>> 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 --

[inaudible] >> there is a little bit of flexibility for the executive director to consider such -- such installment plans, but i believe it's the commission's stated policy, as you said, chair chiu, not to entertain them. >> commissioner ambrose: and through the chair? >> commissioner chiu: commissioner ambrose? >> commissioner ambrose: concerning the respondent's ability to pay, that is something that officials asked us to take into consideration, and that was your evaluation of their -- the individual's tax returns and income, it was the basis for a penalty of $4,500, that the proposed penalty, correct? >> yeah. the regulations, i believe in

section 12, with respect to hearing on the merits set out the penalty factors, and the penalty factors acknowledged that we could contemplate a respondent's inability to pay. when the executive director exercises her discretion to settle a matter instead of bringing it all the way through litigation, those same penalty factors can be applied in the settlement context, as well, and so that's why we have done them pursuant to the regulations and that's why the executive director or staff through her have conducted that analysis. i suppose if you wish to conduct a hearing on the merits and you, independently, were to make a penalty determination, in theory, you could, in closed session, review the financial documents yourself, but whereas here, the executive director has done that as your delegate, as the person who holds the power to settle on behalf of the commission, she has

undertaken that work on your behalf. >> commissioner chiu: yeah. concerning the form contracts that are in the packet, the attachment, i think i heard you say that the committees that are on the other end of this contract, that they did file -- they're not before us, it's just the consultant who's at issue. and so i -- from their filing, you were able to learn the extent of their payment to this individual, is that the basis for the $25,000 in consulting fees? >> yes, that's correct, commissioner ambrose. and it also meant that this activity under -- that the respondent undertook wasn't complete hidden from the public. the public did have a way of accessing this knowledge by -- through these individual committee reports. >> commissioner ambrose:

because they're -- the committee's filing showed they hired that particular consultant for those amounts. >> for those activities. >> commissioner ambrose: okay. all right. thank you. >> commissioner renne: i would move that we approve the settlement. >> commissioner chiu: public comment. >> we haven't had -- >> commissioner chiu: no, we haven't taken public comment. so commissioner renne has moved to approve the settlement as presented by staff. okay. we'll take -- there's -- is there a second? >> commissioner ambrose: i'll second the motion, but i would like public comment. >> commissioner chiu: yeah, and then we'll call for public comment. >> good afternoon, commissioners. charlie marstellar for the record.

it's good to see this issue arise in -- in discussion because i think it's an issue that does need to be discussed, what is reasonable assessment of fines and penalties and ultimately maybe stipulations. but i was going to say, this number is a little low relative to 2010, when you last voiced an opinion, although the facts are same. and i'm -- i'm pleased that mr. mecke has come forth with good faith and presented apparently the documents to make his case. obviously, there's a strong incentive for him to do so on the question of his ability to pay. i think there was confusion on

the question of installments because b.d.r. does negotiate out installments. if this were to go to b.d.r., that's probably what they would do, so i think that should give you some pause and perspective on what ultimately the ability to pay is on this matter. and i think -- i don't -- i don't know if that really has been determined clearly -- at least to the public. there's a statement that you had received three years' tax and six months' bank, and that may be current data. i don't know if that's old or current data. you know, what time frame does that reflect? the record was built in 2014, so the question is whether or

not there's been a change in the financial status of this individual. that would be another question in the public's mind. but i do want to thank you for this robust discussion. i think it does raise some questions, and i think you can hopefully get to the answer today. >> commissioner chiu: thank you. >> thank you, charlie, if i may just step in quickly. the records were current. they were the most leent thee years of tax returns and the most recent six months of bank statements up to the time of the request. >> commissioner chiu: it. >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is quintin mecke. i'm the respondent in the case before you. i'm a little, quite frankly, speechless at the idea of a $12,000 fine. i have acted in good faith, i have provided more financial

documents to this commission and to staff than no one else has access to. i work for a nonprofit in san francisco, i struggle to make a living here. for me to pay $12,000 in cash for two mistakes i made from not filing four years ago, i acknowledge those mistakes, i would like to move on. i feel like $4,500 is enough of a stretch for my finances. if you approve a $12,000 fine, speechless. i will leave here, and i will ask you to what end does that serve? i really -- i really want to sit with that for a second. like, to what point are we making if you approve a $12,000 fine versus 4,500, which i will struggle to pay. so i will leave you with that. i have provided all of the documents necessary to this commission. i would like this to be over, i would ask for your approval. the idea of $12,000 just shook me, that i would be paying

that. so taking out a loan to pay the ethics commission, you're kidding me. it's hard enough to live here, so i ask that you approve the settlement as yagreed to by staff, provided all the documents you need. thank you. >> commissioner chiu: thank you. any other public comment? >> commissioner kopp: may i be recognized? >> commissioner chiu: commissioner kopp? >> commissioner kopp: i will not vote for the pending motion. i note this part of the staff report, page two, respondent has a history of engaging in political activity in san francisco dating back to at least 2012, when, for example, he formed a candidate controlled committee for his candidacy for the san francisco

board of supervisors and filed statements with the san francisco ethics commission. in 2013 and 2014, respondent worked as a contact lobbyist in san francisco and filed lobbyist reports with the commission. in 2014, he then contracted to provide campaign management services for some committee in support of some proposition. the staff report notes that he was required to register as a campaign consultant. he did not do so in 2014 with

respect to that, and with respect to quarterly reports. that was repeated the next year with some other campaign on a ballot measure called campaign -- or share better sf. again, the same repetition. the staff report on page four acknowledges, and i quote "applying the penalty factors enumerated above, staff believes the respondent's violations are significant." what i've said i would support is a $12,500 fine, bearing in

mind that the violations could amount to a penalty of $75,000 under the charter of the city and county of san francisco. the point is the rule of law and obedience to the rule of law by somebody, who this record shows, is experienced in the ways and the means of political activity in san francisco, whether for a nonprofit or otherwise. and that's the basis of my suggestion of a $12,500 penalty. and if installments are needed,

those can be obtained in the form of the executive director's exercise of her discretion under the guiding ordinances and charter amendment. bearing in mind, as mr. marstellar pointed out, eight years ago, the same fine was applied. i think there's been a bit of an increase in the consumer price index since then. thank you. >> commissioner chiu: okay. so the motion on floor is to approve the -- the settlement as presented by staff in this matter, and there was a second from commissioner ambrose. and all in favor? [voting]

>> commissioner chiu: those against? >> commissioner kopp: no. >> commissioner chiu: the motion carries 4-1. agenda item number seven, a discussion of the monthly staff policy report. >> thank you, chair chiu. i am still not pat ford, and this is the policy report that he was able to provide with an update of where items stand in the policy unit, including ongoing work on the public financing review to bring forward some additional recommendations and analysis to you at your october meeting. also, a general discussion on some of the -- some campaign finance workshops that pat ford and tyler field from the i.t. staff have been doing out in the community with members of -- of the media to help inform them about the tools we have on staff on the website to

enable them to do research about campaign finance and money and politics locally, particularly as the november election heats up. those have been very well received. they also provided a public workshop, i believe it was last week, a couple weeks ago, to provide some information to others who might be interested in learning those tools and becoming familiar with -- more familiar with them. we are also reaching out on the whistle blower ordinance. supervisor president cohen's office did reintroduce the whistle blower ordinance. apparently, the initial or -- the initial ordinance that was brought forward was an old ordinance prior to the version that president breed had introduced. that error has been corrected, so it is now the current ordinance that is pending, and we've reached out to her office to request a meeting to

walk-through time frames and how we as a commission can support moving forward that ordinance to fine enactment, so i will keep you posted as soon as we hear about that. and he also -- pat has also attached to this report a couple of slides from knows presentation -- those presentations that he and tyler did and also some other legislation that's been on the watch list. so the information's presented for your informational purposes, no action's required, and again if there are any questions i can answer, i will attempt to, but i wanted to just highlight that for you on pat's behalf. >> commissioner chiu: director pelham, on the sessions that were held for the media, does pat and tyler -- do they plan to hold additional briefings or sessions between now and election day? >> i think we are open to that. we don't have any scheduled right now but there has been a lot of support, and so i think it's been one of those word of

mouth things, as individuals have heard about it, they have suggested that we talk to others, so we are happy to do that wherever possible because with you do know there was really positive feedback to getting more familiar with what this information can do during an election cycle to help quip voters as well as those who write stories about politics. >> i think it's a wonderful thing to do, and hats off to pat for taking the initiative and making our work more accessible and understandable to both the media and the public, so keep up the good work. commissioner lee? >> thank you, madam chair. when you do the outreach, please include the ethnic media, because they represent a sizeable population, so please reach out to them. >> thank you for the reminder. >> commissioner chiu: public comment on item seven?

charlie, go ahead. >> yes. i really wanted to laud the new desk -- no, dashboard. i was going to say desktop. dashboard system, and i wanted to say there's been a development that you want to be aware of, and that is that we have a new assistant i.t. person who has incredible skills apparently in enhancing that dashboard system. i've seen him twice now in action, and i was very impressed. i've certainly been impressed with mr. massey. he's brought us into the modern

era, into the 21st century. the new hire's been exceptional in his contributions, as well. i would also second commissioner lee's comment regarding -- i guess i hearing aid to use this term, but -- i hate to use this term, but minority media in the city. i have asking to appear and be subsequently translated into the various language by media to explain what ethics is or what campaign finance is or what the initiative process is all about because newcomers to the city and even old people here a long time really want to know what's going on. that has not changed just because they've come to

america. so definitely want to -- there is a list that is pretty current, so you'll be able to do your outreach from that. and i look forward to pat coming back, and hopefully, after a good vacation and a good honeymoon, and he can get to work on public finances we want to really -- i'm sure. but he was intellectually challenged -- no question. >> commissioner chiu: thank you, charlie. any other public comment? okay. moving onto agenda item number eight, discussion of monthly staff enforcement report, including an update on various

programatic and operational highlights. >> commissioner kopp: we left this? >> commissioner chiu: oh, did you have something on item number seven? commissioner co commissioner kopp? >> commissioner kopp: i just have a question as to who's handling this, miss pelham. you are? >> the policy work -- yes, that would be me for today. >> commissioner kopp: okay. have you talk today the department of elections -- talked to the department of elections as to where to put up a sign where to go for public financing? >> no, i have not, but i will report to you at the next meeting progress on that front because i know that's important for the november elections. >> commissioner kopp: okay. thank you. >> okay. >> commissioner chiu: agenda item number eight, discussion of monthly staff enforcement report, including an update on various programatic and

operational highlights on the program since the last meeting. >> good morning, chair chiu and commissioners. i'm pleased to report that the investigators have been extremely diligent, but of course so have the public, and so we have a mix of progress on complaints that we had received previously and a number of new complaints. we got 22 new complaints in the two months since we last reported to you. that leaves 87 complaints currently in preliminary review. the triage process that investigators undertake to determine whether to open an investigation, dismiss the allegations outright or refer the matter to another jurisdiction. we have currently 85 matters under open investigation, so nearly as many being actively investigated as we have waiting to be -- to be triaged.

the numbers have ticked up a little bit in the last two months. i would attribute that to the most recent election cycle. we tend to get many more complaints during an election season than we do outside of an election season. but in brief, we're looking at a process of roughly 3.5 months to undertake that triage that i described a minute ago, and it takes just over 13 months on average to bring an investigation to -- to closure, whether by settlement or otherwise. i also wanted to take this opportunity to let you know and to let the public know, if they didn't already, that the enforcement division is also called more thoroughly the enforcement and legal affairs division, and this division holds primary function for

fulfilling the legal requirements under the sunshine ordinance and legal lemgs lation. in the last six months, the commission has received and filled 32 public records requests, ten of those since we saw you last, so about 30% of them in the last two months. that means, on average, we get more than a request every week. occasionally, in responding to that request, the answer is that we have no records that would respond to the questions that a requester has put to us, but in other instances, we have an overwhelming number of records that would respond to the questions of a requester. so the scope of response varies from zero records to upwards of 10,000. and you'll see notes that it takes, on average, about 12 staff hours every week to fulfill those requests. staff have produced to the public in the last six