>> good afternoon and welcome to the regularly scheduled meeting of the san francisco ethics commission. i will do a roll call. [roll call] >> agenda item number 2, public comment on items appearing or not appearing on the agenda. >> commissioners, i'm with the san francisco urban government. know your rights out of the sunshine ordinance. that is printed on every copy of every agenda for every meeting of this commission, which might only seem ironic, but is, in fact, blatantly hypocritical. this body has no intention of even following the law, let alone enforcing it. i have 36 orders of determination, along with -- at

least a dozen complaints that i filed directly with the ethics commission and everything the one of those has been denied by the ethics commission. you have never enforced a sunshine ordinance finding. former ethics commission, ethics commissioner quentin cobb, who i consider the hypocrite in chief said as much after resigning, quote, i don't think anyone is afraid of the ethics commission who is in a competitive political light in san francisco the civil grand jury -- 2010, 2011 wrote this eight years ago. because of the ethics commission 's lack of enforcement notice to the employee has been disciplined for failing to adhere to the sunshine ordinance the commission has allowed some city officials to ignore the rulings of the sunshine ordinance task force. i would submit it is one case

worse. the task force does it job, and it makes its findings, and then they send them over here for enforcement. you have found, in hypocritical ways, a way to turn around and say no, this task force got it wrong. so so far, i have had seven complaints come here from the task force, and in every single case, the answer has been that the task force got it wrong. i will tell you, they have been the most unfair, unequal hearings i have experienced in my life. thomas aquinas teaches the wilful ignorance of one ought to know as a mortal sin. it is also illegal. those 36 orders of determination , that is not all i have. i have additional ones, but it gets to the point that the print is so small you can't read them. every one of those is at a minimum, one disc -- misdemeanour. if anyone can fairly claim that they have a government conspiracy working against them, i think i can because i have

documented proof of it. when i go to public meetings, i have had my public comment interfered with so much, so often, it is unfunny. i have had it abridged, restricted, you can name it. i have fought, you will see i will give a 150 word summary to the staff, and this will go in your minutes. i am the only citizen in the city and county of san francisco who actually has his words, is constitutionally protected political free speech, make it into your agenda. >> thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners my name is ellen, my name is right here, because a lot of the times pronounce it wrong. i a government -- i am a government social worker for more than ten years with public health. i am a 1021 union delegate for government employees.

we have about 16,000 government employees. i am also the director director of public relations for the california civic grand jury association, the san francisco chapter. the qualifications for that that i have to be the civic grand jury before, which i agree with the gentleman who spoke before me. our government has been correct, our ethics commission department has been corrupt. i have been a resident for more than 33 years in san francisco. i care about my city. i am trying to follow law and ethics for our government. i have been coming here to the ethic commissioners many times in 2016, 2017, 2018 and 2019. the last time i was here was last month, april 12th, 2019. i reported to you possible corruption within the public officials from the elections office.

from the election process, such as voting fraud, ballot harvesting, democrats only for the last 45 years in san francisco. there was a super packed that you continue to approve, increase, millions and millions of public dollars to help the corrupted system. today i came before you, demanding ethics commissions to investigate corruptions within the ethics commission. as a union for the government employees, i bought five government employees to the ethics commission to report bribery, extortion, harassment, and retaliation. between april 2017 to july 2017. i later was informed by jeffrey right here in front of me that our file was missing, our audiotape was never found. nobody ever went there. in fact, we have six employees,

including myself reporting extortion and bribery. today i came before you again. this is not only criminal, but also killing those public employees who have good conduct, follow good government employee conduct to report to you about bribery. you all remember i came in here with a bunch of public employees the f.b.i. has been investigating since 2011. maybe before that. i brought to you that today. to show that the f.b.i. was investigating the public employees, management selling jobs to extort people. millions and millions. you need to do something about it, and it is all public information. i will give you that for public records. thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> hello, commissioners. i am with the san francisco

human services network and association about the 80 san francisco health and service nonprofit. most of our members contracted the city and county to provide services. i am here today to speak briefly around item five. i apologize that i cannot stay. what i want to say today is that most of the requirements fall on public officials, and campaign professionals who receive specialized training and have expertise the requirements also fall on members of the general public who are far less likely to be informed, which leads to potential noncompliance and penalties. and therefore, i would like part of this regulatory process to ask the staff and ask the commissioner to instruct the staff to develop plain language materials to facilitate compliance. specifically, i have three suggestions.

on campaign code 1.126, the newly expanded requirement to ban campaign contributions, and also requiring contractors to inform their affiliates of the band. i would like to ask that this department develop a fact sheet that explains the requirements and has that sample language in it, and works with the city attorney and the office of contract administration to make sure that that fact sheet is included in all big packets. secondly, around section 3.610, the way that it is envisioned is working is that when a public official solicits a payment, the public official is supposed to tell them about the reporting requirement, and it is applicable, they are supposed to tell the recipient. we have been concerned about what happened if the public

official doesn't inform the donor, and we would have liked to see a safe harbour in that situation, but at minimum, we want to see that required notice from the public officials to the donor, and then from the donor to the recipient be in writing. again, a simple fact sheet that the public official would be required to give to the donors in those situations that explains exactly what the donor is supposed to do, and how to log into the system. the third thing i want to say is that all of the forms should be put online. i know that you are e-filing, but because members of the public aren't used to these forms, there should be a way to look up the form in advance before you fill it out so you have everything ready, and i am unable to find forms online anymore. it is all log into the system and e-file. that would be a very helpful thing to the public. i urge these steps to facilitate

improved compliance and protect members of the public who may not be aware, and i thank you for considering these ideas. >> thank you. >> thank you very much for your comments, but would you offer the members of the network to assist staff in rolling out to the fact sheet and public information? >> i would be perfectly happy to do that. i have an outdated fact sheet that i have used for years, and would love to update it with the more recent requirements. i love to work with staff, and would happily distribute it to our members, but there are many nonprofits were not our members as well who should be informed, as well as for contract. i am available. >> thank you. any other public comment on agenda item number 2?

agenda item number 3, which is consent calendar, the draft minutes for the ethics commission, april 12, 2019 regular meeting. any public comment on this? is there a motion to approve the minutes? there is a motion to approve from commissioner lee and a second from commissioner ambrose all in favor? >> aye. >> approved unanimously. agenda item number 4, discussion and possible action, public finance program, phase two legislative recommendations. so we will hear from him for a minute to mr. ford, but this has been a long process that was kicked off last year, and a lot of work has gone into it both on the step -- staff side and engagement from the public. a lot of thoughtful discussion, and a lot of great analysis that has gone in and i am grateful

for this robust dialogue that we have had going on. we may not always agree, but i hope that everyone has felt that they have had the opportunity to engage and be heard. i think that there is a lot of support in the room based on the public comment that i have received today, and i think there is a lot of momentum going forward. i'm looking forward to hearing from mr. ford and the outstanding items on the ordinance, and that we can have a good dialogue and would like to hear from the public and we will be able to take a vote today. i would love to send this off to the board of supervisors before the end of the month. with that, please take it away. >> thank you, members of the commission, thank you for the intro on this item. as you mentioned, we brought

these recommendations to you at the april meeting in concept form. we delivered a report that had findings and recommendations. the research that we have done over the preceding three or four months, and how we think those findings would translate into specific legislative recommendations to strengthen the city's public financing program. i will skip straight to page 14, which has those recommendations summarized in a list format, i am also glad to talk about the material in section two. those are research findings that are tailored to inquiries from the commission at the last meeting, i'm sure you've had a chance to look at that, but if you have any questions, i'm glad to talk about it, but for purposes of my comments, i will talk specifically to the recommendations that start on page 14, and as you mentioned, i will highlight those, that so

far there doesn't seem to be consensus amongst the public staff, and the commission. the first recommendation is -- >> before you go there, just stop briefly in section two, on the appropriation amount, as well as the election fund. a couple things, i would like for, i am sure you do this anyway, but i would like to ask that the commission continue to monitor and report on the level of the fund as we head into the election season. i know there will be a report at the end and how much was utilized, but there was -- it came in public comment, and we had talked about this at our last meeting, because there was a concern about the depletion of the fund and that there is the ability to make supplemental appropriations. we had included language in the april report about incorporating a requirement that the fund be funds be reupped. you speak to that point, but it

is not in the current recommendation. >> it was essentially to harmonize the appropriation language between two separate kinds of appropriations. one is the baseline annual appropriation. it is based on the formula of $2.75 per city residents that is appropriated to the fund at the beginning of each fiscal year. the language there is something that the city shall appropriate such funds. and a separate code section, there is a supplemental appropriation, which says that the commission may request a supplemental appropriation from the board and the mayor if the fund balances the lowest certain amount as of august first. essentially the executive director reports to the board whether or not that minimum balance is met and then the commission may make that request pursuant to the statute. our initial recommendation is that the language be harmonize

to that in the supplemental language, it also says that the city and county shall appropriate such funds, but at the advice of the city attorney, we have not included that language in the draft ordinance, i would probably like to lead to the deputy city attorney speak if you would like to know why. at their advice, we did not include that recommendation. >> is it possible to share your reason as to why we can't include that language? >> sure, the budgeting and appropriation process in the city is set forth in the city charter, and so any ordinance that reports -- purports to make any required appropriations to a specific purpose is at the end of the day, kind of a request. it is not really informal, it is not really binding on these decision-makers, under the charter, only the board can enact appropriations as they see fit. so including in that language,

it creates a false expectation that it is truly binding on the city to make this appropriation. >> only the house of representatives shall have the power, but maybe we can declare a national emergency. [laughter]. >> something like that. i think it is best not to raise such expectations. i think it goes without saying that at any time if they see fit to make further request to the board to appropriate further funds as needed for the campaign fund, we can always do so. >> thank you. i was also concerned about this. i think it is going to be really important to carefully monitor the status of the fund, especially as we are making changes in the match requirements and increasing the levels, because while we cannot afford supplemental appropriation and we might not get one approved, and as i

understood it, there is not a lot of clarity around how we would go back to people who had expectations of receiving a certain amount of funds, only to learn what would be potentially the very last moment, that in fact, the bank was empty and there weren't going to be any funds, and how you would prorate that across expectant recipients , and while we have never come close to that, i think that as we make these changes, it will be important, and i wouldn't wait until august to do that because just with the board calendar, and they are on recess in august, i mean, you could find yourself, you know, well into october and november before they could even act on a supplemental appropriation, so maybe move that back a bit where you report to us about what the levels are, if we are getting

close to the edge, and i guess we would know by june anyway how many candidates and we could kind of do some ballpark estimates of where that was going to go, so i think that would be a better time frame for checking in. >> yes, i can speak a little to what we have done to understand the sign up to this point. we have worked with the controller's office and the mayor's office to understand how they are interpreting the annual appropriation, and to make sure that their understanding of it is the same as ours, which is that it is an annual appropriation that is $2.75 per resident, and we have confirmed that is their understanding. we intend to closely monitor that each year to make sure that our numbers line up, that everyone understands how much money is going into the fund and why. that part is definitely in place we have a plan for that, and then as to the fund being exhausted, potentially by these

reforms, what we found in our research is that and we convey this in the april memo, we are shooting for changes that would not drastically outstrip the annual appropriation. we looked at a four year cycle and if you can create a four year cycle where each of the 11 supervisorial district and the mayor's seat will come up for election and you will have four annual appropriations. that is how we looked at it. we were trying to have those come out equal. the money would come in, and money would come out. we did find there is a surplus in the fund right now, so that if that amount were more during 14 year cycle, there would be enough to cover it. what we intend to do is watch that process unfold and as we start to experience elections, if you and the board and the mayor were to prove -- approve these new reforms, we would monitor the amount of money going out. if we saw that surplus start to

dwindle and go down, that would trigger us to have to start thinking about what would we do if this were to run out? i think at this point, we feel that we have hopefully strike that balance that the amount of money coming in and going out would equate so we would not have that problem, but that is our plan if we do encounter that a couple years down the road. it would be more like three or four years down the road to! " those -- explore those options >> i certainly think that based on the maximum amount of funding that the board supervisors can receive, they were two options in the april meeting. one was a little bit over if everyone maxed out, but under the current scenario, every candidate, based on historical data maxes out one and the fund would be able to sustain the full funding. >> that is what we find. as you will see in this report for this meeting, we have

coalesced on a number that is between those two. rather than presenting you with two alternatives for the candidate's maximum funding amount, we try to present you with one proposal that we think represents the best of both worlds. it is both robust, it would give candidates strong financial footing to run a competitive campaign, but it is also financially feasible. we do not think it would exhaust the fund based on what we have seen in the past in terms of participation rates. hopefully this is something that you agree with, and i would be glad to talk about methodology. that is why that recommendation is what it is. i guess before i go onto the recommendations, did you have any other questions about section two, kind of the responses to the inquiries from last month? >> a little bit off topic of the actual ordinance, but since seattle will be going through another creation of the program,

when you have more information at the end of the november election cycle, it would be very interesting to get an update on how that program is going forward and how it will help with efforts. >> we are monitoring that and we would be glad to include something in the policy report. >> sure. i will move on to section three, and briefly recap the legislative recommendations. i should have mentioned that these recommendations are also contained in attachment one, which is a draft ordinance that is available for you to take action on today if you so choose these represent our recommendations that appear in the last month with the exception of that supplemental appropriation contract that we discussed a moment ago.

the first recommendation is to match only up to $100 of contribution, but to match it at a 6-1 ratio. an alternative that we have researched at the last meeting and that is analysed here in this report is to match up to $150. i will come back to this after i am done going through the list. secondly, it is to increase the initial grant to $60,000 for supervisorial candidates, in $300,000 were mayoral candidates third, to increase the maximum funding that candidates can receive and you can see that the four supervisorial candidates we met in the middle between the two numbers between last month, which were 210,000, 270,000, in discussions with stakeholders, including supervisor mar's office. we found this number in the middle would achieve what we were going for, and you will also see this is a new feature of the recommendation since last

month that we included slightly lower funding maximums for incumbents. that is a feature that currently exists in the program that incumbents are only able to secure slightly less than what nonincumbent candidates are able to get. we thought we would preserve that feature with the policy idea being that nonincumbent candidates require a little bit more financial support in order to run a competitive campaign, so that they need a little bit more help through the program to be competitive. and then for mayoral candidates, you will see that we included the $1.2 billion number, the slightly no lower number for incumbents. fourth, we propose to increase the initial individual expenditure ceilings to $350,000 for supervisorial candidates, and $1.7 million for mayoral candidates, and these are just the initial amounts. we have an adjustable spending limit mechanism, so that means

that the candidates can experience adjustments upwards from those numbers. the fifth, at the top of page 15 is to allow the initial grant to the candidates to be distributed earlier, specifically on the 284 th day, instead of the 142 nd day. as is the case under current law , but to require that all other funds, matching funds may still only be distributed upon the 142nd day before the election or later. and the grand represents about 25% of the total funds available for candidates under the program six, this is kind of a fixed to the statute. it is to align the language for the qualification. right now, supervisorial candidates differ on whether or not to use contributions on the 70th day before the election.

it is a discrepancy that both kinds of candidates can use these amendments. lastly, this is a new recommendation since last month. it is to acquire -- require that supervisorial candidates file threshold reports upon raising or spending $10,000, rather than $10,000. i will briefly explain this because this is a new proposal. candidates file threshold reports when they spend or receive that reach certain thresholds. the purpose for administration of the public financing program, the initial thresholds are filed so we know whether or not there is a candidate in the race who has met the threshold that needs doing that in order for us to qualify an opponent. it is one of the qualification requirements in order for you to receive public financing.

there you must be opposed by someone who has already raised $10,000. for mayoral candidates, you must be opposed by someone who has raised $50,000. for mayoral candidate, it pegs it at 50 thighs -- $50,000. once we get one of those, it is okay for us to qualify someone in the race. for supervisorial candidates, you will see that the code does not align. the $10,000 figure is used for what an opponent needs to raise for a candidate to be qualified. the threshold report is pegged at 5,000. it is not fulfilling that purpose. it has been the practice of candidates to file $10,000, and that is the intent of the statute, but this would fix the discrepancy and allow us to require that from candidates. i want to go back to two items in this list that i mention are the ones that consensus is not yet been reached.

the first is item one, which is to provide $100, or rather to match up to $100 of contribution what this means is under the current program, when the candidate is trying to qualify for the program, even if they receive a contribution of 400 or $500, we will only count up to $100 for purposes of that candidate qualifying. a candidate would have to receive 100 contributions if they are running for supervisor in order to qualify. however, when they do qualify and they move onto the matching phase, they are able to submit anything up to $500 into the step -- in the statutory contribution limit, and we will match anything up to the full 500. this proposal is to extend to that 100-dollar limit across the whole program so that candidates

would only ever be able to have up to $100 of a contribution of max -- matched. it is to mere the same policy purpose for why this rule exists in the qualification phase. we encourage them to pursue contributions from a broader base of individuals, including people who cannot afford more than $100. we find that after the qualification phase, it is not a good incentive to pursue the contributions. we want to extend them and put it with a 6-1 match. we would be incentivizing them to pursue those smaller contributions, so rather than receiving a smaller number or pursuing a smaller number of larger contributions, it would

pursue a larger number of smaller contributions. we have heard public comment at the last meeting and inquiry from commissioners about whether or not the higher amount would also serve its purpose, so we researched using $150 as that limit instead of 100, and we find that this alternative, although, in our opinion, not as good as $100, it would still be an improvement, and we believe it would still be economically feasible. it would probably result in giving slightly more funds to candidates, only because instead of matching 6-1 up to $100, we would be matching 6-1 up to 150. but we find that would still be most likely within the program's funding. we also find that that would still give candidates an incentive to pursue smaller contributions.

we think that this is a reasonable compromise and that it would probably -- consensus would be built around the 150-dollar number, that we think anything beyond the 150 begins to significantly harm that incentive. if you go beyond 150 and make it so that 500-dollar contributions have the same impact, would have the same impact, the same value under the proposals as under current law, there wouldn't be any incentive for candidates to pursue smaller contributions. they would still be most likely to pursue 500-dollar contributions. but i want to highlight that we did provide this alternative. so we think that this would still serve the purpose if you opted for 150 instead of $100. secondly, i wanted to speak about item five in the list. this is the recommendation to change the earliest date on

which the initial grants can be distributed from the 142nd date before the election to the 284th day before the election. again, the idea behind this policy purpose was to try to give candidates early money, but to limit it to only 25% of the total funds so that it was a balanced approach. we heard from stakeholders who both opposed and supported this change. some stakeholders supported having all funds available earlier in the election, some supported keeping the date the same as it is now for all funds. we thought our recommendation was a compromised approach that would only make a limited portion available earlier in the election while keeping the same 142nd day limit for 75% of the funds, and in our conversation with candidates, campaign managers, during our research phase, we heard this would help candidates to start building infrastructure of their campaign

early, but we felt it was also important to try and limit, for most of the funds, limit them to only after the nomination had closed that they would be able to access those funds. that is why we approached this in the way that we did. we provided some information in this report about how other jurisdictions have approach the question of when is the appropriate time to distribute public funds to candidates, and with the appropriate time at the earliest to allow funds to be distributed to candidates, and provide some of that information in this report. mr., has some further information to provide to you on that, but before he does, i wanted to point out that the jurisdictional information, for one, it is provided to you in response to an increase in the last meeting, but it is also in our eyes, just for comparison's purpose. it is not through saying, yes, we shouldn't do it or know, we shouldn't do it, it is not clear

how well these approaches are working in other jurisdictions, and it was certainly our experience from speaking to folks in this jurisdiction that candidates and campaign managers , that early would be better for them. that was our process. we find that even if it is the case that san francisco is on the earlier and right now, that is not a reason to not have a 25 % portion of the funds be available earlier. again, it is not clear how well this is working in other jurisdictions, but we do want to provide you with that information about other jurisdictions. i will turn it over to mr., momentarily and he can speak about that. >> thank you. i just wanted to highlight a couple of jurisdictions that we did some additional research on. new york city, seattle, and los angeles, and we looked at 2021 on the election cycle for new york city, and our research

found that public funds are distributed in february, or would be distributed in february for that election or where the general election is in november. it is a significant time gap. we looked at seattle, of course, and found that their democracy vouchers are available for distribution in february as well with a february and june 11 election date in the 1st week of november. we also looked at los angeles, and although their system is different with primary and general election, they make public funds available following the certification of the primary election. i would also point out that though both new york city, seattle, and los angeles have primaries, new york city and seattle give or distribute public funds before their primaries as well. it gives them some context as to

our proposals, and nesting our early distribution date in that general framework. >> mr., do these jurisdictions do what we do, which is due an initial grant, and then the balance of the funds later, or is it all up front, and then they have to continue to qualify >> they have a different approach. their systems are slightly different from ours. typically the public funds are not all distributed initially. they diminish over time. >> is it after all the candidates have been determined for the election? >> that is not something that we looked at specifically, so i can't provide you with that, but what we looked at was just whether they distribute funds, how far in front of the election do they do that. >> thank you. >> thank you. i think the last point i would make on this item is we still

supported, we still think it would be an improvement over current law, however, we acknowledge there is not consensus in the community around this proposal, and our stance on it is that it would be an improvement, however, if it were not part of this package, the package as a whole would be a very strong set of reform. we think it would still have a significant impact on public financing and a positive impact, however, we do think this would further that. so i think that concludes the comments that i wanted to make about this. i am glad to answer any questions you may have. >> commissioners? any questions. >> i have a question, and it has to do with the incumbent, not incumbent, the incumbent differential. not at the maximum dollars have been raised, but it appears to me that the difference between the incumbent versus the nonincumbent is so small that

i'm wondering if it is a distinction without a difference , or difference without a distinction, which ever way that goes. and whether, you know, if it is significant to help the nonincumbent, then maybe the amount ought to be significant enough. and maybe we ought to drop it. i understand it was there before , but is that a good enough reason to keep it there now? >> i definitely agree that the differences are not large, they are not large under current law. i think it used to be larger. i think if you look back at the history of the code, and it has evolved over many years, at one time there was a bigger difference, and it is hard to know what the board and the commission were thinking at that time to reduce that difference. but our approach was to keep it the same, as it is for right now either because it is hard to say , no, we think they should

get the same amount because it is the case that incumbents require a little bit more supports to run a competitive campaign, but it is also hard to widen that gap, only because there are potential constitutional concerns when you treat candidates differently. it is not a valid governmental interest to level the playing field, so we try to avoid mechanisms that carry that out. we try to assess what candidates take in order to lead a competitive campaign, and we seek to provide them with that. >> there wasn't any opposition to that approach in the public comments that i received or anything, but i was just curious about it and the two different numbers. they seemed relatively insignificant to me, and i was interested in the background. thank you. >> other commissioners that have other questions?

>> this is a plain english practical matter looking at your advanced distribution, if as proposed, if a proposed candidate were to receive an initial grant 284 days before, i gather they would be getting money before they demonstrated they were qualified for public funds, because we wouldn't allow them to submit their qualifying contributions until nine months before, or nine months before, exactly 284 days, then we have 30 days to figure it out. was that the idea that you could just put your name in without any qualifying contributions and get an initial 25% grant? >> we would still seek to certify the candidates beforehand. >> and then just so i am clear, i know it is 25%, but since the

other number is moving, how many dollars is that? >> we are proposing the initial grant be $60,000 for supervisorial candidates, three under thousand dollars for main candidates. >> okay. so but then as a practical matter, if they were to decide that they are not in the game, they would owe the city $60,000. okay. >> mi okay to take public comment? >> thank you. i just have -- i just want to walk through again, because it is already in the report, what is a difference between 150 and

the 100-dollar contribution? can you walk us through again the difference. >> yes. >> i think the best chart to look at is on page 12. this chart compares three different approaches. the first approach in the left-hand column is only up to $100 that can be matched, this is all a 6-1 rate. the middle column is up to $150 that is matched. the last column is up to $200 matched. what is being compared with in each example is 100-dollar contribution and a 500-dollar contribution. so if up to $100 is matched, a 6

-1 rate, you can see the value that the candidate would obtain, it is $700 for a 100-dollar contribution. that is the 100-dollar contribution itself plus the 600-dollar public funds that would be distributed that comes up to $700 is value for the candidate. for 500-dollar contribution, since only up to $100 can be matched, and it is matched at a 6-1 rate, that same number, $600 is what the candidate would receive from the city, so adding those together, you get $1,100. that's decreases the discrepancy between the values of those contributions, which to start with, was 5-1, $500 to $100, but after being matched through the public financing program, that discrepancy comes out to 11-7.

which is less than 200%. from 500% to some wherein the neighborhood of 140%. in the middle example, you do see a stat. that portion is increased to $150. again, the 100-dollar contribution is now 6-1 and becomes $700. the 500-dollar contribution, now up to $150 of that contribution can be matched. that results in $900 of public financing, so when that is added together, you get $1,400. that is a 200% difference there between the 700 and the 1400. and then we also included a dotted line at $1,500, which represents, under current law, the value of a 500-dollar contribution that gets matched.

he gets matched at eight 2-1 rate resulting in $1,000 in public funds, when that is added to the 500-dollar contribution, you get $500 of value added to the candidate. we put that there is a comparison. that is one of the main concerns we have heard through public comment. the value of a 500-dollar contribution would be less under the staff's proposal. we should know that the difference is quite small at the 150-dollar level. we think it is even appropriate at the 100-dollar level to have the value of that contribution -- contribution reduced to 1100. in our research, for all candidates to receive public financing in 2018, under our proposal of matching only up to $100, all of the candidates would have received more funds under the program. no candidate would have received less. we were looking at it from that perspective. not whether or not each individual contribution that the candidate had matched would

receive at least as much or more the program, but rather whether or not the candidate would receive at least as much or more although we think the first example, $100 is appropriate, that that represents a good allotment of the program's funds between small and large contributions. we think 150 is also appropriate , and we think it is probably more likely to have consensus gathered around it because this 1,400-dollar number is much closer to $1,500. >> and the point that you made about looking back at the actual experience in applying the new rule, i have seen that most of those candidates receive contributions of less than $500. >> no candidate should submit all 500-dollar contributions,

and no candidate submits all 100 is always a blend. so for some candidates, they would experience a much greater benefit under our proposals, because some candidates have so much more of the small contributions, but for all candidates, the proposals would result in them receiving more, meaning that even for the candidates who submitted 500-dollar contributions, and those contributions would have gotten slightly less, there are smaller contributions that would be matched at a high enough rate that overall they would be getting more under the program. >> okay. that is what i was understanding about the map. thank you. >> i think the balance is that you would have to get more contributions of $100 to get to your max versus 150, just because 150 is $150 more than 100. to me, it strikes the right balance between giving wait to

smaller contributions without taking 40% away from the 500-dollar contribution, because as mr. ford said, there is a wide range. not everyone gets 500. i think it is a good compromise. >> to that point, if i may say, we have looked at what was the minimum number of contributions that a candidate would have to submit in order to get $155,000. 150,000 is the most that a candidate can get right now. the smallest number of contributions, theoretically that you can submit, if you submitted all 500-dollar contributions, it would be 190. a candidate has to submit a minimum of 190 contributions and they all have to be 500-dollar contributions in order to get $155,000 currently endued --

under the program. unto our proposal, if $150,000 were matched. they would only have to submit 117 at $150. not only is the number smaller, 172 contributions, instead of 190, the value of each contribution is much smaller. both of those gets you $155,000. >> because of the higher ratio? >> exactly. >> the other question i had is respects to the date. this chart is very helpful i understand for informational purposes, and is not necessarily a recommendation. i look at seattle, and i think it is a fundamentally different model from what we are doing because citizens are given

vouchers and candidates and citizens will need additional time to be able to contribute their vouchers, and it is also only in the second year of that program, and i look at new york, l.a., long beach, and with new york city, under the current regime, of 142 days, to go to 284 would seem, to me, to be an outlier from the others, not that we have to be with the rest of the pack, but i think it is informative. i think there has been a lot of public comments around wanting to keep the day, and part of the reason is being there are a lot of moving pieces. you're changing the match, changing the amounts, and that

142 days needs to be working quite well right now, and although i do like the idea very much of providing candidate funds earlier in order to give air, and campaign managers think it is like east, and that all things will rise from that. we are proceeding with prudence and caution on that as well. >> i know there is a lot of public comment on this issue, but just a basic issue, when do we think this packet is something we can get to consensus and pass it out, and when is the operative day? is it going on a fact for november, because we have a hurry up schedule then with the board that would essentially require consensus with the board

i don't know there would be time for something to bounce back here and get through for the recess. >> it doesn't say, but i wouldn't expect it would be in time for the november 2020 election. this would be for 2020. >> yes. our plan from the beginning of the project was for phase one to go into effect for this year's election, which i didn't provide you an update on that ordinance. it was approved and will go -- become operative on june 9th. that will affect this year's election. however, for phase two changes, what it was our intention that this would not affect 2019's election, that it would affect 2020's election, and i did have a chance to chat before the meeting. they suggested we do include the operative date, which i think is wise.

that is something that i would propose be amended in the ordinance, is that it has an operative date of january first, 2020. >> okay. , thanks. that is what i wanted to know so we could be clear and not have it come back. >> generally first, 2020? >> yes. >> all right, thanks. >> if i could add in terms of process, i think we can make this amendment at this meeting and so move it forward from today. there is consensus on the other issues, and again, the concern is we just didn't want these changes taking place in september october where there is no election. thank you. >> thank you. >> commissioners, any other... any public comment? >> i would like to second what the chair said about changing the dispersal date. i haven't been on the commission

very long, but i have been impressed with the amount of data that is normally presented about backing up the staff's recommendations and things, and it does seem to me that this particular one really isn't based on data, it is more of, we just think it would be a good idea, and there are a lot of changes being put into effect, and i can't help but wonder if it wouldn't be good to see, assuming those other changes go through, what effect does have and whether that solves part of the problem, or response in part to your concern, rather than adding it now, and it does put us into an outlier position.

>> because it is organized crime , because i have been through it, i watched it. last year, according to what you reported from the commissioners, so many million dollars wasted to help the democrats. nothing, no libertarian, no republican, no green party, no independent, no nonpartisan, not is it at all.

only democrats. according to what the united states constitution, our government has been failed. we have a lot of people who died on the streets, a lot of people illegally staying in here, protected by anything but democrats. they should not be given to anybody because it is public race and it is helping criminals according to what you know the united states constitution, the law is illegal, it is protecting criminals from us. we are not feeling safe. crime is high. it goes up more than 100 every day. our government has been bought and paid. for example, cannabis is still illegal according to the federal , but because there is only one party, nothing but democrats, the government raised 4.1 $6 million in 2018. this year, you talked about it

right in front of people's eyes right here, right now. you quoted long beach and you quoted seattle. seattle is a dying city. there is a document that says dying seattle, and san francisco is a dying city right now because of the crime, because of the party that is democrats only , no other political power to balance people's voice. we are done. [please stand by]

analyst has a report that seems to conflict with what mr. ford just tells us about how many contributions it's going to take. we need to get a reconciliation to find out whose numbers are right, what the bla said was they compared the current program that we're putting forward and what would be the impact on a $500 donation and a $200 donation. we're all trying to empower small donors for sure. that's a good goal. we also are trying to