factor that we put in place in order to make an employment determination. 1020 thank you. >> i have a clarifying question. in order to trigger this provision, the city employee needs to be receiving a salary or a wage and not have an ownership interest. say they are a shareholder they receive a dividend but they're not involved in the day-to-day running of the business. in that scenario with this advanced written determination be required? >> i would like to my ethics commissions colleagues i believe that is a form 700 issue. they're not conducting business to then receive some sort of compensation benefit, or -- it sounds like in the example you

are provided they are investing. we would apply the same principle to somebody who was running an airbnb or renting a house as far as the additional employment provisions. if they've given it to a property manager to run the airbnb and they have no day-to-day activities involved in it, the property manager is meeting the tenants coming into the house, providing access, providing cleaning services, if the owner of the business is not conducting the work involved in it, it would not fall under this this is something we have worked extensively with the city attorney's office on in terms of getting an interpretation when the supplies and when it doesn't apply. this is how we got to where we were at with the gig economy. lyft and uber are actively conducting work. it is a little grayer -- there is a black situation with something like airbnb.

if you are actively participating in the business, and conducting the business then you would be required to complete this process. >> thank you. >> i just wanted to ask about the statement of incompatible activity. every department in the city required to reflect upon the work that they do, their employees, and what they think is appropriate? my understanding, i think is that the department has a lot of discretion and can also include with the statement of incompatible activities of the prohibition of activities that would give an appearance of a conflict even if not a conflict. i was reflecting on the example that you gave, someone who works for the planning department while they might be an administrative and clerical and not in a decision-making role with respect to permits, i don't know if they do or not, but am i

correct in assuming if the planning director wanted to there could be a statement of incompatible activities, that anyone who is employed by the planning department cannot work for a permit expediter? or, does this set of criteria that you identified here conflict time interference, et cetera, the only governing protocol is for whether you can or you can't? >> i think you're point is well taken. the statement of incompatible activities is one way that they determine whether there is a conflict. like you said it could be appearance, i will give an example. we could have somebody at a high level decision-making position in a department and they have knowledge and expertise and they want to help design, let's say a testing process for another

municipality, or even for the city and county of francisco the department head would not want that high-level deputy, or maybe anyone in that department, because it would give the appearance of potential favoritism or even if it wasn't favoritism, somebody could claim , i know this manager worked on this process, and/or its consulting or providing information. i did not work with them, and i did not play favor with him. therefore, that is why i did not get the position or the promotion. we have seen instances where a department head, or appointing authority has made decisions not to allow outside employment. one way is the statement of incompatible activities. it could be the appearance, it could be time off between shifts. there's a lot of things that the

statement of incompatible activities will not speak to that we would give broad latitude to an appointing officer. one important caveat, our labor partners actually have language in there mou, that work the other way around, which explicitly gives a right to an employee to have additional employment unless the city finds there is a conflict or a potential issue. as far as i know the only union that has a provision. >> interesting. one last question, is there an appeal. if mickey callahan, and/or the department head gave a thumbs down, is there any step beyond that? >> every decision, almost every decision of the human resource director can be appealed to the civil service commission. there is a provision in the rules that says any decision of

the human resource director can be appealed to the commission. we have not seen that. i haven't actually experienced an appeal in this process. in most instances when there are questions or concerns that we are able to work backwards through the department and adequately provide the employee would notice and reason for why we cannot support this. we have not seen circumstances for a decision of either the department, or the director has been appealed. >> when you give someone notice they have been denied, what form of notice is it? is it an e-mail or letter? >> we go back through the appointing officer, at the department, usually through their human resources team. most departments will have their own h.r. team and we will advise

them. maybe this is something you did not consider, maybe you can remedy that. if you cannot, the example i highlighted earlier, a high-level deputy or department head participating in consultation to help potential candidates for a job, that was never going to be compatible. that department and issued a notice in some cases with advice from the city attorney's office and the department of human resources, in the form of a letter saying, here is the reasons why we will not be approving your additional employment request. if they are not doing it would be subject to the charter of potential discipline. >> how long do they have to appeal? i know you haven't seen it, but -- >> i'm hearing, from the audience, five days.

i believe that to be true. from the point they receive the e-mail, or the notice, or a carrier pigeon dropping it off, whatever that to appeal to the civil service commission. >> business days? >> five business days. otherwise, i would issue it right before three day weekend. [laughter] >> there are different levels of employees -- >> i'm sorry can you speak into the microphone? >> there are various levels of employment. there are ones that have responsibilities whether it is finance, programs, or what have you. when the supervisor or the approving officer reviewed these requests, do they look at the

actual level of responsibilities of these employees -- when they look at the conflict of interest rules, and other rules? because, you know, the folks are at lower pay grades, their request for outside employment may be very different from people at the senior level, of employment. you mentioned about the flexibility, but -- it seems like there needs to be different ways of looking at the activities as well as a conflict issue. >> i think i have an answer that will massage some of those concerns. we look at all requests and work backwards through departments to make sure they are thoroughly vetted.

when it comes to managers, supervisors, we apply the same standard that we are seeing for the folks that are required to fill out form seven hundreds when we make a policymaking decision. every manager request i review with director callahan, to make sure that we are aware of what a department is approving. there are times when she calls her department head colleague and has a discussion with them about their employees outside requests. it might involve, as we were discussing earlier, simply the appearance of potential conflict are you aware, department head, if you approve this it may not be in conflict with their job, but it could give the appearance area i do work with her on all

management level. this is mid-level management all the way up to make sure that those requests are consistently -- reviewed across that spectrum. >> thank you. >> thank you very much, sean. call for public comment. there is none. jeff? thank you, sean, thank you hannah. this is very, very helpful and informative. >> would like to add my thanks to sean and hannah as well. i do hope that going forward your office, and our office, can collaborate on both some of the heart of questions identified in terms of really honing in on where there may be some incompatibility, and looking for ways to improve enforcement

opportunities where we do discover some of those instances in which somebody had unapproved outside employment, or maybe even engaged in conduct for which they had sought approval and that approval had been denied. >> i actually have another question for sean, if i may. with the recent passage of the new law that is going into effect the employees of lyft and uber in the gig economy it would now be required to be classified as employees. what impact do you see that having on this process if any? >> it shouldn't have any change, we would already require them to complete this process. if anything else, it might bring more light to this program that it becomes clearer to employees -- >> that they are employed by two different companies.

>> right. if you become an employee, would dictating schedules and hours. that might change how employees are doing that now, if they are working for lyft or uber. they can set their own hours. so the hours would not conflict with their current city employment. if an employer was setting hours that would conflict. >> that would be difficult. thank you. >> i would like to make a correction to a statement that i whisper to sean earlier. the appeal timeframe for other matters, because i just realized additional employment is not specific in the civil service rules with regard to appeals. the civil service rule 105.12.4, allows someone to appeal the human resources director's

decision on other matters for 30 days. >> okay. >> not just five business days, but 30 calendar days. >> okay. thank you. >> thank you, commissioners. i will keep the remainder of my presents -- present item on agenda item number for quite brief. a reminder for current docket adding together all of the matters, those in preliminary review, and those that are under investigation, you will have seen only about one third of them are under preliminary review, about two thirds are under investigation. our aim, of course, is to devote more resources to investigations, and triage so that we stem prosecutorial

resources in the most effective way possible. we certainly have more work to do on that front. we still have 47 matters that require a decision, about our jurisdiction, or about our extending those resources. we have more work to do bringing down the amount of time that it takes for us to make a decision. if you look at attachment one, at the top of page 4, you will see among those matters still in preliminary review, about half of them, the commission received within the timeframe between today, and three months ago. and then scattering of matters across the next 15 months for which we still have a determination to make. it could be a matter that is older in preliminary review, it

is again being held through the policies. that follows a strange process where it sort of it remains limbo of preliminary review, until it is fully resolved. it never actually gets in the usual sense off of their preliminary review docket. i know it's agenda item five that that is something the enforcement division is reconsidering. it may be that other matters, still under preliminary review that are older have entailed more complex preliminary investigation, or they require additional layers of review among staff to resolve. the last thing that i will note. as to the 91 matters, under investigation, which is a number that is remaining roughly constant. we have been up around 90 for quite some time.

the division intends to take a mini staff retreat, late next week to begin to apply the discretionary factors that we discussed with you, a month ago, during the august meeting. the question arose at that time, whether they could be applying those factors, not only prospectively to complaints that come in, but complaints that are already on the investigative docket. commission expressed an opinion that we should close out by applying discretionary factors. any matters for which we think the expenditure of additional resources doesn't make sense. we will spend time, as a team reviewing the incident -- existing investigative docket with that purpose in mind and we will of course work through the process that the regulations require which is to write to closure reports and obtain the

approval of the executive director. and then provide for your review, a summary of each of those matters, so you can exercise your oversight of the divisions' enforcement efforts and provide to us any feedback about whether you think we are applying those factors in the way you helped. the way you had hoped. >> any questions from commissioners? okay. call for public comment on agenda item number four? no public comment. agenda item number five, discussion of possible action on preliminary outline for revisions of commissions fixed penalty policy. >> thank you. item five, again is in response to request from the commission at our last meeting, commissioners requested that we come back to you, at subsequent meetings with a proposal about how we would implement one

subset of efforts that the enforcement division is undertaking in this period of review as we examine whether the practices of the division are truly as efficient and is effective as they might be. so, just mentioned the staff retreat that the enforcement division will take next week to apply the discretionary factors to that is one subset. the main project at the division will undertake, in the coming months with the blessing of the commission is to extend the fixed penalty policy that the commission adopted in a public meeting in july of 2013. the request that you made was that we think about what that process might look like. what we brought to you on agenda item number five, is some background on the existing policy for the benefit of any

commissioners who are less familiar with it, but also for the benefit of the public. so, we have detailed in some degree how that policy operates. we have noted that one goal of the policy is to handle in an accelerated fashion fashion those matters that require little to no investigation and that might be suitable to resolve through at a schedule of penalties. the drafters of the policy believed would bring to the regulated community increased transparency and increase predictability. our view, and i believe the commission view is that we have an opportunity, at this.because to review that policy in both its substantive and procedural aspects. of course what we envision undertaking is a process to

contemplate what additional kinds of violations the enforcement division can handle in a streamlined way. procedurally we intend to reevaluate the factors, mitigating and aggravating factors that apply in a given instance, including whether there are factors of aggravation that would prevent a respondent from participating in the streamlined process and benefiting from the schedule of penalties. we would, of course, want to make the policy more explicitly clear that the division has the power to exercise its discretion to do that. there are a number of other issues that we would consider procedural in nature that would be part of the scope of this review process, including whether the division should use warning letters, more frequently than it currently does brady will remember jesse minardi,

submitted public comment requesting that the division do explicitly that. at the bottom of page four we have set out the policy, or rather the process that we intend to pursue here. staff have already begun to evaluate what other jurisdictions are doing in terms of a streamlined process. we are also initiating internal conversations, consulting with members of a compliance staff who have ideas about how their own programs are, or are not functioning well and which of the provisions of the programs that they oversee might be suitable for streamline resolutions. we've envisioned that we would have a first round of interested

persons meetings, which is much more open ended. in which we would solicit from participants what they believe the scope of this revision process to include. we have some ideas of what the scope might be, from the regulated community and others. what aspects they think are ripe for reevaluation. having done that, and having completed the analysis, the internal analysis and consolation with other jurisdictions we would then intend to draft a proposed revision. we would bring that draft to subsequent interested persons meetings, and at that second stage, the second stage what we would solicit would be specific responses to the proposal that we put in front of them.

we would merit those contributions from persons, and make any additional amendments to our proposal, and then bring that draft before the commission for possible action. at that time, we would solicit your feedback, having the benefit of all of these prior layers of process. we would iterate that process and come back to you with something that you can act on again. >> thank you. i have a few questions, and would also invite my fellow commissioners to ask questions as well. this is -- maybe a stupid question, is the penalty policy a part of the enforcement rights

>> it is not. it is not a stupid question. i'm struggling to remember whether the current enforcement regulations explicitly referred to the six penalty policy, or incorporated by reference? i don't believe the current regulations do. the policy exists independently, outside of the regulations. >> i am sure there was a reason for that, at the time the policy was adopted. as you go through this process, i would be interested to hear if it is something that you would like to continue to have them be separate, or if they should be incorporated into the race. i don't know if the attorney has a view on this, i would like to get your input as well. >> i think penalties have to be adopted by ordinance. you are assessing a fine. is that why it is in the

c.f.r.o. ordinance? i don't know, i'm not to ask our new assigned deputy attorney to tell us about our foundational constitutional authority to jump past the board of supervisors on that. anyway, it is something to look into. >> well, i will note for the benefit of the public, that the question comes from a former deputy city attorney. you may have a clear view of this. i wonder whether proposing penalties that are below the maximum, that the ordinance provides, would not be an unconstitutional exercise of executive power. >> that would probably go to the ordinance itself what authority the board delegated. anyway, that would be an interesting subject for you all to pull apart and let us know. >> i appreciate the caution.

>> i would just note -- i like the idea of benchmarking with other jurisdictions and if there are any jurisdictions that have program features, or frameworks that are helpful, if you share that with us that would help educate us. data is always helpful to know, as we expand the number of violations -- it would be helpful to know how many, you know, the addressable market for those types of violations, that is why we want to incorporate that into the six penalty policy. and then, noting in your memo that you have identified areas inadvertent that conflict with the charters, as you go through this process to harmonize the

policy, or charter mandates, i think that's an important piece of work, as well. and then, my last question, or comment and then i will open this to my fellow commissioners. i'm not suggesting one way or the other that we do this. on page four, as part of the process, there are interested persons meeting and designed to solicit input at the outset, take that input, and then draft a revised policy and then host additional meetings. would it make sense to house that initial draft to be presented here to us to give us a sense of what the public is thinking about, and the feedback that -- that you have received to date? >> you mean, yeah, the draft envisioned a number three there, before we bring it back to

interested persons so that you just see the very original thought process? i am happy to bring that to you. i think this thought process -- i think our thought process was that -- by bringing to you a draft that had received the full benefit of interested persons input -- we could we could streamlined the amount of engagement that that might require. if you would like to see every iteration, i am certainly happy to put it in front of you. >> i will ask my fellow commissioners if you would like to see on an interim basis, or a more developed product? >> i never thought about it. [inaudible]

>> at this point we are envisioning the first meetings would happen in the third week of november. between the election and thanksgiving. we know many persons are heavily invested in the election that will take place at the beginning of november. [please stand by] [please stand by]

>> i don't have an immediate question. we will look into that, but as to your question, i'm chair woman regarding the referencing to the fixed policy, there is no specific regulations to the six penalty policy. my colleague was unable to find the policy on the website so we can work on that, if necessary

of the that was sort of my providing context if that is helpful. >> i do want to clarify. i see by looking at the regulations that you attached that i understand what you are saying that the coordinates establishing the maximum penalty is not being changed. so unless the policy wherever we put it at the regulatory level, as long as we don't exceed the fine, then you are right, you should be within the scope of the ordinance's delegated authority to the commission. don't spend a lot of time on that. >> the regulations are under file complaint. they are listed as pdf just above complaint process. they are there for those that

might want to look at it. >> maybe making it easier to find would be a good move. >> we will also relocate where the pdf of the six penalty is homed. i myself have struggled to find it. you have to search for it. certainly when we adopt a new one, we will be glad to feature it quite heavily on the enforcement tab. >> if i could ask since you have several interested persons meeting, at least one of them be held outside of the office so that we can maximize the community's interest and participation. >> sure. thank you for the suggestion. >> thank you, commissioner lee. any other questions for jeff on item 5? okay. call for public comment.

public comment on agenda item 5. agenda item 6. discussion of monthly staff policy report. >> thank you. i am pat ford senior policy analyst. i will quickly highlight the major items in this month's policy report. first one is that i have a subsequent update about the public financing ordinance, which is good news. the board of supervisor unanimously approved it on the first reading on tuesday. as you know ordinances have to have two readings at the board. it is currently on the agenda as item one this tuesday. i hope it is the same house and same call, no amendments. i will keep you in did loop. i will try to send an e-mail next week. >> that is great new.

once it is approved at the second reading, it goes to the mayor for signature? >> correct. >> what is the lag time between approval at the board, being sent to the mayor and she signs the timeframe before it becomes effective. >> the mayor has 10 days. i think it is 10 days. typically it has taken 10 days with our ordinances. i think the last ordinance i asked for expedited signing and it moved up. it is at least a week for them to look at it. >> do we need to incorporate or will the board of supervisors' clerk describe the summary instead of the giant ordinance in front of the mayor to sign this?

>> i think the whole legislative file comes along with each ordinance. i think the mayor's staff would have whatever the board has and it has a digest that was prepared probably by a deputy city attorney who was familiar with it, and it has all of the letters of support, it has the bla analysis, two separate analysis, one was short and one was a full-length policy analysis which i would encourage you to look at. i can send a link. i had a policy analyst do a full policy write up. it is interesting to see the two takes. we worked together on it. working through the concepts, but he has a different approach. interesting to see, but back to your question of timeline. if and when the mayor does sign

the ordinance after it is approved by the board, it would be 30-days until it is operative. however, we baked in a january 1, 2020 operative date. i misspoke. it is 30-days before it becomes effective. it becomes operwheretive januar. i am working on exactly what it means. what it means for us we can start to prepare. at that point we can begin to amend the materials and start to work on the internal processes knowing that law will be in flyers next year's election. other than that i can tell you there are now six co-sponsors for the ordinance. that is good. i picked up two at committee and three more before it came to the board. if we need eight boards on the

board, we have six co-sponsors. that is pretty good. >> the board of supervisors unanimous about public financing and nra. we are in good company, i guess. >> i hope we will be able to update you next week it was approved on the second reading. i will keep you in the loop every step of the way. >> mr. ford, do we have the resources in the budget to be able to support the changes to be required by the ordinance? i wouldn't imagine there is a lot. it is an additional body of work to be done. >> yes, when we were looking at this back at the analysis stage, the main thing we looked at in terms of affordability was whether or not the election campaign fund could sustain the extra payments.

we tried to spec out the increase to candidates and to public financing. we concluded there is probably enough based on current participation levels if this generates so much interest with the candidates and changes fund-raising and campaign patterns it could start to strain the current fund. that was the same conclusion the bla came to as well. i think on that front it looks like, yes, there is enough money based on the annual appropriation of about $2.8 million to pay for these increases in matching. on the administrative side, kind of a similar answer, assuming the current volume of applications for public funds remains somewhat the same we will be able to meet that need.

if there is a massive increase in applications that could change that answer a little bit, but i doubt that will be the case. i think we will probably see roughly the same number of candidates admitting the same number of documents. the one difference could be this ordinance tries to incentivize candidates to receive a larger number of smaller contributions. it matches only up to $150. we could see a higher volume of applications. if we get matching requests, there could be more contributions on each one and more work for auditors. it wouldn't be so much more work we couldn't meet it, so i think we are prepared to implement this as is. >> thank you.

next item is the e filing of the form 700 project. at this point, continuing to work through all of the implications to make sure the systems are on track to make sure they are feasible to spec them out to be sure we can do this. then from the training perspective to work with departments to assess their needs and figure out what is the best way to roll this out. as that goes on in other departments or divisions in our office, i am continuing to work on the employee relations aspect. i am still working with the department of human resources to figure out how to engage with bargaining units on this. at that point i have drafted a

tentative timeline that combines both this project and next year's code review which will also have an employee relations meet and confer component to it. i am trying to envision those processes working together. there is a lot of crossover. the form 700 project only pertains to how the form is filed, it is likely bargaining units will want to talk who filed the form. that topic is what is addressed through the code review when all of the departments are to review the list of filers, update and make adjustments. that is where that happens. that has a whole separate meet and confer process. we are trying to think since the

projects are close in time, how do we coordinate the efforts of the two of them so we have a unified and cogent approach. that makes sense. it works out on the right timetable to have both of those be in effect on january 1, 2021. it is still tentative. we are working through how to get that really going, get the notice out to the bargaining units, and then start talking with them and figure out how they feel about this project. no real concrete developments to update you on right now other than still trying to get towards that point where we are able to make contact with the bargaining units. >> i have a question about the

e-filings, is there a hard deadline? we set january of 2021 as the date by which we want to finish this. where i am going with this, if we combine and it makes sense to combine e-filing of 700 which will raise the question of who is required to file. when you link the two together, if there is a question or more concern raised by the road review about who files, does that necessarily completely stall the e-filing implementation date, which is only a change in the format of the filing and not a substantive change at all. the same people instead of filing paper have to do it electronically. my concern would be by linking the two, does that potentially

change the timeline forgetting the e-filing done? >> yes, thank you for asking that. it is definitely not my intention to link them in any way. i kind of referred to this as a unified approach. what i mean it is that we are thinking about both of them at the same time and plans for both of them. it is my plan to keep them separate because of that concern. if they are linked neither can move forward until both are resolved. i remember from two years ago the meet and confer for the code review was tough. it has a lot of moving parts, a massive ordinance changing a long article of the code that involves specific job titles and disclosure categories, and i think it is definitely good to keep it separate so that we can talk about the two different

concerns in those two separate processes. one can move ahead if the other is not done yet. what i am trying to work through and dhr is helping us. how do we communicate that to the bargaining units to show them they will be able to have those concerns addressed about who is filing? rather than saying this is only e-filing. we can't talk about who files. it is to have a way to field the concerns but in a separate forum that may be concurrent or shortly after the e filing meetings. not trying to shut them down but giving them a place to discuss that will not hold the other project back. there is a lot of operational work that will go after the ordinance or regulations for e-filing.

the biannual code review goes to the board and mayor and becomes law. for e-filing the regulations are halfway through the project. we have a ton of would, to do. time is much more of the essence. >> there are resources and timelines established with an end goal of 2021 for everyone who is now doing paper filing to convert to e-filing. i think to jeopardize that would not be great, to say the least. >> part of this timeline exercise is to envision a different way to do the b code review next year is not until i think may or june of the biennial code review years that

the process would start, which is much too late to work concurrently or anywhere near the e-filing meet and confer which we hope starts in the next couple of months. we are trying to see if we can move that process up a little bit. we will be working with the city attorney's office and the clerk of the board, they are the leaders on that project. that is kind of where the coming together happens. trying to make sure those two processes work together. they still will remain separately, hopefully. >> thank you. >> the last thing is on the last page. this is a ruling by the third district court of appeal pertaining to public financing.

it does not affect this city's public financing program because san francisco is the charter city, it has a little bit different rules than general cities with regard to public financing, specifically the law at issue in this case does not apply in the same way to us to other cities. the public financing program can go on. we confirmed with the city attorney's office. this court decision i am putting here not because it pertains to our program but an action this commission took in 2016 to support a particular piece of state legislation. this is a follow-up to let you know what happened to that legislation that the commission supported three years ago. with that disclaimer, i will go back to talk what this is.

in 1988, a state ballot measure was passed, prop 73, that created a rule to say candidates and public officials cannot use public money for election costs. that would mean in the strict reading of the rule that you cannot use public financing funds to run for public offers. that did not apply to charter cities. public financing could not exist in those jurisdictions. in 2016 the legislature tried to create an exception to the rule saying this doesn't apply to public financing. if you have a program that is made available to all candidates, it is okay to use public funds for election costs

as long as you do it in that way. what happened on the 26th of august was that the third district court of appeals upheld the trial court decision that struck that down. they found that is invalid that is the legislature cannot create an exception because it is against at the purpose of the p ra. prop 73 changed the purpose to prohibit public financing, and that the legislature could not go against that intent. it is a boiled down version of the case. essentially restores the cities and counties back to where they were before 2016 that created the exception. it doesn't affect us.

the commission did weigh in support of that bill. in 2016 it sent a letter urging support and it didn't pass, but now it is invalid. back to the pro-16 state of affairs in other cities in california. >> i was looking at that and tried to quickly look at the case. i haven't pulled it up. the homes is straightforward the voters enacted something and the court found the legislature didn't have the authority to undo what the voters do. you have to go back to the voters. it is interesting in the letter from common cause, they an said the intent of the bill was to

refer something to the ballot. somebody advised them to go back to the voters and that is not what came out of legislative process. that law said they were expanding the ban to state and local races whereas now they clearly are supposed to comply at the federal level. do you know if you can look into it. did that part of 1107 survive and does that apply to charter cities or do we have our own which says no foreign money in our elections. then there was a piece about the convicted politicians and what happens to their campaign funds. it doesn't seem like it could be

part of the public financing part of the bill that was not challenged in the first instance. i am curious what happened to that piece. >> as far as i know only the public financing was at issue in this case. i will make sure that is the case. >> de would very a rule saying no foreign corporations or individuals can contribute? i just don't know. thanks. >> i will be glad to answer any questions that you have. >> i had a question about the dark money initiative, the ballot measure this november. if it is approved by the voters, what is the cost estimate for

implementing it? where will that money come from since it is not in our budget? >> where will the money come from? i will direct that question to the executive director. i can't speak to budget items. the cost estimate at this point i don't think we have a hard and fastestty mat. when working with the controllers office to provide them with information when they were giving the rules committee fiscal impact information. their threshold is so high. the number we provided them was below the threshold for fiscal impact. they said no fiscal impact. we have to implement this.

i think at this point it is hard to say if we don't have a hard and fast cost estimate nout. >> in terms of timing if it is approved in november, when would it become effective? january 1st, 2020? >> i think it is usually after. i have to look. >> thank you. it would be good to know what the cost would be. i don't know if we have any idea where to find the funds. >> if there is not an allocation in the measure, i believe we would absorb it and we would have budget requests we would be working on then of this year to subpoena split. that is something we would of

course consider. >> any other questions? call for public comment on item 6? there being none we will move to item 7. discussion of executive director's report. highlights of the staff activities since the last monthly meeting. >> thank you. the memo is fairly brief this week. i think it doesn't fully reflect the items going on at the staff level. one of the thing is at an the request of the mayor's office i was able to do an overview of the tools and resources available to implement the accountability ordinance. i have attached a copy of the powerpoint. it was an opportunity to profiled direct links at the monthly meeting the mayor held

earlier this month to highlight the communications to reach out to their staff tommingment the requirements. i thought it was helpful and positive comments from the mayor encouraging department heads to reach out with questions as for requirements or other generalth continues issues. from were a number of informal communications after that, as a result of that meeting i think a number of departments are reaching out to us for refresher sessions about ethics laws and the new laws taking effect. we welcome those and i want to say yes to everybody. we will follow up to provide information. that is one of the out growths

during the month of august in the fiscal year and the performance review process. it is what we have in front of us. we are making sure where there are areas overlapping interest doing outreach we are prioritizing that work so that we can have all hands on deck, if you will, to make those priorities happen. you will hear more about that in the coming months. it is a very useful process having looked back and refining so we can be focused to achieve our goals this year as possible. i want to add coming at the same time i was happy to b to be ablo

announce to the staff new staff changes that will take effective tomorrow. they were not able to be completing for writing in the report i will put them in the report next month. i want to highlight the changes that reflect? changes on the budget received this year and a couplingpel highlights. one announcement johnnie hosey has ok septed a job as compliance officer. he is functioning in an active capacity over a new. he will step into a new role to ten to provide guidance and programmatic support to those who connect when it comes