it -- five pages.3me >> so keeping that in mind what commissioner kopp has just stat, commissioners, would you -- >> what? i'm looking at october 19th. that's what i was using. okay. that's why everybody's puzzled. well, i will find the answers. there it is. there it is. okay. still page 2. roman numeral iii. >> if it's helpful, commissioned

be glad to go through the changm the october draft to the novembt and give a brief explanation one made the change and why it's ree to the motion and perhaps that d help jump start the discussion. >> chair keane: does that help commissioner kopp? >> yes. >> first change that we made wao section 1.126 which is the ban n contribution from caters to off- contractors to official officiae the contract to the city. we strengthen the notification n located in section 1.126-f in te ordinance, the concern raised be commission is persons subject tn may not know they are and unwity violate it. so they want to help ensure thal

persons subject to this rule knt they are. generally speaking, the way thid work is that the city department issues a request for bids wouldo notify potential bidders that te rules that they would be subjecf they submit a bid to the city be 1.26 applies to bidders not juss with a contract already. that would give the entity or pn notice that these rules exist. then once the city department sa contractor, they would, again, o notify that party that they're t to the rule for one year. then there are rules that the br contractor, whatever the case m, has to notify directors, contrad subcontractors to notify those individuals that they're also so the rules. hopefully this provision will ca chain of notifications where byl

parties who are subject to thise will know and ideally they'll cy with the rule. >> i have a question and a comm. >> commissioner kopp. >> the question relates tots hud thousand dollars. was there ever an analysis of ae amount of competitively bid con? >> yes. we presented some data on this e october meeting. >> so that's the source of a hud thousand dollars. >> yes. that's correct. >> because the argument was beta hundred thousand, and 50,000, ai remember. >> that's correct. >> the other point i want to mau have to be careful at least fors

commissioner, in using the word "proposal." when it comes to contracts. because a proposal to me means t for proposal. which is not competitive biddin. it's an rfp for shorthand. that's different than a competi. thank you. >> dually noted -- duly noted. thank you, commissioner. iii, the next change that staffo the ordinance was regarding citn suits and specifically the abilf ports to impose penalties in su. to recap, a citizen suit is whea private individual, we use the m "resident" in the ordinance bria civil3me action to enforce agaa violation of article 1 chapter r

code. as it currently exists, the lawy allows private parties to enjoin violations ferlt law. as the ordinance stood at the lt meeting, it would have changed w so that private parties can aske court to impose penalties on pen whose violate that and that perd be entitled to collect 50% of al penalties collected from the det in some proceeding in response e commission's most motion, we red both provisions. as the ordinance now stands, itk to current law. so a private party cannot ask tt nor may the court awardal penala citizen's suit and that person t get any penalty since they won'e imposed in the first place. that change was made. moving onfké to item 4 -- >> do you want comments at the f

all of them? probably save time. >> yeah it might be. >> i don't want to nitpick each. >> item 4, staff narrowed the prohibition in section 2.231 ast previously stood, this provisiod have prohibited board and commin members for raising funds for ay city-elected officer or candidar such office. but in response to the commissis motion, staff returned this to n earlier version in which board d commission members are only prod from fund raising for their appg authority. we changed that back to what i e existed in the september versioe ordinance. number 5. staff removed section 3.20784 fe ordinance. this subsection would have creaa conflict of interest provision t

would have prohibited officialsm asking a person to convey sometf value to a third party if that d party had a matter pending befoe official. in response to the commission's, we simply removed the subsectiom the ordinance and in its place,i mentioned earlier, we worked wih commissioner chiu and with inted persons to craft a broad discloe system. instead of have been a pr prohie have something that would requie disclosure. i want to go into greater depths particular section, since it's e technical than the other change. so everyone should have a charte table under agenda item 7 and i distributed one to each commissr that's entitled "draft rules for

behested payment disclosure expy visuals" i think it would be uso make reference to this for the discussion. do all the commissioners have t? i'll also put it up on the proj. the top half of the chart givesc idea of what a behested paymentk likes visually. you have an official making a ro a donor. to donate tie recipient typically an organization. then you see a payment which coe cash, goods or services going fe

don'ter to the recipient at thet of the official. that's the basic pattern we're g with. it doesn't vary too much. to the second half outlines the different requirements that ared upon the different parties. this would be under the system d by the ordinance. so, first off, n think it's worh mentioning what a behested payms under this new system. it's defined -- getting page nur you. that is page 29 of agenda item .

the payment that is made at thet of an officer or agent thereof s made principally for a legislatr government or charitable nature. we did create what i think is an important exception. you can see on the next page, ts for public appeal. public appeal is a request for t when such request is made by mef television, radio, billboard. the distribution of 500 or more identical pieces of printed matr a speech to 500 or more individ. there is an exception in this rg system where if an official maka request, via public appeal, then disloashedisclosurethendisclosu. this came up and we tried to crs

exception so the appeal would ne caught up in this because it's e kind of conduct that staff belie commission was looking at when s looking at 3.2784 when it instrs to create a disclosure testimon. >> indeed we publicly said thate time. >> right. so this is an idea contained in, i wanted to highlight that to st idea has been carried over and t here. back to the chart, each of the e boxes shows the requirements on different parties to behested p. so the box labeled "official" st is required of the official make behest. all officials that make a behesd have to notify the donor of the requirements of section 3.620. essentially telling the donor, u

make a payment in response to te behest, you may be subject to cn requirements which are in the sx labeled donor. additionally, only if the donorn interested party which i'll disa second, must the official make additional disclosures. they always have to make the notification. if the donor is interested, thea filing requirement. an interested party -- i'll poio the definition of that. that's also on page 29. an interested party shall mean e are two ways, one is a party pat or agent of a party or participt involved any proceeding regardig administrative enforcement, lic, permit or other entitlement for. officer or including board of

supervisors on which the office. this concept is taken directly m 84.308 state law of the governme known as the political reform a. this is a concept that was alrey existing and in fact, was used e ordinance that was passed last t was introduced by supervisor pet addresses the same area, wha the payment reported. second is to be an interested ps to be a person who actively supr opposes a government the decisin officer or any board or commissn including the board of supervisn which the officer sits. this is a similar concept to bea party or participant to a proce, however, the reason why we incls is that proceedings for license, permits, entitlements for use ad

administrative enforcement, we t was too narrow of a class to adl of the different kinds of pattet the commission has been talking. one example would be an ordinan. if a person was trying to persua supervisor to vote for a particr ordinance and they made a behesd payment at the behest of3me thr while they were trying to persue supervisor to vote for the ordi, that would not be caught up for disclosure that are only looked. it's not a proceeding for a lic, permit or entitlement for use. it falls outside that category. that's why we included the secop of actively opposing a governmet decision. i won't go into that in depth ba defined term taken from state l, actively support or oppose, that includes lobbying contacts, tesg in person, or otherwise trying o influence that person's decisio.

generally you think of this dise as only being required when then making the payment has some kinf nexus, they're an interested pa, vis-a-vis that official. they have a proceeding pending e another official or otherwise to influence the decision that offs making. the list of disloashes that an l must -- the list of disclosuresn official must make is listed he. the first four come directly fre law. that is required under the state behested payment reporting systh is done on a form 803. that's briefly the name and addf the donor, amount and date of te payment, name and address of the recipient and a brief descriptif goods and services provided andf description of the purpose of te payment. that's the information on form . the final two bullet points are

disclosures that additionally te official would have to make ands whether the official or related, which i can talk about in a seca affiliate. the recipient sod if an officias brother, wife or son is a c.e.oe place that the money is going t. is he directing the money to a relative's organization, that ds to be disclosed. lastly, whether the recipient hs featured or will feature the ofn communications. this is paraphrasing the statuty language. this looks for the fact patternn official directing payments to n organization and the organizatin spending money to dislibt liter- distribute literature that feate

official in a positive light. that is something that should be disclosed. moving on to the second box, obs that would be playstationed on r by this system. similar to officials, the donort notify the recipient, this is iy case of a behested payment -- ne recipient it is a behested paym. this is a heads-up to the recips is not just an ordinary check, s made at the behest of an offici. you'll see in the third box, the requirements placed on organizas that receive over $100,000 in bd payments and may not always be o obvious to recipients whether oa given payment is a behested pay. there is a requirement here that descroarns to tell them so theyw whether or not they're reachinge hundred thousand dollars thresh. if the donor is an interested ps

we discussed previously, that wl trigger a disclosure requiremen. this is only one disclosure reqt and that is to say what the mats pending before the official aree outcome they're speaking and ous they made with official in furte of the matter. the matter could be a proceeding or a decision the person is tryo influence. lastly, the requirements on majr recipients, note that there aret requirements on all recipients e payments. that is something we had in the. after listening to comment from interested parties, we decide is better to put those particular disclosure requirements on offi. those are the last two bullet ps under the official's disclosure. we don't have any disclosure rer quiermts that apply to all resi. the -- requirement requirementsl

recipients. only if they receive a hundred d dollars in one calendar year. in looking at 803 filings made e years, it appears only five organizations would qualify. this is not something that wouln a lot. we think that uniqueness justife more in-depth disclosure. there are three things that majr behested recipients need to dis. just to notify the ethics commia they've crossed the threshold. this wol allow the commission tn would need to file so we can fop and make sure they make their f. the two disclosures they have to which comes a year later after e crossed the threshold is to dise penses paid for with behested f.

this is important because typicn recipients receive this much ind payments, it's for a particular. it's explicit in form 803s. this is to see if the funds geny went to that cause. lastly, major recipients would e any matters pending before the . the outcome sought and outcomese with the official in relation te matters. a similar disclosurer to what ds make. again, wanting ha -- donors wou. are the organizations trying to influence decisions being made y officials? that's a general overview of whe behested payment system staff cd would do. and kind of a little bit about r process of how we worked with id persons in working towards makig something that was targeted andy

out the intent that the commissn directed us to try to achieve. >> okay, so again, anchoring ous as to where we are here. we're at the end of a long proc, really, that started out a coupf years ago with commissioner rens chair. directing that this anticorruptn ordinance be drafted and resurrg prop-g. we went through a lot of work ae up with a proposed ordinance a w months back. and we -- which is in here. we debated that as a commissione voted on it and it was voted 3-o approve it. we needed 4 votes because of the procedural aspects of what we'rg here in order to push this forwo

the board of supervisors. we then requested commissioner d commissioners lee who were the dissenting votes to work with so see whether or not they could mn what their thoughts and concerno that we could come together witl ordinance that had four votes. commissioners chiu and lee workd with the staff. we met again and we debated thie and all of the things that are d in it. we talked about this. orally the staff captured it any opinion, they captured it very . we voted and got four votes to t this on to the boar board of bo. we passed it.

the question in terms what havee looking at, what it was that we, does any commissioner disagree e substance of whatever -- what in there as to what it was that wet our last meeting? okay. this is what we did and this ise voted on. once again, i want to commend commissioner chiu to the hard wt she did in the final crafting o. so with that then, commissionerl open it up to any discussion, ts that you may have. >> first would i like to thank d also members of the public to wk the time, not just in the interd persons meeting about disclosurt through the long process to hann there with us to work on this ts your concerns and views.

and propose alternatives that would work for organizations and for support fr concerns. i think that the process has ben educational. but i also feel like it's taken, but i think that the time has bn well-spent in terms of drafting something, an ordinance that i s tailored to achieve the goals te set out, which is to make the gt more transparent and accountablh these provisions. >> chair keane: commissioner le. >> commissioner kopp wanted to . >> go ahead. because i object to most of the. >> um, first of all, i wanted tk the vice chair for her leadershn working with the staff and puttg together this really good docum. as the chair said, it does capte

spirit of all the discussions te had. i have a couple more minor thint is not going to stop this from g forward. i continue to have concern overe definition of payment. because under the formal defini, payment, that including cash ass goods and services? under this definition, if the [inaudible] after the warriors e invited to speak on public civia public gathering, that is over a thousand dollars in public serv. that would trigger that someoneo

make a report of a behested payn some way. given the current environment ia lot of non-profits are bracing r budget cuts to their nonprofit y service programs. this may trigger, you know, potl don'ters to say, hey, is this nh our while to get into this? that's my on going concern. the second concern is the discle requirement on the part of the t recipient as stated here, they d need to report -- file a reportw they spent the donated money. as a nonprofit organization, the already facing a lot of adminise burdens. i am concerned this is one extrn

that they may need to deal with. again, these are just for me, cs that might be brought up at thet threafl this is a good product t captures what the commission ist dod. i want to thank the vice chair f for putting this together. >> i just wanted to clarify one, commissioner lee, with regard te donor. the donor is an interested partt would trigger -- that would trie reporting requirement. so if, for example, the warierst have -- warriors did not have ar before the city and someone wasd to come and speak to a the orga, they would not have a reporting requirement. >> but they're having an issue e

city for the next, what, three ? >> only if they had something be official that m made the requesd the disclosure be triggered. it would be a disclosure and thd still be able to do it. they would have to say this is i did and the value of it. >> commissioner kopp. >> thank you. i've already given expression ty views on this version which wasd a month ago and which is now tht of demands for more weakening of provisions. the president of the friends ofs characterized, it is resulting a

system that exists now that givs nonprofits "privileged access." that's a term to remember. the well-used fraid is "half a s better -- well-used phrase is "a loaf is better than nothing." that's a cliche. sometimes it's accurate, other t isn't. if this is the version presenteo voters come june of 2018, and is approved by voters, the subjectr won't be revisited for at leaste years and maybe a decade.

the first point which is made, a understand the procedure, mr. c, there can be further amendmentst was approvedded in october. or not? >> chair keane: no, there can be editorial changes that would ree intent of what it was that we p. people voted and passed it. >> because you have demands, att i've read a couple of them to me further changes. further weakening. i'd want to be sure that that it part what have is contemplated procedure. >> chair keane: we've said thats reflects what we passed last ti. >> okay. so the private right of action n

beaten to death. there is nothing extraordinary . nothing! our packet contained i don't knw many -- 15 different ordinancese city and county of san francisca private right of action. as a practical matter, there aro aspects. one, i don't fend o depend on oc attorney's office maybe the pubc dependerdefenders office to imps execute the people's representas legislation. whether it's the board of super, this commission or some other. now, to inspire a private citizo

bring a private right of actiono called, you have to make it wore more than being able to look whd for my city and county as a matf civic responsibility. and that's the provision for pe. for an individual recovery of 5. there is nothing extraordinary t that. secondly, i have doubts about te commission. the mayor regularly has meetingr it's monthly or weekly dependine

mayor of all the departments, b, commissions, they're part of the family closed quote. city family. that prohibition should have bee original version before it was d to apply only to the appointing authority. thirdly, motion of last month od instead of local disclosure rult what exceeds any state requiremd limited it to the payments of 5r

more, and only at the behest ofd officials. let's think about the disclosur. disclosure is no enforcing mech. who is going to know this? except the relatively few peoplf what? a850,000 residents? and probably 420, 430 registeres except those in this room and me more people who are watching on television? then what happens if there is disclosure? there is no city hall coverage? yes, i will pull history, when a supervisor, that press room was. every desk, occupied. nobody will know about this exca

very few number of the 850,000 , approximately, who live in san francisco. let me just conclude by saying m disappointed. i voted no last month because i perceived that my fellow commiss wanted something to show for tid effort including all the time at of the staff. realizing that there are four vt are going to pass it. then, i com i come in tonight at all the give-a ways still don'ty

those san francisco saints who e any application of prohibitionso nonprofit corporations which the no difficulty applying to for-p. the executive director gave me f the people on one of these -- oi know, it was the spur foundatio. you have to see that list! i mean you have public city pubc officials on that list. i've asked for the planning comn has a nonprofit also called thes of planning. i had the name wrong last month. i want to see that list so we ce just what san francisco office s

are a part of that. i'm sorry, mr. chairman, and mae chairwoman and fellow commissiot this is a gravely weak result fl the time and effort and attentis gone into this since it's gone x months. thank you. pleelz stand by. please stand by.

>> -- as well as equitable

recovery, which requires a consent in california via the attorney general and federally the united states attorney general, and there are lawyers in the bay area who practice successfully in that field. it's not common, but i refer you, for example to neil mccarthy in burlingame and san mateo county who specializes. >> the -- the question i have, and i don't know if staff, you have the answer to this. there was a list of other ordinances that provided a private right of action. do those private rights of action also include civil penalties of the recovery, whether 100% or 50%?

>> so i confeguess in the list provided, the vast majority of these are all instances where they're sort of injury in fact to the individual, not necessarily stepping in the place of the government as in -- as commissioner kopp has said in a key thank you very mu much -- tam action. now there is one of the case where nonprofits can step in the hsus of the harmed individual -- and again, i apologize. i don't recall which one that is offhand, so that is a difference -- it's a point of clarifying. >> and then, if i may, commissioner kopp, i think with respect to the disclosure and the reporting, i would have to respectfully disagree that no one would ever see this information. i think it would be that i hope that this -- not just hope, but

i would ask that the -- that once we have the reporting requirements in place, that -- that we receive reports on -- on the payments and who's making them, and how much and with the clarity that we will have in this reporting structure, we will know that at&t and other companies, how much they're paying and to whom and what other matters they had pending at the time those payments were made so that we can clearly see the influence, or not, of -- of money in our city -- city decisions. >> president keane: thank you, commissioner chiu. hang on just a minute. any further comments by members of the commission? okay. well, before we go -- hang on. just a minute.

>> i just wanted to make a quick comment. >> president keane: could we hear, before you publicize it because we've had some problems -- >> oh, it's not substantive. it's just sort of procedural. >> president keane: okay. good. go ahead. >> just to clarify, you know, for this, you know, measure to move forward, you know, as you know, it would require four out of five votes. >> president keane: we have -- we've already done that. >> well, my understanding is it would have to be on this specific, you know, ordinance. >> president keane: that's what it is. we did that last time. we said -- the staff indicated they had captured all of it in this language last time. we talked about it, we all agreed that we didn't capture it. now, since we were doing it orally the last time, now, we have before us the printed out

aspect of it. >> correct. >> president keane: we have voted for it. it is done. >> i don't agree. i think that -- >> president keane: your disagreement is noted. thank you -- we have a 2.5 year project. we've come to -- i would also refer to supervisor kopp's complaints in the past in regard to the city attorney's public coming out with an opinion relating to what we're doing before you discuss it with us as the client so that we do have to eat it later on as commissioner kopp and i had to before the -- that task force that went off and cited you and your office in order to beat us over the head as a violation of the brown act, so

we've noted your disagreement. thank you very much. >> hang on. i don't -- my intention was not to hit you over the head with anything, it was simply to identify that i understand the last meeting, there was some discussion about the -- >> president keane: were you present at the last meeting? >> i watched it. >> president keane: you weren't present at the last meeting. >> i was not physically present, but i watched it. >> okay. i just don't want you to screw up what we're doing. >> i'm not trying to do that. i'm just trying to clarify. >> president keane: that's happened in the past and it was not appreciated by commissioner kopp and myself, so one of the things i would suggest to you, and you agree with your client, we'd like to hear it before you transmit it to the world and

then we have to live with it later on, eve though what you might be saying is totally wrong, which was done about the brown act measure the last time, and we had to live with that. so if you have something that you feel you have to say, then we -- what we can do is we can go into executive session and hear it from you. would you like us to do that? >> well, i don't -- it's up to you what you want to do. >> president keane: well, your client and we -- you you give other client confidential information. supervisor kopp, you give the -- one of the members of the planning commission confidential information that you couldn't disclose to us. perhaps we could have the benefit as a client of also getting confidential information. >> whenever you would like confidential advice from me, i'm happy to give it to you in closed session. my understanding just coming in

today was that there was an understanding amongst the commission that what needed to happen today for this to move forward to the board. >> president keane: is there a motion to go into closed session, supervisor kopp? >> yes. >> president keane: i just don't want us to get impaled again by some goofy opinion when it is made public before we have a chance to think about it ourselves and to respond to our lawyer before he tells the world what it is we're doing. because he may want our opinion as to whether or not what his opinion is is correct. we have five lawyers up here, as well. >> move -- >> may i make an observation or comment? >> president keane: sure, go ahead. >> as a nonlawyer but as your executive director who was in the room at the last month's

meeting. i think i speak for the staff, what our understanding was -- and correct me if i am wrong -- that we went back, solicited comment, worked with commissioner chiu, commissioner lee, interested persons meeting, and we worked with this language for tonight so that you could see language that was developed pursuant to the policy consensus that you had last month. this is language that the commission has a body has not seen, that the public has not seen, so it was our impression that this language would come back for the commission to take action to codify it in its entirety so it could be forwarded onto the board of supervisors. i just wanted to make that clear for the record because that was what happened at the last meeting, so point of information from your staff as you consider your process moving forward. >> and that was all i was attempting to convey. i think director pelham conveyed it more concisely and

eloquently, but that was my only point. >> commissioner. >> president keane: yes. >> certainly it was my understanding that tonight, we were going to vote on the final product because we didn't have a final product. we did have directions to the staff what we we wanted them to do, but we didn't have the language, and clearly, i -- i thought we would come here -- there would be a motion, and i would make the motion that we adopt this proposed ordinance, forward it to the board of supervisors as worded, and then -- 'cause i don't -- i think one -- somebody attacking could say we never voted on the exact language. >> president keane: i think we did, but is there a second to mr. renne's motion? >> i'll second. >> president keane: okay. motion's been made and seconded. any -- do we have discussion on

the motion? okay. before we -- we'll take public comment and -- on the motion. [ inaudible ] >> president keane: the motion to, once again, adopt this entire thing. >> charles marstellar for the record again, i think, speaking on behalf of f.o.e. one just slight twist would be on this chart, you could also indicate that the parties could carbon or copy, give a courtesy copy to one another, that they have met their obligations as they move forward to do so, so when they send their report, it seems logical to me and i'm sure as f.o.e. that the donor -- i mean, the official,

for instance, would want to make sure that the donor met his requirements under the law so this doesn't blow up on them in the press because of some oversight or noncompliance by the donor on the report. so if the donor -- i'm sorry. if the official gets a courtesy copy of the notification to the commission by the donor of his actions, then, i think that would assuage concerns about the effect to the official that he might be blindsided, that type of dynamic -- >> mr. president, point of order. what are we taking public comment on, the motion, which is to go into private session? >> president keane: no, no, no. >> we're taking on. >> president keane: we're taking onto once again adopt this ordinance, which we adopted the last time. that's where -- there was a

motion made that we adopt it again. >> no, that's not my motion. >> president keane: no, no, no, that was commissioner renne's motion. >> oh, all right. >> and it was seconded by commissioner lee. that's where we are now. >> mr. marsden, had you finished? [ inaudible ] >> president keane: all right. >> good eng other, commissioners. debbie lehner from the san francisco human services network. at risk of displeasing you, i am going to make the suggestion that this would, under san francisco law, still be open to amendment tonight. we have submitted some comments today expressing some remaining concerns. i am not going to go through that whole memo but i want to highlight two of them tonight because i actually think they are dangerous issues with the legislation. the first one i want to point

out is the nexus that defines interested party. under this draft ordinance, it defines interested party essentially as anybody that actively supports or opposes a matter before a public official, including public comment, as i'm doing right now. it would -- it's written so broadly that it would include someone who writes a letter to their legislator or signs a petition that's going to a commission or a board. it would include not just someone with a clear stake -- a financial stake, something tangible, but even someone who is merely expressing an opinion. if someone were to go to the police commission and oppose the adoption of tazers or someone went to the board supporting resolution in favor of maintaining our status as a sanctuary jurisdiction, that would be somebody opposing, and

they would get caught up in this legislation. and frankly, i don't know how you would track that. we're allowed to, under san francisco law, to testify anonymously, so unless there's a sign up sheet with all your information on the way out the door, i don't know know how you would begin to enforce that. i think it's very dangerous. i don't think that that targets the stated purpose, which is quid pro quo, so i need to mention that. i also need to mention an issue that i had some extensive discussion with kyle about regarding the disclosure potentially publicly of bidding information, about submissions of proposals even before the bidding process has closed, which would open up the door to collusion, bid rigging, and other types of corruption. i think it's extremely dangerous. even the federal government has very strict regulations about

disclosing who, what, how much; any kind of information like that, before the bidding issue is closed. the san francisco sunshine ordinance will not let you discuss any issue until a contractor is chosen. so i hope you will consider those things. i am putting them on the record for the board of supervisors. i do want to thank the ethics commissions for working over our concerns. we are very thankful for that. we hope this will remain in the legislative realm when it goes to the board. thank you. >> president keane: thank you. >> good evening. my name is lauren kahn much i'm from health right 360. we provide mental health, substance abuse treatment to over 10,000 san francisco residents, most of them who are unsheltered or very low income. there was a conversation earlier today on the issue of changing the time of this meeting and a bit of the

discussion was centered around people's ability to get home at the end of the evening. i just want to remind everybody here that 7,000 people are sleeping on the streets tonight completely unsheltered and unsafe. many of us here are from nonprofit organizations that are just trying to shelter and clothe and care for those people. these rules are setting us up to have to lose donors who want to give $1,000 or more money to us because they're afraid of breaking ethics rules, of breaking disclosure rules, and they're going to have to choose between civic engagement or possibly getting a new permit on their home to make some changes and giving money to an organization like ours, and we're just trying to care for san francisco's most vulnerable people, so please consider when you putting large requirements on smaller dollar doeition in as, we have to spend a lot of time educating the people who are going to potentially give us money, making sure that

everybody's doing the appropriate reporting. not just us, but also the actual dope ors, and itnors, a people away that would otherwise be doing outreach on the street or providing for other people's hepatitis c. so please consider all the requests of my colleagues here today and please consider that when you are asking for transparency at a granular level in other ways, you are hurting the san francisco residents who are homeless tonight. thank you. >> president keane: thank you. >> hello. my name is david maass. i work at the electronic sunshine frontier organization. i'm speaking on my own today, and i want to say thank you for the staff. i am very concerned about this ordinance in that it's going to put people like me who work for a nonprofit and of the on a

commission in a voluntary position where both services are incompatible, you know, our organization specifically defends people's privacy and anonymity, and there is no way for me to sign an agreement to put out their name of donors, various pieces of detail about this ' them. i feel like this is going to caught problems for a lot of volunteers serving on nonprofit boarded. let's say you had a person who worked as a cashier at safeway, who sat on an advisory committee or some kind of board for the city. every single time they say, do you want to donate 10 cents to whatever charity, they're going to have to inform them of section 3.620, because section e on notification doesn't have

an amount listed on it. it says any time you solicit money from anyone, you have to go over this disclosure section in case they eventually go up to $1,000. if i'm fund raising in new york city for any organization, i'm still going to have to do this sort of thing because this is what the rule says: you have to notify people regardless of whether they even live in san francisco. somebody earlier had mentioned that people are allowed to comment in committees anonymously, and that's a very important thing, and that's not something that a commissioner, you know, should have the ability to override, that right to anonymity and privacy in the engagement of civil affairs. i think you should hold onto this for some more time and think about the interests that you're trying to provide here while also thinking of volunteer workers who are volunteering in a private capacity fore the city.

thank you. >> president keane: yes, commissioner chiu? >> commissioner chiu: pat, could you please clarify, if you would, the fact pattern or the scenario that mr. -- i'm sorry, mr. maass just gave about, for example, soliciting for contribution at safeway, you know, for example, and under what circumstances would that notification as a commission member or a board member trigger a notice and a filing requirement. >> right. generally, it is for anything that would constitute a behest of payment, and that's because the recipient needs to know that a payment is a payment, otherwise that recipient will probably not be aware of the fact that they're receiving behested funds, and then, they probably won't be aware that they need to file under the recipient requirements.

>> commissioner chiu: but the filing requirement at the part of the recipient comes at the $100,000 level. >> that's correct. >> you've had your comment. it's not a debate. [ inaudible ] >> you've had your public comment, sir. >> thank you, all of you, who have worked so hard in the staff, you have so much invested, and your own personal feelings and values invested in the that's been done. i'm nancy neilson. i work with lutheran social services here in san francisco. as one of the previous speakers indicated, most of us are small nonprofits relative to some of the larger ones you've been careful and worried about in terms of political corruption. most of us struggle every day to pay our staff and keep those who are unhoused off the street. youri