intend to vote no on b. >> there's a motion to rescind. is there a second? >> as a point of clarification. >> it's a separate document the staff repaired. there's a lack of clarity. so your motion is to rescind on the floor? >> yes. >> on the motion to rescind the prior vote was there a second? >> it looks like it failed.

>> that conclude the amendment i'm going to propose. i think now we need to take a vote on the amended ordinance and if we muster the four votes it would be passed over to the board of supervisors for action. [stand by for captioner switch]

could we get a clarification? >> just to clarify where we are. commission chiu has proposed a series of amendments, some of them adopted by the commission. right now the motion on the floor is to approve the ordinance as amended which would then forward this onto the board of supervisors.

>> is there a second? >> i'll second. on the motion to adopt the ordinance, as amended, commission lee? commissioner lee votes aye. commission cop votes no. commissioner rennie votes aye. commissioner chiu. aye. the motion -- well, it fails. the ordinance as amended is adopted? >> it needs four votes. >> the motion to adopt the ordinance as amended has three ayes and one no, therefore it fails because there is not a fourth-fifth vote by the ethics commission and that is with

commissioner cop in the dissent. >> i believe this is back in the books. supervisor peskin, i'm sorry, we got it. so, the commission has not voted in favor of the ordinance, so i'll turn the chair back over to you, madame president. >> president breed: in that case, what is happening now, there isn't item before us to vote on but supervisor peskin i'm sure is going to make sure there is. supervisor peskin? >> supervisor peskin: thank you, president breed, through the respective presidents, commissioner cop, your honor, i am asking you to reconsider that vote. this is an evolving area of law and regulation.

if you would do this body of which you presided over many years ago the courtesy of sending it forward, we will attempt to get eight votes and do something tonight to further the cause of ethics reform. i respectfully ask that you reconsider your vote. >> commissioner cop? >> you use the word courtesy, supervisor, through the chair, i have never sustained a lack of a courtesy on motion to rescind an erroneous vote. >> supervisor peskin: thank you, and your honor, let me just say, in this body, that never would have happened. i don't want to put words in my colleagues' mouths, but i

frankly was embarrassed for your commission they did not give you that courtesy. so let me restate this. i would respectfully, madame president, ask that you reconsider tang amendment number 2 and that you give the commissioner the respect and the courtesy of rescinding the vote so he can vote for the portion he wants and vote against the portion he doesn't want so you can send it over to this body with four votes? >> chair chiu? >> thank you, madame president. i make a motion to reconsider the motion to rescind. commissioner cop's vote and i would ask for a second. >> just to be clear, you made a motion to rescind the vote for the ordinance specifically? >> that's correct. >> president breed: we have to rescind the vote for them to

have the discussion, the entire vote, yes. >> so as i understand it, the process would be we need to make a motion to rescind the vote on the ordinance and then we can go back and rescind the vote on supervisor tang's amendment number 2? is that correct? >> ok, so commissioner rennie had seconded, i would like to ask the executive director to call the roll. on the motion to reconsider the vote on the ordinance moved by commissioner chiu and seconded by rennie. commissioner lee?

commissioner lee votes aye. commissioner cop votes aye. commissioner rennie votes aye. commissioner chiu votes aye. thank you, so the vote is 4-0. on the motion to reconsider the ordinance. i'd like to make a motion now to rescind the vote on supervisor tang's amendment number 2. is there a second? >> 2 b. >> sorry, point of order, supervisor tang, there is a reference to 2 b and i don't understand what that is, so if we could clarify what section that is, that would be great. commissioner cop, if we could clarify the section -- >> 2 b. a there is no 2 b.

>> it's section 3. -- >> there is two sections, section 3.-- >> 207. >> right, but -- >> so you would [inaudible] . >> just to clarify, the section on 2.02 #, the only portion i amended was to clarify that someone is approaching an officer with respect to a particular pending legislative or administrative action, so just clarifies when someone is making appeal to an officer.

the motion to rescind our vote on supervisor tang's amendment number 2, and there was a second. >> who was the second? >> commissioner lee. call the roll. >> executive director could you call the role? -- roll? it's for the whole thing. then you do them separate. what i want you to do is explain this to me. the benefits for the organization, which there the family numbers are associated, that's not what 3.207 has. >> right -- [inaudible]

we're going to take a recess for five minutes. until you guys figure out what is going on.

we're back with the board of supervisors and ethics commission.

to recap, where we are is we have a motion on the floor to rescind the ethics commission vote on supervisor tang's amendment number 2. and i believe there was a second from commissioner lee. so madame executive director, would you be so kind as to call the vote? >> commission lee aye. commissioner cop votes aye. commissioner rennie votes aye. commissioner chiu votes aye. the motion passes with unanimous four votes. commissioner cop? i'd like to make a motion that the vote be separated on the two different sections. >> do i have a second? commissioner lee has seconded. so on the motion to vote first on supervisor tang amendment number 2, conflict of interest

section 3.203 definitions. madame executive director would you call the vote? >> can i clarify it's a motion to vote on two sections or vote on the first of those two sections? >> it's a motion to vote separately on each section. a motion to sever each from the other. >> there was a second to that by commissioner lee. on that question, commissioner lee aye. commissioner cop votes aye. commissioner rennie votes aye. commissioner chiu aye. motion passes by 4-0 votement . now there is vote on the first of the -- is there a motion and

a second to vote on the first section 3.203 definitions and supervisor tang amendment number 2 conflict of interest? motion to vote on -- yes. is there a motion? was there a second? no second. the motion fails for lack of a second. is there a motion to approve this ordinance as amended?

>> point of order. there has been no vote on amending two separate sections, 3.203 is one, the second is 3.207. and so there no doubt i intend to vote no on one and yes on the other. and the motion to sever each from the other was just adopted. i ask the chair to proceed to a vote on section 2.303 proposed amendment. >> i called for that motion, so there was no second. i'll call the motion -- >> you voted already on that. you already did it. >> actually that's not what happened. so, just for clarity, you can just move to support 3.203 and then ask for a second. >> move to support section

3.203, is there a second? >> 3.203? >> yes. >> we voted on that. >> i'll second it to get a vote. can you please -- could you restate the motion. >> the motion is approve section 2.303 definition the amendment number 2 by supervisor tang conflict of interest. >> that was moved by commissioner chiu and seconded by commissioner cop? >> yes. commissioner lee? commissioner chiu votes aye. so the motion does not pass, there are three votes in the aye

and one -- excuse me. >> it's a motion. >> ok, it passes. 3 votes to one with commissioner cop in the dissent. >> excuse me, colleagues, i know it's late and i know people are frustrated, but i would ask that you are courteous to one another and allow us to move forward with our process. thank you. >> thank you. i have a motion to -- i would like to make a motion to vote on section 3.207 and supervisor tang conflict of interest. madame executive director? could you please call the vote? commissioner lee? aye. commissioner cop aye. commissioner rennie aye. commissioner chiu aye. the motion passes with a vote 4-0. so now i'd like to make a motion

and -- to vote on this ordinance and to approve it as amended. is there a second? second. >> a motion to approve the ordinance as amended? commissioner lee votes aye. commissioner cop votes aye. commissioner rennie votes aye. commissioner chiu votes aye. motion passes 4-0. i'd like to ask deputy city attorney for guidance on next steps and then i'll turn it over

to president breed. >> yes, is the matter now returns to the board of supervisors, the ethics commission has approved the ordinance by the recommended four-fifths vote. there are three amendments approved by the commission, the first is peskin, the second is commissioner chiu's third amendment clarifying -- and the third amendment that has been made is supervisor tang's second amendment and both portions of the amendment were approved by the commission. now it's in the hands of the board of supervisors. >> president breed: thank you, mr. chen for the clarification. and, colleagues, at this time, we could adopt this particular ordinance as amended and if we

decide to make amendments at the board of supervisors, we would need to send it back to the ethics commission for approval before we could take action. with that, i'd like to recognize supervisor yee. >> supervisor yee: like to make a motion to adopt the amended version of the ordinance. >> president breed: ok. supervisor yee has made a motion to adopt the amendments similar to the amendments proposed by the ethics commission within our same ordinance, so it's a motion to amend, correct? >> madame president, that would be specifically to item 43. >> president breed: yes. so supervisor yee has made a motion to amend the item specific to the amendments made by the ethics commission, is there a second? seconded by supervisor tang. colleagues, can we take the

amendments without objection? >> madame president, i think you should have roll call? >> on the amendments. >> we have not had a roll call in this meeting. >> ok, thank you, madame clerk. on the amendments -- ok, we can hold if people have questions. >> supervisor tang: thank you, so, we have a motion on the floor to adopt the three amendments that city attorney andrew schenn just stated. there were a couple of others that the board of supervisors wanted to adopt, so i'm going to repeat a couple of them that i would like to propose that we consider here at the board of supervisors and have the ethics commission staff consider them or explain why they wouldn't want to adopt the amendments. in terms of let's see here -- actually i'll start with my own so supervisor peskin can go into

his. section 1.24, that is amendment number 1, i would like to put that in the legislation, that holds one person accountable versus a group of individuals in terms of the business disclosures for large contributions. section 3.600, 610 and 620 and 630, those delete all references to "actively support or oppose" and again, the idea behind this was to not free speech for those individuals or nonprofit organizations that wish to speak during public comment. and that also applies to section 3.630 as well. but still allows for reporting requirements for interested parties. so those are the remaining amendments of mine not adopted by the ethics commission that i would like the board to

consider? >> president breed: thank you. >> supervisor peskin: if that is a motion by supervisor tang, i second it, or if it is amendment to supervisor yee's motion, i would second it. >> president breed: ok. >> through the chair, those are amendments on top of what supervisor yee already has put on the floor, the three that were adopted by ethics commission. >> supervisor peskin: let me start out to, president, and members of the ethics commission and my colleagues with regard to what i think is the seminal piece of the file number, ending in 80, which is the major donor piece. and this is through my president to president chiu, to you, in so far as my amendment number 8 would not implement that

particular provision until january 1, 2019 and insofar as you've expressed you would like to hone that, i would like to work with you and take my amendment number 3 off the table. so, as much as i would like that to be implemented yesterday, given the realities around that and my desire to have a collaborative relationship between the board of supervisors and the ethics commission, i would like to continue that process going forward and take the major donor provision out. so, that brings us to a number of other amendments that i have and while supervisor tang and i

have to been shoulder to shoulder on each other's amendments, there is one where we are not shoulder to shoulder and that is the provision that that 1.127 with regard to the prohibition of individuals and entities that have a pending land use matter in excess of $5 million. and i would like to make that amendment. >> what number? >> that is my amendment number 1. >> supervisor peskin: my amendment number 2, supervisor tang, through the president, i think we're all in agreement on the reduction from 500 to 20, was that covered? you've already nailed that? >> no, through the chair, that is only in your amendment.

>> supervisor peskin: i would like to move my amendment number 2. and amendment number 4, supervisor, through the president, to supervisor tang, you spoke to and supervisor kim spoke to again, i don't want the perfect to be the enemy of the good, so whether it's five seconds on a 30-second ad or 10 seconds on a 60-minute ad and while i personally prefer the beginning of the ad to the end of the ad, whatever is the will of this body, if we can do that. and deal with supervisor kim's same issues around social media and electronic media, so i think item number -- hold on one

second -- 4 is still a work in progress. the choice we have between amendments 5 and 6, again, my personal belief is that we should go with the first alternative, with i is to delete -- which is to delete the section 3.209 recusal provision, but if that causes us a problem with our brothers and sisters at the ethics commission, i have an alternative and we have not heard from the ethics commission, which is to delete the 1% or more of matters pending which quite frankly, is administrative nightmare, so i really need to hear, or we need to hear from the ethics commission on that for, i would prefer amendment number 5, but we can -- i can live with amendment number 6. we've already adopted amendment number 8. as to amendment number 7, that,

through the president to supervisor tang, this may be mooted by the actively support or oppose provisions and i would actually need to talk to legal counsel about item number 7. the second part of item number 7, 500 to 200 and 50 to 20, would definitely need to keep the provision, the interested party provision and again through president breed, supervisor tang, may have been superseded by what you already did. >> supervisor tang? >> supervisor tang: on page 15, amendment number 7 of supervisor peskin's ordinance, i need to ask city attorney, but it still

refers to actively oppose, i think it's after we take my amendment number 3. >> supervisor peskin: i think if we take supervisor tang's amendment it meets the first part of my amendment number 7, but we still have to do the second part, the public appeal provision on page 17. i think. >> so we could go through the process and then mr. schenn, you can take a look and let us know? >> just to weigh in briefly on the question, there are portions of the amendments that contradictory, so the deletion would be contradictory and we would have to do mixing and matching from there. so with respect to supervisor tang's amendment, the definition

of interested party does not naturally link up to supervisor peskin's proposed amendment to the definition of interested party. so you all would need to sort out which direction you want to go. the amendment to public appeal which is the last portion of supervisor peskin's amendment is not inconsistent with anything in supervisor tang's amendment. but there are additional portions of supervisor tang's third amendment that goes into other sections, 3.620 and 3.630, that are not touched by supervisor peskin's amendments, so there would again need to be mixing and matching here. >> supervisor -- i'm sorry, supervisor safai, do you want to respond to the city attorney? >> yes, i think that supervisor peskin and i in spirit are

actually in agreement. i would be ok with adopting his definition of interest party on page 16 of his amendment package which has an additional section that ace or received -- says or received compensation... >> president breed: ok. supervisor safai? >> supervisor safai: i just have a point of clarification for supervisor peskin because he went through a lot of amendments. for your amendment number 3, the major disclosure, that's currently in their legislation as amended, so are we removing that section all together? is it a section to remove the major donor disclosure section all together from the final piece of legislation? that's one question. and then the second question is, on your amendment number 4, i heard you say the beginning of the end is the wilf the body, was that a -- will of the body, was that a motion?

>> supervisor peskin: say the last bit. >> supervisor safai: on amendment number 4, you said that the disclaimers, you said whatever the will of the body is, are you deferring to -- i'm just trying to get clarity. i don't know what i'm voting on. >> here's the thing, let me clarify, because i want to make sure that everyone understands because in terms of the mix and match in the last part with supervisor peskin, it was confusing. i strongly suggest we adopt the amendments that are the same amendments so our legislation can be duplication of what the ethics commission did. and also before we do any additional amendments, i know supervisor tang's amendments have been moved and seconded, supervisor peskin's have not, but i want to make it clear when we pass additional amendments,

we will then turn this back over to the ethics commission and they need to approve this document with four votes in order for those to be approved. i wanted to clarify that. with that, is there any other -- >> >> supervisor safai: i was just trying to get clarity on what his amendments proposed on top of supervisor tang's? >> president breed: maybe we do roll call vote on the amendments that supervisor yee proposed which is duplication of the amendments that were adopted by the ethics commission. madame clerk, approximate call the roll? >> there is actually an amendment to supervisor yee's amendment made by supervisor tang and seconded by me, so we would have to vote on that first, but i would actually like to make a friendly amendment to supervisor tang's which is -- and maybe we can make this all happen. >> president breed: that just messed up the whole thing of what i was going to do.

the only other way to do it is either withdraw your amendment which would be helpful so we could go through each amendment on its own. i'm sorry, supervisor yee. supervisor tang. >> supervisor tang: thank you, so, yes, you meant me. i will withdraw my motion to amend based on my amendments that i proposed. >> i withdraw my second. >> president breed: wonderful. the vote right now is to adopt the amendments that are the same amendments proposed by the ethics commission so that our legislation matches up with one another. madame clerk? supervisor breed aye. supervisor cohen aye. supervisor fewer aye. supervisor kim aye. supervisor peskin aye.

supervisor ronen aye. supervisor safai aye. supervisor sheehy aye. stefani aye. yee aye. >> president breed: the amendments are adopted unanimously and now supervisor tang, back to your proposed amendments specifically. >> supervisor tang: all right, so i'd like to adopt my amendment to number 1. i think that's just easier if i refer to it if you look -- >> president breed: so you'd like to make a motion to adopt amendment number 1. seconded by supervisor safai, can we take that without objection? without objection, the amendment passes. >> supervisor tang: i'd like to make motion to adopt amendment number 3 but would like to match my definition of interested parties with supervisor peskin.

page 16, lines 15 and 16. to add the words or received compensation or reimbursement for expenses to actively support or oppose the decision. although now realizing the word active opposed in that. >> president breed: supervisor tang, i apologize but on the amendment i have, it's a different page number. >> supervisor tang: through the chair, i was referring to page 16 of supervisor peskin's legislation. >> president breed: got it. and then for what page and line number are you referring to your own? >> supervisor tang: for my own, page 5, starting line 10. >> president breed: so you want to take that entire language between line 10 and -- >> supervisor tang: however through the chair, the deputy city attorney, within supervisor peskin's definition there is reference to actively support or oppose the decision so since my

amendment strikes those words, i wanted to -- >> president breed: you just -- >> supervisor tang: capture the spirit of supervisor peskin's definition. >> president breed: mr. schenn, is that possible? >> the difference here is i think actively support and oppose would still be deleted, and i think if you want to sync these, you would add the additional language from supervisor peskin's amendment on 16, page 16, the last on compensation -- let me back up. they differ in the definition of interest party. if you compare tang's amendments page 5, lines 10 through 15 to supervisor peskin, page 16,

lines 10 through 16, it is basically the second half of the definition that is the difference. and supervisor peskin's amendment on line 15 and 16, missing from supervisor tang's proposed definition. so one way to sync it would be to include supervisor peskin's language or leave it out. >> supervisor tang: again, through the chair, i would like to sync it up, but remove the words active support or oppose. >> president breed: how specifically -- i think there is confusion around how to sync them up. you would have to accept all of the language that is proposed here. >> right and so just to clarify as well, and supervisor peskin's amendment on page 16, the phrase actively support or oppose was deleted. >> so we could also come back to

that and you can figure out the appropriate language or -- and then we can go with supervisor peskin's amendments. >> i think it's -- >> supervisor peskin? >> i think it's there, just add receive or compensation for expenses to actively support or oppose the decision, right? am i missing something? >> supervisor tang: through the chair, the difference was that i had deleted any -- or wanted to delete "actively support or oppose", because i deleted that entire definition. >> just to clarify that concept of is carried through an additional couple of sections in supervisor tang's amendments. that is also unaddressed. >> president breed: which is why the amendment as much as we want to marry the two is a lot more complicated than it seems. so if we had a little bit more

time while we go through supervisor peskin's amendments, maybe you can come up with the appropriate language? mr. schenn? >> i think i would need a little more guidance from the supervisor which way we're going, whether we want to include the concept or not. i'm not sure i'm in a position to make that call. >> president breed: supervisor tang? >> supervisor tang: i'll go on the side to do that. >> president breed: ok. so we're going to hold off on the third amendment and we anticipate a particular change in that regard and supervisor peskin, let's go to your amendments starting with amendment number 1. >> supervisor peskin: madame president, just one second.

making sausage is very difficult without having my colleague supervisor tang. i addressed 1.7, land use matters, this is the only place supervisor tang and i are not on the same page. >> president breed: which is amendment number 1? >> supervisor peskin: correct. it is my desire to get large developer money out of politics before a decision-making body whether it's the planning commission, the board of appeals, this body, to that end in effort to compromise, i raise the threshold from $1 million to $5 million for what constitutes a land use matter. i very much would like to include this in the legislation.

i understand this is the only place where supervisor tang and i have a profound difference in policy opinion. but i really would like to get developer, large developer money out of politics while they have pending decisions before a decision-making body, so i would like to move item number 1 and i will make that a motion. >> president breed: so, supervisor peskin has made a motion, is there a second? seconded by supervisor yee. so just point of clarification, it's not as if they're going to be giving a million dollars, they can't make $5 million contributions to any campaigns. >> the issue is -- right, they cannot -- >> president breed: they cannot bundle contributions now. >> supervisor peskin: generally what you see in situations like

this, individuals who have -- yes, they actually can bundle contributions right now. prohibited contributions as set forth in 1.127-a is a contribution to a member of the board of supervisors, a candidate for member of the board of supervisors, candidate for mayor, city attorney, candidate, controlled committee of board of supervisors, and no person or the persons entities with a financial interest in the land use matter, building inspection commission, redevelopment commission, et cetera, planning commission, goes on. shall make any prohibited contribution at any time from request for application regarding a land use matter defined as $5 million or more until 12 months have lapsed from the date the board or commission renders a final decision or ruling on any appeals from that

decision or rulings have been finally resolved. >> president breed: i'm confused. i was under the impression, mr. schenn can you explain whether or not, doesn't this already exist, people who have pending projects before the city can't necessarily contribute the $500 max to officials or anything of that nature? i don't know the exact language, but can you help me? >> there is no exact law. the one that is closest is the members of officials, so from soliciting certain contributions, but this is a different sort of ban. it doesn't allow contributions whatsoever and applies to elected officials versus appointed officials, so it is different than what is existing law. >> president breed: what i'm trying to understand isn't there already something that exists for contributions or people who have business before the city?

>> there is also the contracting prohibition which we touched on. and agreements, professional service agreements, et cetera, but section 1.27 is dealing with land use decisions. >> president breed: got it. thank you. supervisor tang. >> supervisor tang: are you talking about the land use amendment particular right now? >> president breed: yes. >> supervisor tang: my position remains the same as in budget committee, i thought it was -- i appreciate the amendments that were made by supervisor peskin to up the dollar threshold, but i still think that the land use matter can be very broad so i agreed with the ethics commission original position on this that it would be something they would like to take up at a later time. so i would not support the amendment today. >> president breed: ok. seeing no other names on the roster, on the amendment, madame clerk, call the roll.

supervisor breed no. cohen no. fewer aye. kim aye. peskin aye. ronen aye. safai no. sheehy no. stefani no. tang no. yee aye. there are five ayes and six nos. >> president breed: the amendment fails. supervisor peskin, number 2? >> supervisor peskin: there is widespread agreement on this, we heard from public, public appeal shall mean request for payment when such request is made by television, billboard, public message on, online platform, the addition of 200 or more printed

material, e-mail to 200 more or recipients or speech to 20 or more individuals. and in subsection b, is a non-substantial issue with regard to where at the behest of city elected officer sits within that subsection b and there is a subsection 4 added exception for public appeals, no committee shall be required to make disclosures for any contribution if the contribution was made solely in response to to public appeal. i would like to move amendment number 2. >> president breed: supervisor peskin has made a motion to amend according to his amendment item number 2. is there a second? seconded by supervisor tang. safai? >> supervisor safai: point of

clarification. so on page 6 of your amendment, says disclosure requirements for contributions to ballot measure committee and committees on ie is it the intent of what you're asking here that there would be disclosure requirements for elected officials that would be making requests on behalf of ballot measure committees? >> supervisor peskin: that is correct. >> supervisor safai: that is the intent? >> supervisor peskin: that is correct. >> supervisor safai: not just ies? >> supervisor peskin: that's correct. >> president breed: supervisor peskin, would you be willing to adjust this to remove ballot measures specifically?