because the executive director will not make a finding of probably cause that certain conduct is unlawful if the commission is already determined through an opinion that such conduct is lawful. advice does not have that same exact effect. it could have, in effect, almost that same effect depending on certain circumstances. so you would look at things like how well was the question asked. did the person give all of the facts. was the answer actually what the person is attesting. because you have to remember that informal advice is provided in so many different ways. it could be through a phone call, it could be through a short email, through an inperson email, so i don't think you would want to ascribe the power to those very brief interactions to confer immunity. you could imagine people would come to you and say someone told me in the office i could

do such and such, therefore i'm immune from enforcement. i don't think that's a good policy. i think it's better to say okay, we will ascribe a level of mitigation that's appropriate -- >> vice chair kopp: all right.d

require us to make calls items of first impression. i don't think it should require new sets of rules about what people should do if they call up and ask a question. >> vice chair kopp: all right. i will accept your advice. questions of mr. ford? hearing none, public comment. >> thank you, commissioners. mr. renne, i'm sorry, i identified you as commissioner keen, i know he is long gone. my name is luanne bassin. >> vice chair kopp: you mean,

it's still luanne bassin? >> can you imagine what kind of problems that would cause with the commission's computers. the informal advice. i contest strongly, mr. ford's assertion that none of this is really going to be required. it states a request for informal advice must clearly state all of the following in order to be a complete and proper request and there are five items listed. that informal advice is being requested. the name, title of position, email address, telephone number of the person requesting the

advice. material facts. i will go back to my email i gave to johnny hosy of the front office staff. johnny, what time is the deadline for electronic filing? 5:00 p.m. or midnight? in that email, i did not state that informal advice was being requested frmt i didn't state my name, title, email or mailing address or my telephone number. do you know how long that would take me to type for every single email i sent to johnny? it's ridiculous. this is so much red tape and cumbersome and burdensome to an individual and to a candidate. >> did johnny answered you? >> yes, in five minutes. but if this regulation goes into effect i would have to have an email that's 20 times

longer putting in all this needless information. material facts. johnny, i plan to file electronically sometime today i'm not sure because i don't know if it should be 5:00 or midnight. those are the material facts and clearly concisely and completely as possible. so given my experience with the ethics commission i can only envision they would challenge, it wasn't concise, rejected.

it wasn't complete, rejected. this is a ridiculous regulation. moving onto part b. >> vice chair kopp: wait a minute. how would you change all material facts? >> just leave it simple. why do you need to have a whole paragraph of material facts? >> vice chair kopp: because i won't know how to decide it. i don't have all material facts. >> what time is electronic filing deadline. that's it. what else do i need to add? that i'm planning to file? >> vice chair kopp: maybe you don't understand. are you suggesting that we shouldn't require all material facts in a question? >> if there's not enough facts i suppose the staff would write back and ask for clarification. i'm just looking at this from the standpoint of what could go wrong given my recent experiences with the commission. and this says it must clearly state all of this. and then in part b it talks about the requesters duties. well me, as a candidate. i am the candidate. i am the treasurer. i am the committee. i am the campaign manager. i am the volunteer coordinator, so when i send an email saying what time is the filing deadline, i have no idea what

role i'm playing at that time. i'm just trying to get the document filed. am i doing it as the treasurer, candidate, committee, i don't know. and does it really matter? no. so again, my comments are that mr. ford is asking for ridiculous amounts of information when your whole public purpose is to assist us as candidates in this whole process. not to make our life a living hell. thank you. >> vice chair kopp: thank you. any other public comment? mr. daryl marsdel for the record. >> sorry to disappoint you. i know you want to get through this. i hate to say this, i'm not sure you are really ready for primetime. >> vice chair kopp: why? >> this does seem to me to be cumbersome. >> vice chair kopp: to be what? >> cumbersome. >> vice chair kopp: all right. >> to the public, to you, both parties.

i think that putting some heads together on this with some interested persons, i don't know if this went to an i.p. meeting. >> it did, july 31st and august 1st. >> i thought those were the i.p. meetings -- >> they were dual purpose. both were agendized for the meetings. >> then i blew it. >> vice chair kopp: [off mic] >> but the reality there was much more focus on the other issue than on this at that interested persons meeting. no one really discussed this at all. >> vice chair kopp: what was the other issue? >> it was the new desktop. or dashboard. right? no, public financing. sorry.

how much of this is new? things were pretty cumbersome then. and i know you are improving tremendously, i want to say that for the record. in any event, i would suggest maybe an i.p. meeting and that commissioner ambrose attend. because she had some very good points. and some of the people in the room attend, including anita maio who i think made some excellent points. thank you. >> vice chair kopp: thank you. all right, now ms. maio you are properly introduced with an accolade and more paper.

>> good afternoon, commissioners, anita maio. regulation 699-12-a-2 and 699-12-b-2 require when receiving a request for opinion or informal advice the executive director will determine if it's a complete and proper request and transmit that to the questioner within two days after the determination is made. but there's no time frame for making that determination. a better approach is to give the requester a time certain after receipt of the request such as 7 days or 14 days. >> vice chair kopp: what time?

what do you suggest? >> f.c.c.p. is 14 days. regulation 699-12-b-1 will prevent any person including an attorney campaign consultant, campaign treasurer from seeking informal advice on behalf of a client unless the client is disclosed. i have sought informal advice without having to disclose the identities of my clients. i just distributed examples of such advice i have received in the past, one in 1996 and one in march this year. this is a common practice.

this will significantly and negatively impact our ability to understand these laws and as a result we won't be able to properly advise our clients regarding the same. this position is contrary to provision in the f.p.p.c. regulations which permits any person with a duty to advise other persons relating to their duties or actions under the act to request informal assistance. the f.p.p.c. recognizes the value of providing informal

assistance to our attorneys regarding various laws under its jurisdictions. to accommodate this concern the commission should use the approach used by the f.p.p.c. which includes three methods for providing opinions and advice. formal opinions, formal written advice and formal assistance. this should permit requests about the interpretations of law and the application of hypotheticals without disclosing the identity of clients. and finally, if a person receives informal written advice from commission staff and conforms their conduct with the facts and recommendations stating there in such confirmities should be a complete defense and enforcement proceeding and evidence of good faith conduct in any other civil or criminal proceeding. informal written advice should serve as guidance for others with similar facts and circumstances. thank you. >> vice chair kopp: any questions of ms. maio from her letter of april 10th and these examples, which i guess we will read after the meeting. what about 14 days to get an opinion? >> that's very reasonable. and i think mr. chen has drafted language to make that

change. >> vice chair kopp: okay so that could be included. >> yep, absolutely. in fact, we have prepared a number of changes in response to ms. maio's comments. through the chair, if i can, ms. maio has been the stakeholder the most engaged, frankly the only stakeholder who has provided substantive comments and i think today we have created amendments to these regulations that are responsive to almost all of her recommendations. so i think you can get this item past the post today. some i disagree with. like the idea that attorneys will not be able to call and ask general questions. they absolutely can. anyone can. it just won't be considered informal advice under the charter and therefore won't be a mitigating factor in an enforcement decision. if the attorney wants to

identify who the client is and make that question informal advice then the client would enjoy as a mitigating factor in a future enforcement decision, that's why we are asking the attorney to identify the client so we know who to give that mitigating effect to. otherwise i think we have a number of amendments here that are responsive to her comments we can run through in hopes you could pass the regulations today. >> vice chair kopp: where is the 14 days?

>> we don't have to do that when we get that advice from the f.p.p.c. or oakland ethics

commission, so i don't understand why that is an issue with getting informal written advice from the commission without having to identify. >> vice chair kopp: what's the rationale for not disclosing the client? >> because clients don't want to -- we don't want to have to identify who our clients are for one thing. and the nature of their particular actions what they may be thinking or doing that's all privileged information, so i don't think that should be in the public domain but what we are trying to do, is to make certain we completely understand what the law is. >> vice chair kopp: if there's a proceeding against the client, the client is going to waive the informal advice, right? so what difference does it make whether the client is identified now or? a year from now? >> hopefully we give accurate advice so there's no proceeding against the client. >> i know that, but i'm talking about the commission's informal advice. if somehow a proceeding by the commission begins, the client's

identity is disclosed. >> that doesn't typically happen with the clients i have. >> do you have any thought on that? i don't see the difference. where were we? 14 days? >> i think we could go through all the recommendations. >> vice chair kopp: there's going to be an amendment? i'll simplify it. it's coming as an amendment? all right. >> i think at this point in the discussion there's probably a number of amendments that have been discussed. let me summarize them as best i can. >> vice chair kopp: no, what i would like you to do is go page

by page. >> i will do my best chair kopp. page 2 699-12-a-2a, so the very bottom of page 2, the third sentence currently reads the determination shall be transmitted to the requester within two days after the request is made, we will change that to say within 14 days after the request is received. >> inserting between the first and second sentence. upon receive and second sentence commission shall, this is following up on commissioner ambrose's suggestion.

staff will transmit the draft opinion to the city attorney and city attorney office, offices for their review. going onto the next page. bottom of page 4, regulation 699-12-a-2 reviewing request and issuing formal advice, first we need to change the numbering of regulation, should be parentheses b instead of a. >> vice chair kopp: parentheses d? >> bottom of page 4. >> vice chair kopp: 699-12-a-2. >> that is a typo. to make it parallel with the very first amendment, that third sentence should replace two days after the

determination is made with 14 days after the request is received. >> vice chair kopp: everybody understand those proposed amendments? >> i should say request for informal advice complete. and the very last one is the next, the numbering for the following regulation, so that is another typo, it should be regulation 699-12-b-3 rather than a. >> vice chair kopp: okay, anything of substance in that subsection change? >> i don't believe so, chair. i guess public comment should

be taken, but please don't repeat points made before. i mean i can't stop you from repeating but i will enforce the 3-minute rule without beneficial treatment. commissioner ambrose? >> commissioner ambrose: i had two others i talked about that didn't get picked up. you had said we can change the requirements for requesting informal advice to just make it clear that all we need to know is how to get to somebody. so we need their email address or their mailing address or their telephone number so i would like to recommend we make that change so how do we answer that question. i would also, as you had pointed out, i wanted to make

the change to say that after a commission adopts an opinion that the executive director will send it to the district attorney and the city attorney within three days and there's no need for any extensions. so if you can include that in your litany, then we are ready to go. thank you. >> vice chair kopp: all right. so ordered. >> i missed one other amendment, my apologies. rescinding opinions. and this is taking to one of ms. maio's recommendations and account. we can strike concurred in by both city attorney and district attorney as she pointed out in a letter, the concurrence doesn't really bear on the impact of the commission's decision. >> vice chair kopp: all right. so ordered. i have a question at the bottom

of that page i forgot to ask you. under b-11. it's not made in writing. if the requester desires the advice to be delivered in writing, that's based upon a theory of what, equality? proportionality? >> it's based on a practice we already have, if someone calls the office, asks a question, we provide the answer on the phone and someone says please send me that in writing, we say please send us the question in writing. so the commission will be able to see what the question was. >> vice chair kopp: that's fine. understood. yes, ma'am? ms. bassin? >> thank you, again. i'm very distressed that you are leaving in 699-12-b-1, even with the few amendments by commissioner ambrose.

when i send an email, all you have to do is hit reply. i don't need to say here is my email, you just hit reply and it goes back to me, so i object to the entire regulation, it's needless red tape and an opportunity for the commission to nit pick, nit pick, nit pick the candidates. thank you. >> vice chair kopp: anybody else? >> anita maio, i have a question, since you aren't going to include informal assistance in the regulation, you are indicating that we can still email or request advice regarding the interpretation of laws and hypotheticals. it just won't be considered informal advice. >> through the chair, that is correct. we will endeavor to answer all

those questions, we may decline to answer them as we talked about if it doesn't apply to an actual client. if it's just a question and you acknowledge, this is not for a client, just a general curiosity of mine if it is particularly voluminous or requires us to answer a question of first impression it might require. i think it's already part of our policy and your policy and we will try to provide as much information as we can, because obviously that's in our interest too to help you help people comply with the laws. >> i just want to point out clearly based on what was going on in 1996, those types of questions were considered informal advice. >> vice chair kopp: thank you.

any other public comment? hearing no request. do we have a motion? >> commissioner renne: i withdraw my original motion and make a new motion that we adopt the regulations, with the amendments that have been discussed. >> vice chair kopp: the motion is to adopt the regulations presented as amended. is there a second? >> second. >> vice chair kopp: seconded by commissioner lee. all in favor, please signify by saying aye. >> aye. >> vice chair kopp: any opposed? or appear to be no votes and therefore the motion is adopted and the regulations are consequently adopted. number 6. agenda item 6. mr. ford?

>> item 6 sets forth monthly policy report where i update on the status of projects you have selected -- >> vice chair kopp: let me shorten this. have all commissioners read this neat but not gaudy policy report? >> yes. >> vice chair kopp: okay. are there any questions about any part of it? there appear to be no questions and we thank you for your economic presentation. all right. agenda item number 7 is the quarterly. >> we should still take public comment. >> vice chair kopp: all right. public comment? i hear no public comment.

agenda item 7 again. quarterly policy prioritization plan. >> thank you. to give background you will remember in june you adopted for the first time a quarterly policy prioritization plan. where you selected three projects. we talked about this earlier that you want the policy division to devote its resources to. so as promised, this is the opportunity for you to quarterly reassess that. look at the status of the projects as outlined in the report in items 6 and to determine whether or not you would like to continue with those priorities, or change them. the recommendation that i've included here, since there's only one of me still, and probably will still only be one of me in the division until early next year, that you

direct the policy division to focus on two projects. i think that two projects, i can handle and deliver quality work product more than that, i start to be spread a little thin on the projects and the time horizon is going to have to be extended on them, but with two i think i can still move with a good pace. and i am recommending those two projects be to continue with the public financing review project. under agenda item 4, you

directed me to prepare a set of regulations and a set of ordinances. that task would be encapsulated under this project. just based on prior experience. i think if we are going to move forward with regulations and ordinances, it's definitely going to take a number of staff to begin with and probably occupy a few agenda items on your future meetings. i think that would nicely fill up one of these two proposed policy projects. and for the second one, i would really like to make more progress on the finance campaign reform ordinance regulations. as i mentioned earlier, there's a number of changes that need to be made to those regulations. there are some mistakes. some instances where the regulations are not in line with the code. some numbers are off, the code has changed and the regs have not changed with the code so we should really bring those into align. the other is anti corruption and accountability ordinance went into effect in part in june and the remainder will go into effect january 1st, 2019. there are a number of code sections in that ordinance that would really benefit from

clarification through regulation. i think it would be a really good idea to devote some time to preparing preemptively. so we have something to work with, once we start having, requests for advice or potentially enforcement matters that pertain to those new code sections. so that would be another reason to include that. since in the public financing project, i'm including some changes to the regulations. perhaps there would be some way to combine them, to have those go through at the same time but i think conduct the process separately and at the same time perhaps merge them when we send them to the board. something to think about down

the road that might speed the process up. those are my recommendations. >> vice chair kopp: all right. comments from commissioners? or questions from commissioners? >> i have a question. referring to what you know is a subject matter which i had great interest. that is to create limits on contributions to independent expenditure committees. and a draft ordinance has been provided and i think what you are saying is you don't believe you can get to that within the next 2-3 months. >> i'll put it this way. if the commission were to identify that as a policy priority, i would obviously devote resources to it, but the amount of time i could spend on

that and the other two projects if you decide to move forward with those two, they will have to come down. i have zero sum amount of hours, work hours and i have a lot of other projects i have to do in terms of providing advice to other divisions, assisting with community, legislative affairs etc.. so to answer your question, could do it but it would take longer. it would make all the projects take longer. >> as i understand it, one they have provided the staff with a proposed piece of legislation and did that some months ago. and there are outside organizations ready to give whatever assistance the commission needs to try to get that in a posture where it can be discussed in the public and asked and determined whether the commission wants to go forward. and i guess my concern is what -- i guess my concern is if this is a policy or a provision that

the commission would like to advance, it ought to be done. >> so you are definitely right that drafting the ordinance would not be the majority of what i'm doing. we have a draft right here. it's page 11 on agenda item 7. you are correct, i wouldn't be spending the time if this were a project necessarily drafting, that's done. but i don't think that means it would be time consuming. i would definitely have to be analyzing this. i think the city attorney's office would probably want to be part of this process too looking at the constitutional aspects of it so that will add a factor. i imagine it would probably have interested persons meetings about this, that's part of the process. stakeholders will want to weigh in on it. there will probably be amendments proposed from various people. i'm just speaking from previous experiences. >> there would have to be public meetings and try building a record to support it, i agree.

>> i'm just thinking to the a.c.a.o. once it was fully drafted i felt that was the beginning of the process. the process of working it through legislatively, so i agree with you. >> vice chair kopp: what is the a.c.l. >> anti corruption and liability ordinance approved back in april. >> vice chair kopp: when does your term expire? >> commissioner renne: february 1st. >> vice chair kopp: all right. i'm prepared to make a motion that we substitute, create limit on contributions, ie committees so we may have the benefit of potential action before commissioner renne departs. let's take public comment.

>> commissioner kopp, can i clarify your motion? was that to substitute the ordinance? >> vice chair kopp: yes for the c.f.r.o. regulations review. all right. public comment? are you seconding that motion? motion is pending. >> charlie marsdeler again. great minds think alike. i was just going to make the same recommendation given the fact commissioner renne was leaving. i was looking at the bill. 90% of it, not maybe 90 but 75-80% of it is definition. some of those may be novel and

require some work but i was going to say the core of the bill itself is relatively simple and the concepts are simple. the constitutionality is another question. but this body has the ability to put this ordinance on the ballot which it could do in 2019. and that's a decision that i don't think you will belabor. i think it could be quickly dealt with. especially if you know that one of the proponents of this measure is leaving. so as a courtesy i would recommend you -- >> vice chair kopp: how about the group or groups? commissioner renne mentioned. are you familiar with them? participate? you can't commit them but do you have a reasonably good feeling they will participate? >> well, you have to build a record for sure and we need

those people to participate to help that process of building a record. i will tell you that we have an active contacts list. >> vice chair kopp: all right. spread that around then. any other public comment? >> anita maio, pillsbury. i'm just a little confused why the commission would want to propose legislation declared unconstitutional when there was similar legislation or it was interpreted in your previous version of the campaign law -- >> vice chair kopp: all right. i will answer you. my answer would be that i trust whatever is adopted will be the constitution. hope springs eternal. that's the time attention and

effort with groups that i will characterize experts in the field, as well as our staff who are, which is composed of people who are experts in the field. >> i understand that. based on precedence there are major issues. >> vice chair kopp: my deceased friend and lawyer, fred s. cooper of alameda county said anything that makes work for lawyers can't be all bad. okay. any other public comment? if not -- >> i want to add one other thing if i may, chair kopp before the commission votes on this matter. >> vice chair kopp: what? >> i want to say for my own part i well recognize what is on their plate and this is a critical task. >> vice chair kopp: why critical?

>> because they have been out of date for years. >> vice chair kopp: so what. show me an effect. show me a complaint that hasn't been perfected. >> well it's not necessarily about ethics complaints it's more about compliance and making sure candidates understand the lay of the land. what i clearly understand from the commission, you do want to devote attention to the proposed contribution limit. so to give pat a little more bandwidth i will commit with speaking with commissioner renne and others he brought into this effort to start the assessment of the legal issues

which i think is clear to everybody in this room, prior to the next meeting. but not necessarily make any change to the policy plan at this time. that would just be a suggestion on my part to keep these balls moving as fast as we can. >> vice chair kopp: it's up to those who vote. any questions, comments? if not, i'm going to ask all in favor of those two policy projections taking precedence, as fast as possible. >> commissioner ambrose: the comment i want to make is basically the same that it's a matter of balancing. i am concerned about the regulations being out of date because ch the new law that went into effect in january. i think if we are going to be effective and we are going to impose additional requirements, then we need to follow-up and make sure everybody understands what they are and how to apply

them and not accept the works or waste a bunch of campaign time. with respect to this issue i'm not nearly as up-to-date as you are but i understand the constitutional claim. and i think the suggestion that we work through with the lawyers. like i would like to know who they are that drafted it. what their strategy is. what their position, so we could have discussions. we could have a session where people come together and talk about it in anticipation of bringing it to the commission without taking up ford's time in the short-term. i don't know how you balance it. i hate to interrupt the priority program. i like to support the staff. >> vice chair kopp: i want to comment on that. we are a commission. we are presented with

three-pages of potential, more than three-pages project. it's our responsibility to exercise our individual judgments. that motion which is pending is based upon my judgment. and it may be influenced a bit by sentiment because i came of age and through experience of respecting colleagues and their particular problems and interests and this has been an interest of commissioner renne. i share the interest. so do i hear from tens of san

franciscans about this issue. expenditures and i respect the view point expressed by ms. maio as much as i do the view point expressed by mr. marsteller and i hope common cause. so i'm prepared to vote. you want to be heard, commissioner lee? >> commissioner lee: yes, thank you. i just have a question. is it possible for us to hold i.p. meeting between now and the next meeting over the i.e. proposal? how quick can you put that together? >> maybe i can answer that question. i do want to also frame this, this is not a disrespect to any member of the commission who is exercising a strong interest in pursuing legislation of

interest, it is our responsibility to be able to tell you as best we can with all candor about the work that's before us so we are effective. and to help manage expectations of yours and the publics about what we are capable of achieving at this point. i believe it's going to be very difficult to have an interested persons meeting that is effective and useful to you at this next meeting on november 17th between now and then. that would be the next commission meeting november 17th. the following commission meeting is scheduled for december 21st, which is a friday before the end of the year holidays. and so given that we are in a mode to put together public financing regulations in legislation, that we also have preparation under way for the anti corruption and accountability ordinance which will become operative on the first of january which we still have to do significant amount

of work to achieve. given we have gotten into discussions about employee-filing for all and there are c-4 regulations we think need attention. we are very, very -- it's difficult to deliver that, i don't think. i don't want the commission to have an expectation that will be delivered in a meaningful way. that would be my rather long answer to your question. it's important for us to make sure we are bringing back to you valuable insights, thoughtful analysis so you can make informed decisions. i don't think we could do that by november 16th-17th's meeting. we would have to have the interested persons meeting, the report concluded by november 9th. i would also just note we have other wrinkles early december. the first part of december, a number of the senior staff are

going to the annual covo conference so that will affect our ability in terms of new issues. think if the commission wants to proceed with this it will impact our ability to deliver some of those other items at this particular juncture. i just want to make sure that's conveyed to make sure you are considering that set of factors, as well. >> commissioner lee: i totally recognize the time constraints and duelling responsibilities. but at the same time, i'm trying to find a way to get -- because the i.e. issues is also included in priority one. the public finance program. that was sort of included in

the report. if i may ask commissioner renne. my understanding of the i.p. meetings, of course we aren't going to just put a meeting together and have people come. there is a lot of prep work and a lot of follow-up activities. to what extent if we go this route to have i.p. meeting can an outside organization help put together this i.p. meeting for the commission? so that already we know, not outside but there are interested groups interested in this area and they would

definitely want to come. if there is a way for people to help the staff to put that meeting together, that one meeting together to get the conversation started, we may proceed without this as a top priority. but i just think that the minimal thing that we can do right now, or we can consider is see if we can get the i.p. meeting to get the folks together in one room to talk about this so that we can, some of us can decide how to proceed. so my question is, is it possible if we were to get interested parties to help staff put together the i.p. meeting between now and november. is that possible? is it feasible? >> i think the question can we have a meeting, we can identify if there's a room, the time and notice the room.

in terms of preparation to make it the most meaningful session, we would have to do some liaison work with whoever the groups are who are interested. identify a list of questions, try to get questions to bring back information. if we are able to find a room is it theoretically possible to do the meeting? yes, of course, we can coordinate with people. but that will mean some of the public financing work and a.c.l. preparation work will be set aside for the time that is happening. we have to be careful those also may not be delivered in the time frame that the commission hoped and has planned for. >> i would say what makes a meeting ethics commission i.p. meeting as opposed to an external round table of groups is that it is organized by the

ethics commission. i think for it to be ethics commission interested persons meeting we would have to reserve the room, put it on our website and that's not what's time consuming. i can do that fairly quickly. i think it's to what extent will we be able to internalize what people say, integrate it into a report, provide it. we can do it but of course it will delay some of these other things a bit. >> commissioner lee: i'm just saying we need a substantive i.p. meeting. that results in critical information to move forward. >> vice chair kopp: all right. you have 100 days to do it. do you want to identify the

organizations? >> i don't know who they are. >> vice chair kopp: and you? do you want to identify them now? >> commissioner renne: i don't recall the name of the organizations but two of them -- [off mic] >> vice chair kopp: do you know, mr. marsdeler? >> friends of ethics has compiled a very robust list of probability 100 pages of the current leadership of every organization in the city. >> vice chair kopp: well name a few of them. >> common cause league of women voters come to mind obviously in this area. but it included every civic organization in the city. and there's 50 of them under the umbrella for the coalition for san francisco neighborhoods

which is very supportive of the type of work we do. it's also on a p-drive, what do they call those things? >> thumb drive? >> thumb drive. we provided that to the commission, thumb drive with the paper document. so you have both of those as we do and you can communicate universally through that device using a standard spreadsheet. it was prepared by an attorney in our organization who was actually a techy as well. i'm not a techy, think this is usable and active. >> vice chair kopp: thank you. thank you. all right, call the roll, please. >> commissioner ambrose? >> so the motion to amend the policy prioritization plan, as you stated? >> vice chair kopp: yes. >> commissioner ambrose? >> commissioner ambrose: i'm

all in favor of developing this issue further, but i don't want to take the code of regulations off the to-do list, so i'm going to vote no. >> commissioner renne? >> commissioner renne: aye. >> commissioner kopp? >> vice chair kopp: aye. >> commissioner lee? > commissioner n. yee: no. >> 2-2 vote. three votes are required. no action. >> commissioner ambrose: if you want to ask that we do start working to put together a meeting. i don't know if you call it an interested parties meeting. i don't think inviting everybody in the world would be my agenda. i think there is some apparently very complicated legal issues and strategy

issues proceeding with this, while there's a lot of support for doing that, i need to have a better understanding of the strategy. so that's the meeting that i want to get organized. and i can do that on my own. >> commissioner renne: let me say, some months ago i provided a legal memorandum prepared by the group. which lays out all of the legislation and where it's pending in the united states in areas where it's been approved and the name of the organization. i will resend all of that to all of the commissioners and to -- >> i would appreciate that. >> and the local city attorneys have been very much in the forefront. i know they wouldn't be embarrassed if i identified, one is scott enbridge and the other is dennis afka. >> commissioner ambrose: and i know them both.

>> vice chair kopp: is there a motion to tell them what to proceed on here? what to do on all these policy projects? >> commissioner kopp, i might suggest unless there's the other change i don't think the commission needs to take a vote on the plan. >> vice chair kopp: let's go to item 8. enforcement report for the october, for this meeting. it's six pages. has everybody read it? anybody desire anything besides the six pages? any public comment on it? if not, we have all read it and we will go to number 9. which is the executive director's report. >> thank you, judge kopp, or commissioner kopp. as the memo notes we have a

staff to help with front counter during election time. kami has joined us from the elections department and will be a terrific asset. also we did have progress on the five positions that were posted for applications, the window closed september 21st, all those positions are now in the exam phase so that is proceeding as the city's processes allow. we also did finally move back in our office space this last, last week and we hope to have all team members back on the same floor in another, a couple of weeks. we are working with real estate to make that happen and finalize the last changes. very much appreciated their leadership