marcus. little marcus. this is my last grandchild right now, and i have four grand boys and one granddaughter. i have five grandchildren who is not here to see their uncle, and it's not sad -- i mean, it's sad. and they hear me talk about it all the time, and they always ask me, mommy where is -- or nana, where's aubrey at. they always see the pictures all the time. i want to be able to tell them something. i don't know what to tell them. i want to be able to say well, there was some justice in this case, but i'm not even able to say that right now. so i still need help. i still need closure. if anybody knows anything about this case out there on sfgov

television, please help. thank you. >> president turman: thank you. any further public comment? thank you, mr. salinas. >> thank you, president, chairman, commissioners. jim salinas. i'm here to thank the chief through the chair for the respect and the attentiveness he's given the latino community the last few months. i truly appreciate the fact that this chief is in great demand, and as i said earlier is working favorishly to try to reinstill the trust and the confidence and to build the community relations that were once much much better. i just wanted to come down here. i know that he's very busy, and i know that he's taking time. i also want to thank while i'm here deputy chief sainz, when

he's not able to come down and answer questions and continue to build on this relationship, that they're there. and again, despite the fact that all of them have a great many duties. lastly, i just want to say in december, commissioners, i read an article in the mission local regarding some issues with the sfpd, and i have to say that i hope maybe you all will take some of this to heart in that we're one of the few jurisdictions that can't locate our radio cars. we're a major metropolitan area, right, and -- and that's one of the things that i think that should be in place. i think it's a safety factor for the officers, but it also makes for a more efficient system for us to say hey, there's a radio car half a block where this is occurring. so i hope all of you will look

into that. and again, i want to thank the chief and the command staff and all of you for working so hard. obviously, all of you get paid a great deal of money to do this, so i want to continue to thank you for that. happy new year, and thank you for all the great work all of you are providing for our citizenry. thank you. >> president turman: thank you. further public comment? >> good evening, commissioners. first, to the chief, commissioners, and director henderson, i want to tell you how fantastic it's been working with you for the last four years. i'm no longer the president of rfj, but i want to say how much we appreciate your commitment to police reform, your commitment to social justice. it has been reflective these last years, and i want to say

the last quarter of 2017 has been the most exciting times for officers of color and also i think for our communities because we really truly feel that you have embraced wholeheartedly the whole idea of police reform and what the doj has been speaking about. and now it is my pleasure to turnover the leadership of the officers for justice to monday g -- montgomery singleton and trent williams. i will be as supportive of everyone as i possibly can, and i am sure you will continue to move in the right directions and be successful. and thank you chief for your commitment to the members of

the san francisco police department. >> thank you, lieutenant will coms for your service to the officers for justice and for the wonderful job that you've done as your long tenure as their president. further public comment? >> i was listening to public radio, and there was a show about tear gas and within it, they discussed tazers, and i don't know if you're all aware of this. i never heard it told at any meeting that i came to, and i would just went to almost all of them, that the information from body worn cameras and the tazers, the data goes directly to axon, tazers international. so why is a public service group, the police, sending data to a private corporation on the people of this city? if we -- we already have the body worn, and i'm still wait fighting against the tazers. i want to know about that. i want to know why this wasn't

discussed. if you all have an issue about it, i hope you do. you know, probably the next thing is they'll want to collate the data and sell it back to us. this is appalling. the brown act, my reading says you can discuss the actions of any employee of the city by name, so at these meetings, when we say we can't discuss them, that's not right according to the brown act. as i now under the brown act, have filed a complaint that is going to be heard by the sunshine task force. i differentiate what president turman says about tazers, and the action that you took at that meeting. for example, during the presentation, commander walsh twice apologized for going over time. no one stopped him. no one was concerned about it. he was, and i think that was

respectful of him to say that. but that the woman that was speaking for us, kristina maria was cutoff immediately and the sound killed at exactly two minutes with no opportunity or respect for her to say, could you wind it up, could you -- other people want to speak. you know you're a respected member of the community. no, she was just cutoff. and so again, there was not -- no one informed us of where that meeting was moved to, and people were locked out of city hall, and that is not legal, so we're going to fight this tazer thing, and we're going to keep being the best city in this country to not have violence and people being killed or tazered with electric shock that we at first also was never discussing was fatal. and now of course we have to own that that's the truth and over 1,000 people have died from tazers. and by the way, you know, the mental health issues within the police department and with

officers in the correctional institutes is three times as high. the suicide rate, three times as high as the general public. are we caring about them? where's the concern about their mental health because they're not doing well living with these things. thank you. >> president turman: any further public comment. seeing none, public comment is now closed. secretary kilshaw. >> clerk: item 6, public comment on matters pertaining to item 8 below, closed session, including discussion on whether to hold item 8 in closed session. >> president turman: members of the public, we are about to go into closed session to discuss both matters with legal counsel on existing litigation as well as other disciplinary matters. so any public comment on the fact that we're about to go into closed session and we're

going to vote on that? sorry. mr. alden stood up on that, and i thought we had public comment on that. all right. seeing none, public comment is closed. >> clerk: item 7, vote on whether to hold item 8 in closed session, and whether to vote on items 8 a and b, and san francisco commissioners 51.7 section. >> president turman: okay. commissioners, i'll entertain the appropriate motion. >> i think we should go into closed session. >> second. >> president turman: all in favor? all opposed? before we say good night to the public, is there anything you want to tell them about the next two weeks? >> we aren't meeting -- oh.

>> we're dark the next two weeks. sorry. thank you, commissioner. we are dark january 24th, january 31st, and we will be >> clerk: commissioner, we're back in session and you still have a quorum. >> president turman: okay. item 9. >> motion. >> second. >> president turman: okay. all in favor? any opposed?

thank you. that item passes. next item. >> clerk: item 10, adjournment, action item. >> motion. >> second. >> president turman: okay. all in favor? thank you, commissioners. we are now adjourned.

>> thank you all for being here this morning. i want to touch upon the encouraging news we heard last night, a federal judge just issued a stop against discrimination actions of the trump administration to deport daca recipients in the country. (applause)

and we all know it's not the first time the judicial system had to step in to protect our residents from the cruel and misguided policies of this administration which targets our immigration communities. while we were happy to hear this welcoming news, we know that in this city we must work together to protect our immigrant families. we must stand united in the face of intolerance and today with the opening of this new incredible family resource center we're showing that san francisco supports all residents. i want to thank sam reese here today for hosting us and acknowledge the latino parity coalition for providing families in need. and i'm delighted to be here to acknowledge the role they play

in diverse families and the newest member is the el centro bayview, which will open -- (applause) which will open its doors this friday. and it is just such a beautiful facility. i'm so excited with how welcoming it will be to the community. since 2009 the centers have operated across the city providing cultural services to families and youth. and with the opening of el centro bayview, san francisco can proudly say 26 centers are serving residents and neighborhoods throughout san francisco. they will be specifically charged with providing services to immigrant communities who for one reason or another are unaware or hesitate to reach out for support or services.

it is so important that these families step out of the shadows and receive the resources they need. we understand why they are weary to do so, they feel attacked, we hear the threats from our federal government every single day sadly. and just this monday president trump ended the temporary protective status for our el salvador residents who came because of a devastating earthquake in their country. and similar to haiti and nicaragua and pushing families out for trying to make a better life for themselves or trying to tear them down or build walls will not make our country safer or stronger. the people who are a part of this country, the immigrants and the folks who are part of the

communities is what makes our city and our country stronger. (applause) and we are here to remind residents in san francisco, in this city you will always be defended, you will always be supported and we in san francisco are a sanctuary city today, tomorrow and always. (applause) el centro bayview will be a place of community, a place where families can grow and thrive and children can reach their dreams. when we open the resource center we're telling the administration we will not back down from our values here in san francisco. we will stand strong, we will stand proud, we will continue to

do all we can to put the resources into resource centers like this that are going to continue to support our families. this is so important. this is a major step in the right direction and i'm so grateful to our many community partners who make this work possible, the ones in the trenches doing the work working with our communities and families and at this time i want to bring up sam reese for some comment. (applause) >> and i was going to talk a little bit about family resource centers but somebody beat me to it. (laughter) excellent, you're hired. so good morning everyone. before i say anything more, out of respect for someone who helped us lead the process for this site to become a reality,

honorable mayor lee. without his support we wouldn't be here this morning. with that being said, i would appreciate it if i could use one of my five minutes specifically in honor of mayor lee. a minute of silence, please. (moment of silence) thank you everyone. much appreciated. so, we are here at the site called southeast families united. this is an early care and family facility, one of 11 sites

mission operates in various neighborhoods in san francisco. this site is introducing a family resource center with one goal in mind, that is to provide our children attending these classrooms with the necessary support for our families to thrive. it is the parent who is the first teacher and the first teacher must always be ready to engage with their child, to support their child, to nurture the child so he/she can develop into an individual who is a contributor to our community and our society. the reality is that it's not just what the child learns in the classroom, it's also what happens at the home. unfortunately, many, most of our families whose child is attending our classrooms here are experiencing significant barriers, significant challenges at home. and mostly because they have

been through the eviction process. in san francisco in the mission district in the last 10 years we've lost 8,000 families. that's a lot of folks. and yes, they have moved, they have relocated to counties outside of san francisco, but the neighborhood of choice, there have been two neighborhoods of choice for families relocating, one is bayview hunters point and the other is the exselsior. it's no longer about families renting a room to live in, it's renting a hallway to live in. that places significant issues on our families and the family resource center with a competent team will support these families as they move on to hopefully a better situation. so, i also want to say that i'm

glad that our courts have stepped in to address the issue that was just identified by our mayor. but i also have another stark reality that i think we need to accept. our core value at mission neighborhood centers with early head start program is to prepare the child to enter school and succeed throughout so they can graduate and continue on to college and graduate. now, the reality that we're facing whether we want to accept it or not is in our prison system. let's all understand one fact, fact of life that you cannot contradict, not 50, not 60, not 70, not 80% but more than 80% of our prisoners, of our men and women happen to be high school drop-outs. over 80%. now, yes, it's true at this site

we'll only look after 52 children, but all the data that we have, every single report we have read, those children, children from low income families who have access to early education programs will most likely graduate and continue on to college and graduate from college. that's our goal and with support from mayor breed, we'll make that a reality. in closing, i would like to acknowledge that this effort, our coalition and frc at this point is being introduced because of two other organizations with mission neighborhood centers at the lead, good samaritan community resource center. (applause) is one of our partners. our second is mission economic association. (applause) so with that, i would like to

thank the mayor's office of community housing -- mayor's office of housing and community development. they keep changing the name. my apologies. (laughter) thank you very much. so i would like to introduce our next speaker, a client of mission neighborhood centers, a parent, anna (spanish) (applause) we'll have translation services for those who can't speak spanish. thank you. (voice of translator): hello good morning. i'm very grateful to be here to be here with everyone here at mission neighborhood centers.

(speaking french) (speaking spanish) (voice of translator): my experience with missionary neighborhood centers is they have provided childcare for me and one of my daughters is there as well. (speaking spanish) (voice of translator): there's a lot of people here in our community that don't know a lot about the services here in our community. (speaking spanish) (voice of translator): a lot of the barriers that our latino

community here face is not being able to speak english and just being afraid because they don't speak english. (speaking spanish) (voice of translator): many times we are in fear so we don't seek services because we don't have our immigration status in order. (speaking spanish) (voice of translator): our community here needs houses and jobs. (speaking spanish) (voice of translator): i think that if our community here was aware of more services, things would be a lot easier for us.

(speaking spanish) (voice of translator): i hope that together here in this community of bayview, together we can all do more. (speaking spanish) (voice of translator): many times in my case i live here in the bayview district but have had to go to the mission district to get services. (speaking spanish) (voice of translator): thank you for opening the center and for it being able to support me and to work together. (end of translation) (applause)

>> so our san francisco latino parity and equity coalition consists of 21 member organizations and included in those 21, the executive director is joining us this morning and is the next speaker. (applause) >> good morning. today is a good day. like a few days recently, when we're able to come together and not only celebrate the opening and expansion of services to latino families in san francisco and immigrant families, like we heard our mothers talk about how important it is to have access to services in your community and not have to travel, which is always difficult when you have children, especially if you're taking public transportation and this is a long time coming. the latino community has been

part of the bayview district for decades and has been underserved and so this space creates an opportunity to build a community and black and brown and multicultural alliances, mainly with low income families in our cities. we're proud of the advocacy that resulted in additional resources granted by mayor lee so we could be here today expanding services to our children and families and make the best investment a city can make, in our children, youth and families. and we're happy to say justice is ruling in favor of our youth once again and of what's right. san francisco has been a pillar in the nation and even internationally in terms of expanding protections for immigrant communities, making sure that our city is a city that affirms a value that we're a city for everyone. we know this ruling today will only lead us to a greater

victory for the dreamers, because they are one of our city's, our nation's greatest assets. they're bilingual, they're bicultural. today we're investing in our most precious assets, our children, youth and families. congratulations and let the work continue. thank you mayor. (applause) >> thank you for the words. and also mayor london breed, thank you for being with us this morning. it is greatly appreciated. and with those words, also thank all of you for joining us this morning and this press conference now is closed. thank you very much. thank you. (applause) ♪

♪ >> good afternoon and welcome to the regular scheduled meeting for the ethics commission for january of 2018.

i'm going to call the roll. we have excused absences on the part of vice-chairperson chiu and commissioner lee. commissioner renne? >> present. >> we'll proceed with item no. 2, public comment on matters appearing or not appearing on the agenda. >> good afternoon. my name is ellen. i am a psychiatric social worker for the department of public health for more than eleven years. i am a bargaining team member for the public services employees. we had approximately 16,000 public services employees. again, my name is ellen. that's ell-l-l-e-e-l-l-e-n.

i am here today to ask you to do an investigation on the ethics commission department. i represent public workers. i brought five public workers who experienced the discrimination with the ethics commissioners. we reported to them between april to june 2017. i was with them. i was with all five of them make the initial interviews. we provide with them a lot of reports, documentation to the ethics commission staff. three months ago, i was informed one of the employee from the ethics commission that they do not have our record anymore. i followed up with the ethics commission. they said there's no record to be found. five of us, plus myself, six people, still alive, still working for the city of san francisco. this is not acceptable.

many of the siu1021 members and city employees from different departments spoke to the civil service commissioners and testify at room 400. many locations, many members between 2015, 2017. we talked about bribery. we talked about extortion. we talked about retaliation, and we talk about ongoing investigation from the city attorney and the district attorney plus a federal bureau investigators yet the problem is repeated over and over again. the people who stood up and report extortion, it was never addressed. since i am a sub store i provide the services, and i took them and report. the ethics commission refused to follow up. the eeo department and the whistle blower and the dhrv

refused to keep records. i was told from the last time, 2017, the ethics commission will get a subpoena to get the records, but now we're told there's no record to be found. this is insane. and this is not democracy. this is called corruption. i am here to ask you to do an investigation for the ethics commission who is not acting ethically. that is not acceptable. we still alive. we still have a lot of work to do with retaliation and corruption. we stood up and said no to them. that's why they report. and myself, i'm a public services employee. this is not acceptable. i'm asking you to do an investigation for the purpose of record, i'm going to give you a copy of the record. >> could i ask you a question? >> yes. >> you said a number of things, but i'm particularly interested in one thing you said. you said that you gave the ethics commission staff, you and the people you represent, a

bunch of records? >> yes. >> let me finish. you gave them the records, and then you were told later on that they never got the records? what were you told? >> i brought five people and myself, six people. we did initial interview. we provide them with documentation and evidence of corruption and retaliation. >> did you give records to the ethics commission? >> yes. >> and then did they tell you that they never had the records? >> nothing. they said they do not have the record. >> okay. fine, thanks a lot. >> this is exactly what corruption is? >> do you have any response to that in terms of having been given records and then the records not being availability and then there were no records given? that's what i'm interested in. >> if we could handle it in

closed is session, i'm happy to provide any in addition, but i think it would be appropriate in a private session rather than a public session. >> this is a public entity. >> we've heard from you, ma'am. >> thank you. >> i don't have any problem in regard to the substance of whatever these complaints are, but we're being told and the public is being told that records were given to the ethics commission -- yes. >> you can sit down, ma'am. i need to talk here. records were given to the ethics commission, and the ethics commission has no idea about these records at all. i'm not asking about the substance of anything. we don't have go into closed session. i think that's significant. can you explain it? >> we did not receive records. we have no record of receiving records from the complainancomp.

>> okay. that's the response. >> let me follow with a question to ms. -- >> zh-h-o-z-h-o-u. >> okay. what day did you deliver such records? >> i met with the ethics commission staff between april to june 2017. >> i didn't ask you for the total meetings. what is the you handed documents, allegedly, to anybody on the ethics commission staff? >> to be fair, i do not have a specific date because i met with them many different days between april to june 2017. but i do have the record. i did not bring it right now in front of me. i do. we have the documentation. we have the record recorded. >> where? >> inside ethics commission

department with ethics staff. six of us still alive and still working for the city. >> all right. question to executive director. what is the customary practice when you receive written documen documents? >> if i could, your honor, judge kopp. the practice is to keep them in a complaints folder. >> all right. do you record the date received? >> we do, yes. >> okay. and do you have any such recordation of date of receipt of any such records? >> there's a bit of a nuance, to what we told her. we told her we do not have record of complaints being lodged by those six individuals regarding retaliation. we have documentation that they gave us in the course of a different investigation that is

connected to that investigation. but those six individuals were interviewed as witnesses and were never recorded as complainants. >> all right. so those documents relate to interviews? is that accurate? >> yes. >> and is there any document which records the date of receipt of any document which could be a complaint? >> if we understand it to be a complaint, yes, it's logged as a complaint. there's a time stamp placed on it, and it's placed into a folder. >> and do we have any such? >> not from the six individuals that she mentioned. >> thank you. okay. any further public comment?

>> hi, commissioners. i wanted to bring up an issue we brought up in the past. that's the state law requires agencies report publicly the disclosure of gifts they make available, tickets and so forth. that's a form 801 and 802. 801 is a gift to the agency, and 802 is a gift the agency makes. i would recommend those be filed with ethics, as well as different departments. it's very difficult to track what is going on. if you go back and look, for example, at the recreations and parks department, they're not reporting any gifts they've given since august of 2016, which seems unlikely. war memorial do it monthly, like they should.

i would recommend for transparency that these be filed with the ethics commission. thank you. >> further public comments? >> good afternoon. my name is douglas yepp. i've lived in san francisco for a dozen years. for the record, i have permission to be here. what i have to say is important. the first thing i have to say is i have to commend the present ethics commission for doing such a great job. i would like to put on the record that whatever you're doing is being closely watched across the country. the reason why it's on the record, so this way later on some of the bad boys can't say they weren't warned. due to a recent important death,

i was told in a certain way that a judgment was made, and as one person told me, that person received the ultimate penalty. i guess in human language, it's called the death penalty. we're not here to judge that person's character. all i have to say for the record is he's no longer here, and anyone can make their own conclusions as to whether that is good or bad, according to your own point of view. the first speaker, the lady that spoke just now, is very correct. i, myself, went through the same process way back when under the previous administration when i filed written documents regarding the so-called

residency of sean elsbren when he ran for re-election. when it came down to certain departments in the city, including the city attorney's office, all of a sudden there was no paperwork to be found. so, of course, nothing was ever resolved because i took the attitude sooner or later we'll get to the bottom of it. and like they say in the al capone case, if you can't go through the front door, we'll go through the window. thank you. >> thank you. any further public comment. if not, we'll then move to agenda item no. 3, discussion possible action on the draft minutes for the commission's december 18, 2017, meeting.

commissioner kopp? >> it's the first page, the word should be citin-i-t-i-n-g and should -- it says sighti s-i-g-h-t-i-n s-i-g-h-t-i-n-g. >> one other correction. in the sentence that follows -- or part of the correction cited by commissioner kopp, it says "within," and the within shouldn't have a space. >> i missed where commissioner kopp was, so i couldn't relate to what commissioner renne was

saying to make the change. >> page three, slash, six. at the bottom. at least when i printed it out, that's how it came out. >> how did i miss that? >> okay. page three. >> item five, public comment, it's citing. it has sighti-i-g-h-t-i-n-s-i-g. >> and then within? >> it's within, not with space in. >> okay. thank you. >> okay. any other comments on the minutes? without objection, commissioner renne's change will be made. >> and i will second. >> all those in favor of accepting the minutes, please say aye. >> aye. >> opposed?

the minutes are unanimously accepted. >> will there be public comment on the minutes? >> i'm sorry. yes. please. any public comment in regard to the minutes? thank you, director. okay. hearing none, we'll then go to item no. 4, discussion and possible action on amendments to the whistle blower protection ordinan ordinance, san francisco government code section 4.100ed a sac. >> good morning, commissioners. i'm just going to be giving you a brief background that i'm sure some of you are all familiar with, but for the purpose of the pubic and any members watching, i'm going to do a brief background, and then i will leave it to director -- deputy director bloom and myself. if you have any questions, we'll relay those after i'm reseated.

so this issue has come back up at the urging of the commissioners and the public because of the sort of long extension of this process. originally the whistle blower protection ordinance was reviewed as part of a civil grand jury report of 2014, 2015. based on ethics proposals, an amendment or several amendments to the whistle blower protection ordinance were passed to this commission and given to the board of supervisors in 2016. following that, it was asked that we confer with the controller's office, dhr, and other interested parties to meet and confer regarding the whistle blower protection ordinance. we had those on going discussions over the -- on-going

discussions over the past year. we're now prepared to finalize and have the final meeting. what your agenda item has in front of you today is a 2017 version that differs from the 2016 version that was submitted in 2016. i will run through that here, but we're urging that you all today vote to go forward in approving the 2017 version of this ordinance as amended by staff. briefly going into the 2016 version, you will see on agenda item four, page two, there's a list of seven items that were amendments proposed both in the civil grand jury reports and by discussions in front of this commission. all of those -- all the items listed in the list you have in front of you did get into the

2017 version of the whistle blower protection ordinance. but the whistle blower retaliation protection regarding those filed with the city and also the state agency. after engaging the controller's office and dhr, the 2017 version, we believe, reflects the sort of best opportunity to go forward with the whistle blower protection ordinance. you will note that the 2017 version adds provisions when a when issal blower complaint is -- whistle blower complaint is given to the staff. when it's a revised version, it's a portion of the law in

which the local agencies would be involved in a complaint that is made to a state or federal agency. both the controller's office and the department of human resources felt that because of a number of issues, that it would be almost impossible to track whistle blower complaints to the state or federal agencies or offices. the difficulty comes with a lack of sharing of certain confidential information and a number of other provisions that we simply in working with them did not believe we could include in this item. however, going to the 2017 version, there's expansions in the clarification that rectify that revision, including, as i said, requiring supervisors to obtain training that we have all taken regarding whistle blower

complaints and the proper method and procedure to identify those complaints and what they need to do when they receive those complaints and how to do that in a timely fashion. it delegates responsibilities amongst the parties who have oversight over the whistle blower thing or it clarifies the duties between the controller's office and our office for complaints. it requires that any city officer or employee who retaliates for protected activities be disciplined. it clarifies the procedure and the discipline involved. so i think with that, i'm sure there's a number of questions. i know the public is very interested in this item. i think i will open it up to you all for questions or clarifications regarding the changes between the 2016 version that you passed and the 2017 version we're asking you to approve and go forward with as it relates to this item. >> commissioners?

commissioner renne? >> what is the reason that whistle blower are not deemed to be protected when they blow the whistle through, say, a newspaper? why is it necessary to go to the supervisor rather than dealing with the retaliation because they've disclosed something to a newspaper or to a state agency? >> so, as a general policy matter, across governments, local, state, federal, whistle blowing to the press is not something encouraged by whistle blower protection laws. people are free to exercise their first amendment right and they're entitled to damages in the court system but as a general policy matter, in the

city, state, federal levels, they're trying to incentivize people to whistle blow internally so they can quickly deal with the misuse of city resources. >> i have a couple of questions. maybe my memory is faulty on this, as it is on many other things, but i had thought that last time when we talked about the whistle blower protection act, that we had talked about the fact that this commission did it quite a while ago, and it's not moving at all through the board of supervisors, and it seems to be dead in the water.

we came to a conclusion last time that would therefore go ahead and put this on the ballot. there was talk about that and whether or not we needed -- if there was something that needed meet-and-confer status, would that prevent it from being on the ballot? i've been looking forward to today to discuss putting this on the ballot. we can't do it anyway because we don't have four votes. we couldn't do it as a super majority, but what happened to the idea of putting it on the ballot? did that sort of just go up into the ether? >> yes. so this is addressed toward the end of staff's memo. the first is that met and confer

is required before any city agency, whether it's the ethics commission or the board of supervisors, it must still be completed before proceeding as a ballot measure. that must come first. secondly, and this was discussed in the staff memo, some proposals could fall outside the ethics commission's jurisdiction to place it on the ballot as a proposed measure. it's limited, as you know, to ordinances related to governmental ethics, campaign finance, conflict of interest law. and where certainly much of this will concern governmental ethingtethics issues, some may fall outside. >> thank you. we sort of had a very brief conversation about the whole idea of if there was a bar to putting it on the ballot because

meet and confer requirements regarding some of the matters in here, that those matters could be separated out, and we could put the bulk of it, which is the rest of it that doesn't confer, doesn't have anything to do with meet and confer, we could put that on the ballot. is that something that we've given up on? >> i don't think we've given up on that at all. i think to the city attorney's point, the first question would be -- well, the first question is which version are you interested in putting on the ballot? >> okay. >> we feel that the agendaizing the item today is to get clarification from you all about if this is a version that you want to authorize us to move forward with through the meet-and-confer process. on that note, we do have a second meet and confer scheduled

for january 24th, next week. so i don't know how long that process will take, but this is the second of meetings we've had to discuss these issues. we want to make sure we use the version of the ordinance that the commission is comfortable with. once we know that, if the commission chooses to adopt this, we'll proceed with understanding from the city attorney, are there things that need to be bifurcated, and then we can bring them back to the february commission meeting for the commission action at that time. to place something on the ballot for june 2018 would require the commission to provide that ordinance to the elections department by the end of february. the commission's next regular meeting is scheduled for february 16th. so there are some moving targets here, but there could be some time for the commission to do that in time for june 2018 meeting, depending on how the conversation with the meet and

confer goes. >> mrs. bloom? >> i wanted to add that the part that's subject to meet and confer in the whistle blower protection applies to the report to the ethics commission. there can be a fine to that. that expands the category of protectedtive from the departments where you have to file these complaints from four to 8,000. so if we removed that portion from the whistle blower protection ordinance in order to push it through the ballot and not go through meet and confer, we should substantially water down what we've attempted to do here. we've ruled that as not an option. we want to go through the meet and confer option, satisfy our obligations, and get the version whether through ballot or board

of supervisors. >> well, that makes sense. by separating out parts that include meet and confer, we're just left with nothing that has any teeth, that's certainly not worth doing. it's just that we've now come on to two years since this was under commissioner renne's watch when he was chair, and we're still futsing around with it. now we're going to meet and confer, which seems to be something that takes forever. it would seem like it's going to preclude us from getting it on the ballot, at least for june, maybe for this whole year. am i wrong on that? >> i have an update on that regard. i spoke with the department of human resources staff who is working on our meet and confer process for us. she seemed very optimistic that the january 24th meeting would satisfy the concerns the unions

raised in the very first meeting, and perhaps it would conclude after the second meeting. she thought that maybe there would be a third, but she was pretty optimistic that this second meeting would conclude the meet and confer process. if that's the case, then we would be able to move forward in february with council recommendation to remove portions of this version that apply only to the controller and have nothing to do with governmental ethingtonics, and we can then put that on the ballot. >> good. why don't we keep that in mind as a priority rather than just go back into the weeds for meet and conferring to get this thing in shape to go on the ballot and stay optimistic in regard to what you've been told, that it will be done at the end of january, and we can get it on, rather than having it drop down the rabbit hole for another couple of years or forever. so let's see what happens then. hopefully, if everythingks