>> chair keane: commissioner p kopp is for it. commissioner lee. >> thank you mr. chair and i want to thank the staff for the diligent work in putting the full schedules together. i was one of the commissioners who asked the staff to look into possibly finding other meeting times for future commission meetings. i've heard from folks who wanted to keep it the way it is. i also heard from folks who would like to see alternative times. first of all i really appreciate the residents of the city who take the time to come to these meetings to participate whether it is 6:00 at night or 10:00 at night and what have you. --i think this commission has a unique responsibility. whereas all the cities' commissions serve the residents of the city, this

commission is charged to carry out oversights that impact folks who may not be san francisco residents, but their work impacts san francisco residents. their perspectives and engagement for me is also critical so that as we deliberate policies and other action items, it's good to have all sides' perspectives. i hear folks who want to keep it the way it is. i understand that. but at the same time to really try to broaden up the participatory pull, so to speak, i'd like for us to try this out as a trial run. because as a bylaw, we can always change it. but at least make it available for folks who otherwise could not make it in the

evening times so that they can attend, they can add their perspective as we engage with the public. so i would like to make a motion to approve this proposal from the staff. >> chair keane: is there a second? >> second. >> chair keane: i agree completely with commissioner lee in regard to what she said. i'd like to add a couple of owe other things. in regard to the commission, us as commissioners, doing the best possible job, i think we would be better equipped to do the best possible john if we didn't have to stay late at night and always watching the clock when in the heck can we get out of here. in terms of the human reality of it. if we came like other agencies of

government did our work in the mornings, for the city we'd be much more -- i think we'd be much more energetic about it and much better at it in terms of the way we do it rather than staying into the wee hours of the night. the other thing for the staff itself, members of the staff, several of them live in other areas of bay and have to go to oakland and other places. the amount of overtime that has to be paid as well is something that is a concern. i think this makes sense for changing it to a civilized time of government in terms of other governmental entities in the mornings and i think we'll be better at doing our job by having the change. we have it televised. people can see what is going on.

we can make other arrangements for phone-ins, if necessary, but this is something that is overdue. commissioner. >> i'd like to i think, agree with what my fellow commissioners said. i think my first few meetings and several meet whtion we go -- meetings meetings when we go late, we end with an empty room. i hope by moving the times that we'll have more participation from the public. >> chair keane: we've heard that from members of the public in regard to getting buses, muni, other types of rides home when it's late at night, it's hard for them to do that. this would facilitate it going at a civilized time. i think it's all to the good.

commissioner renne. >> well, i spoke out at the last meeting and said oifs in favor of it. i had some second thoughts when we had the poll of the audiences of who would come in the day and who would come at night. it appears that more people hear felt they would not be able to make it during the day which caused me to have some pause. however, when i consider the fact that the telephone connection which does not exist for these evening meetings would exist for the day meetings. it does appear that certainly we might get a broader cross section of public comment than those that we get at

our 5:30 meeting. the other thing is to those who said this is done only for the convenience of the commission, i think misread whether or not it is totally more convenient because to the extent that we have commissioners who have full-time jobs having to give a day up from their job is an imposition that certainly is a cost to public service on their part. so i think that we ought to try it and see what -- because the other thing is when i think about when we go into closed session on the late-night meetings and come back into public session, even if we have items left there is nobody here and we're talking

to ourselves and dealing with it so that would not happen in a daytime meeting. i think on balance, i think that this change is not being done to convenience the commission, but is being done in the belief that it will be more effective in its role of oversight and public participation. >> chair keane: further comment by the members? we have a motion that's been seconded we'll take public comment now. >> larry bush speak nierg self. wewe are a divide monday among friends of ethics. i was one that said sent a letter don't change it. we've had a larger amount of

participations at night. which is in part because the ethics commission is beginning to look more active so there is a greater interest. i would like to say, having read what bob said in an e-mail to the commission that he's a former commissioner that you might want to amend your measure to call for establishment of a capacity for people to call in and make comments that would provide a greater level of participation. he refers to something called a bridge line information that the city makes available to commissions at no cost and which up to 30 people can be on the line and they can make comments as you guys would call on them to speak. that would certainly increase this opportunity for people to participate in these decisions. so i would recommend that if you move forward with this that you add a provision to your motion that calls

for the commission to explore and adopt, if to be a bridge line for people to be able to call in and make comments. thank you. >> chair keane: thank you. >> i'll move that as an amendment at the right time, mr. chair. >> i'm also with friends of ethic. i have a question because we do know that all the rooms in in the city are usually reserved for a certain amount of time. having sat t,rough a number of years now at the ethics commission, i know you very much in the time of the meeting are you going to be constrained in how long you can have a meeting once you move to the daytime? >> i believe there are meetings that would start at 3:00, so it gives us a five-hour window. >> thank you. >> commissioners ray hart san francisco

open government. let's not pretend this change is for any reason other than the convenience of the commissioners and staff. the only reason i see for making the change is that some members of the commission are not used to being up beyond their normal bedtimes. the interest of the public be damned. even your inform the poll conducted at the last meeting kateed three quarters of those that reponded would be inconvenienced by change. without making an effort to see how this would affect public participation, you will make the change you intended to make all along. i believe this change will benefit the ethics staff. after all, why should they be inconvenienced to accommodate the public? this one-sided memorandum produced by the staff deals with nothing but the mechanics of making the change, again, the public be damned.

i don't know where this came from. the first thing i heard about this was commissioner lee saying i brought this idea up. all of a sudden, it's thrown on the public full-blown with no real just if justification, no effort to check with the public whether or not it would affect public attendance and participation. there is nothing in the memo that shows any indication that we're a going to look at this when it goes forward and if we start holding our meetings at 10:00 a.m. and nobody comes, we'll change it back. it basically is we're changing it to 10:00 a.m. and if people show up, they show up and if they don't, they don't. as a member of the public, that's what i see. i didn't vote either way because i can come during the day or during the night. if you were hoping to get rid of me and

other mal-contents by making this change tough luck. bottom line is you put this out there and say this is to help the public -- all of you sit there and say this will be better for us because we'll be more alert and this will be better for the staff because we won't have to pay them overtime. this is better for you. think of it. just think of all the things each of you said. all much you said this is for us. this is for our staff. not for the public. it's not to get more participation. the memo doesn't even address that. the memo says here is the mechanics on how to make the change. whether the public cares or not you don't seem to care. i will give commissioner renne kudos for the fact he at least asked last time. when nine said it would be an inconvenience and three said it wouldn't, you ignored that completely.

>> good evening commissioners charlie marstellar representing myself. i was wondering if the meeting goes over 12 whether lunch will be served. but aside from that question, which i think i know the answer to, i thought i'd -- >> chair keane: we're going to ask you to get pizza for us. >> that would be great. as long as you make it vegetarian, that's the better compromise. i was going to say i should mention something on behalf of r.u. ro represent them, that's "represent us" that's the young people in the room at the time that president renney asked his question about meeting times. i do think that there are good ways to

engage younger members of the public and the next generation that's going to succeed you and me other than the staff of course who are younger, but i was going to say that i think it's important to think of a way to outreach to daytime workers who could not normally attend. the idea that mr. former commission chair plante shoaldz a good one. there are other things that the director could do to reach out to the public to specific groups of people who are working hard 9:00 to 5:00 as tech workers or whoofer they do. thank you. -- or whatever they do. >> chair keane: thank you. we have a motion to approve the change and it's been seconded. all those in favor of the motion please

say aye. >> aye. those opposed? the motion carries. commissioner kopp, you had and amendment. >> that's right. okay. i move that the maximum amount of telephones be made available to those who are unable or unwilling to attend a daytime meeting pursuant to the government code of the state of california and the technical resources of the city and county of san francisco. >> chair keane: do we have a second to the amendment? >> second. >> chair keane: all those in favor say aye, the amendment passes unanimously. okay, so we move now to item number

5 has been with draw drawn. withdrawn. the request for waiver. we'll move to item 6, discussion and possible action on formal opinion draft in response to a request by david maass formal opinion regarding the applicability of ordinance 001-17 to his duties as a moam of member of the sunshine ordinance task force. we have an attachment, the staff cover memorandum and draft opinion. >> i'll just give a brief background because as us looking back through our records certainly this commission, this is the first time you all have addressed a formal request for an opinion which has some different legal immunities that

apply to it if certain conditions are met. this is actually as we can tell, the first time in a long time that -- a request for a formal opinion has been made and you all would potentially act on one today. so the charter in provision c-3.699-12 provides you all with the -- provides a request for ability to request a formal opinion from the commission. the commission has 21 days unless good cause is shown to act on and draft that opinion and then pass that along to the city attorney and district attorney if if those bodies concur within 10 days, that grants legal immunity to the requester, assuming all the facts are substantially similar to those presented.

so i won't get into the specifics that are outlined in the request. i think you all have read that here. but again we're speak specifically about as mr. maasse has asked a number of questions and you all are only being asked to address the first three as the remaining questions seem to be all matters that are non-specific questions of general interpretation which generally are not appropriate for formal requests for advice. the fec, and other bodies follow those same sort of procedural guidelines. with that, i think i'll leave it open to you for discussion, but staff is recommending that you act on and vote for the opinion herein so we can

transmit that to the city attorney and district attorney at the earliest possible date. >> chair keane: commissioner kopp. >> i was just going to make a motion to adopt the recommendation so that it's on the floor. >> chair keane: is there a second? >> second. >> chair keane: discussion by the commission. we'll take public comment and -- no public comment. all those in favor of the motion to have this as our position and inform the gentleman of that, please signify by saying aye. >> aye. >> chair keane: any opposed? motion passes unanimously. we now go to agenda item 7 discussion and possible action on revised version of the 2017 san francisco anticorruption

and accountability ordinance following the commission's actions as its october regular meeting. from is an attachment which has the language in it of what we did the last time. just sort of to bring us up-to-date, you'll recall what we did with the good help of commissioner chiu, a lot of language was put forth and staff captured that language and we voted on it and we approved this ordinance to be sent to the board of supervisors. so what we're doing now as i understand it pat is we're looking at this as an editing body. is that correct? we have all of the language in that because we discussed an enormous amount of stuff last time.

staff captured it for us. so now in terms of the minds of any of the commissioners in looking at the various language, is there anything that the commissioners as a matter of ed -- editing see that should be changed or worded differently to capture what passed last time? that's what this item is all about, is that correct, pat? >> that's correct chair keane. staff believes that the draft here on item 7 is responsive to the commission's motion at the last meeting. there were several changes requested to be made. some were simple edits or deletions, others were sub stan i have a stronger notification in 1.126. the other being a behest payment

disclosure system which is now article 3 chapter 6 in the draft of the ordinance. you stated yes we worked with commissioner chiu on that particular provision, we had an interested persons' meeting to hear comment on the draft we created. we made revisions to the draft in response and believe this draft is responsive to your motion at the last meeting. >> chair keane: this is what we have passed. we should keep that in mind. we've passed this. >> i think with -- as i recall what happened in october there were some proposed [inaudible] payment prohibition in place of a disclosure. it was to come back with the disclosure provision so see whether or not we

are in agreement with the disclosure opinions. i don't think we voted on the ordinance as it now reads. >> not to take issue, but i think we did vote on the the substance of what we wanted the disclosures to say. we got four votes on the substance of what it was to say. if any imhitioner were to -- if any commissioner were to look at this and say this differs from what we voted on, we should address it. rather than adding anything to it, that's not what we could do here today. does anyone disagree? >> no but i invite attention to our procedure now based upon the policy

questions starting on page 2 and -- in other words. is that a more efficient way to proceed? >> we can proceed any way any commissioner wants. if you want to address them -- >> that's the way i approach it. that's the way i made my yeses and nos. >> i think that would be an appropriate procedure. commissioner chiu. >> commissioner kopp, how do you suggest? >> going with the policy questions s on page 2. first is the prohibition term on contributions by contractors.

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

roman numeral iii. >> if it's helpful, commissioners, i'd be glad to go through the changes from the october draft to the november draft and give a brief explanation on why we made the change and why it's responsive to the motion and perhaps that would help jump start the discussion. >> chair keane: does that help commissioner kopp? >> yes. >> first change that we made was to section 1.126 which is the ban on contribution from caters to officials -- contractors to officials officials that approve the contract to the city. we strengthen the notification provision located in section 1.126-f in the ordinance, the concern raised by the commission is persons subject to the ban may not know they are and unwittingly

violate it. so they want to help ensure that all persons subject to this rule know that they are. generally speaking, the way this would work is that the city department that issues a request for bids would have to notify potential bidders that there are rules that they would be subject to if they submit a bid to the city because 1.26 applies to bidders not just parties with a contract already. that would give the entity or person notice that these rules exist. then once the city department selects a contractor they would again have to notify that party that they're subject to the rule for one year. then there are rules that the bidder or contractor, whatever the case may be, has to notify directors contractors and subcontractors to notify those

individuals that they're also subject to the rules. hopefully this provision will create a chain of notifications where by all parties who are subject to this rule will know and ideally they'll comply with the rule. >> i have a question and a comment. >> commissioner kopp. >> the question relates tots hundred thousand dollars. was there ever an analysis of average amount of competitively bid contracts? >> yes. we presented some data on this at the october meeting. >> so that's the source of a hundred thousand dollars. >> yes. that's correct. >> because the argument was between a hundred thousand and 50,000, as i remember.

>> that's correct. >> the other point i want to make is you have to be careful at least for this commissioner, in using the word "proposal." when it comes to contracts. because a proposal to me means a request for proposal. which is not competitive bidding. it's an rfp for shorthand. that's different than a competitive bid. thank you. >> dually noted -- duly noted. thank you commissioner. iii, the next change that staff made to the ordinance was regarding citizen suits and specifically the ability of ports to impose penalties in such suits. to recap, a citizen suit is when a private individual, we use the term "resident" in the ordinance brings

a civil3me action to enforce against a violation of article 1 chapter 17 our code. as it currently exists the law only allows private parties to enjoin violations ferlt law. as the ordinance stood at the last meeting, it would have changed the law so that private parties can ask the court to impose penalties on person whose violate that and that person would be entitled to collect 50% of all penalties collected from the defendant in some proceeding in response to the commission's most motion, we removed both provisions. as the ordinance now stands it's back to current law. so a private party cannot ask the court nor may the court awardal penalties in a citizen's suit and that person cannot get any penalty since they won't be imposed in the first place.

that change was made. moving onfké to item 4 -- >> do you want comments at the end of all of them? probably save time. >> yeah it might be. >> i don't want to nitpick each one. >> item 4 staff narrowed the prohibition in section 2.231 as it previously stood this provision would have prohibited board and commission members for raising funds for any city-elected officer or candidate for such office. but in response to the commission's motion staff returned this to an earlier version in which board and commission members are only prohibited from fund raising for their appointing authority. we changed that back to what i believe existed in the september version of the ordinance. number 5. staff removed section 3.20784 from

the ordinance. this subsection would have created a conflict of interest provision that would have prohibited officials from asking a person to convey something of value to a third party if that third party had a matter pending before the official. in response to the commission's motion we simply removed the subsection from the ordinance and in its place as i mentioned earlier we worked with commissioner chiu and with interested persons to craft a broad disclosure system. instead of have been a pro prohibition we have something that would require disclosure. i want to go into greater depth on this particular section since it's more technical than the other changes. so everyone should have a chart on the

table under agenda item 7 and i distributed one to each commissioner that's entitled "draft rules for behested payment disclosure explanatory visuals" i think it would be useful to make reference to this for the discussion. do all the commissioners have the chart? i'll also put it up on the projector. the top half of the chart gives a basic idea of what a behested payment look likes visually. you have an official making a request to a donor. to donate tie recipient typically an organization. then you see a payment which could

be cash goods or services going from the don'ter to the recipient at the behest of the official. that's the basic pattern we're dealing with. it doesn't vary too much. to the second half outlines the different requirements that are placed upon the different parties. this would be under the system created by the ordinance. so, first off, n think it's worth mentioning what a behested payment is under this new system. it's defined -- getting page number

for you. that is page 29 of agenda item 7. the payment that is made at the behest of an officer or agent thereof and is made principally for a legislative or government or charitable nature. we did create what i think is an important exception. you can see on the next page, that is for public appeal. public appeal is a request for a payment when such request is made by means of television, radio, billboard. the distribution of 500 or more identical pieces of printed material or a speech to 500 or more individuals. there is an exception in this reporting system where if an official makes a request via public appeal, then disloashesdisclosurethendisclosures

are not required. this came up and we tried to craft this exception so the appeal would not be caught up in this because it's not the kind of conduct that staff believes the commission was looking at when it was looking at 3.2784 when it instructed us to create a disclosure testimony. >> indeed we publicly said that at the time. >> right. so this is an idea contained in 3.2748 i wanted to highlight that to show that idea has been carried over and is it here. back to the chart each of the three boxes shows the requirements on different parties to behested payment. so the box labeled "official" show what is required of the official making the behest. all officials that make a behest would

have to notify the donor of the requirements of section 3.620. essentially telling the donor if you make a payment in response to the behest, you may be subject to certain requirements which are in the second box labeled donor. additionally only if the donor is an interested party which i'll discuss in a second must the official make additional disclosures. they always have to make the notification. if the donor is interested there is a filing requirement. an interested party -- i'll point you to the definition of that. that's also on page 29. an interested party shall mean -- there are two ways one is a party participant or agent of a party or participant involved any proceeding regarding administrative enforcement licensed,

permit or other entitlement for use. officer or including board of supervisors on which the officer sits. this concept is taken directly from 84.308 state law of the government code known as the political reform act. this is a concept that was already existing and in fact, was used in the ordinance that was passed last year that was introduced by supervisor peskin that addresses the same area, what that has the payment reported. second is to be an interested party is to be a person who actively supports or opposes a government the decision by an officer or any board or commission including the board of supervisors on which the officer sits. this is a similar concept to being a party or participant to a proceeding, however, the reason why we included this

is that proceedings for licenses, permits, entitlements for use and administrative enforcement, we thought was too narrow of a class to address all of the different kinds of patterns that the commission has been talking about. one example would be an ordinance. if a person was trying to persuade a supervisor to vote for a particular ordinance and they made a behested payment at the behest of3me the supervisor while they were trying to persuade the supervisor to vote for the ordinance, that would not be caught up for disclosure that are only looked ats. it's not a proceeding for a license, permit or entitlement for use. it falls outside that category. that's why we included the second group of actively opposing a government decision. i won't go into that in depth but it's a defined term taken from state law, actively support or oppose, that includes lobbying contacts, testifying

in person, or otherwise trying to influence that person's decision making. generally you think of this disclosure as only being required when the person making the payment has some kind of nexus, they're an interested party, vis-a-vis that official. they have a proceeding pending before another official or otherwise trying to influence the decision that official is making. the list of disloashes that an official must -- the list of disclosures that an official must make is listed here. the first four come directly from state law. that is required under the state behested payment reporting system which is done on a form 803. that's briefly the name and address of the donor amount and date of the payment, name and address of the recipient and a brief description of goods and services provided and a brief description of the purpose of the

payment. that's the information on form 083. the final two bullet points are disclosures that additionally the official would have to make and that is whether the official or related party which i can talk about in a second is a affiliate. the recipient sod if an official's brother wife or son is a c.e.o. of the place that the money is going through. is he directing the money to a relative's organization that deserves to be disclosed. lastly whether the recipient has featured or will feature the official in communications. this is paraphrasing the statutory language. this looks for the fact pattern of an official directing payments to an organization and the organization then spending money to dislibt literature

-- distribute literature that features the official in a positive light. that is something that should be disclosed. moving on to the second box, obligations that would be playstationed on the donor by this system. similar to officials, the donor must notify the recipient, this is in any case of a behested payment -- notify the recipient it is a behested payment. this is a heads-up to the recipient this is not just an ordinary check, this is made at the behest of an official. you'll see in the third box, there are requirements placed on organizations that receive over $100,000 in behested payments and may not always be vobo obvious to recipients whether or not a given payment is a behested payment. there is a requirement here that descroarns to tell them so they can know whether or not they're reaching the

hundred thousand dollars threshold. if the donor is an interested party as we discussed previously, that will trigger a disclosure requirement. this is only one disclosure requirement and that is to say what the matterrers pending before the official are the outcome they're speaking and outcomes they made with official in furtherance of the matter. the matter could be a proceeding pending or a decision the person is trying to influence. lastly, the requirements on major recipients, note that there aren't requirements on all recipients of bee payments. that is something we had in the draft. after listening to comment from interested parties, we decide it was better to put those particular disclosure requirements on officials. those are the last two bullet points under the official's disclosure. we don't have any disclosure rear

quiermts that apply to all resit yents. the -- requirements requirements that apply to all recipients. only if they receive a hundred thousand dollars in one calendar year. in looking at 803 filings made in three years, it appears only five organizations would qualify. this is not something that would happen a lot. we think that uniqueness justifies the more in-depth disclosure. there are three things that major behested recipients need to disclose. just to notify the ethics commission tha they've crossed the threshold. this wol allow the commission to know in a year's timefo would need to file so we can follow up and make sure they make their filing. the two disclosures they have to do which comes a year later after they've

crossed the threshold is to disclose the penses paid for with behested funds. this is important because typically when recipients receive this much in behested payments, it's for a particular cause. it's explicit in form 803s. this is to see if the funds generally went to that cause. lastly major recipients would disclose any matters pending before the official. the outcome sought and outcomes made with the official in relation to the matters. a similar disclosurer to what dwoarns make. again, wanting had -- donors would make,. are the organizations trying to influence decisions being made by city officials? that's a general overview of what the behested payment system staff created would do. and kind of a little bit about our

process of how we worked with interested persons in working towards making something that was targeted and carry out the intent that the commission directed us to try to achieve. >> okay, so again anchoring ourselves as to where we are here. we're at the end of a long process really that started out a couple of years ago with commissioner renne as chair. directing that this anticorruption ordinance be drafted and resurrecting prop-g. we went through a lot of work and came up with a proposed ordinance a few months back. and we -- which is in here. we debated that as a commission and we voted on it and it was voted 3-2 to approve it. we needed 4 votes because of the

procedural aspects of what we're doing here in order to push this forward to the board of supervisors. we then requested commissioner chiu and commissioners lee who were the dissenting votes to work with staff to see whether or not they could mesh in what their thoughts and concerns were so that we could come together with a final ordinance that had four votes. commissioners chiu and lee worked hard with the staff. we met again and we debated this measure and all of the things that are contained in it. we talked about this. orally the staff captured it and in my opinion they captured it very well. we voted and got four votes to transmit

this on to the board board of board of supervisors. we passed it. the question in terms what have we're looking at what it was that we did does any commissioner disagree with the substance of whatever -- what is in there as to what it was that we did at our last meeting? okay. this is what we did and this is what we voted on. once again, i want to commend commissioner chiu to the hard work that she did in the final crafting of this. so with that then, commissioners, i'll open it up to any discussion, thoughts that you may have. >> first would i like to thank staff and also members of the public to who took the time, not just in the interested persons meeting about disclosure,

but through the long process to hang in there with us to work on this to express your concerns and views. and propose alternatives that would work for your organizations and for support for your concerns. i think that the process has been educational. but i also feel like it's taken a while but i think that the time has been well-spent in terms of drafting something, an ordinance that i think is tailored to achieve the goals that we set out, which is to make the government more transparent and accountable through these provisions. >> chair keane: commissioner lee. >> commissioner kopp wanted to comment. >> go ahead. because i object to most of these. >> um, first of all, i wanted to thank the vice chair for her leadership in working with the staff and putting

together this really good document. as the chair said, it does capture the spirit of all the discussions that we had. i have a couple more minor things that is not going to stop this from moving forward. i continue to have concern over the definition of payment. because under the formal definition payment that including cash as well as goods and services? under this definition if the [inaudible] after the warriors were invited to speak on public civility at a public gathering, that is over a

thousand dollars in public service. that would trigger that someone has to make a report of a behested payment in some way. given the current environment i think a lot of non-profits are bracing for budget cuts to their nonprofit community service programs. this may trigger, you know potential don'ters to say, hey, is this not worth our while to get into this? that's my on going concern. the second concern is the disclosure requirement on the part of the payment recipient as stated here, they would need to report -- file a report on how they spent the donated money. as a nonprofit organization, they're

already facing a lot of administrative burdens. i am concerned this is one extra burden that they may need to deal with. again, these are just for me concerns that might be brought up at the port threafl this is a good product that captures what the commission is commit dod. i want to thank the vice chair and staff for putting this together. >> i just wanted to clarify one point, commissioner lee with regard to the donor. the donor is an interested party that would trigger -- that would trigger the reporting requirement. so if, for example, the wariers did not have -- warriors did not have any matter before the city and someone was invited to come and speak to an the organization,

they would not have a reporting requirement. >> but they're having an issue with the city for the next, what, three years? >> only if they had something before the official that ma made the request, would the disclosure be triggered. it would be a disclosure and they would still be able to do it. they would have to say this is what i did and the value of it. >> commissioner kopp. >> thank you. i've already given expression to my views on this version which was approved a month ago and which is now the subject of demands for more weakening of provisions. the president of the friends of ethics

characterized it is resulting in a system that exists now that gives nonprofits "privileged access." that's a term to remember. the well-used fraid is "half a loaf is better -- well-used phrase is "half a loaf is better than nothing." that's a cliche. sometimes it's accurate, other times it isn't. if this is the version presented to voters come june of 2018, and it's approved by voters the subject matter won't be revisited for at least five years and maybe a decade.

the first point which is made as a understand the procedure, mr. chairman, there can be further amendments to what was approvedded in october. or not? >> chair keane: no, there can be editorial changes that would reflect the intent of what it was that we passed. people voted and passed it. >> because you have demands, at least i've read a couple of them to make further changes. further weakening. i'd want to be sure that that is not part what have is contemplated procedure. >> chair keane: we've said that this reflects what we passed last time.

>> okay. so the private right of action has been beaten to death. there is nothing extraordinary about it. nothing! our packet contained i don't know how many -- 15 different ordinances of the city and county of san francisco with a private right of action. as a practical matter, there are two aspects. one, i don't fend on depend on our public attorney's office maybe the public dependersdefenders office to implement and sceuts execute the people's representatives legislation. whether it's the board of supervisors

this commission or some other. now, to inspire a private citizen to bring a private right of action so called, you have to make it worthwhile more than being able to look what i did for my city and county as a matter of civic responsibility. and that's the provision for penalties. for an individual recovery of 50%. there is nothing extraordinary about that. secondly i have doubts about the commission.

the mayor regularly has meetings whether it's monthly or weekly depending on the mayor of all the departments boards commissions they're part of the quote family closed quote. city family. that prohibition should have been the original version before it was altered to apply only to the appointing authority. thirdly motion of last month of created instead of local disclosure rules, that what exceeds any state requirement

and limited it to the payments of 5,000 or more and only at the behest of elected officials. let's think about the disclosure. disclosure is no enforcing mechanism. who is going to know this? except the relatively few people out of what? al850,000 residents? and probably 420, 430 registered voters except those in this room and maybe some 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 i was a supervisor, that press room was full.

every desk occupied. nobody will know about this except a very few number of the 850,000 people, approximately, who live in san francisco. let me just conclude by saying i am disappointed. i voted no last month because i perceived that my fellow commissioners wanted something to show for time and effort including all the time and effort of the staff. realizing that there are four votes that are going to pass it. then, i come