>> thank you. >> thank you. >> again, my name is mark bruno, and through the chair, i would like to comment on commissioner lee's criticism or description of a situation where a mom and pop nonprofit might be negatively affected because a supervisor or a commissioner, an unelected public official might want to do small favors for a small group. i was cochair with mohamed nuru when mayor lee was chairman of the graffiti advisory board. in those days, and i think the same challenge is faced by all commissioners and boards now, it's a virtue in government to reach out to other people. there's no reason that the president of the board of supervisors also has to be associated through her family

members for instance, with a small nonprofit, or that a member of this commission should be a member or friends of the board of another nonprofit, so the law should do exactly what it can do best, separate all those interests so we are required as citizens and as commissioners and as elected officials to reach out to new people. what's wrong with having nonnonprofit directors becoming elected officials? isn't that one of the purposes of pop 2k4rd ular government and democracy. one of the virtues of the law being left alone and not removing that section on organizations as the conflict of interest law, not removing that, is to force us in the city to meet new people and get them on these boards, instead

of see these same people in the government, and this becomes suspect because it seems like we're doing favors for our friends. why not expand the nature of government family, the so-called san francisco government family, and include people who aren't normally included. i think that's one of the virtues of this law as it was written. thank you so much. >> thank you. >> commissioners, ray hartz, san francisco open government, and i would like to associate myself with the spreefs speaker. i do believe that the city government, one of its problem is its incestuous nature. you don't know who is colluding or who is simply supporting or who is doing what with whom anymore. and if we expanded the mandate and said we need to get people who haven't been on boards and commissions over and over and over again for the last 20

years -- i always hear that as this wonderful talking about. oh, well, ed's served on boards and commissions for 20 years. maybe it's time to get somebody new. maybe it's time to get somebody who's not so blindered by their previous experience that they are willing to consider new things, new people. the trouble with a lot of boards and the commissions is the appointment process is so secretive and done in such ways that the public doesn't know exactly why an individual got appointed to a board or commission, and therefore, the concern that comes up to members of the public, you know, is what is really driving this person's action? what are they really -- what is their agenda? is it clearly what they say out in public or is there some sort

of hidden motivation going on that is driving not just their -- their vote but their support or nonsupport for certain items? again, i -- i agree with the person. i think that a person ought to get -- there ought to be a law in this city that basically says that once you've served five terms on any board or commission, that's it. and we need to get new people in who have new experience, who can bring new viewpoints, new things, rather than simply having the same old people appointed and reappointed and reappointed again, and then simply move when they're term out to another board or commission where we see the same person and have to ask the same questions. so again, i agree with the previous speaker. we need to get more people involved in government, and one of the reasons i say that is because as far as i'm concerned, the first amendment exists so that people like me

can come here and say the things i say to people like you. you don't like what i have to say, but you never refute it, you never give any factual under -- undermining of it, you simply make some vacuous comment, like oh, your mortuaries army -- mother wears army boots. >> the question has been called and been seconded. we will now vote on commissioner renne's motion to delete the language as gsh-that's been indicated. all those in favor of the leading language, please say aye. all those opposed. the motion fails, 3-2. okay. now, at this point, i'd entertain a motion to approve the ballot measure in its entirety as we've put it forthwith those amendments as

shown in attachment a and place it on the june 5th, 2018 ballot. >> can i just very slightly make amendments. so it's got all the changes reflected in attachment one, and for the june 35, 2018 election. >> yes. what did i say? >> you referred to attachment a, 2015. >> oh, i'm surprised i didn't say 1970. that's where my mind still is. is there a second? >> mr. chair, i have a question. earlier in the day i think someone said there was an offer to have a joint meeting between the board of supervisors -- >> yes, we'll take that up. i think that's out of order -- the question has been called for for a vote, and we've had

public comment, so we now have to vote, we have to vote, all right? so let's vote. >> are you going to take public comment on the motion? >> well, we'll take public comment on the motion. >> has it been seconded? >> i don't know. has it been seconded? there has been a motion. is there no second to put this on the ballot? who moved it? >> i did. >> commissioner renne moved it. do we have a second to put it on the ballot? i'll second, yeah. >> commissioners, on the motion before you to put this on the june 5th, 2018 ballot, i will reiterate some of the comments that i made at the outset of this hearing on behalf of supervisor peskin.

i think generally on behalf of the board of supervisors, though i hesitate to speak for other supervisors, i think that there are a couple of paths forward, and i am not confident that the june 5th, 2018 ballot is the best path forward. the primary reason i say this is if you were to forward this to the board of supervisors, yes, you run the risk of the abundant conceskepticism that y cannot govern itself, but i think that the primary motive is to get something on the books at the board of supervisors and implemented before the june election. i see staff shaking their heads no, but respectfully, i think that there are prohibitions in this ordinance that can become effective immediately.

everything relative to creating a form and filing on-line, i understand, is going to take some lead time to allow staff and i.t. and net file to create those forms and to create that back end infrastructure, but what we need to do today, the imperative before this body, and the imperative before the brgss board of supervisors is to pass them before the most consequently election in recent san francisco history. that is the emergency before you, that is the emergency before the board of supervisors, and it is the imperative that i beg you to hear today. that is what i was charged with coming here to deliver was that. everything about the amendments is noise compared to the imperative to try to get something effective in advance of one of the more consequenko

kwentikwe consequential elections in this city's history. pass something immediately that can become operative and effective 30-days from that date. that is before the june election. that is certainly far before the november election when we have a bevy of very, very, very hotly contested supervisorial races where the dark money is going to be flowing like the salmon of san juan capistrano. >> commissioner renne? >> may i ask mr. hepner a question? are you gashting that the board of supervisors -- guaranteeing that the board of supervisors is going to pass this? >> i cannot speak on behalf of the board of supervisors, but a genuine effort on behalf of the board of supervisors to move

this forward. an alternative you could use is to keep this on the november ballot with the same operative date of january 1, 2019, keep that over the heard of the board of supervisors to act meaningfully. you don't gain or lose anything because even if this is passed on the june ballot, until next year any way. let us prove to you that we can do the right thing and get this effective in effect long before the november election gets really up and going. >> commissioner kopp? >> i'll repeat. mr. peskin told me three weeks ago that we should delay this to the november 2018 election. today, mr. hepner, you represented that it should be on the june 5, 2018 election.

i am confused, but i will consider your remarks accordingly with guidance from our fellow commissioners and staff. doesn't require any comment. >> commissioner chiu. >> mr. hepner, could you please clarify, for any benefit, what exactly you're proposing with regard to the ordinance as amended that we've just discussed today from a procedural standpoint, what you are proposing? >> my proposal today, and it's he nuns yated in did he daily in the letter in your packet from supervisor peskin, that i guarantee 150% was properly noticed and agendaized before tuesday. i am proposing that you not consider this for the june 2018 ballot. do not, and that to commissioner kopp's concern through the chair, this is not -- i have not changed the position there. supervisor peskin has been adamant throughout that this should not go to the june 18

ballot. rather, if you kick it out to the november 2018 ballot, you maintain the leverage to get the board of supervisors to do the right thing by rendering it operative long before it otherwise would be. i do not want to under value how critical this nonprofit piece is, and the only way that's going to become effective before the june election where we're anticipating millions of dollars in dark money, the only way to get that effective before the june election is to adopt it into the file today and forward it to the board of supervisors. >> and then, may i ask a clarify question? >> sure. >> so that from a process standpoint then, the joint board of supervisors and ethics commission would consider this combined legislation so the anticorruption ordinance, along with the major donor ordinance that supervisor peskin has -- has proposed?

>> that is correct. the major donor disclosures piece would become part of the broady anticorruption and accountablity ordinance, and it would theoretically be passed all at one by the commission and the board of supervisors. >> and your read of the board and committee is such that there is enthusiasm to take this up and that could conceivably be passed before the june election? >> that's correct. supervisor peskin has issued statements to the press along those lines, public statements in many forums to the same thing. >> the major donor disclosure piece, what about the anticorruption ordinance. >> and just a clarification about the charter authority of this commission, the board of supervisors cannot on its own sever out any piece and pass it

independently, so it would be part of the broader anticorruption and accountablity ordinance that you order today. >> all right. thank you. >> thank you. >> all right. mr. bush? sfl larry bush for friends of ethics. i've been working on an anticorruption measure since i served on the krisk grand jury in 2013-2014 and have met with national srgss like the campaign legal center. certainly has gone to the interested persons meetings that have been held here at the commission and have been a stro strong advocate for a robust version of this measure. i think it would be prudent and good policy as well as politics to not wait and put this on the june ballot, despite all of

that effort. i think if i understood the calendar correctly from the department of elections, you have until march 5th to put something on the ballot. if you have until march 5th, and you're having a joint meeting with the board of supervisors and the ethics commission before that date, then at that vote, you could go ahead and decide to put on the the june ballot. it wouldn't be too late in that case, but even if you didn't, even if i have my calendar incorrect, the board could take it and move it forward, and i do believe that mr. hepner and supervisor peskin are accurate in terms what they think the lay of the land is at the board. i don't think they have eight votes, but i think they certainly have six, and i think they have the mayor's support, and i think that would bring the other two along. there is such a strong impetus

at the board. you've got malia cohen talking about more disclosures at the retirement board, and you have jane kim doing on campaign finance, and those are two different parts of the spectrum on city hall, the press conference on behalf of the major donors things that peskin just did had the support of jeef sheehy, ajeff sheehy, and broad group. if the march 5th date is correct, but even if it's not, that you wait until you've had an opportunity, and also, it looks better to the public that you've taken an additional step after the coverage that was in the paper. thank you. >> charles marstellar for the

record with foe. i've been counting votes for the record on the board. there are four votes on the peskin proposal as it stands, a likely fifth in the wings. she's reading the bill now. there have been substantial conversations with the mayor, so it certainly looks like, surprisingly, that there's a broad support on both spectrums of the board for the peskin measure, and in a way that i have not seen in 20 years, there seems to be excitement and enthusiasm, and i think it's a simple fact that the supervisors have gotten tired of being shaken down by the donor base, mostly the iec's or what we call noncandidate committees, noncandidate

controlled committees, and i think this is indicative that we are in a historic moment of change. i was speaking with our former counsel who is now counsel to the board, mr. givner, and he and i both talked about what we see as a turning point, and we've seen it here at ethics, so i think much of it has to do with you. and there's a certain spirit now at the board to try to turn some of this campaign finance stuff around with some innovations that frankly a majority of the board, if not most of the board, would be prepared to fight in court to sustain. i don't think they're going to be deterred by any argument that this matter -- the peskin measure is unconstitutional. i think they think that there's

aspects of it that they could successfully argue before a court for the city and county, so i, too, have concluded that you do have time to lay this over today, immediately meet with the board, and try to come to some consensus on how to proceed, and hopefully, we can have all of this enacted, and this aca or aco, whatever we're calling it, is a better, much better bill for the process because right now, to me way of thinking, it's not a strong bill. it's been watered down, and i do think adding it and incorporating other ideas, like mr. peskin's measure at the board would be very helpful in -- in making this a strong bill. thank you. >> debbie lerman from the human

services network, and i find myself in agreement with friends of ethics that we should not place this on the ballot today. there are a few process comments i'd like to make. first of all, there are two, now three versions, i guess, of the legislation floating around. the board has two duplicated files, your original version that you sent over last year, their amended version, the new one coming out of here today. supervisor tang introduced several amendments that are not yet out as of this morning, so the board's committee version hasn't even been publicly released yet, but we believed there were some good ideas in here that this body may be receptive to, and given the desire to get this right, it would be best to allow a full analysis and comparison to all of the versions. secondly, i wholeheartedly want to concur with supervisor

peskin's office that there is a tremendous benefit to working collaborately because it could be adopted at a later date. i know this is frustrating to many of you, but we have always agreed with 90% of what is in this measure. this is full of good government ideas, and we would like to see these things in place for the up coming june and november elections. also, this is a massive piece of legislation. it's 36 pages long, covers many different aspects of campaign law and conflict of interest, and it has a huge potential for unintended consequences as to how some of these things will work in the real world. once it goes on the ballot, it can no longer be tweaked to fix any flaws, no matter how small or how large without going back to the voters, so i think it would be wise to try to pass it legislatively and see how it works in practice through these up coming elections, rather than take it straight to the

ballot. and the last thing i want to say, there's been a high bar set for these kinds of amendments. the law says four-fifths of this commission and eight dlsh elevenths of the board. they affect members of the board who do things like donate or volunteer for things. they affect our first amendment rights, and because of that, and because we're potentially implicating and imposing penalties on general members of the public, it is a most responsible thing to try to work together, and again, go with the board which has a much more public process because everybody watches the board hearings and a lot more people might weigh in who understand these things and how it might affect them, and we would be more likely to discover any

flaws that people haven't even thought about, so i think it's a best practice to all work together, save the ballot occasion where public officials are really failing to act in the face of obvious corruption, and so thank you for considering that. >> commissioners, ray hartz, president, san francisco open government, what we need, and it's an objectioxy moron in th, we need honest politicians in office. we need to get people who are ethically unchallenged in office, people who are just willing to come out and be honest and open, rather than having to be forced or tricked into it. what we need is somebody in the mayor's office who will sit down and simply say, i am going to tell you every single dollar i got and every single person

that it came from. i'm going to tell you why they gave it to me, when they gave it to me, how they gave it to me. cash, check, money order, whatever it happens to be. you're always trying to close the barn door after the horses have fled, basically trying to catch somebody who is taking contributions under the table, over the table, around the bend or however they accept them. what we need instead is some leaders in this city, someone elected to the president of the board of supervisors who gets all of the other supervisors to agree, we're not going to accept any money that we're not willing to publicly acknowledge. we are not going to accept any contributions from any person who we are not publicly willing to acknowledge gave that contribution. and if the public thinks there's a conflict of interest, then, they have the information they need to make that determination. as it is right now, we don't know who's giving what to whom,

who's accepting what from whom, why they're accepting it, what they're doing with it, and when mr. hepner was talking about mr. peskin's concern about dark money, it'll be there. as much as the staff is sitting here and spending all this time and energy to keep this from happening, they have five attorneys for every one of yours and five staff members for every one of yours finding a way to get around the law you write. what i'm sure they do it follow this and say, the minute you approve it oh, here's how we'll get around that, here's how we'll get around that, and here's how we'll get around that, so by the time it goes to the ballot, the citizens are being sold a bill of goods. basically, we're saying to them, oh, we have all these things that we're going to make the city ethically less challenged, when the reality is

no, until we get people that just aren't ethically challenged in office working for the interests of the city and not for their own interests, we'll never get anywhere. >> mark bruni. thank you for allowing me to speak. i'll be very quick, chairman keane. as mr. lewis has so rightly said many times here today, honest minds can agree about these issues. i would like to see what supervisor london breed and supervisor jane kim, who are both running for may i can't rememb remember -- mayor, see what they say about it. the public has a right to see two major candidates discuss these issues. so unless it undermines the whole purpose of this, and it seems to mr. hepner, who i

trust implicitly, it does not, why not let it go to the board of supervisors for a full discussion in front of members of the public. thank you. >> i would just like to make a couple of comments. he ha we've been working with this for 2.5 years to create additions to prop j, which was passed by the city of san francisco and had a lot of strong anticorruption measures on it, and wass sub rosa, unde the table by supervisors many years kpleeld undermined and repealed part after part after part. commission renne's gave the mandate -- it's more than 2.5 years ago to go ahead and restore prop j. we're doing that. we originally restored as much

literally of prop j has had been there to begin with. we then had innumerable meetings like this in which we were criticized, we were asked for concessions, particularly by the nonprofit people in terms of their saying give us these concessions, give us these concessions, and give us these concessions, and we gave them these concessions again and again and again and again, and they were not satisfied and they're still not satisfied. we now, in terms of attempting to put together something close to an anticorruption measure have, i agree, put forth a much weakened measure than what we originally wrote, but it is an anticorruption measure. it's more than what we have

now. and this does not preclude supervisor peskin or the supervisors from going ahead and putting forth their own ordinances if they think we haven't done enough. it doesn't preclude this body from adding additional things in the future. but what it does do is it attempts to give back to the people of san francisco the democratic process that they originally put forth in proposition j. they voted for this. it was stolen from them by the city officials. we're trying to restore it. we're not able to put together anywhere near what we'd like to, but we've put together something, and we have a bevy of opposition, not just from the nonprofits who in my opinion have lost any credibility in terms of what -- what they've done in regard to arguing for this stuff. i think much of their arguments

come -- it makes them look like they are in the pocket of many of the big characters whom we're trying to regulate. at the same time, i'm looking at you, mr. bush. it's criticized, and friends of ethics say you haven't put together exactly what we wanted. it's not tough enough, toss it away. don't do it. that's very short sighted on the part of the friends of ethics and people who really want to have some sort of measure with teeth here. we've put something forth for the voters to consider. this is a democracy. the people are going to look at it and they're going to make their own determination and vote on it. in terms of all of the criticisms, like the krit i crs that we get from a small bunch

of people. this is the ultimate democratic measurement that people are going to look at and either vote up or down, so we ought to go with it. and if we don't go with it, then i don't see much reason for the continuation of this commission, i really don't. >> chair keane? >> yes. >> i actually have a couple questions, and i may direct them to staff and the deputy city attorney just from a process standpoint to understand procedurally what is before us. so i think we have reviewed the amendments, the ordinance, and that we have been prepared to vote to put it on the ballot, but as mr. hepner has spoken earlier and has then alluded to throughout our conversation this evening, there's an opportunity to engage in further discussion with the board through a joint session, and i ask deputy attorney shen, can this be done? i assume it can be done for the

board of supervisors and the commission to meet to discuss this ordinance, so it would be the anticorruption ordinance as well as the major donor legislation that supervisor peskin has proposed. >> from a process standpoint, yes, hypothetically, there could be a joint session. obviously, there would be a few challenges. from what mr. hepner related earlier in the meeting, i don't believe the board of supervisors, through its president has necessarily indicated its willingness to participate. we'd also have to coordinate schedules of the commission here. we may need to land on a date in which the full board of supervisors is already meeting, and we would need to manage to get all that done before march 2nd, which is the ballot measure deadline. i assume that would still be a strain on the ethics commission's willingness to process. it could be very challenging to fit all that? >> and we're putting our faith

in a legislative body, all due respect to mr. hepner and to supervisor peskin, that is now hyperpolitical during the course of jockeying for mayor, several people being on it, others jockeying for power, each -- one group trying to screw the other group, and we're saying well, we're going to drop what we've done here, and we're going to have faith in the particular political process of the board of supervisors of san francisco as it currently exists. well again, with all due respect to several members of that board, not to all of them, that is total foolishness in my opinion. >> mr. chairman, let me ask you -- >> commissioner renne. >> -- a process question. the board has the draft ordinance that we sent to them

on a vote of 4-1. they have that before them. if we -- and what we have before us now is some amendments to what we sent. if we were to not vote, 4-1, at least, to approve our action tonight and send it, put it on the ballot, that were not approved, what's before the -- is our earlier proposed ordinance still active, and this joint commission could make all the changes that we spent four hours on tonight? >> wait, so i'm not sure if i understand the question. so you're saying if this

commission submits this tonight. >> no, i'm saying vote against it. i'm saying it gets 3-2 votes, so therefore, we don't have the four votes. is the situation, then, that we've got the present ordinance before the board of supervisors which is then subject to the board of supervisors doing what they want or are we then putting it on the november ballot? >> right. to the ethics commission's amendmented tonight would not be adopted by the board. they would need to -- >> which causes me to say that we have two motions. one is whether or not to accept the amendments on the -- on the -- our draft ordinance, and once we approve that, then, a

motion to put it on the ballot. >> so bifurcate. >> [ inaudible ] >> this is a pure question of whether to submit to the ballot for the june 5th election. >> so the only question is the question of should it go on the ballot. >> that's correct. >> that's correct. that's our remaining request question commissioner chiu? >> so assuming this joint meeting could be scheduled in time and before the march 2 deadline, it would be finalized and if the board approves it, then -- and the commission is satisfied with the -- the ordinance, then, it would, from the date of that approval, eight out of the 11 votes, it would become law within 30

days? well, there would have to be some additional time for the mayor's office to review it, but we'd still have the same operatoff date, i would assume. that's from the current draft. i've heard from some members of the board that they'd want to move up the operative date. >> right, but it's the -- yes. so assuming whatever date we would agree to collectively, it would then become effective -- but the law itself, you know, whether or not we can implement a filing and disclosure regime within 30 days or 60 days, 180 days, that would be a practical question, but with respect to some of the other provisions, it would be an effective law 30 days of the date of signature by the mayor. >> yeah, but if we do want portions of the law to go effective sooner rather than

later, if we wanted to choose ones for various reasons that we think we can -- that would be a policy option for the theoretical joint meeting. >> and then, from a process standpoint, if we put the measure on the ballot as it is -- [ inaudible ] >> then, my second question is if we have this joint meeting with the board of supervisors and it is a process that we are not happy with from an ethics commission standpoint, it would then be -- we would still have the fourth vote to approve or amend, to change the ordinance? >> you mean at the meeting -- at this theoretical joint

meeting, would you have to approve the amendments by fourth fifths? >> yes. it would be the same threshold there, as well. >> okay. so if it were -- if it were not hashed out to our satisfaction, then presumably, presuming all the lodge sticgistics align, t could still place it on the june ballot. >> if you're saying there is no meeting of the mind between the board of supervisors and the ethics commission, the ethics commission would have to recon convenient somehow and vote to promote it to the ballot on its own, and that would also require four votes. >> and the recommendation of staff is to place it on the ballot tor the june election as

opposed to the november election, and is there a view to placing it on the november election. >> thank you for the question. i think by my count as i look through the provisions that are in the ordinance before you that you adopted, there are about 11 provisions that would require systems, processes, forms, reporting schemes to be implemented. there would be two that would be prohibitions, so i think it is very important to underscore that in order to make in our view the operative -- these provisions operative in practice so that it's not simply a window dressing effort is it needs lead time. they cannot be turned around on a dime. putting it on a june ballot would allow the commission to implement it by the january 1st, 2029 deadline. if the commission were to have a joint meeting or put it on the november ballot, that's

the prerogative of the commission. our position would be we have to be very clear that the operative moves out correspondingly. how much money might be provided to us, as mr. hepner indicated, it's not about having the money, it's about being able to spend it quickly enough to make this happen. [ please stand by ]. >> one last question. is it possible for us to vote on a motion that would contain

alternatives, for example, hypothetically, if we were to say -- if a joint meeting with the board of supervisors is -- does not occur before date certain, march 1st, for example -- i know that doesn't leave us a lot of time, then we would have voted to put this -- this ballot measure -- put the ordinance on the ballot. >> i would really not recommend creating alternatives because as much as we can try to craft a very complicated motion with a few things depending on certain conditions, i would really hate to have this commission, my office be in a position of making a call about whether those conditions were satisfied. i would strongly recommend against that. >> commissioner renne? >> i just want to point out for the board's knowledge that i will not be here after the 23rd

of february , so that even if you have a joint meeting, if it doesn't occur sometime before the morning of the 23rd, i will not be here, and i will not be here for the march meeting. >> and we need four votes. okay. all right. the question's been called. unless the commissioners have further comment, the question's been called, the motion has been made, and it has been seconded. all those in favor of putting on the ballot say aye. >> i'm going to say aye. >> thank you. >> only because of the perspicity of our chairman. that's mrs. kopp. >> she's telling you to vote on it in a moment.

>> all right. i won't repeat my comments about the diluted version of what began, but i do it from respect for chairman and other commissioners and the process which the commission has endured, and interested parties have endured. >> okay. we're not finished, so all those opposed. >> no. >> i struggle with this, because on the one hand, the -- [ please stand by ]

>> with continued amendments and changes. as i have served on this commission and go through this process the first time this is democracy at work. this is what we are all here to do. so with that i am very -- i struggle with this. i really do. on the one hand i feel like put it on the ballot because we can put it to the voters. it will be over and done with. on the other hand, could there

be benefits to the longer process and possibly better outcome that we would be committed to working towards? with that idea of engaging with other stakeholders and continuing to honor the democratic process, i will vote no. on putting it on the ballot. >> the measure fails. i resign.

>> call a recess.

>> madam chair would you

ascertain if mr. hapner is still here. >> would it be appropriate for us to consider a motion to set up a meeting with the board of supervisors as promptly as possible to proceed on the draft that they have in front of them? >> so your question is whether or not we should consider a motion for the board of supervisors to proceed on the draft they have, not the one we considered today? >> that's correct. the alternative. we were given three alternatives what this commission could do, one of which agreed to a joint meeting with the board for the

purposes of finalizing a ordinance or approval by the board and by the commission. >> yes, with that deputy city attorney would that require us to review the version of the ordinance that they currently have or what we approved here today if we were to have that joint meeting? >> here is mr. hepner. >> the commission approved a package tonight base order the staff proposed recommendations. i think the commission can transmit that to the board of supervisors. >> would that supersede what they currently have? >> wait a minute how can you transmit it without fourth fifths vote?

>> i am not saying automatically. >> you adopted the amendment. the last question was whether to submit to the ballot. >> could i make a motion that the version that we considered tonight and agreed on the changes that that be submitted to the board of supervisorses for meeting at a joint session of the commission and the board of supervisors in an effort to work out agreed ordinance that would be approved by the board and would have to be approved by the ethics commission? >> yes. >> that would be my motion. >> is there a second? >> i will second it. >> any discussion among the commissioners or shall we go to

public comment? >> call the roll. >> commissioners, thank you, i am trying to process what is happening right now. i understand the motion is to forward the accountability ordinance as amended to the board in a joint session with the ethics commission. if that is accurate, the only thing i would add and request is that this commission also a in the new subsection 1.158 and the additional as to 1.161 and 1.162 pertaining to measure donor disclosures and television and audio advertisements. you can savely continue this to the next meeting of your ethics commission which would be a joint session with the board of

supervisorses and we could act on that. i look for the city attorney for support on that, but i understand that procedurally is above board. >> the joint session? >> amend in 1.158, changes to 1.1 and 162. commission to the next session with the board of supervisorses is that feasible as yesterday? i believe so? >> yes or no? >> you can amend it where the board of supervisorses can consider it. >> the staff would have some feedback to provide about the merits of doing that or not doing that. >> through the chair, i think there is ample opportunity for staff feedback to provide that in advance of the next

commission meeting. >> when can we get this joint meeting? february 28th? >> it is not my prerogative. i believe the first week of march. >> you are through with june. >> if i may repeat. if you put this on the november ballot with the same january 1, 2019 operative date, the staff has the lead time to get this done. >> you are going to miss two elections. the june election is going to have as much money as the november. i am not taking recommendations then from supervisor peskin's office. >> thank you commissioners. >> any other public comment?

>> i think i am going to try to explain for the television what meaning the public what it is we are doing. the recommendation by mr. peskin's office was to make sure to include the peskin ordinance proposal, the measure donor side of this equation into your amendments and recommendations to the board tonight so you would transfer the aco, i believe it is called, the anti-corruption and accountabilities ordinance, acao, and add your support, as mr. peskin had already requested of you tonight three days ago

when he wrote or before then, to endorse his legislation as you would normally do in the legislative process so the public will know that tonight you would have a unified bill which has two components. mr. peskin's concepts and your concepts before you again when you meet with the board of supervisors as soon as possible. i assume this would go to the budget committee. maybe this is a question for the council. i assume the budget committee would be meeting on this matter since it is before them, but there may be something extraordinary, too, that could be done. i don't know. they have dual options, something extraordinary in the budget committee.