[ gavel ] >> good afternoon ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the regularly scheduled ethics commission meeting for april 25th, 2016. and i will call the roll, commissioner andrews. >> here. >> commissioner keane. >> here. >> commissioner hayon has been excused. and i would like to take this opportunity to introduce and welcome our newest commissioner, daina chiu, who is going to -- i'm

absolutely certain going to be a worthy successor to commissioner hur and we look forward to working with her. she is an attorney, was in the general counsel's office at mckisson, presently not working at the moment, i understand, other than her family dutis and i told her that means that we have someone that can spend a lot of time on ethics commission matters. [laughter ] >> but we're delighted to have her here, and welcome. >> thank you, i'm delighted to be here. >> all right. turning to item no. 2 on the agenda, which is public comment on matters appearing or not appearing on the agenda. any comments? >> commissioners, san francisco open government, as previously stated i'm filing the first of a series of complaints with the -- directly with the ethics

commission as november i went to the ethics commission and talked to two of your investigators both of whom actively discouraged me from filing complaints telling me there wasn't basis for the complaints and that is before they looked into it. the first i have is against supervisor farrell and based on two from the sunshine task force and involves the lawful request for public records which the supervisor and/or his staff did not respond. they have an obligation to respond in accordance with the requirements of the law and facts that establish supervisor farrell's office failed to respond to the request for records, or to appear or send anyone to appear before the sunshine task force for the hearing. i believe the facts will show his behavior to be knowing and willful and as such support a finding of violation of sunshine

ordinance second, 6734 willful failure is official miscon conduct and also support violations of the california public records act. the city attorney's office sent a nice, long letter and the very beginning of it they used your very definition of what "willful" is and basically says -- where was it now? "willful failure is a failur to discharged duties imposed by the sunshine ordinance." and we have the city attorney saying what mr. farrell did was unlawful. bottom-line is the sunshine ordinance and the california public records and brown act are treated by many bodis in this city as if they are some sort of joke and just prior to this meeting was the small business administration, going through their agenda. there were no agenda as valuable agendas available

for the public and going through item by item without asking for public comment. i waited to the end of the meet and said the sunshine ordinance said you are requires to ask for public comment on each agenda item and they treated it like it was a joke. i had to drag this ethics commission and five other groups before the sunshine task force before i finally got my 150-word summaries placed in minute where they belong in the sunshine ordinance and during that time this body and other bodis were basically violating my first amendment rights. if they can't shut you up, they try to shut you down. [speaker not understood] i used the expression they didn't like. >> thank you >> thank you any other public comment? >> my name is helen greico

with california common requesting your support for sb 107, if you have any questions, i'm available. thank you. >> thank you. any others? >> there are things like buildings, and construction -- -- this is one of the requirements to keep us appraised so workers keep working. i have been going to the building and contracts and i have been [speaker not understood] contrary, okay? had blanked it all out. i learned be stronger and

make sure it won't happen again. i went over and over and over. so i think that to come to realize [speaker not understood] >> thank you. >> good evening, david pill pahl speaking as an individual and i just wanted toattention to a long-term city employee i understand is not well. carla johnson, who most recently was the director of the mayor's office on disability, before that spent many years at the department of building inspection, apparently is very ill. and she absolutely reflects all the good things that we want in city employees. honesty, integrity, thoughtfulness, caring and my thoughts and wishs are with her and i wish her the best

and hope she can pull through this most difficult time for her. thanks. >> thank you. >> hello. welcome to the new commissioner, ms. schmid, friends of ethics. on the whistleblower it would be helpful for us to know what is going to happen to the board of supervisors and who is going to carry hearings? if we could get public information on, that i would appreciate it. thank you. >> thank you. >> >> hi, before i get started, can we make sure that the overhead projector is working?

great. hello my name is michael, and i'm here representing government access project. i want to show this item on the overhead. you'll see that this was a meeting in october, at the mayor's office, office of the mayor. it's a sign-in sheet for october 1st, 2015 meeting. 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 in the slot for "organization," thank you very much, there is willie brown's name. this is the slot for the organization. he was representing. if you could come back to me please, i would appreciate it. i filed a complaint with the sunshine ordinance task force regarding willie brown not signing in as he was supposed

to as all other members of the entourage at that meeting signed in. my complaint was filed with the ethics commission on thursday, february 25th. that was two months ago. i have since then received a confirmation notice from a katherine argumento, say thating this matter is currently under review by commission staff. today, i emailed her, for an update and she got back to me and it's being reviewed. do you want to get serious about handling complaints from the public when we see a potential ethics at the mayor's office and willie brown is leaving it blank? why is it two months later the only responses i have received from the ethics commission saying the matter is under review? i really

don't want to file complaints and then have it go nowhere. or to have you come back and say oh, we have to protect the privacy of the individuals involved. well, the individuals involved may be making big ethics violations. i'm here today to say to you, get on it. when we file complaints, get to investigating them. don't make a member of the public wait two months for some sort of action, if you are not going to move on it, let me know. if you are going to move on it, move on it already. two months is intolerable. i presented the evidence and the ethics commission has not moved on it. i am saying to everyone watching this before you file a complaint think it will go nowhere. you have to address this issue of wait too long to look at these matters. >> thank you.

>> i'm bob planthold and for the benefit of new commissioner i'm a past ethics commissioner and i don't know that i'm going to last through the meeting just because you have got multiple detailed issues to deal with. so i wanted to talk now about item 6. i wanted to encourage you to continue your attempts at enforcement and collection 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 could generate this coming up as an agenda and for possible closed session. so again, 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 phrase. thank you. >> thank you. >> hi, commissioners. 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 that item that the commission should be looking at as well. i don't know what that was all about, but it's a bit of a hot potato, i would imagine. >> thank you. any other comments? let's turn to item no. 3.

is the presentation and discussion of staff report on public financing in the 2015 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 the program, and provide some highlights as it was administered in 2015. san francisco's public financing program is a voluntary program that provides funding for candidates, based on the amount of private contributions raised by the candidates. the program was approved by 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 more time communicating with 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 amounts. it also intended to reduce the advantage of incumbents and to increase competition in races. the public financing program was first implemented in the november 2002 election. in that election there were a number of board of supervisors races. sometime later it was extended to the mayor's race. over the years significant changes have been made to the program. for example, the qualification thresholds have changed. the time at which public funds are first dispersed; that has changed. nomination deadlines have changed. the amount of the expenditures ceiling cap has changes. so there has been some changes over the years and therefore, those changes make it difficult to compare the program across elections. anyway, under the current

program, and as it was implemented in 2015, a candidate has to show that he or she is eligible to receive public financing. one of the criteria is that they have to show that they have raised least $10,000 in qualifying contributions from at least 100 residents who live in the city. the threshold is slightly higher for incumbent candidates, which is $15,000 from 150 residents. in addition a candidate who receives public funding has to agree to limit spending to $250,000. the spending cap may be lifted by the ethics commission, in increments of $10,000 and that is based on third-party spending, as well as the participating candidates -- opponents fundraising and third-party spending to support the opponent. it's a pretty complicated scheme. i'll get to the details later, but in the november

2015 election, there were only two races in which public financing aplied. one was the mayor's race, in which no candidate sought public financing and the other race was the district 3 race. there were three candidates on ballot, one of the candidates did not raise or spend $1,000 or more. so the report doesn't discuss her activity. the other two candidates sought public financing and received public financing and they both received the maximum amount which is up 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 private contributions that they raised and public financing and while each of the candidate's expenditure

ceiling started at $150,000, and the final ceiling raised by the ethics commission ended up i believe it was 920,000 for one candidate and $1 million for the other candidate. their spending totaled about $480,000 for one candidate and $594,000 for the other. in the aggregate, these two candidates spending totaled about $1 million. and what was interesting is that the amount spent by third-partis to support or oppose these candidates also totaled about $1 million. and in terms of historical context, the 2015 election was the only election in which you had only one board of supervisors race on the 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 have any participating candidates. based on data from the 2015

and prior elections, incumbents have generally won the election regardless of whether participating candidates. another trend we observed is that third-party spending when viewed as a proportion of candidate spending has increased over the years. here we go: >> thank you, shaista. excuse me. shaista shaikh is our assistant executive director and has had 19 -- almost 18 years' of experience here at the commission. has worked on a lot of the previous public financing reports. this is something that is required to be submitted per our governmental -- our campaign and governmental code and it's an opportunity to present to you and before to the board a snapshot in terms of public financing and it's effect. one thing we wanted to do and this report at the end in as

shaista indicated to look at the numbers from 2002-2015 and see if that provided any insights about what the program might need to do in future? what it might better do in future? we provided just a really bit of data to launch that conversation at the appropriate time. one thing as shaista mentioned we have seen increasing amount of -- proportion of independent spending in races and one thing that we realized there are mechanisms that many public funding programs have to try to make sure that candidates participate. it is a voluntary system as you know. people agree to limit their spending and a number of other requirements in order to receive the benefit of public financing in their campaigns. there is the balance of looking for very, very rigorous rules while practical application of those rules that is strong as well. so that candidates want to participate.

one of the things that we noticed when we looked at last year's experience, even though it was one race, it illustrates some of the mechanics that might be worth taking another look at down the roads. that is when the independent expenditures were so high in the race, based on current mechanics we raised the spending threshold that candidates otherwise agree to as part of the law. to the new level, based on independent expenditures that are in the race either supporting their opponent, or opposing them. and because of the current process, the mechanics required to us lift the spending limits 21 times for one candidate, and 29 times for another candidate, all over the span of 11 weeks before the election. so i think it's something that we would love to elicit impact from donors and public and others who care deeply about the public financing system to see the time that we need to update our rules or look it at to make sure it's

achieving the goals it was intended to achieve? and that the rules for participating are as clear and strong as possible. so we provided that information in this report. there is one note we have an errata sheet on the table for the public as well. chart 4 on page 8 of our report, that number in the 2015 column, percentage of third-party spending as a percentage of campaign spending is actually 96%. we had an error on the number we used initially and we'll issue a report with the corrected number. we provide the corrected chart for and the corrected table in appendix 2 with that information. this is really a report that we wanted to provide with a snapshot of last year's experience. admittedly it was one election, so we can't draw a lot of conclusions from it, but it's part of a larger-picture that has changed over time. so it's something that we wanted to provide for public discussion, for feedback and then to report it to the

board as required per our government code section. happy to take any questions or participate in any discussion that might be of use to you? >> commissioners have any questions. >> just an observation. very excellent report, very well-done. >> do you anticipate in the coming election there will be many more candidates will be eligible for public funding? and will be seeking it? >> yes, we anticipate more candidates will be seeking public funding. we're getting questions from candidates about how the program works and what they need to do in order to qualify? and the last day for them to actually submit an application for public financing happens at the end of august. i don't recall the exact date. it's about august 28th or so. and the deadline for filing nomination papers for the board of supervisors occurs mid-june. so there is still

some time. >> and the reports of the public financing, the reports of those committees are mandatory audits; right? >> yes. >> do you know where the audits are for the two for 2015? >> the two candidates who received public financing in 2015 are currently being audited. their audits have commenced. >> do we have a date when we anticipate getting the report? >> yes, we anticipate by the ends of the fiscal year those audits will be completed. >> that would be by the end of june? >> yes, and possibly sooner >> thank you. >> very comprehensive. thank you. >> >> i think i appreciate the time that was spent in preparing this and it is very helpful. and i don't think it requires any action by us, but are

there any public comments on that report? >> charles marsteller again. it was prop o and that was for public financing for supervisors. subsequently the board enacted public financing for the mayor's office about five years later or less. it's a great system. it's known nationally. this was an atypical year, this year past and this year should be clearer as to its benefits. fundamentally from the public's perception and i think from the candidates' perception as well, that we're establishing a platform for debate. we're not trying to level of

playing fields. we're not in competition with the public sector on this, trying to keep up with the joness, but we do want a candidate's voice heard loud enough so that the public will understand what this person's message is. and that they have a good forum and a good funding mechanism to basically get their message out. to my surprise, i have learned that it can also serve as a check and balance on the political system. so for instance, if a professional, say an engineer, or someone sees something wrong with the building code, that he thinks makes the city seismically unsafe or whatever; that person can avail themselves of public financing and run basically get their message out. which may otherwise be an impossible thing to do.

in that case, the public safety might be better afforded as a result of this program as well. so i did learn my own lesson, this is a check and balance on the political system, and it would fight corruption. >> thank you. >> david pilpall again speaking as an individual. great report. i think she really highlights at the end, there are questions that we should ask and i notice this is on the policy agenda for discussion on the next item that we may talk about in next few months, ways to change the program and make it -- continue to make it viable. i think what the staff has done over time to manage is good to audit campaigns to run the public finance program. all of that is good. i think what we haven't really done well over time is

look at ways to both reduce the costs of campaigning. so that rather than raising and spending $1 million, it's more like less than that, for a citywide race, and even less for districts. but to really bear in mind, there is kind of a minimum amount or -- i don't know. some level that you kind of need in order to communicate your message and run an effective campaign. so you kind of need at least that amount. beyond a certain amount, kind of higher than that, you are just spending money because you have money to spend. and you know, 17 door hangers and 57 mailings at that point, you are really at diminishing marginal returns. if there is way to both reduce that cost and yet get more candidates up to that minimum threshold, so we have more competitive elections over time, i think that is to the good and maybe in discussions about the program to get at some of those

fundamentals that aren't just about campaign finance, but really about running for election and having competitive elections in this city. i think kind of a good idea. thank you. >> thank you. >> hello. mrs. johnson. i was wondering what happened to taxi service? what happened to, you know, [speaker not understood] why is everything so typical?

like everybody shut up. and you try to explain something that is not real -- i think -- you demand your rights to speak out. because there is a world we're trying to build and can't build it with somebody -- it makes no sense at all for any person. i mean, c'mon, get real. because this is really getting to the point.

too many years' of this stuff, you know? just ain't going to get the ball rolling. and everybody knows they don't -- >> thank you. >> open government, my district was the district that had this election and julie christenson and aaron peskin and the public money was used for. i think it's kind of ludicrous when we know the board of supervisors elections are expensive and they have a rule that they promise not to spend more than $250,000, when they know darn well they are going to spend more than $250,000 and they are going to get the public money anyway. the whole purpose was to make it more competitive, so people who didn't have a big mechanism behind them had a

chance of getting their word out. we're talking about political free speech. so when you set up a dynamic, where people can promise not to raise money, but kind of ignore the promise and you mea culpa, give them the blessing and give them more money, it's kind of ludicrous. not kind of ludicrous, but ludicrous and one supervisor in the district was the only one up for re-election and what is going happen next time? all of the supervisors are going to promise to spend $250,000 to get public financing and you will raise the limit and let them have the money anyway? certainly not a good place to spend my tax dollars and i know my neighbors were really, really aggravated by all the crap hang on their doors, paid for my taxpayers and paid for my people who promised not to spend

$250,000 and did it anyway. i think they knew darn well they knew they would exceed the limit. 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 nothing obligation at all to limit my expenditures? so that i did keep in not just with the letter of the law, but with the intent of the law. they knew what the intent was and they just disregarded it. and basically, what is the purpose of having these rules, if they are aren't enforceable and you are not going to enforce them? just like the same comment was made earlier, if we give you complaints and you just sit on them, what good are you? and that is what you do. you sit on complaints. the public makes comments and you sill sit there and don't respond and it's not responses, but reactions and when somebody comes up like

me and tells me that you are being blatantly dishonest and like the police commission the other day, accuse me of violating a policy, which i hadn't. this makes no sense, not to promise not to take the money and then take the money. >> thank you. any other public comment on this item? we'll turn to item no. 4. which is a discussion and possible action on proposed ethics commission policy agenda for july 1, 2016 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 budget does provide for staff dedicated to policy, but we have also talked about -- we get piecemeal. we get suggestions from the public, and we get suggestions that we make about changes in the disclosure laws or in our campaign laws. and it seems to me that there is some wisdom of trying to sit down and look at the whole structure in san francisco, to see if there is a better way, a more

effective way, a less complicated way, to make our campaign laws more transparent. to get at the concerns that 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 the regulated side, and those 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 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 of the issues that we hear about, and we have been considering and that are -- some of them are on our list. and that is one of the thing has there i want to throw out tonight is to whether or not it would be worthwhile to convene a conference of experts in the field to assist us and come up with sort of an overall plan, rather than a piece meal plan and with that, i will let 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 discussion, and the conversations that the commission had last year, as i understand it, identifying

some of the policy areas that you wanted to see on your agenda going forward. those efforts were put on hold pending the conclusion of your executive director's search and filling that position. having the 1st quarter, at least in my tenured path, i wanted to try to bring back for you a way of thinking about developing a policy agenda going forward. so as just as a recap, for those who may be less familiar, 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 responsibility for the impartial and effective programming of our commission and to make sure that we make recommendations to the mayor and board and potentially to the voters about issues concerning campaign finances or forum, and other ordinances related to government ethics and lobbying that we are charged with administering and enforcing. commissioner renne mentioned the budget request for

policy staff. this document stops short of putting together a work plan, because i think it will depend largely on what our resources look like for next fiscal year and going forward before we can really tell you what the sequencing and time frame for those issues look like? but it struck me it plight be useful to recap the larger questions, either ones that have a sense of urgency and perhaps need the commission's attention? on page 2 of the memo, the topics that were discussed in 2015 including control committees and bundled contributions and so forth. in addition, we know from the staff as we sat down and talked about this, in next section, updating the campaign finance regulations. we just in the last item heard the concept maybe it would be worth assessing the

public finance program to meet the voters' desires for that program. what do we know about independent expenditure? are our rules strong enough and useful and down the road a bit, looking back for a program review of the expenditure lobbyists program to make sure we're living up to the voters' expectations of that program? looking forward to the questions that you might want to consider that would shape the type of issues that you would like to see coming forward, one of the most significant areas of policy that are overdue to be examined that perhaps you haven't looked at -- this may be the list. there may be others that you have additional thought about in the intervening months

since last year and the public may have additional input different from that time as winston-salem. well. policy gaps to make sure that our evaluate our programs and laws and also something contemplated in the budget request and to commissioner renne's request to see how the laws move together and may be a policy summit that achieves that and may be the start of a larger discussion. i wanted throw those topics. how would a policy agenda address those issues? no matter what issues we might plan for there inevitably will be issues that come forward that have

time-sensitivity. the two examples of a more immediate nature, first is a request in attachment 1, a proposed ballot measure ggested/recommended by friends of ethics and it's more than just a restriction on lobbyists' contributions and bunding. so this is my 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 for that and how to support that? you heard a representative from california common cause mention sb 1107. we were contacted by california common cause with a request to support that piece of legislation. it would in essence remove current limitations under state law for the use of public funds in local

jurisdictions, for public financing systems, did if they choose to do it. >> it would not cover san francisco. >> that is right. other jurisdictions that are not charter cities, but would enable that consequence and public financing system is a local jurisdiction choose to do so. so that is something that of course as any piece of state legislation may go. there is perhaps a faster timeframe to weighing in on those matters and one thing i spoke with our city attorney was what is the city's current process for doing that? i understand there is say state legislation committee made up of either representatives of or the individuals themselves, the mayor's office, the city attorney, the board of supervisors, controller, assessor and treasurer. that meets and apparently has conveys and develops the city's perspective on state legislation, so the city is

speaking with one voice. we haven't had a chance to contact them, pending your discussion about the level of interest that you have with others that may come down the road. i'm not sure there was any language that spoke to how the commission wants to handle these kinds of issues should they come on our radar? so that is one of the other questions as we think about a policy agenda going forward, mechanisms to create internal to create greater flexibility for the commission to speak and encourage the appropriate bodis in the city of measures? specifically the recommendations from this report is to launch of the conversation about a policy agenda. first we would recommend that if there are specific recommendations or information you would like, we would ask that you request us to provide our analyses and recommendations on the

proposed ballot measure to consider at your may meeting. secondly, on the issue about the -- for taking a position on state legislative measures that we seek additional information from the mayor's office and others what the current process is and where to sync in on that depending on your desire? and thirdly, any discussion and public comment tonight, if there is any specific policy direction or consensus that you want to give to the staff, we can take a look at putting together options for work plans depending on both scenarios, if we have more resources for policy staff next fiscal year and in we don't to layout the topics and sequencing might be? and a conference or summit type of event might factor into that, if that is something that you are interested in us having to start to put together as well? that is

really the launchpad for this discussion. and with that, i am happy to answer any questions. >> commissioners have any comments? >> mr. chair, i agree that the conference you suggest would be very valuable, very helpful to us going forward on so many of these things. i also want to compliment ms. pelham and the staff for what she has laid out here in terms of a roadmap for the things that we should be addressing. they hit right on the high points of everything of urgency. the bullet points on page 2 in terms of the limits for candidate control committees and report of bundling contributions, and a number of other things. those are some things i was going to suggest at the end of the meeting that we actually take up next time,

and i have got some specifics on it. in our may meeting to recommend measures to the board of supervisors for them to pass. i'm really extremely happy about the proposed ballot amendment that has been put forth. it's terrific. it is absolutely excellent in terms of ballot amendment that is going to regulate bundling and all sorts of other types of lobbying abuses that are endemic in san francisco. i think it's going to be incumbent upon us, mr. chair, at our next meeting, after we get the staff's input on this, which i'm sure is going to be favorable towards us going forward and certainly not suggest any problem for us going forward. that we go ahead and vote to

put the measure on the ballot for november. it's a good follow-up to what we started last year, when we put prop c on, relating to expenditure lobbyists. this now takes it even a step further in regard to so much of san francisco corruption that we're hearing about constantly; that is just become a part of the pattern of the way of doing things in san francisco city government in terms of pay-for-play and people calling the shots through money and getting whatever they want and there being no accountability whatsoever. these particular measures, and in particular the ones that have been put forth for the ballot initiative regulating bundling and other types of gift-giving by

lobbyists. that goes to the heart of so much. so i look forward at our next meeting all of us voting to put that on the ballot, and it going forward with the same kind of vigor that prop c went forward the last time. this is a good example and probably the best example of this commission doing its job and ensuring there are not payoffs to the board of supervisors, not payoffs to the mayor and things that drive city policy through money, and lobbyists. the board of supervisors is simply never going to do this, because this takes away the trough, that they are feeding from, along with other individuals. so the whole basis in the charter

that gives us the power to go directly to the people with these measures we're fulfilling it with this and all of those years we didn't fulfill it, we're coming out of the wildernesses with this and happy to see it. >> mr. city attorney, in order to proceed as mr. keane has suggested is it necessary for us to have some kind of hearing to make findings as to whether or not this legislation is addressing a problem as we can did with prop c? we had some testimony about the need for it. i mean, it may be obvious to us, but do the rules require us to set up some kind of procedure of making findings and including those in any proposed legislation? >> sure.

consistent with past advice my office has provided any time the commission enters into campaign financing we're getting into cores of the amendment issues and as we recommended such as the limits on candidate control ballot measure funding certainly to support those proposals it's always incumbent on the commission to build a record. build a legislative record. build a factual underpinning for the need for the campaign finance regulation in question. certainly in looking to the proposal that the commission is considering tonight, is that represent us people -- if you look at footnote five of the memo they have done a nice spreadsheet and staff

does want to more to support that proposal and something that we would recommend. i think some of the work already has been done. one other thing i want to mention since i'm on the mic, in terms of putting something on the ballot for this november, i don't have the exact date, but i believe that the commission would have to approve it by the july meeting. so it doesn't need to be made, but it's coming up quick. >> good. thank you. any other comments by any commissioner or questions? ms. chiu. >> >> leeann, thank you for this very helpful summary, especially for me as my first meeting and to echo the chair an overarching strategy with the most critical policy issues facing the commission. having a full and robust discussion about that, so we can thoughtfully look at these issues would be very helpful as we head into the new fiscal year and can help

guide us as we undertake this work. and then the second question i had for you is with respect to the funding. i think we'll get to this during the budget discussions, but could you give us a sense of what you might be able to accomplish with the current staff >> thank you for the question. as i sit here it's a little hard to specifically quantify it. i would imagine if you take each issue, the first introductory memo, a meeting to have public comment and third to wrap it up as been my experience so far. each of these could be over a course of three months and right now, that would largely be the city attorney's office assisting me in the process of doing that. we don't have any dedicated policy staff per se and we would have to pull investigators off their work, for example. so i don't have a time frame for you.

i just know that i think it will be certainly doable for us to make a commitment to bringing back something in may to start the conversation about potential ballot measures, but in terms of the larger issues i guess i would like some time to sketch that out with staff that we currently have and staff we may have after july 1st. >> thank you. >> do you have any suggestions if we were going to convene some kind of all-day or half-a-day forum to get input from the experts in the field and public at-large as to thinks that they think our overall agenda should be? how we would go about doing had that >> certainly we have a strong group of outside organizations that are focused on campaign finance

and campaign legal center in washington, d.c. has been very interested in supporting local jurisdictions and coming in with their expertise to talk about a variety of issues. think through our colleagues and counsel on government ethics to bring in voices across the spectrum and also helpful to have practitioners and what can we learn from 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 defined issues to get into folk's hands beforehand and to have working sessions with those practitioners and other groups and have a working dialogue and by the end of the day a series of goals or mandates to explore further in terms of a specific policy agenda? it's an ambitious

schedule clearly to have something like that and it takes resources and logistics and money to know where we can and how we can pull it off. i think if that is the commission's priority, we can sort of shake the trees and our colleagues to see how we could do it most effectively. >> that was the question i was going to ask you, if we did something like that, presently it isn't in our budget, is it? >> no, i would imagine to do it low-budget, a room or auditorium or library that we can use? and the question if we're able to have organizations send their members here or through our remaining travel funds or the travel funds that we have for next year, to buy somebody a cheap ticket. it's something that you can't do with no money. >> maybe we could find some worthy donor, who is interested in good government who might unbundle something

of that nature? >> certainly the department can take gifts, but we need to be careful where they are coming from. also, again, we can put together an overview of what that might look like and costs and put together what it might take to have it happen for a day and bring back that to you with more information and more logistics. we can also partner with local universities is another option, local law school and universities have a strong interest in supporting this work. >> executive director pelham, it seems like we could do two things in the month of may, do a investigation and half-day, full-day conference and possibly set up one or two 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 public more sooner -- just sooner, and in a more

comprehensive and ongoing way. i think when we head down this road, there are lots of issues that are going to come up and ultimately we want to be prepared. as you highlighted we would want to walk in with a series of critical issues that represent the interests of all parties and to see if we can tackle in that day, those critical issues and come up with a series of recommendations to put forward and that would seem to me the way we could do that. >> commissioner keane. >> mr. chair, if i could follow-up on commissioner andrew's very good observation, relating to the lessons learned from prop c. as many interested persons meeting and other types of input that we could have would be good.

since we have been talking, and i would assume that based upon our discussion, that we would have on our agenda at the next meeting the opportunity to vote for the proposed ballot measure? would it be possible for us to set up some interested persons meeting in 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 the may meeting. we may not until we have until july to put it on the ballot. if we had it on the ballot -- if we had it on the agenda to vote to put it on the ballot in may, and appeared to be clear-sailing and we did it then, we could do it. if not, we put it over to the next month and hold more interested-persons meetings and have more

factual-findings as the chair suggested. the concerns that i also and deputy city attorney voiced and i also share, having seen some of the problems that occurred with prop c, which was a great measure on your part. but we were doing it for the first time and we were sort of doing a lot of things as we went along. we have learned from that. why don't we have some interested-persons meetings on placing this ballot measure on the agenda before the may meeting? and then 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 your 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

it. >> i'd adopt that as a friendly amendment. in addition since we have a direct request by california common cause, very worthy organization in these areas, who have expressed their desire to have us as a commission, as the san francisco ethics commission, to specifically support sb 1107, so they see value in regards to having us on their list of endorsers and i think we should accommodate them on that. in addition to advising the other city departments that may have direct jurisdiction in regards to that, i think we should go on record in supporting the measure. >> i have a question for deputy city attorney chen. any restrictions or limitation on the commission taking such action as commissioner keane suggested >> there is the state body

that coordinates the city's position on pending matters. when the city does speak on pending legislation, it speaks with one voice and one agency is not at odds with another. i imagine as a practical matter, there would not be any -- but there is this process by which the city ensures that to the extent the city does weigh-in or any city agency does weigh-in, it does so in a consistent way. everybody knows about it. this committee has public meetings where people have a chance to speak about it as well. that is the uniformity, i think is the purpose of that committee. so i'm not sure of the timing of sb 1107, how urgent that is? obviously that say -- is a factor to take into consideration >> we have a person from california common cause.

>> helen greigo, california common cause. this is a lift to change the ban and we shouldn't be banned from doing that as municipalities. as far as timing on the bill it has a couple of more committees to go through. so we are still active in moving through the process, but i would ask that the sooner we get your support, the better. i could have gavin, our good government staffer to send information. so i can connect gavin up as he has been communicateing with leeann and give you the exact committee it's going through. the sooner you can give us your support, the better and i appreciate the fact there is a body that makes these official encomforts,

endorsements, but i want to see as the ethics commission, your voice is very much needed in battle for the way our elections are run in state and in the country. thank you. >> have you made the same request of the board of supervisors and the mayor? >> yes, not of the mayor. we have gone to all the ethics commission in california that have public financing enacted and asked them to join us. so that we can lift this ban. so it's available to everyone. >> but you have gone to our board of supervisors? >> as i understand right now, it was presented to your commission first. so you are sort of the doorway in. >> i see. >> thank you. >> following up on that, mr. chair? i think that one of the things that was just identified, we would be the body that would have the

most knowledge, the most purview relating to this and whatever action the city would take, our voice should be persuasive. so i think in that sense, it doesn't appear from anything that we're stepping on anybody's toes, in terms of the city's protocol, or the city speaking as one voice and would be looking for us to input on this? because this is what we do. so i would urge the motion. >> before i call on the vote, i call for public comment limited to just commissioner keane's motion, not to the overall topic. just to commissioner keane's motion. >> bob planthold and i support it. i'm a veteran of the city's state legislation committee and i want to clarify the process issue you are getting involved in, the state legislation committee is supposedly to consider legislation that affects san francisco. but it also instructs the

lobbyists on the official city position. there have been occasions that city commissions on their own took a position on state legislation. they don't go to the state legislation committee, but xyz commission supports or opposes something. they don't have a staff of their own and you have to find staff to do something for sb 1107. they meet the second wednesday of the month. in addition, the way politics works in sacramento, even if a bill does not get out by the time the budget is recommended, it still can be brought back to life in august. i'm not suggesting delay. i'm suggesting that even if you don't hear good news about sb 1107, it still could be dormant and resuscitated. so the idea of moving ahead to support it is worthwhile.

at the same time, commissioner, and ms. pelham, all of you folks i have a lot of experience with the state legislation committee and up in sacramento, so give me a call and i will tell you more details about how to get on the agenda for the state legislation committee, but if they fail to support it, you have got to worry what effect that would have on the bill if the city says nah, we're not going to go for that? and now you could say something on your own and leave it at that. keep that in mind and i hope you do do this and i would say move ahead. thank you. >> thank you. >> david pilpel again, speaking as an individual. bob is not the only one who has been to those meetings. i, too, they had a meeting scheduled last week which 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 lays out what the process is for the city taking a position on state legislation and explicitly or implicitly suggests that officers of the city, boards and commissions, can't take positions on their own. that the only two ways that the city takes positions on legislation are either through that body, or if they are not meeting, the board of supervisors can by, i think resolution, take a position on state legislation. so i would urge that you do take the amendment and state that this commission urges the state legislation commission -- committee, excuse me, to support sb 1107 and that you not on your own support it. i think that is actually beyond the powers and duties of this commission. the way they work each bill is either presented by the department and there is a little form and write-up. it's on their website at

sf.gov.org and one-pager what it does would be effective why the city should take a position, et cetera? and things usually just get routinely supported there as departments make requests. other commissions that have a larger legislative agenda for the year, the mta and puc in particular bring it to the board or commission at the beginning of the year and either talk about specific bills or ideas to support or oppose in sacramento. that is something that you might consider doing next year, if we get the policy staff -- if there are particular bills or ideas that we want to support or oppose there? but i hope that helps explain that process a little bit. so i do support taking this action, but with that

particular phraseology, that wouldn't urge another city body to take that action and i will comment later on rest of the policy agenda. thank you. >> thank you. any other comment on this specific motion? >> chair, mr. marsteller former chair and coordinator back in the '90s through 2000. i did want to say for sb 1107, i would think that you would certainly should feel that you have the right to say whatever you want. i view you more as a city agency and not as a department. and i think the voters made that clear in your charter. so i think you can certainly speak on something as simple as this. because you are in a sense the grand 'ol man of public financing in california. so i'm sure that the committees

in the senate and assembly would be interested in hearing how public financing has worked in san francisco? and we have great assets and current reports issued every year and could put together a nice presentation for the committee pretty quickly and simply, i think. to show that this is not a threat to the state and that this should work very well. i think the times are moving in this direction with the flow of money flooding the state and all politics nationally. so i would recommend that you just simply send a report of your experience with pf to give the committee insight as to how this would work at the local-level. >> thank you. >> hello, my name is sylvia

johnson and i think you just need [speaker not understood] some people can't talk and some people just refuse to know who they are. because the purpose of -- i went and asked about put in

the position -- and things happen in the world, and it does not, you know, get put on larger. this is a very serious emergency. i don't want anybody to try to put themselves down for

stupid reactions -- it's commonsense. everything grows and every human being. you can get sick, but it's not a priority program [speaker not understood] and they shouldn't because -- i have no way of getting a car, and i still get the same answer. i get tired of that, too. >> thank you.

>> commissioners, san francisco open government. it's amazing how many times in the years i have been coming to the ethics commission and other commissions that something that is a fairly straightforward proposition is made and seconded and all of a sudden the dissembling starts. who doesn't want to have the ability to control the money that is running our politics now? yes, do we have to be sure we follow the law, and citizens united decision and all of that stuff? of course. what you are talking about here is a simple statement that this body, which is primarily responsible for the issue in this city stands out and says we believe from our experience and it is extensive, that other cities in this state should be

allowed, if they so choose to regulate the political contributions going to their elections. that is all it's saying. it's not raising -- or trying to do some immoral act, but a simple statement that the ethics commission believes that the and just vote for it. say we are in the people in this city who do it and our experience tells us that it serves a purpose and if it serves a purpose for us, it would serve the same purpose for any other community. so state legislature, our idea is let it happen. don't sit and worry about whether somebody ran it by the mayor or city attorney?

the pixies underneath the tree? just take an action, show some hutzpah. >> let's clarify exactly what the motion is, so we know what we are voting on. >> the motion is that we support california common cause with respect to its support of sb 1107, and that we also adopt the chair's language that in doing that, we would call upon whatever germane city agencies or departments or officials that are involved in formally offering that kind of

recommendation to the legislature, to go ahead and back the measure. >> second. >> i will call the question, all in favor? >> aye. >> opposed? >> motion is carried. we'll now go to public comment on the discussion that we had on item no. 4 >> david pilpel again speaking as an individual. there were a lot of items that you talked about in terms of policy agenda and let me sort of dance around different issues. the commission used to for a time a retreat, i think in the saturday in the basement -- i recall that mike garcia, when he was the chair organized it. it's been a number of years since it happened. maybe some kind of combination retreat and policy summit would work?

i'm frankly a little less interested in the state/national context and that would be helpful, but more interested locally the things that work and don't work as well and where we should focus? something around that idea, either in city hall or elsewhere, half-day or full-day, could be a weekend, doesn't have to be? that would be interesting. in terms of potential ballot measure, the language that is here clearly would restrict and burden some of the rights of lobbyists. and so i think not just the interested persons meeting, but additional outreach to lobbyists and their concerns should happen. i think from my takeaway from last year is there was really a rush to put prop c on the ballot and was not -- i mean, chair renne did a fine job of explaining it once it was placed, but i think there was really a rush to get it on the ballot and i think

this year either -- certainly more time should be taken from a measure is put on the ballot and known consequences and unknown consequences and the other issue should be more carefully thought through. the other items should be prioritized more and i favor fixing and tweaking existing rules and procedures before we take on new things to try to regulate, or change. i think in particular we talked about enforcement policies and regulations and that for me would be a high-priority to look at fixing. and some of these other limits, and filings, permit consultants already exist and maybe reviewing those regulations and how they work? that all makes sense before we extend further regulations and look at some

of these other issues. but i do think that a more prioritized list of all of these various ideas, both with additional staff, if the budget allows, or without staff, would be helpful. so that we can see did we do have staff, we can do these things in next few months. if we don't, we'll have fewer things and it will take longer. also the idea that budget would give you staff july 1st. normally the budget is adopted towards mid-july or end of july, but usually new positions don't start until october. they are usually only 9-month position. so we may not have new people for a while. thanks. >> thank you.. >> morgan with represent san francisco and we're a local group, non-partisan and committed to anti-corruption, transparency and accountability in government. i want to be respectful of

your time and thank you for considering the proposal in respects to limits on lobbyists. we find when we explain to the average san francisco and they are perplexed it's legal. so i think it's something that is once it's brought to public attention, people are very concerned that it's happening. so i really support the movement for a conference or a summit of some sort. i know our whole group agrees it's a big-picture thing and those these are important parts of it, the big-picture is really critical. i would love to help you plan that, if you need help and resources. that was really exciting to hear that proposed tonight. we're taking action to restore a government that represents and works for the people and not just through lobbyists and special interest. we want to strengthen the voice of the san francisco voter and eliminate perception of political bribery and believe this would be the first step. we're putting our hopes in all of you to bring this proposal to the ballot in november. thank you for your time.

>> thank you. >> hello commissioners, charlie marsteller. we had strategic meetings on saturday mornings, like a light breakfast opportunity and coffee, particularly. that would wake us up and we would talk about the agendas for the upcoming year. i like the concept of a greater conference for policy development. but i see those as a two-step process, because we really have one series or process now right on our agenda. that is what we're going to be doing maybe as close as the november ballot? so i would suggest that you might want to do a hybrid approach. work on the strategic planning conference for the long-term, where you invite

international or national representatives to come in and right now then focus on what you are planning to do for the balance of the year. and what is doable? i have broken these down to easy to do in-house, harder to do in-house requires a vote by the board and requires a vote by the people. and then i took various concepts that a number of us have been talking about and tried to plug them in. i saw that is a good way to go. we might want to do an interested-persons meeting maybe as a warmup? and then do our saturday meeting with the commission to discuss what that agenda should look like for the immediate term . of the balance of 2016? that is what i would recommend that you do, break it into two parts. >> thank you.

>> hello, my name is brian. i just want to say that i'm also with represent us. i support the ballot measure, and i just wanted to stand by morgan and her statements on what she presented to the ethics commission and wanted to applaud you with the steps that you are talked about today, as far as getting the public involved in a forum and some type of initiative to involve the public in the policy matters going forward. thank you. >> hello, my name is zach and also with represent us and thank you for considering it during this meeting. want to thank commissioner keane for vigorously supporting it in advance and also commissioner andrews for suggesting that with apply

the learnings from proposition c to this process. i want to add my name in support of what morgan said. thank you. >> thank you. >> >> ellena schmid with friends of ethics and moving forward with represented us is important and we should do it as quickly as we can. i would ask as staff looks at it, they look at whether there is a definition of "bundling?" that everybody can assumes what that means, but you want to make sure that, in fact, that is there. you have heard a lot of other things and i don't want to repeat stuff. 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 --

any policy -- public officer that was being investigated should automatically be audited? and i believe that ms. pelham said to have a policy on that first and i believe that should be added to the list. i think you also need to talk a little bit about priorities. and how you are going to call the priorities, what are the things that are important to the commission in terms of how you are going to be able to make cuts? because when you have your stakeholder meeting you are going to get a lot of ideas on what you all should be doing. it's like making sure we're all very clear and understanding what your priorities are going to be, to be able to make the cuts? and i think you have heard everything else. thank you very much. >> thank you.

>> i'm bob planthold and to add my name and voice in support of working to the ballot measure by represent us on the ballot. you are talking about a couple of interested-persons meetings and you separately had the concept of maybe a summit. you are wondering about space and also the question of money? state legislators can get use of the basement and breakout session the rooms from the build diagonalal across from city hall and can get it free. sometimes weekends, but week days and you could have a multiplicity of topics. you might have a separate breakout room if you wanted to be that extravagant. some of these topics have already been in the news.

the additional gifts and travel reporting, the fact 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 since the mayor's budget ought to be out in may and by the time of your next meeting what the mayor is planning for ethics and how you are going to handle any interested-persons meeting and so forth? i want to refer you to what i would call a mega massive database of agencis that did endorsements of agencies that had campaign fcc numbers and

from elections department and that was passed to you folks last fall. it's worth considering using that. when you are talking about a, a summit and b, when you talk about revisiting various provisions of prop j. 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. you ought to be more informative to the public, so the public doesn't have to go through successful, multiple election filings to find out what prop j are they talking about? any number of these other topics similarly is, try to be more specific, to the public can quickly find out what you are considered revising, amending, recommending, dealing with? thank you. >> thank you.

>> commissioners, director of open government. i personally appreciate all the time and energy that the members of public have spoken tonight and putting in the effort to move forward. i really am a firm believer the only way that government is responsible to the citizens, or if the citizens hold it responsible? i would like to secondly go back to the first speaker, mr. pilpel and say that i agree with him. the one thing that i think has to be a top-priority for you is enforcement. you can rearrange the rules and rewrite the rules and all this other stuff, but unless you enforce the rules, it's like rearrange deck chairs on the titanic. the city slowly sinks into the pay-for-play situation and everybody says let's rewrite the rules. but the bottom-line, if the rules aren't enforced, if they don't have some teeth, they are meaningless. and all of that effort was

for naught. the civil grand jury talking about the ethics commission being the sleeping dog, aimed directly at that. i will give a personally example and i [tkpho-ep/] don't you don't want to hear it, city librarian herrera was accepting funds from the group of the friends of the san francisco library, a group he had fiduciary responsible towards keeping oversight as they raised money in the name of city government. he filed for three years stating he got nothing. we tried to approach this ethics commission with that and mr. saint croy and [speaker not understood] because he signed statements of economic there is aing he got nothing interest this group when he was getting

thousands of dollars. it's been more than 40 months since this group has appeared before the library commission and more than $10,000 raises in the name of the city and the name of the public library has gone through their hands and nobody has notes to show where that money went. the best i can figure out what the city supervisor as approve each year, giving $0.06 out of dollar to the library, which puts them in the range of those being indicted as spending all the money that they raise on raising the money. and i have said it before and i will say it again, what the library gets from the friends of the san francisco public library is the san francisco public library. if the rules are not enforced, writing them is

meaningful. >> thank you. >> so my name is sylvia johnson. i think, you know, in case anything happens, and in these events that we have,

that i want to also demand you make sure i get there -- because i asked you over and over and over again, like you are just going to let the world disappear, because you won't contact me? i am sick and tired of this. you know that the world is going down. now c'mon, stop this. stop this crazy i don't know stuff. i want to make sure it's policy and arrangements [speaker not understood]

put the library -- open up -- 7:00 is a good time. i think i want you all to be aware what is going to happen and i'm pretty sure, like i told someone already -- to

make sure that we're secure, >> thank you seeing no further public comment under item no. 4 and i don't believe there was any decision we had to make, but i think based on comments of the commissioners, understand some direction. and that in may, in addition, to the legislation, you'll come with some specific recommendations about moving forward on the policies, is that right? >> yes. >> let's turn to item no. 5, which is the status report

on the ethics commission proposed budget. >> item no. 5 is here to give you a bit more background and information on the status of the commission's budget request for fy2017 and fy2018. we have had a couple of conversations with the mayor's budget team and we're continuing to provide them information in support of our requests. i wanted to highlight for you some of the information that we have provided to them in the attachments to your item 5 include the request that we submitted originally in ruary to the mayor's office and some of those we envision for using any new resources provided to the commission as part of our

budget. we also moving to attachment 2 wanted to give you a copy of the submissions that we made for the mayor's senior fellows program. this is a program where the mayor's senior fellows are imbeded in a department each year. it's a competitive process and they work on very high-level strategic departments for various departments for a time frame of about 10-12 months. they come in with extensive experience in various fields. so each department could submit three applications and so we submitted our three applications. we're expecting to hear in the next several years where senior fellows may be housed in the coming years. those kind of projects are here for your information as well. we also had some good news this month, submitting an e-filing project to the committee on information technology and earlier this

month steven massey information technology officer and i did a presentation to the sub-committee on budget and performance. who later voted to recommend that project be fully funded to the larger coit committee. that is something that i believe is still underway, but very good news that they endorsed the project and something that would be funded through coit, not the general fund. that is very good news. our presentation, the deck of slides that we provide ready included here for your information. it's expected to be roughly 5-year project that would ensure all of our filing requirements and public disclosure statements that we currently have become part of

an electronic program. and then lastly part of what we gave to the mayor's office in support of our request, we had committed as part of our blueprint for accountability to the mayor's office in february to provide a much fuller list of potential key performance indicators to hold ourselves accountable to should we get the positions. each position, what would happen with or without the position and importantly a detailed list of the types of key performance indicators that would be something that we would hold ourselves to in terms of assessing whether or not we're making progress on the goals with those positions? so i wanted to provide that to you as

background information. on friday we met with the mayor's office budget and as a snapshot of where we are at the present time and we took a look at the current enforcement program caseload to be transparent and accountable. of the 24 open formal complaints, how old they are? and what kind of backlog we have? that information is shown on the chart. it's the blue-colored one-page sheet. so on average when you look at 24 open cases, the average age is 8 months, those under

investigation presently. that is 24 matters. when you look at the matters under "preliminary review," to look to see if there is a formal complaint that should be logged and a formal investigation beginning, there are 43 of those matters still under review. the oldest one between 13 months and one about a-year-old. so this information i think some that the staff and i are looking at to get through these and also says in my judgment, when you have 67 matters that are open, and currently with the resources that we have, the equivalent of one full-time investigator, one ftes, given that we have other priority

work of our investigators as well and something that we need to right-size and make strides in whittling those matters and those under preliminary review. i wanted to highlight, because that is something that we shared with the mayor's office on friday, as an indication of where we are and where we need move from. >> in your conversations with the mayor's office, have you gotten any indication that they looking favorably or wanting us to chip and cut or something? >> i think yes, and yes. there has been indications that they do seriously seem to want to support the commission's priorities. at the same time, we understand that from these conversations as i'm sure they are sharing with all departments it's a difficult time for the city; that there are increasing pension costs and increasing demands for city resources. that all departments

apparently are going to be expect thoughed -- expected to share in. with that said, we're trying to make the most judicious use of your times in those conversations and being as upfront as we can with the information that we have, and to be really creative about the ways that we could go about making improvements in our work? whether it's through innovation, or whether it's using -- applying for senior fellows, whatever we can do to try to increase the effectiveness of our operations is really key. so i think they are looking for cuts in terms of our requests. i think we have moved away from cutting us. i think there clearly seems to be some support through the coit process for our projects but we won't know the bottom-line for future conversations in the next coming weeks. >> would it be helpful for to you -- for you to have the commission express some views how important that

they believe it is that the full budget be adopted? particularly in the enforcement and policy side? >> if the commission has a view on that, that is an important perspective to share. my own perspective, that would be helpful and there is always a sense of priorities that people are looking for. it's hard for me to say one area is more important than another, because i truly believe these all need to be done to build our capacity. >> do the commissioners have any comments? commissioner keane? >> yes, thank you, mr. chair. very excellent presentation on the budget. a couple of things to keep in perspective with regard to the mayor's office looking at the budget of this commission: and not just agreeing to raise the necessary amounts needed to do the job, but the whole

idea of cutting is prior to ms. pelham for an ungodly number of years the executive director of this commission never asked for one dime of increase over the course of all the years that the predecessor was here. the result of which this commission is completely stagnated for resources. now we have ms. pelham just coming out and making an honest assessment of what is necessary to address some of these pending matters and to go forward with some of the things that we would like to in order to address ethical concerns in san francisco? if the mayor and board of supervisors were not to go along with this or cut it, that would not be just the height of arrogance and irresponsibility on the part of city government, but it would be an indication of

sanction and corruption. one of the things that is going on now, the other day in the newspaper, there was an article about the board of supervisors talking about appointing a public advocate position. and essentially putting some sort of super -- and to add some layer of things to the city bureaucracy, totally unnecessary, that this commission could and should be doing. the city, the mayor is under all sorts of attack right now relating to allegations of corruption in the inner-city family, indictments, grand jury investigations. the district attorney's investigations. the mayor has unequivocally

claimed he is in favor of doing everything that he can to ferret out corruption and is he no way tarnished by the things that we have seen in the last few years. this is one very good way mayor ed lee can put his money where his mouth is in terms of allowing the one agency that does do the ethical oversight of this commission -- of this city, to do its job. to not do it would be a clear indication to the city and city and county of san francisco and to the people of the city and county of san francisco, that things are not on the up and up, and 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 supervisors would go ahead and do the right thing in

terms of this modest budget to meet these needs, to finance it. thank you, mr. chair. >> >> commissioner andrews. >> thank you, chair renne. ms. pelham, i know you probably know this is on the top of your mind, 4 ftes just referenced here. did we decide -- did you -- one, are these listed as a priority? for you? when we go from senior policy analyst, policy analyst, information systems, and then investigative analyst? >> can you reference which document you are looking at? >> i'm looking at -- it's attachment 4; right? so you put -- >> oh, attachment 4. >> yes, attachment 4. was there any rationale you put to any of those? >> not in the ordering.

if you look back at february 22nd, our blueprint for accountability, we talk about the prioritis in terms of e-filing conversion project. both the project development and the staffing that is necessary in order to make that project happen. the next area is effective enforcement and investigations. and that is where we have asked for the balance of funds for one current position we have authorized, but for which we have not had sufficient fundings because attrition savings and essentially swept and one new investigate ive position. we have the two policy positions listed 3rd and some realignments in-house and i think i shared with you, as well as with the mayor's budget office, it's hard to prioritize -- i mean, it's hard for me to say when you are standing on the head of

the pin, which falls on which? because until and unless we have policy people in the office, we'll not be able to remove other programmatic responsibilitis for our investigative staff. with 67 open matters, we can't afford to have one ftes doing investigations and that is only reacting to the ones that we currently have. as we all know in order to be a truly effective agency to do the proactive work and looking at data that we have in our own shop. so i think they are very closely related and certainly we can't move off without having policy staff do the things we have been talking, but we're not going to be as effective enforcement agency as we know we need to be per our charter-mandate. >> it's difficult decision because it's most likely going to come back with level

of fundsing that will not meet the needs of the commission and to prioritize these resources. >> two things i would say, it's important to try to provide as much coverage as we can, reasonably across all of these areas. we cannot leave any area of our operations untouched. there is also a difference of having the authority for positions and having position that we have authority for being funded. so it's really critically important to say that when we are going to have a position authorized that, in fact, it has the funding to make it happen in practice. >> to support it. thank you. >> any others? >> executive director pelham, there is currently an open position for the deputy executive director. can you speak to that role as well and whether bringing that person on, filling that role hopefully sometime in the summer, if that can impact the case load and

workload of the commission? >> i think it will be yet one more set of hands on-deck to do the existing work. they won't be doing day-to-day investigative work, but filling an exempt position for which we have authority and we have funding. so my hope is with the deadline on may 6th by summer/mid-summer we'll have somebody on-board to provide that oversight to the program on day-to-day basis but general counsel role to support us with policy development. it will be an extra sets of hands, but in and of itself is not going to get the -- won't be doing investigative work. >> it would help on the policy side? >> yes, yes. >> motion instructing executive director that [ inaudible ]

>> i would certainly make that motion and i think we had that motion before, when we originally gave ms. pelham her marching orders with the budget; that the mayor's office came and identified these proposed savings and we said don't identify any proposed savings. don't do it. just ask for the whole thing, and demand the whole thing. and as i recall, we got a unanimous vote at that time out of it, because again, not to belabor it, but it's not just the fact that the former executive director never asked for any additional monies. whenever there was a cut, he just rolled over and allowed the cut to take place and

there is no other department, i think, in city government that has allowed itself to be completely castrated through its resources as this department has over the course of the last 10-12 years or so. and we have members of the public constantly coming up and saying by god, i made this complaint and why hasn't it happened? i made it yesterday, i made it two months ago and we see ms. pelham tell us that she had 67 open matters and one full-time investigator. so they lambasted ms. pelham and lambaste us and the chair as evil characters and that is not the case. this commission needs the resources to go forward and do this stuff, because there is a lot of things in this town that need to be investigated. and unless we get these resources, we can't do it.

so don't identify anything that can be cut. that would be my thing. we already expressed the fact that we want you to do that. the commission wants the whole amount, period. the mayor and the board of supervisors aren't going to give it, let's see what they do and let's us responds with rhetoric. >> commissioners, this is listed as update and discussion to provide you information about the item. certainly, is there isn't something agendaized for the commission's action. if the commission's consensus is what we're hearing several of the commissioners articulate, certainly that is information that will guide the continuing process. i apologize if you are helpless to take action. we didn't agendaize it that

way. >> you heard the expression 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 submission, but i can't emphasize enough the critical importance of having the resources to be able to do the critically important work that is facing us. we have heard comments from the public about the slow pace of action on complaints and that the caseload of 67 pending matters, on the one full-time person to handle is not realistic and having 8-11 months pending is going to be the outcome and that is not serving the people of san francisco very well. so anything that we can do, i think, to urge and emphasize our support for this full budget to the mayor and his budget team, you know, i would stand ready to do that. >> any public comment?

>> elena schmid again and to commend ms. pelham on the budget write-up. it was astounding to read and the astounding part was not what would be done. not just what you have on the books, the 67 complaints, but all that would not be done without getting more ftes. i would say that you hear a certain segment of the public at every one of your meetings, but the larger public, in a remember correctly, 75% voted very strongly for some good ethics reform for prop c. so i would suggest that maybe you think about having the commissioners, maybe the chair do an editorial and talk about what is in front

of the budget? what we're asking for? what is important? and how hampered we have been? and it may be helpful to get some comments back to the supervisors 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 shouldn'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.

>> you're watching quick bite, the show that has san francisco. ♪ ♪ ♪ >> we're here at one of the many food centric districts of

san francisco, the 18th street corridor which locals have affectionately dubbed the castro. a cross between castro and gastronomic. the bakery, pizza, and dolores park cafe, there is no end in sight for the mouth watering food options here. adding to the culinary delights is the family of business he which includes skylight creamery, skylight and the 18 raisin. >> skylight market has been here since 1940. it's been in the family since 1964. his father and uncle bought the market and ran it through sam taking it over in 1998. at that point sam revamped the market. he installed a kitchen in the center of the market and really made it a place where chefs look forward to come. he created community through food.

so, we designed our community as having three parts we like to draw as a triangle where it's comprised of our producers that make the food, our staff, those who sell it, and our guests who come and buy and eat the food. and we really feel that we wouldn't exist if it weren't for all three of those components who really support each other. and that's kind of what we work towards every day. >> valley creamery was opened in 2006. the two pastry chefs who started it, chris hoover and walker who is sam's wife, supplied all the pastries and bakeries for the market. they found a space on the block to do that and the ice cream kind of came as an afterthought. they realized the desire for ice cream and we now have lines around the corner. so, that's been a huge success.

in 2008, sam started 18 reasons, which is our community and event space where we do five events a week all around the idea of bringling people closer to where the food comes from and closer to each other in that process. >> 18 reasons was started almost four years ago as an educational arm of their work. and we would have dinners and a few classes and we understood there what momentum that people wanted this type of engagement and education in a way that allowed for a more in-depth conversation. we grew and now we offer -- i think we had nine, we have a series where adults learned home cooking and we did a teacher training workshop where san ancisco unified public school teachers came and learned to use cooking for the core standards. we range all over the place. we really want everyone to feel like they can be included in the conversation. a lot of organizations i think which say we're