we'll have that information for us when we come back here in may? >> i think we could probably schedule two. i think we would need a couple of days to get the notice out. we have obviously information from the organizations. but we could solicit public comment at a couple of meetings and where we can identify that? >> great. >> any other -- call for public comment? >> mr. chair, there is one other action aspect that i see in regard to this. page 3. where in regard to senate bill 1107. where we have the statement that the staff was recently contacted by california common cause, with a request for the commission to join in supporting sb 1107, a state bill among other things that would remove restrictions in

state law that bans local jurisdictions, general cities from establishing public campaign finance systems if they decide to do so. this isn't anything that we would be adopting. we would just go on record with common cause that we agree with them; that this is something that state should do in sb 1107. it takes the restriction off the cities in regards to our jurisdiction for doing things -- >> not us, it's other cities. >> well, other cities as well. let's talk about some other cities. to the extent that it may affect us, i think we should, this commission should go on record backing sb 1107. so i so move. >> do i have a second? >> second. >>

i guess the only question i'm in favor of going on record of our backing it, but it's clear that it's legislation that does not impact san francisco. all you are doing is sending a message saying that we think all the cities should be free to set their campaign limitations and restrictions, just as san francisco does. if that is clear in what we are doing and if it's consistent? but as i understand yo inquiry was there is a mayor's and board of supervisors committees and the desire that we speak

with one voice. so maybe what your motion should be that we advise the other city committees that are responsible for communicating the view of san francisco on state legislation; that we are urging them to support [ gavel ] >> good afternoon ladies it. >> i'd adopt that as a and gentlemen, and welcome to friendly amendment. in addition since we have a the regularly scheduled ethics direct request by california commission meeting for april common cause, very worthy organization in these areas, 25th, 2016. who have expressed their and i will call the roll, desire to have us as a commissioner andrews. commission, as the san >> here. >> commissioner keane. francisco ethics commission, >> here. >> commissioner hayon has been excused. and i would like to take this to specifically support sb opportunity to introduce and 1107, so they see value in regards to having us on welcome our newest commissioner, daina chiu, their list of endorsers and i think we should accommodate them who is going to -- i'm on that. in addition to advising the other city departments that absolutely certain going to

may have direct jurisdiction be a worthy successor to in regards to that, i think commissioner hur and we look we should go on record in forward to working with her. supporting the measure. >> i have a question for she is an attorney, was in deputy city attorney chen. any restrictions or limitation on the commission the general counsel's office taking such action as at mckisson, presently not working at the moment, i commissioner keane suggested understand, other than her >> there is the state body family dutis and i told her that means that we have that coordinates the city's someone that can spend a lot position on pending matters. of time on ethics commission when the city does speak on matters. [laughter ] >> but we're delighted to pending legislation, it have her here, and welcome. speaks with one voice and one >> thank you, i'm delighted agency is not at odds with to be here. another. >> all right. i imagine as a practical turning to item no. 2 on the matter, there would not be agenda, which is public any comment on matters appearing -- but there is this process by which the city or not appearing on the agenda. ensures that to the extent the city does weigh-in or any any comments? >> commissioners, san city agency does weigh-in, it does so in a consistent way. francisco open government, as everybody knows about it. previously stated i'm filing this committee has public the first of a series of complaints with the -- meetings where people have a directly with the ethics chance to speak about it as well. commission as november i went that is the uniformity, i to the ethics commission and think is the purpose of that talked to two of your

committee. so i'm not sure of the timing of sb 1107, investigators both of whom actively discouraged me from how filing complaints telling me urgent that is? obviously there wasn't basis for the that say -- that is a complaints and that is before they looked into it. the first i have is against factor to take into consideration supervisor farrell and based >> we have a person from california common cause. on two from the sunshine task force and involves the lawful request for public records >> helen greigo, california which the supervisor and/or common cause. his staff did not respond. they have an obligation to respond in accordance with the requirements of the law this is a lift to change and facts that establish supervisor farrell's office failed to respond to the the ban and we shouldn't be banned from doing that as request for records, or to municipalities. as far as timing on the bill appear or send anyone to it has a couple of more appear before the sunshine task force for the hearing. committees to go through. i believe the facts will so we are still active in show his behavior to be knowing and willful and as such support a finding of moving through the process, but i would ask that the sooner we violation of sunshine get your support, the better. ordinance second, 6734 i could have gavin, our good willful failure is official

miscon conduct and also government staffer to send support violations of the information. so i can connect gavin up as he has california public records act. the city attorney's office sent a nice, long been communicateing with letter and the very beginning leeann and give you the exact of it they used your very committee it's going through. the sooner you can give us definition of what "willful" your support, the better and i appreciate the fact there is and basically says -- is a body that makes these official encomforts, where was it now? "willful endorsements, but i want to see as the ethics failure is a failur to discharged duties imposed by the sunshine ordinance." and we have the city attorney commission, your voice is very much saying what mr. farrell did needed in battle for the way was unlawful. our elections are run in bottom-line is the sunshine state and in the country. thank you. >> have you made the same ordinance and the california public records and brown act request of the board of are treated by many bodis in supervisors and the mayor? >> yes, not of the mayor. this city as if they are we have gone to all the some sort of joke and just prior ethics commission in to this meeting was the california that have public small business administration, financing enacted and asked going through their agenda. there were no agenda as them to join us. so that we valuable agendas available can lift this ban. so it's available to everyone. for the public and going >> but you have gone to our through item by item without board of supervisors? asking for public comment.

i waited to the end of the >> as i understand right now, it was presented to meet and said the sunshine your commission first. so you are ordinance said you are sort of the doorway in. requires to ask for public >> i see. comment on each agenda item >> thank you. and they treated it like it was a joke. >> following up on that, i had to drag this ethics commission and five other mr. groups before the sunshine chair? i think that one of task force before i finally the things that was just got my 150-word summaries identified, we would be the placed in minute where they body that would have the most belong in the sunshine knowledge, the most purview relating to this and ordinance and during that whatever time this body and other action the city would take, bodis were basically our voice should be violating my first amendment persuasive. so i think in rights. that sense, it doesn't if they can't shut you up, appear they try to shut you down. from anything that we're stepping on anybody's toes, in terms of the city's [speaker not understood] protocol, or the city i used the expression they didn't like. speaking as one voice and would be looking for us to >> thank you input on this? because this >> thank you any other is what we do. so i would public comment? urge the motion. >> >> my name is helen greico before i call on the vote, i call for public comment limited to just commissioner with california common keane's motion, not to the

overall topic. requesting your support for just to commissioner keane's sb 107, if you have any motion. >> bob planthold and i questions, i'm available. thank you. support it. >> thank you. i'm a veteran of the city's any others? state legislation committee and i want to clarify the process issue you are getting involved in, the state >> there are things like legislation committee is buildings, and construction supposedly to consider legislation that affects san francisco. -- -- this is one of the but it also instructs the lobbyists on the official requirements to keep us city position. there have been occasions that city commissions on appraised so workers keep their own took a position on state legislation. they don't go to the state working. i have been going to the legislation committee, but building and contracts and i xyz commission supports or have been [speaker not understood] contrary, okay? opposes something. they don't have a staff of their own and you have to find staff to do something had blanked it all out. for sb 1107. they meet the second wednesday of the month. in addition, the way i learned be stronger and make sure it won't happen politics works in sacramento, even if again. a bill does not get out by

i went over and over and the time the budget is over. so i think that to recommended, it still can be brought back to life in august. i'm not suggesting delay. come to realize i'm suggesting that even if [speaker not understood] you don't hear good news about sb 1107, it still >> thank you. could be dormant and resuscitated. >> good evening, david pill so the idea of moving ahead to support it is worthwhile. at the same time, pahl speaking as an individual and i just wanted commissioner, and ms. to call attention to a pelham, all of you folks i have a lot of experience with the state long-term city employee i understand is not well. legislation committee and up carla johnson, who most in sacramento, so give me a recently was the director of call and i will tell you the mayor's office on more details about how to get on disability, before that spent the agenda for the state many years at the department of building inspection, legislation committee, but if apparently is very ill. they fail to support it, you have got to worry what and she absolutely reflects effect that would have on the bill all the good things that we if the city says nah, we're want in city employees. not going to go for that? honesty, integrity, thoughtfulness, caring and and my thoughts and wishs are with now you could say something her and i wish her the best on your own and leave it at that. keep that in mind and i hope and hope she can pull through you do do this and i would this most difficult time for

her. say move ahead. thanks. >> thank you. thank you. >> thank you. >> david pilpel again, speaking as an individual. >> hello. bob is not the only one who has been to those meetings. welcome to the new i, too, they had a meeting scheduled last week which commissioner, ms. schmid, was canceled and their next regular meeting is wednesday, may 11th. i forget the code section that may be admin code 7.3, somewhere in there, but it friends of ethics. lays out what the process is for the city taking a on the whistleblower it would be helpful for us to know position on state what is going to happen to the board of supervisors legislation and explicitly or implicitly and who is going to carry suggests that officers of the hearings? if we could get city, boards and commissions, can't take positions on their own. that the only two ways that public information on, that i would appreciate it. the city takes positions on thank you. >> thank you. legislation are either >> through that body, or if they are not meeting, the board of >> hi, before i get supervisors can by, i think resolution, take a position started, can we make sure that the on state legislation. so i overhead projector is would urge that you do take working? the amendment and state that this commission urges the great. state legislation commission hello my name is michael, -- committee, excuse me, to

and i'm here representing support sb 1107 and that you government access project. i want to show this item on not on your own support it. i think that is actually the overhead. you'll see that this was a beyond the powers and duties meeting in october, at the of this commission. mayor's office, office of the way they work each bill the mayor. it's a sign-in sheet for is either presented by the department and there is a october 1st, 2015 meeting. little form and write-up. it's on their website at the list of attendees, if you could zoom in a bit here? where my finger is, please? you'll see that the name is willie brown. printed his name, and then sf.gov.org and one-pager what in it does would be effective why the city should take a the slot for "organization," position, et cetera? and thank you very much, there things usually just get is willie brown's name. routinely supported there as this is the slot for the departments make requests. other commissions that have organization. he was representing. a if you could come back to me larger legislative agenda for the year, the mta and puc in please, i would appreciate it. i filed a complaint with the particular bring it to the sunshine ordinance task board or commission at the force regarding willie brown not beginning of the year and signing in as he was either talk about specific supposed to as all other members of bills or ideas to support or oppose in sacramento. that is something that you might

consider doing next year, if the entourage at that we get the policy staff -- meeting signed in. my complaint was filed with if there are particular the ethics commission on bills or ideas that we want to thursday, february 25th. support or oppose there? but i hope that helps that was two months ago. i have since then received a explain that process a little bit. so i do support taking this confirmation notice from a action, but with that katherine argumento, say thating this matter is currently under review by particular phraseology, that commission staff. wouldn't urge another city body to take that action and today, i emailed her, for i will comment later on rest of the policy agenda. thank you. >> thank you. an any other comment on this update and she got back to specific motion? me and it's being reviewed. do you want to get serious about handling complaints from the public when we see >> chair, mr. marsteller a potential ethics at the mayor's office and willie former chair and coordinator brown is leaving it blank? back in the '90s through 2000. i did want to say for sb why is it two months later the only responses i have 1107, i would think that you received from the ethics commission saying the matter would certainly should feel is under review? i really that you have the right to say whatever you want. don't want to file i view you more as a city

complaints and then have it go nowhere. agency and not as a or to have you come back and department. and i think the voters made say oh, we have to protect that clear in your charter. the privacy of the so i think you can certainly individuals involved. well, speak on something as simple the individuals involved may as this. be making big ethics because you are in a sense the grand 'ol man of public violations. i'm here today to say to you, get on it. financing in california. so when we file complaints, get i'm sure that the committees in the senate and assembly to investigating them. would be interested in don't make a member of the hearing how public financing has worked in san francisco? public wait two months for some sort of action, if you are not going to move on it, and we have great assets and let me know. if you are going to move on it, move on it already. current reports issued every year and could put together two months is intolerable. a nice presentation for the i presented the evidence and committee pretty quickly and simply, i think. the ethics commission has to show that this is not a not moved on it. i am saying to everyone threat to the state and that watching this before you file a complaint think it will go this should work very well. nowhere. you have to address this i think the times are moving in this direction with the issue of wait too long to look at these matters. flow of money flooding the >> thank you. state and all politics nationally. so i would

recommend that you just simply send a report of your experience with pf to give >> i'm bob planthold and the committee insight as to for the benefit of new how this would work at the commissioner i'm a past local-level. >> thank you. ethics commissioner and i don't know that i'm going to last through the meeting >> hello, my name is sylvia just because you have got multiple detailed issues to deal with. so i wanted to talk now about item 6. johnson and i think you just i wanted to encourage you to continue your attempts at need enforcement and collection [speaker not understood] regarding supervisor farrell. please do not back down. please don't accept anything other than following this to the end. we don't know exactly what may have transpired that some people can't talk and could generate this coming some people just refuse to up as an agenda and for possible closed session. so again, know who they are. not all of us are going to last to the end, please don't give in, don't quibble, just stay the course. to use a trite overworked

because the purpose of -- phrase. thank you. >> thank you. >> hi, commissioners. i went and asked about put in charley marsteller and welcome to the new commissioner. i noticed that the east-west bank issue was raised. the predecessor was closed by the federal government and re-opened the next monday. so there is a history with the position -- and things that item that the happen in the world, and it commission should be looking at as well. i don't know what that was does not, you know, get put all about, but it's a bit of a hot potato, i would imagine. on larger. >> thank you. this is a very serious any other comments? emergency. let's turn to item no. 3. is the presentation and discussion of staff report on public financing in the 2015

i don't want anybody to try city elections. >> good evening commissioners. so as you know there is a staff report on the public financing program. i'm just going take a few minutes to briefly describe to put themselves down for the program, and provide some highlights as it was administered in 2015. stupid reactions -- it's san francisco's public financing program is a voluntary program that commonsense. provides funding for candidates, based on the everything grows and every amount of private contributions raised by the human being. candidates. the program was approved by you can get sick, but it's voters in november 2000. and the purpose of the program, some of the intentions of the program was to allow candidates to spend less time fundraising and not a priority program more time communicating with [speaker not understood] voters on important issues. in addition it intended to create an incentive to limit spending, and thereby also reducing the pressure on candidates to raise large and they shouldn't because

amounts. -- i have no way of getting it also intended to reduce the advantage of incumbents a car, and i still get the and to increase competition in races. the public financing program was first implemented in the same answer. november 2002 election. i get tired of that, too. in that election there were a number of board of supervisors races. sometime later it was >> thank you. extended to the mayor's race. over the years significant changes have been made to the program. for example, the >> commissioners, san francisco open government. qualification thresholds it's amazing how many times have in the years i have been changed. the time at which public coming to the ethics commission and other commissions that something funds are first dispersed; that is a fairly that has changed. straightforward proposition nomination deadlines have is made and seconded and all changed. the amount of the of a sudden the dissembling expenditures ceiling cap has changes. so there has been some changes over the years and therefore, those changes make it difficult to compare starts. who doesn't want to have the the program across elections. ability to control the money that is running our politics anyway, under the current now? yes, do we have to be program, and as it was sure we follow the law, and implemented in 2015, a candidate has to show that

he citizens united decision and or she is eligible to all of that stuff? of course. what you are receive talking about here is a public financing. one of the criteria is that they have to show that they simple statement that this body, which is primarily have raised least $10,000 in responsible for the issue in qualifying contributions from at least 100 residents who this city stands out and live in the city. says we believe from our the threshold is slightly experience and it is higher for incumbent extensive, that other cities in this state should be candidates, which is $15,000 allowed, if they so choose from 150 residents. in addition a candidate who receives public funding has to regulate the political to agree to limit spending contributions going to their to elections. that is all it's saying. $250,000. the spending cap may be lifted by the ethics it's not raising -- or commission, in increments of $10,000 and that is based on third-party spending, as trying to do some immoral well act, but a simple statement as the participating candidates -- opponents fundraising and third-party spending to support the opponent. it's a pretty complicated that the ethics commission scheme. i'll get to the details later, but in the november believes that the and just 2015 election, there were vote for it. only two races in which

public financing aplied. one was the mayor's race, in say we are in the people in this city who do it and our which no candidate sought experience tells us that it public financing and the other race was the district 3 race. serves a purpose and if it there were three candidates serves a purpose for us, it on ballot, one of the would serve the same purpose candidates did not raise or for any other community. so state legislature, our idea spend $1,000 or more. so is let it happen. the report doesn't discuss her don't sit and worry about activity. whether somebody ran it by the other two candidates the mayor or city attorney? sought public financing and the pixies underneath the received public financing and they both received the tree? just take an action, maximum amount which is up show some hutzpah. to $155,000. the amount of public funds that these two candidates received represented about 30% of the total funds available to these candidates and by "total funds" i mean >> let's clarify exactly what the motion is, so we know what we are voting on. >> the motion is that we private contributions that they raised and public financing and while each of support california common the candidate's expenditure cause with respect to its ceiling started at $150,000, and the final ceiling raised support of sb 1107, and that

by the ethics commission ended up i believe it was we also adopt the chair's language that in doing that, 920,000 for one candidate and $1 million for the other we would call upon whatever candidate. their spending totaled about germane city agencies or $480,000 for one candidate departments or officials and $594,000 for the other. in the aggregate, these two that are involved in formally candidates spending totaled offering that kind of about $1 million. recommendation to the and what was interesting is legislature, to go ahead and back the measure. that the amount spent by third-partis to support or >> second. >> i will call the oppose these candidates also totaled about $1 million. question, all in favor? >> aye. >> opposed? and in terms of historical >> motion is carried. context, the 2015 election we'll now go to public was the only election in which you had only one board comment on the discussion of supervisors race on the that we had on item no. 4 ballot. in prior elections the participation rate in the program was never higher than 50%. because there were definitely more races on the ballot and in some races you didn't >> david pilpel again have any participating candidates. speaking as an individual. based on data from the 2015 there were a lot of items that you talked about in and prior elections, terms of policy agenda and

let me sort of dance around incumbents have generally different issues. won the election regardless of the commission used to for a whether participating candidates. another trend we observed is time a retreat, i think in the saturday in the basement that third-party spending when viewed as a proportion -- i recall that mike garcia, when he was the of candidate spending has increased over the years. chair organized it. it's been a number of years here we go: since it happened. maybe some kind of >> thank you, shaista. combination retreat and policy summit would work? i'm frankly a little less excuse me. shaista shaikh is our interested in the assistant executive director and has had 19 -- almost state/national context and 18 years' of experience here at that would be helpful, but the commission. has worked on a lot of the more interested locally the things that work and don't work as well and where we previous public financing reports. should focus? this is something that is required to be submitted per something around that idea, either in city hall or our governmental -- our elsewhere, half-day or full-day, could be a weekend, doesn't have to be? that campaign and governmental would be interesting. code and it's an opportunity in terms of potential ballot to present to you and before measure, the language that to the board a snapshot in terms of public financing is and it's effect. here clearly would restrict one thing we wanted to do and and burden some of the this report at the end in as rights of lobbyists. shaista indicated to look at and so i think not just the the numbers from 2002-2015 interested persons meeting, and see if that provided any

but additional outreach to insights about what the lobbyists and their concerns should happen. program might need to do in i think from my takeaway from future? what it might last year is there was really a rush to put prop c on the better do in future? we provided just a really ballot and was not -- i bit of data to launch that mean, chair renne did a fine job of explaining it once it conversation at the appropriate time. was placed, but i think one thing as shaista mentioned we have seen there was really a rush to get it on the ballot and i think increasing amount of -- this year either -- certainly more time should proportion of independent be taken from a measure is put spending in races and one on the ballot and known thing that we realized there consequences and unknown consequences and the other issue should be more are mechanisms that many public funding programs have to try to make sure that carefully thought through. candidates participate. it is a voluntary system as you know. people agree to limit their spending and a number of other requirements in order the other items should be to receive the benefit of prioritized more and i favor public financing in their campaigns. there is the balance of fixing and tweaking existing looking for very, very rules and procedures before rigorous rules while we take on new things to try practical application of those rules that is strong as well. so that candidates want to participate. to regulate, or change. one of the things that we noticed when we looked at i think in particular we talked about enforcement last year's experience, even

though it was one race, it policies and regulations and that for me would be a illustrates some of the high-priority to look at mechanics that might be fixing. worth taking another look at down and some of these other the roads. that is when the independent limits, and filings, permit expenditures were so high in consultants already exist the race, based on current and mechanics we raised the maybe reviewing those regulations and how they spending threshold that candidates otherwise agree work? that all makes sense to as part of the law. before we extend further to the new level, based on regulations and look at some independent expenditures of these other issues. that but i do think that a more are in the race either supporting their opponent, or opposing them. prioritized list of all of and because of the current process, the mechanics required to us lift the these various ideas, both with additional staff, if spending limits 21 times for the budget allows, or without one candidate, and 29 times staff, would be helpful. so that we can see did we do for another candidate, all over the span of 11 weeks have staff, we can do these before the election. so i things in next few months. think it's something that we if we don't, we'll have fewer things and it will take longer. also the idea that budget would love to elicit impact would give you staff july 1st. normally the budget is from donors and public and adopted towards mid-july or others who care deeply about end of july, but usually new the public financing system to see the time that we need to update our rules or look positions don't start until october. it at to make sure it's they are usually only achieving the goals it was 9-month position. so we may not intended to achieve? and have new people for a while. that the rules for

participating are as clear and strong as possible. so thanks. >> thank you.. we provided that information in this report. there is one note we have an errata sheet on the table >> morgan with represent for the public as well. chart 4 on page 8 of our san francisco and we're a local report, that number in the group, non-partisan and committed to 2015 column, percentage of anti-corruption, transparency and third-party spending as a accountability in government. i want to be respectful of your time and thank you for percentage of campaign spending is actually 96%. considering the proposal in we had an error on the respects to limits on lobbyists. number we used initially and we'll we find when we explain to issue a report with the the average san francisco corrected number. we provide the corrected chart for and the corrected and they are perplexed it's table in appendix 2 with legal. so i think it's that something that is once it's information. this is really a report that brought to public attention, we wanted to provide with a people are very concerned snapshot of last year's that it's happening. so i really support the movement experience. admittedly it was one for a conference or a summit of some sort. election, so we can't draw a i know our whole group lot of conclusions from it, agrees but it's part of a it's a big-picture thing and those these are important larger-picture that has changed over time. so it's parts of it, the big-picture something that we wanted to provide for public is really critical. i would love to help you discussion, for feedback and plan then to report it to the that, if you need help and board as required per our resources. that was really exciting to government code section. happy to take any questions hear that proposed tonight.

we're taking action to or participate in any discussion that might be of restore a government that use to you? represents and works for the people and not just through lobbyists and special >> commissioners have any interest. we want to strengthen the questions. voice of the san francisco >> just an observation. very excellent report, very voter and eliminate well-done. perception of political bribery and believe this >> do you anticipate in the would be the first step. coming election there will we're putting our hopes in all of you to bring this proposal to the ballot in november. be thank you for your time. >> thank you. many more candidates will be eligible for public funding? and will be seeking it? >> hello commissioners, >> yes, we anticipate more candidates will be seeking public funding. we're getting questions from candidates about how the charlie marsteller. program works and what they need to do in order to we had strategic meetings on qualify? and the last day for them to actually submit an application for public saturday mornings, like a financing happens at the end light breakfast opportunity of august. and coffee, particularly. i don't recall the exact that would wake us up and we date. it's about august 28th or so. would talk about the agendas for the upcoming year. i like the concept of a and the deadline for filing nomination papers for the board of supervisors occurs greater conference for policy development. mid-june. so there is still but i see those as a some time. two-step process, because we really

>> and the reports of the have one series or process public financing, the reports of those committees are now right on our agenda. that is what we're going to be doing maybe as close as the november ballot? so i mandatory audits; right? >> yes. >> do you know where the would suggest that you might want to do a hybrid approach. audits are for the two for 2015? >> the two candidates who work on the strategic received public financing in planning conference for the 2015 are currently being audited. long-term, where you invite their audits have commenced. >> do we have a date when international or national we anticipate getting the report? >> yes, we anticipate by representatives to come in the ends of the fiscal year and right now then focus on those what you are planning to do audits will be completed. >> that would be by the end for the balance of the year. of june? and what is doable? i have >> yes, and possibly sooner broken these down to easy to >> thank you. do in-house, harder to do >> very comprehensive. in-house requires a vote by the board and requires a thank you. >> >> i think i appreciate the vote by the people. and then i took various time that was spent in concepts that a number of us preparing this and it is have been talking about and very helpful. and i don't think it tried to plug them in. i saw that is a good way to requires any action by us, but are go. we might want to do an there any public comments on that report? interested-persons meeting maybe as a warmup? and then

do our saturday meeting with >> charles marsteller the commission to discuss what that agenda should look like for the immediate term . again. it was prop o and that was for public financing for of the balance of 2016? supervisors. subsequently the board that is what i would recommend enacted public financing for that you do, break it into two parts. the mayor's office about >> thank you. five years later or less. it's a great system. >> hello, my name is brian. it's known nationally. i just want to say that i'm also with represent us. this was an atypical year, i support the ballot measure, and i just wanted to stand by morgan and her statements on what she presented to the this year past and this year should be clearer as to its ethics commission and wanted to applaud you with the benefits. fundamentally from the steps that you are talked public's perception and i about today, as far as think from the candidates' getting the public involved perception as well, that in a forum and some type of we're establishing a platform initiative to involve the for debate. we're not trying to level of public in the policy matters going forward. playing fields. we're not in competition

with thank you. >> the public sector on this, trying to keep up with the joness, but we do want a hello, my name is zach and candidate's voice heard loud also with represent us and enough so that the public thank you for considering it during this meeting. will understand what this want to thank commissioner person's message is. keane for vigorously supporting it in advance and and that they have a good forum and a good funding also commissioner andrews for mechanism to basically get suggesting that with apply the learnings from their message out. to my surprise, i have proposition c to this process. i want to add my name in learned that it can also serve as a check and balance support of what morgan said. thank you. >> thank you. on the political system. so for instance, if a >> professional, say an engineer, or someone sees something wrong with the building code, that he >> ellena schmid with thinks makes the city seismically unsafe or whatever; that person can avail themselves friends of ethics and moving of public financing and run forward with represented us is important and we should basically get their message do it as quickly as we can. out. which may otherwise be an i would ask as staff looks impossible thing to do. at it, they look at whether in that case, the public there is a definition of safety might be better "bundling?" that everybody

afforded as a result of this can assumes what that means, program as well. so i did but you want to make sure that, in fact, that is there. learn my own lesson, this is a check and balance on the you have heard a lot of other things and i don't want to political system, and it repeat stuff. would fight corruption. >> thank you. one of the issues that had come up during the last meeting, which was discussed as a policy issue, i did not see listed. and that was whether the -- >> david pilpall again speaking as an individual. great report. i think she really highlights any policy -- public at the end, there are questions that we should ask officer that was being and i notice this is on the policy agenda for discussion investigated should automatically be audited? on the next item that we may talk about in next few and i believe that ms. months, ways to change the program and make it -- pelham said to have a policy on continue to make it viable. that first and i believe that should be added to the list. i think what the staff has i think you also need to talk a little bit about done over time to manage is priorities. and how you are going to call the priorities, what are the good to audit campaigns to things that are important to run the public finance program. all of that is good. the commission in terms of how you are going to be able i think what we haven't really done well over time to make cuts? because when is you have your stakeholder look at ways to both reduce meeting you are going to get the costs of campaigning. a lot of ideas on what you so all should be doing.

that rather than raising and it's like making sure we're spending $1 million, it's all very clear and more like less than that, understanding what your priorities are going to be, for a citywide race, and even less for districts. to be able to make the cuts? but to really bear in mind, there is kind of a minimum and i think you have heard everything else. thank you very much. >> thank you. amount or -- i don't know. some level that you kind of need in order to communicate your message and run an >> i'm bob planthold and to effective campaign. so you kind of need at least that add my name and voice in amount. beyond a certain amount, kind of higher than that, you are just spending money because support of working to the you have money to spend. and you know, 17 door ballot measure by represent us on the ballot. you are talking about a hangers and 57 mailings at that couple of interested-persons point, you are really at meetings and you separately had the concept of maybe a diminishing marginal returns. summit. if there is way to both you are wondering about space and also the question of reduce that cost and yet get more candidates up to that money? state legislators can get minimum threshold, so we have more competitive elections over time, i think that is use of the basement and to the good and maybe in discussions about the program to get at some of those breakout session the rooms from the build diagonalal fundamentals that aren't across from city hall and just about campaign finance, but

really about running for can get it free. election and having sometimes weekends, but week competitive elections in this days and you could have a city. i think kind of a good idea. thank you. >> thank you. multiplicity of topics. you might have a separate breakout room if you wanted to be that extravagant. >> hello. some of these topics have mrs. johnson. i was wondering what already been in the news. happened to taxi service? the additional gifts and travel reporting, the fact what happened to, you know, that some e-filing requirements of form 700. there is no common database. some are filed here. some are filed there and you are never sure where to go to find out all of this information. topics can you consider, but you have got a place to get free meeting space. and that is going to be important when you don't have staff. i also want to suggest that [speaker not understood] since the mayor's budget ought to be out in may and why is everything so typical? by the time of your next like everybody shut up. meeting what the mayor is planning

and you try to explain for ethics and how you are something that is not real going to handle any interested-persons meeting and so forth? i want to -- i think -- you demand refer you to what i would call a mega massive database your rights to speak out. of agencis that did endorsements of agencies because there is a world that had campaign fcc numbers and we're trying to build and can't build it with somebody from elections department -- it makes no sense at all and that was passed to you folks last fall. it's worth considering using that. when you are talking about for any person. a, a summit and b, when you talk about revisiting various provisions of prop j. i mean, c'mon, get real. you are talking too much inside baseball. when the public sees prop j, how many different elections is there a prop j? you don't state the year. because this is really you ought to be more informative to the public, so the public doesn't have to go getting to the point. too many years' of this through successful, multiple stuff, you know? just ain't election filings to find out what prop j are they talking

going to get the ball about? any number of these other topics similarly is, try to rolling. be more specific, to the public can quickly find out and everybody knows they what you are considered don't -- >> thank you. revising, amending, recommending, dealing with? thank you. >> thank you. >> open government, my district was the district that had this election and >> commissioners, director of open government. julie christenson and aaron i personally appreciate all the time and energy that the peskin and the public money members of public have was used for. i think it's kind of spoken tonight and putting in the effort to move forward. ludicrous when we know the i really am a firm believer the only way that government board of supervisors elections are expensive and is responsible to the they have a rule that they citizens, or if the citizens promise not to spend more hold it responsible? i than $250,000, when they know darn well they are going to would like to secondly go back to spend more than $250,000 and the first speaker, mr. they are going to get the pilpel and say that i agree with public money anyway. the whole purpose was to him. the one thing that i think make has to be a top-priority for it more competitive, so people who didn't have a big you is enforcement. you can rearrange the rules and rewrite the rules and mechanism behind them had a all this other stuff, but unless chance of getting their word out. you enforce the rules, it's we're talking about political like rearrange deck chairs

free speech. so when you on the titanic. set up a dynamic, where people can promise not to raise the city slowly sinks into money, but kind of ignore the pay-for-play situation and everybody says let's the rewrite the rules. promise and you mea culpa, but the bottom-line, if the give them the blessing and give them more money, it's rules aren't enforced, if kind of ludicrous. they don't have some teeth, they are meaningless. and all of that effort was not kind of ludicrous, but ludicrous and one supervisor in the district was the only for naught. one up for re-election and what is going happen next time? all of the supervisors are the civil grand jury talking going to promise to spend about the ethics commission $250,000 to get public financing and you will raise being the sleeping dog, aimed directly at that. the limit and let them have i will give a personally example and i [tkpho-ep/] the money anyway? don't you don't want to hear certainly not a good place it, city librarian herrera to spend my tax dollars and i know my neighbors were was accepting funds from the group of the friends of the really, really aggravated by san francisco library, a group he had fiduciary all the crap hang on their responsible towards keeping doors, paid for my taxpayers oversight as they raised money in the name of city and paid for my people who government. promised not to spend he filed for three years $250,000 and did it anyway. stating he got nothing. i think they knew darn well we tried to approach this ethics commission with that

they knew they would exceed the limit. and mr. saint croy and how honest is a human being if i say i won't spend more than $250,000, so you will give me the public money? knowing that i will spend more than $250,000 and feel [speaker not understood] nothing obligation at all to limit my expenditures? so because he signed statements of economic there is aing he that i did keep in not just got nothing interest this with the letter of the law, group when he was getting but with the intent of the thousands of dollars. law. they knew what the intent was and they just disregarded it. it's been more than 40 and basically, what is the months since this group has purpose of having these rules, if they are aren't appeared enforceable and you are not before the library commission and more than $10,000 raises going to enforce them? just in the name of the city and like the same comment was the name of the public made earlier, if we give you library has gone through complaints and you just sit on them, what good are you? and that is what you do. their hands and nobody has notes to show where that you sit on complaints. money went. the best i can figure out the public makes comments what the city supervisor as and you sill sit there and don't respond and it's not approve each year, giving $0.06 out of dollar to the responses, but reactions and when somebody comes up like me and tells me that you are library, which puts them in the range of those being

indicted as spending all the being blatantly dishonest money that they raise on raising the money. and like the police commission and i have said it before and the other day, accuse me of i will say it again, what violating a policy, which i the library gets from the friends of the san francisco public hadn't. this makes no sense, not to promise not to take the library is the san francisco money and then take the money. >> thank you. public library. if the rules are not enforced, writing them is any other public comment on this item? meaningful. >> thank you. we'll turn to item no. 4. which is a discussion and possible action on proposed >> so my name is sylvia ethics commission policy agenda for july 1, 2016 johnson. i think, you know, in case through june 30, 2017. and let me just say, sort of an introduction, ever since miss pelham became our executive director, she and i have been having conversations about the wisdom, possibly, of trying

to one, increase the number of personnel that we have, who are dedicated to policy positions and we'll talk about that when we get to the budget. but that because our proposed anything happens, and in budget does provide for these events that we have, staff dedicated to policy, but we that i want to also demand have also talked about -- we get piecemeal. you make sure i get there we get suggestions from the public, and we get suggestions that we make -- because i asked you over about changes in the and over and over again, like disclosure laws or in our you are just going to let the world disappear, because you campaign laws. won't contact me? i am sick and it seems to me that and tired of this. you know that the world is there is some wisdom of trying to going down. sit down and look at the now c'mon, stop this. whole structure in san francisco, to see if there stop this crazy i don't know is a better way, a more effective way, a less complicated way, to make our stuff.

i want to make sure it's campaign laws more transparent. to get at the concerns that policy and arrangements [speaker not understood] people have about pay for play, and corruption issues, gifts, things of that nature. and that i had suggested to miss pelham that possibly one thing we might think about doing is convening a conference. whether we spend a day or whatever it is with the commission and sort of the experts in the field, both on put the library -- open up the regulated side, and those -- 7:00 is a good time. who are drafting regulations. to get input from experts in the field as to having looked at what we presently have in our campaign laws, and what i think i want you all to be we ideally might want to have? and come up with a package that isn't piecemealed, but really

deals across the board with a lot aware what is going to of the issues that we hear about, and we have been happen considering and that are -- and i'm pretty sure, like i some of them are on our list. and that is one of the thing has there i want to throw told someone already -- to out tonight is to whether or not it would be worthwhile to make sure that we're secure, convene a conference of experts in the field to assist us and come up with sort of an overall plan, >> thank you seeing no rather than a piece meal plan and with that, i will let further public comment under lee ann go into more details on what your concerns are. >> thank you, chair renne. this item is attempting to build on some of that item no. 4 and i don't discussion, and the believe there was any conversations that the decision we had to make, but commission had last year, as i think based on comments of i understand it, identifying some of the policy areas the commissioners, that you wanted to see on your understand some direction.

agenda going forward. those efforts were put on and that in may, in hold pending the conclusion addition, of your executive director's to the legislation, you'll search and filling that come with some specific position. having the 1st quarter, at recommendations about moving least in my tenured path, i forward on the policies, is wanted to try to bring back that right? for you a way of thinking >> yes. >> let's turn to item no. about developing a policy agenda going forward. so as 5, which is the status report just as a recap, for those who may be less familiar, on the ethics commission perhaps listening to the commission meeting this evening, the charter provides in part that one of our duties under the charter is of course to have the proposed budget. >> item no. 5 is here to give you a bit more responsibility for the background and information impartial and effective on the status of the programming of our commission commission's budget request and to make sure that we make recommendations to the mayor and board and potentially to for fy2017 and fy2018. the voters about issues we have had a couple of concerning campaign finances conversations with the mayor's budget team and or forum, and other we're ordinances related to continuing to provide them government ethics and information in support of lobbying that we are charged our requests. i wanted to highlight for with administering and you some of the information that enforcing. commissioner renne mentioned the budget request for we have provided to them in policy staff. this document stops short of putting together a work the attachments to your item

plan, because i think it will depend largely on what our 5 include the request that resources look like for next fiscal year and going forward before we can really tell you we what the sequencing and time submitted originally in frame for those issues look february to the mayor's office and some of those we like? but it struck me it plight envision for using any new be useful to recap the larger resources provided to the commission as part of our questions, either ones that have a sense of urgency and budget. we also moving to attachment 2 wanted to give you a copy perhaps need the of the submissions that we commission's attention? on page 2 of the memo, the made for the mayor's senior fellows program. this is a program where the topics that were discussed mayor's senior fellows are in 2015 including control imbeded in a department each year. it's a competitive process committees and bundled and they work on very contributions and so forth. in addition, we know from the high-level strategic departments for various staff as we sat down and departments for a time frame talked about this, in next of about 10-12 months. they come in with extensive section, updating the experience in various campaign finance regulations. fields. we just in the last item so each department could submit three applications heard the concept maybe it and so we submitted our three would be worth assessing the applications. we're expecting to hear in the next several years where

senior fellows may be housed public finance program to in the coming years. meet the voters' desires for that program. what do we those kind of projects are here for your information as know about independent well. expenditure? we also had some good news are our rules strong enough this month, submitting an and useful and down the road a bit, looking back for a e-filing project to the program review of the committee on information expenditure lobbyists program to make sure we're living up technology and earlier this month steven massey information technology to the voters' expectations officer and i did a presentation to the sub-committee on budget and performance. who later voted to recommend of that program? that project be fully funded to the larger coit committee. that is something that i believe is still underway, looking forward to the but very good news that questions that you might want to consider that would shape the type of issues that you they endorsed the project and would like to see coming something that would be funded through coit, not the forward, one of the most significant areas of policy general fund. that are overdue to be that is very good news. examined that perhaps you haven't looked at -- this our presentation, the deck may be the list. of slides that we provide ready there may be others that you included here for your have additional thought information. about it's expected to be roughly in the intervening months since last year and the 5-year project that would public may have additional input different from that ensure all of our filing

time as winston-salem. well. requirements and public disclosure statements that policy gaps to make sure we currently have become part of that our evaluate our programs and laws and also something contemplated in the budget request and to commissioner renne's request to see how an electronic program. the laws move together and and then lastly part of what may be a policy summit that achieves that and may be the we gave to the mayor's office in support of our request, start of a larger discussion. we had committed as part of our i wanted throw those topics. blueprint for accountability to the mayor's office in february to provide a much how would a policy agenda fuller list of potential key address those issues? no matter what issues we performance indicators to might plan for there inevitably will be issues that come forward that have hold ourselves accountable to should we get the positions. time-sensitivity. the two examples of a more immediate nature, first is a

request in attachment 1, a each position, what would happen with or without the proposed ballot measure position and importantly a detailed list of the types suggested/recommended by of key performance indicators friends of ethics and it's that would be something that more than just a restriction we would hold ourselves to in terms of assessing whether or not we're making progress on on lobbyists' contributions the goals with those and bunding. so this is my positions? so i wanted to provide that to you as background information. shorthand. in attachment 1. that is something that is before you with sensitivity, if the commission believes is warranted to put on the ballot, what would it take on friday we met with the for that and how to support that? you heard a mayor's office budget and as representative from a snapshot of where we are california common cause at the present time and we took mention sb 1107. a look at the current we were contacted by california common cause with a request to support that piece of legislation. enforcement program caseload it would in essence remove to be transparent and current limitations under state law for the use of public funds in local accountable. jurisdictions, for public financing systems, did if of the 24 open formal complaints, how old they are? and what kind of backlog we

they choose to do it. >> it would not cover san francisco. have? that information is shown on the chart. >> that is right. other jurisdictions that are it's the blue-colored not charter cities, but one-page sheet. so on average when you look at 24 would enable that consequence and public financing system is a local jurisdiction choose to do so. so that is something open cases, the average age that of course as any piece is 8 months, those under of state legislation may go. investigation presently. there is perhaps a faster that is 24 matters. when you look at the matters timeframe to weighing in on under "preliminary review," to look to see if there is a those matters and one thing i formal complaint that should spoke with our city attorney was what is the city's be logged and a formal current process for doing investigation beginning, that? i understand there is there are 43 of those say state legislation matters still under review. committee made up of either the oldest one between 13 representatives of or the individuals themselves, the mayor's office, the city attorney, the board of months and one about supervisors, controller, assessor and treasurer. a-year-old. so this information i think some that meets and apparently has conveys and develops the city's perspective on state legislation, so the city is that the staff and i are speaking with one voice. we haven't had a chance to looking at to get through

contact them, pending your discussion about the level these and also says in my of judgment, when you have 67 interest that you have with others that may come down matters that are open, and currently with the resources the road. i'm not sure there was any that we have, the equivalent language that spoke to how the commission wants to of one full-time handle these kinds of issues should they come on our investigator, one ftes, radar? so that is one of the other questions as we think about a policy agenda going given that we have other priority work of our investigators as forward, mechanisms to well and something that we create internal to create greater flexibility for the need to right-size and make commission to speak and encourage the appropriate bodis in the city of strides in whittling those matters and those under measures? preliminary review. specifically the i wanted to highlight, recommendations from this because that is something report is to launch of the that we shared with the conversation about a policy mayor's office on friday, as an indication of where we agenda. first we would recommend are and where we need move from. that >> in your conversations if there are specific with the mayor's office, recommendations or have information you would like, you gotten any indication we would ask that you that they looking favorably request us to provide our analyses or wanting us to chip and cut or something? and recommendations on the proposed ballot measure to >> i think yes, and yes. consider at your may meeting. there has been indications

that they do seriously seem to want to support the secondly, on the issue about commission's priorities. at the same time, we the -- for taking a understand that from these position on state conversations as i'm sure legislative measures that we seek they are sharing with all additional information from departments it's a difficult the mayor's office and time for the city; that others what the current process is there are increasing pension costs and where to sync in on that and increasing demands for depending on your desire? city resources. and thirdly, any discussion that all departments apparently are going to be and public comment tonight, expect thoughed -- if there is any specific policy direction or expected to share in. consensus with that said, we're trying that you want to give to the to make the most judicious staff, we can take a look at use of your times in those conversations and being as upfront as we can with the information that we have, putting together options for and work plans depending on both to be really creative about the ways that we could go scenarios, if we have more about making improvements in resources for policy staff our work? next fiscal year and in we whether it's through innovation, or whether it's don't to layout the topics using -- applying for and sequencing might be? senior fellows, whatever we and can do to try to increase a conference or summit type the of event might factor into effectiveness of our that, if that is something operations is really key. so that you are interested in i think they are looking for us cuts in terms of our having to start to put together as well? that is requests. i think we have moved away really the launchpad for this from cutting us. discussion. and with that, i am happy to i think there clearly seems

answer any questions. to be some support through the coit process for our >> projects but we won't know commissioners have any the bottom-line for future comments? conversations in the next >> mr. chair, i agree that coming weeks. >> would it be helpful for the conference you suggest would be very valuable, very to you -- for you to have helpful to us going forward on so many of these things. the commission express some views how important that they i also want to compliment believe it is that the full ms. pelham and the staff for budget be adopted? what she has laid out here in particularly in the terms of a roadmap for the enforcement and policy side? things that we should be >> if the commission has a addressing. they hit right on the high view on that, that is an points of everything of important perspective to urgency. the bullet points on page 2 share. my own perspective, that in terms of the limits for would be helpful and there is always a sense of priorities that people are looking for. candidate control committees and report of bundling it's hard for me to say one area is more important than contributions, and a number of other things. another, because i truly believe these all need to be those are some things i was done to build our capacity. going to suggest at the end >> do the commissioners of the meeting that we have actually take up next time, any comments? commissioner keane? >> yes, thank you, mr. and i have got some chair. very excellent presentation

specifics on it. on the budget. a couple of things to keep in in our may meeting to recommend measures to the perspective board of supervisors for with regard to the mayor's them to pass. office looking at the budget i'm really extremely happy of this commission: and about the proposed ballot amendment that has been put not just agreeing to raise the forth. it's terrific. necessary amounts needed to it is absolutely excellent do the job, but the whole in terms of ballot amendment idea of cutting is prior to that is going to regulate ms. pelham for an ungodly bundling and all sorts of number of years the other types of lobbying executive director of this commission never asked for one dime of abuses that are endemic in san francisco. increase over the course of i think it's going to be all the years that the predecessor was here. incumbent upon us, mr. the result of which this chair, at our next meeting, after commission is completely stagnated for resources. now we have ms. pelham just we get the staff's input on this, which i'm sure is coming out and making an going to be favorable towards us honest assessment of what is going forward and certainly necessary to address some of not suggest any problem for us going forward. these pending matters and to go forward with some of the that we go ahead and vote to things that we would like to put the measure on the in order to address ethical

ballot for november. it's a good follow-up to concerns in san francisco? what we started last year, when if the mayor and board of we put prop c on, relating to supervisors were not to go expenditure lobbyists. along with this or cut it, this now takes it even a that would not be just the step further in regard to so much height of arrogance and irresponsibility on the part of san francisco corruption of city government, but it that we're hearing about would be an indication of constantly; that is just become a part of the pattern sanction and corruption. one of the things that is of the way of doing things going on now, the other day in the newspaper, there was in san francisco city an article about the board government of supervisors talking about in terms of pay-for-play and people calling the shots appointing a public advocate through money and getting whatever they want and there position. and essentially putting some being no accountability whatsoever. these particular measures, sort of super -- and to add and in particular the ones that have been put forth for some layer of things to the the ballot initiative city bureaucracy, totally unnecessary, that this commission could and should regulating bundling and be doing. other types of gift-giving by the city, the mayor is under lobbyists. that goes to the heart of so much. so i look forward at all sorts of attack right

our next meeting all of us now relating to allegations of voting to put that on the corruption in the inner-city ballot, and it going forward with the same kind of vigor family, indictments, grand that prop c went forward the jury investigations. last time. the district attorney's investigations. the mayor has unequivocally claimed he is in favor of this is a good example and doing everything that he can probably the best example of this commission doing its job and ensuring there are not payoffs to the board of to ferret out corruption and supervisors, not payoffs to is he no way tarnished by the mayor and things that the things that we have seen in drive city policy through the last few years. money, and lobbyists. this is one very good way the board of supervisors is mayor ed lee can put his simply never going to do money where his mouth is in this, because this takes terms of allowing the one agency that does do the away the trough, that they are ethical oversight of this commission -- of this city, feeding from, along with to do its job. to not do it would be a other individuals. so the whole basis in the charter clear indication to the city and that gives us the power to city and county of san go francisco and to the people directly to the people with of the city and county of

san francisco, that things are these measures we're not on the up and up, and fulfilling it with this and all of those years we didn't there is a fear of looking into many of the shady dealings clearly going on in this city. so i hope that the mayor and the board of fulfill it, we're coming out of the wildernesses with supervisors would go ahead and do the right thing in this and happy to see it. >> mr. city attorney, in terms of this modest budget order to proceed as mr. to meet these needs, to finance it. keane has suggested is it thank you, mr. chair. necessary for us to have some kind of hearing to make findings as >> to whether or not this >> commissioner andrews. >> thank you, chair renne. legislation is addressing a problem as we can did with prop c? we had some testimony about ms. pelham, i know you probably know this is on the the need for it. i mean, it may be obvious to top of your mind, 4 ftes just us, but do the rules require referenced here. did we decide -- did you us to set up some kind of -- one, are these listed as procedure of making findings a priority? for you? when and including those in any proposed legislation? >> sure. we go from senior policy consistent with past advice my office has provided any analyst, policy analyst,

information systems, and then time the commission enters into campaign financing investigative analyst? >> can you reference which document you are looking at? we're getting into cores of the amendment issues and as we >> i'm looking at -- it's recommended such as the attachment 4; right? so you put -- >> oh, attachment 4. limits on candidate control >> yes, attachment 4. ballot measure funding was there any rationale you put to any of those? certainly to support those >> not in the ordering. proposals it's always incumbent on the commission to build a record. if you look back at february build a legislative record. 22nd, our blueprint for build a factual underpinning for the need for the accountability, we talk campaign about the prioritis in terms of finance regulation in question. certainly in looking to the e-filing conversion project. proposal that the commission both the project development and the staffing that is necessary in order to make is considering tonight, is that project happen. the next area is effective that represent us people -- if you look at footnote enforcement and investigations. and that is where we have asked for the balance of five of the memo they have done a funds for one current position we have authorized, but for which we have not had sufficient fundings because nice spreadsheet and staff attrition savings and essentially swept and one new investigate ive position. we have the two policy does want to more to support that proposal and something that we would recommend. positions listed 3rd and

i think some of the work already has been done. one other thing i want to mention since i'm on the some realignments in-house and i think i shared with you, as mic, in terms of putting well as with the mayor's something on the ballot for this november, i don't have the budget office, it's hard to exact date, but i believe that the commission would prioritize -- i mean, it's have to approve it by the hard for me to say when you july meeting. so it doesn't are standing on the head of need to be made, but it's coming up quick. >> good. thank you. the pin, which falls on which? because until and unless we have policy people any other comments by any in the office, we'll not be commissioner or questions? able to remove other ms. chiu. >> programmatic responsibilitis >> leeann, thank you for for our investigative staff. this very helpful summary, with 67 open matters, we especially for me as my can't afford to have one first meeting and to echo the ftes chair doing investigations and that is only reacting to the ones that we currently have. an overarching strategy with as we all know in order to the most critical policy issues facing the commission. be a truly effective agency to having a full and robust discussion about that, so we do the proactive work and can thoughtfully look at looking at data that we have in our own shop. so i think these issues would be very they are very closely helpful as we head into the related new fiscal year and can help and certainly we can't move off without having policy guide us as we undertake staff do the things we have this work. been talking, but we're not

and then the second question i had for you is with going to be as effective respect to the funding. i think we'll get to this enforcement agency as we know during the budget we need to be per our discussions, but could you give us a sense of what you might be able to accomplish charter-mandate. >> it's difficult decision because it's most likely with the current staff going to come back with >> thank you for the question. level of fundsing that will not as i sit here it's a little hard to specifically quantify meet the needs of the it. i would imagine if you take commission and to prioritize each issue, the first these resources. >> two things i would say, introductory memo, a meeting to have public comment and it's important to try to third to wrap it up as been provide as much coverage as we can, reasonably across all my experience so far. of these areas. each of these could be over we cannot leave any area of a course of three months and our operations untouched. right now, that would there is also a difference largely be the city attorney's of having the authority for office assisting me in the process positions and having position of doing that. that we have authority for we don't have any dedicated being funded. so it's really critically important to say policy staff per se and we that when we are going to have a position authorized would have to pull that, in fact, it has the investigators off their work, funding to make it happen in for example. so i don't practice. have a time frame for you. >> to support it. i just know that i think it thank you. will be certainly doable for >>

us to make a commitment to bringing back something in any others? >> executive director pelham, there is currently may to start the an conversation open position for the deputy about potential ballot measures, but in terms of the executive director. larger issues i guess i would like some time to sketch can you speak to that role as well and whether bringing that person on, filling that that out with staff that we role hopefully sometime in currently have and staff we may have after july 1st. the summer, if that can >> thank you. >> do you have any impact the case load and suggestions if we were going workload of the commission? >> i think it will be yet one more set of hands to convene some kind of on-deck to do the existing work. they won't be doing all-day or half-a-day forum day-to-day investigative work, but filling an exempt to get input from the position for which we have authority and we have experts in the field and public funding. so my hope is with at-large as to thinks that the deadline on may 6th by they think our overall agenda should be? how we would go summer/mid-summer we'll have about doing had that somebody on-board to provide >> certainly we have a that oversight to the strong group of outside program on day-to-day basis but general counsel role to support us with policy organizations that are development. it will be an focused on campaign finance extra sets of hands, but in and campaign legal center in and of itself is not going washington, d.c. has been to get the -- won't be doing

very interested in supporting local jurisdictions and coming in with their investigative work. >> it would help on the expertise to talk about a variety of issues. policy side? think through our colleagues >> yes, yes. and counsel on government ethics to bring in voices across the spectrum and also >> motion instructing helpful to have executive director that practitioners and what can we learn from [ inaudible ] other jurisdictions challenged with some of the similar issues that we have? perhaps folks from the state fccp to come in as well and to have defined topics and >> i would certainly make that motion and i think we defined issues to get into had that motion before, when we originally gave ms. folk's hands beforehand and to have working sessions pelham her marching orders with the with those practitioners and budget; that the mayor's other groups and have a working office came and identified dialogue and by the end of the day a series of goals or these proposed savings and we mandates to explore further said don't identify any in terms of a specific proposed savings. policy don't do it. agenda? it's an ambitious just ask for the whole schedule clearly to have thing, and demand the whole thing. something like that and it takes resources and and as i recall, we got a

logistics and money to know where we can and how we can pull it unanimous vote at that time out of it, because again, off. i think if that is the not commission's priority, we to belabor it, but it's not can just the fact that the sort of shake the trees and former executive director never our colleagues to see how we asked for any additional could do it most effectively. >> that was the question i monies. whenever there was a cut, he was going to ask you, if we just rolled over and allowed did something like that, presently it isn't in our the cut to take place and budget, is it? >> no, i would imagine to there is no other department, i think, in city government that has allowed itself to do it low-budget, a room or be auditorium or library that completely castrated through we its resources as this can use? and the question department has over the if course of the last 10-12 we're able to have organizations send their years or so. members here or through our and we have members of the remaining travel funds or public constantly coming up the travel funds that we have and saying by god, i made for next year, to buy somebody a cheap ticket. it's something that you this complaint and why can't hasn't it happened? i made it do with no money. yesterday, i made it two >> maybe we could find some months ago and we see ms. worthy donor, who is pelham tell us that she had interested in good 67 open matters and one government who might unbundle something full-time investigator. so of that nature? >> certainly the department can take gifts, but we need to be careful where they are

they lambasted ms. pelham coming from. also, again, we can put together an overview of what and lambaste us and the chair as that might look like and costs and put together what evil characters and that is not the case. it might take to have it this commission needs the resources to go forward and happen for a day and bring do this stuff, because there back that to you with more is a lot of things in this town that need to be information and more logistics. we can also partner with investigated. and unless we get these local universities is resources, we can't do it. another option, local law school and so don't identify anything universities have a strong that can be cut. that would be my thing. interest in supporting this work. >> executive director we already expressed the pelham, it seems like we could do two things in the fact that we want you to do that. month of may, do a the commission wants the whole amount, period. investigation and half-day, full-day conference and the mayor and the board of possibly set up one or two supervisors aren't going to give it, let's see what they do and let's us responds interested persons meetings along the way? i think it's really important and i think there were some lessons learned through prop c. where we can engage the with rhetoric. public more sooner -- just >> commissioners, this is listed as update and sooner, and in a more discussion to provide you information about the item. comprehensive and ongoing way. certainly, is there isn't i think when we head down

something agendaized for the this road, there are lots of commission's action. if the commission's consensus issues that are going to is what we're hearing come up and ultimately we want to several of the commissioners be prepared. as you highlighted we would articulate, certainly that is want to walk in with a information that will guide the continuing process. i apologize if you are helpless to take action. series of critical issues we didn't agendaize it that that represent the interests of all parties and to see if we can tackle in that day, way. >> you heard the expression those critical issues and come up with a series of from those present when the budget was first before us and i'm sure that our new commissioner ancaas. >> yes, i wasn't here for the original budget recommendations to put submission, but i can't forward and that would seem emphasize enough the to me the way we could do critical importance of having the resources to be able to do that. >> commissioner keane. the critically important >> mr. chair, if i could work that is facing us. we have heard comments from the public about the slow follow-up on commissioner andrew's very good observation, relating to the pace of action on complaints lessons learned from prop c. and that the caseload of 67 as many interested persons pending matters, on the one meeting and other types of input that we could have full-time person to handle would be good. since we have been talking, is not realistic and having and i would assume that 8-11 months pending is going to be the outcome and that is not

based upon our discussion, that we serving the people of san would have on our agenda at francisco very well. so anything that we can do, i think, to urge and emphasize the next meeting the opportunity to vote for the our support for this full budget to the mayor and his proposed ballot measure? would it be possible for us budget team, you know, i would stand ready to do that. to set up some interested persons meeting in >> any public comment? anticipation of that may meeting? within the next few weeks? telling the public that this is something that we will be taking up, and we'll be likely voting at >> elena schmid again and the may meeting. we may not until we have until july to put it on the to commend ms. pelham on the ballot. if we had it on the ballot budget write-up. -- if we had it on the it was astounding to read agenda to vote to put it on the ballot in may, and and the astounding part was not what would be done. appeared to be clear-sailing and we did it then, we could do it. if not, we put it over to not just what you have on the the books, the 67 complaints, next month and hold more but all that would not be done interested-persons meetings without getting more ftes. and have more i would say that you hear a factual-findings as the certain segment of the chair public at every one of your

suggested. the concerns that i also and meetings, but the larger public, in a remember correctly, 75% voted very deputy city attorney voiced strongly for some good and i also share, having ethics seen reform for prop c. so i some of the problems that occurred with prop c, which would suggest that maybe you think about having the was a great measure on your part. commissioners, maybe the chair do an editorial and but we were doing it for the first time and we were sort of doing a lot of things as talk about what is in front we went along. of the budget? what we're we have learned from that. asking for? what is why don't we have some important? and how hampered we have been? and it may be interested-persons meetings on placing this ballot helpful to get some comments measure on the agenda before back to the supervisors the may meeting? and then about what they should be voting on? so that is one comment. the other comment real quickly is don't forget over the time period when we have been talking about how you don't have enough auditors and stuff, i believe the controller's office has offered some of their services for auditors to help you out on the auditing front. so you should keep that in mind also. thank you. >> thank you.

>> commissioners, charlie marsteller again. i wanted to alert you to something we talked about years ago, the horizon that we would be in electronic filing format for virtually all the sectors and divisions of our programs. and then how we could tie that into other city databases? for instance, the purchasers' contracting list -- list of contractors. we discussed the potential for doing auto auditing, which was a sub-routine for our filing system; that would allow the various divisions to be audited in a sense it's beyond facial audit. but it would basically be looking at math, or it may

be correlating data with other city databases? and there was a discussion about that, which you might want to raise with the - what was that group? the city's coit? you call it? like coit, i'm sure they are being clever. in any event coit is the group that would know about this concept, and there is probably considerable cost-savings and efficiencies with auditing by looking at auto audit. that is one thought. the second is i'm wondering if since we live in a resource-rich area, if there is any grant money that would be available for any of these new programmatic areas? where we could outreach without con flict of interest? to an organization that might be willing to grant-fund some aspect of

our new mission? that is just a thought. >> thank you. >> david pilpel again, speaking as an individual. first to charlie's point, i think now is an excellent time to look at the contracts and the relationship to financial disclosure the city is replacing -- and commissioner keane will remember the famous system that has been around in terms of budget and fiscal controls, the financial system replacement project is ongoing and supposed to go live next year, july of 2017. and i think there is a component that deals with contracts and relating this to app picks and so i would encourage to you talk to the controller's office and jack reid i believe is the project director. and look at if there is a way to get the contracting information as it relates to the forms and other disclosures? this is the first time i

have seen a handout like this. i certainly have followed the commission since nearly the beginning. and i note on the executive director's report, every month at least the number, and summary of pending formal complaints, which is at 24. as we see, this is the aging of those 24. we haven't seen this kind of aging report before, but we also have never in my experience seen what sort of the bottom of the iceberg. those things in preliminary review. so i have never seen information about the number of matters in preliminary review, or the aging of those matters. and this suggests there is a lot more that is in the early queue that hasn't even gotten to the point of being a formal complaint. i would ask that this information or a version of this be included in the executive director's report every month, so we have a better understanding of that timing and aging of complaints and can use that in part as evidence to the mayor's office and board of supervisors that we

absolutely need that additional investigator. so as to reduce this backlog. it just seems to me that over 12 months in preliminary review is just unacceptable. i don't know what the circumstances were, but it n't take that long to determine facially whether or not there is anything to move forward on? i suspect that is a question of resources and priorities and other things. but this also goes to my earlier point about the enforcement process. we talked about having an intake letter and as soon as someone files a complaint, we could get an intake letter that we got and it's in preliminary review and we'll get back to you when we have decided what the next step is. that currently doesn't happen. so whoever filed the 43 in preliminary review haven't gotten anything that acknowledges that the commission received the complaint and processing is. i think these additional resources are needed and let's see where we end up

with the mayor and board on the budget? thank you. >> thank you.ing >> my name is sylvia johnson. i wouldn't want to explain that to you right now. it would take too much time. there is enrollment in san

francisco. for the police records -- -- [speaker not understood]

we have things that nobody in this world -- it's not an

easy thing to do, to do all of these things. i need help with the car -- i mean, my license -- i already have a license and it got stolen. >> thank you. >> commissioners, san francisco open government. looking at this list of backlogged cases, i have to kind of reassess what happened to me back in november, when i went to the ethics commission and spoke to two of your investigators, both of whom tried to discourage me from filing complaints. i think it's honestly whether or not they were concerned about getting further behind in their caseload and the advice placed on our website, encouraging people who feels that they might have a complaint to speak with an investigator is kind of

counterproductive. if you go in and speak to the investigator, someone who is supposed to give a fair evaluation of your complaint, attempts to dissuade you from filing a complaint, whether they will do a reasonable job? now the previous executive director, mr. saint croy, who sat in the backroom and made up the rules and the ethics commission just went along with him. so all of these cases would go and drag and drab and never make it before the ethics commission before mr. saint croix would find a procedural way of dismissing it. i have to wonder whether or not that same modus operandi or mindset has

worked it's way down to staff? that they are really here for show and not to really investigate anything, let alone enforce it? we're just here to put on a nice program, so everybody can think that somebody is watching the watchmen -- you know the expression, who will watch the watchmen? in this city i found unfortunately, boards and commissions don't provide that kind of oversight. we'll see what happens whether the when the mayor comes back. you are asking the mayor to give you more resources to look into the crap happening in your administration like the complaint i filed earlier this evening? i made a lawful request of the city elected official and he knew

it was a lawful request and simply ignored it. he ignored the complaint and ignored the findings of the task force and just failed to respond and his final response we have no final documents something had a they could have done within the immediate timeframes for the request. i think you have to realize that not only are the citizens questioning you, but other agencies in the city are. >> thank you. turn to agenda item no. 6, discussion and possible action regarding the ethics commission referral to the bureau of delinquent revenue of forfeiture concerning supervisor mark farrell. and i would first ask for public comment on whether to meet in closed session? >> mr. chair? may i first address the agenda? just the agenda? >> sure.

>> and because i think it's important that some explanation of the agenda without getting into the matter that we will discuss in closed session take place. just so there is public understanding, and also, to have some fairness towards you, because there have been some charges relating to you in past having to do with this, which are totally untrue. and in order to do that, again, a little history has to be expounded upon: this has to do with supervisor mark farrell taking an illegal $193,000 campaign contribution, and laundering it in a way that his campaign manager also had another

committee that was operating and spent that $193,000 on pieces against supervisor farrell's opponent within a short time before the election. the $193,000 came from two very wealthy, socially-prominent individuals, dede willsey and tom cotes, who live in pacific heights and as i understand, are fairly in the same circle as supervisor farrell. essentially we have in our packet a lot of information, a lot of material that was submitted in rebuttal to what we have been doing relating to this finding of a $193,000 campaign contribution violation by mr. sutton, supervisor farrell's attorney.

which paint supervisor farrell as white as the driven snow. i have asked and we have members from the public that we also put in the record for tonight the letter of charles h. belle, relating to the -- what the reality is behind this matter in regards to a number of things and also what the reality is in regards to the law itself? supervisor farrell has never really stood before us and denied this. his lawyer has put forth after a long period of delay the statute of limitations as a defense. mr. belle's letter very forth rightly shows that the statute of limitations has not run and mr. sutton is wrong in terms of his avertment and mr. sutton

talks about the fccp completely exonerates mr. farrell and it was clearly a stipulation put it by mr. farrell and mr. farrell's committee the one committee put out the hit pieces. but that somehow supervisor farrell was not responsible because there was a rogue campaign manager, some little character, who is not even worth mentioning, who we're supposed to believe got this $193,000 from these two socially-prominent individuals, to fund this hit-campaign committee and supervisor farrell had nothing to do with it. even if that were the case, supervisor farrell hired that campaign coordinator for his committee, and that guy ran

that other committee and did the hit pieces with the $193,000. under the law, supervisor farrell is responsible for that. he violated the campaign contribution rules and $193,000 by law must by forfeited to the city. it's back on the agenda. we're going -- at this time i'm not going to object to closed session, because it's clear that what we are doing is we're talking about legislation to make sure that that money is collected. there is nothing nefarious going on here, certainly nothing in terms of anything that our chair is doing. and in terms of some stupid comments that were made by people -- one person in particular, to the effect he was, "going to get in some dirty deal with supervisor farrell." this is completely

aboveboard. with that, after public comment, i'm going move we go into closed session. so we can talk about the litigation. >> just to clarify, if i may, chair renne? as the agenda specify it's an opportunity for public comment on all matters pertaining to the item, including whether or not to go into closed session? >> commissioners, ray, director of stanley san francisco open government and i suppose i'm the stupid person and i find it bizarre this agenda appearses once against without any -- the executive director may feel that telling the public what this is about leaving out any reason why this is on the agenda constitutes a meaningful description, but i do not, and there is currently a hearing coming up may 4th before the sunshine ordinance task force that i filed the last time this appeared on the agenda and

you spent 40 minutes hashing around and wailing and gnashing your teeth. i believe the lengthy discussion should are is v made it clear that even members of the commission didn't understand the reason for its appearance. if commission members do not understand item, it's entirely reasonable that members of the public lacked an understanding and this gives the appearance of a " bathroom deal." it does nothing, but put a polite fig leaf on the deception. you are the clients and there is something that precludes you from having the discussion in the open and in front of the public, because you are the clients and you can waive the privilege. and

i'm sorry if you take um bridge that i said it's a back-room deal. when you could do it in front of the public looks bizarre and put it on the agenda, so the public doesn't have any idea what you are back there talking about. are you talking about the money that is owed? yes you are. everybody understands that. we understood that when you finalized the thing and said he had to pay the money in the first place. now here we are once again, you are going into the backroom, out of sight of the public and real feeling is not that something is going on, but they want to say maybe we should give him a break or not collect it or should do this or do that, but don't want to come out and say it in front of the public, because the public is going say, now we see whose

side you are on? the bottom-line, you can have the discussion in the open, the only people that are keeping you from doing that are yourselves. >> my name sylvia johnson. just because i'm sick doesn't mean -- -- i do care, i just need a little more authority from you. i'll give you the authority.

if you want to take this to some other person -- i told you, he don't care about you. that why he keeps doing it. [speaker not understood]

to help the situation. thank you. >> david pilpel speaking as an individual and i had no idea that ray hart would file a complaint and as a result, he did. so when this came up, last time, at the sunshine ordinance task force, i asked to be recused. it was not heard last month. when it is heard i anticipate being recused on the item. i continue to think that this could be better explained. we didn't have at the last meet ing and still don't have any written procedure bureau

of delinquent revenue -- we usually have -- some of the letters are include, but i believe there were other letters that the public has not seen here. it's not at all clear what the process is? either at the bureau of delinquent revenue or what options this commission has in regard to this matter? it does appear over the long-term that this was handled in a way that was not the best approach. and limits what the city may be able to do at this point? from what i have read, i still believe that the bad actor was commonsense voters and if the law doesn't currently provide that someone who receives and spends funds in excess of the limit owes that money back to the city as a forfeiture, than the law should so provide. i actually think that the

city is going after the wrong actor here. whatever mark farrell did in this regard, my understanding is that he may have benefited from the expenditures, but he did not receive, nor did his committee receive the funds at-issue or spend the funds at-issue, but his third-party entity, commonsense voters. i would encourage you to consider in the future, in looking at these laws, who that forfeiture obligation falls on? whether it's the campaign committee or third-party independent expenditure committee, whether or not it ends up being independent? otherwise, i look forward to hearing what happens in closed session, should you choose to have one. >> charlie marsteller here, i would spur you on and say do the right thing, whatever that is. but i think we all know what

the right thing is. thank you. >> thank you. >> can i get a motion? >> so moved. >> second. >> all right. all in favor? >> aye. >> before we go into closed session we'll take a 10-minute break and then go into closed session.