hearing none, do we have any members of the public wishing to comment on this item in. >> clerk: justin, please open the comment line now. members of the public who are listening in, please press star, three to enter the queue. those it have you who have not -- of you who have not yet dialed in, dial 408-418-9388, and enter the meeting code 146-639-2369, and pound, and pound again. when your item of interest comes up, it is very important to dial star, three so you will be added to the speaker line. for those of you on heaold, please continue to wait until the system has been unmuted. we will wait 30 seconds for callers to submit their

request. justin, do we have any callers in the queue? >> operator: madam secretary, we have no callers in the queue. >> president knutzen: okay. hearing none, we will close public comment. is there a motion to approve agenda item f? >> so moved. >> president knutzen: oh, great. it has been moved by commissioner lum. do i have a second? >> second. >> president knutzen: second from commissioner sklar. madam secretary, will you please take a roll call vote. [roll call] >> clerk: thank you, commissioners. president knutzen, the vote is unanimous.

>> president knutzen: thank you so much. and do we have any announcements? hearing none, do we have a motion to adjourn the meeting? >> so moved. >> president knutzen: vice president spears moves to adjourn the meeting. do we have a second from any of the other commissioners? >> second. >> president knutzen: great. then on behalf of the commission, just want to say it again, thank you for the staff and everything you're doing this month. and commissioners, thank you for the extra efforts made to patch in audio, video, whatever we could do today. we made this happen again, and very, very pleased with it. so thank you for participating, a , a and thank you to the members of staff and public who are listening today. so until next month. i'll adjourn the meeting. >> thank you. >> thanks, all.

>> clerk: we are ready to begin. >> chair ambrose: i want to welcome everyone to the september 11, 2020 regular meet of the san francisco ethics commission. some background -- this meeting is held by teleconference pursuant to the governor's executive order and supplement

to the mayoral proclamation declaring existence of local emergency dated february 25, 2020. before we proceed, i like to ask the commission staff to explain the procedures for remote meeting. >> clerk: thank you. minutes of this meeting will be held due to the covid-19 health emergency to protect commission members and the public. the meeting rooms at city hall are closed. however staff will be participating in the meeting remotely. this precaution is taken to the various local, state and federal orders, declaration and directives. commission members will attend this meeting through video conference. please note that today's meeting is being live cable cast on

sfgov tv and streamed live on sfgovtv.org/ethics live. each member of the public will be allowed three minute to speak. comments to speak are available via phone call by calling 415-655-0001. [indiscernible] then press pound to join as an attendee. you will hear beep when you you are connected to the meeting. you will automatically -- you

will be automatically muted in listening mode only. when your item of interest comes up, dial star 3 to raise your hand and to be added to the public comment line. please wait until the host calls on you. the line will be silent as you wait for your turn to speak. please ensure you are in a quiet location before you speak, mute the sound of any equipment around you including television, radio or computer. it is especially important that you mute your computer if you're watching via the web link to prevent feedback and echo when you speak. when the system message say, your line has been unmuted, this is your turn to speak. you will hear staff say welcome caller. we encourage you 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're online with an interpreter. you will hear a bill 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 3 again, you'll hear the system say, you have lowered your hand. once your three minutes expired, staff will thank you and mute you. you will hear your line has been muted. attendees who wish to speak during other public comment period may stay online and listen for the next public comment opportunity and raise their hands to enter the public comment line by pressing star 3 when their item comes up. public comment maybe submitted in writing and shared with the commission after this meeting has concluded and will be included as part of the official meeting file. written comments should be to sfgovtv.org -- please sent to ethics.commission@sfgovtv.org. >> chair ambrose: i will call

the meeting to order. september 11th. can you please proceed with item number one, the commission roll call. >> clerk: commissioners unmute your microphone to verbally state your presence after your name is called. [roll call] we have five men o members pres, you have a quorum. >> chair ambrose: thank you very much. welcome to our viewing audience. folks have the capacity to tune in to ethics commission meeting with all that's going on in the city and state. i want to ask everyone to mute your microphone when you're not

speaking so that the become -- background noise doesn't come through. with that, i will call agenda item 2. which is public comment on matters appearing or not appearing on the agenda. members of the public who already on the line and wish to speak should now dial star 3. if you not already done so, to be added to the public comment line. please proceed with public comment. >> clerk: thank you. ethics commission is now receiving public comment on agenda item 2 remotely in this meeting. each member will have up to three minutes to provide public comment. if you joined the meeting earlier to listen to the proceedings, now is the time to get in line to speak. if you have not already please press star 3. it's important to you press star 3 once to enter the queue.

pressing it again will move you out of the public comment line and back in listening mode. once you are in the queue, and standing by, the system will prompt you when it's your turn to speak. it's important that you call from a quiet location. please address your comment to the commission as a whole and not to an individual member. we are checking to see if there's calls in the queue. if you have just joined this meeting, we are currently on agenda item 2, public comment on matters appearing or not appearing on the agenda. you will have three minutes to provide your public comment, 6 minutes if you're on line with an interpreter. you will hear a bell go off when you have 30 seconds remaining. if you have not already done so, please press star 3 to be added

to the queue. for those already on hold, continue to wait until the system indicates you have been unmuted. there are no calls in the queue. >> chair ambrose: thank you very much. with that, i like to call agenda item number 3. the consent calendar. the draft minutes for the ethics commission august 14, 2020 regular meeting.

if any members of the public like to offer public comment for the consent item they should dial in now to be added to the public comment queue. item 3 is on consent. this item is considered routine. if a commissioner rejects, the item can be removed. any commission wish to sever any items from consent and call it for separate discussion? >> commissioner bush: i like to sever the minutes to have a discussion about the report that we used for minutes. >> chair ambrose: all right. thank you. actually we don't need a motion or a second on that because any one of the commissioners can move from consent.

i'm going to give you the floor commissioner bush. do we want public comment first? i will defer to you on that? do you want public comment first before you make your point or after? >> commissioner bush: it doesn't matter to me. >> chair ambrose: moderator are there any commenters on the queue on the consent item? >> clerk: not at this time. >> chair ambrose: commissioner bush, please go ahead. >> commissioner bush: thank you. according what i see in the admin code, there are certain requirements in minutes. i want to make sure that we are in compliance with that. also, to ask deputy city attorney whether the admin code on that applies to the ethics minutes as well? the things that admin code

specifies is when public comment is given, the name of the person who is willing to be identified is included and whether or not they are speaking in favor or against an item on the agenda and what it is they have to say about that. there's a little bit of disscriptive material from what the person from the public says. that's what the admin code say. in my view, i think it will be well suited if the minutes showed if the commissioners made any comments or recommendations so that there's a clarification with the public and the staff and other commissioners whether changes were adopted at the request of the commissioners. that's the point that i'm

raising. >> chair ambrose: you ask for deputy city attorney schenn to state whether or not those sunshine ordinance requirements apply to the ethics commission? andrew, do you want -- >> good morning everyone. i don't know if lee ann want to jump in. there are meeting minute requirements that apply to the ethics commission as the target commission. there are requirements such as recording the beginning of the meeting and etcetera. commissioner bush, you are correct. it requires a very brief summary of a public commenters comment. there's no requirement that there be specificity about which commissioner suggest which changes. that's not required. it's up to the commission if they want to proceed with that.

>> commissioner bush: it was not intention to call that out. it was whether or not the commission itself was requesting changes or deletions on an item. >> chair ambrose: i'm going to ask for clarification on that. whenever there's a motion to adopt or a motion to adopt with amendments, my understanding that will be memorialized in the minutes and that vote would be roll call and reflected also in the minutes. i want to be clear where we're having a dialogue and building towards a consensus. there's rapid exchange of ideas

and comments. i worry about the usefulness of having someone memorialize all of that give and take in the written minutes. i know from my own personal experience as attorney to several different commissions to the city, if i'm looking for legislative intent or documentation of exactly what transpired in building to a resolution, i would go to sfgtv or back up to audio tape to get the precise exchange of communication. i want to make sure that i understand, are you talking about official motion,

amendments, second, etcetera? do you want every specific recommendation that an individual commissioner makes realized in the minutes? >> commissioner bush: no. i'm not looking for every comment to be in the minutes. you bring up a good point about being able to refer to the tape. it might be an option to put a link to the tape so that in addition to what people can see in the minutes, they can also go and listen to the entire proceedings. >> chair ambrose: one thing that's useful too on sfgov tv, they have the agenda and under the video recordings you can click on a particular agenda item. once you get in sfgtv, it will

take you to that section of the meeting recording. you don't have to start at the beginning of the three hours and try to find your place. i agree with you having a link in the minutes that would allow somebody to get to the recordings would be a useful reference. whether there's a significant substantive presentation or a motion amend that we can make a practice to memorialize that as well. >> commissioner bush: thank you. >> may i add note for suggestion about next steps? we do in the minutes, since we've been remotely meeting, we have added with each agenda item number, a link directly to where

on the sfgov agenda. one of the things that we looked at, we may not -- commissioners might have had a suggestion or a comment that we should capture. we can take a look back at the minutes to make sure we're consistent with that. also, the requirement in the admin code for section 6716, it requires the name of the person speaking, the nature of their comments but also a brief summary. i wanted to point out those couple of items for

clarification. >> commissioner bush: thank you. >> chair ambrose: thank you. do you want to entertain a motion to defer the august minutes to the next meeting when these corrections executive director reference could be reflected? >> commissioner bush: i think that would be good. thank you. >> chair ambrose: i'm going to ask is there a second this. commissioner smith seconded that motion to put agenda item 3 back on the calendar in october with the changes that executive director pelham identified. we'll take a look at it then. with that, can we have a roll

call vote? please call the roll. [roll call vote] >> chair ambrose: wait, i just realized we didn't have for public comment. i caught myself just in time there [laughter] if we could please see if we have public comment on this matter. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. the ethics commission is receiving public comment on consent calendar item 3. each member will have up to three minutes. you will hear a bell go off when up 30 seconds remaining. if you joined the meeting early, now is the time to get in line to speak. if you have not already, please press star 3.

it's important to call from a quiet location. please address your comment to the commission as a whole and not to individual members. i'm checking for the calls in the queue. please press star 3 to be added to the queue. for those already on hold, please continue to wait until the system indicate you have been unmuted. if you have just joined in meeting, we are currently taking public comment on consent calendar item 3, draft minutes for the ethics commission augusd meeting.

there are no callers in the queue. >> chair ambrose: please proceed with the roll call vote and the motion? [roll call vote] five in the affirmative to the motion. the motion is approved. i do apologize. >> chair ambrose: motion was approved to defer action on august 2020 meeting minutes until the meeting of october --

[indiscernible] >> clerk: the motion is carried and with commissioners -- i'm sorry, i don't understand this language. i do apologize for that. >> chair ambrose: thank you commissioners. i will call agenda item 4 which is the discussion and possible action on revised draft ethics commission annual report for 2019-2020. before i ask executive director pelham to make the presentation, i want to thank commissioner bush and commissioner chiu for working with the executive director and her staff to improve the draft that we have

before us. in my opinion, it looks pretty good. executive director pelham, if you want to walk us through the annual report and the changes? >> great, thank you chair ambrose. i will echo the presentation for commissioner chiu and commissioner bush for providing insight and feedback on the draft report following the commission discussion last month. i think the feedback last month as the input in the following days did help tighten and clarify the report. i'm hopeful with the information that's in front of you, you'll have a chance to consider whether this reflects the consent that you want to see this year. we do know with the work that we plan to do in the coming year, the annual for next year going forward, will probably look different. it might be a bit more

information flushed out in ways that we haven't been able to with this report in prior years. this is a very helpful set of data and information to be able to share with the public about the work the commission has been doing in this past year. there were only two key differences i would highlight for you. one is at the outset of the report and largely feedback from last no' month's discussion, we listed some of the key data that the report contained. we wanted to highlight and give a flavor for the time -- kinds of work that's done on an ongoing basis. that's something inserted right at the front of the report after the introductory page. the key change we attempt to reflect in this revised draft,

was under the future initiative section at the back of the report. last month, you'll recall the discussion was focused on, where do we go from here. we didn't want to leave the report hanging in terms of the critical ongoing dynamics that we were looking ahead to tackle in the coming year. the last section of the report and future initiatives is a bit more of an expanded section to address some of the challenges, operationally that we'll continue to face as covid-19 co9 continues to be on our horizon. also more direct discussion of b.l.a. recommendation report that was issued last month. we included the listing of recommendations with that report contained now. lastly, a discussion about the

allegations with the administration. we want to be very engaged making sure that we can do what we can to prevent that kind of activity from taking root in city government going forward. with that, i'm happy to answer any questions or take any other feedback that you might have at this point. thank you. >> chair ambrose: i'm not sure i'm clicking on the right butt buttons. moderator, maybe unhel you can p me. i needed to get the dropdown list to see if anyone raised their hand. never mind. commissioner bush, you have the floor. >> commissioner bush: i like to thank executive director pelham for the work that went into this. i would say it's a vast

improvement over the last several years. there were no several years. we went from zero to 60. it looks very professional and it covers lot of the territory that needed to be covered. i think it's a good snapshot. it's important in the future that we acknowledge to some extent that ethics has the lead role but not the only role on some things. for example the controller is where whistleblower reports go and ethics handles retaliation on whistleblower complaints. there's a requirement in the charter that says that when complaints come in to us they have to be referred to the city attorney and the district attorney. the point of this is, to make sure that the public knows that we're part of a process that we are not solely in charge.

this is an issue in the past. that's why i would think that it should be made clear in our overall description of the commission. for example, the commission voted several times to ask the mayor to remove a commissioner for conduct that was unbecoming. the mayor never responded to the commission's request. but the commission had no authority to remove a commissioner. the person who makes the appointment has the authority to remove the commissioner. that created -- time after time about what was going on and there was no explanation from us. to the extent that we can show what our authority is and where that authority transfers to other agencies, it will make things smoother for the public

and smoother for our staff. it won't fall expirely on our shouldershould -- entirely on we should do. >> chair ambrose: commissioner chiu, i will recognize you to speak. >> commissioner chiu: i like to -- [indiscernible]. i like to add -- >> chair ambrose: i'm afraid you're freezing. is it just me or you freezing for everyone? we just lost her. >> clerk: we just lost you commissioner chiu.

>> commissioner chiu: can you hear me? >> chair ambrose: yes. we can hear you. >> commissioner chiu: i think it's very important to use the vehicle of the annual report but that only comes here. i think that it's important to make sure that whether it's through tweets or press releases or through other means like an op ed in the newspapers to make sure that the commission position and we stake out our ground and assert our authority in a appropriate way in consistent with the charter and professionalism -- able to put

our powe move point of view out. we have a role to play. not the only role but a significant role. in the absence of us putting out and asserting what we are doing and telling what we're doing, i think that the document was taken out by other people stories and narrative. it's important we keep that in mind as we head into the coming year with things being abnormal as they are and the work of the commission is being so critical and needed more than ever. >> chair ambrose: thank you. i agree. is there any other comments from the commission?

to your point, i think up until tomorrow, i think the board acts on the budget, we've been waiting to see what sort of resources we can have available to us and also we have today the policy prioritization plan which will set a work agenda for one division of our staff, the policy division. coming out of that, i agree with you. i think once we set a course for addressing whether it's the controller's report, the corruption allegations, generally the legislative initiatives that we made undertake at the ethics commission or may be considering that are coming out of the board of supervisors. we should be forward-looking --

doing outreach about what the commission is doing both to alert people to the commission's mission but also to garner feedback and support from the public and from the stakeholders around these really important issues. to that end, one of the things tha,each one of us is appointedy an elected official. an elected official in san francisco is going to be in touch with constituents that may or may not be tuned into the ethics commission's website and actions. in the coming months, i would recommend that we all reach out to our appointing elected official. just to inquire about what feedback they might have about

what the ethics commission is doing or could be doing and what they are hearing from constituents about those issues. that's one avenue of communication that should be available to us. i thought we take advantage of it. i know as once we get our agenda together, that executive director pelham spends to ramp up again the interested persons, stakeholder group sessions. so we can talk about convening some of those communication opportunities and inviting at least some commissioners to attend provided that we don't turn them into public hearing. those are my points and with that, i will ask for public

comment. >> clerk: we are checking to see if there are callers in the queue. for those already on hole, please continue to wait until the system waits you have been unmuted. you will have three minutes to provide public comment. you will hear a bell go off if yo-- when you have 30 seconds remaining.

there are no calls in the queue. >> chair ambrose: my notes we supposed to wait 90 seconds. it's fine. that's after you tell me i'm supposed to wait 90 seconds. while we're waiting, i will ask for a motion and a second to adopt the annual report for 2019-2020.

>> so moved. >> i'll second it. >> chair ambrose: commissioner bush second it. when we affirm there are no callers in the queue, then moderator, i will ask you to call the roll please.

>> clerk: you're good to go. >> chair ambrose: if you want to call the roll on that motion and second about the annual report please. [roll call vote] >> chair ambrose: with unanimous vote, the motion is adopted. i want to thank everyone for their work on that. i'm going to now call agenda item 5. which is discussion and possible action on staff report on the budget for fiscal year 2021. i give the floor to executive director pelham and steven

massie to make a presentation. executive director pelham and stephen massie, i'm afraid you're muted and not visible. there you are steven. >> i believe director pelham is speaking on this item.

>> as you may have hear, steven massey is here as chief director officer. apologies for that glitch in our process today. agenda item 5 shows an update on where we are at this point with the budget. we understand that the full board will be considering the budget on the 15th. they'll have a first reading on the 22nd, second reading on the 29th and to the mayor by october 21st. this budget is almost in the can. the report highlights for you on page 2 the items that were included. i'm please to report, after we met last month and at the budget appropriations committee meet before the board of supervisors, we were informed by the mayor's

budget office that they have agreed to reduce our attrition savings rate for this fiscal year '21 so that we can -- will have funding to enable us to fill that vacant investigative position that we discussed at the budget and appropriations committee. that's good news. the other items that we had talked about in previous meetings including the ethics at work program that we had proposed launching, is not going to be in the october 1st budget. that's something i regret that the city has bandwidth for at this point. it does underscore for us the necessity to focus very closely over the next several months in anticipation of fy '22 budget development. we focus on the development of the citywide integrity fund to

the best extent possible. some of the reason we continue to be underfunded we have to go back every year and are struggling to map out effective programs that we can develop and execute that take longer than one year to do. that includes technology projects. that includes developing longer term outreach and education efforts that are not one off briefings of 10 minutes before the city department. there's a longer term process we need to engage with the city. i think that takes longer term funding, sustainability and predictabilitpredictability as . steven and i will be looking forward to reaching out to appropriate city offices. the budget development for fy '22 is around the corner. we would likely, assuming all

prior schedules holds, which is not a good assumption this year. we will normally see budget instruction from in december from the mayor's office. the city will be monitoring the economic situation in the city and additional cost, what kinds of reimbursements the city maybe able to get with all of the emergency and crises that are happening. it's an unknown landscape to a great extent. we are mostly going to be focused on knowing where we stand october 1st, really aggressively working with a hiring plan to try to make as much progress as possible given the resources we will be provided with for this fiscal year. the investigator position we anticipate being able to fill as well. it was only funded to the attrition savings rate was reduced to fy '21. we don't know what will happen

in fy '22. that's something we'll be coming back to as we develop the budget. with that, for what we are also focused on is how we now start to implement the work that's under way for this fiscal year and the report highlights some of the ways that we're operationalizing and prioritize all the ongoing projects that we have. this report doesn't have that laundry list of them but the staff and i have been meeting and putting together a priority but assessing how those need to be coordinated and planned across the divisions. we have a lot to do. we highlighted here the guiding principles and focused areas of making sure we're trying to maximize program impact through every term. we'll try to broaden understanding and laws that apply to folks so they comply and understand the laws as much

as possible with the technology resources and other abilities we have to reach out to folks. those are the three key things that we're providing a lens which we're going to look at prioritizing with the ongoing work. we talked month and commission had questions about the possibility -- [indiscernible]. we do now have some resources to get us -- putting that project back on track. the question was is a way to make that work this year. the answer from everything we looked at and assessed is it's not possible to make it happen

january 1, 2021. there's too much time and passage of resources that have been lost that will enable us to do that. we are starting to get it back on track and expeditious, means it will be up and running january 1, 2022. subset of that project is not feasible. steve can add any further details if you have questions. we tried to outline as much as possible what the considerations were that lead us to conclusion. i will pause to see if you have questions from me or if you want to hear from steven or any questions you might have with the budget and status.

>> chair ambrose: steven, did you want to go ahead and proceed or you're inviting questions at this stage? commissioner chiu you had your hand up previously. >> commissioner chiu: this is comment on this agenda item. >> chair ambrose: if you wanted to proceed then. >> commissioner chiu: thank you chair ambrose. i wanted to send my thanks to executive director pelham and also to steven massey for the hard work and the long slog that has been for this budget. it made you realize that next year's budget process is going to kick off in near weeks. i like to express my utter

disappointment and dismay that the board of supervisors and the mayor are not funding -- providing funding or head count to support ethics at work, the training initiatives. i said this before, i think it's important and critical to have strong laws and regulations on the books. in the absence of training so that people know what their obligations are and the fostering of culture of compliance and ethical behavior that the laws and regulations are not nearly executive as they could be. in light of the scandal and significant severe allegations of that behavior that continue in multiple departments in the city, i think that is appalling

and unsupportable. the leadership in the city, saying we're not going to address it. we're not going to fund any resources at the ethics commission to address this ongoing problem. i think it box even more critical than ever for the ethics commission to stake out its ground and communicate to the people of san francisco what it is that we can do, what it is we want to do and fully support efforts to develop a proposal for the citywide integrity fund and would encourage and like to hear from staff when the proposal comes to us on different funding mechanisms. instead of having to always have the ethics commission go to the general fund to ask for resources to be able to fund the

work, critical work as needed, for those departments that have had significant issues in this case, d.p.w. and department of building inspection, where the arrests and significant allegations of corruption uncovered, if they could devote a portion a fraction of their budget to be ableoto support the ongoing work it's critically needed. that's from the broader picture. more granular question that i have are -- i don't know if you know the answer to this director pelham, do you know the amount that was approved for the budget -- the incremental that the commission will be getting compare to how much we asked for? overall ask was $100 and they

gave us 50. i want to have a an understanding with the different positions that were approved and the half year funding that were affected. what does that add up to compare to what we asked for? >> let me see if i might also ask steven. he maybe looking at the chart that we had. sorry, i should have included that in this report. let me see if steven have anything to share. >> i don't have that figure in front of me. it would take me little bit to put that together. there have been multiple phases of this. we had the original ask before the pandemic and there was the redo that the mayor's office required that we go through. it would take me a moment to come up with that.

>> just as a quick summary, the items that were not included are on page 2. as a very rough estimate, i would say we're roughly flat. we did not get the things we asked for. there were some cuts in our operating budget, our training budget. i would generally say that we are in a flat mode from our fy '20 funding. >> commissioner chiu: no need to do extra work. i want to get a sense where we were directionally in terms of the impact. my next question is in terms of hiring. if these positions are approved, you may have answered this previously, half your fund -- does that mean that the commission can go forward with the hiring process and that the

effective start date is not until january 1st. >> it means we won't have funding to pay somebody to be in that seat until after january 1. we will be starting the hiring process and reaching out to d.h.r. and getting a hiring plan in place over the next several months. aisle work to kee -- i'll work o keep you all informed on standing on that process. >> commissioner chiu: would that be sufficient to get the expedition of action that will be needed in order for us to move that hiring process along

quickly as possible? >> i think the only honest answer is that i hope so. we'll be doing everything we can to work with them. the d.h.r. staff and leadership has been supportive and aware of the hiring issues we face. i'm hopeful that they'll be a strong partner in this. all i can do is hope and plan and focus as much energy to get this done. i will report back to you over the next several months if we make progress. >> commissioner chiu: thank you >> chair ambrose: thank you. i have a hand up from commissioner bush. >> commissioner bush: thank you. i associate myself with commissioner chiu's comments. i would add a few points to that. in terms of th of departments cd

corruption issues for the city and our reputation, it seems to me one of the things we can do is to call out those commissions. not just the individual wrongdoer, but every commission has what's called a statement of incompatible activities. it seems to me that we are in position to call out the commission's and the executive director saying, you're not minding the store, you're not ensuring if there's compliance with incompatible activity. we expect you to do that. nothing gets the attention of elected officials more than being called out for bad behavior. certainly, giving them a carrot

does not work as well. that is one thing. second thing is, we mentioned before we have not yet approached how to do this whether commissioners can be involved in fundraising for a specific project. for example, seeking funds to support ethics at work efforts, we have some idea what will be, we know what the budget will be and we know what the project is. it has a time limit and the element package that appeals to some fundraisers and corporate groups. that's something i would like to get greater clarification as we look at our budget. obviously there are certain restrictions i'm sure the deputy city attorney is going to give us good advice on where the line is so we don't cross it.

for example, i wouldn't suggest that we solicit contributions from lobbyist. you understand the point that i'm making. there's another route that other departments -- in particular the department of elections. they have advisory committees that are made up of specific topics. they have three advisory committees. if you go to their web page, they have good descriptions and it's how advisory committees operate and what they do to add resources. i think that we could have advisory committees to assist us. for example, if you look at list of projects that we intend to do in the next 12 months, it's more than we can do in 12 months. sole of the things that we have, it says in the material we got, a project of this scope is overdue and warranted particularly given the severity of the most recent allegations

discussed is likely this project will take at least 12 months from the initial research phase until final implementation. if going to take 12 months just for the initial research, why can't we suggest that the initial research be done by an advisory group? i gave a presentation asked to join with others to the incoming members of the civil grand jury. they are very sharp people as are so some of the past grand jury members. they are people who are well-suited to ask to serve on a advisory committee to do the research. there are people who are not working at full speed like city

librarians or teacher. all of them have same kind of skills that we're talking about. i like us to consider as we look ahead, how to augment our resources to commissioner fundraising, advisory committees and tapping into other departments. d.h.r. and others have an entire budget for training a city employees. form 700 are a classic example of doing the minimum that the law requires. which is a report once a year. that's not disclosure. if somebody buys or sells major property or changes their job or gets married, then you need to update the form 700 to know what the conflict of interest are. that's allowed under the state

law. i never seen anybody hand out an advice to people who are filing 700s, do not wait until april 1st to file. you should be filing when there's a major change in the conflicts that you face. same thing goes with how you're going to file and disclose potential conflicts o position unpaid that are boards and voluntary group. our city law requires those be disclosed if you are on a board that has other people on that voluntary board who have issues before the commission that you're on. there's a whole citation that i can provide that to. it's very clear that where would you find that in the form 700 the disclosure for business position is for paid by

positions. it doesn't say unpaid positions. we would need to know from mr. schenn, to what extent do we have any leeway to either clarify that business positions can be unpaid as well as paid or do we need to have a secondary document full of disclosure. we're going to look at the question of how we putting our resources together, that meet the challenge of corralling corruption from city agencies and city work, we need to look at the larger picture. thank you. >> chair ambrose: thank you commissioner bush. any other comments from the other commissioners before i make a comment? i had couple of questions,

forgive me if i should know the answer. i want to start with the citywide integrity fund. i see that capitalized as if it exists. am i wrong in understanding that is just title that you given to an idea that doesn't exist? >> that's correct. >> chair ambrose: okay. at least we have name for it. in terms of pursuing that, we've had -- we don't want to be here again next july when the budget goes forward talking about idea if we're going to make any progress with that. the ethics commission doesn't

stand alone in addressing ethics in the city. every department as a responsibility as commissioner bush was pointing out to enforce their statement activities to do the training about code compliance and whether ethics or other regulatory issues. again, we have a connection with at least five of the key elected officials and departments in the city. i do think that in order for us to get, for example d.b.i. commission to support ethics getting a piece of their permit fees or d.p.w. getting

allocation from capital bond fund, we need to do the outreach to the city departments and garner support and flush out exactly what that would look like. i guess in my mind, we might want to start with outreach to the controller. one of the things i noted in listening to his budget presentation to the board of supervisors is that he highlighted that the controller was able to successfully shift a number of their functions to capital department funded operation as opposed to a general fund department budget source for those activities. anyone who's been around city hall long enough knows that

getting off the general fund and into a source of revenue that isn't by proposition 13, is how you get funding to move your initiatives forward. if that's our agenda, we need to take specific steps forward on that and that begins with conversations with the mayor's office with the controllers's office and with the board of supervisors. say the chair of tht budget committee if not the one currently then the one who's going to take the reign in january. put specific amounts and source -- are we going to look at capital projects? there's a lot of problems with contracting and there's a lot of compliance issues around contracting now that we changed the rules about disclosure.

that i see of the city's $12 billion budget, good chunk of that is the campaign budget. i know commissioner bush you were on capital fund advisory committees, maybe that's something you can help us with. we can't do it now because the citywide integrity fund is not on the agenda. i think that come november before we get the budget instructions, we might want to put that on the calendar and have everybody come up with specific actionable steps that we can take to move that from idea to an actual presentation for the budget next july. before july because we would need legislation before anything could be appropriated in the budget in july. i want to second that. i'm still having trouble with

the form 700 filing. i guess the trouble i'm having is just disappointment that where we were on a roll to get that place by april 2021. here we are, because of the delay with the budget not getting approved until october, just to confirm, you did get the position, right? you have the efiling position that we need as of january? is that correct? >> yes. we have the position effective january 1st. that position would be filled at the earliest january 1st. >> chair ambrose: reading your explanation, i guess steven too, it was helpful for me to understand. i was thinking about right now, there's some -- there were 26,000 city employees.

we're up to 28,000 now. each department has somebody assigned if not a whole division of h.r. staff plus a filing officer. that filing officer for form 700 is going to be an important position this year because we'll see later, we have the biannual review who has to filial form 700. that department personnel is going to be in communication with both the executive leadership of that department plus the staff that are going to be responsible for having to file. you're envisioning that the ethics commission will have a few staff, one or two, who will

liaison with all of the filing officers in the individual departments who will know how to train and advise their portion of the 28,000 city employees. it's 3603s that have to file. they will liaison with the people that you're going to train within those department to get them all online. you're not going to take over from those departments and have everybody come directly to the ethics commission? is that my understanding? >> yes. i'll turn it back to steven in a minute. the law currently remains that there are filing officers in departments. we're the centralized filing officers of the city.

it's not solely a technology issue. it's actually a technology project, it's a business project. there are all these departments with their dispersed units that handle this and different approaches they use to handling this. let me turn it to steven to see if there's more he can guide us with the difference in the role. >> chair ambrose: that would be helpful. with the patience of the commission -- to my mind going back to commissioner chiu's comment on the culture of compliance, this form 700 is our link to the 3600 key decision makers within the city and county of san francisco. that's why you have to file form 700 because you got your hands

on permits and entitlements and major contract decisions. if we can improve transparency with respect to the activities of those key players in addition to the department heads and board and commission members who already file online and we can build a relationship with those individuals, i think that we can do a lot more to address the culture of compliance which as commissioner chiu pointed out, is as important as the black and white letter of the law on the page. i really do want to understand how we're going to engage through that process in this coming year and make the most of it even if we can't get

everybody on net file by april. >> that's exactly what our goal is. that's why the launch date is january 1, 2022 with where we are this point. to make that effective and the disclosure system effect, it takes that time to work that in so it is integral to the work that's done. unlike parachuting something into a department. it won't take hold. what we trying to do is support what the commission has been trying to do what you're saying. we trying to accomplish that through this approach. >> what director pelham described is accurate. unlike the other systems, we are

the administrator of the system and we have filers who are filing directly with the ethics commission. in in case, we're going to act like a city wide administrator and each department is going to administer their own department's filers using our software. we are providing the online system but they are going to be doing the lift of adding their filers, managing their filers and managing the department. part of the reason for that is we don't have any insight into the h.r. how many time that's going -- movement that's going on. to automate that, it's something we looked into. after speaking with the controller's office and d.h.r., seem like the city was a number of years away from being able to integrate something like the file system with the h.r.

system. right now, it's going to be very dependent on each department having the filing officer in coordination with their h.r. managing which employees are coming in and which employees are coming out. hopefully that give you a sense of how the system is going to work. we always envision that we're going to maintain a relatively small staff to not only execute the project but to maintain it as support for filing officers. >> chair ambrose: i understand that. i think that actually makes sense. i guess, because i know we talked with other item on the

agenda. what i want to ask that as part of the executive director report as we go on, through the year and in addition to letting us know when and if you get your efiling administrative support person on board. if you can both keep us apprise of your steps to liaison with these filing officers. i actually think that with the biannual review that's going on which you will have a connection. in addition to specifically, at least in the phase of the annual filing in april, an opportunity to engage with those filing officers and their staff and do outreach and education heads up next year.

other thing with respect to the budget -- you were saying, the board is going to act on the 15th and then first reading is on whatever the 22nd and final adoption on the 29th. that means the hearing on the 15th is with the committee and is actually a subject to further action, changes by the board? if they are not doing first reading until the 22nd, i assume the 15th is still open

to the board doing addbacks, etcetera. i'd be curious if anyone hears of anything, make sure you let executive director pelham know that so she can put the touch on somebody -- it will be forthcoming. going back to commissioner bush's comment, on the statement of incompatible activities, that's another item i like to take up in the next meeting. how the ethics commission interphases with departments on -- for example, under the statement of incompatible activity, individuals within a department get a special authorization from their

appointing officer to engage in unpaid board or other engagement with other organizations by way of example. i'm just curious about where that information is available so we can follow-up on some of the points that commissioner bush was making. so too on the question about fundraising and whether or not what the rules with respect to commissioners engaging in -- what we call seeking behested payments. deputy city attorney schenn, next meeting if you can speak to that, i don't want to put you on the spot to answer that now. if we can come back to that again -- >> i can quickly answer that

question if you want. >> chair ambrose: with the patience with the rest of the commission. >> i can give the highlights. i think in general, there's a few rules to keep in mind in terms of soliciting donations. any donations that a department receives that is worth more than $10,000 will require board authorization approval. the board plays a process in this as well. second rule, donations to the departments must be reported by the department on its website. very basic information about who the donor is, how much has been donated and whether the donor has any financial interest what that department receiving the funds. third rule is something that's a

little bit more in our wheel house, commissioners are subject to behested payment reporting. commissioners are solicitly donations from people with certain kinds of business or matters before their own body. they have to file behested payment reports with the ethics commission. those are three basic legal rules to keep in mind. if the commission does want to go in this direction, i strongly recommend that the commission have a fuller discussion of who would be designated to do this at the commission's behalf. who is representing the commission making these solicitations or asks. likewise, i encourage the commission to have an open discussion who is appropriate to solicit donations. is it from person on the street, is it people from the regulated community or only nonprofit

organizations. those kind of things should be flushed out. i encourage you to have those policy discussions. those are just the highlights. thank you. >> chair ambrose: that's helpful. first steps from idea to action, we need to know how the rules that we're operate under so we'll certainly come back to that. we will not get the money that we need to do the work that has to be done. with that, i want to ask for public comment if there aren't -- sorry, commissioner lee, i just saw your hand. go ahead and unmute yourself. >> vice chair lee: thank you. i would propose that we put this on the next meeting agenda item with a specific report on how a

department report on these donations. this is the first time i learned that departments are required to put it on the website of any donation. i don't think many people knew about this. i think it will be good for us to have a fuller discussion at the october meeting. >> chair ambrose: okay. commissioner bush, i see your hand up. >> commissioner bush: thank you. couple of questions. in terms of the complexity of organizing this with variousty department, how does this work in other jurisdictions? the requirement form 700 into electronic format is a state requirement. how is this happening in states like los angeles? are they taking year and a half to make the migrations there? >> chair ambrose: can you clarify that?

you're saying there's state law that says everybody has to file electronically? >> commissioner bush: yes. that's how all of us developed. it came from a state directive. >> chair ambrose: i did not know that. >> i'm not sure if that's true. the vast majority of form 700 is filed by city >> -- employee is on paper. >> commissioner bush: i will get you the reference. >> happy to take a look at it. >> chair ambrose: it maybe they're encouraging a move to electronic filing. the point that i think commissioner lee -- we didn't clearly give her a chance to say her whole piece, i do agree that -- we can maybe actually have a

specific motion under new business agenda item. i will entertain a motion to put this whole question about seeking outside sources of funds on the agenda for october when we pick up that item at the end of the calendar today if that's okay instead of doing it right now. i want to make sure -- commissioner bush is your hand still up? >> commissioner bush: i will complete the thought about outside funding. one of the reasons why the civil grand jury had an influx of highly skilled members is that the corporate community in san francisco, sent out word to its senior staff that it wants them to make more contribution to the city. it's giving them time off up to a year to sit on things like civil grand juries. that's only one place to go.

if we have a discussion about who can we seek money from, we need to have some idea what is the universe we'll be looking at. thank you. i will call for public comment. there's a possibility of a motion on action on the budget items. i haven't heard anything specific that we need to do. actually, i'm going to ask now before we ask public comment. is there specific motion that anyone wants to make or are we satisfied with the general discussion and direction that we've provided to the executive director. commissioner lee? >> vice chair lee: thank you. i wanted to end my comments

regarding the electronic filing, filing requirement. i would ask the assistant city attorney in addition to making another report, fuller report next week to look at the potential discriminatory angle if we were to require everything done in anatomically. there's a certain segment of the community who does not have access to the internet and also they may have certain impairment that will preclude them from using electronic equipment. i think that even if this were a requirement, i would like the assistant attorney to look at the potential discriminatory

aspect of requiring everything done electronically. >> chair ambrose: just to clarify, though, the only people that are required to do this are the 3600 senior staff people in city government. they would be entitled to both accommodations if their disability was an issue and be entitled to access city computer for purposes of accessing net file. i think that those issues can be addressed. the other point -- feel free to comment on that andrew -- again for discussion in october. the other -- i'm sorry. commissioner lee, i lost track

of the other point that you were making about the form 700. i apologize. we can call for public comment. somebody is not muted. >> clerk: we are checking to see if there are callers in the queue. if you have just joined, we are currently on public discussion on the agenda item 5, discussion of possible action on staff report on budget for fiscal year 2021. please press star 3 to be added to the public comment queue. you will have three minutes for public comment and six months on

if you're on line with an interpreter. you will have bell go off if you have 30 seconds remaining. we have a caller in the queue. [please stand by]

>> why are retalking in circles? -- why are we talking in circles? right now the corruption in this city has reached such a point. this commission has to be refo reformed. don't be talking in circles. you do have one or two people who are capable of making the reform. we are fed up with the sunshine task force. we are fed up with the ethics commission. we're fed up with the controller. they're fed up with the city attorney. you all give too much importance to the city attorney. if you look at the debacle, the

city attorney is in the middle of that. whistleblowers have gone to the controller's office with empirical data. what do you think the controller's office has done? given the information to the city attorney. what do you think the ethics commission does? do you want somebody like dr. dr. derek carr to do a need assessment on the ethics for free. it's there. go to the newspaper "the observer." the "west side observer." if you read the latest "west side observer," you have a needs assessment on the ethics commission, which is a failure.

[bell dings] i repeat a failure! do not talk too much. we want action. the board of supervisors -- they are capable. what else do you want to hear from the constituents? the constituents are fed up! nobody wants to listen to the ethics commission. it's boring. >> your three minutes are up, caller. >> and thank you, mr. da costa. with that then i'm going to ask is there a specific motion on agenda item 5? or if we're content with the general direction that we've given the executive director in our plan to revisit items, then i'm going to move on and call agenda item 6.

so do i see any hands? no then. thank you very much both executive director and steven for the information and work that you've done on the budget. i know it's been a very challenging year. and with that -- i'm going to call for a ten-minute break, if that's okay. it's 11:00 right now, before we take up agenda item 6, because i think that's going to be a fairly lengthy and substantive conversation. so with that physical we can all be back on screen in ten minutes. does that work for everyone? >> yes. >> all right. >> and and with that i'm going to call agenda item number 6, discussion and possible action on the monthly staff -- it says monthsly -- on the staff policy report, including the policy prioritization plan. and with that i'm going to turn

it over to pat ford to make the presentation, please. >> thank you, chair ambrose. this is pat ford, senior policy legislative affairs counsel. in the interest of time, i'll cut right to the policy prioritization plan. there aren't any major updates to give you, that haven't already been covered. as part of the budget discussion or will be covered later, as part of the executive director report. so i just will skip that right now. so the policy prioritization plan, as you know, it's a planning tool that the commission has used to help structure its policy work. and when i say policy work, typically that means legislative projects. those specifically projects that will likely result in an ordinance or regulations being approved by the commission.

and then in tandem with that kind of legislation, there are always quite a few administrative aspects as well that could be the creation of new forms, new processes, new compliance materials, new training modules. a lot of work that goes alongside those legislative aspects on the back end. that's what this tool means. it's not comprehensive of all policies that the commission may pursue, like a policy to seek outside funding, for example. that wouldn't be a policy project that's on this plan, even if it is a policy of the commission. the term is kind of susceptible to multiple meanings. i want to clarify that's how that term has been understood for purposes of this planning tool, is legislative projects. so with that in mind, the two projects that i'm proposing, as part of this policy prioritization plan, are first

and foremost, a project to review certain conflict of interest rules, that are part of article 3, chapter 2 of the campaign and government conduct code, that's where the bulk of the city's conflict of interest rules are contained. so those are rules that pertain to gifts and recusal and other rules that try to address instances where city officials or employees are conflicted, where they have personal interests that could interfere with their public duties. the reason that i think a project like this is so important is because of the corruption investigations that you've already discussed earlier this today's meeting. i think any time allegations like this are made in such major investigations happen, it's important for the commission to look at its laws that it administers, look at the outcomes that we've seen, the programs that we've created to

support those laws. and make sure that we're doing enough, make sure that there's no room for improvement. usually there are areas where we can strengthen the rules, areas where we can improve our programs, improve our compliance materials, as far as we're able to, improve our training. so, anyhow, that's what i envision for this project is essentially to try to understand everything that has been made public thus far about the various investigations and those are investigations by the fbi, the city attorney's office, and the controller's office. and you've already heard from the controller's office about their first report, regarding d.w.p. contracting. they have additional reports coming out. a big part of this project will be really staying on top of those investigations and understanding what we're

learning, as those continue to come out. because it seems like it will be a situation where more information is continuing to come out over -- it looks like several months at least we'll learn more and more as this unfolds. so the project designed to be flexible and allow us to react to that information, as we learn it. so generally speaking these kind of legislative projects take around a year to complete. and when i say to complete, i'm talking about both the legislative aspect and the administrative aspect. these projects are not just about getting laws on the books, as commissioner chiu put it very well earlier, that it's not just about getting laws on the books, but it's also about how we administer them. it's important when we're looking at projects like these, we're also factoring in that kind of back-end work that is necessary to really make the

laws practical and enforceable. that once they're on the books that then i'm working with the engagement compliance team, the audit team and sometimes the enforcement team as well to make sure that we're all on the same page about what the laws mean. we're creating the materials that are helpful to people, to comply with the rules. and creating new forms, as needed. so there's a lot of work there. i would say judging from past projects, a year is on average about how long it takes. typically there's been a two- to three-month period of research that starts out the project. and during that period we also start to engage with stakeholders, usually for legislative projects. we've done at least one, usually two rounds of stakeholder meetings. we call them interested persons

meetings and usually those happen in pairs. we'll do one afternoon meeting and one evening meeting. so we try to accommodate people's schedules. and we take that information and internalize that and try to, you know, be responsive to it. then we bring proposals to the commission, often times in concept form initially, not with actual drafted language. that tends to be more effective in the past. and usually the commission has taken about three public meetings tomorrow arrive at an ordinance that it will approve. and i think that's just what the commission has been comfortable with in the past. how long it's taken to listen to all of the comments that stakeholders bring to those meetings, pose questions to staff, make requests for further information, for further amendments to the ordinances and ultimately arrive at an

ordinance where there's consensus around the ordinance. so that process there. that's just the ethics commission side of the process. it's usually taken about six months. so that's research, stakeholder meetings, further drafting after we hear from stakeholders and then bringing concepts and then draft legislation to the commission, having multiple commission meetings, multiple iterations of the legislation. and then ultimately approval of an ordinance. it's about six months. and then it goes to the board. as you know, the legislative process at the board takes some time, too. and it can be hard to predict. i think right now there are a lot of competing priorities out there. obviously it's a very complicated budget season. the board also takes legislative recesses, covid -- >> excuse me. i actually -- i mean, we do know how long -- i don't think

anybody disputes that it's going to take 12 months to move the legislation through. but you have some very specific ideas about what we would be substantivively, that we would be looking at? i'm wondering if you could jump to that and get them, you know, sort of enunciated, so that people who are liste listening w subtannively what we're talking about, with regard to the prioritization plan, item number 1 that's addressing the conflicts of interest of and regulatory review. >> yeah. as i alluded to, the scope that i envision for this project is roughly tied to the allegations that have come out of so far the

fbis criminal complaints against a number of city officials and contractors. we could see more complaints from the fbi and possibly more information being revealed as the city attorney and controller come out. so this list could expand. but right now i tried to make this list to identify areas that we've seen so far in these allegations. so typically the conduct that's been alleged has been gifts, it's at the core of what we've seen. city officials receiving gifts and given preferential treatment after receiving the gifts. and in some cases allegations of laundering gifts to try to conceal their source. this list looking at a number of aspects of gifts. so there are exceptions i think

we would want to closely look at the exceptions and see do they still look appropriate, in light of what we're learning right now. gift of travel is kind of a carve-out from most gift rules. it's kind of a parallel line regulation. so we would look at that as well. there's a restriction on gifts from certain sources, which are called restricted sources. these are typically people who are trying to influence the employee or official or that department. and again there are exceptions to that gift rule. i think we would want to closely look at those exceptions and see if they need to be changed. aside from gifts or specific gift rules or exceptions, i think we want to look at the overall complexity of gift rules. all you have to do is look at the city attorney's good

government guide, it's incredibly useful and a compliance tool to understand how complicated these rules are. and i think complexity of rules can sometimes undermine their effectiveness. so i think we might try to identify ways that we might make the overall body of walk here more straightforward. that may come from consolidating definitions, eliminating or simplifying exceptions, trying to bring multiple types of rules under one umbrella of rules. i think there's a number of ways we can do that. but this is really geared towards making compliance easier. obviously we've prioritized trying to do more training. we've had mixed results with getting resources to do that. but another tool in our toolbox here is to try to make the rules easier to understand and follow. likewise, i think it would be good to look at the statement am incompatible activities.

these exist separate from the actual conflict of interest code. however, i think a lot of rules that are common in the statements of incompatible activities probably could exist in the code itself. they would be applicable to everyone, rather than just the officials that adhere to that particular s.i.a. also they carry a little bit more serious penalty as well. so that's something we want to look at. and then, lastly, post-employment restrictions. trying to address the revolving door between the private sector and city government. and we want to look at that and just see if there's anything that needs a close examination in light of the allegations that we've seen. and this list of bullet points is really just kind of a starting point. i would be really interested in hearing what stakeholders think we should be focused on. and that's always a big part of

these projects is doing scoping with stakeholders and hearing their ideas. this is not meant to be a hard and fast list. these are just kind of idea of where we could start. i don't know if you have any more questions about that? no. and i actually think -- i mean, before we take up item b the biennial review, which is the other proposed policy project that you had prioritized, i think maybe we should take questions and discussion on this first item, since it is fairly substantive. is that okay with you, mr. ford? >> that would be fine. >> go that way. all right, i see commissioner chiu's hand up. so if you wanted to comment, commissioner chiu or ask a question. >> yes. thank you, chair ambrose. i have a couple of questions. i'm in full support of this

policy initiative. i think that i agree that it's overdue and fairly needed. my two questions are this. one, can an ordinance or a ballot initiative -- is it possible to include a funding requirement in the ordinance itself? that's my first question. in order to ensure that we will have the resources to be able to successfully implement the ordinance. and then my second question is, could we -- and i would love -- as the work is undertaken and you -- as you do some benchmarking and other research, is explore -- can we make ethics training mandatory? as much as we have to take sunshine training every year, as well as the anti-harassment training, could we explore

requiring or incorporating in what would be the process which which to make this mandatory that certain segments of the city workforce must take ethics commission training. because we are always going to be scrambling for resources and share and time on people's agendas for them to participate in in-person trainings. but is there a way and could we explore what it would look like if we could -- one, could we make ethics commission training mandatory. two, you know, how -- what have other jurisdictions done as examples that we could follow or the things that we could learn from. and if we could have a point of view on recommendation i think as we come out of the work. i think would be very helpful.

>> i'll answer those in reverse order. so to the ethics commission training first. there is an ethics commission training currently that is mandatory for some, but it's not mandatory for 100% of city employees. i can't articulate right now for which the group is mandatory that it's defined. it's a relatively narrow subset of all of the people who work in and around city government. i think one thing we could consider is expanding that list of who has to take the training. >> is that a one-time training? what i say mandatory training, i'm thinking a mandatory annual training, so it's always going to be refreshed? >> i believe it is annual. >> okay. >> already. yeah. the deadline coincides with the deadline for the form 700. so april 1st is when form 700 filers have to do their annual

filing and likewise people who are required to do the ethics and sunshine training also have to certify by that date that it's done. but, yeah, we could absolutely look at expanding the list of who is required to do the ethics training. but, you know, i think -- the training is good. it's of great value. but i think, of course, our preference would be to change how the training is done as well. but as you heard from executive director pelham we're limited in what we can do there. so maybe for right now it's having more people take the online training. i should have had clarify it is an online module. and then we work towards the goal of having that morph into a more hands-on, you know, in-person training. i say in-person, probably zoom for the foreseeable future. but we'll actually have a trainer working with the smaller group of people, so there is that live component. but that's just not something

that we're able to deliver on right now. so i think, you know, we could have a recommendation for now. and then a recommendation for later as part of this project. so i will definitely include that in this, assuming that the commissioner wants to move forward. to your first question about funding and ballot measures, i do believe that that's possible. but i'll defer to deputy city attorney to tell you more specifics on that. >> so commissioner chiu, it is possible to provide for some funding. but usually only for a limited amount of time. so the budget itself is just an ordinance. it's an cleared could be amended like any other ordinance. there's a ballot measure ordinance that could provide for some short-term funding. we have done that in the past. it doesn't guarantee the funding on an ongoing basis. essentially provides short-term funding in the initial year.

the budget cycle rolls around, the next year, the budget that's enacted after that cycle, that essentially governs. >> okay. >> generally how that works with ethics ordinances, including the ordinance as we directly put on the ballot. >> okay. >> in terms of the train, if don't mind me following up on that or mention it a couple of moments ago. so there's basically three buckets of people who do mandatory training. they're elected officials, commissioners and department heads. need to do the annual training that you all do as well. the reason that was decided way back when, those are also the same three groups of people who directly file their forms with the ethics commission. so it was decided that the same population that file with the ethics commission directly, also enhanced ethics training requirements. i believe -- i don't know the full -- the d.a.r. has a separate requirement of staff

and departments of purchasing authority to take a very similar and maybe the actual identical interactive training that you do as well. but that actually i don't know the details of. we could expand mandatory ethics training to a broader segment of city officials and employees. but one thing to keep in mind is that if we do impose more training requirements, and it's possible -- and if it's possible that someone who fails the training, some adverse consequences, we would need to engage and confer about that as well. because that's a new obligation they would take on. so you have to confer on that. >> thank you. >> sure. >> okay. commissioner chiu, did you have any further questions at this time? >> no. that's all i had. thank you. >> okay. then commissioner bush, i'm going to go ahead and recognize

you. you need to unmute your microphone. >> thank you. it's looked at in a 12-month period of time. it's clear that the commission does not have the resources that it needs to move as quickly as we need to move. i don't think that the public is going to be patient with us to say we'll have something ready by 2022, especially in the middle of all of this. we're seeing prosecutions and court cases going on involving senior city officials. so again i renew the issue that i have raised before of a -- of creating advisory groups -- i think in mr. ford's intention, the first three, four months was going to be spent on researching our law and comparing that to other things. those are things that could be done by an advisory group.

there's a whole lot of issues that fall within that. the issue of incompatible activities is one. also the campaign and government section 3.214, ethics regulation 3.214-5, requires a professional relationship based on regular contact in a professional capacity, including regular contact in conducting volunteer and charitable activities. well, that's serving on the board of a non-profit that's involved in charitable activities. and that's exactly the kind of loophole used by naru. we don't enumerate the disclosures. mohammed's form did not disclose his relationship on the transbay terminal, whatever it's called, or he's the one with the key

staff or rate setting on garbage. later identified in the criminal proceedings that are currently under way. so i don't see how any of that -- for example, this government -- i don't see where that shows up. i don't see any place where that's disclosed for the public. if there is, please tell me where it is. it's not on the form 700, it's not on the web page of the departments. it's not on ethics. so what's the point? as commission lee said earlier, what's the point of writing these laws if we're not going to enforce them, if they don't have some way of showing up, so the public can see what we're doing. we're just talking to ourselves, whistling past the graveyard. so i think that to undertake

what mr. ford is suggesting, we have to set up benchmarks of timelines for those out of all of it. it has to be this is what we're going to do in the next 60 days. these are the deliverables out of it. some kind of document like that needs to be created. until i'm not inclined to support moving forward with this at this time if i don't see that document. >> chair ambrose: are there other comments from commissioners before i make some comments? just to be clear, in my understanding, the 12 months is

beginning to end. we're not saying that we're going to wait until 2022 to have a proposed legislative initiative addressing the specific indictment and corruption charges. we're -- i think i wanted to substantively get to the items that mr. ford identified, knowing what he knows about the indictments and the code, he's identified ten targets for focus on what we would try to fix. and i'm assuming that, too, because i have listened to a couple of the board hearings. we've had several supervisors who are moving forward on their own initiative or with the constituents that they're

working with to introduce legislation to address the conflict of interest rule issues. i'll be honest with you. i read the indictment. i don't think this was a confusion problem. i don't think we didn't have a little -- even the point that you made about department head nuruand his role on the transbay joint power board. as a member of the transbay joint power board, he probably had a file of form 700 with the state. because that's a state entity. the fact that he didn't identify that on his city form 700 isn't why got away with, for so long, you know, whatever the bid-rigging corruption that he was engaged in, with respect to transbay. so there's part of me that

thinks, yes, we should make our lives more clear, simple, transparent and effective. at the same time the corruption problem is not because people were confused that they couldn't take a $2,000 bottle of wine from some developer and not report it. that isn't what happened. it's not that they -- they could call the city attorney. it's not like they even read it and said, hmmm, it's kind of gray, maybe it's okay for me to do this. i really don't think that that's the problem. nevertheless, i do think that we will make an effort to clarify anything that just -- for no other reason to make sure that the public understands that what the rules are and why they're important. what i'd like to see, and i guess this is what you were

talking about, commissioner bush, not 12 months from beginning to end. i mean, i understand that's the bracket. what i want to understand, because this policy prioritization plan could also be called hat ford's inbox. because you're the one guy who actually has to do all of this work. it's always been a constrain in terms of allocating, you know, is this effort going to take up 75% of your time for the next three months, when we're going to come back and revisit the prioritization. or is it going to take up 10% of your time opinion an -- time. in some respects i know you don't fully know the answer to that. because it really depends on, you know, if the board moves ahead and introduces legislation at the end of october. then we have to react to that, as well as move forward with the outline of the work that you

describe. so i'm going to ask you just to comment on how much of your time and keeping in mind that you're also recommending that we move forward with the biennial room on the file 700. which i consider again to be where we will make the most progress. if we can get to those 3600 fi filers and support them in their -- in the culture of compliance, i think we'll go a long way towards nipping potential corruption in the bud in the city. so, pat, how much of your time do you think between now and really just in the next three months, because every -- my understanding is every quarter we're going to review this prioritization and kind of reevaluate what we need to move forward with. so, anyway, go ahead.

>> i mean the answer is quite a bit. i think this is a pretty comprehensive project, these legislative projects are very intense, once we get them ramped up and we have commissioners engaged. we have members of the board and their stuff of staff and their constituents engaged. it could be all-encompassing. it could be the kind of thing that occupies my calendar for weeks and weeks on end. it's hard to say. it's a strange moment politically and in general. it's hard to know what level of attention folks are going to contribute to this. look back at the acio. massive level of stakeholder engagement. and, likewise, with the public financing project. we had some really dedicated stakeholders that made the project really vibrant. and really hearty. that could happen again here or

possibly not. i mean, this could be a situation where if the presidential election year, obviously there's public health crisis, environmental crisis going on. and people don't engage, which, you know, not a good thing. but it would mean that the project would move faster. so i'm not saying that's what we want. the notion of the board doing legislation, i mean, we can make the most detailed it plan we want. but the ethics commission does not have the authority to then -- we have to work with the board. we have to work on their timetable basically. and you can approve an ordinance, but ultimately they're the ones that have to approve it, along with the mayor. and if they don't like it and they amend, then it comes back to the commission. so i try as much as i can to work with them on the front end so the ordinance, the commission ultimately approves, already has approval of a majority of the

board. or at least appears to or would attain that approval, so we can avoid that back and forth. but, i mean, there's no way to do that. we have the brown act. these sessions have to occur in public meetings. so we don't know. i can't always give a prediction. >> chair ambrose: okay. that's what i thought. i just wanted to make sure we got that out there for everybody to keep in mind. i see executive director pelham's hand up. i want to recognize her before i go back to commissioner bush and chiu. >> i just had a conviction -- quick add-on to the pat ford show and what it looks like in practical terms. when we are doing policy reviews and policy analysis to get to legislative developments, there's the key point that he mentioned early on, which is the administrative review piece. it is not pat sitting at his computer doing research in theory, based on white papers of the organization at issue, right. it is about also understanding

how the implementation of the current laws that are on the books have worked and how they have not worked. that engages people in addition to policy. it's our engagement compliance staff,eding from our enforcement team where have we not been able to enforce the law because there's been problems with the law. the reports that continue to come out with the controller's office and elsewhere about what we're seeing with the current corruption investigation. so all of that is a very -- it is a broad plate of work that's focused on real-world implications of the laws as a we know it. i say that because i think it's important and commissioner bush, you mentioned earlier, maybe not inclined to support moving forward at this point, until you see maybe the deliverables and timetables more spelled out clearly. and that's something that we know b.l.a. report, across the office, we will be doing. i would just ask that if that's a concern, that you know you

look to us to develop those. it is important to start this work now. we need because of the collaboration and coordination effort to make this a real project, comprehensively reviewing what we know. that i would look for the commission's willingness and comfort to identify if this is a priority area that you are interested in us proceeding with. that we know that now. because we need to put things in place now and nail down what our plans are going forward, if we're going to achieve any of it. there's an 1822 policy analyst position. we have funding to hire effective january 1st. pat ford will also be involved in the hiring process for that. so there will be a multiple of things going on, as i know you appreciate. i wanted to put that in context as well for you as you consider what action you might want to take today. >> chair ambrose: thank you. before i recognize commissioner chair and -- chiu and bush.

i didn't see in the list. there's an 1824 policy position. is that what you said just now. >> 1822. policy analyst. yeah. it's the junior of the two positions in the policy shop. yeah. the first position that would be -- brian cox was the most recent incumbent last year ago. but 1822 policy analyst position. >> chair ambrose: that you will be advertising and attempting to hire early in the new year? >> yes. on this question of do we vote or defer, i -- i just want to make clear. even though it's our practice that we officially revisit the policy prioritization plan every

quarter, the commission has all the authority, at any regular or specially called meeting to change something that acted on. so just for what it's worth, i, too, agree it's important to recognize the necessity of staff to move forward on the conflict of interest review, relative to the corruption scandal. and to be clear, even though we didn't meet in june to act on the policy prioritization plan, i would bet mr. ford has been attending to those very issues in the three months that past, because of the necessity of doing so. so with that i'm going to recognize -- since i don't know who was first, i'm going to go

alphabetically, commissioner bush, if you wanted to unmute your mic. >> commissioner bush: i think i'm unmuted. >> chair ambrose: okay. >> commissioner bush: in terms of legislative action that may require the voters' approval, it's not another election until march of 2022. so anything that we're talking about now is going to be passed by the board, without having to go to the voters. which means in most cases campaign finance reforms go to the voters. these conflict of interest don't necessarily go to the voters, but i suppose they could. so that's a reality as a backdrop to all of this i think it does not change my stated observation that we need groups, like advisory committees, who can clear away some of the clutter. i call it clutter. it's leg work of researching what's going on. if you're talking about conflict

of interest and you mention travel, as an example, what do other jurisdictions require to be disclosed in travel expenses. all we put down is what the sources of funding were, and how much each of those funders provided. we do not say, oh, yeah, and they spent $2,000 a night hotel room in macau that's disclosed in places like san diego, where they put a cap on how much money is going to go. that's how, in the past, we've seen conflict of interest emer emerge. where private interest pay for a mayor to take trips, that would go on golfing holidays. and that's the reality when we all know that's what's going on. but none of that was disclosed, because we didn't require disclosure of what was accomplished on the trip. so once you start asking questions about what you're going to do with a conflict of interest, you have to go through

the conflict of interest and travel, you have to go through incompatible activities. you know, for example, in statements of incompatible activities now, commissioners with raise money for a charitable entity that is under the jurisdiction of the commission. i can't imagine a more fraught situation or a conflict than being able to raise money for a group that your commission funds for and you're fundraising for separately. yet that's written as an existing loophole. so how are you going to get all of that done in a few months of research, no matter how many people you have doing it. it's going to require people with some real understanding and expertise. so i'm putting my observations and concerns on the record.

thank you. >> chair ambrose: thank you. those are some interesting points that i'm sure mr. ford will look at. and, commissioner chiu, if you wanted to go ahead with your comments. >> commissioner chiu: thank you, chair ambrose. so the idea of an advisory committee i think is an intriguing one, because i think that time is of the essence here, given the circumstances that we find ourselves in. and if there's an opportunity to leverage additional expertise to help accelerate the work, i think that that is -- i think that could be a very good thing and a very beneficial thing. and so my question, i think this would be for commissioner bush is like what would an advisory committee look like in order to, you know, others on the

commission, on staff. like who would be tapped to serve on the advisory committee? and also, i mean, mr. ford, i'd like to ask your opinion as well in terms of, you know, what positives or negatives that you could see with an advisory committee, who would be, you know, taking your direction in terms of the areas of focus and the output would come back to you. and ultimately to the commission for consideration and action. so i guess my first question would be to commissioner bush and what kinds of people -- like what does that look like in the advisory committee. of course, would have to be of sufficient size, in order to be able to get the work done, but not so large it becomes

inefficient due to, you know, the mass. and we'd like to ask mr. ford's opinion. thank you. >> commissioner bush: thank you. to answer well what my own thoughts were about that, i think one place to start would be with former ethics commissioners, people like ben hur who was an excellent commissioner of the commission. and so you have former ethics commissioners who understand the workload and the commission and know how to work together. that's -- there are a number of those former commissioners. as i mentioned before, former civil grand jurors is another pool that we could go to. i have talked to support person for our civil grand jury that did it on ethics. and she is very well versed in and she's been an advisory

committee member for various estate p.u.c.-type entities in the past. she asked the sensible questions. the sensible question what exactly would you look for an advisory committee to do, what would be the jurisdiction and the timeline. all of that would have to be done. i think tailored specifically to the kind of things that mr. ford has put on his agenda, starting with what are the existing policies and practices in other jurisdictions when it comes to conflict of interest. [ please stand by ]

>> ing a bros i.d. we discussed someone will make a motion to put on the agenda discussion of possible action on supplemental resources to support commission objectives. which you will put the advisory committee in the list of possible initiatives that we might undertake to supplement staff.

i'm going to ask you, pat, to wait and answer commissioner chiu's question. we want to talk about other policy prioritization, item that you're recommending. we also want to talk about the six or seven things that aren't going to get addressed or that you're not recommending that you would have the resources to address within the next policy prioritization period. i want to move along. if that's okay, if you could take up item b on the plan and present that. >> i want to make sure i understand you correctly. we'll talk about the idea of the advisory committee later in today's meeting? >> chair ambrose: when we have the agenda item to identify new

business for future commission meetings, based on the discussion we've already -- we're already anticipating a motion to put on the calendar for october, a specific agenda item to discuss supplemental resources for commission objectives. if you can be prepared to that motion be made and adopted, if you can be prepared to address the question about advisory committees in the october meeting. when that is actually identified and on the agenda for public discussion. okay? >> got you. it makes sense. yeah, for purposes of policy prioritization plan, i would probably revise my time estimate. my timeline will be longer. to the second project to the code review, it's something that i mentioned before, i won't

explain it right now. essentially this is in progress already because it is required by state law. essentially, i want it to be recognized as a policy project. it's something that takes time. it's a legislative project that i have to work on every other year. it's important that ethics is involved in it at this stage, we've already received responsibilitiesuresponsibilitis from a good number of departments that have not responded. we're presuming they do not have changes to make. >> chair ambrose: either you or

or deputy city attorney schenn, what is the e.t.a. for when that ordinance could go to the board? any major changes to the list of -- it tends to be fairly static.

>> so far i haven't seen lot of dramatic changes. lot of departments are distracted by lot of things these days. i'm not sure how many of them have had really had a chance to look through the list at all. which may explain nonresponses from departments. otherwise, department has had time to do this, i expect lot of the departments haven't had a chance to do a big ha -- [indiscernible]. >> chair ambrose: some of the departments might have been waiting to see what the budget is going to be which is late this year before they tell you what positions they still have. might be reordering responsibility. on that point, though, to the executive director, tracking when that goes to board and to committee, i'm assuming that

your staff will be prepared to speak to some of the larger form 700 issues that we have. the urgency timeliness, i gather

that 10 is urgent and 3 not so terribly urgent. we've seen those potential policy projects on the potential list now for since the inception of this list. i'm just wondering are there -- we can take this up again in october. are there first steps on some of these projects. i want you to think about that can be broken out and delegated to somebody or that we would seek some kind of outside grant funding to support review. you don't have to answer that now. i do want you to give you a chance to speak to these other -- six items on the list so that

we have a chance to discuss them. >> sure. some of them are not specific in nature. some of them refer to entire chapters of the code. frankly, they are there to just give the commission an idea things you could do if you wanted to. those are different areas really where policy projects could take place. these aren't targeting specific issues or aspects of the program that i'm advocating to be examined. it's to give you a different avenue. if you look at the projects that i'm proposing and you don't like them, these are they are high priority, these are alternatives to jog your thinking and provide alternative avenues. these two projects that i

recommend aren't only things that can be done. some of them are specific in nature. usually that's when a commissioner will express interest in a particular policy project. i would put it on here that it has a place to live and the commission can discuss it. for example, at a prior meeting, eir can't remember if it was august or july, interest was expressed looking at online advertising. at this time i'm recommending other projects be pursuing now. it could be moved up into an actual policy project. however, what i would ask that you do, remove one of the other projects. we can only do what we can do. to the idea of having outside

parties do the policy projects, certainly, people can provide us with information and research any time and will look at it. ultimately, we can't really rely on third parties to go through the legislative process. ultimately the commission would need to vote on many legislation. i presume you like me to write a report about that. i still like you to engage with stakeholders and engage with the board of supervisors and this project would turn into a full fledged policy project. >> chair ambrose: i think everybody understands that wouldn't be the role of an advisory group or for example, we're looking at this question of seeking outside funding for ethics at work at training. we have even in our annual

report, a laundry list of things that we supposed to do under the charter that we haven't been able to get to. it's not just those issues. i guess, speaking to your one particular point on political advertisement, commissioner bush pointed out, after the november election, there won't be another local election until 2022. that might not be the priority. it might be an opportunity for us to work on some of the lobbying and permit consultant issues that we flagged previously. with that, i'm looking -- i see commissioner bush, your hand is still up. is that from before or did you have something further? you have a comment?

>> commissioner bush: in terms of the policy priorities, i think if that's something we can revisit again next month. we're not going to have both that's going to lock us in. what we need to lock in now, if i understand the issues, what's going to happen in the next 60 days, essentially by the end of the year. once we have that settled now, the rest of us can follow and we can revisit all of those issues. i want to underscore that after 60 days, at the end of the year, everything changes at city hall. we'll have a new president of the board. norman yee's term will be up. he will be off the board. there are number of people leaving the board. sandra fewer is chair of the budget committee, she's leaving

the board. in cases, new board presidents decides what committees will be established to begin with. that means almost anything that you're talking about now cannot be aimed at a specific committee or specific membership of the board. you don't know who's going to be there. i think that needs to be put front and center in our planning. >> chair ambrose: unless director pelham, unless you have further comments. i do want to entertain a motion to authorize the staff to proceed with the policy prioritization plan item, subject to further direction

from the committee as we move forward in this coming quarter if i can ask if there's a motion along those lines and a second. then i want to call for public comment. commissioner smith is that first and second? >> commissioner smith: i'm seeking to amend your motion. >> chair ambrose: i didn't make the motion. i was inviting somebody make the motion. >> commissioner smith: my motion will be to see for the next two months with the plan as outlined before us. >> chair ambrose: you're saying move the policy prioritization plan with the understanding that we're bring it back at the december meeting for review and

rediscussion? >> commissioner smith: yes. so we don't hold things up two months. >> chair ambrose: okay. do i have a second for that motion? >> i will second the motion. i would also say that we bring it back and have an interim report in november. if we wait until december, then we won't be able to take action. we're in the holidays and it will be january. >> commissioner smith: i accept that. >> chair ambrose: just to be clear, me and the staff understand, we're approving the policy prioritization plan subject to reconsideration in december -- in november, with

the staff's report and recommendation in november. is that correct? >> correct. >> chair ambrose: with the motion and second on the floor, mr. moderator, please see if there's any public comment. >> clerk: thank you. we are checking to see if there are callers in the queue.

we have a caller in the queue. >> chair ambrose: thank you. >> clerk: you have three minutes. >> we the people, we san franciscans are fed up with the board of supervisors, fed up with the city attorney, the controller, the sunshine task force and the ethics commission. why? let's go back to the '60s when we fought for the sunshine task force, the ethics commission to represent the people.

you are going in circles. you have no understanding that the ship is sinking, corruption on every level has been encouraged in a way by the city attorney, the controller and the ethics commission. do you remember that we the case, you all sat on it. it was adjudicated. when it came back to the ethics commission higher body adjudicated, you did nothing about it.

now he took it upon himself to charge some people with subpoenas. you folks, the ethics commission, you have no information. i think i have more information than you will ever have. that's why people say that -- [indiscernible] you have comin come up with a sn quickly as one of your members say, quickly. he's informed. he has experience. he knows how the board of supervisors, your chairperson knows this. we have to move quickly.

we have to move on a raw footing. we have this enemy, the most kind of enemy, the more we destroy our democracy. we have to move quickly. >> clerk: thank you. >> chair ambrose: thank you. are there any further comments in the queue? >> clerk: there are no callers in the queue. >> chair ambrose: i will ask for a roll call vote on item 6, on

the motion to approve the policy prioritization plan subject to reconsideration in november 2020 following a report on progress at that point. with that, if you can please call the roll. >> chair ambrose: reconsideratio

n gives the jurisdiction all it has. that was the intent. also the intent of the party who seconded the motion? >> yes. >> chair ambrose: is that clear enough for everyone? we're talking about approving the policy prioritization plan for the next 60 days a report in november and then the commission has all the authority within its jurisdiction to take any action at that time. >> i'm okay with that. thank you. >> chair ambrose: anybody else have a comment on that? are you comfortable with that? chiu, is that a second? >> commissioner chiu: yes.

>> chair ambrose: let's start again with the roll call. [roll call vote] >> clerk: the motion is approved unanimously. >> chair ambrose: thank you commissioners. i'm going to call item 7. discussion of the monthly staff enforcement report. can we have mr. pierce make your presentation. this is a discussion item only. just a quick point on that, commissioner bush had asked that we add a possible action on the item. i wanted to confer with the city

attorney and with staff. because it's the importance of notifying the public when we might take action on matter before the commission, it's one thing with the policy prioritization plan or even with the budget which are fairly discreet topics for where possible action could occur. with enforcement report, there are third parties involved who are identified in the staff materials for that agenda item. who i think, are entitled to more explicit notice if there's a chance that just because their name shows up on an agenda item where you're tracking the

enforcement matter, that we might actually take action. one respect to that -- with respect to that case. we need to do more work on that before we put that as an action, possible action on every commission agenda. at the same time, i want to point out that if there is something that comes up on the enforcement action staff presentation where we want to take action, the commissioner can identify that and we can calendar a specific action tame for the following meeting where we identify substantively who, where, and what we'l we'll take action.

>> commissioner bush: i did not contemplate raising questions about any individual. >> chair ambrose: on that front, you can definitely comment about what you want to see. if we're going to take a motion and a vote, we should identify what that is substantively and put it on the calendar as an action time for -- ti item for e next meeting. also just think about it, like the idea of being able to get the consensus of the commission on specific items.

>> good afternoon chair ambrose and commissioners, thanks for your time today. i will not cover the whole report. it's been made available to you and the public. i assume that you had a chance to review it. i will highlight couple of things for you. first with respect to the policy that provides update that the executive director and i have had an opportunity -- rather this months report highlights the policy committee had intended to take up some potential amendments to their program.

executive director and i had a chance to confer about the proposal that staff has been developing internally. director and i discussed mainly proposed violation that staff intended to add to the commission's handling of penalties or streamline revolution, certain matters. we discussed what the eligibility criteria for those matters might be. the executive director also focused her feedback on some procedural questions about how

in practice, staff might sequence or implement the proposal as written. we will turn next subject to the director's availability to reviewing the proposed penalty schedule which exist in a separate set of regulations that build on the first set regarding the list of violations. just one other note, commissioner chiu, you expressed the desire that we report back on whether the bureau of delinquent revenues soft approach as they call it, to pursuing debt on behalf of its clients, would be impacted by

any potential deadlines like statutes of limitations on potential claims that the city might make. we have initiated conversations with the bureau on that question. we don't have specific substantive information to report back to you at this time. >> commissioner chiu: i have a question on page 4, the status is that requested t.c.a. recall. her account has statute limitations to legally collect. do i take from that, we have now cannot collect the 6860? >> that's my read as well. i'm still waiting for more specific detail from the bureau.

>> commissioner chiu: i would then just ask that in your conversations with them that we get a sense of the pending matter that they have what are the statute of limitations so we have enough time to make a decision and the deadline is coming up. ethics commission, you will have the opportunity to take it back and pursue alternative methods of collection before we run out of runway. >> okay. thank you. >> i have no further update. if there are questions from the commission, i'm happy to entertain them.

>> chair ambrose: commissioner bush, i'm recognizing you. i see your hand up. >> commissioner bush: thank you. for statistical purposes, can you include the total number of referrals to the attorney and the district attorney that the ethics required to make and the date they were referred, the date they were returned and whether they've been held for further investigations? that will be stripped of any identifiers so we can see what the track looks like. >> to confirm commissioner bush, you would like to see the report include effectively the number of investigations that the commission has formally opened on a monthly basis and the dates on which we open -- that's our

interpretation of the charter, the date on which we refer a matter to the city attorney and district attorney is the date on which we opened an investigation. if you like specific reporting about the number, the date of those referrals and any that the city attorney or district attorney has requested that we not investigate to give them time to do so. >> commissioner bush: yes. like a 60-daytime period and at that point, the commission can undertake its own parallel investigation. i don't know if it's 60 days or 90 days. there's some set period. >> that's correct. recalled last month you raised a similar question. we can likely include that information in subsequent reports. to your question about the number of referrals that the city attorney or district attorney have asked the ethics

commission to stand down on. i did look at that. there are i believe only three matters on our docket for which the city attorney or district attorney wishes to be first in line. if that statistic remains of interest, we can look at how that's reported. >> commissioner bush: it is of interest. i think it helps the public understand when something is not moving forward, it's not because it's in our possession. thank you. >> chair ambrose: are there any other questions or comments from other commissioners? the one question i had, jeff, concerns the enforcement by the

commission on whistleblower retaliation. since we don't do the initial whistleblower investigation. that's the controller and city attorney's office. if there is a whistleblower and they allege they've been retaliated against, the commission has a role there. as are one public commenter called out, i think commissioner bush brought to my attention, there's an interesting article in the westside observer that speaks to the commission's role in that regard. broadening my interest in that more broad in that what we're seeing from both the controller and the city attorney's report is that following the resignation of the department

head from d.b.i. and d.p.w. and just in general, there's ten-fold increase in whistleblower complaints files in the city, bringing information forward. in light of that, i think we have a responsibility to review and anticipate how we engage with the controller and city attorney office about those matters and department of human resources. they are on the frontlines of working with staff and managers with the individual who is alleging retaliation. certainly d.h.r. should know they made a whistleblower complaint. but they will hear about it if they alleged they are retaliated because of it. in any event, i want to

highlight for you mr. pierce, i think it's critically important that we somehow get the message out to folks that we will support and stand by anyone who feels that they have information to bring forward about allegations of wrong doing and if you want work with director pelham and think about how best we can communicate that, i think that will be time well spent. with that, i will ask the moderator to call for public comment on this item number 7. >> clerk: we are checking to see if there are callers in the queue.