they instead get pumped through the ordinary settlement process, where the penalties might be larger. if we were to undertake a revision of the existing fixed penalty policy, we would ask that the commission approve our ability to do that because the existing policy says that staff is down by that policy until changed by the commission. i mean, our own view has been that there are situations in which we could exclude someone from that policy because we think the policy envisions scenarios that don't require investigation. so we have, in fact, taken certain matters beyond the limits of that policy, but we would like to see that more explicit in a revision. >> thank you. i agree with what my fellow commissioners have said. i think that during the time i'm here the staff's work has given

me no doubt that if given discretiona discretionary power, you would [ indiscernible ] from anything the commission intended. i think for the investigation unit, the two driving principles have always been the public trust and transparency. so as long as it is guided by those two, whatever actions you take are -- then the public will understand. and at the same time, when you look at the enforcement efforts, it's largely serving to deter future ill activities. sometimes when people look at

these cases that have gone on for five, six, ten years and with nothing happening, it doesn't give the public much trust. so i think that it is really important to look at the cases you take. and the second thing is there are other cases that come to you that may not fit into the clearly defined areas that we would like to support. maybe those are innocent cases that may expose some deficiencies that we should look at so that we can look at policies to close the loopholes. so they may not fit into the really very neat boxes for intent or what have you. but those are the things that i trust you would bring to us that, hey, this could be an innocent thing like a font in an internet thing that you know it's something that we need to

really look at for future policy discussions. so i do think that as long as you continue to operate under those principles and as long as we -- whatever we do, we make sure that there's transparency, there's public trust, then i think that we really support your efforts. because with the limited resources and with the cases coming through, we're going to be -- we just don't want to be stuck with five years from now looking at these cases, what happened to this case? it's still on the docket. that doesn't look good. so i would suggest if we could not deal with it, don't even bother to put it up there because it's going to track down your data. when the public looks at the data and say why is the commission taking three years to open the file? people don't have much trust in

us that way. so i do support the efforts, and i think that as the commission said nothing that's come before this commission has given me doubt that you will not do the diligent review of all the cases. >> so i would echo commissioner lee and commissioner smith's thoughts. from a fixed penalty process, i think it would be wonderful if there would be the possibility that late filings, for example, there's a time stamp. could it become almost like a parking ticket. you get the parking ticket. you can go to court and fight it, but we could send a letter and then -- and say that the fine needs to be paid by x date so that it won't require a lot of investigation, for example.

and then my second question, and i think this would become part of the ask to you to explore as part of the expanding the fixed penalty program and getting input from stakeholders and the public, but the f.p.p.c. uses warning letters and whether or not this is something the commission could explore. i know we have a confidentiality provision, so we would have to work closely with deputy city attorney to understand what the limitations are around the disclosure of the investigative details. but i would like to ask you and your team to come forward with some recommendations with regard to the use of warning letters at the next meeting or the next time we take this up. >> i would be glad to and thank you.

>> is there more guidance that you would need from us on the factor factors that you've listed on page 7 or on the types of cases you've listed out, at least of the current case load that you have in figure 2? i mean, for me i think it's those kinds of cases that go to the integrity of our system. so commissioner smith mentioned font size. you know, font size, it could be something extremely problematic, but incompatible activities like nepotism or illegal coordination between a candidate and an independent expenditure committee or using the position -- elected position or a city office for personal gain. those types of investigations and matters really go to what commissioner lee was talking about as like the trust in the

institution. so for me those categories, how severe those violations are, the timing of it, and also just the probabilities, like can this be proven would all be weighed in the calculus of applying your discretion, but for me those are the ones at the top of my head are the more critical ones. >> i appreciate the feedback. how you might weigh the severity and the impact. i think at this time we may not need additional guidance on those. i would just remind you under the regulations, any time staff dismisses or closes -- dismisses a complaint or closes an investigation, we have to provide you a monthly summary detailing what complaints we closed -- sorry, what complaints we dismissed and why and

detailing what complaints we closed and why. so on the basis of those summaries, if at any point you discover that we have a disagreement about how to apply our discretion, then we can have further conversation to clarify what you would prefer us to do. >> i'll ask my fellow commissioners if there are any other types of cases that come to mind that we'd like to highlight or other factors i guess would be the better way to approach it to focus on. i don't know if you have a presentation on whistleblower because that's an area i want to know how the commission and the staff has jurisdiction over. >> are you talking about retaliation against whistleblowers? >> yes. >> you would like a presentation on that? >> yes. because that seems to be an area

that the general public are saying that day you need to protect the whistleblower, but who's going to protect them and how. >> sure. yeah. a presentation about the jurisdiction we have and what an investigation might look like how to prove up that case. >> -- representatives to come and talk about their experience with working with the whistleblower employees. >> pardon me, repeat that. >> i know we had asked for d.h.r. to come to present on the investigation of the secondary employme

employment. that would be next month. i'm not recalling anything specifically on whistleblowers. i think the -- >> so we could ask mr. pierce to come back and do just an overview of the whistleblower cases that the ethics commission has jurisdiction over and how those could be pursued. as i think about case prioritization factors, i don't know if you want to include this in there or if it's already rolled into one of them that you have already. but i think one of the things to consider and i think that you already do is whether or not another city agency has conducted an investigation. so, for example, some cases have already been investigated by the department of human resources or the city attorney and/or the district attorney. so after one, two, or three or multiple agencies have already investigated a matter, is it --

i would ask that you and your team use your discretion to say do we really need to go through and do it a fourth time or could we reasonably rely on the findings of these multiple investigations from different city agencies. >> yeah, sure, thank you. >> this is an important discussion to have and the start of an important dialog. i would ask you to come back at the next meeting or the october meeting with a proposal or a framework around the fixed penalties and the plan on how to engage the public. i would like to participate in those public interested persons meetings as to hear what stakeholders and particularly the regulated community have to say about the reasonableness and the rational basis for our

penalties. i think that what would be helpful for me, and i hope for my fellow commissioners, would be to actually have some data. you alluded to the size of the campaigns that are run here in san francisco. i think the mayor has raised here multiple millions. so i think if we can have a little perspective around how much money is being spent in supervisorial campaigns, the mayoral campaigns and the penalties that are being asked. what is 1%, what is that worth, i think that could be very helpful for us. >> certainly. thank you. >> public comment on agenda item number 10? well, i'm going to call a ten-minute recess. we've been going at it for two hours. i would like e

>> okay. the ethics commission is back in session. so we're going to go to agenda item number 11, discussion and possible action on monthly staff policy report, including the policy prioritization plan. mr. ford. >> thank you, chair, commissioners. i'm pat ford, senior policy analyst. for the benefit of our newest commissioner, this is the monthly report that i bring to the commission and about once a quarter in addition it contains the policy prioritization plan. it's a two-part thing and you'll see that roughly four times a year. we'll see the updates on the policy prioritization plan, which are the big-ticket items, usually legislation, program review type things. but the monthly update also contains information about other kinds of projects.

if you look at page 3, i included a pie chart that gives a rough breakdown of what is done. typically it's two people, but for now it's one. you can see that policy projects are about a third of where the bandwidth is devoted, otherwise, there isn't general device to staff and members of the regulated community, also other departments about the meaning of our laws and program support to other members on staff about administering our programs, as well as legislative affairs and media affairs making up smaller slices of the pie. this monthly report gives updates on all kinds of items that fall in those bigger slices. generally they're the bigger ones, whether they're taking up a particularly larger amount of time or noteworthy things i

think you should be aware of. also the policy prioritization plan, that is basically staff's proposed way of proceeding for the next quarter, which projects to move forward with, and those are numbered. then later on there's kind of a bucket of other projects that are not currently underway but could be at a future time. so the quarterly discussion of the plan is basically to ratify or change staff's proposal was to which projects to do on an ongoing basis, but then also to discuss the bucket, so either add projects that you're interested in. the commission could remove projects that it doesn't foresee moving forward with, and to generally discuss the merits of them, maybe to plan which one to do next, just to have an open-ended discussion. there's not really a particular deliverable or outcome that

needs to happen. it's open-ended. with that i'll turn to the updates. looking at the policies that were on the last quarter's policy prioritization plan. the first one is the review of the city's public financing system. this was a very large-scale program review and was conducted in two phases. the first phase is complete. the regulations and ordinance that came from that phase were passed and implemented and done. with the second phase there's still one component that is ongoing which is the ordinance which the commission approved in may and which is pending at the board. the update for you is that we did not get that ordinance called at a committee hearing before the board went on its august recess. we were really hoping that we would because the goal is to have that ordinance be in effect for the 2020 elections.

given the nature of the process with multiple readings hearing at committee and the full board and having to go to the mayor's office and a 30-day lag time between being approved and operative and the implementation efforts need to happen on our end, there is some time that needs to be set aside. so we're really trying to get this thing moving and approved so we can do everything we need to do to have 2020 be under the new regime. th that being said we're looking at getting the hearing as soon as possible. supervisor mar is the chair of the committee that this ordinance is in control of. so we're hoping that he will call it at the as soon as possible time. >> when is the board back from the summer recess? >> this is the first week of september. >> so after labour day? >> yes. right after. i believe nothing out of the

ordinary happens september 5th should be the first meeting of that committee. i will be in touch with their office and try and get that on the agenda for that meeting. otherwise, i've been doing outreach to other members of the board, trying to kind of front load the legislative work so that we're not surprised when this does get called at committee that there may be members of the board -- and trying to get those on the table so we can plan. if any amendments are made on the board's side it has to come back to the commission adding extra time. >> can you refresh us on the process, how many times does it have to be heard by committee before it goes to the full board. how many times does it have to be heard by the full board, what are the routes in terms of amendment and timing. >> at committee it only needs to be heard once. the committee can recommend it to the full board or pass it on with a positive recommendation with just one consideration of

it. but when it gets to the board, there need to be two readings. my experience has been, maybe my colleague can chime in, in the first reading they would engage in the more substantive discussion. the second reading is just called. whatever they did the first time they'll do it again. at least with ordinances like this. with bigger and more controversial ones i can't speak to. that's been my experience with ethics legislation. then from that point on it needs approval and then after that it becomes operative. piecing together all those different parts, you're looking at a month-long process in having it called at committee, the discretion of the chair of the committee, having it called at the board, the president, having it on the agenda. there's wiggle room. there's a lot of contact that

needs to happen and that's definitely something i'm engaged in very heavily. >> to your point about meeting with legislative aides, it was different supervisors in advance of this being called either at committee or to the full board and addressing any proposed amendments if the board amends the ordinance, it needs to be approved by a super majority, is that right, and then it would come back to us? >> right. so the commission will approve or must approve a version of the ordinance before the board does. so if the board amends it, the commission would need to consider it again, approve it again, and the board would need to pass the version that the commission approved. so i'm hoping that we don't have -- >> that we don't have any amendments. >> yeah, through that process, but i'm not sure that that will be the case. it's entirely likely that there would be an amendment. so we will have to see. it's hard to say at this point. other than that, i don't have a lot of details really on that

project. when it's outside of our process, we have a lot less control over it. >> but there is an alternative with putting it on the ballot directly. it wouldn't be for this november, but there is an election in march of 2020 and that we could act to put it on the ballot if there's no movement hypothetically at the board of supervisors that we could act to put it directly to the voters? >> yeah, that's always an option legislatively to the commission. they do the option to put it directly on the ballot. i have not explored that for a couple of reasons. one is that it does doesn't meet the implementation timeline that we're shooting for. i think even if it were approved on the march ballot, you would have to wait for the results to be certified, and only then can we in earnest start our implementation. we're really hoping that

february will be the time that we can have this up and going. that's what we're shooting for. the reason for that is in february candidates can start submitting applications to qualify for the program. in a perfect world we would have the new regime in place when that application period starts. that's one reason. the other is that we do have a sponsor. the sponsor appears enthusiastic about the legislation. mr. wright in the supervisor's office has been talking to other supervisors' offices. so there does seem to be movement. it's not as though we can't get anyone to carry this over at the board. so i think at this point this's definitely still a lot that can be done there. that's why also i haven't looked at the ballot option. >> i think you raised a good point about having it be implemented territory november 2020 election. i think six of the 11 supervisors are up for re-election. >> that's correct. >> all the odd-numbered districts. so if they would -- they could

benefit from participating in the program about higher amounts and different thresholds. maybe that would help speed up the process. >> absolutely. there are a lot of benefits to incumbents and challengers of this new regime. it would reduce their feed to fu fundraise and spend their time doing that. >> so at the next month's meeting if you could report back on whether or not it's been heard at committee, that would be great. we are here to do everything we can to assist to make sure that we can get the wheels of government to turn. >> i will let you know. it may be helpful at some point to have you as chair be active in the process. at this point i don't think so, but it's possible in the future. >> i'm happy to do that. >> okay. i will keep in touch on that. so the second project in the policy portfolio is the set of regulations that the commission approved in may.

so at this point those are operative and they became operative after two months. we've implemented them. they're on the website. we've updated our materials. so at this point really policy's role on this is really like any other law, just to help other staff administer it to answer any questions that come up. i don't really consider this to need any kind of policy attention in the strict meaning of policy, as a policy project. so you will see that this does not appear on the policy prioritization plan later on. finally the e-filing project for the form 700. so again, this is to have all employees file the form 700 electronically rather than just board and commission members, elected officials, and department heads, which is the current arrangement. so at this point, this is a big office-wide effort. my part of this is only one

piece of the pie. i'm going to be focusing mostly on the bargaining unit negotiations that have to happen and also with the regulation aspect of writing the regulation and bringing that before you. other folks in the office, both on the editing and on engagement and compliance, are spearheading exploring the technology to make this possible and exploring the outreach and programs planning that has to happen in order to make it actually work. so it's a really big office-wide coordinated effort. the update i have here is really just on my part, which is that i'm working with the department of human resources to get them up to speed on what they need to know in order to lead their side of the employee bargaining unit negotiations. so that's usually something that d.h.r. leads. they kind of facilitate it between the department that's enacting the new policy and the

bargain unit whose members are affected. they have to be up to speed on the project, and they usually will kind of guide our participation in that. so although i kind of represent our department in the process, they're kind of the main facilitators. so right now it's getting them up to speed and getting them to the point where they are ready to notice the bargaining units. so we're hoping that will happen soon, that a notice will go out notifying the bargaining units of the project, asking them if they would like to meet with us. so that is upcoming. hopefully that will happen towards the end of the summer. >> just to be clear, this form 700, the e-filing project, is not imposing a new filing requirement. it's simply converting paper to an electronic filing process. so it's still the same form, it's just a different method? >> that's correct. yeah, this project would not change the list of designated filers, people who are

designated in the code as people who have to file the form. it does not affect that. this doesn't change the method. >> if i could add briefly for a little more context, the method would be different. the information would be provided electronically and submitted electronically. probably the most salient difference of course is that the information would be available online. most of the paper forms for those who currently submit their information to a point person in their department would have their information potentially online through the submission website i would imagine for more accessible public viewing. obviously one other aspect of this potential project is that, given that there will be more transparency over these form 700s, some departments may want to revisit who they actually want to have file a form 700, in the sense it's a bigger ask of those employees. some departments may revisit

that decision. the commission should also know that every couple years we always as a city revise the list of who needs to file a form 700 form. we do that every even year, so that could dovetail with this project. >> exactly. our plan here is to really keep them separate, but to keep the biennial code review in front of mind. we're not going to talk about it -- we're going to talk about it in this parallel form that's going to be discussed in the biennial code review in 2020, not in the e-filing project. those should move forward basically at the same time. that process should start early next year of reaching out to departments. >> the implementation dates that go live for all of the e-filing across the city would be for

november for 2020. >> that would be january 1, 2021. >> right. >> january, not april, though you're correct april is when the annual filings are due. we're starting for a january 1 start date so we can catch anyone who is filing in that time because people do assume office and have to file within 30 days of assuming office. we thought january is a better time to start it. >> so we have more time, more runway. >> so we have all of 2020, but similar to the public financing program and even more so, even after the change is created legally through the regulation, there is a lot of work that has to go on, a lot. it's getting all of the departments to move in unison towards this new approach and getting government computer systems to work. so -- but we're definitely on track to do it and looking forward to bringing you more updates on that in the future.

>> thank you. >> so before moving on to the policy prioritization plan, there are just two other very quick updates here. one is on the sunlight on dark money initiative. so again, this is the initiative sponsored by five supervisors, but led my supervisor mar to create certain new disclaimer contribution limit rules. that has now been assigned a letter, it's proposition f. we worked with the controller's office during the ballot simplification committee process to provide a rough estimate on the budget impact it will have in our department. as it turned out, their threshold for what constitutes budgetary impact is very high. that's probably a universal bar that's set across the city. so although we feel it would be a significant budgetary impact on us, it was described as having minimal impact on government. >> so just to be clear, we do not have anything in our budget

for the current fiscal year to support the implementation of this initiative? >> no. >> and so we would have to absorb it somehow? >> that's correct. >> or is there a process by which we can go back to the board of directors to seek additional funds to help offset some of these costs. >> i don't want to speak for the director, but that's probably something that would be part of next fiscal year's budget process and there would not be a budget process specifically for this ballot measure. i don't know if director palm has anything to add on that? no? okay. right. but this is an unfunded mandate. but proposition f, that's what it's called now. >> how many unfunded mandates are we operating under so far? >> that one is pending, but i

thought there were a couple of -- >> your question was about how many unfunded mandates the commission is operating under. the way i would define that term, i think probably all but three since i've been here. i mean, obviously there are projects that we asked for for the committee on information technology that have been funded. there is a ballot measure in 2016 i think that had some funding with it, but generally when we've had ordinances that we've asked for as option by the board, some have had specific dollar amounts but were not included, others haven't. so i think that's one of the things that we should continue to present in our ordinances going forward about what the cost implications are. it is something if it's not appropriated in the enabling legislation for the law, that we should certainly be tallying up and coming back to every budget cycle to remind everybody that

it does take investment to make these rules happen in practice effectively. >> to that point, do we have funding in our public finance ordinances that's now being considered at the board or do we need -- >> no, that does not have an appropriation aspect to it. >> is there something to think about as we go forward? >> i had not included that really, only because we thought the main financial impact that ordinance would be on the election campaign fund, how much money is being awarded to candidates, not so much the cost of administering it, which in theory should be roughly equivalent. this doesn't really change a lot of the language in the code in terms of how we administer the program. it really just kind of moves -- >> thresholds and the amount. >> thresholds and maximums and madam foremaning -- matching

ratios. we're at a system we can accomplish that if and when the ordinance becomes operative. i don't think it's something that will require a massive rollout. >> as we go forward and consider future legislation, let's bear in mind, the funding component and make sure that we include or a reminder to examine the appropriations aspect so we don't -- we -- that we will have the funds or ask for the funds -- have the opportunity to ask for the funds to support the work. it's an ongoing challenge with ballot measures that come to us for implementation without funds. all part of life in the big city, i guess. >> so i will skip the last update on here, only because rachael did such a thorough job of explaining our implementation efforts on a.c.a.o.

this is just a note that i have been involved in that process, but you are totally up to speed on that, so i will skip it. moving on to the policy prioritization plan. you'll see at the top the first two boxes numbered 1 and 2 are the two projects that have been ongoing and that i am recommending continue as ongoing projects. the form 700 e-filing project i think is in the relatively early stages, just because it's such a long-term and large-scale project. the public financing review project probably in its later stages, but still a lot of work together since there is an active ordinance before the board. both of these things are things that will take a lot of time from policy and are important to follow through on and devote that time. at this point i'm recommending keeping those two as ongoing projects and not adding any additional projects at this

time. definitely i would like to hear any feedback, should you have any on that idea. and then also listing several projects here that are remaining kind of in the queue or the hopper of projects. these are projects that have been recommended at some point by a commissioner and there was some degree of discussion on the commission, even if it was brief and informal. that's kind of what qualifies these to be on this list. this list is a little bit shorter than the last time the plan appeared on the agenda because i went through and approved any projects for which only one commissioner had supported and that commissioner is no longer on the commission. for any project that was the case for, that is gone now. these should reflect hopefully projects that at least one member that's currently on the commission has discussed in open session. but again, this list completely

up to change at any time and that's part of what this quarterly discussion is about. so if there are things you think don't warrant consideration of the policy project, they can be removed. if there are things you have in mind, we can add them. if you want to talk about the ones that are currently on here about what they entail, maybe which ones are appropriate to do next, also good things to talk about, i can quickly go through the list and just give context for each of these. so a lot of them are program reviews. similar to the program financing reviews. so that entails really looking head to toe at the program. looking at the code, regs, advice, any other interpretive documents that we have in order to get a full picture of the law. and then also doing a complete project researches how we implement it. so looking at all of our compliance materials, all of our

internal processes, any issues that have come up, any questions or concerns that regulated community folks have. a lot of times reaching out to stakeholders, whether they're regulated community or advocacy groups or other departments, anybody who could have a stake in these, really getting a full picture of the state of the world with that program and trying to identify ways to make it better. so the ones that are like that are the campaign consultant program review, lobbying code review, expenditure lobbying program review, which is a kind of a subset of the lobbying program but could be broken off as a separate project, conflict of interest code review, permit consultant review, and major program developer review. all of those are different programs that our office operates and those would be similar projects of looking at every facet of it and trying to

identify ways to strengthen it. policy projects on here that are a little different, these are targeted or one-off ideas. so create a limit on contributions to i.e. committees. this is a very specific legislative recommendation that was made to the commission last year. it would essentially create a limit so that you could only give up to $5,000 to an independent expenditure committee. the only exception being if the contributor is a -- essentially a committee that only accepts small contributions. so essentially trying to limit the flow of money into i.e. committees. so that project would be investigating all aspects of that proposal, whether it's feasible, whether it's a good idea policy-wise, whether it would expose the city to potential litigation risks, everything. trying to inform you in the first stage, inform you as to all those aspects and then get

feedback. and if you want to proceed with it, then proceeding with it. that's what that project would be. >> mr. ford, there were some materials, were there not, that were prepared and distributed i think to the commission at that time. so since we have two new commissioners, could you please send them the -- i think there is a proposal and a draft ordinance and a couple of court decisions.

>> summer is not a time off for a lot of people in our office. we've been very busy this month, doing our annual performance and goal-setting process for the f.y. 19, and setting

there has been a lot from my experience, a lot of really valuable thought and conversation that has been going into that. i've very much appreciated the staff's focus. it is a busy time for us, but i think it is a very helpful and important way to make sure we're having mindful conversations about our work and how we work together to serve the public. that's something i wanted to provide some in sight insight into that and i'd be happy to answer any questions. >> in terms of open positions, i think there are four currently open. do we have d.h. r. resources to help us fill those positions? >> yes, in this budget year with a memorandum of understanding, and they're providing us some

part-time hours. we were not able to get the full range of contract that we had hoped to with our budget limitations. but we have very strong support within that time, and we will -- we are going to have to stagger our hiring processes because of that limitation of time and resource. and also our budget resources. so we're hoping that we will have a position posted probably within the next couple of weeks, and then we'll see more being posted after that. see we know it is critical to get those seats filled. >> onwards and upwards, maybe we can use some of our salary savings to help put towards additional hours -- >> we can certainly explore that option. thank you. >> thank you. any other questions from commissioners? public comment. agenda item 14, discussion on possible actions for future meetings. public comment on this item? there being none, item 15,

additional opportunity for public comment on matters appearing or not appearing, article 7, section 2. there is no public comment. move to adjourn.

please silence mobile devices. i won't personally apologize but i know how uncomfortable this room is. the ac is out in the building. commissioners, i would like to take roll at this time. (roll call) commissioners, first is consideration items for continuance. 2017, 50 seward street. discretionary review to september 12, 2019.