because they thought that since the rule was -- that only if anything of value would reasonably be expected to influence an official's actions, would this rule be operative. and they thought the reasonably be expected to influence language was sufficiently limited. so something of value would fall under the term, that such a thing of value could not be expected to influence an firm's actions. however, they did exact us to look at regulations down the road to clearly specify the items shall not be considered anything of value for purposes of this code section. on the repeated recusals, item, we revised this to actually mirror the language that is used in los angeles. that language has a much clearer process for how officials will

notify the ethics commission of when they recuse. and we also revised this to no longer apply to members of the board of supervisors. in discussions, we realized that perhaps this would be triggered by too many things. it's too sensitive. when you look at it in terms of the kind of subject matter that the board looks at, it's very broad in nature and members of boards and commissions that are more narrow in terms of their purview, they look at particular areas subject matter, that it's more appropriate in that context. because if someone is recusing many times within that particular purview, that is more likely to indicate something as significant conflict of interest, whereas with the board, it may not be the same. so this provision has been narrowed so it does not apply to the board of supervisors. and then lastly, we amended the

ordinance to change the payment disclosures in one very significant way. that is that party in the prior version, what you saw two weeks ago, a person could be interested party if they actively supported or opposed a government decision. however, they did not have to have a financial interest in the government decision. but the version that will go before the commission tomorrow is different in that someone must have a financial interest. in the government decision. in order to be considered an interested party. so in other words, if somebody comes before you and gives public comment on an item you're considering, they will not be considered interested party unless they have a financial interest in that decision. the affect that has, if you ask the person to make a payment and they do so as your behest, they will not be required and you will not be required to file a

disclo disclosu disclosure. so, that should be fairly -- should not be too ambiguous, should be able figure that out. that is the thrust of the main changes that are in the new version. there are others. we worked with supervisor peskin's staff to make other smaller changes that are more drafted related, don't really change the substance, so i won't go through those, but glad to answer any questions you may have about the items. >> supervisor tang: thank you very much, i really appreciate staff listening to what we had to say in committee and in our one on one meetings as well. and relaying that to the commission. i was very happy to see a lot of the recommendations that you

made to the commission. today, i did have a few others, just to really consider a package of amendments to better clarify how it is that people, candidates, commissioners, actually comply with the law, as well as allow for a better enforceability of the whole proposal. so because they were numerous, i have passed out a summary sheet to the committee members. i apologize that the page numbers and line numbers are off, but you have reference to the section numbers. please stand by.

>> contributions that one of the officers need to be disclosed. right now, the legislation requires that all different officers are needed. it is better that we hold a

person accountable versus a whole group. in section 121. we would like to delete the section on additional disclosure requirements among the contributions and this is just mirroring the staff recommendation to the conditions. section 1.127. the section which you have recommended to delete to the commission. i make the recommendation. i do feel there is such a broad range of matters that we deal with here at the board, whether small, or big such as $5 million project. i assume that our goal was to capture those big projects. i recommend that we have one version. and another version that deletes it. and move forward with both for

the ethics commission. as long as we can fine-tune what this section means. the next section, i would like to more clearly define the terms about where the violation occurred. for example, for private financial -- where it said credit financial, and then where it says representative. to make it clear, what is being done with the violation and who it pertains to. section 7a3. we would like to add the adding qualifier. to influence the officers actions or judgment with respect to a particular legislative or

administrative action. just to again understand that people who are speaking with influence, what is this about, they are trying to do to an official. again clarifying the terms there. and then you will see a whole bunch of amendments that i would like to make to section 3.6. 3.6.0 to 3.6.30. we wanted to delete actively oppose. the reason being as i mentioned last time around, i am very concerned that by mentioning that if you come out to testify during public comments for example, you could actually be in violation of something if you don't follow the rules. i want to make sure we are not -- free speech. everything else will remain. we didn't want actively support

or oppose. that is found in different pages here. that in a nutshell is the comments to the amendments. to clarify for people who have to follow the rules so they really understand where they are held, you can do a better job of enforcing, there is more clear what the legislation is supposed to do. those are my amendments. i will answer the questions you may have. >> acting chair, i want to concur with the supervisor and thanks the ethics commission staff for facilitating the dialogue. i think it is needed as we go through the inner process and i want to thank the federal ethics commissioners that i met with over the last weeks. this was last before the committee and i appreciate the fact that they are listening to our ideas and remain open to as

i said the last hearing having us discharge our duties, and again i want to reiterate my desire that we be given the space to do our job and that they not put this on the june ballot and if we don't do our job, they reserve to put it on the november ballot. i think that as far as the legislation that was forwarded to us, had an effective date of january 1st of 2019 long after the race. having said that, there was a comment from the public and i am actually going to offer an amendment later. to remove that date of january 1st of 2019. and have at least those provisions that we are able to vote on and pass become effective immediately upon passage long before this would become operative work to go to the june ballot. as a threshold matter, i would like to ask the deputy city

attorney and ethics commission staff about the nature of this process because my understanding is that we can only pass something that is identical to what the ethics commission passed. so to a certain extent making these amendments today is a little absurd if they are not taken in whole by the ethics commissioner tomorrow or in future meeting. is that a correct understanding? >> deputy city attorney. >> yes. >> in order to pass the ordinance or any ordinance amending the chapter, the board and the ethics commission must adopt the ordinants. the same ordinants. the board by 8 out of 11. typically, the way this works is the board will propose something or ethics will propose something and it will go to board

committee. the board committee if they do not agree or wants to amend what ethics proposed, the board committee will make amendments and continue it to the call of the chair typically. the clerk will send the ordinants to commission. the ethics commission may pass it. they may offer something else. it will come back to committee. it could be a back and forth. ultimately, both bodies need to pass the same ordinance. >> what would happen if we had a joint meeting of both parties? >> that is an interesting idea. as far as i know, that has never happened. i don't think there would be a legal problem with that happening with each body making its own separate vote on the proposed ordinance. >> we see that. we see joint meetings between the planning commission on shadow issues. the commission secretaries they have and they have the vote and

then they raise the shadow limits unfortunately. >> the board has held joint meetings with the commission years ago. it is definitely something you could do. >> i would like to put that out there, particularly insofar as there -- i don't mean to point fingers at anybody. there is back sliding with regard to my desire that this not be put on the june ballot by the ethics commission by the vote. we have the negotiation. the last little bit of information i heard in my office with mr. ford was that they wanted to put it on the ballot tomorrow. which means this that they have a handful of dates to take it off. that is the wrong path. i would offer if the president is willing and in the spirit of the amendments that are made by

commissioner tang and the ones i am about to make to offer the concept of a joint meeting to see if we can get it done quickly and as i said at the last meeting, get it done right. again, not to sound like i am picking on anybody, but staff at the ethics commission is holding new staff. it is relatively new. you gentlemen are relatively new. the reality is, you guys have been working on the piece of legislation for quite some time. i mean for over a year. and then it comes to you and we have a compressed time frame to discharge our job and up until this week, i personally communicated my disappointment that the level of communication between staff has not been everything it could be. i am appreciative of the meeting

we had this week and the fact that my staff is going to your offices and working out language stuff. the issues that we brought up at the last meeting after having not seen a year's worth of deliberations. by the way, much of that is stuff that i actually introduced here and was said there and we could have acted on in pieces along the way. but didn't. i mean 1.127 land use matters, originally introduced in 2008. and subsequently introduced a year ago. last night, i actually got an e-mail from a member of the public with the staff recommendations. i was taken a back that the members and the supervisors and the members of the finance committee that we will grapple with it today did not get the

e-mail. i am not -- i will to say those things. i want to thank the supervisor for duplicating the file. i think that shows that there is -- it is a message that we are willing to go both ways. the language is something that i have been interested in now literally for a decade. i introduced that in 2008 toward the end of my first go around on the board of supervisors. i am looking for that harmony and maybe the way to do it is to have that joint meeting. i would like to introduce an amendment to delete the operative date. it means it would be effective 30 days after the mayor's signature. and i want to signal the commission that the board can approve the changes and vote them effective long before the january 1st, 2019, date that is in the legislation before the

board. i think this is necessary, prudent and i will work with staff to ensure that they have what they need to implement the changes in advance of the november election. and to the extent in advance of the final lap in the final june election. on page of line 1. i have in section 4, and i have given that to my colleagues. the city attorney has a copy of that and the clerk. section 3.209 subsection b. this is the repeated recusals. section -- page 31. line 23 through 32. i would delete this section. in my reading of this, i still think the section poses a problem. you have spoken to the fact -- the board supervisor should be

taken out. as part of the community, i don't mind being regulated. but the 2 weeks ago, under state law, any of us are presumed as a matter of law to have a conflict if there is an appeal within a thousand feet of real property that we own. in my case last year in 2017, this never happened to me in the years i served on the board until last year, lo and behold by chance, there were two land appeals in 1,000 feet of my property. i didn't know what to do. i talked to the city attorney and recused myself of the board. had there been a third, my neighbours are upset i was not able to actually vote. i would recuse myself. i hear you about the broad nature of the jack of all trades and expert at none. i hear you. and it does make sense in the

commission context. in my office, discussion with the ethics commission staff, i think the responses have been in adequate as to how the commission intends to calculate the one percent threshold in subsection 2. and more critically, i don't know understand why there is a penalty for taking the proper step to recuse itself. that is a disincentive to recusal. a couple of weeks ago, isn't a recusal a good thing. we want people to do the right thing and recuse themselves. the bottom line is that absent clear objective rules when the board should recuse himself for a conflict of interest, we cannot allow the member to decide for themselves whether they should make the call. i am not satisfied with the explanation i received from staff that, you know, what is

good for los angeles is good for san francisco. i am certainly open to that. lastly, the staff has new recommendations for the commission deliberation tomorrow. i would like to introduce formally my major donor disclosure amendments. as my colleagues on the committee know, i introduced stand alone ordinance this tuesday that would require major donors to disclose additional information regarding business interests in san francisco. we cannot ban the behaviour, unfortunately because political mediators -- before the supreme court. the people of san francisco deserve to know why the individuals and the entities who are dumping millions of dollars into the local political economy are doing so. i think that is good public policy. that should be implemented as

quickly as possible. and i am so far impressed by the willingness of my colleagues to move this forward expeditiously. i want to thank the board president for the willingness to waive the 30 day rule. i want the ethics commission to waive is properly and send it to the board of supervisors. i distribute a new section, 1.158. major donors financial disclosure that begins at line -- page 20, line 4 and extends to page 22, line 2. and at page 22, line 2 -- page 23, line 11. a number of members that require real-time disclosure and audio and video requirements as to who the contributors are no the advisors. this is commonplace in other jurisdictions. lastly at page 24 lines 1

through 8. clarifying that the advertizers, the top three contributors must be disclosed. as i am thinking about it, and maybe i can hear from colleagues with regard to the recusal, maybe what staff is saying works for the panel, i might hold on to my notion of deleting the recusal. one possibility is we can delete the recusal in one of the copies and not in the others. we are showing the commissioner willingness to hear from them and try to come up with something to pass quickly. delete it in one maybe, and not the others, the amendments are on the table. >> any comments? refer to public comment.

are there members of the public that wish to speak to the item? >> super san francisco human services network. i want to comment today. on content of the legislation. i want to express our deep appreciation to the board of supervisors for taking a thorough look at at this legislation that is deeply flawed and many of your proposed amendments to address some of the serious concerns. we have not seen a written version of all the amendments that are on the table. and there is also a new version

for the ethics commission. there was a new version on tuesday and then another version on wednesday. that is what they are discussing for putting on the ballot for friday. we have not really had time to read what they are proposing. we do appreciate and support and urge everybody to accept this collaborative process where everybody can work together to look at what is on the table. there is no reason whatsoever to rush to the ballot in june. the supervisor noted, there is no reason to wait for a january date. it can take effect earlier. also once it goes on the ballot, there is no opportunity to tinker with little thinks when we find out in the real world that does not work.

there are unintended consequences. we live in a city with a spirit of collaboration and stakeholder engagement and public participation in the process. there is a reason why we have a high threshold before the members of the ethics commission. >> thank you very much. the next speaker. >> good morning. we have 180 members who are part of our association. i just want to appreciate the thoughtfulness brought to the process. we are encouraged by the spirit by the board of supervisors and the members and staff of the ethics commission and are encouraged on the legislation. as noted by the folks, this is

important legislation and to get it right. to ensure that not only public trust is felt by institutions and unintended consequences that will harm the san francisco residence or hinder the ability for philanthropy to address the complex issues affecting the city. we hope that the commission and the board will continue to work together. we are in support of the supervisor suggesting to hold joint hearings so the legislation can move forward actively and effectively. working together to get it right. thank you. >> good morning. i am on the california council for alliance for justice. a national association of

non-profits and we focus in large part on helping other non-profits and provide better voices to advocacy. from that perspective, i would like to thank the board for its very thoughtful and meticulous work on the legislation. i would like to thank ethics staff for clearly having taken into account some of the things that we along with the non-profit partners have been stressing throughout the conversation. on that note, i will say that i do agree with the supervisor thoughts about the repeated recusals provision that i share. some of the concerns that not only in state law rather forceful requiring recusal, including the political reform act and the section 1090 of the

government code. this is the area of expertise. and serving on the commission allows them to further serve their communities by bringing that expertise to the board. i would like to emphasize that we really support a lot of the changes that we have seen made to the legislation. particularly being in a financial -- rather than vague terms such as favours. and also tieing the influence to voter official action. on the matter of recusal... >> thank you very much.

>> i am with the council of community housing organizations. i want to say thank you for the process. i think it is moving the legislation forward in a good way. i have not read the new amendments. i think it sounds like they are moving in the right direction. we encourage you to continue to work collaboratively with ethics on creating legislation that works well. i think this is the way to do it. working down a legislative pathway. rather than a ballot measure. again, thank you for all the work that you are doing on this. >> thank you. >> thank you. issues to members of the committee for consideration. we are appreciative of the fact that you are taking time to add additional things. to tell you what they are, we do think that the land use issue

needs to move forward now. this is the time when land use decisions are being made. we think that is important to happen now. we think that the bundling provisions should include contractors, somehow -- making contributions, they left out bundling. and the thought of the ethics commissioner, [no audio] fundraiser for people who are going to make decisions. the answer is yes, you can. unless you change that. we think that influencing the provision about influencing decisions should not be limited to financial. if you take a look at the lobby page that is downloaded in excel and look at the government decisions, you will find that a very significant of lobbying in city hall. and what kind of policies will

take place. with this, that and the other. it is all in financial interest that take place. i think that the language that was there before about attempting to influence legislative or administrative decisions can be modified. the commissioners making contributions is too narrow. there is places where there is no commission for hundreds of millions of dollars. the language means that you cannot contribute to [indiscernible] >> thank you very much. >> the -- i'm an officer of the

ethics commission. i have been onboard of non-profits for 20 years. i will bring my experience forward. i have two process questions outside specific the legislation. first, we don't know whether the supervisor has considered technical issues, we don't know if there is the two supervisors voting or not. that is something that the public ought to know who can vote or not. because you will have a split vote if it is two people. i want to go back to some of what we have been saying from our end of advocacy. one of the ethics commissioner voted against it because he thought it was not strong enough. there was no private action.

if you want to look at comparability and have across the board -- which has been around for decades and not include it in here, that there is no [indiscernible] i bring to mind the scenario of a few years ago, where a real estate professional on a building inspection commission handled [indiscernible] i am suggesting for clarification. for non-profit people, there were open communities. they need better training by the ethics of the non-profits this will not cause the sky to fall. this will not cause -- it will not chill the silence. >> thank you.

>> any other questions? the comments are now closed. colleagues, discussion. yes, supervisor? >> i just wanted -- and i will need help from the supervisor and maybe from the deputy city attorney, but i was kind of recalling the cannabis conversation that we had two different files. it is slightly different, because we had the discussion with the ethics commission. i was thinking that perhaps one duplicate file could incorporate all of the recommendations because there has been no action by the ethics commission that have been made by ethic commission staff. 1.1.27 would be stricken, all of the recusal provisions that staff discuss would be all in one file. the other file would have the amendments made by supervisor tang and myself.

i forget what -- you have a nice word for what we call the two files. clean file and the amended file or something like this. it is two amended files. one would take the staff recommendation. the other would include all of our amendments. >> and the cannabis context we call them clean and dirty. (please stand by) and we could

actually then work out the remaining details. let's see, all 16 of us. >> supervisor tang: thank you. so i think it's fine to do the bulky and clean version. i want to qualify that the land use amendment that i would like to propose then, it would be in the bulky version where the land use piece is removed and then the clean version where the land

use stays. >> maybe in this context we should use different terms. because there is the ethics version which where you would be removing the land use piece, because the ethics staff is recommending removal of section 1.127. maybe call it the ethics version and the committee vrgs. the committee version you would keep 1.127 and make all the amendments that you and supervisor peskin are proposing. >> supervisor tang: thank you. and then i also wanted to ask, attorney givener, is this technical, i would think it's not technical. >> yeah, both sets of amendments and nearly every piece of each of those amendments is substantive. as i mentioned earlier, not only does this committee need to act on the amendments again, but the ethics commission would need to

act. so the only action you could take after making these amendments is to continue the item. >> so i see supervisor stefani? >> supervisor stefani: just a quick question with regard to the amendments. i want to make sure, acting chair, are all the amendments that you discussed and supervisor tang, are they in this document? or were there additional amendments made that are not in the document? >> i believe they're all in the document, but the three that i made were to the operative date to repeated recuesals and the addition of 1.158, major donors and then supervisor tang made a series of additional amendments. i believe they're all loaded.

i just want to make sure we have everything in writing. >> yes, we've got two different documents. one that supervisor tang has prepared and one that supervisor peskin has prepared. and everything that was mentioned by the two supervisors has been drafted. my office is going to have to put those two puzzle pieces together, but they will fit. >> ok. then with regard to the amendments put forth by the ethics commission staff, are those before us today? i know they're out there, but if we're talking about adopting them, i don't think they're before the body in terms of -- i mean, they're not in front of us physically at this time? >> you could adopt those amendments. it's within your authority. the document that the ethics commission staff prepared is on the ethics commission's website

as attachment to the agenda. i have it up, i could e-mail it to you, but my office doesn't have hard copies of it. >> if i may, madame chair, for the purpose of continuing this conversation inso far as it does exist on the welcome back site and it's a message to the ethics commission we are playing ball and have a bunch o balls in and the air and we're not taking action today. this is forwarded by the clerk to ethics and both items will be continued to the call of the chair. there is obviously merging that has to be done. eventually, it would appear again in committee and again at the full board. >> supervisor stefani: that's right. >> is there a motion on the item? >> if i could just reiterate. i've duplicated the file which -- any single member of

the committee can duplicate the file and you can amend each one. >> i would love if it a member was willing to duplicate the file, have the committee version file and ethics commit file as discussed by members and nonmembers of the committee. >> yeah, so i would like to make a motion to duplicate the file and adopt the amendments put forward by supervisor peskin and supervisor tang today and also -- that's my first motion. >> supervisor fewer: i would like to make a motion to continue this item to the next committee meeting. right. >> supervisor stefani: ok. >> supervisor fewer: does that motion cover what we discussed. >> you still have to have the duplicated file that contains ethics. >> shall we vote on this motion

and we can make another motion to continue the ethics version to the call of the chair as well? >> yeah, i recommend two motions, one on the ethics verse and one on the committee version. >> i understand that we have a motion before us to duplicate the file to accept the amendments that have been presented before us and to continue this meeting, this item, to the call of the chair. is that correct? yeah. >> it's my understanding that the matter has been duplicated. one of the duplicated files will include the ethics commission amendments and the other will include the committee's amendments. and both items are to be continued to the call of the chair. my understanding. >> supervisor fewer: yeah. >> supervisor stefani: we don't need another motion. >> supervisor fewer: then, i don't think this requires a second. and can we take this without objection?

ok. >> i just have one question for the clerk, can we ensure that the entire ethics agenda item 4 packet including the staff recommendations and our amendments is included in the board legislative file going forward? >> clerk: yes, i will include it. do you want me to include it in both versions? >> yes, both versions. >> clerk: i will retrieve that in place it into the file. >> supervisor fewer: we can take that without objection. >> clerk: the matters were duplicated, amended and continued to the call of the chair. >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much. mr. clerk, any items before us today? >> clerk: completes the agenda for today. >> supervisor fewer: there is no further business before the committee, the meeting is now adjourned. thank you very much.

>> they tend to come up here and drive right up to the vehicle and in and out of their car and into the victim's vehicle, i would say from 10-15 seconds is all it takes to break into a car and they're gone. yeah, we get a lot of break-ins in the area. we try to -- >> i just want to say goodbye. thank you. >> sometimes that's all it takes. >> i never leave anything in my car. >> we let them know there's been a lot of vehicle break-ins in this area specifically, they target this area, rental cars or vehicles with visible items. >> this is just warning about vehicle break-ins. take a look at it. >> if we can get them to take it with them, take it out of the cars, it helps. -

>> shop & dine in the 49 promotes local businesses and challenges resident to do their showing up and dining within the 49 square miles of san francisco by supporting local services within the neighborhood we help san francisco remain unique successful and vibrant so where will you shop & dine in the 49 san francisco owes must of the charm to the unique characterization of each corridor has a distinction permanent our neighbors are the economic engine of the city. >> if we could a afford the lot by these we'll not to have the kind of store in the future the kids will eat from some restaurants chinatown has phobia one of the

best the most unique neighborhood shopping areas of san francisco. >> chinatown is one of the oldest chinatown in the state we need to be able allergies the people and that's the reason chinatown is showing more of the people will the traditional thepg. >> north beach is i know one of the last little italian community. >> one of the last neighborhood that hadn't changed a whole lot and san francisco community so strong and the sense of partnership with businesses as well and i just love north beach

community old school italian comfort and love that is what italians are all about we need people to come here and shop here so we can keep this going not only us but, of course, everything else in the community i think local businesses the small ones and coffee shops are unique in their own way that is the characteristic of the neighborhood i peace officer prefer it is local character you have to support them. >> really notice the port this community we really need to kind of really shop locally and support the communityly live in it is more economic for people to survive here.

>> i came down to treasure island to look for a we've got a long ways to go. ring i just got married and didn't want something on line i've met artists and local business owners they need money to go out and shop this is important to short them i think you get better things. >> definitely supporting the local community always good is it interesting to find things i never knew existed or see that that way. >> i think that is really great that san francisco seize the vails of small business and creates the shop & dine in the 49 to support businesses make people all the residents and visitors realize had cool things are made and produced in san