past. i did want to draw the commissioner's attention to mrse three. that had a major mix of public financing involved with that issue, and that is quite an embarrassing number given the fact that public funds were involved. i don't think that's going to happen again. i think we have enough of a structured program now where that will just not languish. we promised, i promised many times personally before public bodies we were going to have concurrent an -- it only passedy

32.6% of the vote, so we do have an obligation to the residents of the city to be very actively concurrent and proactive on audit enforcement. i know those systems are now in place, but i do want to thank the staff for an excellent system and it's certainly looking for tight and i won't be bringing in any doughnut holes anymore. >> speaker 1: thank you. item 11. [ reading item 11] the written report cover as range of topics such as

commission budget. [reading agenda item 11] director pellham. >> thank you. for agenda item 11 i have a somewhat thingthie lengathyier . jeff has taken on interim duties as our director of -- we appreciate his responsibility and the call of duty. i am pleased to announce that i have designated chief program's office to be our acting deputy director and as you know, he has

been in charge of our engagement and client division and working on operational issues -- she will be working closely with me on all kinds of office wide externally facing and other issues, so you will have a chance to meet with her in coming meetings, and i'm pleased to announce that for our senior auditor position that was recruitment based on after we completed our process based on assessment of what that position required for the development of the program at this time, in both campaign and lobbying develop program. it was my judgment that we need to reclassify that position -- so in the interim, happy to announce that amy lee will be

acting as lead auditor providing more day-to-day duties and interim audit supervisor to the team and me as we get through this busy period. >> speaker 1: is that something that is matter of coars course t from hr? >>speaker: thank you for that question. we have had conversations with human resource department and the mayor's office and to my next segue, to the point that you see positions listed that list has whittled down over time but because of the last six weeks of extraordinary activity, i have not been able to make progress. our senior business analysis position we are expecting that should be posted this week, it just has to be able finalized

and put on the website and turned the switch on. my report contains variety of information. we have the electronic version online links to campaign finance dashboard and information providing on a regular basis -- we are excited about the feedback we have been getting from public from those resources to enable people to see what's happening as those reports comey ncomein and it's very useful for people to search for the information in the way they want it 24/7. the signs are good so as those of you observing these activities get your hand on these systems we welcome feedback. we are following up with individual who is have not filed

timely statements as of may 2, 95% of the electronic files file timely with our office. there are about 3,000 more in the city who do not currently file with us and we hope to see that change over time. we have been notifying board and commission members about the laws that apply to them and 92% of e-filers able to sync their sun shine and ethics training at the same time as their filing so we think this is a way to get their filings completed and for the public to be able to see where they are in terms of compliance, so over 90% is not ideal. hophoping to see that grow. >> speaker 1: there was a new ordinance that went into effect in january that stated if an appointed board or commission

member has not filed form 700 they would be prohibited from participating in drib ration of their commission or board. of the 95% filed and 5% unfiled were any of those board or commission members who should not be participating in their meetings? >>speaker: i don't have the breakdown in front of me, but i will get you the information. we have efforts that are planned and ongoing to reach out to the board and commission members and also department heads so that we can get information in the hand of everybody who might need support that new process. >> chair chiu: the form 700 late files frees are down.

i think that is a testament to you many making sure everyone ee knows about their filing object grace. >> i asked the team to put together a state plaintiff jects ongoing to help us move into a fully electronic or digital era so we can remove paper burden filings so there are a number of projects here broken out by campaign finance and other programs that haven't had the time to put paper filings online. we do have two staff that joined us this past month who will be with us through the fiscal year and beyond we hope to help get some of those paper-based systems online so some of the

information can be more readily accessible to the public so i wanted to highlight that steven massey is here if you have specific questions about any of our it projects but as you can see it's been a very busy election season and promises to be a very busy rest of the fiscal year for us. >>speaker: is there any update on the budget for the upcoming fiscal year? >>speaker: i think i will have hopeful news to report at the next month's meeting the mayor's office is still finalizing the budget document. i think i will have good news to report back next month. >> the interim mayor has

requested that all departments submit budgets with a reduction and that for us would mean cutting staff and we are still in the process of trying to staff up to the right level. [ please stand by]

. lease stand by] >> commissioner kopp: okay. second question, is disclosure of behested payments by city commissioners or board members, have we got that setup? that took effect 1st of january

. >> yes, we do have that system setup. individuals are able to file their behested payments on-line. like other laws that recently took effect, that's something that we continue to reach out to affected people to let them now about that requirement, and we have more work to do on that front. >> commissioner kopp: can this commission get a report from you next month on that? >> next. happy to. >> commissioner kopp: thank you. chu c >> commissioner chiu: any other comments or questions? i just had a question, steven, if you would be so kind. they're discontinuing their existing services where scanned paper documents are going to be, you know, scanned in and posted. so if they're discontinuing, when will that happen, and more importantly, do we have an interim workaround to bridge that time when it's going to go away and what's the plan b to

substitute? >> sure, again, i can answer that question. so we were notified by the mayor's office that socrata who is the vendor would be disabling a particular feature of their open data system, which is where they would host scanned paper, pdf-type documents on their server, and we could essentially upload unlimited documents at no charge, no charge to our department ch. >> commissioner chiu: this is a vendor that provides services to all city departments. >> all city departments, and the mayor's office is the vendor of the contract. we end up posting data about the filings that are coming in, and then, you can actually view the form itself on the service. they are continuing the data service so we can continue to post essentially what looks like spreadsheets. they are discontinuing the

postings conservatory which posted the pdf's. instead of creating a new way of posting scanned paper documents, we felt it would be a waist -- a better use of our time to convert the documents into an electronic form process, and we will continue to post those on-line. so as far as any effect on the public, they will continue to have access to this information, and in the end, it will be better than before when they had this scanned paper process. >> going forward, we won'ting posting additional pdf's, we'll be converting them into electronic files. >> so limly the filer will fill out what looks like an electronic version of the form on-line, and that will transfer

the form to a site that we are now hosting, and it will automatically post a 3 df copy of their filing there, and we will also post the data that comes across in some of these forms to the data sf system to be searched and sorted and s h such. >> commissioner chiu: thank you. >> commissioner kopp: would you identify yourself, please. >> steven massey. i'm the director of technology services. >> commissioner kopp: okay. >> commissioner chiu: thank you. any other questions for steven? okay. public comment? >> charlie marstellar. again, i did have two questions. are the behested payment reports that are filed reflected in some way on our website? yes, that's the answer. very good. and are voter officers of the city and county who file -- i

assume they file directly with ethics and not, for instance, a port commissioner would not file with the port commissioner filing officer, but major appointed officials and elected officials would file with ethics, correct? >> board and commission members, department head and elects officials are required to file electronically with the commission, so board and commission members also file directly with us. >> okay. and those are just charter committees or commissions or boards or are they -- >> yeah, i think it's beyond that. >> it's the whole spectrum of officers. >> board and commissioners. >> who are voting? >> yeah. they're listed on the conflict of interest code in section 3.10 something or another, but that list of individuals -- that list of positions are required to file with us. >> okay. there's probably not much that's being overlooked in that

section of the law, i hope, because we don't on don't want to find out that somebody has lost their ability to vote as a result of not filing and have them slip through the cracks and undoubtedly somebody in the public will call it to their attention, but it's good for ethics to know. the other thing, are we able to amend the s.e.i. form 700 because i know that process is a state law. it's under the pra directly. so if we wanted to put a notice to the applicant that they have to file by a certain deadline or they will lose their ability to vote before their commission

or board that they sit on? >> through the chair, the form 700 statement of economic interest are documented promulgated by the state, best political practices commission, so we are not in a position to make changes to those forms or those disclosure requirements. if such change were requested, it would have to have the approval of the fair political practices commission and apply statewide. >> okay. and can we just make that ghirardelliingly apparent to applicants when they go to download that form or to file, rather, electronically on our access websites? in other words, when they come on-line, they're going on-line to the state, correct? >> well, i think -- excuse me, director pelham. i believe that in the report and as i had asked her and we had a little bit of exchange on this, that the work of the commission in the upcoming year will be to examine the communication and outreach practices of the commission to make sure that those who are

affected and who need to file by the deadline in order to be able to continue to participate in their board or commission, that they are well aware in advance of the deadline that they need to file, and that if they don't file, they would not be allowed to deliberate nor participate in their proceedings. so i think that that's a really critical point of -- of communication and of work that the commission needs to do, and i think that guy will kind of be leading that charge, and i have a lot of confidence to have a whole year to prepare for the up coming, we'll have a robust plan in place. >> well, i just want to make sure that they're properly noticed so we can't be blamed for not being aggressive and robust in our outreach. >> commissioner chiu: yeah. >> very good. thank you. >> commissioner chiu: thank you. any other comments? commissioner renne?

>> commissioner renne: i was just wondering, to save the staff some time, that quentin kopp had some questions for netfile, and if he did, maybe massey could answer them, and not waste time by the staff. >> commissioner kopp: i mean -- >> commissioner renne: direct the questions -- >> commissioner kopp: how long has this netfile had a contract with the ethics commission? >> first contract was around 2007 or -8. >> commissioner kopp: all right. and is that on a bid in. >> it was a sole source waiver back in 2007. >> commissioner kopp: and who granted the waiver? the ethics commission? >> the ethics commission had to take part of it. the office of contract administration also had a role in it. >> commissioner kopp: and who signs the final document waiving a bid?

>> the office of contract administration. >> commissioner kopp: all right. and how long was that contract? >> that was a three-year contract, and then, there was a new contract in 2010. and then, there was an amendment in 2013 that was a five-year contract. that contract is almost expired, and then, we have another contract that is now running concurrent to the 2013 contract that will eventually pick up support for the system after the contract expires in 2018, and it will also allow us to implement some new projects. >> commissioner kopp: when will that expire? >> that contract will expire mid2020. >> commissioner kopp: you said the contract expires in 2018. >> the 2013 contract expires in 2018. we also signed a second contract with netfile that will pick up support for the system

at the end of 2018, when the 2013 contract expires. it will also allow us to build new systems such as the measure c and measure t lobbyists' measures that went before the voters and some other projects. >> commissioner kopp: what date does it expire in 2018? >> i believe it's september 30th. >> commissioner kopp: pardon me? >> i believe september 30th. >> commissioner kopp: okay. thank you. >> commissioner chiu: thank you. public comment? [inaudible] >> commissioner chiu: yes. >> my name is mark bruno, and i have an ethics complaint before the board since july of last year. and i've -- i had talked to jessica, and the -- another work at the -- jackie, i'm sorry, at the ethics board today to make sure now is the appropriate time to address this issue. not in specifics, i realize

that we can't talk about that. i'm here only to address the issue of resources for the commission and for the department because there's something wrong in the city. i've never gone to the ethics commission before in my life until july 7 of last year when, before the board of appeals, since we're on the issue of s.e.i.'s, two of the six people who were there required under the law to have submitted s.e.i. forms, two of six is one-third, or 30%. two of the six people have not filed the s.e.i. forms for two years. that complaint which was filed in july of last year, still has yet to be resolved, and so i would say to those of you like director pelham, who are going before mayor farrell, that the worst thing for the city -- that the city can do is to pretend to pick up trash when there are no trash people to do it, to pretend you're going to put the homeless people in a hospital and there are no doctors. or here, to pretend when we

have an ethics code, and we do not have staff or supporting staff, perhaps the attorneys or investigators or xerox machines to do the work that's being given to this very important body and to the people who work so hard to keep people who are appointed and who are elected acting in conformity with the code, with the government code. and i want to cite quickly, because i know many of you are attorneys, a case, cohen versus city of thousand oaks. it's cited by governor brown when he was attorney general, when he wrote contracts in interest office, and it's also cited, interestingly by the california league of cities, the government conduct guide. why is this case, cohen versus city of thousand oaks significant to this delay and how this one complaint and perhaps many others has been treated? because we all know, anybody who knows the law on timeliness that there are two aspects to timely requirements to city

officials. one is a direct review of that timely requirement, and another one is a yourself jurksal review. well, this body made it clear that the court felt the timeliness was really a directory issue, not a jurisdictional one. in other words they weren't going to come down heavy on the city of thousand oaks, but what they do say is that however, the city council's failure, read ethics department's failure to file the written findings in the resolutions after appellants filed their petition is one more example of a cavalier manner in which the city seems to disregard the people's due process rights. so i pi on the here that's what being entered here. it might not be a legal case but it still concerns something that affects all of us as citizens our due process rights. thank you so much. >> commissioner chiu: thank you. no more public comment, move to item 12, and discussion and possible action regarding

status of complaints received or initiated by the ethics commission. it's a possible closed session, as well as possible closed session under item 13, discussion and possible action regarding probable cause determination for complaint alleging violations of the campaign finance reform ordinance, article 1, chapter 1 of the san francisco campaign and governmental conduct code. so -- >> excuse me, chair chiu? >> commissioner chiu: yes. >> i had believed that we were going to call item number 14 before we go into closed session just so we can hear from the public before we go into closed session. >> commissioner kopp: excuse me. you're calling -- through the chair, why call 14? >> because this is obviously up to the discretion of the chair and the commission, but i believe the rational is we wanted the public to provide comment on number 14 before we go into closed session. >> commissioner kopp: well, don't you know we're going into

closed session? don't we have 13 still on the calendar? >> commissioner chiu: yes, and 13 would be in closed session. >> commissioner kopp: i elect not to go into closed session. [inaudible] >> commissioner kopp: 13. it's a preliminary hearing, and those are heard in the open. and i don't like the idea of going into a closed session on a preliminary hearing. >> commissioner chiu: hi, mr. givner. >> mr. givner: good afternoon. jon givner. deputy city attorney. i'm sitting in for my colleague on this item. under the charter, enforcement matters must remain confidential until a finding of probable cause is made and a public accusation. so there are matters in this closed session regarding

probable cause -- potential probable cause findings. those must be handled confidentially unless a respondent in a probable cause matter requests that they be made public. and if the commission makes a finding of probable cause, the commission then comes out into open session, publicly announces its finding and its accusation, and then, the remainder of that proceeding, including a potential hearing on the merits, is all in open session. >> commissioner kopp: all right. >> commissioner chiu: so item 13 will be held -- will be in closed session, and item 12, if there's a desire on the part of the commission to discuss the status of complaints and investigations that are ongoing would also be in closed session. so before going into closed session, i'll call for public comment on item -- item 12 and 13 first, and then, we'll just

do item 14 at the end. any public comment on items 12 or 13? okay. then -- >> commissioner kopp: madam chair, through the chair, does staff have an idea of approximately how long this probable cause closed session will take? >> thank you, commissioner. i anticipate that staff's presentation will last five minutes, give or take. the respondent is here to make a presentation of his own. >> commissioner kopp: no, i'm talking about the closed session. how long will that take? >> yeah. it depends how many questions commissioners, have, but it can take as little as ten minutes, or truly, 45. i think it depends on what questions you might have. >> commissioner kopp: all

right. >> commissioner renne: i would move that we go into closed session. >> commissioner chiu: is there a second? [inaudible] >> commissioner chiu: all in favor? [voting] . >> you should take public comment prior to voting to go into closed session. >> commissioner kopp: well she had already asked. >> commissioner chiu: i had already asked, so there's no >> we are back in session. on item 12, the commission took no action. on item 13, the ethics commission conducted and closed session a probable cause characters hearing from may 2011. that san francisco ethics commission complaint 13-150618, based on the entire record of the proceedings, they announce

they found probable cause that a violation of law has occurred. the respondent is presumed innocent unless the allegations are approved of merit. the respondent cannot document more than 2,000 attribution's. they found probable cause to believe he failed to maintain complete records for contributions received in two counts in violation of san francisco campaign and governmental conduct code, sections 1.106 and 1.109. because the respondent cannot properly document more than 100,000 in expenditures amounting to 16 % of total campaign expenditures, we found probable cause to find they maintain complete records and four counts in violation of campaign and governmental contact code 1.106 and 1.109. because the respondent did not kindly report nearly 140,000 it could expenditures amounting to

21 % of total expenditures, we found probable cause to believe he failed to disclose expenditures in violation of san francisco campaign and governmental code, conduct code 1.106 and 1.109. the commission will schedule a hearing on the merits. could i have a motion to maintain confidentiality for all of our discussions in the closed session? >> we move -- move not to disclose. >> commissioner chiu: you second? >> i second. >> commissioner chiu: all in favour? motion carried unanimously. moving on to agenda item 14. discussion of the possible actions for future meeting. commissioners? public comment? there being none, into item 15. additional opportunity for public comment on matters of hearing and not appearing in the agenda as article seven section two.

public comment? there being none. commissioners? >> i move to discern. >> commissioner chiu: a second.

>> good morning everyone and thank you for joining us. my name is beth stokes and i want to welcome you here. the supportive housing home to 134 single adults. i'm the executive director of the pittsburgh -- episcopal nudity services of san francisco. one of the leading providers of supportive housing. we are committed to finding solutions to end homelessness by helping individuals and families with the tools necessary to exit homelessness. including pathways to housing,

workforce development, and permanent supportive housing. of the formerly homeless residents who access our services, 98 % remain permanently housed. ninety-eight %. so we are very proud of that. here we are you currently are, we have the highest risk and most vulnerable san franciscans. this five-story property was completed in 2,009 with development funds from the city and county of san francisco. it is one of the best examples of solutions to ending homelessness in our community. we are proud to partner with the city of san francisco to end homelessness and i'm very, very pleased this morning to introduce you to the honourable mayor, mark farrell. thank you. [applause] >> mayor farrell: thank you best. i think the house for hosting us this morning here in san francisco. you know, we do not have to

remind anyone why we are here this morning. why we are here today for this announcement. homelessness is a crisis in the city of san francisco. our city government needs to step up. our city, our region, our state, our country is dealing with this tragedy every single day on the streets. the roots of the epidemic are complex. there is no single solution to solve the issue. we need to pursue a wide variety of initiatives. we need to fund programs that have been proven to work. we need to be flexible to fund programs that will work. we need to measure ourselves by the success of the individuals living on our streets today. and when they get off a street and get into shelters and onto their own 2 feet and onto better lives. today, i am announcing approximately $30,000 in funding to address the homeless crisis

in san francisco. first of all, i'm doubling down on the homeward bound -- bound program. this initiative helps struggling individuals with family members and loved ones. i know elements of this program may seem controversial, but we have to acknowledge the fact that it is here in san francisco where we have had a very effective program. as mayor of the city i'm connected to programs that are working and making a difference in their lives with getting people off the streets of san francisco. last year, 900 individuals used project homeward bound and of that total, lesson from four % turn to the city of san francisco. this program works and is having a dramatic effect and we are doubling the funding for this program. of those individuals that have been helped by project homeward bound, a man is here today from his home in reno.

at one point he was unsheltered and struggling with mental health here on the streets of san francisco. after he spent time at the general hospital, we were able to connect contacts, and connect them back home with his family. he arrived last month and sergio and the rest of his family are thrilled to have him back and he is making progress daily. that is what compassion looks like to me. without programs that we are funding to make a difference in individual lives. for are resilient individuals who have overcome great hardship, this budget package will fund projects to help to make sure they will never be on the streets of san francisco. we are adding $2 million to fund 150 new supportive housing units across the city of san francisco. and $2 million for the opening and operations of a building, a site with 50 supportive housing

units in san francisco. with those new units brought online, san francisco will boast more than 7,000 permanent supportive housing units and here just right here in our city. the most per capita of the city in our entire country. along with adding new units, i will be investing one and a half million dollars to provide additional services to these units. it will provide assistance for our communities and provide the resources necessary to help individuals who are coming off the streets. most importantly, and most substantially connect this budget package will include $50 million for new navigation centres. helping support our new facilities here. we will provide a million dollars for programs for transitional eyes use. a population that has been dramatically affected with homelessness in san francisco. we are specifically wanting to address this. we are providing new access

points to provide resources, supports and services for families and residents juggling with homelessness on the streets. this is a comprehensive package. this is about making sure we create new exits off the streets through temporary shelters and permanent supportive housing. it's also making sure we provide the resources necessary to stem the tide of new people becoming homeless in san francisco. we will not solve homelessness overnight in our city. but in san francisco we are investing for the future click as mayor, it has been one of my biggest priority since week one in office and i am incredibly proud of the policies that we have moved forward with in the city. we are going to continue to put a foot on the gas pedal until my last day in office. this funding package will ensure the city of san francisco, for years to come will have the resources necessary to continue to address the issue on the streets of san francisco. we are not going to do this

alone. takes the help of community leaders, of organizations and individuals willing to come off the street, but we are making progress and we are making life better for those that are on our streets and we are making life better for san francisco residents. with that i want to thank you all for being here today i don't want to bring up to the podium the person who is really leading the charge here and has been doing great work for our city of san francisco and will be doing so for years to come. our director for homelessness and supportive housing. [applause] >> thank you mr mayor. i'm here with the department of homelessness and supportive housing. first i want to thank san francisco community services for hosting this event and for all the amazing work that they do. we are very lucky to have an organization like ecs and san francisco and we are also very lucky to have them at the helm of the ecs. they are doing an amazing job

leading this organization as the backbone provider and homelessness response system. i also want to thank our staff who are here with a few folks are here from the homeward bound program to, every day, are out hoping to reunite family and people who are homeless with family and friends who are able to take them back into their lives. the chair of the local homeless correlating board, and then other hs h. staff. thank you for being here and think all of you for joining us but mostly i want to thank mayor farrell for this budget proposal that he is putting forward. we are very excited about the fact that this budget represents and really reflects the work that we laid out in our strategic plan when our department was created by mayor lee. we spent a year figuring out what can we do to best address homelessness and san francisco? we laid out a clear plan with specific goals. this budget practice really reflects what we see as the priorities that were developed not only by staff members and

also in consultation with our nonprofit providers and advocates and people expressing homelessness themselves. we are very grateful to see this expansion that focuses on three important areas that will help us, number 1 reduce unsheltered homelessness and opening up more navigation centres. to end homelessness by providing rent subsidies and supportive housing sights. we really appreciate mayor if there -- farrell. supporting 50 people every week exit homelessness through a variety of programs. but every week hundreds of people replace those folks get off the streets. we need to figure out how can we use programs like homeward bound, eviction prevention, flexible housing grants for people so we can help folks get back to the last safe place where they were staying and

reduce the number of newly homeless people in the city. this does all o is all of thosed we are very excited. i'm looking forward to being able to dig in and start doing this work once the budget is approved by the board of supervisors and signed off by the mayor. thank you very much. is now my pleasure, we have two hs h. clients in the house with us as well. one in the house and one on the tv screen. first i would like to introduce mr williams, first of all, and i want to thank him for our service to the country. he served in the navy for eight years. helping defend our country and ended up homelessness -- homeless but we are very pleased it is now he is living in the operant residence which is by this property which is housing that we put together for people who are veterans and to have also served the country and military and are experiencing homelessness and needed a hand up to get off the streets. mr williams moved in recently

and joined me i join me in welco the podium. [applause] >> hello. i am a san francisco native. i am a u.s. navy vet and i live in the bay area predominantly most of my life. i stay at supportive housing for the past few months and i am just happy, you know, to have a place to stay. i am benefiting from trying to get being put in a situation where i can get my life back together. it's looking good. i wish it was more programs like this to help people, you know, change their lives. thank you.

>> thank you mr williams and fortunately, with this budget we will have more housing like the auburn, it is very close to the auburn and what it we are excited it will be opening up very shortly. also we talked about the homeward bound program and the mayor made reference to mr bravo who is over there on the tv screen. he is one of the many, many individuals whose families participate in the homeward bound program over 850 people a year and all of those experiences are unique and i will tell you that that although this program sometimes may appear controversial to some, we get so many lanter is on a regular basis of people thanking us for reuniting them with their family members and people who are homeless themselves whose lives have really turned around by getting reconnected to family and friends. we're very proud of the work of this program and very excited mr bravo was here and it's going to be able to share some of his

thoughts. mr bravo was there, and was able to share some thoughts. we will try to reconnect quickly. but while we are doing that, i want to share some of the homeward bound stories in addition to mr bravo's. one gentleman that we have been made aware of was homeless in san francisco and reunited with his family in north carolina and is getting his master's degree at yale. we have another individual just recently, maybe four or five months ago, he was a senior citizen who ended off -- ended on the streets and was not really sure where she was exactly. and we were able to bring these guys over here and find her family member and return her to her family. escorted her back to where she was and she is suffering from dementia and we were able to reconnect her with her family.

we also have so many stories of people going back to tennessee in chicagand chicago and peoplee bay area and folks were able to reconnect with their people. i think it is an incredibly important part of it recovering from homelessness. like a not everybody has family or friends they can return to that when they can, one of the processes and healing and recovery from the trauma of being homeless is having people around you who care about you. i think there's no better medicine than that. we are really proud of the homeward bound program. i think we are going to end up having to conclude. let's get a last-minute technical failure. the mayor spoke briefly about mr bravo's story but his son was on the streets of san francisco suffering from severe mental health issues, we were able to make a connection with him and get him reunited with his father in reno and is now receiving

intensive mental health support in order to help the sun get back on his feet again and be the best person that he can possibly be and this would not have happened without the homeward bound program. i think at this point we will go ahead and conclude the program. thank you very much for being here today. [applause] [♪] [♪]

>> hi. i'm here with a san francisco league of women's voters. i'm here to discuss proposition acts. it will be before the voters on tuesday june 5th. the city and county of san francisco funds and nonprofit organizations that provide free legal representation to some of san francisco residential tenants who face eviction. to evict a residential tenant, the landlord must give the tenant a written notice of eviction. of a tenant does not move, or landlord may file a lawsuit asking a court order eviction. proposition acts would adopt policies that san francisco should provide legal representation to all residential tenants facing eviction. it would provide the city to establish, fund run a program to provide legal representation for all tenants in the san francisco facing eviction and provide a lawyer for tenant with 30 days following an eviction notice or

immediately upon receipt of a lawsuit seeking a diction -- eviction, whichever comes first. the lawyer would provide legal representation for the tenant through all stages of the process until resolved. and implement this program within 12 months after the measure is adopted. proposition would not require the city to provide legal representation to tenants who reside in the same dwelling units with their landlord. a yes vote means if you vote yes, you want to require the city to establish, fund and run a program to provide legal representation for all residential tenants in san francisco facing eviction. a no vote means if you vote to know, you do not want to create this program. i am here with john snider and a proponent of the proposition. welcome. >> we are also joined by the san francisco apartment association and an opponent of the measure. thank you for being here. i'll be starting with opening statements and let's start with

you, charlie. why do you believe this proposition is so important? >> so the apartment association is recommending a no vote on it and there are a number of reasons why. but mainly, that's the proposal, as currently written as overly broad. so when you think about providing city funded eviction defence for tenants it sounds like a good idea. and then you look at potentially tenants who are evicted through no fault of their own. what we call no-fault evictions. but that's not what this measure does. this measure provides eviction defence paid by you and i as taxpayers, for high income tenants and tenants who are creating a new sense for other people in the building, you are not paying their rent for months or years at a time, and who are safety hazards and allowing it to persist in apartment buildings. on top of that, the measurers is an unfunded mandate, what that means is this expansion of

government will draw away and necessary resources from our general fund. the general fund we used to build affordable housing, homeless services, clean our streets, those sorts of things. at the measure is just too bro broad. >> why do you believe this measure is so important? >> well, as a noncontroversial statement to say that san francisco is facing a massive displacement crisis. rents are skyrocketing. over 40,000 people have faced eviction in the past five years. one folks are evicted in san francisco, they often have to leave the city in it's entirety or they end up homeless and on our streets. in fact,, a recent study showed that 71 % of our homeless folks on our streets were actually housed here and san francisco in the past two years. and one of the reasons that that is true it's because there is a massive power imbalance between tenants and landlords in the

city. nationally, the statistic is 90 % of landlords go into any eviction with an attorney and 90 % of tenants go into an eviction without them. that means that they lose their homes, even when they shouldn't and even when it is a fraudulent eviction. they often do not fight it because it is so cost prohibitive and difficult. >> thank you. i'm going to ask some questions and i will start with you. >> sure. >> what the mandate legal representation in the situation of nonpayment of rent? >> it all, covers all tenants. that doesn't mean that they would win the case at all. just like how you get a public defender in a criminal case, you would get an eviction attorney if you are taken to housing court. but that does not mean that an attorney will litigate a case that has nowhere to go at all. and there's been studies in new york, which are the past this in

2016, that creates, it does not take up bunch of time in court. it goes pretty smoothly and quickly. in fact in new york they found that for every dollar they spend on eviction defence, they are saving three dollars and homelessness services. it is just as cost-effective as it is humane. >> thank you. same questions for you charlie. from your point of view, how do you feel about the mandate providing legal representation in the event of a right to vote evictions such as nonpayment of rent? >> the city and county of san francisco has very highly regulated controls on eviction. the fact of the matter is that they were -- there were around 1700 evictions that took place in san francisco at around 200,000 rental housing units. less than one % of tenants. what that means, because there were only 15 reasons to evict a tenant, is that there are legitimate reasons.

sure it might make sense to provide an attorney for an eviction for no fault of their own. but what we see overwhelmingly, is that tenants are evicted for things like breach of rental agreement, nonpayment of rent and committing new sense for other people in the building. it doesn't make sense that we as taxpayers would pay to defend an eviction for a nuisance where a tenant is creating a decreased quality of life or his neighbours. >> the next question will start with you. will income restrictions be put in place for those who could afford representation from using city provided attorneys at taxpayer expense? >> that is part of the problem with this measure. what that means is that it is inflexible. and san francisco, land is approved by the voters and cannot be approved or changed except of the will of other boats. is a legislative a proposal that would do it almost exactly what this proposal does which is provide eviction defence for residents. if it was worked out in the

arena where we believe it should be, you could income test residents and only provide eviction defence for people who couldn't afford an attorney. or you could say that perhaps in the city, it should not pay to defend people who are creating new sense for other people in the building. the legislative process, again the board of supervisors passed this before them currently, they have the ability to legislate the same thing at what reasonable controls where we are all not paying for the attorneys of a very wealthy residents. >> your response to that? >> the truth is that actually, 80 % of tenants that faced eviction are at about 80 % of a.m.i. so they are already low income folks. it covers everyone because the process necessary to income test everyone is actually not worth doing to exclude the very few amount of folks that could potentially afford it. let's face it. i mean most folks who are very wealthy own their own home and

most folks who are wealthy and our renters usually have their own council for things like this and don't rely on public attorneys. >> we will start with you charlie. >> the apartment association would like to ask voters to vote no on proposition x. because again we believe that the measure is overly broad and something the board of supervisors can do legislatively. it will allow for flexibility and it will allow for jan and myself or other community groups to come to a table and negotiate. we can perhaps agree that maybe the executive of a tech company down the street doesn't deserve to have as attorney paid for by you and i as taxpayers. we can also agree if somebody is creating a life safety risk at the building, perhaps that person doesn't, should not be provided an attorney by us as taxpayers. passing this legislatively allows for much more flexibility and a more collaborative solution. >> so at the time for this is now. this has already been done in

new york city and it has been so effective and wonderful. we had a pilot program for this in 2011 it is time to make san francisco the first city in california on the second in the nation to have a legal right to council for tenants facing eviction. that's why huge broad coalition of everyone from teachers and nurses capped a small landlords, tenant groups, neighbourhood associations, democratic clubs, you name it. will come behind us and we are approaching discharging folks to vote for it for san franciscans. >> thank you both for your time. >> thank you. >> we hope this discussion has been informative. for information about this and other valid measures in the june elections, please visit the department of elections website. member, early voting is available at city hall starting may 7th from 8:00 am to 5:00 pm and if you don't vote early, be sure to vote to state, june 5th. [♪]