of time. we know how it works in the last few days of an election one person starts to spend hundreds of thousand of dollars but we don't know what their financial interests are and that's what's interesting and i hope it answers supervisor safai's questi questions. >> supervisor safai. >> i wanted to see if this was opening us up. i agree with the intent. is it opening us up to be challenged legally and for this to be enforceable. i was trying to see if there was a balance in terms of the reporting requirement. i was trying to get that from the city attorney. >> we can't disclose or talk about what we receive from the city attorney's office. yes, we'd have to have a closed session to talk about that

supervisor safai. >> i wasn't asking anyone to divulge what was in the confidential memo. what i was asking for was a general conversation about limiting the time frame from which reporting is required. i know we do have form 700. and we're given a few months to report and i was just throwing it out there if it was the right amount of time and the threshold requirement is one that we'd have to have further conversation on. >> thank you, supervisor safai. supervisor ronen. >> i want to get to supervis th

supervisor's comment with the koch brothers and i want to congratulation everyone who worked on the legislation and it's meaningful to a degree. what's most meaningful about our laws in san francisco is that individuals are limit to making $500 contributions and so and we're not influenced by anybody because of that relatively small amount of money that they can give to us. the way people and we all know they give hundreds of thousand if not millions through the i.e.s and there's very little public knowledge about who they are and why they're giving so much money to support individual or oppose individual candidates and what their business

interests are. so i think we are one of the most professional cities in the country. the citizens united case is to destroying our democracy and it's incumbent on us to push the disclosure requirements. i think it's exciting we have an ethics commission in the city and would push back against commissioner chu and say let's not hide behind a potential court that might strike down the law, let's push. let's file. let's try to regain control is through supervisor peskin's amendment and we can pass it here tonight.

i appreciate all the amendments and where we can make the most change is through this amendment. i really hope commissioner chu will think twice about shedding light on the expenditures and who's pumping funds and i hope to pass the measure and the board does as well. >> commissioner: supervisor tang. chair chu. >> thank you, madame president. i wanted to respond to

supervisor and i thinking in my mind the legal question turns on whether or not the burden of providing the financial disclosu disclosure constitutes a right for political speech for individual and corporations and unions and others, to make contribution to committees. in order for a government to regulate a constitutional right it's important we have a compelling government interest and narrowly tailor what the law is to the goal we're trying to accomplish and so i absolutely support the goals of getting money out of politics and i think one of the things i would like to see in the legislation

is not just where the money's coming from but who's it going to. >> supervisor cohen. >> i have a question i raised when i was being briefed by ms. pelham and her team. i don't know who's amendment it is or the owner of the legislation but it comes from regarding the prohibition which

lengthens the time after the date of contract approval. i'd like to have the ethics commission staff answer how did you determine this was the best number of months to lengthen the time period from six months to 12 months. if a person makes a contribution you're not able to vote on their item or their issue. and then my follow-up question is what is the science or to me it feels like an arbitrary number and i'm looking to settle on nine or eight months and looking to understand the rationale. i hope that was clear. it's been a long meeting. >> are you able to answer the questions? >> kyle with the ethics

commission. so the change to six to 12 months came from a number of recommendations and review of jurisdictions laws. it was first came in the original prop j proceedings from six months to 12 months. it was subsequently challenged in other proceedings. we were asked to do follow-up on how other jurisdictions contribute or ban or lobby bans or another provisions worked. in doing that and going back to what we provided the commission we analyzed other jurisdiction laws. the finance board which is the ethics and campaign finance laws -- >> let me intersect. when you say analyzed, did you read and sum rye -- summarize

or is there data? >> we were given evidence that showed people were waiting after the six-month period and then contributing after the fact. >> i think the point i'm making is anecdotal information and data are two separate things. data you're able to quantify over a period of time or a longitudinal study. i'm pushing because anecdotal we can anecdotal a lot of things and it doesn't mean it's the strongest piece of fos -- piece of information. >> it's so elusive it's hard to give that data. if i can give new york as an example they used the ny graduate school over the process of 18 months, i believe, using faculty and staff there to do

this evaluation bep haven't had the time -- we haven't had the time or data. >> depending on an nyu graduate school for analysis we don't know the methodology we're just taking their final analysis and incorporating it to their own? >> we don't have the data you are looking for supervisor. >> then how are we proposing where to land on what's the most appropriate time. there's a difference between anecdotes evidence and facts. i'm just looking for what the facts are. that's an element i'm uncomfortable with. i know you did were best to answer. i appreciate it. thank you, madame chair, thank you. >> thank you supervisor cohen. supervisor ronen. >> through the chair to commissioner chu and maybe this

say question for the city attorney. in all the independent expenditures i've seen are to support or oppose a particular candidate. you mentioned we were through the major donor financial disclosures before us tonight that if were it to be passed we'd find out what the business interests of the individual making the contribution but wouldn't know who it's going to. i don't think that's accurate because the independent expend you're itself is formed specifically to support or oppose a particular candidate. that's my understanding. is that correct? city attorney chen? >> i think there's currently nothing explicitly requiring such information. there's a couple ways we can go about that issue if that was an operational concern. certainly it could be interesting for the former

regulations that implement the requirement. in addition to that, as many are familiar, in the last 90 days of election there's a substantial amount of reporting when large amounts of money move around. you can easily correlate this requirement to other filings that need to be made during the last two months of any election. so i think there's ways to address that if that's truly an operational problem. >> then again i would reiterate, i of course with any piece of legislation there's a possibility that the city will be sued and someone will seek to invalidate the legislation. it doesn't mean we don't pass it. as long as we have a claim to put forward protections that will in the best interest of our city and the citizens we represent. that's our duty. our duty isn't to presuppose

whether there's rights being infring infringed upon. i would implore you not to use that as an excuse not to support the legislation. but support it because we need it in the city and we need it badly. >> supervisor peskin. >> i understand supervisor's concern but i know there are reportings within 24 hours but i

don't know what the individual entity's interests are as to what they contribute. it's easy in the last three months of the campaign you can see it every day. i know that party a has contributed to independent expenditure b. i just don't what the party b's interest is. i think what you're trying to solve for is solve for though potentially it could be fine tuned into the section. anyway, i think it was asked and answer. >> seeing no other names on the roster, are there any other members of the board or the commission that would like to discuss anything further regarding the amendment? seeing none we'll open it up to public comment. if there's any members of the public who would like to speak on your item, this is your time now.

>> good evening supervisors, frank solomon from ends of ethics. we have basically an unaccountable amounts of nonprofits many of which contract to do work with she -- the organizations and it arises from the nonprofit sector and we have 25 years of data that shows this is really not working except for political purpose. in our neighborhood of the mission district we're swarming with nonprofits, countless community organizers yet the neighbors are unorganized and the nonprofits say they seek never seem to come. things are getting worse for the people the nonprofits claim to

act for as the funding goes up in communities that are vulnerable so we need to look at the cycle of behests work and why are people not even involved in that economy coming before you every time here to complain against it at the commission? i'll tell you i've done a lot of volunteer work in the last 18 years in politics. almost every time we raise sufficient energy to move an item popular with the electorate, the nonprofits swoop in on commands and knee-cap it. it's happened with transportation and land use issues. we could have done small-sized acquisitions many years ago and had many units but the non-profits said no, we have to build new housing. the new housing can't get built and the money sat and families

have been displaced. it's how the system serves its own interests and we need to do a prop j1. >> thank you for your comment. next speaker, please. >> i'm paul melvista dd and i served on the board of permit appeal and familiar how attempts are made to corrupt the land use approval process with political fund-raising and one of the main reasons i came was to speak in favor of banning commissioners from soliciting contributions from parties with matters before other commission. before i address that, i just have to say because i was personally present the first time an attempt was made to put together a meeting like this in the year 2000. i served with our president was

isabella horton grant. an esteemed pioneer judge in family law and probate law and she felt the proper thing to do was before we put proposition 0 on the ballot was to give the board of supervisor ass a chanco apass it and she came over and spoke to the board and i thought it was shock the exception of one supervisor it was rejected and she was treated with nasty remarks and sanctimonious speeches from supervisors, how dare these unelected commissioners think we could be influenced by political contribution. all the members of the board of supervisors deserve to be complimented for the meeting and

participating in the meeting. judge grant would be pleased. and i felt they were reasonable -- >> thank you for your comments. next speaker, please. >> good evening commissioners and board of commissioners. anita winthrow and i'll try to talk quickly regarding section 1.126 the ban prohibiting contributions from a city contractor unfairly extends beyond the party to the contract to board members, principle officers and subcontractors of the contractor. this deprives such individuals of their rights to make campaign contributions to the candidates of their choice and provides a

disincentive to civic minded individuals. such individuals have to make a choice between service a non-profit boards and making contributions to candidates of their choice. section 1.58 under california law major donors must file campaign reports disclosing the date amount and recipients. the same contributions must be disclosed by the recipients. section 1.158 would require donors to contribute to a single committee to disclose their positions in city businesses within sevon -- seven days. i understand it's likely unconstitutional and would place a burden on donors who would have to divest each investment and the nature and the date it was acquired and the fair market value. this proposed legislation appears to be designed to punish

donors who wish to participate in the political profs -- process and is against the first amendment and with behest to payments the -- disclosure is automatic and imposes unnecessary complications. and a filing of a report should be sufficient. it's burden some to require boners and resip -- recipient to file reports. >> thank you for your comment. thank you and next speaker. >> i'm cathry lawry representing the human services network. commissioners and supervisors, very much appreciate the thoughtful extensive work. we support the reforms to reduce undue influence in decision

making and hope there's enforceability and compliance. i question the unfortunate implication all nonprofits are untrustworthy and the statement most of us do not provide services and i'm not sure what the fact to back this up but in vim -- summary we support the behest of contributions and lowering the threshold and 15 to 20 people. we support the board amendments to the repeated recusals provision and we support increasing the threshold from behested payments from $1,000 to $10,000. thank you for your work. >> next speaker, please. >> good evening. i'm shawn coffee. i'm from the california association of nonprofits. we're a statewide chamber of commerce for non-profits and have more than 10,000 members

across the state. we participate in many hearings on the legislation and appreciate the attention given by members of commission and staff. we've seen well-intended efforts can result in proposed legislation that unintentionally creates disincentives for charitable giving and nonprofits and civic affairs. we're deeply troubled by the view point which suggests donations, donors and volunteers should be presumed guilty until proven innocent. with the amendments proposed with rigor and integrity by the human services network we can support the legislation. but i think we should all keep vigilant to ensure nonprofits are supported and can continue to maximize all they do in our community whether it's museums providing education, local clinics providing health care or a legal aid office. >> thank you for your comments.

next speaker, please. >> i'm charlie marstellar with friends of ethics former head of common cause in san francisco. you should know that many organizations nationwide have helped draft this legislation over 18 months including common cause national, the campaign legal center, map light and ann ravelle on the fair elections commission and bob stern who wrote the political reform act and the brandon center and members of ethel e. commission and the roundtable discussion which went to the elements which went in as well. i wanted to conclude by having

you hear a message from bob stern and that is that the current laws in the courts look at two terms. they don't look at independent expenditure committees. it's candidate control committees and in the court of law you do not want to prejudge the independence of the committee. that's the legal term and i suggest we all use that term non-candidate committee. >> thank you for your comment. next speaker, please.

>> president -- >> mr. bush, please pull the microphone. thank you. >> i thought i was bellowing. thank you. i sent everyone a copy of what friends of ethics would make this an improved message though it's not in the language today. i'd like to say a few things in general. for some of you it's the first time you'll have an opportunity to vote on a comprehensive ethics legislation. for others of you, it may be the last time before your term ends in january. this say vote that will be remembered. usually when people say things like that they mean it will be remembered by the voters but i mean you will remember it as an opportunity to make a difference for the city and nor -- for the voters of the city. there's misunderstandings that

have circulate. friends of ethics were willing to support for any entity which provided services to san franciscans that would have meant you count have behest payments to the national rifle association which is a nonprofit or carl rove cross roads another nonprofit or any nonprofit that exists as an advocacy group and that's what we talked about with commissioner lee and as far as where the 12 months came from it came from a harvey rhodes report in 2012 when he looked at what was going" los angeles and here and recommended that san francisco pass a 12-month standard and that's what's in there now. thank you for your questions.

>> thank you for your comments. >> tom gilberte. i represent nobody but myself, one voice. there's candidates running for a room in this building. why not clear out a room and have all the contributions go into the room and sent out same day to the parties, the candidates, the causes, the groups, the nonprofits the non-candidate controls. it gets registered and goes out. it's registered as who it's going to and who's giving it up. this can't be a hardship because this say city election. so everybody -- is a city election. everybody can get to city hall and the people here should be

able to get their money. the people who want to contribute to city hall for their elections should be able to get here too. it's not a hardship. and it's completely transparent. it's too simple to work. thank you. i enjoy simplicity too. thank you. >> thank you for your comments. next speaker, please. >> good evening, commissioner and supervisors. debbie lerman and a want to begin by thanking the ethics commission and board for the process that has led to this joint hearing and for working with non-profit organizations for addressing our concerns about this complex and significant set of reforms. we do support these efforts to reduce undue influence in government decision make but our prime concern is to make sure the laws are clear, practical,

enforcement and they don't create vague areas or traps that can catch people in small technical violation. it's important to keep in mind we're acting not only elected officials to comply but people who volunteer to serve on commissions and have day jobs include at non-profits including members of the general public such as charitable donors. for behefted behested donors and for the city to have public-private partnerships for other important city programs and we support supervisor tang's amendments to have a clear access to licenses and permits. we support supervisor peskin's

public appeal commission to allow smaller organizations to benefit and support supervisor peskin's to the repeated recusal provisions which will make it easier for all commissioners to appropria appropriately recuse themselves when they face conflict of interest and support supervisor fewer's amendment to not disclose the amount under 1.126 disclosures to protect the integrity of the bidding process. within continue to oppose we continue to it creates a trap for unwary donors who just want to give to a charity. we do prefer supervisor fewer's

amendment to increase the threshold to $10,000 and we would like to see a safe harbor that ensures if the public official forgets to tell the donor they're supposed to file a report with the ethics commission, the donor will not get penalties until they do get an official notice and then have another 30 days to file. we don't want to see donors punished for an unintentional non compliance. thank you. >> thank you for your comments. next speaker, please. >> i'm a north american activist and recipient of the non-housing provider and have been on the boards of others. it's not outside of the realm of possibilities. things come up whether a nonprofit is fulfilling its mission statement or going off in a peculiar direction. certainly the resident of the

neighborhood sometimes come in conflict with the nonprofits. they have other visions. i think as long as the right to free speech is right there and enumerated in the constitution there's going to be problems controlling money. i've always looked at ways of impacting the political system outside the money and there are ways to build a more strong, grassroots system and we should look at those ways as well. >> thank you for your comments. next speaker, please. >> good evening, peter cohen community housing organizations and i want to start by thanking you all for spending so much brain space in trying to work through this. to members of the ethics

commission and staff, we know it's been a long and arduous road but i think given how significant and sophisticated the legislation is, the deliberative and at times combative process has gotten us in better and better piece of legislation. thank you for going through that and i'm glad it's in the chamber and the board of supervisors has a chance to go through these fine-tuning amendments to get it right. without going into detail the amendments proposed collectively by supervisors tang, fewer and peskin, do catch the remaining items we felt strongly need to be addressed in some shape or form. quite critically is the definition of an interested party because that was too loose and it set up a gotcha system. with the clarity it's around a

financial interest that creates that trigger we know who would then have to comply and i think to reiterate the point that debbie lerman just made. the issue with donors having to report, keep in mind, this say double-reporting system. the official who makes the ask, the behest has to report but the question is does the donor have to report and it seems redundant but seems to set up a prospect for unwary donors to suddenly be caught up in the system of reporting and compliance. at minimum raising the threshold so you're dealing with larger donors makes sense if you're going to have a double reporting system. again, we hope you do finalize this and pass it out of chambers tonight and gets into effect and anything that we can do to answer questions or help we're

here for the long haul. thanks so much. >> thank you for comments. have there any other members of the public that would like to address the joint meeting on the amendments to the governmental conduct code. madame president. >> the clerk: are there any other members of public that would like to provide public comment. seeing none, public comment is now closed. and as previously mentioned, the ethics commission will be acting first on the amendment and then the ordinance before them and/or any amendments to be passed both the amendments proposed by the board and the members of the commission they would need to be second and have at least three votes and for the amendment to come before the body it would need to pass by four votes. at this time i will turn it over to chair chu to facilitate the

conversation with the commission. >> thank you, madame president. so i'd like to ask deputy city attorney chen to review for us the amendments like which ones we're allowed to incorporate and whether it's just the commissioners only or incorporate amendments from the board of supervisors? >> so the commissioners can consider amendments by either body. all discussed on the floor can be incorporated as the commission sees fit. >> thank you. >> commissioner kop. >> i'm not sure i understand. i thought we got ethics

commission members amendments proposed. >> we need a second. which ones are you supporting? >> the ones i introduced. >> is there a second? >> seeing none the motion doesn't pass. commissioner lee. >> i ask that my amendment be seconded. >> i'll second it. >> can i hear a second? commissioner seconded. madame executive director could

you call the roll, please. >> commissioner lee votes aye. >> commissioner kop. >> no. >> commissioner renee? >> aye. >> commissioner chu. >> no. >> the clerk: the motion does not pass. it's a split vote. 2-2. >> i would like to propose an amendment. i would like to withdraw my amendment regarding the effective date but would like to adopt or propose supervisor

peskin's amendment number eight. for the operative date as well as sp supervisor tang -- the operative date would be from supervisor peskin's proposed amendment national eight. i'd like -- number eight. i'd like to see a second. >> i'll second. >> madame executive director. would you please call the vote. >> commissioner lee.

>> aye. >> commissioner kop? >> aye. >> commissioner renee. >> aye. >> commissioner renee votes aye. >> commissioner chu. >> aye. >> madame chair four votes aye. the motion passes. >> thank you. my next amendment would be to incorporate amendments from supervisor tang. >> they would be amendment number two, conflict of interest. that's under section -- >> point of information. >> yes, commissioner kop. >> you had two other amendments. what happened to them?

>> i'm be getting to those. i will proceed with my amendments and then go to supervisor tang. i guess that would be a better process. so -- on my amendment number two which would be deleting the major donor disclosure provision is there a second? >> one more minute to look for it. >> sure.

>> i'll second. >> commissioner lee has second. >> madame executive director call the vote. >> commissioner lee. >> aye. >> commissioner kop. >> no. >> commissioner rene. >> no. >> commissioner renee. >> no. >> commissioner. >> >> three is clarifying contribution disclosure requirements. this would add language

intersection 1.1.145 in subsection b1. is there a second? >> within, one moment, please. >> i'll second. >> commissioner lee has seconded. madame executive director would you call the vote. >> commissioner lee. >> aye. >> commissioner kop. >> aye. >> commissioner renee. >> aye. >> commissioner chu. >> aye. with the 4-0 vote the motion

passes. i'd like to turn to amendment two under section 2.3 definition substituting the word agent for authorized representative and making a change intersection 2.3207a3. >> i'll second. >> commissioner lee. >> the clerk: aye. >> commissioner kop. >> aye. >> commissioner rene. >> aye. >> commissioner chu. >> aye. >> motion passes on a 4-0 vote.

>> i don't want to interrupt but that was -- >> which tang was that? >> you replaced the agent which was stricken from the previous -- >> point of information. >> madame president, the amendment is it would read the immediate family -- >> oh, i was confused, thank you. >> commissioner kop. >> i understand we were voting on 2a and 2b separately.

i intend to vote no on b. >> which is b? >> two. on supervisor tang's proposed amendments for two different sections. >> so there's a section 2.03 the conflict of interest. and also in her amendment number two section 2.3027. >> are we voting on that separately. >> it was moved and expand >> i moved to set aside to rescind the vote because i 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