>> supervisor mar: since you were giving shot out to your district and venues. i want to acknowledge the riptide. one of the few live music venues in my district. i just remember, there was a question about the legislation and cultural districts. the legislation that gets prioritize venues in cultural district. it's true on the website, we don't have existing cultural districts. i wanted to ask the question about that. that was one of a number of different criterias that would help in prioritization of the fund. >> supervisor haney: exactly.

you don't need to be in a cultural district to be able to apply or to qualify. it's one of the number of different factors that can be considered in the prioritization including being in danger of closing and certain size, various factors, not having received other moneys. it's one of the factors that will be considered. >> supervisor mar: thanks again for all your work on this. >> supervisor haney: we have all the venues that called in. i know we appreciate and have memories in and we all benefit from having these venues in our city. we need to make sure that we support you. with that, i want to move to forward to the board with a positive recommendation. can we have a roll call vote

please. [roll call vote] is there any other business in front of us today? >> clerk: there's no other business. >> supervisor haney: this meeting is adjourned. thank you all.

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.

>> welcome to the february #, 2021 meeting of the land use and transportation committee of the san francisco board of supervisors. i'm supervisor myrna melgar, joined by vice chair preston and supervisor peskin. the clerk is erica major. and i would like to acknowledge sfgov-tv, thank you for staffing this meeting. madam clerk, do you have any announcements? >> clerk: yes, due to the covid-19 health emergency, and to protect the board members and the employees and the public, the board of supervisors legislative chamber and committee room are closed. however, members will participate remotely. this precaution is taken to the stay-at-home order and declarations and directives. the committee members will attend through video conference and participate in the meeting to the same extent as if physically present. public comment will -- [broken

audio] and sfgov-tv.org are streaming the number across the screen. each speaker is allowed two minutes to speak. comments are opportunities to speak during the public comment period and are available view phone by calling the number 1-(415)-655-0001. again, that number is 1-(415)-655-0001 and the meeting i.d. is 146 646 6079 again, 146 646 6079. and then press pound and pound again. when connecting you will hear the meeting discussion but you will be in mute and listening mode only. when your interest item comes up press star, 3, to be add to the speaker line. speak clearly and slowly and turn down your radio or tv. and you can submit by emailing myself eicca.org... and if you

submit public comment via email it's forwarded to the supervisors and made part of the official file. written comments may be submitted via u.s. postal service to city hall 1 doctor carl goodlet place, san francisco, california, 94102. and finally, items acted upon today are expected to appear on the board of supervisor's agenda of february 9th, unless otherwise stated. madam chair. >> chair melgar: thank you so much. please call the first item. >> clerk: yes. item 1 is an emergency ordinance to restrict landlords from evicting tenants for non-payment of rent due to the covid-19 pandemic. to provide comment call the number on the screen, 1-(415)-655-0001.

and the meeting i.d. is 146 646 6079. and then press pound and pound again. if you have not done so already, dial star, and then three to line up to speak. the system prompt will indicate that you have raised your hand. madam chair? >> supervisor moliga: , supervisor preston will you provide your remarks? >> supervisor preston: thank you for getting this on the calendar and this was an emergency ordinance and very time sensitive when introduced. i would like to do -- to address it and i will be making a motion after remarks to continue the item to the call of the chair. before today, madam chair, and the emergency ordinance to extend the eviction protections for non-payment of rent due to covid-related financial

hardships. we introduced this item on january 19th, i was at the request of the tenant advocate community, who are expressing that the renters that were impacted and the folks they were counselling, were understandably terrified that the existing protections that were laid out under the state bill a.b.-38 were to expire on january 31st. yesterday, and although there were ongoing discussions of extending the state-wide protections there was a palpable fear that that would not materialize before the february rent and months of back rent became due. and so in response we have introduced this emergency ordinance which sought to extend by 60 days the local eviction protections that we currently have in place in san francisco to cover rent starting february 1st. then on monday last week, we learned about the new proposal

sb-11, the state level, that would extend the state-wide eviction law through june of this year. as well as create a program for rent relief. this bill was unveiled really at the last minute, negotiated primarily between the governor and leadership of the senate and the assembly without tenant advocates participating to a large extent, as far as i know, without a lot of input even from our s.f. san francisco legislators and delegation in the capitol. this was a leadership deal, left no time for amendments, no real opportunity for public input. no hearing such as this for the public to call in and to be heard. it was passed on thursday last week and then signed into law by the governor on friday. this news i greet with mixed feelings. in an immediate sense, the state bill provides some peace of mind

for impacted tenants that are worried about what would happen today on february 1st, when so many folks had their rent come due. so there's a five-month window before evictions are allowed to move forward and that is certainly very important and good news, particularly in parts of the state that don't have a city council or a board of supervisors that has been passing protections against evictions where these state protections are the only protections that exist at all. so given the proposed 60-day effective period of the emergency legislation that's here before us in committee, and given the length and the timing of the state-wide extension provided by sb-91, and given the state preemption -- and i will address this a bit more in a minute -- but the state preemption of any further covid

non-payment protections locally, i don't believe that our legislation needs to move forward today and as such as i have mentioned we'll make a motion to continue it to the call of the chair. before i do make that motion, i just wanted to share some additional thoughts on these developments and, obviously, things have been moving quickly with good news and bad news across the board here. but, you know, i think that broadly speaking, it is a positive step for the state to step in with a proposal to have protections and rent relief in california. but i see three real problems here. one is the limited nature of what was passed. and the second was how it was done. and the third is the actions by the state in tying the hands of local government. so from the first point, what was done here is just not enough

and it does not meet the needs of the moment. the state has the power to issue a complete and comprehensive eviction moratorium. the governor's press releases since early in the pandemic continue to inaccurately to portray his actions as if there is a broad eviction moratorium in place in california. and the problem is that the reality hasn't really matched up with those public statements. the governor has not and apparently will not issue a true eviction moratorium, nor has the legislature in california stepped up to pass that kind of true protection for folks who are struggling during this pandemic. as for the rent relief part of the program, that program is voluntary. it will do some good in some cases but for most vulnerable tenants, the bill will leave them on the hook for 75% of their rent.

better than being on the hook for 100% of their rent. but it's not relief and the state needs to step up in a more robust and bold way. second from my discussions with state-wide advowicates and i alluded to this earlier, the -- the tenant advocates were completely shut out of this process, despite months of dedicated organizing. and to wait to the last minute and then fast track such important policy decisions, to do that without the folks who represent those most vulnerable and have expertise on evictions, who for months have been demanding to be heard in this process, i think that it's a textbook way to make poor public policy. and i think it shows in the resulting policy, which will leave most tenants vulnerable and in growing and massive debt. and, third, and perhaps worst of all, the initial reading of

sb-91 indicates that efforts to provide stronger local protections will be preempted by the new bill. so even if after recognizing these potential shortcomings in the state law, san francisco wanted to pursue additional stronger local anti-displacement measures to protect tenants who are unable to pay rent because of covid, it appears that our hands have to some extent been tied by state. and i just want to say because we become a little numb to what some of these words mean and we hear them all the time -- preset. ion and state versus local -- you know, it's really outrageous i think that the state government would be acting to stop localities like san francisco from going beyond what they're providing in state law when it comes to protecting our own residents. it is one thing for the state to set the floor of minimum

protection. and we could criticize whether they went far enough. but they set a floor. and to allow cities to add to that locally, that's what the states should have done. it's quite another for the state to create some protections, but then wrap up in those protections bans on local legislative bodies taking additional steps to protect their residents. and i strongly object to that. and really i would say to the governor and to the leadership in sacramento, shame on you for including any preemption provisions in a bill of this kind as we're all working -- i would hope all working -- to try to prevent displacement and alleviate rent debt that tenants are struggling under. the final thing, my office has also introduced legislation similar to what's on our agenda today that's not an emergency

ordinance. it's a permanent amendment to the administrative code, a regular ordinance. and that will come before this committee in the future and i do intend to -- to use that as a vehicle really to explore every opportunity to protect our most vulnerable tenants, including protections that extend out beyond the state preemption, which runs through june. so with that and just relative to the items before us today we would like to make a motion to continue the item to the call of the chair, thank you, chair melgar. >> chair melgar: thank you for your astute analysis and comments as always. supervisor peskin, did you have some comments of your own? >> supervisor peskin: thank you, madam chair. i wholeheartedly associate myself with the comments that you just made.

i am highly reluctant to score any recall of any kind, but i do believe that this governor is completely out of touch. i am quite despondent that there was no communication with the cities like san francisco, and other similarly situated cities. this notion of preemption that i think that you did a remarkably good job of explaining, you said it just right. it should set minimum standards. this city, along with many others that has been fighting for repeal of the ellis act, which the real estate industry got their way with in sacramento, mostly folks like us get elected to local government to make the best and right decisions for our local

population which in the case of san francisco even during covid remains a two-thirds renters' town. and the fact that the state of california is using their powers to preempt the city and county of san francisco and other similarly situated governments is as you have said truly outrageous. having said that, i will support just as a function of what has happened relative to sb-91, the continuance of this matter but i stand with you. >> chair melgar: thank you, supervisor peskin. madam clerk, do we have any public comment? >> clerk: thank you, madam chair. we have two listeners and one in queue. and we have mr. koe assisting us today with the callers. so if you could please unmute the first caller.

>> caller: hello committee, i wanted to thank you for letting me speak and thank you madam chairperson. i'm justin goodman, an associate attorney with zachman and patterson and i'm here representing the san francisco apartment association and the small property owners of san francisco. what i wanted to share with the committee which, obviously, the committee is well aware, is california sb-91 was signed into law last friday and has immediate effect and we agree with the statements of supervisor preston that it supersede the local authority in this area. while you're speaking on this, we had particular concerns with -- i know this is an emergency ordinance, but like the rent increase moratorium it obviously could be extended and this was written in an open-ended language to allow further continuances, particularly with san francisco's smaller property owners. we thought that it was overbroad

in including section 37.9, sub-b of the administrative code that is an exemption on the provisions for owners who rent bedrooms out of their own apartments and we thought that impaired our small property owners' right of privacy. but in general this is something that needs state-wide attention and unfortunately has gotten it and we appreciate that sb-91 has sought relief for landlords which is something that is absent from our local regulations in this area. and, again, particularly with the small property owners, many would have had difficulty meeting their own costs, including mortgages with lenders now suggesting they need to pay or they'll be in default and lose not only their rent units but also their homes when they have not received rent for a year. so we appreciate that california has enacted what we perceive as a more balanced solution to this problem. and, certainly, there should be and can be more voices at the table in future legislation, but in the meantime we believe that this occupies the field and

preserves section 11.7905 of the code of civil procedure that has the supremacy of state law in this area and we urge the board, obviously, to understand what supervisor preston has pointed out in that for the time being that there's no local authority to act in this area. thank you very much for your time. >> and, madam chair -- >> chair melgar: thank you, mr. goodman. yes, supervisor preston. >> supervisor preston: i'm not going to engage in a back and forth dialogue with the last speaker, but i will note for the record that in the early months of the pandemic, the san francisco apartment association repeatedly reported -- what is my personal experience as a small landlord in san francisco, that the vast majority of their tenants were paying 100 cents on the dollar. so we've seen less of those reports from the apartment association, but i believe that the comments of the last speaker

are not actually supported by that. >> chair melgar: thank you, supervisor peskin. do we have any other public comments, madam clerk. >> clerk: thank you, madam chair. can you confirm that there aren't any other callers? again, if you would like to be in the queue you would press star, 3, and you would see your number on our side and we can admit you. >> madam chair, we have no callers in the queue. >> chair melgar: great. so with that, public comment is now closed. and there is a motion on the floor. madam clerk, do you -- i'm sorry -- yes, vice chair -- >> sorry. i did want to comment briefly before we vote and just in light of the comment. you know, i just want to -- to make it clear that when -- when

there is a reference by one of the leading >> you may observe through sfgovtv and sfgovtv channel 26. they may offer public comment by calling the public comment phone number. i would like to welcome the members of public and staff watching us live on sfgovtv.

the commission thanks you for your patience during these unprecedented times. we ask the public to have patience and expect delays and gaps during the meeting, particularly during public comment. i want to thank members of the staff and those three people out there in sfgovtv land today helping us behind-the-scenes who make this possible today, especially facilitating public comment. to eliminate background please mute yourself when not speaking. secretary, please take the roll. >> commissioner knutzen. >> present. >> president janet spears. >> present. >> commissioner bittner. >> present. >> commissioner jung.

>> she is present. >> commissioner carrington. >> present. >> commissioner lum. >> present. >> commissioner sklar. >> present. >> i am pleased to note that the executive director is present. we have a quorum. >> thank you. commissioners, the next item 3 is communications. we would like to provide further instructions for the public comment process. it is available on each item on the agenda and during general public comment. channels 26 and sfgovtv are streaming the number on the screen. each speaker is allowed three minutes to speak. comments or opportunities to speak during the public comment period are available via phone call. during each period you will be instructed to call 415-655-0001.

access code (146)600-2837-pound pound. when connected you will hear the meeting discussions you will be in his senning mode only. when your item comes up dial star three to be added to the speaker line. call from a quiet location, speak clearly and slowly, turndown your television or radio. you have three minutes to speak. you will be informed when you have 30 seconds left. then you will be placed back to listening mode. alternatively public comment can be submitted by e-mail. if you submit public comment via e-mail it will be included as part of the official docket. are there any communications

from the staff, commissioners, at this time? >> commissioners next is agenda item 4. approving the wednesday, januar. any comments or questions from the minutes? we have all reviewed them. >> madam secretary, is there anyone from the public who wishes to comment on this item? >> please open the phone lines for public comment. we will allow time for callers to submit their request. any callers in the queue? >> there are no callers in the queue. >> hearing no further request to

speak. is there a motion to approve the january 6, 2021 commission meeting minutes? >> motion to approve the meeting. >> it is moved by commissioner carrington. i saw commissioner jung for second. can you please take a roll call vote to approve the january 6, 2021 minutes. >> president knutzen. >> yes. >> vice president janet spears. >> yes. >> commissioner bittner. >> yes. >> commissioner carrington. >> yes. >> commissioner jung. >> commissioner jung.

>> yes. >> commissioner lum. >> yes. >> commissioner sklar. >> yes. >> thank you. we have the vote unanimous. >> thank you so much. commissioners, item 5 is executive director's report. please begin your report. welcome. >> thank you. i just want to start off by saying to everyone happy black history month. this is an exciting month. it certainly is a time to celebrate the contributions of black african-americans in the united states, but certainly in

san francisco so i hope that everybody is doing something special to honor this month. i am going to start as usual with my report by talking about the federal level with respect to the populations that we serve. i was remiss last time when i talked about the most recent stimulus package that did come out. i said it didn't have a lot for older adults. it was true. it did have money for food banks and for some programs that do help serve older adults. it didn't have anything specifically for people with disabilities. however, i forgot to say there was money in that stimulus package for elder abuse and justice issues. this is noteworthy. it is the first time there is funding at the federal level to address elder abuse and elder

justice. jill reminded me to say something about it. hopefully it is the beginning of federal investment in this very important area so just wanted to say that. also, i want to say that on january 21st, president biden unveiled in his 23 page plan a list of executive orders a road map with priorities to respond to the current health and economic crisis. within that plan are several opportunities for the aging and disability network and addvo cats to assume leadership roles to ensure needs of older americans and caregivers are addressed. the national association is tracking this closely, and as i hear from them about opportunities that arise for our advocacy, i will let all of you

know. i just think that we have opportunities here. i think we are also going to have to make sure our voices are heard so that in a time of kind of this continuing unfolding crisis we need to make sure that the needs of people with disabilities and older adults are raised up. while i think that we have a lot of opportunities to get some traction in these areas, we can't let our guard down. more immediately, speaker pelosi and new democratic majority are setting up fast track budget process to lay out the legislative foundation for what is to be a nearly 2 trillion-dollar emergency response. i know probably many of you have been following this. advocacy is really needed to ensure that the needs of older people and people with disabilities are met in this

plan. whatever channels you have we need to use those to ensure older adults and people with disabilities are not left out and there are plenty of dollars in the stimulus to ensure that things like food security, thinking about equitable vaccine rollout, all of the things that go along with those happen. anyway, hopefully, we can each do our part on that. at the state level, now that the governor released the master plan for aging, the california department is beginning the aging process. the state is setting up work groups long-term supports for aging and disability, equity and aging and elder abuse and justice. they are creating an implementation committee for policy oversight.

right now on the state the california department of aging website they have listed these work groups and they are looking to recruit people for the work groups. they are looking for professionals in the field in these various areas and looking for people who are consumers of services or people with older adults with disabilities. if you are interested or know people who might be, please look at the website and consider applying. it is hopefully we will have a diverse group of people in each of these work groups, thinking through all of the processes with the state. the plan for aging stakeholder committee continued to meet. our official roleout with the state is done. we have continued to meet to

give feedback to the state on the various pieces of the master plan. the committee is consumed with vaccinations. we are concerned about the governor's age only focus. recent analysis by disability rights education and defence fund shows many people with disabilities are at high risk of consequences and death for covid. it does not allow priority for vaccinations. yesterday the master plan advisory committee sent a strongly worded letter to the state protesting this inequitable policy. at the local level, there is a lot going on with the vaccine right now. we are fortunate to have cindy kaufman participate anything the department of public health senior hub providing advice on our approach with older people and people with disabilities. there are bullet points she sent me to talk about.

i heard from a few of you concerned about the rollout and the confusion. our department is continuing to work with the department of public health and emergency management and the mayor's office on disability to try to work on things like messaging to older adults and people with disabilities about the availability of the vaccine, how people can access it, going through health providers. like many things that happened throughout covid, the beginning of this is a little bumpy. i think it is starting to smooth out, but it may be a little confusing for the next week or two. the vaccine part of what is driving it is the supply is limited. vaccine distribution in san francisco healthcare providers and department of public health is really limited, inconsistent and unpredictable making planning very bumpy.

large healthcare providers, va and providers are receive from the state which makes it hard to coordinate with the department of public health being the lead. it is hard when they don't have all of the data and information they need. people have been instructed they will receive vaccines from healthcare providers, because each provider has received different allocations, it has been confusing. to ensure that critical partners receive the vaccine, all of our cvos are on a big sheet to schedule vaccinations. we have some folks that meet the criteria, department of public health has final say. we have done outreach by phone and e-mail to all of the cvos

requesting the staffing, staff members needing vaccinations. we haven't gotten response. we have done additional outreach and will continue to do so. there are definitely more distributions sites coming online. you probably heard there is a new site in the mission for mission residents, there is one in bayview now for residents, big ones like city college and moscone center and sf market. they are continuing to really think at the policy group how to roll out the vaccines in an equitable way, work like we have done with a lot of other efforts. think about doing mass sites and really thinking about the broader community as well as

thinking about the specific needs of communities hardest hit by covid. ihss and contractors are working hard to get providers and recipients vaccinated. we conducted it vaccination education sessions and those are continuing to be very well attended. we have them in multiple languages. it is nice to see people taking advantage of that. that is where we are with the vaccine. i know i have been on calls multiple calls daily. nicole bond the director of the mayor's office on disabilities is deeply embedded in the conversations and working hard to make sure that we are getting the right messaging to people so people are not confused by the process. again, it is bumpy. we will continue working on this

until it is smooth and much more clear for people. one of the things we are doing. the great place program that supplies restaurant meals to people. we are planning for. we don't know when the program will ramp down, but we are working with the staff to create a ramp down program so that we are ready when that program ramps down. either when fema says we are no longer in the emergency phase where we need to supply the meals and people are free to go out or the city says our costs are too great with this program, let's figure out another way to provide services. we will work closely with nonprofit partners and with the great place partners and working hard to ensure that people who continue to need food will get

it. finally, i wanted to say the human services agency submitted the racial equity plan to the office of racial equity. i am thankful and we are all thankful to the team that put that plan together. it was a lot of work. the racial equity officer for our human services agency, a lot of you worked hard on it as well. we talked a little bit what was in that. the primary focus of this first piece of that plan is really thinking about our internal practices with respect to human resources and things like accessibility for staff and and

sessbuilt for -- accessibility for clients. we are thinking about equity, inclusion, belonging, how we recruit and promote, disciplinary actions and taking a deep look at those to make sure we are equitable. our next phase of that work will include our community partners. one of the things that goes in that first phase is ensuring that we are going through the bias and equity training. as we mentioned when we had the presentation a few months ago, the commissioners will be included in that training as well as our staff. you will be hearing more about that. finally, in the equity area, one of the things we are doing is

doing some deeper dives to get a better sense of the community needs. we will over the next few months we are going to have staff teams. we are going to be working to really understand the needs of certain communities that will be the black african-american community, asian pacific islander communities. we are looking at asian older adults and people with disabilities and also the subgroups there. thinking about south asians and southeast asians, and then, you know, just the whole asian group and subgroups. reaching out to think about the needs of pacific islanders and also latin x populations.

lgbq. we have staff groups who are working with the dc leading the work from the planning team and sheep is phenomenal. we will work to train these teams. we have staff facilitators who are engaged and excited. we will work with the board of supervisors because they know the communities well. we will work to identify people in the communities we should reach out to, hear from, we will have focus groups and listening sessions. the whole idea is to understand from communities what services they are currently using we provide, what they think might be missing, whether there are accessibility issues to our services and things like that. we see there is a precursor to the next big fields assessment. we are getting to the point where we are ready to launch

that. that is my report today. i am happy to take any questions you may have. >> thank you. any questions? >> two questions. the needs assessment. when will that launch? second question is about any idea from cindy leading the dph team if we think the vaccines will start flowing to the communities from the feds and the state to the counties? any insight into it? we have a better plan on the ground, which is wonderful, distribution sites. i am curious if there is any communication coming from the new administration.

i am trying to connect the dots between what is happening on the ground. >> i think we don't have a clearance about that. i have heard a number of things from state partners and from our n4a partners as well as federal level. it is probably going to take another few months before we start to see the volume that we need to see to really make a dent. right now we are, of course, having to prioritize at a high level. we don't have clearances. i think what we are trying to tell people. obviously, well maybe not obvious, but san francisco has laid out a plan to vaccinate the majority of people by the end of june. that will be, of course, really important to have enough vaccine to achieve that.

i think there is a lot of hope with the new administration and with the plans that president biden has laid out, and kind of opened the possibility of really ramping up vaccine production as i am sure you have seen and i know this from the news more than anything, but we don't have a really good answer for that yet. i think we are still telling people to be patient and we will roll it out as we get vaccine in. the other question, the next year starts the process on the next needs assessment. this project that we are doing is launching now. we had two launch sessions with staff last week, and it is community conversations. like i said it includes lbgq older adults. we have focus areas.

we have some preliminary information about how people access services. we are really looking at to reach out to communities that we are not doing quite as good job. we want to hear broadly from communities what works and what could work better. this is starting now. we hope to have answers back from this process and this project late spring and early summer. it really won't inform our budget for the next fiscal year, but it will help inform us if we will allow requests for proposals and all of those things. >> when you say next year for the community needs assessment. that is a calendar year process? i don't recall? >> it is next fiscal year we are going to start. >> one of the things i forgot to

mention and i will throw it in right now. next -- just reminder and for those who are new. for the california department of aging and for the dollars we get we are required to do an area plan every four years. each year we do an update to that plan. the plan gets presented to the commission for approval and presented to the advisory council. that will come before you next month. >> any other commissioner questions? >> i have a couple questions. >> commissioner lum then commissioner bittner. >> commissioner lum. >> thank you. good morning.

i realize quite often when we have a big program such as this vaccination of the entire country, it is very difficult to implement the entire program. locally, it seems so fractured. i have been contacted by the va, my health insurance, contacted by my vision program. what my concern in my case, i am fortunate. i am healthy and holding on until it is my turn, but some people especially the elderly who are frail are afraid to go out. do you have any plans to assist these elderly people to the site to get vaccinated? >> that is a very good question.

thank you, commissioner lum. you are right. it is fractured. that is partly what we are working on so that people have the right information. yes, there are some plans in place for helping with transportation to get people to vaccination sites. there is some conversation about getting vaccination to people at home, particularly in buildings where there are a number of people and it can be done easily in congregate buildings. it is more complicated to think about people living at home alone. that is definitely part of the conversation. you are right. people can't -- we have seen that people can't automatically get out because they don't feel safe. there is a need for transportation help and for all of those things. thank you for bringing that up.

>> commissioner bittner. >> i have two questions. how are you outreaching to minorities to like the latin x and the communities? in terms of getting the vaccine. i was reading a study that said most people who have gotten it have been white. the other question i know inial meda -- alameda county. they have been able to go with

their providers to get the vaccine and they were wondering if there is any discussion of that? i know it is complicated. >> thank you, commissioner bittner. those are good questions. yes, you are absolutely right. it has been disturbing that initially when you look at people who have gotten the vaccine and this is across the bay area, they have attended to be white, more middle class, certainly in san francisco one of the things we have done in the covid command center is to think about equity upfront and the office of racial equity is really involved in all of the decisions made with respect to

rollout such as the vaccine rollout. that is why -- it took time. we are starting to see these pop-up vaccine sites in the mission and bayview-hunters point. the joint information center that is placed at moscone center is thinking about this. how to reach out to people in various languages, how to engage with communities to ensure we are not just doing this in a vanning consuming? we are thinking about the -- vacuum. we are thinking about people who can't get out easily. it is not safe for various reasons. that is what is being taken into consideration. i think part of what happened and it looks inequitable is because it is fractured, to go back to commissioner lum's term.

it is fractured. some people hear earlier from health plans than others. it is creating a huge problem. the covid command center is thinking about these things and working with the community. second question is a good one. we are working on vaccine rollout a number of ihs providers have received vaccine already. we started early with our contract mode providers and with our on call program. through our public authority and we worked hard to ensure all of the workers had access to the vaccine and now we are working through the ip with the

providers. it is education about the safety of the vaccine. we have had doctors who did it and were excited about it and communities naturally reticent and concerned given the history of our country. there is concerns about safety. we are working to figure out the right approach to make sure that people are hearing from community members and health professionals they trust. that is why we set up the vaccine education seminars so people can understand how it works, what the risks are, why it is safe and all of those things. we are working through that. as you probably know, we have over 20,000ihs providers, we

have 22000 recipients. it is a big project. we are working through that. they are very much at the high tier of the priority. >> can i ask a question. commissioner sklar. >> what about the frail elderly homebound and need that shot? they have relatives coming in to take care of them. since we are in home supportive services there are laboratories on wheels. is there anything in the system for covid vaccine? >> we are working that part out. you are absolutely right, that is a big concern for us. we are looking at both transportation and the possibility of roving teams or

something on wheels, like you said. i think we are not there yet. that is absolutely true. it is a concern, and if people are at home and not exposed, they are probably safer than people having to go out. it is thinking about what is the priority there, yes, how to make sure that we can reach those people in some way. some will hear directly from health providers. they have various ways of reaching people at home. we have a number of people who are in the san francisco health network and those are the people we are focused on as a city. >> i am concerned to some extent essential for them but for our workers in and out of the homes and they may have other members coming in and out of their house. >> thank you.

>> commissioner carrington. >> i hear everything and see everything as far as seniors, disabled and aging, and my concern is about our young adults who are disabled. what is going on with them? i am not seeing as many disabled young adults. i have a friend who is wheelchair bound, and she was able, thank god, to go to southeast yesterday to receive her vaccine. i was so happy to see that. i went down there yesterday to look around to see what was going on and how many people were coming because there is two

-- there is keith and armstrong is where you can be tested. southeast is giving the vaccine. it was quite a few people there yesterday, and i was glad to see that. there were more young adults there than there was people of age. like you said, we are working on getting the outreach to get these people be able to get the vaccine and how they get there. i will say overall from what i saw yesterday, the turnout was very good. >> that is good, commissioner carrington. i went by there yesterday and there were quite a few people there. one of the, you know, to go back to what i said earlier. this is a big concern. the governor's policy, state

policy, wants to go from age perspective only. that is why i was saying one of the things we were doing with the master plan for aging group is say to the governor people with different disabilities of all ages are very at risk, not all people with disabilities but certainly subpopulations of people with disabilities. the state needs to consider those people as people who should be prioritized for vaccinations. that hasn't happened. at the local level, we are really trying to think about that and take that into account. we are san francisco and we know we can do better than that. it is hard when that is the state's priority. that is why, you know, i think

nicole and others are working so hard with the department of emergency management, dph to ensure that we are really making access available for people with disabilities, particularly those most at risk. i am glad your friend was able to go get the vaccine yesterday. that is good news. >> thank you very much. any other commissioners? it is such an important topic that i think director, we are concerned in the same ways you and your staff are. we appreciate the fact that they are advocating around the edges and in the nooks and crannies because we are all very concerned about and very aware

how privilege works when there is a vacuum. that is all i have to say about that. whatever we can do to get information to people at this point, i think it is just very, very helpful. thanks for taking the time this morning to explain what we are doing around that. i think it is very, very helpful. we will communicate that to those that we advocate with people and continue to push through that and let people know about that. we will stay patient. that is what we have to do. it is back to next item. >> item 6 is das employee recognition. we will honor susan lee from the

das office of in-home support services. >> is susan here? >> i see here box. >> hi, susan. >> hi. >> how are you doing? >> i am doing good. thank you. >> we are happy you are here and super-excited that you are employee of the month for february. susan, i have heard great things about you and the work you have done in ihss. thank you for your service to das and ihss. we appreciate it. i want to read what your co-workers said about you and how amazing you are. i want to make sure i am reading this but i do want to thank you.

deep appreciation for the work you are doing for das. susan, in september of 2017, susan re-joined the program as junior clerk. in october 2019 she assumed the role of acting principal clerk managing the staff who provide essential support to das and ihss. susan has done a great job supervising staff and overseeing the team to ensure they provide the day-to-day functions of scanning documents, distributing and delivering mail to social workers in addition to other support. susan and her team members are required to do data entries for all new referals in the case management system. she has a significant role in

monitoring, processing and as signing. 400 plus new referals per month to social workers. susan works in collaboration with other programs such as integrated intake as medical eligibility to address the needs of clients. this including her role as liaison between social workers and medical workers to resolve issues and main tan accurate client records. during the beginning of the covid-19 epidemic for two months there was half of staff capacity. she aimed to motivate the two clerical staff. they were able to achieve responsibilities well acceding expectations. in late september 2020, ihss

rolled out intake and carrying integration. this involved the redistribution of 10,000 cases to social workers. susan and her team completessed the task efficiently and timely. susan has never served in supervisory capacity, we are all impressed with her ability to get the work done. the willingness to take on new tasks makes her reliable employee that we can count on. susan's dedication and depend ability make her invaluable to ihss. we are honored to have susan lee as part of the das team and recognize her out standing contributions to das. on behalf of all of us at das and the commission thank you for your service and congratulations

on being employee of the month for february 2021. you are welcome to say something if you want. you are not pressured to do so. >> president knutzen. >> i know about this. go ahead, susan. >> my screen was frozen. i want to thank the ihss management team for the nomination and for the recognition. i also want to thank the rest of the clerical unit for what they

are doing and have been doing with all of the changes. adaptable to everything, to all of the changes that have happened and that are still happening within the program. i also want to thank my immediate supervisor for her guidance this past year. she has actually been herself

settling into a new role. i was glad that she was. [indiscernable] open for givingr questions and anything that i have a problem with. i also wanted to thank her for the report and encouragement i received within the program, not just from management but from the staff as well.

also, from the units that are outside ihss that we work with. thank you. >> thank you. on behalf of the commission, thank you, susan, for everything you do. i do know about the kind of person you are from having worked in city government myself. you are a leader. that is clear. when people are able to do what the director described you doing. thank you for that, especially at this critical time. i think we will move on to. >> the advisory council report presidented by diane lawrence.

>> good morning. we had our first meeting of 2021 on january 20th, and we began with an update. as mentioned in the presentation, it is time for an area plan update, and we have worked with mike and rose, although though beat me to the punch in studying the schedule for this year. we will have the advisory council will have the first update this month at our february meeting. the council will we getting their draft of the update next week. we asked for it an week ahead. what you get on the third, the

commission will review the updates. on march 17th, the advisory council will approve the report so that we can meet the februar. we are excited that we have that all organized for the year. we will be sending demographic information. we fill out a format the meeting. we will be filling that out later. we established a by law committee and we will begin working on those. we will look to see how they meet our needs today. we have discussed before that -- we discussed two things before.

the advisory council and then our concern that we need with covid. we haven't been able to make site visits. we have a team that put together a virtual site visit form that is finalized and submitted to our members to do virtual site visits. we are looking at the website from a client perspective. the possibility of direct contact with an agency, if that is possible, and we have already sent out the fillable form. if you want a copy, let me know and i will have bridgett send that to you. mike is getting us information from the office of disabilities so we can look at what makes the website acceptable.

we will include that information in the processes. when we make a recommendation, we use that helps mike's staff do a sharper focus. we also will be looking at doing some online research of the agencies of the community partners that have contacts with das. we are getting a list of those agencies as well. we are going to do this to look how this goes for six months. then sit down and make modifications as necessary. i will be reporting to you on those as i used to when we did physical site visits. we will look at -- we are not going back to full in person

site visits for a while. we thought the way we would do this is look at the site, physically visit it. that will give us the starting point. we are looking at following up to reinstitute the education committee, looking at possible topics how to help people beat stress, survivors with covid. we mentioned the outreach to communities. there is an lbgq adult service and for 50 years and older. it will include the transcommunity, h.i.v. long-term survivors turning 60. there will be a link for contact to fill out the survey.

it is in partnership with das and the bob ross foundation. the discussion of seniors that don't have access to medical care. we will get an update at the february meeting. we have set up a group, you group to look at the master plan rather than trying to tackle all-in-one big chunk. there are five key goals. three members are taking one of the goals and what we want to focus on or what issues are more important to san francisco as a framework. i will follow up with the

department on that. we have two slots open. we will work on that as we move forward. the sad news. we are losing one of our advisory council members, patty, who is director of community connectors for the community living campaign. she and her husband are moving to north carolina. we wish them well. she will be missed because she is definitely a bright spot. she has done a lot of phenomenal work for seniors and persons with disabilities, especially in district 11 and throughout the city. we will have her for a couple more months. any questions? one other quick thing. the joint committee met for the first time. not much to report because

throughout january new billings were introduced and all of those bills had to be introduced by last week. we will have a meeting again on the 17th. thank you, president knutzen forgiving us the commission members. we look forward to working with them as we move forward. i will provide an update at the march meeting. >> thank you. i think we will have the secretary call the next item. >> sorry. >> i want to make one comment. i am in district 11. patty has done a phenomenal job in our district. she will be definitely missed when she leafs in a couple months. wish her well. >> i will. thank you, commissioner.

she is amazing. we will all miss her. >> any other comments or questions for ms. lawrence? thank you it is a lot of work. next item. >> item 8 is public comment. an opportunity for public to address on matters not on the calendar. moderator please open the phone line for public comment. we will allow time for the request. >> madam secretary, there is no public comment. >> next item is old business.

please indicate by racing your hand if there is old business? >> there is no old business. >> item 10. new business. presentation of the das fiscal year 20-21 schedule for requests for proposals and contract renewals. staff patrick garcia and reanna albert will present. >> let me get the presentation set up.

>> good afternoon. i am patrick garcia from the agency office of contract management. with me is reanna albert. we are here to present the four year fund cycle with the scheduled for fiscal year 20/21 requests for proposals and contract renewals. every year we develop the schedule for an overview what we are working on and what programs we will bring for approval. first rhianna will give an overview of the four year

dignity fund cycle. >> i want to make sure. can everybody see the slides? >> it is just black.