>> i would draw you back, again, where we started with mr. bush. he made very salient comments for amendments to 1.114.5a as well as section 1.114 in general and 1145b to simplify the process, making it blue to avoid some of the pitfalls in legislative attempts in the past where we've had, for instance, people filing a complaint take a sheet and check what violation of the laws, chapters and verse, they were citing in their complaint. people were clueless. the other thing that happened was that we passed a bill, a

charter amendment in 2001 that did, in fact, say, any advocacy by the city attorney is prohibited on the year in which he's on the ballot, whatever the provision was. it was on the modification of the election law in setting up the elections commission. so you have to added -- add "support" or "oppose". they had to do that in 2002. so i drew your attention specifically to what mr. bush has referred to, and hopefully that will be part of the amendment you're going to make on this section, which i assume you're going to do by seriotum. >> yes. >> good. thank you. >> any public comment by the

commissioners before we vote on the amendment? >> in response to both mr. bush or stellar, is there any reason why we don't say? >> commissioner, could you please step up to the microphone? >> is there any reason why we don't say for or against? if it's a contribution to a committee against a candidate, that it also has the same requirement of a donor or is there a presumption they have to get a card from the donor, making certain representations. >> i would be happy to accept that as -- >> i think it might be helpful if we could have a specific reference to what section or line of the draft the public comment is suggesting we amend.

>> 11.145. >> for clarification, 11.145a, that's on the table. b is not on the table, so i don't think that should be part of the discussion. >> why is that? >> chair keen gave the recommendation that people only talk about what is in front of this body on the individual items. it is not agendized. >> it is certainly an agenda item. the whole ordinance is an agenda item. i don't understand saying it's only the proposed changes. maybe i'm wrong. >> i think you're both right in terms of that. what you're saying is in regard -- kyle is right, that what we're taking up now is the

amendment and the language of the amendment, which is at page two. >> right. >> that's what we're doing. what you're suggesting is in regards to things mr. bush has said, that there would be an amendment to the language of the amendment to make it more extensive as to what it applies to. you have some language for that. i think that's in order. so if you want to propose some language to amend the particular amendment that we're talking about, and if there's a second to it, we can then talk about that. city attorney, see any problem with that? >> yeah, so, let me just address the process point because i think it's getting a little confusing down here from our perspective. so if the commission is going to move to forward this to the

ballot today, the commission should bear in mind that the more changes we do on the fly, the more prone to making an inadvertent error. if the commission does some of this today, these would all be last-minute minutes. staff has put a lot of time and thought into these minutes. not saying that they can't, but if the intention is to send it to the ballot today, again, we may want to focus the discussion. >> i agree with the city attorney in regard to that observation -- >> mr. chairman, can i confirm my understanding. the commission is considering a proposed amendment, which is reflected on page six of the ordinance section 1.114.5 (a).

>> right. >> is that the section you want to amend by adding a line that says for or against? >> i don't think that is specific. >> page six. i know. i'm on page six. >> okay. well, i understood, mr. chairman, that's what is before the commission. >> it's stated on page two under main criticisms expressed by the members of the board, a, section

1.114a (a). it's that amendment we're talking about. >> but it's already on page six that way, is it not? whoever is answering? mr. gunneder? >> that is our proposed amendment. >> that's the amendment on page six. >> correct. >> yes, it is. i appreciate commissioner kobb's frustration. it's in the language. it's on page six. commissioners, any further discussion? are we prepared to vote on the amendment? all right. is there a motion in favor of the amendment? >> i think there is a motion.

>> there is. and it's been seconded. >> it's seconded. >> and we've had public comment. so i think we're in a position to vote on the amendment. all those in favor of the proposed amendment, please say aye. [voting] >> the amendment passes four to one. [off microphone] >> it does not include a mandato mandatory. >> okay. let's move to the second amendment we're going to take up, which is at the bottom of page two. begins at the bottom of page two. it's in regard to disclosure.

>> okay. this is 2e. it applies to the section of the ordinance that creates disclosure of bundling and the specific amendment in this draft is to strike one of the particular disclosures. and that would have been whether or not the bundler has attempted to influence the person for which he or she has bundled contributions. it would be more of a strictly financial disclosure. who the bundler is, which contributions were bundled, and how much they were for. it would not include attempts to influence. >> okay. commissioners, any discussion on this amendment? >> i have a question, mr. chairman. >> yes, commissioner kobb.

>> the amendment, the language on the attempts to influence, or ambiguity. is that accurate, through the chair? >> that's correct. there was concern -- >> i know what the concern is. please. what about the phrase practiced legislative advocacy ? does that have enough certainty to overcome the ambiguity claim? >> i mean i can't really answer that question. that's really for the board of supervisors that raise this concern, whether that would satisfy their concern. >> well, mr. chairman, i'm going to count that as an amendment so we'll assert that language in

section 1.125. >> what is the language, commissioner kobb? >> the words attempted to influence blah, blah, blah. that is being deleted. the word is attempted to influence. those words are recommended for deletion. >> i think what you're saying is you're suggesting that we not delete them. >> no. i'm suggesting substitute the language. practice advocacy. i will get you the exact line and page where that would go in.

oh, i've seen. you've taken it out. where was it. >> if you go to page 55. >> in order to see the language, you need to go to page 55 of the packet. so the bottom right-hand corner. >> page 11. >> right. in a red-line version, you can see where the paragraph was struck. in lines four through eight. and you can see attempted to influence.

you would strike attempted to influence and, instead, practice legislative advocacy. >> so amend the amendment? is there a second to the motion. >> i second it. >> okay. is there any discussion on the motion to amend the amendment. >> could you repeat the language? >> mr. kopp could. >> practice legislative advocacy. >> okay. >> and attempted to influence or just practice legislative advocacy? >> just practice legislative advocacy. >> just line eight is the language that gets changed. >> city attorney have an

observation here? >> yeah. just to repeat my prior caution. again, if the commission wishes to submit this to the ballot today, i think we should definitely try to steer away from these last-minute amendments and introduce new terms that don't have any new definitions. now, if it is not the intent to submit this to the ballot today, then i think we can open this up to a broader discussion, but, again, i fear that we're going to lose some of these amendments, and we're going to learn of vacancies later after we've formally submitted this to the voters. just a word of caution. >> i agree with the city attorney on this. we've been talk about this for over a year. the staff has worked hard as can be to put this in a really good form. and to start tweaking with it now at the 11th hour, i understand the concerns of commissioners kopp and renne,

but when this is ready to launch, to put on the ballot in june, i don't think it's a good idea. that's just my personal opinion, commissioners. >> so we have that motion to make that change, and it's been seconded. do we have to take public comments on that? >> i mean, you may just want to have that motion on the floor and take public comment on this entire proposed amendment. >> i'm sorry i don't understand. >> right. i think you can have judge kopp's proposal on the floor and take public comment on that and then thing a yule proposed -- actual proposed amendment by staff. >> and then we can vote on the amendment to the amendment and then on the amendment. >> correct, chair. >> okay.

i think that's a good idea. i think at this point, if there's no further discussion by the commissioners, no further amendments to the amendment by the commissioners, we'll take public comment, and then we'll go on to vote in accordance with what the city attorney has suggested. take public comment. >> commissioners, directors of san francisco, i'm a member of men mensa, and this is about a clears as mud to me. there are many people active in this community. if we thought we were each going to get $5,000 and give it to a particular ballot measure or candidate or whatever, they give me each a check for $5,000 each, and i add my 5,000. when i make this certification, i may not have tried to

influence anybody in the matter, but i'm not able to certify whether any of my four friends did. i don't know them to the extent i would follow them around and know if they've talked to anybody or not. so basically, you're asking me to certify something, which i have no real way of knowing whether it's true or not. did any of my four compatriots approach anybody to influence the candidate? i don't know. i didn't think to ask them because i'm not familiar with this law. and when i sign this form, i'm just kind of blindly signing it and saying, well, i'm certifying that i didn't try to, you know, certify a candidate. this leaves open a tremendous loophole. if i want to have four of my friends, all of whom have talked to the candidate about the item and attempted to influence him or her, i can then simply be the straw man. they gave me their checks, i add

my check to it, and i certify that i have not attempted to unless the candidate. now, i'm just simply covering up the fact that my four friends all did. so i don't know what exactly it is you're saying i'm certifying, and if it's saying i'm certifying that i didn't attempt to influence the candidate, i can do that; but what about the other four people who gave 80% of the money? did any of them attempt to influence the candidate? who knows? and when i made my statements, is it possible down the road that i may get hauled into court with this fine and other stuff because one of my friends, unbeknownst to me, sent emails to the candidate about certain matters, and then he gave me a check for 5,000, i passed it on, and signed your card. dammed if i do.

dammed if i don't -- damned if i do, damned if i don't. this makes absolutely no sense, as far as clarification goes. people would have no idea what this law was and whether or not they were adhering to it or not. >> mr. chairman, the staff. >> mr. kopp? >> does this provision apply only to the bundler? >> yes. >> thank you. >> commissioners, larry bush for friends of ethics. i would just like to say as a point of personal privilege, we are not the ones who are tweaking this language. this language was tweaked by staff yesterday. all we're doing is asking that the language we have seen and worked with for the past several months now be used. so, for example, suddenly we see a provision that says that we're

exempting volunteer people in campaigns. what we know is that people who serve on finance committees for candidates are volunteers. they're not paid. they're not going to show up in any record. do we know if that's been significant? well, the san francisco examiner at the time was asked to disclose the names of his finance committee, and he declined, saying there's no requirement that he disclose who is on his finance committee. that's one example. the second thing is the issue of whether or not your influencing people is easily tied to whether or not you've hired a lobbyist or an advocate on an issue. it's not just about a financial issue. it's also about appointments to commissions. it's about policies like where is the bus lane going to go. these are not direct financial things. if you go on to the ethics web page, the list of lobbyists, to

see what they're contacting city officials about, it is not about the things that have direct interest. this is the second time that we have something before the commission that was not significantly road tested and does not relate to what's going on with the city. if you can't match the reality of what the public faces with what you're getting from your staff, it won't be efficient. >> since we're talking about lobbying or lobbyists and lobby registration, that we might want to also include the term practice legislative or administrative advocacy because that's the terms in the law. thanks. >> thank you. >> we've received a letter from supervisor peskin, which nicely

clarified the sort of confusion we were in earlier in regard to the marks of lee heppner during public comments. it says i hear by authorize lee heppner. in his official capacity as my staff and representative before the february 16th, 2018, ethics meeting. thank you, that qualifies things nicely, mr. heppner. do you want address the second amendment that we've been addressing? >> you just told him to wait until the end. do them all at once. >> do them all at once? >> yeah. i thought that's what you suggested when we get to the peskin -- >> no. i was actually talking about him addressing what is all in the peskin amendment all at one

time, but if supervisor peskin's representative wants to address these specific amendments rather than going into other things that might be on supervisor peskin's plate, that's perfectly fine, and now we can see how he would be addressing him. so, do you have any comments, mr. heppner in regard to the disclosure of bundling agreement? you don't have to. >> respectfully, i missed the entire discussion. i'm not sure what i'm commenting on, so i think i will sit this one out. >> smart move. okay. >> with the consent of the seconder, i would like to amend the motion to amend and add administrative advocacy. >> okay. the motion has been accepted by

the seconder, commissioner r renne. any discussion before we vote on the amendment to the amendment and then on the amendment itself? all right. commissioner chui? okay. we're voting now on commissioner kopp's proposed language, amending the amendment. >> i have one question, commissioner kopp. did you mean to insert back in paragraph four? in other words, it's now out. >> yes. so you're suggesting paragraph four be put back in with the amended language? >> yes. >> thank you. >> and just for the record, could we, please, read that as amended? >> i think that's a good idea.

>> okay. so this will be starting online four, page 55. whether during the 12 months prior to the date of the final contribution that makes the bundle $5,000 or more, the person who bundled the contributions practiced administrative advocacy and ... ... if so, the action that the contributor sought to influence any outcome sought. >> thank you. >> okay. all of those in favor of commissioner kopp's amendment to the amendment, please signify by saying aye. [voting] >> i still don't know who's opposed besides me.

>> i thought i said no. >> i'm sorry. i didn't hear you. that's my aging hearing. okay. so we have the amendment to the amendment that fails three to two. now let's go to the amendment itself, and all those in favor of the amendment, please signify by saying aye. [voting] >> the amendment passes four to one. now let's go to the next amendment. it's reflected on page three. the amendment of section 1.127. kyle? >> i'm going to attempt to shorten this process up and hopefully make this a bit more simpler. if you would all turn to your packet agenda item page 460.

okay. section 1.127 was dealing with persons with land use matters before a decision-making body. staff is proposing in deliberations with commissioners chui and renne and in deliberations with the committee that that be deleted. that's reflected here in the crossout language. the language is to delete 1.127. >> okay. that is the amendment. commissioners? >> i move it be accepted. >> second. >> it's been moved and seconded. any discussion, commissioners? >> question. >> commissioner kopp. >> to the staff, with respect to the bottom of page three,

definition of developer is arbitrary and does not reflect real world land use transactions. what does "real world" mean? >> that provision is being deleted. i can't speak to that. >> who -- >> that was a criticism from the board. >> how about mr. heppner? what is "real world". >> this has been before the commission since supervisor peskin produced it in 2017. we did not request this be deleted. rather, i think it would be appropriate for this body to conform it to the version that supervisor peskin put before this body. to your point, commissioner, the developer we thought was overbroad and vague and did not make sense. we, therefore, proposed to exclude all of that definition on page three line six to seven. i think this conforms to the version you have, but in any event, it's on page 37 on your packet. all the amendments that

supervisor peskin properly noticed into the packet for this meeting. to delete the language or being the developer of that project or property. i have other comments on how to conform this properly to what supervisor peskin submitted to this body that is enforceable and makes sense and matches to the real world the way these land use decisions are contemplated. >> why don't you make your comments now, all of the comments you have now related to this. >> land use matter, i don't know how this became to include, quote, any request to a city elected officer for planning code or zoning map amendment. we would request that language be threated from section 1.127 and instead be replaced with the threshold we had introduced in our file. that would add the language and which has a value or construction cost of $1 million or more.

this term should not include an ordinance or resolution provided that land use matter shall include any ordinance and resolution that applies to only a single project or property or includes an exception to a single project or property. there's additional lang wan we did not want to include in 1.127. land use matters shall not include discretionary review hearings before the commission -- i'm sorry, we anticipated including that or at least some distinction between mandatory or affirmative dr. because for people going before the planning commission on a mandatory dr, it's a completely different situation they're presenting their case to than a case that is being presented in response to somebody affirmatively taking discretionary review from an approval like a variance or real yard hearing. >> thank you. any further public comment?

>> commissioners, directors of san francisco government. i honestly don't know what it is the hell we're considering here. you go through this whole presentation of how the staff did all this work of amending and putting this forward. it was sent out to the public that this is what was being discussed. now all of a sudden we have aaron peskin sticking his mitts in with your acquiescence since you didn't object to his notice. what are you discussing? what the public was told would be discussed or what aaron peskin decides you will be discussing today or what the public was told you were going to according, or are you going to make changes willy-nilly so the public wouldn't have any idea whether or not to come to this meeting? the whole purpose of public

notice is that if i'm an affected person, if this is going to be something that affects me or about something i'm concerned, i get the public notice, i go through it, and i make my decision on whether or not to attend the meeting based on the fact that i believe what is in here is or is not appropriate. now we come in with all this other stuff that's been add in willy-nilly, changes. your staff sits here and says, it''s probably not a good idea to start making changes in the middle of the stream, and you go ahead and say, yeah, that's fine. and then you do it again. and the second thing, there's a clear conflict of interest here. number one, the three people we're talking about in disposing with this are the city attorney, the board of supervisors, and the mayor. so basically three out of the five people who appoint you to these chairs are saying, oh, we don't want a restriction on us getting contributions. take it out. and you're going to do their bidding. that's what it looks like to me.

and i think that's what it looks like to most of the public. and getting little notes from aaron peskin in a hearing and saying the public can figure out if he's actually representing aaron peskin or representing himself during public comment. public comment is public comment. it is not mr. heppner representing the comments of aaron peskin. aaron peskin is my supervisor, and he's a shady character. i don't trust him any further than i can see him. the bottom line is you're going along with this in such a way that i can't see any rain that this makes this valid in any credible function where you can go to the public and say that was not unduly influenced by the people who appoint you to those seats. >> mr. chairman? >> commissioner kopp? >> for the record, aaron peskin is not a shady character.

aaron peskin is a trustworthy person. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, commissioner kopp. also, for the record, the discussion that mr. heppner was asking is part of the record that was circulated to the public, and the public knew that was an area of comment. it's not something that just came up by mr. heppner. >> i would like to second commissioner renne's observation. everything that we've been discussing so far has to do with the particular literal amendments that are stated in the attachments that have gone out to the public, and we have not departed from that. we've had one proposed amendment change to add some language so far to one of those amendments, and that proposed amendment changed to add that language has

been defeated. so so far we've been faithful completely to the language that we gave the notice of the public that we would be discussing. okay. so further public comment. >> commissioners, larry, friends of ethics. i would like to respectfully point out that your agenda says you're going to discuss the anti-corruption ordinance. it does not say you will be limited to those points raised in a staff report. so we've just, for example, skippeded over 1.126, which is about contributions from contractors where we had wanted to see that you adopted a provision that banded contractors from bundling, just as we do lobbyists and others, as well as from paying for trips, but it's not on the agenda of what the staff gave you, and so it's not coming up on anything you're doing. that's where it turns out that what the public comes expecting

to be able to discuss is not going to be discussed. that's wrong. thank you. >> thank you. >> charles marcellla, again, for friends of ethics. i've been around 20 years, watching the ethics commission and this city, and i think it's clear to the public, the people who pay taxes, that after so many press articles that land use is the mother's milk of politics in a city that has some of the highest land values in the world, particularly in an era when we've become an international city from our provincial backwater state -- which i'm joking.

anyway, it's clear that this could be rewritten in a way where you can amend this to be in conformance with mr. peskin's approach. he's a land specialist. he did this as a private citizen for many years. so i would urge you to be cautious on deleting some of these things, particularly when mr. peskin may actually be advocating for some tweaking of the language so the provision conforms with his concepts moving forward now at the board of supervisors. >> do we have any further public comment? kyle? >> could i make a brief comment. with all respect to the supervisors and commenters, we're deleting this provision with regard to the recommendation to place in item

on the ballot due to the comments we heard on budget and finance and what we've been hearing from interested parties. we're not, by any means, just trashing this issue. we're merely tabling it so we can have further discussions with building inspection, with planning, with the supervisors, to hopefully get this right. but to have 12-hour amendments is not right. >> i agree with that. what the staff has done, quite responsibly, is attempted to draft a nice, clean ballot measure that the voters can look at in june and understand. many of these other things that we may be addressing have tremendous merit, and we're not abandoning them at all, as kyle has said. we're going to be taking them up with further ordinance discussions, with supervisor pesk

peskin. but we're just putting a final version on what's going on the ballot in june. as the staff has worked very hard to get it to the form that we have it -- >> mr. chairman? >> commissioner kopp? >> in light of the last comment on page four describing the proposed amendment, the staff sa says, an impertinent part, a contribution restriction based on a land use matter would likely be better through a process that can properly address the various concerns raised by members of the board, meaning the board of supervisors. what is that process? >> so i think the process is sort of what i just laid out. it's going back and meeting with planning and the persons in the know and clarifying the

language, probably working with supervisor peskin who originally proposed this piece, in hopes we get this right. >> when? for june? for the ballot? >> as soon as possible after this item is concluded. >> well, what do you contemplate? a charter amendment? >> no. no. no. it would be an ordinance. >> an ordinance? >> correct. >> and you think, legally, mr. chin, that's justifiable, an ordinance? >> yes, that is the subject matter that could be addressed by ordinance. >> all right. >> any further public comment? >> okay. then i think we're ready to vote on the amendment to section 1.127. all those in favor of the

amendment, please say aye. [voting] >> the amendment passes four to one. we now go to page four, which is the amendment so section 3.027, the conflict of interest provisions. >> thank you, chair. i will address you from here, if that's all right. if you don't object, i would like to skip to 307. what this says is there's no proposed amendment. >> i'm sorry. you're right. that's purely informational in regard to what it says, but that's not going to be an action item. [overlapping speakers] >> i do want to ask the question regarding 307. >> please, yes. >> would you like me to preface this with what is in the memo, or would you like to pose your questions? >> yes. >> 3.207 contains conflicts of

interest provisions, which are described here in the section summary. i won't go through each one. i will skip to the criticism. so one of the rules uses the term anything of value, which is a defined term and it essentially says an official may not accept anything of value if it's reasonably expected to influence their actions. and this term was criticized as being vague, as too broad. various suggestions were made as to how to fix this, removing some words or adding with concrete monetary value or something. but the approach that is reflected sheer not to change it but, instead, to depend on the term "reasonably to be expected to influence their actions" as a sufficient limiting component. so even though the term "anything of value" is, in fact,

broad, that's by design. it would incorporate things with little value, but, however, things with little value are not reasonably expected to influence an official's conduct. so an example that came up in discussions with committee was what if somebody gives an elected official a ride, just gives them a ride. that could be something of value. it could be favor, and therefore trigger this provision. so to an extent that's true. so anything of value, however, it's very unlikely that that is reasonably to be expected to influence their vote on an ordinance, for example. that's where the analysis in this provision lies. what is reasonably expected to influence someone's judgment. i think staff contemplates the definition, that it excludes items of demeantive value.

but the staff thinks it does project a reasonable limitation there. the other point we addressed here is what does it mean for an official to be associated with an organization? so an amendment was suggested at committee that this not include organizations for which the official or the official's family member is a volunteer. so, for example, if this person were an unpaid director at an organization, that that organization should not be considered one with which the official is associated. so what that would mean, effectively, is that the rule that says an official may not use his or her position to direct value or to seek a benefit for an organization with which that official is associated, that rule would not

apply if the official were, for example, an unpaid director of an organization. that official would not be prohibited from using his position to try and direct things of value to the organization that he's a director for. and i think, as staff, we thought that undermined part of the core purpose of this rule that, even if an official doesn't get monetary compensation, the official still arguably would get benefit in some form by directing benefits to that organization, whether it's prestige or an indirect, non-monetary benefit that there's still a danger there of pay to play, someone using their position to try to influence people to direct benefits to an organization, that that official is an unpaid director for. that's why that amendment is not reflected here. >> commissioner lee? >> thank you, chair, and thank

you, staff, for clarifying this. first of all, just for clarification, i'm the only non-attorney on this commission. so i want to make sure that this is -- >> be grateful. >> badge of honor. since i started on this commission, we've discussed this proposal. i must commend the staff for your openness to really engage with the stakeholders because i've seen improvements at every meeting. in addition of value to me has continued to be a major concern. the expectations were mentioned that anyone could reasonably not expect influence but we're in an

alternative fact type of time right now, and the way this is written is going to have a chilling impact on the most vulnerable population in our city, the community service agencies. i mentioned in the latest federal budget proposal has really affirmed that the community service organizations, they're in for a really, really rough ride. this is a time that the city really needs to bring together the public and the private sector to really address the human issues that we're going to have to face. again, anything of value is too broad. anyone can say just because you

gave them a ride does not mean -- but there will always be someone who says just because you gave someone a ride, therefore you were bought. at this time when we're trying to encourage people to get involved with civic engagement, it's also going to be scare off people that they don't want to serve in commissions. if you have to choose to serve your school or your community art center or what have you, under this rule, anything of value is still so broad that, you know, using another example that folks brought up, if you're a non-profit, trying to do a walk-a-thon, one of your staff or your board members happens to

be on the city commission, if you need to use a business for a water station, that is anything of value. that's prohibited. that's going to hurt the non-profit, the community service, bottom line, in terms of their financial and service progra programs. so i still believe that this is too broad, and no matter what language is going to put in, you're expecting people to be reasonable. and i feel if we were to put this on a ballot, we need to be really specific. and if there's not an opportunity to put a monetary

value on that, my proposal is to delete the whole section because there's already language to really address the potential conflicts of interest without hurting inadvertently the folks that are really in need of a publi public-private partnership that we'll need to rely on for the next few years. so i would like to make a proposal to amend this by deleting section a. was it section a? it addressed the meaning of value, that whole paragraph. >> okay. is there a second to the amendment? >> i'm sorry. to the chair. commissioner lee, you're

proposing to amend the section by deleting subsection a? i just want to make sure i understand. >> yes. >> what section definition? >> anything of value. >> the anything of value. >> 3.203? >> section 3.207, section a subsection 1. >> the definition -- >> yeah. >> i guess the problem i have is you give some illustrations, but what the prohibitions are, if you look at 3.207.1. no city elected officer or member may use his public position to obtain anything of value. you have a problem with that? that a public official should

have a right -- >> she wants to delete the term -- >> i know, but what are you putting in its place? what are you putting in its place? what is it that the public official is prohibited against? >> well, right now, the way i interpret this, anything of value would mean if a supervisor is going to be a co-chair of a fundraiser, a fundraising event for a community service agency within his or her district, he or she will not be able to ask for anything of value, including someone lending a water station for a walk-a-thon or a temporary

station for people to stop by or a warriors stadium walkthrough. so for me, it goes back to the whole broad interpretation of what "anything of value" is. i don't have a problem with people putting in a specific monetary value, if they say anything over a certain amount, which was something that was recommended, i think. but the way it is left right now, anything of value could be, as he said, a ride to an event or lending a store front to hold an event when a non-profit organization will not be able to rent a facility. so, for me, given the entire

situation, providing vital human services, this would be a chilly deterrent for folks who really wanted to help out non-profit and community service organizations. so, therefore, by proposal is we either put in -- but that was something that was rejected, somebody mentioned about monetary value. so my amendment is, then, we just take out the number one, and number two actually addressed the conflict of interest too. >> well, let's take them one at a time, there, if we can, commissioner. the chair hears a motion to delete the term "anything of

value." that's one of your motions. is that a second to the motion? being no second -- i'm sorry. >> the deletion would be from section 3.207a subsection 1 and not from subsection 3. >> no. >> it's section 3.207, section a and subsection 1. no city elected officer or member of a board or commission may use his or her public 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 th