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. >> 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. sorry. well, it is before the budget committee now, anything you input back goes to the clerk and back to the budget committee. that is where it is at now. what they want to do with this

proposal to meet with you, i don't know. i will say one thing, and that is that i have attended joint commission meetings like planning and other meetings on common interest issues such as seismic. this is done not routinely but has been done with some degree of frequency. >> thank you. >> commissioners open government. again, i understand your comments, however, for the public, i would like to point out what we end up having is going from a year and a half, two years whatever the length of time commissioner keen said the staff worked on this and put out to the public what was considered for adoption for the ballot measure and furthermore

sent to the board of supervisorses now we are going with some sort of thing, yes, in the package as proposal from supervisor peskin. now we have this amalgamation that we are creating where the public doesn't understand completely what supervisor peskin is proposing and out it is going to affect what you did. we sat here four hours. you did all of the changes now you are going to arbitrarily accept all of the input from the supervisor peskin. just throw it in there. how is it going to affect legislation overall, the meeting with the board of supervisors? nobody has shot about that. we are saying supervisor hepner

says we ought to do this and the commissioner said top taking advice from supervisor peskin's office and sort of adopt the changes that he is proposing willy-nilly. i mean if you couldn't get it right in two years and we got here tonight with all of the discussions where it was very clear to me and i think the public if they were paying attention it was clear to them that you all didn't really agree on what was being put forward. i would think after two years the stuff put before you buy the staff would have been something you pretty well understood with slight modifications. yet it appeared to me the entire night you were having these arguments about nitpicky points of every single point. okay. this is what you are presenting to the public after two years of your working on it, and now it

seems like what you are going to do is say, well, take stuff from supervisor peskin and put it in and throw that to the public and hope they will pass it. hope their dogs will confer red meat. i mean that would be the most unacceptable and most arbitrary action i could think of. that is bizarre. >> thank you. >> madam chair, may i ask a question of mr. hepner? >> yes. >> mr. hepner, why does supervisor peskin want us to incorporate in these two proposals of his rather than letting the board do it at this

joint session? >> thank you for that question. i think procedurally we cannot act on anything that this commission has not approved. the idea is to have the commission make the statement today it is ready to move forward this measure donor disclosure piece so the board can approve it at the joints session. that is the importance today is moving forward to send that message. >> when you say that it can't be approved at this joint session without our first tonight approving it? >> i guess the question i would have through the chair is whether the commission would be able to take action in approving this measure donor discan disclosure piece without

continuing to the next session of the ethics commission for time approval. the board of supervisors cannot approve anything this body has not approved by a four fifth's vote. >> couple things. it is hard to say whatever could be heard at this joint meeting. i am not sure what comes out of the meeting would require another meeting that hasn't happened yet. you can't speak to that. if the commission wants to amend this, that is find. it does not mean this commission formally approved the concept put forward by supervisor peskin's office. it is in draft form. it has moved very quickly, and there needs to be time for my office and the other staff to analyze and consider the

consequences of that measure. i understand your goal to move this as quickly as possible. we can move it on an expedited basis. it will take time. >> respectfully if that comes before the board takes final action, that auto suffice. >> let me make myself clear. i am not going to -- i am going to change my vote on the ordinance as amended. i am going to vote no. the question, mr. shin, is can i move for approval and transmission forthwith to the board of supervisors sections 1.158, 1.161, 1.62, 1 point --

that is 1.162. 1.168 and section 3.231, 3.640, 3.650 as mr. peskin has proposed in his letter of february 13, 2018? all of the provisions except the provision on recusal. can this commission adopt and remember all of those to the board of supervisors tonight? >> let me see if i understand. you want to recind it?

>> no, that is through. >> it may be revived. don't get in the weeds with that. forget that. forget what happened. it is dead for tonight. i am asking you about this. can i move approval and transmittal to the board of supervisors. >> no as i explained. the ethics commission cannot improve 1.158 tonight. >> why not. >> this moved quickly. i understand supervisor peskin wanting to move forward quickly. as of today there is no version that is signed, it has moved quickly. we have not had the benefit of analysis from the city attorney's office and the ethics commission staff. the answer is no. >> could this be moved at this theoretical joint meeting?

>> yes. >> when can the joint meeting be held, mr. hepner? bearing in mind you have to be at the registered voters by march 2 and. can it be held on the 28th? >> that is so far above my pay grade to set that meeting. >> i am not asking for a binding answer. do you think that is possible. the 28th is a wednesday. i am available in th in the aft. >> commissioner will not be here. >> well, i am available on the 22nd in the afternoon. >> also, as the city attorney informed me earlier although the chair keen resigned he will need to submit something in writing. that has not happened yet. we may prevail upon him to

reconsider. >> with all due respect, i think the concept of putting this on the june ballot failed. so that the march 2nd date is irrelevant. i think the motion i made and it was seconded was that we deliver to the board a copy of the amended ordinance that we ruled on tonight and request immediately a joint meeting with the board of supervisors to consider finalizing the ordinance for approval by the ethics commission and the board of supervisors. >> question. how can you do that if it failed? >> no, there is a current motion

that, as i understand, is to take this. the motion that failed was to put it on the ballot. the ordinance as amended was approved. that would be transmitted to the board of supervisorses with the request to schedule a joint meeting as soon as possible. >> continuing to a joint meeting? >> yes. >> when request that joint meeting occur? >> you spent more time on the board of supervisorses than i did. you know it how long it may take to get 11 to agree. >> this is all academic unless it can happen by the 22nd and what do you need 48 hours of the public of the special meeting? >> commissioner, i am not certain on this. what i will say with absolute certainty if the measure donor disclosure is here. you have a majority

co-sponsoring that and wanting to move on that quickly. there will be a desire to hold that meeting as soon as possible. >> i heard from the deputy city attorney we can't include that tonight. >> what we can do is amend that and continue it. they cannot approve it but they can continue to the next meeting which by the commissioner's motion would be a joint meeting between the ethics commission and board of supervisors for final action on that. >> mr. hepner, what is the support at the board of supervisors for this proposal. why are you rushing to have the commission approve it? >> the support for the account ability other dan nance. >> no, why are you coming here before the board?

>> we were told to come before the ethics commission before we can approve it. if that is incorrect that is profoundly different advice than i received from the city attorney three days ago. >> i hear there is a motion on the floor proposed by the commissioner to again not make any further changes, no further amendments to what was approved tonight and forward to the board for consideration, right? the chair for the time being has the ability to call meetings, call special meetings and i believe can cooperate with the ethics commission staff and try to find a date for the joint meeting. the joint meeting may not occur. we are not going to figure out that date tonight. i don't have to coordinate all of the schedules. we have to get a meeting room andits. with the understanding the chair can pursue that option to figure

out if it can occur. that is within our discretion to call the meetings and set agenda items. >> how many hours notice? 48? >> i believe it is 72. >> 72-hours' notice generally for any meeting. >> is there any additional public comment? i believe the motion then is to take the ordinance and forward to the board of supervisors and to request as quickly as possible a joint meeting of the full board as well as the commission. >> just clarification on the motion. does that include as .158 and 1.161 and 1.162. >> do you want to take the

recusal section out? >> i don't have any comment. >> i am not going to move it. >> i would support 1.161 and 1.161 included in the ordinance for the joint meeting. >> i thought he has said we can't do it. >> no, deputy city attorney if you can clarify what you can do to continue by consideration for the ethics commission at the next meeting that is what your motion proposed. >> it does not constitute approval tonight. >> i will move it to be included in the rest of them without section 3.209. >> i know there is a lot of amendments. >> it is to take the aao

ordinance amended tonight and also as approved send it to the board of supervisors. you are amending and continuing for discussion with the full board and commission the proposal of supervisor peskin the major do donor proposal. >> may i ask if commissioner reny is open for two separate motions your stand alone and another one to include the section 1158? it seems we only have one option to vote right now. >> you want to buy fur indicate. first on chair reny to send over the amended ordinance to ask for the meeting asap.

the second motion would be to amend in sections 1.158 as proposed by supervisor peskin with the exception of 3.209. >> correct. >> that is fine with me. >> other than it could convey your support for that. >> this will conrare support for this -- convey support for this. that is what you are conveying support for. we don't fully understand it. >> you don't understand what? >> how this measure donor proposal would work or whether

it is constitutional. we have a number of questions about it. >> raise them at the meeting. >> i am trying to say that voting to amend it to the file conveys your support for it. >> well, i do support it. >> i want everyone to understand that. >> i think we can go ahead and call the vote. commissioner reny's first motion to send the amended ordinance to the board of supervisors and schedule the joint meeting. >> this should take precise dense on -- o precedence to be voted on first to be included. >> as chair you can call the motions as you see fit. >> what. >> she is the chair for the time being. she called the motions. >> all in favor.

a. >> no. >> the motion fails. is motion passes 3-1. on the motion to amend in supervisor peskin's measure donor disclosure and incorporate to be sent over to the board of supervisors to be included in the joint discussion, all in favor. aye. >> i want to separate the vote. no on this amendment. >> so the motion passes 3-1.

>> can i clarify the last motion for the record. so i am not doing it back. i believe the motion was to amend in 1.158. the amendments to 1.161 and 1.161. what commissioner cop moved was not the deletion of recusal section. >> you have got 1.168. >> this is why i want to clarify it. >> i will clarify all except 3.209. which you prepared with your own hands. >> we have the rest of our agenda to get to. unless there is anything else on agenda item four. we move to .

>> i'm sorry you voted to take out recusal part. that was not my understanding. >> peskin had eliminated the the recue sal. >> we proposed deletion. the commission did not want that. >> can i have one more clarification. it is a long night. assuming the joint session will be coming up soon, but if it doesn't, can we have the city attorney's office as well as the staff to give us a more detailed analysis of supervisor peskin's proposal? >> i don't want to speak for staff. that is in advance of the

meeting. >> that is when i want it. >> thank you. >> the next agenda item number 5. discussion and possible action on whistleblower action government code 1.100. >> commissioners, this is our staff memo on the status of the whistleblower ordinance. we provided a copy of the version in three more mats. a protection in a ballot measure format as attachment one to item five. we have a red line version of that. then we also have a version of that revised whistleblower protection ordinance were it to

go to the board of supervisors for action. since the last meeting two notable events occurred. the meet and confer process included a minor change that appear this is the document it removed a requirement that a specific form be used for supervisors to handle and refer the complaints regarding retaliation, and this does reflect the same changes that you saw last month and embraced last month as part of your adoption of the 2017 version of the whistleblower protection ordinance. we are providing at this meeting to derm whether or not you wanted to place it on the ballot or take steps to send it to the board of supervisors for its action requesting it be re-introduced with the new language. we have received word from

supervisor breed's office who was the sponsor of the 2016 legislation she was interested. that is a point of information so you can consider that in the next steps. with that i just want to open it up for questions or public comment. >> commissioners any questions? >> i make a motion we adopt the ordinance identified as 2017 wpo ballot measure, attachment one, and have it placed on the june ballot. >> i have a clarifying question for staff. i understand that the ballot measure and the ordinance as drafted there are slight differences as between the two. could you give a summary of that to make sure i understand what

is -- what would be miss from the version that would go on the ballot? >> due to the jurisdiction of the authority we had to slightly scale back and narrow what would be in the full legislative proposal. it is 4.105 to govern the overall scope of complaints whichca raise other -- can raise other concerns. those were removed. the other big category were the proposed edits to 4.107. that would have addressed the whistleblower program outsides of the ethics commission as well. the bulk and i will let the staff speak to the policy impact. the bulk of the amendments are still there in the ballot measure version. >> for those provisions ed