>>[gavel] >> good afternoon ladies and gentlemen and welcome to the february 29, 2016 meeting of the ethics commission, which is substituted, or continued our regular meeting which is on february 22 our regular meeting which is on february 22, 2016 get our first call of the role commissioner andrews, here. cohen here hur, here. keane, here. renne, here. all commissioners are accounted for. turning to item to public comment on matters appearing and not appearing on the agenda. do i have any members of the public who wish to comment at this time? >> yes, good evening commissioners and director

pablum. dr. derek kirk. january meeting for a view expressed resistance to the mayor's directive to cut your budget by 3% over two years. it is troubling that your funding depends on the good graces of the same city hall folks that you're supposed to monitor. that inhibits your independence. if you like to sharply into city corruption your funds can be choked off because your budget is your leash. there is enough control just by having your appointments made by elected city officials. compare your funding to that of the controllers city services auditor program. it also was placed on the ballot and approved by the board and the voters, but it's funding is a

guarantee 0.2% of the total city budget. that makes it fiscally independent from city hall. since you are the cities ethics auditor, why is in your budget sat like this city services auditor's? so, consider a charter amendment to liberate the ethics commission. ask for an automatic fraction of the city's total budget instead of having to grovel for a city hall allowance every year. thank you very much >> thank you. >> any other public comment at this point? hearing none, we will turn to the third item which is a presentation and discussion of university of san francisco masters of public affairs candidate recommendations to improve the transparency of the san francisco ethics commission.

this is a class taught by alex-no, okay. anyway, all the students are here and they're going to make their presentation . i looked at the slides you initially filed and i'm impressed with the work and looking forward to your presentation. thank you very much. you may proceed. >> good evening, commissioners. my name is sebastian con and i'm a graduate student at the university of san francisco can today i'm joined by my colleagues [calling names]. today my colleagues and i are representing the university of san francisco masters of public affairs roger program and our

class analyze the ethics commission website and the enforcement ethics in san francisco. today we like to offer some suggestions will improve the website as "it'll consider the following achievable recommendations. we would like to indulge the website section titled lobbyist activities is already identified discrepancies that exist within the names reported section get in san francisco lobbyist are required to report under the lobbyist ordinance: earnings are frequently [inaudible]. i'm not mentioning any negative light in a being [inaudible]. by using examples real to grocery problems that allow us these do exist and it is no fault of those of the commission. so, under the

mapping reported main section of the website is a list of typographical errors that been corrected by the commission and the section titled, reported, as we see egan is spelled incorrectly however it has been noted these three names should be reported as edmund egan. it would like to share with you a video we put together. so, let's say we want to search for uber under client name. if you go to the reporting website. if you typing uber technologies incorporated this is only result three results. honestly huge companies. doing a lot of work the problem is if we go back and type in uber technology without incorporated search yields over 20 results. the same organization but depending on how you enter the name was he many different results. when searching under

one spelling not getting all the data even though it's been reported by the lobbyist that a working on these different issues. the problem we've identified our first addition i like to introduce my colleague as shall be going over the next section. >> good evening. my name is bridget mahoney. on the begin upon reception of a presentation by introducing the first of our three immediate suggested erections to the website. so, from the video in the mapping reported main section we found that in addition to that we come many other instances of multiple records that all lead to the same individual or firm. due to this problem, we suggest a designated identification number should be implemented that connects all entities to all the reported information.

anyone that has report to the ethics commission such of the parties listed on the screen would receive their own output america vin. i'd like to note this dia and was a backend internal use only. design vin would create less inconsistencies on performing a search. >> are you suggesting the gain would be assigned at the time the lobbyist registers? just internally to the commission staff? >> yes. i implement canadian system it would illuminate the mapping reported name section. no matter how reported it but didn't function would the data was being uploaded and all be housed under that aside vin. it also illuminate multiple entry. i like to stress this vin function will emanate either ours and time searching through the website which is beneficial to the public. here are the

results that you would get if you search for the law firm holland and knight llp. the correct spelling of the firm is shown in the first result. you can see there are several different listings offer the same firm and however we do not know if there are any other reports on the website that do not appear in our search due to spelling. for example, and could be spelled out instead of using the & symbol. so although we have multiple results may not be recessed receiving all the available information for holland and knight cared this is a big problem because the data should not be this hard to find and comb through. here is how the vin would capture reported data using the same example of holland and knight. this is with the backing page would look like. colin and i would receive the di and 2314. every single report that holland and knight supports summits to the commission would be captured. another of the public were to conduct a search of holland and knight however

they spelled it all the results would appear under one search and one spelling which will be further expand in a later suggestion. to further expand have it vin system is beneficial, with a him a concern member of the public and i want to see what the lobbying firm barbary coast consulting is up to. unfortunately, the current website is no simple or directly to do this. in order to see everything that lobbying firm is doing i have to know every registered lobbyist within that firm and search through each of their individual reports and flip through pages and pages of data. this is extremely inefficient and since the data is all reported they should be able to type in barbary coast consulting and easily get the results through one search. this is our di and would work with the lobbying firm. as you can see, barbary coast consulting would repeat the di and 2705 from our personal system and all registered lobbyist within a firm would

receive a di and connected to the firm they are part of. for example, alex comments would be 2705a jamie rossi 2705b and so on. all lobbyist would be categorized within the same manner. you'll still be able to search for individual lobbyist reports that this will allow you to get all the results for the entire firm quickly and efficiently. i would now like to introduce trevor martin will be giving the next part of the presentation. >> thank you, bridget. good evening. my name is trevor martin. i will begin with our second recommendation, which would-sorry.[pause]. our second

recognition has to do with increasing the efficiency of search options. we suggest this can be done in two ways. first, by introducing predictive test within search boxes. secondly by including sorting functionalities for all the categories. this is the current search page for individual lobbyist on the ethics webpage. this can be daunting for those who are unfamiliar with the site or have minimal information to begin their search. even category titles are confusing and inconsistent as well as what used to be client is now referred to as payee and public officials are now referred to as beneficiaries. when users enter into complete or wrong data they may end up with incomplete or wrong search results. that's why we suggest that the search box look like this. with predictive text.

with inclusion of vin predictive test would make the search process easier and easier to find all the available information about all be entities on the website. the benefits of the sorting punching can be shown by looking at the lobbyist subject area page. which my colleagues and i think is a great way to find which policies are being influenced by which entities. however, trying to find the information on the webpage can consume a mass amount of time. for example, if you look through transportation we see that all these entities are in some way involved in transportation policy. however, the only way to filter through this information is by date as you see on the left. let's say you want to see a specific legislation, particular official is being lobbied on.

you have to sit through all this information by date and pull out those instances. or, say we would look to see what policy the french chamber of commerce is lobbying on. oregon, with a particular lobbyist is lobbying on. got to go through the entire list searching for that entity's involvement it would assert sorting function which we shown the results category, we can use the list for albert porter and a bunch of these entities together will enable users to extract large amounts of data with relative ease. finally, arthur recommendation which would be implement it with existing data if you so choose, integrate hyperlinks for all quantifiable or categorical information. each category listed on a nancy's profile, which would include all entities clients lobbyist firms or public officials should be hyperlinked to make that easier

locate and view. we use the profile of the barbary coast consulting as an example to all this reported information should be hyperlinked. reported contacts payments promised, activities, political contributions. as it stands users have to perform multiple searches and sift through multiple reports to find desired data. for example, we see that they have 40 reported barbary coast has 40 reported contacts here. but we don't know who made these contacts were who those contacts are to or how many individual contacts were made. without going to each lobbyist within this firm and combing through their quarterly reports. here, again, we see that there are nearly $20,000 in payments promised but to who? how much are those individual payments with it and who made these bonuses of payment? to find out again would have to go into multiple quarterly reports could with the introduction of hyperlinks

all quantifiable or categorical information would be compiled, organize, and available to you with speed and ease. i like to now introduce kim from her plumber. >> hello, chairperson and commission give money this karen and all for three additional recommendations that we feel will further increase transparency within the website. however, these regulations will require minimal data to be reported and gathered by all entities. the next three recognitions will greatly enhance the public's right to know and will further show the city of san francisco is a leader and ethical reporting. we recommend lobbyist who make donations exceeding $500 to nonprofit organizations voluntarily report these donations quarterly. this will expose any potential conflict of interest situation between lobbyists and nonprofit organizations they

donate to. employment histories currently not of able on a profile. plumbing history within the city and county of san francisco should be disclosed on each individuals profile page. this way we can track whether or not public service have gone on to become lobbyists and vise versa. again, this will expose any potential conflict of interest in situation at this will increase transparency in relationships. for example, without clemens the paycheck from ed lee that nexus should be definitely be disclosed. lastly, we recommend voting records be available on public and government officials profiles. this will ultimately show if lobbyists are successful or not. lobbyist contact artie reported by quarter. so the public can see what those coincide with these meetings the public will be a will to see who, if anyone, had input and sway in that vote. the public has a right to know

if elected officials and to the influence of the lobbyist could. >> good evening commission. my name is john clinton conrad and i will end with a brief recap of our recommendations and answer questions. as we've stated, are six set of recognitions will not require additional data and increase efficiency in standardized patient of the data now available. those three recommendations are use of one internal pim search boxes with filter options and functions and hyperlinks to every category. our second set of recommendations to require additional data and maintenance but increase transparency. those recommendations are, disclosure of nonpublic contributions by lobbyists

excluding $500, disclosure of employment history, and combining voting outcome data with lobbyist activities. the intention behind our project and our findings is a combined appreciation for the mission of the ethics commission as well as that of the university of san francisco. we hope these recommendati aim to increase transference rnc efficiency in standardized asian of information available on the ethics commission website. on behalf of the 13 students of the advocacy lobbying and governmental relations class at the university of san francisco we thank you for your time and are happy to answer any questions. thank you. >> thank you very much. very informative presentation, and i think some excellent suggestions. the staff will have to deal with and implement, but i want to on behalf of the commission, i want to thank your class for

the thought and work that you put into this and also the enthusiasm that you show for what, i think all of us feel is one of the most important things that is increasing transparency. an ability of the public to quickly get information and not have to sort through all sorts of records. do any of the commissioners have any questions or comments ? beaded purse of all congratulations. very impressive. i'm wondering if you're planning to be lobbyist or government officials were ethics commission members . what i think is particularly important and impressive with your recommendations is that the simplification, the ease with which anyone could find

this information is extremely important. i know for myself,, i'm not a policy wonk. i'm not a legislative wonk, and to try and find this kind of information, to me, is difficult and arcane. i think most members of the public would feel the same. so, to know that there could be these ease of access, removes the intimidation factor in wanting to find out this information. now, of course, like to hear from the public and of course from our executive director in terms of how difficult or how easy it would be to implement this. i like to think it won't be a big problem, but i look forward to hearing those comments. but, thank you. i think it is terrific and as i said, before very impressive. >> i share the view; commission. thank you for your efforts and no that they're going to be useful to the

public. san francisco. i know it took a lot of work, look closely at the could i did have a question. i don't know who is best suited to answer it. what if any involvement did you have with steve and nasty and with the staff as you prepared this presentation and look into our system? conrad, use of the designated spokesperson? >> apparently. actually, we became familiar with the website just through our own-i guess we did it on our own and i think alex clemens was craig at suggesting things that we might want to look into but other than the class in the fall, that was our first instance or lease mine, going through that ethics commission website and looking at ways that

you could look through the data and figure out things. it was confusing and there's a lot of things to download but that was the extent of our involvement with the ethics commission to >> so, i'm not sure of the classes over were continuing? >> it was last fall. this was the first chance we all had to get together and present to the commission. >> can i request that mr. matthew or staff want to get in touch with you all to discuss your implementation with you be willing and available to continue to work with us on it? >> absolutely. >> you are authorized to commit for all these people? >> too late. yes. on the handout. the e-mail for our program director is on there but we would be happy to answer any further questions and provide any further

recommendations. peter thank you. >> >> thank you. >> any other commissioners? >> i just want to say congratulations to the class on a really top-notch presentation. a lot of the stuff can be wonky and hard to get to suggest your presentation skills and your delivery was top notch. i'm always impressed when i can get a presentation and fully get something out of it and you walk through it step-by-step. i then much appreciate the examples. a lot of times when we get into this stuff we don't have clear examples you stay around long enough later in the meeting you will hear will sometimes need some examples in order for us to make sense in some of our ordinance and things that help us and guide us to do to good government. i appreciate the examples you used guerrilla situations and congratulations on good work. i wish you all really bright and exciting future.

>> i just want to make it unanimous in regard to the comments of my colleagues could very impressive presentation. quite a bit of food for thought for me. in regard to a number of things that i hadn't really considered, and look forward to analyzing and discussing further with our staff and taking up and incrementing many of the things that you put forth. you made a real contribution to us and to the city and to the people of san francisco. i really thank you for it. >> executive director? >> i certainly would just added my thanks. this is actually well-timed as we start to look at modernizing our website and making our tools the strongest possible for public disclosure. but is that my thanks on behalf of the staff and glad to know we can find you when we need you for

further enlightenment and questions. >> i would second that. i would hope to release some of you would be willing to do some hobo no time with the staff and to a set assist the staff and incrementing a lot of the ideas you put forward. i will call for public comment on the presentation. >> barry bush. it's exciting for us to see new people being heavily involved in these issues. they are critical. i feel somewhat like oliver who's been given a wonderful bowl of food and he turns around and says, more. i would like to suggest that when they look at things like employment that they include unpaid positions. because people who are lobbyists are sometimes put on

a task force so you have a lobbyist for coca-cola on a task force on obesity. there's a relationship there whether there's a payment or not. so, that's the more that i am asking for. thank you. >> thank you. we did good evening. mike solomon here, legislative wonk, a policy wonk in my day job in software engineering and computers are hard. they really are. the ability to take adi and which would be awesome is really difficult to implement. because you want to give five is the ability to enter their data on prompted we want to go and suggest what the right answer is to be sure they get it right and have you do the normalization of the data so the data sets one up. it's top computer science problem. it does not lend itself to easy solution. when the city took filing and outsource it to not file the really kind of what the commission do some control over how it software evolve. see that is independent contractor relationship so the

trade-off between competence and flexibility. something you might want to revisit. also, it might make sense to get some sort of independent technical advisory body to come to the commission on how to make these systems work because you don't have the expertise in-house anymore. it's basically relying on the contractor to get the answers like it goes like this could be good for that and a lot of other folks that of the technical knowledge julie get the brass ring insane if you do lobbying work contributions then how does that play out in the boats and china together from soup to nuts is what this commission's mission what large should be. it's not an easy problem but it's a cool problem to tackle. >> thank you. >> good afternoon commissioners. i would just like first of all to echo everything that all of you have said to the students. kudos to all of you are a tremendous

presentation. i noticed in the area of the presentation three additional recommendations. on page 21 they speak about employment history. i really have more of a question. since san francisco voters made it clear they demand transparency, which is why proposition c path with an overwhelming percentage. nonprofits are the biggest opponents fighting against proposition c disclosure regulation especially those related to staff time report. commissioner brett andrews entire work history is in the realm of nonprofit organizations and currently commissioner andrews as executive director of the nonprofit group, positive resource center. more to the point, he also serves on the human services network steering committee. doesn't this

present a conflict of interest issue? might be in the best interest of ethical standards of the commissioner andrews recuse himself while this commission establishes regulations for proposition c? i'd also like to remind all of you gaining the public trust is a very worthy goal for this commission. i would like to believe this agency staff with the new executive director will work in the best interest of voters who not only demand, but deserve, transparency. thank you. >> thank you. >> i'm bob plant holder. the balance of my remarks will be on this side of the guys but i want the students here to note many in the room today are former ethics commissioners were veterans of one or more grand juries that did research on ethics on whistleblowers

and so forth. so, commendations to you folks know what to call to mind after you get a job and in it for a year to think about applying for the civil grand jury because it's an excruciating over the years to find anyone over 45 was a member . you have fresh eyes and fresh insights. i'm impressed with the recommendations with the analysis and without detail. i want to call attention to pages 16, 17, and 18. it really gives good detail that anybody who is interested to find out what a lobbyist is doing or what agency that hires a lobbyist, what that agency wants, which is on page 8 on 18 is a tremendous breakdown of the different types of issues or projects that are lobbyists might work on. the chart on page 16 also is quite helpful in general categories. so, i

hope in the future staff can get a better it budget and some it group to help with some of this. i want to go beyond this. you talk to the one recognition that needs follow-up about $500 donation by a lobbyist to a nonprofit. i think that is worth pursuing, whether in the context of c or subsequent. it could be that a board member or a executive staff member of a nonprofit serves on a commission that is power and authority of the claimant. maybe mta board. maybe public health. to know that certain agencies got money from a developer or from coca-cola, or from google can help understand what is the background motivation because i didn't, and he talks and nonprofits are

often not rich. so, they will be more responsive if then politicians baby to money. i want to support something that dr. kurt said in that you have to go to the mayor to get your budget approved. the second significant comment at the bottom of your summary sheet promoting a common good that transcends the interest of particular individuals. here again, not to try to do that because for writenow, you don't know what the mayor will decide you also don't know what any one of the five members of the supervisors budget and finance committee decide. any number of people outside you that could force or hinder the performance, the effectiveness of this body by cutting your budget. so, i urge you to look at that for future ballot measure >> thank you. >> good evening. i want to start out by disagreeing in part with mark solman's comments. i think the commission now has actually better control over its

lobbyist disclosure information by going with that file by then the gis. over time the gis to be less responsive and more costly and a delay in so the choice was made to contact with that file and i think that's worked well. i support the recommendations from the students. i would ask you in particular, to ask your executive director to come back next month with their reports come after talking to stephen stephen massey, about how much the three changes can be implement it or how soon on the website. without legislature changes and to come back to you with amendments to the lobbyist ordinance to consider the other three recommendations that would require legislative changes. i think we should see this happen sooner rather than later because otherwise this could get buried or take months. finally, if i had a question about what alex clemens were barbary coast are doing, i just called out annie's very forthcoming about it. but everyone should have

access to that information on the website and i think the additional search tools and other suggestions the students made are very well taken. thank you very much. >> any other public comment? >> thank you. i'm here without giving a name because we need protection in what i am saying. i am disappointed that this does not include people outside the official and employees of the city. there are a lot of people that know a lot about abuse in the homeless area and

the people that manage. for example, one of the shelters were the two i am familiar with they are under contract with the city to manage the shelter. there's about 400-200 residents in the shelter. the information, the management of people that have a contract with the city has a board,, and i have endeavored to find out i guess it's information about people who are on the board of the nonprofit that is managing other contracts with the human

services agency. i was unable to get the information when i came to the ethics commission. the attorney for the contract, the manager said the matter of jurisdiction came up and their attorney said, oh well, we will concede jurisdiction. i give you the information you. but they never did. that was kind of dismissed by the ethics commission is if they consented to what i asked but they never followed through. i think that the board nonprofit should also be required to have a publicly disclosed forms and to see whether they are competing or

have any interest in the properties, very substantial properties, that the city owns. it doesn't follow the ethics rules as far as benefits to the people who are on the board. i would like to see the people on the board included in what is described as information that is required, and also that the people who are supposed to be beneficiaries of these big contracts that involve thousands of people are not subordinate to be promised to being homeless. i is something else that may be beyond the

presentation here, but i like to be able to bring that up >> i will give you one more minute but you've exceeded the time that is allotted to each speaker during public comment. >> icy. it was a comment on something else. this matter of dysfunction in the homeless area by looking up that topic among different reports. the grand jury. i got to one in 2002, homelessness in san francisco, which i started researching and i found there was no response described in the penal code from the people who are responsible, and when i went to the board of supervisors, it was suppressed

by a subcommittee without a brown act notice or even any kind of notice c and kept from going to the full board by a three-member subcommittee which is the public could not find out what's going on. they reputed who said they were there. maybe in a clerical capacity. they decided it was not in the public interest for it to go to the full board. i would like to see things checked out like this and that we have a response to the homelessness in san francisco grand jury reports of 21-2002. it has some very pertinent ideas for what we have missed for all the time from then until now. >> thank you very much.

>> good evening, commission. i'm executive director of the san francisco housing action coalition. were 16-year-old 501(c)(3) of greenbelt alliance. environmental organization. our purpose is policy and legislation. more specifically advocacy for housing in addressing the housing affordability crisis in san francisco. i'm concerned a lot of it about the requirements under proposition c that's what brought me here tonight. i've never been a lobbyist could never registered as one. i know clients in any sense and our compensation-we are staffed of four-is invariants. we get not paid in any sense to do anything other than advocate for housing policy. the reporting requirements appear burdensome we have no account

we have no banking. we have no payroll. that's farmed out to our fiscal sponsor and taking on something new, a big new reporting requirement is not a trivial matter and i would become not just ours, but our fiscal sponsor's burden. the $2500 a month threshold in a little nonprofit world, that's a very large chunk of change for us. that's not an expenditure that made easily or frequently. that seems like it's going way down into very very small organizations and sane, have you ever done anything to trigger $2500 a month and that causes us some concern. my purpose in coming is to say that we fully understand and support the need for transparency in our public

process, and erosion of that confidence is bad for the city and enacting policies that we need specifically, in our area, for the housing affordability crisis, but we do think that there probably are there to be a lot of nonprofit organizations that are to fall into this same, while you're going way way down into small groups that are actually lobbyists in a sense and getting them into a commerce and reporting requirements. it's cumbersome, not in the sense that we object to transparency, but to a small organization without the resources to do it is taking on a considerable new function could so, i would urge you to look at the report. there's a lot of folks talking to one of the meetings and expect their concern as well. i urge you to take them to our. thank you for your time >> thank you. get i would remind the public public comment at this point should be on the item to which was a presentation by the university

of san francisco. there will be more than ample opportunity to comment as we go through the proposition c regulation. if there's no other public comment, i will, again, want to thank the students and because this covers-prof. alex cummins for shepherding this project and galvanizing the students to take it on. so with that, thank you very much. we would turn now to item number four. a discussion and possible action on revised draft regulations for implementation of proposition c. unless any commissioner would like to have

us do it definitely, i would propose we take the regulation, one regulation, discussion of the commissioners. have discussion from the public, and either reach a conclusion, yes, that is the regulation, or however we may amend it in the process, but then call for a vote as we each one separately so that i would ask the members of the public, when you are doing your comment, keep it specific to the draft regulation that's under consideration. you'll get plenty of opportunity as we go through it to deal with each one a you may have some objection to or may have some concern. i would like to say, i appreciate it. there has been a lot of written communication

between the public and the commission staff on the draft regulation that were first circulated in the revised draft , which i believe the public has some two weeks ago. close to that, or 10 days. we have got responses back.. so, with that, i will ask executive director to turn to the proposed report and start with the first regulation and we will go down the list. >> i want to address the commission and the public as well about what concern has been raised around some potential of conflict of interest. as we discussed these

regulations. i do want to say a few points. i had an opportunity to go back and look at my comments that i made in june of-june 29, i believe, last year when we started to discuss proposition c. what i can say now is what i said then. my concerns are the same. my concerns were the same as i had an independent vote in the affirmative to place opposition c for better transfers the on the ballot. so, in principle i fully support proposition c. i'm concerned about how it does impact nonprofits. i will remind the commission and the public, i'm an executive director of a nonprofit named positive resource center. we do provide

direct service. we don't do advocacy. we don't do public policy. we don't do lobbying. we provide employment services and benefits counseling to people disabled by hiv and aids and mental health disabilities. i'm a member of many member associations, human services network, hiv provider network, the nonprofit workforce coalition, national working coalition, so i feel when i'm speaking about what is happening in the nonprofit community and how potentially they could be impacted them up is because of my 24 years of being an executive director. my last 13 here in san francisco. but i want to be clear. the human services network, i can tell you that network is not what not be thrilled with the decision that i voted in the affirmative. i'd be very clear with you, i do not circle back with them. i'm sure i did circle back with them many of them may not have appreciated the vote i had in the affirmative to place it on the

bucket if that same sense of independence and bringing to this discussion around the regulation. they have no bearing on the decisions that i make it i voted my conscience then and i seek to have informed inappropriate conversation about any amendments and revisions were going to have on the regulations. so, i want to bring that forward and in the form of a disclosure to the commission, and remind the public as well, all of those associations are recognized in my application could i did have my independent thought in june and i remain at that level of independence as we move forward with these discussions. >> thank you, commissioners could this item is a rather lengthy winter we want to make sure we provided all the public comment we received as you said, we have our draft regulation. just by way of a note of background following the commission's last meeting on january 25 we revised for

circulation to the public a set of draft regulations to elicit further comment on. based on that we received a number of comments on february 16. i guess i made it last week we had had a chance to review them, digest them, discuss them and debate them internally and so the draft in your package this evening we flex our best thinking about how to balance the need for reasonable regulations, strong disclosure, workability and enforceability of the regulation. there are clearly from the comments, still discussions to be had here in the room and so i hope you-i'm sure you'll do that very vigorously. our intent was to provide some language, provide a starting point for the conversation and hopefully get this a little bit closer to the sense of the commission about where you see these implementation regulations playing out. so, with that, we

have on attachment to, the actual draft regulation and about four pages. made of this highlight the first of the items for you. >> go ahead >> the first is a question regarding the section in the ordinance the fines activities that count towards the qualification of an spanish or lobbyist, and the level of those activities that trigger the requirement to register and file reports. we had some public comment and questions early on following our meeting in december and january about what counts, howling when those activities are to be counted. under the first regulation, proposed regulations-excuse me one moment-2.105 five a we try to address when the payment is considered made for purposes of qualifying for registration.

so, this regulation proposes a person makes a payment at the time and expenses incurred for the activity to solicit requests or other urge others to communicate directly with the city official an attempt to influence legislative administrative action. >> any discussion commissioners? commissioner hur >> thank you, to staff and to the public for all their hard work on these regulations. when it comes to a payment is being made i'm concerned this still does not address-a concern i raised before-about how you would deal with a payment that was made prior to the decision that that activity was going to be used for purposes of

communicating with the city officer or employee. for example, if one were to conduct a research report on january 1 without the intent to use it to influence the city officer, and then in-on april 1 decide, actually, that report is pretty useful and i think it would be helpful when we advocate for the position, they could on april 1 record by payment made on january 1 at the time it was incurred. so, i'm not sure how this definition would deal with that situation. >> i think that is a fair question. one of the things we

tried to clarify in the memo -let me see the best way i can handle it. what i'm wondering if we need in some sort of language that says whichever comes earlier. on april 1 under your hypothetical, on april 1 to have an organization or person decides to use information that they had previously paid or incurred an expense for back in january i guess there's a couple things that have to happen. first, is there a communication-when is the communication. i assume that medication is on april 1. if they put on a mailer beside this study that supports their position. they pay for in january >> i think what we are listening on april 1 this mitigation the references that generally first report, they would have a 12 month look

back. so, that would qualify it was over $2500 on april 1 two report because i generally first, if they had not communicated-i'm not sure about making this clear or more cumbersome-i generally first of the had not yet communicated toward anyone to be anything there hasn't been that,, that has met. because the defense has already been incurred >> it has but they're making a payment for these activities it assumes there's another activity beyond just make a payment for something that may be used. i'm not sure that's helping. >> so, a couple points. i think commissioner hur your hypothetical is also getting at with the next regulation. i don't know who want to consider them both at the same time. he deals with this timing issue whether this would be january

and what if you don't-maybe you want to do it separately or maybe don't. going back to subsection a about the making of payments, i believe staff can correct me if i get this wrong-i believe one of the reasons for doing a is that a entity that wishes to evade the lobbyist ordinance with intentionally delay the payment in order to avoid registering as potential lobbyist. i don't know how likely this is the could be a hypothetical situation in which someone also mail. i want to send out all these mailers, but i don't register as a lobbyist until months down the road and avoids making the actual payment until some later date which would be-which would does delay disclosure to the public what that entities up to. >> the example provided, the

10,000 militants never used, i understand that, what is confusing is, if the time between when the mailer is ordered and paid for is different than the time but it's going to be used by a substantial margin, it's going to be difficult for the filer to understand when they report that. it sounds like what you're saying is, if the payment is actually needs to be reported at the time the activity takes place. that sounds like what you're now describing. >> yes. i think the staff memo gets to this, but i think really there's two things you need to set aside to become an expenditure lobbyist. you need to make a payment and then that payment needs to be done for the purpose of urging the public to lobby city hall. so, in a situation where that urging that second element is not yet satisfied, and entity is not qualified as a lobbyist you. that second element is the

present is when you need to register on the registration they may need to disclose their tomato payment in january but they would in fact be a lobbyist until a later date. >> i think the language, if that's the intent is confusing. >> so, is it a 12 month i think every single pipe so it's always a 12 month look back on the triggering event that they communicate to effect some kind of legislative administrative influence? isn't that just the triggering event that would always make someone look back 12 months? they have no choice but to is what it sounds like to me. the moment-it doesn't matter let's say that that study were the evaluation happens and was paid for in january, the communication went out in april, and the moment it

went out in april someone in the organizing says that with a look back for the last 12 months and look at all our expenditures or anything that had to do with this it seems to me that as mr.-insane the triggering event is the moment you communicate or seek to. immediately the clock turns on and you look back over the last four months as he would your expenditures were over $2500. is that true? >> yes. that make sense in which case the definition not to be a person makes payments for an activity and then the rest, to request words other persons to communicate directly-i'm wrestling with the language here. at the end i think you should put at the time the activity takes place. so, a person makes payment for an activity to solicit, request words persons to communicate

director with an officer with the city and county in order to influence the matter of local legislative work ministry of action the time the activity takes place. that sounds like what you're getting at and what i would agree with. you can cut the payment when the communication or activity that is being used occurs. whether that be the mailer goes out. whether that be when the bus delivers the people to the meeting. when the members go out. i mean, that seems to me the most sense. >> how would you word it? because i'm not sure this best wording but one possibility is a person makes payments and then i would cut out this praise, at the time and expenses incurred. leave the rest and at the end say at the time the activity takes place. so, basically, a person makes payment at the time it takes place.

>> so, does it also make sense to strike online seven the words, for an activity? would just read a person makes payment to solicit. then, at the end of your additional language at the time and activity takes place? >> i don't know that it matters that much. >> okay. i was wondering where the want to say it's no later than the time the activity takes place? >> well, i think we need some clarity on when that research project needs to be reported. if you say no, later, i do worry that they don't know whether they ought to pay for it , when they ought to pay for it. not necessarily-no later.

meaning that, what would be an example where that the station would make a difference? >> there to be examples in which someone is making a payment. i don't know, the month before the actual committee patient goes out to the public urging them to contact their city hall representative >> but then in the staff example i think that's the precise example they say you would not have to disclose to so, i wear a mailer in april. it was out in may. on april 29 i decided i'm not quick to send it. according to the staff that does not count. so, if you made them disclose it in april when it was paid for then it would be too late could they would've already disclosed something they do not use. >> but i'm not sure were

answering the question about what is making a payments. i mean, i understand where you're going with a regulation i think fundamentally and this because we have a question on the public on. is not purely intellectual that we did your question from the public fairly early on when is the date of payment is made. is the payment made on which the entity that could be an expenditure lobbyist makes her quest of a printer to print some stuff, draft some stuff, design a flyer, whatever it is or isn't a date on which the entity that could be a lobbyist actually cuts a check to a vendor? >> it sounds like what the staff is inventing and what i agree with it's really neither. it's when it happens. they can't get around it the way you described. you can say alright and all even 12 months so we can do this covertly not tell anybody about it until it's too late and no one knows. no one until no one cares about it anywhere down the road. this ensures that-at least as of the

date that the activity takes place that payment would have to be disclosed. for the following month. >> i am not clear on why it matters whether they pay for it the day of or a month later. that doesn't have bearing on it. as bearing it is being used to influence, and the moment that triggering event happens, whether that's the bus, the pizza, whatever that is, that then sets the ball in motion, which is the look back of 12 months. is that right? even in a situation where someone decided to feel like a bit of sleight of hand and say, we will produce the paper. i won't pay-all produce the paper and fabric. we'll publish the paper and will send disseminate the paper in march or april but then i'll pay for it in august

or september, what happens then? >> i think under the current -under what intended i think would reported at the time the event happened. not later than was paid for >> i think that's essentially where he started from. starting so that we have when the expenses incurred. those in expense incurred when they made the subject was ultimately used to communicate. so, if you incurred expenditure but you never actually send it out you haven't done an expenditure give-and-take in an activity to qualify. we want to make sure it under your hypothetical that money does get reported even if they're not made the payment yet. >> i see. >> one additional point. he

important when a payment is made is important for two reasons it is important when you qualifies in expense or lobbyist. secondly, once you do qualify as an expenditure lobbyist unique monthly disclosures of course. so, on this monthly disclosure at ordinance currently requires you need to report the date the payments are made. now, and for taking universal definitions of the payment is made connectivity takes place the expenditure lobbying takes place, were actually not really adding any information always for the purpose of monthly disclosures. i think your point is well taken in terms of when you qualify, but then we just have this sort of an odd way to interpret that in terms of the monthly reporting that an expenditure lobbyist would actually need to complete it. >> i am wondering if the language that commissioner hur suggested that maybe needs to be a subsection 1 or subsection 2 for purposes of monthly

reporting. a person makes a payment at the time the activity to solicit his incurred or paid, whichever comes first. does that kind of approach clarified for the purposes of monthly reporting? what payment would have to be reported and when. >> not really because if you made a payment and chose not to use it- >> i think this would be for reporting what you already qualify. you qualify but you never used that item that you incurred payment for. then that's probably not activity that is an expenditure lobbyist activity period >> but even if the time you get a report, you could incur an expense that ended up not being-not qualifying is something you have to report. so, maybe we go back to what

mr. chen suggested insane, no later than good if you know is can be used for lobbying anyone reported on january 1 i guess there's nothing that prevents you from doing so and perhaps that's beneficial. but, i do think tying it to the date that the activity takes place provides protection for the public because soon after the event were going to get a disclosure of activity and it also provides convenience for the filer because they know exactly what date the items have to be reported by. >> i want to say after we talk this through the to somehow make it very clear for everyone who asked to do this filing. just this alone a little that gives me a portal into the layperson who's trying to do well, the labor organization or whomever it happens to be.

>> i guess maybe i'm a lone wolf here. i think you over complex a simple issue. is it when some entity or individual decides it's going to go and make a communication, and the cost involved in making the communication is about $2500. they've got to report. now, whether they incur the $2500, i didn't know we had a 12 month-incurred two years ago, but they used what they pay for two years ago to try and influence the public on a given issue, it should be reported. >> when? >> when they initiate to medication. >> that'll were talking about it right now, if i read this, i think it's when two years ago when i paid for the study. i

mean, if i read it for the first time that's what screams out to me. at the time incurred. >> but you have amended it and i think that amendment is good. the focus should be a person makes a payment when any expenditure and connection with a communication. or am i oversimplifying? >> nope. >> i think the chair has stated it quite accurately. i think you go beyond it gets into some levels of complexity that that starts the confusion

and in regard to the fact that someone has the-based venture is made and then is triggered at the time the event takes place for which the expenditure was intended and you look at that as the point court reporting. for reporting. >> do we have a recap of the language that was just most recently being discussed? >> sure. a person makes payment and then if you're looking at proposal in which of the staff, i would delete, at the time and expense is incurred. so, a person makes payment for an activity. all the rest of the language is the same and then come at the end, i would add, edit, the activity takes place. basically, person makes payment at the time the activity takes place. after describing with the activity is in the middle. alternatively we

could say, no later than that the activity takes place. i think that may be adding confusion but i'm not against it. >> then, subparagraph b, any comment? >> 51 comments. i think we ought to delete a single matter . my view on that is related to my view on the d, which i agree we should not be requiring payments made to employees be included, but we take off that burden, i don't think we need to

decided by single market i think the single matter is important if you are requiring entities to include payments to employees. if you take that out i don't think it gets hard for them to agree there outside payments. i would cut out the single matter of in d. >> do any other commissioners have any comments on letter d? now, there was some public opposition to limiting it to a single matter has been a means by which an organization or individual could play games by

parsing what is meant by single matter,, and to a certain extent i'm sympathetic with that argument could i wondered if there was some other language that would capture the idea that it's an issue. a single issue, as opposed to a matter. i'm not even happy with that wording but to, for example, i think the illustration was given in one of the comments we've received, that somebody could take the position that general opposition to a certain legislative action would be

deemed as one separate issue. then, when they felt specifically with it they would say that's a separate one because now it's a different matter. first, we were generally educating the public. now, we are focusing in on something. and saying, shouldn't it at least be capturing everything that let's say, for example, the need for low-cost housing. could that be broken down by each little issue that comes up in the course of that? i would be more disposed to broaden that from single matter. >> if i could jump in for a moment. i think the intent of overtime to get at here is looking at some guidance in the

existing language of the ordinance about what is late of administrative action and the referenced any resolution, any item that disclosure requirement tied to any item. so, it seems like there was some logic to the considering this in the singular. using your example commissioner stephen,, our intent was to say if there was a question innocence about legislative body about say, the use of bus stops about how those should be. we were not trying to parse the hearing to discuss the matter, the appearance before board of supervisors was a separate matter. only steps in the prosecutor that's not the issue. philosophically, were trying to capture i think as you've described, a question before a legislative body were

a resolution, emotion, a ordinance regardless of only steps are in the process to get there. so, this one which may not get there, but whether we insert the word, issue, or something like that, the question i think is still out there whether it's your desire to count any and all legislative and administrative action in the aggregate, or whether it's a one to one relationship from the expenditure to the issue. >> commissioner keane >> what we will wind up doing is having someone just parse things. well it doesn't relate to that particular matter. all this archaeology will be needed in order to try something back to its roots. so, i don't understand why in terms of the language itself in c where it talks about a payment that if

you have $2500 paid, why there is this concern and the statement that it would not-in writing that you would not accumulate payments for all activities, but it would count all payments for a single manner. then, you really drop down the rabbit hole and trying to figure out what this is it the intent of c someone spending $2500, there come under expenditure lobbyist. if you're doing it for advocacy and lobbying in regard to what we have described. i think that was the clear intent of the workbooks itself. that was what the voters wanted. the idea that they were going to have to do all of this individual-well, it does vary on this matter.

they're doing advocacy and lobbying but it only ads appear to $2400 on our. so let's see what else we've got. then there's another matter that they've got something and it's $2400 and $99. that doesn't apply. i think the word looks is quite clear. he spent if you're one of these entities you spend 2500 hours in regard to advocacy and lobbying.. you expect your next amateur lobbyist or not. end of story. that was what the voters saw that's what it said. this is going to unbelievable amount of confusion, fights, and may even wind up making the heart of what we did and what the voters wanted worthless good so, i would make it light cumulative amount. that's very simple. could you spend $2500 cumulatively quit mac to urge others to lobby on some matters

quit accurate expenditure lobbyist. period. >> you would delete the phrase, a single matter? >> yes, i would >> in order to influence local legislative or administrative action? >> yes could otherwise work reading a set of problems.. commissioner andrews was talking about the difficulty in regard to small entities and nonprofits figuring this out. under this, they be spending all their time saying, well, the thing we did back there where we bought a carnation in order to go to supervisor jones's daughter's wedding, well does that apply? you would be going to all this. if it comes out to $2500 that

relates to lobbying on matters, that is it. you have to register. you are an expenditure lobbyist. this is crazy. >> any other comments on this particular section? >> i want to be clear. that is-that the br single matter or aggregate of a variety of matters? >> exactly. >> if you're in the lobbying and advocacy business, whatever your range of stuff is, but it's $25 $2500 you have to register. >> commissioner andrews, when i propose that, for me it is subject to the green with a

staff because i think it's a big difference between talking about outside expenditures for your actually paying vendors. you can keep track of that stuff. when it comes to parsing out for individual employees to much me, that's very different. so, i agree with commissioner keane. >> i'm still on b. i saw one comment. i think with you change the 12 month to six months. i think based on the comments i read, there was a lot of concern that 12 months was too long could i saw the friends of ethics, switching to a greek i think they thought you was okay to go to six months. i think we ought to cut that back to six months rather than 12 >> if i have one of the clarifications to the previous point online 12, reference to

the single matter comes out is probably appropriate to take out the reference to an officer of the city and simply make it plural, officers of the city. >> you are suggesting we reduce it to six months. i guess, why if it is a payment that was made two years ago, but it is then being used, why is it not covered?. again, it's an issue of burden for benefit. >> again it's an issue for burden for benefit its unlikely that someone commissions a study on generate first 2016 for the influence of legislation when the actual lobbying is going to be done on december 31, 2016. so, the benefits of that is you would

capture such actions. the burden is not good to go back and look for a year instead of six months and all the expenditures that relate to this activity. >> all right. going to c, do any commissioners have any comments on the charlie? d, where it would completely eliminate salaries paid i am forced to employee from county for 2500 hour threshold, and the other one was put a 50% if the employee spend more than

50% of their time than his or her salary should be counted. any commissioners want to comment on that one? commissioner hur >> a couple thoughts. i share my initial views on this bulimia explain a little bit more why. when i read through this ordinance when when we were putting it together and discussing and drafting it, i don't think it was clear to the public and certainly not clear to me that this was meant to capture payments to employees of the expenditure lobbyist. it's a little bit different than the language we have for contact lobbyists, and so this idea that, yes, we want to implement with the voters agreed upon. i'm not sure the voters actually agreed and believed that was what we were capturing. secondly, this is a

very broad ordinance, and i think that is good. it doesn't just capture legislative act. it doesn't just capture which you have to report on irs 990. it also captures administrative action that requires great detail and requires it on a monthly basis. that's a great benefit. were we were initially interested in when we talk what this was, if there's a board of supervisors hearing you of 100 people there and it seems like the public really cares that company a is doing the right thing and always people support what company a once, well we want to know that actually those people were paid to be there or provided dinner for being there. that limousine bus picked him up and brought them that. that's the sort of outside expenditure we seem to be most interested at the time. requiring the employer to look at especially for nonprofits, to look at what this employee

is spending on, how much time for activity a b or c is quite onerous that the reporting requirements are orders of think were getting much bang for the buck for it. i agree it's harder when it comes to buy 1c3 but on balance i think would be better to go with it for d >> any other comments? >> this is not limited to nonprofits. maybe mr. chen can educate me, but if something pulley is a major corporation is paid to roundup people to go all and come down to meetings, when he beat covered with thick >> if we excluded all

employees salaries? >> noted under that scenario that employees time doing those kinds of activities would not count toward the threshold of reporting. so, the reason that we bracketed some optional additional language to have this conversation whether the commission thought that salaries paid to employees under an organization for activities that urge others to communicate and lobby whether that should count or not count. >> i can see the concerns about nonprofits, but this language am as i beat it, and thus am reading it wrong, reads if pg&e once have a full-time employee whose only job is to agitate in the community to get people to go down and support positions that pg&e wants, they would not have to be an expenditure lobbyist and they would not-that employee would not be considered a lobbyist.

would it? >> i think that's correct >> is not a contact lobbyist unless he personally goes down and contacts, but he's out there, his job is to go out and agitate the public and being paid thousands of dollars as a full-time employee,, why should that not have to be reported? >> commissioner keane >> i agree with you. the basis of the concern in terms of should it be 50% of the employees payments, 50% of the police time, how did you do with advocacy or lobbying or should it be exempt altogether, one of the things that the funds of ethics talked about in

the proposed regulations is you have the tail wagging the dog here. commissioner renne these common this is attempting to apply all advocacy and lobbyist groups, all them that are attempting to influence policy and other things within the process. at the public has a right to know who is behind it. so, the concern well, it's going to be hard for a nonprofit. you have these major groups. you have carl rose, the co-brothers and all sorts of others could they are employing lots of people as they their employees and those employees are going and influencing policy all over the place and money is driving the process within

the united states. not just in san francisco. so, to say that the millions of dollars that the coke brothers or carl rove spends on his employees to go out for the employees to do all sorts of things, call up people and say go down and lobby this person. call up these talk shows , well we don't want to cover that because it might be onerous to the employees of nonprofits, democracy is onerous in lots of ways but this is a question of facilitating democracy so the voters and people can know who is behind things. much more important now than ever in our history. when i saw in the law itself, if you come under this aspect of advocacy and lobbying, and you are paying more than $2500, the public has a right to know who you are.

whether you're a nonprofit whether you're the coke brothers were called rove and the fact that the employees are being played when he, that money that adds up to $2500, it doesn't make any difference. it's $2500 that's being spent for these thing. so, mr. chairman, i would say we should reject both of these things in terms of having employees payments to the employees exempt or it will only count if they spend 50% of their time. i think that amounts almost to our amending the ordinance itself. there's a process for the amendment of the worst. if we want to do that we have to go through a vote and send it to the board of supervisors and to amend it and change it in these very drastic ways because

i'm a well, we are really helping out some nice organizations and granted their nice organizations, that were in favor of because they're doing things for housing or doing things for little children or whatever it be, that's wonderful, but we are losing the grand scheme of what's behind this ordinance. so, i say it's $2500 would've paid to employees or not, and the advocacy and the lobbying is done, that's the end of it. we are creating all sorts of problems with this. 75% of the voters voted for this ordinance. 75% of the people of san francisco voted for this ordinance. if you would submit it gives anything about what we'll do is tinker with it and that $2500, this is not to be part of that $2500 because employee salaries might be some small nonprofit only like that nonprofit that's going to be tough for them to do it. i don't think we have the right to do that.

>> i honestly disagree with commissioner keane but it's not clear to me the ordinance anticipates talk about employee socket we talk well with the voters voted for, i think we disagree on what the voters thought they were voting for it certainly it wasn't clear to me when we're putting this together . so, i don't think reducing the augment what the voters wanted is the answer to. i think we need to look practically and what it means, how is going to be implemented and what benefit we get from it. pg&e is not to hire someone whose job is going to be to defined as agitating people to get them to do what pg&e wants. it's can be more nuanced title. they're going to say well was to my job is public relations were public policy. how do we define-how do we define what

activities they do that's captured within that and how are they going to capture themselves? but it's a very complicated issue and i'm not sure get the benefit, the public is getting that much benefit by knowing pg&e has an employee as part of their job is calling people up. i think what i was concerned about mostly with these outside expenditures to third-party vendors, and especially this directly to people who are coming to try to influence the public. >> other commissioners comments? >> i would say i do respectfully disagree with commissioner keane. i do agree with commissioner hur but i would also say this. i'm hoping we are not seeking to just be so expedient that the out of hand completely not consider a

amendment in which case some things could be taken care of through some revisions of the regulation and there may be other things we may need to pick up. if it turns out that we still want pg&e to register, but it also turns out into or three or four or five nonprofits get impacted maybe it's worth pick up that conversation and parsing that out and finding those ways which can do two things. protect the nonprofits and make sure that they don't have to-don't know how consistently and consulate but also keep it broad enough that pg&e does have to register these particular people but i agree with commissioner hur is way more new ones. it's the director committee engagement that the higher and pg&e will think they need to register those employees. i don't know how you get at that. i don't know how you-

>> then, if that is the case commissioner andrews, what were saying is it's going to depend on what sort of job title that these companies give them and then we are lost because the job titles can be made very innocuous but the actual to these can be advocacy and lobbying. so, if we keep it in terms of the simple language that we put forth to the voters in terms of advocacy and lobbying, we don't have a problem. the other thing, in terms of what you said was, you were hoping that we as a body would not reject out of hand and amendment i don't reject out of hand eight amendment. i listen to any proposed amendment by any of my colleagues but and amendment means we go through the amendment process which the charter requires. we have for this vote in favor of it that has to go to the board of

supervisors and get a super majority in there. we can't amend something. if we actually do amend and collect the regulation were being dishonest. >> well, i understand the prosecutor thank you for the reminder and i understand. i just don't want the expedients of us implement something not to fully consider the process of a amendment and taking up a particular component that could help solve a lot of what were talking about. which is just breaking out some of these organizations and how they do business. >> that's fine. that's fine. >> let me ask, putting aside the questions of a nonprofit, putting that aside, is there any reason why a corporate entity or a partnership for individual was spending money

to have employees agitate to affect legislation? is there any reason they should not have to report? is it complicated? >> i think it is complicated we start with your first question. i much much less opposed to having them break it out to take out the 501(c)(3) from that requirement. the rationale for excluding it for everyone includes i think the following. one, i don't think it's necessarily so easy to figure out what these employees are spending their time upon. if i make a call that relates to a mailer that's going to be done. that's 5 min. maybe that is .1 hour or .05. whatever. so, wouldn't they need to track all the time to figure out whether-and you take the time and you divided by the total

salary and then you determine on a monthly basis whether that is above or below $2500. as a law firm, we do track our time as you know, but most companies don't and most companies, the people in these community development director of community relations walls, not everything they do is going to be what's captured by expenditure lobbying. i do think it is complicated even for the for profit. like i start off with much less concerned if we take it to 501(c)(3)'s. >> when we get to the 501(c)(3), in three and four which i'm not a tax attorney, but there's indication and some of the materials that the friends of ethics filed, that there are certain filings that, apparently, identified truly sort of nonprofits that

are representing public interest, as opposed to the coral roses could they make some reference to a file of the internal revenue service form 990 n or 990 easy which i take it our requirements which the internal revenue service has put in for specific organizations that are sort of different than other 501(c) threes and fours. >> i'm also not a tax expert, but what i understand on the 990 is a nonprofit is not allowed to do more than certain amount of lobbying type activity. to maintain their 501(c)(3) status. >> right. >> but for the see-for they

can do as much a lobbying as i wanted i don't know they need to report with the same level of regularity we are requesting. >> maybe somebody-do you know, andrew, what form 990 n, which i take it is for the c-3 and the 990 easy e that limits below will be the normal 2990? >> minor says different classification of 90 forms turned on the helping the organization is good if you're small organization you file easy and if you're bigger at different 990 from. again not a tax effort not a nonprofit lawyer but i did skim some of the 90 forms and it does seem than 90 forms to ask for this kind of information. exactly what level of granularity i don't know how loosely maps onto their garments of proposition c i am not sure but something we could public

comment could share with us at that something you're interested to the extent people here from 501(c)(3)'s and are at least involved in the preparation of the stipends may they can knows more about the details but they do and many tracking dave baby do that help them thought those forms at the end of the year. >> that might be helpful. >> i was just saying some 501(c) threes have a bible and c-3 arm in that regard which is a different type of reporting and i think more details and ways that out. >> commissioner speaking >> i may be wrong but i think i saw materials cemented to us by friends of ethics that actually dress this point in terms of the difference relating to the reports and the

reporting that go in to it. >> maybe when we get to public comment. i take subsection e, though payments made by any person prior to february 1, 2016 implementation date of the proposition c shall be counted toward the 2500 are qualifying threshold-any discussion on that provision? with that, i will ask for public comment relating to 2-105-5 and you can address any one of the a, b, c, or d sections that you wish. >> i'm bob crandall. first i

want to go back to the text of c and reference to commissioner hur's version of applicability of payments. look on page 5 lines 9-15. its visit restates what is excluded. was excluded as i mentioned the concept he was talking about good further high up it does the things that can be included. so, there's no exclusion of payments to staff. i think that is telling if you want to follow a strict construction approach. i want to suggest, also, >> this is all those in favor say, aye we don't do that. >> the materials handed to us --if you become a joke handed to us by the usf students, page 16 indicates different topics would have to be reported. if you follow what is in their daughter and any agency could segment out in staff time and avoid reporting. you haven't

talked about real issues noted your very abstract. you haven't played out how this would apply to current issues. i will give you an example. the commuter shuttle program. google could assign one person to talk to the economic development benefits and told people to go to the commission on the about. another per-person to go to public health another person about transportation. you could segment out. topics of an overall issue and never meet that threshold, never have to report. if you follow w that could be on mega-nonprofit that could extend shook substantially rezone this a good provide for services, health services to people again have mega-nonprofit assign people to different commissions and try to get people to go to each of those commissions and never reports. i think that's

when you fail in your obligations could you not look at this concretely. finally, i want to go back to what last commissioner stephen pointed out if you look at e you're putting everyone in trouble because this is 20 february. the legislation was posted starts every first. if you pass anything tonight you group of people in a conundrum what is going on for february. they don't know what the rules are. they haven't reported anything. they haven't done anything. yet by this language they could be in trouble. i am suggesting even though this is commissioner hur's last meeting, you need to do more discussion, debate, and continued this may be a new person will have additional insights that can help everybody, not just those fears tonight in the agencies that are a part of. thank you. >> i'm not going to sound

coherent but ominous throw things at you. in terms of large corporations i took a look at the major donors, the developers and money they give to nonprofits which is specifically stated that it's given $5000 to a nonprofit in or to the nonprofit speed publicly on behalf of the development. in 2015 the 5m development paid $240,000 to nonprofits in chunks of $25,000. the questions of whether corporations are developing you know that someone in the 5m organization had to be spending time choosing which nonprofits are going to get the money and deciding to make arrangements with them and all the rest of it. so there is somebody on staff was making those kinds of decisions and probably played

pretty well for. in terms of nonprofits, i'm going to get out a copy of 890 easy. visit from the san francisco ter. unit which is a small nonprofit . they've f file and i 90 easy. they do not support proposition c like a moron exemptions, but you will see in this under schedule o in their form though itemize each of the things they're spending money on. they also have an accounting keeping track of how much money they spent on voter registration, on ballots, announcements and all the rest of it. so, it's all bad. in terms of when expenses are incurred, if you look at a model campaign finance report, they have to report whitson and colluded expense. exactly to avoid someone making a

long-term commitment, but not paying it out so it doesn't show up. i think of you something like an accrued expense it works. for example, right now also loses out doing an opinion poll over april street location they want to put a whole foods into. it's obviously designed to ultimately influence the permit process. i don't think there's much question that down the road once there the results of that poll they will have asked some of nonprofits on polk street to support their position and give them copies of all. should be reported now that they're paying for the pole where should you wait until they actually use it for that purpose?then i would also point out you have groups like the pla which is a registered lobby and they regularly give out of 5000 or grants for community empowerment. it's a good thing. there's nothing wrong with it. in the case is

not a quid pro quo the way it is on other developers but i think you need to look at this in the real world specifics. >> thank you. >> hello. i want to just speak to the specific language of the regulations the way i understood or would write subsection a. a person makes payments for activities, plural, to slit request or communicate directly with an officer of the city and county to influence local legislative or administrative action when those activities occur. i think that is more clear. 4b, i think the person qualifies as an expenditure lobbyist if they make payments totaling $2500 or more in a calendar month to communicate

with her directly with an officer to influence local legislative or administrative action period. again so it's consistent and fewer words, less interpretation. i'm not sure if the sub i is needed without repetition because it payments occur when he activities occur, then you don't necessarily have to do this because they only appear when action is taken that relates to that. in subsection c i don't like the language charitable organization. that's a new concept and does not appear in the law. i was just using language nonprofit organizations throughout, and again, i don't know what a charitable project is. it could be for a project. there

certainly are entities that are fiscal boxes but i don't like this idea of charitable because it's not defined anywhere. for d i think that a lot of discussion at the cuts different ways. as bob indicated on page 5 of the law, there's language about what constitutes payments. i think that is actually fairly clear and i tend to think although i'm certainly open to hearing more, that salary payments should be included here that someone's do get salaried payments exempted that be why of amendments to the law. the law itself isn't suggest salary payments should be excluded for profit nonprofit or organization or person phenomena. those are my comments. this is continue to the next meeting would ask you additional copies the proposed regulations. there only proposed of the [inaudible]. >>good evening. i had some

remarks prepared on breaking this up into three distinct units.let me say i'm not here to give legal advice but bible and see threes >> could you speak into the microphone. i'm having trouble hearing. >> 501(c) threes are charitable organizations may provide direct services. 501(c) four get their tact tax exempt status exact because they engage in lobbying activity. 501(c) threes are limited in the amount of lobbying they can engage in they file a schedule c with her tiny and 99. the schedule c itemizes the amount of lobbying they've engaged in during the reporting period.

there was a question raised also about before easy and four-man. minor sinning but i may have this incorrect eligibility to form easy if the budget is under $500,000. the reason the ec and n form lease from the friends of ethics commission, it's a marker where organization should be exempt from the registration fee. that's the only reason why it's significant. i respectfully disagree with commissioner hur's comments that the items that statute contemplated would include, does not salary. i'm going to read from proposition c, if i may. examples of types

of activities for payments. payment for which can count toward the threshold. in the previous sentence, include but not limited to public relations, media relations, advertising, public outreach, research, investigation, reports, analysis, and study. that is exactly the sort of activity 501(c) fours engage in activity in-house. and i'm better run out of time. the state law be has a identical language requiring that organizations report salary time. if the employee spends more than 10% of their time on expenditure lobbying adjuster you can compare the language,

-is that the enemy >> finish your sentence >> just so you can compare the language with proposition c the language in state statute limit read two senate. in person directly or indirectly to influence legislative or ministry of action of $5000 or more in a calendar quarter must file periodic reports. payments made to influence legislative or administrative action include payments for wording connection with urging other persons indirect communication with any elected state official, legislative official or agency of his. i'm happy to provide citations. >> thank you. >> good evening. my name is judy swartz the second dr. derek is a small firms whose advocacy three services to build community and inspire

positive social change through education and career training health promotion or leadership endowment lesbian gay transgender. for live the gospel of the proposed regulation limiting proposition c to client tracking extensive logging would impose an extraordinary burden.we are primarily serves expenses on holistic institutional support to the interacting forms of oppression they encounter in schools and workplaces. unified model and youth leadership development and youth workforce to moment is core to our successful program design we know that by giving marginalized queer and gender transgender youth to have a voice in shaping the city policies and budget priorities that affect their lives they not only developed self

efficacy but grow in their engagement as computers to community. we also know he's youth must be paid for their work. this is important not only for that about of their job skills but also for queer and transgender youth expense work as legitimate numbers of them labor market and pursue economic self-sufficiency. when first coming to better secure percent of the youth are not part of the labor market and some are part of the underground economy. the proposed rule requires tracking would throw an overly wide net to include almost 100 actually low income lgbt people employees each year and put an unnecessary burden on an agency with a regular stop only 14. additionally, the potential disclosure about dbt recipients of confidential services to their status as lyric employees would be critically concerning especially information to include residential addresses and the legal means of transgender youth not yet gone through the process of legal name change. developing

leadership skills and create opportunities for civic highly marginalized and disenfranchised youth can be shared priority. these adults already have enough barriers to overcome please do not create another one and those of us dedicated to seeing them thrive. lastly which the state and support for the amendment to the language to be later presented by peter cohen. >> thank you. >> good evening. my name is ken tried. q of united educators of san francisco. we are about 6300 para educators? he caters counselors and so on who make sure our public schools run day in and day out. so, i was a civics teacher, 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 cohat 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 talking past 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.

>> 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 renne, 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 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. von raven's allies. not to attempt or

around one thing by regulation that pervades the whole lobbyist sphere and inventory to be adjusted should be addressed on a general basis. >> i'll call the question on your motion to excepting the amendment to be as discussed. otherwise, adopting the language that's proposed for two 110 10, registration reporting. i call the question at all in favor, aye. opposed? the motion is carried 3-2. the record to reflect commissioner andrews and hur dissented. >> was their second on the motion or trackback for the minutes >> yes. then, regulation 2.110

11, which provides for a waiver of $500 registration fee is $500 annual reregister nation fee for 501(c)(3) and 501(c) four, nonprofit organizations, any discussion of the commission? commissioner hur >> i think this is too broad. i think we ought to limit it to entities that file 49849 in the easy were 490 n that would provide exemption for organizations either file or reasonably intend to file that are, believe $500,000 or less. i think the reference by the staff in a contact lobbyists

roam may be inapplicable because were not considering employees of tax-exempt organizations as lobbyists get if you organization itself that is the lobbyist. so, i don't think we need to treat them quite the same as contact lobbyists. >> you would propose that the registration fee for 501(c)(3) who file form 990 n >> or easy >> i think easy is just for the for. i don't know. >> [inaudible] >> thank you. >> say was a registration fee for 501(c)(3)'s and 501(c) four

nonprofit organizations satisfy the fine requirements of form 990 n and 98 easy >> that's correct but not 501(c) four. i'll only 501(c)(3). >> secured something- >> if you waive it for 501(c)(3) who form 990 easy or form 990 n who intend to file. >> are you striking that >> i want to strike that. i do not want them to get this registration waiver.

>> discussion from the commission? >> so, is just the waiver is confined to those entities -forgive me-to those entities that are filing 990 n and 990 easy. is that correct? >> threats. because that's fine >> public comment? >> i just want to point out, there's a provision earlier you party accepted that charitable organizations that act is a fiscal sponsor to charitable projects are not required to register good responsibility falls on the project that point out because a services network

is officially sponsored by creative were to exceed a threshold ages and would have to register not our fiscal sponsor community initiative. however, hsn does not file a 990 community initiative does. so it appreciate making a waiver provision consistent with the fiscal sponsorship. so, if the fiscal sponsor files the 990 waiver will for the fee would apply. i hope that makes sense to >> is the official sponsor exempted? >> the point is that if a fiscal sponsor which manages hundreds of projects has one project that exceeds the threshold then you're only looking at the project expenses. you not look at their other 87 projects that don't even lobby. so, in previous conversation weave the commission has looked at this a little bit. responsibility falls on the project and it doesn't make any sense to extend the requirements to all

the projects sponsored by community initiative that of 90 projects. i think you has 140 projects and only a small number of them to any kind of lobbying. so you don't want to have the fiscal sponsor your sponsor will for reporting for all 90 projects punitively loving total when only one organization has met the threshold. that's been covered >> i'm very confused what this has to do the waiver >> what it has to do with the waiver is first to qualify for example the human services network technically does not exist. we don't file a 990s of your saying only 501(c)(3) that have a file and i 90 would technically qualified leaving $500 fee. we don't file a 990 because we don't exist. we

would have to register >> then you have to pay the fee. >> we are a project of a 501(c)(3). they are our fiscal sponsor. they handle all of our administration. they handle our payroll. they had our benefits. they handle accounting. so we exist as a project of that organization. so, if they >> you are suggesting under that example, the fiscal sponsor would not qualify for this waiver because i do not file it >> no. they do file on 990. i am suggesting the human services network has to register because we met the threshold that because our fiscal sponsor files on 990 that we would qualify for the $500 fee exemption that is consistent with the regulation you party adopted 2105 5c,

that recognizes that unique arrangement that nonprofits have between the school sponsored projects and projects not incorporated. >> are you suggesting the language we should insert in here is where we say 501(c)(3)'s filing form 990 easy or 990 or where there is our sponsors organization >> yes. where the fiscal sponsor files i 90 that the same $500 fee waiver would apply. exactly. it's a formality . it's up we do have nonprofit status but only through our fiscal sponsors. >> you just heard a good example of what is dark money in san francisco lobbying. there is no disclosure by hsn

or what their income is, what their budget is. how they spend their money. it's all lumped under the fiscal sponsor and is that he has just said there's about 90 projects under the fiscal sponsor. not one of which is broken out and revealed what they are doing specifically. so, if hsn is spending money on lobbying it's not known to the irs. it's not known to the ethics commission good it's not known to anyone. but if you go to the webpage to see what is the work of hsn, it is to be an advocate on changing city policies. they exist to lobby. yet, they make no disclosures that if you accept this without some fallback position that says i'm at a minimum, fiscally sponsored projects must produce to the ethics commission copies

of the forms of providing to the fiscal sponsor, you will then put them on the same playing field as those groups that file and 990 easy. >> commissioners, i know you've already made your decision at least for the moment on the previous section, but the discussion over what terms would qualify for an exemption from the fee almost seems like a de minimis point because $500 now becomes a lifetime registration fee for lack of any process or threshold to terminate as an

expenditure lobbyist. for the previous discussion, for lack of any amendment to your language, you know how the situation where once the 2500 or threshold is triggered you are in and never getting out. that's of grave concern. i would respectfully ask you to think about defining the circumstances under which an organization or individual just isn't doing the kind of expenditure activity that you're looking for, and therefore, allows them to terminate your registration and get out from this system of reporting and whatnot. then if they do it again they pay another $500 or thirst altogether waiver. the wave structure now your talk about a one-time fee, which may be or may be don't get a waiver, and then you're in the system for perpetuity, which is a long time. i don't know what that threshold is. it's $2500 or one

on her dollars were single month old over the course of three months, but it would seem you need to define some ways someone can terminate their registration at the thick but that's not correct mr. cohen. we had a long discussion >> that's not correct mr. cohen. we are long discussion about what termination is. >> at all activity. what i heard was a dollar. >> all activity defined as payments for political advocacy. you stop it for one month and you file a termination certificate and you're out of it. you're out of it. so the idea that somehow your never going to be able to live a life without being on the run from us is simply not the case. the termination is as

we talked about is a rather simple formality could then if you want to get back into it you can choose to get back into it. so you've listed what the process was. is. >> commissioner speaking i believe i understood the process but any expenditure of any amount continues to qualify. so when we recognize that spending 50 bucks to hire a bus to bring people to a rally then qualifies >> so you don't spend anything for one month you don't spend $50 menu file termination. you are out junk it back into it again until you qualify with a $2500 payments. >> there's a way to do that. which is to take a month of doing nothing and if that's the way that organizations have to work toward its so be it. it

would seem a little bit more along the lines of what we're looking for is to have a certain threshold that is when you exceed a threshold you to keep going and reporting and if you don't do that low-level and who cares. i nursed in the way you set it up. >> either makes you feel better i agree. >> lena schmidt. you are from the before. part of the grand jury process but i also should just mention that i sat on the board of the fiscal sponsor for a number of years. i want to talk about the process that the fiscal sponsor because i don't think that you've made a decision yet on the waiver or not. so, the way it works the fiscal sponsor holds the 501(c)(3), is the umbrella organization and basically does the ministry of work, supports it, sometimes on hiring surly

on training of any requirements that are out there. does all the reporting to the donors and also does all the reporting to any state requirements or to any federal requirements. that includes any lobbying that any groups under the fiscal sponsor does. so, the groups under the fiscal sponsor does have to report to the fiscal sponsor what lobbying may do. there is a process. as you all know the only find out once he. there is a record and you can build off that record. i think mr. bush said you can get copies of what they submit to the fiscal sponsor but there is a way to track what the projects you're doing during a year. they have to do it because the fiscal bonds sponsor is responsible for reporting to the state and federal government >> commissioner spear

>> can someone explain what- >> again i think she was just trying to be consistent with our decision on regulation where we talked about fiscal sponsors and charitable organizers predict that we save fiscal sponsors are exempt? >> fiscal sponsors are not sought for registering as lobbies. so that's what we are to get on c. now we said in the current visa regulation that were the motion on the table-we are going to waive registration fees for 501(c)(3)'s that file certain kinds of 990s. that sort of ties to how they big they are. she wants us to clarify is that project up the

school sponsors, they don't file any 990 at all. because of that the waiver can't be waived for project of cisco sponsors of the fiscal sponsor files and 990 already specified. >> but the fiscal sponsor might qualify but the project could be much larger couldn't it . >> i don't believe so. the fiscal sponsor is like a yellow organization for all these projects, which are kind of i do so most like 80 nonprofits. >> why would it ever matter? >> i don't think it would. >> if your project of a 501(c) fiscal sponsor is theoretically

possible you could qualify for expenditure lobbyist. to really active in getting people to city hall. you qualify under expenditure lobbyist. it is not clear under the current proposed regulation whether or not you as a project could ever get a fee waiver. but ms. lerman is suggesting you should get a fee waiver if you're umbrella group would file the 990 re: specified. >>. my question. does that fiscal sponsor necessarily have to be a smaller organization as the fiscal sponsor? silly ageism and of the world has to be smaller than its fiscal sponsor by definition? >> that's not true >> it's generally how it happens usually because if a project or would consider program is like loosely

affiliated-not even loosely affinity affiliated, the generally are looking for a fiscal sponsor because they don't have the size in order to keep it going. hr, finance from all the equipment drop in service. that's the role they play. i guess i just need to get clarity for waving organizations under $500,000 or under $25,000, what is the situation where a project or program under fiscal sponsor is $750,000. what happens? >> i don't know what that looks like. >> why don't we just make it- >>: make one other point. the many organizations that don't have the school sponsors who are under $500,000 who just run independently. they run out of their homes. they one fte. many

individuals do that. so we take care of them. who are stand alone nonprofit under $500,000. i'm not exactly clear what happens with the $650,000 program under the fiscal sponsor. it sounds like there's reporting that happens by the fiscal sponsor on the state level surly on a federal level ii 990 and schedule c and other things that are there. i guess the question on the table is, does the program over $500,000 that is embedded under fiscal sponsor is responsibility to file and or does the fiscal sponsor have a responsibility to file. i guess that's my question. >> why don't we say they've 501(c)(3) files the 990 world can prove its budget is less than 500,000?

>> i don't think we ought to be exempt-the whole point of identifying the n were only giving up for small nonprofit. so, if you don't file and 992 you can prove budget is less than 500,000 hours and went to share the documents to prove that then fine. >> just to be clear, these $650,000 organization under a fiscal sponsor, they have to do something. >> they would not get the waiver. >> they would not get the waiver >> they paid the 500 >> the registration reporting happens anyway. the $500 is waived >> how you amend the language of 2.110 11?

>> i would say give the commission shall waive the $500 registration fee in the $500 annual re-registration fee for 501(c)(3) organizations that file reasonably intend to file form 990 n or e letter z per work and demonstrate their budget is less than $500,000. >> do you want to move that? >> so moved unless staff thinks there's something that cause their project moved and seconded. >> moved and seconded. >> i will call the question. all in favor of the regulation to bring 110 11 as amended?

>>[chorus of ayes] kerry. 5-0. >> that concludes our discussion and decision-making in connection with item number four. i think we've lost much of our audience given the time. shall we do for item 5 the protection ordinance to the march meeting. i moved to continue to march. >> the only thing i will say i will no longer be here in march. i did work on this and then put it together, that he

can silly carry the water and knows all the details. >> can we call you back? you can sit out there and make public comment. we will give you 4 min. >> no guarantees. the commotion has been made we continue item number five to the march regular meeting. all in favor >> oh i will take public comment on the motion? >> i does one make a public comment about i appreciate what commissioner hur did working on the whistleblower language. it's grown its effectiveness from the last draft we saw. it's an important piece of legislation for the city because it holds people accountable for what they do and it understands the same issue raised by the civil grand jury.

and commissioner hur brought to his usual fine mind and looking at each aspect it much appreciated. >> thank you. >> knowledge send this to take their subject, as the former member of the sunshine task force i do want to thank you for your movement on helping getting enforcement through this body because that was long-standing and it was you that ashley made it happen. so i want to thank you for that. >> thank you for your work on it as well. >> thank you. item 6 is discussion/and on items- >> i think you need to vote on a motion to continue. sweet >> we did not vote. you are

right. i will call the question. all in favor opposed?. carried 5-0. discussion and possible action on items for future meetings. >> a biker just thank my fellow commissioners and staff and public for allowing me to serve on this body for the last six years. it's been sometimes fun, sometimes not fun. always interesting to learn from each of you and appreciate putting up with me. >> i was going to make some comments when we adjourned but we still have item number seven , which is a discussion the executive directors report come out which i will say was a very detailed and interesting report . particular, the information concerning the senior fellow positions, which i wasn't aware existed but ms. pablum found

out about it and ended the meeting and submitted those three applications and particularly, i be interested in the application for someone on the policy side with the idea that maybe sometime in the near future we could convene some meeting to have a general discussion about various statutes dealing with money and transparency and politics in san francisco. do you want to elaborate a little bit? >> well lit apartments were able to submit up to three submissions, and so we submitted three in the second

directors report it's a competitor process. i think you're less than a dozen senior fellows alternately selected but this a good opportunity to do a couple things. one, at the staff level to articulate what kinds of priorities we could really advance accelerate if we were able to have these kinds of resources and if we actually have the assistance of thing we could move the boss but specifically on public transparency and compliance. also, with our policy trying to develop our template faster to be able to vigorously look at our jurisdiction, and then also in the area of audits. the staff recommendation we think about how we can strengthen the template we use the timeframe we use them that something that could be well suited to this program as well. so, we won't know anything more ugly for several weeks but if you do hear something you will be the first to know and in addition

to the other and somatic to answer any questions. we did, of course as indicated last month submit the budget request to the mayor's budget office on the 22nd as requested by the mayor. we followed your instructions in terms of the content of the request, having it was helpful. we were able to look at some of the numbers and we find overall bottom line in terms of the flow of soda money for the it project, but again will have some conversations with the mayor's office and hopefully in the coming weeks and months and get back to you with further information. so we did submit the letter on separate 22nd to the mayor himself and budget staff to help describe the priorities the commission had embraced last month to the blueprint for

accountability we put for. i'm happy to answer any questions if you have some for me? >> were there any response to our- >> i would say i had a very energizing meeting with the mayor's budget staff. met with kate howard and other person in our office along with our analyst and i think there was openness to hearing about the priorities and encouragement we should look at the fellows program as well. i'm hopeful we'll have some further conversation soon but i don't have anything more to report at this point. >> in that regard, ms. paolo and i have been meeting with most of the supervisors and i think you met with a couple of them but up until then we met with supervisor canady with the last one we have scheduled i think we have nine out of the 11 that we met with and we presented the budget package to

them and universally they've all said we will support whatever you need. so, they seem sympathetic to the fact that the commission has not had a budget increase and they recognize that we need more resources to do what many of the supervisors agree we should be doing. so i'm thoroughly optimistic. turning to the next item, which is the approval of the minutes for >> i just want to make sure you want to make sure this opportunity for public comment >> i'm sorry. does anyone want to comment on the executive

directors report other than to complement it? then, the discussion and approval of the commissions minutes for minutes for january 25, 2016 and there is very little minutes . any of the commissioners have any corrections? i had only one. i didn't quite understand but i guess on page 6, where it says a motion moves, seconded and no vote that the commissioner i take it you meant when you say no vote, i never called the question? because i think would happen is the was a

motion that got eventually incorporated in the original motion. >> we can take another listen and clarify and bring them back next month. detect other than that i don't have any comments. any public comment? >> i think the reason why the was a no vote there that motion did not pass but then the motion to deny the permit waiver was granted was passed. >> i sifted both. both motions we are dealing with restriction. >> yes. it was voted but it did not pass. >> we will correct them and make sure they reflect that action accurately.

>> with that, we move for adjournment >> moved and seconded. >> public comment. hearing none, on favor of adjournment >>[chorus of ayes] >> the meeting is adjourned. >>[gavel] >>[adjournment] >> good morning everybody. and welcome to the hamilton family

residents and emergency center. thank you jeff for hosting us today. i can't think of a better place to do the signic ceremony for our voter, but i want to say thank you to your and your staff for working with us to end homelessness for a lot of families and continue to doing that work. today we are here with a number of departments that includes our obviously public health and fire department and emergency services, city administrator that helps me oversee the 10 year capital plan making sure our bonds are affordable, focused and do not raise property taxes as well as public works deapartment who helps oversee that very same goal and to a resident who lives right here who will talk about her experiences and the need for more healthcare and also more facilities in the city. as i

said earlier, this today is a opportunity to sign legislation that the board has successfully passed with my support to place before the voters this june a $350,000,000 public health and safety bond for consideration. it is huge win for our residents because this bond seeks to protect-to make sure we have necessary improvements to our infrastructure and healthcare and emergency medical services, it protects and expand melthal health suvs for those in need and particularly thoest on the streets. i will continue emphasizeing that we do this in a very responsible way. in all our bond and particularly the last decade we have been successful and made sure

they do not raise property taxes while we do this and the reason we are able to do this is because we havetony year capital plan staff and assurance that we have sth facilities that we work together with the 10 year capital planning staff, that makes sure we only present bonds that reflect room in the bond capacity that don't raise property tax squz fit into that. that st. the magic, but it isn't magic for finance people, it is magic we can present new thing for people to embrace in like the voter jz not have to raise property tax to get those new things mptd in this case i want to make sure people understand while we talk about the zuckerbering sf general facility we know we vanew facility that reflects the larger bond in the history

of the city but we are also moving all those operations into the hospital as we speak, we are leaving a building that is not seismically safe and we are snot interested ichb demaunshing the bity. we are interested making sure the needs the public are reflected in the ongoing use of the 1970's era building we have ajaistant to the new hospital and how do we do nat? we need to make it seismically safe, we need to invite the services that we don't have in a new hospital as much as we have and reflect the ongoing needs that we have while ongoing with the leadership of ourpublic health department has been the conversation we need more mental health facilities. this is where the judges are asking for more beds, the community asks us to take care of more of our mental health needs in

the community and we want to use the facility we have and expand those services. at the same time, there is incredible need to make sure we work with our fire department because they are and continue to be the emergency response team that we have when ever something happens in the city. they have also informed us in addition to supporting more mental health facilities in the city, we need a ambulance response facility to meet the demands we have. we find in the community based fire station squz the stations that house the ambulances not to have the facilities safe enough for the operation to expand and want you to know they are enthuse astic because more and more as our fire department and all of us are having a

experience where knock on wood, we have less fires, we increase the calls for medical services and this is where i enjoyed work with our fire department to increase every facility that we have particularly the ambulance response and particularly the emt staffing that we increased over the last few years to respond to the ambulance calls and make sure we have that capacity. it just so happens that many the fire stations we actually have over all most a $600,000,000 need to increase and make sure we have seismically safe fire hours and can't do tin just one bond and keep the promise of having the bond not increase property taxes so we do it in a way in which we can identify what is the most critical and respond tothat and this is what this

particular $350,000,000 bond will do is help a number of critical fire stations particularly where we house ambulance squz make sure they are safe. we also want to make sure we respond to the ongoing need and i know media is here to talk about our ongoing efforts to house more homeless and make sure we have facilities that are transitional in nature as we struggle to rebuild and rehabilitation permanent house frg the homeless. while we do that the navigation centers are very success ful and people want more of that and this is where we will take the opportunity to place another $20,000,000 of support effort here and know the voters get it when they see and have a opportunity to see our navigation centers that we know these are more than just shelters. they are gathering of all the support

services we need to allow people to go back to their homes if that is their wishes so get the best service to transition them into permanent housing that we are building and we have places like hamilton and other places we are building but it takes time and a lot of money and we are do that bond after bond and done that with the $350 mill ,000,000 bond to find the land and make sure we build in an affordable way. we have many more ideas but these are the at buttes of the $350,000,000 bond we place before the voters this june. we don't have a bond for november so this is critical to have it to the voter squz educate them on the bond. i'm

happy to work with general hospital and public health department because they have #250i78 time and time again shown wrathe need is respond to need and authenthuse astic about the ways we built the navigation centers because pier 80 and 16th and mission are the examples of what woe can do more with public private partnerships we engage in into help the navigation centers become more than [inaudible] they are life savingsenters for people who shouldn't be living on our streerts and shouldn't be in tent encampments. we want to take them out but want to do it the right way. we dont want to take people moving from corner to corner, we want to make sure they are taken care of and have long term solutions to them. even those that resist ourerts when they get into the the

navigation centers they realize the humanity we do there is more than inviting in the long term. this is and will continue to say, this is the city of saint francis and never turn our backs in those in need. people come to our city or end up here for many different reasons without the social safetyinate net we are used to. we have the robustness in the neighborhood clinics and response and navigation centers and want to make sure you know our neighborhood health clinics are touched strongly, all most $50,000,000 bond because the clinics need the capacity to help with mental illness as well and this is a theme that we are increasingly hearing and respawning effectively by talking with all the partners within the

justice system or health system, the [inaudible] needs more facilities for this to happen, more beds and treatment centers and more professional care that our public health providers can provide, so i want to say thank you to the all the airjs that are here reflective of the bond program including the mayors office of disability too because they are out there helping us figure out not only facilities but services that we need along with public health. i have a special guest speaker today, someone who is living here at the hamilton family residence, her name is precious sharia, she a single mother of 3 children 8 years old, 5 years old and 2 years old and the sureara family stayed at the hamilton famry

residences for the past 4 muchckt months and needed the service of the emergency care. the good example of the kind of families we want to help but not just help. i know at some point in time when she knows her family is being taken care of, i know mrs. sharia will want to be part of that work force, the incredible workforce we are training people to get into the new economy on. let me introduce to you mrs. precious sharia. [applause] >> yes, sir. i lived here about 4 months. the shelter took me in when i was on the street and called every day to get in the emergency beds. i finally got in and then once i reached my room up stairs it gave me to about june. my kids live in the shelter but they don't realize it is a

shelter because they have good programs such as the children program, helping with the homework, they give a dj party on the roof and make it so fun by kids dont know they are homeless sometimes. i like the-they feed us 3 times a day so don't have to worry about that. the shelter has ups and downs, but most of all it is a plus because if it want fl the shelter i would be on the stroostreet and worry where my kids will eat or sleep or give them up. if i'm in the shelter my kids can stay with me. in the streets i wouldn't permit them to live on the streets so probably would have gave them up. i'm thankful and grateful. people have their different opinions about the shelters. some complain all day but at the end of the day you have a place to

stay and sleep and it helps you. i'm starbting chef school tuesday so i'm doing something with my life. trying to make something better and the situation. this is my first time being homeless and from the experience it will be my last because this helped me but i am glad i was homeless because it showed a different side of me i didn't know, the strengths and dpoles goals and think it helped me a lot. sorry. it had so many opportunities. they constantly post jobs or injrj you to do. you can only do so much. hamilton can only do so much if you dont want to do for yourself. me, i'm taking a stand and doing for myself so i won't be here and hopefully i will be a chef so i can cook for the shelter or homeless program. i will give back to the community as much as i can, i voluntary also. i don't have much to say, i thank god and the thank the

people that donate and make this place possible because i see the ups and very grateful and thank you. >> [applause] >> thank you precious and thank you for everything you are doing to improve your life and also take care of the children that you have. as i said for this particular bond, i want to make sure you know if i can simplify it it is 3 words, it about access to good care, it is about emergency response, and about navigating and 33 word i thipgs are reflective in this. i just 79 to say our public health department is incredible partner reponding to everything that happens in the city and next for tim episteen who is director of sf children youth and families

community behavioral health at our public health department to say a few words about how important the bod is to the care we want and access that we want people to have to our healthcare facilities. ken. [applause] >> first i want to say before i start speaking precious told us her cheern use san francisco general hospital mayor all 3 children use the hospital so the connections are clear between what we are doing today and our future and i want to thank the mayor and city for your support for this incredibly important bod for the residence of san francisco. today this bond will improve and expand access to services and medical care and mental hemth care in the community and community clinic squz san francisco general hospital. it will prurfb or 24 hour psychiatric care that is so critical to the

citizens of the san francisco to have a place to go 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. 14 community clinics will be able to build access to behavioral and minuteal health and substance abuse services in the clinics so when you see your doctor in the same place you can get the mental health and substance abuse. the funding will improve access and amountimately help us renovate and build a better and stronger system of care for the children, youth, families, adults and other adults in san francisco. we know that there is a tremendous need for healthal health and substance abuse care and the mayor mentioned. we also know folks will better utilize the services when it is isn't stigmatized where they have to go to a different place for it.

we hope public helths can partner with the cities to build integrated care and using the bond to expand the services. thank the mayor again and the city for your support and public health department is ready to move forward this with initiative. thank you. >> [applause] >> okay, well like i usually said it is time to go to work everybody and by signing this document it sigal ins we ready to talk to the public and got on with it. let's sign this so we can start work on it. everybody come on over. [applause]

>> >> >> >> hi, i'm corn field and welcome to doing building san francisco, we are doing a special series, called stay safe, how you can stay in your home safely and comfortable, and we know that an earthquake is coming and there are things that you can do to reduce the

effects of the earthquake on your home. let's take a look at that. >> here at the spur urban center on mission street in san francisco talking about staying in your home after an earthquake. i have guests today, pat buscavich and his dog, harvey and david, and both structural engineers and we want to talk about things that you might do before an earthquake to your home to make it more likely that your home will be ha bitable after an earthquake, what should we do? both structural and maybe even important non-structural things. >> you hear about how to prepare an earthquake kit and brace your book shelves and water tank and that is important. what you have to be careful is make sure that you are not going the easy things to make yourself feel better. if you have a bad structure, a bad building, then you need to be looking at that and everything that you do to keep

your collectables in place is small and compared. if you have taken care of your structure, then there is a lot of stuff that you can do in your house that is non-structural and your chimney and water tank. >> let's talk about what the structural things might be. >> and he is exactly right. you don't want to make the deck chairs safe on the titanic, it is going down, you are going down, you have to make sure that your house is safe. there are basic things that you need to do including bracing the water heater, not just because of fire hazard but because of the water source and the damage, but basic things are installing anchor bolts, and adding plywood and strapping your beams to column and posts to footings and foundations are really easy things to do and most contractors can do the building department is set up to approve this work, and these are things that every home owner should do, and it is a little harder because you have to get a building permit and hire a contractor. but you want to be able to after a big earthquake to climb

in bed that night and pull the covers up and say i don't have to worry about going to a government shelter. >> that is the main focus that it is great to have an earthquake kit to be able to bug out for 72 hours. here is a better idea, stay in your own home and in order to do that you have to be make sure that your structure is okay. if you have a house, the easy things to do with the wood construction is feasible. if you have a renter or you live in a concrete building, you need to talk to the building own , and make sure they have done their due diligence and find out what the deficiencies are. >> when i have looked at damaged buildings,vy seen that a little bit of investment in time and money and structural work provides great dividends. >> especially if it is the wood frame, typical house that you can do the things that i was talking about, the anchor and the plywood in the first garage area, you know if you refinanced in the last three

years, get some of that savings and it is a really good investment. and the other thing that i try to tell people, earthquake insurance is not the solution to the shelter in place, if there is a big earthquake and your building is damaged, you are not in your house, you may be somewhere else, if you work in the city, it is going to be really hard to commute from sonoma, you want to do what is necessary so that your house is retrofitted and a couple of years of earthquake premium could get you to a level that you could be in the house after a significant earthquake and it may have damage and there is still a shelter in place where you are at home and you are not worried for the government taking care of you and you are living in a place where you can go to work and you want to have your wood frame house is really easy to get to that level. on top of the wood frame house, i mean every wood frame house in the west half of the city have a water tank and the water tank fall over because they are gas fired and start fires. and that is something that you could do for yourself, and for your neighbors and for the

whole city is make sure that your water tank is braced. >> if you look at the studies that are predicting on fires, we are going to have a lot of fires and for every water tank that is braced there is a potential of one less fire that the fire department is going to have to fight and we don't want to have any more fires than we need to. so bracing the water heater is the first thing that you want to do. >> and so easy, and you go on-line and you google, earthquake, water and heater and you google the sites where you can find the details and you can put them out there on the hardware store and you can hire a small contract tore do that for you. that is a couple of hundred bucks, the best investment. if you are in other types of building it is complicated. if you are in a high-rise building you just can't anchor your building down because there are no anchor bolts, but at that point, the tenant should be asking questions of the owner's and the managers about earthquake preparedness >> and don't take the easy answer, oh, our building is safe it was designed to code.

that is not the right answer, ask the tough questions and see if you can get a report that has been given to you. >> what is the right question? will i be able to stay in my home after the expected earthquake? is that a good question to ask? >> yeah, you may be more specific if you talk to the owner, if it is not a recent building, if it is ten or 20 years old see if they had an inspection done and there you will have a written before t will tell you all about the structure. >> thanks, pat. >> thanks, harvey. and thanks david for joining us and thank you for joining us on >> all right. are we heeding ready to guess good afternoon, everyone this guess side san francisco land use & transportation i'm chair of the committee to my right is supervisor scott wiener is the vice chair and to my left is