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 everything works

out with the meet and confer, and if we could have this at our next meeting, which would be our last chance, really, to have a vote, get four votes and put it on the ballot for june, i think that's something we really should try our best at doing. that's my opinion. commissioner renne? >> well, as i understand what staff is asking us first, because we originally had a 2016 version, which is the one we sent to the board. after their meetings, they made some revisions, and they're now proposing the 2017 version which they want us to use yes, that's the one we want to go forward with or, no, we want to go with 2016. >> i understand that. >> so the first vote -- >> but i've got some questions.

i understand that, but my point is whichever one we decide, whether it's the 2016 one or 2017 one, let's move it to get it on the ballot. >> absolutely. but i have a couple of questions about the meet and confer. suppose you meet and confer and the agency says we don't like this, or we want that, and we don't agree to what they say, can we ignore them? so it depends on a lot of factors, obviously. at the next meeting, we'll see what the concerns are about, if anything. maybe they just need an update. maybe there won't be any further dispute, but a meet an confer doesn't require complete agreement on all points. exactly what would be required to satisfy our meet and confer agreement short of full

agreement depends on -- at least it's my understanding -- depends on the category of employees affected as well as the mous that govern those categories of employees. it's a moving target, as far as those variables and what we need to proceed with and considers their objections and concerns, if any. >> it's hard to say at this point in process. >> but legally is there any way that they can block us if they don't agree? >> i mean, i think it's more of a procedural requirement as opposed to a substantive requirement. if we go and complete all the legally required procedures, then we satisfy meet and confer. if we ignore those procedures or don't comply with those procedures, i believe there's other actions they can take to keep us from doing it, but, it's more about crossing all the ts, dotting all the is, and taking care of the steps we need to take. it's not my understanding that meet and confer requires all

agreement by all interested parties on the proposal. >> my understanding is agreement is really irrelevant, as long as you've met and conferred and covered all the items you have to meet and confer on, that's what is required. both sides can be in complete agreement. you move on, then, to the next step. the meet and confer process is over. it's been met with. >> right. it's more of a procedural matter, going through the process. >> well, you articulated the point i wanted to ask a question about. meet and confer, you meet and confer once. there's no veto power over the action of this commission. i mean, how many times do we have to meet and confer? >> again i'm not sure i can

provide you with an answer today. there's a lot of variables. >> well, i would like an answer. >> we have to know what concerns we have, what objections they have. >> okay. could you give us a written answer by our next meeting? >> i can certainly provide you with further guidance. that guidance may not simply be a number. >> who are we meeting and conferring with? name the unions. >> the first meeting involves several different unions. the ones expressing interest were 1021. they will be present on january 24th. and then the department of human resources staffer advised that a couple of other additional unions who weren't there the first meeting were interested in coming to the second meeting as well. i will say that i put to her the question of how many meet and confer meetings are required. she said generally a rule of thumb is two to three. >> that's just a rule of thumb. we're up against a time

deadline. >> right. there's nothing in the memorandum of understanding a required set number of meet and confer. >> i want to vote on february 16th. submit this to the voters in june. this is like a free for all. >> i agree. >> two unions at first and then two more are going to jump on and say, well, we only got one meet an -- and confer. so we want three. >> whoever we have to meet and confer with, please meet and confer with them before the next meeting, get that over with, get that out of the way so we can move forward. if they say, well, we want more meetings to meet and confer, our position is we've met and conferred. >> i will say, if i may, for what it's worth, i have found the meetings to be constructive. in the first meet and confer, the unions pointed out some

language that perhaps didn't mean to them what the people implementing the law, what we thought it meant. we were able to make changes to the language in order to address their concerns strengthened the law. i think they have be constructive. i just wanted to point that out. >> i think you're quite correct. oftentimes meet an confer comes through with valuable results for both sides. our problem is now we're up against a deadline of something that we would like to move forward that has been just sort of floating for the last couple of years, and we want to fish or cut bait on it. yeah, meet and confer can provide some valuable stuff, but we've got more important priorities in terms of putting this thing on the ballot. and we want to put it on the ballot by june. in order to do that, we have to vote on it next time. so can we -- do we have that understanding? that emphasis being made to the

unions as well, we're meeting, we're conferring. after that, god bless you, good-bye. it's over. >> no. i think we're very clear on the commissions message. >> the second question: how long will it take to ascertain any portion of the drafted ordinance that's outside the jurisdiction of the san francisco ethingtonics commission? -- ethingtcs commission? >> by when? >> by the next meeting. >> logically, you should have it before so staff can then revise the draft. we don't have to try to work through it.

i request through the chair that that opinion be rendered a week before, by february 19th. >> and by working through the proposed ordinance actually meant to include -- i should have been more clear -- should have meant that i was going to include staff in discussion of the review. as with all projects, i work closely with the staff to get their views as well. >> okay. so we have, then, to make the decision as to whether or not we want to adopt the staff's recommendation that we go with the 2017 version as opposed to the 2016 version. do we have a motion to that effect? >> so moved. >> i will second it, but i have a couple of questions. >> sure. >> friends of ethics has pointed out some things that they would like changed in the 2017 version. one is the substantive

motivating factor to contributing factor. what is staff's response to that? >> staff has not researched that as a policy option because in 2016, the commission considered that in context with that version of the wpo, the original version that you passed, and declined. so we did not view that as something that the commission was supportive of pursuing. >> well, the requirement that the whistleblower who has been retaliated against, they do have the burden of proof, but under this version, 2017 and 2016 as

well, they had to prove that it was a substantial motivating factor as opposed to a contributing factor. >> the way the commission dealt with that in 2016 was to clarify in the whistleblower ordinance is that it doesn't apply to the review complaints and if that's if the complaints meet other criteria from protection for retaliation, from investigation that, the staff would stand in the shoes of the complainant, and the investigation would circle around whether or not retaliation was a substantial motivating factor. and the language is retained. staff has already implemented that change, and as a result, we've been able to open up quite a few more negotiations than we had in the past. essentially what that means is when somebody can prove they engaged in protective activity,

we'll investigate to determine whether they adverse employment action was a result of the whistleblower complaint. >> so the contributing factor is at the initiation stage. they don't have to prove that it was a substantial motivator at that point. >> as a practical matter, they never have to prove anything. the staff investigators stand in the shoes of the plaintiff when prosecuting before this commission. there's no role in actually prosecuting the case, so the party that has to prove is us. we're entitled to subpoena the records they say they can't get. we can get those records. we can send preservation letters, subpoenas, interview witnesses. so, to the extent that the

complainant himself is not entitled to see the records is somewhat irrelevant if they can establish that they were demoted, fired, or suffered a bad performance appraisal after they filed a whistleblower complaint. so the substantial motivating factor only comes into play when the commission or the staff at the commission administrative level? >> exactly. >> requires it by preponderance of the evidence? >> exactly. >> and i think that may be consider with case law. >> yes, that is correct. >> the other question that they brought up is whether or not there should be whistleblower protection against retaliation by city-funded agencies. in other words, that if maybe they don't lose their job but they get kicked out of public

housing, and the reason they get kicked out of public housing was because people were upset, but the fact that they were whistleblowers, are they covered under the present version? >> i do not think so. whistleblowers can only be city employees or city contractors. we could maybe make an argument that a lessor to public housing is a contractor, but we would have to examine the case. >> but it's an employee that lives in public housing. >> so the retaliation would be kicking someone out of their house? >> yeah. >> that would not be covered under the 2017 version. it only covers adverse employment action. >> commissioner kopp? >> is there any case law in these two standards, contributing factor and --

what's the other one? substantial motivating factor? >> there is. there's a lot of case law on retaliation. >> i'm surprised. so we're not going into the unknown. >> exactly. right. >> and your conclusion and recommendation recommendation as a practical matter is substantial motivating factor is justifiable? >> we have not put together a position on that issue because the commission adopted the language as-is in 2016. it did not affect the stakeholders we were working with, the department of human resources or labor unions. so we've just left it the same as it was in 2016. well, i will apprehend i will

hear from mr. bush on contributing factor. i've never read any cases which involve either phrase. so maybe you will be asked to prepare a brief for us. >> okay. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> so we have a motion, and it's been seconded to approve the 2017 version. do we have public comment on those? >> good afternoon, commissioners. i'm dr. derek kerr. i'm a whistleblower. no time has ever been substantiated by the ethics commission. perhaps the burden of proof placed on whistleblowers is too high. in order to show retaliation by a preponderance of the evidence,

whistleblowers needs access to the evidence. and to show that our whistleblowing was a substantial motivating factor for getting fired, we need access to the evidence. the trouble is that that evidence is in the possession of the retaliator, not the whistleblower. what happens with retaliation is that the retaliation is applauded and arranged by a group of people who communicate in email and meetings about how to go from excreting somebody from the organization. the only way to get that information is by discovery process and by subpoenas and depositions. i know this because my claim was rejected by the ethics commission, but when we went to

court and had all the emails and deposed all these people, it all came out. ethics investigations of whistleblower retaliation do not include subpoenas and depositions. so you're imposing a legal standard of proof but without the mechanism for accessing the evidence that you need. that's why ethics has been a dead end for whistleblower retaliation claims. osha faced this claim also. what they've done is lower their burdens of proof. instead of requiring a preponderance of the evidence, they accept evidence that provides a reasonable cause to believe that retaliation occurred. and instead of having to show that retaliation was a substantial motivating factor,

whistleblowers can just show that it was a contributing factor, that way osha can increase from 3% to higher than 5%. so if you keep the current evidentiary standard, nothing will change, is my prediction. and i do appreciate all the work and effort gone into improving the ordinance. thank you. >> thank you. >> may i ask a question? >> yes, commissioner kopp? doctor, commissioner kopp would like to inquire. >> do you use the phrase reasonable cause, is that the same in your presentation as contributing factor? >> reasonable cause is a counterweight to a preponderance -- no. no.

>> well, you want contributing factor as the standard, but you also use reasonable cause. >> yeah. >> i want to understand whether that means the same as contributing factor. >> okay. so you have substantial motivating factor versus contributing factor, and then you have preponderance of the evidence versus providing evidence that gives a reasonable judge reasonable cause to believe that retaliation occurs. so that's where osha is going. they're sort of lessening the burden of proof. >> i know it's lessening. >> doctor, the osha handbook is a handbook for investigators, not for administrative judges. as i understood what was said,

we're essentially doing what osha said. and that is, if they look at what the whistleblower claims retaliation was, what he or she presents to the staff, if there is probable cause that there's merit, it then becomes a matter for the ethics commission to hear as an administrative judge and the staff has the burden which you say you had to do when you got out of civil court, but that the staff does have the power to subpoena records. >> but they haven't done so. and that's why your record is zero over 23 years. >> i understand that, but what we're hopeful -- >> okay. and that's good. yeah. >> this ordinance, assuming it's accepted by the voters, that we'll be able to do essentially

what osha and its investigators guidebook was, that all the investigator had to do was satisfy himself that there was probable cause, and it then would go to an administrative law judge. and that's exactly what, as i understand based on what was said, this ordinance would do. thank you. >> good. >> larry bush, for friends of ethics. a couple of points. i was not aware of, until just now, that the whistleblower ordinance only applied to employment issues and not the other actions that the city can take that are retaliatory. i'm well-aware of the fact that when we've had complaints of mismanagement of assisted housing developments, where the waiting list was rigged, and

bribes were paid, that people who filed those complaints then were expelled from the housing. and your ordinance, as you've got it drafted, would not cover those kind of situations. so if it's not going to be covered here, it needs to be covered somewhere so those kinds of things don't happen. i would point out that some of these complaints are filed with the fbi and with departmental inspector general's office. i think people should be protected against retaliation if they file a complaint in those places. i understand the argument that the city wants to channel complaints through city agencies, but that's for bureaucratic convenience. that's not to benefit the person who's facing retaliation. i think you need to put the focus on who it is that's at risk. a bureaucrat is not at risk. the person who loses their housing or loses their job or the conditions of their

employment is at risk. we just had a case in the newspapers of a police officer who won a $100,000 judgment, according to the examiner two days ago, for retaliation after she took the story to the newspapers. that was a case that did not go through city channels. it went directly to court because she did blow the whistle to the press that there was an official in the city police union who was embezzling funds and that the city did nothing about it. she was right to take the case forward, but why should it always fall to hiring an attorney and going through all of that when we have a provision that protects people against retaliation except in those cases where the complaint is not lodged with the city agency? so what we are requesting is that when you look at this in february, that you ask for a version that includes protection

against retaliation, complaints that are taken to another agency, federal or state, or which go to the press, and where there is, then, a case of retaliation that is lodged and it comes to ethics, which handles other retaliation cases. and we also think that those should not be limited to employment. you've had testimony from witnesses who came, losing their houses conditions because of their complaints. we know what those conditions are. people should not lose their housing because they brought that to the attention of officials. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> can i ask the city attorney if we adopt the suggestion of mr. bush, if we refer to u.s.

government agencies and the press, is that something that's sort of outside our jurisdiction? because it's not really dealing with a claim from somebody that they got kicked out of housing. that may not be in the jurisdiction. i don't know. when you address the question of those things being outside, if we were to adopt the amendment suggested by mr. bush, would it be a provision that is beyond the jurisdiction of the ethics commission? >> i'm not sure if i could answer that question now. i think i need a little bit more time to think about it and get the staff's view on it as well. i would observe that it would be a fairly significant change of this ordinance. >> fairly what?

>> significant change of the ordinance. i think as referred to, in terms of retaliation, it refers to adverse employment action. so if we start bringing other types of action, that would be a pretty big shift in the ordinance's focus, but we can take a closer look. >> but if it was an employment action, suppose some employee went to the press, and he or she gets fired for going to the press and making the complaint, that's retaliation possibly. >> right. >> it wouldn't be covered under our ordinances, as i understand it. >> correct. >> all i'm saying is if we expanded it to protect -- even if you say eviction from an abode may not be an employment action and that this

whistleblower thing is focused on employment action, i'm just curious as to why if the policy is by some of the city agencies, well, we don't want to encourage people to go to the fbi. we want to encourage them to go to the inspector general or somebody else. we want them to come to the supervisor. and the employee is frightful of doing that because a supervisor is the one that can kick them off the job. so they say, i will go to the fbi. i'm sympathetic to the idea that whistleblowers should be protected regardless of who they went to if, in fact, they uncover or they disclose some wrongdoing by the city and they lose their job as a result.

>> i think this may be more of a policy issue. so i will defer to deputy director bloom. >> so if you whistle blow to any state agency about state or federal matters, state money, federal money, state housing discrimination rules, you are protected by state and federal whistleblower statutes. so it is not that the city is denying those people a right by excluding them from the city law. regarding first amendment whistleblowing activity, those people who are fired for engaging in first amendment protected conduct can file federal actions in federal courts and obtain damages that far surpass anything that this commission could impose of a single violation of $5,000 for a retaliation activity. i think if you talk to dr. kerr, you would find that the damages he won in his lawsuit far exceeded the $5,000 we would have zinged his employer with.

to me, not including first amendment protection in a retaliation context like this, is not a negative. i don't see how our law would be additive in that scenario. if someone is whistleblowing to the press, they're claiming federal court is much better than anything we could do to protect them. >> commissioner kopp? >> can you distinguish the situation from other complaints to us under which within 10 days city attorney, district attorney have a right to say, i want to investigate this, and we give

them 90 days. if there's no action, then we reassert our authority. here you have somebody filing a complaint with whatever state department it is, fbpc, do they handle retaliation? no. i don't know which one. filing a complaint with the federal government. could we have a system where we would wait 90 days or 110 days? see if anything happens there and then we pursue it. one of the things which concerns me is a duplication of effort by governmental agencies. >> i think that's right. i think there's the potential of

duplication of effort, but, more importantly, there's no requirement in any law that the entity filing a complaint with the state tell us. so we wouldn't know whether or not they're conducting an investigation into our city. i think that's the concern that people have, the government has, with encouraging people to whistleblow internally so that the government agency itself can conduct the investigation. so if somebody filed a complaint with the state alleging misuse of city funds in city aberrations, that would be covered by whistle blower protection laws. and that state would be bound by their own requirements, and they wouldn't be able to share information about it. so it really is black hole of information. the department of resources and the controller's office were right to point that out to us. we were receptive to the argument. we thought it was important enough to strike that from the law. >> well, you would know about it

because the employee who got retaliated against would presumably make some claim. >> not necessarily to us. i mean, they should rightfully make it to the state. presumably they could make the claim to us, but how -- like, what would we investigate if the state was already investigating the conduct? it doesn't seem additive to us. >> okay. >> my thought is, commissioner renne, unless the employee tells our staff, our staff wouldn't know. >> right. >> okay. >> mr. bush has a point to make on this. >> in most federal agency, it provides money to the local government. there's an agreement that the federal agency will inform the local government. when i worked at hud, we did

that when we had complaints come in with housing violations, corruptions, bribe, people jumping the waiting list. we then provided that information to the city attorney office as well as the mayor's office and the housing authority. it's required as a condition for them receiving money from the federal government. i would suggest you ask dhr to provide any copies of laws that says it's not going to be provided. i don't think that exists. i think that's a convenient explanation for not doing something. secondly, i think that if you take an action right to court, it means that you have deep pockets of your own to hire an attorney or else find an attorney who will take on the case on contingency. when i had to file on a discrimination case as a federal employee, it cost me about $50,000 before we had any kind of resolution. there are not that many

employees who have enough access to cash to do that. i was fortunate. if i hadn't had that, i would have just been out of luck. the third thing is even if the federal government or state agency finds retaliation, they can't do anything to the city employee who retaliated. but if you did something here, you could direct to this agency head that the person who did those wrongful actions pay a penalty of some kind. you can't do that otherwise. so there are good reasons to proceed with this in a broader scope, in my view. thank you. >> can i make a clarification? >> sure. >> there seems to be a little bit of confusion about whether or not we should or can take complaints alleging retaliation based on discrimination against employees because they're in a protected class or based on sexual harassment complaints. i just want to be clear that the

ethingtonics -- ethics commission does not have jurisdiction. the equal opportunity office is the agency delegated under the state laws. everything has to be reported to them, all investigations are run through them. well not be able to get jurisdiction over those complaints, nor do we have it now. i just wanted to make that abundantly clear. >> thomas buckley. i wanted to pick apart a very precise definition of misuse of funds. it sa the 2016 verse says misuse of city funds is any use for city funds used outside and it states

outside state and federal law. this is consistent with every version. the misuse of funds provision is very specifically defined and what does it mean in the negative? i would like to compare that against some recent scandals. the city of beaumont formed a joint exercise of power authorities with a redevelopment agency which then promulgated a facilities district which floated bonds, $300 million. it was sitting in the bank accounts that went to the city of beaumont's finance manager and three members of the city council. not once in a quarter of a century did that agency ever report any financial -- ever release financial reports. it was a massive scandal, and under this proposal ordinance, whistle blowing on that would not be protected because it's not city funds. we could continue. let's say the 2005 community college district scandal whereby

the real misuse of funds was coming out of an agency in the form of a city college foundation. who was writing the checks? city civil service employees who are also the same civil service as the community college district. so we have defined this very e precisely so it protects the controller who acts as the agent of a special number of districts. finance corporations, does this cover the san francisco finance corporation? that part of the city? what about the county office of education? i have a suspicion, and i think it is reasonable, that the city unshifts a substantial part of the erav, and the reason why they can do that is you should this definition. misuse of city funds should mean any misuse of city funds which the city believes is theirs for purposes outside those directed by city. so if the state directs that the

erav go to the school district, that's not protected under this ordinance. it's a very, very specific text. i don't know where it comes from. it protects the controller and the city attorney. thank you. >> out of the mouth of babes, it seems. i was going to speak on the same point. we've had the city county dodge. this is when there's an issue with a city-county agency, in the old days, redevelopment, for example. if a commissioner was appointed and this commissioner had been kicked out of public office for corruption in a city commission, the city county state dodge --

city county state dodge, they would be allowed to serve on a city-state or local state commission like redevelopment. and this came up with mr. homm, the late, great, mr. homm who did many things in his career. some of them were fairly nefarious, and he ended up getting caught up in the city-county dodge to his favor. these were basically attorney opinions, city attorney, state attorney general, whatever, where this law became null and void when it came to a city and county commission. this gentleman who just spoke really did a pretty good inventory that gives us the magnitude of the problem with these dual agencies under creations under state law but basically operated by the city.

so i did want to say that the purpose of the whistleblower ordinance, according to mr. bush, is to support and help protect the whistleblower and not the city attorney or the city agencies or departments or anyone else. it's for the whistle blower. that's our focus here. i did want to say that you've done a lot of work already on this bill, maybe not you directly, but your staff sat in on those meetings. so you have done substantial meet and confer on this in the draft of 2017 and that the 2017 draft is your agent. and the issue is meet and confer in support of the agent, which

is, in fact, the legislation, or the proposal that's going to go to the voters. so you should add those meetings that you've already had or participated in because they're on the list. you've already met now upcoming on the 24th, at least twice with some of these unions. so be sure to include those in theally. -- in the tally. >> good point. thank you. >> it might help people to look at page -- agenda item page 20 of the ordinance under definition. 4.10 sub a. city or city agency, whenever it's referred to in the ordinance, shall mean the city and county of san francisco, its departments, commissions, task forces, committees, and boards. so there's no risks that county agencies will not be included in

this proposal. >> thank you, ms. bloom. >> good afternoon. my name is douglas yep. i was put into a very precarious position in 2007 by my employer, the department of public health, san francisco general hospital. to make a long story short, it was very complicated, and, nip, there were many obstructionists within the city system who benefitted from slowing down the whistleblower system. a certain person was credited with starting the whistleblower system as an investigator. in my opinion, by the time he became senior official, he had

switched sides, basically saying one thing and doing the exact opposite behind the scenes. in my opinion, certain city agencies, one of them sitting right here, have a vested interest to slow down the process by their sole call interpretation of what the rules really mean. from my experience going through the whistleblower system, going through the court system, and finally settling with the city, for the record, i feel that there is a lot more built-in obstruction and so-called interpretation that the public is very unaware of. people like oliver luby, derek

kerr, joe lynn basically figured it out. unfortunately, the public is unaware of the obstructionist. so i would like to caution everybody, for the record, that certain city units have a vested interest to slow the process down and basically say one word, i will not run for mayor but then exactly do the opposite. i am the choice of everyone. and we saw what happened to the city when people say one thing and do the exact opposite. >> thank you. any further public comment? all right. well, we have on the floor a motion to adopt the 2017 version, and it's been sect --

seconded. all those in favor, please say aye. >> aye. >> those opposed? the measure passes three to zero. okay. we now go to item no. 5, discussion and possible action -- >> whoa. i'm sorry. commissioner kopp? >> i had spoken with the executi executive director and deputy director about page 38. and the deputy executive director suggested language to correct that. and i'm sorry. >> that's all right. that's fine. >> at the top of the page where this defines unlawful -- it's

under definitions. defining unlawful activity, violations of any activity, et cetera, i wanted to insert the word "written" and -- what was the term? >> i think the concept was online one, on page 38 of the agenda. unlawful activities should be any -- i think that was judge kopp's amendment to that line. >> all right. so why don't we start the vote. >> yeah. >> okay. i will move to rescind the last vote. >> okay. all those in favor -- >> aye. >> aye. >> all those opposed? >> so now we have an amendment -- >> i will remove the language on the first line on page 38.

>> second? >> second. >> all those in favor of the motion as amended, say aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> opposed? the motion passes three to zero. let's go to no. 5. discussion on possible actions on the amendments of enforcement and sunshine regulations. >> thank you, chair. this is the same regulations we brought before you in -- what month is this? december. there's a couple of changes that were requested by the commission. actually, just one change requested by the commission and an additional change requested by the city attorney's office so that we could bifurcate a certain piece of the regulations

out and go to the meet and confer process while not derailing the entire regulatory change. so the first is that commissioner kopp and commissioner renne expressed interest in providing three minutes or allowing people time for rebuttal during their presentations to the ethics commission on their cases, and so i incorporated that change into -- let me see here -- section 10.3 on agenda page five, item 30. you're going to go there, it's not going to be there. i apologize for that error. on section 10, the second change is to -- we were advised by the city attorney's office, that if we were to include the new requirement or new option for the commission to assess administrative penalties against people who violate the sun --

sun shine ordinance, that would affect the employees. we agreed with that advice and struck that provision from this regulatory scheme so that we can go through meet and confer separately with the unions, and then we'll bring back a future version of these meetings to you once that's concluded. that adds back in the ability to get administrative penalties. other than that, the law remains substantially the same, if not identical to what you saw in december. >> so there would be nothing for us to vote on in regard to -- >> i can tell you exactly what changed. and then we can just incorporate the language. what we posted is correct. [off mic] >> yes. what we posted online for the

notice today is the correct version. this is just a photo copy for the agenda materials. >> and we voted on that last time? >> we did not vote on it last time. you put it over to this time. >> okay. if i understand, on this agenda item, we take two votes. one is to repeal the regulations for sunshine ordinance. right now, there are two separate. and then to accept the staff's recommendation of the new regulations, which incorporates the sunshine ordinance. >> makes sense. >> am i right on that? >> correct, yes. repeal the sunshine ordinance regulations because they're being replaced with this combined. >> yeah. >> right. >> okay. i would make a motion that we repeal the existing enforcement regulations relating to the

sunshine ordinance. >> second the motion. >> okay. >> do we have public comment on the motion? all right. well, then we'll vote on it. all those in favor of the motion, please say aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> opposed? none. motion passes three to zero. commissioner renne? >> i make a motion that we accept and adopt the regulations as amended as described by ms. bloom. >> second the motion. >> all right. >> that motion has been seconded. do we have any public comment on the motion? yes, sir? >> i would urge you to consider

amending implementation of these regulations with a poison pill, that as a result of the meet and confer, you actually can create administrative penalties for city employees who disobey the sunshine ordinance. then these regulations will go into effect, but right now, we're protected by ab1455. we don't know anything. these decisions are being made in private, and the city attorney is advising you on ways to avoid the sunshine ordinance via meet and confer. that's what the city did right to the ethics commission and violated the sunshine ordinance. last may, i walked into the controller's office, the first of my life, i walked in, made a request, nothing. came back the next day.

executive assistant to the controller said, you know, there's six people working on how to answer your request. nothing. nothing. nothing. nothing. ten days later, please speak to the school district. two sentences. something's wrong. and without teeth, you're not going to fix anything. thank you. >> thank you. any further public comment? all those -- well, we have the motion as seconded. all those in favor, please say aye. >> aye. >> opposed? motion carries three to nothing. okay. we then go to item six. discussion on possible actions for payments reported by members

of city boards and commissions pursuant to san francisco campaign and government conduct code section 363.600. [please stand by]

>> commissioners, larry bush for friends of ethics.

since this is a form that we're creating specifically for san francisco, i'd like to recommend that you add two lines to the disclosure. one is a disclosure at the time they make to the city at the time they're making a donation at the immediate preceding time or immediately following. and a disclosure whether anything donated is going to an entity that's under the control or the influence of the officer who's requested the funds. that would include whether or not the money's going to someone that they're related to, whether it's going to their own office, whatever it is. thank you. >> mr. bush's point is well taken. i just don't think it's

appropriate for this action today. >> okay. so that under new business, i should ask for such two regulations to be prepared for further action. >> yeah -- well, so just as a reminder, what mr. bush has relayed already would be part of the old ordinance. >> i know. so the old ordinance has to be amended. >> right. but i'm saying the aao that's out there would do this, so this would be recommending a separate ordinance -- a recommended ordinance out there that would make the changes that mr. bush has described. >> all right. that's what i want to do. >> all right. well, the anticorruption and accountablity ordinance that's with the board right now has these changes in it. so if you're saying you want to do other day ordinance that

would write the aao. >> through the chair, mr. bush, does that satisfy you? [ inaudible ] >> so we have a motion before us to approve it. all those in favor say aye. opposed? no. okay. passes. we can go now to item number seven, discussion and possible action on proposed regulation for financial disclosure filing proceedings. there are attachments from january 16, 2018, staff memorandum and other attachments. commissioners? >> i'm prepared to accept the

recommendation and move the adoption of the regulation. >> second. >> motion's been made and seconded that we approve the recommendation. is there any public comment on that? mr. bush? >> thank you, commissioners. one comment is that the form 700 is filed annually. although there are changes in people's financial interests in the course of the year, and i would recommend that you adopt the policy that when there is a significant change in the financial interest of a commissioner or other person filing a report, that they amend their 700. the ftp said that's certainly something that's doable, but there's no guidance that says specifically what those circumstances should be, so i would urge that in a passing is