>> the city of san francisco, ethics commission meeting for monday, june 27, 2016 will begin shortly. >> >>[gavel] >> welcome ladies and gentlemen to the regular scheduled meeting of the san francisco ethics commission for june 27 2016. i will call the

roll. commissioner tan, here. hayon, here. chiu, here. all are present and accounted for. churning to item 2, public comment. on matters appearing or not appearing under the agenda. i would as we have a very long agenda, which i anticipate comments, hopefully the comments will be limited to something other than this on the agenda. thank you. >> good evening commissioners. on charles stella with friends of ethics. we have been in discussions with board president on the question of the whistleblower amendment. they've asked for some guidance in our opinion on how to organize the hearing. so, i will send the commission

executive director a brief memo on that so that she will see what we have suggested. commissioner board of i think i have to warm up here-ms. breed and her staff and they were actually talking about generating a bit of a crowd or notifying the public in general, which we can implead you for that-for you but you have your own contacts with as well. but there was some thought by the board that this should attract some interest on the part of the labor and city employee groups so that is what i thought was. so, i did one you let you know if anything comes up with a we need to bring it up with you or bring back to you we will. the tech thank you.

>> thank you. >> premise of the ethics commission a director of san francisco opened up limited where you're aware of it or not to complain about with this commission in may as artie been dismissed. when i filed actually in april authority dismissed and the one i filed inmate was investigated for two whole days before they dismissed it. it was done by -the person i told you when i went in november dissuaded me from trying to filing the complaint in the first place and so i think she was totally prejudiced against them. there is no impartiality whatsoever. the so-called investigations or something i completely understand. the sole purpose was to dismiss the complaint and deny me a public hearing. a public hearing would result in serious consequences for both supervisor mark farrell and the san francisco public library in particular, luis herrera the city librarian. as far as mark farrell goes, you know very well he would never have shown up to a hearing. that looking for you, certainly. in fact, he

probably would've found his nose at you just as he did the sunshine ordinance task force and not even sending someone to their hearings. while embarrassing for you, you be very instructive to the citizens of san francisco that while you may be able to bully non-city persons or groups, city agencies treat you as the joke you are. neither the mayor, the board of supervisors, or any city agency would even deign to reply to your findings let alone enforce them. this body is a meaningless farce. when you voted unanimously to remove tool , etc. president of the library commission, the mayor ignored you. when you send a letter to him a year later asking what was the result of your recommendation, he ignored you. so, you are fully aware of the fact that you are absolutely powerless. there's an old southern expression in that expression is, uselessness tips

on a [inaudible] on. basically that's what this has come to. you are being here during the entire time, all this corruption has erupted in san francisco and the lack of action on your part related to any city officials is part and parcel of why the city has turned into a cesspool. >> thank you. >> item 3, we have reversed the order. there usually is item 3 is a discussion of possible action on draft minutes of the commissions may 23rd 2016 a regular meeting. any the commissioners have any comments or corrections to the minutes? any public comment? >> this is agenda item for? >> we have not got to item for you. >> thank you. >> no, three. >> all right.

>> on page six, it refers to my invitation to supervisor farrell to appear before the commission. i think you might want to correct the wording to indicate the commission had been encouraging the supervisor to appear before the commission. obviously, it's not my discretion to do so but, i was pointing out my frustration with the fact that today he had not appeared. >> any other corrections? >> commissioners open government. i would like anybody in this room or watching on sfgov tv? reviewing these minutes of notice on the only citizen in san francisco who's constitutionally protected political free speech actually

makes it into the minutes in any meaningful fashion. citizens united this up in court wrote, by taking the rights of two speak from some and giving it to others the government deprives the disadvantage person or class of the right to use speech ascribed to establish were standing, and respect for the speaker's voice. the government may not by these means deprives the public of the right and privilege to determine for itself, what speech and speakers are worthy of consideration. the first amendment protects speech and speaker and the idea that flows therefrom. this body is desirous of producing an orwellian 1984 new speed record with comments from others, with comments from other speakers, especially those voicing criticism being reduced to meaningless misrepresentation. you should be ashamed. i had

to fight for four years to get these 150 word summary 7 minutes because i was tired of having people bastardize and mischaracterize and doubt outright lied when i said in public comment. this is constitutionally protected free speech. these peoples, mine, yours, anybody else's and the fact that you want to have a really good looking record that makes you look like you're nothing but good people who do nothing but good and you want to keep anything negative out of it which is a direct violation of the sunshine begins which you have a legal obligation to enforce is unconscionable. you know, there's an old expression entire to explain to man that he should understand something when not understanding it is the basis of them keeping his job. >> do you have any corrections to the minutes? okay. do i hear a motion? motion to approve moved and seconded. all those in favor say, aye >>[chorus of ayes] the motion carried unanimously and the

minutes are approved with the correction noted by one of the speakers. turning to item 4, this question and possible action including potential waiver of atty. client privilege regarding public records act request for the audio recording of ethics commission closed session held on june 23, 2014 regarding onto item 6. i believe that the request was made by mr. grossman and i will give you 3 min. to hear what you have to say >> call all of 3 min. all how exciting >> i don't people take you that long, will it be one >> with only 3 min. for my comments i will repeat most of what is in my memorandum. hopefully you have already and considered how much you have to ponder. the facts are,pretty

clear. for a year now for the former executive director and the city attorney hijacked and kept secret from the commission eight legally required open process. they intentionally provoked a lawsuit, mind, which they defended at and appealed without commission authorization until it reached the appellate court. at which point, there was no turning back. so, it was only then, after this year and half of all this activity, including for hearings before the sunshine ordinance past that there was a single 55 min. closed session regarding three agenda items including the one

at issue here. following which, the commissioners voted to keep the city attorney's advice secret, whatever that was. which meant they decided to keep secret their views on litigation whose defense an appeal they never authorized with regard to records they had never seen. the 1999 sunshine ordinance was on the ballot by voters initiative and was adopted by the same majority vote is required for hr amendment. california citizens public access rights to the government's records and meetings are constitutionally guaranteed. so, now this commission is at another crossroads. does it continue to violate its own bylaws? does it continue to undermine as a charter designated, the charter designated enforcement body for public access, and whose interest it really protecting? the former executive director? the city attorney? or possibly some of the commissioners?

california's public policy is that this is the public best interest, these disclosures. at law school, i was taught and still believe if there's a relevant statute that's where you go first, to analyze the legal issue. here, the sunshine ordinance is absolutely clear on the two legal issues presented. there is the status of the existing legation on june 23, 2014, satisfy the requirements of section 6710-d. if it did not, for the reasons stated,--it did not i'm sorry good for the reasons stated in my mentoring him. as the passage of time obviated any need to keep the audio recording secret, per section 67 8.18, the answer is, yes. my memorandum demonstrates. i

actually have some further thoughts, but 3 min. is kind of limited. >> thank you. all right, the staff has any comments or the city attorney have any comments on this request? any discussion on the commissioners? is there a motion to grant mr. grossman's request or a copy of the transcript? >> i have no objection, frankly to the transcript being released and-but when the question first came up i said it's a commission decision, not mine.

>> i guess my question is, why are we still dealing with this? my question is, after all this time, including the litigation, why are we still doing with this other than that, mr. grossman once a record of the hearing certainly, i don't know there's anything there that needs to be withheld. >> i can answer that. it's a black box. it's been a black box from the first day i submitted my request in october of 2012. we are talking the better part of four years, here. almost 4 years and there's been no meeting at which there was a clear discussion about why it was started, who supported it, whether the city attorney

encouraged it, given the city attorney's attitude. there's a lot of reasons why this case is a really bad case. my memo explains it. the city attorney now is free to advise the department, the commissions, the officials on public record and public meeting matters secretly. it encourage them on how to defeat request for records. were handles [inaudible] that they don't like. sorry. >> does the city attorney have any opinion on this that it wants to share with the commission regarding mr. grossman's request one >> debbie city attorney and ocean. no, i have nothing else to add as a staff memo explains, this is a decision within the commission's discretion. >> i move we release the audio recording. >> second. >> any further discussion? let me just clarify for mr. grossman, the concerned that

the commission had was that the decision that was made to the attorney-client privilege was made by the executive director. which the city attorney had said was properly within his discretion and not a matter for the commission. in fact, there's an item on tonight agenda to deal with that very issue because the bylaws are unclear about it. but the transcript will show what the commission was concerned about in the meeting was whether or not we should, as a commission, should of that some participation in the withholding of the documents. not-you filed the lawsuit and you lost in the appeal court and it isn't the city attorney who off on a frolic it is the court of appeals that said that the city attorney was correct.

it's interpretation of the charter. even though the task force, the sunshine task force may be unhappy about the fact that attorney-client privilege exists in a records request, that's the law. so,-but i have no objection to letting you look at that for letting the public look at the transcript of our discussion. >> thank you. i have some more thoughts about wait for them for another time. >> any public discussion on the motion? >> braveheart director of san francisco (. president james madison wrote the following: the genius of our public and liberty seems to demand not only that all power should be derived from the people but the

those entrusted with it should be kept in dependent on the people. mr. grossman's request that the bodyweight the attorney-client privilege and release the recording of the closed session is both reasonable and justified. this body does more to hide its activities from the public than any other was meetings i have attended. only through the actions of individuals citizens our bodies such as this hell do any level of accountability. this body has shown by his behaviors to be totally unwilling and/or unable to enforce open government laws. the very least they can do is to disclose to the public and confidentiality is no longer required the secret machinations connected out of the viewer the public could show you have some sense of integrity. the bottom line is, government is supposed to be held with participation of and in full view of the public. you spend so much of your time going back in a back room and having discussions, which you expect the public to take just on your words to have nothing

to do with anything that can't be disclosed or shouldn't be disclosed. i have always had a hard time believing that anybody could go back for 45 min. or an hour and have a discussion and never say a single thing that couldn't be disclosed. i think it's disingenuous and seeding of the public to pretend there is. very frankly, i think most of what you want to hide in those conversations is the fact that you're doing something wrong and you don't want the public to know why you are doing it. you are making deals with people like mark farrell the president a member of the board of supervisors who owes you a ton of money. instead of being open and telling the public what you are doing as you go along, you just click on this thing and i think it's because the executive director the former executive director of the bit so badly that you just don't want to let anybody know

how badly you and by extension day, screwed up. >> mr. hart did you hear with the motion was a up here? >> any other public discussion? >> good evening. the longer member of the customers i don't think i need to use the disclaimer. i am not sure how i would vote on this motion. i understand from your discussion that you believe there's information that may be in the public interest to disclose. this is the first time i can recall that there is a request for a close session tape or information from a closed session that policy body is considering releasing. so i am not sure that this would set any sort of precedent. i think this is just a one-time request but i would ask you to be very careful and thoughtful about doing with this request.

generally, closed session matters and discussion are kept between the attorney, the staff, and the members of the policy body. so, it's unusual in my experience for such a request to come and i would just ask you again to be careful about what this means for the city going forward if you choose to make this information available. thank you. >> thank you. >> good evening commissioners good i'm dr. dara kerr whistleblower. i am very grateful to mr. grossman for his years of public interest litigation in this sunshine arena. his request for the close session records gives you an opportunity to get closer to the public. there's a barrier which is unnecessary and artificial, and this particular recording is one of them. so, i hope that you take the opportunity to get closer to

us. thank you. >> any other public comment? i will call the question. all those in favor say, aye >>[chorus of ayes] opposed?. the motion to waive the attorney-client privilege of the transcript is granted. is past and the document will be released to the public. turning to item number five, continued discussion and possible action on proposal regarding a possible november 2016 ballot measure to restrict lobbyist gifts, campaign contributions, and bundling contritions. i will turn to the staff for their initial discussion. >> good evening commissioners. under item 5, and on the table for the public by the staff memo dated june 22 and

attachments. we took the last month since the commissions meeting and most recently discussion of the issues to put together a bit more of a legislative record, and also to work with the city attorney on putting together language in an initiative one ordinance to see and consider discussing issues and heavy ops option to act on the proposal if you want to this even get that was something you had requested last month. the was a number of public comments were received over the weekend and today. those are also on the public table and then provided to you. i expect will have a fair amount of public comment on the proposals. just in brief, there is-the memo describes the findings and the recommendations with regard to including some language in the proposal that would speak to the findings that the proposals

as an underlying matter, i dressed. also, it would add some mileage about the ability to amend based on approach taken with pop c that would allow for the measure to be amended down the road should the commission feel that was necessary and that was in furtherance of the ordinance that is approved so that provide flexibility without having to go back to the voters each time of the was strengthening or clarifying issues that need to take place. the gift limitation takes a look at restricting as the proponents have suggested, the gift limits. applying the gift limits more strictly to lobbyists and the ordinance, the memo proposes and mirrors in the ordinance, language you have, recommendations that lobbyist make no guess as a law defines that term. that would not change. but it also would

include gifts of travel that are currently exempt the lobbyists would not be permitted to give gifts of travel to officials. then, we have a section on contribution and bundling restrictions. some background both on how the current contribution limits apply and how the proposed language in this approach would apply. there is also some language about alternative to the commission to clarify its desire to whether to apply this equally to expenditure lobbyists and contact lobbyist, or whether the commission believes there should be a card out for expenditure lobbyists for example. that language is bracketed to provide you with that option. there's also language that bracket the amount of the contribution restriction that is proposed to on page nine under

recommendation for. this would create a new aggregate limit on contributions so that lobbyist do not make contributions that total in excess of either 250,000, 100, or $50. those amounts are bracketed for the commissions consideration. dudley furtherance by those in the audience. it also takes an approach that would be new, that would include, would count contributions to any and all committees controlled by an officer and count the contributions that lobbyist gives to any and all committees of the committee controlled by an officer george of the contribution limits. it tries to extend the contribution limit concept to those committees where to a maximum extent under state law. it's possible to do that to create an aggregate limit for any and all committees controlled by an official. lastly, the bundling

contribution, the bundling of contributions under recommendation five, get the stakes approach that slightly different while different from the previous discussions as well. it would prevent lobbyist from transmitting delivering or transmitting or delivering three third-party contributions are made by another person to a city official. if the total amount of the lobbyist contribution delivered were transmitted made by that lobbyist exceeds the amount of the contribution limit that is to be determined and recommendation for. so it would in essence permit a lobbyist to bundle some contributions but at a much lower amount in either half the current contribution amount or lower, and that includes the lobbyist own contribution. so, the lobbyist could give and bundle up to a maximum of the contribution limit that is established under the law under this proposal. that's how this is laid out. lastly, there's

language and a recommendation seven that would also provide that the commission may issue regulations implement in this section and other provisions that are in the measure but that the regulations would not establish exceptions to the limits of the probation. again, trying to be very clear any change to the commission would want it regulations the commission would issue a need to be in furtherance of supporting strong and clear laws that are there to achieve the goals of the measure as proposed. so, i'm glad you stopped there and see there's any questions for me. happy to defer to the charity like to take public comment at this point. >> first get comments within the from the commissioners. i have a question to the city attorney. why isn't a safer approach from a constitutional point of view to adopt the approach that the state talk?

that would say, you would say, no contributions can be made by a lobbyist to any individual or office holder or how we work it, with whom that lobbyist has had contact with? in other words, it might say contact in the last year, which would-if clearly is like the state approach which says, we are going to focus on contributions to agencies or agents who the lobbyist are dealing with. as opposed to a lobbyist to may never say contact the planning commissioner. you could say he or she would be free to make contributions to the campaign of a member in idea commissioner who's running for office or something.

>> sure. i think you raise a very good point about a key difference between this provision where this proposal, and state law. as you say, state law prohibits the similar contribution ban on lobbyist but only with the respective the officials the state logic bodies are registered to lobby whereas here in this proposal as it stands i know, you can have a local lobbyist can i make any contributions to any officials with another ashley lobby by that person. thank you for highlighting the key difference. in terms of whether or not it's either or not, i'm a little bit restricted in terms of speaking in open session but the legal risks and issues raised by this proposal. i would simply say, it's only up to the commission and the staff of course in their expertise, to weigh in on what proposals are worth any legal risks. i think that the narrower approach is always

most always, save her from a perspective of facing any legal challenges. so certainly, you could go that direction if you want to do so. again, it's up to the commission and staff to make the to weigh the risks and benefits of going through a broad proposal and maybe increases legal risk versus in our proposal that avoids some of those problems >> because there is a state supreme court that's held that a complete ban of contributions is constitutional so long as it's a focused band >> right. obviously in the ramp up campaign finance and the more targeted the [inaudible] the probations are the more legally favorite is but we certainly again, it's up to the commissioners have to weigh those benefits. it is a more targeted more narrow proposal, yes, there are some benefits from the legal perspective but maybe some activity the commission and

staff wishes to reach. >> i don't know if we have discussion on that? >> any other comments? commissioners of? >> i have a question on the on the bundling. we are talking only about bundling by lobbyists , correct? are there any regulations that exist at this time that would prevent the average citizen from boggling? certainly, anybody can go out and collect checks from all their friends and companions and go door-to-door and collect money for a candidate. why are we not considering a restriction of that nature? >> thank you for the question. i think the proposal as was designed is trying to focus on

where there's the greatest perception or the basically the greatest threat for correction of the governmental process because an individual who is a lobbyist, whose be engaging in activity at the level and regularity and for compensation for example that this ideologue requires them to register at, that the goal is to try and de-link the ability or the prevalence of those individuals from amassing large relatively large contributions in a way that could be or could be perceived to be, influencing the governmental solutions. >> i understand that >> that puts it on a different place in the spectrum that a regular citizen was not engage in those cons of activities for livelihood will we find a influence a particular decision maker. so trying to de-link fundraising or contributions from governmental- >> pay to play, as it were.

>> to that, i would also add i think attachment one is helpful to point this out. we have actually numbers about campaign contributions that lobbyists are [inaudible] we had the data for about two years now due to a change in the lobbyist regulations adopted by this commission in 2014. so we actually have hard numbers. you can actually see the activity, bundling activity lobbies have been engaging in the past couple years. right now, we don't have the data for non-lobbyist bundlers. but another kind of non-lobbyist for a local official, at this point we don't actually have a picture what that looks like. now that's not to say we could not have some sort of bundling the porting of disclosure applies more broadly two people contribute to city officials. that something we can certainly explore justly a different explore than what we been considering but it's a unsure goes on but we don't know exactly what it looks like at this point. >> could i ask the city attorney, if we were to,

tonight, go ahead and do as chairman renne suggest which makes a lot of sense, and bowling which parallel the states approach which is also why the recommendation for the friends of ethics, would we be able to still pass the measure tonight to put it on the ballot or would we need more interested persons, type situation? input in regard to it? because mainly if we don't pass it tonight we have one more chance at the end of july, but there's only four of us here. we need for votes so i am -i to tempt the gods in regard to blowing our chance of getting a really good ballot measure on the ballot. so, one of the things that was indicated by the friends of ethics is that we could direct the staff in the city attorney,

if we chose to, direct the staff in the city attorney to go ahead and make that change in the language to make it parallel to the state approach subject to the review of the chair and still pass it tonight to put it on the bow. can we do that? >> i would certainly prefer to additional time if were talking an entirely new provision. as it as you mention we do have an opportunity about an additional regular commission meeting on the subject it because it's not going to be a simple cut-and-paste from state law. something we want to carefully draft of course my office as luck procedures in place in terms of making sure and he has put on the ballot by anybody is as good as we can make it. i also did want to get we can to an opportunity to address the operation concerns about during the state band. again, which is focused on making sure the lobbies are not allowed to make contributions of those official added. registered contact or have contact within a certain period and things of that sort. >> i would just add, i think

the commission want to take that appach you be able to take a bit more time to craft russ companion language that says this is how lobbyists will now have to disclose who they are planning to werth who they have planning to lobby so the band can be applied fairly. right now, you recall the law does not require lobbyists to say to the planning to lobby. they don't have to register to lobby certain departments. it's essentially went to a previous option is you're going to be lobbying anybody who's on the list of city officials. so the commission were taking this approach, we would have to come up somewhat with someone which state here's how you can do it mechanically so i think it has some soda can be put in place and practice ineffective way. the other thing that we would need to do with that is also make some changes to the online system the lobbies are using currently to register and so that clearly were at a point where we appear to be moving forward with the electronic filing conversion project.. if

we need to make some changes this would be a smart time to do that. it's not currently built into the scope of the project. so we would need to take a look at that and find out how we can actually other resources to make that happen at the same time were doing is other work. >> is it feasible, do you think it's feasible for city lobbyists to have to-to identify what departments or what agencies they are intending to lobby? or, if they don't it would be presumed they are lobbying the whole administration? >> i think that when would you want to take a look at it to be fair to presume the lobbying the entire body of city officials who they added the city officer who is the group of people they can currently lobby. i think in practice, i

would speculate that most of the campaign contributions are going to the board of supervisors will other elected officials who can shape policy, not to the whole list of other city officers maybe implement in those paws. i could be wrong but i think it's probably very much focused on the legislative body. >> any other questions? >> it seems to me that taking a popular approach to drafting a ballot measure is really critical because i would hate to see it pass and then be struck down next year, or a year from now. i do know anybody has vacation plans for next month so the four of us could be here. i think that's the city attorney and director common and her staff to take the time to explore what alternative language would look like in a way that could accomplish the goals that are set out but in a way that would minimize the risk of legal challenge. i think you would be to our benefit. >> i wonder if you could

articulate a little further the pros and cons of paralleling the state legislation that exists? i mean, how important is it that we mirror what the state has or does it not matter at all good it is it a disadvantage to it to us? >> as i understand it, and the city attorney can clarify if i'm wrong, but the danger of a ban on contributions by lobbyists or setting a lower amount that they can should contribute, if you do it across the board, and even though those lobbyists may not be having any contact with an official, that you run the risk that the court can say that you are impinging on the right of free speech. they have a right to support candidates,

even if we put a contribution ban on, there's nothing that stops the lobbyists from saying i am supporting the mayor lee or whoever the candidate is. all you are saying is a might if you had in the state approaches saying, if as a lobbyist, one of your responsibilities is contacting the mayor then you can make campaign contributions to the mayor. you can to the board of supervisors if you don't have any contact with them. so that it's narrowing one the sense the suppose it impact but it's not interfering with their right to support with campaign contributions to individuals whom they are not lobbying. as opposed to if we say it done

accepted you can give $250,000. that the court could say that's an unreasonable restraint on them. that we don't show-i mean $250 is in sufficient that they should be allowed to give the full amount. >> if i could simply add an e leon's comments, you know, san francisco bodies ordinance does not require lobbyists to indicate who is going to lobby before they do. basically make that context and make them after-the-fact it in thinking through how this could work, the hubble to get the commission's views on this, be in terms of an advance registration requirements would be a new feature of our lobbyists ordinance something also have to make this work. we have different through issues of easily heavy discussions with the director about how far in advance does that

registration need to be? how much notice do you need to provide to the ethics commission and to the public that you intend to lobby the mayor next week with the board of supervisors next month? you have to think about how the lobbyists begins works because it doesn't work that way right now at all. obviously, it certainly need more time that's where the commission is inclined to go. >> i would also be concerned that if there would be the imposition of additional reporting requirements that the commission not able to support from a resource standpoint that we need to be very thoughtful about that before we embark on signing up for something that we won't be will we won't be willto deliverin a reasonable timeframe. >> i will call for public comment. >> thank you, commissioner

judah lena schmidt with friends of ethics. i appreciate very much the discussion that you're having right now about the state using the state as a model since friends of ethics did put it forward and that's what i'm going to speak to a little bit good will obviously not be able to answer all the questions you have about it but let me put out a couple things. before i go that i just have to it knowledge it's a little bit of déjà vu all over again. it's just about this time last year when we were urging you to go forward with an initiative to put on the 2015 ballot, which you did, was the citizens supported overwhelmingly. again, we are going to urge you to keep moving on this very interesting and strong initiative that you're putting

together now. the commission staff has worked on that represent and friends of ethics. i appreciate all the work that's gone into it and the manner of review and careful thought that has gone into it. i think that representative has been an important ally for us and has helped considerably in clarifying language and having us think it through very carefully. you know that through the letters that we sent you we have proposed that you look at the state and see what's going on. the part that we are saying you should look at for the state is the provision dealing with the lobbyist contribution. and that it's a provision that's already in place. it provides a good framework that you could use going forward and includes all the components that we have been talking about and it does so easily,. it's in place and

it already has a precedent. i would note from the question that the chair asked about the registration that the weight as oe looks at it that at both the state and los angeles registration permit the lobbyist does not select a limited authorization then it applies across the board. so, it actually is simpler in that way. the comparison between the two between what you have in front of you tonight with the state is talking about, is that the current proposal as executive director said, limits some of the contribution. the state limits some of the-i can even talk when the bell goes off-the committees and the state covers all committees, which is really important. so, it's both the candidate

controlled committees and the noncandidate controlled committees. so they can be specific committees. it's a much broader issue. thank you for the consideration and i hope that we keep the discussion going on using the state as a model. >> thank you. >> good to be back commissioners. i am thinking that we don't really have to reinvent the wheel. when you take a look at the state law, realizing that comes out of the political reform act, which was written by bob stern probably 40 years ago, we can take that as our basis and take the issues that come up in the ip meetings and put those together and i think when you take a look at the state law you will see how readily available that law is to this purpose that we can put these two together without too much ethical three

and also it would dovetail into the databases. you've done an excellent data compilation here. i'm glad we change the law previously can i also want to thank you for the findings because i think in time we are going to see those findings are very important because the frame our own minds as to what this is accomplishing. i do want to say, i think once you get will up your sleeves and get to scrubbing the state law you will see how the current state law is something we can readily use, and this is, i suspect the decision that they came to in los angeles perhaps our executive director would have more insight on that although it might predate her because as you know, this part of our law dates back to the 1970s and early 1980s. so you have to be pretty old to have a perspective. >> thank you.

>> good evening commissioners. staff and executive director i'm from california common cause. my name is helen griego and we submitted a letter today for your consideration. our board had time to make a formal decision on the seven final recommendations because we do not have enough turnout but we did have time to state some of our concerns but so generally speaking, we strongly support restrictions on lobbyists ability to influence elected officials. we also think you sent contributions from lobbyists employers are significant source of the problem and money in politics. that may be for another day. we also support the lobbyist get an in principle we need to look more closely at the exemptions to the gift ban. we do it

knowledge gifts from lobbyists for traveler become a boondoggle that erodes the public confidence. there's a lift with the comments and questions which i will go over but i will say that one of the comments they came up a number of time on our policy call today was questioning why you had not paralleled the state law. thank you. >> thank you. >> commissioners, they art director of san francisco (in. it is all well and good to give the citizens a of san francisco an opportunity to update the laws on lobbyist gifts and campaign contributions and bundled contributions. however, let's not deceive the public into thinking you're actually going to enforce these laws in any meaningful way. as we've seen recently with your decision relating to supervisor mark farrell, you're unable to enforce these laws as relates to anyone in the city family. in that case, as in a number of other cases, you go into hiding were closed session so the public will not realize totally ineffective you truly are. no

one in san francisco government will back up your findings unless they have a political agenda to do so which we saw very clearly in the case of the mayor and former sheriff roth [inaudible]. you can bully the powerless, but you're continually bullied by the powerful. an old southern expression again sums it up well. bears repeating. you're about as useful it hits on a boar hog. very frankly, i think this last-minute storm and stress about whether we should've done this and that when you're been going to this conversation for months is nothing but attempt to delay it and keep it off the ballot in order getting a parallel for the state than being able to say, don't come to us about this. go to the at pdc in sacramento which is exactly what you did to us when we bought the case to the ethics commission relating to the library and luis barrera accepting $15,000 worth of gifts from a group he was supposed to oversee and we

brought it to this commission to this ethics commissioner mr. st. croix distantly said we are not going to deal with it. if you're not going to enforce the law, the range in the lockerbie writing all, over and over again is nothing but the arranging deck chairs on the titanic. this is a corrupt corrupt city. >> thank you. >> i'm bob plant holder here as a member of friends of ethics. again, we support getting the essential ballot measure authorized from november of this year because otherwise there will be a chance until june of 2018. i thought i heard the executive director say that the provisions of this would not apply to expenditure lobbyists.

if that is correct, since you're now considering adding language for another matter to mirror or paralleled the state i want to ask you to consider asking staff to draft two versions. the one currently in one including expenditure lobbyists could we passed measure [inaudible] we heard nobody is registered. if you don't include them in this, there is no pressure right now expenditure lobbyists are not going to feel they really have to pay attention to all these factors and requirements. i think to be consistent with measure c from last year you want to consider having it apply to expenditure lobbyists. i heard you talk about hoping you get four people for your regular meeting in july. again, i would suggest just summarily you could also put your calendars together with staff and city attorney it. any occasion or maybe a special

meeting needed if somebody has a wedding or other, if you know, that would preclude him from attending the regular meeting may need to have a special. do it after tonight's meeting see you can get that calendar consistency. i will say, finally, i really want to encourage you to be very narrow in your consideration of exemption of types of agencies and types of and activities of agencies. you want to be sure that as we often have used as the bogeyman, the cocoa brothers do not find the types of exemptions that you might authorize and develop their own san francisco astroturf surrogate. again, we talk about having restrictions apply to ages that provide direct services that are not necessarily clearinghouses. i think that's an important distinction that you need to be clear on as well. thank you. >> thank you.

>> hello. my name is charlotte hill. speaking on behalf of represent us. i want to speak specifically to the issue of the lobbyist contribution limit versus band. their have been two reasons why courts will uphold an outright ban on the lobbyist contributions and those are one, if there's in a public scandal involving lobbyist making political donations and the other has when that band has been narrowly tailored as discussed here currently weeding out in san francisco have the ability to determine which elected official the lobbyist plans to lobby. so, in the absence of

that sort of set up in the in the absence of public scandal involving the lobbyist contributions, we at represent us recommend taking the other coach of just imposing a little limit on lobbyist contributions. these were limits have been upheld in places like new york city where they also gave lobbyists a contribution that limit that's about 1/10 the limit of what other regular members of society face. we have actually a little lower than a 1/10 limit and ours would be a 1/10 limit. so that is our represent us stands that. to the issue of -excuse me, contact versus expenditure lobbyists, as you know, pop c created a new category lobbyist expenditure lobbyist could we would recommend that for the time being, the commission at lane was making clear that the use of the term lobbyists and this ballot initiative mean contact lobbyist only until the commission by vote determines that it should mean accenture lobbyists and i would just give you the time to a valuate whether they should also apply to expenditure lobbyist. thank you. >> thank you.

>> hi. morgan-with the present. i just want to thank you all for the careful consideration and all the work that's gone into that's gone into that's gone into that's gone intothis [inaudible] local citizens and activists. i would like to reiterate that were calling for a low limit rather than a ban and that $250 is just too much. it's not sufficiently low to instill public confidenceand we would suggest that $50 in may, 110 of the current limit. we've shown the data that's included that everyone has to show this is needed and lobbyist really give the maximum $500 contribution and that special low limits such as these exist elsewhere as charlotte said in new york city, that has been upheld to like to make it to is easy to be upheld and not get

thrown out on those issued. so, thank you. >> thank you. >> hello. i'm david i'm also from represent us. i would just like to say that pop c last year passed with 75% of the city supporting it. you have seen with the people of the city feel about city government did you've seen what we feel about how integrity should be handled in city government. the people are thirsty for commonsense reforms like these. we have seen people be incredulous. they do believe that we told them that there was no limit on travel gifts. that this was a major loophole. people could not believe that san francisco could be this way. we are here to bring san francisco back to a level that we can be proud of at lease. most people would assume that we would be at the forefront of something like this. they would be striving and leading the nation and the state in terms of how we dealt with ethics in government. to see some of the exemptions that currently exists is heartbreaking. so, we

like to ask you to make sure you don't dillydally on this. this is important to a lot of the citizens of san francisco they would greatly appreciate we kept our fight against and fight for city integrity and this proposition makes it onto the ballot this year. thank you. >> hello. i'm my name is tyler and would represent us. i just want to add a point that these restrictions are not only good for instilling public confidence, but they are also help lobbyists avoid undue pressure to most lobbies want to go into the job and provide information or expertise behalf of their clients without feeling pressured they have to give a maximum donation or gift nor to obtain in either of a politician elected official.

these restrictions will help lead them of that bind and allow them to do their job more effectively without having to feel like they have to contribute something in order to maintain maximum effectiveness in their career. thank you. >> thank you. >> good evening commissioners. denny lerman from the san francisco human services network association of health and human services nonprofits in san francisco. first of all come i like to say we view this draft measure as for the most part, a good government reform package is something that we would love to be able to support . we did participate along with a council committee housing organization in the interest of persons meeting an excessive couple of concerns and were disappointed that they don't seem to have been addressed or even an explanation about why they were not address. i would hope to see sommers monster that before that becomes finalized. we believe that the matters we would like to see addressed are very narrow.

commonsense types of exemptions and would be happy to work with the staff commissioners to my friends of ethics and represent us to craft limits there will be appropriate and hopefully something we can rent reach consensus around so we can all support this going forward. when of them is a simple clarification. they both relate to the gift limit. it's a simple application that we have open houses and community events that are free to everybody including the public, that it is not a gift if mayor ed lee has a glass of wine or a donut. so, for those types of events where something offered and in the due course of business to the public at large without regard to official status that should not be considered a gift. the second

is very narrow exemption for attendance at conferences. we also have public officials who speak at conferences or attend a conference. that is a good thing for the city. it is good for us to be talking to each other. it's good for public officials to speak with her constituents that you participate in events. we have very low confident conference registration. we like to see a narrow exemption. the weekend by public officials to conferences and symposium without having to charge $35 registration fee. or if they are speaking and none of the speakers are paying the fee, the public officials should not have to pay the fee. if none of the participants at all the participants are getting a [inaudible] with the registration the public officials shou a sld getdwich with registration at a narrow dollar minute limit would be fine. we don't care about special hospitality rooms. it's fine to will those out but we would like to see something that, as with the previous memo on may 20 about copies because it's not in today's packet, but some kind of language that we can work on together there was still allow officials of the

city and county of san francisco to participate in conferences without the city having to write a fee or registration check for every little event and would appreciate your consideration of that. thank you. i will pass on those copies. >> thank you. >> hello. my name is greg brian. i'm attorney also represent us. i was just a couple comments to make it the first thing is that it's important this be put on the november ballot initiative as a that i think is the primary thing were focused on. the other thing, too, just so you're aware with in regard to lobbies come i personally do lobbies should be included. the only external concern i would have an extension etc. lobbies are not included in the loophole that may be exploited later on by other parties. the other thing is, with the delay

the whole process and force it to go into some type of large review or something like that where we may push an initiative back then that something we may want to start with contact lobbies and work on the expenditure lobbyists try to do something about that later. thank you for your time and i strongly support the issue. >> thank you. >> going back to the question about the state where you said the lobbyists in the state identified what agency what official they're going to be lobbying, but one of the speakers said there is a provision in the state that says if you have not identified a specific one there's a presumption that you are lobbying all the agencies. is that correct? >> i don't know. i was not aware that resumption but i can

look into it for the next meeting >> is there a problem if we were trying take sort of the state approach, but in san francisco where they don't identify the lobbyists other than identify with keyword she registers were it registers that we can provide in this that if limited, the probation is limited to any agency or official who you've registered to lobbyist and that if you have not identified, there will be a presumption that you be a presumption that youare all elected officials and i would prohibitand they could then turn around say we are not really doing that and they register. were only going to lobby the board of supervisors.

>> yes. i think that's definitely an approach we could work on. but let me ask a follow-up question in terms of this movement it seems like to mirror the state law approach is much as possible. so, one thing i just want to do it some clarification on, the draft proposed for the commission tonight is not an absolute ban on lobbyist contribution did or were proposing is a lower dollar limit >> right >> i'm not sure that with the commission is headed to state law permits contributions altogether from lobbyists as opposed to a lower dollar limit. i'm not sure were still working on the lord dollar limit paradigm and if so whether the commission is comfortable making a decision that lower dollar limit is. in the draft with a few proposed dollar figures. i don't know if the commission is prepared to give us which of those dollar figures it feels appropriate? >> i think that's a fair

question. it puts more work on the staff but is there any reason why we sort of can't have an alternate approach for the commission to finally agree on and i guess i should say is anyone going on because you. our next eight >> that's probably the next [inaudible] question >> july-what is it? what is the date? >> 27th, i think >> yes, july 25 >> okay, 25th. i guess all for us at this present moment intend to be years so that is there any reason why that we could not have say sort of under the probation, or the limitation on campaign contributions, one approach being the approach that prohibits them from contributing to any official or agency with a lobby with a

presumption that if they have not identified who it is that theynten are id to lobby all elected officials, any elected official? maybe give them a time period to be register or re-file the limiting who they intend to lobby. and the approach that suggested here at a dollar limit-and we can talk about that dollar limit,-if that do you think is doable? commissioner keane >> that i had one thing also mr. jedediah go exactly we said in terms of having that before us the . in terms of paralleling the state procedure has been discussed and recommended by

friends of ethics and also as the chair indicated earlier to have the parallel procedure. but, and also we can do the options to have a ban or to have one of the three amounts that you suggested in the material you have before us to tonight. the 250, the $100 or whatever. that we choose one of those. if we choose not to go for the band but can i also emphasize one of the things that has been put by some of the speakers that i think is very important, particularly in light of proposition g. and evidently done on expenditure lobbyist, but that measure even uniformly to define lobbyist as both contact lobbyists at expenditure lobbyist could bolt thrust of what we did last year old thrust of what we've been doing is to not have any distinction between the two. that a contact lobbyists and

expenditure lobbyist is a lobbyist. and is going to be subject to the same kind of scrutiny. could mr. chairman, if i cannot that be incorporated into your directions to the staff for the writing of it and have that before us ? >> right i would join in that suggestion because when were talking about political contributions, i don't know why an individual or an entity that's identified as an expenditure lobbyist should not be subject to the same restriction as a contact lobbyists. >> they need to bring up that issue. just a good i think with the staff was and is proposed to the commission tonight. when refers to lobbyist or lobbyist, it includes both categories. that's how the term is not

currently defined in the lobbyist speed is good i will admit there's one place at the applicable word contact on page 14, line 15 that was just an inadvertent inclusion of the word contact. otherwise with staff asked me to die for the commission tonight something was in apply to both type of lobbyists beat it isn't there also some reference another part of it and i think it's not in the part were doing with but i think was pointed out to us by friends of ethics the number sort of comes to mind, 2013 or 2.15, where they specifically referred to contact lobbyist recommendation from mr. bush in one of his correspondence with us that that be specifically amended to be contact inessential other >> right. yes that's the one inclusion and also the representative people should get some credit because they got the same thing. that was come again everywhere else in the proposal just refer to lobbyist were lobbyists is referred to the either come. >> okay, fine thank you >> of course, i do not the other commissioner 12 ways in as well

>> thank you. the only other thing i would add mr. chairman, i want to complement the staff this problem in city attorney for this effort that they put into this. this is excellent. they've done a fine job will be wonderful job on it. particularly, one a comment to command ms. pelham for her excellent expeditions of it and her explanations on kqed the other day and to the public about what this is. you did a really good job terms of telling them what we are doing and what this is all about. so, i think going forward, taking up the next time you go put it on about i think would be a great job all around >> chair renne, could i'll also ask we request from director pelham a brief summary as to with respect to the

outright ban and the limits. if there's any resource constraints that would affect implementation of either course's about to have a sense of whether it's in the budget for example, for the coming year to be able to implement one course or the other ? >> i think of be helpful to take a large system this week to flesh out that the next months meeting. i mean there will be the reality of all these proposal is there are implications for operations. though should never be reasons the fact that a system currently does not do something should never be a reason to not adopt good policy. that is not what i'm saying. it is important i think you take a look and make sure we have thoughtfully by four other changes that might need to happen to make these kinds of provisions take place. so we can address that in the next go on this. my recommendation were thought would be to be helpful for us to have clarity with

city attorney and myself, perhaps we could go through the recommendations here to get the commission's sense of the direction you'd like us to make sure you see in the lane was that comes forward. there've been a number of issues talked about in a variety of areas that we could get it doesn't have to be a vote but get some consensus but what you like is he coming back. that would help jumpstart the process next. >> for example, on page 2, under the recommendations recognition one, general language the fine good i don't know if there's any reaction that were different approach you like to see there spewing anything that strikes you? >> any of the commissioners have any comments? i felt that was added that additional language i thought filled one of the probably one of the grounds to support it that doesn't is only appear. so, i

would recommend that we adopt that recommendation one. >> there was a comment by represent buys out kaplan who could not be here this evening he did provide a comment on page 2, line 7, after the first word officers, a suggestion it should also read, and candidates for city office to be consistent with that also a group that's been affected by the proposed changes. so, on line 7 the proposal st. officers and candidates for city office. >> that is online seven? >> yes. on page 2 of the draft. line 7 would begin by saying officers and candidates for city office. if there are not any-no concerns about that we would include that.

>> okay. recommendation number two relates to >> yes. that relates to the ability to amend. again it was some comment about from friends of ex-, lakers afternoon about whether there may be alternative language but the gold that this language is trying to provide for is that like language currently exists, it would outline how the provisions could be amended in the future and identify sick conditions have to be met under a-d. this would add the language of the topic of the current ballot measure that is being contemplated >> as i understood the comment from friends of ethics, with a wanted added is the provision that it could not be repealed or

that has happened in the past and i think when the wing which talks about has to be consistent with the purpose of the ordinance. it's hardly one could say repealing of the ordinance is consistent but to any commissioners have any thoughts as to whether or not there should be additional provisions making it clear that the commission and the board of supervisors can in effect repeal this? >> i think the fact that has to be in furtherance of the ordinance and also the reiteration of just procedure that it would again take four votes of this body and two thirds votes of the board of

supervisors. that is enough to give me confidence in regard to the fact that nobody can easily tinker with it. >>you will have a chance before we go any further but let's finish up through this memo. thank you. so, at least the sense i get the commission doesn't believe it's necessary to make the changes that were suggested. the next is just good >> yes, on page 4, recommendation three, the thrust of this bozo would be to prohibit lobbyists from making any gift including gifts of

travel. you would include a litany of individuals who also are included in that and it would in essence, remove the $25 existing to minimize that lobbyists are able to make an gifts per year to officials. the definition is used here would still be the definition and state law well be associated other exemptions that exist under state law. it would do 25 will demand a mess for rules and bandits of travel >> are we bound by the exemptions that are set forth in state law? >> only to the extent we use the terms of the finance a lot. we could alternatively exempt or carve out some exemptions good if there are ones that as you heard earlier this evening, make sense to you that you think would be useful but it's

a pretty long complicated list of what the state treats as gifts and doesn't treat as gifts but we attach ourselves to that definition then we would be attached to those exemptions. we could add our own and others. >> or we could delete some >> yes. >> so come i think would be helpful to see what that list of exemptions if we adopt the state, what the list of exemptions are to see whether there's any that we would were have been identified by some of the members of the public as being loopholes to what we are trying to accomplish. >> purpose of drafting the do your best sense for the action do have a sense at this point has commissioners about the issue raised about events attended in the normal course of business by officials where

everybody goes to the event gets a bottle of water, all three open events to the public, or did you want us to take look further at the exemptions are stupid look overall and make decisions next month? >> well, the concerns raised by some, which i am sympathetic to, some of these, whether it's an apple that has a convention or somebody else in a private parties that they set up and meet with the officials and that's one of the things that i think the public really reacts to. yet, i think under the exemptions that would be perfectly all right. >> yes, just to expand a little bit on that issue again to make sure comment that what you expect,. so, under state law, which is mostly what this is referring to incorporate us a lot definition of a gift, simply going to a party hosted by some corporate entity, that would be a gift to the official.

>> that would?. that would be a gift to the official. since were lowering it from $25 down to zero, you'd be anything at the party. so you walk your bottled water that's a prohibitive gifted yoga class i, that the prohibited gift. you come in and have a bike of chips that's a prohibitive gift. or completely limiting if the gift is from a lobbyist of course. were talking about an apple, google, where to company people choose to focus on some of these may not be lobbyist. that's one thing to bear my worldly talk about gifts from lobbyists. >> correct. >> one of the things that keeps coming up in discussion about the mission to conferences. under state law admission to a conference, so long as that officials attending the purpose of gathering information the subject matter

of the conference has some relevance to that officials duties, that's a gift exception. that allows you to go into a seminar, go into some breakout session or whatnot and listen to the information provided but it doesn't let you take all the freebies maybe associate with that conference. it's not uncommon for a lot of corporate conferences give associated dinners or cocktail parties or whatever. grab bags of goodies and those sorts of things. those things was to begins to be prohibited under this proposal subject to [inaudible] >> but these are gifts that are by lobbyists >> i can only talk about log gifts from lobbyists. >> right >> frank lyons not sure how often that comes up but yes, that would be how it works. in general state law has couple dozen gift exemptions but those seem that we just talked about seem to be commit most in these discussions. >> any discussion about the

language that's recommended for gifts probation? >> why wouldn't we allow the bottle of water in our de minimis amount of $25? or less, 10, 15 good >> i don't know why we would either but the likelihood a lot is giving a bottle of water, it's a it seems to me that the convention or conference organized by the lobbyists. if it's a non-lobbyist who is organizing the convention with a conference i wouldn't think the gift ban even comes into play doesn't? >> again. as were talking up the luckiest given by lobbyists. i don't know how often that happens but i don't think it's

that common, perhaps. certainly, you do want to build and diminish exception be helpful to get that direction tonight. again as a point of reference, state law has a little less than a couple dozen gift exceptions so i don't know if you want to come back with all of them were down to the exemptions but there's a fair number of gift exceptions. so not sure exactly how you were present that issue in terms of coming back with a draft? >> i think will be helpful if into an city attorney and the executive director and your staff were to review the long litany of gifts if you can make that available for us but have a recommendation as to what will be appropriate to include

it or not in the definition of gifts. i think that would be helpful >> yes, that would be great. any direction to be helpful and i think a lot of these exceptions are probably not objection good example 1 most common if the exception of zero are things provided by your family. anything provided by the official's family is not a gift. i don't imagine it would be controversially. perhaps we can do it quickly were some sort of highlight a couple for the commission to point out again just to make sure were not surprising you in terms of what we come back with the next month >> no. i think the suggestion that commissioner chiu is good and that is give us the list and we can decide whether or not we want to somehow or other excluded the exemption, from our definition of gift because that's really what were doing is saying were following the

state's definition of gift, except that we do not exempt from the definition of gift the following. >> okay. thank you. that is helpful >> contribution, i think we've limit on contribution i think we have covered that. are there any questions >> yes. again i will make sure i understand what the commission wants. so, on the contribution limit 12 alternatives. the first would be one that requires a lobbyist to pre-register the agency official they're going to lobby was her not currently required to do and under this registration model it be complete probation contributions. that would be option one. option two is what we have i guess tonight which is there is no pre-registration requirement but there's a lower dollar limit as opposed to an outright ban on lobbyist contributions. is that correct? >> right. we've not discussed and decide what that band without lower contribution limit should be. 250 is 50% of

what they can ordinarily give. $100 would be a fifth. any of the commissioners have a view as to where they would like to see that limit be set? >> i like it to be set at $100 just in order to make some statement in regard to a limitation on it. to set it too low, like 50 or 10 or some other doesn't make it vulnerable to the whole idea that you are limiting symbolic speech by virtue of some sort of contribution. so, i think $100

would be a good amount to use. >> any other >> i would agree. >> i think that's the sense of the commission to use $100. we will visit again when we do the final passage. then, bundled contributions. >> so, based on the commission's sense so far the recommendation five, the approach would as is outlined here, would limit how much to be a limitation not an outright ban. again that's the other question to address, but in this limitation approach, you would propose a lobbyist would

be restricted to limit to transmitting or delivering no more than $100 in total, which would include the lobbyists on contribution and any contributions transmitted were delivered by the were others contributions. >> and if the other version were to be adopted, that is complete probation. there will be a complete probation on the lobbyists participating at any kind of bundling activity is that correct? >> i think that's an independent question. that's what we have to clarify, yes if the commission wants to say there's no contributions being made under alternative one then the question i guess is still remains is a bundling band on the transmission of lobbyist contributions, is there a band and does it apply only to contributions since the lobbies

would not be able to make their own contribution? so, there are-i'm not sure if i'm being clear >> i guess i'd be more comfortable with it a complete probation the lobbies cannot participate in the collection and bundling of contributions to the candidates. and to a candidate controlled committee or to a committee that may have as its purpose some furthering of the candidates agenda >> would that be under the following the approach taken under alternative one if they preregister and identify which individuals which officials they were going to lobby then insofar as that is the approach taken they would not be able to, bundled contributions of those individuals as well >> right

>> okay >> in other words, if they registered the intended only to lobby the mayor's office, they will be free to bundle as any other individual bundle the board of supervisors candidates. >> so no limitations on bundling if there not loving that individual? not lobbying a particular official. is that- many moving parts to this. >> i don't know. that's gives me some pause in terms of as long as the register they can still go ahead and bundle of these massive amounts. i would like limitation on that and given to be consistent with what we have been doing to try to prevent abuse, trying to prevent corruption, i think would be a good idea if we kept

, assuming the bundler does indeed does do all the things that's required of the bundler to bundle, that the bundler cannot give anymore in any of these-i would keep that situation of $100 as well. >> so if a lobbyist is registered to lobby certain officials, they cannot do have a contribution ban outright and they would also read bundling ban outright as to those official. then, are you suggesting to the extent they do not preregister to lobby other officials a bundling district restriction was still applied in that scenario up to the $100 limit the stylish under a contribution that? >> yes. >> okay.

>> one moment, please. so, as to bundling, we want to be clear were chatting to make sure we understand. there'll be a alternative one that comes forward that is founded on the presumption that they will be a

ban on contributions to lobbyists to the extent they register to lobby certain officials were the contribution ban would apply to those officials. the lobby's ability to give to those officials. in addition, under that scenario there will also be a ban on lobbyists from transmitting as we describe your bundling as we do find it here from bundling any contribution to those officials but they also are registered to lobby. so, under that scenario if a lobbyist does not registering to lobby a certain city officials, they would be subject to a contribution limit of-fill in the blank for just a moment subject to contribution limit still as proposed and they would still be subject to a bundling limit to those officials that they are not directly lobbying as recommended in recommendation five? my

having that so far it might make you more confused? >> no. i think you outlined it pretty well. >> i follow that. that's what i would suggest, yes. >> so, we can certainly modify this alternative one is referring to it on the front but i would just observe i'm not sure for summative feeding the purpose. i thought the way chair renne had keep this up as one alternative for further consideration of the registration model and under that model essentially having more targeted approach but it seems like under this more targeted approach alternative one, we are broadening and again. obviously that's what the commission's discretion do but i wonder for working a little bit at counter purposes. >> well, it clearly was the

inquiry about whether or not we could sort of have a high ground. in other words, we could put a complete ban on lobbying, lobbyists contributed to those officers offices to which is directly rob lobbying but have a general say if you're lobbyist even if you're not lobbying anybody else in the government we still can only contribute $100. the problem i have with it is that opens up whole question of whether or not it's a targeted, whether we've targeted sufficiently to not interfere with their free-speech rights. that a lobbyist merely because he or she is a lobbyist doesn't mean they are not free to score political campaigns. the only purpose of a contribution, i mean a prohibition on contributions, is they should not be able to use money to try and influence the very people they're lobbying. but, that is

an approach hybrid approach which i would have some concern about that we might find the second half of that been struck down as being clearly where targeting them as a group and putting restrictions on him merely by the fact that lobby some city official. >> but i thought would talk about those restrictions would only refer to bundling, though. is that- >>. again that were trying to clarify here. i didn't make sure we understand >> if you're lobbyist and your registered, i lobbied a man and i lobby to the board of supervisors. and you register

then, and you go ahead and you want to give a contribution of your own to someone else who is the city official, in regard to something relating to that person, you could give the contribution limits. however, if you bundle them it would be limited to $100. that's what i thought we were looking at. we would look at bundling as an approach that we were trying to draw some limitations on. maybe i broken my own mind out of the pack here in him off on some- >> i don't know. i mean, if you're going to put a $100 limit on bundling them i mean

why would you bother to bundle? >> if you're lobbyist. if your blog is, would you going to do bundle $10.10 and $10 checks? that's silly. just then bundling them. >> i mean, i would be inclined to say to the extent that a lobbyist identifies who he or she intends to lobby, let's say the mayor, if that same lobbyist wants to participate bundling for the city treasurer i don't think that we can have the same clear justification for why he or she should be able to do that. when anybody else can do that for the city, but

>> in that scenario that would leave the lobbyists bundling for example to the treasurer to not be limited, and were contribution to be limited other than the existing limits under city law which is the $500. >> right >> so this alternative would actually be an alternative in the proposal. >> i will defer to my colleagues concerns on that, then. >> do you feel we've given you the guidance that you will bring to us in july a document which will be in the

alternative to prepare for the november ballot? >> if i can walk it through one more time. i think measured twice and cut once as they say. still the lien alternative that spot forward that would establish a way of lobbyist identifying the officers among offices they will lobby. under that approach then lobbyists would be prevented from intruding to that intruding to that officers those candidates those officers? they would also be prohibited from bundling as to those offices. so, if the lobbyists under the system does not register that they're going to be lobbying a particular office individual, there then only subject to the existing $500 contribution limit and of the no limitation on bundling because they're not in the practice of lobbying those officials. i think that's the last that we heard. does that

reflect accurately what you are conveying? >> except on things that there should be if they fail to specify if there's a presumption that they intend to lobby across all city agencies and officials >> okay, we can include that. that's helpful >> but if you just articulated ,, lost my colleagues here, heaven we just open the door, left the door open for them to bundle officials and candidates to whom they've not registered to lobby? so you are just-you 25 officials, gov. lobby to but i can still bundle the 23 >> correct. >> perla. >> so what are we accomplishing by doing that?

>> what you're accomplishing is i suppose in the real world they aren't going to be identifying only one official that there intending to lobby. that they are prohibited from bundling either for all the city agencies for the ones that they say these are the ones to whom i'm going to lobby. >> but under the current draft we have now i mean i don't understand alternative but to draft, before us today, has prohibition on bundling anybody . to any official or candidate. is that correct? >> it's limited. >> i'm sorry it's limited to $100. wouldn't that be a broader reach to say you can

bundle but you can only bundle $100, which is a very small amount. >> but then you can also say the broader reach to say rather than a probation on contribution, to say you can only contribute $100. >> you can reach more people with a small amount >> right there's no doubt that the broad limiting contribution reaches more people, but my concern is is vulnerable to the argument that it's not carefully tailored to the problem that you're trying to deal with, and that is the ability of the lobbyist to make contributions. to a candidate.

>> in terms of the bundling, how much protection is there with regard to i guess there's a big question for the city attorney, how much constitutional protection is therefore a lobbyist to engage in free speech on behalf of third parties? >> i guess it's a tricky question to answer, but i think again, weighing the legal risks and benefits is ultimately up to the commission but certainly if you do have a more targeted than were limitation there is -the commission would be protecting themselves from legal challenges. again it sort of a you have to weigh those things against one another. ultimately i'm not sure whether you want to put it all together

not i think what chair renne is pointed out it does make sense under some existing case law to focus on officials lobbyist is actually lobbying if what were concerned about his pay to play with the appearance of pay to play. don't make sense whether you the lobbyist is delivering a check were you lobbyist on behalf of other people are delivering checks. it's the same i guess pay to play concern. were also including [inaudible] as well. >> okay. i'll call for public comment >> go ahead

>> yes, they were pretty clear moreover: alternative one. alternative to would basically be what we have your tonight with $100 limit. we will bring that back to the spec to alternative one in alternative to promote will also bring back based on stats input and recommendation review further modifications and will be gift for these purposes. is that correct? >> yes >> thank you >> just to clarify as well on the recommendation six i think the commission has made it clear distinction alternative 6.2, which would apply to both these recreations to apply to both conduct of expenditure lobbyist. that seems to be clearly the consensus of the commission. lastly on the recommendation, recommendation seven regarding the was a comment by friends of ethics earlier this afternoon by modifying some of this one was that the regulations by which is appears is just the ethics commission and issue regulations to implement the section but they can establish exceptions from the limits and prohibitions set forth in the measures. if there's any

additional comments or changes to that it would be helpful to know. >> all right. i'll call for public comon item numberment five. >> thank you commissioners. debbie bowman it again from the network. i just want such a little more on the gift question in response to some of your discussion. first of all, because this measure would include expenditure lobbyists which include nonprofits and because any exemptions need to be included in the measure

itself under the last piece you just discussed, is very important to get it right the first time we look forward to look at those exemptions at the next meeting. i think what i am suggesting around these types of exemptions, first of all, his party example. doesn't matter to me whether it's apple developers are human services nonprofit as commissioner keane is pointed out we can look at content they should may not be the most popular cause or my pr favor caused we have to treat everyone the same. i do think it's absurd to say that if an event is open to the general public in anybody can wander in and pick up a bottle of water, that we shouldn't have to say well, your public official, see you can't have that bottle of water because the host happens to be a lobbyist. nonprofits may not become lobbyists under this under proposition c. it's

something we need to be concerned about. my beholder part because you cut the ribbon on a new facility or you have a new executive director and i think with both the conference question and the party question for the community event question, the key really is is there some potential here for undue influence, and i think the key word in my mind would be special treatment. if everybody in the public and pick up an order for the table and public official can pick up in our dirt from the table but doesn't get anything extra then what's the problem? involve speakers haven't faded to your comments are getting lunch and free registration the public officials getting lunch and free registration i don't see the problem and if there's a reasonable i would understand that. i agree with a concern about private meet and greet and hospitality of things i get. that is a valid concern. i agree if it's a $500 conference with fancy buffet or may

lunches and things like that. but for the type of community-based nonprofit conferences that we have where there's a couple hundred people and there's piled sandwiches on the table and the fee for the entire day is $50 or less than $100, just very journey base kind of event. i honestly don't see the undue influence i see many benefits from allowing public officials to participate as long as the not getting special treatment that other participants are not getting. thank you. >> thank you. >> i like to talk about the bundling limits. the idea behind the registering every lobbyists to a set of public officials over to lobby is a new system would be implementing that would need to be new enforcement mechanisms. this would be something totally new. some new paper bureaucracy

that would not be necessary with that comes a risk. if two lobbyists from the same firm lobby different parties but then crossover and bundles to each other's target officials, that would be legal currently. if you outlaw back into lobbying firms get contacts with each other to other lobbyists cross bundling. the thing i'm afraid of by introducing this kind of level of bureaucracy that might be even more loopholes. it might be going to do rabbit hole would have to keep patching it up over and over again. so, i want to make sure that there's no age issue in the future that something gets passed now you will have to come back to it in a couple years in state now they're going around it could we need to make more narrow law. thank you. >> thank you. >> good evening commissioners my name is jonathan-attorney at the senate law firm. i have a

fear that some situations here you guys taken an approach kind of for regulating or regulation secured as opposed to really looking at a problem from identifying an issue trying to create a solution at all give you one example because of whether we regulate contribution lobbyists or public policy so i'm not going to bore you with details for one example i have include expenditure lobbyists. in this regime of limiting gifts and contributions. the reason i bring this up is because no one here has a divided public policy reason for doing so. it's one thing to say were not going to allow lobbyists who contact the board of supervisors every day to give gifts or political contributions because that's how you gain favor. these are people you're talking to every day. these are people you try to seek to influence. with expenditure lobbyists these are people indirectly seeking others to conduct the board of

supervisors did these are people putting up that same call your board of supervisors and tell them don't support this or don't do that. is there really a public policy reason for not allowing these organizations people whoever they may be to not give a gift of $100 to a city official give a pot to someone who does something good? i think that's a real concern. same thing with the contribution limit. in what way are recurring favor what problem are you trying to solve a have an expense always not profit organization that says conduct your board of supervisors to increase affordable housing by voting for this measure? will be really creating saving the public in any way by not allowing them to make contributions or gifts as was noted the contribution limit of $500 the gift limit on state limits would apply to all public officials of for $60 are not exactly huge in their respects either. second point i

want to bring up i really feel that you guys should follow the state definition of gift honestly just for simplicity's and the state definition of because of a handful of carveouts. these are very very simple card outs. this from your friends. a gift from family members. when you get a token plaque at a convention. this includes informational material which is the exception there was broken to about attending conferences but also includes pamphlets that someone may get out. we are talking when of the exceptions is you receive benefits from the red cross is a disaster should get i encourage you for simplicity sake for not having carved out in the city law that was there are actually initiatives presented in current regime because the sexual limits just to follow the state governments to give a little clarity to what it is and is not a gift. thank you for your time. >> david capello again. three points. i think sher renne

properly called out the constitutional issues a zionist entity you need to have something narrowly tailored and so eliminating or restricting contributions from individuals that don't lobby or offices they don't lobby doesn't seem to fall within that so find a way around that make sense to some is loving a member or board of supervisors map that often running for the school board and see where they should be in a position limiting their contributions to candidates the school board. secondly, this idea that you discussed it at some love. but the state motto identifying who someone is lobbying and restricting activities in that regard. that is i understand it, quite different from the way the law currently is structured in san francisco. so, i'm wondering if on this particular measure, if the entire regulatory scheme in the city would have to be be written and go before the board of supervisors or if you would

include that in this measure because that sort of again as i understand it, changes the way people would register and report. just thirdly, i think as the previous speaker indicated, i am not sure that this idea of lobbyists contributing and that is a terribly corrupting influence is as much of a problem as as is suggested. sorry, lobbyists can contribute occasionally do given our relatively low contribution limits and the considerable expense of running for office. i'm not of the general view that lobbyists contribution whether individually or bundled has the kind of corrupting influence that's been suggested. so, i guess in conclusion, i'm sort of thinking this is kind of a solution in search of a problem. thanks. >> thank you. all right. we will turn to agenda items six.

discussion and possible action on proposal by supervisor peskin to prohibit city elected officials from establishing candidate controlled general-purpose committees. maybe this alum will explain how this comes before us and i believe there may be somebody from supervisor peskin's office would like to speak to the issue? >> yes, thank chair renne. this is initiative ordinance proposed by supervisor peskin on june 14. there was an earlier ordinance he introduced essentially the same topic on june 7. it's been referred to as the supervisor has requested that the commission have this

item scheduled for you to take a look at it. there is a staff member here, i believe, the legislative aide for supervisor peskin who can provide additional background. i figure hope was the commission would provide some input recommendation with regard to it. because we have not a gestapo had a chance to do any analysis those not included in the item before you believed to provide the legislative digest in a language as the ordinance was introduced. so, i don't know if >> a zionist in a, you requested that we give you an up and the staff an opportunity to weigh in and then put it on the agenda for the july 25th meeting and i the concern i had was whether or not that is sufficient time from supervisor peskin's point of view to get our view on it or

whether there is some time constraints to do with it tonight. but we will hear from the representative of supervisor peskin's office >> yes >> figure chair renne, commissioners. thank you for scheduling items six and seven this evening. we will start with items six. i can back up and provide a little bit of context for where this is coming from. so agenda items six is as you stated supervisor peskin's proposal to prohibit elected officials from establishing candidate controlled general-purpose committees which arises in part out of their 2013-2014 civil grand jury which referred to this as a significant backdoor for influenced by contractors and other seeking city approvals . our intent with this prescribing as clean government measure to essentially tighten up one form of campaign

contribution that in our office opinion and the opinion of campaign finance reform advocates whose bodies of work we drew upon here creates at least a theoretical possibility for the formation of suspect quick pro-quote relations between campaign donors and elected officials who control these committees. as you know, general-purpose committees under the california government code a be established to collect money. that can ultimately spent on for four against any candidate or ballot measure that can exist ongoing over unlimited campaign cycles. you can create one of these in 2009 and last until 2024

without any specific about being attached to any specific ballot measure were candidate. unlike when someone donates to a specific issue burning since in support or oppose a ballot measure on affordable housing bond for instance when sportive opposition to a specific candidate who can bid for elective office, when you're donating here there's known nexus between the dollars that you are spending and the idea were measure you are supporting. that nexus is lacking the general-purpose committee. so what you are left with absent any idea of how your contribution is being spent, were for what your dark ends your dollar conservation are furthering a principal purpose that remains is to create a special relationship with the candidate or elected official whose controlling this committee. that's essentially the problem we see in the problem we are trying to close with this piece of legislation were initiative ordinance is a maybe. furthermore because there is no campaign contribution limit on the general-purpose committees, what we are essentially allowing for is a loophole to exist that enables candidates to mass campaign were just

abuse the soft money, slush funds, all the while circumventing the existing contribution limits jar as we know $500 on canada committee so we are grateful to have the support of the friends of ethics who been supportive since the outset on this. and for the support of bob stern who might be the father of the political reform act in california spoken eloquently on this issue before this commission last year and in other circumstances. now, of course we seek the ethics commission supports into that and just a quick procedural note about where we are are at. unlike items seven, where we are just here to further a conversation, we would will he appreciate yet the commissions were spent of this legislation tonight and the reason for that is because it's a amendment to the campaign-finance reform at this commission must approve the legislation but for fifth board members before the board

can adopt legislation that we would have as heard by committee of the board in mid-july and up to lately have it done by second reading before the deadline to remove this from the ballot that were willing to go to the ballot could i think it's strong support for this of the board and this may done legislatively but of course we need support of this buddy to do so respectfully request that support this evening. that's about all i have to say on it could all stick around in answer any additional questions but generally looking forward to the conversation on this item. thank you. >> henny commissioners have any questions or comments? mr. keane >> i appreciate the stance suggestion that they would like to study it further and gives a

very substantive set of recommendations relating to it, but it is, as was indicated by speaker something were familiar with good we heard from mr. stern and from friends of ethics. we've heard it from the civil grand jury. it something that is indeed a fairly substantial problem and is addressed quite well in regard to supervisor peskin's proposed ordinance. in light of the fact that it is time sensitive, and if we wait until the end of july, i think we moved it out any kind of recommendation that we have. i move that would support it. >> do i hear a second? >> only to clarify based on the materials here the first reading is on july 19 and final action on july 29. we have a second meeting before the final action? is that correct?

>> this is on items six. yes. >> yes, item 6 >> right my inner state your next meeting will be at the end of july and i would not unfortunately afford is enough time to go have it heard at a committee of the board before ultimately needs to be sent to the full board for first reading. the latest theoretically we could be at a first reading before the full board is july 26 which would allow for this to be read the second reading on august 2. the deadline to remove this from the ballot is 5 pm on august 2. so that would be cutting it incredibly close and my concern is that having the ethics commission on july 25 would not allow an opportunity for it to go to committee before going to the full board. >> this proposal is also something that the supervisor intends to put on the ballot if

the full board doesn't not passive >> correct. that is correct, yes. i trust that in light of the support for the ethics mr. laster that strong support for it this. that something we are willing to do but again i take our strong preferences we handle this legislatively and do it that way. >> i will second the motion. any further discussion on the motion? public comment on item number six? >> as opposed to my previous

comment on the last agenda item i support this if you pass the motion tonight that would be great. it would put the commission in support and allow the board to act if you're not able to get unanimous vote tonight it might want to consider a special meeting in a couple of weeks so that the board, so that you could act in the board could timely act and hopefully avoid putting this on about the likely would not pass. in this case there really is a problem that there are at least two current officials that have general-purpose committees. others have in the past this clearly is an opportunity to circumvent limits and obtain access and that sort of thing. this is a problem that can be fixed legislative. i support this measure and support the motion before you. thanks >> thank you.

>> alayna schmidt you party heard of friends of ethics strongly supports this. i am speaking personally as a person of a authority-14 civil grand jury. this one of the big issues we had dinner five and am glad to see it's moving forward and urge your support of a. thank you. >> thank you. >> commissioners [inaudible] aaron peskin is my representative on the board of supervisors. i strongly support this motion. i hope you do, too. i see no reason to take longer time to look into. i think you're fairly clear on what it's attempting to achieve. as mr. pell pell said, this unidentified problem for which it is being proposed and i think the sooner it gets clear so that the board of supervisors can act without concern the better. >> thank you. seeing no other public comment i will-yes?

>> dr. garrett kerr. i support this proposal also. i suppose the alternative would be to limit contributions to $500 for these general-purpose committees. but either way, banning them totally which is preferable or limiting them would show solidarity with people who are not wealthy and people who struggle even to contribute $500. that's a lot of money for a lot of people. so, getting rid of these political inequalities is important and i hope you support this. thanks. >> i will call the question. all those in favor say, aye >>[chorus of ayes] opposed? the record should reflect the past 4-0. turning to item 7,

which is also a proposal by supervisor peskin and as i understood, is he wants action on this one tonight particularly? >> thank you again. this item is is less urgent than the prior item. for a couple of reasons. but among them that we are still in the process of amending this. this is not simultaneously there's no motion to put this on the ballot. this is going to the legislative process and this item i'm genuinely concerned just with the cultivating a good conversation this evening. i'm happy to provide context about what we are doing here. if now was a good time for that? >> well maybe if you could

come back at the july meeting when we will have a staff report clarifying the status position on it and if you could come back at that time and we will address the question? >> that would be fine. >> it would be my recommendation that we follow the status request that they have until the next meeting to prepare an analysis and recommendation. anybody disagree? >> i don't disagree but i would while you are here if you could just explain to some extent what the problem is here? >> sure. i can outline some of the amendment we are thinking of

that will further the discourse over the next month as well. under current law, the payment of $5000 or more permissible sources made at the but past a local elected official for government or general-purpose, beneficial must file a behest patient reported as it right now it does not apply to the city various commissions and boards and were specifically talking about those enumerated in section 3.1 103 subsection 8-1 of the campaign governmental conduct code. we do a very rich commission system is the san francisco which serves the city in myriad ways. some are most critical government functions are performed by the city's commissions and adjudicated were controlled by the individuals who sit on those bodies. but this legislation were purporting attempts to do shed light on the ecosystem charitable contributions that are solicited by those commissioners. in that sense this is primarily a transparency measure critically were not aiming to prohibit the act of soliciting contributions were are we attempting to pass

any judgment on any commissioner involved in raising money for charitable purposes. i think it's a very common thing we would in fact encouraged. to the extent though commissioners and port numbers are exercising their leverages public facing officials to raise funds for xyz charitable cause, we do think of the public's right to know what that ecosystem looks like. of course, to the extent those solicitations are being made individuals or entities, and before commission or who have come before a commission for whatever cause be [inaudible] our office thinks that information is critical for the public to know. so unlike the previous item again were not seeking approval of this even get a mapping of this conversation in more depth in july could i do want to just the amendment we are considering, first, after

consulting with ethics staff, will be amending legislation to allow for these reports to be made online or in a form other than the at the pc forum 803. if so capture the same information will allow some flex ability so on the one hand it's easy to report on the other hand it's easier for staff to process these reports. second, we are proposing right now this proposal requires disclosure within 30 days of when contribution hits that $5000 limit in response we received from various commissions were willing to expand that to a quarterly reporting system with the caveat if you're soliciting concretion from an interested party would probably want that disclosed within 30 or 60 days from the time the contribution is solicited or the time at the point it comes to the commissioners attention that individual is in fact an interested party coming for the commission did that, we will make sure solicitations don't include things like auctioneering and i think

there's a lot of at bbc letters interpreting what a solicitation is that would be illustrative and instructive here we want to make sure that's fairly clear so commissioners not concerned about activities that are not solicitations. lastly, and most substantively, we are considering an exception for high-level nonprofit fundraising staff still looking into how exactly to the find that that would look to your guidance and excellent piece in that regard whether it's executive staff or staff is compensated for the purpose of performing fundraising activities. we understand there is an inherent burden in these reporting requirements we are interested in minimizing that as much as possible not really providing a disincentive for people to sit or who do work

for nonprofits from wanting to serve as commissioners. i think that's a vital pool of individuals we want to be commissioners in our city we don't want to dissuade that. they would still have to report solicitations from interest parties coming before the commission but in general would not have to disclose every single solicitation a make over the course of their work duties. that's the long and short of it. sure conversations i'm looking forward to continuing this conversation in july. >> i have a follow-up question it could make this real with a concrete example may be cut ask you a question. if i were to serve as a class captain for my kids fundraising at school, and were to ask my fellow parents to digitally to the annual fund at school, with obvious solicitation left report it contribution came out came in

at $5000? >> yes. that fund is a 501(c)(3) organization, yes. that contributions are due to 501(c)(3) organizations. that's all we are getting at is over $5000, you have to disclose that. correct. yes. >> so, what is the evil that were trying to prevent here? >> right. i think that i can be hypothetical my response. i suppose you have a commissioner on the planning commission and this may be the most obvious body that grants entitlements that high dollar value and they are soliciting a contribution from someone they know that i matter come before the commission for approval of a project or something that requires conditional use. that solicitation would-we would

want that to be reported back rates a quick local relationship between the commissioner and the project sponsor coming before the commission say that commissioner requesting what are you give $10,000 to my kids fund my school fund. this church organization this ngo. we'll see what we can get on that thing that is taking place but we want to know what that looks like it we want to expose and shed light on that exchange of money. >> so, i would just suggest that there's a way to more narrowly tailor to get at that kind of behavior as opposed to having all commissioners need to disclose how much they're trying to fund raise for the children's school. it seems like you cast a very wide net, which is a big consume consumer

of resources to go through our staff to go through all that. i understand the purpose of it but is there a way to work with director and her staff to come up with something that is can accomplish those goals. >> i think that's a good point and our office is open to suggestion you. there is going to be a learning curve with this. that said, this requirement does already applied to elected officials so we know how it works. we have a tangible system for how it plays out this would just be expanding the requirement to commissioners and it does cast a wide net right now, but i think that's in furtherance of the ultimate goal which is openness and transparency and this of course can be a lot of reporting that is not suspicious whatsoever. there's no spurious intend to you wanting to raise money for your children's school fund and yes, it's broad and inclusive of those but i think that you need

to test abroad next to allow for quick scrutiny reveals some of the complicated relationships that might exist. that said, of course were willing to entertain suggestions and we have some time to do it. >> following up on commissioner chiu's concerns, which i think are very legitimate, isn't it important as to who you are asking to give contributions to a 501(c)(3). in other words, if you're asking other parents of nothing to do with any of the work of the commission, as opposed to your planning commission, we are going to a contractor or builder or developer insane, when you give

$10,000 to my son's school it's much clear that it's the source was putting the money up at the request of the public official. that is the possibility quid pro quo. this update parents at the commissioners school is going to get any favor from the commission. >> right. by the same budget we could limit the pool of entities were 501(c)(3) that are being donated to which i think is another interesting facet of this the flipside of the corn. it's not just who you're soliciting money from which are soliciting money for. i think would begin to narrow it to say just soliciting you may have to disclose your solicitation from interested parties when i'm coming before the commission, that actually

creates a different type of burden on the person who is subject to the regulation. we are now they have to rise to the level of their own level scrutiny. it's their burden to determine whether a conflict exists there. i think that deprives the public of being able to provide that scrutiny themselves. >> i think there's a sense the four commissioners that will this will come back before the commissioners in july but i'll offer public comment. >> hello again. charles marceau for the record. i did want to say that i think the situation has changed in san francisco on behest of

[inaudible] its value is now more appreciated than has been in the past. so that the supervisors are spending a fair amount of time on this. it's not really clear to the public how much energy has gone into these behest of payments and arrangements. i think that just as the state reached a point where it felt it had to do with those legislators, mr. peskin coming back to the board now sees that things have changed and he, too, has come to that similar conclusion that the state came to, it must've been 15-20 years ago. i do remember this issue been a state issue in the newspapers. so, my suspicion is were my suggestion to you is that the easiest way to look at this is a simple disclosure matter.

just a simple disclosure requirements to just propose so we can get a an assessment of the magnitude of the issue and then look at the data and if we need to do something we deal with it then. i think right now the focus of the bill is simple , disclosure. i don't think you want to really complicate it with the impacts on the sectors , the beneficiaries of behest of payments. were any of that until we really see what's going on. i think that's the first step. >> thank you. >> commissioners, debbie lerman from the human services now. i want to speak a little bit as to this exemption run commissioners who are also executive leaders in nonprofits so there's an understandable i were having this conversation

with supervisor peskin's office. we are looking for a narrow exemption the situation where a commissioner also it's also their job responsibility to raise funds for the nonprofit that they work for. that exemption would not apply if the donor is an interested party with business before that commission. first of all, as a lead pastor said, the city does benefit when nonprofit leaders share their expertise to public service on commissions. but donors sometimes request confidentiality and nurse with jim and reasons for that. in our sector, is somewhat common for donors who are patients or clients don't want to be outed as somebody who is theirs to

recipient of services for mental health were hiv-aids, sexual abuse and suicide prevention, domestic bounds, substance abuse treatment. so we do see that a lot. also just people who have prefer privacy because of humility or they don't want other people to know they can afford a donation of that size, they don't want to be harassed for unpopular views. they don't want to be inundated for request from other people could wear their religious tidying traditions. so donor confidentiality in the nonprofit world is a long-standing tradition and it's pretty important to our organizations. if you are a commissioner and you're required to disclose a contribution you are now placed in a conflict of interest situation if a donor is requesting confidentiality. do you give up the ability to serve on city commissions and deprive the city of that expertise or do you create a situation where you're unable to do your job properly and

handling those kinds of contributions? as nonprofits with city contracts were under tremendous pressure from the city to raise independent funds and augment city funding and we should not enact laws that hamper the ability to do that by deterring donations. so, those are the reasons why we begin a dialogue with supervisor peskin's office about this issue. again, we believe it should be narrowly tailored and frankly we would've liked to include boards of directors, to because they also raise money for nonprofits but as stated, that exemption from disclosure would only apply as long as that donor is not an interested party in of that donor is an interest party then you have to say i cannot maintain your confidentiality request. would have to be disclosed. that transparency would eliminate concerns of quid pro quo which is the purpose of the legislation. >> thank you. >> david coppell again. a few

things. i'm not sure if we introduce himself did was we have not from supervisor peskin's office. the background on the memo refers to the board's government accountability committee that actually the government audit and oversight committee. perhaps it was just an oversight. as to the proposal i think this is an interesting idea to extend this from what's now what 24, 25 elected officials to roughly 800, but in scaling that concepts, that require some effort and requires some narrowing as was discussed. i think this would require staff time both at the commission measured identified for next month and within each department or agency to educate on a one-time basis and probably annually the government died in sunshine and ethics training what obligations members of boards and commission would have under this