. so, i think for clarification we will be on line 3 proposing for your consideration to strike the

reference to $2500. leave and then say he would not count towards the qualifying or reporting threshold period on line 3. i want to raise that issue. >> how about changing the line one from february 1 to february 29? >> sounds fine to me. >> i guess the difficulty i'm having dealing with this is because i really sympathize with much of what was being said by these organizations whose primary purpose is advocacy, to organize the community. that's what publicly known that their purpose. it's not a question that there's something being hidden from the public. it

seems like were in a position where it's an either or could that we either exempt all employees for any organization number regardless of what it is, or we exempt nonprofits and make private sector report, and i think i tend to agree with commissioner hur insane that in saying that the burden were placed on those kinds of organizations out there is advocacy and everyone knows they're out there advocating. they're trying to organize the community, the burden we put on them as opposed to by keeping

in this broad language or if we take it out, which would leave the burden from them but may provide a vehicle for cheap cane or a chicanery by the more moneyed interests that are smarter and think of ways to get around any regulation we have, it's just-i think we've got this could we have a motion that we adopt regulation 2105.5 , with the amendment discussed and do commissioners have any

questions? >> all second the motion >> dry razor clarifying question regarding subsection d. was your intent commissioner renne, in terms of the family not date were used onto the comment not requiring any reports the next deadline- >> just moving the cut off date as to when payments will started. >> right but if the commission adopts a regulation that no payment that anyone made during this month counts that means absolute knowing will need to file a first monthly report. is that the commission's intention? >> i see that point and arguably we could require them for february because were implemented now but it does seem more fair to implement for people to start counting after they know what the rules are. >> i be prepared building a reporting on the 15th. it would

be 15 april. >> yes but i'm not sure how much support. the ordinance clearly states its operative february 1. >> so you're saying there is a legal impediment to us moving into fabric 29th? >> yes i think there's a concern that. we did is there a concern or is it a-does it prevent us from doing it we pick >> market so you can't do. i'm better you it's a concern because it's in black and white. because it's february 1 but the lease on measure the commission understood what it's going to expect on march 15. >> we've got our attorneys concerns. and will give them due deference, but i agree with commissioner hur that were not up in the air right now to not have adopted situation, and i would go with what commissioner

renne is suggesting that would make it april 15 to give us a little more breathing time to consider some things. >> to summit the first reports. noting you don't like it >> i swear make sure on the same page in the commissions direct. are you proposing apart from any thing with a regulation that were not going to expect any reports until april 15? >> that's right. in other words, leave the february 1 date , recognizing there will be no-we won't acquire any filing report until april 15. >> are we changing it to the 20th or leaving of february 1? >> any payments in march would qualify.

>> the motion has been made. it's been seconded. i will call the question. all in favor aye opposed?. regulation 2.05 five is approved. with go to regulation 2.10 5.6. >> sorry. chairman, there's really some grammatical cleanup that result the changes we talked about. i assume that's all encompassed in the motion? >> yes. we discussed making reference line 12 to officers, plural. those changes will be made consistently throughout the deletion of single matter be made throughout the optional additional language would not

be included. >> thank you. >> and the change in language. i would just say that looks like consistent with the commission's language no payments made by any person prior to february 1-excuse me? they went back to february 1. shall count towards the qualifying or reporting threshold period. no need to have the reference it said if every first week in the language strike what i just said. >> regulation to 2.05 regulation to 2.05 6 feet at this regulation is about trying to provide further propagation but the definition of member as that term is used in the ordinance because it excludes

payments made to an organization for membership dues payments made by an organization distribute medication to its members. so, subsection a the draft proposed two limits shareholder of the organization or person who pays dues or fees to an organization . implying these are if you are shareholder employee status often you have some involvement in the direction of an organization or leadership of an organization. under subsection b, this tries to get at similar to some language i think in the state. the idea of additional costs related to the production and distribution of regular college newsletter are similarly written periodical is good again limited directly to the employer organizations whether these counts were not. the, that's outlined in b and b-one

>> any discussion? comments? commissioner hur. >> with the staff i appreciate the staff's efforts in trying to make this consistent with what we've talked about and what other members of the public have talked about. it is complicated and seen what was just proposed by mr.-who is that ? >>[adjournment] . that does have the benefit of being much simpler and easier to follow. i'm interested in hearing what people think it's too broad and if so i think there's some things we can do do to make it

now but i do think it's elegant in that it gets to the heart of the issue which is if you regularly communicating with these people are part of your organization, whether they were there an organization that has them or not i think what we meant by members is someone who is a part of the organization used to getting communications and want to exempt those set of communications. he now talked about work that i go outside of that reach out to people to get them, go to these events xyz that i think were top of something else. maybe it's still too broad but my curiosity is piqued by a solution that's a little more simple. >> commissioner hur, and respond briefly to explain the difference in the language that mr. cohen draft suggests using my was that happened in our initial draft was circulated for the public speaks to greet

other persons taken an affirmative step to regularly receive an organization's medications as somebody would be included in this exemption. we took a look at that and the final draft with brought for your consideration this evening doesn't have that approach because one of the questions we grappled with was what does it mean to take affirmative step to receive communications. if i sign up for a fortify receive information from an organization that i regularly use out finite vacation rental, and among their list of taken affirmative step to use their services. should that qualify for exemption if i am then receiving a call to action from the organization? is that the same kind of process that you're comfortable with? so we consider that again and thought it was a planar approach to narrow it some to a more of a some other type of nexus to the organization that again here for your consideration. that's

the reason he stepped away from that approach. >> that was the concern. that some of these business organizations get people to sign up and then they send them communications where they don't pay dues. but it's a way of signing up for grassroot organization. the language that mr. cohen suggests would allow businesses to take that route of getting people to sign up so you get your communication and that would be deemed not to be- >> what if there were something like the person that agreed to be a member of the organization? or had a-pennies

a member if he agrees, right? >> even if he doesn't pay dues. that's difficult as most of these are pathways become a member. you can actively unsubscribe after 30 days. our member we try to put that on our calendar. there is that way. i think that's a general way in which a lot of people end up becoming members were just on an e-mail chain until you actively take the step of unsubscribing. you catch a lot of people. how i view mr. cohen's suggestion. i would want a closer association with the organization than one that someone took a contemplative step to be a part of that organization. its mission, its

fun mental mission. not 30 days of me sending you great vacation homes in all the seven you're supporting vacation rentals all over san francisco. i don't know. i'm just making this up. >> any other comments or suggestions, or changes? public comment good. >> barry bush from friends of ethics. i hit like my facebook for viking river cruises and i want a cruise for two weeks did you get? >> i did. i could believe it. i did accept a call. i called them up back. but ever since i am on every viking river

cruises list as you can imagine. anyone else who is a-i think if you have that something that's more affirmative than just hitting a like button. or saying that i like to get the recipes from food for us or whatever it is and this amounts of going into my inbox. i think it does have to be something narrow enough to say you have a relationship with the organization that lets you help set policy at the organization. so that you're voting for the officers were in some way voting on what policies. i have to do that with my aaa membership. i get to vote on who the members of the board are. i don't get that with my account american express card. >> you have no complaints with the definition that's

proposed in a of the member >> yes with what the staff recommended i do. i think that's a good recommendation. >> bruce will. i'm a little concerned. feels like a slippery slope to me. now it sounds like were distinguishing between two different kinds of organizations or businesses and their specific practices which could be considered or close to being contents. like, how this one operates is by method of what they believe in the whether ideology or what have you on the other one would never ever do that as part of its mission. you wouldn't even be a concept to them. so, it seems somewhat of a slippery slope. then, when you're looking at how people get subscribes to a particular listserv, or particular mail list or what have you, how are you going to break all that down? who scheduled a worker breaking down which one is the appropriate one in which one is

not the appropriate one? it's a bit of a difficult stretch to be able to make that distinction just globally. this is information technology is all kinds of marketing things to come out,, different tools and different methods that marketers dream up in the middle of the night and implement and we get automatically added or we get sucked into being added, and you may not even know it. so, if you do opt in for something so you opted in. that person opted in for what we do. whether was contemplated or not, that person did. so, it's a real slippery slope to determine when a person contemplatively does it when i don't contemplatively do it. then the question is, how do you break that down. how do you

then separate which ones are the right ones and which ones are not the right ones? >> are you saying that member definition means employee or shareholder is not definite enough? >> no, it's not definite enough because there's lots of organizations out there that don't require their members to vote for their board. there's lots of organizations you to be a member of that doesn't require it. that's why i go back to the different designations of 501. even 501(c)(3) designations because they all operate differently. you've got to be able to capture when you say nonprofit, nonprofit is a lot of different things. just like for-profit. there's lots of different kinds of for-profits. by the same token which ones are you including in which ones are you not including it's not content

based. these are very specific irs designations. there's so much disparity what were talking about. you can't just put everyone under one big tent. i go back to that other aspect of cost neutral. this is not going to be cheap for the smaller nonprofits. it's a form of discrimination against them financially and economically. >> thank you. >> commissioners peter cohen. i refer to the second page. we had to amendment. the first was to, if you will, go back to draft number two regulations from staff on separate nights. we thought was inclusive enough to define membership in a variety of ways within a community based nonprofit sector . rather than coming up with which are requested to go back to that. i think the pendulum

swung too much the other way. yet given affirmative step your first talk about opting in describing to receive your communications, maybe this needs more defining of what an affirmative step is, but we feel it's important to account for that kind of a lot of effort to associate with and be involved with an organization's activity. it doesn't necessarily mean voting for its board and such things. i'll tell you why also having dues paying alone without this other kind of affirmative step ashley greets a very imbalanced plainview. one of our town for organizations tend to disagree on a lot of issues. spur is a nonprofit. they have a $15 membership. $15 you can be a member of spurt and they have thousands of members could they

have nothing to do with her policy decisions. they have no voting rights on the board. they don't have any influence. they go out of cocktail parties but by this definition those are legitimate members that can communicate with an organization has an active following an membership and engagement for folks who do not pay dues, but who by their own action want to associate when not be considered-there's no parity there. so, were happy as a lot more surgical changes in mine which. the second amendment is really a clarity that doesn't need to be in the regulations because it's in the letter of the ordinance will want to make sure it's very clear, no matter what regular comic trailer, upside down or backwards any communication of any type electronic, paper, smoke signal with a member is exempt. that's the spirit of that second amendment's in the regulations. >> thank you.

>> debbie berman from the human services network. the definition of members come based on use or feepaying excludes low income people are community you can afford to pay dues. just as an example the many ways people become members of our types of nonprofits, in addition to dues or fees, people make contributions of money large and small that are not labeled dues. the major donors. we have philanthropic grants and people who contribute what can you pay today type of donation. we have in-kind donation. people that donate resources. used furniture all kinds of things. people donate their volunteer

time. people work with us to radically on projects. people come to our benefits and participate in our events and people receive our services and determine his interest in what goes on in our organizations. we put those people on our mailing list for newsletters and communications to reconsider the members. so, that is just some of the types of examples why affirmative step is not a hard thing to do find one that should be considered member communication for the purposes of the exemption and i also concur -this language around regular or irregular newsletters i really don't understand what it means. any communication that only goes to members is privileged under the draft language of proposition c. sometimes on matters might trickle into those answers a few incidental monomers on a mailing list baby the membership lapsed i don't. we can track desktop everyday. it's just ridiculously burdensome to say or six people we have not renewed yet. if it goes primarily to members and we think that should be exempt after incidentally some people

getting it that our members anymore, that shouldn't require us to sit there and sift through attribute costs to bobbing. i just want to say, nonprofits get sucked into these kinds of legislation all-time. we are not the problem. everyone acknowledges were not the problem and most people do. were not the-yet we always end up-as commissioners you of the responsibility of striking that delicate balance between necessary regulation and making sure that first amendment rights are protected and preserved. as you can see a lot of these regulations are threatening to building nonprofits to do our advocacy. so, we want you to take that responsibility very seriously. please, do not accept the harshest regulation in order to get at the coke brothers that what the same time ~countervailing forces trying so hard to fend off those types of extraordinarily wealthy interests who are corrupting

our legislative and electoral processes. please consider that seriously. >> thank you. >> good evening again johnson claire. i want to speak to wear for to as subdivision b. i want to point out what i think are some drafting alums with subdivision b. is going to be a little technical. as it reads, you have to keep in mind initially that in a lyrically proposition c has two components. registration and read porting. reporting. thereafter he reports or additional information. as subdivision b reads applies to the reporting requirements, not the registration requirement.

i'm assuming, however staff intended to apply to registration requirement could why? because the member only exists in the registration requirement. the referral, proposed regulation 2.105 six, section 106 is the registration requirement. it's not the reporting requirement. so, assuming staff intended this regulation to apply to registration, not reporting even though it says reports. that said, this newsletter exemption, as it is written, allows an organization to send the newsletter to anyone without any limitation at all and it would be exempt from the registration threshold. again i think that's a drafting problem. i think what made been intended was a newsletter to members as defined drug that's

not in the regulation. just one additional points. there is no newsletter exemption in state law. i'm happy to provide those citations if anyone would like them. there is a reporting exemption for newsletters in state law. it applies to the reporting requirement. >> motion in connection with regulation 2.05 six? >> can i make a comment? i

think it's a pretty good point on this other affiliated individual. it's a little confusing. presumably, if you have a-what you call a regularly published periodical you could jam and everybody basically in affiliated individual and then you're basically lying on a subsection b-one to limit what's considered regularly published newsletter and i mean, it sounds quite complicated and potentially difficult to follow. what if we to commissioner andrews earlier point, tweaked some of the language here that mr. cohen proposed to be stronger so that for example, we said or any other person who affirmatively requests to regularly receive

an organization's communication. so, sure that could include people forgot to unsubscribe but would not include people who purchased a product and didn't have to click on something to say, yes, want to receive your key medication could i think that provide some balance and is limited to communication and does not this potential will forward you could really get almost anyone to be -and call them a member and or at least not have to pay for a newsletter. >> what is the language you are suggesting 4a? >> member means the employee or shareholder of an organization may pursue pays dues or fees to an organization, or any the person who affirmatively request to regularly receive an organization's communication. i think, if we did that, that

would be it. i don't think we need any of this other language. >> just to clarify that suggestion, are you proposing get rid of subsection b altogether? >> i think the purpose of b's to broaden a to it tolerable level. i totally understand why we tried to do that way but it's easier mostly get there anyway that a person has to

take to read will receive communication. >> that is your motion? >> that's my motion. >> regulation 2.105 six, to read simply starting at paragraph but also the language that >> moved and seconded. all in favor, aye. opposed? >> tourney next to regulation 2.110 10.

>> i'm just looking under b1 if we need to modify that within asia and the commission did under the regulation 2.105 the language jones alternative bracketed language under subsection 3 would make consistent par action as relates to salary. inclusion of salary. subsection c on page 4, the last part of this proposed regulation is there intending to clarify that under proposition c but those registered would need to file monthly reports continuing the

sea salt and interactivity and affirmatively terminate the registration. >> that is amended and approved 2.105 five which exempted all employees. is there any need for a or b? >> not for b. i'm not sure-b is not needed. offer cannot be needed in less you want to

clarify. i think there also would be helpful because it confirms the salary does not count for reporting processes just is not count for threshold position purpose. it goes above and beyond to clarify it's not an issue in either place. since the language approved at 105 five since the language approved at 105 5b speaks to not constitute a payment towards the twice top 2500 hours threshold. it's kind of a mirror. >> b is something like $1000. the payment of $1000 regardless of what the payment is, it's not to be counted. predict this language would try to ensure that outcome. >> yes. there's really two different thresholds. the qualified expenditure lobbyist you need to make payments that are worth $2500 more than a

calendar month. once you qualify near doing monthly reports, on this monthly report you itemize any payment $1000 or more. so i think leeann was suggesting we keep in their output to clarify for people party qualified for the expenditure lobbyist in terms of breaking down itemizing expenses. >> to be consistent shouldn't read salary paid to an employee of expenditure lobbyist shall not constitute a payment for purposes of reporting period? >> yes, it could stop there. peter any other comments? >> i agree with what you proposed in a. we need to make sure payments made is consistent with what we did in

2.105 five.the other thing that-i'm wondering with the staff and attorney think about this, but i think we need some sort of the minimus fresh old on postage from month after month, it seems like were not getting much benefit from their continuing to report.quirky warbucks allows us to put in some threshold but it seems like were not getting much benefit for a bit of burden if we don't have some minimum by which you can stop reporting if you don't at least have x

number of expenditures or x amount of expenditures stated this is reacting to subsection c ? >> yes. >> i understand what commissioner hur is saying. what he's saying makes a lot of sense, but i don't think we can do that without amending the ordinance. because again the ordinance talks about $2500. it is not talked about somehow-and if you hit that you then have to report. it does it doesn't go off and put any kind of de minimis aspect in there. i don't think we have the power to do that and choosing regulations. predict that may

be right. i don't know if the city attorney has a view on that? >> i don't see anything in the language or the ordinance that addresses termination specifically so i do think you have some discretion on that point. >> it's not a question of termination. because they are required under the regulation, once they cease spending money then they file saying we no longer are spending money and what i think, and i tend to agree with commissioner spee keane is a continue to spend money if they have not terminated their activities not a report. even if it's $50. it's showing a continuing activity in that area and presumably if it's only $50 maybe they will terminate. so, i don't see where we get the power to say, well, if you only

spend $500 you don't have to report. >> i've always papers in front of me. i thought it was somewhere it was inherent that an expenditure lobbyist even had to report there were no activity. was that removed? does anyone remember reading that? even if there was no activity that i could've sworn i read it just today. because i think there has to be some payments made during the reporting period. >> so, you would hit your threshold at $2500 one month. you could spend $50 a month on postage but on members, decide not to mail in december because of the holidays and then not report or reports and in january when you decide everybody's back to business

you go back to reporting? >> he would not have to report in december >> well if you do not do anything in the summary would not have to report this is why china messed up but would not have to report in january if you close in december for not having to report. then you be up the $2500 limit. >> except that c means registered expenditure lobbyist must continue to file monthly reports until they cease all expenditure lobbying activity and affirmatively terminate the registration. so the answer i would give, based on c is, no, they've got to file something saying we cannot spend any money. >> was that intended by that? >> i think so because there's a registration-i think the answer is, yes. since there's a registration requirement? try

to clarify is what does it mean to be registered. if we do not have a restriction requirement in the ordinance rhapsody monthly reporting when activities occurred. but we were trying to make sense of the notion of a registration requirement ever comes with that. i think we are contemplating if there are no activities we were still registered or not terminated the vain expectation of reporting file. >> 01 can you terminate? >> you could terminate on any month. >> i think that's the reality that meets the needs you're talking about. that people-if someone is in a position where they're no longer spending it they're going to say i don't report animal. about doing the stuff they're going to terminate. that will take care of it. i can't see any reason on anyone would continue to say what do it but him and to

continue to report. you terminate because that's what i thought also but this fellow missing him a know, if you may spend in the future you can't terminate. >> no. that's not what i'm trying to say. i am saying if until and unless someone stops activity and affirmatively terminates were left with them continuing to be registered and if the registered the expectation would be report will be filed to disclose whatever their activity was that month even if there was zero. >> they can always start up again. it's a bigger register and a subsequent month. >> their vendetta for six months and then they want to get back in the business. >> in the meantime in the non-activity of sovereign report every month. >> unless they terminate. why would you continue to report if you know you're not doing anything. you just terminate. >> well, this is the sort of thing where i feel like you get

zero benefits for the burden of having to file something saying i'm not doing anything over and over and over again. >> you would not do. that's the whole point. you would terminates. >> it's arbitrary it feels to me. i think in december because of holiday activities but let's say i would commissioner keane >> well i wasn't doing anything. it's not a question. take off i'm still in the business i'm can have a little breather. that's not terminating. >> it could be. >> it could be. you could do that. you could terminate and say him terminating than two months later go back. if you want to keep doing it that is fine. >> but you would have to. you did a one-time $2500 expenditure

and only spending $50 a month on postage and thereafter, the pick one month off. terminate and then never have to report again. >> if you pay only 50 buck some of them that takes care of your concern about de minimis good >> no, it doesn't because you have to take that i guess some month off for the purpose of no longer having to report your $50 that frankly none of us- >> if you don't want to take a month off and not pay 50 bucks then you're opting and saying i want to continue to do this. you have to keep reporting. basic what public that if it are we getting out of that? >> what were doing is the filling these language of the statute that we put on the books. that is that, you continue to reports, until you

get to the point where you no longer are spending and you actively terminate. that's what the law says. this discussion maybe should have been something that we should take out before we put it on the ballot but the law says that i don't see how we get around >> doesn't ashley talk about termination at all but >> no. it sucks but the continuing duty to report and there is this mechanism for termination, which are two separate things, but they are there. >> we have the same requirements and candidates committees. they have to keep filing reports until they advised us that they've closed the committee. even if the

committee is not doing anything they still have to file. every month. >> for example, we are both large. i'm a certified specialist in criminal law. it requires a certain degree of continuing legal education. you've got cle credits as well. report it for the certification, he reported every five years just like you report the regular cle but if i'm not doing this stuff, if i'm not actually getting the cle during any different period, i have to report that and say, i'm not no longer fit to be certified. so, this is something i think goes with the territory of lots of places. i don't see that were putting something on someone. >> we also don't report our cle monthly. we will get it once every three. >> the state requires-

>> that's why you don't go. >> whether we can put a de minimis, i mean >> i mean if we could i would agree with you but i don't think we can. >> public comment? >> i believe there is a section under existing ordinance, section under 110-2110 registration disclosure and subsection e, subsection 2 other to pay the annual fee shall constitute a termination and the ethics commission is also authorized to stylish additional processes that termination of lobbyists registration it appears the commission has the authority to do what it thinks is just. i let others comment on that. >> commissioner stanley harmon

human services network. has written current regulation would require ongoing reporting even if you only exceed $2500 a month and we spent nominal amounts like a few postage stamps every month. i'm in this registration tractor goes on and on in perpetuity. the regulation should allow expenditure lobbyists to terminate their registration if they're no longer spending $2500. that's the definition of expenditure lobbyists. somebody spends $2500 in a month. if we are spending $20 every month there's no reason to keep reporting. does not create any great benefit to the city to have private residence of the city reporting tiny bits of lobbying money for the public consumption every month. i'm

still not clear on what this regulation says. i think it is vague. 51 month breast and zero dollars immediate 53 months or only spend $20 it should be like i think with a little discussion something much more reasonable to be developed that gets people out of this trap of reporting nominal amounts of money just because they want to once exceeded a threshold once. >> i think to reinforce debbie lerman's point, this idea of a public benefit the ideas to actually disclose what is now being considered significant mother of expenditure lopping of $2500. if an organization or individual no longer spending that amount of money, it's unclear to understand the point of continuing to be registered

to report. so, take a situation, an organization for whatever set of reasons spends in a month $2500 or activities that are considered expenditure lopping have to register and after that there not have de minimis world that you mentioned commissioner hur. $50 here even $500 but they don't reach that 25 under our threshold get what's the point? it seems you would allow the organization to terminate their registration and no longer considered an expenditure lobbyists do they reach that threshold again which could be matter of months or years were among packers by. in our amendment we suggested if that happens in the subsequent month and organization doesn't hit $2500 to make and terminate. perhaps you want to make it a couple were few consecutive months they don't meet that threshold but it would seem pragmatically that threshold should be used. if you like the

hotel california. once you check and you never get out. betting 50 or $100 on stamps for grassroots organizing, that's fairly regular activity. i know the spirit of proposition c look for those larger expenditures that signals you're actually having legislative impact. so we ask you to figure out what that threshold is. think of the point made, unless were missing something that could you broader latitude did a fine under what circumstances an organization can terminate the registration it's really entirely up to you to the fine work that threshold should be. >> i'm curious as to-i'm asking the staff-the reports that gets filed month to month, is it essentially the same report only the amounts that get put in? is this a great

administrative burden to file this monthly report? >> i'm not sure i can answer that question but i can refer you to the ordinance a language that says what is to be reported on a monthly basis. so the reporting would require the local website of administrative action was thought to be influence including detail but the resolution motion, etc. the total amount of payments made during the reporting period to influence legislative word ministry of action, payments of 1000 hours or more made during the reporting period, all campaign contributions made of 100 hours made were delivered by the lobbies. so that piece of disclosure is apparently one of the many things that be reported as well. then some

specific information about the campaign contributions including for example the committee have received it. so, those are the main categories of disclosure required. again, i think the question about at what level, what continues to trigger the legislation each month and how does that work with reporting to my think it's an interesting question at him like we have an answer. >> they have to report only expenditures over $1000? >> no. get to provide itemization of expenditures that are $1000 or more. then a lump sum total of amount of payments made during the reporting period to influence local legislative word ministry of action. >> go-ahead >> this is not different simpler reporting would hurt on

political campaign committee could even if they're not doing anything during the reporting period that determine the report that says a zero or a half-baked terminate. if they go to that and they get find. today they also get fined by the city of san francisco. you can book on the ethics page under campaign financing and putting frank jardine and still see their campaigns reporting every reporting period until they get onto terminating their committee. there is no other big deal going on. so i don't understand why this is suddenly a big issue except for perhaps those entities that never bother filing of campaign reports despite the campaign expenditures involved. >> thank you. betook >> i think were facing this dilemma because of the way the law was structured when it was

enacted or past. advocated many months ago when we were debating this to follow the scene, the lobbying scheme that we had been asleep adopted and many jurisdiction of adopted including the state of california. that is, the expenditure lobbyists most of the jurisdictions including the states do not require registration. only reports are filed when that threshold is reached during the reporting period which is typically a three-month period. that's the way was in our prior law. that's the way it is in the state level. i think that's the way it is in la. so, if you never met that threshold during the reporting period you do not follow a report. this law requires registration and because you're registered lobbyist under the law required to file a report monthly. so, the only way i one of the ways to get around this is to pass a amendment changing the

structure, which would then only require filing report when you meet that special. >> thank you. >> i don't have a lot to add. termination is an issue for contact lobbyists as well. friends mind that her contact lobbyists file zero reports for years at a time to come down and ask staff can't get rid of my registration could know. now the context lobbyist to have to do some training. there is some reason to keep it there. just like we keep our bar licenses but for expenditure lobbyists-i think this is more of a global issue the lobbying ordinance that it should be looked at in a broader sense. for both contact lobbyists and

potentially expenditure lobbyists. >> in other words don't try to solve it in regulation right up. >> seen the weather public comment joinder motion? do i hear a motion to approve? >> excuse nothing commissioner hur yes for language on b-one the payments issue >> yes. because i have so much to offer. i think we could modify that to reflect a different idea. as used in section 2.1 oc payments are quote, made on the day and here i would chart track the language from the very first regulation. i made on the date connectivity to request words

other person to commit directly with an officer in the city and county to influence the legislative orchestrator of action occurs >> i'm okay with that. >> this is just for the purpose of conforming it to the first proposal. >> i am still not sure why we can add a de minimis by saying you can terminate if you don't have whatever number it is, $500 or $250 in expenditures. it seems like as was pointed out and public comment, e-two says the commission is authorized to establish legislation about termination. why don't we take advantage of that? i have not heard anybody say it's helpful to have 250 or $500 to know about that from these organizations. if someone has justification of the

interested in hearing it. it is a cut burden that has very little benefit. >> i have a motion and commissioner speaking to accept a motion to your amendment? >> yes >> which amendment? >> the language about payment conforming & >> but not allowing termination for a de minimis amount? >> do you want to amend your motion to make some provision for termination toward a de minimis amount? >> i am going to defer to the judgment of mr.