position to seek or obtain anything of value. >> may i ask a question? >> sure. then i would like to get to hear whether there's a second or if we're going to continue discussing this. >> before we get to that -- >> well, commissioner chui -- >> you had a question? >> i'm not sure. you wanted to read -- is what you era asking is 3.207.a.1, no public elected official may use -- or seek to obtain anything for himself or herself, his or her immediate family or an organization with which he or she is associated? >> no.

it would be for an organization with which he or she is associated. so my -- >> i think in the interest of order, in terms of robert's rules of record as well, at this point, since we've had significant discussion, since there was a motion and we haven't had a second yet, i'm going to ask my colleagues whether or not there is a second to commissioner chui's motion to amend and take out the language "anything of value." being no second, the motion dies. commissioner chui? [please stand by] >> okay.

so in regard to this particular part, there was no action anticipated, we need not take public comment since we're not going to vote, and we'll move now onto the next item, which is the item relating to repeated recusals, and we have a presentation relating to that. >> yeah. i will set this up, explain just briefly what these amendments are, and then, director pellum will speaks to why they're here. section 3.209 sets up a procedure for the commission to review repeated recusals, to tto -- so the amendments that are here, one will change this provision so that it only applies to members of city boards and commissions, not including the board of supervisors.

previously, it had a clause that says including a member of the board of supervisors. you wi you'll see on page 72 of the packet, the lined version, that that has been struck. an additional amendment is to add a notification procedure, and this language is taken from the municipal code in los angeles, so the notification procedure formalizes a way for a board or commission who are reaccusing him or herself to formally notify the ethics commission, and you can see there are certain requirements. they have to state their name, their board or commission that they serve on, where this recusal happens, and there's a 15 day period to accept that. and then, we changed the recusal language again. also, take it from los angeles because the language, after we

reviewed it, we found it to are more precise, and also it would benefit from some interpretation that they've done in the language to help clarify that process. and then, you'll see subsection d was added at the city attorney's languaadvice to mak that we include language that we don't include the board of supervisors there. so i will turn it over to the city attorney. >> thank you, pat. this is something that we took a very close comment following a comment from the first budget and finance committee, and also hearing comments others made around the time about that. i think in hearing the questions, there were a number of questions about what is the reaccusal view's purpose, and how would we count this 1% trigger for a review, so i just wanted to provide a bit of background on that. this language and thrust of this is really a basic tran

parency issue. it would provide a way for these who recuse under the law, to do so for a good thing, in order to avoid conflicts. it would give the public a chance to understand repeated recusals, so there would be an opportunity to engage. if there is a repeated recusal, and we'll get into how this would calculate that, there is a process for the ethics commission to review those recusals, and determine if there is a continued conflict that exists for that board or commission member, and the commission can recommend that maybe this commissioner should be sit in that role. it's a transparency tool and a way to avoid significant

conflict in city decision making. what this would create is a system that's parallel to what's been in service in los angeles for a number of years. each time a commissioner appears on an agenda, there would be tools for the commission member to do that. the form would be filed with our office, and essentially, it's a one to one relationship. if there are three recusals as listed here, filed within a 365-day period, or a 1% of all matters that have been appearing on the agenda, that would be something that the commission would then review. and in reviewing that, the commission would look to things like is the number of recusals by a particular commissioner significant? it is the impact of the recusals significant, so these are questions that would be part or could be part of every

review, and we envision that would be a report to the commission, the commission would have an opportunity to respond and to be able to have a discussion whether or not there is a repeated recusal in place that would suggest that that commissioner's financial interests that are causing the repeated recusal might be a reason to talk about when that commissioner should not serve on that commission or be recused or divest of that interest. this is a transparency measure to help with that discussion. so this focuses language more clear in an attempt to be more clear in how this process would work. we're looking at another model that's working in another jurisdiction and also try to be clear with what it is that would trigger the recusal requirement, and what would be the trigger of a recusal requirement. so with that, i'm happy to

answer any questions or hear public comment, but i wanted to provide a bit of background on what the change was here as we look to narrow it. >> commissioner kopp? >> does the los angeles ordinance have a time within which the official must divest or otherwise remove the conflicting interest? >> i don't know. the ethics commission has, as i understand it from their current staff, has not ever required a commissioner to divest. >> so there's no experience with -- >> correct. >> well, it seems to me there should be a time limit, mr. chairman, and i don't know what a practical time limit is, but -- so that the public may comment, i'm going to move an

amendment on page 26, under(c) 2, after the words, fails to divest or otherwise remove the conflicting interest, add the words within 90 days of the ethics commission's determination. >> that's the motion. is there a second? >> chair, chair, may i offer a -- an additional amendment to your amendment? so within 90 days or as reasonably practical, because in the event that it is an interest that it would take longer than 90 days to divest, i don't think that we can cover everything within 90 days. >> commissioner chiu, can i take it that you're seconding commissioner kopp's motion, and you're offering some additional language. >> yes. >> and commissioner kopp, do you accept that? >> tell me the language.

>> so that the divestiture or the removal of interest would be need to be removed within 90 days or as reasonably practicable. >> yes. >> i'll accept that. >> okay. that's been accepted, so we have the motion to amend the amendment to add that language, and commissioners, any discussion? >> it's worded -- you've got a -- as you amend the amendment, in effect, they have 90 days in which to do it, but if they don't do it in 90 days, they can extend it out if they can show some practical necessity. i would be disposed to say they

will do it as promptly as possible, but no longer than 90 days. >> i don't feel -- >> i'll accept that. >> but, i mean -- >> i accept that. >> sometimes you know if it's a divestiture of a private equity interest or something, it might not happen in 90 days. there might be closing terms that would require a longer time period, but if they've entered into an agreement to divest, i can understand that they need regulatory approvals, it would conceivably take longer than 90 days. >> commissioner renne, are you proposing your change in the amendment in term it's of the language that you just stated? >> i will not propose any change from the language that has been moved and seconded.

if the commission is satisfied that the -- extending it beyond 90 days is in the public's interest. >> well, my contemplation that it wouldn't be at the discretion of the commission member or board member, but if they have removed to divest or remove to -- remove the conflicting interest, but it's not practical or possible to complete it within the 90 days, i wouldn't want them to be p l penalized it. if they have sold shares or stock in a private company, but they couldn't complete the divestiture, that if they take 91 days or 100 days, that that would still be acceptable to

us. >> or a year. if i may speak through the chair, if i may be recognized. >> yes, commissioner kopp. >> commissioner renne suggests maybe the ethics commission should have the authority to determine whether the time is as practical as -- or as prompt as is practical. >> that's satisfactory. >> yeah. >> from my -- >> maybe that should be it so it isn't open end, and then, you have a dispute as to whether it's practical or impractical. can you give us language, mr. chen. >> actually, i would like to take a step back, if i may, on this provision. so this provision -- >> well, that isn't what i asked. >> well, but i think it may be helpful, regardless. so this provision allows the ethics commission to make a recommendation as to a

official's potential conflict of interest. it is merely a recommendation. so in that recommendation, should the commission wish to issue it, i believe the commission can also specify at the time that it's issued whether they would recommend that that interest is disposed of in 30 days, 90 days, so on and so forth. so i'm not sure if you necessarily need to introduce a limitation one way or the other at this point. >> well, if it's a -- what difference if it makes -- what difference does it make if it's a recommendation, but as far as language is concerned, what difference does it make if it's a recommendation? can you give me language or you want me to write it myself? >> may i take a stab at reiterating what i think i heard? >> yeah. >> so this begins on page 25. >> yeah, right. >> page 25, it's agenda item 4

amended, page 33. it's shown as page 25 at the end of the -- end of the page on the right hand corner, but it starts reading on-line 24, if the ethics commission so determines, the ethics commission may recommend to the official's appointing authority that the official divest or otherwise remove the conflicting interest, and if the official fails to divest or otherwise remove the conflicting interest, insert, within 30-days or within -- excuse me. within 90 days or as the ethics commission determines as reasonably practicable, the ethics commission may recommend to the official's appointing authority that the official should be removed from office under charter section, etcetera, etcetera. >> i withdraw my previous amendment, and i adapt that language in a motion to amend. >> okay. >> and invite a second. >> okay. >> i'll second.

where are we, in terms of -- commissioner chiu, you've heard the colloquy between commissioner kopp and seconded by commissioner renne. does that also encompass your concerns? >> well, actually it raises new concerns on my part because i don't think this ethics commission should be a position to determine whether a sailor a divestiture is proceeding as timely or as quickly that we would like in that we are simply making a recommendation to the appointing authority. >> yes. >> i don't know. is it a difference that makes a difference? >> only to the effect that you have a motion on the table. >> right. yeah. so -- >> i'm asking whether or not -- i don't want to do anything that short circuits what has -- what your intent is. >> so i think the first motion that commissioner kopp presented, that he has withdrawn, but that's one that i had seconded.

>> okay. >> so i'm fine with that withdrawal. >> all right. terrific. so we have the language that miss pelham put forth that has been proposed by commissioner kopp and has been seconded by commissioner renne. is there any -- and that's as an amendment to an amendment, so when we take the ultimate vote on this, we'll take the amendment to the amendment, and then on the amendment itself. is there any further discussion among the commission on this item? hearing none -- oh. >> i move that we adopt the staff's proposal as to second. >> second. >> 3.207. >> okay. with -- >> with the amendment. >> okay. that motion has been made and seconded. commissioners, any further discussion before we go to public comment? all right. we'll take public comment.

mr. hepner is going to speak on behalf of supervisor peskin. >> correct. thank you, president keane. in your packet, you have a statement that's authored by supervisor peskin. it exists in budget finance and duplicate committee file right now. i think we were having trouble wrapping our minds around why we were creating a disincentive to recuse. we want board members and commissioners to recuse themselves when they meet a requirement to the recusal, and to that end, amendment a provides some good clarification around when a board member or a commission member should recuse themselves. i would suggest this commission and supervisor peskin, rather than, suggested that this commission delete the sub section relate to repeated recusal that creates this potentially punitive dynamic

where if you recuse yourself more than three times, you are subject to removal from your board or commission or the recommendation of ethics commission to be removed from your appointment or commission. that removes the disincentive to recuse. that allows for ethics investigators to instead focus on enforcement of when somebody is properly recusing themselves. the ethics commissions can still be the repository for that information. the public can still go and seek the information how many times you've recused yourself, but let's not create a disincentive to recuse by saying you are subject to dice vestiture from your financial interests if you recuse yourself. let's focus on the correct way to do it. incidentally, this is also tied to the anything of value issue

that commissioner leie because if a commissioner receives anything of value, they must recuse themselves, in your packet, you have a rather eloquent amendment that supervisor peskin has involved, it would be an amendment to anything of definition. that is in your packet before you. it was drafted by the city attorney for inclusion in the packet tuesday. lastly, the calculation of 1% we've talked to staff about how you calculate 1%, and we don't think there is an elegant way to do so. how is the 1% being calculated? retroactively? i understand this exists in l.a., but i don't think we've been provided with a whole lot of clarity how they calculate

1%. inlet's instead focus on compliance with the recusal requirement. thank you. >> thank you. >> let me ask a question. >> commissioner kopp? >> that is off the subject, but i'm curious. why is this referred to the budget committee? that is above my pay grade. that is the prerogative of the board president. >> my understanding is because the amount of increase cost, they've got it at 200,000. >> oh, the financial. >> which gets it to the financial. >> thanks. >> mr. hepner, i do have a question of you -- oh, i am 'm sorry. >> go ahead, commissioner renne. >> where in the packet did you say proposed amendments? >> i believe they begin on page

87 are supervisor peskin's attached amendments. >> that has a definition of something -- anything of value? >> there is a definition -- a modification to the definition of anything of value. i don't know if it's prudent to be discussing the previous sub section -- >> i think not. we've dealt with that. >> mr. hepner, with repeated recusals, i don't think it's the intent to chill or otherwise deter other board members from recusing themselves if they have a conflict of interest. i think the idea we're wrestling with is repeated recusals. now if a matter comes before the commission, and a commissioner has to recuse himself in the january and february meeting, and over and over again, is this not a

problem? >> thank you, commissioner chiu. i do believe that is best addressed through the reappointment process. i think it is a fair grounds for the public to scrutinize whether that person properly sits on the body. i think that the problem that you will run into either way is making sure that board members and commissioners are properly recusing themselves, and i believe that ethics resources would best be directed at making sure that you properly recuse yourself when a conflict of interest exists. >> well, if you're finished, let me point out another way of looking at it, and that is it may give pause to an appointing power to appoint a member of spur to the planning commission in the first place so that one, two, three, maybe more recusals don't add -- >> if you may respond,

commissioner kopp, through the president, i think that is clearly referenced with the recusal statement. this is -- if you focus on the recusal procedures, you accomplish the entire goal without creating a disincentive to recusing, which i think creates a bad policy move. >> chair, is it the number of times of recusal. i think in the policy process, we sit for a six year terms. does the public have to wait, if i recuse myself eight times over 11 meetings, i can't be reappointed any way, but is this something that the voters and citizens of san francisco need to wait until it becomes an article in the examiner, oh, like this has become a problem.

the commission doesn't have the power to move, but could certainly create transparency around what conflict i may have. >> right. through the chair, again, it's not just the number, and i do believe that the appointing authority also has the authority to remove an appointed person from a commission or a board if the recusals start stacking up. i think the question that i'm getting at is if i'm being faced with a decision whether to recuse myself and someone has given me a ride to work four times in the past year, and the matter is actually a discretionary review before my body, and do i -- and i'm making that line call on whether i've received anything of value, and i know that if i recuse myself one more time, i'm going to trigger an investigation by the ethics commission, that's a

disincentive to recuse myself. that is a problem. the decision should be i'm recusing myself because the perception should be something of value is there. we should be incentives to properly remove incentives from these conflicts of interest. >> where does it provide that an appointing power can remove an appointee? >> maybe the city attorney can help, but i'm confident -- >> i am not confident. i am not. >> that may be the case. i think maybe in my experience, it's been the appointing authority has called for somebody to step down. >> it's done it de facto, not de jury. >> one last question. the effect after having oneself

recused three times and reviewed by the commission is being viewed as a negative. that's not the case. there's no power that the ethics commission has to remove, but there is an opportunity to provide greater clarity to the commission and the public as to the circumstances behind the recusal, so i'm not sure why this is such a terrible thing. >> through the chair, i think that's a policy call for the commissioners toic m make. what you're asking for is a responding to inquiry from the ethics commission and not seeing it something as potentially investigatory. it's a policy call for this commission to make. >> to clarify, this would not be an investigator process, it would be the public bringing forth a review discussion for the commission. >> thank you. >> okay. further public comments?

>> david pillpaugh. i haven't been by for a while. my father passed away, and i've been spending time on that. i'd also note that it's kind of warm outside, so i was looking for a shady character that i can spend some time under and cool down a little bit. any way, on this particular provision, i think that this is attempting to solve a problem that which are e're not sure e exists in the scope and manner that's suggested. i would suggest -- and i agree with lee hepner's comments and perhaps(b) makes sense, but certainly not(c). what i would suggest is that as part of the filing officer's report annually as part of the

form # 00 collection, that they disclose any information, addresses that they report the name of any member during the past calendar year who recused themselves on any calendar matter due to a financial period of interest. we try that for a period of time, and see how many of the form 700 filers who are members of boards and commissions have had to recuse themselves for reason of a financial conflict of interest. there are occasional instances of this. in my experience, they are not many. they're usually related to land use matters and usually discreet land use matters occasionally involving members of the planning commission, board of appeals, most rarely members of the 0 cii board, as

lee hepner said, we should be encouraging proper recusal, not discouraging it. just finally, on the proposed sub section d, it's not clear to me if that applies only in their capacity serving on the board of supervisors or if that left si also would apply to their service on other boards, where their investments may play a role whether or not they need to recuse for reasons of financial conflict of interest. thank you. >> hello, commissioners. debbie lerner from the san francisco human services network. the discussion around this particular issue in my view has shown that you're not looking at the entire picture of the

impact of repeated recusals, and this revision has been a deep concern to our organization and our members throughout this process. many of our volunteer commissioners in san francisco work for nonprofits, and in fact, they are asked to serve on commissions specifically because of their expertise in, for example, health and human service matters or other matters or whatever, so we often see in the department of public health, department of ageing, department of public services, appointees to overseeing commissions who come from nonprofits that also have contracts in that department. and the city benefits because they share their expertise through that commission, through that public service. however, their service does sometimes require them to request recusal, particularly when they are working with an organization with those contracts, and those contracts come up for a vote.

and this is not just a once a year thing. many organizations have multiple year contracts that cover each program or service. i believe for example an organization like catholic city charities have 60 existing city contracts. maybe 40 with the department of health, and the only time that person recuses themselves when that organization comes up, but they're going to recuse themselves over and over. that would subject them to this enhanced and ongoing scrutiny and report filing to the ethics commission specifically because of the very thing that they were appointed for: their expertise and their knowledge around a particular area of interest. so then, you're talking about asking somebody to recovery room the conflict or divest themselves. this isn't an incompetevestmen

is their day job, this is their career, this is the reason they were asked to serve, so it makes no sense. and then, if they don't quit their job, the commission would perhaps go to the appointing authority and say this person shouldn't be on the commission. perhaps if i was in a nonprofit in that situation, and i was asked to serve, i would decline in the first place because frankly, i would not have like come to this commission every time i recuse myself. this is a disincentive, so we do support mr. hepner's and supervisor peskin's suggestion to remove the repeated recusal section from this legislation. thank you. >> thank you. >> good afternoon, chair keane and commissioners, and also staff. first, i'd just like to very

briefly say, i do appreciate very much all the hard work both you, the commission, and staff has put into this. i think it's very evident from the rare uvarious iterations o amendment, different things are being taken into account. without repeating what i think miss lerman and mr. hepner have very eloquently said about the matters of nonprofit employers, sand then also the issue of disincentivizing certain behavior, i want to point out something else, and that's that current law already does require a fair amount of transparency around recusals by requiri requiring city council members,

board members, and commission members to recuse themselves and leave the room. it can be appreciated by members in the room, members of the public, and then those who look up the hearings on youtube and the reports. that's one issue, that there is some degree of transparency around recusals currently. and secondly, many officials under current law are required to recuse themselves from matters relating to their homes. often, for most of us, it's the biggest financial interest that we have, and there's not necessarily an ethical problem with needing to recuse yourself because a matter affects your home just due to the proximity from a particular matter, which makes a lot of sense when you think about it because that's why we might serve on a

particular board or commission because we're part of that community. so i just want to bring that to the commissioners' attention, as well as another potential intended consequence that may affect board members or commissioners who have to repeatedly recuse themselves. so with that, i would respectfully echo what miss lerman and mr. hepner requested that the commission consider on this matter. >> thank you. >> commissioners, ray hartz for san francisco open government. i'd like to align myself with the other speakers. first as an aside i'd like to apologize to commissioner lee with painting her with the

attorney brush. >> and libel us, too. >> yes, thank you. we have a provision in the law for most boards and commissions that the people who attend the meetings or fail to attend meetings are supposed to be reported, and if they have a certain number of failures to attend meetings, that they are reported to their appointing authority and recommended to be removed. well, i know as a practical matter three boards that have a number of commissioners who have not been to a commission meeting in a year, and it's not even reported, let alone is any action taken. so briasically, we have a nonfunctioning member. now here is a situation where you're going to put the onus on the member to report their recusals. how do i say it? gee, the fair person who's an administrator of a body won't

report someone who's not coming to the meetings, why would we expect the person to report themselves for something they've done that is wrong? and we are dealing with approximating tig politicians here, so i know this matter comes before the commission, it's going to be on the agenda five times. i know there is a key here that if i will recuse myself three , there will be an ethics commission review, so i'll recuse myself twice and miss three meetings. number one, that third time, i just won't report it, and there's nothing in here about what's going to happen to me if i don't. and what's going to keep track of the fact that i didn't? nobody that i can see. so i recuse myself time one, time two. time three, i just keep my

mouth shut. and then, there's all the practical matters that the prior speakers brought up. yes, we want people to recuse themselves if there's a conflict of interest. i'll be honest with you, i think there are cases where i see a clear conflict of interest in matters where the person does not recuse themselves, and i question that, and i much rather have a situation where a person has a moral obligation or a feeling of obligation to recuse themselves without having to put the onus on them to then have a penalty that they must pay for doing so. >> commissioners, larry bush from friends of ethics. i'm looking at section 3.209 on page 24 of the material that you have. it's talking about recusals,

and when there's a financial interest. there's nothing in here that says membership in nonprofits on a board of directors. there's nothing here that gives rise to the issues that were just presented to you by members of the public, unless i'm missing it someplace else. it's just totally a bogus issue. thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you. now, you've -- i'm sorry. there's just one turn to each person. okay. any further public comment? all right. then on the question of whether or not we adopt the amendment -- >> mr. chair? >> oh, i'm sorry. commissioner lee? >> 'cause i'd like to offer another amendment. just a couple of weeks ago, several friends of mine was sharing the exciting news of

them starting an informal group, getting milennial community advocates to get interested in civic engagement by learning about city commissions. >> you want to speak a little closer to the -- >> by learning about getting involved with commissioners s boards, and they were excited because they were looking at the new generation of leaders. they have the knowledge, they have the compassion of serving the community doeies, and ther a disconnect between serving the citiy community and servin city. my friend was excited about these young milennials serving the city, they are starting to pay interest to serving on the commissions. reading this, it's going to be another excuse for some of the -- [ inaudible ] -- see, that's a reason why i don't

want to get involved with poli politics, because i want to do good, and they're punishing me. even though mr. bush said it does not mention anything about nonprofits, the financial interest could mean a nonprofit organizations physical impact. so if we are touching upon the experts, these community advocates who know policies, to know the applications of the proper programs and policies to really improve the -- the well-being of the residents of the city, the recusal language is really going to punish them. so i would like to propose an

amendment that would remove the section from the section 3.209, and i don't know if we should take the vote on the previous two amendments and -- >> well, let's -- your motion is that we remove section 3.209 entirely, that is correct? >> right. yeah sfl ok yeah. >> okay. is there a second to that motion? i'm afraid the motion fails for lack of a second. okay. so we are -- commissioners, i think we're prepared to vote. all those in favor of the amendment, please say aye. all opposed? okay. the amendment passes, 4-1. okay. we move now to the next amendment -- >> i thought there was -- i

thought there was an amendment -- >> yeah, i thought the first vote was the amendment to the amendment. >> you're correct. >> so there's still a vote. >> now, the second vote on the under lying amendment made the -- the underlying amendment as the staff has put it forth to us. in regard to that amendment, all those in favor of it please say aye. opposed? so we have -- i think i heard four ayes and one no. correct? okay. the motion passes 4-1. we move now to behested payments disclosure, section 3.600. >> if i may, chair, could i recommend that we take a quick mark since we're approaching the three hour mark?

20 minutes appropriate? >> 20 minutes -- yes, in terms of all the members, let's take a 20 minute break. >> 15?

behe