to vote in-person. in recent elections, we'v most e by mai.there are about 145,000 s and probably more in this election since it will be such a high turn-out. and so do we have sort of an analysis of who those voters are that have still preferred to vote in-person, like the old-school way and in terms of the demographic group, characteristics and the geographically, the voters that voted in person, geographically and demographically, where they are, is that reflected in our planning? those are the ones that would have to make the biggest change

in this election. >> so, the answer is yes and regarding demographics and when people register to vote, dem demographic information is optional. but when it comes to knowing where the high turn-out parts of the city are, we know that each election because we provide by default, extra support for those locations every year, every election cycle. and so, we still expect people to go to polling places and we still expect them to want to capacity a ballot, but i think covid is going to also reduce the number of people that go to polling places. and i think the ballot lanking g in people's mailboxes are reducing the people in polling places.

but having i voted sicker on the insert will reduce the number of people going to polling places. that's one of the largest statements is that they want their i voted sticker. that's why they go and drop off ballots. now they can get the sticker and mail it back to us. >> i know a lot of voters, my family included, tend to drop off or ballot on election day and there's a growing number of voters that do that because maybe they waited until the last

minute. >> so every election we get at least a 25% of the vote is cast by people dropping off their ballot at polling places and for this election, we expect that number to potentially double. it will be between 20% and 50% of the vote and depending on the location of the polling place. and i forgot this and i wanted

to focus on this and i didn't do it. there's been a lot of discussion in the media, especially, social media, about drop-off locates, . i know the warriors want one at their site and other people are contacting us. but the drop-off site draw people in larger numbers and so, the idea going into this election cycle is also thinking with us having the same number of polling places for november we had for march. every polling place is a ballot drop-off location. in san francisco, on election day, we'll have 588 ballot location sites. if there's any message that we can put out there, that there's 588 ballot voting locations on election day and then there will be another program on our website, an app, we include for this election, so that if people

want to know the closest polling place they are -- i work in the civic center and this app for the november election will inform voters we're at one -- (indiscernible). >> what's the closest polling place. so, yes, we expect a higher turn-off with people dropping off ballots and every polling place is a ballot drop-off location. >> thank you again, dr. arntz is simle for your work and presentation today. >> thank you. yes, i just wanted to echo my colleagues and just say that, you know, the anxiety that we're all feeling, i think, as we watch this president dismantle our most cherished institutions and traditions, it's so anxiety

producing. and i feel the same feeling of relief just listening to your presentation about how well prepared we are in san francisco to make sure that every individual who wants to exercise their right to vote, has that ability without any hindrance. so thank you, thank you for that. of course, being san francisco and having the office of racial equity, we go even further in that we proactively target communities that have for for fs of different complicated reasons, that we proactively engage with those communities to try to get over those historic barriers and do right by those

communities so that they exercise their voice and their vote. so director, gosh, i've always been excited about your office and your role, but putting it in this context, it makes so much sense. and so, just really glad that you're going that, just a couple questions, because i know this has been a long hearing. since everyone will get a -- who is registered to vote will receive a mailed ballot, regardless whether they've registered or vote by mail, what is the deadline to register to vote in order to receive that ballot? >> october 19th. >> october 19th, ok. because if you're voting in-person, you can register the same day didn't vote in-person, but if you want to receive that mailed ballot, you have to register by the 19th.

>> correct. >> and then, i'm just wondering if -- you talked to us about the education strategy and i very much appreciate it. but there's still continues to be a lot of misunderstanding of what the vote-by-mail deadline is. many people think the office of elections needs to receive the ballot by election day as opposed to it being postmarked by election day. i'm just wondering if there's any additional outreach that is being done to correct that misunderstanding by vote-by mail, above and beyond what you're planning, especially for the communities that have been shown in studies to have that belief. >> yeah, that is one of the

basis of our outreach going forward, especially as we move through the election cycle. and a lot of our messages will be around postmarks. and we're glad to give any information that the supervisor's offices content regarding to get that message out to communities and get it out to san francisco, but it's going to be a mainstay of our messagings going forward an. there's a lot of mentioned messages, but as long it's post marked on or before election day, we can count it and that's the main message to hear. i don't want them to know 17 days after election day. just get it post marked and get that ballot back to us. >> and then, my last question and it was eluded to, first of

all, can you explain the scope of work done by the community-based organization that has been selected to do sort of voter engagement and outreach? and then, i too, was disappointed to see there was only one organization focused on serving the african-american community and i did not see any organization specifically providing outreach and service to the l latino community? can you response to that? >> the groups that responded are the ones that we were able to select and we sent out notices to all of our contact list informing everyone that we had the grant funds and outreach programs in place and so, essentially, those who applied or the ones that applied received the grants. and so a lot of the work now for the outreach will be digital

because of the covid but they'll be doing in-person, as much as possible because one of the important aspects of reaching people who don't -- were infrequent voters is the in-person outreach. these aren't the voters usually motivated by the mailings or seoul. isocial media. it seems like the direct one-on-one to make them think they need to get out and vote. as much as these groups can with the covid safety and health protocols in place, we want them to be out doing their personal outreach in the communities. and if they can't do interpersonal, making phone calls to people trying to contact people that way. and so, yeah, really, the idea

going into selection, the same we had for march, was that these groups would augment and be the next step into the community that we can't reach because we don't have the resources, we don't have the contacts, they have more of the interpersonal >> is there any additional money left to add additional organizations? >> not under that grant situation. if more money can be put in, i'm not against it, but i don't know the process. certainly, whoever is the contact for that, we can talk to. >> how many organizations received the contract? >> it was eight. >> and am i correct there's to organization that has a history of working in that next community? >> i can't remember the groups off my head. i thought there was.

and we'll have someone check right now, actually, too. >> i don't know, director simle, if you had any response or comments to those questions? qu? >> i didn't. i do not recalling seeing an organization that directly supports the latino community. and you're correct, only one organization that particularly serves the african-american community and parts of the southeast of the city, which we >> i want to uplift working together early and often. they are some so dedicated like

community care hav caravans. pair operato(indiscernible). >> i'm not sure what the funding will look like but that was something a concern beginner the eight contracts that were provided. hoping we can close the equity gaps in regard to the black and to the latino community. >> so coleman advocates will be doing outreach under this grant and one of the organizations that received funding through this grant process. >> coleman advocates is fantastic and serve a multiracial base. but in terms of an organization that really focuses on the latin community and the dozens and dozens, it is worrisome to me

that none of those have been chosen. i see, director davis, did you have anything to add on this point, director davis? >> i did, thank you so much, supervisor ronen. i just think, too, director simle's point, we have been engaging with quite a few partners and folks on the ground and one of the challenges we've seen just with outreach and engagement, especially in the latino community is a disconnect and we have to be intentional about outreach and engagement, where those trusted messengers are and where folks feel like they can trust the information they're getting is not a set-up for something. we have to be really intentional and we have some of those relationships. we have the ability to leverage that, and so, i wanted to drop that point in there, because we have seen so many challenges where some folks are skeptical

and cynical about why someone is sharing information with them and so they need to be connected with folks that they trust and believe and understand that the process is not going to be used against them. >> so i'm wondering if we can do some follow-up. i know that director arntz and simle will do follow-up. but i would be happy to be involved in the conversation and see how we can maybe get a few more organizations that have the trust and the relationships with the latin x and african-american communities in san francisco because for different reasons, those are the two communities that are underrepresented in their voting and to not have at least a number of organizations focused on those

hardest-to-reach communities, i think, is a problem. and so, maybe we can figure this out and this can be some of our follow-up. that would be great. well, thank you so much and if there's no other questions, or comments, thank you again for the excellent work and presentations. i look forward to this one point of follow-up and the more extensive follow-up that director simle will do to do race is equity analysis of the plan and looking forward to voting in the extremely important election of our lifetime. with that, i am happy to make a motion to file this hearing. i think if we have a new hearing on this issue, it will be focused on that, race and equity. i make a motion to file this hearing and we can have a role

call vote. >> on that motion to file the matter -- (role call). >> the motion passes without objection. >> thanks again, everyone. >> any other item? >> that completes the agenda for today. >> the meeting is adjourned and have a good day, everyone. employee

good afternoon. and welcome to the land use and transportation committee of the san francisco board of supervisors for today, august 31st, 2020. i am the chair of the committee aaron peskin, joined by committee member supervisor dean preston and i think to be joined momentarily by vice chair supervisor ahsha safai. our clerk is miss erica major. ms. major, do you have any announcements? >> clerk: yes. due to the covid-19 health emergency, and to protect board members and employees in the public. the committee room are closed. however, members will be participating in the meeting remotely. all local, state and federal orders, declarations and directives. committee members will attend the meeting through video

conference, participating as if physically present. public comment will be available on each item on this agenda both channel 26, 78 or 99 depending on your provider. and sfgovtv.org are streaming the number across the screen. each speaker will be allowed two minutes to speak. comments are opportunities to speak. during the public comment period, are available by phone by calling (415)665-0001. again the number is (415)665-0001. the meeting i.d. is 146 466 4627. again that's 146 466 4627. press pound and pound again. when connected you'll hearing the meeting discussion and be muted and in listening mode only. when your item of interest comes up, please press star 3 to be added to the speaker line. best practices are to call from

a quiet location, speak clearly and slowly and turn down your television or radio. alternatively you may submit public comment in either of the ways, to myself at erica.ma erica.major@sfgov.org. you submit public comment via email, it will be forwarded to the supervisors and it will be included as part of the official file. finally items acted upon today will appear on the agenda on september 15th, unless otherwise stated. >> supervisor peskin: thank you, madam clerk. can you please read the first item. >> clerk: yes. item number 1, is the re-enactment of emergency for protections of occupants of residential hotels or s.r.o. residence during the covid-19 pandemic.

>> supervisor peskin: thank you, madam clerk. colleagues, i want to thank my co-sponsors for the original ordinance. supervisors mainy , ronen, safai, fewer, preston, walton and yee. that emergency ordinance, that as the clerk said, established protections for occupants of s.r.o. hotels in san francisco that include some 18,000 to 19,000 individuals in congregate settings, passed by the board of supervisors as an emergency matter and lasts for 80 days. that required the department of public health to offer a number of provisions, including testing and i.n.q. provisions, isolation and quarantine for individuals that had tested positive, as

well as implicit notice for residents of those s.r.o.s. these are individuals who live in congregate settings, where they share bathrooms and they share kitchens, a highly transmissive environment. and i want to thank the department of public health for not only taking that ordinance seriously, but already having done that job before we massed the emergency ordinance. and during the interim for starting to establish a dialogue with the residents of those communities that span the mission, into the tenderloin into chinatown into north beach, were the best of the rest of once were 40,000 or more s.r.o. hotels once existed. so i want to thank and acknowledge d.p.h. for that.

this has been really an admonition to d.p.h. and the community to step up the game. i want to thank and acknowledge the department of public health that on friday at approximately 518 in the afternoon, actually put up a web tool that shows the number of cases in s.r.o.s and the numbers of deaths, which thankfully -- tragically four deaths over 500 cases. so those buildings have been handed superbly, some less so. and i really want to thank d.p.h., but more importantly the community for holding our feet to the fire as decision manned legislators and d.p.h.'s feet to the fire, as the front-line

implementers under the pandemic. and with that i believe that we have dr. stephanie cohen. colleagues, if you have no comments, i would like to hand this over to the department of public health and dr. cohen. thank you, supervisor safai, for joining to really present what's happened and fundamental, as i said in the newspaper the other way, i want to create the space for the department of public health to build trust amongst the s.r.o. population in those communities that are very, very different communities. some of them latinx communities, some of them chinese communities and predominantly cantonese amongo linguaamong -- mono lingl individuals. and those who reside in the arc that has s.r.o.s. with that i'll turn it over to

dr. cohen. >> thank you very much. i'm going to share my screen and give a short update to what we discussed a couple of weeks ago. are you able to see the presentation? >> supervisor peskin: yes, we are. >> okay. supervisor peskin, preston and safai, thank you for the opportunity to come back and speak to you again and update the committee on our ongoing work to prevent covid-19 in s.r.o.s and to protect the residents who reside in these buildings. we met a couple of weeks. my name is stephanie cohen. i'm an infectious disease physician and serving as the lead for the sscta covid-19 s.r.o. seeing none team since -- response team since april. as we discussed at the committee meeting on august 17th, we are committed to this population and we have a robust and proactive

approach to prevention in these congregate settings. our robust approach has produced results preponderates of covid-19 testing among s.r.o. residents are actually higher than the rate of testing in san franciscans overall. the proportion of s.r.o. residents who test positive for covid-19 is similar to that of non-s.r.o. residents who live in the same neighborhood. so a lot of what we're seeing in s.r.o.s reflects the community prevalence in the communities where the s.r.o.s are. and lastly the case fatality rate among s.r.o. residents is comparable to the overall case fatality rate at approximately .8%. and this is one of the lowest covid case fatality rates nationwide. as supervisor peskin mentioned, one of the provisions in the ordinance was to launch a publicly available data tracker.

and after much hard and diligent work on the part of our advanced planning, data s.f. and surveillance groups, that dashboard went live on august 28th. it's available -- it's a u.r.l. that you see on the slide. this is just a snapshot from the data tracker to show you what it looks like, as required by the ordinance. it shows the number of residents who tested positive, the number of buildings that have had a case, numbers of deaths and number of residents who have gone to an isolation and quarantine hotel. it also shows these figures here which show over time the total number of cases and the total number of deaths, as well as the daily new cases and the sffd rolling average, which gives us a sense of where we are on some of our important surge metrics. we also, since our last meeting, are working on community

engagement. since the last meeting, we met with chinatown community leaders. we also have met with chinese hospital leadership and are excited to really move forward in a collaborative response with chinese hospitals to covid-19 cases in s.r.o.s in chinatown. and we're working on setting up recurring meetings with the s.r.o. collaboratives. and we want to hear their concerns. we also want to provide them information and updates and we want to strategize together how we can optimize covid-19 prevention for s.r.o.s residents and other disproportionately impacted by covid-19. we have an amazing team in our group of social workers, nurse practitioners, nurses, health workers who have been in the field in s.r.o.s every day

since really the pandemic started, talking to residents. and we want to share the stories that we have heard, bus we know there are a lot of up stream factors and social determinants of health that are affecting these communities and we can only figure out how to address them if we work together. we do want to continue to request that the committee reevaluate the provision in the legislation, that requires sfdph to test all residents in an s.r.o. within 48 hours of a single case. i would like to be clear that we are not asking to water-down the legislation or relax rules for s.r.o.s. our team, who exists to advocate and protect these residents, will continue to deploy on-site testing to a building, when there is concern for interbuilding transmission. and we do a lot of on-site testing in s.r.o.s.

at the same time i want to try to explain again why this particular provision is just not an effective strategy. i know that testing is a hot-button topic. it's a politicized topic, unfortunately, at the national level. and i really want to reiterate if we thought this particular testing strategy, testing all residents in a building after a single case, if we thought that would be effective at preventing outbreaks, we would be all for it. we are aligned in prioritizing and working to protect s.r.o. residents. the challenge, though, is that s.r.o.s are not closed settings, like a skilled nursing facility. in a closed environment, like a smith, you can implement -- we can implement routine surveillance testing of staff and identify staff cases before residents become infected. and, of course, this is especially critical in the smith context, because the case fatality rate is so high among those living in those

conditions. but s.r.o.s, as you know are not like smith. they're open. residents come and go every day. they go to work, they go to the store, they go to visit their friends and family. and so a single case in a building, in a residence doesn't mean that there's an outbreak in the building. we do test and quarantine close contacts of all cases, including cases among s.r.o. residents. then if their contacts, including their household members, then their next-door neighbor, whoever they hang out with in the building, if they test positive, we continue to test and expanding circles. in the worst-case scenario, and this has happened, an s.r.o. resident has covid, hasn't been tested and is symptomatic and has not been ice slating in the building. they think they have aler gees o-- allergies.

by the time they get tested they may have exposed others in the building. at that point, though, testing is not prevention. testing doesn't prevent anyone from getting infected. they've already been exposed. but what it does do it allows to us find cases. and we want to find those cases, because then we have the opportunity to intervene on those who are already infected. and so that's why we do deploy testing when we see multiple cases in a short period of time in a building. and so, you know, really i think to summarize here, what i'm trying to explain is that testing is important. it enables us to identify individuals who have covid when they're still in thin infectious period, then we can support them in isolating. we identify their close contacts and support those close contacts with testing and quarantine. but mass testing at a single

point in time, triggered by a single case, does not in and of itself prevent covid-19. so in conclusion, building mas g is not a strategy in line with our citywide testing strategy or with -- >> supervisor peskin: miss major, i think you may doctor orb someone may have hit a button that they shouldn't have hit? >> clerk: thank you, mr. chair. i'm checking with operations. it might be the bridge line. we will -- >> supervisor peskin: the bridge line has become the bain of our existence. go ahead. thank you, dr. cohen. my apologies. >> no problem. so really in summary, i think what i'm trying to make clear

this particular strategy is not in line with cdph or c.d.c. guidance. it's not the best use of our testing resources. and our investigative tools can really help us predict when and where to test. we really have to continue to push primary prevention approaches, the best way to protect everyone from covid. and that's, as you know, things like masking, social distancing and hand washing. those are the critical things for mitigating spread in all settings. thank you for giving me another opportunity to speak to you and for all of your work to protect these communities. >> supervisor peskin: thank you, dr. cohen. and when that -- when you release your screen, we'll all be able to look at each other over our respective computers. and, dr. cohen, i really want to thank you for your candor. and, indeed, this is an evolving

situation. and i think collectively we are trying to, as nondoctors, address what we believe are the most vulnerable populations in the most transmissive settings. and i know that you and your colleagues are committed to that as well. and as i said earlier, we know that you're resource-constrained, as we all are economically, human resource wise and relative to actual physical things that are reagents and swabs that are moving to hot spots in the united states of america, be it texas or florida. and, yes, this is an ordinance. and, yes, it is a law. but fundamentally and i have tried to communicate this to you and to the advocacy community. this is an admonition.

and it is a short-termed a mow s going to last for another two months. and i for one, unless you make -- not you personally, but the department is malfeasant and not going to go after you, so to speak, on. i think this is really trying to hold you to the highest standards for our most vulnerable populations. and this, too, shall evolve. ultimately i hope this becomes a permanent ordinance, which doesn't mean that we can't tweak it going forward. but i think the most important thing, and i've been very clear with you and the community and my former colleague, who has become a liaison between the board and your department, former supervisor katie tang,

that i really want to create the space to build trust between the department of public health and the community. and the community has been abundantly clear in the last several days and while i think -- i don't want to put words in their mouth, that they're thankful for the transparency that now comes with the additional tool on the tracker site. that trust is earned through hard work and relationships. and you are working now to build them. these were relationships that didn't exist before the pandemic, that have to be built very, very quickly. and i hope over the weeks and a couple months ahead, before this becomes a permanent, albeit flexible piece of legislation, that those relationships and that trust will start to be built. so i just wanted to share those

thoughts some that you know where i'm coming from. as you know and as said in the paper 48 hours ago, i actually originally didn't want to have this debate. but i fundamentally have to honor the community that is -- are in these s.r.o.s. and i think we all collectively, the people, the decision-makers and the department of public health really also have to delve down into and make very transparent what is confidential and why and what is not confidential and to whom and why or why not. and i think h hippa which is a huge privacy law, needs to be weighed and balanced for public health. i think we have to delve down into that, maybe in closed

session, subject to attorney-client privilege advice. but ultimately in open session, where we can all ask those questions and understand where we balance privacy. as i have said to the deputy city attorney, that is on this -- in this meeting and to counsel for d.p.h., it strikes me as odd that we can be transparent with a building owner or a building manager, that there's a covid case in a particular building with a particular address, but we cannot tell the rest of the tenants that one of their neighbors, that they share a kitchen or a bathroom with,s that covid. and i don't want to freak people out. i just want to make sure that they have the opportunities to be tested, to be isolated, to be quarantined, to be given a meal in a comfortable, confident way. that's what's driving this. this is not a, you know, board,

you know, being you know demeaning to d.p.h. it's not at all. it's an evolving conversation. i know you understand that. so i appreciate that. are there -- and dr. cohen, if you have anything you want to add or subtract from that, you're welcome to do so. >> no. thank you very much for your comments. and just for the opportunity to continue to have a dialogue. the science is evolving and the diagnostics are evolving. i know we'll continue to work to figure out the best way to do this. and really appreciate that we've gotten the chance over these months to try to think about that together. thank you. >> supervisor peskin: i really appreciate that you're taking this legislation seriously and that you are spending moments of your precious time, as you're triaging and stratifying, to actually engage with the board seriously.

it would be easy enough for you to say, that's the thing, we're going to blow it off, because we're resource-constrained. so thank you for that. with that to my colleagues, hold on, let me press a button. either one of you have any questions or comments? >> i did, chair peskin. thank you. and just concur with your -- the remarks you just made. i did have just a question from the d.p.h. perspective what does trigger, under the current understanding of the mass testing, in a particular building. i understand what you're saying, dr. cohen, about the difference between the setting and the s.r.o. congregate living situation. i'm curious. i understand from the perspective of the department at this point in time, some disagreement around whether one case should trigger that or not.

and this legislation addresses that. but what is -- two cases in the site, what are the set of circumstances from your perspective? and i think to chair peskin's point, to me it's less relevant for what the community wants is clear. but as chair peskin notes, i think we'll 30, 60, however many days be out once again looking at this issue. and it will be helpful from my perspective just to know from d.p.h.'s perspective what does, from your perspective, trigger mass testing in an s.r.o. context. >> well, the california department of public health definition of an outbreak in a congregate community setting is three cases in three separate households within 14 days. so we would always define that as an outbreak and report that as an outbreak in terms of not the specific address, not the privacy thing nourishments terms of how many outbreaks we have in s.r.o.s and we would test.

the threshold is lower than that. our threshold is two cases in two separate households within 14 days. and some risk criteria for interbuilding transmission. when we have two cases in two separate households, we either go on site. we may have already gone on site previously, which may give us a sense of what the building is like and whether there's risk. we haven't gone on site, we would go on site and there are things that contribute to that risk stratification. things like crowded households. is this a building with a lot of family or a lot of -- we see a lot of buildings ra there's multiple young men sharing one room, who are all front-line workers. we know in shows settings covid starts very quickly. did we learn that the case was actually infectious on site for more than seven days total, between the two cases. maybe one person was three days, one person was four days. that's concerning. that's a lot of days of potential spread. we know that there's certain communities that are

disproportionately impacted in san francisco. are those folks highly represented in the building. and we also look at the risk of morbidity. are there a lot of elders in the building, people over the age of 60, a lot of co-morbidities. so those are some of the criteria we do have the matrix that we use. but basically has to be two cases in two separate households in 14 days and at least two of those several criteria that i mentioned. supervisor preston, i really appreciate that comment. i think what dr. cohen just told us is that we, in this case d.p.h., can actually have higher standards than the state does, which say lute -- i salute and appreciate. everything that dr. cohen just said, relative to assessing risk is absolutely right. do you have higher co-morbidity

factors. do you have, you know, folks who are living 10 to a room instead of two to a room. are they more likely to have to go to work than be retired or on a fixed income. all of those things could lead to a spread. but i think where the rubber hits the road is, and i mean no professional offense to d.p.h. is how well do they know the residents in that building. how do they know what i have come to learn or have knowledge access to on and off in my 20 years, as to who lives in that building or what community members know then. i don't think that d.p.h. can figure that out in 24 hours, unless they start working with the community to quickly under then do triage. because you can't triage unless

you know what the -- whether the victim is about to be in deep trouble or not. but this is very helpful conversation to me at least. supervisor preston, do you have any more comments? >> supervisor preston: i don't. thank you, dr. cohen. i just want to echo really the point you made, chair peskin, really thank you for your leadership on this. proud to be co-sponsoring this this time, as well as last time. and i think that, you know, where we have really proactive and engaged communities representing and community groups representing some of the most vulnerable people in the city, i see this kind of legislation as really honoring their expertise around the community their serving. but also as you say, but facilitating and trying to deepen the conversation between

d.p.h. and those community groups, so that as we -- sort of in some ways the beauty of having these emergency ordinances as ways to sort of temporarily deal with things, but not cement them permanently and look forward to it sounds like ongoing discussions happening to arrive at whatever makes sense on a more permanent basis. it certainly resonates with me that where there's doubt, being more careful, preventative and, you know, we have for whatever reasons avoided certainly outbreaks that would have otherwise occurred through taking proactive steps. so certainly i appreciate that this, you know, we continue i hope to err on the side of over testing and overly taking precautions, rather than the opposite. but understanding that there's further conversation to figure out what that, you know, what

should be in place on the longer-term basis. >> supervisor peskin: thank you, supervisor preston. supervisor safai, anything to add? >> supervisor safai: something who is a city planner by training, you know, not many cities have this type of housing that remains. it is one of the things that makes san francisco unique, to have a single room occupancy hotel and being used obviously in a different way than they were originally built. you know, we have multiple families, multiple generations, many members of the same family sharing space. and some for me it makes sense, under these circumstances, that we would want to err on the side of extreme caution. because as we know and as we learn from the assisted living facilities, that was where this virus really began in the united

states, in multiple cities. in new york, and in washington and all over. i don't want the same to happen. and i know supervisor peskin has been out in front of this. we had conversations in the very beginning of this pandemic about individuals and their patterns of travel and their patterns of obtaining medicine and going actually in many ways to the heart of where this pandemic began in the world, into wuhan, china. and so that is no longer a risk. but the risk is this massive amount of people in these buildings living in very close settings. and so i'm proud to be a co-sponsor of this legislation. i think if it pushes sfdph to work aggressively with advocate communities, that is on the ground working with individuals in these settings, i think it's a positive thing. and in the end if we don't have

an outbreak, good. and we put the resources in the right place. so i appreciate your leadership on this and being a part of this conversation, supervisor peskin, along with the advocates from the community. and thank you, ms. cohen, as well. >> supervisor peskin: thank you, colleagues and co-sponsors. before we open this up to public comment, while this is a re-enactment of the emergency ordinance, i do have a couple of non-substantive tweaks perform before i open it up to public comment, i want colleagues to go through that. you're both in receipt of those, as is the clerk of this committee ms. major. on page 2, section 2, at line 22 insert and amend section 3 of such emergency ordinance to read as follows, even though both ordinance no. 84-20 and this re-enactment emergency ordinance are uncodified, for purposes of

clarity, the respective fontses for additions and deletions of the municipal code as stated in the note that appears at the beginning of this ordinance are used to show the amendments to section 3 of ordinance number 84-20. that's the original source ordinance. in the tweaks to the original ordinance, in section 3, would be in subsection g to insert a new subsection 5. and that -- so let me just take you to the top of that subsection g, which is already in the existing law that we are re-enacting, upon confirming that an s.r.o. resident has tested positive for covid-19, d.p.h. shall to the extent consistent with state and federal laws governing the confidentiality of medical information and here's the new subsection 5. as soon as feasible, but not more than 12 hours after receiving such confirmation,

promptly post in common areas of the residential hotel, where fire safety information is required to be posted, a notice to advise s.r.o. residents of their rights under this emergency ordinance to access i/q, isolation/quarantine hotel rooms and face coverings. such notice shall include, but not be limited to, the number of the language accessible hotline for s.r.o. residents, that residents may call to access those resources. this is making the implicit notice requirements explicit. that was my insertion. and in sub l, under sub 2, the total number of confirmed positive covid-19 cases, this is under what data d.p.h. shall produce, the total number of confirmed positive covid-19 cases in san francisco insert residential hotels, delete at

the rate of cases by population size in san francisco. so that the sentence now reads, the total number of confirmed positive covid-19 cases in san francisco residential hotels, organized by zip code. so those are the amendments that i would like to make, subject to public comment. and with that, are there any members of the public who would like to comment on this item number 1? madam clerk. >> clerk: thank you. thank you, mr. chair. operations is checking to see if there are any callers in queue. noting that we have nine listeners. arthur, please let us know how many we have in queue. >> there are currently five callers in the queue. >> supervisor peskin: first speaker, please. >> caller: thank you so much to d.p.h. and the board for giving time and attention to this ordinance. my name is tria.

i'm a tenant organizer with the mission s.r.o. collaborative of the dolores street. we want to address the land-use committee to shed light on the practices of d.p.h., in accordance with the emergency ordinance that was adopted on may 19th. i'm here to ask that the land use and transportation committee renew the s.r.o. emergency ordinance and not dilute any of the protections. in san francisco, s.r.o.s provide homes for over 18,000 extremely low-income seniors and families, people of color, people with disabilities and formerly homeless people. many of the people we serve are also immigrants and some identify as undocumented. we believe that the impact of covid-19 should not only be measured in terms of the number of deaths, but the impacts that the virus has on income and mental health. from the time the emergency ordinance was enacted, d.p.h. has only implemented a portion of the elements and we call on them to recognize that the tenants have a right to receive

a notice if there's a confirmed covid-19 case in their building, the right to full and accurate information about the rights to recovery program, that -- for tenants that test positive and the general location of i.n.q. housing available to them. we have worked directly with tenants, for example, from tenants in the grand southern that in the last 50 days the legislation has been active, that health and sanitary measures have not been implemented, despite tenants contacting d.p.h. and she's been struggling with test problems and rats and cockroaches and ticks on top of the pandemic for the past 50 days, to the point to which she had to replace her own sink becausest inaction and unresponsiveness. and in another case, an s.r.o. tenant at the albert struggled with the affordability of the living situation, as he's unable to pay rent month-to-month. 23 latinx have tested positive

for covid-19, including the grand southern -- >> clerk: thank you. next speaker, please. >> caller: hello. >> clerk: hi. you're on the line. yes. you may speak. you have two minutes. >> caller: okay. my name is eric markoo. i'm a member of senior disability action in soma neighborhood residence council. i'm just saying that testing s.r.o.s should be made for the entire building in a place that's been infected. i heard other speakers in other days say that some of these rooms have, you know, self-containing bathrooms and kitchens. but the vast majority of them don't. and when -- if someone gets infected in these places, it could spread like wildfire, especially in crowded communities like the mission and

tenderloin and chinatown. it just seems -- i mean, unimaginable to me that when we consider scaling this back at this time, when we have such an epidemic. i mean, we need people that are infected or exposed to be put into hotel rooms, self-contained hotel rooms, not in a congregate area. thank you kindly. >> clerk: again you'll be notified if you have been unmuted and you can begin your comments. >> hi, my name is dana foot. i'm with the mission s.r.o. collaborative program for lotus community services. i wanted to first say that there's currently a demand for testing in san francisco. and through our outreach and education work, the need for the

continuation of the s.r.o. emergency ordinance. testing allowing us to connect with services and to the programs that we have also asked. our main concerns is that currently we're assessing the impact of this pandemic in the number of cumulative deaths. and that's not an accurate number of what we're hearing, tests in high levels of stress, depression, and general anxiety. we know that currently there's a timeline and challenges to the turnaround to access programs such as -- [indiscernible] we also know the importance of having transparent information about what are the services connections, community organizations on the ground can link people to. we know that there's a flu season approaching us and we cannot actually afford to water down any of the provisions of the legislation. we are committed, however, to continue to figure out how we

support proactively testing communities and accurately investigate those possible thinks to spread. and understand the use of i.n.q. thank you again for the time you've given this morning. >> supervisor peskin: thank you. next speaker, please. >> hello. this is anna stage. a member of san francisco tenants' union, an anti-displacement coalition. i really appreciate this conversation the supervisors had today, with d.p.h. and dr. cohen. i am encouraged with the doctor and the d.p.h. staff are going to kind of make some overtures and steps to work with the s.r.o. collaborative communities, that are in there doing the work with the tenants.

it's the only way this program will work. and as previous speakers have said and supervisor peskin has said, not knowing that your fellow residents have -- someone has a case of covid is really scary. so if there could be some information that tenants could have of where to go to get tested, and then what to do once they test positive, so that they're not afraid to go to the d.p.h. staff or to do what they have to do or to tell their worker that,. >> commissioner haney:, i -- hey, i got tested and i have covid. if dr. cohen can't do it or they don't have the resources to do it, these people need to be tested. thank you.

>> supervisor peskin: thank you. next speaker, please. >> caller: supervisors, director of policy at the community development center. i want to thank you for working on behalf of s.r.o. residents, not only in chinatown and district 3, but citywide. this is really important legislation. and while we are reassured by dr. cohen's words to reflect that they don't support a warting-down of the legislation, we do continue to insist on testing being a critical need. we have seen that testing, when it's done at the building, is effective. we have also seen in many neighborhoods when testing is offered off-site, it is less

effective and people are less interested in being tested. we really want to frame this as a tenants' righ right-to-know perspective. this ordinance is about what the tenant needs to know in terms of the city's covid response. and what the city -- and what the tenants, you know, has a right to know in terms of what is going on in their buildings. we have testimony a little bit later, that's going to show you that, of course, when d.p.h. comes around and does outreef and says that, you know, there's covid-wide testing, kind of sounds stupid. they know that that means that there's an outbreak or there are cases. so we hope that we can get behind, get beyond the concerns and really look at what is best to protect those communities and our s.r.o. residents. i look forward to working with d.p.h. in the coming weeks and

months, you know, relationship that builds decades back when the s.r.o. collaborative was first funded by the department of public health. so we're looking forward to working together and continue to strength our defense of our s.r.o. residents. thank you very much. >> supervisor peskin: thank you, mattias. any other members of the public who would like to testify on item number 1? >> yes. two additional callers. i'll unmute the next caller. >> supervisor peskin: next speaker, please. >> caller: hello. can you hear me? >> supervisor peskin: yes, i can. please proceed. >> oh. this is trudy. i'm calling from center city collaborative, part of the housing clinic.

thank you, supervisor peskin, to extend this legislation for another 90 days or more. one thing i do agree with all the speakers who spoke in front of me -- before me about the emphasis of testing and the outreach. one thing that i definitely felt that is terribly lacking and i'm hoping and willing to work with d.p.h. on it is like the reaching out to the community-based organizations that's already working with tenants in various buildings. because we bring the relationship, we bring the approach. so i'm hopingle this legislation will push d.p.h. to partner with many of us, so that we can make this legislation effective. thank you very much. >> supervisor peskin: thank you. next speaker.

yes, please go ahead. >> hi. madam clerk, i'm a staff person with chinatown c.d.c. i have a recorded testimony by a witness speaking in cantonese and i will be playing ard roing and then translating. this is a tenant who lives in the chinatown s.r.o. with the present outbreak. [speaking cantonese]

[caller speaking cantonese]

>> hello, i'm a chinatown s.r.o. tenant. we are among the affected families in the pandemic. recently my husband got the virus. at that time he developed a fever in the evening, after taking the pills and sweating all over his body. the fever got lowered. it was later that we found out that someone had been infected in our building. people in the building were not notified of this virus

infection. everyone was kept in the dark and so the virus spread to others. this was frightening because our household included grandparents and children. thank you. madam clerk, i'll be submitting the written translated version of the entire statement for the record. thank you. >> supervisor peskin: thank you. any other members of the public who would like to testify on this item? caller: i would like to thank the last speaker for providing that testimony. and i find it unfortunate that we seem to have so few actual s.r.o. residents speaking today. it seems very paternalistic to have these decisions made by people who, you know, don't actually live in s.r.o.s and, you know, some input from the people who are on various boards

and stuff. so i'm wondering like, you know, was -- were s.r.o. residents notified that this meeting was being held? and there aren't any interpreters at the meeting, as far as i can tell. so the residents of s.r.o.s are very linguistically diverse. there should have been more outreach to s.r.o. residents to get their input on these decisions, instead of the top-down manner. >> supervisor peskin: are there any other members of the public who would like to testify under public comment? >> yes, hello. this is theresa with senior disability action. i so appreciate all of your work on this, supervisor peskin. i also hope it will not be

diluted. i am also thinking of a resident in an s.r.o. that i visited and the issuing about that he had only recently come home from the hospital, is having an occupational therapist go in to visit him. and so when d.p.h. talks about, you know, people, indeed, do come and go out of s.r.o.s, that may be the difference. however, it is the difference that makes it even more important for people to be tested. people are going out and working and getting their groceries, et cetera. so they may not know that they have been exposed and they need to know that. they need to protect themselves. and protect the people outside that they may encounter. so i just want to support this. again he is a resident who could not speak today. and so i am speaking for him.

thank you very much. >> supervisor peskin: thank you. are there any other members of the public who want to ite itemr 1? >> hi, yes. my name is freddie. i'm with senior disability action as a housing organizer. and -- since covid broke out, i have been doing a lot of work with tenants that live in s.r.o.s and participating and facilitating several tenant groups and meetings within the community, within s.r.o. working groups and collaboratives. and there is a fear of the emergency protections being through the somehow and i appreciate and i'm glad of the fact that that doesn't appear to be happening.

and supportive of these protections that are in place will be re-enacted fully. there is a fear amongst people that live in the s.r.o.s, that i have spoken with, that if they don't know that someone is infected, that they wouldn't be able to adequately protect themselves. so just one person getting it has the potential to affect so many people. just, for example in the building i'm living in, it's not an s.r.o. building. it is partially subsidized. there was one tenant that was -- that came up positive and the entire building received notices on their doors. and for those that were nervous about being in just the hallways or the elevators, because we don't share public areas, other than the hallways and the lobby, there was several people that were able to get tested, because of that. had they not known and been

exposed, there potentially could have been many more cases. so it is important to fully re-enact this and thank you for your support. >> supervisor peskin: thank you. next speaker, please. are there any more speakers? >> mr. chair, that completes the queue. >> supervisor peskin: all right. public comment is closed. and to the speaker -- three speakers ago, let me say there's definitely a difference between dilution and delusion. every once in a while we get speakers on the land use committee meetings that don't identify themselves and they don't have to. [ please stand by ]

[roll call] . >> you have three ayes. >> commissioner: i'd like to make a motion to send the item as amended with recommendation as a committee report for a meeting with the bull board of

supervisors tomorrow september 1. on that motion, madame clerk, roll call, please. [roll call] . >> commissioner: the motion is auto -- approved. madame clerk call the next item. >> clerk: [reading item] members of the public who wish to comment call 1-415-655-0001 the meeting i.d. is 146 466 4627 and press #, #and then a system prompt will indicate you have raised your hand. when we get to public comment

the system will indicate you have been unmuted. >> commissioner: i'd like to make a motion to continue this to september 14, 2020. is there any public comment on that continuance? >> clerk: thank you, mr. chair. we're check forg callers in the -- checking for callers in the queue. >> there are no callers in the queue. >> commissioner: public comment is closed and on that motion, madame clerk, a roll call, please. >> clerk: the motion as state. [roll call] .d. [roll call] . >> commissioner: the item is continued to september 14. next item, please. >> clerk: the next is a

conversion of certain limited restaurants to restaurants north beach neighborhood amending the planning code. for those wishing to provide public comment call 1-415-655-0001 and meeting i.d. 146 466 4627 and press pouve po pound to line up to speak. >> commissioner: this is a carefully crafted piece of legislation that will help up to a dozen defined in the code as limited restaurants in the corner of the city i represent that really in every way behave like full service restaurants but due to changes in the code that precede me that happened when i was off the board prohibited from applying for beer and wine licenses.

and in short, it rendered uncompetitive before the pandemic and now is an imperative for them and these small businesses include outfits like family cafe, which is a chance cafe and the portofino, not the old one the fbi raid 20 years ago but a new one which is a new one on grand avenue. masala which was originally i think in your district, supervisor peskin and may be the only west african restaurant in district 3. essentially, we are addressing a glitch in the code that evolved

from complications from not when i was on this board which in fact made small business regulations in some cases murkier and more complicated and in this particular instance pretty goofy. so i really want to thank the planning department staff and the planning commission for their unanimous recommendation of this ordinance and with that, i do have a series of, i believe, non-substantive amendments. first as to the short and long titles an amendment to clarify we are amending the special use district and on pages 4 and 5, i'm expanding eligibility by reducing the number of months a business must have been in operation from four to three months and page 5, lines 3 and 4

including businesses in operation in the eligibility window that have been in business a longer period of time, between november 1 and september and moving the conditional using requirement for liquor licenses and page 5 lines 11 and 14 moving the section 3 and removing the line that made supervisor safai happy that is over the counter relief for eligible businesses. this has streamline the process and my thanks to the city attorney and my staff for the work on this and in fact,

colleagues, if you have questions or comments i'd be attempt to answer them and if not we can go to public comment. >> it does make me happy and we did something very similar as you know in my district where the change of use was facilitated quickly. the times necessitated this and an appreciate your hard work on this. >> supervisor safai and supervisor preston is nodding his head. madame clerk do we have members of public who wish to comment on item 3. >> i'll check if there's callers in the queue. arthur, let us know if there are callers ready. if you have not done so press 3 to line up to speak. you only need to do this one. >> commissioner: we'll go to public comment and then aaron starr in planning. >> mr. chair, there are no

callers in the queue. >> commissioner: public comment is closed. mr. star. >> planning commission heard this item last thursday and voted unanimously to approve it with modifications those applying and describe a prohibition on [indiscernible] in section of the ordnance do not place it in a codified ordinance language and the prohibition unlimited restaurants looking at former restaurant spaces and the north beach and north beach sud to allow the conversion of certain number of restaurants and increase the time from three months to six months and the application must be submitted to the planning department by the deadline and do not delete the

provision from the code until at least one year after the effective date and to encourage the board to expand this program city wide through an amendment to the legislation ordinance. thank you, supervisor peskin for considering these amendments. i'm also available for questions. >> thank you, mr. starr. >> commissioner: this is an appropriate comment i want to make for myself and you that starting tomorrow we can get our haircut on the sidewalk. >> you don't think i should keep it? looks great. >> i appreciate that. colleagues, i'd like to move the amendment on that item. madame clerk, roll call, please. [roll call] .

>> clerk: you have three ayes. >> commissioner: i'd like to send this item to the full board with recommendation on that motion a roll call -- >> excuse me, if i may. i'm sorry but the amendment is substantive. >> commissioner: never mind. madame clerk, i'll resend -- rescind that and continue it to the meeting september 14. on that motion roll call please. >> clerk: we don't need to rescind but i will take the roll call. [roll call] . >> commissioner: the motion has passed.

>> this ethic commission of august 14, 2020 has started.

miss ambrose, we are ready to begin. >> thank you, i want to welcome everybody to the august 14, 2020 meet of the san francisco ethic's commission. this is pursuant to the governor's order and the 12t 12th supplement to the proclamation declaring the existence of a local emergency dated february 25, 2020. before we proceed further, i would like to ask commission staff member ronald conraras who is acting as the moderator to explain procedures of today's remote meeting. >> thank you, madam chair. the minutes of this meeting reflect due to the covid-19 health emergency and to protect commissioner members, city employee expose ths and the pub, committee meeting rooms are closed. commission and staff will be participating in today's meeting remotely.

this is taken pursuant to the local, state and federal directives. commission members will attend the member through video conference and participate in the meeting to the same extent as if they were physically present. please note that today's meeting will not be live cast until the adjournment of one of the two board of supervisor's meetings. however, today's meeting will be shown live in the we webe competiton application, that's sfgovt v.org/dozethic'slive. member of the public will be allowed three minutes to speak. comments to speak during public comment period are available via phone call by calling

(415)655-0001 and/or (408)418-9388. again, the phone number is (415)655-0001 and/or (448)418-9388. the access code is (146)056-8750. press pound to join as an attendee. we apologize that previously webex only offered a 408 number. you will hear it beep when you're connected to the meeting and you will be muted and in listening mode only. when your item of interest comes up, dial star three to be added

to the public comment line and you will then here, you have raised your hand to ask a question and please wait until the host calls on you. the line will be silenced as you wait your turn to speak. ensure that you are in a quiet location. before you speak, mute the sound of any equipment around you including television, radio or computer. and it is especially important that you mute your computer if you are watching throug watchinb link. when the system message says your line has been un-muted, this is your turn to speak and you'll hear staff say, welcome, caller. you are encouraged to state your name clearly. as soon as you begin speaking, you will have three minutes to provide your public comment, six minutes if you are online with an interpreter and you will hear a bell go off when you have 30 seconds remaining. if you change your mind and wish

to withdraw yourself from the public comment line, press star three again and you'll hear the system say, you have lowered your hand. once your three minutes have expired, staff will mute you. you will hear your line has been muted. aattendees who wish to speak during other public comment may stay on the line and listen for the next public comment opportunity and raise their hands to enter the public comment line by pressing star three. when their next item of interest comes up. public comment may be submitted in writing and will be shared after the meeting is concluded and be included as a part of the meeting file. written comments should be sent to ethics.commission@sfgov.org. thank you, madam chair. >> chair: thank you. and with that, i'll call the meeting to order.

the gavel down and moderator, if you want to call the role, please. >> commissioners, please un-mute your microphone is that you can verbally state your presence at today's meeting after your name is called. chair ambrose. (role call) >> madam chair with all five members present and accounted for, you have a quorum. >> chair: thank you very much. welcome, everyone. i want to express my appreciation to the staff for bringing us all together remotely. i know it's a challenge not just for us. i worry, too, that it's a challenge for our viewing public.

one of the things that i was discussing with another commissioner is just the concern that the only access that people have is over the internet, really, and with the public libraries closed, i'm just wondering if staff could look into whether or not the city has any, i don't know, viewing centers or loan or laptops for those people, because it seems like we'll be in this world for awhile and the idea that the only way that you can participate in government is through a computer with, as we all have seen here, with really good enderne ethernet or wi-fi d something to be conscious of and see what we can could to help. i want to make a friendly reminder to commissioners and participants today to mute your

microphone when you're not speaking so we don't get a lot of audio feedback and with that, i'll call item number two is public comment on matters appearing or not appearing on the agenda. members of the public who are already online and wish to speak should now dial star three if you've not already done so to be added to the public comment line. moderator, can you please proceed with public comment. >> thank you, madam chair. the ethic's commission is receiving public comment on agenda item number two remotely in this meeting. each member will have up to three minutes to provide public comment. if you join the meeting earlier to listen to the proceedings, now is the time to get into line to speak. if you have not already, please press star three. it's important that you press star three only once to enter the queue.

after pressing it again, we'll move you out of the public comment line and back into listening mode. once you are in the queue and standing by, they will property you and when it's your turn to speak -- excuse me. [ laughter ] >> the system will prompt you when it's your turn to speak so it's important you call from a quiet location. please address your comments to the commission as a whole and not to individual members. madam chair, we are checking to see if there are any callers in the queue. if you have just joined the meeting, we are on agenda number two, public comment on matters appearing or not appearing on the agenda. if you have not done so, press star three to be added and for those on hold, wait until the system indicates you have been muted.

>> chair: we'll wait for a few seconds to see if there are any speakers. >> that's correct. for all those patiently waiting, we are waiting 90 seconds and we're halfway there.

madam chair, there are no callers in the queue. >> chair: thank you. item number two is closed and i'll call items from the cob sent calendar. this is items three and four on your agenda notice and item three is draft minutes so the ethic's commission july 10, 2020 regular meeting and item four is a proposed stipulation decision and order in the matter of hilary ronen, supervisor 2016, hilary ronen and stacie owens, fsc client number 161086 and moderator, if you can explain the call for public comment, please. >> if any members of the public intend to offer public comment for any of the consent items, dial in now and enter star three to be added to the public

comment queue. items three and four are on consent and they're considered routine. if a commissioner objects, an item can be removed and considered separately. >> chair: so does any commission member wish to sever any of the items for content and call for a separate discussion? seeing no such requests, i am going to -- >> i was making a request. >> chair: oh, you were? >> i was trying to raise my hand. >> chair: ok, i'm sorry. maybe i have you all grouped in a row and i need a tutorial again on how to spread you out so i can see your hands. it just says participants. >> i wanted to make a comment on the minutes and i don't know if

that's an objection to sever it, but i do want to make a comment about the minutes. >> it's up to you. i mean, we can call them separately and call role separately on each item if you just want to make -- if you just want to make a comment about it, then we can just hear it under the consent calendar. >> then i'll just make a comment. but in view of the fact that we're concerned about a disproportionate impact, people without access to the internet to operate in ou participate in, it becomes more important so i'm urging that our minutes provide more detail rather than just sort of an outline so that people get a better sense of not

only th of what different people spoke but what they said and anything related to that and so that's my comment. >> ok. >> chair: any other comments from commissioners before we ask for public comment? moderator, i'll ask for you to provide the instructions for public comment on the consent items. >> thank you, madam chair. the ethic's commission is receiving public comment on consent calendar items three through four and each member will have up to three minutes to provide public comment. you'll hear a bell go off when you have 30 seconds remaining. if you join early to listen, now is the time to get in line to speak and if you have not done

so, please press star three. it's important you press star three once to enter the queue and after pressing again, we'll move you out and back into listening mode. once you're standing by, the system will prompt you when it's your turn to speak. so it's important that you call from a quiet location. please address your comment to the commission as a whole and not to individual members. madam chair, we're checking to see if there are any callers in the queue. >> thank you, so, again, we'll have a slight delay here while you check for speakers.

madam chair, there are no callers. >> hopefully our phone lines are working. and then, i would like to ask for a role call on the consent agenda, if i can get a motion, please. commissioner lee, thank you, and a second. >> second.

>> commissioner smith seconds the motion. >> chair: and now the role call, please. (role call). >> with five votes in the affirmative and zero opposed, the motion is approved unanimously. >> chair: now i would like to call agenda item five, discussion of possible action on the ethic's commission draft annual report for 2019-'20 and before you ask for public

comment, i just wanted to say a few words and ask director pellham to say a few words. i'm sure all of you have had the opportunity to both look at this draft annual report and also to read the budget and legislative analyst's recommendations about what we might achieve in the future with an annual report that reflects -- well, actually not reflects, but is more reflective about what we might have accomplished over the course of the year. but in the interest of satisfying the charter requirements that the chair and executive director produce an annual report, i wanted to get my homework done and so i pressed on executive director pellham that notwithstanding the budget and performance audit

from the budget and legislative analyst and everything remote that we try to pull together as best we could an overview of what the commission and, frankly, the city accomplished on the ethic's issues in the past year and while it's certainly looking for comments and recommendations to improve it over the course of the next year, i would ask for your support in approving the draft with, again, with any correction's revisions and i would especially look to commissioner chu, since this work was accomplished on your work for the remainder of the last fiscal year. during my tenure, we were in absentia.

director pellham, any thoughts corners. >> no, good morning, chair ambrose and commission members, i don't have anything to add. i want to acknowledge and thank both the chair for getting this important and overdue ball rolling and i think it was a good effort for all of us on staff to take some time to dig in and reflect and collect information about what the commission has been working to accomplish in this past year. we look forward to continuing to evolve this report that we'll talk about in the future agenda items in this meeting. but just wanted to provide it for your review today and as the cover home notes, the bylaws do state that the commission approve an annual report and so we have it here as a draft and

i'll turn it back to you and the chair for comments or feedback you wish to provide at this time. >> if it's ok with everywhere, i was going to elicit commission feedback or comments, corrects, recommendations for future improvement before we go to public comment. so i will ask that if any of you want to speak, i have now figured out how to get my panel on the side where i can see whether your hand is raised. and so, feel free to raise your hand. commissioner bush, i recognise you. commissioner chu, you'll be next. commissioner bush, you are on mute.

>> one thing that helps quantify the work of the commission is a statistical systemmery of how many calls were fielded and how many opinions were issued and how many enforcement actions took place. the other part of the annual report is not so much about the ethic's commission annual report but our partnership in the city. so, for example, the number of referrals that we send on to the city attorney or the district attorney, the number of referrals that go to various departments so that people have a better sense of what's going

on. some reference to the controller's work on whistleblower. i think that what we saw this past year were questions being raised about the thoroughness of the city's approach to public integrity and that's why you saw issues such as creating a public advocate for a whistleblower program. so if you can acknowledge that we are a partner, that would give a better perspective of how we fit in. thank you. >> thank you. i appreciate those comments and i did want to say that i had heard your recommendation, which i think is a good one, and i still thunderbay we can pull together this sort of fact sheet

of having a highlights by the numbers. i know personally i like looking at just, you know, numbers of cases, time to completion, as you point out, the number of opinions. because you can look quickly and see the body of work that's going on and i also really like your idea that we bring in our shared responsibility with other departments and the elected officials in the city for maintaining, you know, ethical standards in san francisco. so that's something that i will keep note of this year so we can make sure and incorporate it in the annual report for the coming year that we're enjoying right now. and with that, i'm going to recognise commissioner chu and then commissioner lee. >> thank you, chair ambrose.

i wanted to echo commissioner bush's comments and this is actually my feedback, as well. so i think the metrics would be helpful for the public as has already been commented on by the commissioner. and one would be the 4700 filing anas one of the primary tools fr disclosure for elected and appointed city employees. and i don't have a recommendation here but i have a question for the commission, how much or should we and if so, how much should we reference in terms of the recommendations from the bla report? because i think it's important to note that while we have a body of accomplishments and work that has been done and we need to communicate about, i also think that it's an opportunity in the annual report to identify

areas of improvement. i don't want to get into the bla audit results because that's for the upcoming agenda item, but i think there might be an opportunity here, you know, to say that one of the reasons why we will be given more, hopefully, is we can be fully staffed, for example, that we have experienced a high rate of vacancy, which is one of the second highest in the city as noted in the bla report. in order to paint not just a picture of what we have accomplished but also some of the ongoing challenges. >> chair: there is a reference at the end of the annual report. the annual report or draft annual report was put forward to the commission and we were just

getting in hand the bla report and just from a timing point of view, there's simile just a cross-reference to it and maybe in the final version of the annual report, we could certainly include online a linker to the bla report and, you know, specific reference to the date that it was issued now that the bla report is final. going forward, and this is going to be an agenda item, if not in september than i then in octobee specific recommendation in the bla report is that we have adopted metrics for ourselves in terms of what we want to strive to achieve on our numeric performance standards, really, including that would be the budget and staffing issues

because, obviously, any performance metrics that doesn't take into consideration resources doesn't reflect reality. the timing didn't allow for us to embed discussion about the recommendations in the consideration of what's happened in the past year and with that, i want to recognise -- i'm sorry, if you have a follow-up, go ahead. >> i do, so yeah, i did see the reference and i understand there's a timing issue of when this was prepared. are we to take action to approve this in the current slide or as mr. bush has raised to include

metrics to give a proceeder picture of the work the commission has done and we could take this up at next month's meeting and approve it for publication at that time? mary if these are the improvements the commission wants to see in the report, then, yeah, that should be the motion. we obviously can't draft it by committee or commission, so if there is a motion to make improvements, i would ask that they be as specific as possible so that th i and the executive director have a really clear path forward about what you're looking for, you know, to bring

back in september. but i'm happy to take notes and try and make those improvements. >> thank you. >> chair: with that, i need to go back to my panel here. commissioner lee. >> thank you, madam chair. and i want to echo what my colleagues have said. i also want to thank the director and her staff for putting this document together in these challenging times. specifically, i do want to suggest that in addition to the summary of the key highlights in the front, that it starts with what the previous speakers have said, a simple chart, so that this is easily.

i think there's so much attention, especially to the auditing part of the commission's mandate and again, this year being a really unique year, i would recommend that the report includes why given the staff reassignment and everything else that some of the metrics were slow. and so i think that would be really important because this is a document for future reference. so i think it's really important to reference that. it doesn't make this an excuse, but at least to put it in context. and i also would like to

recommend that even though this is the annual report of what we've done, but maybe in the last section to have the unfinished business moving forward, what is the commission going to do? what are our plans to really move forward only things that have been identified and things that have been addressed and that these are the plans that we have to continue to efforts for the next fiscal year. so those are my three recommendations. >> i think i'm going to raise my hand. >> chair: commissioner lee, i agree with the first two parts of the last one. if we're going to have in september agenda items to revisit the policy priority plan in light of whatever we are able

to obtain from the mayor and the board and the way of budget resources, so just, you know, for myself, i don't know about director pom, but i would be hard-pressed to write in the next 30 days what the commissioner's agenda is for the unfinished business for this coming physical year without having the commission actually having resolved the competing priorities and adopted that, which i'm hoping we're going to do at least in part in september. so i hear you that it would be nice if we already knew what we would do going forward. but with the way this year is unfolding with so uncertainty, whether we can keep the positions we have, i would be

afraid to take something from our last priority policy or to-do list and, in my words, say what we were going to do and so i would ask that we set our agenda in september once we know what our resources are. although, i certainly agree that we can -- now that we have more information about what metrics are and staffing problem have been in the past and have confirmation of the bla report that that is, indeed, been a constraint on the commission's performance that we can incorporate that in the report. and i'm looking -- i'll let you respond. go ahead. >> i don't mean this as setting the agenda for the next year.

a i meant by unfinished business, there are a lot of areas that we've started and i think it would be a good document to show the intent to continue this pass and right now there's uncertainty regarding the budget but at least on record, we recognize that these are some of the areas we need to continue to move forward. and i don't mean to set a new agenda for the year, but on the current areas that we're working on, such as the audit and everything else. these are the things that commission intends to continue and then if for whatever reason,

budgetary constraints or what have you, next year, we can revisit that and say we intended all of these things and, unfortunately, budget constraints prevented under the circumstances from doing that. is that a record that we did not drop it and that we have every intention of carrying out these activities.

that's an important point for the public to know that we're just not doing things because of that. >> chair: i hear you. again, though, because you did name one example of the audit, i guess my thought and maybe you've been on the commission a lot longer and you might have internalized what our overarching continuing missions are. i'm just really leery to say that i would know what to put in that paragraph without more specific direction from the commission and i guess i had envisioned a more -- and i think, you know, the executive director also had a lot of ideas along these lines, in terms of that part of what we would do in the fall is set the specific

metrics for where can we go with auditing once we know, for example, whether or not we're going to get our auditor back from the disaster service working assignment. you know, where can we go on form 700, depending on our financial resources, et cetera. and so, to put in the annual report for last year what we think we'll do next year, to my mind, again, as described, i'm not prepared to take a shot at what that might be. but what i do want to do is put it on the agenda so that we can have an actual discussion item by item, what do we think we can get accomplished in the coming year and have the commission and the staff come together with a clear understanding. so we're not just setting metrics that other people think would be nice that we would

accomplish, but we don't think realistically we're going to be able to get there, et cetera. and so, i'm still -- and if you all want to give more bullets for things you want to put in the report for what we intend to continue working on, then, i guess -- and my thought, too, i think between now and november, given where we're at with the staff that's been directed to disaster service work, given the fact that everyone is remote and given the fact that the assistant director is happily out on maternity leave for the next six months, so what i would want the staff to do is to really focus on the november election on getting the disclosures and continuing with our enforcement efforts and really just doing the basic hard day-to-day work of the

commission and then continuing to fight through the budget process to get as many resources as we possibly can. but anyway, that's what i would say if i was going to say what i want us to do for at least the next quarter. and again, if folks can articulate what you think and agree on lists of what we will continue to do, i'll write it down and we'll put it in the report. because i don't want to guess. >> i can't find my raised hand thing. but when you have a moment, i would like to say something. >> chair: ok, and then i'm going to let commissioner lee respond and go back to commissioner chu. so if you want to go ahead, commissioner bush. >> just one way forward, because we all seem to be headed in the same direction, is to appended

to the annual report a copy of the bla audit so it's all in one place. and secondly, to ask each of our partner's agencies, like the controller or the city attorney or the district attorney or dhs, if they have something to add, that they provide us a paragraph and we put that into the report, as well as a separate section, which would be related commissions from partner agencies. and finally, on the point that commissioner lee was just making, i think you have a final paragraph that says, to be completed or work underway without enumerating them, but just acknowledging that there are still things that are

priorities and we'll be working on those in the next few months and you pretty well covered a suite of issues with all of those steps and done so in a way that informs the public that we are not asleep at the wheel. >> chair: i wrote that down and now i want to recognise commissioner chu. >> i would offer up a motion that would open for feedback for myself. , commissioners adding some metrics for the report which would be the number of audits conducted, the investigations, open asked opend closed investigations, the form

700 filing and the amount of public funds dispersed and then, as commissioner bush enumerated, appending the bla report as well as any paragraphs or written statements from partner agencies to incorporate into that report, as well as commissioner bush has just noted a very high level paragraph about the continuing work, that we're not resting on our laurels, but we've accomplished to date, but that, you know, a lot of these work streams will continue into the future. and it's something that gets to that point without granular and specific and holding us to initiatives that we have not yet prioritized but will in the upcoming months. >> chair: is that a motion? >> yes. >> chair: and is there a second for that motion?

ok, commissioner smith. and if we can have discussion on that motion, if anyone wants to confirm or revise and if not, then i'm going to go to the moderator and ask for public comment. commissioner -- nobody has their hand up. is anybody trying to put their hand up? no, ok. thank you for that. and then, moderator, could you please call for public comment. >> thank you, chair. madam chair, we are checking to see if there are callers in the queue and we do have one right now. for those already on hold, please continue to wait until the system indicates you have bun muted un-muted. we are on agenda item number five and possible action on the annual report for 2019-2020. if you have not already done so, please press star three to be added to the public queue.

you will have three minutes to provide your public comment, six minutes if you're online with an interpreter. you'll hear a bell go off when you have 30 seconds remaining. we do have callers in the queue. give me just a moment here. welcome, caller, you have three minutes and your three minutes begins now. >> speaker: good morning,

commissioners. my name is dr. derick kerr, a whistleblower. whore. whistleblower. a key recommendation of the ethic's commission is that the outcomes of investigations should be disclosed, particularly whistleblower retaliation claims. now, in your draft annual report, there's a table on page 13 which shows some outcomes of the investigations of whistleblower retaliation claims. however, there's something missing. it doesn't state how many cases were sustained. and i think that the reason that we don't have that information is because the ethic's commission has never sustained a

whistleblower retaliation claim since its founding. that's zero in 27 years. if you would disclose how many cases were sustained or not sustained, it would draw more attention to the fact that these claims are never sustained. and maybe that would give somebody on the commission the impetus to explain why whistleblower retaliation claims are always dismissed by the ethic's commission. thank you very much.

>> madam chair, there are no more callers. >> chair: thank you for your comment and public comment is closed and a motion on the floor with a second. so moderator, can you please call the vote on the annual report, revisions and approval of the annual report? so i just want to be clear, we will make those revisions, we'll bring it back in september for final adoption, correct? that's the understanding? ok, if you can call the role, please. foul a motion has been made and seconded. you can chime in and just give me the synopsis again. i'm sorry.

>> chair: i'll ask you to restate the motion. i think it's on the tape that commissioner chu did a good job of combining commissioner lee and commissioner bush and her own specific recommendations for edits to the annual report but i won't ask her to try and read that because we will be working it back for approval and then we'll find out whether or not director pellham and i got the correct message. and so, anyway, if you can -- >> i'll call the role. (role call). >> the motion approved

unanimously. >> chair: thank you very much for that and with that, i need to find my place in the script. and so, we're on to agenda item six and agenda item six is the discussion of the budget and legislative analyst, performance report of the ethic's commission conducted at the request of the board of supervisors and i'm going to ask executive director pellham to lead our discussion here with her staff. thank you very much. >> thank you, chair, and good morning again. this item that we have on the agenda for you, it is the budget and legislative analyst performance audit of the ethic's commission that was issued publically on monday, the tenth. and so we wanted to make sure to have the opportunity to have it before you to be able to begin to digest it. it's an 82-page report and also

the public to start engaging as we did in the prior agenda, as we can continue to improve the operations and the impact of the mission and the mandate of the ethic's commission. so we have -- i will, in a moment, ask our acting deputy director and enforcement director, jeff pearce, to refresh what is in report, which there are 16. to provide brief background, you'll recall that in november of last year, the president board yee introduced a motion to ask for the budget and legislative analyst to, as a priority, in fiscal year '20, to product a performance for the

year. and that was approved by the full board at the end of january. in early february, the bla auditors met with commission staff, the management, to review the scope and the time frames expected. the work proceeded immediately. we began to prioritize our responses for data collection, document production interviews so that we could help the bla auditors dig into whatever areas they needed to to access areas that would help to understand where we can continue to improve and to help them stay on time for releasing what would be an audit to the board in late june. at that point, we anticipated that would be during the budget season. and fast-forward for the past several months, the covid pandemic and public health emergency and the need for offices to operate remotely changed the time frame a bit. non-theless, to the credit of

the bla auditors and my thanks to our staff, we were able to move that audit to completion. the report is attached in full and there is the opportunity for the department to have provided a response. as your executive director, as we looked at this operationally, i provided a response to the report on behalf of our office and that reflects on what we believe to be our full agreement with the recommendations that the bla auditors have provided in this report. they did an extensive amount of work analyzing data and providing feedback and insight that will be very helpful for us to continue the kind of work we have laid the foundation for. my response to the audit reminds all of us that the commission started on a new journey back in

2016, when it embraced vision and blueprint for the accountable and part of that is not just holding others accountable, but holding ourselves accountable, as well. we know that we need to have goals. we need to have indicators that we can hold ourselves to account to and that we can have a way to gauge whether or not we're making progress. that's not an easy task, particularly when you all know that we do not staff ourselves in a way that has any administrative performance, financial budget unit that would normally do this for a department and so, for us, it's been a struggle over the years to do that and i think that is not a headline. i think what we have tried to do over the years is to address it as much as we can and this report gives us real insights and i think some helpful ideas about the way that we can and need to start implementing that. your discussion about the annual report is a perfect example of

that and i just wanted to convey on behalf of the staff having looked at the report and worked with the auditors, we appreciate the time they invested in doing this work and we very much appreciate and agree with the recommendations that they've provided to us and we do look forward to implementing those as we identified in my response. i thought i would share two slides and walk through at a high level the recommendations and i'll ask jeff pearce to join me and if we can answer my questions you have about the report, address any further questions about what building blocks we have in place already that are standards to address some of those issues, that's how i will proceed to get the item back in your hands for discussion. if you'll bear with us on these two slides for a moment. let me call those up and share my screen.

one moment. am i correct there's no audit report recommendation? >> no. >> well, if i could ask you then, in that case -- or if i draw your attention, it's on page 69 of the report, if you have it nearby and if not, we'll just walk through them very briefly for you. the slide that i would present and we will send to you and post online is a list of the report items that the bla has recommended. there is specific language and their ordering as well as the

prioritization that they applied to it and some they have asked to be completed by the end of this calendar year, in december, by december 30th. and others note, their recommendation, some of them and the bulk of them be completed by the end of june, the end of this fiscal year. and i think there is one that they recommend be completed by december of 2021. so just, briefly, i'll start with the recommendation four. we spoke this and you'll hear about this in the next issue on the agenda but the first was to ensure adequate staffing of the commission and they spent a lot of time looking at the history of the commission's vacancies and recommendations to the board of supervisors and the mayor's budget office to expedite approval of request to fill vacant positions at the commission and allocate the

commission salary savings and funding to the work of the commission, to the department of human resources, to help the commission with the recruitment and hiring in an expedited manner. i pointed out in my response man tore the bla, we strongly support this recollection and that is something that we'll touch on in the budget item on the agenda today. and that really is one of the great dependencies with the recommendations made, to help us complete the recommendations on the time frame envisioned by the bla report and it will depend on our ability to have those seats filled. there are two other items. the first and second recommendations of the report speak to -- number one, to the item we were discussing, producing an annual report and that is something where they are specifically focusing on, again, outcomes, what are the outcomes, what are the specific performance measures we want to

identify for each functional area, not just one or two? and to have them consistent from year to year. and so the report identifies some o of the efforts we've made over time to capture in our budget requests and at that time of year what we have been attempting to do and how far we've come. their (pleas.(please stand by).

this month. so we're going to provide that

to the engagement compliance team to support that continuous information and to make an impact. secondly then recommendation five speaks to establishing overall goals were completing audits and then reporting on those results. also recommendation seven speaks to developing an updated audit manual that auditors have, again, a consistent step-by-step guide as a way to go about their work. we have achieved significant improvements, in my view, in increasing the consistency of our audits against audits in audit cycles, but this is something we don't have extensive documentation for, and we know that in a period where there is any kind of staff turnover, which we hope we do not see, there is a need to have that knowledge sharing from person to person so that there is a consistent basis as to on-board and to help sustain the work that is reflected of the collective knowledge that we

have. that is another recommendation. and then finally as to the campaign or the audit program specifically their tools is establishing a formal training program for the audit division. something, again, that includes what are those needs that the audit division has to conduct its work, what are the training goals for each employee, and just the process for tracking of revising and monitoring and ensuring that's been impactful in monitoring our audits. the last area addresses recommendation six, and i'll backtrack on that. the office recommends that we approve procedures for a lobbying audit program and conduct an initial lobbying audit by the end of fy21. the audit staff has provided to me a template, an initial draft this spring to enable us to do that as we had it on track for our staff to do an initial audit by the end of this year. given the demands operationally with the need to change to remote work and other

covid-19-related operational demands, that unfortunately has sat with me, and so this is something that i have to dust off and make sure that we are able to put into operation and complete this, and i'm very hopeful and expect that we will do that, and i myself am committed to do that as well. i'm going to pause there, and the number of other recommendations that i've asked pearce to join in, this is recommendations 9 to 16 speak to our investigative work. if i could ask jeff to walk through briefly those items and then turn it back to any questions that you might have for us, commissioners, that we can try and answer. >> sure, thank you, director, and good morning, commissioners. so as the director noted, fully half of the recommendations from the d.l.a. audit regard the processes and outcomes of the enforcement division. five of those eight

recommendations concern investigations generally and then three of those regard the whistle-blower protection programs specifically. just a further note that as the director stated that auditors certainly spent a lot of time with our staff, our staff spent a lot of time with auditors. we provided a lot of documentation for those auditors and engaged in a lot of back and forth to clarify the nature of our work and the mandates that affect us. i would add that the auditors also consult [indiscernible] jurisdiction, so that they would develop an understanding of how this division performing in implementing its mandate as compared to enforcement divisions similar to ours, including at the fdvc, the los angeles city ethics commission, in san diego, and also at the

local public ethics commission. so you will have seen in the report some remarks about processes or outcomes from those peer jurisdictions. and then finally auditors also consulted internally within the city for similar purposes. they talked, for example, with the deputy city attorney in consulting the enforcement division and they spoke as well with the department of human resources equal employment opportunity division for an analysis about how that division handled the particular retaliation jurisdictions that they oversee. so with that background, i would just add that you could interrupt at any point if any of you has a question about these particular recommendations or about how staff has reflected on them. so the first recommendation affecting the enforcement division recommendation nine, you know, auditors were

expressing precaution here that the division not open in a given time period more cases than it can resolve within that same time period to avoid a piling up of matters that can grow [indiscernible] they've asked that we develop a plan to ensure that that happens and also to develop a method for reporting in that area. i would note that the plans could include either, that the division open fewer matters or that the division develop processes that would accelerate the resolution of existing matters, and i would say i think that the division has endeavoured to do both of those things already. i would remind the commission about the discretionary factors that we adopted in the fall and that we began to implement at that time, and of course the ambition of the division to expand the fixed penalty policy

and adopt a broader program to accomplish the acceleration of certain kinds of matters before the commission. it's also true that as we reported in the july enforcement report, in the last fiscal year we have gained 20 new investigations that resolved, 48 investigations that -- the division is moving in the direction that the auditor has identified, and we fully agree that it is not in the interest of the city, not in the interest of the public for matters to age unhelpfully. and so we look forward to developing that plan and to finding the most fruitful way of reporting on it too. the tenth recommendation regards additional tracking that we might undertake. so what -- i think what the auditors are concerned about

here is if you look at exhibits 18 and 19, the auditor's endeavoured to describe as fully as they could the enforcement process, which is rather complex. you will see there that there are many decision points, there are many opportunities for review, some opportunities for ratification or for approval, and so here's what the auditors hope, is that by developing these new metrics, executive director and i can identify any inefficiencies in that process, and in particular that we might take better track of any points where it is the management's review that is imposing any inefficiencies on this process. so we have developed a kind of draft approach to tracking those new metrics and at this point we have to figure out technologically what's the best way to implement that. the 11th recommendation really

is that we bring to you our goal with respect to the penalty policy that we have been talking about for quite some time. beyond that, when we do, the auditors have recommended that we present specifically an analysis about what the projected impact of that extended program might be, and i think what they are identifying there is a concern that the commissioner raised at the july meeting, namely, how streamlined is streamlined? what can we really anticipate the program of this program might be? so we will look forward to doing that. the executive director and i in the coming weeks and months should have renewed opportunities to view these recommendations and bring them in a format that we will be ready for public review and commissioners. let's see, the 12th recommendation regards the discretionary factors that we adopted in the fall. here i think the auditors are

looking for assurances both as to process and as to outcomes. as to process, the auditors note not that there is evidence that the commission has applied these factors improperly and not that there have been complaints that the commission has applied these factors improperly, but only that there is a risk given the degree of discretion provided in these factors that i heard that staff for the commission as a whole will apply their discretion in uneven ways or that the public will worry that the staff or the commission have applied their discretion in uneven ways, and so we will be happy to evaluate the risk that we face there and to identify ways of mitigating that risk.

as to outcomes, what the auditors had recommended is that we produce for the commission, and i suppose for the public, more data about how we have distinguished between which cases to pursue and which cases to put aside so that there is a public accounting of -- in a comprehensive way, of how we have actually applied these factors, both individually and as a whole. the next recommendation 13 regards training, and i would note that it over-laps some with training, which is certainly within the whistle-blower context. it's true that in the last few years investigators on the whole have -- they have in one sense learned on the job more than they have been provided, say, a

structured process of on-boarding or maybe an ongoing system of mentoring. i recently had a conversation with the head of the hr's equal employment opportunity division, and certainly that division has a larger staff, but they have also a very robust training program that includes a long period of on-boarding and conscientious mentoring of new hires. our investigators had already identified a desire of that internally before the auditor engaged with us in this process. so if we had been successful in hiring between 18 to 22 investigators, we had envisioned a more systematic process of on-boarding, but it goes to ongoing professional development. i would note one dependency there would be reduced training budget that steven matthew will

discuss with you in the subsequent agenda item, but we acknowledge that we certainly want to develop the skills and expertise of our team over time. we have got ways to do that, and we will continue to do so. in the last couple of weeks we've had already conversations with the fppc, the los angeles city ethics commission, with eeo, as i mentioned, and also with the national association of attorneys general, and the training arm of the federal department of justice to identify training opportunities. unless there are questions on those five, i'll turn to the whistle-blower protection context. the 14th recommendation regards reporting, and this is what derek curb mentioned in his public comment not so many minutes ago, so we will be glad

to include more detailed information about that in a public and annual way. i think the public may not know that commissioners receive already ongoing reports about the individual case outcomes under the commission's enforcement regulations [indiscernible] are required to provide at the very least some reports to commissioners about any matters that staff have elected to dismiss or to close. and so commissioners have had some information available to them already about the specific nature of all of the matters that we have not pursued, including the whistle-blower matters, but we will look for ways of making some of that information more publicly available within the confines of the confidential requirements. the 15th recommendation regards timelines, and the auditor's concern here is that long time frames for resolving

whistle-blower protection investigations don't exactly indicate the city's policy commitment to protecting whistle-blowers, and we are certainly sympathetic to that with the caveat that as was described in the fall or the winter whistle-blower protection investigations are enormously fact intensive and require many more witness interviews than most of our other investigations do, but as a matter of policy, we certainly agree that shorter time frames [indiscernible] commitment to protecting whistle-blowers here. we will look forward to evaluating how we might prioritize whistle-blower matters vis-à-vis the other areas of jurisdiction that we retain, and we will gladly report back to you findings on that. and again, the last recommendation i mentioned in relation to recommendation 13

that regard specialized training for the whistle-blower context. the auditors note that whistle-blower protection law is much more akin to labor law than it is to government ethics. we did a couple of years ago invite counterparts from the commissioner's office to join us at san francisco. we had a training in the substantive law and in method of investigations. at that time we invited members from other city departments to join us there, and we had an audience, a group of participants, 50 or 75 strong. we have not since refreshed trainings in that area, but we agree that this is a specialty area of law. when we attend the annual council on government laws conference, we have no jurisdiction either in california or across the country who obtains the same

jurisdiction that we do, so it is generally outside the scope of those conversations, and so we have to look elsewhere for substantive training and procedural training. there is a background in labor law. we will be working more closely with her to improve our capacity in the whistle-blower protection area. as i mentioned, i've spoken also with the head of the city's eeo division, and linda simon has pledged her support in helping develop the capacity of our investigators, both to broaden our view of the substantive law and to improve the methods of investigation that we undertake in that aspect of our jurisdiction. >> commissioners, i'm going to give you all the first opportunity to raise your hand if you want to make comments or

ask questions and then i'll go last. so commissioner chu, your hand has been up for a while. i don't know if you're raising it again. >> no, i -- i can't tell whether it's been up, but yes, my hand was up. i would like to start with just a process question. first off, i want to thank director pelan and staff for doing all the underlying additional work in order to be able to provide the information and data and reporting needed for the bla to be able to complete its audit. i think this is a very comprehensive and detailed report and recommendations and would like to start broadly, you know, by understanding that, you know, what is the process and the timing, and what is the impact that this report will have on our budget going forward, because i know that there are 16 very detailed

recommendations. you know, 31% of have are level one, which they recommend should be completed by the end of the calendar year, and an additional 56%, nine out of the 16, that should be completed by june of next year. and then two more, so 13%, that need to be completed by december 31 of 2021. so there's a lot of work to be done, and it is significant work and really important work, but i think as we have discussed over time and, you know, we'll certainly get into in the budget presentation, and is identified in and of itself in this audit report and recommendations is that there is chronic under-staffing in the ethics commission, as well as ongoing challenges to be able to fill those positions. if we just take the very first number one priority, formalizing document procedures, and that

was the ethics at work initiative that we had identified, but in the absence of funding from the -- through the budget process and the ability to be able to fill these positions on a faster than 160-day timeline, i'm at a loss as to how we can move on them. my long lead up to this is how will this report and budget recommendations help us, if at all, to be able to retain the budget and the resourcing that we need to be able to take action on these recommendations? >> if i might respond to commissioner chu, i think those are all very fair points. i think our ability to accomplish what we envision will absolutely be impacted by the availability of resources to do that work, and when those resources become available to

us. we know expedited hiring means we could have authority to fill positions, you know, sooner than we're actually able to have seats in the jobs, and we have on-boarding and training when people are in those roles to give them the knowledge and the skills and the tools to accomplish that work. that takes time. i think it's fair to say at the same time that the d.l.a. audit report gives us a further path on the kind of work that we need to do when we are able to get those resources. so yes on the one hand i think the sequencing and the timetables that are provided as recommendations in the report may not be achievable depending on the budget resources that we have and when we're able to actually have bodies in seats. with that said, the work that we need to do i think will be very helpfully shaped by the insights and the recommendations that this report contain so that we do do that type of work as we can move forward. >> and maybe just as a more

practical question, and perhaps the commissioner, given his experience, has a little more insight into this, but how impactful will this audit and report and recommendations be on the board of supervisors in terms of their consideration of our budget? if there is the request from the commission saying we want to do an ethics-at-work program in order to address the significant training needs given the significant allegations against multiple members of city departments, and now the dla itself has conducted a thorough review and is making recommendations that training needs to be done. will this have an impact? i mean, will that help us get the funds? i know that some -- i don't mean to put you on the spot, commissioner bush, in terms of, you know, committing in any way, but i'm just trying to understand, you know, can this

materially and in a very real sense help us get the budget dollars that we're going to need to be able to make significant headway against the work? and i appreciate the comment that of course we are going to continue to do this work, but being understaffed and under-resourced necessarily curtails the impact and progress that we can make. >> you were lucky for a minute there. so let me say that i think that the impact of the report to seize issues on the agenda but not to solve the question of how to fund them. i think that there are some things that were not included in either the report or the response that point us in a direction to better handle some of the issues that were raised.

for example, the backlog in complaints and how fast they are resolved. there's really not a good guide with people filing complaints to let them know that there are other places where complaints are referred. so for example, in past elections we have seen people put up political posts in buses and on public transportation, but those don't get really -- as i understand it, mr. pierce will know the answer to that. those don't get handled by ethics. they get referred over to m.t.a. because there's a specific provision in the m.t.a. thing about political postings on public transportation. same thing about advertisements include a uniformed officer, either police or fire, in an ad. they get referred to those departments and not to ethics. so to the extent that you can let people who are filing complaints know that we will be

referring this on to other departments, you can reduce some of the incoming level of complaints, and that could be particularly important going into november, because there are going to be so many campaigns and so many questions raised. so that's one thing. the second thing that i didn't see addressed is what other training resources funds are available, and i mentioned to the director pellam that i had come across at d.h.r. the information on implicit bias training, and it turns out that there is a requirement for many city employees to take that training and that there was an mou with the m.e.a. that provides for funding to reimburse the fees for that training, and in the same way there's training by them on sex

harassment. and it raised the question in my mind as to whether or not there shouldn't be similar training on form 700. why wouldn't that be similar to any of the other kinds of training that employees have to undergo? and if so, is there a sufficient funding in those departments to provide that training? or at least to provide some funding to ethics so that we provide it under a contract to them? i think that's something worth exploring. and the third thing is on form 700, which is a big ticket item in terms of renewing this. i believe that there's a basis for cost sharing from the department that are transferring paper filings to electronic filings with oversight by ethics. i think that director pellam identified something like 3600 single filings that have to go

into electronic filings. i did a quick back of the envelope check with city departments, and three departments alone account for a thousand of those. and they are departments that have their own revenue. they are not coming from the general fund, but the airport, for example, or c.u.c., and where they have other funding that's not going to come out of the general fund. had a talk with a prior head, and he said it's not unusual at all for there to be a cost-sharing arrangement between departments and those agencies. he mentioned the airport, public health and p.u.c. i hope i haven't just put him straight on to the curb by telling a story about that, but

it seems to me that those are three levels to go back to the commissioner's question about ways to do it and this is -- this provides guidance on that, it does not, but it does provide an agenda and a priority and it gives the door opening for us to explore some of these other options, whether the funding that's already allocated for d.h.r. for their training purposes, whether it's funding from departments that have now paying for the paper filings but no longer will have to pay for a staffer to do that, will no longer have to pay for a file setup, that will transfer all of that to our costs, i don't see why the cost with the transfer of the duties, and then thirdly slimming down the kind of complaints that get filed with ethics. like if it's going to go on to

m.t.a. or if it's going to go on to the police or somewhere else, where we have enough experience with those complaints coming in, we know this is going to be the pattern. you can certainly put up a guide to the people wanting to hold government accountable for its actions about where to take those questions. so it's not a complete answer, but it moves us forward, and what it does if we do that is tell the board of supervisors, yes, we will be part of the solution. we're not just throwing up our hands and saying we can't be done. we can be part of the solution, and here are some of the ways we can go about it. thank you. >> thank you. i would just interrupt for a second because i see that commissioner smith has dropped off my screen. i'm just wondering if maybe she is in the panellist queue waiting for the monitor to

invite her back in. can you just check there? >> yes, chair ambrose. i did check. i have been checking periodically. jared is behind the scenes and trying to -- i think he got a message saying they are attempting to re-start. >> okay, all right. i just want to make sure that we aren't just leaving her standing by. thank you very much. and so i'm going to go -- i can go back to commissioner chu if you had -- no, you're good? okay. then i'm going to invite commissioner lee to please provide comments and questions. >> thank you, madam chair. going back to the whistle-blower recommendation, i'm glad to hear staff is reaching out to other -- to the agencies for -- and other colleagues around the

state for training because it is true that labor and employment law is a very unique field, but i would recommend that the staff in addition to working with the city families to reach out to the private sector, because those as well programs whistle-blower investigation, protection, it's so complex and unique that it would be a good way for the staff to get a perspective from both sides so that when you work with potential complainants that you will be well versed in both sides of the law.

so i don't know if the budget would allow you to do that, but i think a lot of the programs put up by a.b.a. and other folk, but i would certainly recommend that you seek out the private sector training as well. >> okay. if it's okay, then, i just had a quick couple of comments. one, commissioner chu, you had asked about the process. i just wanted to be -- have the director explain the d.l.a. report was issued, but typically my understanding is there will be a government hearing, a government audit once the board has an opportunity to calendar that, and that will be then a

chance for the department to both answer questions from the board and also speak to what we're going to do in light of the recommendations. i don't know if you have any information about when that might be clealendarecalendared, assuming it will be in the next few weeks or so. >> that is a process described, to expect that the committee would have a hearing on it, and it would be an opportunity to go provide any further comment on it. i don't know when that will be scheduled for. i do know that the board is deep in the midst of some of the budget hearings right now, so as soon as we know something more about the time frame, we will certainly let you know. >> mm-hm, okay. and then my comment i can follow up with staff direct ly, i do think that in the face of the

city's budget crunch, the fact that it seems that some of the represented groups in the city are conceding that they have to forego salary, negotiated salary increases in light of the $1.7 billion budget shortfall, that we shouldn't hold out a lot of hope that we're going to get an increase in our budget this year. i think that the staff has been working really hard to hold on to what we have already, but i also think that what staff has been explaining about working with other departments in the city and reaching out to people taking advantage of whatever existing resources there are with respect to training while the commissioner was talking about in terms of trying to seek funding from departments that

are not as vulnerable to general fund revenue losses is also important. one of the things that i noted when i was waiting for the budget hearing to start at the board on wednesday for the ethics commission, i listen to the comptroller's budget presentation, and he was very clear about how successful their office had been in moving their budget needs from the general fund to other departments, through work orders. the controllers may be a resource for us. they can help us explain or understand how he managed to get the departments to fund functions of the controller, because that's exactly what i think commissioners are saying

we need to look at. we're a wholly funded general fund department, and if there were functions that we're performing that are to the advantage of departments that have other sources of funds, we need to try and see if they will share some of that with us. and lastly on the whistle-blower issue, i am really concerned about the fact that we have seen from the controllers report on the public works department that both the controller and the city's attorney office has something like a fivefold increase in whistle-blower calls in the face of the investigation and corruption investigations, and that means that there's a lot of people out there in this city workforce who are putting themselves forward and potentially at risk for

retaliation, and i want to make sure that when you're looking at how you are allocating your stack resources going forward and you're reaching out to the other departments, i realize they are all very preliminary, they haven't come to the department yet, there haven't been times, presumably, even for people to be retaliated against yet, but with that kind of groundswell of engagement with the whistle-blower program, we need to be prepared for that. so i just want to put that bug in your ear. at some point later i'll ask you how that's showing up in the inbox, okay? and then lastly one of the things they did say is they should we should have that public, the six penalty policy back in january of 2021. but just from a pure procedural point of view, i want to try and keep -- start putting together

sort of a forward agenda so that we can have meaningful and measured commission meetings on a monthly basis. as you go through the report and make conscious decisions about after you know how much staff you're going to have about what deadlines you can meet and which ones you can't for commissioner chu's note that there's a good number of them that they want to see done by december and so forth. if you can bring that back to us as part of your executive director's report, like where do you think you are relative to their recommended deadlines, i think that would be helpful for ourselves to keep in our mind what everybody else thinks we should be doing. so thank you for that. >> can i make, chair, a couple of brief responses to some of the comments of commissioners and the questions. in our next item on the agenda,

in the budget, we will walk through in a detailed way what information we did use from the report in our budget presentation on wednesday. so the analysis of the report was made public on monday, but we did want to highlight that information in our budget presentation on wednesday to the appropriations committee, so we'll talk about that. it's in agenda seven, a bit more, as to how we might look to new funding models and give us a better chance at having sustained funding that can accomplish this work, one of the things that has also been a challenge historically is not having had a finance admin budget person to help create sales opportunities and sustain those opportunities because it won't happen in isolation. we need to work it, right? one of the things that operationally we did, just as a point of information, is with our structure this year as i reported last month, we have --

our deputy director is back from leave. she's assumed the role of chief operating officer because we know we need to designate some capacity internally, even with funding levels and staffing levels to focus on enabling those conversations and ideas and to be pursued in real time. i just wanted to point that out as a reminder that we know that's going to take some resources and we have shifted things around internally to make that conversation and that issue much more at the top of our agenda so that we can really pursue some innovative funding models that other departments seem to do quite well. >> mm-hm. >> thank you. >> excuse me, chair. i do want to inform you all that unfortunately commissioner smith has experienced a power outage in her area, but she is on the phone line and she will be remained unmuted throughout the process on the phone line. >> all right.

thank you for that. appreciate her efforts to stay online. i see your hand coming, commissioner lee, and then commissioner chu. so commissioner lee, did you want to -- >> yes. i just wanted to make one comment as you mentioned the whistle-blower program, just one more comment. i think that san francisco is really unique compared to other bay area counties and state commission offices, because our workforce is more diverse because of people of communities from color and other first-generation san franciscans. so the traditional knowledge of what the whistle-blower program is, it's relatively new, it represents certain certainty, so i would really encourage the staff to keep that in mind when

you're going through the training, the education and the outreach when you design -- not design but when you conduct investigations because those are the key areas that we have seen that might have impeded workers from stepping forward. >> thank you for that comment. commissioner chu, you have a comment? >> i just wanted to make one final comment. i do appreciate that there is a significant budget shortfall of $1.7 billion for the city budget due to the ongoing global pandemic. but i also want to point out that we are continuing to learn about the unprecedented corruption not just the actions that have been alleged to have

been taken by city officials, but also the culture that enabled it and that in this time of crisis, this is the opportunity for the board of supervisors and the city, as well as the mayor, to show the residents and the citizens of san francisco what is important because when things are going great and we have a lot of resources, lots of things can be done, but it's when resources are constrained and the times are tough that it becomes a true measure oaf what a city and the people think are important, and i think that's residents and the citizens of san francisco deserve better than what they've been getting in terms of the public contracting and the significant allegations against city officials and the violation of that public trust and that the bla report plays out a very

clear road map and priorities for what the ethics commission can do to address those shortcomings. and i think it would be a big missed opportunity and really unforgiveable if city does do mt the solutns tha are not just being recommended by the ethics commission but have been -- are being recommended by the bla audit and report, and that this is an opportunity for the board of supervisors, you know, and the mayor to say corruption will not stand in san francisco. like, the allegations that have come to light are not acceptable and that we are going to create a different kind of culture. we are going to create programs and training so that people know what to do and know that this kind of behavior is wrong, and

if we don't do that, i think that we all lose, and i think it sends a message that it's okay, and because we have this other -- you know, not insignificant global pandemic that's going on, but we do have money. it's not that we don't have money. we do have money in the budget. we just have less of it, and so what are those priorities that are really important and that you have to invest in in order to build public trust that what this city takes government and accountable government and transparent government seriously, and the way that you do that is by putting resources into it. it's not enough to have the service and to say this is not okay, this is not okay, but we're not going to fund training. so i feel pretty strongly about this and just wanted to note that for the record. thank you. >> thank you.

i do think that executive director pellam did a good job at -- i don't know who else had a chance to watch that, but we can talk about that a little bit more on the next agenda item. we're waiting for -- oh, i'm sorry. i was going to call for public comment, but first i'll call for commissioner bush to have his hand recognized. >> am i unmuted now? >> yes. >> i want to associate myself with commissioner chu's remarks. i can't help but think of the image of being unable to take the burglar alarm while the burglar is down there rifling through the family silver and taking it out of your drawers. that's what's going on. we are making a choice, and the choice is we are okay at being open to being robbed constantly, and the people who are being robbed are the taxpayers of the city because we're overpaying on rigged contracts, and we have policies that have chosen to

ignore that. this is one anecdote. we had a fellow who was a city contractor for a number of contracts who was indicted by the federal government for bid rigging. and while he was under indictment he was awarded a new contract by a city agency. and when i called to say why are you giving this guy a contract when he's just been given a criminal indictment, they said, well, he hasn't been convicted. he's only been indicted. well, i think that the new policy closes that door a little bit, but it's after the facts. if you take a look at something like mohammed naru and his form 700 filings, [indiscernible] on his form 700 filing that he was chair of the transportation agency that oversees that new facility, and that's where he was wheeling and dealing and

getting payoffs to give contracts. wasn't even on his form 700. why wasn't it on his form 700? who knows, but why wasn't it checked? because we don't have the money to do audits of the form 700s. so you have to -- you know, you pace your money and you take your choice, and in our case, we're not paying the money, and the choice is to let them get away with it. i'm finished my little rant. >> no, i think we all share your fervour on these issues. i also think we need to reach out wherever we can to get the resources because of exactly what you're saying, what we need to do is important, and one way or the other we need to see what we can do to get it done. i am going to -- unless -- i don't know, can i ask if commissioner smith has any comment by phone? >> thank you, madam chair.

no, i don't have -- i've been listening intently, but i don't have any comments. i certainly agree with the concerns expressed by both commissioner bush and commissioner chu. thank you. >> thank you. and then now moderator can we see if we have public comment on this item. >> thank you. madam chair, we are checking to see if there are callers in the queue. for those already on hold, please continue to wait until the system indicates you have been unmuted. we are currently on agenda no. 6. if you have not already done so, please press star 3 to the added to the public comment queue. you will have three minutes to provide your public comment, six minutes if you are online with an interpreter. you will hear a bell go off when

you have 30 seconds remaining. we are continuing to see if there are any calls. madam chair, there are no callers in the queue. >> oh, okay. i'm actually -- if everyone is okay with it, i'd like to just take a five-minute break before we pick up with agenda item 7, the budget. if that is suitable, we'll be back online in five minutes. is that okay? all right.

thank you. number seven. discussion of ethics commission annual budget as proposed by the mayor's office for fiscal year 2021-22. [indiscernible] themselves. is that commissioner -- i'm sorry, executive director pellam, are you ready to present along with mr. massey? >> yes. >> thank you. >> thank you, chair. i'm going to just do a quick recap of where we are procedurally for the commission and those listening to the meeting. steven massey, who is our acting chief operating officer, and also serves regularly as our director of technology services, has been stepping in in a major way to assist us with this budget process. so as a recap, you know that the board of supervisors this week

began their departmental hearings on the proposed budget for fy21 and fy22. it presents a $3.7 billion budget for the coming fy21, and for our office there are some changes from what we had anticipated from the 10% cut exercise that everybody was required to do in june. i'll leave those details to steven to cover with you. but we presented our information to the committee, the board committee on wednesday morning. you may recall that the city right now is operating on essentially an interim budget. prior to the actual end of the fiscal year 20, the city adopted an interim measure that would provide funding between now and october 1 when the new budget will be in place for fy21. so oddly, even though we are now in fy21 which starts july 31 and

goes to june 30, the budget that was under discussion is what the budget from october 1 through june 30 will look like, and also in the city's normal course, presents the budget for fy22, a year from now as well. you will also recall that even though we talk about an fy22 budget in this context, because that's the way the mayor's office and the city -- the board adopts a budget, we still need to go as departments, most of us, back through the budget process that starts typically in february. so when we start -- essentially we're in a year-round budgeting process. in october the budget is put to rest and know for certain what our resources are, early in the year, in february, we will come to you with a proposed budget for 22. this is the same for most departments.

with that, i think i will pause here and ask steven massey to join us and share information about what the mayor's proposed budget for the commission looks like with her issuance of the proposed city budget on july 31, and then also with the feedback and information that we've provided of the budget and appropriations committee on wednesday morning. >> good morning, commissioners. i'm going to start the slide presentation. give me one moment. are you all able to see the slides? yes, i can. >> okay, thank you. >> so i want to take about 10 to 15 minutes to review the slides

that are presented to the board. to get you up to speed with where we stand at this point and then to open it up for questions. let's start with the second slide here. so as you know, in february prior to the shelter in place, the commission submitted a budget that requested an additional $1.8 million in annual and continuing spending. as the economic situation changed over the past few years, the city's fiscal outlook has changed considerably. the commission was asked to submit a revised budget request with 10% cuts to the base budget in fiscal year 21 with a 5% contingency cut and a 15% cut to the base budget in fiscal year 22. after the commission complied with that request, the mayor's office revised the cuts down from the initial 10% starting point and the table on the slide here shows the final mayor's proposed budget that was sent to the board of supervisors budget and appropriations committee for

consideration. so in fiscal year 21, the commission loses one-time funding in salaries and materials and supplies, which results in roughly a 3% cut from the operating budget that was available in fiscal year 20. but it's also roughly no change from the commission's base budget. this also adjusts the commission's attrition target, which requires a certain amount of salary taperings each year. this target was increased in fiscal year 21 to salaries that are equivalent to 2.41 positions. i'll talk about how we plan to achieve that in a minute. in fiscal year 22, the mayor is proposing to restore the 3% cut and increase funding roughly over 6%. however, the fiscal year 22 budget remains a target in the subject to the normal budget negotiations that happen each year starting in february. sorry? >> may i ask a question about

the salary savings? i'm sorry, you're on mute. >> there we go. yes, please. i actually think given the amount of material, clarifying questions or comments, let's all plan on asking them as the material is presented. please go ahead. >> steven, thank you. my question was on salary savings. are those salary savings in addition to what the commission is already saving in terms of salaries because we don't hire on -- you know, we have to a protected hiring process and we have the salaries and is the amount that's identified here going to be in addition to those current amounts? >> so if positions are left vacant due to delays in hiring, that would satisfy the salary savings requirement. the problem comes in to planning long term as the fiscal year goes along you don't want to be caught in a situation where you

don't have the funds to pay filled positions. so that becomes the difficult thing to manage throughout the year. >> right, and then because positions are budgeted at 0.75 salary for the first year but you have a full one rate the following year, is that also reflected in these numbers? >> that is normally how it works, and this year it's slightly different due to the interim budget. so many new positions will start as a 0.5, and they can't start until january. >> i see. okay, thank you. >> so as at the board of supervisors meeting on wednesday, the warning was the current year budget will need to be actively managed in assumptions in the budget don't pan out. so this could result in cuts mid ye year. so one of the issues that director pellam highlighted for

the board is that even though the budget authorizes up to 24 employees, after attrition and ongoing difficulties with getting hiring assistance from the department of human resources, and ongoing disaster service work being conducted by commission employees, [indiscernible] is considerably constrained. so in the audit division here, the audit supervisor position is currently vacant and has been vacant for about a year. the mayor has implemented a hiring freeze, and in addition one auditor is on extended disaster service work through december. so this leaves two of the four audit positions available. those resources have been completely reallocated to implementing the public financing program and requires that further audits and program improvements, in addition to any kinds of new -- be on hold to 2021.

we have essentially funding for 0.5 fte, and that leaves a position vacant for the first half of the fiscal year. and then over in the policy division, one of the two positions remains vacant. this will constrain our capacity to do effective policy analysis and legislative development, which is especially difficult during a time when the controller's office is issuing findings based on their investigation of the corruption scandal at the public works department. the proposed budget will also green light hiring the 1822 policy analysts but also not until january 2021. so that leaves the position vacant for the first half of the fiscal year, and we only have funding for a 0.5 fte. >> steven, i have another clarifying question. so if hiring is authorized as of january 2021, does that mean that the commission cannot start the hiring process until january 2021 or that we could begin the hiring process because it does take 160 days, we could begin it

in the fall but it can only make -- we can only make an offer or have an effective start date in january of 2021? >> correct. so we can only make an offer for a start date effective january 1. we can probably start the process shortly after october 1 when the budget is approved, but the hiring process in the city, as has been discussed in the audit report from the budget and legislative analysts, it takes quite a long time to go through the hiring process in the city. >> right. >> and a lot of this will also depend on whether the position is filled as a sort of temporary hire or civil service hire. >> i see. okay, thank you. >> so let's move on to the enforcement division. so in the enforcement division, one 1822 investigator position remains vacant, and another 1823

trainer is on extended disaster work through 2020. we foresee this impacting the timeliness of investigations and case resolutions. it also delays progress on updating and further strengthening enforcement policies and practices. if we -- sorry? >> i'm sorry. i'm backtracking because i didn't get myself recognized. >> i'm sorry. i can't see your hand in my -- i moved you all out of the way so i could read this chart. please, go ahead. >> do you want me to go back, commissioner bush? >> no, i want to ask a question about what you just said, about if the hiring process is extended so it takes a long time to get somebody on board. what would happen if you, instead of hiring people, did a contract to the fttc for august? because they do have legal authority, which they didn't

used to have, to undertake that for local governments using the local government's law about what's required. so if you instead had money for a one-time contract, could we get the audit thing going faster? >> i have not looked into that, so i can't really answer that question now. >> commissioner busch, if i might just jump in briefly, i would suspect that the city's contracting processes that are quite complex as well, that would probably not take a less amount of time, but we could certainly look into that to see what the time frames have been when other jurisdictions have done that. >> if you could look into it, it would be -- give us more information to make a decision about how to move this forward. thank you. >> okay, so coming back to the

enforcement division, if we fill the audit and policy positions that i discussed, then we will have a salary shortfall, and so for the investigator position, so it will need to remain vacant through june of 2022 to meet the attrition savings target. and then in the electronic disclosure and data analysis division, the division has three permanent positions and one limited project position. the 1042 information systems engineer, and that was funded by a project that was sponsored by the committee on information technology in fiscal year 20. the position was eliminated on july 1, and at that time the commission's budget office did not authorize continuing the position. in the most recent proposal, the mayor's budget office proposes reinstating the position but not until january 2021. the impact of this is that there will be a six-month gap without

the information systems engineer position on staff. and while i'm discussing -- oh, is there a question? >> i'm not sure. i'm not muted. i just want to make sure i understand this because this really ties into the whole form 700. so you have four ftes. you have funding for those ftes going forward or you're losing one going forward if the board doesn't re-authorize? >> so we had four in last fiscal year, and one of those positions was limited to a one-year term, and in the original february budget submission we had proposed continuing that one project-based position. >> okay. >> when the hiring freeze went in place, the mayor's office no

longer authorized any position -- they considered it to be a new position, so they would not authorize it to continue, and the position was eliminated on -- after june 30, at the end of the fiscal year. in this coming budget, right now we have three ftes, and the mayor's office is proposing to bring that position back but only at a 0.5fte so we could hire it effective january 1, 2021. >> and so was there somebody in that job? so it was just a position but you didn't have somebody in that job on a temporary basis? we had -- >> i can get into a lot more detail about this. we had a 1053 i.s. business analyst position that was recently vacated before the

shelter in place, and we had an employee in the i.s. engineer position that was eliminated, but he was able to apply for the i.s. business analyst position, so we were able to retain him, but now we're down one position. >> okay. all right. >> i have a question, steven. >> sure. >> with the position 1042 being filled in january 2021, does this mean that the planned launch of the e-filing of the form 700s to go on track or would that also be delayed because the person cannot start until january? >> it would be delayed. maybe it would help if i gave just sort of the background of the form 700 and where we stand with that. that might help give some context. it's been impacted throughout this budget process. so just remind everyone, the

commission currently provides an online system via net file for elected officials, board and commission members and department heads that file form 700 with the ethics commission to file electronically. and the recent regulation that the commission approved would expand use of the system to roughly 35, 3600 designated city employee filers that currently file on paper with their department filing officers. so prior to the shelter in place, that project was under way. so in addition to approving the regulation, staff had recently completelied a lengthy feet and confer process with their collective bargaining units, and they are now on board with the electronic filing of the form 700, and we are also doing extensive outreach to departments. the engagement compliance staff were also beginning the process to develop the training and the outreach material. staff had and still have

sufficient non-personnel funds from the committee on information technology to purchase all the necessary licenses and materials and supplies for the project. the project dependency problem that needs to be discussed is almost entirely on the staff resources side. so one of the outcomes of the meet and confer process and meetings for the departments was the feedback that the ethics commission needed a dedicated support for filers and the filing officers that will be administering the system for their department. the customer service role will be the commission's front-line telephone and online support for the system, and in february staff requested an 1840 e-filing customer service position for the project as a three-year limited term position from the committee on information technology through their budget process, and that request was denied. in addition, the project is

going to require a technology lead to migrate the data from the city's h.r. system to the net file system to get employees set up with their filing account. >> why isn't this being paid for by the departments? >> it's not -- >> they are the ones who are supposed to be filing it. they have been filing it for years in paper. they have been paying a staffer to handle that. they have been paying for filings and storage. now it's going to come to us but none of the dollars that they have been spending are going to come to us? that's not right. >> right. i agree. >> i agree. >> so to give a little background on this, the committee on information technology originally was funding both the position side of this and the non-personnel side of bringing up this project, and really the question of the ongoing way that we were going to fund this project, whether this was going to be funded through the ethics commission's budget or funded by other departments really was something that could be put off

for about two years. now we have a problem due to this budget season on the staffing side, and yes, that's not to say that's not a possible solution, but that's -- at least not where we stand at the moment with the budget negotiations. >> even in this document that we're looking at now of the budget impacts, you're saying that we're not going to have form 700s filed until january of 2022. >> correct. >> that's really too long. i don't think that's at all acceptable. and i don't think that it's because of us. i think it's because the resources are not traveling with the job. >> i don't disagree with you, commissioner.

>> let me just jump in here. i want to make sure we're really clear about this. if you even assuming that you could get more money from the other department, what i thought i just heard you say is we don't have a body in a chair to create the net file accounts for the 3500 people putting aside the customer service e-filing contact person, which is one position that we don't have, you're also saying just logistically you don't have somebody who can take all of the contacts for all the 3500 plus people who are paper filing to create net file accounts for them so that they are ready to file april.

if you had the money tomorrow, would you be able to move somebody into the position to do that preliminary work? >> at this point, it would be very tight to pull off the project because we're already in august. ideally we would have had all of these accounts set up in the september to october time frame, and we're fast approaching that. and it -- i don't see a path where we can bring on a person in that kind of time frame. >> because i think what all the commissioners are saying and what we're certainly hearing from the controller is a recommendation as well is that there's urgency around bringing all of that data to light, and i -- so let me ask you on that

front, is it possible to do a -- i'm just going to call it a pilot program. can we take public works and department of building inspections staff and move them online as a first initiative so that we can start to bring that information in to the, you know, public domain? >> that's -- i mean, it's something i can discuss with the staff. i mean, it will require a little bit of planning outside of this meeting. >> right, i'm not asking you -- i think what we're all struggling with is -- wasn't clear from our discussion in july, at least it wasn't clear to me, that the time that we've lost was going to specifically put us back a whole year. i mean, you know, it's like the idea that we're going to bring

somebody on in january and -- but the deadline is a year and three months later. we're really losing the benefit of that position. i guess just to get my other comments in, you know, one of the things i'm looking at is not only the resources that we need anew in this budget allocation, but there is a point where i think we really need to look hard at this disaster service work, you know, assignment issue as it impacts the ethics commission going back for commissioner chu's comments about the difficult situation that we find ourselves in with these corruption revelations, notwithstanding that we're also dealing with a once in a hundred

years pandemic, and i really do honor and appreciate the responsibility that our staff have taken on with service workers, but if you're looking at our audit division where we have these budget and legislative analysts and our own internal conclusion that we are unable to do even what the charter requires us to do, and now we're down two staff people, and as you pointed out, because they share responsibility for the public financing program along with the other program, whatever time we have available for existing staff is going to be focused on getting through the november election. so we literally are going to lose six whole months of our entire staff on audits, and that -- you know, from a compliance and enforcement point of view, that's just -- you know, that's the message, that it's more important to have

these folks because they are very capable doing, yes, very important work, but maybe it's time to have that conversation with the mayor's office and with the h.r. about, you know, seeking resources from departments that are much, much larger and better able to handle the last half of an entire division. but anyway, those are my thoughts at the moment. i do want to allow mr. massey to get back to putting the facts in front of us. if there's something immediate, i'll take comment. otherwise, i'm going to give the floor back to either commissioner -- i mean either director pellam or mr. massey. >> i'd like to make one comment, if i can. >> okay. >> i'm going directly from executive director pellam's report under impacts of items not of [indiscernible], and the

very last column says without taking steps now to provide team lead supervisors and managers in the city's workforce with the tools to support the practical applications of ethics [indiscernible] in their day-to-day work, corrupt practices will continue to go unchecked and the city will miss a vital opportunity to create and sustain the right tone at the top. now if we're an ethics putting out a statement that says corrupt practices will continue to go unchecked, that ought to set off alarms across all of city departments. >> certainly [indiscernible]. >> i think that's a headline. >> well, and certainly not funding the efforts that are needed to check those corrupt practices also sends a message. we don't -- we don't have resources now, and the resources that we're asking for are unavailable to us or are not being allocated in a crisis. >> exactly.

>> and this is clearly with the -- with the board of supervisors, and that to the commissioner's point earlier, what they're saying is that it's okay. it's okay that we don't fund the ethics commission. and the work that's needed to check corruption. [please stand by]

(indiscernible). >> somebody -- [distorted audio] >> i'm sorry. i thought that i was getting reconnected but apparently i'm causing a problem. so i'll back out. >> okay, so we'd like to at this point [distorted audio] >> somebody is really bad. [distorted audio]

>> let's see if we can improve this problem. everyone mute themselves. >> i don't think that it is my audio. can you hear me? >> yes, i can hear you. >> it's my cellphone again. can you all hear me and am i no longer creating a problem? >> yes, commission, that is much better. >> sorry for that problem.

>> if we can go back to mr. massey. >> sure. let me give you more context to this engineer position. so that position was actually being tied to this project, and it was responsible for all of the commission's data systems, and the contractor band disclosure forms that are filed with the board and the mayor's office, the website. and most importantly developing and updating the commission's finance dashboards and data. so with this continuation of that position and the election coming up, we felt that it was critical to maintain those core finance resources, the website and other data systems as opposed to bringing in new systems online. so we actually because we had a vacancy in the 1053 information business analyst position, and the 1042 position was being

eliminated, we actually would have only been down to two f.t.e.s in the technology division. and so we were going to have some systems that would be unsupported by any staff. so the reason that we were able to fill that 1053 position is that we did communicate this to the mayor's budget office and the h.r. and they allowed us to expeditiously fill that 1053 position so we would have three on staff. it still doesn't satisfy the need for the form 700 project. so if we look at these four divisions that i have been talking about and we come back to the attrition savings issue in some -- so if we have the six-month hiring delays for the policy position and audit supervisor. so we keep those as .5 f.t.e. and don't hire them until january 2021, and we keep the

investigator positions vacant, and we freeze hiring of any temp staff for two years, we'll be able to meet the attrition savings target for 2021, and 2022. now if i could take a moment and discuss how this budget is -- whether this budget is in alignment with the various reports that have been coming out. so because the controller's june 29th report, recommendations, were available for review by the mayor's budget office before the mayor's proposal was finalized, the mayor's office was able to restore positions required to deliver on three other recommendations in the report. but the work cannot commence until january 2021 at the earliest under their proposal. so, one, this includes the project which we talked about. so they are providing a new position, the 1840 customer

support specialist, but not until january 2021. and they're bringing back the i.s. engineer, but not until 2021. and they also recommended that we conduct annual compliance reviews. this is related to reviewing 4700s. it also authorizes hiring the 1824 audit supervisor which would be needed to do that kind of a review. but, again, it's not effective until january 2021. and the report also recommends an examination of gift loopholes. this work on top of the commission's existing priorities is going to require more than one person at the helm. and the budget proposal does include authorizing filling that position even during this hiring freeze, but, again, not until january 2021. and they also have provided an increase to the commission's d.h.r. work order budget. and that will effectively allow us to have the support of a .5 f. t.e. analyst with h.r. to

help with hiring and in the subsequent year to have a full-time analyst to be in h.r. now on the b.l.a. audit, it's not completely in alignment, it's something that we're still reviewing, but two things to note here. one of the recommendations about expediting the approval or the request to fill vacant positions, again, we have to keep that 1822 investigator position vacant. and, in addition, there was the recommendation to establish and to formalize sufficient training for the audit enforcement staff for the same time that the budget is cutting over half of our training budget in both fiscal years. so the committee director pellam asked the board to reduce the commission's attrition target so we could hire the vacant 1822 investigator position. this requires the attrition targets to be reduced by 75,000

in fiscal year 2021, and 150,000 in fiscal year 2022. staff has reached out to the mayor's office after the committee's meeting and we plan to meet in the coming days to reach an agreement on the attrition savings target. in addition, director pellam addressed the commission's proposal to establish a ethical training program for city employees. this proposal was originally made in the commission's february budget but it is not included in the commission's revised budget proposal because the proposal requires a mandatory 10% cut to the base operating budget when it's made. so director pellam raised this issue for the committee. and i think that at this point maybe it would be a good idea to stop there and see if there are further questions or other areas that the commissioners would like to look into as far as this budget. >> i'm going to ask a quick procedural question. so from a timing point of view, you have the initial committee

hearing with the board on the 12th. and just to be clear, unlike the scripted protocol where the department is expected to smile, you know, willingly when the mayor makes a recommendation, i think that the director and the department made the case that this commission has been insisting on that more was required. and so now you're having a follow-up meeting i gather with the mayor and the budget staff, that's what you're referring to here? >> correct. >> and will you go back to committee at the board, or does this all roll over to meeting of the whole of the board of supervisors for disposition of the entire city budget? >> at this time we're not scheduled for follow-up with the budget and appropriations committee. it would go to the full board. >> because, you know, the budget

hearing -- as i was listening, i did hear particularly supervisor ronen expressing her view that the positions needed to be funded at the ethics commission. but i also heard chair fewer say we're not really in the mode of asking the departments what they need. we're asking departments what they can give up. and it left me with the impression that they were going to have another meeting to find out what departments really want of it. i gather though that's not the case. that what the board -- the chair of the budget committee, anyway be, was saying. in any event, they did seem to say that there would be an opportunity for the board to take up ad backs. so you're having a meeting with the mayor's office. is there any outreach to the members of the board to see if they support you with ad backs to the mayor's budget?

i'll let pellam respond. >> at this point i think that is a very good suggestion, chair ambrose. the original scheduling of the board's budget and the appropriations committee made very clear that there were certain departments that had one hearing and will not have a second hearing before the committee. there's no reason that we cannot ask to reach out individually, but also just to ask for a second hearing. we'll know more hopefully after our conversation with the mayor's budget office on tuesday of next week when we have a chance to meet with them. i think that one of the things that was notable on wednesday's discussion before the committee is that there was very little, if any, questioning about the need for an ethics at work program. it seemed that supervisor ronen mentioned the need to have an investigator on staff with the commission, particularly at this time, but we have not really

seen a lot of questions or -- and i don't know that i can read that as interest -- but we haven't had questions about the need for supporting city officials and workers with stronger ethics training by establishing an ethics training team in our office. so we certainly could reach out and ask for additional consideration by the board. >> chair ambrose: and i don't presume to do your job, i mean, in terms of your -- how you connect with and inform, you know, if not the supervisors themselves, but their legislative aides. and it's been a while since i've been in the budget process mix. i'm just -- i want to make sure that everybody understands that we are in the middle of the process. we haven't been turned down and we are very much at the point where applying pressure is whatever everybody else is doing right now, trying to keep their needs at the top of everyone's

recollection. you know, at least up to the point where they don't stop listening to us. so i just wanted to know how -- how much opportunity you thought that you had for that. and i guess that my sense is that we don't need another public hearing at the board. my sense is that we need to pick a couple of the supervisors who are on the budget committee or otherwise previously expressed some sympathy, whether it was in saying that we don't need a public advocate because the ethics commission just needs to be fixed or so on. i mean, hopefully those are people that in the overall scheme of things as the commissioner was pointing out, we're a drop in the bucket. i mean, the money is there, not -- not aplenty, but it is conceivable that these things could be supported, whether it's by work order from another

revenue stream or directly, and whether it's short term or with promises to look at it again after we see how things go next year. so, anyway, that's my two cents and i'll let the commissioner bush speak because he's waving his hand at me and then commissioner chiu. >> commissioner bush: i want to say that i concur with chair ambrose's view of what chair fewer was saying, which is that there should be another chance to revisit these issues. rather than to just accept that they were. i would also say that my experience is that if you can show officials that you are not presenting something new but, rather, implementing something that was always part of our mission, that you will be more successful. people are cautious about adopting something new like ethics at work looks like it's

new. in fact, it's not new. if you go back and look at the 1993 charter that was passed by the voters, it required that the ethics commission establish a manual, that it establish annual training for all top city officials on ethics. all of the things that are in ethics at work are spelled out specifically, not in general terms, but specifically in the 1993 charter. so i would suggest that you revisit that and that you also share that with the people who will be making decisions, including the mayor's office. there was a revision of the charter later on. but that revision did not repeal these provisions. those provisions still are part of the law. >> chair ambrose: okay, commissioner chiu? >> commissioner chiu: i would like to emphasize that not only

-- not only is it required by law, but it hasn't been done. but here's the opportunity to meet that need and to demonstrate to the people of san francisco that they take compliance and corruption very seriously. and i would also suggest that we rely on the findings of the b.l.a. audit. so it's not just what the ethics commission wants, it's also contained in the numerous recommendations, you know, identified in the highest priority coming out of the controller's department that these resources be deployed in that manner. so i would be very much in support of going back and communicating with, you know, the committee or whoever the executive director and others would deem the appropriate audience to make our case. >> chair ambrose: okay.

and if there aren't any further comments from the commissioners, i'm going to go back to mr. massey. did you have further slide presentations? >> no, that completes the update that i planned to give the commission. >> chair ambrose: all right. so then i'm going to go back to director pellam for any remarks and comments. and then one more walk through and we'll go to public comment and we'll wrap up with commissioner comments. >> i have no -- nothing of substance to add. i think that the feed back that you all provided about next steps and the reminder to reach out to the board is something that we will definitely pursue and follow-up with you as needed, chair ambrose. but we will keep you in the loop and make every effort to make our case as much as we can. >> chair ambrose: great. so our meeting in september -- if you can get back to us on the dates, i just -- so we meet in

september on -- >> i believe that it's the 11th. >> chair ambrose: on the 11th. and i don't know what the schedule is for the board but i would like to know that when it will be on the budget if they have forecast those days so we know that we can talk more about how we might continue to weigh in. with that, moderator, if all could please see if we have any public commenters in the queue. >> clerk: madam chair, we are checking to see if there are callers on the queue. for those already on hold, wait until the system indicates that you have been unmuted. if you have joined this meeting we are taking public comment on agenda item 7 as proposed by the mayor's office for the school year 2020-2021, and 2021-2022. if you have not already done so, press star 3 to be added to the

public comment queue. you will have three minutes to provide your public comment, six minutes if you are online with an interpreter. you will hear a bell go off when you have 30 seconds remaining. madam chair, we have one caller so far on the queue. >> chair ambrose: thank you. >> clerk: give me one second. i do apologize. hello, caller. your three minutes begins now. >> caller: yes, good morning again. this is dr. garrett curr. your funding mechanism means that you're not independent. because you're beholden to the people who approve your budget. year after year you have to bow and scrape before the very same

people that you are monitoring for misconduct. it's hard to bite the hand that feeds you. so this system inhibits your ability to investigate high level officials at city hall. one solution is to get an automatic portion of the budget, much like the controller's city services auditor. they get i think 0.2% of the budget every year and they don't have to seek approval from anybody. ethics could get 0.1% of the budget every year. i realize this would require a change in the charter, but it would make you independent and would restore public confidence in your ability to reduce corruption in the city. thank you very much.

>> chair ambrose: thank you very much for your comment. any other commenters in the queue? >> clerk: i am checking, chai chair. chair, there are no more callers. >> chair ambrose: okay. i first of all want to say please anticipate that the budget will be back on the calendar in september depending on the dates when the board is going to act. hopefully -- well, i don't know -- hopefully we'll get what we asked for and we'll be

celebrating. in any event, we will have an opportunity to discuss where we're at the that time and how we're going to go forward. i also would like to in that context because i believe that we're going to also have our policy prioritization plan on for discussion. i want to talk in the context of both of those things about performance metrics and how, you know, we'll set goals for ourselves as part of that. this is my personal pitch. i really do want to look at the least pulling some sub-set of form 700 filers online, if we can't get the whole 3,500 up and running as a test pilot. i just think that waiting an

entire another year before we bring that information forward, and also just that level of attention to the seriousness with which the city takes the responsibility of these high-level decisionmakers in city government to be thoughtful and thorough in their disclosure of their relationships and financial interests. and i think that there's going to be considerable attention paid once they realize that that information is not sitting locked away in some secretary's filing cabinet. so if we can't do all of them because we don't have the positions, i want you to at least look at your allocations. and then the other thing is that i do want to come back on the d.s.w., i don't know who we talk

to in city government. and i totally understand why they love the staff because they've got the kind of, you know, computer writing, you know, spreadsheet capabilities that are probably really useful at the emergency operation center. but i do want them to recognize, you know, how much, you know, taking the number of staff people that you provided affects a department as small as, you know, the ethics commission department. so, anyway, those are my two themes. and now i'm going to ask if other commissioners have comments and suggestions before we close out this item. everyone said their piece? commissioner smith, is there anything that you wanted to say

on the phone? >> commissioner smith: well, i will only say that this experience of being connected by phone only proves the adage, one picture is worth a thousand words. because i did feel handicapped by not being able to see mr. massey's power presentation, but that wasn't anybody's fault, other than the power failure in my building. so i am -- i did find that my colleague, co-commissioners' analyses and comments very helpful, but i don't feel equipped, frankly, to say anything in addition to that other than that i'm sorry this happened. >> chair ambrose: well, i'm sorry for you too, on the hottest day of the year so far in san francisco and not having your power is not a good thing. so hopefully they get you back online soon. and then i am then going to i guess -- i didn't actually

now -- i will close public comment. and i will move on and call agenda number 8 which would be two pages on. agenda item 8, discussion of the monthly staff policy report. and if any members of the public are up for public comment for this item they should dial in now and enter star 3, to be added to the public comment queue. before we hear public comment though i'm going to ask pat ford for his presentation. commissioners, if you can hold your questions and comments until we hear from mr. ford and the public just to move through this item in light of my overall deadline. thank you. >> thank you, chair ambrose. this is pat ford, the legislative affairs counsel.

i will be quick and i know that we're in a bit of a time crunch. i think that you can see from this month's policy report and also you have heard from director pellam that there are a number of overarching issues and projects that have really consumed a lot of us in the office over the last couple of months between the ongoing budget discussions, the b.l.a. audit, and also we've been working with the controller's office to help to give them feedback on the reports that office is doing. that's really occupied a lot of my time and a lot of the time of others in the office, as i'm sure that you have heard and will continue to hear. so that's really what this report is about, is focusing on those. and really just making myself available for comment and i'll just end it there. >> chair ambrose: commissioner

chiu. >> commissioner chiu: thank you, chair ambrose. mr. ford, i just have a quick question about the public ballot measure. do you have any more context around why the board of supervisors decided to not place that measure on the november 2020 ballot? >> yes, i do, from watching the meeting where that vote took place. it was a close vote, it was 6 opposed and 5 for placing the measure on the ballot. so it failed by one vote. and i heard a few things from those who voted against placing the measure on the ballot, but i think that the two most common themes were, one, that it was not an appropriate time to create a new office in the department, considering the financial situation of the city. and, two, that there are already mechanisms and entities in the city that are responsible for

doing what the public advocate was envisioned to do and the ethics commission was one of those entities that was discussed. and they also talked about controller's office and the city's attorney office but they did mention us and they said we have an ethics commission and they're supposed to already be be looking for corruption and enforcing against corruption and so let's stick with what we have. so hopefully that means that there's also some energy like we've bettewewe've been talkingh the budget to power to us do that work. >> commissioner chiu: i would hope that the funds that would have otherwise gone to support and resource this new public advocacy position will be theoretically directed into the ethics commission. but thank you for that update. that is helpful. >> chair ambrose: commissioner bush. >> commissioner bush: i also listened to that and the ballot

measure would not have come into effect for two years. it will take quite a while to get going. secondly, it did include whistleblower provisions. but those provisions were a10uateed by a variety of restrictions as to how they got handled. and i went on to the controller's web page to read their whistleblower report.

>> people ask for this to be funded and that's what george did when he was district attorney.

>> i think at the latest meeting of the policy subcommittee which is where this project is taking place and they just now generalized their calendar of how they'll be undertaking the project and so they're still at an earlier stage and honestly, i don't know how broad the project will be. but i will gladly keep you up to date on what i'm learning and i definitely will be sharing what our experience has been and i think one interesting vignette is that the commission had with the acao and the payment revisions that law and what we were doing with that provision and why it was ultimately not a

pardon of the ordinancpart of t. some of the things you've spoken to, hopefully, we'll be talking about that next month, as well, when thele policy prioritization plan is on the agenda and i will be recommending that we do a conflict of interest project. mostly in response to the correction investigations that are ongoing and i think it could definitely incorporate some of the things you're highlighting right now, commissioner bush. >> i would underscore looking at incompatible activities as they're listed by each department. the planning department, for example, allows commissioners to raise money for nonprofits that have business before the planning commission.

>> i realize that you have been on the frontlines, as it were with the work, remote as it was, it was hands-on and answering questions for the budget and legislative analyst and i want to make a point to commend the staff in that. i have seen a lot of harry rose's reports over the years and in many respects, it was a very helpful report, but it also reflected that they respected the cooperation of the staff and providing information and engaging with them in a positive way as opposed to what can sometimes happen where departments become defensive and try and hide the ball.

and i just want to thank you all for the efforts that all put into inform and educate and just answer all of the many questions that i'm sure you all have had to deal with. so thank you for that. we do have the discussion and the public advocate and we do have allies in the city attorney's office and the controller's office and the district attorney's office, especially with the new district attorney's office. and, frankly, probably, in dhr and in some of the personnel who

were lucky to have their own staff and from that kind of liaisonning where you're probably the one in the department that's most connected to other departments, maybe also the enforcement division. i just want to encourage as much as possible, given how difficult it is with everybody not being at city hall, you know, to reach out and see what other departments are doing in response to the corruption investigation and the revelations that are coming out and what their experience is and their budget review and whether or not we're going to have the kind of support that we might be able to look to from the controller's office or city attorney or d.a.

>> it's very helpful in past policy projects. >> ok, and maybe, then, at that

time, we'll talk about what other -- because i know commissioner bush you've been bringing this to my attention. if we can in september plan to talk about what we might do to engage in outreach for funding to not just to brennan but to other organizations. i asked for the city attorney e prepared to explain to us what it means to solicit, receive, process through the city budget our finances, but in light of the time that we have for remaining items, i was actually, think, it might be better to put that on for september. so andrew, if you can be prepared to educate us all about what it means to solicit, seek and obtain funding from outside

sources and by september, too, we'll know how we did with the city and what our missing pieces are. >> yes, good afternoon, everyone. and i'm happy to address that in september, yes. >> thank you so much. i just realized notwithstanding we would take public comment before the commissioners jumped in, i'm sure we jumped in before we asked for public comment and so, mr. moderator, can you please let us know if there are any public commenters on item number eight? >> madam chair, we will check to see if there are callers in the queue. for those. on hold, please continue to wait until the system indicates you have bun muted un-muted. we are on agenda item eight.

>> madam chair, there are no callers. >> chair: then i'll close public comment on agenda item eight and call number nine and that would be the discussion of the monthly staff enforcement report. if there are any members of the public that intend to offer public comment for this item, they can dial in now and enter star three to be added to the public comment queue. but first, we're going to hear

from mr. pearce and commissioners, i'll ask that we hold our questions and comments until we hear from the public sl stop for a second since, obviously, that's not the way we proceeded before. if you would prefer, we can do questions to mr. pearce as his presentation unfolds and then after discussion, then we can ask for public comment if that's the way you would report proceed. so anyone who wants public comment first, raise their hand.

>> we had a conversation about how our respective offices might collaborate on ethic's related matters and within the other constitutional protections and you will remember, mr. gollinger, as a highly motivated advocate before the ethic's commission. and my report also notes that like our engagement with mr. nollinger, we meet in the

controller's office and district attorney's office and to commissioner bush's point about what the overall role of the commission is, vis-a-vis these other accountability departments, i believe those relationships are strong and healthy and that we have developed useful ways of sharing information triaging. apart from that, i guess i would note only a couple of things from the bla or sorry the bureau of delinquent revenue. there was a call with several staff members from the bureau earlier this month regarding the bureau row's approach to collections at this time and the bureau has effectively paused

their collection efforts in light of the economic downturn that has resulted from the pandemic. the during, i think, more recently is going to resume some of those collection efforts, but adopting a somewhat softer approach. they will not be filing small claims actions in superior court. so in the report where you see the status listed as tend to mail small claims final demand, what that means is that the bureau will not be sending those letters until the bureau can effectively file a small claim's matter.

>> i understand there will be greater collaboration but does this mean from a practical standpoint, you'll have more visibility and insight into investigation holds that the ethic's commission places on matters that are being referred in order for the district attorney in order to pursue its own investigation? >> i don't 100% understand the structure and i could be wrong but i don't believe mr. gollinger is in the white collar division where our

counterparts have generally been or these collaborative efforts on overlapping jurisdiction. i think he's in the special investigation's team. that having been said, he certainly has access to them and speaks with his counterparts in the white collar division routinely and has offered increased communication between our office and that division wherever he can be helpful and so, i can't predict in the long-run what it means practically and i'll have to legislator a little biexplore wr understand what role they envision mr. gollinger might play. >> you're muted, chair. >> chair: commissioner bush. >> thank you. when you've done this grade of

the various complaints, can you add to that i think it would be i think at one point, the commission, the ethic's commission adopted a policy that after a certain period of time, they could be undertaken by the commission itself that the attorney or district attorney didn't take action and i don't know if it was 30 days or 60 days or however long that was. with that, in sending that to some departments, like to mta or the police department, they're sending it to a department that is overseen by political appointees and that might make someone who has filed a complaint concerned that it's

being swept aside for political purposes. and so it would seem prudent to have anything that was referred to by political appointees referred back to ethics with a conclusion about what they did rather than simply have it disappear. for example, the complaint that was originally against mohamed gahru for sex harassments and failing to act was sent to his supervisor, which was at that time the way the. cpolicy workedand the supervisog with it.

>> we could look to data pending and explore ways of reporting that. to your question about referrals to about the departments headed about appointees and i believe article four, the protection ordinance empowers the commission to require from those departments a response about what steps they may have taken with respect to any referral. what i'm less certain of is that the reason that we make those referrals is that we lack jurisdiction to pursue them ourselves. and although we could, in theory, we could receive reports, we wouldn't have wherewithall to require them to do anything. so if no report comes back or if the report comes back, and we disagree with the outcome because we lack jurisdiction,

i'm not sure that it's a different outcome but i'm happy to consult with the city attorney. >> if we don't have the authority and we should and the conclusion by the commission we should have authority, let's say a president, any president that just bears the name, re-elect the posters in all of the post offices and don't count on vote by mail.

>> commissioner lee or commissioner smith, any comments? no. >> then i'll ask the moderator to see if there are callers. >> for those on hold, please kate until the system indicates you have been un-muted. if you are just joining this meeting we are on item number nine, discussion of monthly staff enforcement reports. if you have not already done so, please press star three to be added to the queue. you will have three minutes to provide public comments and six minutes if you are online with an interpreter. bylaw.

madam chair, we have no callers in the queue. madam chair, can you hear me? >> chair: i un-muted. with that, public comment is closed and thank you very much, mr. pearce, and we will

proceed with agenda item number ten, discussion of director's report and update of various operational highlights about the ethic's commission staff committees since the previous meeting. director palin. >> a brief report this month since most of the items have been addressed in the earlier agenda items, bla, audit, reference of the public committee, as was the budget report that steven matthew presented to you. the only highlight i would add from this report at this time is the public financing program. since the commission last met in july, we had, i think, at that time, candidates running for the supervisor rates on the november 2022020 ballot had received $200 in public financing at that point in time and since the last meeting, we have had six more candidates qualify to receive public financing in connection

with their campaigns in november and that brings us now to 59% of the candidates who stated their interest in participanting and 59% have been called to receive public funds and as of august 7th, our staff had determined that candidated received $1.66 million, over a million and a half dollars in qualified in distributions to candidates who agreed to participate and certified to be eligible for november. and i would also add just one last note about our audit that we now have all but one of the publically financed candidates from 2018. their audit work has been completed and their audits will be posted in the coming days on our website and we have one audit remaining outstanding and as soon as that is finalized, we will make sure to get that out

to the committees and to the public. lastly, we do list in this report from the form 700 annual filing deadline extended this year to june 1st because of the covid emergency. there were 18 filings to file electronically either their form 700 statements -- they were required to file their form 700 statements or a certificate of having completed ethic's and sunshine training as required, 18 individuals who have that requirement this year have not filed one or the other and they is been receiving non-filing notices from our office as a reminder they do have the filing obligation. we also have notified them if they are a board and commission member currently of the no-file, no-vote that prevents them from taking action on items on their meeting agendas and we've sent this information, communicated

to the city attorne attorney's o the board can be advised and keep people from acting when they are not eligible to act. and we are also communicating with them. we have another 90-day notice -- 30, 60 and 90-day notice and we'll be asking them to file and after 90 days, that's a standard practise to refer those on as needed. and so i just wanted to provide that highlight for you as that is undoubtedly a question of how we're handling late filers. and we had 96% filing for the 700's this year which is notable, i think, by all filers, given that we were in a pandemic environment and i'm sure a lot of the officials had their focus elsewhere. we wanted to provide this list of those who had not at this point.

>> just briefly, i have contacted colleagues who advised about the commissions and alerted them to this non-filer issue and they are working with the commission secretaries to get people's filings on with the ethic's commission. and i would have to be honest, at this point i'm not sure to what extent the commissions did participate, despite the non-filing status and i suspect many of the people have left city service or have not been to city meetings. and i'm not sure to what extent they have been participating. >> if they had not filed, what would the legal consequences be of the decisions? >> so the legal consequence of it would be any potential, would notify their appointing authority of that issue, as well. the appointing authority could

choose to address that with their appointee or commissioner and likewise, there's potential commissioner from office. >> even if they attempted to vote, the vote wouldn't count and i would be curious if they could count towards a quorum and no reason to speculate, i guess, if that specific issue hasn't arisen. but clearly, their vote wouldn't count if they were prohibited from voting. some i'm not sure if that's entirely clear. >> it's not clear to me that they've not been participating despite any status. >> well, keep us apprized if they continue to not file and otherwise -- >> i have a question about the

form 700 we're talking about here. my understanding that the penalty, financial penalty, non-filing is ten dollars a day.

>> let's say once we get to a point of compliance, somebody misfiled or didn't fully disclose, you're saying they're subject to an enforcement action by both the fppc and san

francisco or one or the other has jurisdiction over san francisco filers? if you could clarify that for me. >> what i meant, it was the process that the fppc implements of late fee oppose the one hand and pu.as a practical matter, be they know we might assert that jurisdiction, the fppc would check with us before they did. >> thank you. i was just curious whether or not they fully de delegated stae low to local jurisdiction or shared jurisdiction. >> it's not a matter of the delegation but of what local law provides for it. >> ok.

>> madam chair, there are no callers in the queue. >> chair: thank you, mr. moderator. public comment is closed on agent item ten and i'll call item 11 and discussion. i'm sorry, i didn't ask commissioner smith, i'm assuming you didn't have any comments because you didn't jump in. >> you're correct. >> madam chair, i would have spoken up. >> chair: thank you very much.

eleven is the discussion and possible action on items for future meetings and, again, if any member of the publicken teno offer comment, dial in now to be added to the public comment queue. can any of my commissioners, if you want to raise your hand if you have -- if you want to identify matters for future meetings and i see two hands from commission chu and commissioner bush. you're going to take your hand down and commissioner bush, then, please. >> what about working groups because we have so much that we're handling. and we only meet once a month. and so would it be possible for a commissioner or two commissioners that have not

reached a three-commissioner threshold to confer with each other. i hear nothing and that must be ok, right? >> i would actually ask -- and i talked to you about this. i like the idea of having substantive matters, you know, being informed b by looking into things. but there are complications about officially establishing committees or specifically

delegating as opposed to informally accepting, you know, recommendations from commissioners. of course, two commissioner can talk without representing a quorum and triggering various notice requirements. i'll ask deputy city attorney shen to explain the rules from the sunshine ordinance about officially delegated committees so that we all understand what would be involved and how we might best approach this. >> just very briefly, this is not a prohibition, if the commission wants to take this route. if there are any committees or subcommittees, any such constituted committees would be subject to brown act notice in public meeting requirements. it would have to post agendas, provide 72 hours in advanc advaf

the meeting. so just something for everyone to keep in mind. >> and that's if -- when you say committee or subcommittee, it doesn't matter db -- obviouslyf there's a quorum, it would be for a regular meeting but if we were to say two people get together and work on acts, that would also make that committee almost like a board committee, also subject to notice agenda and internet meeting, protocol. >> and that's a good comparison chair. similar to the board's rule's committee. when they get together and let's than a quorum, they're separated to meet the requirement. >> uh-huh. but if on the other hand, if

commissioner lee and i have a conversation about what we want on the agenda for september, that's not a quorum or a meeting. and we could come back and say we talked and we both think that we should keep meetings to four hours, right, commissioner lee? [ laughter ]

>> yoonce we have our work sources, we know what we'll need to fill in for any missing link and that might be a good time to decide what that was and whether or not there are the resources to support another agenda notice and public hearing process. and i hear you. there is a lot of work to do and if we needed to do it that way, we have that option as andrew

said. they're just protocols, not a question of not being allowed to meet that way. >> as i understand it, if we were to formally create a working group -- >> if i say it as the chair or executive director pellham asks people to meet in that fashion, i'm pretty sure that is what triggers a. cy body formation under the sunshine ordinance. and i think maybe we lost -- no, andrew is still there. and andrew, is that correct? it's the manner in which the group is created? >> that's correct. it's really if the commission is taking some kind of action to create the committee. >> i'm not even sure it's the commission. i'm pretty sure that if the chair does it, but i can't remember. i used to have it memorized.

>> in any event, we will bring that back on september when we're doing all of the forward-looking work and that's one of the things that we'll look at. well, i just wanted to put that parameters around what that would entail so that we understand what that means to do that as opposed to maybe having volunteers or something. >> and i'm thinking in terms of a specific picture of it, like if we were to discuss commissioners doing fundraising outside of the commission process.

>> they would have provided enough information together to be a resource library of where you could go to obtain additional funding. >> i asked the executive director in september to speak to what is involved in soliciting outside funds? in my mine mind, because i've processed a lot of grant funding applications for departments over the years, there is something specific, a deliverable that's associated

with eliciting support to from outside agencies and there's usually a contract and usually an indemnity clause to say you won't sue the san francisco association while in a car accident working on the project. there are protocols around that and i wanted as a part of that, i know you're just using it by a way of example, it's something that we've discussed and enticing certainly in the circumstances we find ourselves. and in september, and i will work with you, director pelham, to try to structure the agenda so that these things all come together in some manner in which we have the knowledge for purposes of the discussion, we'll talk about what's involved in terms the city process for getting outside funding support.

we need look at whether in today's worlds those groups should be viewed, unless they're providing services to those

communities but not simply acting on behalf of an issue. like the national rifle association is a nonprofit. should they be a lobby to make sure that we have stores that can still sell the guns? we can certainly argue that could be listed that way. >> chair: to make sure i understand, as a you substantive matter, this would be something we're looking at legislatively -- >> so we're supposed to do at least one lobby audit a year. >> chair: maybe director pelhao presume what you're going to bring forward to staff in

september under the policy prioritization plan. but if you heard the issue that commissioner bush raised and you are able to get feedback or comment or some discussion about topic, i think is appropriate and we're not going to substantively know because it's not on the agenda, accept for to raise it for future discussions. if you are concluding your remarks and i don't see any hands about new business, i'll ask themonitor to see if we have any public comment on this agenda item. >> madamadam chair, we're checkg to see.

madam chair, no comments in the queue. >> chair: then public comment is closed on item number 11 and