pool. whether or not we can drop it out or use it in the project, the tidal pool would [inaudible] the issue, and that's only one of the issues in the india basin. a lot of it has to do with phase two and the palace of fine arts. i'm hoping we would be able to deal with such issues before myself and the people get a little too old. thank you. >> thank you, richard. >> okay. >> clerk: thank you, richard. paul, is there anyone else with their hand raised? >> operator: no, that's it. >> clerk: thank you. okay. seeing no further public comment, public comment is now closed. now item 17, commissioners' matters. do any commissioners have anything they'd like to discuss? >> commissioner mcdowell? >> thank you, mr. chair.

so just wanted to just lift up the discussion we had -- not for discussion, but just to name it that i raised at our last commission meeting, the idea of a on going equity moment during our commission meetings that would be, you know, one part celebration of successes and also moments where we might also declare some things that we're focused on improving but just some works still in progress, so just wanted to name that and some spaces to do that on a consistent basis. >> thank you, commissioner mcdowell. and just to note, we've had some conversations, so i'd like to further that conversation with phil and ashley about how we'd be able to structure that to make it a part of our process. any other comments? seeing none, ashley?

>> clerk: great. is there any public comment on item 17, commissioners' matters? please press star, three to be added to the queue. >> operator: there's one person on the line but zero hands raised. >> clerk: seeing no public comment, public comment is now closed. we're now on item 18, new business agenda setting. any discussion on this? >> seeing none. >> clerk: is there any public comment on item 18? >> i'm sorry. just one quick question. >> go ahead, commissioner mcdonnell. >> no projected date, but just kind of curious, what's the proposed timeline around engaging the commission on the

equity plan? >> it's a good question, and it ties into the prior suggestion you've made. i do hope you've noticed, at least in all of my reports, we did discuss tackling operations about our equity work in one way or another, and i'm happy to discuss with you and president buell sort of your -- your vision for how you'd like to see that happen. we are just beginning sort of our phase one implementation work on our racial and equity action plan. we highlighted for you today some budget investments that we want to make. we will be having a leadership team discussion next week on our racial equity action plan and some internal discussions with senior colleagues about, you know, sort of an implementation path, so we will certainly comeback and give you

updates as we make progress and the substance. this is going to be a determined and deliberate but not overnight journey. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> clerk: okay. seeing no further public comment is item 18, public comment is closed. we're now on item 19, communications. is there any public comment on item 19? >> operator: zero hands raised. >> clerk: seeing no public comment, public comment is now closed. we're now at item 20, adjournment. >> so moved. >> is there a second? >> second. >> been moved and seconded. all those in favor? fabulous. thank you all so much. >> thank you, everyone.

>> thank you. >> thank you. this is declaring a local emergency dated february 25, 2020. before we proceed further, i would like to ask our staff member to act as moderate to explain the rules for public comment at today's remote

meeting. >> thank you. the meetings will reflect due to covid-19 health emergency and to protect commission members and employees and public, the meetings rooms are closed. commission members and staff will participate remotely. this is taken pursuant to the various local, state and federal orders, directives. commission members will add tend through video conference and participate as if they were physically present. note today's meeting is being streamed online at sfgovtv. org ethics live. beach comment will be allowed 3

minutes. call 415-655-0001. again the number is 415-655-0001. access code (146)063-3265.

it is important that you mute your computer if you are watching via web link to prevent feedback when you speak. when it says your line is unmuted this is your turn to speak. state your name clearly. you will have three minutes to comment, six minutes with an interpreter. a bell will go off with 30 seconds remaining. if you wish to withdraw yourself press star 3 again. you will hear the system say you lowered your hand.

public comment will be part of the firm file. written comments to ethics.commission at sfgovtv. org. thank you, madam chair. >> chair ambrose: call the roll agenda item 1. >> before you start commissioner smith has once again been excused from this meeting as she, of course, has briefly spoke the last time resigning effective february 1st. we are awaiting word from the district attorney as to her replacement appointment. hopefully that person will be sworn in before our meeting on the 12th.

i wanted to ask the director when you get word about who that individual will be, if you can contact them and provide the materials you are sharing with us today so they have an opportunity to begin to understand the budget, i would appreciate that. go ahead. we have lost you. in the interest of time i am going to call the roll while we wait for you to reappear on our screen. chair ambrose present. commissioner bush. >> present. >> commissioner chiu. >> present. >> commissioner lee. >> present. >> thank you very much. with that we have a quorum and i am going to gavel the meeting to start.

thank you. i want to welcome the public participation for this special meeting. i want to remind my commissioners and participants if you mute your microphone when not speaking so we can avoid feedback during the meeting. i am going to now call agenda item 2, public comment on matters appearing or not appearing on the agenda. members of the public on the line to speak dial star 3 if you have not done so to be added to the public comment line. before i ask the moderator to proceed with instructions for public comment, i want to advise there were public comments submitted to the commission included in the agenda package. they are available online through the ethics commission website. in addition, commissioner bush also submitted comments in

writing in advance that are available through the agenda link for any members of the public who would like to see that. with that if you would please read instructions for public comment. >> clerk: the ethics commission is receiving public comment on agenda item 2 remotely. each member of public has three minutes. if you joined early to listen to the proceedings now is time to get online to speak. if you have not already press star 3. it is important that you press star 3 once to enter the queue. pressing it again will move you to listening mode. when you are in the queue the system will prompt you when it is your turn to speak. it is important to call from a quiet location. address your comment to the

commission as whole not individual members. we are checking to see if there are callers in the queue. if you have just joined we are on agenda item 2. public comment on matters on or not on the agenda. you have three minutes, six minutes with an interpreter. a bell will go off at 30 seconds. please press star 3 to be added to the queue. for those on hold wait until the system indicates you have been unmuted. standby.

there are no callers in the queue. >> chair ambrose: thank you. with that public comment on agenda item 22 will be closed.

three. possible action on ethics commission budget priorities for the fiscal year 2022. july 1, 2021 through june 30, 2022. if you would please lead the presentation. >> good morning. this item is appearing as public agenda item. it is a legal ordinance that took effect last year under agenda item 3. the board of supervisors last year passed an ordinance with the goal of increasing public participation and awareness about the city's budget process.

this year is the first full year where it takes effect. the budget season itself now is kicked off in earnest. last month at our commission meeting i noted the mayor was issuing budget instructions to all departments. those instructions form the basis for how departments start developing budgets and the budgets that are required to be submitted the third week of february. this meeting today is to enable the first of two public hearings on ethics commission budget items. this public hearing is specifically designed for public input and to solicit budget priorities. the second meeting at the regular meeting in february and that will be where we talk more

about budget proposals. in order for this meeting to provide public information, basic information, following the budget-related topics in the recent months, we put together a slide presentation that i wanted to just highlight briefly for context, but i am happy to answer specific questions following public comment you might receive or however you wish to proceed with today's meeting. the memo that is attached to the slides recaps the budget instructions all departments received. as you know, the mayor issued instructions that identified $653 million budget deficit for the city. that continues to be a fluid situation given the pandemic and costs related to that and the economic hit the region has been taking as a result of the pandemic. the instructions by the mayor identified priorities the mayor

wishes to see in the budget in may to include supporting small businesses in economic recovery prioritizing programs with demonstrating programs around equity, three homelessness and mental health programs and four responding to covid. these are the policy priorities identified in the budget instructions. with the instructions were directions for departments to submit in february budgets that reflect the reductions. first, mandatory reduction of 7.5% of deputy general fund support. additional 2.5% contingency that would also result in a 10% cut to current general support for city departments. the budget request that the mayor is asks is something we

have done will prioritize core services and present clear trade-offs and the impact of those trade-offs should they have to be made. however, this year it can include contracts, other operational efficiencies, revenue sources, reduction in personnel costs including reduction in sales positions. i will talk about that momentarily. that has not been identified in prior budgets instructions. this year is different. that was included specifically. also, to describe the proposals through equity lens andid the internal racial equity that is a priority over the last year due to the action plan. that should be prioritized within the existing budget. today's hearing we hope to provide information that will start the conversation with those interested in following the budget. as the chair ambrose noted we

did receive public comment that is attached in the website on the agenda items today. we have commissioner bush's comments as the chair also noted. next hearing in february, february 12th i believe it is the regular scheduled meeting. i would like to turn to sharing the slides with you and to walk through that. let me know what that is visible. >> first we want to provide a overview of existing funding this shows distribution of staffing resources by position

and how they are allocated throughout the various areas of the commission's work. the piechart on the right shows 24% of the staffing are assigned to compliance work. 16% of the staffing positions are to audit and so forth. the table on the left shows operating budget for this fiscal year and the number of positions and the attrician savings target overall. f.t.e., allotted to us. attration savings target is a concept that is a structural concept in the city budget where departments have a certain attrition savings formula they are required to meet. the attrition savings is built on the notion departments will have movement that people will leave positions, they will stay vacant for a while because of retirement or moving to other

positions in the city or staffing city services. there is a target that translates to 1.97 positions. that is a savings required on top of the targets that were identified earlier. that target plus the attrition is what is required to reflect in the budget submitted. this has clarified that more. the operating budget under the mayor's instructions would reflect these cuts shown in red based on the savings target was taken from the salary and fringe. 2.5% contingency cut the total cut at present would be around 7 $33,000.

this slide also notes that 85% of the commission's operating budget is attributable to salary and fringe. they have multiple contracts of other types of services we provide so we are essentially achieving our work through staffing of 85% of the budget. attached to the memo on the agenda. >> i am sorry. could you go back a slide. i had a question. the total proposed cuts 22 are $734,000. in 23, 741. is that incremental? 8,000 to get from 733 to 741 or is that additional 741? >> that is the total amount of cuts. >> thank you.

the change reflects in the attrition savings salary and fringe. >> the attrition savings. we have had over the last several years vacancies. is our attrition savings in our current run rate at or about what the target is in. >> i think if you don't mind i will adjust that in more detail when we get to that. the short answer is that the attrition savings would still require significant attrition savings than otherwise we would have available. as i was indicating, this is a refresher. we will walk through the slide. this is a summary of the information in the word document with the agenda material as attachment 1 to the memo. this is here to help frame the

charter based duties the commission has as established and amended over time. the various areas where the commission has duties and responsibilities as identified in the charter. when we look at how we would potentially have to weather the 10% plus attrition cuts identified in the mayor's budget instructions at this point, we looked at a number of variations how that might be accomplished. we did that to provide context to think about how these trade-offs might have to occur. what those trade-offs might translate to in terms of impact. i do want to stress that these are theoretical. this is an effort to provide a sense of what the cuts would look like in real terms for the commission. in every scenario we looked at there will have to be 7 $33,000

in cuts achieved. the only way to do that is by touching salaries. the positions also filled at present be. when we have to look at the options we have, we have identified for purposes of this discussion all approaches that we identify for purposes of today's discussion. we would have administrative support reduction. staffing focused primarily on department support would have to be eliminated. there are positions that are focused on providing support and add enough support. if we have to make these cuts we have to make decisions about retaining positions to enable us to do whatever type of work we need. we are facing restructuring how to do the work. impact here is that we would be faced with having a much reduced

ability to provide on demand responses for requests for information, there would be revenue collection delays as we have new programs, new processes to implement and work with the staff, procurement and payment for goods and services, not a large part of the budget can be time consuming and would be delayed. translated to reduction in staffing hours for focused work by staffing not traditionally dedicated to add enough focused work. that would be a reduction on the left side of the slides. in order to reach the mayor's 7s 733,000. >> would you prefer we hold questions to the end? i think since that base reduction does carry through all of yours, i want to make sure we

understand how many positions is that? i am not sure i know what you mean by administrative support. you mean people who answer the phone, people who make copies? how many people is that? i am not sure what that is exactly. >> thank you for the question. i am happy to answer questions as we go through that are relevant to the conversation. the positions that we have in the office identified in the administrative support role would be positions that handle payroll, front office reception, and would handle the process of requesting of fines. three positions to be reduced in this scenario. >> we can come back to that. i just want to be more clear in

my mind about what we are talking about. frankly, if you offer that up in all of your base cases, you can be assured that the mayor's budget analyst will take you up on that. >> i think there are a number of difficult scenarios. i am not sure which they would take us up on. clearly under this scenario we have to come up with 733,000 to submit the budget. the city's finance budgeting system does not allow you to submit what you are seeking. it is only allowing you to submit figures for what the mayor -- >> i want to make sure as i said -- well, anyway, one more clarification. what you are saying is you are not going to be able to provide

alternative ways of getting there to the mayor's budget analyst? our goal is going to be to submit the least disastrous budget that complies with the mayor's cuts. the system doesn't allow you to say choose between two unfortunate alternatives? >> that's right. the system says show me this money. show me the dollar amounts and explain the impact of those cuts. in order to achieve these cuts there will need to be an explanation how the cuts would be made if they were actually imposed. the second part is what do we submit in february? we will submit the numbers. we will also submit a very

detailed document through a cover letter and narrative that explains what we are actually proposed to be the ethics commission budget which is different from the cuts. we can come back to clarifying that a bit more. >> thank you. >> i would like clarification. you are talking only in terms of cuts, not in this document you are not talking of revenue enhancements, is that correct? >> in this document i am not talking about revenue enhancements, that is correct. >> that is part of what was submitted, is that correct? >> they are open to achieving the number by enhancing revenues if departments wish to seek revenue enhancements, yes, that is part of it. that is not part of the preparation today for discussion about priorities for the

commission. we have been looking at this from trying to explain the impact would be with what we have in front of us now and what resources we have available now. >> the reason i ask for clarification about seeking grants and outside funding sources or work orders from other departments? >> i am happy to continue that conversation. that isn't something we are focused on in this slide. perhaps when i describe what we are asking for and the strategy going forward. that is not include understand the document for today's conversation. >> thank you. >> under the proposed cuts that the budget instructions indicate there are several approaches in addition to the base reductions we would describe in the prior

slide. this would be saying if we had to achieve those cuts with existing resources, we would have to take a look at essentially eliminating 75% of the audit staffing. that would mean a significant impact on the oversight role the commission can perform as independent oversight body. with campaigns we have a reduction if not elimination for some period of time because we would not have revenues and staffing to do that. there would be a significant concern about the lobbyist compliance oversight we are charged with under the charter, under the ordinance rather, with establishing the program so it is sustainable. we are working to do that. we would not be able to do that if we had to eliminate is audit staffing. it could be suspended or delayed for some period of time, neither

of which would be a solution, but it is optimal to see the least. no change in oversight. the program we are working on currently to do that envisions work done in that area by our audit staff after the hiring of our audit and compliance manager position. there would be significant impact of this sort. we will be faced with having to make the decision to reduce audit staffing to reach the target in the mayor's instructions. another approach, building from the base approach of having to cut administrative positions, would be if we would retain the focus to do our audits. that is essential oversight we are here to provide another alternative in theory to reduce compliance programs.

that would translate to 67% level cut in existing staffing level. we would have two positions left in our engagement of the compliance position to do the program work that is currently being done across all program areas from outreach, compliance guidance, training, and informal advice and compliance. we would most likely have to very much tamp down on any kind of available phone advice. significant delays for assistance, appointments worrystrictive. we would be reduced to providing the basic in all program years and training opportunities would have to be diminished. a result in cost increase to those trying to comply in terms

of time, heart burn and actual dollars for the work the staff otherwise might be planning on and the public. as a result enforcement actions could increase if we find there are instances of noncompliance as a result of inability to provide the support we believe is necessary and helpful to keep people complying with the law. third approach. something we would have to focus on reducing positions supporting the city-wide refiling for form 700. that is a program we started. we are now back on track with getting ready for january 1, 2022 implementation date. if we had to look at cuts that

included -- did not touch compliance, under this scenario, positions that are affecting the implementation of the filing for public disclosure forms of financial interest, public transparency would be limited oversight. it would be status quo when is not what we look to do and filing of technical assistance rolled out in tandem with that project would be reduced. lastly, an approach that would say we have to slow the cuts off the slide. cuts with targeted reductions in all program areas. this would mean we would have one position only be in the policy position. we would not be able to hire the

second position. that would result in the development of enactment of solutions to help addressish who is would be not possible. the commission would have delayed ability to actively be engaged in addressing those issues in the controller's report and other investigations with full and timely input compromising the commission's ability to be an independent voice in policymaking on these important issues which it has significant interest and expertise. the 700 process would be delayed. reduced ability of the audit staff and position would have to be eliminated, information technology support would be reduced in all program areas. this is one of those areas where people regularly interacted with

the commission know the significance of having an information technology division to fully and thoughtfully respond to the public. those are requirements we have created or that are thrown our way to make our city's lobbying laws work in practice and be accesstable to the public with information that is meaningful to equip them in the city processes. these are program cuts across all areas. i will pause there. that is a lot of information and a lot of hypotheticals an. we have done that every year. we will identify what the impact would be if those cuts were imposed. in the past we have submitted those budget and they have not

been imposed on us. that is one outcome this year we submit and the budget process they are not taken because decision makers recognize the significance of those cuts and impact. they are not willing to go down that road because they don't believe it is good for the city. second, we also have a responsibility as commission has discussed in the past meetings to be clear what it is we do need. we will go through andid fay those cuts and -- identify those cuts and impacts. importantly, we are here to remind the public and to have a debate. what the commission needs to do its work. as the slide in the next identified we know there is still -- resources needed for the core work the charter identifies for us. this slide speaks to the

fundamental training and support that we are under the charter expected to do in terms of providing support, education and training for city officials on ethics and the important tans of ethics for the government. we are again as we did last year identifying that we believe the ethic at work program is a program that is necessary to provide that broad-based effective ongoing support needed for the departments and helps department mental officials and staff see a place to go for guidance, place to go to provide concerns if they have seen something troubling them. this is something we identified as having trained specialists and funding for software materials and supplies is a priority for the ethics commission to accomplish the work we were set up to do in the

1990s. >> i will interrupt you. i would like to before we move to what we think we need. i want to make sure that we have finished the discussion about what you have to submit to at least comply with the mayor's budget instructions because you laid out a lot of information and alternative. i am assuming you want commission guidance on that. that is ultimately what we are going to be voting on on the 12th is which of the various scenarios or mixture of them you actually have. i want to make sure we get our questions answered. on the salary savings and

attrition, we have had some significant portion of serving as dsw workers for the past year now. are those salaries being paid out of the ethics commission general fund budget or paid from other sources and that reflects part of your salary savings? >> no, those are still considered full-time employees of the ethics commission. we continue to pay the salaries of those serving on the dsw capacity. those are employees who serve would through december 31st. we have two employees who have requested to be extended one through today and one through march. we have continued -- these are not reflected in salaries. those are salaries on the books doing ethics commission work for

dsw services specifically. >> not that the mayor doesn't know that that is how she is funding the covid response, but for our purposes, i think that is important just maybe -- my understanding is that there are sources of state and maybe federal funds to reimburse cities for some of their cost of carrying out some of the dsw functions so that if the city is seeking reimbursement, are they seeking reimbursement for the cost of those dsw workers as well? does that come back to us? >> i don't know the answer. that is a good question. i will follow up to find out how those reimbursementses from the state or federal government would work to individual

department budgets. >> the positions that have been diverted to dsw of the a through d categories or a through c categories you identified, what positions are those individuals in administrative support, engagement, compliance, it? >> they essentially have been across all program areas. our extended dsw work through the end of the calendar year and continuing as of today is one staff position in the audit division and one in enforcement investigating commission. those two areas are continuing as of today with dsw commitment.

you will note to your point about relative prioritization of different types of work. it will be helpful to get the public's feedback and the commission's feedback and direction where relatively you would place priority or you wish those priorities to be placed going forward. operationally we do not see a proposal to reduce or investigative capacity. the next slides was to talk about request for increased investigative resources we need. investigative work at this time is still facing the city and the corruption concerns continue to exist. they are not identified specifically in the mayor's budget priority list and instructions to departments. we believe that is still a critical area essential for our

office to participate in. our proposal and approaching do not include reduction for investigative work because at the end of the day we would still be enforcing the law. >> one other question. how much are you charged for your rent on an annual basis and subject to all of the staff's extended family not being pleased with my suggestion. what about the idea of giving up your office and just going on line for fiscal 22? i mean out of desparation. none of the reductions are

tolerable. it is down to we are going to have to organize revenue raising and bake sales and what not, first off can you -- do they give you the option of not paying rent? >> not at this point. that is something that we raised internally. can we acknowledge we haven't been pay -- occupying the space for which we are paying the rent. we are paying ourselves. it is 100 to $120,000 per year. jump in if i butchered that number. i believe it is 100 to $120,000 or so that we pay in rent each year. absolutely we have that on the

list of items to continue in discussion with the mayor's office if the city could rent that space. we don't know if that is possible. the longer answer it is probably not something the budget would see as a benefit. they are still on the hook unless they can rent the building out. that is a fair question. we have to be as nimble as possible. >> so my final question is if the salary attrition doesn't reflect positions that are being used for other city purposes, what is that? you have got an attrition savings target of $237,000, which is probably about two full positions. are these positions that are vacant that you are advertising

for now you are not going to fill, are they positions that you have nominally but you don't have a requisition for? i don't understand how you meet that number. >> in a normal year if we had all positions filled, an attrition savings target would say we anticipate somebody going to school. we have three months of salary savings when they decide to go back to school in march. three months of salary savings. that would be attrition savings during the year. in other years. this year, for example, part of the way we attempted to add to d dress is delay hiring for six

months. in a year where you have the hiring decisions you could delay four, five six months to make that up. what is notable for us is the scope of the cuts in total are going to have to require a decision about what essentially are we prioritizing work wise in the office? if it is attrition savings or cuts, we have to come up with a variety of ways to reach. if we were to say we are not going to continue to hire the five positions we are about to start interviewing that we have closed applications for at this point, that could be some salary savings. in total that would not make up the proposed cuts we are to achieve in if coming year. it doesn't address what are we

going to endeavor to achieve as organization with the mandate we have? i think there are a number of ways one can look at the budget trade-off. our approach is that our outlines for discussion purposes today focus on what those trade-offs would be programicly if we had to pull back. even with positions we are hiring for that is essential to achieve the minimum changes at play now. i am not sure if that answers your question. not a direct one-to-one about which position goes to the cuts. these are to try to show the relative balancing that is a way to weigh various types of work that we are doing. does that answer your question?

>> if you put in that number unless they take a leave of absence you have to achieve that through hiring delays? >> that is the normal way that people tend to look at the attrition savings target. i don't think we are in a normal situation. >> not to delay. are there commissioners? put up your hand if you want to ask questions now. >> two clarifications. when you refer to the charter mandate, are you encompassing the mandates given to the commission by the voters separate from the charter?

for example, requirement of annual audit of the lobbyist. that is not going to challenge the vote of the people. >> this is an example what the charter set forth. i couldn't make that more clear. in the lobbying if we were to cut the auditing staff the program mandated by the law. the short answer the charter section the appendix identifies the duties. there are ordinances as you have noticed. >> for example, by ordinance we now require disclosure to the filings by permit consultants. that has been an area of controversy and legal action. that is not in the charter. that was something passed

separately by the voters. >> they are not identified as charter duties. your point is well-taken. the expansion in the term what are mandated duties would be a fuller list than what is there. we can make that clear in any documents going forward without the ordinances that are mandated to make that list as full and accurate as possible. >> the other question i have is when we talk about cuts, you are talking about based upon general funds support for the commission, is that correct? you are not including nongeneral funds revenue. fines and fees, for example?

>> no, these figures include those because they are part of what make up our revenue. we assess fees and fines to the general fund. through the budget process that general fund bucket allocates funding to the ethics commission. that is general fun money reflected in what we estimate alley to be revenue and what the city would expect to receive from us based on the estimate. >> commission could make a request and perhaps succeed and think work orders from nongeneral fund departments like the airport, is that correct? >> the issue of work orders is not included in the discussion. the approaches we might take to other revenue options we haven't yet established. those aren't addressed in this

because our focus was on trying to provide overview of the output and outcome. obviously, the two could be impacted by that. this discussion today does not frame those issues. that is something we are trying to get as much information on how that might be set up. potential timelines implementing that where possible. we are hoping to bring back in discussion for further impact we might be facing. >> thank you. i will circle back to other points. i would just note now so people have it in their mind. in the past we received the value of services to make up for the lack of support from our own budget. for example, the brennan

research on options for typing up our reporting systems. they did extensive research on the actual facts what is disclosed and how it impacts policies. there are options in the past that have worked for us in extending our reach. when we turn to that part i will propose that effort again. >> thank you. are there other commissioners with questions now? if not, i will allow director to proceed with are rosey scenario with what we need to do what we need to do. commissioner bush, were you

finished for now? >> those are all my questions. >> director, if you would like to all your development priorities next. >> thank you. the last two slides to set the stage for comments and feedback from the public today through next month and back six months. we are trending up and identifying as the board of supervisors budget analyst recommended in the performance audit they issued in august. proactive outreach on the city ethics laws is really essential to support those who are in the

city's trenches taking actions every day. also to reduce the overall need for enforcement action in the first place. we are proposing the ethics at work. the ethics commission, to my knowledge, in its 25 year plus history has never had a dedicated training unit. there are positions identified for that periodically. there was no focused training effort established as priority. that is something we have to acknowledge has an impact on the things the bla audit identified. our focus will be to describe in detail how to go about this, why four training specialists would be essential to performing that work, and the training software materials and supplies to do the work. we will continue to make those efforts as we can and there are other city departments that do

it. we work with the city attorney's office to do the municipal and executive association, the deputy city attorney and i are doing one for city managers in early march as part of the bargaining agreement that was reached a year or so ago. those are things that are not something that we as the city are sustaining like we need to. we talked about on boarding and i think this is to the point for me to make the case why this is essential. we will take the opportunity to make that case in the most detailed way possible how this work differs from the request for one off training. this is critical for those at the top and people coming through the ranks. we have to invest in the city's work force.

there are tremendously talented people we want here for the long haul and this is one way to support them. the last piece i will touch on and then turn it back to you, chair. the investigative work. looking back at what the board of supervisors budget and legislative analyst stated in the audit report we know the length of time to close investigations. certainly it de directs from our mission to provide that we are doing the work to provide accountability within the role we have been given. it does speak to the city, impact on the city. we need to do and we are doing steps and processes and plans and work as we speak to improve, not just how we do investigations but how we

prioritize. that is not going to be enough. we have identified that the staffing level we need to do this, status quo is not sufficient. we have looked at the proposal to increase enforcement staff by three additional enforcement staff in addition to the four investigative positions we currently have to reduce the length of time to resolve investigations. also to increase capacity to be handling the complex cases that come forward to us. this also would have some professional services funds to enable us to have a straightforward online case management system. [please stand by]

-- communicating with us at this point and again, we know and hope this is just the start of the conversation, that we would very much welcome further input about, and reaction to some of these ideas, other ideas that have not been discussed and with that, i'll just take down the slides and hopefully that will

provide some input for you as a commission to be able to give us your feedback as well in this meeting today. >> ok. i want to just take a minute to note the comments that we received provided in writing, i don't know if she has the ability to call in and, on the chance that she doesn't and assume that we would all share her remarks, i wanted to note that she is endorsing and recommending both the support for the priority that you've identified on the ethics support to build training staff and software materials that would make it easier to promote an

understanding of employees responsibilities. also recommended increases in the investigative and enforcement staff in order to reduce to nine months most investigative matters and so investigate and resolve more complex matters within 18 months and she, i'm sorry you will, pointed to the budget and the legislative analyst recommendations also affirming the necessity for additional resources in order to meet that investigative mandate. i want to thank miss marks for taking the time to commit these comments and we certainly share the concerns that she raises about the ethics commission being underfunded.

i do want -- i don't think there's any question that i support the funding objectives you identified. what i'm struggling with is whether or not there's any realistic chance of getting the kind of full funding that we desire in a budget year that is tremendously terrible when we weren't able to get this kind of support when we were flush, and yes, certainly the added negative spotlight of the corruption scandal may put the mayor's budget process on high alert so that they recognize that the shortcomings in the past may have helped us to avert

some of these problems, although i'm not sure that that's the case. we might have been able to uncover them faster. one of the things i'm thinking, though, having watched the budget process from the point of view of a city employee who did work furloughs and foregone raises promised and gave up comp time and so on. i know full well that the general fund is not the best place to be if you are looking to have your agendas funded, so continuing to look at departments on the work form 700 position is something that presumably we can pursue, but one of the things that i have been thinking about when we have

costs of some activity there's always a problem of how those costs are borne, sort of the externality of the activities, and funding activities and increasing somebody else's costs are actually paying those costs, about having enterprise departments other than the general fund, to pay work orders for the work we will have to do to help their enterprise department employees comply. the other universe, though, is the contracting community in san francisco. those people who are, for the most part, using either federal dollars in our extensive social health enterprises that we fund to provide health services to people or state dollars or bond

funds which is a whole other source beyond general fund sources, and that that contracting, including the consulting community, are frankly when we look at the controller's report and the indictment are the main beneficiaries of the corruption scandal, and the people who i think are the beneficiaries of the least amount of ethical training, of course, when they sign their contracts, they agree that they have read all of the chapters of the administrative code requiring them to not have a conflict of interest and not make campaign donations, not by virgin redwood, etc., but whether or not they actually even read the boilerplate, let alone internalize it and have their employees understand it and commit to it is a completely

different thing. so it occurs to me that maybe one revenue source that would be actually fairly easy to implement if we could get the board of supervisors in there to agree with us is to include a fee in the city contract so the contractors have to pay us to provide some kind of, you know, ethics at work training resource for those consultant and contractor employees, because frankly, i don't know how many people realize it but many of our big billion dollars bond projects, the people working on those projects doing the exact same work as the dpw engineer or puc civil engineer are people who work for acom and parsons and mr. ataliya, as construction

managers, etc. they sign something that says yeah, i know all these rules, but they are not in the same category of having to certify that they read the good government code or what have you. anyway, just a thought. if we don't reach out to either the permit expediters, the lobbyists, private sector to get funding or the capital funds which are completely different source, not different in the sense it's all coming out of the people of the city and county of san francisco, ultimately, then i don't have high hopes for getting these additional funds that we need to do the work that we are required to do at best, i think we'll be fortunate if we can stop the

blood-letting that is evident from the $734,000 required proposed budget. so anyway, those are my thoughts for the moment and i'm going to turn to any other commissioners who want to comment. i think i see commissioner lee looking for her hand. is that true? can i recognize you, then, without -- you can just do that, if -- we found we have learned how the system works. >> ok. well, thank you. thank you, madam chair. first of all, i want to commend the director for putting together this really realistic but painful proposed budget. i want to know if they can give

a refresher course on the budget process. adopt, the mayor submits it, what's going to happen, who can add, who can subtract to the commission's budget. i also want to echo what the chair had said. i think the reason, you know, attention to the corruption, exposed in these difficult times more than ever we need the ethics commission to really, really help instill public confidence. the only way to do that is through public education, make sure that people just don't glance over the boilerplate, really pay attention to what the requirements of these budgets, these contracts require you to do. and more importantly, the

investigation part to really make sure that we are on top of all these mandates that we are required to do. and i think there's a certain -- i understand the city is going to really try the time, but especially during this covid time we are -- the city is trying to find resources, support our nonprofits, support our city and that would also give the potential of those who may not know the process to be left out of the process or to be drawn in to, you know, maybe,

you know, maybe there will be other things to say hey, i can get you a covid contract. so, whenever there are good, well-meaning programs to support our community, there are always a few opportunistic peddlers and i think we need to be mindful the recent corruption scandal only exposed that there are opportunities out there and the more reason the ethics commission really needs to step up and i know that the budget is tight but this is not the time for us to look at reducing our investigative reach and i, you

know, with this covid funding coming in, you know, through federal, state and local, we need to be more mindful to really make sure people know what they are, you know, what is required of them and to make sure that those who are really in need can really get the proper support that they deserve and not, and they don't need to jump through the unsavory hoops to get there. i don't know how we can do it. maybe through the public hearing process, maybe through an op ed to really lay out why this is the time we cannot think about cutting back on good government oversight and monitoring, but

instead to really expand on it. >> ok. i'm actually going to recognize commissioner chiu because i saw you had your hand up before and i didn't see it. >> thank you, chair ambrose. i wanted to echo commissioner lee's comments and observe that, and emphasize that i think that the opinion you can help shape government action and i think that the stories of the ongoing and increasing arrests and details of public corruption are disturbing to many residents of san francisco and that they not

only expect but absolutely deserve better from our elected and appointed officials. and so the critical importance of investing now when we are in the midst of a global pandemic and a severe budget shortage cannot be more important. it's when the going gets tough i think is when -- is when character and things -- is when -- is when what we value is put to the test. because when cash is flush, budgets are good, it's real easy to go along. but it's only when we have to prioritize and make really difficult decisions and i speak not about just the decisions

facing the ethics commission and submitting a budget that can comply with the $733,000 reductions that the mayor has requested, but who are we in san francisco, you know, how do we feel about corruption? you know, is it ok for us to, for us to allow the behavior to continue? because if we do nothing, if we don't fund this ethics at work program, if we don't engage with leaders and start to change the tone at the top, the message that we send collectively, you know, city government, is that it's ok. that it's fine because it happened, you know, that's really bad, and it makes us look terrible that the federal government is coming and investigating and arresting and charging people left and right, and it's spilling out across

multiple departments, but if we don't do anything, what that says is that it's ok to continue unless we take action to hold them accountable, and to take steps to make sure it does not happen again. and i think that our message in addition to the budget submission where we propose ethics at work and propose this investment, it does need to get out to the public and i think we need to, as commissioner bush pointed out in his comments that were circulated yesterday, is that supporting small business and economic recovery is only going to be aided by the work the ethics commission does. because government contracting, you know, the first victims of rigged government contracting are small businesses because they are excluded from participation, and if the message is is that you know, corruption and public contracting is okay, we are going to allow it to continue as

usual, then the -- the board of supervisors and the mayor should not invest in ethics at work because they don't want ethics at work i think is the message. and i think an op i had outlining why we think this is so important and the impact of taking action and not taking action in this arena i think is really critical in order to help shape the dialogue around this because in the absence of that, it just becomes about numbers. 650 plus million dollars budget shortfall and that's really, i'm not dismissing that, that's very real, but there are consequences beyond simply the budget numbers that leaders have to take into account, and one -- and one question, and so this is, i

think, the test for the current administration is how important is a clean, transparent government without corruption. how important is it? how much are you going to invest? one thing to say yeah, pay lip service to it, but really the test of that commitment is what resources and funding that you put into, and what action that you actually take. and so if -- if the budget that we have to submit is gutted by $730,000, to me what that says is this city is not serious about cleaning up the big mess of corruption that is festering and changing in city hall. >> ok. commissioner lee, since your hand is up, i'm assuming you want to respond to something commissioner chiu said and then i need to go to commissioner

bush. >> sorry. i just wanted to ask procedural question. yes, we have to submit a budget under the requirement. can we, as a commission, send out a public statement, op ed, whatever vehicle we can use to really raise the point that commissioner chiu had mentioned so that people don't look at it -- because the general public will look at the budget and say ok, here is the budget, you are going to get this. people need to understand the background, why we are doing this in protest to explain moving, going forward these are the things that the city needs to take a hard look and take responsibility for. so just a procedural question, can we as a commission, not as

individuals, as a commission issue public statements via op ed, television interviews, newspaper interviews, whatever it is, to get our message across? >> yes, i mean, we can, and i'm -- i mean, we have been talking about what sort of op ed or editorial or public statement do we make for a few meetings now and i agree with the consensus here, which is, i think, this is the time for the commission. i think that the point that you make, commissioner lee, that we would articulate that we are submitting the required budget reduction under protest is a good way to frame it.

i also think the point that commissioner chiu made that it's when we are in the trenches like this that our true values are disclosed because when you have to prioritize in times of shortage, it becomes clear what you really care about and we want to emphasize to the city that we need to be one of the enumerated priorities of the mayor with respect to the budget. any notes that you have about making an editorial -- actually, could you clarify? i'm pretty sure that there's no charter requirement that the ethics commission approve the budget that's submitted to the mayor but i could be wrong about that. do you happen to know? >> so just on the media question

first, chair ambrose, the ethics commission can write an op ed or otherwise speak to the media about its position of the budget submission. keep in mind that obviously we are under some time pressure with the budget process here, to speed it up, the commission could conceivably delegate the drafting of that or other media outreach efforts to particular members of the commission, so the entire op ed or what need we do not need to come back to the full commission meeting, but 1 or 2 people. the bylaws do as a default designate the chair as the official media spokesperson, but if they want to switch out, that's ok, too. >> the timeline, do it at the meeting on the 12th so nominate myself and commissioner bush for either us or remarks or

suggestions to at least come up with the outline of the points that we want to be making and we can talk about them then more explicitly on the 12th and get commission authorization with the benefit of editorial suggestion so that's kind of where i'm going with that. but just as a point of law, is it required that the ethics commission approve their budget so they are one of the commissions that do have that? ok, so i think it came up last year that we didn't actually vote on the budget. i can't recall, because i missed the meeting in january. but we are required to vote on the submittal to the mayor's office or what goes to the board? >> yes, so, as you know, chair ambrose, the first part of the budget process does go to the

mayor and then transmitted to the board where the board can make further cuts or add as it sees fit. in terms of the commission's approval, i know as a matter of there has been a little bit of inconsistency of the explicit approval of the department's budget, i think that's always been the best practice. but the recent budget ordinance that we mentioned at the outset, the media requirements is even more explicit the commission does need to approve the budget. >> ok, and we have to approve the budget to get submitted to the mayor or the budget that the board ultimately adopts? presumably the former. >> yeah, i mean. defer to director to see if she has more specific instructions, but goes to the mayor, the budget's first stop. >> if i might respond. i think in the past the commission, in the past several

years the commission has generally adopted a framework for the budget. because of the timing of the budget, the timing of commission meetings, the commission has not always adopted a specific document that says this is what is going into the mayor's budget proposal, into the mayor's system. so for example, the process this year is the commission's next meeting is february 12th, and, which would be a public meeting on a proposed budget. the budget is not due, i think february 22nd or 23 due to the mayor's office. so we have some significant time constraints. if the commission were to adopt what is actually being submitted, then that would probably require the commission in practice to have a commission meeting again on february, the friday before that submission because in practice, i will tell you with no administrative staff

but technology director, your executive director and the deputy director who will be back at that point, we are always at the very last minute trying to finalize the information we have to submit that document. just for practicality, logistics that in the past have been an issue for us, something we might need to consider as well. i think our thought was that we would be bringing as much as we have as a proposed set of recommendations to that february 12th meeting, at least in the past we have not, likely not in position to have by february 9th, which will be the date we have to post that material, february 9th is the date by which we would have to have a full, complete budget proposal for you, which would be essentially two and a half weeks before the date it's actually due. there are some considerations in we want to work with you on, if you want the budget document finalized by february 9th. >> no, i don't think any of us

are saying that. but what i would like to know, because andrew, you had referenced the ordinance adopted last year that is the occasion for this meeting that we are having today, the 15 days before our requirement. so, can you tell us what the language is? i'm assuming it allows us to take an action on something that contains the essence of the budget but delegate to the executive director to finalize the, you know, various fine points? is that -- can you read the language or give us a clue here? >> i'll try to quickly excerpt the language from the ordinance. ordinance as mentioned that was passed very recently. it says -- let me see -- it

doesn't speak to i think a level of detail that lee anne was speaking to but by no later than february 14th each year there shall be a public meeting in the sections concerning each agency's proposed budget. the proposed budget shall prior the following information, dot dot dot, and allow for the upcoming fiscal year, kind of skipping ahead a bit here, for agencies subject to the oversight of the municipal code, ethics commission -- may satisfy this subsection at a special meeting which it considers final approval of the agency's proposed budget and that's the language i keyed in on, assuming the commission does not actually need to approve the budget. ordinance simply contemplates

that.

>> so that language specifically comes from that ordinance. it is something we plan to have at the february 12th meeting. there is a lot more detail in terms of the line items submitted to the system. the information that i just read to you is information that we would have at the meeting on february 12th. that would be a public meeting. concerning the department's proposed budget. >> icon -- the deadline februar. the ordinance is 21st. that is a sunday. >> the meeting no later than february 14th public meeting. would you characterize the

meeting today as being that meeting or do we have to have the meeting on the 12th with respect to the proposed budget? just for sake of discussion does it help at all if we have instead of the meeting on the 12th if we have a meeting closer to the actual final submission? going back is today the meeting? do we meet the requirements of the february no later than february 14th or is this 15 days before the 14th meeting? >> yes, we are required to have two meeting on the budget. this is the one we have to have at least 15 days in advance of the final meeting. again, i think we understand the point that even after the commission makes the final decision on the propose the budget framework, there is a lot

of work to be done in the background about the items to be spelled out. my understanding that time commission. we don't want to put pressure on staff to get all of that information together. >> just to be clear, since february 14th is sunday, i assume that we would interpret that as being satisfied if there was a meeting on february 15th? so just for you, director, to consider if there is any advantage to moving our meeting from the 12th to the 15th given what you have to accomplish. it is not for you. it is the ninth because the meeting is on the 12th. if there is any advantage, i

would be willing to consider that. we don't have to decide that now over the course of the remaining course of the meeting, commissioners, if you could look at your calendar to see if there is any advantage to pushing our final meeting, still meeting the requirements of the ordinance but giving the staff a chance to have more of the final proposed budget before us, just let us know. >> i would just want to offer that. i think this timeframe moving it back by that timeframe would mean that we would have to post the information publicly by february 10th. i am not sure that pushing back provides meaningful distinction to pull this workout given we are in the midst of interviews

for five hirings underway. it is difficult context. i wish i could say we are able to do this. reality is what we anticipate the workload at that time. >> why do we have to be the tenth if it is 72 hours? is there additional time? if the meeting is the 15th, i assume you could post agenda on friday, the 12th. >> we could comply with requirements given it is a public hearing. the practices to push the deadlines out a bit in advance of the meeting. >> that will be clear. i am suggesting if it is helpful for you because it does presuppose that you are going to have a lot of pretty solid

framework. i guess not really by the ninth, by the 12th. whatever we act on the meeting on the 12th if there are refinements from when you publish to when we act on it, that would be appropriate. okay. i will leave that subject. thank you, mr. shin for that. we should get back to the substance how to manage this challenge. >> commissioner bush. >> i served for four years on the bond oversight committee.

every year we had more funds available than we spent. $2 million each year was sept back to the general -- sent back to the general fund because bonds have a percentage to be given to the controller's office for monitoring and oversight. how that is interpreted is an open question. i want to know, director, have you had discussions about using any of those funds to meet obligations that overlap with ethics? >> we have not to date. i reached out to the controller's office, and we haven't been able to coordinate a time to connect on all things budget related. i will renew that request afternoon ask that question.

>> i think he is open to a relationship in terms of funding sources that they have and needs that we have. i noticed in the mayor's directions on the budget, that one of the statements was that the proposal should include new revenue sources. i don't see anything in the proposal today that includes new revenue sources. is there a reason why that is not included? >> i did not read that to be a must include revenue sources but a possibility. if they have them, we will take them. i agree with you, we should look at that. i have had conversations with the controller's office and that would be useful. we will review that request to see what we can learn and pursue from that lang gel. if we are able -- angle.

if we are able to put something together to be in effect we would be interested in pursuing it. how long it might take to set something like that up and make an impact. i don't have that information yet. we will make sure we get that back to you. >> i think work orders is another potential sources specially when it comes to form 700s. i note that the public utilities is where there is nongeneral fund revenues and that one of the commissioners over there now is "ted" harrington the former controller of the city who is well versed in work orders to assist general fund from nongeneral fund revenues from other departments. that is one place to start. the materials i provided i think

the total nonrevenue fund departments employees who file 700s was about a thousand, which is a long ways towards meeting the obligation. the budget analyst proposal on that was that we carve out first those departments that are more likely to be of significance. that would include departments that had problems by d.p.w. and p.u.c. i recommend that we start with approach to deal with that. also, it calls for us to explain demonstrative outcomes in our budget proposals. i do not see ethics at work showing demonstrated outcome.

i say that because we have already got form 700s filed by people. we have departments that do statements of activities, we have the city attorney's office with annual release of guide to good government. that is like a three-tier process of providing information to city officials about what it is they should be doing. despite that, the people who have been charged criminally all were filing 700s. none of them were ever audited or charged by ethics. we have never charged anybody on form 700 withneg other -- with anything other than late file. now for failing to disclose appropriate information, including whether or not they took trips. it is not there.

providing a couple hundred thousand dollars more in staffs is providing demonstrated outcomes as come peared to hiring investigators and enforcement. as past district attorney told me, nothing educates the public faster than an enforcement action. i think enforcement actions for people that violated their trust and particularly the requirements for ethics as shown in the documents they signed is a good starting point. it would be more than having tutorials for people. i do not favor the funding for ethics at work under these circumstances. i do not see any stated potential outcomes of reducing corruption or anything else. all i see is protect the cover for people who are city

officials who claim they took the classes. i may being that point for consideration as this goes on. commissioner chiu mentioned the point be i raised as well. impact on small business. i think that it would be good for whatever we submit to the mayor to spell out how corruption and rigged contracts is affecting income for small businesses in san francisco, and some of that is spelled out in the controller's audit where he took a look at small business allocations from the p.u.c. and they were rigged in a process that did not provide equal access to small businesses but were based on the buddy system, for lack of a better term.

that is in the material i provided. i think that would be an important leg for us to stand on as we present this to the mayor and to the public. it is a good idea when the mayor sets forth a series of elements she wants included that you address those elements. >> can i interrupt? i saw somewhere someone quote a statistic from a national ethics organization that does the analysis that 10 to 20% of public contract funds are misused. was that something you provided, larry, or something i read in the "new york times" article about the corrupt public

officials our former president just. >> just pardoned? >> when i think about it, it may beings me crazy. it is a rogue gallery. i want to find that statistic. it is not economical to cut ethics. >> i will get you the specific citation. national organization of inspector generals. >> i can give you the data admitting the ppp program did not go to small businesses that needed the money. i can get you those numbers, too. >> i think that all feeds into a

picture of what it is that we value. >> i want to get back to your comment about what exactly is ethics at work and how well, i think, big picture is more resources to build ethical compliance and culture within our work force. i would add among the contractors that the city does business with. whether those resources are simply putting together training protocols. i don't think that was the idea. i thought it was going to be much more hands on and interactive with people in real

circumstances. i agree that if we are going to identify that as a potential solution to addressing the tone at the top, we feed to be more specific about the range of activities that those additional trained staff would engage in to promote ethical behavior. i have some ideas about how you do that. how you change the culture, how you improve the protection from whistleblowers, how you expand. that is what i was talking about the contracting community. if you can expand the universe of people capable of acting as whistleblowers because they see something and know specifically that is not okay, then you also

help protect city employees who want to be whistleblowers but are too afraid because they can't believe they won't be retaliated against because they are the only ones inside the city who would have known about that bad behavior. i can attest that is the motivation on the contracting staff. if they are the only ones that know they are afraid to tell. there is a lot of things that hopefully we can engage in. >> i want to point out that we have a lot of work to be done in order to understand what the ethics obligations are because as it stands now it is not at all clear. for example, who enforces statements of incompatible

activities if someone violates? i have been talking about that with director pellam. does that fall under the director of the department, hr, ethics? i have never seen the violations incompatible activities? what does it do? what do you have to disclose on the form 700. in the city you have to disclose if you are in a regular contact with somebody who has issues before your commission. even if it is unpaid. if you are both on a nonprofit board of supervisors. there is a law that says it has to be disclosed. nothing that says where it is disclosed. i don't know of anyone can fine

where it is disclosed. when you talk about the training we are going to give, you have to start with what is it we are telling people they have to do? we don't know the information as well as we should. that is one of the reasons why we can look to a group like thee center to help us identify what it is that people need to disclose and be more transparent on to obtain ethical government. i would put that ahead of hiring staff or anything else. >> i don't know that they are mutually exclusive. director, you have your hand up. is there something to say at

this moment otherwise i will go to commissioner chiu. >> thank you. i want to make a couple comments in response to the commissioner bush's comments. first of all, if i may correct. we have authority to enforce and have enforced statements of incompatible sifts by department. there is like so many things in our world shared responsibility which can be very confusing and leave people wondering who is responsible to do that in those do need clarified. i think as to the ethics at work program. two points. i would encourage the commission to refresh or take look at the information we provided last month in the executive director's report specifically with regard to training plan for fy21. the training plan we developed

in response to the bla audit recommendation identifies over a three year span various activities we would engage in. resource considerations dependent. fy23 would include reaching out to do training for contractors. the comments you made about the significance of the world of contractors we absolutely do need to get in that arena to identify how to assess what the useful and helpful to get those folks ethics compliant. that is something we are developing. thirdly the piece about ethics at work with respect to partners doing existing work. i think the question commissioner bush is asking i would reframe as perhaps our activities have not effective. we can see the results with the input we see, maybe we need to change the input.

ethics at work is an effort to identify how to better assess the need and meet that need on a regular basis to make an impact. i think on that last point the e ethics at work package identifies how to assess that last year when we submitted to the mayor's office we detailed that like we did with ethics training. i think it is as you all recognize as commissioner bush underscored this is about impact not output. i want to offer those perspectives. there is a significant need for something different. that is what we are proposing here. >> commissioner chiu. your hand is up for a while. then back to commissioner bush for your comments.

>> thank you, chair ambrose. i think that my key take-aways. the city is in a crisis of multiple die mentions. in the crisis the chinese word is way g. danger and opportunity. in the danger is opportunity. now is our opportunity to meet this moment in history of where we are. i think that for us to be successful as an ethics commission in discharges our mandate and fulfilling our obligation to the people of san francisco, i think we need to be bold in our vision and comprehensive in our solutions. really clear about what it is going to take, what we are going to do, what the impact is going

to have and what the resources are required to accomplish those things. i think to commissioner bush's point enforcement to paraphrase gets people's attention. i don't think we need to -- we should choose one over the other. we need to do all of these things. if we only do part, we only have partial success. that is not what we should set our sights on. we have to create a culture through tone at the top. we have to make sure that people know what is allowed, what is permitted and not permitted, the consequences and we need to hold those accountable for those who violation obligations. we need all of those cylinders.

i think there are constraints. if we are serious about having a clean government, then these are the things we need to do. >> go ahead, commissioner bush. just so everybody is thinking. we need to get back to the base budget and alternatives that the director laid out if we are going to provide any -- if anyone has specific preferences so that she has the benefit of that while she is struggling to come up with what she is going to present on the ninth. i want to make sure everybody is thinking about that to do her the favor of going through a, b, c, and d and at least, you know,

highlighting how they strike you. go ahead, commissioner bush. >> i would like to point out the terms of enforcement the board budget analyst reported that it takes between two to three years for an investigation to be completed by ethics. they contrasted with fppc which takes six months and with los angeles and others. we are be hyped the pace of enforcement in other jurisdictions. number one. number two, san francisco is not alone in facing these challenges. in los angeles we have city council members arrested for corruption in similar circumstances to san francisco. same in illinois, in ohio, in

new york. it is a national consequence, i believe, of a failure to have strong national policies when it comes to money and what it is paying for. it falls to each local level where things can be taken off. that is a reality we can collaborate with other jurisdictions about solutions they are finding. i would also like to put on record my belief that we have taxed our staff to the utmost. they work hard. they do good work. we are asking them to do a much more than can be done by human beings under these circumstances. that is why i keep pushing to add additional resources, work orders, something from the controller's office or whether we solicit grants to provide

additional research. i am strong proponent of advisory committees so the legal can take a deeper look at what else is going on elsewhere and what we might do in san francisco because we cannot do it all in house the way. this is not an in-house legal arm in a corporate world. this is a public process, and i think that we need to provide better resources and better commitment. certainly the public has a right to expect action faster than two or three years for an investigation to take place. i would like to see a budget

proposing essential staff needed to bring us to six months for an investigation similar to other jurisdictions. >> that actually is taking us back to the specific proposals. first of all, we have been down one investigator for a year because of disaster service workers. that person is being paid by the ethics commission which we need to call out on the budget. in the options, it would be option d. your based support cuts would also affect them because they would be responsible for their own sunshine ordinance document production or what have you, i

assume, right? >> we have currently the investigator assigned has been the specialist on sunshine. that certainly would the administrative support cuts identified here would speak to the corruption process which is not something the enforcement staff handles. we would have to repossess to the appropriate area of our work. it doesn't have a direct impact on the investigation. >> i haven't committed to mind your various approaches, but it looks to me like of all approaches you avoiding hitting your enforcement investigative staff. >> that was the intention.

>> right. beyond that the engagement and compliance impact if i recall you are saying that the position that we just struggled to obtain for the policy division and got advertised and listed is one that would be sacrificed under this scenario, is that correct? >> no, under approach b as sketched out, the policy positions would not be impacted. >> which one was that? >> approach d. >> i see. if you did suggest to them

strategically if you were going to meet their requirements that you would eliminate the things that we were able to successfully achieve in the last round. that would, meaning the new positions. to meet your budget you just take all of the positions you just so carefully worked hard to advertise and interview some for anyway and say you are not going to fund those. would the theory be that if we were able to win those positions last time would be able to win them again. i assume if you did that, that would screw up any recruitment, engagement with individuals applying for those jobs and would put us back in time.

it is the form 700 and there was another new position you got aside from the policy position? >> client support was dedicated for the project. we are contacting folks to interview in the next week. that window is closed. the policy position we have advertised, the window is closed. we will interview in the next week or two. it would be impacted under this approach. >> under d? >> yes, under d. we would have a position recently vacant in the policy group not filled -- excuse me technology group. that would not be filled.

we would also have the policy position not filled. i may be missing one here. >> i am curious. often one of the first things that happens in trying to meet these annual budget reduction numbers is identifying positions not yet filled in the first round. i was trying to understand how that is reflected in your a through d scenarios. >> more comments then to steven to add on. >> one of the things here is each of the areas would have to be cut. we didn't have specific positions that may be subject to

some change and the focus was more what are we asking that group to do? under approach d, each unit would be cut. which positions those are would be positions we are now filling. i think part of what we are trying to identify if we are facing these kinds of cuts how are we situated with staffing resources to accomplish the most of what we need to accomplish? that is the challenge we are trying to identify. we are trying to retain all resources to do the work necessary. can you clarify what positions those were identified under approach d to make the math work? >> i am trying to calculate this as everybody speaks.

it looks like if you specifically targeted just the new positions that would achieve the cut. it is not a scenario we presented. if you went that approach, you would not need to cut the administrative support. you would be cutting positions in it, policy, enforcement, the audit management position, and in engagement and compliance. there is the position specifically for form 700 e-filing support.

>> thank you. i wanted to know what those positions are. i am assuming this puts you in a really difficult position with respect to the hiring because if you -- you almost have to act as if these cuts could be realize the. how hard is it to offer somebody a job and you are not going to get a reacquisition because it is not in the budget for the following year. if you are going to get delayed in the hiring for all of these

critical positions, how are you going to handle that? that is what i am asking. is there anything we can do to help? >> the way we are handling it now is all candidates who have been applying and we are reaching out to to interview, we want to be transparent about the budget scenario. we will have information about the ongoing conversations how we are thinking about it. i will remind them as late as december at the time the budget instructions were issued. the mayor's office gave us the green light for hiring these positions. that is to me a signal there is some support for recognition that is critical to accomplish what everybody is talking about over the last six months. that is certainly conveys our

commitment to move forward the every ounce of capacity to fill these seats. this is work that needs done. these are resources we need on staff. to move ahead filling positions as we have plans to that would under the mayor's impact have consequences for what else we might have to cut. these are trade offs that this requires us to assess. what resources to get the work done that we need to? the ongoing discussions one the budget is submitted with all of the documentation, then it is ongoing negotiation and discussion with the mayor's office. if they believe the cuts they identified for us are cuts they believe should be imposed. after the mayor proposes the

budget then the board of supervisors has the opportunity to weigh in if they think the mayor's budget recommendations make sense. in the past they made adjustments so we were able to fill the investigator position. you all know this is a long process and we don't have clean answers until the budget is signed. as a strategy for those interested in working with us we want to be transparent and encouraging. we know as organization we need these positions and these roles to be filled to do the work we started to do that we would have to do even if we were facing significant restructuring of the organization because of budget cuts that may be imposed. that is the best i can tell you based on what i understand the situation to be and how i would hope we could proceed through the budget process.

>> i would like to go around to get the benefit of not asking for a vote across the board or that we achieve consensus to give the directors feedback about what your priorities are to quote commissioner chiu. this is where the rubber hits the road. you have to at least express your preferences. i would say in my case i am strongly opposed to approach c. i don't want to back off the he filing of form 700. i think that even more than additional training and support for staff, getting that raw -- not just disclosure out there but exercise that all of those

filers will have in knowing that information is going to be generally available to the public. i think it is a really important spotlight on the requirements in filing your form 700 and what the law is trying to achieve in terms of not accepting illegal gifts. i would not be a fan at all of apapproach c. i think that after protecting that effort i think this it is more important to protect enforcement where we are lagging than it is on the engagement and compliance because as we know we are not going to have an election until 2022. that would be -- march of 2022

if there is a primary that year, but that is when we would get, i don't know, money from heaven to get us through the primary season and answering people's questions about compliance. beyond that broad-based cuts. i want you to look at can you get out of your real estate contract assuming that your staff would not all quit if they had to keep working from home through july of 2022. those are my limited reactions. commissioner lee.

>> i have to leave in a few minutes. i want to express my views. any of the options -- is a pill to swallow. enforcement is top priority right now for the city. i would propose that we do what other governments do. you have to do something against your will, maybe we can attach a finding second statement of sorts to really express our dismay, to protest what we have to do, but also outline what we

expect to move forward throughout the budget process. i propose we prioritize enforcement and do a public statement to be on the record so people do not think that we are making a choice. we are making a difficult choice, however, these are our principles. regardless of the budget these are the principles that we will continue to guide the commission throughout the next budget processor ongoing process. >> thank you, commissioner lee.

she has advised me she was going to have to leave at a certain point for another meeting. thank you for that feedback. i might be in touch with you in between this meeting and the next one, commissioner lee, to talk about drafting the protest statement. i would be happy to work on that with you but it is something we would want to bring to the commission. at least we could highlight that. i think on the op-ed i would be happy to work with commissioner bush and commissioner chiu if we can share those in advance with you, maybe you can provide feedback at the commission meeting specific editorial comments if that would work. i know you have a full-time job

and full-time kids. we will give you the editor's pen. commissioner bush if you can work on an op-ed we will figure out where our consensus is at ethics at work. i would want to highlight the importance of training and education. we need to go back to look at director's proposal to be clear about what we are talking about. commissioners chiu and bush if you can give the feedback on a through d if you have any at this time. commissioner bush i see your hand up. >> in terms of the form 700s, i think that immediately we should ask for the april filings that are being done on paper to be submitted to ethics in a pdf.

no reason to wait a year to make these electronic when the public will know who is having to feel and at least see a paper document of what it is they are filing. i suggest those be organized by department. that is where most people want to go. i think that is very do-able. we are already filling them out and submitting to the commission secretary. >> i will ask you about that. i had heard about that before. before i forget staff would have to look into this. it seems to me that we could assign that if the mayor or the other commissions involved could assign that task to their department staff who are directing those. i happen to know working for the city you can take a stack of paper and put in the top of a

xerox machine and it will make a pdf of every one of those pages but why don't we protect our staff and have the pu p.u.c. and d.p.w. ask them to post on their websites. then on our website we could have a note that says if you want to see all of the filers at these departments go to this list of websites. that would be one thing we would do as opposed to if they all send us, not me, copies of 3600pdfs and somebody at ethics has to get them organized and posted on the website.

that is work we are doing when they could more easily do that. i don't know if they would object. if you can think about that, director, and get back to us on the 12th to talk about the logistics. was these are filed, they are public records. there shouldn't be any issue about posting them. commissioner bush a through d. do you have any specific aside from your very thoughtful and lengthy comments which provides feedback but did you have any time comments on what you want to see coming back to us on the 12th? >> close look at the proposals which are different from mine but intriguing and worthwhile frothter marks.

i don't know if you are aware of ms. esther marks. she was a treasure of a number of campaigns for candidates and ballot measures. she is well versed in ethics and in the reality of government work and political work. she offers insights that are something we should welcome hearing. >> we need to ask for public comment. >> will be brief, thank you. i would concur with the priority of preserving the enforcement and audit function and the importance of maintaining

momentum in 700 filings. that would be in line with your remarking earlier. i would be interested to have more information at the next meeting about the hiring freeze of the four positions. in the corporate world the first thing leaders do with budget shortfall is stop new positions from coming in to preserve the work force of today and then certainly have the staff on hand to do the work as currently contemplated. we could do more work if you brought on the four new hires to cover the $72,000 in salary

reductions. i would be interested in exploring that as well. >> i will shift to ask you to read instructions for members of the public who want to comment so that we can find out if anyone is out there. >> we are checking for callers. those on hold please continue to wait until the system indicated you are unmuted. we are on the public discussion on the motion of item 3, presentation public hearing and possible hearing on budget priorities for the fiscal year 2022, july 1, 2021 through june 30, 2022. please press star three to be added to the public comment queue. you have three minutes to provide public comment, six minutes with an interpreter. a bell will go off when you have 30 seconds remaining. stand by.

>> we have callers in the queue. >> welcome, callers, your three minutes begins now.

>> can you hear us? next caller. >> i heard in the past there are people problems communicating with us.

>> there is an echo. >> i don't know the problem. >> go ahead. we can hear you. >> first, i have enjoyed the discussion. i am encouraged that the commission is proactively advocating for the department budget. i wanted to put in perspective what was said. i will quote from the budget analyst audit. she writes department planning tools communicate goals that do not demonstrate effectiveness for ethics function.

within city government that is a major limitation of the ethics commission. they are not taken seriously, not considered a department where concerns can be dealt with. that is why i feel that it is important that the area of investigations and enforcement take priority. i am sorry. i disagree about the form 700. when you look at that as an example the former director of department of public works did not list on his form 700 the gifts that he received that are now under investigation. because the department is not considered effective, people can disclose whatever information they want and not suffer any questionses. also, the issue of the length of time for any investigation to be

carried out is another limitation. as an example one of the former members of the ethics commission filed a complaint in 2016 and it still has not been resolved. when things like that happen, it is hard for the department to be taken seriously. i think we have to focus your activities on investigation, activities and budget on investigation and enforcement so you will be viewed in a different light. how much more time do i have? for me that is my main point. >> it could help if you have a

computer, if you mute if you continue to speak. >> maybe i will e-mail you how to do that. i don't know. >> thank you, caller. >> that was the only caller in the queue.

we are on agenda item 3. budget priorities for the fiscal year 2022. press star 3 to be added to the public comment. you will have three minutes to provide comment, six minutes with the interpreter. you will hear a bell with 30 seconds remaining. please stand by. we have no further callers in the queue. >> public comment is closed on agenda item 3.

director, did you have any further comments or materials to present on this item before we move to the final item? >> no. thank you, chair ambrose. i think the feedback is very helpful. we look forward to capturing those notes and providing the information at the next meeting. if there is any further questions i would be happy to answer them offline after the meeting or anytime. i don't have anything further at this time. >> just to follow up, i will reach out to commissioner lee to work on a statement. a signing statement where we submit it but we don't support the reduced budget and op-ed to

follow along and be more publicly directed as opposed to directed at the budget analyst and board of supervisors between now and the ninth, the day before the ninth so that whatever draft we might want to circulate would be part of the public agenda package. because of two of us can't work with a third, commissioner chiu, you would see that document when it went public. my request would be to take out your red pen and fix them to the extent that you have done and bring that to the meeting. then we can get comments from everybody on that. i like things that are short and to the point. if i am going to read letters to the editor, i am not going to read a book. i want somebody to be bold and

clear. we will work on that. item 4. public matters not on the an generalda. article 7 section 2. if any member of the public wants to comment dial in now and enter star 3 to be added to the public comment. if you could provide instructions to call in for additional public comment. >> if you have just joined us we are on public discussion on agenda item 4. additional opportunities for

public comment on matters on or not on the agenda. article 7, section 2. press star 3 to be added to the queue. you will have three minutes, six minutes with an interpreter. you will hear the bell at 30 seconds remaining. please stand by. >> we have a caller in the queue. >> welcome, caller. your three minutes begins now. it is the same individual who commented earlier. you were on here twice, once with a telephone number and one

with your name. you still have your hand up but i do see they are not paying attention. it was the same individual from before. maybe that is why we had the echoing and maybe she didn't shut this one off. we are not getting a response from her. caller, are you there? there are no more callers in the queue, madam chair. >> thank you.

public comment on agenda item 4 is closed. i will close agenda 5 adjournment. do i have a motion to adjourn the meeting? >> so moved. >> seconded by commissioner bush. on the motion moved and seconded to adjourn the meeting. please call the roll. >> commissioner bush. >> yes. >> commissioner chiu. >> yes. >> vice chair lee. >> she is excused. >> chair ambrose. >> yes, i agree we should adjourn. with that the meeting is adjourned. see you on the 12th. i will be in touch with you between now and then. bask in the glory of our new administration. have a good week. take care.

good-bye.

>> i view san francisco almost as a sibling or a parent or something. i just love the city. i love everything about it. when i'm away from it, i miss it like a person. i grew up in san francisco kind of all over the city. we had pretty much the run of the city 'cause we lived pretty close to polk street, and so we

would -- in the summer, we'd all all the way down to aquatic park, and we'd walk down to the library, to the kids' center. in those days, the city was safe and nobody worried about us running around. i went to high school in spring valley. it was over the hill from chinatown. it was kind of fun to experience being in a minority, which most white people don't get to experience that often. everything was just really within walking distance, so it make it really fun. when i was a teenager, we didn't have a lot of money. we could go to sam wong's and get super -- soup for $1. my parents came here and were drawn to the beatnik culture. they wanted to meet all of the

writers who were so famous at the time, but my mother had some serious mental illness issues, and i don't think my father were really aware of that, and those didn't really become evident until i was about five, i guess, and my marriage blew up, and my mother took me all over the world. most of those ad ventures ended up bad because they would end up hospitalized. when i was about six i guess, my mother took me to japan, and that was a very interesting trip where we went over with a boyfriend of hers, and he was working there. i remember the open sewers and gigantic frogs that lived in the sewers and things like that. mostly i remember the smells very intensely, but i loved japan. it was wonderful. toward the end. my mother had a breakdown, and that was the cycle. we would go somewhere, stay for a certain amount of months, a

year, period of time, and she would inevitably have a breakdown. we always came back to san francisco which i guess came me some sense of continuity and that was what kept me sort of stable. my mother hated to fly, so she would always make us take ships places, so on this particular occasion when i was, i think, 12, we were on this ship getting ready to go through the panama canal, and she had a breakdown on the ship. so she was put in the brig, and i was left to wander the ship until we got to fluorfluora few days later, where we had a distant -- florida a few days later, where we had a distant cousin who came and got us. i think i always knew i was a writer on some level, but i kind of stopped when i became a cop. i used to write short stories,

and i thought someday i'm going to write a book about all these ad ventures that my mother took me on. when i became a cop, i found i turned off parts of my brain. i found i had to learn to conform, which was not anything i'd really been taught but felt very safe to me. i think i was drawn to police work because after coming from such chaos, it seemed like a very organized, but stable environment. and even though things happening, it felt like putting order on chaos and that felt very safe to me. my girlfriend and i were sitting in ve 150d uvio's bar, and i looked out the window and i saw a police car, and there was a woman who looked like me driving the car. for a moment, i thought i was me. and i turned to my friend and i said, i think i'm supposed to do this. i saw myself driving in this car. as a child, we never thought of police work as a possibility

for women because there weren't any until the mid70's, so i had only even begun to notice there were women doing this job. when i saw here, it seemed like this is what i was meant to do. one of my bosses as ben johnson's had been a cop, and he -- i said, i have this weird idea that i should do this. he said, i think you'd be good. the department was forced to hire us, and because of all of the posters, and the big recruitment drive, we were under the impression that they were glad to have us, but in reality, most of the men did not want the women there. so the big challenge was constantly feeling like you had to prove yourself and feeling like if you did not do a good job, you were letting down your entire gender. finally took an inspector's

test and passed that and then went down to the hall of justice and worked different investigations for the rest of my career, which was fun. i just felt sort of buried alive in all of these cases, these unsolved mysteries that there were just so many of them, and some of them, i didn't know if we'd ever be able to solve, so my boss was able to get me out of the unit. he transferred me out, and a couple of weeks later, i found out i had breast cancer. my intuition that the job was killing me. i ended up leaving, and by then, i had 28 years or the years in, i think. the writing thing really became intense when i was going through treatment for cancer because i felt like there were so many parts that my kids didn't know. they didn't know my story, they didn't know why i had a relationship with my mother, why we had no family to speak of. it just poured out of me. i gave it to a friend who is an editor, and she said i think this would be publishable and i

think people would be interested in this. i am so lucky to live here. i am so grateful to my parents who decided to move to the city. i am so grateful they did. good afternoon. welcome to the january 19, 2021 special meeting of the san francisco board of supervisors. would you please call the roll. >> supervisor chan. >> present. >> supervisor haney. >> present. >> supervisor mandelman. >> present. >> supervisor mar. >> present. >> supervisor melgar. >> might be