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? >> supervisor peskin: no. and again, this is not a prohibition, this is a public disclosure. and i think it's important when a member of the board of

supervisors says to a company or individual that they would like them to contribute, make up a number, 5,000, 10,000, 25,000, $50,000 to yes on a, no on b, yes on c, i think the public should have the right to know that. i think disclosure is the least we can do. supervisor peskin has made the motion, it has been seconded. madame clerk, please call the roll. breed aye. cohen aye. fewer aye. kim aye. peskin aye. ronen aye. safai aye. sheehy aye. stefani aye. tang aye. yee aye. there are 11 ayes, the motion is

adopted unanimously. >> president breed: all right, you remove number 3, so we're at number 4. >> thank you, i think that supervisor safai is correct, if you go to the file 180280 section 1.15 give me one second. starting at page 16, go to -- that section should be removed. and we will -- >> president breed: i'm sorry. >> supervisor peskin: the file, item number 43, which is the file that i just referenced, file number 180, 280, because we're going to table the file ending in 01.

so the file that we move forward pursuant to item 50 without committee reference calendar actually has the major donor financial disclosure in it. so supervisor safai is correct. and inso far tt as i said that -- so my amendment number 3 amended this section. what i agreed to do earlier regarding president chiu's collaborative statement that we're going to work this thing out over time and insofar as it would not be place by the june 5th election, i am making a motion to strike from item 43, file number 180280, section 1.158, major donors financial disclosures, even though it saddens me, but we're going to figure it out going forward.

so -- and i'm not going to make my amendment number 3, which would have amended 1.158. am i making sense? >> president breed: yes. supervisor peskin made a motion seconded by supervisor safai? without objection, the motion passes. next. >> supervisor peskin: next, i really need the help of supervisors kim and tang as to how we want to handle this. i spoke about the benefits of having it at the beginning. this is not a deal maker or breaker unless the ethics commission decides to make it such, but i will defer to my colleagues, supervisors tang and kim as to what they want to do with amendment number 4. >> president breed: supervisor tang. >> supervisor tang: first of all, i want to appreciate that supervisor peskin made one amendment to it that i agree with, which is to put the verbal

disclaimer at the end of an ad. however, the ration of the ad is where i disagree. i think we should follow state law, if an ad is 30 seconds or less, the disclaimer should be running for 5 seconds and if the ad is 30 seconds for more, than the disclaimer would run for 10 seconds. so i think this is fair. you're going to have the verbal, you're going to have the visual, and again, to prevent confusion, i would like for us to mirror what state law is doing. >> president breed: ok. mr. schenn, do we need that language in order to do it? do we need to mirror the language of state law? do we need the language or based

on supervisor tang's amendment, can we just do it and you'll figure it out? >> if only it were so easy. i think the way to default to state law in terms of the duration, would be to delete the last portion of subsection 5 on page 11, lines 5-9. and it sounds like, please feel free to correct me, you're comfortable with the disclaimer at the end of the ads, it's the duration you want to default to state law? >> supervisor tang: through the chair, i agree with the verbal part spoken at the end of the advertisement, but the duration would follow state law. >> right, but for video -- if i could clarify through the president, are you also proposing that for video ads the

disclaimer would be at the end? >> for the video, it would follow state law which is flexible whether it appears at the end or the beginning. >> at the end of the day, anything we take out of this provision, thank you for the clarification, is going to default to state law. so if all you want is for audio advertisement that the disclaimer be spoken at the end, we would delete the second sentence of that subsection referring to video ads all together and then just default to state law. >> supervisor tang: through the chair to dep city attorney, for audio and video, i would like for the spoken disclaimer to be at the end for both, not just one. and in you have to display the black box taking up the screen, i would like it to mirror state law, the duration only. so for the second sentence of that dealing with video ads, then we would just end it at the end of the phrase, end of such

advertisements. and leave the duration unspoken so we default to state law. i think that would be the simplest amendment. >> supervisor tang: thank you, that is what i would propose. >> president breed: supervisor tang? you want to propose the amendment? >> supervisor tang: through the chair, yes, i would like to propose amendment on top of supervisor peskin's amendment. >> president breed: supervisor peskin didn't make the motion to amend, so we're looking at his amendment number 4 and then the plan is to allow supervisor tang to make the appropriate changes and propose the amendment. >> i would be happy to second the amendment, but through the president to the deputy city attorney i would like it to reference the state law. so state laws change and i think if it said as set forth by the disclosed act, adopted, blah,

blah, blah, that works for me, but i can't -- i don't want it to be the silent. >> president breed: so the question is, is it necessary since state law exists for us to even propose this amendment? >> just to clarify, i'm not sure if that is exactly what supervisor peskin's amendment was. >> president breed: ok >> supervisor tang: through the chair, the beginning part of the section, 1.161 which starts on page 10 references state law and so because the part that we're talking about actually falls under that same section, i believe it achieves what you are intending the reference to state law. page 10, starting line 2. >> >> president breed: before we move on and continue to discuss this, we're going to lose a

commissioner on the ethics commission which means even if we pass this legislation, we will kick it back to the ethics commission and they will need to make the decision at their next commission meeting. that's where we are, unless you want to not introduce any more amendments and kick it back over to them to see if they would pass it or not. so that's where we are. so... >> supervisor peskin: out of curesity -- >> president breed: i'm not going to >> it happened a minute ago, we have five minutes, ten minutes, i see four of you. >> president breed: they're ready to go. >> supervisor peskin: i've been ready to go since about 3:00 this afternoon. >> well, you're the one who proposed the joint meeting. >> supervisor peskin: live and learn.

>> president breed: yes, hopefully. mr. cop, how long do we have? >> ten minutes. >> president breed: we have ten minutes. let's do this. supervisor tang? >> supervisor tang: i put my proposal for second amendment. >> second. >> supervisor peskin: i would like to propose amendment number 5, removing section -- >> president breed: i'm sorry, supervisor tang has made a motion to amendment based on what you all talked about. can we pass that without objection? without objection, number 5. seconded by supervisor tang, can we pass that without objection? amendment number 5 is passed unanimously. >> supervisor peskin: i would like to move amendment number 7? >> i thought we did that. >> supervisor peskin: we did that. >> president breed: actually we didn't do it and we're going

back to supervisor tang's amendment number 3 with the appropriate language. >> supervisor tang: through the chair? ok, i think we have gotten to an agreement which is what i stated earlier to mirror the language we add the phrase on page 16 of supervisor peskin's legislation. perhaps our deputy attorney can repeat it. it's on page 16, lines 15-16, adding the words or received compensation or reimbursement for expenses. >> i don't think that's quite right. my apologies. going back to amendment number 3, i had understood your proposal to incorporate all of the amendment, but for definition of interest party, adding if such person has financial interest in the decision. >> supervisor tang: if that works for supervisor peskin, i'm

ok with that. i'm not sure what was wrong with the other half, but i'm ok with that. >> president breed: does that allow it to be consistent with the rest of the proposed amendment from supervisor tang? you said it was in other parts of the document. >> it says if such person has a financial interest in the decision or receives -- >> is that the difference? >> supervisor tang: through the chair to deputy city attorney and supervisor peskin, i am fine with adding whatever part works, so if such person has financial interest in decision, that is fine with me. >> sorry to belabor the point, but the reference to reimbursement expenses links to the idea of actively support or oppose. you can't -- >> supervisor tang: we'll move onto the other amendments. >> president breed: that was the end. i'll call in supervisor cohen and perhaps you can work it out.

>> supervisor cohen: thank you very much, through the chair, supervisor kim, a couple of questions about the amendments you're proposing. section 1.104 in the definitions, you changed from social media technologies to electronic media technology and i'm curious to know if this definition you have is broad enough to begin to incorporate of think about new future technologies? >> yes. so we had initially written it as social media technology. it was suggested to us that we change it to electronic media technology by the city attorney and yes, we tried to make it broad enough so it includes but not limited to the acts that we enewsmaker rateded in our -- enumerated in our amendment. i'm looking at the attorney, but he's working on another amendment. >> ok, i'll accept that answer.

>> thank you, supervisor. >> no problem. i just wanted to know about the gist of the rationale and the due diligence that went into the thought process. and then on the -- your page 7, section 1.163, member communication. line 15, subsection 4, eligible copy of the communication and you have language that says including any member distributed, does that include screen shots? >> what do you mean by screen shots? >> you have after section 4, you have subsection a if the communication is a telephone call, a copy of the script, the communication is recorded, then the recording shall be provided, if the recording audio or video, a copy of the script and file

shall be provided. >> i see what you mean. if you use social media and you want to print out a copy of the communication, can you provide a screen shot? i'm just trying to offer a little more clarification on the definition, i'm thinking of multiple ways to capture how we communicate. >> so the way we had written this, you could just provide a copy of what the social media statement was on facebook or instagram for example. i guess it could be a screen shot. but we were thinking of mirroring it similar to what the existing law said, communication for audio, video, a copy of the script, you don't have to provide a recording of someone on the telephone call talking to the member. >> what happens if someone is telling story visually? i know it's late in the hour, but it's something that is very real.

i'm just thinking, you could -- >> you could provide that image as a copy. but my guess is that -- actually i appreciate you asking the question, because it's a question of what would be accepted by the commission. whether a screen shot would be an acceptable copy of the communication. and i apologize but i think that is question for the ethics commission staff to answer and because we're returning out of time -- running out of time, i'm will almost willing to drop that amendment to pass something tonight. this is a question to ethics commission staff which is the amendment that i had enumerated, what would be considered acceptable copy of communication to distribute on social media, supervisor cohen is asking if a screen shot is acceptable copy

of communication? we had left that open to interpretation, but i think it's a good question to ask. i'm just worried about the time right now. >> it's actually something we receive now that is common with twitter posts or facebook posts that someone takes a screen shot, van it and submit it to, yes. >> right, so that is a yes. >> should we incorporate that language? >> i'm sorry, i haven't gotten to you yet, supervisor kim. and supervisor fewer is the only person that -- oh, no, you're on there. >> supervisor kim: i was on the roster before -- >> supervisor cohen: so i would like to make a motion that we just amend that language a little bit, tweak it and i will work on the exact language, just to spell it out. it shouldn't be difficult. i'm just going to put a sentence in there about screen shots.

>> i'm totally open to the amendment. i was going to make my motion -- >> president breed: supervisor cohen? one seconds. supervisor cohen. co >> supervisor cohen: i'm finished. >> supervisor kim: i'm going to defer my time. >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much, so colleagues, i have two amendments, very simple. the first one is section 1.126, notification, just deletes the value of the desired contract, again, the reasoning for this is having exact value to close causing great harm to the competitive bidding process. this will allow the public to be sufficiently informed of the contractor doing business with the city and achieving overall goals, because they have to disclose their names, blah, blah, blah and everything else. i make motion a add the

amendment. >> supervisor fewer made motion to amend, colleagues, can we take that amendment without objection, without objection the motion passes unanimously? >> section 3.620, we're amending that which would obligate donors to file a report only if the donation is 10,000. the previous amount was 1,000, we thought this was too low. we have ready concerns for nonprofit community about the requirement creating unreasonable filing burden on donors while we believe that donors should still file a report, i believe that the one threshold could be low and cause very much harm to small donors who are not experts in campaign law. i believe increasing this to 10,000 will capture the most important donors who want disclosures without putting harsh punishment on those making small donations. >> president breed: supervisor fewer has made a motion to amend, seconded by supervisor

yee, take that without objection? the amendment passes. supervisor -- oh. supervisor kim has amendments? >> supervisor kim: i want to withdraw amendment number 7, go with supervisor tang amendment to make life simple and fast. >> president breed: i don't remember you making a motion to amend number 7, but ok. >> i didn't, but i wanted to announce that. >> president breed: supervisor kim and cohen -- you need time, because supervisor tang is ready. >> >> supervisor tang: i think mine was to go with amendment number 3. >> president breed: as is? without any changes. all right, supervisor tang has made a motion to amend, is there a second, seconded by supervisor shi sheehy, without objection,

that passes unanimously. we have just one more to take. when supervisor kim is ready. >> supervisor kim: i am now ready. i'd like to move my amendments 1, 2 and 3 for the sake of time. and they are all just cleanup language. and i am going -- i am not going to be moving my amendment number 4. >> president breed: supervisor kim has made a motion to amend. i think she clarified these amendments earlier in the meeting. seconded by supervisor yee. seeing no names on the roster, colleagues can we take that without objection? all three of those amendments pass unanimously. all right, you got that? everybody good? no more amendments. all right, here we go. so now that this item has been

amended, mr. schenn, does that mean we need to pass it and then send it back to the ethics commission for clarity? mr. schenn, just for clarity, so at this time, the goal was to pass -- to take the vote on the amended legislation and then to kick it back over to the ethics commission. >> now in the hands of the ethics commission? >> president breed: i'm asking you just to clarify. >> up to you, do you want a motion to return it?