transportation of the entire peninsula. >> to have that person -- of women coming into construction, returning to construction from family leave and creating the network of women that can rely on each other. >> women are the main source of income in your household. show of hands. >> people are very charmed with the idea of the reverse role, that there's a dad at home instead of a mom. you won't have gender equity in the office until it's at home. >> whatever you do, be the best you can be. don't say i can't do it, you can excel and do whatever you want. just put your mind into it.

(gavel) claire chair welcome to the ethics commission. do a roll call. california we ar >> i would like to say and kwai the public thank to former chair peter keane for his service and cop abuses to this ethics commission. he was very welcoming to me when i first joined a couple. years ago and was a great sort of alreadying. so item 2. public members appearing or not appearing on the agenda. >> good amp. i said i will be here.

>> my name is eoelleolgu. >> i have been working for the government for more than 13 year. i am a union shop store and bargaining team member for siu. we represent 16,000 employees. between april 2017 to june 2017, i bought five public employees to ethic commissions who experienced a retaliation and discrimination. we the public workers put current and club rate with the fbi investigation for extortion and corruption. i am here today follow up with you to see if the investigation has started with the ethic commissions. that our record and audio records were missing from theet, commission. we have six people that did intake interview on different days. many siu were from different

employees from different departments and spoke in front of the services commission and testified december 2015, august 15th, 2016, september 9, 2016, september 18, 2017. january 22nd. 2017. i myself also came here to speak to you. the ethic commissions october 23rd, 2017. november 27, 2017. january 19, 2019. february 16, 2018. and today, i am here again to follow up with you about extortion, bribery, retaliation, discrimination and ongoing harassment for people who stood up for their rights, workers rights and equal rights opportunities. the last crack i have with the ethic commission employees, who are no long we are the ethic

commission, i was informed the eeo department, the whistle blower department and the dhr department, they refused. they give up our record to give it to the ethics commission to continue bribery, extortion, retaliation, to protect our workers rights. i am here to follow up with you about our employee record. and in this ethic commission. i believe the ethic commission started to stop corruption. but our corruption is ongoing. today i'm -- for the purpose of reportedly give you less than 150 word about what i said today, word-for-word and for your public record. at the same time i am giving you the fbi investigation letter, both english and chinese. we have been investigating 2000, something, something. i cannot tell you all the details but i want to you investigate. i will be here every month until you tell me what to do.

corruption is not acceptable. you are here sitting there because we are trusting you, that you represent the taxpayers. but right now we have no answer from ethic commissioners and no ethic commission department. and this is ongoing corruption. and it's not acceptable. and i represent 16,000 employees. and we are important as a group to stop corruption. the people who did corruption should not be working for the city and county of saa of san francisco. we should not tolerate any of this behavior. for our record to be missing and no longer with the ethics department, that is not cool and it's illegal and it's a violation. thank you. >> that's a record and a letter from the fbi, chinese and english. and a letter from the employees that we have been investigating for 7 years with the fbi and they came to a conclusion but

yet the people who stood up get retaliated. that is not acceptable. we have across the bar people came to me, and i represent them. i came here to ask for legal help. if you are not able to do, it you should be sitting there. you shouldn't be representing the people. thank you. >> madam chair. >> vice chairperson daina chiu:. >> let the record show that the staff has provided a detailed schedule of dates, of complaints and action taken thereon. i'm interested in whether you have read those documents. >> i was never given an answer -- yes or no. >> no. >> i would ask the staff to make those available toker had. and for the public, let it be known that each of these

allegations was investigated as far as documents were concerned. some were found. some -- one as i recall, was not. and there was an indication in the investigation that it didn't exist. i recommend that you read that set of reports before devoting more time and attention of yours and time and attention of the public and this commission. thank you, madam chair. >> i want the record to send to the siu union, office so i know we have a public record from the ethics commission and we want to know what has been missing and then we can work on it. the city set you up in here to represent the city to save taxpayers money. we the workers can file lawsuits against the city but what is that for? we want a good working

environment. thank you. thank you. kop >> commissioner kopp: let it also be known the staff has investigated thoroughly and carefully each of the allegations that have been deliver from this investigation for the last three months and found them without justification. i would only like to add, miss gill, thank you for coming so dill defendantly over the fal -- diligently up to the fall and to the present time. i would talk about what mr. kopp said and the claims elected forward by the employees who made themselves known to us. there are two -- for whom we don't have contact information. so if they were to come forward to us, i believe that staff

would exercise all of its care and diligence in pursuing and investigating the claim but we can't do that until they come forward and let themselves be known and let us know what their complaint is. and there was second, i understand, who made a complaint to a different agency. so since it's with a different agency, we can't take it interest them. so that these pursue its own course, and there were two other investigations that were conducted and completed and based on the investigation that was uncovered, it was concluded. so i'm not sure who else there might be that we have not spoken to yet but if there are those whom you know have suffered and have a complaint, we ask you to have them come to us, and we will pursue that with all due care. >> i'm sorry. you're missing the point.

>> commissioner renne: sorry to interrupt. as you know, we are generally public comment and this is not on the agenda today. certainly if the commission wants to take it up later we are note it properly. >> the bottom part is how do we deal with the missing record at the ethics commission? that's the most important vital information. we supply six people still alive and still working for city and county. and the record and audio record missing. that's what i'm here for. thank you. agenda item 3. discussion and possible -- i'm sorry. public comment. >> thank you, i'm larry bush, friend ofet i objects. i wanted to bring to your attention that the information on disclosures that are posted on the ethics web page are not being kept current. and this is make it very difficult, especially in. campaign season to know, for

example, which lobbyists have contributed and also what's the status of the new best payment disclosure comment that was passed a year ago. it took effect january 1st. there's no place on the web page to disclose. that you can go through right through each of the categories of permit consultant, major developers, none of those databases are being kept current. so if they cannot be kept current, you can put something on the web page that says the status of when they will be kept current and in the interim how people can access the information. thank you. thank you. any other public comment? being none, agenda item number 3 discussion and possible action to elect chair and advise chair to serve for the coming year.

>> commissioner kopp: madam chairperson. >> vice chairperson daina chiu:. >> commissioner kopp: i would like to make a motion to postpone the item until the april meeting so that the commission is fully able to vote as a commission of five members. as can be seen, there are only three members here today, and there is an existing vacancy. commissioner lee. >> commissioner lee: thank you, mad alchair am i watch to echo commissioner copp's motion. and at the same time i would like to thank you for leading the commission the last two months with upmost professionism and i do agree, that if you will be able to continue in the current capacity as the chair, also that we would not be

missing any leadership until we meet in april, then i would concur with commissioner kopp. i would agree with that notion to pull over until april the election so we will have the benefit of our most senior commissioner, chief renne and hopefully a fifth member appointed by then. so commissioner lee is that okay. >> commissioner lee: yes. >> you may want to -- just for the sake of clarity to clarify that the next election for the chair will be held at the april meeting because it's for a particular purpose. thank you. commissioner kopp would you consider a friendly election to

hold off the officers to the neck regularly scheduled meeting in april. >> commissioner kopp: well aren't we having a meeting besides this board meeting? >> yes. >> commissioner kopp: that's what my motion is, to put it over until then. public comment? >> commissioner kopp: what is the date of the meeting? >> the 20th. >> commissioner kopp: that's the motion, to continue until april 20th. >> i would like to continue. because are you at a critical time. especially given the absence of a resignation to send the signal to the public that this is a commission that is going to be united. it's not happening overnight. it's going to be a regular process. so i support it. thank you. so all in favor?

>> commissioner kopp: i. [roll call] motion 4. the discussion for the 2018 regular meeting. commissioner? >> commissioner kopp: i've got some corrects so get your pen out, miss boon, for the last time. on page 5 there's a misspelling under the last motion on the page. it's pass, not paste. and the next page, page 7.

i would phrase that "move to request a joint mee meeting" for the commission and board to consider the corruption act as amended. "at such meeting. the motion was seconded and passed 3-1." page 9. under 6, the u.s. law school was the gould law school.

g-o-u-l-d. and in a sentence which begins in addition, staff continues to monitor the city of seattle instead of washington. i would substitute the word "which" for "who." and then at the last sentence commissioner lee requested a meeting before the spring public forum meeting scheduled with subject matter experts. i would insert the word "that." after the comma. put together a stakeholders plural, apots i apostrophe. and delete the word "a." put together stakeholders

meetings and sub duty the word "of" for "to." under 7, second line, substitute the word "passed" for the words "voted on." next to last, nine line. staff has not heard from the supervisor, apostrophe s. . it was supervisor that was referred to. and on page 10, under 9, i would delete a second sentence, campaign finance finds. i would delete the word "so."

are much higher. and the sonand the opposite is true of the -- i don't know. should that be a capital e or a small e? i will leave it to you, miss boon. and then there's a sentence that begins with executor director relating based on analysis, et cetera, that it will require additional -- i think the word should be "significant." not significan signification. and then what the next steps may be instead of "any."

and i would move those amendments to the minutes. commissioner lee, any comments? >> commissioner lee: no. seco nd the motion. >> excuse me, chair chiu. i sected the minutes of the staff and given the minutes over the last meeting we would actually request that the commission continue these minutes until the next meeting. >> commissioner kopp: why? >> we want to a chance to make sure we review the record and get a command to look at all the motions at the rather lengthy february meeting. >> commissioner kopp: i disagree madam chairwoman. there are corrections of spellings. they don't change the substance in any way. >> no, just to clarify. i wasn't speaking to your proposed amendments i was speaking to the overall accuracy

of the amendments to the commission. >> commissioner kopp: have you read them? >> i have. >> commissioner kopp: were they accurate? >> i have some questions about some of the accuracies. >> commissioner kopp: when did you read them? a guy read them earlier this week. >> commissioner kopp: did you notify the director or the deputy director? >> i had the opportunity to discuss with staff but due to other matters they haven't had the time -- for recording. if they went through the chair to the director then why weren't those changes presented to us. >> unfortunately the minutes were drafted to the city attorney rather late so we did not have time to change them after the meeting minutes and as the package that it was presented. >> we agree that it was best to review them and make sure they were accurate with the mowings and that the acts reflected february meeting and we don't think that would compromise anything subjective to going forward so we would have the commission's approval to continuing it to the next

month. i think accuracy is desired in capturing the record of our meeting. so i would be in support of that. commissioner kopp, are you -- are draw your second? >> commissioner kopp: much ado about nothing. is there a motion to continue? commissioner lee has just withdrawn her motion to second. your motion to approve. >> commissioner kopp: i will vote yes. there's no vote. procedurally i think we need to have a motion to continue the approval of the minutes over to the april 20 meeting. >> commissioner lee: i move that we wait for the april. so commissioner lee has made a motion to continue the approval of the february 2018 meeting minutes to the april 20 meeting.

is there a second? >> commissioner kopp: second. publichair public comment. >> larry bush from friend and ethics. we request that they the minutes represent each time the deputy attorney spoke up to the commission to give its guidance on each and every time that there was a motion made. because as a result of that, the commission deferred and did not make many of the amendments that were recommended for example changes that it would become enforced from 2019 to something more current. so i think it's important that the commission minutes show that that was acted on by the commission following the recommendation of the deputy city attorney whose preponder was not slitted but wh slit solicited. but who offered.

thank you. >> commissioner kopp: i would move to amend the pending motion accordingly. is there a second? not being a second, the motion failed. >> i'm bob planthold. i want to point out something different. are you talking about delaying all of the draft minutes. the only comment that came from city attorney was about item 4. no comment. no suggestion no, concern no, correction was suggested about any of the other items. you don't need to defer everything. you could -- to help make it easier for people to follow, just defer 4. and then approve or accept any other part of this. otherwise this is going to be a prolonged approval process.

thank you. thank you. any other public comments? so we have a motion to hold over the approval of the february meeting minutes to the april 20 meeting. all in favre? >> commissioner kopp: i.i . [roll call] the motion passes. item number 5. the sia as provided for conduct code section 3.218. >> thank you, commissioner. i'm going to briefly introduce the item and then i'm going to douse a member of the department of public works who is here to -- i believe speak on their behalf. but this item is coming in front of you today because dbw is s, it's incombattable activities be amended to clarify that certain of its provisions be clarified and to ensure that the sia

reflects its policies. i do want to provide an update that we got yesterday. there was a late request from one of the unions and i believe mr. steinberg will inform you about that request. and there's been some followup there. but with that, i think i would open it up -- through you, to mr. steinberg. >> vice chairperson daina chiu:. thank you. mr. steinburg. >> i'm executive assistant to the director of public works. so i'm here to walk you through -- or answer any questions you have about this -- the changes are relatively straightforward. one is updating our -- the department's mission to be current. the other items are all either compaq or substantially similar language to statements of incombattable activities that have been previously documented

by this commission and for use for by the building inspection and planning department. i would like to compliment you on your advisory statement am i think it read much better so that's a big improvement. any comments? >> commissioner kopp: well a question i have is who wrote these proposed amendments? >> i drafted them. the language for the commission statement came from the commission statement. and the language for the changes were lifted pretty much verbatim from the sias of dbi and planning. mend

>> yes. they wanted to move forward and i moved forward with them. and i sent the proposed changes to all the meetings representing public work employees. did i that first on january 26th. i heard back from two individuals. one asked for a red line version of the changes, which i delivered. and i heard back and said thank you. and i heard back from another union representative who said they are no questions or opposition to it. >> commissioner kopp: go ahead. >> i sent a second email and letter on february 26th. following up, saying i just want to let you know. reminded you, this is coming up. the ethics commission is likely to hear it on march 16th. if you have any questions, please let me know. i received no notification until yesterday when i got an email from one of the electrical workers union local 6, which

said that she -- as well as a representative of the stationary engineers local 39 had some issue with some of the language. and would like to meet and confer. we sent a few emails back and forth. she came to my office today at noon, and we talked about it. and i can show you the letter. we came to an agreement. it made a lot of sense from her perspective. and i can tell you -- i also sent another letter yesterday to all the other unions saying. it's tomorrow. if you have any questions, please, let me know. didn't hear anything. her concern was that the change to article -- in 3a-1, our

notes -- dspaits do you have a reference for th do you have a reference for the item number? >> page 5. >> her concern was this planning would apply to all employees of the department. and she thought that that was going overboard. an electrician wouldn't necessarily -- you know if you were playing in a band, you have -- you are playing a bar mitzvah of the son of someone who has a permit at the department. he wouldn't necessarily know. so i talked to the director and he's in agreement with. it instead of having the restrictions of those limi limitations apply to all

departmental employees, move it to the next section which has restricts that apply to employees in specified positions. and the language would be no officer or employee, who is required to file a statement of economic interest, form 700. may provide services, et cetera. >> so narrowing the pool. >> right. these are people who already are required to file a statement of economic interest, understand the restrictions and guidelines and would be more aware of any potential conflict. so after these notices and the communication and the meeting confurs -- all the meet and confer is satisfied with the changes to the sia? >> yes, as i said the two people i heard from before had no

octobers. -- objections. one person i heard back from was local 36. i didn't hear from him, but she referenced her in the letter and she sent the ethic letters this morning and saying we have no objections if this moves from section a to second b. the representative from the stationary engineers wrote back at 1:30 saying i apologize for not being in attendance, i support your position fully. so the only two unions that had any issue agreed that moving it would remove their objections. chair so mee so meet and confer is concluded then. >> yes. >> madam chair, hopefully it's not going deter the movement of this process. number one on page 5, "c," it's

a question. when you say no officers or employee may utilize noninformation, to purchase and invest in real property located in the city and county of san francisco. is that a legal requirement? because usually it does apply to other properties that the individuals may benefit from the information that you get from. >> i guess i don't understand your question. >> commissioner lee: "c" is the employee is prohibited from utilizing the information that he or she obtained from his or her official position to purchase or make gains, so to speak. in real estate. >> right. >> commissioner lee: within san francisco. but oftentimes when people come to your office, they may have information that is outside of

real estate in san francisco. is that right? some of the contractors may come in with different properties that they are engaged in, or what have you. so is this a legal requirement that you can only have legal jurisdictio jurisdiction over real estate in san francisco? >> i don't know that i can answer that, only because -- as i said i pulled the language from the other departments. i think these are sort of clarifying thing that are elsewhere in the statement. you know, you can't use inside information to gain personally. i couldn't tell you why that is specifically referenced, other than the fact that the department would be issuing permits and doing work on things in san francisco.

>> if i may, on your behalf. so it is already prohibited by 3.228 in our code, this use of information obtained through your public position. i think the language here is just providing a bit of clarification but it is already prohibited that you use any information. >> commissioner lee: one more question. page 6, the. amendmented -- amended language. it's a league requirement to provide. so if the staff was to provide a position to a group of potential bidders who's primary language may not be english.

so does that fall into your selective assistants? or is that an -- or is that an acceptable -- i just want to clarification because the way it read, assistance is not available to all competitors and language assistance, a special meeting with emerging potential bidders that could be considered selective assistance. >> if i'm understanding your question, the section that you are looking at, the only change is adding -- or specifying that the rule that is already in effect would also apply to nonprofit entities. >> commissioner lee: right. i just want a clarification that if administers a nonprofit organization, which the employee is not associated with, request

an employee to make a separate presentation on the bidding process. but it would be done in another language. >> if i could -- the answer is no. the language services are not the selective assistance that are meant to be included here. as you will note in the paragraph down a little further it says that nothing in the section will prohibit -- you know the general engagement and output of other information to assist in the completion and the processing of rfqs and rfps so this language is not meant to include that sort of selective language assistants that the city requires in its other statutes so hopefully that is clear. >> i jus.

>> commissioner lee: i just watch to be clear that in 5 or 10 years, no matter what environment we are in, we read it in the same way we are interpreting it today. so i wonder if it would be acceptable to your department to really spell out that certain assistance will not be considered selective assistance. >> yeah. i mean i think the thing that would govern that is -- provided that such assistance is provided on a basis to all applicants requested. so if other individuals asked for language assistance, you can't be selective in who you provide that, to but as long as it's available on an equal basis to anyone who requests it --

>> commissioner lee: so would it be easy -- not easy but would it be okay for your department to add, such as linguistically and culturally competent services. >> i don't think the department would have a problem that the commission would want to add to clarify it, without changing the meaning. >> commissioner lee: no, just to really define that, because given the changing demographics in this city, i think that would be incumbent upon us to really include the culturally and linguistically competent service as accepted. >> you mean, for example where it says nothing in this statement prohibits an employee to prohibit a bid from city crack, provide germ information come mark language assistance,

comma -- not common ma, about a -- >> commissioner lee: like the last sentence, provided that such assistance, such as culturally and linguistically services to provide the assistance if requested. >> i don't think the department would have any problem with it. >> i think if we suggest that amended if w amended. we can hammer out where that language it and read it into the record. >> commissioner lee: it could be simple. provided at such assistance such as cull due tourly and

linguistically competent to add assistance. just to add the four word. >> we are just writing to get prepared to read it in. could you maybe repeat that. >> commissioner lee: provided that such assistance, such as linguistically and culturally competent services, is provided on an impartial basis to all applicants who request it. >> i think we are prepared to read this in. so on page 6, dealing with -- under the language, regarding

amendmented language, starting with assistants. -- such as linguist particular and culturally competent services, is provided on an impartial basis to all appear captains who request it. does that meet your requirement? >> commissioner kopp: tell me that section again. >> you are on -- >> on page 6. >> so starting after the word "assistance. >> provided that such assistants comma -- cop cod first part of the sentence. alright.

such assistance is provided on what? >> such as linguist particular and culturally competent services, is provided on an ongoing basis to all applicants who request it. >> commissioner kopp: i don't know. alright. now do you have to talk to the union about that? >> attorney said that they do not. commissioner in lee any additional comments? >> commissioner lee: no. thank you, mr. steinberg. any publi public comment? >> a motion first. is there a motion to approve -- to we need a motion to amend? >> if you are open to, it i think the motion would be a motion to approve the amendments

with the additional amendments by mr. steinberg, the additional amendments and the additional amendment from commissioner lee am i thin. i think that would be sufficient. is there a motion to approve the department of works publicity.s as amended by the language proposed by commissioner in steinberg and the language proposed by commissioner lee. so moved. second? seconded. public comment? all in favor? (calling of recorded vote) amendments are approved.

proposal for the commission in 2018. >> i will speak at the podium for this item. >> commissioner kopp: madam chairwoman, unless there's some additional information -- i mean it's a very short item. do any of us not understand it? i understand it. i would like to hear from doctor kerdr. kerr and any other public is citizen who is here. commissioner lee, any comment? public comment? >> good afternoon, commissioner, i'm dr. kerr, the whistle blower. i would like to thank commissioner kopp and the ethics staff for researching the

differences between the recent state whistle blower legislation and the version that's been developed here. however the staff memo relied on input from the city attorney's office. the primary adversary of whistle blowers. accordingly, this measure will be very effective in protecting the city before dubious whistle blower claims. and it will be very effective in preventing legitimate whistle blower retaliation claims from being substantiated. that's because the whistle blower protects remain nominal. there's really no protection without remedies. here we have no provisions for rein rereenstatement.

there's a $10,000 penalty that may be imposed and that attributes to a 1 or 2 month salary. although the city usually covers that with their fund. so i would like to submit, the first to dohm private council, they need their own lawyer. secondly, to notify them that they can contact the media to expose official misconduct. that's the most effective way of getting organizational change. thanthank you very much: >> commissioner kopp: wait a minute. i have a question. what do you mean to obtain private council? at their own expense?

isn't that implie imimplies im-- implies it's in the laws of counsel? you can hire lawyers any time you want. >> whistle blowers don't know. i can tell you from my experience. >> commissioner kopp: i have every respect for you, but i wouldn't add that. and then to contact the media. to crack the media. doesn't every employee know that? >> no. >> commissioner kopp: sorry. i can't join you on this -- these suggestions. >> but in response to your query, many whistle blowers come to the ethics commissioner and they feel, wow this is the place to get this resolve. they believe this is the place to get it fixed and it isn't.

so the staff -- i don't think this should be written down but the staff when they consult and advice whistle blowers and they say, listen you have an option to get your own attorney. and the other option is to contact the media. for justice. >> commissioner kopp: yeah, but they don't come to the ethics commission, do they is this sin that one of the problem, that they go to the controllers office. on page 3 of the report that, last paragraph, represents an important part of this staff's analysis. and i probably should have taken time privately to figure out what the theory is that the controller has responsibility. unless, i suppose, the controller authorizes payment of. money o money or something.

i'm interested in miss pelim's reaction to that. why does the controller have any power or responsibility with this? it's not an enforcement organization. or a position. >> if i understand your question, the whistle blower program is vested in the controller's office, so there is the primary intake office for matters that are considered whistle blower complaints. but again, our office is the one charged with complaints about retaliation for having brought the whistle blower complaint. so i'm not quite sure where -- >> commissioner kopp: well i'm not quite sure why the complaint goes to the controller, and then the controller transmits it to theet i object ito the ethics commission.

that's the reason why we have a $10.9 billion budge net san francisco. why not change the law so the complaint is made to theet i to the ethics commission. >> it's rather a split duty. there are a number of fundamental waste and fraud and misuse of taxpayer government resources that are afraid to go to the controllers office because they protect the power of the purse. there is language, as you know in our ordinance that talk about violence and ethics and those kind of those do -- as a matter come to us as first bite at that apple. i don't know the compaq history but it was something originally that theet i objects commission had with the blower program in its per view and some years later the voters moved it through a charter element to the office and i believe it was related to the power of the purse authority that the power

of attorney generally has with the government. >> commissioner kopp: the staff analysis shows that the historical treatment of it. i would like to have the next meeting saying all the responsibles are that of the ethics commission. >> that would require a charter amendment. >> commissioner kopp: i understand that. >> it would be where there's no district o of this even though eveof this ethics commission.

so not here. >> commissioner kopp: well you're going to have a chatter amendment in november. why not include this? it's pertinent. >> i think if the commission want to have a larger discussion about that, it would be pair to schedule a larger discuss about that. >> commissioner kopp: all the discussions are fine. i would like specific legislation in time for the next meeting of this ethics commission. period. well i think as we get to the policy discussion -- when we get to it, we can discuss that. i think as we move into the future months -- as we consider all the different initiatives that we have before us, because there are a lot of projects that we can work on. and i think we need to -- as a commission, and with input from staff as well as public comment, determine where we want to -- where we want to prioritize and what we want to do first. >> commissioner kopp: mad 578

chairwoman, i am a member of the commission. i have requested preparation of legislation for next month's agenda. not necessarily for action on. it i want to see the legislati legislation. i understand that. and i think with all due respect that this commission has a lot of other items that are ongoing and i think as a body, we can consider that as part and parcel of all of the initiatives before us as opposed to in isolation. >> commissioner kopp: yes, we can. and maybe this isn' this is include asked maybe it isn't. i am asking for preparation of the legislation and are you directioning staff not to prepare such legislation? chair che thin i think i would prefer to have a

discussion as to whether to defer such staff. >> commissioner kopp: i would reiterate the preparation for the legislation. mr. chen, would you have that legislation prepared for whenever our packet goats up for the april meeting? before you respond, deputy attorney, i would like to ask commissioner in lee if she has a perspective to add here. >> commissioner lee: i think there are so many other policy discussions that we had started in the last few months, and i think as a body, we need to decide how to prioritize staff time and the commission's focus. so at this point, i would not object to a broader discussion

at the next meeting on how to proceed on this, whether it would include a proposed charter amendment or broader discussion. but at this time, we have several other policy issues that the staff wants us to -- not wants -- presented for us to have along with discussion later on today. so i would rather have us have a broader discussion at a future time. i think this is an important issue to discussion. and what i would propose. i would ask staff to prepare a

document for us to review -- not necessarily the legislation but would -- a discussion document to enable us as a commission to determine whether, among all of our priorities, this is something that we would like to pursue. cop that's no >> commissioner kopp: that's not satisfactory. >> commissioner lee: madam chair, i would suggest -- because the staff has brought up a couple of points. i would suggest for the staff to prepare a document explaining why -- currently why certain departments has jurisdiction over this. and where things are going, and then we would have a good discussion to know where -- whether we have jurisdiction. if we do not, how can -- if the commission chooses to go this way in the future, how can we proceed to get that done. so right now, i feel that -- i don't have enough information to have a really informed discussion among ourselves.

so i would rather have the staff give us some information, background information, as the commissioner has asked. you know -- i don't know why the controllers office is in charge of this. it may be helpful for us to know how this came about so that we can move forward, have a better discussion than today. commissioner kopp, would that be acceptable? >> commissioner kopp: no. i reiterate, i want a simple piece of legislation in the formal proposed charter amendment in discussion of the agenda of the april meeting of

this commission. and i will add as a footnote, i can't imagine -- it's almost like being in a dream world that a commissioner's request for preparation of legislation isn't simply accepted. i think what -- i will speak for myself. and please jump in, commissioner lee, if you disagree, but it is not that we are against drafting legislation on this proposal am i think that i would benefit from, certainly -- and i hear commissioner lee saying to have a better understanding of the historical context in this arising. and based than understanding, we don't have commissioner in renne or a fifth member's input on this decision. that before we ask staff to stepped resores and time to draft legislation, that we all

agree that we -- that this is part of the policy agenda that we wish to pursue as a body. >> commissioner kopp: the legislative history will be a part of the staff's report and the staff's analysis together with a proposed amendment to the charter. there's no magic to it. it's a common practice. >> commissioner lee: madam chair. yes. >> commissioner lee: i think this commission is given the task to propose charter amendments. and this is a very, very sacred responsibility. i feel right now i am not objecting to commissioner copp's