they still have not done the loopholes in the election rules. >> president breed: thank you for your comments. next speaker, please. >> good evening. i'm here to speak about ethics, and unfortunately i can't speak for the hearing because thanks to free city college, today is midterm day, so i have to leave a little bit early. first of all, i wanted to thank the ethics commission commissioners and the staff there for all the work that we've been doing over the past nine months, trying to address some of the issues that the community and the nonprofit sector have voiced and have had. and i think we're really close. i want to thank the members of the board of supervisors who engaged in a really thorough discussion about this issue.

and so, again, i think we are really close. i think the two things that i want to highlight today that i think are unresolved are the issue of interested party in terms of a behested payment. i think that it's clear from supervisor peskin's legislation earlier this year-around commissioners that behested payments interested parties in those transactions should be folks that are seeking an entitlement, a permit, a license, something of value, not just somebody who comes to city hall and provides public comment. and i think that that is something that we need to resolve because that cascades throughout the legislation. so if we have the right people as interested parties, we have the right sort of legislation. and the second thing is as somebody who has worked to get the best people involved in city government through commissions and appointments, i think it's

really important to keep that knowledge and those people in their commissioner's seat and therefore i think -- and i urge you to address the issue of repeated recusals. i think if a nonprofit representative for their day job does good work, maybe serves on a commission, that also has an interest with their -- >> president breed: thank you for your comments. next speaker, please. >> commissioners and members of the board, i'm emily katz with northern california grant makers. and just adding on about item 50, likewise, i apologize for not staying for the full time of your hearing. but just to add our appreciation for the progress and the collaboration and the incredibly good work that's been done by these two important bodies of

the city, we recognize the importance of transparency in government and that we're doing everything we can to target corruption we feel like this legislation is heading towards striking that balance while allowing participation and allowing public/private partnerships to flourish. we are especially interested in partnerships. they're important for addressing needs like housing and jobs creation. partnerships play an important role in funding and seeding innovation, and that's the spot where we sit at northern california grant makers. and important for those partnerships to continue in a full and meaningful way. so we're putting our energy behind supporting vibrancy and sustainability of nonprofits, particularly given the level of fear that immigrants are feeling, nonprofits will be an important source to support immigrants during this time, fears that may arise around the

census question that's asking about citizenship and other uncertainties that have been introduced. so we acknowledge how much both bodies have put into this significant work. we appreciate this joint hearing as recognition of the need to move this along and share in your commitment to getting this right. thank you. >> president breed: thank you for your comments. next speaker, please. >> hi, commissioners and members of the board of supervisors, my name is kay fernandez smith. i'm representing the san francisco foundation. as someone who used to work for the city and county, we recognize the importance of transparency in government and the need to target corruption. i'm speaking on item 50 and also can't be here for the hearing, but we're at the foundation encouraged by the progress that's been made and urge this joint body to consider the amendments that have been proposed by supervisors tang and

peskin that further the campaign and government conduct ordinance so that it's effective. and we submitted a joint letter on april 2nd with northern california grant makers, the east bay community foundation and silicon valley community foundation which included three main issues that were -- we'd like to encourage this joint body to resolve. one is the clear definition of interested party that will promote compliance. two, a safe harbor provision that should be added to the donor filing requirement. and third, further amendment to the repeated recusal provision for greater specificity and uniformity. as part of our mission to advance social good, philanthropic organizations such as the foundation complement government and nonprofit efforts by catalyzing and fueling innovative solutions to complex social problems such as education equity, homelessness, and affordable housing. one example for us is the hope sf initiative, which is the nation's first large-scale

public housing transformation collaborative aimed at disrupting poverty, reducing social isolation and creating inclusive mixed-income properties. this partnership is a public/private partnership, and we hope that the decisions made in regards to item 50 don't have an unintentional chilling effect on partnerships such as this. so we appreciate this joint hearing as recognition of the need to move this legislation along and a shared commitment to getting it right. thank you. >> president breed: thank you for your comments. next speaker, please. >> hello, everybody. thank you very much for giving me the opportunity to speak here. i just got a flier that i think sf mta, that they are saying how much they have contributed or given a break to the taxi industry in today and coming days. and this flier which i see is

totally rubbish. it has no -- what can i say -- language, excuse me also. it's not a fact. it's totally a lie. also i can see that there are fees waived for '18, '19 and '20. they have taken my money out of the driver's fund. the driver fund was contributed by me who purchased the medallion for $250,000. and they put -- they took 25% out of that $250,000 which makes it $62,500. they have disbursed that money among all the drivers, that they have not given back to me. and they have also taken money out of that fund -- then the

same -- the next one, the $100 fee has been waived. the tak they have taken that money from the tax drivers fund. and they have -- 50% a card prop k medallions. those medallions were bought about 50 years ago for $5,000. they have given a break to them, not to us. we buy the permit for $250,000. why should we pay the annual fee? we are asking the city to buy our medallions back and pay down this business -- >> president breed: thank you for your comments. thank you. next speaker, please. >> hi, everyone. i'm here to speak about the special mayoral unfair election in public space.

many of the mayor forums and debates have not -- candidates. i think it misleads voters. voters should have a right to know -- all the mayor candidates to enable to make the right choice. peers investigate this issue. this is democracy countries. everyone has the right to know the truth. thank you. >> president breed: thank you for your comments. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, my name is nancy nielsen, i'm with lutheran social services, and i'm one of the many agencies that have been attending in part of the conversations with the ethics committee over the past few months. thank you for this interesting dual conversation today and your ability to go back and forth between so many different items. we have particular concern, while we are very appreciative and applaud the work of the ethics commission, it's been long and laborious and a

challenge and must -- we applaud most of what has come out of it, but we do have some concerns, as has been mentioned earlier, particularly by my colleague from the san francisco foundation about some unintended consequences of what feels like might have been a good idea. we're particularly concerned about the expansion of the campaign contribution activities, transparency to include bidders as well as contractors. and we really want to support supervisor fewer's. the current language in the ethics commission's amendment would undermine the confidentiality and integrity of the city's competitive bidding process, opening it to the risk of bid-rigging collusion. so we'd urge you to look closely at that particular portion that it is, in fact, an unintended consequence that's really likely. thank you for your time.

>> president breed: thank you for your comments. next speaker, please. >> hello. i'm theodore randolph, and the presence of the ethics commission just reminded me that back in 1977, board of supervisors president clinton kopp proposed to change the way that we've been doing approvals, zoning in the city because he said the process is arbitrary and capricious decision-making that comes awfully close to taking property without due process. and he said he was particularly concerned by the lack of middle-income housing stock in san francisco and the difficulty young people with children encounter in finding a place to live. that was back in 1977. and the way we've been doing it in the 40 years since then has made things worse. the planning commission still does arbitrary and capricious

decisions. the people adapt by overcrowding, tent cities. i argue that the way we've been doing local control in san francisco has led to very unethical outcomes. thank you. >> president breed: thank you for your comments. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, everyone. my name is wendy wong. i am the member of the san francisco coalition of good neighborhoods. we value quality of life. i'm here to speak to three items, at least, if i have enough time. first of all, sb827 -- >> president breed: ma'am, that item has already had its public comment satisfied, so you are not able to discuss that particular item today. >> okay. as an ethics code, i would like to have other supervisors' attention that we need to focus on small property owners' quality and also their benefits. right now we hear a lot of

tenants who are suing small property owners who are mom and pop owners. and as we need to do further investigation how much money we have been paying, small property owners have been paying, lawyers, abusive tenants who actually have professional and legal advise -- free advice from our city. as small property owners, we do not have a lot of helping hands. and i really want to know whether this money is going to improve our quality of life by providing more housing to our tenants, good tenants. and also, we need to provide aid and legal advisers to our quality good property owners, especially small mom and pop. and we have 40,000 units available, qualified units available. but we are not -- we are not feel comfortable renting out because of the unfair laws.

as far as i know, all these things going on really scare the small property owners. publicity. we don't hear a lot of incentive to let our small property owners provide all the legal and available units to tenants. all we hear is law. now we even impose laws to punish, to punish property owners who leave their vacant units unrented. who are willing to rent it out when we have potential lawsuits. so by punishing people doing something is not a democracy. it's not the city. it's not the spirit of united states. so we do not punish people by doing the right thing. we endorse and encourage and also helping to understand the law. >> president breed: thank you for your comments. and before the next speaker comes up to the podium, are there any other members of the public who would like to address the board and the ethics commission in a joint public,

general public comment? just for clarification, there will be another public comment called very specifically on the ordinances that are on the board's agenda pursuant to the california government conduct code and the amendments that are expected to be made around that. mr. gilberti. >> thank you. opening day, hope springs eternal. the glorious week before baseball starts. your team is going to go. it's wonderful. 50-some-odd years ago, camelot was a broadway play. richard burton, robert goulet, julie andrews, shifted over to jfk's administration. his brother, robert. schlessinger, other people, salinger, jackie, mcnamara, the best and the brightest. and yet there's another camelot. it had a king. it had a farmer. it had evans.

belafonte. baird russekin. jabah. it had muhammad ali, a gentleman that we resist, happy to experience his life. and tomorrow his last day, his last breath, his assassination. overhead, please. and here we are. we can't -- we can't house our people. he said that if you make more bombs than you can take care of your people that need the most, you're morally corrupt and you're in the wrong direction, and here we are. we cannot house our people. again, the plot to kill king,

this may be the only and the best of what and how it happen ed. it's worth knowing that one. we have the greatest wealth inequality in our country right now, and we need to do something more. change the algorithm. thank you. >> president breed: thank you for your comments. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, supervisors and commissioners. i'm hunter cutting with the coalition to save clipper cove. and i'm here today to welcome a resolution introduced by supervisor kim to help establish sound planning principles for development in the cove. as many of you know, cooper cove is a really special place. each year it serves thousands of families from across the city. it is the largest open-water protected cove in san francisco.

it offers a really rare combination of flat water, moderate wind, and protection from tidal currents. it's home to the only community sailing center in san francisco. 41 public elementary schools in san francisco participate in a silence -- silence -- science and sailing s.t.e.m. program each year that put 1,500 fourth graders onto the san francisco pay. it's also home to threatened and endangered and critically important eel grass beds. unfortunately, the very same qualities that make it a great place for community boating and a safe place for kids to sail have attracted the attention of commercial real estate developers. who are proposing to demolish the existing small-boat marina and replace it with a large luxury marina dedicated exclusively to large yachts and take one-third of the cove. this proposal would actually dramatically reduce public access to the bay. it would threaten eel grass beds and it would expose the city to

significant and financial liability. i unfortunately despite loud, clear and broad public opposition, this proposal has moved forward, i have a number of letters of opposition that i would like to introduce if i could from the coalition for san francisco neighborhoods, from san francisco bay keeper, from the san francisco unified school district and from u.s. sailing, the governing body for the sport of sailing. one last comment doesn't actually take sides in the fight, doesn't propose or oppose or support any particular development, but it does help establish principles for development in the cove, and i urge your support. thank you. >> president breed: thank you. and the sergeant at arms will be there to collect the letter from you. >> thanks. >> president breed: next speaker, please. >> this one, too. thank you. >> good afternoon, everyone. my name is ellen lee chow. today i received a second warning from you guys that i'm

not here to advocate for election. my name is ellen lee chow. i am a public social worker for public health. i have two colleagues who spoke earlier about corruption. i have been working for approximately 12 years. we have been investigating many departments for corruption that people have been paid for their jobs. bribery and extortion. the fbi was involved since 2011 to about 2017. and i'm glad the ethics commission director is here today. i have said it to her. i will go to the ethics commission every month until they do something. and this will be reported to the fbi for corruption cover-up. last year between april 2017 to 2017, i brought five public employees to ethics commission and turned in so many documents,

yet a few months ago, we were told the documents have been missing. that is corruption. many people stood up and took courage to tell you, board of supervisors, please, don't play on your phone right now. you are on public hearing, please. i'm not a subject. 35% people are public owners. they are chinese people. they are asian people. they have been sued. if you want to solve the housing shortage, protect property owners so we can release the properties and give it to the people who need it like teachers. like public employees. the other problem is that we always have laws that we implement the law, but we do not reinforce the law. that's the problem with our city and county. and i hope you guys pay attention during public hearing. >> president breed: thank you for your comments. next speaker, please.

>> how am i supposed to follow the next mayor of san francisco? back in my forklift driving career, i once was on the freight elevator with a 49ers cheerleaders and judge kopp. you know, there are actually a number of countries that have been able to maintain high living standards amid resource constraints and higher density for a century or more. and i don't know why we don't look a little more to those countries. because it doesn't -- they don't do it the way we do it. they all have cost containment. they all have many -- a large commitment to cost containment. many quality of life assurances that we don't have. and, in fact, if you look at them carefully, what they're doing, they effectively -- they don't incentivize density increases. they effectively contain density increases. building housing without cost containment is a waste of the taxpayers' money. it's a waste of everybody's

money. and when the shine comes off the apple, the resulting dislocation is going to offset any benefit. just to be clear about things, you cannot claim to have an interesting quality of life or environmentalism while you're blowing the lid off of market rate housing. people who live in market rate housing have a much higher rate of subinfrastructure consumption and a much higher rate of emissions. it just -- it just explodes the whole thing. the whole equation explodes. there are three types of people up here. three types of folks. folks who can add and folks who can't. >> thank you for your comments. next speaker, please. >> thank you, madam clerk. my comments are directed at the board of supervisors. my name is winship hillyer. president breed, ladies and

gentlemen of the board, today you have named terminal 1 of the san francisco airport after supervisor harvey milk. but what would harvey milk say if he were here? if he could be here, what would he say to you about openness? when you turn around, and this week alone, pay over -- well over $1 million to citywide case management community focus, an organization that is shrouded in secrecy, an organization that uses foreign intelligence surveillance to basically terrorize citizens of this city for the purpose of coercing them into involuntary psychiatric treatment. i'm sorry. i didn't quite say that right. coerce them into voluntary psychiatric treatment by making their lives into a living hell. what would he say about people

like me who we're self-supporting. i was working at a job. i had friends. i was doing volunteer work. but somebody decided i was not psychiatrically right. and so i needed to be disabled. and so i was. and so i am. permanently. unable to work. unable to get welfare. because of what you are doing. you are funding these people. okay. i'm out of time. madam clerk. >> thank you for your comments. are there any other members of the public who would like to address the board and the ethics commission on general public comment? >> good afternoon, supervisors. mark salomon. i wanted to talk about the planning code. previous discussion led me to think about this. i've experienced over the past 15 years working on a bunch of land use and areas of intersection, bike advisory committee, transportation effectiveness project, cac, western summit task force and mt cac. last fall people were approving

the eastern neighborhoods plan which basically is zoning around transit corridors to see how that works. well, we have ten years of evidence on the record as to what happens when we do this. we don't need to look to the states. we have an exact record here and we need to get our own planning department and board of supervisors together to figure out the promises that were made a decade ago, what's been kept true and what hasn't. the latter will be much more significant than the former because basically nothing that planning told us was going to happen did. the black letter of the law, that happened. did the actual flowery language in the plans ever happen? of course not. look at the mission right now. we've seen 90 condo projects since eastern neighborhoods have gone in with minimal affordability. displacements are still off the roof. the congestion on the streets is impossible. riding a bicycle now is more treacherous than it has been for the previous 29 years that i've lived here. because of the tncs. we were told these young knowledge workers would come in. they would be urban pioneers. they'd take transit. they'd ride their bicycles. they'd take muni. they wouldn't go in single-occupancy vehicles.

that was wrong and that's actually having significant impacts to transit right now. transit is more unattractive than it would be because of the failures in land use planning. it's up to this board to really set the law down with planning and revisit eastern neighborhoods and market octavia to realize a transit-oriented development was a scam. my greatest area was not catching it. the significance of seven or eight muni lines for eastern neighborhoods, it was, like, wait a minute. transit-oriented development slows down transit and here we are ten years later. it's time to fix this. thank you. >> thank you for your comments. next speaker, please. and madam president, after this speaker, i will be yielding the floor to you. >> everyone, my name is sara wong. you guys, the more you give, the more welfare you give to the homeless, the more homeless you

come from other cities. the more welfare you give to the homeless, the more homeless will come to san francisco. thank you. >> thank you for your comments. madam president. >> president breed: thank you, madam clerk. are there any other members of the public who would like to provide public comment at this time? seeing none, public comment is now closed. and madam clerk, please read the items for adoption without reference to committee. >> items 46 through 53 are being considered for adoption without committee reference. if a member would like to have an item discussed separately, it may be severed and considered separately. >> president breed: all right. please call the roll madam clerk. >> on items 46 through 53, supervisor breed. >> president breed: aye. >> supervisor cohen. >> supervisor cohen: aye. >> super fewer. >> supervisor fewer: aye. >> supervisor kim.

>> supervisor kim: aye. >> supervisor peskin. >> supervisor peskin: aye. >> ronan, aye. supervisor safai. >> supervisor safai: aye. >> supervisor sheehy. >> supervisor sheehy: aye. >> tang, aye. yee, aye. there are 11 ayes. those items are adopted anonymously. please read items 41 through 43. >> item 41 is a hearing of the board of supervisors sitting as a committee as a whole in a joint meeting setting with the san francisco ethics commission to hold a public hearing to consider items 42 and 43, the anti-corruption and accountability ordinances, amending the campaign and governmental conduct code to

institute various campaign finance and conflict of interest reforms scheduled pursuant to a motion approved on march 6th and a moment ago today on april 3rd. items 42 and 43 have been called from committee. 42 from the budget and finance committee and 43 from the rules committee. these items are the ordinances that are amending the campaign and governmental conduct code. the campaign finance and conflict of interest sections. >> thank you, madam clerk. please call your corresponding agenda items now at this time. >> madam executive director, will you please call the item? >> ethics commission special joint meeting agenda item 3, consideration of possible action on the anti-corruption and accountability ordinance amending the campaign of governmental conduct code to institute campaign finance and conflict of interest reforms. board of supervisors file numbers 180001 and 180280. scheduled pursuant to board of

supervisors motion number m18-029 approved on march 6th, 2018. >> colleagues, as i mentioned, the clerk -- the ethics commission and the city attorney have worked collaboratively on the following structure for this meeting which i've asked the clerk to outline for us at this time. >> thank you, madam president. i believe both the members of the board and the members of the commission have been handed out this procedure. as the president said, it was conceived jointly by the parties in an effort to streamline the discussion and consideration of the items and facilitate the campaign and governmental conduct codes requirement that the ethics commission approve the amendments prior to board action within the commission of this setting as a whole. for opening remarks, we'll begin with brief remarks by the ethics commission chair. then we'll move to opening remarks from members of the board. the ethics commission presentation of amendments, the chair of the ethics commission will call on her commissioners

to provide their amendments either during or after commissioners will describe proposed amendments to the record. chair chiu will welcome supervisors to ask questions on and discuss their amendments. if members of the board wish to ask questions on an amendment, chair chiu will yield the floor to president breed who will control the discussion between the bodies. moving on to the board's opportunity for presentation of amendments. after debate concludes for all ethics commission amendments and before the commission beginning consideration of their amendments, the board will have its final opportunity to provide input to the commission about any issue and to propose any board amendments the members would like the ethics commission to consider. the commission will not begin their final consideration and vote on those amendments, all amendments, until after public comment concludes. at that time, the commission requests the opportunity to

deliberate as a commission. so members, be sure to make all of your comments prior to public comment. amendments, as the city attorney has previously communicated to the members and to the ethics commission should be in writing and approved by the city attorney. it is expected that no other amendments are expected to be considered except those in writing. it is possible that a proposed amendment may trigger a continuance to a future ethics commission or a board of supervisors meeting. the city attorney will advise on each amendment after it is offered whether it may require a continuance in its status. to the agenda items, there are two files listed on the board agenda. items 42 and 43. item 43 on the board's agenda is identical to the ordinance noticed on the ethics commission agenda. for the purposes of this discussion, item 43 will be used as a starting point as the working document. so both bodies are amending the same document. for the sake of simplicity, the

board will not amend item 42 and will either table item 42 or send it to committee at the end of the hearing. regarding public comment. after discussion of all proposed amendments from the commission and the board, the president will open public comment. there will be only one opportunity for the public comment on this item no matter how many amendments are offered and even if new amendments are offered after public comment. each speaker will have up to two minutes for public comment. so please fashion your comments to include all possibilities for potential amendments. regarding voting on the amendments. after public comment, the debate is closed and the ethics commission will consider all amendments that have been proposed first and will then vote on the ordinance as amended. at the commission's discretion, questions may be posed to the members of the board. the ethics commission approves its amendments by three affirmative votes. once the commission begins their

final consideration on the ordinance as amended the commission requests the board refrain from further debate with the commission until the matter is fully in the hands of the board. the commission requests the space and time to conduct its own uninterrupted discussion. the ethics commission approves the item as amended by four-fifths of the entire membership or by four votes. board consideration. if approved by the ethics commission and the city attorney verifies the ordinances able to be voted upon today, the board will then consider the ordinance as amended. for the board, any further amendments will require six votes to be adopted and the ordinance as a whole will require eight votes. any further amendments made by the board will require the ethics commission to approve the further amended version by a four-fifths vote. if the commission approves the further amended version, it may return to the board for its final approval if the city attorney grants that status, which will be an eight-vote

threshold. thank you, madam president. >> president breed: thank you, madam clerk. colleagues, without objection, we will proceed that way. [ gavel ] and madam chair, will you -- your commission proceed in this order as well. >> commissioners, without objection. yes. >> president breed: okay. with that, we'll start opening remarks from the ethics commission chair chu, the floor is yours. >> thank you, madam president. so over a year ago, the ethics commission embarked on this effort on this legislation with the goal of reducing both real and perceived pay-to-play politics in san francisco. the anti-corruption and accountability ordinance prohibits the worst case of pay-to-play and seeks to shine a light on conduct that can create the risk of pay-to-play. we did this by following the money and financial interests. restricting in some cases or requiring disclosure in others so that the people of san

francisco can know where the money is coming from, who asked for it, and where it's going. we had numerous discussions as a commission and received a lot of input from a range of stake holders. and as you know, today there is an additional proposal, proposed legislation from supervisor peskin that is included in the ordinance before us. the ethics commission has not had the opportunity to discuss the substance of this ordinance, and i hope that we can do that today together as a group. and we support the goals of limiting the influence of -- and impact of money in politics and believe that the thoughtful discussion and careful consideration of the scope, impact, enforceability and constitutionality of the proposed ordinance can make it more effective and enforceable. so in closing, we appreciate the time and focus of both the commission and the board of supervisors at this special joint meeting, and we look forward to working together to enact a package of strong, fair

and effective laws that will enhance the transparency and accountability of government for the people of san francisco. >> president breed: thank you, chair chchltu. and with that, supervisor peskin and if any other members of the board would like to speak at this time, this will be your moment. supervisor peskin. >> supervisor peskin: thank you, president breed and thank you, president chu, to the members of the ethic commission and the board of supervisors in this unprecedented, historic gathering between our two respective bodies. i just want to first, in the words of president chu, thank the many stakeholders who have been a part of this process from day one, from the friends of ethics, which is a group of former ethics commissioners and civil grand jury members, and good government advocates to the nonprofit stakeholders, many of whom we heard from earlier, to

director pellum and the staff from the ethics commission and, of course, to the ethics commissioners themselves who have been working on this for some time and, of course, including former chair keen. and i also wanted to specifically call out supervisor tang. the ethics commissioner worked on this for quite a long time. and then it fell into our laps earlier this year. and i want to thank supervisor tang and her staff as well as my staff, lee hoeppner, who really helped at least this supervisor focus on what's before us. and i think we have an opportunity today to pass some of the most comprehensive changes to our municipal campaign finance laws since the united states supreme court's terrible decision in citizens united, which has harmed our

democracy and distorted our political system in favor of billionaires and massive corporations in myriad ways. and in doing so, we, i think, have a number of imperatives. first we have an imperative to make sure that we achieve the three pillars of effective ethics restorm, implementation, enforceability and compliance. and i also want this body to keep our eyes on the massive dark money donors that for far too long have been pulling strings in this building and in this city and using loopholes and campaign finance regulations, some of which were actually created by citizens united to buy votes and create policy in the city. and lastly, and i said this repeatedly in committee, i believe it is our imperative to pass these reforms legislatively without going to the ballot. i think that our two respective bodies can discharge those

duties here in this room. i don't want the perfect to be the enemy of the good today. one of the reasons i think to keep it in the legislative arena is in this ever-evolving area of law, money being like water, it always finds a new place to flow in politics, that we can continue to make amendments and tighten loopholes as we find them along the way. and so i have a number of amendments. i also want to thank all of the colleagues who, in concert with deputy city attorney andrew chen actually put all of those amendments in writing. they are all part of the public file. members of the public have been able to review them online. i have seven amendments. and madam -- or madams president, i am happy to speak to each and every one of them.

i've handed them to the four extant members of the ethics commission and my ten colleagues on the board of supervisors. i know that supervisor tang and supervisor fewer and supervisor kim also have some suggested amendments. i assume some of these things are going to succeed today, and some of them are going to fail. this is going to be an iterative process between the two bodies. as our clerk said, we cannot act until all four members of the ethics commission have acted. so hopefully we can get something done and something passed today. and i assume there's going to have to be a little bit of give and take between our two bodies as the evening rolls on. >> president breed: thank you, supervisor peskin. and just for clarity, this is just the time for opening remarks and not the introductions of amendments. supervisor kim. >> supervisor kim: i will make general opening comments and

we'll talk about amendments later. but i just want to thank supervisor peskin for working to expedite an ordinance that will ensure transparency in our upcoming campaign cycle. as many of you know, on the board, i also introduced a campaign and governmental code reform on campaign finance amendments last july of 2017. and we have been slowly working with the ethics commission staff and commissioner on tightening transparency rules around how dark money operates here in the city and county of san francisco. since the citizens united ruling in 2010, our country has witnessed an unprecedented level of money into our elections fueled by large corporations and billionaire donors. it's really no coincidence that as we start to see an increase in dark money and unprecedented influence of some of the richest americans in our country determining who gets to represent us at the federal,

state and local level, we have seen the middle class continue to get decimated here in this country as the interest of the very few are prioritized over everybody else. we are seeing this in federal and state tax policies, in budgetary decisions, and frankly in regulations on our biggest corporate classes here in our country. a significant portion of these dollars are difficult to trace. and just here in san francisco, we are not immune to large amounts of dollars going to outside spending as well. in the 2016 brennan report entitled "secret spending in states," they reviewed six states including california. and they found that 76% of outside spending in 2006 was transparent. ten years later, in 2016, only 29% of outside spending was transparent. this just over a very short

period of time. so we are truly witnessing the impact of citizens united in our races here in the state and locally. the same study found cause for alarm in the outpouring of also what we might call quote, unquote, gray money. money that is moved from one pac to another which saw an increase in 2016 from 15% to 59% by 2014. it is incredibly important that we do what we can to tighten our disclosure and reform legislation. this is, of course, never-ending work because as we develop more rules, people discover more loopholes. so it's kind of this race to writing rules as people expose more loopholes. but we can't stop all the money that's coming in. we can, however, create more transparency. and i truly believe our voters, if educated on where this money has come from, and where the messaging and mailers and commercials are coming from, we'll make more educated and

informed decisions finally, whether it is on ballot measures and issues or on elected officials. and while our ordinance continues to move through, i do appreciate that supervisor peskin has included some of our ordinance in his current propos proposal. for the sake of efficiency and expediency, i will be making some less substantive amendments today. and then we'll continue with what is remaining of our ordinance through the normal ordinance process with the ethics commission. but i just want to thank the ethics commission for agreeing to this joint meeting today. it's great to see our commissioners and staff here. >> thank you, supervisor kim. supervisor tang. >> supervisor tang: thank you very much and thank you to the ethics commission and of course supervisor peskin as well for helping to work on some of the amendments we'll be proposing later on in the meeting. i just want to say opening comments in terms of overall

ethics legislation. i think what i heard loud and clear was the intent for leveling the playing field, making sure there's transparency with campaigns, elections and so forth. also i think on the flip side, i this i that it's immensely important for all of us as candidates or people running ballot measures and so forth to actually be able to comprehend all of these ethics legislation in an easy way. again, as i mentioned in committee, i have a campaign attorney who is amazing and is able to help me sort through all of the different, you know, requirements locally and the state level. but today, you know, as we are considering this legislation before us, it has been incredibly difficult to peel through, you know, all the different regulations, again, not only locally but also at the state level. in fact, state legislation has passed ab249, for example, which, you know, the state hasn't even fully released its complete guidelines for how it

is that we should all comply with it. and so then on top of that, we are layering on legislation on a local level, again, without the clear guidance from the state level. so, you know, i just wanted to make sure that as we're moving forward and some of it is reflected in some of the amendments that i have today, that it needs to be abundantly clear. so that even if people don't have a campaign attorney, they can actually sort through and look through our legislation and understand what they actually have to do. the last thing i want is that we're playing gotcha with people and just getting people caught up in regulations, again, because it's so complicated. so i really hope that all my colleagues and ethics commission staff, you know, that we follow our government code at the state level, ab249, see how it's being implemented, that the guidelines are very clear so that we can provide clear guidelines here in san francisco. but i look forward to our conversation later today. and again, i hope we can come to some sort of agreement on a compromised legislation. thank you. >> thank you.

supervisor tang. and with that, we will start with our amendments. and we will allow the ethics commission to work out their amendments and then we will bring it back to the board of supervisors. so i will turn it over to chair chu. >> chair chu: thank you, madam president. so i'd like to invite the members of the ethics commission to provide their comments, questions, concerns as well as any proposed amendments. they have. >> thank you, madam chairwoman. i do have a proposed amendment. and has it been distributed through the chair to mr. chen to the supervisors? >> yes, it has. >> it has been. all right. as you can see, it starts with section 3.203. a definition of public appeal and extends to section 3.207.

and the effect of it is simple. to do what started about 15, 16 months ago at the ethics commission with this legislation. >> commissioner kopp, i'm going to ask you to pause because no members of the board of supervisors have a copy of your amendment. >> that's what i asked. >> we have a commissioner chu, but we don't have commissioner kopp. >> the only amendment i know i have from any commissioners is from commissioner chu only. and then from members of the board. >> i believe, brent, do you have those amendments in your hand? they are being distributed now, madam president. >> okay. and are there any other commission amendments that need to be distributed at this time? it will help us follow the discussion.

>> yes, for the purpose of setting the table, there's also a set proposed by commissioner lee. >> i don't think we have sufficient copies. so if we can take a two-minute break in order to get the copies, that would be great. two-minute break.