can you help mark bruno's nonprofit, can you please give them $10,000 or $20? that's wrong because the public official has a tremendous amount of power, and has a tremendous amount of sway over who gets jobs and what property values are worth. we all are familiar because we're all familiar with why george washington was eventually given a very high salary, because george washington at the time were investing in properties in george down and the district of columbia. they didn't have money, but they had something else, and that something else was knowledge. they knew a compromise was being made between the north and the south, where the federal capital would be. it was those people who had that knowledge and were able to invest in that property who made money, and yet, on its face at the beginning, those connections weren't really about money, they were about decision making.

where would the capital be? that's where the compromise was, but in fact those people who knew wafs going on, as is today, if enthuse know what's going on. they make money from it, so it feels wrong for anyone who's elected to ask from a citizen of san francisco or outside the city to give to a nonprofit. it just seems wrong on its face and is wrong. thank you. >> thank you. okay. so we're prepared to vote then in regard to the behested payment disclosure amendment. >> one question. >> yes, sir, commissioner kopp. >> where's the definition of interested party? is that the california government code? >> no, commissioner, that is defined in the ordinance here,

and i will direct you to it shortly. >> where is it? >> so it is on page 76, y. to see the red line version, it's 76. >> well, i don't have a red line. >> well, the color doesn't show up on your copies. i apologize. >> okay. thank you. >> i will point out that part of this was borrowed from state law. >> is borrowed from what? >> from 84308, which is the section that said the public officials cannot accept gifts of $250 or more from certain people, and we borrowed -- >> all right. that's the definition of interested people. >> not exactly. >> i mean financial interest. >> part of it.

it's -- that -- >> well, it's not defined in what commissioner chiu just gave me. all right. mr. chairman, you're satisfied that it's defined in other provisions of law? >> yes i am. >> all right. thanks. >> all right. so we're prepared to vote on the last amendment. all those in favor of the amendment, please say aye. any opposed? amendment passes 4 -- unanimously. we have all the amendments. now is there a motion to proceed to approve the ballot measure itself as shown in the attachment one agenda as amended and place it on the june 5th, 2018 ballot? do i hear such a motion? >> mr. chairman, before we do that, could i make a request

that could we go back to a section that we dealt with before where the vote, i think, w was maybe even 3-2 or 4-1, but at least -- >> sure, sure. >> and that's section 3.207, which is the initial conflicts of interest for city elected officers and members of boards and commissioner lee made a very impassioned argument against the first(a) # 1 of that, which is a prohibition, and which one says no city elected officer or member of a board or commission may use his

or her public position or office to seek anything of value. >> yeah, commissioner lee did speak to that. >> and she indicated -- during the recess, she indicated to me that the only part of that section that she one would like to have the board considering -- the commissioner consider the leading is or for organizations with which he or she is associated. >> okay. >> and so i've -- so we have -- we have voted, and we have adopted amendment without that, so i think what would be appropriate now, if we're going to make a change, would be a motion to reconsider, and.

>> i don't think we voted because there was no action required, because under the staff recommendation, there was no amendment added. >> that's correct. you're right. i -- i beg your pardon, yeah. that was one of the ones where there was no action recommended, so, therefore, no motion, so commissioner renne, are you -- >> well, i'm -- i would be prepared to make a motion that we delete that language after the word "family." >> do we what? >> delete the language with an organization he or she is associated. so that's -- >> yeah- >> so that's delete the organization with which he or she is associated.

so that would be the motion. is that -- is there a second? commissioner lee? so commissioner lee, that was your main objection? oh, okay. that's fine. >> well, there must be a motion to reconsider. >> we have one by commissioner renne, who voted in the affirmative -- well, there was no vote. there was no vote, so you don't need a motion to reconsider. >> andrew, yes? >> i just want to suggest a friendly amendment. >> sure. >> so that's an amendment to delete the last clause of 3.207.01. i don't believe we need -- also, just as cleanup, we also probably want to insert "or" prior to his or her immediate family. >> so what you're addressing is other language just to implement that idea?

>> yes chair. >> so the main point here is to eliminate the drk--- in regard conflict of interest, the organization to which someone is associated. that's the crux of it, is that correct? and we have a motion and it's been seconded. commissioners? >> i have a question. >> yes. commissioner lee. >> so i have a second for staff. the scenarios that commissioner lee raised f, a storefront for purposes of nonprofit, if an elected official is going to try and accommodate that request on behalf of a nonprofit, is that something that's contemplated under this section? >> so that would depend on the definition of associated, and associated says that an

organization in which -- or it means, an organization in which an individual or a member of his or her immediate family is a director, officer or trustee or owns or controls, directly or indirectly, and severally or in the aggregate at least 10% annually, or is a subject of that agent. [ please stand by ]

. >> -- with the official for purposes of 3.208(a) 1. >> i feel very strongly about this provision on a personal level because there was a situation that judge kopp alluded to earlier, and this particular provision was really designed in order to prohibit that type of activity. it's designed to address officers of organizations, people who have a high financial stake and paid advocates, authorized agents, and i think that's an important thing to keep in mind. >> mr. chairman. >> commissioner kopp? >> i want to associate myself

with miss blome's remark. i am unhappy about what has been done to this proposal, meaning the whole proposed so called anticorruption act ordinance. i apprehend what'll be done do it in the board of supervisors. one of these nonprofit representatives called this an improvement. it's not an improvement, it's a degradation of the original proposition c and prior law in san francisco, and even though this isn't the most important part of that degradation, it certainly is relevant, and it

is essential, and i shall vote against the proposed amendment for those reasons. >> commissioner chiu? >> so commissioner lee, does that alleviate your concerns at all, because as i read section 3.207(a) 1, that the elected official or board member would not be able to obtain a nonprofit that his or her own family member is an officer of, or their family member is a trustee or owns at least 10% of the organization. so it wouldn't be any nonprofit, it would be those that would be run by or staffed by the elected or appointed family members.

>> can you show me where specifically is the -- >> can't hear you. >> can you show me the specific language of the association and the organization. >> sure. so that's on page 69, again, referring to items 3 -- attachment three. it's the red line version, so it's page 69 -- attachment two, page 69, and it begins on line five. >> well, the last line, of which an individual or a member of his or her family is an authorized representative or

agent. so if i were on a board of a nonprofit as a director of a comm nonprofit community service organization, that would cover me, right? >> yes, and even more explicitly the director is listed in the second line, if you're a director, officer or trustee. >> yeah. >> right. >> so my thing is we have many commissioners who -- who either serve on nonprofit boards or who are associated with nonprofit boards. so even under this definition, they're still -- they're still covered by the conflict of interest rules, right? >> i'm sorry. what was your question? >> even if you take out a language that as -- that commissioner -- >> no, i'm just saying that by

taking it out, you would be okay. if -- if if tthe proposed amous to take out the associations, right? >> right, to remove the line or an organization which he or she is associated with. >> so you're saying it actually doesn't apply to nonprofits because the way associated means whatever, but i'm looking at the last line, commissioner chiu. in addition to the officers that these officers or the board or the family members associated with, at least 10% of the equity. the one line that troubles me or which an individual or an authorized family member is an

authorized member or agent, which i read is a member of a board of directors. >> right, and sorry. i didn't mean to communicate that this would wholly exclude nonprofits. i think it definitely could include them in certain instances. as you point out, if the official is a director of a nonprofit, then, that nonprofit would be considered an organization with which that official is associated for purposes of this. >> right. so a nonprofit still would be included in the current conflict of interest. >> they certainly could be, right? >> what would they be prohibited from doing? >> right. so if a nonprofit organization is considered an organization with which an official is associated, then under 3.209(a)

1, that official would be prohibited from using his or her official position to direct benefits to that organization. >> so it's anything of value skbl right. [ inaudible ]. >> so explain what that means. >> what it means is you can't vote or direct funds or benefits to the nonprofit on which you are sitting as a board of director, a paid advocate or have a 10% interest in. >> or a family member. >> yes. so this commission, if you're sitting on a board somewhere, if you had power, vote to fund that board. you'd have to recuse yourself. you'd be prohibited from taking that vote. that doesn't strike me as that problematic. >> i think you're an allergy

having to do with the spur and the planning commission situation that we saw, it was spot on in regard to this. that's what this is talking about. >> again, i'm just looking at the nonprofit that are not the spurs of the world. i'm looking at the mom and pops struggling to serve meals or work with run away -- not run away, homeless youth. i'm talking about those nonprofits, so under -- >> but commissioner lee, if you would delete this exemption -- if you make this exemption, you would allow people sitting on boards and commissions in the city who control grant money and who control contracts, you would be allowing them to direct money to their nonprofit. that's -- >> no, no.

that's -- that's a -- this is -- this is asking anything of value. i'm still -- i'm still looking at anything of value. you're asking someone for access to the lobby so that they can put a water station when they're having a walk walk-a-thon. i'm looking for anything of value that impacts a nonprofit organization, so i'm not looking at the spurs, i'm not looking at the ballet; i'm just looking at how it impacts community service organizations. under this proposal, anything of value to them may mean less of a water station right in front of your storefront because we don't have any money to pay. >> chair keane. >> commissioner chiu. >> so i think, commissioner

lee, if i can answer your question, if there's an elected or appointed official who is wanting to make the request for a water station at, you know, along the walk-athon, and is making the request on behalf of a nonprofit for which their family member is either serving as a director or a -- what else -- director, officer, or trustee or is an owner or if they are an authorized representative or agency, then, that would be prohibited. but if there's no relationship between the elected -- he selected/appoint selecte -- elected/appointed, if there's no relationship between them and the nonprofit, then there's no problem.

>> -- and i am asked to be on the sac committee, because we do that all the time, so i am associated with that organization. so that event would be included at anythi as anything of value. >> it would be somewhat rare of a sitting supervisor to be sitting on a board of directors, but perhaps that's wrong. i don't know. >> but that's the hypo, right? it's a board member sitting on the board of -- an elected board member also sitting on the board of a nonprofit, and the board member wants to put up a water station at the nonprofit walk-a-anthony.

>> >> -- walk-a-thon. >> or a shared -- does that consider? >> i think it would be arguably not a use of that person's public position. you'd have to look at if that person was acting as the official. this would still allow people to act in a private capacity. you'd have to look at are they using their office, i can imagine looking at facts like, did they use their city letterhead, did they call people into their office, did they try and use the office to obtain anything of value or were they just acting purely as a community member? those are the things you'd be looking at under this scenario. >> and with a water station, i think if a board sitting supervisor directed city funds, in whatever form to a nothinprt on which she was sitting as a board member, i think that's

okay to prohibit. >> well, that, i understand. that, i understand. but what i still don't understand is when it comes to the public official trying to support a community organization, that's where i don't see the separation. >> chair keane, if i change? >> yes, commissioner chiu? >> so i think it's an elected or appointed using his official capacity in a role as an elected official in trying to benefit, what i think the ordinance is getting at is trying to benefit a nonprofit in which that elected official family serves, so it's kind of a, well, i'm going to use my position to help my organization that my sister is on or that my -- that my

brother-in-law owns, you know, 50% of. that's what we're trying to get at here. >> what's before us now? >> what's before us now, as i understand it, is a motion by commissioner lee to take out -- excuse me. commissioner renne to take out the language on section(d) of -- section 3.207, the language, no city official shall use his -- excuse me. let me just find it again. go ahead, commissioner renne, you go ahead. >> it is taken to delete from section 3.207(a) 1, the language, or for an organization with which he or she is associated. >> or an organization with

which he or she is associated. that's it. that's what we have -- >> may i call the vote? >> the question's been called. is there a second? okay. so we will vote on whether or not we have to take -- >> don't you have to take public comment. >> public comment. >> all right. >> public comment. >> commissioners, on this motion, related to this issue, supervisor peskin had suggested an amendment it's in your packet starting at page 87. it's not going to address all of commissioner lee's concerns or commissioner renne's concerns for that matter, but i think it's something that this commission can get behind. that is anything of value, to swap out the word favor and to substitute in private financial advantage. i think that would make the

sentence read, the definition of anything of value, anything of value shall mean any money or property, private financial advantage, service, payment, advance forebearance, etcetera. i think when you look at how this is reflected in the regulation 3.207, particularly in subsection(a) 2, which i know that commissioner lee did not raise, but what it means to indirectly receive a favor i think is -- is what would be prohibited and yet kind of unintelligible. i think it's much clearer and insures -- and anything from our perspective ensures clarity. i think that this might get around the question about whether donation of a water cooler for an event is

prohibited activity, and i don't know that that smacks at what she's trying to get at, so private financial advantage would be our suggestion. >> commissioner chiu? >> thank you. can you direct me to the page on which this appears? >> in the red lined version, i'm looking at 3.203, on page 25, line one. >> okay. and then what is the language that you are referencing from supervisor peskin's amendment? >> right, and that amendment is in your packet at page -- gosh, i want to say it's between 87 and 92, again, i dropped my packet, and it got a little mixed up. but the language would be to delete favor and to insert private financial advantage. i think that that more closely

approximates the ill that this body is trying to get at. i don't think it counts as watering it down one iota. i think it's a clarity to ensure compliance, . >> commissioner chiu, did you find the page? >> no, i didn't anywhere. >> okay. if staff can help at all, just my packet is completely mixed around. >> i see the word property, favor, service. >> what page is that on? >> that's on page 90. >> it's on page 21, line 1. >> your packet? >> of staff agenda item 4 packet. page 21 -- or page 29, rather. page 21 of the ordinance, page 29 of your packet, agenda item

4 packet. my proposed definition is in the back. it is -- well, i was told that it was before you in the ten documents that i brought today and was told not to distribute because you already had it in your packet. >> this in the board of supervisors packet? >> it's right here. i have had told it was in your packet. it ought to be. [ inaudible ] >> no. >> no. >> i don't see it, mr. chairman. >> when did you make that change? >> this change was submitted to ethics staff before it went out to inclusion.

it was made at the budget and finance committee yesterday. i brought ten copies. >> what i -- >> right, and i believe it was sent out in your packet. >> what was in our packet is something like this as proposed amendments. is this what you're referring to? >> i do have one additional copy here that reflects that amendment? >> is this what you're

referring to. >> correct, that packet. >> and where in that package does it talk favor. >> on the bottom right, it says page 28, and it's the first line of that page 28, deletes favor and inserts private financial advantage. >> the problem is i don't have a page 28. i have a page 24, and then a page 32. >> i've got it. all right. what's your point? i know. what's your point? >> commissioner kopp, through the chair, this adds clarity and ensures compliance and enforceablity of a measure and definition of any value includes the word favor. i think relative to the regulation that it's prohibited to indirectly receive a favor. i challenge anybody on this commission to illustrate what it means to indirectly receive a favor. i think that it's much clearer to write private financial advantage. that was supervisor peskin's amendment that he made yesterday to the budget and finance committee.

>> so it wouldn't apply to a nonprofit. >> no, it absolutely would, commissioner. excuse me for interrupting. it absolutely would apply to a nonprofit. >> who gets a financial bribe or an advantage out of a nonprofit? >> i'm sorry. i don't think that's the nature of the regulation. >> i think the private financial advantage would be to -- would be included in the definition of anything of value such that the elected or the appointed could not use his or her official position to deliver or obtain private financial advantage for the benefit of an associated nonprofit. >> chairman, are we in public comment. >> i wouldn't interpret -- >> because the question -- >> we are in public comment. we've now heard mr. hepner -- yes, sir. why don't you go ahead and

speak, and then, we'll vote on the motion of commissioner renne. >> thank you, chair keane. so i'd like to wholeheartedly echo what mr. hepner just said and to illustrate an example that shows how you can receive a private financial benefit from a nonprofit. current law already would make the following scenario a conflict of interest. if i were to serve on a city commission, and my wife, let's say, re volunteer board member, or rather than a paid executivor of a nonprofit, and i directed city funds to her employer, that financial interest, her receiving a financial gain through her employer, because of my official action, would be imputed to me as the public official and i would have a conflict of interest in this case under government code

87100 et seq. under state law. so that arrangement is already illegal whether you're talking about a nonprofit employer or a for-profit employer. >> excuse me. before you leave, mr. chair. >> yes, commissioner kopp. >> what code is that in? government code? >> yes. >> what section? >> 87100, the conflict of interest section. >> thanks. >> and there's a similar -- >> thank you. >> provision under 1090. so the concern of ours for nonprofit volunteers and unpaid board members that in the scenario i just gave, if i'm a city official, my wife, let's say is an unpaid board member. if i were to use my official position to make some sort of favor to her organization, which is not very clearly defined, i would now, as the public official, have a conflict of interest even though there's no financial

gain imputed to her since she's unpaid. so i think that's our concern there. and i think, again, i think reasonable minds can disagree about whether i should as a city official be able to direct funds to a nonprofit that is under the direction or control of my wife. but our concern is if there is no payment requirement, then we would respectfully ask that anything of value be then very clearly defined, and i think -- sorry, rather, supervisor peskin's amendment would help do that, something like that, so that public officials would be put on notice so they can better comply in good faith. thanks very much. >> thank you. >> commissioners, larry bush from friends of ethics.

it seems like we're traveling the world out of a submarine and looking out of the tiniest, tiniest little hole. when you talk about profits, you're talking about nonprofits, so we do have officials who are spouses of major entities of this city, and they do have contracts with the government. if you change this to meet commissioner lee's concern, and said that you were providing an exemption for a nonprofit that provides sfervices -- human services of housing, health, and so forth to indigent people who are not being reimbursed for it, then, you would have something similar to what exists in approximate los angeles and their lobby law, and it's what we have said before. then, if you have someone who's on a board, and they are providing a benefit to a

nonprofit that's a 501(c) 3, you're not running into the situation of spur because they don't provide services. they are just an advocacy organization, but you are helping people who do a mom and pop food drive in the community. so i think if you have an exemption that says that it applies for 501(c) 3's that are providing services at no cost, that are human services, that you would be well within the grounds. thank you. >> debbie lerman, human services network. i just want to briefly concur with torrance remarks. i also agree that removing organization from there would not affect true conflicts of

interest which are already prohibited under the law. and i also have -- but it's just a gut reaction, this is targeting nonprofits, and as mr. bush points out, i believe it applies to for profit associations, as well, but i would urge you, as a minimum to change the word from organization to corporation or something similar or clarify for profit and nonprofit. >> 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