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 work to reinvent the wheel and she does something and goes down the track and we're trying to play catch up or undo or mitigate the things that she's been doing so that if we can join forces and work collaboratively together to create a holistic review and assessment and changes moving forward, i think that would be something that that would be important to me. >> president keane: maybe if you both can think of that before friday's meeting and sort of brief us on any thoughts that you have as to how we should approach supervisor kim regarding those things. >> certainly. we can definitely provide you

with some preliminary remarks. >> president keane: that's great. >> so switching over to page 4, the other planned projects, again, these were sort of things, again, why we sort of need to revisit our where you would like us to focus our attention going forward because we have the annual policy plan that had these items setup. we've had to push them back a couple times now. i think these are sort of the major projects that are pending down the line for us: the review of the conflict of interest code. we've heard complaints about that code in interested persons meetings, from filers, so we know there's issues us as staff, just reviewing the legislation -- i think there's areas that can be improved, and some of those areas are improved with your anticorruption ordinance, but there's certainly room for further improvement there. then, again, you have all just voted to put -- put towards the -- the board of supervisors

a number of new ordinances and amendments regarding the campaign finance reform ordinance, so in order shortly -- shortly hereafter will be -- i think we'll have to go back and look really hard at the campaign finance ordinance regulations. i don't think any of them have been modified for sometime, and they will need updating and will require updating if and when the anticorruption ordinance passes. and then, the third item, again, as commissioner chiu just highlighted, we need to do a more comprehensive review and determine whether and/or what changes, if any, need to be made. how well our public finance system is working, and how well public financing systems -- there's a whole sort of body of policy documents and case law that have sort of made some changes as to how people are looking at public financing, so we really need to look at how

our system's working in the current sort of regime that exists. we certainly have a number of localities to look at to see which and how certain other systems are operating, and so again, i think we need to really get into that. it's an important issue, in addition to sort of the -- what people call the supply side restrictions of campaign finance, restricting people's dollars into the system. we have to sort of reduce the demand fore thos demand for those dollars, and one way you do that is by having a public finance system back abundant. and again, any direction related as to how these item sit is much appreciated. >> president keane: so commissioner. >> commissioner chiu: so just to my fellow commissioners, we started tonight with a policy agenda, and we've made progress

against some -- many of these items, and that lots of things come up in the interim, so i think it would be helpful to me, and also, what i think i hear from staff asking to is for a lot of these things coming at -- coming out unexpectedly as things in life always do, but we are -- we have finite resources and finite time. we only meet 11 times a year, so what are the -- what are those -- what are those policy matters that are top priority i think is the question that staff was asking us. so i think it would be a great opportunity now since we have new items, old items, it's the end of the calendar year and that we're heading into a new year next year to get clear on what -- you know, how do we want to be spending our time? >> yes, thank you, commissioner. that is well said.

and again, i know i'm sort of belaboring some of these points here, but i just want to run through these sort of recently identified projects on page 4 here. these have been recently identified or there's been requests for staff, again to sort of use their limited resources to evaluate some of these other proposals. so again, the social media and election integrity item, that's something that supervisor kim addressed. commissioner chiu has expressed, commissioner lee has expressed an issue in this item. it's something that's very apparent as a current item in front of everyone, so it's certainly something that is important to everyone that we need to continue to evaluate. something that was asked about last time was the misuse of public financing funds. we've had a number of conversations internally about this. there are a number of laws that currently exist requiring the

auditing that's required to be placed on publicly financed candidates, so again, i think we need to continue to review whether we need to go forward with a -- a -- any provision in addition to what we have now to just ensure that there isn't any duplication that has been addressed that has been a concern of the commission. >> so question, if i may. >> president keane: yes. >> kyle, in regard to these specific items, c2 on page 4. >> yeah. >> is that something that wocod be rolled into a broader public finance review and assessment that could incorporate looking into these issues? >> yes. i think that's appropriate. as you'll see in our recommendation, you'll -- thank you for pointing it out specifically. yes. i think it's an item that may largely be already addressed, but i think we would want to do a fuller evaluation, but i think appropriately as you stated -- >> on the specific narrow issue

for looking broadly at public finance, it would be incorporated broadly into that public review. >> yes. another sort of similar issue here going on that was raised at the last meeting was the prohibition on what are known as the cashout pros. the board of supervisors as you know when we addressed this previously had an ordinance in front of them. they voted that down. we were asked to re -- sort of evaluate what we could do here, but in our evaluation, in reaching out, we've been informed that they do have a policy on this item. it is still an important issue that may warrant further action, but i think it would perhaps behoove us to set aside some time for further review with the mocd people to further clarify what is on the books now and what we can do, if anything, going forward. so i think that's -- staff's

recommendation is to set it aside but maybe have a subset of the commissioners sort of sit down with mocd and other interested parties and flush out sort of any additional items that are necessary for this matter. the two remaining items were also proposed last time, the sunshine ordinance task force removal. staff -- >> before you get to that -- >> sure. >> -- i note this paragraph, quoting the office of housing and community development. i would like a copy of that -- what is it? a memorandum or a letter? e-mail? >> yeah, we'll call it -- we will call it -- it's less informal than a letter.

it's a statement of sorts. >> i place less credence in that. i want to see it. >> fair enough. >> okay. >> so just quickly, the last two items. they were proposed last time. we'd like -- we'd like further direction on this, just, you know, with the number of items, again, that we have in front of us. there was a request for -- to -- for a -- >> kyle, if i can, on those last two items. >> yes. >> if we could just, for a moment, address the second one first, because i have a personal specific reason in terms of my schedule. your recommendation on the discussion about an independent city attorney, that that be discussed at our december 2017 meeting. we -- the special calendar that was set last year and because

of the holidays coming up, the christmas holidays coming up, we don't meet on our regular date. our regular date for meeting is december 18th at 1:00 p.m. i'm unavailable then, and i definitely want to be in on this discussion, so if it's okay, i'd like that recommendation regarding the city attorney, that we discuss that at our january meeting rather than our december meeting. >> well, wait. aren't we having a tuesday meeting in december? >> no, no, we're having aymo a monday -- >> yeah, monday. >> what time? >> it's a special time. >> oh. >> it was a special meeting set on last year's calendar to accommodate, and i'm not available. >> all right. so you want to put it over, and that's, what, january ... >> whatever that january meeting is, that's fine with

me. >> fourth monday. >> oh, that's right. january 12th. >> january 12th? that's fine. okay. >> is that okay, commissioners, that we do that in january ? okay. now, you can go back to, kyle, that first one. >> what about the other one? what do -- the sunshine ordinance? you say table or set aside, what do you mean, set aside? you mean table, as in bury is? >> well, i think it's -- if we're going to consider what -- all the current things, there's a large and comprehensive review that needs to take place for that, and considering the other -- >> okay. >> -- necessary projects, i'm not sure. >> so do you want to kick it over to january ? >> i don't know if we have a timetable for this item. >> let's not do january , because i think the discussion relating to the city attorney, that'll probably take up quite

a bit. >> all right. how about february . i mean, you're getting close now to the june primary. >> i think we would like the commission's policy take on it, honestly. >> well -- >> i think commissioner kopp, the reason we made the recommendation that we did is because we do unbalance all the other items that we need to tackle, and they're very substantive and complex matters. in order to do those justice, taking on number four would really threaten our ability to do that well, so we -- again, as a staff recommendation for you all to react to and have a different view about it, if you think, is that we don't think this should take priority over those other issues, and we want the commission's sense over time about where you all as a body see the priority nature of this item, given everything that we need to be tackling. >> well, what's the deadline to submit matters to the registrar

of voters? >> i believe for -- is it february for the june ballot? >> yes. >> february for the june ballot. >> so what you're doing is killing this until possibly november , and that's satisfied. i think this, mr. chairman, ought to be on the january calendar, and the way that miss pelham is scheduling these matters, it's for discussion and/or vote, correct. >> yes. >> again, it's up to the commissioner direction as to what you would like to see. >> so i have a process direction to the city attorney. as this item is agendaized, is it -- and i think staff is asking for policy direction, so

could we discuss -- i'm assuming the answer is yes, but i wanted to clarify. could we discuss, as a body, whether or not as a policy matter we wanted to pursue this item now? we don't have to wait until the january meeting to discuss it? >> well, i mean, it sounds like the questions are sort of how you want to proceed from a priority perspective, so you know, i think you could give advice about how -- how you wanted staff to, you know, to prioritize the different item., and i think also, just some substantive discussion, as well. >> thank you. so if we could, you know, on this item -- you know, commissioner kopp, i'm not sure what the genesis of this proposal is. >> well, i'll tell you what it is. it's a duplicate agency.

it's a reason the city has a record budget of 10, 600,000000, and it cams some five years after the voters established this commission because of the then supervisor didn't trust the ethics commission, he told me, which is not a strong reason to create another bureaucracy. >> so thank you for that. so in considering this, however, i think that the sunshine ordinance task force conducts a body of work which i think is very important to the city in hearing the issues

raised by the citizens. and that the removal or the abolition of the task force doesn't make that work go away, and i don't think our staff is equipped with the resources to be able to take on that work. and to go to the voters, so ask them to amend -- is this a charter amendment or would this be just a ballot measure. >> it would be an administrative code. >> okay. so it would be a ballot measure to address the -- the duplicative nature of bureaucracy. i don't know that that is the highest and best use of our good will, if you will. >> well, then, prepare the legislation. its responsibility is the same as one of our responsibilities, which was enforcement of the

government code of the state of california al california, and enforcement of the ordinances of the city and county of san francisco. what do you need more agencies for? so if more staff is needed, that's part of the budget for the fiscal year 2019. >> i think that given the other matters before us as a commission and a staff, this is the lowest priority in my -- in my -- in my view, and i wouldn't support putting time and resources into it because i don't know, like, what -- what would it accomplish if we did this? >> commissioner kopp: it would allow this commission to vote on whether to submit abolition

to the voters of san francisco with some of the reasons that i just set out and others. >> i think that as a practical matter, i don't think that you can -- that it would be wise to submit something to the voters and say let's take it away without providing something in -- in -- >> commissioner kopp: yeah, you can have a sentence saying all duties performed by this commission or whatever it's called, task force, shall continue to be enforced by the ethics commission of the city and county. >> president keane: commissioner, commissioner kopp, with all due respect, i think i have to agree with commissioner chiu for other reasons, and that is, i'm no fan of the sunshine ordinance

task force. i think -- having seen it in action, i think it's pretty dreadful up close and personal, and i agree with you that many of the things that it does are probably duplicative of what we're doing. at the same time much of the stuff that -- from what we've heard that it does take on is stuff that if they were done away with, we would wind up getting it. and to be as polite as possible about what i've seen about the things that they have on their plate for the most part, it's -- 90% of it is burepure >> that's a legal term. >> president keane: yeah, that's a legal term, and i would hate to try and have to impose that on our staff, no matter how much the city is unfortunate to have this -- this creature that would --

this hydro headed creature that was created back in the 90's by a couple of your former colleagues. >> commissioner kopp: no, no. it came after me. >> president keane: after. >> commissioner kopp: related to a former mayor of san francisco. >> president keane: so i find myself agreeing with commissioner chiu on this, that that's not something that really, we should get into or take on. and that's not a place i'd want to go, any way, and i'm -- >> commissioner kopp: all right -- >> president keane: you want to put it on a vote. >> commissioner kopp: all right. i read the tea leaves, and i will subside. >> president keane: thank you. >> commissioner kopp: for now. >> president keane: all right. >> that's all i have. i guess if there's any other points of sort of direction or -- or orders of priority that you'd like to see

addressed, as far as -- [ inaudible ] >> yes, so i guess we would suggest that you adopt the recommendations as we have in here, i guess, if you're going to take a vote on the matter, the recommendations that we've provided, just in terms what we'll move forward with. [ inaudible ] >> yeah, with the amendments that have been proposed, just because of -- regarding the meeting times. [ inaudible ] >> so just to my fellow commissioners and to the staff and to the public, for me, i think that the social media and election integrity policy item is -- is, i think, really important because supervisor kim talked today about the importance of not looking backwards but looking forwards, and this was the scene in the conversations that we had last week or the week before with ann revell, who the the former

s.e.c. director. i really believe with the advent of social media and the targeting and the specificity with which campaigns or hackers or you know, others can send out inform and send out messages and influence, and that we have no idea that it's happening, that we have no record of such -- of those communications or of those ads, and i think that this is a problem that we have just recently discovered in -- as an issue for our -- our national election. but i believe that it is only going to grow, and i feel like we as a commission are very uniquely positioned to study this issue to invite public comment to invite, you know, stakeholders because i think we all have a stake in this, all of us who vote. because the information that we get is only as clear and

transparent as the disclosure that comes with it. we know where it's coming from and who's paying for it, and the immediacy of social media it powerful, and it doesn't take a lot of money to reach a lot of people. so to me, i think this is kind of a burning house that i would -- i think we should turn or attention to, you know, with with all deliberate speed, as the saying goes. so i would, you know, just ask for your consideration that we do proceed with the recommendation on item number c1 for an update at the december meeting, in addition to the balance of the recommendations of staff. >> so i think, just to reclarify it, the motion would be all the recommendations with the amendment to section c,

item 5, and moving that item back to january , correct, commissioner? >> president keane: that's right. >> commissioner chiu: yes. >> president keane: okay. is that -- that seems to be the sense of the commission, so that's what we'll do. >> the commission isn't required to act. i think we're looking for your policy direction. you've been clear on it, so there's no need to take objection. >> take public comments? >> president keane: yeah, we'll take public comment now. >> i'd say just lastly because supervisor kim is also considering social media-type regulation, i also don't want that train to leave the station without our input. >> larry bush, friends of ethics. a comment on the sunshine task force, one of the things that's going to have to happen is a rewriting of the sunshine

ordinance because it calls for one of the appointees of the task force to come from the new american media, and you've just seen in the paper today, they've gone out of business, so they're going to have to have a new formula. >> well, they won't even notice. >> well, i can say about that that i worked a year and a half ago with supervisor campos and several others on a rewrite of the sunshine ordinance task force, because even the people who proposed it released at the it's did it's defunct in the way it's operating. >> commissioner kopp: it also has to filter out a lot of the stuff it does because it's essentially assist

essentially it's a meeting that's besieged by every screw ball in san francisco. >> that's because that's the way it's setup now. my point is the commission has the thofrt to setup committees, and you can setup a two person committee to look at that, since it's going to have to come back one way or other about who is the makeup of the sunshine task force, and what are the duties, so i'm just suggesting that since the charter and the or the nance for the ethics commission allowed you to setup a committee, rather than as you say take up all five members in the time that you have, designate a committee to look at that one issue, because it is timely. thank you. >> commissioner kopp: thank you. >> commissioners, ray hart, strikers of san francisco. i'm going to address several things. one is the efficacy in the ethics and sunshine training. you had the city librarian,

lew lewis -- luis herrera sepg thousands of dollars of gift and filing statements under penalty of perjury where he said he got nothing, and we presented you with evidence, and you did jack. we took it to the state, and the only reason they were restricted is because of the statute of limitations, so i think you're confusing activity with achievement. yes, you can have everybody fill out the dam form, but if they lie on the form, and then, you ignore the fact that they lie on the form, what darn difference does it make? and as far as the sunshine ordinance task force. there's why commissioner kopp doesn't like it. they dared to find him in violation of the sunshine ordinance. that's the same thing that happened to the board of supervisors. they didn't like the fact that they found against the board of supervisors, so they left

seats -- four seats vacant for two years, so when a complainant went in, they had to have a majority, they had to get six out of seven votes, or six out of six if they just had a quorum, and the reason commissioner keane doesn't like it is because he doesn't want to answer to anybody. he doesn't want to go before somebody like the task force where they ask him a question and he has to actually explain itself. he likes it the way it is right now. the public asks the questions, and you ignore them: deaf, dumb, blind, mute. you look at what you want to look at, and the idea that you would get rid of the task force is only because you won't enforce it. and you're tired of people coming here and pointing out the fact you won't enforce it, so what do you do? you just get rid of it altogether. two thirds of the citizens, when that vote came up, passed

that, and i have to say that the will of the voters seems to me pretty clear that they wanted that ordinance. fixing it one thing, getting rid of it's something else, but it serves your purposes, doesn't it? you don't like to have to answer to anybody, and you like it just the way it is, where you sit in these boards and commissions, and someone brings up a question, and you either don't respond at all or you make some sort of ignorant comment like 90% of what the task force does is b.s. that's an ignorant comment. that's the only time you've ever been there. how would you know? you don't, but that suits your narrative, so you'll say it without a twinge of guilt or acknowledgement of the hypocrisy. >> commissioner kopp: well,

allow f allow me for a moment to associate myself with the chairman's remarks. >> president keane: thank you, commissioner. any further public comment? all right. we'll move onto the next agenda item, which is item 10, discussion of the executive director -- no, i'm sorry item 9, discussion of enforcement reports. >> thank you, chair keane. unfortunately our deputy director and director of enforcement of lela fairs, jessica blum is not here. she is under the weather, but it on-line and on your table for highlights of most recent enforcement statistics, a status of cases pending before bdr and related information on several matters that were pending before the sunshine task force. also, just a quick note, this does update on a stakeholder engagement process for

enforcing our advisement regulations. jessica and i have been meeting with interested persons formally and informally to elicit information in providing draft language that will come back to you planned for the december meeting, and i realize as you note, chair keane, that you won't be at that meeting so if there's any interest in moving it to january , we can certainly do that, but we'll -- as scheduled, are preparing to bring those forward in december for an initial presentation and discussion, at this point. >> president keane: and that's fine, and vice chair chiu will do a fine job in shepherding all that along. >> commissioner chiu: okay. no pressure. i actually have one comment, if i may. on page 5, i would like to convey my, i guess, thanks and would like to note that based on the numbers here, of 89 matters in preliminary matter,

68 are less than 12 months old, and 21 are more than 12 months old, so congratulations to the team for working through that ba backlog. i think with a full complement of investigators and auditors now, we can get -- start to make headway against these matters that have been pending for a long, long time, and i'm just really delighted to see that, so thank you for that hard work. >> president keane: all right. any public comment on... >> commissioners, ray hart, spec tor san francisco. governors like to point out the one page that nobody seemed to mention, and i can understand why you don't want to mention it. it's the letter from the office of the district attorney to miss pelham regarding what you neglected to act upon and had

to go before the task force, and from what i read, the district attorney said you did violate the brown act, and i admit. i was wrong, i kind of went in there and took up the bat for you and said well, i don't think they really did. well, i got it wrong, too. so i'm not perfect. i never pretended to be, but the bottom line is, somebody held you in account and you don't like it. that's one thing that i've found is very common on boards of this city, is if somebody says something to a board or commission, they just ignore it because they don't want to -- number one, they can't give a response. you never get a response, you get a reaction, and you ask why i behave the way i do? it's because you don't get a response from anybody. what you get is a reaction, and if getting a reaction is the only thing you can get, you become a provocateur. b.f. skinner, the father of

behavioral conditioning said any behavior that is rewarded will be repeated, so if i come here for public comment and can't get anybody to engage in dialogue, then, i'll become a provocateur. but here, you have something that the district attorney said you broke the law, and nobody mentions it. the executive director doesn't mention it. she'll say oh, because miss blum isn't here, some other bizarre excuse. the bottom line is you broke the law. the district attorney said so, and now, you want to go back, and you want to hang it on the sunshine ordinance task force, like they're the problem. and you want to get rid of the sunshine ordinance task force like they're the problem. the problem is not with the task force, it's with you, because the law says you're supposed to enforce what they find. the good government guide, as i pointed out to you earlier says

you're supposed to make your decisions based on the evidence and the law, but when we had my hearing last month, you didn't even look at the law. the task force did. that's why the task force ruled 11 times that in the minutes means in the minutes, because they read the law. but you don't want to read the law because it results in you doing something that you don't want to do. you don't like my comments, and the reason i fought for eight years to get the 150 word summaries is because i was tired of people who didn't like the comments just edit them out of the official record, which is what the library did for years. it's what this body did for years. if a citizen has an opinion you don't like, you just edit it out or you do what you did to mr. petrellis did that one time. you said oh, you can't have a sign. city ordinance -- that was a lie, wasn't it? he and i had a meeting