e-l-l-e-n -- >> the friday before a long weekend, so we'll start with the roll call. [roll call] >> okay. commissioner lee is under the weather and unable to join us today. agenda item number two, public comment on matters appearing or not appearing on the agenda. >> can i ask, is this two minutes or three minutes? it says two minutes in front of

me. [inaudible] >> thank you, ethics commissioners. my name is el len lee zhou, e-l-l-e-n l-e-e z-h-o-u. i have been working as a -- >> vice chair kopp: [inaudible] >> i am also the director of public relations for the california krisk grand jury association, the san francisco chapman they are. i am trying to practice good government practices. as a resident, i have been coming to you, report to you about abusive powers within the electoral offices. who purposely created laws to welcome criminals and support illegal activities to raise our public dollars, such as sanctuary city and sanctuary state. we are no longer a people government.

i was one of the eight candidates to run for mayor for the june 5, 2018 election. i went through the election process, and i found many holes in the unfair and unjustified campaign process. during the campaign process, i was not allowed to join more than 20 mayoral debates and forums in public places, including city hall and with televised programs, and public libraries. that is misleading the voters. i later found out many of those debates and community events supported by super pac, which is organized by democrats and democratic relates agents. i was being discriminated because i was not white, and i am not black, and i am not democrat. today, i'm here to request you as ethic commission to review the election process that we are engaging, the people who paid, paid to play with unlimited money. for example, contributions from

cannabis operators who willfully violate our federal law and our constitutional rights. the united states flag. every time you start, but in here, you don't start. it says, the flag of the united states america, to the republic under which it says, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. for many of the declarations, they have been repealed or amended, but the one, 242 years ago, america didn't hahad a lo rights, that we are protected with our constitutional for safety and health. our voting system is corrupt. 120% overqualified means the people who are not qualified to vote but voted, like people who are undocumented citizens, they're not qualified, they are illegal immigrants. they are nonexisting residents. they have also voted.

which means i have come and ask you for fair election and protect the public. people have the right to know how corrupt the government has been running, and you guys are in here judges, attorneys for the city. you are not serving the united states, you are not serving the united states of america, you are serving a self-contained dictatorship, a tyranny government in here because you do not hear the public comments and complaints. thank you. >> chair chiu: thank you. other public comment on agenda items appearing or not appearing on the agenda? >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is luann bassen, b as s-e-n. i last testified here in october 28 with regard to the abuse of power exercised by your administrative office and the executive director, and we had the opportunity to discuss the write of mandate which

had -- writ of mandate which had been issued by the superior court a few days earlier. i recently received a communication from your executive director's office, fining me $10 allegedly because i filed a form one day late. allegedly, the form 161, the statement for mass mailings was filed a day late. i hand delivered this form and got a date-stamped copy, this form, and the other form, on the same day, october 12. pursuant to the ethics commission's guidelines, i delivered this within five business days. i objected to their attorney -- and he said he had to defer. now, this is what happened. it took 67 days for the office to figure out that i allegedly was one day late. 67 days? they drafted a letter on

december 18, which was never sent to me. i never got a hard copy. instead, it was e-mailed to me six days later, on december 24, which is christmas eve. i was given exactly 14 days to respond, till january 7. the problem is counsel for the office new -- knew i was on vacation at that time, and i think this was a deliberate and vicious attempt by the administrative office to try to make my life more of a nightmare than they've already made it. why does it take this office 67 days to draft a letter which isn't even mailed, and then, to e-mail it on christmas eve? what kind of abusive power is this office exercising? you are the commission above this office.

i urged you, on october 19, to do an audit to figure out what is going on behind your backs in that office. now, i have to tell you that i was advised this afternoon when i came in by mr. jeff pierce, sitting right here in front of me, whom i've never met before, that apparently this issue has come to miss pelham's attention, and they realize that they forgot about the holiday. see, i was right. i was within five business days because holidays don't count, and they realized they forgot the holiday, and miss pelham will be issuing me a waiver letter. now i have asked for a letter of retraction and to make sure my name is removed from my black list that they try to create. so i appreciate mr. pierce approaching me and letting me now this -- know this, but i do not have this letter, and therefore, i'm bringing this to your attention.

if i get the letter promptly, i won't have to appear next month. otherwise, i will be back. as i said last time, i am making it my mission to dissolve this office because it is out of control, and it is entirely abusive. and please take that into consideration and have an audit of this office. thank you. >> chair chiu: thank you. >> vice chair kopp: i have a question. >> chair chiu: yes, commissioner kopp? >> vice chair kopp: miss, what is it that you pay? $10? >> they want $10. >> vice chair kopp: have you made $10? >> no, because i'm not late. >> vice chair kopp: all right. that's all i asked. >> all right. thank you. >> vice chair kopp: through the chair to miss pelham, what is the $10 for? >> we communicated incorrectly, as it turns out, with miss

bassen about a $10 one-day-late fee for filing. we did not take into account the extension because of a holiday. we were wrong, and -- >> vice chair kopp: all right. is the $10 cancelled? >> the $10 is cancelled -- has been cancelled, and she will be receiving a letter to that effect. >> vice chair kopp: all right. there is nothing pending, and for the record, i do not believe the ethics commission of the city and county of san francisco is out of control. thank you, madam chair woman. >> chair chiu: thank you. other public comment? >> good afternoon, commissioners. john avalos. i'm here to speak on the consent calendar, item number four, in the matters that the proposed stipulate -- >> we'll wait to get to number four. item number two on matters appearing or not appearing on the agenda.

still. >> vice chair kopp: when item four is called, then you'll be invited to speak. >> thank you. >> chair chiu: any other public comment for agenda item number two? >> good afternoon. so my understanding is that this has to do with anything that's on the agenda or not, right? >> chair chiu: yes. >> so i'd like to -- because the amount of time we have is so short, i'd like to give my -- some of think thoughts on the public financing -- my thoughts on the public financing proposals starting now, and then more later. would that be okay? >> vice chair kopp: that's item five. >> we'll take -- >> these are items that are on the agenda. that's what it says, doesn't it? >> chair chiu: i would ask the deputy city attorney to clarify whether public comment can be given twice on an agenda item. >> mr. givner: deputy city

attorney jon givner. the way the ethics commission's bylaws are structured, which i think is atypical for many city commissions, the general comment can be both items that are appearing on today's agenda or not appearing on today's agenda, so it's okay for members of the public to comment on items that are appearing on the agenda. although typically, in these situations, the public comment comes with the agenda item. but mr. hill could speak on public financing now during general public comment and also speak on item five when public comment is called on that item. >> chair chiu: i see. okay. thank you. go ahead. >> thank you. my name's steven hill. i'm one of the original coauthors of the prop o, which was passed in 2000 that setup the public financing law in san francisco. and i was also involved in subsequent amendments in 2005-2006 to extend that to the mayor's office, and then also amendments in 2009 and 2012.

so i have a long history with this, and i also was responsible for getting 15% of the public financing money to go to staff to administer this law because we understand that there's work involved, and i'm very sensitive to that. and i'm sensitive to the issues that the staff has raised about how much work has become to administer this law currently, and we've proposed a number of alternative ways to fix that issue other than what staff are proposing. i believe what the staff are proposing would actually be very dangerous to this law and would undermine it. later on, you're going to hear testimony from the city of los angeles, that this law of lifting the spending caps is already in place, and how this that's led to a huge increase in campaign spending, and that it actually -- we have numbers to show that our law, even with the flaws that it has, is much more effective in that way than what we have in los angeles. i don't think we want to import

into san francisco what they have in los angeles that is very flawed. we instead propose a scalpel approach instead of a cleaver approach. there are other ways to deal with this that we are going to propose. the -- what the -- the staff is proposing, they say in their report that it would not remove spending limits for participating candidates, but i ask you to think about this a little more deeply. they say the spending limits apply as long as no candidates reach the spending limits, and then once candidates reach the spending limits, the spending limits don't apply anymore. that kind of scircuitous spending, that's a catch 22.

i would say doing that gives you a public perception problem. we're already asking the taxpayers to pay for money for politicians. so we can't be able to say to them, you know, there actually is some expenditure to this. we're going to have to say no, there are no expenditure limits. candidates get to spend whatever they want, we just want some of it to be public money. i think that's not a smart way to go. the current expenditure limits have actually been moderately effective. if you look at the data from l.a., you'll see that. and also when you even look at the staff report in their graph, what you see is that the staff report graphs show that candidates are actually -- expenditure limit is being lifted several weeks in the mayor's race looks like to be about a month later in the current system than what it would be in the staff proposal. their view is well, it's, like, not that much to make a difference. well, in a campaign, three weeks, a month, is a

lifetime -- >> chair chiu: time. >> yeah. so i think that really, these -- are these expenditure limits working as well as we would like in? no. in the age of citizens unites, but they are working to some degree. i'll have more to say later. >> chair chiu: i have a question for you, mr. givner, as the deputy city attorney. thank you for clarifying earlier about the ability to give public comment more than once. how does that apply to the consent calendar because i don't want to be unfair to mr. avalos who is wanting to comment on agenda item number four during the call for comment on agenda item number two. >> mr. givner: same ru rule applies. so former supervisor avalos can speak during general public comment even on the matter that's on the consent calendar or can wait until general

public comment. >> chair chiu: thank you, mr. avalos. >> thank you, and i appreciate the opportunity to speak. it's not easy to come before you to talk about what i'm going to be talking about, but i had come to say that i accept the settlement that i have made with the ethics commission. this has been going on for quite a number of years. i ran for mayor in 2011, and i acknowledge that there were very serious short comings in my treasury's ability to keep records. while we had no misspending of any kind, we actually delivered $48,000 back to the ethics commission because we didn't spend all the money we got from public financing. we wanted to make sure that we were frugal in our efforts, and part of that is a network of volunteers who weren't able to keep track of the paperwork. so that's what the settlement

is, to keep track of that. i accept the responsibility of my campaign's short comings, and i am willing to deal with the consequences of that. i feel like the consequences have gone on for a number of years, especially for the paperwork that we attempted to find, and also the effort that the commission took through going our campaign took a lot of time and effort, and so i'm prepared to deal with that. lastly, i would like to say this is a tremendous amount of toil on my life, and i'm really eager to get it behind me, and look forward to -- to that starting tomorrow. thank you. >> chair chiu: thank you. commissioner? >> vice chair kopp: i'm not clear, mr. avalos. did you speak to object to this proposed stipulation? >> no, i did not. >> vice chair kopp: all right. >> i did not. quite the contrary.

>> chair chiu: okay. thank you. other public comment? >> hi. i'm larry bush. i'm making a comment about item number five, even though i'll come back to item number five because it's got so much in it that it's difficult to use the time fully for what i want to say. one of the items on item five is agenda -- is an amendment two, which has to do with penalties or ineligiblities to participate in the program. i have objections to two aspects of that. one is the trigger for being ineligible is that you have failed to disclose appropriately the money that you spent or the money that you took in. so it's essentially you are ineligible to participate if there was $10,000 or more that was not reported in your campaign. there is no penalty, however, for spending the money

illegally. so let's say you have someone who spends public funding to put signs in city buses, which is a violation of our law, but not an ethics law. or puts up signs on polls, which is a violation at d.p.w. those things do not fall within the jurisdiction of ethics, and they are not addressed at all in this proposal. you get off scot-free, you can go ahead and spend money for things that are illegal, and if ethics aren't going to enforce it, and the other people don't enforce it, it has no consequences on future participation in public financing. that's number one. number two is the penalty is based on even unintentional violations. and considering, as mr. avalos just said, many low-budget campaigns rely on volunteer treasurers, this is a disincentive for community participation in campaigns. in effect, you'll ask to end up

hiring a professional treasurer to make sure that all the work is done properly. and as we saw in the mayor's race, even when they hired professional consultants, things were not always done appropriately. so i think when you look at that issue, you should put it over and add to the issues of spending that is in violation of city's ordinances, and that it has to be an intentional violation, not an unintentional violation. thank you. >> chair chiu: thank you. other comment -- public comment on item number two? okay. so we'll move onto items in the consent calendar. item three is the draft minutes for the ethics commission december 21, 2018 regular meeting, and item number four, the proposed stipulation, decision, and order in the matter of john avalos, ethics commission complaint 13-150618.

are there any members of the commission -- >> i'm sorry, correction. since you put my name in the front about a draft minutes in last week, you put it down in here that i said i was not allowed to participate in all debates. that was not true. i said any debates. >> chair chiu: excuse me. i have not yet called for public comment. i'll invite you up in a moment. thank you. >> vice chair kopp: i just have one suggestion, and that is on page four, under public comment by mr. marstellar, i think the word "acted" should be inserted after "department." so it reads, "he was pleased to see the planning department acted on the issue."

>> chair chiu: okay. >> vice chair kopp: i'll move approval as amended. >> commissioner renne: i'll second. >> chair chiu: there's a second. all in favor? [voting] >> chair chiu: i'm sorry. public comment. miss zhou, did you have public comment on the minutes? >> i apologize that i came in here, that i didn't hear it well. i want to correct the record because i did not say all debates, i said more than 20 debates and forms. that means many, i was not allowed. but not all. the minutes in here, in the public comments, ellen lee zhou had stated that she spoke many times and is asking to review the election process. as a former candidate for mayor, she stated that she's not allowed to participate in all debates. the word "all" itself is a

problem. i did not say all debates, i said many debates. thank you. >> chair chiu: okay. okay. move to -- >> vice chair kopp: i move it is accurate, the number of debates is not specified, and it states accurately that she said she didn't participate in all of them. again, i move approval. >> commissioner renne: second. >> chair chiu: okay. all in favor? [voting] >> chair chiu: minutes are approved. okay. agenda item number four. are there any commissioners who wish to discuss this separately -- to discuss this? all right. public comment? public comment? okay.

motion to -- make a motion to approve -- >> vice chair kopp: move to approve ch. >> chair chiu: second. all in favor? [voting] >> chair chiu: the item is approved unanimously. agenda item number five is discussion and possible action on draft ordinances regarding the public financing program. commissioner ambrose? >> commissioner ambrose: i see there are a lot of people here to testify. i'm interested in being educated on these issues, but i also know that commissioner lee had asked last time that we continue this item for action because she wanted to vote on it, and since she's sick, is it possible that we can take the testimony, have time to think about it? i'm sure she can watch the testimony on sfgtv and wait to

vote at the next meeting in february , if th? if that would be acceptable, that would be something i would propose. >> chair chiu: is that a motion? >> commissioner ambrose: yeah, a motion. >> chair chiu: i would second that. welcome public comment today, but then, we would actually vote on it at the following meeting. commissioner kopp? >> vice chair kopp: well, my comment is i don't want to do something twice, and i can see the logic in taking public comment today and moving it to continue because i note the number of people who have communicated with others and me on the subject would suggest that if public comment is taken today, public comment at the

february meeting be limited to information and statements which were not made today to the extent humanly possible. >> chair chiu: ask the city attorney if we could put those conditions on public comment at the next meeting on this agenda item? >> mr. givner: you can't put that condition formally on public comment. if the agenda item is on the agenda, any member of the public can come and speak on it. you can definitely ask at next week's meeting to encourage people to focus on new comments, but you cannot limit the contend of their comments. >> vice chair kopp: all right. i'll second the motion so encouraging people, assuming the motion's adopted. >> commissioner renne: that injure motion, that you're seconding? i don't know what the motion is. >> chair chiu: i think the motion was to take public comment today on agenda item

number five but to holdover or defer action on it until the february meeting, such time when commissioner lee can join us, and that i believe mr. -- commissioner kopp would like to offer a friendly amendment to that motion, that those providing public comment on that agenda item limit it to new commentary. >> vice chair kopp: mm-hmm. >> chair chiu: does that capture -- >> vice chair kopp: yes. >> chair chiu: okay. so that is the motion, and i believe there was a second from commissioner renne? >> commissioner renne: no. >> chair chiu: no? okay. not for that one. >> commissioner renne: i guess the difficulty i have, and i probably won't be here at that meeting, is that this is a very important issue, and if we leave it open to february ,

which is fine. i don't have any opposition to that, but if we leave it open to february , i think that we should take whatever public comment there is without restrictions on people responding to it, whether they responded and made the same comment in january . that's all. it may extend it a little bit, but it's an important enough issue to have a -- the public fully involved. >> chair chiu: so the motion stands. it was not seconded, so is there a second for the motion to -- to -- take public comment today, have -- take action in february , but to encourage those who provide public comment to limit themselves to

things new or not been heard before? commissioner renne? >> commissioner renne: remember, you may have a new commissioner at that point who won't have heard those comments, so any limitation on it, seems to me, is unfair to him or her, as the case may be. >> chair chiu: i think to be clear, the city attorney, and make sure that everybody who's here hears this, i think they understand that there is no restriction. they can comment and give exactly the same testimony. i what commissioner kopp is saying, don't do it on our behalf since we will have heard you and taken it to heart. i don't think it has any effect. i am concerned about the prospect that you won't be here. i guess i'm assuming that you're still here now, no one's been nominated, you have the right to holdover, that the

d.a. will just keep you around another 60 days. but i still think we shouldn't vote on it today, given commissioner lee's explicit request. so can we -- go ahead. >> vice chair kopp: are you finished? as commissioner renne reminds us that you want to have a new commissioner to hear testimony, and therefore, it's not practical, in my opinion, to try to adopt a rule against repeating oneself. i think i will withdraw that idea, and i will support a motion to take testimony today and to continue, and i'll make such a motion, continue it to

the february meeting. >> commissioner renne: i'll second. >> vice chair kopp: yeah. they're astute enough to know they don't want to waste the public's time, too. thanks. >> chair chiu: okay. so we have the motion. >> commissioner renne: i second it. >> chair chiu: and with a second from commissioner renne. all in favor -- >> i have a comment. >> chair chiu: we don't need to have public comment. we'll have public comment on -- >> mr. givner: item five. >> chair chiu: on item five, yes. >> this is public comment on the vote to hear today but have the actual vote in february . >> chair chiu: it's public comment on all of agenda item five, not just the motion. >> in that case, here are the points that i would like to make to you tonight. >> chair chiu: okay. >> one is that please include in the packet in february all

the written comments that have been submitted to you because what you have in your packet today only includes one written comment. i understand there is a question of how timely some things are submitted, but you'll have plenty of time to put things into the february pack. i myself have asked for my submit to be included at the desk, and i have sent it to each member of the commission. it's not at the desk, and as far as i know, there's no way the public knows that i submitted comments on the public financing thing. that's number one. number two is that when you turn it over to february , you also allow for further amendments as it proceeds, which would be the normal course of business. i took a look at what i think is the most important thing is the purpose of the public financing act is to ensure greater participation by

candidates and by a greater sense of trust by the public, and if you take a look at how money is flowing into our campaigns, i look, for example, at independent expenditure committees and campaign committees of candidates, and independent expenditure committees aimed at a specific candidate outmatched what is being available by public dollars by a considerable amount of money. that's the documents that i submit to each of you. the point being that playing around with how the public dollars are allocated without addressing the fact that there's independent expenditure money aimed at a can't did the has not -- at a candidate has not been addressed. yet if you read the law that's been passed, it specifically says the purpose of the law is to address independent expenditure committees for or against canndidates.

in talking to other jurisdictions, it is parent you can do that if the contributions are coming from people who have business before that candidate, and i've got that from the campaign legal center, as well as from common cause and other groups. so i would urge that you take a look at that because that will have a significant impact on how much is needed to match it from dollars. i recommend that you read the memo i sent. thank you. >> thank you. >> my name is ellen zhou, and i am here to represent myself, not the fed government. i am -- i have been -- i have been living in san francisco for the last 33 years. i see people come and go, come and go, you know, elected

offices. i help people campaign before, and i realize that how bad our campaign finance itself is a problem. i see this article l.a., how good this is, los angeles. according to the election integrity campaign project, l.a. alone removed 1.5 million voters because they are dead people, they don't exist, they are illegal, they are not qualified. 1.5 milli 1.5 million voters been removed from san francisco voter system. if we are learning something from the corrupted systems like los angeles, like oakland, like san francisco itself, we learn the system, that we are a deep state, we are a system operated by people who are having mon and supported the superpac.

last month, when i was here, the reports, the people in the ethics department give a report. the report says alone, 2018 alone, the public money was matching 4.16 million public dollars. as a citizen, as a public government employee, as a mom, we have no future in san francisco because of all this corruptive behavior. the super pac was created by people who are super corrupt for the city. we have no end, no future for our society because we are no longer a people government. you discuss what the people want behind you, and you implement the laws to interests, somewhere the illegal stuff and corrupted stuff. i am here to urge you, we

should have limited -- still have limited public funds. in the old days, we went out and talk with people, the residents, how we can be improving. clean the city. remove the drug dealers from the street, help the homeless, heal people, give people life. use the money effectively for sanctuary city and sanctuary state, california, 2017 spent $ $27 billion on illegals. that's money that we can use for publics. you repeatedly corrupted and not help the people. so please, you could make it matching and save the money and use it for after-school programs and help the homeless. thank you. >> thank you.

>> good afternoon, president chu and commissioners. i've run a number of campaigns in san francisco under the public financing system, which i think gives me a bit of a unique blend of experiences. i ran a supervisor campaign in district three in 2008, and i ran a mayor's race, jane kim's mayor's race last year. so i have the point of view from the position of an advocate and someone who tries to create the rules. i certainly concur with the staff objective, and i really am speaking specifically to the proposal to eliminate the spending limits in the event that any candidate exceeds them, or the candidates, i.e., exceeds them. i certainly agree with the objectives on page two and

three of the memo. and then, the second objective in there is -- the argument is that it doesn't do much, it has no benefit. this proposal is wrong. it does neither. the second is simply, the facts don't bear it out. there's charts, in an attempt to back this up, that because candidates already go over the spending limit, why do we need a spending limit when candidates are already going over it. staff is not proposing limiting it entirely, i understand that, but the effect will be the same. certainly, likely the races that are competitive this fall, under the proposal, there would be no spending limit once the races got under waway, and tha would be because of spending candidates, that would be

because of i.e., do as they wish. but as the los angeles candidates, there, where they have the system being proposed, the leading candidate for mayor spent 136% above the spending limit, whereas london breed, our current mayor, spent 56% under the limit. our current system doesn't restrict spending entirely, but it does have effect. and more in my experience, and i met with the executive director and mr. ford, i run these campaigns. i've been in the room day one when campaigns are shaping how they're going to spend that money, and knowing those limits are in effect, not window dressing, that's almost going to disappear, has a huge effect on who we talk to, on how we raise money, rather than simply raises as much from as many big donors as possible. the current system encourages candidates to raise smaller

amounts. it's in my letter. i do want to encourage -- >> vice chair kopp: move an additional minute. >> thank you, commissioner kopp. rather than simply do away with spending limits, this would also dramatically stream line the program for staff and candidates. as my letter states, a change, two things, about -- within the current system about the lifting of the limits. number one, change the increment. right now, in a much bigger race, i would pick 50,000. that would limit the number of times the i.c. would be raised. and second and in tandem, rather than have -- require that entire amount be raised, simply say the moment one penny over the limit is raised by one

candidate, the other candidates get to lift their limit, so that way, you encourage candidates who are playing by the rules to play by the rules. you dramatically limit the number of times the spending limit goes up, and you simplify the system better than i just did. thank you for your time. >> thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. commissioners, and chair chu. >> vice chair kopp: i'm sorry. can you speak into the microphone. >> good afternoon. i'm kathrin ashworth,

a-s-h-w-o-r-t-h. my supervisor submitted a letter to you, residing in los angeles. he speaks to you of the matching fund system in l.a. so hopefully some of what you say will be familiar to you. we're a nonprofit organization working on the issue of many in politics in california since 2002, with more than 150,000 supporters who really care deeply about improving california's campaign finance system. over the years, we have worked with los angeles to improve their matching fund system, haven't engaged much with san francisco's system during that time, however, the proposed changes right now are so troubling, we need to feel we need to weigh in, which is why i'm here. los angeles's matching fund system has several rules we would encourage san francisco to look at as part of a

comprehensive package like the new 6:1 matching rate, and the fact that only residents of the city are matched. however, we believe it would be a grave mistake to emulate parts of the los angeles system, and there are a few. for instance, the fact that expenditure ceilings are lifted complete at the first sign of significant independent expenditure, and also that they use expenditures rather than contributions as a figure for lifting the ceiling. as john gollinger was just mentioning, we submitted in a letter of analysis in -- how it's working in l.a., with the limits that they use, so you can see that when san francisco's current method of raising the mayoral expenditure ceiling in increments of

$100,000 limited the greatest spending mayoral candidate last cycle, london breed, to only a 53% increase, whereas in l.a., the largest spending candidate, eric garcetti, ended up spending 137% more because the spending cap is completely lifted in los angeles. so both steven hill and john gollinger have made requests. we'd be happy to work with the commission and san francisco campaign finance reform community and advocates to craft a comprehensive set of amendments to make san francisco's system combines with what works in l.a., what's working here, and what works in

other places, which it would probably have to gain enough support to be able to pass with enough supervisors. thank you for your time. >> thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i'm thinking that you should know what's on the table, and that is the california clean money document and mr. steven hill's proposals, all comprehensively done and presented. but not at the table is mr. bush or mr. gollinger. i assume mr. gollinger submitted something in writing. it's in the packet? great. and that is in agenda item five, which is a very thick packet, so if anybody on the

floor wants to know what's on the table, that's what's on the table. and i would view this as kind of an interested person session we're having today, and we could add a little talk therapy or group therapy if you want, but otherwise, i think we'll work well together. >> thank you. other public comment? >> before we leave -- go ahead. >> go ahead. >> no, no. >> good afternoon, commissioners. steven hill. so in terms of the staff report, there's a lot of information there. so i just want to point out a couple of the problems with that report. so for example, they report that roughly 80% of public finance candidates in 2018, that the spending limit's basically made no difference because they never -- you know, they didn't have to be lifted

for them. that's because of 80% of candidates don't have much money. they have some public finances, but they don't have that much. you don't want to gear the public financing program around the poorest candidates. they're not the problem. it's the candidates with big money. those are the ones you want to figure out how to put the rules around so they don't just have a spending cap that goes to infinity. so there's a number -- we already mentioned about the graphs -- i guess beauty is in the eye of the beholder. i look at though graphs, and -- those graphs, and i say spending limits with working. candidates are -- a few weeks to a month before the caps arist willed, compared to if you were to implement the policy that the staff had put before you. a few weeks in a campaign is a

lifetime. so the other proposed support, instead of gear it to campaign expenditure, gear it to contributions. and the problem is it would lead it to candidates hiding their contributions. because if they could hide their contributions, it means the other cad didn'ndidates' l don't get raised as quickly. if you don't have a method of reporting contributions, how many times have we seen in campaigns where suddenly, we find out after the election, that candidate had a lot more money to spend than anyone realized? so we've already heard one of the proposals that we put

forward, instead of doing the staff proposal of unlimited -- lifting the expenditures to infinity, we do it to 1,000. we also would like to see more money -- let's increase the spending cap a little bit. it hasn't changed in years and because of inflation and all sorts of other things, we should lift that spending cap, and that way, they won't be lifting those spending caps so soon into the election. we also should provide more public money, we should increase the matches at 2:1

now. other cities have gone to 6:1. new york is at 8:1. we have a number of proposals that we think meet the goals that the staff are trying to do, which we agree with, but we're asking the staff to work with us more closely, and let's go together with one proposal that has broad support, because right now, the staff support does not have any support from campaign finance advocates, and we need eight votes at the board of supervisors to pass this. i think if we're not going together to the board together with a common proposal, i think we'll have a really hard time getting eight votes. thank you so much for your time. >> thank you. >> my name is esther marks, and i definitely don't know as the

other people who have spoken before me, but i will say in 2016, for the first time, i was the treasurer for a public finance campaign, and eric willits was the public finance auditor assigned. it was great working with him. he made it very clear what was expected of me for the public candidate to qualify for public financing and matching funds. 209, i was assigned another auditor, and i am unhappy to report it was just a nightmare. i'm glad to see that one of the priorities of the department is to update and improve the information provided treasurers and candidates to participate in the program. i do agree with the other speakers that an expenditure limit should not be removed. i also agree that the definition of supportive funds

should not be expenditures but remain contributions. now with the trust account issue, i haven't talked with anyone, so i'm not clear, but it does seem that the contingency account may not be necessary since the important part is reporting of the contributions received, so i personally am open to just having all funds go into the trust account rather than a contingency account. also, at the last, i haven't read the report of june 14, but -- january 14, but i'm looking just at the october 15 report, but it is just absurd that any candidate or office holder should be penalized for prior violations by not being able to participate in the public finance program. i think it's totally personal, the basis of the supervisor proposing that as consideration, and i just think

that that's absurd. thank you. >> thank you. other public comment? okay. there being none, commissioner renne? >> commissioner renne: yeah. i wonder if i could -- go ahead. i wonder if i could ask the staff to respond why -- we set a cap, initial cap of whether or not that should be raised, i think, is a fair question. but what's the purpose of setting the cap in the first place? why do you do it? >> i think the initial cap has two purposes. one is to limit spending in campaigns, so that's kind of a general purpose. but i think a more realistic purpose for it is prevents

candidates from using the public finance program as a source of free money, meaning a candidate that already has plenty of resources to run a campaign, just using it to get extra money, right, because the way that you qualify for public financing under our system is by demonstrating a certain minimum threshold of fund raising, so if a candidate is not have to submit to any kind of spending limit, why would a candidate who's already fully resources sign up and get the money, even though they don't need it? that's why the spending limit exists there. >> commissioner renne: how does the initial cap relate to whether or not that candidate has unlimited funds and another candidate doesn't? >> it's universal for all candidates. it's established in the code.

>> commissioner renne: but i'm saying, what's the purpose, and the -- what's wrong with what's being suggested by mr. hill and mr. gollinger and others, the idea that make it a large jump to the next spending cap. >> the reason i'm not recommending that approach to you, if you look empirically at the data, it really does not appear that the incrementally adjusted spending limits are asserting any kind of limit on candidate spending, you just can't see it. that's what we try to base our reports on, is empirical

evidence. i can understand at the theory level -- >> commissioner renne: but if that's true, why have it in the first place? >> because you don't know when you enter the race if and when the limit will be removed. i agree, in most races, eventually, the limits will be lifted. i think that's true because if you look at all candidates, they eventually have the limits incrementally lifted. however, candidates don't know when that would happen. so for example, london breed's first adjustment didn't happen until may 15. that's not that much time before the election. that means she was not allowed to spend anything above the limit, $1,475,000 until after may 15. that still is a pretty serious limitation. even though her limit was raised to considerably higher than that, it was not until may 15. let's just say that a candidate

had $5 million, was able to raise $5 million, that candidate would probably not try to use the public financing system to just cash in on an extra $950,000. well, they already say i have 5 million. i already have a very competitive campaign. i can spend whatever you want. why am i going to subject myself to a $1,475,000 spending limit and i don't know when i'm going to be released from it? i might not be able to spend it until right before the election. that's the idea. it's going to discourage candidates who already have plenty of money from just taking advantage of the public financing program, and that is the -- the fixed initial spending limit right now can already do that. there's no limits that the subsequent incrementally adjusted limits are having that effect at all.

>> committee member chu: may i? >> commissioner renne: the difficulty i'm having is if you say the spending limit doesn't do anything, why put it in at all? and if it does something initially, why take it out immediately? >> i think the spending limit absolutely does something. the spending limit as a general proposal must remain in the program. >> commissioner renne: but it's not staying in the program. particularly at the number it's at now, it's going to be exceeded immediately and the cap's off. >> i don't think immediately. like, for example, london breed, her spending limit would not have been removed until may 15. she already at that point had been subjected to it for months. you can see the same thing for candidates mandelman and sheehy, that for quite a long time, they were subject to the

initial spending limit, and they could not exceed it, and that that would be the same for staff proposal, and that's the heart that the spending limit is. the point i tried to make in the report is there's a lot of value in the initial spending limit. there's not a lot of value in the incremental lift. >> chair chiu: i think that is the point that we're hearing in the testimony, and, you know, it is useful to have people who've worked on campaigns, the argument that you're making that it influences the way that they structure their campaign spending plan at the outset because they don't know when they might have permission to raise and spend more. but that time