to 100,000. i would agree with staff's recommendation there. for section c, i would propose modifying the provision on the directors of non-profits to ensure and this may not be encapsulated in the ordinance itself. i would ask for staff's direction on that. but i would want to make sure there is a very robust provision in there, would be educated on their obligations. section 3-a, i think that i would go with my -- if we could keep it --

keep section 1.127 on the question of 4 4-a, the right of private plaintiff to receive 50% of civil penalties. i would remove. re-- i would remove that provision. it would be in agreement with staff on that. on section 5 machine 5-a, i would go back to the original language prohibiting commissioners and board members from fund raising for their appointing official. but not broadening to include necessarily any elected official. for section 6, i would propose a robust

disclosure requirement encapsulated in section g. >> so for section 6, you would propose that we accept the staff recommendation on -- >> no, i'm sorry. i would accept the recommendation rather than changing section 3.20784 in such a way by incorporating changes d through

f. i'm supportive of replacing 3.20784 with a stepped up regime for behest of payments. >> you'd a do away with the ban and replace it with a disclosure? >> commissioner chiu: yes. >> mr. chairman if commissioner chiu is finished, procedural, is this going to be reduced to writing? if i consider complirgs commissioner chiu's remarks to be a motion, is it going to be reduced to writing?

>> let me ask this of the staff, have you captured what commissioner chiu has said? i think that since the staff has captured it and we've sat and listened to it, that rather than the need for it to be reduced to writing before we actually vote on it, i don't think that is necessary because i think that as it is we've gone through this now for so long, and over so much time that we can all -- i speak for myself, but i get an understanding of what commissioner chiu has put into the ordinance and how it's changed. i can intelligently vote on it. and would i suggest rather than, again tossing it over for another date,

that that's what we do since we're relying on the fact that the need for a fourth vote to get anything and we have commissioner chiu would be a fourth vote, i don't know how commissioner lee is going to go on this as the main individuals that we would need to advance it beyond our 3-2 vote of last time. so we've listened, we, in my opinion, we ought to discuss it further if necessary and vote on it. that's the opinion of the chair. >> mr. chairman i'm going to put in the record my response to the memorandum of october 19, 2007 starting on page

3, question by question should the commission remove section 1.127 from the ordinance? my answer to that is no. roman numeral iv allowing civil penalties, i've made several statements about that and under "a" i would not remove the provision allowing private plaintiffs to obtain a portion of civil -- i'll we call them damage penalties. i would have a clause which leaves it to the discretion of the court.

and on roman numeral v, page 4 of reducing the scope of the rule so it only prohibits fund raising for the benefit of appointing authorities, my answer to that is no, i would not vote to make such a change. and on six, with respect to section 3.207 subsection a, sub subsection 4 i would not remove that and under "a" i would exempt volunteer services but

i'd keep the phrase "anything of value" which will not mean volunteer services. and on b, i would not support any such change. c, i would not support such a contemplated change. d, i would not support that contemplated change. and with e, i would not support restricting anything of value to cash payments. and on f, i would not remove that sub subsection of section 3.207.

and i would not support any section g change. otherwise -- >> chairperson keane: i'm sorry. >> commissioner kopp: otherwise this is, as the chronicle editorial writer observed, we're just failing to tackle money and politics in san francisco and what it is as defined by the chairman amounts to what now contemporary term is "soft corruption" it's a system which

infests city government. everybody's got a stake i don't mean little rally everybody -- i don't mean literally everybody, but it leaves me shaking my head. >> let me do this so we can have this proceed orderly. we have a motion by commissioner chiu. is there a second to that motion? >> i'll second it. >> chairperson keane: the motion has been seconded. commissioner kopp has put forward a number of things commissioner chiu, that are different from what your motion is. do you accept those as friendly amendments? >> commissioner chiu: let me go through this. section a on page -- shut commission reject extending the term of the city

contractor contribution ban from six months to 12, he had said -- >> commissioner kopp: on what page? >> commissioner chiu: page 2. 2-a. >> commissioner kopp: i don't think i commented on that. i would vote for a year. b, i would -- >> commissioner chiu: we're in agreement -- i think we're in agreement on that. >> chairperson keane: to the extent that commissioner kopp's list of things and that he put forward are different from what you--let's see if we can do this collectively. the extent that he has put forth that list that they change or are different and i'm relying on the staff here,

would you accept that collectively as a friendly amendment? >> commissioner chiu: collectively, no. but i don't think commissioner kopp has -- >> commissioner kopp: i didn't cover those three on page two. i'll do it fast. >> chairperson keane: i don't think she is accepting any of the others, so we can short change it rather than -- >> commissioner kopp: i want to record mr. chairman what my vote if given the opportunity would be. on page 2 on a, it would be no. and on b it would be no. and on c it would be no. >> chairperson keane: so my understandingunderstanding is in regard to the motion made by commissioner chiu and those other -- the put the matters put forth

by commissioner kopp commissioner chiu does not accept them as friendly amendment. therefore we have the motion before us by commissioner chiu seconded by commissioner renne, do we have any further discussion on the motion before we vote on it? mr. chen. >> just to briefly return to the process point that i believe you asked for before. i'll try to be belief. brief. think the plan was that tonight to get additional direction to the commission with final legal text. a couple of the provisions or changes that i believe commissioner chiu and commissioner renne would like to see do require further -- entirely new provisions with respect to the disclosure regime. the staff memo only discusses that as a

stepped up disclosure regime. we need to know what that meant. in 2-a i believe commissioner chiu asked for additional notice, more robust notice provision that may require further legal language as well. >> we're relying upon the staff who has captured that to give us the particular nuance legal language. what i'm trying to do is achieve something. and then finally move off the dime on this thing. we're going to be here for the rest of our lives. i appreciate your concern with process and mine is too. but i think as a commission do we -- we understand that commissioner chiu has put forth a comprehensive motion taking our original ordinance and there are changes in that.

we know what that is because the staff told us they captured that. it's been seconded. we are prepared now to go forward and vote it up or down. is that -- am i correct in that? terms of my colleagues? >> can i have a clarification then? because i just want to clarify from commissioner chiu. for section 6 the only thing you would be opposing in your -- would be g. right? so none of the other like a b -- a b, e, are not included in your --

>> commissioner chiu: right, a disclosure requirement would replace the ban. >> commissioner lee: all right. >> so we all understand what we're doing here. we have that particular nuance of sentences or languages. >> if i might, i have a process question. just to clarify there is a raging dissent here at the staff table. i want to clarify. i think the understanding is that in commissioner chiu's motion and in the discussion in action the commission is about to take is to provide you a policy direction with what we should come back with as your staff next month for final language for to you act on which would mean it would be -- if commissioner chiu's motion were approved, we'd

come back with dloasher dloasher language and something that speaks to a robust notice and education piece for an existing law that is retained as a to a ban on contributions by contractors. so where you're directing us with your policy direction, you're not presuming to adopt language. >> my understanding is we are adopting an ordinance tonight and we're relying upon you to put it in to the final language given what we have expressed. >> commissioner renne. >> what i understand this motion to do is it essentially what commissioner chiu has said is that she will not be the

fourth vote. with the ban in there. and all the rest is sort of window dressing. she went through the various things which she said she'd degree agree with, but basically to say that she's prepared to go along with the proposed ordinance so long as there is no ban. my -- am i misinterpreting what the thrust of your motion is? and no private right of action, i think. >> commissioner chiu: no private right of action. >> no penalty. >> commissioner chiu: no financial penalty in the sharing. but yes, i would like to see a robust

disclosure regime. >> but the thing is that as i understand the thrust of the motion, certainly her vote up or down is not going to turn on whether or not there is a penalty provision. i can't believe that. the real maybe i'm misinterpreting where you're awe coming coming from. but anyway, i'm prepared to accept the changes that you want to get this ordinance moving. okay. >> so that what we have. we have the motion and a second. it's been seconded. we have it before us. so we're going to vote hopefully before 9:30 when commissioner lee has to

leave. >> turn into a pumpkin. >> let's take public comment unless there is some objection by my colleagues to that. public comment please. >> point of clarification. does your motion exempt nonprofit -- uncompensated boards ever directers from 1.126? >> 2 keeps them in but -- it keeps them in but requires a robust condition. >> first of all, i want too want to thank this commission for this thoughtful debate. we very much appreciate the time you've given to this tonight. on the point of 1.126 and the application to boards of directors on

the staff memo, page 2 section b, it's interesting to learn that 1.1926 of 26 only applies to 200 grantees and most are non-profits but non-profits are permitted from donating to candidates. so this relates to a couple of thousand nonprofit board members while the executives may have a direct benefit like a higher salary if they get a contract. if board members have no financial stake in the outcome of this decision. they are in fact private citizens who do not have a contract with the city and are disenfranchised by this law. in answer to commissioner chiu's earlier question, this is a perpetual ban whether it's six or 12 months, the reality in san francisco is the department of public health doesn't get around to certifying contracts until

the spring. six or 12 months, non-profits are in negotiations. also although the mayor's office and sometimes the board must ultimately approve the contracts, the reality is that contracting decision with who and how much and other terms are made at the department level through competitive bidding which any naits any gates the contracting division. the maximum contribution is only $500. this does nothing to address the real problem of unlimited independent expenditures. when people think about contracting they think of large corporations. what this provision does is go after civically-engaged nonprofit volunteers who have no financial stake in the contract and who make small contributions to candidates. also on page 2 section c, staff opposed

this for two reasons. first that it would narrow existing law yet you are about to approve right above that an increase from 50,000 to a hundred thousand which narrows existing law. by narrowing the law, staff can focus on potential violators who are more likely tone gauge in pay-to-play. what elevates these volunteers over other volunteers. also the staff argues this hasn't been discussed during the process but we've raised this issue month after month. yes, it's an existing law but we raised it throughout the entire process in every document and hearing. the only thing that hasn't been done until tonight is for to you consider it and respond. again, we very much appreciate that which ever way you come down.

also in page 3 of the discussion of 1.127 around land use staff recommends not adopting because they say it's too hard to enforce. this provides limited benefit giving the contribution limits that are already relatively low while presenting significant enforcement challenges. i would argue that same applies to 1.126. ethics has never been able to produce a database of persons executives and directors who are banned from donating. the enforcement website lists contractors covering many years of approvals by various public officials and in some cases it has an entry saying "various non-profits" this is unenforceable. board members are forced to choose between serving on their nonprofit board

and exercising their first amendment rights to support candidates. we believe this is a constitutionally suspect prohibition. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> hello, i'm david mahai. i'd like to compliment for having the stamina to last through these meetings. some of the things i'd like to address are going back to what we were talking about with making sure there isn't a dragnet being cast over executives and board members of non-profits. the issue at stake here, what is in scope of going on is trying to improfit notice mechanic mechanisms. conflict of interest shouldn't affect this. it's an unrelated topic caught up in because of minor improvements made because of this ordinance. if people do want to repeal this

conflict of interest it's out of scope for what is happening. in regards to the behested payments, i -- a majority of nonprofits don't rely on behested payments as we've seen. most of it does go to non-profits that don't involve themselves with low income san franciscans and with the average citizen unless they've gone to organizations like the america's cup and hospitality tourism and training nonprofit. the most important thing for all of this is to make sure that whatever you agree on does get passed into law. because we've been working on this since january and the majority of the propositions here people do agree on and people want to see in city law. we've discussed this a lot and down the

last final provisions and i would strongly urge that a compromise be reached and that we pass something eventually without trying expand the scope in bringing new laws to try to complicate the issue further. i urge that what you have now that you do agree on, you make sure it becomes and that you avoid trying to get moolah for either disclosure or appeal. whatever would require a new ordinance or statute i urge you to avoid that. trying to catch every secondary interest that we can see here is going to keep us going for months and months. we know what we have and we know what we agree with. that's something we can work with. so please work to compromise and flesh this out without burdening the staff with new agreements. >> thank you. >> thank you.

>> good evening commissioners, peter cohen. i'll be brief, i want to speak to two topics in an excellent staff memo. concur with commissioner chiu's recommendations on the issue of the financial penalties, if you will, on the private right of action. i concur that should be taken out. and frankly agree with the staff conclusion which i'll read says staff believes existing law already provides a sufficiently robust avenue for citizens to seek enforcement of the terms of the cfro. you don't really need it. as weave he argued from the beginning and adding in a financial incentive makes it right for frivolous lawsuits and what do we gain from that? especially those in the nonprofit

sector, it makes us nervous. that one issue, we concur should be taken out. on the larger matter of the behested payment conflict of interest we believe a disclosure regime is the right way to go. we made it at the hearing and commission and believe that is the right direction so we concur with the motion or suggestion that staff work with the stakeholders to come back to you with an alternative approach which shines as much right as we can on the activities through a disclosure regime. núin our memo of september 18th, we suggested that approach and said as a matter of direction to your staff say 2009 two years that the staff comes back with a full report based on the data you

receive to see what it's telling you. then you'll have the kind of analysis to impose regulations and prohibitions. but this regime would seem the right first step towards getting regulations and prohibitions right rather than diving in immediately to the ban. so we support that disclosure approach and will work post haste with your staff and you to get it done quickly because we're pooped out. so we agree. >> i'm morgan with represent us san francisco. i wanted to thank you al of you. -- thank all of you. i think we're getting closer to a solution and i echo things that are said. there is enough of what we all agree on. it would be better to get something than nothing. if we're going to start with the first

step of disclosure, i want to make sure we're returning to this long term and not just checking the box and saying we solved that. but collect the data to look at the issue to make progress going forward. thank you. >> good evening commissioners. thank you for today's hearing. you know first ever all, i no longer work for a nonprofit in san francisco that has contracts with the city and county of san francisco, but when i did this was a small agency we typically had contracts pending for 11 months of the year. i wanted to make sure you understand that when you say contracts pending, that means practically the whole time. a typical a. time for a contract to be negotiated is four to 10 months. if you have three contracts, it's likely that covers the whole year. so to be sure you understand that, some

contracts are pending for 14 months. in effect i think this is an overall ban, sounds narrow during pending contract but that isn't the case. secondly is as a volunteer board member, "uncompensated" is weird. we give our money and spend our time like you do as volunteer members of the commission. we don't have any -- these whole financial conflict of interest rules are based on financial material interests. i have to say who does have a material interest is beneficiaries. city and county of san francisco gives hundreds of thousands of dollars a year every year to the san francisco ballet. that reduces the price of ticket prices to the ballet. on some level everybody who goes to the ballet who purchases a ticket is a beneficiary and has a material interest in those contracts. if you're going to take it to volunteer

board members, it seems the people who are having a financial benefit people who get their ballet tickets should secluded from any kinds of these activities. then finally i think that this clearly that just isn't working. right? i mean there are a million amendments to amendments and it's become so complicated and so many hours of hearing, there are so many exemptions to different things that it feels to me that this has become not -- has gotten sidetracks like when you're trying to hit a bowling ball, you roll it down, but sometimes it goes into the gutter and goes down the gutter. i think this idea has fallen off the bowling range and into the gutter by becoming just a political attack as opposed to something that is actually going to make meaningful change. thank you. >> thank you.

>> david philpel i was going to start out with a joke of sue hester payments. but nobody would get that. there are four points i wanted to bring up. on page three line 12 under land use matter, the reference to ceqa seems a little misplaced to me. there are very little ceqa matters that come before the commission. they're largely on appeal. i'm not sure that is as directly related as an approval under the building code or planning code. i would suggest looking very carefully about whether ceqa should be included in that definition. on page 10 starting at line 20, the definition of city contractor i know

there is existing law that talks about city agencies and the school district and college district. i'm not at all clear about why contracts with the school district or college district are included here and whether city law can actually reach to that as a basis for prohibition or restriction. it seems odd to me. i get activities with activities activities with si agencies activities activities with city agencies but colleges are different and i've never understood that connection. the other piece is on page 26. this is the 3.207-a-5 starting on line seven an so and 1 -- and 10 and 11.

generally the exception in sub-5 starting on line 7 and 10 and 11, if a solicitation is made to the public, it should be member memorialized should be kept in riding and solicitation events if that is a public meeting, i would add language if it's a public meeting, it shall be recorded in the minutes so there is a record evidence that exception. the next section is on page 28 under recusals. this is all sort of new and i'm not sure how this would work, the section sub-2 starting on line 7 how matters would

come before this commission whether there is repeated recusal and the provisions that fall from that. i was going to talk about more generally and i've run out of time is just we need a better discussion of the pool of people who serve on boards and commissions people who contribute to candidates for elective offers and people who are involved in nonprofit boards. is there is a lot of overlap now but there is not complete overlap and there are good reasons to have people involved in nonprofit entities serving on city boards and to allow some of them to make contributions under certain circumstances. we're getting lost a little bit and i fear taken to the extreme, you could get no person serving on boards or commissions that have expertise from the nonprofit world and that would hurt the city. i think we should look at that broader

issue as we go forward. >> thank you. >> good evening commissioner. i have about nine comments to make regarding the proposed legislation. one, although i oppose the provision of persons making contributions of $5,000 or more to disclose the elected officers name who asked the contribution the provision should clarify to whom the disclosure is made. two committees that receive $10,000 or more from a business entity donor must disclose the business entity's principal officers and grantseen ñ received over the last 24 months. this imposes a burden on committees to collect and disclose the information and entity don'ters to provide the information. this is an attempt to discourage

business entities from participating in city elections. three, unnecessary burdens are impose on elected officers when they're required to disclose the bundlers. four the ban prohibiting contributions from a contractor unfairly extends to the board members and principle officers of that contractor thus depriving individuals to make campaign pron tri beutions to candidates of their choice. five, those with interests in land use matters including executive officers and board members are unfairly prohibited to making contributions and are required to file reports. this is overly burdensome. six, since california law requires 24-hour rereporting -- reporting it

creates additional work for campaign fresherrers. seven, the provision which permits a resident to recover up to 50% of any penalties imposed against a defendant in a civil action filed by the resident will result in unjust enrichments. eight sections 3.203 and 3.207 is not needed thins state law regard recusal recusal. these will create unnecessary conflicts and confusion between state and city laws. nine section 2.31 unfairly prohibits members except the board of supervisors from engaging in any fund-raising activities in behalf of elected officers

and candidates. this is unreasonably broad and does not avoid the freedoms guaranteed by the first amendment. thank you. >> i have a question. >> commissioner kopp. >> commissioner kopp: who do you represent? >> a variety of different clients but not any particular client. in terms of testifying here at the ethics commission. >> commissioner kopp: are they non-profits? >> we have some nonprofit as well as profit. >> commissioner kopp: that you're representing. >> we have a variety of clients who from time to time have issues that are of interest to matters that come before the ethics commission. >> chairperson keane: thank you.

>> it's getting late so i'll be brief. this has our gem comments. this is from friends of ethics. on painl 2, it -- on page 2 there is a disclosure regime, since the ban looks like it's not of interest, there are a number of things here that you will see that should cause a much more robust disclosure system that you're seeking. but, again these are our ideas. i would ask that the commission ask the staff to take a look at them. they're probably timely given the discussion tonight. and you'll be able to pick and choose and then we can discuss it next week

as we see the final -- next month as we see the final draft. and then the last section of this memo with the redaks redaks redaction on top, that should give you a pretty good idea as to whether or not we'll end up supporting your bill. thank you. >> thank you. oh, yes miss pelham. >> what we have on the overhead is the list of items as included in the motion

by commissioner chiu. just to try to provide clarity for those watching and listening. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> chairperson keane: mr. chen. >> very briefly. so just in terms of moving the process along because that's what the commission wants to do, in terms of the green highlighted provisions where we need additional language, perhaps the direction of the commission could be that the staff work with commissioner chiu on finalizing that language. so that doesn't have to come back here, but can move forward in the legislative process. just a suggestion. >> just to make sure i understand, mr. chen that we'd work together on the language and then it would go where? >> it would not, that we'd --

>> that would -- if there is this no objection from my fellow commissioners. >> chairperson keane: i think that is a good idea. commissioner chiu will help you out with regard to this and no one october to that. we have a motion and seconded and before us. all those in favor say aye. all those opposed. >> no. >> chairperson keane: the motion passes 4-1. thank you all very much. let's move to the next and commissioner chiu i want to thank you for all that hard work you put in on it. it was above and beyond. let's see now. let's go to item number seven. discussion and possible action on proposed changes to ethic commission

regulations 67.331, and 15.102-1 sunshine and ethics training. kyle. >> hi, commissioners. i'm going to keep brief on this. this has been in front of you twice in terms of a policy report. the two regulations that we're seeking to amend which are on agenda item 7 page 3, we're simply modifying the language to have it match with the filing requirements and deadlines ever form 700, that's the statement of economic interest. we did notify dhr and we determined to the city attorney's office there is no meet and confer items here. we receive nod written comment on this issue. so i think it's fairly non-controversial. if there are any questions, i'd be happy

to take them otherwise staff recommend you vote to approve the regulations and for us to submit them to the board of supervisors for their 60-day review. >> chairperson keane: commissioners any discussion? >> commissioner kopp: i'll mac a motion that we adopt the recommendation to the sunshine ethics training program. >> chairperson keane: is there a second? >> second. >> chairperson keane: further discussion on the motion? public comment, please. >> david philpel i note that under what was ab-1-2-3-4 only requires the statev ethics training every two years. this proposed regulation would require that training be conducted and certified

by the appropriate officials every year. that's beyond what is required in state law and unless i'm misreading this poses that additional burden locally that no other official has. the sunshine ordinance requirement is different from the ab-1234 training requirement. that's generally why they're ordered two separate tracks for these declarations in the past. i don't object to the april first date, in fact, i don't object to the annualization of the training, but it's just beyond what is required in state law and i didn't understand that staff explained why that would be needed annually and not biannually on the state level. then as to the sunshine ordinance

regulation since it interprets and codifies a provision, i'm not sure if establish reviewed that so that both the commission and task force are on the same page as to interpretation of a provision of the sunshine ordinance. where that's possible, i think that's a good goal. anyway, those are my comments. i'd appreciate some response. >> any further public comment? it says continued discussion and possible action. we -- is there a motion to take action? >> call. >> oh, we have a motion. no excuse.

who will ia in favor of the motion say aye. >> okay. it's unanimous. item number 8. i think it's 8, right? >> yes item 8. thank you chair. the item before you is staff's proposed amendments tots enforcement regulations. the amendments will -- in interest of time i'll go quickly. they'll look different to you because i simply reorganized some of the provisions in existing law and made the enforcement regulations appear more to aid readability. the seven items i discussed in my presentation last month are all incorporated into the staff regulations with notes that describe where the provisions are incorporated throughout

the regulations. the only difference between what we row posed a couple of months ago and this proposed draft is through research, we realized that the executive director will be able to make a recommended probable cause determination and through a ratification process they can ratify that decision in order to ensure that it is lawful. in reviewing the sun vine ordinance enforcement regulations we realized it might be best to repeal the existing sunshine ordinance regulations and incorporate them the spirit and ideas behind them into the regular enforcement regulations. some take aways from public comment, the first is that we received some thoughtful public comment regarding whistle blower participation in

enforcement actions and we agreed that whistle blowers are a different kind of complainant. whistle blowers are uniquely affected by retaliatory action. so we've elected to give them an opportunity to respond to the probable cause report by staff and appear if they so desire. regarding the statute of limitations, we realized that some of the same confusing language regarding the time period for statute of limitations lapses. we simply adopted the intent to conceal provisions adopted through the process. one last thing that we're looking at before we bring back final regulations for you to approve is whether to include a public for forfeiture.

they are not a part of any comprehensive public document that the public could go to to determine how forfeitureur affects them. we're looking at incorporating a similar objection process before the executive director. with that, i'll take questions. >> commissioners. i have some questions or comments. on page seven. ed up -- you're talking about subpoenas and it's service. service must be made by delivering the subpoena or subpoena december us

-- i go to 2 and there is nothing to do with service. definition. >> thattal is to reference section g -- that's section f. the definition of deliver. appears there. i thank you for catching that. >> okay. then on page 9 under b-1 it says going into the last sentence the executive director may not recommend a probable cause determination unless the respondent has been provided an opportunity to respond to a probable cause report and appear in person to make an oral argument if requested. meaning, if the respondent decides not to come to an oral argument they can't

make a probable cause? >> if requested. the respondent requests an oral argument then they must have the orlg argument. if she does not -- >> suppose she requests and doesn't show up. >> then there is a different provision for default orders. he'll incorporate the default order -- default decisions into this. that's a good comment. >> what is the meaning on page 13 about delegation to i a hearing officer. he or she will make an sexual determination. >> that means this is from existing law. and what it means is that the delegated hearing officer will make an actual decision but it takes the form of a recommendation essentially to this body. they'll draft findings of fact

conclusions of law and proposed remedy for you all to consider. >> okay on page 233, i think -- page 23 staff note. it says in section 14. i think you meant 13. >> yes. thank you. >> are there any further questions or discussion? >> no question, i want to compliment staff on the comprehensive nature and thorough work represented here kstled i know it was probably a lot of effort and it shows. it's great leap forward. >> it's a wonderful piece of work. >> i move that we -- are we -- >> no action required.

we have to notice regulations for a period of days before they're considered for action. i'll prepare that document for you, consideration to vote on in november. >> okay. any public comment on this matter? >> david philpell again. i didn't get an answer to my last comment so maybe kyle can answer me after the meeting. my question was proposed section 10 from the sunshine ordinance task force by fully repealing the existing procedures for handling sunshine ordinance complaints, i think this loses a couple of bits. the chapter 2 and chapter 3 provisions provisions there where the burdens fall for department heads and non-department heads and willful and not willful allegations of failure to comply with

the ordinance kind of get lost here. further, the scheduling under 10-b-1 which continues to schedule a show cause hearing at the next commission meeting doesn't necessarily provide adequate time for underlying complainants and respondents to file additional briefing with the commission. if the time limits that would ally to other types of hearings elsewhere in these regulations apply, then not all of those referrals can be calendar in time. it's not clear whether those timeframes apply. i think some additional clarity there is in order. there is also some provision in existing procedures for handling sunshine referrals about what not just finding but what actions the commission can take. i don't see those here.

i think section 10 needs to have some provisions rewritten to also indicate which other provisions of these regulations apply to referrals from the task force, because they're standard and procedure and which things don't because the provisions in section 10 are unique to enforcement referrals from the fask force as opposed to hr -- task force as opposed to suggestions and complaints before this commission. i hope that makes sense. >> thank you. any further public comment? okay, then we'll now go to item nine. discussion and possible action on legislative items of interest to commissioner kopp. >> commissioner kopp: i think that refers to refresh my memory.

is this with respect to state legislation or is it -- >> no, this is a follow-up on two items. >> the -- >> two items of interest. >> i think it was in june i mentioned this. i don't want it to get lost but there were two board of supervisor ordinances not adopted by the board. one was by supervisor farrell. so that ordinance language is here. >> that's correct. >> part of our packet. and i'd like to have that put on the calendar for next month for action. by this commission. that deals with this subject. i call it