>> line five general public comment. the public is welcome to address the commission regarding the items that do not appear on the agenda but within the subject matter jurisdiction of the commission. speaker shall address those remarks as a whole not to any personnel. under police commission rules of order during public comment dpa personnel or commissioners are required to respond. individual commissioners and dpa should refrain to any debates or discussion during public comment. >> time for general public comment. good evening ms. brown. how are you? >> good evening everyone. i was wondering last time they were going to write a letter to

the dw. has anyone did that? >> commissioner turman was going to check with the commission staff. >> we did draft a letter under president truman's name waiting for his signature. >> if he is unable to sign it, i will sign it and change the name. >> we have it here. >> i would like a copy. again, i am here to talk about my son who was murdered august 14, 2006. we were at a meeting yesterday with chief scott, the mothers and myself on evanss street talking about unsolved homicide also. i brought up again about the posters and the murders still going on. the point is that we keep

reinventing the cycle. these mothers are still talking to people about unsolved homicides and stuff. then our filings back up again. we are sitting at the meeting. i walked out. the cycle goes on. nobody is doing nothing about it. it is bringing the mothers there to keep talking about their crime and no one is doing anything about it. i was just, you know, with chief scott maybe w we can put action instead of talking about it. what are you going to do for us now? okay, it is okay. we are going to talk to the investigators and do this and that. yeah, he is not here today for me to address it. thank you anyway.

>> if anybody has information regarding the death of aubry. there is a tip line (415)575-4444. for those in the public miss brown comes every week to talk about the murder of her son and give more information than she -- tonight she didn't give as much information. they know the suspects but not enough evidence to charge them with the brutal murder of her son. thank you for coming. any further public comment. public comment is closed. please call next line item. >> line 6 public current on all numbers pertaining to item 8 belows. closed session. >> public comment about the closed session matter es. they are confidential under the california constitution and case

laws. please call the next item. >> vote on whether to hold item 8 in closed session including vote on whether to assert the attorney client privilege with regard to item 8a san francisco companied section 67.10. >> i move to go to closed session. >> suhr. >> i'd like to announce that you are back in session and you still have a quorum. >> call item nine. [agenda item read]. >> do i have a motion for

nondisclosure. >> i move not to disclose. >> second. >> the motion passes. >> next item, please. >> motion to adjourn. >> i move to adjourn. >> and i move to adjourn as i said at the start of our session on behalf of the police commission, the men and women of the san francisco police department, we send our condolences to chris martinez, her wife and her family, and all the officers who served in the san francisco police department. may she be in our thoughts and prayers, and god bless. >> all in favor? >> we're adjourned. .

>> neighborhood in san francisco are also diverse and fascist as the people that inhabitable them we're in north beach about supervisor peskin will give us a tour and introduce is to what think of i i his favorite district 5 e 3 is in the northwest surrounded by the san francisco bay the district is

the boosting chinatown oar embarcadero financial district fisherman's wharf exhibit no. north beach telegraph hill and part of union square. >> all of san francisco districts are remarkable i'm honored and delighted to represent really whereas with an the most intact district got chinatown, north beach fisherman's wharf russian hill and knob hill and the northwest waterfront some of the most wealthier and inning e impoverished people in san francisco obgyn siding it is ethically exists a bunch of tight-knit neighborhoods people know he each other by name a wonderful placed physically and socially to be all of the

neighborhoods north beach and chinatown the i try to be out in the community as much as and i think, being a the cafe eating at the neighborhood lunch place people come up and talk to you, you never have time alone but really it is fun hi, i'm one the owners and is ceo of cafe trespassing in north beach many people refer to cafe trees as a the living room of north beach most of the clients are local and living up the hill come and meet with each other just the way the united states been since 1956 opposed by the grandfather a big people person people had people coming since the day we opened. >> it is of is first place on the west that that exposito 6

years ago but anyone was doing that starbuck's exists and it created a really welcoming pot. it is truly a legacy business but more importantly it really at the take care of their community my father from it was formally italy a fisherman and that town very rich in culture and music was a big part of it guitars and sank and combart in the evening that tradition they brought this to the cafe so many characters around here everything has incredible stories by famous folks last week the cafe that paul carr tennessee take care from the jefferson starship hung out the cafe are the famous poet lawrence william getty and jack herb man go hung out.

>> they work worked at a play with the god fathers and photos he had his typewriter i wish i were here back there it there's a lot of moving parts the meeting spot rich in culture and artists and musicians epic people would talk with you and you'd get coade >> good afternoon, welcome to the april 18th, 2018 meeting of the special ethics commission. commissioner lee? commissioner kopps.

commissioner renne. commissioner ryan. >> i want to welcome judge kevin ryan recently appointed to the san francisco ethics commission. we are delighted to have you with us and welcome to your very first meeting. >> thank you. agenda item number 2 is public comment on matters appearing or not appearing on the agenda. but before then, i do want to note this meeting, we have a time constraint. we need to be vacated from this room by 4:15 this afternoon because we will turn into a pumpkin otherwise. so in order to allow for the vote on the a.c.a.o., anti corruption and accountability ordinance we will be voting on that by no later than 4:00 in order to allow for public comment following the last agenda item. without further ado we will turn to public comment on agenda item number 2.

>> good afternoon, commissioners, charlie marsdella with the friends of ethics, for the record. i was going to say i just woke up from my nap. i welcome commissioner ryan, friends of ethics is happy to see you aboard. i was going to also suggest now with two commissioners, recent vintage, the commission staff might consider a kind of a workshop to brief the commissioners and the public on our scopes of the mission, or mandates, the laws that we administer and other related items with packets, i'm sure. plenty of paper. to detail for the commission and the public the work that

we've been doing now for 22 years, 23 years. and now we are on a roll. i think that's more essential than ever because we have actually been very active the last several years since we've got a new executive director and a much larger staff, based on a strategic plan. that would be our suggestion, recommended by friends of ethics. >> thank you. >> members of the commission, good afternoon. >> speak into the microphone, please. >> okay, let me introduce myself, julian munoz, native san franciscan. i currently reside and always have in bernal heights in the city. i'm an architect.

i designed two terminals at s.f.o. co-founded leading software company 30 years ago which has 3,000 governmental clients across the nation. i'm also an olympic athlete, was involved in the 2012 sf bid for the summer olympics here in san francisco. i'm here to support the candidacy of mr. quintin kopp as president of your distinguished commission. i have followed mr. kopp very closely in his various walks of life. being a member of the board of supervisors, as a state senator, and lastly as a judge and of course a member of this distinguished commission. i find him to be a very fair and impartial individual, who brings outstanding values to fulfill the commission's mission statement. i hope that you, as members of the commission will also recognize his strengths and be able to bring his strengths to

the various determinations you will make here during your respective tenures. i respectfully thank you again for this opportunity to offer my support for mr. kopp as chair of the commission. >> thank you. >> hello, i'm [inaudible] burn, i meant to come a long time ago. ever since the mayoral election which david chiu ran for mayor, i was disenfranchised from that election, because there were so many candidates and so few spots on the ballot, anybody who voted for all women didn't get a chance to vote on the final two candidates. everyone who voted for harvard alumni didn't get a chance to vote for the final two candidates. so i was just concerned with another mayoral election coming up this problem be addressed and taken care of. that's all, thank you. >> thank you.

any other public comment? okay, seeing none, moving onto agenda item number 3. discussion and possible action to elect a chair and vice chair to serve for the coming year. there is an attachment. number 3 with background. based on past practice, i will give a brief walk through of the process. any commissioner who wishes to nominate a candidate for chair will state the name of that person. if that person agrees to run, that person is nominated. and any member may nominate him or her self. when there are no further nominations we will take public comment. after public comment, as acting chair, i will close the nomination. and then i will then ask the executive director for a roll call vote each commissioner shall state the name of the nominee for which he or she is voting. if a nominee receives three or more votes that person is then elected chair.

if no nominee receives three votes the commission will then have further discussion and proceed to another vote. the process shall repeat until one nominee has received three or more votes. so as acting chair, i will go ahead and open the nominations for chair. >> i nominate acting chair chiu as the next permanent chair, which is in accordance with the procedures and practices this commission has followed, at least as long as i've been on it, that the vice chairs, were, unless there was some overriding reason, the vice chair is removed to become chair and we then elect a new vice chair. so i put commissioner chiu in

nomination. >> vice-chairperson d. chiu: thank you, commissioner renne. i would happily accept the nomination. commissioner lee? >> commissioner y. lee: i second the motion and i just want to add that during the short tenure i've been here i've known the vice chair to be a person of high integrity and honor and very open to different ideas and open to working with all factors in the city and she has lead this commission during last few months with distinction, so i'm honored to second the motion. >> vice-chairperson d. chiu: thank you, commissioner lee. from a procedural standpoint, i don't believe a second is necessary. any other nominations?

madam executive director, would you please call the roll? as noted earlier it's not a yea or nay vote. if there's only one nomination, i'm sorry, go ahead and proceed. >> i think if the nominations are closed, at this point we would proceed to public comment. >> vice-chairperson d. chiu: oh yes, that's right. >> and then after a roll call vote. >> vice-chairperson d. chiu: nominations are closed. and now there's public comment. >> friends does not have a position on this but i will say this. i know we have a vice chair nomination which follows this process so the public should be

advised we will be electing two officers of the body today, the chair and the vice chair so that may assuage the interest of new member of the public who may have dropped in today and it's always good to see new members of the public. thank you. >> thank you. any other public comment? seeing none. madam executive director. >> commissioners, i will call alphabetically, state the name. >> vice-chairperson d. chiu: commissioner chiu. >> commissioner kopp. >> no. >> commissioner lee? >> chiu. >> commissioner renne? >> chiu. >> and commissioner ryan? >> chiu. >> thank you, with four votes and one no-vote commissioner chiu is elected president of the commission for the coming year.

thank you for that. >> vice-chairperson d. chiu: thank you. now i would like to open nominations for vice chair. >> madam chair, i would nominate commissioner kopp. >> i would also nominate commissioner kopp. >> and so would i. >> any other nominations? nominations are now closed. public comment.

>> commissioner chiu. >> vice-chairperson d. chiu: kopp. >> commissioner kopp? >> aye, kopp. >> commissioner lee? >> kopp. >> commissioner renne? >> kopp. >> and commissioner ryan? >> judge kopp. >> commissioner kopp is elected vice chair of the commission. thank you. >> vice-chairperson d. chiu: judge kopp, i look forward to serving with you in the coming year. agenda item number 4, consideration of possible action on anti corruption accountability ordinance as amended on april 3rd, 2018 at

the ethics commission special joint meeting with the board of supervisors, to amend the campaign and governmental code to institute campaign finance and conflict of interest reforms, see file 180280 as well as attachments from the staff. so as many of you have been with us on this long journey, we started a year ago with this anti corruption and accountability ordinance and it took many forms, and went through a lot of public discussion and debate. we forwarded a recommendation to the board of supervisors, they met in february to consider it and asked for more time. at the february meeting the commission voted to work with

the board of supervisors in the legislative process to cooperate and collaborate to enact this ordinance into law and we have the unique opportunity earlier this month on april 3rd to meet jointly with the board of supervisors to approve the ordinance. and the commission voted on ordinance and submitted it to the board of supervisors. consider both the changes and amendments that the board of supervisors have made and whether there are any additional changes we would like to make before sending it

back to the board of supervisors in order for the ordinance to become law, it needs to go back to the board of supervisors for their approval. today any amendments that need to be, that we would consider would need a 3/5 vote to amend the ordinance. but in order to approve the overall ordinance as revised or amended and send it back to the board of supervisors we would need to force a super majority vote. with that, by way of background, i would like to talk for a moment about the process. looking for amendments commissioners are considering to be presented in our discussion component as part of the commission discussion before we open it to public comment which will occur once and for en mass for the entire item as a whole. i would like to invite staff to

present their recommendations. and we, as a commission, can discuss. >> madam chairwoman, are we going to vote on the amendments -- [inaudible] >> chairperson d. chiu: we can, yes. >> i don't believe that's required. >> it isn't a question whether it's required. are we going to be able to vote on the proposed amendments siri anam. some i may want to vote for, some i may want to vote against. >> yeah, i think that's a question for the chair.

>> yes we can vote for them sari ayam. >> this was presented to board of supervisors april 3rd. you will find them in section 3 in their letter, letter a-i. i will not run through each individually since we are limited in the amount of time we have today but staff are available to answer any questions you have about them. and then additionally section 4 in the memo, lists three amendments that staff is proposing on top of the amendments.

in the technical clean-up, they don't make substantive changes, the three printed in the memo, a and b are to basically correct section cross-references. it had been their intention but in the rush at the end of the meeting, they were not able to or failed to, for whatever reason to make this amendment so they requested the commission please pass this amendment and include this in the ordinance so we included as recommended staff amendments, though this one would be substantive in nature, does

alter the payment reporting changing the public appeals exception, changing the number how many have to be present at a group for it to be a public appeal when you speak at the group and how many individual items to distribute to constitute a public appeal but this would mirror what's in article 1, chapter 1 of the ordinance, so staff is putting it in as a recommended change requested by the supervisors. additionally it's not in the memo we were still working with supervisor kim's office at the time of finalizing the memo, but staff is also recommending some changes to supervisor kim's amendments she made. you will remember at the joint meeting supervisor kim had three different amendments she wanted to add and each of them used the term electronic media technologies, for section 11.10

that talks about financial campaign statements, section 11.1162 talks about submitting copies of communications she wanted to specify in both instances communications made electronically need to be included in both reports, in financial and communication reports, staff is working to develop a way to do that that is a little clearer and we wouldn't able to do that until after this memo went out. so we have distributed to each of you individually and it's also available for the public our amendments that would go on top of supervisor kim's that would change the language. do not use the defined term, electronic media technologies but refer to communications distributed electronically. >> give me one of those, i don't know if i've got it. >> i apologize for the late change.

>> if i could, communications with supervisor kim's office, this was her proposed amendment adopted by the board and we will be changing it. are they aware of our proposed changes? >> yes. we have shared the text of our proposed changes with our office, we haven't been able to get final determination how she feels about the changes. we have only been able to speak to staff in her office so i can't say with certainty what her opinion. >> but her office has been on notice and they are aware we are considering this today. >> i did share we would be recommending the specific changes today. >> what is the specific change? >> sure, so the specific change, if you want to look at the handout that has it on here. firstly is to delete the definition of electronic media technologies.

we would not like to use this defined term. it's unnecessarily narrow because it leaves out electronic communication like text message and email and we don't believe that was the intent. we don't want to use this term. also changing the way the references in the substantive provisions in the code, section 11.10 changing this so it doesn't reference electronic media technologies but instead just says that electronic communications must be reported on campaign statements. so fixing that, each time it appears changing it to be that more general invocation of electronic communications. >> and you are recommending that should be the language in whatever we send back to the board of supervisors? >> yes, exactly.

the idea being it still keeps the intent and the effect of supervisor kim's amendments. but changing it so it works better. >> the next in section 111.62 remove this is page two, remove the term online 15 electronic media technologies, just stating more broadly, communication distributed electronically. and then on the next page, this is something we are actually recommending should be added. supervisor kim made an amendment to the language in 1.162, it's the same type of reporting, where when you file

a report, you must submit a copy of the communication with the report. if you change it in one place and not in the other place it creates disharmony it could potentially lead to inference there are different reporting requirements when there are not. perhaps member communications don't appear electronically, we don't want that to be the appearance in the code. we are recommending the language be mirrored. the change in 1.62 should also go in 1.63, it should be done both places. so that's what that is, and on the final page adding that reference to 1.63 in the section that talks about the operative date. so 1.63 would be something that goes into effect january 1, 2019 along with 1.62. that's representative of our recommended changes in the memo and those that occurred after the memo.

i'm here to answer any questions you have about that. >> chairperson d. chiu: commissioner renne? >> commissioner p. renne: madam chair, i move the commission accept the recommendations of the staff and send back to the board of supervisors, the revised ordinance, which is consistent with what they sent to us, and consistent with the suggested changes by the staff. >> chairperson d. chiu: second from commissioner lee. commissioner kopp? >> commissioner q. kopp: through the chair. you are just talking about changing the language about electronic communications? >> correct. >> commissioner q. kopp: nothing more? >> correct. >> commissioner q. kopp: all right, okay. i'm prepared to vote.

>> chairperson d. chiu: any other comments from commissioners? >> just to clarify the procedure, chair chiu, is it your intention to get any other amendments to be proposed by commissioners at this time? >> chairperson d. chiu: yes. commissioner kopp, are you wanting to present any of your other amendments? at this time, during this time as we discuss the ordinance before public comment? >> well, i want the definition

of the word "promptly" in section 1.114, subsection f. >> chairperson d. chiu: i'm sorry. section? 1.114 subsection f. so this would be page 5? >> i don't know, there are so many versions, it's my page. >> chairperson d. chiu: okay, so on your proposed amendment, it's page 3? >> no, it's page 5, you're right. you did supply, i can't find

the one you gave me at the beginning of the meeting. >> so to clarify, i believe commissioner kopps -- >> okay, you recommend, or you don't recommend, but you say it can be clarified by a regulation? >> i believe commissioner kopp is referring to communication on page 5, line 22. >> page 5 of what? >> the larger document with blue and yellow highlighting included in your agenda packet. >> okay. >> chairperson d. chiu: commissioner kopp, did you want to amend the ordinance? >> commissioner q. kopp: i would prefer but i suppose for speed in dealing with this, let

it be done by regulation. but it is an inexact word. could we have such a regulation next month? >> chairperson d. chiu: just confirming with staff. >> commissioner q. kopp: yes, with that, page 7 -- >> just to clarify. >> for scheduling purpose, the next meeting is scheduled may 7th. under our regulations we have a 15-day notice we can't make it for the may meeting, we can certainly do it for the june meeting. am i correct in assuming we don't make regulations until the board of supervisors

approves and it becomes law, isn't that correct? i agree we should make the regulations as soon as it becomes law, but i would say commissioner kopp, that word promptly was in the version we sent to the board. somewhere the nit picking has to stop and get it in the books. >> i don't consider it nit picking. if i am subjected to this ordinance, or if i am a professional dealing with this ordinance, i don't know what the heck promptly means.

and i regret that i didn't catch it before. >> at this time the ordinance goes into effect, we would direct staff and request they promptly draft a definition and promulgated by regulation and it could be agendized and shared with the commission at the next practical meeting. does that work, commissioner kopp? >> yes. >> i propose a change in language to state the office and the name of the city elective officer in place of

the phrase of the name of the city elective officer. >> it would read must disclose to the committee receiving the contribution the office and the name.

>> page 7, line 8 and 9, did you get the change for that? okay. any other comment from commissioners before we go to public comment? >> all commissioners have received the subject matter of

my motion to amend section 3.203 and subsequent sections to restore the original language of 2000, which prohibited donations at the request of a city elected officer or a member of a board or commission. the nub of the language is on page 2 of what staff has distributed in section 3.207, section, subsection a, sub-subsection 4. no city elected officer or member, board or commission may directly or by any means of an agency solicit or otherwise request that a person give anything of value to a third

party if the person who was the subject of the request has a matter pending for the official, his or her agency or the official has final approval authority over the matter or the person who was the subject of the request had a matter before the official or his or her agency within the last 12 months and this section shall not prohibit any solicitations or requests made solely through a public appeal.

i will repeat that mayor disclosure, and mayor disclosure of an amount which is a tremendous amount of money for a donation has the promise of no effect whatsoever for members of the public. and i will reiterate that the only people who will note that disclosure besides those making

it 10,000 or more will be political junkies, campaign managers, administrative assistants in campaigns and maybe, maybe, the media. which there is less and less of in san francisco. entities are given almost $1 billion out of the city budget in the fiscal year 2017-2018 and has been noted in public testimony before this commission a great percentage

of those recipients do not render direct services to beneficiaries but -- may render direct services to beneficiaries in the city and county of san francisco and elsewhere, as a matter of fact. anyway, that's the reason for the amendment which is consistent with what we started with in 2017, namely the restoration of the so-called proposition j from the year 2000. >> i believe we have three motions before us.

>> not sure if it has a second. if you look at the same documents commissioner kopp was referencing, there was another proposed amendment. i believe another proposed amendment. >> amendment number 2, are you proposing civil penalties? >> that was dealing with the private right of action and 25%. >> you mean the so-called key-tam provision? >> i wasn't sure if you wanted to proceed. >> let's make that separate. >> okay. >> chairperson d. chiu: okay, so your current motion is contained in amendment 1 make the changes to section 2.303 and 2.307. >> uh-huh. >> chairperson d. chiu: is there a second? >> what are the changes you are talking about?

>> chairperson d. chiu: well -- amendment number 1, the changes to payments here would be to go back to the payment ban. >> as a courtesy to commissioner kopp, i will second it and note that i voted for it in the original provision but the effect of that was to essentially kill the whole bill.

i'm reasonably certain will be

acceptable to the board of supervisors so that we can send it down, get them to approve it, they approve it unanimously, where there are amendments and i have no reason to believe they -- excuse me [coughing] when it goes back to them. but i don't have that confidence if we were to now make this major change, it's more important to get what we have, if experience shows it

isn't effective, there's nothing that stops this commission that deals with this inadequacies. >> any other commissioners? >> there was extensive public comment and then the commission voted not for prohibition but for restriction, i think is where we are, could you for my edification tell me the procedural history of this, i don't need a long description of it, just a short one. >> i think you explained it pretty well.

we initially considered a ban, as you said, on types of payments where there was an interest between the official and a person that had business before that official but after significant public comment, and through a vote of the commission we were directed to amend that to provide more full disclosure than exists under current law. >> with regard to judge kopp, it went to the board, not as a prohibition but as a restriction. >> at the disclosure, that's correct. >> and quentin kopp made a motion to make it a prohibition at that meeting. >> that is correct. >> thank you. >> i would like to comment in response to commissioner renne's remarks. i think you make a really great point that we have the

opportunity here to pass legislation but it's not the last opportunity that we have. that as we go forward, as the disclosure reports come in or don't come in, i think that would be important date to to review as the ordinance goes into effect and that if and when deficiencies of the ordinance come to light, we have, not only the opportunity but also the responsibility and the obligation to address that and we have the power of the ballot which is unique to us as a commission. so i think this would be a first step. and there should be follow-ups along the way to monitor how well this ordinance is being implemented, enacted and enforced. if the evils we were trying to combat persist, then i think there is going to be opportunity for us to continue to take action. so i don't think that should

stop us today from enacting and acting on what's before us. >> add two sentences, does everybody have those on page 13 of what staff distributed. i will read it, it's short. court action against defendant the resident shall receive 25% of the amount recovered and remaining 75% shall be deposited into the city's general fund in an action brought by the city attorney, the entire amount recovered from the defendant shall be

deposited into the city's general fund. i move that as an amendment to section 1.170. >> chairperson d. chiu: is there a second? >> question for staff through the chair. what is the current status of the amount that's typically awarded? i understand in state court, not federal court necessarily that the amount recovered by the plaintiff, or the person who brings the quitam action is set by the judge typically in federal court and under our statute or laws there are no percentage rewards to the individual other than attorney fees and expenses, is that correct? >> that is correct. >> if i understand this amendment correctly, judge kopp is asking we set a 25% recovery

amount, which includes fees, expenses and potential percentage of the award, whatever is determined by the court or jurisdiction. >> yep, correct. >> suit does give 50% of the award or penalties.

>> did this go to the board, was this included in the language? >> no this would be a new proposal to the board of supervisors. >> thank you. >> my concern again is the same this provision engendered a fair amount of controversy in the public hearings. we reopen with the board of supervisors a substantive issue whereas when we send it back to them in accordance with the recommendation of the staff is that essentially they are just technical changes and not changing any of the substance

or not creating some new condition. >> substantive amendments i think we had a joint meeting where we had the opportunity to discuss some of these issues but now that the board has acted and it's back in our court i think the amendments that were recommended by staff are not substantive in nature and would not engender any more concern or changes coming back from the board of supervisors.