impact. i think that staff would advise you not to change it at all. only because for, one, just the general idea of not changing the code unless you are competent it is going to have an impact to address an identified issue. it is best to leave it untouched. also, i think that it might be hard to go back later and do it again because it is like, well, the commission already acted. they did what they thought

needed to be done then. why change it so soon? i think that is probably what you would hear from the public and from members of the board. they would say you did it. let that go and see what happens. i encourage you to find what you think is the right approach now for the proper change and go for it. i think in that neighborhood of $50,000 it wouldn't have that impact to dress the issues. we recommend against that. >> pat, could you talk about how mechanically it would work to get a $50,000 or $30,000 or $100,000 raise of the ceiling. does the candidate have to have $101,000? how would it apply.

>> that would be done by apapproach two, attachment two. no, the candidate would not have to wait until the total funds were $101,000 above the spending limit. that is what we do now of the it is a minimum of $10,000 increment. that means the formula, total supported funds has to add up to a number that is more than $10,000, greater than the candidate's current spending limit. if my spending limit is $250,000, if that formula adds up to $255,000, i do not get an increase. i only get an increase when it adds up to more than $260,000. my opponent had $260,000 of ies. usually it is a combination of ie and fund-raising. the opponent has to surpass what

you are goin going to get raise. with stakeholders, we identified the issue with keeping that approach with a larger increment which is that you were to use $100,000 increment, you are forcing the candidate to wait longer to get the increase. let's say my spending limit is raised october 1st to $260,000. if we use $100,000 and didn't change you might be waiting until october 15th to get raised up to 350. that is along time for the candidate to be held. what this would do as soon as the opponent activity exceeds the spending limit you give them that bump, you do the adjustment at that time instead of waiting until the activity reaches that level. that is another change.

that is how it would work. you kind of do the change first, as soon as it is warranted instead of weights. they have commented on release. the jurisdictions that do have release are los angeles, new york, oakland, and long beach, is that right? >> is there is no formal limit? berkeley and richmond don't have a spending limit for publicly financed candidates at all? >> is on page 4 of agenda item 8. this was correct, a request to list the california cities that have a public financing program

and specify how these operate so san francisco is the only city that does this incremental increase in california, and then los angeles does a release, oakland does a release, and then long beach does not have a formal mechanism for releasing candidates. my understanding from speaking to staff there is penalty for going over is that you can't get more funds. candidates can effectively opt out, spend beyond the limit. i don't want to say it operates like release, it is not documented. my understanding that is how it goes. berkeley and richmond do not have spending limits. that is a brief survey of the california cities. you did mention new york. new york has i guess a hybrid model. they do one 50% increase.

as soon as opponent i think they use spending. as soon as that reaching 75% of the candidate's spending limit that spending limit is increased to 150% of the initial limit. starting with $500,000 limit. then the spending reaches 325. then you get raised to 750. then if the opponent reaches 750, then you are released. one big adjustment then release. i think that is unique. >> i share concern about doing the release because i think that your analysis showed that the release would not have an

impact. they wouldn't reach the spending limits. the behavior is what would change the behavior of how candidates would raise and spend money is what we heard from public comment. the underlying assumptions that would drive the trend line of spend, i think would change if there were month limit at the very end. if they could reach the magic ceiling the funding would flow. that is a concern i would have with releasing, doing release in that manner. that was your proposal one to offer release. proposal two would be to have the $100,000 and $500,000. three would be to just leave it as it is. >> that's correct. also, i want to highlight on the table that starts on page 5 of

agenda item 8 those are laid out in a brief title description and kind of evaluating the potential impact looking at sort of candidate compliance, participation rates and impact on the iec provision. i also included two suggestions that we received through public comment. those suggestions could be done in combination with one through three, you have to pick one. i will say they are inconsistent. you would want to pick one, two, three. four or five could be added on to those. they are a little different. they focus on the iec spending limit but different be aspects they could be done in isolation. >> i think proposals four and

five to me are, you know much more sub stabtive than. >> commissioner lim: nateing the trust account or increasing the stair set and would be i had thought would be more -- considered as part of the phase two, more comprehensive approach raising the initial spending limits as well as taking a look at proposal four for the ie funding. i would be inclined to take up those topics from a more broad discussion of the overall more comprehensive ordinance in a phase two which is upon us, i think, in the coming meeting.

>> so i don't know if we have any kind of consensus around how to approach this question procedurally and substantively with what is before us. what i hear among my commissioners is a desire to address the increments but not necessarily to go to the $100,000 and $500,000 proposed by staff. >> well, i was going to say thank you. i would suggest, madam chairwoman, public comments. >> i am anxious to have public comment. i am trying to recap where we

are with regard to the discussion so far and so seeing as how we have some concerns and have had some back and forth with staff we would like to inviter the public to share their views on the various approaches before us. >> i did want to take you back to basics. that is that it takes a super majority of the commission to pass. that is four votes. whenever you have got something you are dealing with, you want to always think in terms of four votes and the supermajority of the board of supervisors as well to modify a voter passed initiative. if it is a simple changed based on empirical data. commissioner smith asked is it consult to make a change or correction if we find later that there is a problem with the

amendment that we made. it is not a problem generally. it is only the controversial stuff that is going to trip you up with supermajority. i want to also say there is another very, very important provision in the law, and that it that it has to further the purposes of the act. now you are all lawyers and you can understand what that means because i am sure in law school you debated how some of that could be interpreted. it was made originally a recommendation by bob stern, and the person who wrote the political reform act in california for jerry brown back in 1974, i believe. it is the mother of all legislation that pertains to

your mandates essentially, and bob said we want to set up a mechanism that you can a the voter passed initiative but we don't want a voter passed initiative to be debased so consequently whatever amendment is made, it has to pass a test and that is to further the purposes of the act. now your by laws do not require you to issue findings to demonstrate to the public how your action or your proposed action furthers the purpose of the act, but just know that is really what must be met. that standard must be met, and it makes sense. the voters don't intend for you to dismantle the form, and that reform has been hard won and tested in the courts up until

2000 when we passed prop o. judge claudia wilkin recommended the changes today with public financing in a footnote in the brown decision. that is brown versus city and county of san francisco, which undid it. that provision is to further the purpose of the act to safeguard the voter interest in the matter. thank you. >> thank you. >> good afternoon again, commissioners. staff, could you pass around my letter to the commissioners. i e-mailed it a couple hours before the meeting. do they have it? thank you. i appreciate that. it is on the table. that is great.

i want to focus my comments on some specifics. first, i would say i am gratified that the majority of the commission recognizes that eliminating the spending limits is not the approach. i will not spend time on that. i would challenge the premise that the intent of this is to make it easier for candidates to figure things out. i recognize compliance is an invalid concern. the real intent is to make the system better and make public financing more meaningful and black politics less meaningful. that is to make it simple to unlimited spending that would have made it far less valuable to have public money. i think what you are focused on in my letter i encourage you to move forward with attachment two. the form proposed with larger

increments as i say in the letter or in smaller increments. ii suggest 250 for the soups. $50,000 is five times improvement on the current system as someone who has run those kind of campaigns. that would make a huge impact. i think in any event that change will be beneficial. i would encourage you to move that forward today rather than spin your wheels for next time. >> i have a question. we have been talking numbers. 10,000, 30,000, 50,000, 100,000. as campaign manager can you tell me the difference between 30, 50, 100? does it make a difference if you would have had your candidate's expenditure limit raised 16 versus 12 versus 7 times.

>> the number of times it is raised is only for outside observers. for those doing the work we want to know the spending limit. it is only relevant if it is raised every single day i have to check my e-mail for letter from path. i ran the campaign for mayor and the spending limit wassationed every day. knowing how much to spend is important. the relevance tour question is how much we can spend determines what we can do. the supervisor race is more apartment. that is where 10,000 is so low. what i could do is barely one mailer to my district. what i could do with $30,000 is do a couple of mailers, hire a handful of people to knock on doors for more than a couple days.

it is really the smaller amount limits what you can do with it. more important, i think with other campaign manager types it is the timeliness of it that is more important. the proposal in attachment two not just to raise the increment but any amount over the spending limit increased as was discussed, to me that is most meaningful. that will front load when the spending limit goes up, therefore, allow me to hire people for weeks rather than a few days at the end. >> i would like to move for time. >> i think i am happy to answer the question. the other item in my letter is the catch-22 loophole not addressed in the staff proposal. >> which proposal? >> it is a temthree in my letter. >> i don't have your letter.

i thought it was passed out. well, do you want me to speak to that now? >> just what is it? >> under the current system, a candidate benefiting from independent expenditures is currently given the benefit of spending increase as well. when the person they are running against spends more money to keep up. that is have your cake and eat it, too or catch-22. that is a loophole that should be fixed. do you have a question for me? >> my question was so the change in terms of allowing getting the benefit of the increase earlier is better. again, because we heard 30,000 versus 50 versus 100 and the concern commissioner lee expressed. does the 50 versus 100 make a difference to you?

the limit is different from the funds. limit is different from the funds. from my perspective and so many are arguing for a lower level. i am fine with a lower level. the higher the amount, the higher the potential, especially if the match ratio is increased. the higher the fundings i can raise to counter the dark money flowing in. i think of it as raising my potential floor as grassroots candidate. the higher the increment, the higher the floor. >> you have more red room? >> what i am trying to understand is why the opposition to 100? >> as advocate more money is not what we want. that is in part as was suggested we haven't tried this yet. i don't think it is a billion

dollars approach to go -- a bad approach for a more moderate $50,000 or two. i don't think it will take a year to fix that. the sticking point was releasing the limit. that is our big issue. i do share the concern. i think it is important grassroots candidates are who we are thinking about. that is who the public funding system is to encourage to participate. i respect that very much. >> thank you. >> i only will say, i put language on the back that really of my letter that broke out the three scenarios under which you would raise the iec because i think breaking it down is more meaningful. the three scenarios are one, opposition spending against you specifically, you the candidate, you get a spending increase. two, when another candidate is benefiting from outside money

and going over the limit. three, when as the case in district two, which is relatively rare but occurs. one candidate or more that don't take the spending limit and spend their own money. it is valuable to break that down when we are thinking how the increase impacts candidates. >> you are talking about expenditures. should we count expenditures versus contributions? >> i am more agnostic than have a strong opinion. i would prefer to keep the system as is on that count as long as we are making the other change. the increment and closing the loophole are more meaningful. i don't feel strongly. >> you would continue to require the reporting of the contributions and expenditures. because they are contributions

doesn't necessarily mean they are going to be spent. most candidates still had some funds available at the end. >> the concern i share. the big money candidates, there are bigger money candidates that raise the money and stick it in a pot. the current system says if the candidate raises a lot of money, the other candidate can spend more money to keep up. your proposed change would say they can keep the war chest on hold and only when they actual three start spending it do the other candidates keep up. that events the scenario where a hoarding the money in the contribution account and spends it in the last two or three weeks. the other candidates have to go raise the extra money. >> from a reporting standpoint they would be visibility? >> the issue about disclosure is

not concern more how it will affect the campaigns. >> thank you. >> good afternoon, i am sharon and i am a volunteer with the clean money campaign. this is a brief statement. clean money campaign with over 15,000 supporters in san francisco strongly opposed the amendments in attachment one. it limits the amount of private money that participating candidates can raise. it eliminated the ceiling when the independents raise them. it would make them nothing more than a speed bump for special interests. that addresses commissioner lee's question.

we have seen the negative impact of that approach in los angeles where i guess san francisco is the only city maybe that has these limits still or something. i don't know. where big money candidates have no fund-raising limit in competitive races. despite taking matching funds. they spent over $5.3 million in the 2013 race. 137% over the initial ceiling. it didn't slow him down. in san francisco london breed was limited to 53% over the initial limit due to the incremental approach. attachment 2's amendments to

increase the increments that limits are increased are more reasonable but they are too high an increment of $100,000 in a supervisor soup's raise is a 40% increase. why should one candy get get h getting $1,000 let others raise again $100,000? at most a $50,000 increment is much more reasonable and $500,000 for mayor is too much. 250 is better. please support attachment 2 with lower incrementeds. thank you so much for your service. >> thank you. other public comment? >> may i ask a question?

>> i am esther marks a volunteer. i have been a volunteer treasurer for two public finance supervisor campaigns one in 2016 an and one in 2018. i also am very happy to hear most of you do agree that the expenditure limit should not be eliminated. i do recommend if you do adopten creasing the -- increasing the support funds in increments that it be no more than $50,000 for the supervisor and no more than $250,000 in the mayor's race. i do want to comment about making the determination of support funds of changing from

contributions which it is now to expenditures. in terms of what is important for educating voters is letting them know how much money and you know it would be more important for a community campaign how much dark money is out there waiting to be spend. i think mr. ford would agree most independent expenditure funds are not -- you know don't have large balances after the campaign. it is going to be spent. what is important is for the community candidate to be able to say to voters and supporters this like $700,000 is going to be spent against me to prop up their candidate. that is very important information to voters. i can't emphasize that enough. therefore i strongly emphasized

that the determination of supportive funds shall remain contributions and not expenditures. also, if you do make the decision to increase the initial expenditure limit, i look forward to discussing that in part two because from my perspective any increase in the initial expenditure amount should be equivalent to public moneys made available. >> thank you. >> i could provide one point of clarification for the commission. none of the ordinances before you would change the calculation of total supported funds when it comes to ie committees. we don't look at contributions by i committees. that is based on spending. that is only for candidate

committees if you adopt this approach. >> thank you. i am ed ward wright in addition to working as an aide for gordon. i did manage the finance for supervisor and for mayor. through those experiences in addition to working in his office i do have some additional thoughts to share about the proposals before you today. i am happy to hear that the commission or commissioners are not considering removing the iec entirely when it is initially broken. we have concerns about that. in addition, as you may have noted in the proposal we sent earlier, we agree with the idea of increasing the incremental amount that the ic may be raised

by. we proposed a lower amount than $100,000. i think the way the $100,000 increase to the iec would play out in a race for grassroots candidate might have unintended consequences. the goals the ethics staff is seeking to pursue here so we would prefer to start with a lower amount and then we could see how that impacts the number of adjustments to be made over the course of one or two electoral cycles or making further adjustments as needed. >> could youlaborate on the unintended consequences? >> for instance in the district fort race, we are for the supervisor moore's campaign was much, much higher than the primary opponent's was due to

the large independent expenditure spending on her behalf. rather our ceiling was raised, it was raised due to the outside spending on her behalf. it would not have made a meaningful difference. it was above what we were age to race. however if we raised up to her ceiling and hers was raised up to $100,000 that would have made a difference in her ability to raise even more than what she was benefiting from in independent expenditure amounts. that is where i think some of the concern is coming from as we look at the exact increment that might be appropriate we propose $30,000. we are open to contruing numbers different than $30,000 that was our initial. we are happy to work with the

ethics staff on the analysis of what difference amounts might result as they play out in the incremental adjustments made. >> i have a question. as a campaign manager how did that impact you when you would get these multiple increases on a regular basis? >> i would share the comment the number of increases was not the most important. it was the funds available to us. noting as the more grassroots campaign in that arrest our ceiling was so high based on the independent expenditures. 10,000 or $100,000 wouldn't have made a material difference to us. if it were increased by $100,000 for our opponent that would have made a material difference. i want to comment on the

proposed modifications how the total funds are calculated apecho the concerns raised. our preference two that we continue to calculate them based on total contributions rather than expenditures the reason being increasing the iec for a grassroots campaign, part of what is helpful there is if it can be responsive to what is happening on the ground in the campaign. while disclosures are required for expenditures there can be a delay when those come through or receipts posted versus when the mailer hits or tv ad goes out when something might impact the campaign and when it is raised the harder for the grassroots candidate to keep up. our preference would be that we keep the existing calculation mechanism based on

contributions. >> thank you. >> as you all know this is my first meeting. i don't have the background my colleagues or the staff does. ir have done a -- i have done a lot of reading this week and i have gotten a lot of memos and feedback from outside advocates and other people, and the information i have gotten except for the staff's initial recommendations is that in opposition to ending the limits and the figures that are coming before me by several different people, and i heard it today in the neighborhood of 50 for commissioners -- i mean supervisors and 250 for the

mayor. however, mr. ford, i think i heard him right said the staff would prefer if that is what we do they would prefer we do nothing. did i hear you correctly, mr. ford? >> that's correct. >> i have heard from various people high praise for the quality of the staff. i don't want to get myself on their wrong side my very first meeting, but i am puzzled by the difference in view why the outside view seems to go strongly at least from what i have heard in the neighborhood of 50, 250 and the staff feels that is worse than not doing anything at all. i don't know if today is the day to elaborate on that. if you could make some more information, i know there is a lot of information out there, but i am puzzled by the discrepancy and troubled by it.

>> i would be glad to provide more information. >> thank you. >> i am steven hill. first thing i want to say as someone involved in the program for almost 20 years. it is hard to imagine it is that long. this is a successful program. there might become plains about it. there are always complaints about it from candidates. some miss the deadline and blame it on the treasure or whomever. we v this for 20 years and dozens of candidates received funding. they wouldn't have been competitive without public financing. of course, we should always look at anything that is making it harder to make it easier. when you are designing public policy you are in the realm of

trying to find the sweet spot of balancing values. the goal is to have candidates out there running. we have had that. if there are problems with staff being an i object to administrator that, i am sympathetic. i got 15% of the public financing money to go to ethics for this program. i suggest we raise it. when i hear we have to encourage more candidates or they find it so hard to deal with maybe they are not running. i disagree with that. this is not a program with huge problems to be fixed in this way. when you are giving public money to candidates, there needs to be accountable and rules. they have to abide by the rules and staff have to add more the

rules. thinking the rules are on out of whack people are not running or this is too burden some of a program, i disagree with that. if we need to change it, i am open to negotiation and compromise and we are getting there. it is many months on this process. what i hope the ethics commission can do is to agree to send to the board of supervisors. one is leaving the incremental increase. 50 versus 100,000. we don't know where the board will be. i prefer 50. you could do 100 thousands it would be okay. send it to the board of supervisors so we can move it forward. also changing the deadline for the statement of participation we agree. i don't think you should track

contributions to expenditures. this is bad policy. it will lead to candidates holding back money because as a result the i ec of the opponent will go up more slowly. they can hold that money back and throw it all in the race. then will if iec of the opponent go up in the response of the ex tendy tur. then it is too late to raise the money. tracking by contributions is the way we have always done it here. i am conservative about this. you change only what you need to change to make it better. don't go fishing for things that aren't broken. the part of changing contributions to expenditures was part of the package of getting rid of the iec entirely. if we don't do that any more there is much less rationale.

>> mr. hill, thank you again for your time and attention to rectifying that error from 15 years ago. secondly, i want to say that on february 14th you distributed at least to me inferred to other members of the commission your next step recommendations. >> yes. >> i would adopt both of them. to change the individual expenditure limit by $50,000 for supervisor and $250,000 for mayoral candidates and extend

the deadline for participating in writing to three days. that would, i think, satisfy complaints that i have heard in the last two years that i have been on the commission. >> sounds like a good proposal. thank you. >> i'm not sure you spoke to the other nuance which is that the cap would be increased once the limit was exceeded buyer any amount. i did hear him say that was, and i believe the supervisors said that was a significant change, once that threshold was reached it would be increased by any amount. are you in support of that? >> that is the right trigger to have. >> thanks. i wanted that on my checklist.

>> any other public comments? okay. i would propose a motion then to take up the two items. first would be to -- i don't think it is in here, pat. to change the date of filing from three days after the date of the candidate -- back up. the change we are proposing we ran into as a result of challenges from the district fort race we move the date of notice to participate in the public finance program to occur three days from and after the date of the deadline for filing

candidacy papers. is that right? >> i would second such a motion. >> that would be the first component. second component of the motion would be to change the increments in the supervisor race and mayor races to raise the independent expenditure ceilings by $50,000 and $250,000. we received written comment as well as this hearing today in public comment, and the comment that resonated the most with me was from mr. wright. i heard $100,000 is too high. he said the concern would be if they are well funded, ie supported candidate, if that limit would go up by $100,000,

it is a significant hurdle which is different from 50. to me that is a reason for rationing back from 100,000 to 50,000. i would propose that we vote today on a $50,000 incremental increase for the supervisors and $250,000 in the mayoral races. >> i second that as a motion. >> can i add that the trigger would be the language that the staff presented to us by any amount so that would be the ceiling would be lifted -- i don't want to read all of the language. if the sum of the formula for

the cap is greater than in the case of the mayor's of $250,000, it is by any amount, right? >> yes, so as mr. ford explained, once the amount is reached by $1, then the cap would go up. if there is a more elegant way to say it, pat, i'm sure you can provide that. >> madam chair i am assuming you are not including the change from contributions to expenditures in your motion at this time. >> that's correct. >> thank you. >> any amendments to the motion? >> i wouldn't second a motion that changed it from contributions for the reasons just stated by mr. hill and they are stated in some of the papers i have received on the subject. >> the motion would be to change

the filing date for three days and then to change the supervisor and mayoral increase amounts from $10,000 -- to $50,000 and $100,000. >> to america sure that the mechanism is as outlined in the proposed ordinance mr. ford provided. >> we haven't focused on it but i don't think there is opposition to the language you drafterred for eliminated the unnecessary trust account. >> i believe the commissioner is proposing a motion to eliminate is trust account. >> specifically it is the staff proposed amendments to sections 1.104, definition and 1.108,

campaign contribution trust account language. >> contingency account? >> yes, i misspoke. >> i am unclear. is that a third motion? >> yes. >> i would ask for a vote separately on each of the three motions. >> if i could clarify so we make sure we state the motion correctly. there were two pieces that the commissioner mentioned and one is change the date three days after filing. i believe the commissioner was adding the increments for the board of supervisors to $250,000

in the mayor's races, a new incremental adjustment. my understanding was that was the knowledge of one motion. i want to clarify if there are four motions or the chair's preference for one number and numrating the pieces of the motion. >> we can vote on them separately. >> if we have three questions it would be adding the ceiling lifted if the sum is exceeded by $1. the fourth would be to proceed with eliminating the contingency account. have i stated those four elements correctly in your view? >> in my view, yes. >> do we now have four seconded motions or one motion with four

subparts to it? procedurally we need to clarify. >> procedurally the intent was to have four separate actions with each of the elements. they asked for a separate vote on each item. is that your understanding. >> to clarify in terms of the motions, if they all or some proven to be successful i would appreciate clarity on the next step. would you wanter us to have a motion incorporating the minutes approved draft mu legislation and come back or go before the board of supervisors. >> the sum total of the motions are not reflected in one, two, three. i want to be clear about what the next step would be. >> i would suggest that we

approve the motions and a new ordinance drafted would encore important rate those components drafted in a new document to make that all one and that would go to the board of supervisors. >> just to be clear assuming that any one item receives the requisite four votes. we are not going to bring the or nance back at the next meeting, right? if we have four votes in favor that legislation could be written and forwarded or did you want to come back for another hearing? >> it would not -- my view is that i don't think it would need to come back next month for another hearing before sending it to the board of supervisors

if that is your question. >> i want to make sure we are giving direction to them to put this in ordinance form if it receives four votes. >> i don't see an issue with that. i want clarity of whatever is approved tonight. >> where does that leave leave the question of contributions versus expenditures. >> move to make that change. it would stay status quo. >> all right. >> would you please recap? i would suggest calling the roll familiar. >> why don't we take the vote on the four separate motions. >> all right. the first motion is on the

notice of the intent to participate to move it three days after the filing deadline. >> that is the first we are taking a roll call vote on. (roll call). >> that motion passes unanimously. >> the second motion to change the increments for the adjusted individual expenditure ceilings $50,000 for board of supervisors and $250,000 for candidates for mayor. (roll call). >> that also passes 5-0. >> the third motion is the concept of adding the ad justing

the ceiling if the sum of the expenditure stuff goes up by $1 that is not the language we want reflected. pat do you want to summarize that? >> to carry out adjustment to the spending limit when the formula the sum of total funds and opposition spending against the candidate exceeded the spending limit any amount not to wait until it exceeds it by one full increment. >> (roll call). >> that is 5-0. that also passes. >> the last would be to continue with the elimination of the contingency account. >> i didn't get a second on the

motion. be we devote to somebody. >> commissioner lee seconded it. it is made and seconded. commissioner lee. commissioner kopp. no. (roll call). >> that motion passes on a 4-1 vote with commissioner kopp in the descent. thank you. >> next up is for staff to incorporate the ordinances into a single ordinance and transmit it that to the board of supervisors. i would propose a 10 minute break. we regroup and come back for the balance of the >> welcome back to the san

franciscoth chicks committee meeting. we are on agenda item 9, discussion of the staff monthly report. >> thank you. item 9 is staff's monthly policy report. it is fairly brief. i will not go through it and just make me self available for any questions you might have. you will see that the review of the public financing program is on here and a couple of other items. >> the only question i have is if form 700 filing deadline that is april 2? then thet the ethics commissiond sunshine filings are due on

april 1st. >> april 1 or 2. >> we have to update our filings shortly? you will remind us. >> engagement and compliance division can help you with that. >> commissioners any questions for pat on the policy report? public comment on agenda item number 9? there being none, agenda item 10. enforcement of monthly staff enforcement report including update on various programming and highlights since the last monthly meeting. >> thank you commissioners. we have at commissioner kopp's request provided statistics related to matters in preliminary review and open investigation as compared to those statistics this time last month and this time a year ago.

i just want to know quickly that i reversed how i present those so you read them oldest from left. newest to right. you can see that we are more or less maintaining a kind of steady state. we have the same number of matters in preliminary review as a month ago, the amount of time it takes us to get through those has gone up slightly. the number of matters in open investigation again is holding relatively constant as is the amount of time it takes investigators on average to get through those matters. i would say as we have said previously not reflected in the statistics is the amount of work that investigators have under taken that is still sitting in front of me or still sitting in front of the executive director for subsequent review before those matters can get finalized.

i know it is hard for you as commissioners or members of the public to have confidence that the enforcement division is working efficiently through these matters if the numbers appear to go up every month or remain constant. the investigators are working ambitious leo the docket. i do hope in the coming months these numbers will better reflect what enforcement division has actually accomplished. a brief note on staff training. we have a couple of things to look forward two coming up. one is counterpart the fair political practice commission will come down from sacramento at the end of march to provide a half day training to all staff on conflicts of interest and in particular financial conflicts of interest in article three of the conduct code. these are among the more complex

of the kinds of enforcement matters that may come before the commission like ours both substantively and factually so the counterparts will provide training in the sub stabs of the law and in -- substance of the law and bestvative practices. investigator jef jeff discovered that the inspector general provides training in the kinds of work the enforcement division conducts. some training is only for their own personnel but some is opened up to counterparts at state and local agencies and we have chosen a couple of training opportunities that align with goals of the enforcement division and align with the professional development needs of the investigators to attend those