i said i'm not going to leave. look at my face every single day until i'm ready to go somewhere. i reported to e.e.o.c. last year, nothing has been done about it. so i have a daughter who is 27 and 3 grandchildren. that i have to stay for. because if i leave, they lose. and the perpetrators win, so i'm not going anywhere, i'm going to stay there and i'm going to fight you until it stops. >> supervisor kim: thank you miss brown. >> i want to thank you you -- >> i can't let you speak again, public comment -- >> i can't say nothing again, i wasn't aware of that. even if it's one minute? >> no. >> why not? >> we have to afford each speaker the same amount of time, if the -- if you would like to speak, i'll start a time. >> read that right there.

>> speak up. >> i filed an e.e.o.c. complaint after 180, after 180 days. i followed up weekly after three weeks. they administratively closed my claim without further investigation. the department stated earlier that -- earlier they have dismissed, 5% of black workers for cause and he is right. the cause is because -- the cause is because we are black and we are black and that is unacceptable. i understand here -- i stand

here with my head held high to ask you, the board of supervisors, please don't turn a blind eye. it is time to take action. thank you. >> supervisor kim: thank you very much. [applause] you can also submit for mr. bryant all the letters. thank you. >> hi, tandra, very short. i just wanted to say houston, we have a problem in san francisco. i'm tired of getting look at a research and experiment as a project. i was the one that left that miss brown was talking about, been trying to get a job with the city and county since 2012. got an opportunity for a year and a half, left my kaiser job to come, got dismissed. after that, try to pull boots with the straps, applied for welfare, they knew me so well, they would not give me that.

i had a strategy to get into the p.s.p. program. out of the four interviews, three tried to hire me, they would not hire me, somebody sid said -- i don't know what they said. i'm ok now but discriminated against the city and county. went to make a complaint, went to brandon lamb, he did not see nothing. hally albert, she didn't see nothing. went down to do a complaint last august, august 2016, just got reply from michael brown signed by mickey callahan saying they did not see a problem, but i believe we have a problem and i'm here to fight. >> supervisor kim: thank you. >> hi, my name is cindy wong. i did not come prepared but as i watch, i want to bring up my case. something about bullying at the workplace. so, i work at a health center in

the department of department health, and the nurse manager, you know, very subtly does things to bully me. and highly value assistant, she can look at the situation and become a poor employee. so, i went through the chain of command, i went to medical director and also i call the d.p.h. -- d.p.h. director and then we have conversation and said you know, talk to the union. but the problem is, i did not have any union representation. so, my case started 2016. and because of all this bullying and, so i came down with a very serious illness. and i just returned to work back in june, and the manager throw

me, you know, first remove me from my position, from working with medical director, and from the patient, going on serving them over five years and after removal of the fourth day i've been trying to work, she just like gave me assignment and said everybody does five clinics so you have to do five clinic. although the doctor said you know, it would be advisable to work in a less stressful environment. anyway, i just want to conclude that you know, this situation has not been resolved. and i got a letter from mickey callahan, and saying that you know, my case is not grounded, but there was never a meeting, you know, for me to -- [microphone cut off]>> supervisor kim: thank you for speaking. next speaker.

mr. wright, i'm -- i'm so sorry, but i have to go to the next speaker who has not spoken yet. >> mallory branch, i want to say i think it was wrong for the city of san francisco to fire her, she got injured on the job and it was not her fault. so, there. thank you. >> mr. wright, i can't -- you already spoke. i understand. are there any other members of the public that would like to speak? seeing none, public comment is closed. i -- i understand, mr. brown, i wanted -- i -- so, we have 15 minutes remaining for the hearing, and i did want to give supervisors the opportunity to actually ask some of these questions that's come

up. unfortunately, only 15 minutes, i will lose -- i have to adjourn the meeting after that. we did extend and i got them to stay additional hour and a half than we had slated for the hearing, thank my colleagues for staying for that. i just want to first of all start off by saying that yes, we will have staff come up. that this hearing was incredibly disturbing and deeply painful. and to hear that so many members of our -- of our city and county and our employees have similar stories to share, i just think speaks to a deeper trend and pattern here at the city and county than honestly i had even anticipated today. i do want to thank seiu 1021 for asking me to call this hearing in june, it's been a pleasure to work over the last two months. and for u just the beginning, and it was incredibly important

to get all the stories and i know two minutes was incredibly short for the years of experience people have been encountering. i do want to give -- i had a very long list of questions being that we only have 15 minutes remaining. i wanted to give supervisor brown and fewer an opportunity to ask questions but i have to limit the time. so begin with supervisor brown. >> i just want to say that an hour and a half -- hour and a half -- >> supervisor kim: i only have 15 minutes. >> nothing compared to years of racism and discrimination that we have -- >> supervisor kim: you could not be more correct. i completely agree. >> supervisor brown: thank you, chair kim. i'm kind of overwhelmed by all of the different testimony here today. and i just want to let you know that i hear you. i feel that we really, it's kind of the tip of the iceberg. and i think we need to open this

up more. i think we also need to open up how people are being trained to deal with disputes, how people are really looking at them and looking at them fair. i also agree everyone can go to a bias training, but does not mean that changes them a lot of times. and so we -- i just feel like we really need to open up how things are working and really what's not working. i think that's the big thing. what's not working. and that's it. so, i think this definitely needs to go forward. >> supervisor fewer: so, thank you chair kim. and thank you everyone who came out and gave testimony. yeah. so, this is pretty disturbing. i just think that you know, it's -- a lot of questions,

actually. and i don't think there's enough time to really address them and actually i think it's going to require sort of a really a lot of data. so, but what is disturbing, i want to say off the bat, is that it is not an isolated incident what we are hearing from a single department. it is -- the district attorney, d.p.a., general hospital, laguna honda, sheriff's department, police department, medical examiners, m.t.a., rec and park, we are hearing it throughout all of our departments in the city and county of san francisco and i have to say it's extremely disturbing, when i hear of an isolated incident i see that sometimes as an isolated incident and i get it. but when i hear repeatedly about the lack of investigation on some of these complaints, that they have no merit, that people are being harassed to the point of physical deterioration, when

i hear it's not possible to go back into the workplace because of the hostility in the workplace, i agree with some of the speakers that this is, these are issues that actually people marched and lost their lives over in the 1960s and so it is -- it is concerning. i also think that it's probably time that we actually looked at, you know, i guess i want to say the solution isn't just that we hire more african americans because clearly we are hearing here from people who have already been hired by us. so, i think it goes back to some of the questions i had about retention. i -- i have a list of data points that i think that would be important for me to really understand the full context of it and the city. i also want to talk about the salary discrepancy. and when we talk about race and

talk about racism, then we must definitely have the data that shows disparities between racial groups, and i have, i think i would like to see that type of information around promotionales again when we look at who is being dismissed, do you do an exit interview, is there any information that you can give us when people are actually severing their ties with the city employment with the city and county of san francisco. are we capturing that information. and where is a safe place for folks, we are hearing about retaliation, retaliation quite frankly is a very real thing and i think some of the stuff that we are talking about is subtle. and also to address the issue that san francisco claims to be the most progressive city in the united states, racism here is very systemic. but it is very sophisticated. and so because it is so, and so well designed, that it takes

actually i think a lot of looking at the root causes of it, and also dismantling some of of the policies that we have that are racist and inequitable, and how do we know that, because the out comes are racist and inequitable. i will be sending a list i think to, around some data points and it's unfair to put that on you today. i think in order for us to tackle this problem, and i do believe the city and county of san francisco, that there is the desire to eliminate this type of racial bias and discrimination within our departments, i think is really about do we have the moral fortitude to do it. it may mean breaking down some systems that we have used and rework them in a way that weeds out inequity and the loopholes in a system such as ours.

as serving the city and county of san francisco you are right to bring this to the attention of the elected officials to the city and county of san francisco, but be sure, these are systems that have been in place for decades here and i know and supervisor kim knows from the school district, that undo them, we wrote the resolution to restorative practices after looking at the disproportionate amount of african americans students disciplined for things like disobedience or not jumping to a command, and so we recognize that, i think the city and county has a desire to be a better employer for everyone, but particularly for a group that is much more vulnerable because the population in san francisco is already diminishing and there isn't a cohort i think of support that is political but also that has power in the city. so, i will be sending a list of

data, i am asking the chair to continue this item to the call of the chair so that maybe we can continue this conversation once we submit hard data and i'll call it out that it could be time that the city of and county of san francisco actually has an office of racial equity that we can actually have data that is collected and is held in-house. so, anyway, thank you very much for coming out, thank you to city departments for coming out also and thank you for supervisor kim for chairing this. >> thank you, supervisor fewer and we look forward to getting the questions and happy to respond. we heard our citizens, heard our employees, and their concerns, it's loud and clear and evident we need to do more. we are committed to it and meeting with the labor partners, and also meeting with community members and other stakeholders.

thank you. >> supervisor kim: so, unfortunately, the supervisors on committee were not able to ask all the questions that we wanted today, so clearly we have to continue this hearing and hear it again. it's more than a three-hour hearing. as supervisor fewer said, we are talking about decades of systematic discrimination and racism and i'm concerned around what we heard today around gender and other categories that i see through our settlements and closed session. i'm glad to see that mayor breed has issued her executive order. there's clearly a lot of work to do beyond the executive order but i would like to work very closely with seiu 1021 to come up with a portfolio of proposals of what we can do to change the systematically, and i know many members of the public could not stay and took time off from

their own work schedule to be here because it was so important to shed light on the experiences of what our employees are facing. so, thank you for coming and spending that time on educating the elected officials on what is going on here through our employment practices. i agree that videos are not enough, as a supervisor, that's required to watch some of these videos. i don't think that they really actually change behavior or practices, and so we have to do a lot more than that, and there has to be a 0 tolerance policy and i have not seen that. and certainly have not seen that in our settlements that we get here. when mayor breed was supervisor and supervisor peskin sat on committee with me, i can't tell you how frustrated we were at every single settlement we read about and the facts of what many of our employees were undergoing, and there are some here today at committee that are deeply, deeply disturbing.

and so we have to change, you know, we have to be a role model employer for the private sector here in the city and county, and we know that government jobs frequently are better at hiring a more diverse work force and this is true throughout the country, in fact. african american middle class jobs throughout the country have been government jobs and so if we can't figure out how to create an environment that is welcoming to all members of our community, then we are really failing and the city is really one of the last vestiges in the city of middle class jobs for any group, and one of the last institutions that support organized labor, so ensure we are taking on the issue. thank all the departments that came here today, and i want to thank you for listening. i think that's incredibly important that you all were here to listen to the public

comments. so, i will continue this to the call of the chair. i know that supervisor brown and fewer want to be actively engaged with our union and our departments on actually moving forward with some action. so, seeing no other closing comments, there was a motion to continue this item to the call of the chair and we can do that without objection. again, want to thank all the members of the public for coming out today. [applause] >> mr. clerk, can you please call item 7-14. >> clerk: agenda item 7-14, 8 ordinances settling, authorizing the settlement of lawsuits against the city and county. >> supervisor kim: for the sake of time and i just talked with supervisor brown, we will not take a motion to convene to closed session, neither of -- well -- why don't i say this. i think we can pass items 7-14.

>> clerk: madam chair, we should take public comment on the closed session deliberation. >> supervisor kim: we will take public comment on these items. if any members of the public would like to speak on item 7-14, please do speak now. seeing none, public comment -- oh, ok. >> i want to speak on this closed session that you got with the city attorney. and while you are back there, executive director of the department of public health, barbara garcia, embezzle one had you been $100,000 a year and not reporting the income from her female married companion, and by the same response, she get caught, you let her retire and keep her benefits. she should be fired, and should not get not one penny of benefits from the city and county of san francisco. that's called tax evasion, and

money laundering, and fraud. by the same response, all the blacks that's complained about complaints in the health department, to the union, that was up here today, all of them, 98% are black. you hear me, all black people complaining about barbara garcia in the health department. had me fooled thinking she was doing a good job, and she get caught embezzling $100,000 a year for the past several years, you let her retire and act like she did a damn good job. that's not cool. so, ain't no way in the world she should be allowed to retire and get benefits and you treating her like she did a good job. is that clear? and then another thing about your discrimination. disgusting that you let rules and regulations of mission where you are supposed to have 15% of those 1,500 units for low income and very low income people, who

you campaigned about. when you get hired, people you say you are going to help you refuse to help. sit up there and say they are supposed to be for low income by the people, and said the requirement about their income. so, in violation of your own rule and regulation, and it's going to come back to haunt you. [please stand by] >> thank you, mr. clerk and mr. gibner, our city attorney will read out the outcome.

>> deputy city attorney john gibner. during the closed session, the committee voted 3-0 to continue item eight to the call of the chair and to forward items seven through 14 to the full board with positive recommendation. >> thank you. and we will take -- we will take that motion and pass that and colleagues can we take a motion to not disclose our closed session? we can do that without objection. mr. clerk, are there any other items before this committee? >> there is no further business. >> meeting is adjourned. [gavel sounds]

>> clerk: commission -- agenda item one is the roll call. [roll call] >> clerk: agenda item number two, public comment on items appearing or not appearing on the agenda. >> gosh. i was -- >> sorry. >> charlie marstellar for the record, i was hoping we'd see commissioner kopp. is he coming? >> clerk: i wasn't heard anything. >> he was celebrating his 90th, so i was hoping we could

celebrate. that was my hope. and today is my birthday. >> oh, happy birthday. >> yeah. i'm not as old as he is, but he's in pretty good shape. but please, go ahead. >> clerk: thank you. any other public comments? okay. agenda item number three on the consent calendar, the draft minutes for the ethics commission on july 20, 2018 meeting. >> i had no corrections. >> i'll move approval of the minutes. >> i'll second. >> all in favor? >> oh, i'm sorry. we need public comment. all in favor? [voting] >> motions are approved by unanimous vote. agenda item number four, proposed stipulation, decision, and order in the matter of quintin mecke, ethics commission complaint number

27-151015. >> thank you, commissioners. as you know, representing this not on the consent calendar because commissioner kopp requested that it be heard separately. i'm not sure how you would like to proceed. >> city attorney chen, do you have any advice for us here on this procedural matter? >> yeah, if you wish to do so, you could always pass on this item and return to it later in the meeting. >> commissioner chiu: why don't we do that. thank you. >> thank you. >> commissioner chiu: agenda item number five, discussion and possible action on proposed 2018 biennial conflict of interest code presentation on the ethics commission. >> good afternoon,

commissioners. this item is placed on your agenda every two years as the memo describes, state law requires local agencies to review and update their conflict of interest code language to ensure that the positions identified on the code and the disclosure categories that apply to those positions are updated to reflect current structures, responsibilities, and work of that organization. earlier this year, city attorney's office with the board of supervisors last, i guess, august, notified all departments of the requirement for this year's biennial code of interest code review. the board of supervisors is the code reviewing body for the city and county of san francisco, so therefore they in the end of the year will adopt any changes by ordinance that apply to the city's code. each department has a responsibility to report to the board and update the codes as necessary, so this process today is to request your of the

changes that we're request to the commission so that we can then report that onto the board and have that as part of the update for this year's biennial process. in brief summary, the memo that i attached to the cover is a memo that i circulated to all staff last month so they could have ample time to comment or question. i've received nothing. as we did two years ago we provided some reminder background about conflict of interest codes and why it's important, what our current code has looked like over the last two years since we last updated it. we've identified changes that are proposed primarilily to update titles, add positions that we did not have in 2016 and identify disclosure categories, and so we would -- on attachment three, which is item five, page 8, is the resulting list of what we are proposing for you to consider

and adopt today so that we can move this process onto the board. >> so a question, director pelham. the titles that are listed here in this attachment, these are all -- they currently reflect the organizational structure titles as it exists today. >> that's correct. >> including all of the vacant or open positions that you are recruiting for. >> that's correct. this includes the organizational chart as it sits for the staff. there is a biennial code mandate, so it's incumbent upon us to enact changes if necessary based on that review no less than every two years, but departments can certainly review and update those codes at any time. >> okay. thank you. commissioners, any comment or questions? public comment? no comment.

all right. commissioner? [inaudible] >> director pelham asked that we -- >> i move that we -- >> and i second that motion. >> all in favor? [voting] >> okay. the motion to approve the conflict of interest code for the ethics commission is unanimously approved. we are just -- agenda item number six, discussion and possible action on proposed ethics commission opinion and advice regulations. >> thank you, chair chiu. i am not pat ford. pat ford is celebrating his nuptials with some time off from the office, so -- but he did leave us in good hands with the final draft of proposed advice and opinion regulations that we have been working onto try and bring forward some clarity and structure for those

who are seeking advice from the ethics commission so that they understand the process and also understand the implications of -- for when they receive different types of opinions or advice from the commission. this memo does include some additional feedback that we received based on some interested persons meetings, and had some attachments, as well, but the attachment that's shown fore the regulations for provision of opinions and advice is something that we would ask your consideration and approval of today. the regulation process, as you'll recall, if this commission adopts these, these will be forwarded over to the board of supervisors where they have a 60-day period for them . if they have any comment, they would send them back. after 60 days, if there's no questions or comments, they come into law. >> i have a few questions and

comments, and nothing's very substantive, but in the 699 a-12, a request for an opinion is not a complete and proper request if it does any of the following, and then, subparagraph is four, ask a general question of interpretation or policy. why is that limitation? if the requester is concerned about the application of a specific regulation or interpretation? >> yeah. thank you for that question. i think what we were trying to distinguish here is scenarios where an opinion is appropriate. andrew shen has a question about prospective actions,

there's law how he is trying to understand how it applies to his specific circumstances, and he provides the commission with an explanation of those specific circumstances. what we've getting at here is if someone asks a question of specific interpretations, what do you think this provision means, that's not what we understand an opinion to be. we understand an opinion to be something that is focused on specific facts by a requester whose duties are subject to those provisions of the law and that guides them. >> that's what i thought. it was a -- the requirement is it can be a general question, but the requester has to be impacted by the advice that you give, is that right? >> yes, that's correct. that's our intent with this. >> all right. >> and must also provide facts. >> that's correct. >> germane and pernetinent to their situation. >> and then, going down, i'm just a little curious.

you say in the last paragraph on the page, under a, the determination shall be transmitted to the requester within two days after the determination is made. if the request does not constitute a complete and proper request, the executive director or staff shall notify the requester of the specific deficiencies in the request. is there any time limit on when you have to do that? >> other than the two days after making the determination about its sufficiency? >> well, that's why i'm saying it. it's in a separate section, as if there's a -- a two-step. >> if i'm understanding you correctly, the notification, if there are specific deficiencies, is assumed within that prior sentence. >> okay. and i -- that -- then, when you

go to b, under that same regulation, as i read it, it says following a determination the opinion request is complete and proper, the commission shall consider the draft opinion in open session at its next regularly scheduled meeting, so long as that meeting occurs no less than 45 days. now except where we don't -- we we have a hiatus for summer, it's all 30 days between regularly scheduled meetings. so it -- it's just sort of inconsistent to talk about a regularly scheduled meeting -- the next regularly scheduled meeting, but it has to be 45 days later. >> no, i understand your point. i think that's -- i'm not sure i have an answer.

>> just a minute. we're taking a look, if you could give us just a moment. i think we think -- i apologize for the uncertainty here. i think we think the idea was that if there is an opinion that's proper, and we have a draft -- excuse me -- the draft opinion to bring to the commission, the idea was that it would be -- that there would be a window of 45 days to be able to bring that -- to draft the opinion and bring it to you. so this language sounds like

it's contradicting that, so we would need to change this to say so long as -- >> i think you should just strike that. >> go ahead. >> i was -- if i understand, you were -- when i read this, i thought that we would have to schedule a special meeting within 45 days if we didn't have a regularly scheduled meeting. and what i heard you to say is no. plus, if you read the next sentence that you as the executive director would have discretion to give more time for the commission to consider an opinion. so the 45 days creates an implication that they -- that the requester is entitled to a final determination within 45 days of the draft coming out, and i don't know that we want to create that impression. so i was going to say you could just strike so long as that

meeting occurs no less than 45 days, and then, it's either at the next regularly scheduled meeting or if the executive director says we need more time, then it would be later. >> i think that would be more consistent -- >> i mean, obviously, any other interpretations -- >> what was the thinking of why you wanted 45 days? >> well, i think it's as commissioner ambrose just said, we wanted to try to provide some certainty, but i think this is not -- we did not intend to require the scheduling of special meetings. >> no, i don't read it -- i don't necessarily read it as commissioner ambrose does, i read it as saying you can't bring it before the commission for at least 45 days, and i'm just wondering why that 45-day period is in there. >> well, i don't have a good answer for you.

i don't have a good answer for you. >> i see what you're saying. >> the commission shall consider its draft -- >> i'm going to step away from the language a minute, maybe try and articulate some of the goals we had, and maybe you all can help clarify. i think it is the case that we -- we recognized drafting opinions -- once we know something has been a proper request, the commission shall consider a draft opinion.

we wouldn't want to be in a situation where we have an opinion that we believe to be proper and therefore within two weeks when it is the next regularly scheduled commission meeting, that opinion has to be presented, because this is -- following the determination that an opinion request is complete and proper does not mean we have yet drafted the opinion. so i think this is trying to build in sometime to assure that could be drafted once it has been determined to be proper and complete, and then provide some time that doesn't rush it to the next meeting if that next meeting is too soon. >> but i guess i would suggest that you can use 30 days rather than 45 days, and you would have the next regularly scheduled meeting -- or 25 days, if you wanted to have a little movement there.

>> day is defined in the regulation as business days or working days, so 30 business days, really, ends up being about a month and a half. >> well, that's more than a month. >> so through the chair, then, i didn't understand. you're saying that this -- this really isn't about the commission and when we schedule the hearing, it's about how much time the staff would require -- would want to commit in advance that you would have an opinion ready. so maybe you should just speak to that, that following your determination that's complete and proper, the executive director will present a draft opinion for the commission's review in x number of days, instead of talking about

considering the draft opinion in 45 days. >> commissioner renne: one other possible solution would be to drop out the word "next." at a regularly scheduled meeting, and stay with your 45 days, if that's what you want, 30 days, whatever you want, but just indicate that it's to be at the -- a regularly scheduled meeting of the commission, not a specially called one, for that purpose. >> okay. >> commissioner chiu: i think that makes sense. >> mm-hmm. yes, i think that makes sense. that seems to be a fairly straightforward clarification. >> commissioner renne: that's

my only comments. >> commissioner chiu: any other comments or questions from the commissioners? no? public comment? all right. so i would move, then, to -- >> i'm sorry. >> i did have one question going back to the question that commissioner renne first addressed. i just want to make sure the record is clear, we're talking about, in this section that was about requests to the commission, but going to the informal advice, the -- you -- you similar ly -- i'm trying to find the section. you say they can't ask a question of -- a general question of interpretation or policy, so if someone just

calls and says -- my concern is that because this is informal advice, that the -- the very specific check list that's required, you may just have somebody call and say, you know, it says 45 days. are those business days or workdays? i'm just worried for something that is informal, you're making it fairly formal. is this a problem that people call up and give you a lot of hypotheticals or ask a lot of general questions and take up staff time? >> i -- i think it can be, and i think what we're trying to clarify is informal advice is not sort of telephone guidance. informal advice, as it's used here, is actually written. it doesn't provide immunity,

it's not something the commission, as the body, considers and adopts. >> it's sort of quasi-formal. >> yes. so to your question about somebody calling and asking for guidance, this is not something that we want -- excuse me? >> it's not actually written, but you're saying it's somewhat formal. >> excuse me. could you just give me a minute? >> just for the commission's benefit. i think it's fairly clear that the requests for formal advice need to be written. thank you look at 699-12-a-1, subsection a, there, it specifies that requests for formal opinions need to be in writing, right, but for informal advice, there's no requirement that the request for formal advice must be in writing, as well?

so i don't read that as just being restricted to e-mail advice. >> i would imagine that there would be multiple scenarios of people coming to the commission and seeking both written advice by e-mail, clarifying questions about a filing, or, you know, what documentation would need to be submitted for a public' financing qualification request and also questions that would come up over the phone, when do i need to file my 460? those -- i think those two scenarios would be encompassed by the formal advice section. >> so if i may, just to describe in brief some of the protocol in the office, having seen it firsthand, what pat is setting forth here in these regulations concerns two categories that the charter itself creates, opinions and advice. those two things that the

charter creates, and which we now need to clarify by regulation because the charter leaves ambiguous do not concern what staff consider to be a third category, which we call guidance, which director pelham referred to as guidance. that would be typically handled by the compliance staff within the ethics commission, and a request for guidance would be exactly as chair chiu is describing, someone calls up and has kind of an immediate question about a filing they have to make, a deadline, how to fill it in. compliance staff provide that informal guidance over the phone or by e-mail on an ad hoc basis, and that guidance, we will continue to provide on that ad hoc basis, independent of the formal advice or the written advice process that these describe. i believe director pelham can clarify. request for opinions or advice

typically go not to the compliance staff but to the policy staff, and policy staff -- whether -- whether a requester for informal advice puts their question to us in writing, policy staff, in providing an answer, for informal advice, would intend to respond in writing. >> so -- so if i may, if that's the staff's intent, i suggest that it would be helpful to specify that requests for informal advice should be writing and responses to those requests for informial advice should be in writing, and that there's a third category of guidance that is not covered by any of these rules. i don't see that really spelled out anywhere, and i could imagine a member of the public being a little bit confused as to how they should approach the commission fore guidance or advice as it were. >> we can personal bring these back next month for that

clarification. i think it certainly would be helpful for people to understand that distinction. >> commissioner kopp? >> you may have answered the question by prior testimony or comment. does e-mail constitute in writing? >> in practice, that -- that is the case for that. >> commissioner kopp: okay. secondly, on page five, the last regulation subsection, the fact of informal advice, a grammatical change should be made. you use the word "person," which is the subject, singular, and then, you use the word "conforms their conduct," and i would move to change "their" to

conforms "his" or "her" conduct. >> commissioner chiu: anything -- any other comments? okay. public comment after that discussion? okay. so director pelham, you'll bring that back next month? >> yeah. apologies for the confusion, but we look forward to clarifying next month. >> commissioner chiu: okay. since commissioner kopp has rejoined us, shall we go back to item four, in the matter of quintin mecke, ethics complaint? >> thank you, chair chiu and commissioners. as i stated previously, representing this not on the consend calendar perenforcement regulations section 12-e, due to the request by commissioner kopp that it be heard separately. enforcement regulations empower the executive director to enter

into negotiations with a respondent to resolve the factual and legal allegations in a complaint at any time. in this agenda item, number four before you today, the executive director did in fact resolve these factual and legal allegations in a matter with mecke arising from unreported campaign consultant activity that he was employed during the period of time in 2014 for a ballot measure committee and another period of time in 2015 by a different ballot measure committee. that stipulation is attach today the agenda item for your -- attached to theient item for your consideration today. ethics commission staff and their respondent have agreed on both the language and the penalty hope, and we'll hope that you will agree today that this is a fair penalty amount. really, we're here to discuss the four corners of this proposed settlement and only the four corners of this settlement. the options before you here today are that the commission

can accept or reject the settlement, but again, we hope that you'll agree with staff and the respondent that this is a fair and appropriate settlement. the penalty amount proposed in the settlement before you today is severe and enough to promote a deterrent effect since it exceeds the maximum that would be assessed by the sbpc as well as being consistent with previous settlements with -- that this commission has settled in the past. this penalty amount is especially severe given that the respondent has demonstrated a financial inability to pay pursuant to our enforcement regulation section 9-d-7, and commissioner -- chair chiu, i can speak to the penalty determination. >> commissioner chiu: yes, that would be very helpful. thank you. >> pursuant to our enforcement regulations section 9-d-7, the

respondent demonstrated an inability to pay. staff then assessed these financial documents and used that to inform our penalty determination, and those financial documents are also confidential, so i'm unable to speak to their exact particulars here today, but they did inform our penalty assessment. furthermore, investigators looked to past settlements by the ethics commission as well as other jurisdictions for guidance on its penalty amount determination. however, this is the first settlement for campaign consultant violations either that the commission has heard since 2010, and since this is a local law, there weren't directly applicable cases in other jurisdictions, so investigators looked at the most recent settlements with analogous cases, and in this instance, these are analogous cases which are failure to report as a lobbyist, and failure to report contacts as a

lobbyist. in looking to that 2010 case that the ethics commission settled, it was a total of $4,000 for 13 counts that took place over the course of two years. in an analogous case in 2013, the ethics commission settled for $1500 for one count of an unreported lobbyist contact, and in another settlement that year, the ethics commission settled for $500 of unreported lobbyist activity. in an additional analogous case in 2012, ethics commission settled for $6,000 for six counts of unreported lobbyist contacts in which the lobbyist made six unreported contacts and was paid a total of $22,250 for their lobbying activity.

i'm available to answer any and all questions that the commissioners may have. >> commissioner kopp? >> commissioner kopp: i have a procedural question. you attach an exhibit in the form of a personal service contract which has two names, the respondent and somebody named ted gullickson, and then, a second one with dale carlson. is there a reason that you don't attach a signed copy of these contracts, assuming they were signed by the parties to them? >> when the investigators

requested these documents from the respondent, this -- these were the only records that the respondent had with particular reference to these contracts. >> commissioner kopp: available from the respondent? >> yes, that's correct. >> commissioner kopp: these are nowhere -- well, in the investigation, wasn't the signed or executed copy of each requested? >> from the respondent and as well as the documentation of these individual committees themselves, that they reported on their campaign, form 460 reports. >> commissioner kopp: what's that mean? >> means that these committees that the respondent worked for did also report his salary as campaign expenditures. >> commissioner kopp: i understand but i'm looking for a signed copy. what i've been provided is an unsigned copy of each contract.

is it impossible to obtain a signed contract? >> if i may, i believe eric inherited this case because it's a much older case stemming from conduct in 2014, and so the case file was more or less built at the time that eric inherited it. so a prior investigator either was unable to obtain a signed contract or concluded that an unsigned contract would serve the needs of the commission. >> commissioner kopp: well, it doesn't serve my need. i want to see an executed contract. that's number one. number two, you refer to a case some years ago, eight years ago or so, and with the same -- almost the same fine as here.

i will make it short, i would not settle for less than $12,500. these two counts from conduct by a person who is experienced in san francisco campaigns, whether they're ballot measures or individuals. and i don't know what the financial statements show because those aren't part of the file for us, but i certainly would find them relevant to my decision. thank you. >> so eric, if i may, based on

your review of the respondent's financial statements and tax returns, is $12,500 an amount that he would be able to pay? >> i would wager that the respondent would have to take out a loan in order to pay that amount. >> commissioner kopp: may i interject? >> commissioner chiu: commissioner? >> commissioner kopp: or pay it on an installment basis as is the case with about five or six of these uncollected penalties. >> well, i believe that staff are reluctant to provide for installment plans going forward. essentially, that converts staff into the lending agent -- or rather, it converts the commission into the lending

agent if agent if a respondent has to take out a loan to pay the penalty, and we think it's inappropriate for the city to be in the business of helping to repay the loan. >> commissioner kopp: well, why are these other malfeasors paying out on an installment basis? >> we can talk about it later, but i believe nobody is on an installment plan. >> i believe it was a holdover from practices under the prior executive director, and that from and after director pelham's tenure began, the commission is no longer entering into installment plans, i believe because the effectiveness is pretty sketchy or debatable. >> if i may, under the enforcement regulations that would govern this