will adjourn, and i'd like to adjourn this meeting in honor of three deceased firefighters: lynette breyer, sid diamond, and matt plescia. this meeting is adjourned in their honor. thank you.

(gavel) >> chair: good afternoon and welcome to the regularly scheduled meeting of the san francisco ethics commission. thank you all to the public for braving the smoke-pocalypse to join us today. call roll (roll call) >>agenda item two, public comment on items appearing or not appearing on the agenda. >>good after noon. i'll catch my breath. my name is ellen lee jao. i have been working for the city as a public social worker for more than ten years.

i am also an union delegate for public employees. i have been trying to practice good government practices and i was joined by the civic grand jury. i have a civic grand jury for two terms. and i am the director of public relations for the current california civic grand jury. the last time i came here to speak to you was in july 20th, 20 18. i report to you about government corruption, and i report to you about bribery, extortion, about public employees. today, i am here to report to you another item. i am here to request you as ethic commissioners, and of course public employees, to review our election process.

as you remember, i was one of the eight candidates to run for mayor. i was nominated by the san francisco coalition of good neighbourhoods to run for mayor because of all the government extortion, bribery and corruption about cannabis stores throughout san francisco. yesterday, we had a public hearing in here and we found out there is a lot of association between board of supervisors and the donors who are cannabis operators. but, i am here today to talk about the election process. you get a couple of employees in here, they walk me through the process. during the election, june 2018, i was not allowed to join more than 20 mayor candidate debates or forums in public places, such as city hall, with a lot of camera and tv and public tv and also public libraries.

i later find out many of these debate supported by super packs which are mostly paid by people who are controlling our city. and maybe including you this ethic commissioners and people who are working at ethic commissions. and those -- and those the rumour i heard. rumours are rumours but you have the duty to find out. i also found from the election project, our san francisco voter system is a hundred percent corrupt. because we have a 120% qualified people voted, which means deaf people voted, people no longer in the address voted, and unqualified illegal immigrants voted and unqualified citizens voted. we are no longer a free election process and i believe you have the duty to find out and investigate. (bell ringing). this process. and i have been communicate with him back and forward complains.

i get nowhere so i am publicly acknowledge the problems that we are facing as public employees and ask the election candidate -- and you are.... elected and appointed. i believe you are appointed to do something about our democracy in this country, that we are protected for our constitutional rights. but, that's not what i learned about san francisco election process, that i personally been through. thank you. >> chair: thank you: commissioner lee. >> yvonne lee: madam chair, i respect the public's right to express the views that i think that is really important for this commission to really ensure the public that, until there is

evidence to back up these really strong claims that undocumented immigrants are voting, i think that we need to really make the clarification that as far as we're concerned, as of today, there is no evidence that undocumented persons were voting. and, to clarify, i think this was the first time in san francisco history that immigrants were able to vote in the school board races. so, i just want to make clear that if people have heard noncitizens are voting that's because legally noncitizens who are immigrants in the city, were allowed to vote for the first

time in san francisco unified school board race. >> the announcer: children kopp. >> commissioner renne: well, i would like to ask, do you have -- step up to the podium, please. >>yes. >>do you have facts to support this in the form of documents or -- >>yes. it is supported by the election integrity. >> commissioner renne: all you have to say is yes or

>>which prohibits the object, a candidate of that penalty from participating in public financing as a candidate in the future for any given period of time, could be two years, could be five years, could be three years. doesn't that constitute a double penalty. and if it does constitute a double penalty secondary is that justified in terms of the

justice. secondly, the respected long time president of the friends of ethics, mr. larry bush, has provided yesterday a list of other violations of our governing law, which logically could also be a ground for prohibiting participation in public financing. and i have asked mr. paris to examine those, but that's a question for the commission to determine, should it be for

other violations of law than violating some part of the public financing law. and, those are meaty questions to think about. and for that reason, i'm inclined to make a motion to continue that until our next meeting. the purpose of that motion would be to ensure staff research with respect to both questions including the issue of including other offences. before making such a motion, i want to ask, what's the advantage of both of these being

merged into one, what's the disadvantage? what's the advantage of proceeding with the penalty ordinance i'll dub it, alone, and does that involve legal effectiveness in time for the 1919 -- the 2019 municipal elections. >> chair: i think from a process standpoint we have two options of enacting an ordinance. one is to put it on the ballot. there is currently no june election, june 2019 election scheduled so the next election wouldn't happen until november of 2019, so a year from now. the alternate -- and so obviously if that were to go on to the ballot this ordinance would not impact the mayoral race or any race until and after the affected time, if it's approved by the voters and goes

into effect january 1, 2020, if we go the legislative route, through the board of supervisors it would need to be approved by eight out of the 11 and if they make changes to what we send to them, they would have to then come back to us as well. and that process -- pat if you have had any conversation was supervisors, could give us -- and also there will be five new supervisors being seated in january, four -- three. sorry. >>well, i realize that, madam chairwoman. my objective is to have it take effect in time for 2019 municipal elections and that's why i would like those questions answered. >>so to your question of the relative pros and cons of moving the two ordinances together -- separately or together,, if they

were could be joined into one ordinance, there is going to be one ordinance so it will be one thing to track, one thing to go through the rules committee, one item to go before the board, so there could be a potential factor of efficiency, just by there only being one rather than two. if you have two things, they can take different courses, different supervisors may take interest in one over the other and they may -- one may go faster or one may go slower, it could happen. however, if they are put together, you will bind the fate of the reforms to the public financing program to this penalty proposal. and if the penalty proposal holds up, the ordinance the somery ordinance it will hold up reforms to the program. that could be the downside. potentially if some supervisors were to view the penalty proposal as you described as being a double penalty or if

they were to view it as being politically motivated or bad policy or what have you, it could slow down that single ordinance as a whole. it could also happen that in committee or at the full board, they decide to remove that provision from the ordinance, in which case it would not be able to take effect without coming back to you because you would then have to approve that amended ordinance but if you remove them separately if the board or committee took issue with the penalty provision they might not take issue with the reforms to the program and that it wouldn't have a effect on the financing reforms. that's the biggest pro for having two separate ordinances. >>i forgot to include one other

factor in the privileged and confidential memorandum of law from deputy of city attorney.i;q

our office gives the same advice to the board and to the mayor when that ordinance passes so all decision-maker are on the

same page. >> from a process standpoint, if we had concerns to discuss them regarding the constitutionality of the proposed ordinance, how and when could we go about doing that? >> i think the simplest way to discuss legal issues confidentially if one or two supervisors have questions is to speak with my office, with me or with the staff. if the commission wants to have a discussion about legal issues and there is a risk you have litigation, then the commission can schedule a closed discussion to close in closed session to receive legal advice. not at today's meeting but at a future meeting. >> thank you.

speaking for myself, i would like to have that discussion. it seems like commissioner kopp would like to better understand. >> commissioner kopp: i understand the issues fully. i am not going to press my opinion as to what will happen. i am not going to prejudge that. i don't get paid to do that. i think a confidential report or closed session for that purpose is justified. i have expressed myself and this commission before. i did last month. the fact that something might be unconstitutional doesn't dissuade me so long as it is a

reasonable legal issue which is presented, and it is not completely governed by precedent against it. >> commissioner chiu: could we skilled that at the december meeting to have a closed session to discuss these constitutional issues and answer any questions that commissioners may have and then have a more prediscussion with either you, john, or with andrew? >> we will schedule that at the commission's preference. >> >> commissioner ambrose: am i correct inning that the first ordinance that's beening proposed by staff doesn't raise

those legal issues and don't require the answers to the questions you posed? is there in the interest in moving that forward just in the interest of time? i mean the board can always merge the two for hearing once the second one catches up because they are related subject matter. we could at least if i am correct and the proposals that the staff is making and we considered at the last meeting on what is the principally cleaning up the whole determinations of raising the ceiling for expenditures which we all agreed was an unnecessarily lab boria imposition on staff and unnecessary for protecting the public's interest, i would be in favor of focusing on that first

ordinance and waiting the hearing in december on the penalty ordinance issue if there is an interest in doing that. >> i think the draft ordinance that appears as add attachment two. attachment one are regulations. i don't believe the city attorney's office raised red flags about the regulations. if you want to move ahead with regulations that would not be a closed session. as for the ordinance, i will ask the city attorney, deputy city attorney. i think only the third of the recommendations in the memo are what it is focused on total supportive funds to expenditures

rather than contributions. i am not sure if you are suggesting, commissioner ambrose, we remove that and move ahead with the other recommendations or if you are referring only to the regulation that are attachment one. >> commissioner ambrose: i am asking the question. i wasn't clear on what we needed further enlightenment on. >> i think commissioners kopp and chiu are referring to 2. >> it raises legal issues we need to discuss as well. >> just to follow up then on you and i would be prepared to move forward on the regulations today if that allows us to finish up

one piece of business subject to our discussing the standard every view. finally, on the attachment three, the penalty ordinance, i believe that commissioner kopp was asking for further investigation into the double penty issue. in that regard, one of the concerns that i had was whether or not there is a problem with retro activity of this penalty so that at the time that the original violation occurred or was alleged to have occurred, the candidates were not aware of these consequences that they would never be allowed to obtain public financing again. i know that retro activity and

penalties is something that is potentially a problem. when you look at that i would like to hear what your views are on the legal issues around that question. the other thing we need clear is a final audit finding, not something that was overturned by the court or subject to appeal. with that going back to the regulations. if we are adding to the list of analysis, i would like to get staff's view on final audit finding or even forcement action as the trigger for the bar. however you want to phrase it. then i would like to ask telling low commissioners view on bifurcation. we are bifurcating our own

ordinance to the extent we have regulations and legislative changes we will take up at our next meeting, but in the interest of time for our december meeting then we do have time today and it is on the agenda, two questions. one is do we want to move forward with reviewing the regulations in and of themselves and put that if it is approved, that can be incorporated into what we derm to do at the december meeting. secondarily to commissioner kopp's question and the view back from staff of tieing the two ordinances together. is there a view among the commissioners how you would like to proceed with that? for my own view i would prefer

to keep our commission ordinance together. if we have regulations and our legal changes, and that can proceed as a package with the board of supervisors then the penalty ordinance could be on the separate track. they could always be merged at a later date. this way the regulatory forms which i think are much needed and have been very well vetted both in interested persons meetings and here at the commission and would be i think very well changes to the process and could be implemented in time for next year's mayoral raise and supervisors raises that we not have them be held hostage to a process that could take longer with a penalty ordinance.

>> commissioner kopp: i don't think they should be bifurcated unless there is something more compelling. i do think we should have a closed session on the ordinance, attachment number two. i don't think the regulation should be by fir indicated from attachment two. i will make a motion to continue attachment three, that ordinance to our next meeting. i would also like a closed session to discuss the constitutional point with the city attorney and our council. >> yes, we are going to do that at the next meeting. >> commissioner kopp: next meeting.

i make a motion to continue the whole item to the next meeting. i will withdraw the motion to justin the attachment three. >> i comment through the chair. these regulations only affect the draft regulations in attachment one only affect existing law. if you approve an ordinance, another set of regulations will have to go through to update regulation to conform them with the new code changes that you make to the ordinance. these can be done by themselves. that is the way they are set up. these are two separate things. in other words, they don't have to be conjoined. i wanted to raise that so you are not surprised down the road if an ordinance is approved more regulations appear. if you change the definition of total supportive funds, there is a regulation we have to change that. these regulations that you have before you today don't do that.

for this exact reason. we can't know for sure what will happen to the ordinance when it leaves us, the board may not approve it. we can't pass regulations assuming the ordinance will go through. i wanted to point that out. >> i think i did understand that. that is what i am concerned about. there is no election in june, it is not quite as urgent as that. i want to be sure when the deadlines come around for people to seek public financing for november, there are eligibility in november that it is clear what we are proposing here that you are not going to be able to have your submittals reviewed until you filed your statement of participation or whatever it is called. i think these regulations really just literally deal with the

appeal process before. as long as we can get that done by april or may we are probably okay. >> if i might add, one of the things i think would be helpful is if the commission is comfortable with the regulations to help clarify the public finances rules, it would be helpful to have that sooner rather than later. 2019 is around the corner. as we update the guides and materials and training that would be most helpful as well. >> so if you look at your staff report, your regulatory recommendations that is just basically the first page of the memo 1 through 7 focuses on how you propose clarifying not changing the law but clarifying what you can submit to show that

your contributions were from qualified residents, when will we hear an appeal. proposing we wouldn't hear an appeal when someone missed a submittal deadline because the clarification that there wouldn't have been a final determination by the executive director because there is nothing before them. that is one of your recommendations. i don't know if -- i am happy to do it at the next meeting. i am worried we will get jammed up at the meeting if we had time to look at seven regulations today and cut that lose, i am for that. >> i would agree if we could discuss these today, take public comment today, we will not have to do that in december.

>> i will begin. item 7. commissioner ambrose, if you could give us a little background on the standard every view and your thoughts on staf staff's recommendation on appeal the commission being able to review questions of law de novo and questions of fact there is clearly erroneous standard versus the current draft which is arbitrary. >> commissioner ambrose: thank you. i am hoping that the revised staff proposal also resonate was the commission in terms of how we saw our role in the appeal that we actually heard. i consider on a factual issue

was somebody on the long list of contributors a residents or not a resident? what i was looking for on the appeals if someone could present evidence they were not given credit for contribution because for whatever reason staffer ownupsly deemed them to be nonqualifying. they present evidence they are and suddenly the $100 that person gives goes in the other column that is appropriate role for the commission on appeal to give the city an opportunity to correct a mistake. if there is more evidence. on the legal issue, i also think it is appropriate that the commission under the charter is the entity that is making a determination as to what the ordinance, which, you know, the commission would have reviewed and had insight into, what it

was intended to mean as opposed to having defense to the staff on that question. to that end i support the proposed revision. on the questions of law the commission sits de novo and exercises its on judgment of the law. on questions of fact we refer to the staff's careful review of submittals. we are not going to it is here and good through everybody's documentation. on appeal if somebody shows error we would have opportunity to correct that and move forward. arbitrary and capricious, i am going to take the position our staff will ever be arbitrary and capricious, i don't want to find out they made a mistake and to correct it i have to stretch and conclude they did it in an arbitrary manner. sometimes mistakes happen

despite due diligence. i didn't like that standard. >> where we are then is that for attachment 3, we will hold that over to the december meeting and that staff will prepare and work with the city attorney's office for a legal briefing in closed session on those issues that were raised both by attachment 3 and attachment 2. we will take public comment on agenda item number 5. >> san francisco we have a lot of residents. at the same time our public like employees 50% are not living in the city. we see a lot of problems

including the election process. i was sitting there reading the document. i went through the process. any new people running for office were not able to compete within cumbents and people relate -- incumbents. last month you have a couple people protest. one is lou ann. you rejected her. some months ago alley was rejected. i work with enough public employees to talk about how to improve the process. then other people especially new people who never run for office will know what to do. i am here to ask you if you change regulations a couple areas. to put training for new people in that sense just for the purpose of public finance because i personally did not

know and i personally did not go through that process that i was asking for help. same with lou ann. i don't know about the politician. the other one i have seen from this process if you can create some caps, our public employees that we work so hard that we don't get any assistance for child care, any assistance for public stuff, for anything else. anybody who is incumbent, who is aware of the related to the super-pac. they control my life. san francisco has not been better for many years. we have more people die on the streets and more people overdose and die on the streets. it is because you as a commission overlooked the problems that people running for

office. earlier i testified the money, the super-pac people are from similar people supporting the city government who are bought, our electoral offices. i don't know if you live in san francisco. i live in san francisco for more than 30 years. i have seen the problems the election process has been corrupt and bought. the people who wants to make change cannot be elected because of this process, public finance. if you want to help people, get them training, specifically on public finance. the other one is mayor. the mayor's position and board of supervisors who are incumbentses already. should not be having the same privileges for these people. they went through the process.

that is government race in the public practices. i said that because i have seen enough situations that people complain about a process, but the ethics commission is not stepping up. now is the time that i am glad you guys are talking about reforms to help the people to improve your life and my life so our homeless people can get housed and teachers can be appreciated for what they do instead of people over and overpay by the people running the super-pac. it is the same money. different people. same money going into public finance. it is not fair. thank you for this time. >> commissioner kopp: cop because these proceedings are

televised. i want to clarify a point raised by the witness. every member of the commission is and must be by law a resident of the city and county of san francisco. secondly, although it is beside your question, nobody on the commission is paid a penny to spend time, attention and effort on responsibilities. >> thank you, commissioner kopp. mr. ford, can you clarify what efforts will be undertaken by the commission to provide training to potential candidates as well as what we plan to do on ago forward basis after the regulations are implemented and

the new ordinance is enacted? >> sure. we provide trainings in person trainings to candidates and treasures. trainings are manditor re. we do include a reference to public finance and link to the supplemental guide for mayor and supervisor candidates containing the relevant information and let people know about the statement for participation. the introductory items. anyone who comes to the training will be aware of the program and aware of where to get the resources. when they pursue the resources we are available. we get a lot of questions about public finances. we are available to talk to people. we are going to be revicing the guide. we have to revise the guider if any of the recommendations changes are made because it will

change what is currently? the guide. as part of the larger reexamination of the program, we would like to change the guide anyway. we would like to go back, look at the guide, regard less if you move forward with the regulationregulationand find pls criticized and address that to make it the most useful document to people while keeping it at manageable length, something that candidates will not be able to work through. i think finding a way to at least provide others have found will be lacking will be part of this project. >> i encourage you and the great team behind those of you to incorporate the feedback we received from the many steak hold -- stakeholders and those running and the frustrations

they have experienced with the deadlines, how to file, how they need to file so it can be a less painful process for everyone involved. that would be my hope for an outcome. thank you. any other public comment? moving on then to discussion agenda item 6. discussion of monthly staff. >> do we have to vote. >> commissioner kopp: do we have to move to continue this? >> commissioner ambrose: we are just going to talk about the regulatory regulations and take them upna december for a vote? >> commissioner kopp: i second the motion. >> commissioner ambrose: well, i was asking a question. you could turn that into a

motion if that is what you want to do i will go along with it. everything on item 5 is put over to december. i would like to bu would like te regulations and approve them today. >> i am ready to approve. >> commissioner kopp: i am not. >> commissioner ambrose: that would be the motion to continue. >> commissioner chiu: are you making a motion? >> commissioner ambrose: i am happy to move the whole thing to december and we will consider. i think there is time to get it in the brochure and if we need to double back, we can do that as well. i will sit back and let commissioner kopp make the motion. >> i thought the motion was to

continue attachment three only and we were going to proceed. i thought we were going to -- >> commissioner kopp: my construed commissioner ambrose's motion to continue the motion. it may not be needed. that is why the chair woman proceeded to item 6. do we need a motion or not? it only refers to possible action, it being the agenda. >> i think to recap what the commission would like to do is to take attachment two and attachment three and discuss them in december in a closed session to go explore and discuss the legal issues that may be raised. the regulations which are attachment one, i think have been discussed and they could be continued to december or they

could be voted on today. >> i would make the motion we would vote on attachment 1 today and continue attachments 2 and 3 to the next meeting. >> i thoughi thought commissionp was not prepared to do that. my concern is if the regulations come back to us i would like to make a motion to substitute the proposed standard every view as per the language placed on the monitor with de novo review formatters of law if this is republished for public review at the december meeting that everyone in the public has the benefit of understanding that is

the language we would be acting on and in deference to the commission. there is no hurry. we don't need to rush this through if everyone is not ready to vote. >> i believe there was a second. you are proposing then a friendly amendment to the motion to approve the attachment 1? >> with the standard every view changed to de novo review of legal issues and clearly erroneous for issues of fact. >> yes, i would move that as an amendment to the regulations before we vote on the package of attachment 1, whether we do this at this meeting or the next meeting, i do want to amend it

to put in the language that staff recommended as the revised standard every view. i would ask for a second. >> commissioner kopp: i will accept that amendment to my motion that we approve attachment 1 as amended based on the language we were shown by staff. >> commissioner kopp. >> >> commissioner kopp: i thought it was to give the public an opportunity to comment and review that amendment. de novo is not a trivial principal, and i would think people might have opinions about it. >> commissionerly. >> commissioner lee: thank you, madam chair. my support for taking