deemed the proposal meets residential design guidelines with relation to the midblock open space scale, massing, in preservation of the street scale staff deemed the project with these changes poses minimal impacts to the neighbors with respect to light and privacy. specifically the modifications we requested were a reduction of the scale and massing of the street by one and setting the third floor for additions back to 14 feet from the front façade , eliminating the roof parapet at the third floor, eliminating the third floor parapet, aligning and proportioning the entry door and windows more in keeping with the surrounding buildings, revising the bay windows to be code compliant and aligning them over the garage doors, at the rear, the popout was reduced on the one side of the project to extend no more than 5 feet preserve the scale and access to the midblock open space.

and lastly, after meeting with the neighbors, the project sponsor agreed to relocate the bay projection adjacent to this property to preserve light at the front windows and balcony that to her property. furthermore, though this project is represented but it is not a demolition, a last-minute review by staff has revealed the project is extremely close to the tantamount to demolition calculations and requires further staff review of those calculations to determine whether or not it is or impact is not a demolition for 317. however, the house sold in 201742 but $1 million which was well beyond the threshold of affordability -- the house sold in 2017 for $2.1 million.

it is quite likely the value will exceed the current level of threshold and not require a see you, but could be approved for demolition. that is work that staff will continue to do internally if it does not meet the threshold. if it meets or exceeds the threshold tantamount to demo, but does not exceed the threshold, the financial threshold, it will require a conditional use and will be before you. if it is a demolition and it exceeds the financial threshold, it can be approved administratively as a demolition , if it is a demolition. issues pertaining to the foundation, design, and adequacy are not in the purview of the planning department. the project sponsor has made some of the recommended design changes that responded to the d.r.'s requester concern, but since the design, because of these changes deviate from the

original design that was noticed in the 311 notification, staff recommends the commission take the d.r. and approve the project with the proposed modifications. this concludes my report and i'm happy to answer any questions. >> there are three d.r. requester spee. each of them should get -- should receive up to five minutes to make their presentation and the project sponsor will get up to 10 minutes. >> okay. i will do something a little bit unorthodox right now and just ask for a five-minute break. i would like to confirm with a deer requester and the project sponsor given the information that was just shared, i just want to -- it might shorten the meeting or a med ad five minutes to our meeting so i think it is worth it, if that is okay. all r

>> will come back to the planning commission regular king for thursday, december 19th, 2019. >> at how long will it take to redo calculations and get plans there are two components that i think we probably will request which accuracy, as well as two appraisals of the mr. chan, can i ask you how long you might think it will take to produce those from today?

[indiscernible] >> january 30th? >> sure. we still need a motion. >> motion to continue until january 30th. >> second. >> thank you. on that motion to continue this matter to january 30th... [roll call] so moved. that motion passes 5-0 and you are adjourned for the year. >> did that work -- did that date work with the d.r. requester? i assume it did. >> january 30th, does it work for you guys?

>> okay. sounds good. thank you. thank you. by. have a good night. .

>> december 20 of 2019. we'll take roll call. commissioner lee is absent today. agenda item number 2, public comment on those items not appearing on the agenda. >> good afternoon. thank you, commissioners. my name is ellen. i have my name tag here. i am a public employee. i am a union delegate for

government employees. i am also the director of public relations for california for the grand jury for the san francisco chapter. i have been coming to you at the commissions with other government employees, many times. in 2016, 2017, 2018 and 2019. the last time i was here was november 15, 2019, which is last month. i came before you demanding as a commission to investigate corruption within the commission department. between april 2017 to july 2017, six public employees reported bribery, extortion and retaliation with the ethics commission department, but no record was found, and they never got back to us. i was one of the eight candidates for mayor, june 2018 election. i just finished my mayor run for the november election.

i was one of the six mayor candidates for the last month's election. i was bullied by democrats and democratic leaders from city hall and from different departments and different leaderships from different communities. many of my billboards and posters were illegally removed because i am a conservative republican. i am a conservative republican, and i am for the people. i have been coming out to you about possible corruption with electoral officials and election fraud. in 2018, san francisco payers, taxpayers, paid $4.16 million in matching funds to support government scam. the government has been running a scam for election fraud to empower democrats only. for the last 45 years, no other

party other than democrats. it is a public scam created by democrats. november 19, $6 million bond for 2800 housing units is also a violation for equality for all. the united states constitution article 6 and the supreme court which stated that united states constitution is the supreme law of the land, the state and city violate the constitution. it's called treason. recreational cannabis is also a violation of federal law. it is a government race to raise a lot of money to do drug rehabs because the illegal drugs support it and pay for our taxpayers.

you as ethics commission, i believe you have the duty to investigate many of the complaints that i am bringing to you -- before you today. we the people have been facing a tyranny government for the last many years. we lost our quality of life in san francisco. we are worse than a third world country in san francisco. so today i'm here again because you ethics commissioners to restore law and order to protect san francisco for the way you sign up for. thank you. and for public record, my packet. thank you. >> thank you. any other public comment on agenda item number 2? moving onto consent calendar items to consider number 3, draft minutes for the ethics commission november 15, 2019, regular meeting, agenda item 4, the proposed stipulation, decision and order in the matter of the coalition for san

francisco neighborhoods, complaint number 16/17-056. and agenda item 5 the proposed stipulation decision and order in the matter of affordable housing for all, yes on d, complaint number 1718-134a. call for public comment on all three of these items? seeing no public comment, i'll move the items. >> i second. >> all in favor. >> aye. >> so the agenda items 3, 4, and 5 are unanimously approved. agenda item 6, discussion and possible action on proposed amendments to regulations related to article i chapter i of the campaign and governmental conduct code. >> thank you. good afternoon, commissioners. i'm pat ford, senior policy and legislative affairs counsel.

this agenda item contains a set of regulations or i should say amendments to the regulations that support article i chapter i of the campaign of governmental conduct code, which we call cfro because it's the campaign finance reform ordinance. the amendments represent updates that are part of two separate projects. i've condensed those into one document so that essentially for convenience that you can act on it if you choose to do so at one time. two different projects are the campaign financing review project, phase 2. this would update regulations to match the statutory changes. and secondly, the regulation amendments also address changes

to the code brought about by proposition f, which was passed in the last election and the same idea, brought changes to the code so we need to update the regulations to follow that and especially in this case to provide guidance about these new laws, because these are new provisions of law, don't provide all the details someone would need to comply with them. so this is to help fill in the blanks. what i would like to do is briefly go over at a high level what these regulation amendments are. and i would like to suggest to you five different amendments that were requested by stakeholders. i think all five of them make sense. and i will explain what they are. and i will also read the text of them where you don't already have it. i provided you with he mails from -- e-mails from these folks so you have that. these are also on the table for the public.

so in some cases you have the amendments in writing. in other cases they were proposed to me in concept-form and i have texts for you that i will read. >> before we proceed, i would like to ask the city attorney, is it okay for us to consider these amendments? >> yes. >> okay. thank you. >> so i'll start by going over what's actually in this agenda item first and then move on to the amendments. so the way that i structured this is in the actual attachment to this which has the regulation amendments that are ordered by regulation number. so on the public financing-related amendments are combined in with the prop f amendments. i can tell you that the vast majority of what is in here is really prop f. the public financing amendments are very, very minor. so we'll talk about those first i think just to kind of get them out of the way. so really the only thing in the

regulations that needs to be updated because of the changes to the code from the public financing phase two ordinance is basically just update the initial iec amounts, the individual expenditure ceiling, the limit that each candidate must agree to. the ordinance changed where that starts. it used to start at $250,000 for supervisor candidates and at $1,475,000 for mayor candidates. it will change $300,000 and $1.7 million. the places where those need to change are called out here in the amendments. so in regulation 1.140-2, which is if you are looking at the attachment with the amendments, that's on page 8.

you can see that's changed once for each number in that regulation. then on the next page, regulation 1.143-1, it's changed there and in regulation 1.142-2 it's changed throughout. i had to do a little bit more updating in regulation 1.143-2 than just changing the initial iec levels, because this regulation consists of a set of examples to explain the mechanics of the iec adjustment process. so i had to go through and make sure they still made sense, given the new levels. some of the numbers just didn't work out. so i kept the mechanics the same, the concepts are all the same. but you'll see there are a number of changes throughout. it should basically keep the spirit of these as is. i did the same thing with phase

1 ordinance that changed the increments of the adjustment, made the increments larger. i had to do the same thing back then, going through the examples and updating them to make sure they still made sense and showed the new regime. so this is the same idea, going through the examples, making sure they add up and now reflect the new law. so that's all for the public financing-related changes. maybe i'll stop here and ask if there are any questions about those set of changes before moving on. >> the only question i have relates to the change in the matching ratio. that was done in the ordinance itself so it's not required to be addressed here in the regulations l. >> surprisingly there was nothing in the regulations that talks about the matching ratio. i was surprised myself to find the only things that needed to be updated pertain to the initial iec level. there's nothing in the regulations about the matching ratio, nothing about what

portion of a contribution can be matched, which went down from the full 500 down to 150. those things weren't in the regulars. the regulars i would describe as being more about process of how the financing program is administered and how the different mechanics work, not so much about the goal posts or the actual parameters of it. those are just set forth in the code, and the regs, i would assume didn't see the need to elaborate on those because they were just very clear in the statute. >> okay. thank you. any other questions from commissioners? >> no. >> okay. i'll move on to the prop f-related changes, which are a lot more substantive and may be have more room for discussion. and this is where the amendments are. so i think maybe i'll start by giving a quick overview of what

is actual in prop f. i know commissioner ambrose asked about that the last meeting. so i included some bullet points here. and i'll roll through those quickly so you are all primed with what is in this ballot measure. so this is on page 3 of this agenda item. starting at the top of the page, the first thing that is in prop f is that it expands the prohibition on corporate contributions, which is currently construed narrowly, it could apply to just corporations. it expands it to cover llps and llcs. and i would presume that the intent behind this was that it doesn't matter what form of entity you choose, that these are business entities, they are for profit, they should be treated the same way. >> i'm just curious. was there any date that showed -- data that showed how limited partnerships and limited

liability companies were not being picked up by the prior prohibition of a 100 contributions were 95 coming from llps and llcs therefore we needed to address this issue? >> i'm not aware of any kind of data like that. the only thing that i'm aware of that i can speak to is actually addressed in the regs, which is that the regs used to address when llcs might be actually captured by the rule and it was based on how the l.l.c.s had elected to be taxed. i found the taxation principles to be complicated, and i am not familiar with an actual application of that regulation to an entity, so i can't tell you too much about how it worked. but that's the only thing i saw in here about non-corporation business entities making contributions. and i really couldn't tell you

how common that was, only that we didn't get any advice questions that ever came to me about it. >> thank you. >> so the next bullet point, there's a new contribution prohibition now in section 1.127. and the basis of this rule is that the person who has a financial interest in a land use matter, as defined, may not make a contribution to any candidate or office holder of mayor supervisor or city attorney, so anybody currently holding the positions or running for them. and financial interest in land use matter are both defined terms in the code. and that's where a lot of the clarification in the regs focused on, what does it mean for something to be a land use matter, what exactly does that term encompass, and what does it

mean to have a financial interest. so the third bullet point is related to 1.127, to that contribution prohibition. and it essentially requires that certain departments post a description of this rule in their agenda materials and on their websites. and those departments are the same list of departments that is used in the definition of land use matter. so we are talking about the planning department, commission, board of appeals, essentially, any of the city departments that would be making decisions on land use matters. they have to put a notice that's publicly available that just tells people that the rule exists, that they should be aware of it. >> so just to clarify the prohibition on making contributions. so this is the $500 political

contribution so that $500 is now going to zero? >> correct. it's similar in its format to the contractor contribution prohibition, which says that if you are someone who is currently bidding on a city contract or who has had a city contract approved in the last 12 months, you can't give a contribution to an elected official who is considering that bid or approved that contract. this is loosely similar, saying that if you are someone who currently has a land use matter pending or a land use matter that was resolved within the last 12 months, you cannot make a contribution to a certain set of officials and candidates. it's not pegged in the same way as the contractor rule that you can't make a contribution literally to the officials who approved that land use matter. it instead takes a different approach and defines a fixed set of officials and candidates and

says you can't make a distribution to that entire set of people, regardless of whether they were actually involved in the land use matter. >> so if you are remodeling your house because of flood damage and you need to get permits, does that qualify as a land use matter and therefore that person would be prohibited from making a contribution? >> most likely not. there is an extension in the code for primary residence. that's carved out of the definition of land use matter. there's also a dollar threshold that's baked in. so you have to have a financial interest of $5 million or more in the project or in some cases the project has to have an estimated construction cost of $5 million or more. so depending on which type of financial interest applies, there's different ways you can have a financial interest. in each one of those ways, there's a $5 million threshold that's baked in. so that would probably exclude the scenario you were

describing. >> thank you. >> so the one, two, three, four, the fourth bullet point moves on to a different part of prop f. and the next few are all related. and it's about disclaimers. so the fourth bullet point refers to an existing requirement in state law, and it builds upon it. so state law requires that certain political advertisements contain disclaimers and that the disclaimers state who the committee paying for the advertisements top funders are. so if a committee pays for independent expenditure and they've received contributions of over a certain amount from other individuals or committees, they have to put the names of those individuals or committees on the advertisement. even before prop f was passed,

san francisco law expanded on that and made it the top toledo nowheres and lowered the thresh -- the top three donors and lowered the threshold. this lowered the threshold to $5,000. and it also requires that the dollar amount contributed by each of those people be included in the disclaimer. and further more it requires that if any of those major donors -- i shouldn't use the term major donor. that's something that's used elsewhere. top contributor, we'll say. if any of the top contributors are themselves political committees that have taken in political contributions that the disclaimer must additionally list the top two contributors to those contributors.

so to phrase it differently, you could have a disclaimer that says this ad paid for by abc committee, major committee funding from xyz committee, which is funded by these two people. additional funding provided by california voter committee with funding from these two people. so you could have up to, i guess it would be nine different funders listed in a disclaimer. and with each of them it would have a dollar amount that they contributed. and from what i saw in the voter information pamphlet talking about this measure, the idea is to put more information in front of viewers or readers who see political advertisements about who paid for the advertisement and who that person got their money from. so trying to give you a glimpse

into the chain of funding. sometimes people talk about nested committees or gray money when committees give money to other committees. so the policy rationale here is to try to shed some light on that series of transactions that is behind a particular advertisement. and aside from the merits of that idea, it comes with some degree of confusion for people making advertisements. some of the regs try to provide people with guidance about how to put all that information -- because it is a lot of information, into a disclaimer that both complies with state formatting requirements, which say nothing about any of this material, the funders of the funders or the dollar amounts, and also something that looks readable and legible to people. so that's what the regs endeavor to do. i'll go over that in a moment.

so the following bullet point, prop f changes the font and format requirements for disclaimers. the highlight here is that it changes the font requirement to larger. it's now 14.5 for all disclaimers. so leaving the disclaimer world, the second-to-last bullet point prop f requires committees making independent expenditures to disclose separate cost associated with any independent expenditures during what we call the late reporting period, the 90 days before the election. so during that 90-day period, as you know, any time a committee makes an independent expenditure of $1,000 or more, they have to file a form 496, the late independent expenditure report, within 24 hours. what prop f says is not only must you file that form, which

the form basically just says what expenditure did you make and how much did it cost. additionally you need to disclose the separate costs associated with that communication, which the code says includes things like that photography, design, printing, postage, et cetera. so basically the different costs that the committee incurred in putting out that communication. that's not included right now on the 496. but prop f says you need to disclose this information as well. >> so just to make sure i understand, what is required to be disclosed right now is the aggregate cost, and this prop f is requiring a breakdown of those separate cost components? >> yeah, i think that's a good way to phrase it. the 496 requirement is aggregate. you typically would just put out literature supporting this

candidate for supervisor's $10,000. >> now we need to know how much the printing was, the photographer, the design? is there a policy rationale underlying this? >> i don't recall that this particular requirement was addressed in voter information pamphlet, which is usually where you go to look for legislative intent, what the voters were thinking when they approved this. i don't recall that this was addressed in those materials. i can tell you that a similar requirement already exists for candidate mass mailings. when candidates send out 200 or more pieces of identical mail, they have to file what's called an itemized disclosure statement that discloses the total cost of the mailing and breaks down the separate costs associated with the mailing. and essentially what prop f does is it duplicates that

requirement for i.e.s. so the final bullet point here, it's a good segue, i was just talking about candidate mass mailings. the final bullet point expands that disclosure requirement in mass mailing disclosure requirement, to i.e. committees. so this is kind of a technical thing, but the interaction between these final two bullet points is a little complex. but the way that it works is before the 90th day before an election, let's say 91 days or more before an election, if a committee incurs an independent expenditure, they will only have to make a filing, an immediate filing.

they always have to do statements but they only have to do an immediate filing if the i.e. is a mass mailing. so if they do a mass mailing, 200 or more identical pieces of mail, within five days they'll need to file the mass mailing form which breaks down the separate cost of the mass mailing, and they have to include a copy of the mass mailing. once they hit that 90th day before the election and they enter the late reporting period, now it doesn't matter what form the i.e. takes on. as long as it's $1,000 or more, they have to file a 496. and already under existing law, when you file a 496, you have to attach a copy of the ad. and as i was describing under prop f, when you file a 496, you also have to break down the separate costs. so i think the easiest way to think of it is the disclosures

are now going to be the same no matter what, for i.e.s. whenever you do an i.e. that requires immediate disclosure, you have to disclose a copy of the ad, you have to disclose the aggregate cost, you have to break down the separate cost related to the i.e. the difference between the late reporting period and prior to the late reporting period -- >> there's no distinction anymore. >> not in what you file but whether you have to file. so if you are before the late reporting period, you are 91 days or more out, you only have to do the immediate filing if it's a mass mailing. if it's not a mass mailing you don't need to file immediately. once you reach the 90-day late reporting period, than any i.e. of $1,000 or more triggers that immediate reporting.

prosecution please stand -- [br-

>> what the conversation was that his public comment relates to is that eye reached out to a number of treasurers and political attorneys to get

feedback. especially i wanted to hear about them of whether or not from a technical and compliance perspective, if they thought that was feasible and what they highlighted is it is feasible but only if done in certain ways. the concern that they had is that on the 496, there's a section that's called park 2 where you actually list the independent expenditures and you do those in aggregate disclosure style. if you do a $10,000 mailing, one line item in part 2 says, june 1st, mass mailing. cost $10,000. that's one line item. what the treasurers flagged for us was that it's not feasible to do separate line items in part 2 for each of the separate costs.

it's not feasible to say june 1 printing of the mail, $400. june one, design of the mailers. that would not be feasible because that schedule is populated from information in that file and that information also feeds into a schedule on the form 460. the pre-election statement. by requiring filers to enter into into the file that would produce that breakdown, that would disrupt their 460 filing and that would populate schedule d on the 460 which is a schedule of expenditures that support or oppose a candidate. that would populate that schedule and with that broken down information which is not

sense cal on schedule d. they flagged for us we should not require that could be given in part two. what they suggested and what i think we will suggest to filers is that they do either one of three things. that they even provide the breakdown in the description, for each i.e., so when you do a line item, on the 496, it's possible to enter a description of the line item >> so this one, he made a specific example. this is that acceptable to you? that is what i was getting at. you don't need to know into the details. i commend them for their skill at filling out these forms but i don't think we have a policy discussion about that because i do want you to talk about the

other definitional aspects and make sure we've got that right and there aren't any unintended consequences or whatever >> sounds good. the bottom line is that i don't think any amendment to regulation 1.161-2 is needed. filers will use the 496 and it's the most feasible and i think ultimately the most useful way to have this information provided. >> ok. >> great. >> so i will go to the amendments at this point and talk about one amendment i do think should be made based on the response i've heard from stakeholders. >> can you tell us who you talked to? i mean, not everybody that you talked to but most particularly since this was measures sponsored by the board or the board's legislative aids that they review it and the city

attorney get a chance to review the definitions >> yes. the city attorney's office as and the people who propose the amendments all work with the regulated community to do the disclosures. so the amendments that they proposed are all in the nature of either technical amendments or those who clarify or correct things to make them more accurate. >> ok. great. >> the first mendment is to regulation 1.161-2. is that the one we were just looking at? a treasurer asks that a cost estimate provision be added to this regulation. and if you look back on the previous page, in regulation

1.16-1 you see the cost estimate provision and what this says is that even though you are required to disclose this information short lie after the communication goes out, you have to disclose the separate cost associated with it and if you don't actually know the separate cost yet, because maybe your vendor hasn't billed you for them. it's ok to put an estimate and to amend the filing later when you get the invoice and you know the separate costs. that is already in effect here for mass mailing disclosures and it's something that also acceptable for the 496 so the treasure asked that we also institute that concept here with the 496 separate cost disclosure in regulation of 1.16-2. i would recommend to break that regulation into two parts.

the text in there rit now, just make that part a. and then add part b the cost victim provision for that proceeding regular. >> just for the record, same as 1.161-1 sub section c you will make that same language and of 1.161-2 >> with some changes. i should read them right now. i read what i would suggest so it's in the record >> the provision would say sub section b estimated cost of independent expenditure, period. filers who do not know the actual costs associated with an independent expenditure when they file form 496 as described in sub section a of this regulation, may provide a good faith estimate, provided that they amend the form within 48 hours of receiving more

information about the actual costs of the independent expenditure. >> ok. >> how do you propose to move these amendments one by one or? >> i think i would leave that >> we don't have a written substitution, right. we have to i'm just trying to figure it out. what your system is for making clear how we're going to move each one of them >> sure. >> they call this amendment number one? >> sure. >> ok. >> three of them are in writing. three of them are in public comment. it's in front of you. >> this is not so this is the -- >> this one is not. >> ok. >> so, i think what i'd like to do is tell you the two that are not. first the two that i am just going to head into the record

because it is not submitted to us in written form. for the three that were submitted to us in written form, you have that in front of you >> ok. great. the second one is on page 8 of the agenda item under regulation 1.127-3. this regulation relates to the land use matter contribution prohibition. there's a safe harbor that says if a committee gets a written attestation from a kin contributor saying the contribute or does not have a financial interest in the land-use matter if the candidate accepts a contribution from that person, the candidate will not be liable for the violation if it does turnout that the person in fact does have this provides

language we would accept from a candidate in order to trigger that safe harbor so it gives them something to copy and paste and run with into their contribute orchard. someone proposed we add clarification that this can be accepted in electronic form. that when it says in written, that does not mean a physical writing, exclusively it could include an electronic writing. the purpose is that a lot of contributions these days are received over the internet and they go on the website and they enter the credit card information and these as testtations, can you do it for contribution and prohibition as well, it's a check box that someone clicks. so what i was suggesting is that these first line of the regulation be amended so that it says the candidate will meet the due diligence requirements of

section 1.127c if the contribute or certifies in writing in electronic format to the candidate at the time the contribution is made that the following is true. >> so ragged the words includinn electronic format. >> correct. >> >> can we call that amendment number two and then i wanted to ask you though, sta substantive, say this form comes up and you are making a contribution, the regs won't come up so i see people asking questions about what a land use matter is and whether or not the commissioner was asking and said if you are remodeling your bathroom you can't contribute to anyone's

campaign so is there some citations or link or something that people are going to find when they have to sign this attestation >> i sought to put the minimum of what we would

>> i'm still thinking if we're going to get a lot of frustration because there's a lot of people who aren't going to be able to sign and won't attest to this because it's so broad. anybody that has had to rebuild the deck on their house has had a land use matter at the building inspection commission right, because you have to get a permit for it so just trying to anticipate that and and the regs if someone can find it or then they could put a link in on the candidates website because we'll just confuse a lot of people and you will get a lot of phone

calls. >> i'm fine with that -- >> you get a lot of phone calls anyway. i'm just trying to think out loud if you are looking is there some -- we're all lawyers up there, is there a way you can give people a clue where they would go to figure out if they can check this box or not? or do they just need to go back to the candidate? >> so, i'm hoping and kind of assuming that committees and their council are probably going to be tangling with us and developing their own approaches to how to best present this. it's fine if some kind of parenthetical is added as those terms are defined by statute and regulation. i think that's fine. i would probably advise against including those definitions here or starting to. you could reference the code

amended, you know, they do define land use matter in section 1.127 in prop f. that gives someone a tow-hold into where am i looking. i don't know if adding that just one little citation° i mean i'm a lawyer and maybe i'm looking at citations and i know we need to do this today. obviously, as this rolls out we'll get feedback and we can make improvements to make it more workable. i'm sure a lot of people want to try and get this information from their donors at the outset because chief want to end up with the liability on the backside so i want to try and

make it as you user friendly as you can. you do include the building inspection commission in here and building inspection is usually just building permits so i'm trying to think of what discretionary entitlement comes in front of the building inspection commission. did you get any feedback on that from the folks you consulted? >> we talked with folks at the planning department to dig into all of the mechanics of this new co section. for the reasons that department and that commission handles the vast majority of land use matter as defined. i can tell you what we found is

that 1.127 is not perfect. it does not match up perfectly with how land use matterser dealt with in the city. what the regs endeavor to do is faithfully carry out that code section. warts and all. you make a valid point about the building inspection commission but we thought to include the departments included in the code so to not artificially limit it and not impose the elementtation that was not imposed by the voters. looking at this further highlights in my mind i would like to at least put in, i do not have a financial interest in the land use matter as defined in code section 1.127 and everything else flows from that so i'm trying to think of --

there are code violations issues that might be tied up with the building permission. the building inspector does have some incre incres ary authority. i appreciate you were trying to be all encompassing as possible. so, that would be my recommendation we put some tie into what a land use matter as defined in some code section and that at least gives them a starting place. >> should we call that amendment 3? >> you can do that >> to add the words as defined in campaign and governmental conduct code section 1.127

immediately following the term lapped use matter? >> right. it's 1 point -- i'm just looking at the prop f. it's defined in -- where did it go? 1.127. >> 1.127 sub section a >> right, thanks. >> thank you for that. >> so the -- i guess we'll call it amendments four, five and six, are contained in written form in the public comment that you have in front of you and it's also on the public table from anita mayo.

she has amendments 1, 2, 3 and we'll call them four, five and six. all of these are good amendments. i would recommend all three of them. and i would call them technical in nature. just correcting the language to make it more concise. the first one is to clarify in regulation 1.114-1 that it is ok for partnerships that have business entity members to make contributions to committees as long as they do so through a separate segregated fund. so if you look at the regulation itself that is on page 6 of the

agenda item, you can see that in section -- sub section a. that already talks about the separate segregated fund. it clarifies if any of the business entities that use a separate segregated fund, that they can it's something because we are not able to prohibit. we have to allow that. go to the next page and sub section i >> it's just to make sure i understand, so that if these business entities companies and partnerships and corporations wanted, really wanted to make their $500 contribution they could set up a separate fund. >> correct. >> a separate segregated fund is a type of pack so essentially a

corporation can set up a pack and they can raise money for the pack. if they don't actually put funds from the corporate treasury into the pack and then give to the candidate. if they were to use the pack to solicit contributions from us, let's say, then they could use the treasury of the pack to make contributions. that kind of use of a pack is called a separate segregated fund >> it's important to clarify that here in the regulations. i appreciate ms. mayo in the audience. thank you for this and the other feedback. >> so her amendment essentially is to just call out that sub section a that use of a separate, segregated fund down here in sub section i. sub section i is different. it talks about partnerships that are made up of business entity partners so if let's say two

corporations enter into a partnership, this is talking about whether or not the partnership can make a contribution to candidates. in the first line, she pointed out is too narrow and too constricconstrict tive. it's prohibited under 1.14b for make a contribution to a candidate committee. this proposes adding the action unless it's made by the partnership separate segregated fun pursuant to sub section a of this regulation so basically just making that first sentence not overly restrictive because if you read it in isolation, could you read it to mean that

the partnership cannot have a separate segregated fund but under sub section a it could. i would suggest adding that. the next amendment, we'll call it amendment 5. it's just to make the definition lineup with how it appears in the code. this is on page eight and now we're in the land use matter rule. so one of the defined terms or one of the terms that is used that is defined in the regs is discretionary review hearse because as you can see i only called it discretionary review but it should be called discretionary review hearing because it's how the term is used in the code. ms. mayo points out it needs to lineup. amendment 5 is to add the word

"hearing" in that subsection b after both uses of the term discretionary review. the title would read discretionary review hearing and in co quotations it would say discretionary review hearing it means the process by which, et cetera. >> again, from a citation point of view, when you talk to the planning department staff, i mean, i think discretionary review is like an obscure part of the municipal code. did they have a citation that they could give you for that? >> no, so, it is in deed obscure but it's not an obscure part of the code. it's a special power of the planning commission that is not set fourth in code or in the charter. so there's no citation to make >> right. what about dish think they have adopted regulations like outlining. i'm sure they have very elaborate provisions for how you

seek discretionary review on someone's project. because again, it is just seems so -- discretionary review is hearing when a hearing is not required. i mean, if no one else is brought it to our attention or worried about it, it's a fairly hefty part of the planning commission calender. there's a fair amount of discretionary review hearings that they process all the time. i mean, probably it doesn't matter because i'm hug there are some that involve $5 million worth of construction. anyway, i just don't have a citation for the regs so i can't really help. if there was someway to pin it

to something a little bit more than just -- >> so my initial plan and approach for all of the 1.127 definitions was just to have references to the planning code. >> ideally >> those don't exist. they don't exist. i can tell you that a lot of the work that went into the regs was devoted to this particular regulation and trying to identify or define rather terms that are not defined. but that everyone seems to understand. but that are not defined. so, this represents my best effort at doing that. you might want to do it for your own staff implementation. i imagine that you can go to the

planning commission and get the discretionary review packet that describes how one goes about seeking that that might, at least if someone gets fancy and tries 20 argue they're entitled to this ex semmion because, anyway. >> we have that material on planning website about what a discretionary review it. this is the best we could do at boiling that down to a definition but beyond this, there's definition going to be a degree of interpretation and advice giving around 1.127. there's no way around it. it is a morfis and it's complicate and a lot of it we have to figure out as we go >> maybe it helps by referring the hearing they do that. so it's a discretionary hearing

and it's at issue. so ok, i'll let us move on. >> the final amendment we can call amendment 6, is regarding the displacementer formatting rules in regulation 1.161-3. so that is on page 11. of the attachment and ms. made owe called out where language needs to be added that's in subsection a2. and this is talking about how to format the names of the contributors to the top contributors. so if you are listing your top contributors and the advertisement and those are committees and you are additionally listing the contributors to those

committees, she points out that the words and contribution amount need to be added in the first sentence so it would read for any major contribute or that is a recipient committee the names of the top two major contributors of $5,000 or more to that committee, which i defined as a secondary major con contributor must be following the name, contribution amount of the major relevant contributor. you need to put the dollar amount after the name of the contributor and after that, you put the names of the contributors to that contributors. that is correct. what she points out here is you would not want to put the name of the contributors immediately after that because that would get in between the name of the contributor and how much money

that person or entity gave. i agree. it's a good addition to add that language there in the first sentence. >> ok. >> those are all the amendments that i would suggest. i'm glad to answer any questions about those or anything else in the regulations that you might have questions about. >> just more broadly, stepping back for a moment, with this new ordinance and the regulations that are implementing prop f, how will the ethics commission be in a position to enforce this ordinance. is there a data base where all land use matters so defined can be searched to know whether or not entity company x and properly made a contribution

improperly. these ordinances are only as effective as the enforcement ability. >> is there a data base that contains all land use matters? yes and no. there's not one that solely contains land use matters as defined here. there's nowhere that you can just call up a data base and it has all land use matters exactly as that terms is defined and interpreted here in 1.127. that does not exist. land use matters are public information. so that they are out there and you can't find them. but it's not as easy as just calling up a data base. it's not like 1.126, the contractor contribution rule where we have two sets of notices that are actually

creating a data base and when they file notice you have a data base of approved contracts and you can use that for compliance. what you would be doing is essentially asking the contribute or to identify parcels of land they have a financial interest in or parcels of land has a financial interest in but their shareholders for. you would check to see, for that parcel of land, are there any on going city processes that constitute a lapped-use matter. the best way to do that is to use the planning department planning information map, call up the address of the parcel, that will give you a list of any building permits or discretionary or anything going on with that property you would want to preview all of those processes and see if there are any, within the relevant time period that constitute what is defined as entitlement, request

for an entitlement in the code. and again, that's kind of a ambiguous term. it's not defined in the planning code and so there would have to be some work there to determine our any of these entitlements and we worked with planning to identify which ones are not titlements and it's on going advice giving because the fees you played to the panning department are based on the value of your project, which are always underestimated and now they'll probably be over estimating or never mind. and any event, i think that you might want to get your i.t.

people together because it might be a slightly more simple cross tab. if you are talking about over $5 million projects, there are fewer of those than everything that's spendin pending before te planning commission. at least when you -- it's something to think about comparing and they also have to list the owner of the property. they have to give authorization for an application at planning department and you can that would tie in with your list of potential contributors. putting the machine to work for you. to fer et some of that out. it has to be the donor >> how will the donor make they

can't make their $500 contribution? >> well, hopefully they will work with the committee to try and identify it. if they did not make the written attestation to the committee and they declined to do that but the committee wanted to accept the contribution, the committee would have to ask the contribute or why did you not make this written attestation to us. is there a financial interest you have in a land use matter and work to try and identify what they are and then do the due diligence with them of actually looking those items up and seeing if they are in fact land use matters as defined. there are certain things you can rule out off the bat. if it's under $5 million and it has to do with their primary residents you can rule it out. if it's not a primary resident and it's over $5 million, would

you have to go through that more detailed process of looking it up and evaluating it. >> link particular to the name of the person or corporation or whatever that was the entity and making a contribution. >> correct >> what makes it challenging and impossible to create a data base right now, of people who are prohibited for making contributions, even if there were perfect data base, of all land use matters, no department keeps track of every person who has a financial interest in the land use matters. they don't know who all those people are so they bridge that gap. >> we have a running list. i'm just seeing there is information that gets filed with the planning department that when you are looking it will be easier to find than just

randomly going through their agenda for a year or something. they have a robust data base on the matters that are pending before that commission. they do have a data base and we're trying to figure out what materials to make available to people. they wouldn't have a end product of a data base of names. there's always a good a leg work and we'll make it easy and spell it out for them but the pieces are not there to put together in a full proof compliance tool. there's not. >> well, i guess we'll have to just try and work through the issues as they come up. hopefully it won't be too much of a budget buster. i don't want to hold this up any longer on this holiday eve so

it's move -- we have public comment. >> so i talked about the six amendments. i'm glad to talk about those or anything else in the regs that you might have a question about >> any other questions? >> call for public comment on agenda item number 6. >> >> good afternoon, commissioners, i wanted to thank mr. ford for presenting my amendments to you and i think they will provide clarity and to the regulations and the only other additional item i thought about, as you were discussing regulation 1.1-3 were you going to do after the land use matter as defined in section 1.127-a.

say excludes a person's primary residents and it leads that way fight a few people will know the primary residents are not if they have issues or matters before the planning commissioner entities of the boards regarding a paper ary residents they wouldn't have to worry about that. prohibiting them from making a contribution. thank you. >> thank you. >> we would add that parenthetical into the language? >> the amendment for regulation 1.127-3 >> yes, definitely. >> i would move that >> >> any other public comment foray again da item number 6? >> so, i would like to make a motion to adopt amendments

numbers 1-6 as previously discussed. do we need to read out everything for the record? >> i don't think so. i second that amendment for a motion >> amendments 1-6 for the regulations all in favor. aye. so the motion is carried. the amendments 1-6 are approved unanimously. >> thank you. >> agenda item 7. discussion of monthly staff policy report.

>> thank you, agenda item 7 is my monthly staff policy report. >> i need a clarifying point. it's unclear on the record whether or not we actually adopted all of the amendments and their totality or just the amendments you itemized. the regulations in their totality >> ms. mayo's -- >> not just the stakeholder suggestions but you have a variety of other suggestion that's you put forward to the commission that you did not itemize, right.

you mean the amounts you are revising for the new thresh holds so we didn't talk will be >> i would propose adopting attachment one with with the edits proposed so there's not any ambiguity. as opposed to the edits before the commission and the attachment, right. maybe before we move on we can go back and make a motion to adopt, also adopt, everything proposed in attachment one >> attachment one as amended by amendment 1-6 that were read into the record >> yes. >> so there's, mr. ambrose making a motion to adopt attachment one as amended by amendments 1-6. correct

>> the list -- there was a suggestion to number the amendments, right and we were talking about specific subject matters and i'm concerned those topics are notten campusing of everything. >> we're going to adopt all of attachment one which has all of the written -- everything the staff but then as further amended by the ones that we talked about that are all numbered. his other stuff amending the dollar amounts is already written in attachment one. >> just as long it's clear we're adopting everyone in attachment one and the suggestions that were previously proposed as amendments 1-6. >> i think you made the motion. i move that we adopt attachment 1. the amendment to the regulations

that are proposed by staff and tapment one to agenda item number 6 as modified by what we've referred to as amendments 1-6 as discussed and read into the record and attachment number one. that make sense? >> yes, thank you. >> all in favor, aye. >> the motion is passed unanimously. back to agenda item number 7. >> agenda # i 7, the monthly poy report. i will make this brief and only provides updates that aren't already here in writing since i know you already read this. so the first item under policy prioritization plan updates is

the public financing review project and you approved some regulation amendments related to that project and another thing is to help other divisions in the office who are implementing these changes so they can go live january 1st, 2020. as you know the ordinance lowered the match able amount of a contribution from the full $500 to $150 and we've discovered that net file in its matching request function, when you enter in contributions and submitting matching requests to ask them to be matched, the way it was set up in the code of code meaning like the software code, not our code, but in the net files code, was that net file would search all the

contributions that you had entered as receiving. remember net files is all encompassing system that you use, not just for public financing for all of your reporting. so it will search all the contributions you entered and it will essentially generate a request for you and based on your san francisco contributors that have not been matched and it will build, you can call it the best available match air class for so you it find all of the contributions and put the full amount up to 500 on the matching request. we discovered that mechanism is hard wired into the marching request. there's not an easy way for us to institute automatic $150 cap on that. net file will put full $500 contributions on to people's match request. there's no way for them to make it just $150. there's no manual override so it

will just kick $500 onto the request every time. that cannot be changed. what that means -- >> it cannot be changed by january 1st or at all? >> it can't be changed by january 1st. as you know, net file has a number of projects for us, including other jurisdictions but always a number just from us of changes to their system that we're requesting and they're always competing for bandwidth and this is big enough for my understanding is it would require enough work even if they did turn to this it would be hard to roll it out by january 1. what we're going to do for this election only, is is to allow candidate committees to use the net file and we realize they have no way to limit their matching request contribution to

150 so we'll allow them to submit full $500 contributions for matching. we won't consider it a violation and we won't get them in trouble for asking for more than they're entitled to but we'll have a manual auditing process where our auditors, who add straighted the program, have to keep track of all of the contributors themselves and make sure they never match over 150. essentially, that process is not automated. that file can't be right now. we're going to have to manually do that for $150 limiting process ourselves >> is there an e.t.a. on when they could complete the update to the source code? >> it would be some time during next year. in any event, it will not capture this election and we don't think it's a good idea to change the system on people midway. >> so you mean the march 2020 election or the november? >> they can't fix it before

november 2020? >> he can't fix it for november 2020 election period. >> that's a year from now? >> well, although the election is almost a year from now, the time that people are starting to use net file >> it would be six months from now >> well, it's now honestly. committees are already out there and i believe they can submit matching requests earlier in the year. i want to say february i have to check but some time in february they can start submitting. so it's a little sooner than you might think. the roll out period would have to be now. we want it to go now so what we've come up with is the best solution to manually do this $150 limiting process for this election in the meantime, work with net file to institute an automated $150 cap that will be in place in time for the

following election >> is there anything to check the manual work on the back end? just to run a script to test? the math? >> yeah, i would have to touch base with our team to see if they can do something like that. i don't want to speak for them. i'm sure they are automate it and we don't want to be doing everything manually and we have the matching request point in terms of auto make where it's automated with a lot of manual oversights that we're keeping close tabs on things. yeah, more on that later. i just wanted to flag that for you because it will be a little strange that we're actually telling committees it's ok for them to request $500.

because, that's all they can do. i should also note, this is for the free net file. this is for the basic netfile that we make available to filers for free. the net file professional program which is a related separate but private product available to committees, it's a private transaction between them and net file which we don't get involved with but our understanding is that the net file pro efficientl professionaa way for committees to say how much of a contribution they want to appear on a matching request. they could actually only request 150. they have the technical ability to limit that request >> is that being communicated to them? >> we're talking to them. my understanding is that most candidate committee who's are participating in the program, are working with the treasurer who uses net file professionals. so, it could turnout being for more candidates, their treasure

will have access to a way to limit their submission to 150 but if they are use our system it will be weird where they won't have that ability >> communication is critical to make sure that they understand that even though the system is generating a $500 match, they're actually only entitled to 1 othe150 sothey don't become or e disappointed when the amount they receive in terms of matching funds don't correspond to what the request was >> absolutely. we're focus recogniz focusing o. on the next page, e filing for all projects, as had he update you had at the last meeting, we concluded meet and confer i haven't heard anything that and that suppose done and we are

moving forward with that project full steam now and the next thing is i will bring you a draft regulation at the january meeting that would institute e-filing for all and it will have january 2021 effective date. that's a preview of what to expect next month. another update that's not contained in here is that since writing this, i went to the conference with a number of other members of staff and i'll let the director give you the full update but i can speak to my experience there and i was on a panel that focused on relationships that fall outside of the traditional scope of contribution and gift rules so i focused on the payment laws that were created in san francisco and went into effect this year so those are the new

prohibitions on using your value to an organization that you are affiliated with. and also the payment disclosures. that brought into the disclosure to appointed officials as well as elected and lower the threshold to 1,000 so i was giving an update to ethics commission staff from around the country and in canada too about this. i got some interesting questions and feedback about that. it's something that not all jurisdictions have on their radar. new york and l.d. are doing this so it was added context to commission did earlier >> are did they go for an outright ban? >> in new york, they have actually created the rule that

the commission did not approve last year. which was to prohibit officials from soliciting from individuals who have matters before them. new york has that rule in place. so that was interesting to learn. los angeles, i think the los angeles city council approved a developer contribution rule similar to the one we were just talking about in prop f and there was some discussion in los angeles about whether that prohibition should extend to payments made by developers. i don't think they have that but it's been part of the discussion down there. so, to answer your question, yes, it's regulated in some cases considering being regulated in those places >> in a future meeting, if it's inappropriate to discuss here, i would like to actually sew a

report if possible, just on if there's any trends in terms of the reporting that that's been received to date to see how many payments have been made, how much have been made and to whom. >> it could be maybe -- >> are you talking specifically about the new payment disclosures created here? >> yes. >> yeah, i would be glad to. i can tell you right now that there have been very few. of the 3.610 disclosures by the officials making the ask for the payment, i think we've had a dozen or fewer disclosures and four filers and they're all members of the board of supervisors. and not a really high aggregate value of the payments and i don't believe there's been any disclosures by people making the payments nor by organizations receiving the payments.

the reason could be that the thresh holds were set high for people making payments and you only have to foil a disclosure if you make 10,000 or more in one year. and for organizations receiving the payments, you only have to file if you receive $100,000 or more in one year at the official. it's possible no one hit those thresh holds yet. i don't know. but that's the high level of review of the state of those disclosures right now. >> thank you. >> i would be glad to provide more information and deeper dive into the disclosures we have received, if that's of interest. >> the only other update i wanted to mention is just to highlight that next month, in addition to the -- [please stand by]

process with other departments. so that's something i would like to put on the policy prioritization plan. but i think there is some bandwidth now that the regulations have been approved and now that he -- e-filing has

been discussed, there is some room to have another project. i'll be working between now and next meeting with colleagues on staff to identify some good projects to put before you. so i look forward to that discussion. >> likewise. thank you. >> i'll be glad to answer any questions that you have. >> any questions? public comment on agenda item number 7? no public comment. agenda item number 8, discussion of informational report regarding possible elements in revising the commission's fixed penalty policy. >> good afternoon, chair chiu and commissioners. my name is eric willett. i'm an aid, senior investigator analyst with enforcement division. i'm here to provide an update on staff's efforts to revise the penalty policy into the streamlined administrative

resolution program. at the august 2019 commission meeting, directors -- commissioners directed staff to move forward with the policy to reduce incertainty and time spent negotiating a settlement by providing a level of standardization and predictability to the commission's enforcement program. at the september 2019 meeting, staff delivered a process outline with eight steps and appear today to deliver step four by detailing the progress staff made on steps one through three. commission staff reviewed the practices of other jurisdictions including the fair political practices commission, l.a. city ethics commission and san diego ethics commission as well as consulted internally with commission staff. these conversations were very helpful, and they developed the violations applicable to the goals of the new expanded

program as well as the consideration for the inclusion or exclusion from the policy. in addition to a thresholds applicable to each specific violation type. as step two, staff hosted two interested persons meetings. after the november election and before the thanksgiving break and received stakeholder input on a series of questions related to the commission's efforts to revise these approaches. this feedback established members of the committee were in support of these efforts and expanding the existing policy and they provided an opportunity for these persons to present ideas on violations types they would like to see included as well as parameters that would include or exclude an entity or respondent from the program as well as ideas with regard to penalty structure. in that step three, based on its review of other jurisdictions, internal consultation with staff

and feedback from interested persons, enforcement staff developed an overview of preliminary considerations for participation in the streamlined administrative resolution program. general requirements are that the director of enforcement reserves the right to include or exclude any respondent from participating in the program. is it respondent must agree to commit to the commission stipulation and order pursuant to enforcement regulation section 12a and which the respondent acknowledges responsibility for the violation as well as to adhere to the payment. and the respondent must agree to abide by time frames for resolving these and keeping with the aspects of this program. general exclusions from the program would include evidence

of intent to conceal, repeat offenders and conduct that resulted in more than minimum public harm. with regards to specific eligibility requirements, enforcement staff ongoing consultation with staff from other divisions of the commission and enforcement staff will draft specific requirements of eligibility and additional considerations factors and exclusions that are specific to each violation type and will provide that in the coming weeks, most likely the beginning of 2020. now we'll turn to specific violation types we would like to include in the program. the preliminarily identified expanding the existing penalty program which includes essentially just three violation types from article 1 which is the campaign finance reform ordinance to expanding it to 35 violations over three articles of the san francisco campaigning

governmental conduct code. that would include the lobbying ordinance as well as conflict of interest code. and expand the policy and vision to reporting and conduct violations that are relatively straightforward and don't require a large n. of resources to successfully resolve. as you can see within the memo in the agenda item, there are 18 violation types from article 1, eight violation types from article 2 which is the lobbyist ordinance and nine from article 3, the conflict of interest code. before i move onto our next steps, i would like to pause and provide the commissioners an opportunity for any questions. >> how are the interested persons determined? >> the members of the regulatory committee, as well as anyone who is attached to our mailing list

or watchdog groups. we had through our two different i.p. meetings, we had professional services representatives, general counsels, as well as members of the common cause organization, as well as friends of ethics. and we anticipate additional engagement from these persons as they are presented more concrete and specific additions in the coming weeks with these next few weeks that we'll have scheduled in the future. >> commissioner ambrose? >> the documentation for the existing six penalty -- fixed penalty actions, is there like a monthly report or memorialization of that your action was on that so that if

somebody made a complaint about a violation and it ended up on the fixed penalty, they would be able to see, by going to some list somewhere that action had been taken? >> that's an interesting consideration that we should take into account. for instance, this commission meeting did actually include a stipulateed agreement that was - that took place through the existing fixed penalty policy. it was agenda item four or five. >> right. i saw that. obviously if it ends up with a stipulated, it's going to be on the agenda. just so we move, and really this is more for the protection of the staff, as you move towards more staff-based discretionary decisions, the responsibility and also the exposure to

allegations of not giving due consideration to somebody's complaint can escalate. and i think if it gives you the advantage of saying i've made this information available to the commission, no one opt commission asked to bring -- no one on the commission asked to bring it before the commission for review or reconsideration or something. you know? even though you are not going through the formal process of not making a probable cause finding or finding of no probable cause, if you had a list in general, mostly i was thinking about that in terms of the preference for using warning letters for certain of the minor and initial and unintended violations. everybody's going to be asking

you if they could please have a warning letter instead of a $1,000 fine. by making that public information, it still has some approbation associated with it and also allows, presumably, you have to keep track of it anyway, because once you get one warning letter, you don't get a hall pass the second time around. so that was just my thought, is that if it wasn't already something that somebody could do a pretty quick search for that you might want to keep a running tabitha we would see so that you could -- a running tab so we would see that you could see what's out there. >> i may have missed the first part of your question. if your question is are we currently memorializing and keeping track of the reason behind case dismissals --

>> is there a list of anyone who is been assessed a fixed penalty or got a warning letter. so i know you keep tabs of the complaints, but the disposition of them, warning letter, fixed penalty, probable cause finding, et cetera. >> i believe we do keep that information, but we would also keep it for the points you underscored. >> yeah. at least where you have -- if you have a disposition with a fixed penalty or warning letter, that's going to be a public letter. the complaints themselves, i'm assuming, are not locally disclosed. but they are certainly known to the person who made the complaint. i just want to think about how to bring some sunshine on what the action item was, because i do think it will provide the staff with some, whatever,

protection against criticism about how you've implemented or handled these various dispositions. >> eligibility requirements will bring before the commissioners will include specific enumerations for warning letters, the thresholds for what is not minimal public harm, and that would be excluded from the streamline administrative resolution program, as well as we envision including that language within our regulations. so we would be able to cite to that within the stipulated agreements as well. >> okay. all right. that was my only -- >> feedback. >> if there are no additional questions, our next steps for this fixed penalty process outline, which were detailed at the extent 2019 meeting, would

be to host an additional two interested persons meetings to solicit specific feedback to these 35 different specific violation types and perhaps get a little bit more information with regard to penalty structure. and then revise the draft as appropriate as number 6 and then number 7 would be to present findings and recommendations for the commission for discussion of potential adoption and necessary. we were envisioning perhaps placing the administrative resolution program within the existing enforcement regulations. and then after commission approval, we would begin implementation of the new program. that concludes my presentation. >> any questions from commissioners? >> when are the two additional interested persons meetings?

>> we were hoping to do those in the early -- i put that in january or february, definitely within early 2020. >> i think we've got the momentum going here. so it would be great to continue to build on that as we head into the new year. and i do note -- here it is. ms. mayo has included comments on the agenda item number 8. so i just would want to make sure that you and jess and the team consider that feedback here. >> yes. >> and she may come up during public comment as well. so take that into consideration. >> understood. thank you, chair chiu. thank you, commissioners. >> public comment on agenda item

8? >> commissioners, as i've indicated in my written testimony, i am in support of expanding the commission streamline enforcement program through the fixed penalty provisions. and i did want to point out in my paragraph too that i think it's also important when the staff is considering factors and criteria for participation in the program, that they do look at violations that are readily apparent with little or no investigation. those have resulted in minimal public harm. and then number three i think is important. i've dealt with the fair political practices commission, and this has been very helpful in matters where the respondent fully captors with the

investigation and -- cooperates with the investigation and sometimes self reports. in terms of the additional provision under campaign finance, i think since contractor contribution prohibition is included, it certainly makes sense to include violations of provisions regulating the contributions by persons with pending land use matters especially since that's going to be a new provision, and people are going to be very confused about that. the $10,000 business entity disclosure and member communications disclosure. i added the gift prohibition since the lobbyist contribution provision was already included. that, again, makes sense. and then the other items that i have under the governmental ethics issue. and i did particularly want to also emphasize the payment reports by donors and recipients. i think it was listed for the

offices. but i do have a concern that donors and recipients, since this is a brand new law, may violate that inadvertently, and i think a fixed penalty would be appropriate for those as well. thank you. >> thank you. any other public comment on agenda item 8? okay. i'll look forward to seeing the next phase in 2020. agenda item 9, discussion of monthly staff enforcement report, but not including an informational presentation on city whistle blower protection that was included as a clerical error in this agenda. this was covered in last month's meeting. but public is welcome to comment on this. and this agenda item also includes an update on various programmatic highlights of the enforcement program's

activities. >> jeff zumwalt, investigative analyst, on behalf of our director of enforcement who is not here today. to the portion of this agenda item we are pleased to have mr. jeffrey, the director of the bureau of delinquent revenue. he has agreed to appear to provide an update on b.d.r.'s efforts to collect on up paid late fees and penalties the commission assessed. but the parties or respondents have yet to pay as well as to answer any questions the commissioners may have regarding their collection process. >> good afternoon. so i have a list of questions. i'm sure if you have those questions with you on specific items you want me to cover? >> no >> okay. so i can walk through the questions and then answer them. so there's 11 in total so let me know if i get too long-winded.

one of the first questions was how does our office decide how many resources to invest in trying to locate a deter. to answer that question, we typically evaluate the collectibility, so how much information we have on the person as well as if there's any ways to execute on the obligation. and also the total value will help determine how much effort we are going to dedicate to try to invest in trying to locate someone or execute on the obligation in and of itself. so i'll stop each time in case you have any questions on the response. the second question, does the bureau ever decide if the cost of locating a deter or seeking payment outweighs the benefits? and yes, there are times when, let's say for example if someone who has assets outside of the

state or they reside outside the state but the obligations are owed here and we have to seek outside counsel or efforts there that's more costly, then we would typically circle back to the commission to communicate that so you would be aware of that. if you sent us an obligation for $5,000 but the cost to pursue them is going to exceed that, we'll communicate that so the ethics commission can make that decision. >> do you have a list of objective criteria that tells you when you basically pull the plug? or is it a discretionary decision? >> typically discretionary. it really depends on what information we have available to us at the time. and we do have some cases where the balances are pretty significant or if we have momentum, we obtained the judgment, and it's time to go back as we would like to, then

that can also play a factor in deciding how much time and effort we want to dedicate to it. the third question, what roll, if any, does the ethics commission as klines play in adviseing bureau -- as clients in advising the bureau whether to cut their efforts. it's up to the ethics commission. if you have incidents where you believe it's not worth us to continue to pursue them, we are fine with having those cases recalled back or referred back. >> can i jump in here? >> yes >> so do you meet with ethics commission staff periodically to review the list of -- >> we send a monthly report. so the monthly report will share what the current status is, the last actions taken, where these cases are. and it gives them a timeline. so we can have some cases like one is in a bankruptcy and how

much time it's going to take in the bankruptcy process. we show that information on a monthly basis. >> okay. >> the next question, what method does b.b.r. use and we have many. within our office, we have access to various databases that are unique to t.t.x., such as business tax filings and other information such as that. we also use lexis-nexis, there's d.m.v., employment information. and we have trained professional collectors that know how to leverage social media, linked in or internet tools so we can use information to locate a person. number five, how does the bureau decide when to reassign an account to a collection agency. this is also part of the cost effectiveness discussion component. so sometimes if we look at our

resources and we have had cases not specific to the ethics commission where if they are located outside of the state, and we do have two collection agencies who supplement our collection services. we can assign to them, and they do collections all throughout the u.s. i've had them go for it versus us spending money directly. number 6, recent status indicated debtors have refused to pay. how do debtors communicate that? it's normally through phone or e-mail or some other way. a promise to pay is when the debtor has committed to a specific date of repayment and dollar amount. the dollar amount typically is for the entirety of the balance. so anything less than that would be either a settlement discussion or payment plan based on the debtor's ability to pay.

refusals to pay is flat out refusing to pay. so they are not going to make any commitments to pay back the obligation. so that informs us for our next steps. refusals will escalate if we have the ability to execute via judgment, that's the path they will go down. when the bureau secures a payment plan with the debt debtor, what form does that take? it is formal. we have them sign a payment plan agreement. i want to be careful with how i call it a contract. it's basically the language agreement stipulates to the debtor that they are acknowledging their obligation to pay, that they owe the obligation. they are waiving their right under the statutes of limitations for the actions that we are take, ask they are acknowledging that