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. your desire to make mass changes and significant changes about very -- what you see as very big problems, when you use a sledgehammer instead of a tiny point, you can do more damage in the effect you have on the smaller nonprofits who are already monitored or already account for every penny we spend in our monitoring and our contracts and everything that you do. when you begin adding more layers of accountablity for very small things because you're trying to get at a very big target, you do more harm than good, so i'd ask you to keep that in mind. we appreciate the time and effort that's gone into all of this, the changes that were listened to and thoughtfully put into the document you have before you. we have debbie -- my colleague, debbie, indicated we still have concerns about a number of the items, but we would hope, at this point, you would be ready to move this onto the board and

let them take care of the fine-tuning. thank you. >> president keane: thank you. >> my name is january masoca. i'm the director of the california association of nonprofits, kind of a chamber of commerce association statewide. we have more than 10,000 nonprofits nationwide, and our office is here in san francisco. so i'm a san francisco resident, i work in san francisco, i'm a volunteer for san francisco nonprofits, and i'm also a donor for san francisco nonprofits, and i commend the commissioners and the human services network for working so hard on changing this legislation, but i have to say that i am shocked at what is a deeply flawed maybe unfixable piece of legislation with very deeply troubling aspects to it. yes, behested corruptions are a part of behavior --

[ inaudible ] behesteh contributions are sometimes a simple measure of goodwill. i recently gave money to the eugene mccarthy center for public service because a neglected official asked me to do so as part of his facebook birthday wish list. i have no financial interest and i don't want to be suspect for having done so. we know that over reaching laws has unintended very dangerous and often permanent consequences. for example, overreaching in the fight against terrorism has resulted in discrimination against arab people, partially legally and partially because such laws have had the unintended consequences of setting the tone that all arab people are dangerous. we know that overreaching tenants has made landlords reluctantant to rent to anybody who's four years or older because of a fear of being able

to remove that person for legitimate reasons at a later point. this bill is fundamentally a deep overreach. it is an over reach that would create an unenforceable bureaucracy in san francisco, which is just what we don't need, some more bureaucracy. it's expensive to nonprofits who don't have the funds to comply with it. it makes it dangerous to volunteer as a board member because it makes me suspect as a person when i ask other people to support an organization or a cause that i believe in. and it makes making a donation to a nonprofit a suspicious activity instead of an admirable activity. for those reasons, i understand many of you have said, we've worked so hard on this. we've worked on it for a long period of time, but if you're traveling on a rugged path in the wrong direction, no matter

how hard you struggle in the wrong direction, you still have to turn back. >> good evening, commissioners. peter cullen with the kouk on community housing organizations. just want to take a couple minutes to thank you, staff and commissioners for the several months of process and -- from where we were in the summertime and evening in the late spring to where, how this has evolved now. it's in a direction that's much more comfortable for us. all those concerns you've heard about, i don't disagree with, but fundamentally, this is a different piece of legislation this issue than it was before, so we move you to move to a disclosure regime instead of restrictions and bans, which seem arbitrary to us. we gave you feedback over the last month and a half about that disclosure and where you're going to get the most bang for your buck, and i feel

that most of those comments were listened to. i feel that this legislation has evolved in the right direction. the details do matter, and i just want to reinforce what you've heard from several speak speakers. as this moves out of this chamber tonight, which i believe it will, we'd like the board to get into the details, get into the weeds. the weeds matter very very much at an operational level. we're at, all of us, in uncharted waters, and so the nonprofit in particular is going to be the guinea pig for this, and we would ask you have the patiences for the board of supervisors to go through their hearings, to hear about this details from the structure that you have here, and fine-tune in ways that make this workable, and if that's the spirit of what the commission is doing tonight, that's the direction and the process that we want to continue to support. this is not the end, this is a good milestone.

one specific substantive comment you heard that i want to reinforce is the definition of interested party. that seems to change quite significantly, the net, if you will, that's cast. our understanding was what staff was trying to do here is build upon what we've now referred to as the peskin legislation, which was adopted previously, goes into law in january , which establishes disclosure requirements on certain types of electeds or in this case commission members who makes behests or requests. that is the nexus or the trigger for which that reporting would be required, and again, for reasons that escape me, there's been a number two, little number two added to that definition that expands it to a person who actively supports or opposes a governmental decision. irrespective of a quote, matter or financial interest, that's

the span of the universe that troubles us. there's no rationale for that, and it dramatically changes the nature of folks that are potential donors with city government and is a bit troubling, so we'd like to see that removed or changed at the board as we get to that step. thank you. >> president keane: thank you. >> excuse me, mr. chairman. i may have a questifew questio this gentlemen. are you familiar with this committee that donated -- >> yes i am. >> okay. >> i am familiar with this document. >> on page 2, the back page, you've raised three additional issues, you called them. you say you raised them previously. first one, nonprofit boards of directors. are members of your board of directors paid?

>> no. >> i've served on probably ten nonprof nonprofit boards of directors without payment. what board of directors nonprofit is paid. >> as far as i know, they're not. >> all right. >> but that is the point, commissioner, is that the -- >> all right. thank you. >> -- these restrictions apply whether it's a compensated or uncompensated board member -- >> i'd like to find one of those nonprofit boards. >> that is an issue that we've raised before. it is a friendly suggestion. just want to make sur e it get on the record. >> next, disclosure of bidding information. where do you find that in section 1126. >> i'd have to refer to my colleague on that one. >> they have three, which refers any respective party to a contract shall, by the submission of a proposal for

such contract. the word "proposal" may need changes, as i pointed out today to our executive director, because a proposal, to me, means an rfp response, not a competitive bid, but there's no reference to a competitive bid there. is there? >> i'm happy to have debbie speak to bullet point number three. >> why is that? >> why is that? >> yeah. >> because she knows this issue better than i do. >> all right. thank you, mr. chairman. yeah, where's the competitive bidding? is. >> -- the staff drafted this. >> i know the staff drafted it. the ordinance which was approved last month. >> yes. if i may -- >> make sure i get -- suppose

we're now asked to approve again this month, but where is the competitive bidding in that section 1126? >> it's not, i guess. kyle can answer that. >> i don't think the issue here -- for -- that was raised in that letter that you have, but what you're -- that the competitive bidding item. you're looking, commissioner, at agenda item 7, page 18, number 2, it's at the top of the page. i believe that's the main provision. >> i know that, as entering into a contract. >> yep. >> and the next one says notification by prospective parties. any prospective party, shall, by the submission of a proposal for such contract. it doesn't say by the time of submission of a bid for the proposal. all right. thank you. that answers the question.

>> commissioners, ray hart, director of san francisco open government, and i'll be honest with you, i'm confused as held. first, commissioner kopp made a motion to go into executive session, and you kind of blew past that, and you made a motion, which was seconded, and then, you took public comment, and i'm not even sure which of those motions we're commenting on, and the idea that you approved something last month, changed what you approved, and now it's sort of proforma, automatically, to be approved here, i don't know where that argument came from. it made no sense at all. if you made changes to what you said last month, you have to approve it before you submit it to the board of supervisors, otherwise, you have two documents out there. one you're approving this month, and one you've approved last month, and which should the staff send to the board of supervisors. i have -- i have to say, i

agree with the members of the public who talked about the nonprofit issues. you're going to make it so i don't want to contribute any money to anything, and i don't want to ask anybody to contribute any money to anything. if i'm in the shriners or i'm going to ask somebody to contribute, i'm not going to because i have to go before the board or commission, and all i have to disclose that i asked somebody to give whatever. most big retail outfits like safeway, right on the little thing that you pay, it says, do you want to donate a dollar to the muscular dystrophy? do we have to tell every customer that walks through safeway, oh, is this a behested payment, and if you want to make a payment to any board or commission, you have to follow this to the letter of the law.

well, if you will ai have to do is push a button to give you a dollar, that's one thing. if i give you a dollar and i have to fill out forms and papers and send them to somebody, that's ridiculous. and i have to find myself agreeing with commissioner kopp. who is ae going to look at this? you know, basically, i've spent the last eight to ten years working on sunshine matters, and it's not because what you would like people to think, that i'm just being a pain, it's because i think freedom of speech is an important thing. i've taken the oath, whether it was in the military or serving on commissions in hawaii to support and defend the constitution, and the reason i fight for these things is because some people don't have the resources to go to court and get, you know, a judge to rule that their speech is protected. so basically, i've gone through all of these efforts because there are a lot of people out there whose attitude is, why

should i even bother to go to the sunshine task force because they're not going to enforce the rules that they make, and that falls on you, so i don't really think that you know what you're doing here tonight. >> hello, commissioners. larry bush from friends of ethics. i think a number of issues have been conflated here. i'd like to deconstruct them to the best of my understanding is. the main point of all of this has been to open up government so that we have an ability to participate in decisions. things which create barriers to our ability to participate are things that we oppose. for example, voter id checks, changing polling hours at certain locations, those all inhibit an ability to participate. what we have seen for the last few months has been an effort to trim back and repeal things which provided the public greater access to decisions so that it became trimmed again

and again and again. take a look at one example: a provision that says that you can only fund rairaise if it's a person who appointed you. that's not the way it works. anyone who works in city hall knows that if the mayor appoints somebody, as you did hydroth hydro-mendoza's election. she didn't appoint them, but under this rule, they can give money to any person that the mayor wants to see supported. that's not the way the real world works. that's not going to provide the kind of protection of the public against an infrastructure of an army of political apparatus. furthermore, the notion that behested payments can operate in some kind of a silo where it's only a request that goes before your own commission, and

not if you were making a request of someone who isn't before your commission but is an -- seeking other city approvals doesn't count. it's not a disclosure, so what if you're on the rec and park commission, and you go to somebody who's actually got business before the park commission? is that something that you're going to disclose? not under the way this is written, as i understand it. and yet, the rec and park bond pays for stuff at the port, so there's clearly a relationship. all in all in san francisco city government, things go back and forth, but here's the biggest loophole of all that's been created, and that is you have commissions that make major decisions that have no commissioners, so the mayor's office of housing and community development, which handles billions of dollars in housing and billions of dollars in economic development has no commissioners. we had an election about putting commissioners over that group, and the mayor came out strongly opposed to it.

so what's goio's going to over somebody who's asking for donations to the mayor office of housing and community development? nobody. it's a blind alley for everybody. city law already recognizes that commissioners have a conflict of interest. it's why we banned them from having compensation for advocacy for other commissions. there are restrictions that normally exi naturally exist that say that commissioners have a natural deference and they can't use their position to make money or to generate money. they also cannot even write a letter to another commission if they're being compensated for it. i know my time is up. i wish it weren't because i would talk about the private right of action where you could split the baby on that one. >> well, mr. chairman, i move -- >> mr. bush, i'm afraid you -- >> president keane: well, commissioner kopp has moved that you get one more moment. any objection to that?

one minute more sfl thank you. >> no objection. go ahead. >> a private right of action can be done that you just allow the court to assess a penalty, rather than say that the penalty be shared with the person who files the thing. i don't like that, but that's better than having nothing. at least you would have some accountablity for the person who did something wrong. as you have it now, this is a dead letter provision because it's never enforced. it's never invoked. commissioner chiu asked whether there were other laws that provide a compensation to someone who's not directly harmed. the answer is yes, and it was tasked in july at the insistence of people here at the housing nonprofits that said that a housing nonprofit can sue a landlord who wrongfully evicts people for an owner move in, and then, the nonprofit collects the money that was wrongly collected, and yet here they are saying this is an incentive to get people's lawsuits. well, they thought it was a

great incentive for them. why shouldn't it be an incentive for the public? thank you. >> president keane: thank you. there being no further public comment, we have a motion to approve the ordinance and send it onto the board of supervisors. it's been seconded. all those in favor -- >> wait, wait. i want to fix this language problem. >> president keane: all right. >> commissioner kopp: from the ordinance, f23, and i'll read, any prospective party to a contract subject to subsection b shall, by the date of execution of such contract by

the party inform any member, etcetera. >> i'd like to make one comment on that, and that's that -- >> commissioner kopp: huh? >> i'd like to say in response, just to highlight what that change would do, is that parties that are bidding, that are seeking contract are already subject to -- to section 1.126 before they actually execute the contract, so they wouldn't be getting notice until the contract was executed, whereas as written, they would get notice at the time the proposal is submitted, so at the time they become subjects to 1.126, they would be getting notice from the organization. >> commissioner kopp: well, what's your language? >> as written, well, when the organization that knees individuals, the directors, officers, shareholders and subcontractors, when the entity that they're affiliated with submits the proposal to become a city contractor, at that point, the organization must notify each of these

individuals that they're subject of 1.126 from that time. >> commissioner kopp: well, i disagree. it's ambiguous. >> i think we're open -- >> commissioner kopp: i think i'll leave it up to the other commissioners, because i'm voting no on it any way, but that's pretty poor language. >> president keane: any other commissioner want to agree with commissioner kopp in regard to altering that language? all right. we have the motion before us, commissioners. all those in favor of the motion, say aye. opposed? >> commissioner kopp: no. >> president keane: the motion passes, 4-1. we should transmit the ordinance to the board of supervisors with our recommendation that they pass it. >> commissioner chiu: mr. chair. >> president keane: yes. >> commissioner chiu: can i

just ask a question. >> president keane: sure. >> commissioner chiu: maybe this is for the director or the city attorney. in addition to the ordinance that we will be forwarding to the board of supervisors, would it be possible for us to attach some of the comments that we have with the or tdinance that already pass or if we cannot do it as a commission, can we do it as an individual? >> we can certainly send it as a party of the legislative record what the commission had and received so that would be something that's just part of the attachments for the background from t . >> president keane: we're back

in session, and we move now to agenda item 8, part of which we took earlier, and that is discussion and possible action on monthly staff policy report and update of the commission's annual policy plan. and there's an attachment that -- and there's -- so there are a number of things in that that we should go through one at a time. >> sure, yes. so i -- i just want to highlight, we are, again -- again, modifying our policy report a little bit, but we're basically dividing it into two sections now. our current ongoing policy initiative is just so you can all sort of see what we sort of have on the plates of staff. and then, section 2 is really those planned items that reflect items that had been

planned on the annual policy plan. so what we're hoping is that we can get more of your -- that is, the commission's direct action when it comes to adding or taking items off of staff's sort of -- sort of just plate, so we know specifically sort of what the priority of the items are that you would like to see something forward, just in terms of adequately, you know, putting staff time in those areas that the commission sees most fit, and you know, moving around those items that may be less priority. specifically, if -- just, then, to get into the sort of ongoing items, i won't speak about the anticorruption and accountablity ordinance. you all just passed that. we again -- we briefly already touched on the related informational item there regarding the private right of

actions or ktan provisions in some cases. the staff nonvoting ordinance, steph proposed a technical modification. >> commissioner kopp: you lost me. where are we? >> page 2, agenda item 9. we proposed a technical modification to that legislation. we had actually attempted, as staff, to include that as part of the final version that you all voted on, but we missed that, so we proposed that as a technical change. the supervisor accepted -- accepted that change in the legislation. it was, again, very technical, so -- so much as there's no questions about it, i won't go into details about it. it was very minor. the sunshine ethics information that you voted to send over to

the board of supervisors was sent in october. it has to sit there for 60 days, and they need to accept or reject those. we haven't had any follow up to that at this point. another item that i want to focus on because i think this is going to be a very important item going forward, and we're hoping to have this before you before january , hopefully, is the final item on page 2, which is the e-mail form 700 project. we are going to be proposing and we've sort of discussed this briefly before a set of regulations that sort of set the table for moving all form 700 filers to -- to doing that electronically on a reporting system, not just those designated filers, but in order to do that, we need to cleanup some of the regulations that currently exist for designates filers just because there's been changes of technology. we've had changes from -- our

i.t. staff has made changes to make the website more user friend, all those regulations need to be updated to reflect the sort of current logic to the system, and then we can transfer that sort of information over to all filers, and we're hoping to have those regulations before you in january . yes? >> and i just -- just one additional note, by my oversig oversight kraen kraen commissioner chiu has a question. >> kyle, with regard to the e filing roll out, if the item comes to us at next month's meeting, does this mean it would be able to be rolled out in the next e filing form 700

in april? >> unfortunately, i don't think we're going to make it that round. i don't think we're going to make it with the changes that need to be made to the net system, unfortunately. >> commissioner chiu: thank you. >> one additional note that we should have here and will have going forward is the -- the whistleblower protectional order amendments. supervisor breed asked for it to be referred to the department of human resources, the controller and meet and confer. we confirmed this week with the department of human resources that they are now going to be scheduling that meet and confer process, so we will provide you with greater in depth updates so that that item stays in radar and we get it through that process and back to the board for its action, but i wanted to make sure, it's not here but it will be, so just noting that. >> yeah, and then just -- so moving forward then, on the planned and pending projects here, first, let me highlight the legislation, and i want to

point out specifically for commissioner kopp, agenda item 8, page 9, we have the agenda legislative tracker on this, or at least an outline of that. i hope that's a little more of what you were looking to see. >> commissioner kopp: yeah. >> i understand it's small. it's mean for more on-line viewing. it doesn't fit very well on an 8.5-by-11 sheet, so i wanted to point that out that we forget in our oversight last month. again, that's highlighting -- or excuse me, that document highlights where in the process those are. obviously, the state's legislative session has ended. going back to our local legislation, the file number 17038, supervisor cohen's legislation, this was regarding and we briefly discussed this a couple of months ago now, june, it appears, this is regarding -- excuse me -- regarding certain disclosures of the elected -- regarding the

elections and the elected members on the certain -- the retiree boards and the pension boards. we are continuing to work with supervisor cohen's staff on that. we have just heard some initial e-mails after they took staff's just recommendations, and we are just starting to sort of move back up on that process. we just heard about that last week before we all left on the holiday vacation, so i imagine we will have more of that for you in december and january about a proposal that i believe you all thought that the -- the intent of that was a good project. we will continue to move forward with that. and now, sort of getting to the large item that was addressed, as the supervisor spoke this morning, file number 170868, you heard supervisor kim give her presentation regarding her ordinance that would amend a number of the campaign finance requirements of the commission,

and i -- i think the main point that we as staff and then perhaps you all could provide us with some direction as to this point -- is i think you all have said and have had an eye towards having a -- a strong and enforceable camping finance regime and system of laws that support the purpose and intent of the campaign finance reform ordinance. i think us as staff, we would like to fully analyze this -- this project more fully than we could have provided for you today, so i think we have provided you just with some potential open questions and issues that we have with the legislation. but i think for us going forward, we would really like some direction on the priority for this item and when you would like to see us sort of giving you a fuller analysis of the legislation that's pending. obviously, the supervisor and

her staff, we have been working with them, but we really haven't had the time to fully analyze sort of the prescriptions that are -- that are in the virgin -- in the version that you all have had in front of you today. >> commissioner kopp: i think in the meeting on friday where you're going to be present, i understand, and commissioner chiu and i are going to be there, as well, with supervisor kim, we'll get this more crystallized at that point, and we can proceed from there. >> it sounds like a good plan. >> commissioner chiu: chair keane, if i may? >> president keane: yes. >> commissioner chiu: i think on that note, just because she has mentioned looking at public finance, and you'll be getting to it -- i don't mean to steal your thunder, but as a policy agenda, we had before us also looking at the public financing system here in san francisco, so what i would like to ensure is we have a comprehensive process and we don't w