first, i also want to acknowledge laura thomas. we've had a long-standing relationship when she was with the drug policy alliance. we value her work. i don't know why i feel i have to continue to say over and over again. nobody is saying stop doing harm reduction. what we are saying is it appears our values are different. i'm no different than the guy at hyde and jones with a syringe in his arm. i'm now in a leadership role, overseeing staff and had somebody left me there, i wouldn't be sitting here. we believe people can change. because we changed. was it fun? no. but thank god somebody cared about me enough to tell me the truth about my life! the judge who sent me to prison last is a friend of mine. it's incredible to me that if

you had a son or daughter dying on the streets of san francisco, that you would not be interested in an all-hands-on-deck approach to get them off the thing that was killing them! it's shocking to me! it turns into this conversation about we want to respect the dignity of people using substances, of course, of course. we get that. but dr. martin, with the utmost respect, doubling down on the same things that are in the tenderloin, killing people, is problematic. it's problematic. we are going to do our outreach as soon as covid breaks. we're going to do our own outreach to talk to people. i believe drug addicts are the smartest people on this planet. they're brilliant. but it's tough to deal with the trauma that leads you to drugs, as adrian said, with a syringe in your neck. we have to be honest about the conversations, man. it becomes very polarizing.

most of the people that gave public comment -- [audio interference] >> i'm willing to bet they've been to prison or been homeless or had a syringe in their neck. i am willing to bet. all of us have. i think we laid out a good case. we're not asking anybody to stop anything. what we're asking you to do is embrace change. embrace that people can change. that we don't need to live on methadone. we don't need to live on suboxone. we don't need free housing. what we need is a fair shot at getting our lives back together. we all got that in different ways. you know, i recognize that i probably shouldn't be where i'm at. somebody believed in me. we believe in others. cregg and cedric run a group on

friday nights, 25 years now, don't get paid. people show up on covid every friday night. you want to talk about what the people in the community need? somebody should contact cregg and cedric or adrian. it's obvious to me that nobody is listening. and it's sad. it is incredibly sad. and i want to say it one more time. my thoughts, my views, my opinions are not reflective of where i work. they're reflective of who i am as a person. and the friends i choose to keep and the people i continue to associate with. the biggest difference between this entire conversation today is what department of public health views, because they have a big job dealing with a lot of stuff. and what we value on a microlevel. and i think if you believed in approximate people, like we

believe in if people, things might be different. i want to make one last point and turn the meeting over to my colleagues. you mentioned d.p.h. abstinence-based treatment. harbor life is not funded through the city money. it's funded through the state board of community corrections. they were told they had to do medically assisted treatment in their wellness center. why is everybody opposed to funding a black-led treatment program? what do you have to lose? more of the same? i mean, we had 700 overdoses last year. could it get worse? could we have more on the street shooting dope? do we need more kids walking down the street where people are shooting dope? when can we be honest about the state of the affairs here? it's taxing to constantly have to go in and make sure you're super cognizant that you might hurt somebody's feelings.

i'm a drug addict. you can't call me that in san francisco. i'm a substance user or something. no. i'm a drug addict. i lied, cheated and stole every day. i did a bunch of time and probably should have done more. i want to be honest. i don't believe i could get clean in san francisco today. i'm grateful for the intervention i received because it propelled me to a place where my family answered the phone. i have friends. i can pay my rent. i have a job and i have healthcare. i couldn't do that with a syringe in my neck. i couldn't do that strung out on methadone or suboxone, relying on government to give me free housing. i'm able to do that every day because i get up at 6:30. i come to work. i work to 9:00 or 10:00 at night. i don't ask for extra money. i do what is asked and give it my all. why? because there was a woman in 2014 i met when i was in graduate school who believed in

me. she taught me a lot. and that's why i'm here today. so i try to pay that forward and believe in others. i really want to encourage dr. colfax to come meet with us. that's who i would like to talk to >> change is possible. and you have to believe that internally. you have to believe that people want to and can live differently. you just saw examples. our working group has 80 people in it. we're no different than the people in the tenderloin or the mission or in soma right now, possibly dying. i'm going to turn the meeting over to victoria westbrook and call on tom wolf and richard beal. and supervisor stefani, thank you. >> this is victoria westbrook again. dr. martin, you said that most

people you're dealing with at the s.i.p. hotels and community are not seeking treatment. i went to treatment not seeking treatment. right? as a drug addict, what i was seeking was drugs and more drugs and more ways to use drugs. so i really think that -- and there could be a lot of reasons why people aren't seeking treatment, right? in addition to the fact that what they want to do is keep using because that's what they know. they could have been to some of the programs and not gotten clean, so why try again? or know people who have gone to programs and didn't get clean. there's a lot of reasons for that. we can talk to people in different ways than we are right now with community members to let them know that they can go to treatment. i never felt demonized or stigmatized in my abstinence-based program. i have no problem saying i'm an

addict. i don't feel any shame around that whatsoever. so i just want to put that out there for supervisors that may not understand certain things about addiction. thank you. i think tom wanted to speak, too. >> thanks, victoria. and judy, i know you're in a tough position, because you're the only representative here from d.p.h. i commend you and you know in stepping up. and listening to everything. so look, you know addiction is a lonely disease. it's a disease of isolation. but recovery in the community, as you could see here today, we're a community. there is a community of people in recovery in san francisco that are willing and wanting to step up and punch up for san francisco to save people's lives on the street that are struggling with addiction. and anyone struggling with addiction, we want to show you there is a better way.

we want to show you change can happen through recovery. and as an example, when i was on the street, when i was outreached to on the street, it was to give me clean drug paraphernalia, which is great. but nobody talked to me about treatment. on the street, i had no idea where i could access drug treatment in san francisco. these are some of the things we're asking the board of supervisors to sit down and have a conversation with us and the department of public health about so we can start improving our -- and start utilizing our resources to promote and share the gift of recovery through treatment with people so that we can at least give people on the street an opportunity to make that choice. right now, the only choice that is given to them is that if you want to use, use safely and don't kill yourself. that's the choice that is being presented to people. and i fully support that, because i was in the tenderloin yesterday.

and all my time, including the time on the street, i've never seen such desperation as i saw last night on golden gate and hyde last night ever in my life. these are the things we want to help facilitate change with. i would think and i think you would agree, judy, we all have a recovery community in san francisco, want to reach over and work with the department of public health and hope project and glide to help supplement the services offered right now with harm reduction. with viable, easy access treatment options. we want to be part of that conversation and help. that's why we're here. thank you so much. >> richard, you're the last one and maybe cedric and we'll wrap it up. >> okay. all right. so dr. martin, thank you for coming. hopefully, next time we'll get a chance to talk. i was listening to what you were

saying. and you mentioned the 15 detox beds and the 32 residential beds. and we have thousands and thousands of addicts out there using. i hate to tell you, 15 beds isn't enough. and they're not even -- those beds are not funded by d.p.h. and rental assistance has more beds. those few beds are not enough. there's only a handful. there's no place to go. when i got clean i sat down in the detox and there was 50 other people and laid on a mat. they don't have a mat now. they don't have a place. there's no detox to go to. there's no place for addicts to get cleaned. the doors are all closed. we need more treatment access. we need more treatment programs. you know, it's so obvious that what we're doing is not working. and everybody wants to use the excuse, covid. and everything wasn't working before covid. what covid did was exacerbated everything.

case managers stopped seeing people because of covid. i heard a lot of issues that you brought up because of covid or -- and then, the thing that you said about housing and d.p.h. don't do housing. that's a problem in the city itself. housing, d.p.h. needs to come together and get a solution. you talked about going through the step down programs from seven months and two years. i did transitional housing. i know every day thousands of units were opened. and then, when they move people into housing, guess what? because they don't receive support services and substance abuse services, they use. the they don't pay their rent and go into that vicious cycle all over again. it's a system that is bound to fail. it's set up to fail. and the sad point is that the

money is going to the problem, instead of the solution. that's the problem there. if they had a bridge from residential housing to transitional housing to permanent housing, there wouldn't be that gap. you talk about the break in the link. you said it. i don't know where they go. i don't know where they go after they do the shelter-in-place after fema started paying the money. it's 100% funded by fema. what happens when fema ends? they go to the street and use dope again and go back to the same vicious cycle. we have to do something different. it's not working. thank you. >> i'm sorry. sorry. i get that on our end. supervisor stefani, thank you for calling this hearing.

chair mar, appreciate your time. supervisor haney and mandelman, john, for coordinating all this stuff. and supervisor stefani, to your staff, especially andy. we are incredibly grateful for your work and your commitment to people in recovery. and dr. martin, it's great to have you on board. and it's great to have you as part of this conversation. i know that you've been really committed to the street-level drug dealing task force. i know tom speaks highly of you. i think while some of our values may be different, i think our overarching goals are in the continuum where they fit together. we really would like to continue this conversation. we need to find a way to get people off of drugs. that should be the goal. we're commit today doing whatever is necessary. whatever the board would like, we're here. please let us know. supervisor stefani, thank you again. this was an amazing hearing.

>> i'd like to say i appreciate what everybody said. and i was listening. and i am a director. so hopefully, we'll continue to have the conversation. >> supervisor stefani: thank you, dr. martin for being here. and thank you, steve, and everyone. thank you, chair mar for scheduling this and thank you to my colleagues.

february 12, 2021, regular meeting of the san francisco ethics commission. commissioner chiu said, happy new year to everyone. commissioner lee will be joining us today. but she is delayed. so we expect her to join us shortly. this meeting is being held by teleconference pursuant to the governor's executive order n-2920 and the 12th supplement to the mayoral declaration dated february 25th, 2020. before we proceed, i'd like to ask commission staff member acting as a moderator to explain procedures for the meeting. >> thank you, madam chair. the meeting reflects the covid-19 health emergency and protect commission members, city employees and public, the meeting rooms of city hall are

closed. however, commission members and staff will be participated in a meeting remotely. this precaution is pursuant to the various local, state and federal orders, declarations and directives. commission members will attend the meeting through video conference and participate in the meeting in the same extent as in they were physically present. please note today's meeting is live cable cast on www.sfgovtv/ethicslive. each member of the public will be allowed 3 minutes to speak. it's available via phone call by calling 1-415-655-0001. again, the phone number is

1-415-655-0001. access code is (187) 462-0879. again, 1874620879 followed by the pound sign. you will hear a beep when you're connected. you will are muted in listen mode only. when your item of interest comes up, dial star 3 to raise your hand to be added to the public comment line. you'll then hear you have raised your hand to ask a question. wait until the host calls on you. the line will be silent as you wait your turn to speak. make sure you're in a quiet location. before you speak, mute the sound of equipment around you, including television, radio, or computer. it's especially important that you mute your computer if you are watching via the web link to prevent feedback and echo when

you speak. when the system message says "your line has been unmuted," this is your turn to speak. you'll hear staff say welcome, caller. we encourage you to state your name clearly. as soon as you begin speaking, you will have three minutes to provide public comment. six minutes if online with an interpreter. you will hear a bell go off when you have 30 seconds remaining. if you change your mind and wish to withdraw yourself from the public comment line press star 3 again. you will hear the system say you have lowered your hand. once your three minutes expired, staff will thank you and mute you. you will hear your line has been muted. again, those who wish to speak during other public comment periods may stay on the line and listen for the next public comment opportunity. raise your hand to enter their public line by pressing star 3 when their next item of interest comes up. public comment may be submitted in writing and will be shared with the commission after this meeting concluded and will be

included as part of the file. written comments sent to ethics.commission@sfgov.org. thank you. >> chair ambrose: with that, i call the meeting to order. mr. moderator, can you proceed with item one, commission roll-call. check >> clerk: commissioners please unmute your microphone. [roll-call] >> clerk: madam chair, with four members present and accounted for, you have a quorum. >> chair ambrose: thank you very much. as i said, commissioner lee will be joining us shortly. i'll make an announcement when she joins us.

but i would like to go ahead and proceed with the agenda item number 2, public comment on matters appearing or not appearing on the agenda. members of the public who are on the line and wish to speak, dial star 3, if you have not done so, to be added to the public comment line. moderator can you proceed. >> now it's public comment on agenda item number 2. as a reminder to participants in today's meeting, if you are shuffling paper, if you are -- all background noise can be heard. please mute, thank you. the ethics commission is receiving comment on item 2 remotely in this meeting. each member of the public has up to three minutes to provide comment. if you joined earlier to listen, now is the time to get on-line to speak. if you have not already, press star 3.

it's important you press star 3 only once to enter the queue. as it will move you out of the public comment. once you are up in line, the system will prompt you when it's your time to speak. address your comment as a commission to the whole and not individual members. madam chair, we're checking to see if there's callers in the queue. [silence]

>> clerk: madam chair, there are no callers in the queue. >> chair ambrose: thank you very much for that. i'm going to call agenda item number 3, the consent calendar. we have the draft minutes for the january 8th, 2021 as the commission's regular meeting. and we have a request for an amendment from one of the public participants, who communicated those edits in advance to the director. director, do you want to read the amendment that -- or describe the amendment that was requested. and i'd like to ask for a motion to move the minutes, as amended.

>> yes, good morning to commissioners. we did receive the email and the reviewed the audio from that meeting. it makes sense to us to adjust the minutes accordingly. so the paragraph under public comment under item number 3, january 21st, minutes would read at follows: ester marks identified investigations as priorities. she stated -- considering the sum of those implicated in the corrections standard filed electronically and -- enable detection of their correct practices. the minutes would strike the next sentence as shown. and insert instead she stated: the commission is not known as being effective carrying out its mandate. she closed the board of supervisors and analyst's, to communicate goals that do not

demonstrate effectiveness of core functions. >> chair ambrose: all right. i'm going to ask for a motion and second. and then, i would like to ask for public comment. so do i have a motion and second to accept esther marks' edits to her comments? >> so moved. >> chair ambrose: commissioner bush, do i have a second? >> commissioner bush: yes. >> chair ambrose: ron, can you request public comment before we vote on the consent -- i mean, on the minutes? >> clerk: thank you, madam chair. the ethics commission is receiving public comment on consent calendar number 3 remotely in this meeting. each member of the public will have up to three minutes to provide public comment. you'll hear a bell when you have 30 seconds remaining. if you joined the meeting early to listen to the proceedings, now is the time to get in line to speak. if you have not already press

star 3. it's important you press star 3 once to enter the queue as pressing it again will move you out of the public comment line and back into listening mode. once you are in the queue and standing by, the system will prompt when it's your turn to speak. it's important you call for a quiet location. please address your comments to the commission as a whole and not an individual member. madam chair, we're checking to see if there's callers in the queue. >> chair ambrose: thank you. [silence]

>> clerk: madam chair, we have no callers in the queue. >> chair ambrose: all right. thank you. i'm noting we have draft minutes from january 8th meeting that amendment is actually to the draft minutes for the january 21st, 2021 special meeting. commissioner bush, i just want to finish one thing. we also have the proposed stipulation decision, which is action item on consent that you received in your packets. we also have received comments from esther marks about that fine in that matter. so i'm wondering if commissioners have any comments

on that matter as well? so now, commissioner bush, please. you're muted, commissioner bush. >> commissioner bush: thank you. on the january 21st, minutes it says that i identified esther marks as a task member of the department of building inspection commission. as my understanding, she was on the board of permit appeals, not building inspection. so i would recommend that be changed. >> chair ambrose: okay. >> commissioner bush: are we ready to talk about the stipulation at the same time now? or do you want to do the minutes first? >> chair ambrose: it's all -- well, actually, no. we can go ahead. we have a motion and a second to adopt, i will say, the minutes for january 8th, 2021 without amendment. and to adopt the draft minutes for the january 21st, 2021

special meeting with the amendment described by the director and amendment described by commissioner bush. so why don't we go ahead and vote on those two consent items 3 and 4. and then, we'll take a separate motion on the dante king stipulation. so ronald, can you call the roll on both items 3 and 4, the draft minutes for the january 8th and the january 21st meeting, as amended. >> clerk: a motion has been made and seconded. i will call the roll. [roll-call vote]

>> clerk: with three votes in the affirmative. i'm sorry. this is new to me, commissioner bell. >> commissioner bell: i was not a commissioner. i read the minutes, but i'll abstain at this point. >> if you don't mind me interjecting? >> chair ambrose: you can go ahead. i was going to let it go. but go ahead. >> i understand. as you are aware, commissioners are not allowed to -- and commissioner bell, welcome. and my apologies, but unfortunately that applies to meeting minutes such as this. even if you didn't attend the meeting in question. >> commissioner bell: aye. >> clerk: thank you. >> chair ambrose: all right. >> clerk: four votes in the

affirmative, the motion is approved unanimously. >> chair ambrose: and all right. i see that we have commissioner lee. welcome. happy new year! >> happy new year. >> vice chair lee: happy new year, everybody. [simultaneous speaking.] >> chair ambrose: can you hear us? >> we can hear you, commissioner. >> vice chair lee: okay. [laughter] >> vice chair lee: was i cussing? >> no, you weren't. i just want today make sure you were aware. >> vice chair lee: well, happy new year, everybody. my apologies for being late. and i want to add my welcome to my fellow commissioner bell.

>> commissioner bell: thank you so much. i appreciate it. i've already screwed up on my first vote so... [laughter] >> commissioner bell: i hope to get better from here on out. thank you. >> welcome. >> chair ambrose: it is an odd thing. i've had that question come up when i was advising commissions. it does seem odd to vote on minutes you weren't present for. there's a charter issue about not abstaining. moving along, we are -- commissioner lee, we are just about to take up item 5 on the consent calendar, which is the stipulation for dante king. and i had mentioned -- and it may -- although, there wasn't anybody present for public comment on the consent items, esther marks had written an email, advising the mistake commenting that she did not support the reduction of the

penalty from $5,000 to $2,500. and i -- when i read the stipulation, i didn't understand her point that there was an abuse of the public employment in pursuit of personal gain, which is what she referenced. so can we hear from mr. pierce or the director about what are the mitigating circumstances that encouraged them to negotiate a stipulation with the lower penalty? >> sure. good morning, chair ambrose and commissioners. you know, the stipulation is a negotiated document, so this was a process that both parties engaged in to arise at.

you know, realistically, settlement negotiations are confidential proceedings. and so in general, the document has to speak for itself. but i would refer commissioners to finding in the document indicating that we did not find -- the evidence did not reveal that mr. king had behaved intentionally or willfully. and we found as well that mr. king cooperated with the investigation. he was forthcoming when we spoke with him, he expressed a willingness and desire to remedy any potentially unlawful conduct at the time that this was brought to his attention. and for those reasons, we arrived at the penalty that we

reached. >> if i might add. one additional factors in the stipulation, we recommended and came to an agreement about, we looked to prior cases to try to peg them in the same ball part and that's what we did here as well. >> chair ambrose: okay. thank you for that. i'm going to make a motion to adopt the stipulation as recommended by staff. i like to support staff. you're the ones on the frontline of the investigation, so i would make that motion to -- and commissioner bush, please. you're muted still, commissioner bush. >> commissioner bush: thank you. i have some questions about the stipulation that i hope could be answered. it mentions that he was in

violation of the s-i-a statement. there's no requirement that i could see that people who are employees of the city and covered by is that correct? >> i can tell you in this i think instance mr. king acknowledged the time he began employment he read and understood the statement of incompatible activities. you're right city law requires departments no later than april 1st of each year to distribute

their statements. i can tell you the department in doing so notified employees that they had an obligation to read and understand the contents of those statements. but there's not -- i don't believe there's a requirement in city law that officers and employees annually acknowledge their understanding of the contents of those statements. >> commissioner bush: generally speaking, when we require people to read something that affects their employment, we require that they also sign that they have read it, not simply that it went to their inbox. so i'm concerned that what this indicates is a broader issue that this was this employee. so i'm raising this issue here. secondly, it appears mr. king's violation of this persisted for

three years; is that correct? he started his employment in 2016. and then, continued it until 2017. and 2018. and then, finally in 2019. >> to clarify, the stipulation does not describe liability in relationship to his outside employment. the liability arises only in relation to materials that he posted to a website that he created in relation to that employment. and the stipulation indicates that he created the website in june or july of 2018. and that as far as we could tell, the material producing liability here were uploaded around march of 2019. so the span of his noncompliant behavior was a period of months rather than a period of years. [please stand by]

-- considering that he disclosed the names of employees who had taken the training or had signed up for the training. so i'd be happier with a higher royalty than 2,500. that's my feeling. and what happens when i expressed that feeling? anything? >> i already made a motion that i would support the staff's

recommendation. i mean, i see the description of the -- that he included, um, a website, the d.h.r. sign-in sheets that employees when had participated in his d.h.r. trainings had added their signatures to confirm their attendance, and i'm not clear why he wanted to show that people were taking the training that he was doing at d.h.r., i guess. but the amount of the penalty, given that he made no income from the -- from showing that he had done d.h.r. trainings and his employee capacity. i mean, that to me is the question about penalty is in relation to how egregious the violation is and whether or not

it was, you know, a money-makiny material and this just doesn't -- you know, in my view, $2,500 seems fairly effective in demonstrating one's -- the seriousness of the violation. but it's up to you, commissioners. and to decide what you all want to do. if we want to amend -- i mean, this is a stipulation on consent and we can amend it. we'll send the staff back to renegotiate with this individual, which is underlying my concern, because it means then spending a lot of time in that capacity and maybe not working on the other backlog of the investigations that we have in our queue in order to try to

attain an agreement to impose a higher penalty when to me i'm willing to support the staff recommendation that this is a fair stipulation. but it's up to the other three commissioners to decide which motion you want to second and then we need to vote. we need to move along, because we're still on consent. so any comments from commissioner chiu or lee or bell? >> thank you, chair ambrose. on the one hand, the posting of these to the website, you know, would be -- of employees who attended the training and their capacity as employees and the training conducted by mr. king, as a city is in violation of

this, and they had put their names down on the sign-up sheet though they wouldn't expect it to appear on a website. but balanced against that is in my mind a determinant factor is that, you know, according to mrt we received, you know, mr. king, immediately took it down. he said that i want to be in compliance with other areas of my website or my work outside of my role for the city. you know, it's not in compliance. i think that, you know, what is the purpose of the sign? is it to be -- you know, punishment? retribution? or is it a deterrent and to send a message to others who may be engaging in outside activity to make sure that they are in

compliance with their statement of compatible activities and they observe all of the rules and the procedures and, you know, seek guidance from the city attorney or the ethics commission as appropriate. and i think that like you we are not close -- as you noted, chair ambrose, we are not close to the facts and we're not on the frontlines conducting this. and as executive director pelham has said that they looked at past practice and other similarly situated cases, the signs that were levied in those cases and that would be commensurate and consistent with that practice. and, you know, i would support as let recommendation of staff on this. and the main factor in my mind are, one, that they're closest to those facts and that the

expression of a willingness to correct the mistakes and the, you know, the commitment and the undertaking towards future compliance, which is what -- which is what i think that is the ultimate goal of our efforts here is to ensure that people -- people, you know, will comply. >> chair ambrose: okay. so we have a motion and a second on my motion. we might have to get a parliamentary assistant here. but do we have -- from commissioner lee or commissioner bell, if there isn't a second for commissioner bush's amendment, i'd like to call the roll on my motion to approve this stipulation and consent on number 5. so, commissioners, your hands are not up, and so on that basis

i would ask ronald to please call the roll on agenda item number -- sorry, my screen just went dark -- agenda number 5. thank you. >> clerk: a motion has been made and seconded and i will now call the roll. [roll call vote] with four votes in the affirmative and one vote in the negative, the motion is approved. >> chair ambrose: all right. thank you for that. and i'll call agenda item number 6. which is the election of

commission officers for 2021 per ethics commission bylaws, art iv, section 1. there's a cover memo attached. and i should have read that before, because am pretty sure what i'm supposed to do is to ask for a motion. let's see... all right, i'm going to open up the floor for nominations for chair. commissioner lee or commissioner bush. commissioner lee. >> vice-chair lee: thank you, chair ambrose. i think that the year has been a

very challenging one for both our country and the city. we were hit by a couple of viruses, covid pandemic, and also in the city the outbreak of the corruption virus. the commission has gone through a very challenging year in various ways. and i really appreciate chair ambrose's leadership in guiding us through some really unusual times. and i would nominate her to a second term, because we need steady leadership and continuity to bring us to a new chapter. to really rebuild the public's trust. and also to enforce the ethic

commission's relevance in our work and tackling the -- the challenges that we're facing as a commission and in the city. so it is with honor for me to nominate chair ambrose to be our next chair for the commission. >> chair ambrose: thank you. commissioner bush. you are muted, unfortunately. >> commissioner bush: i second the nomination of chair ambrose. >> chair ambrose: thank you very much. are there any other nominations? seeing none, i think what i'm supposed to do is to go ahead and call for a vote. and i would have happily stepped

aside for any one of you, because i so admire and honor the work that you do. but i will try and to keep up with this work for the remainder of this year and will hopefully we'll be able to count on all of your support in doing so. so, ronald, if could you call the chair. >> i'm sorry to interrupt. andrew chen. we should take public comment before we do the vote? >> chair ambrose: see, i first blew it. [laughter]. >> sorry for the interruption. >> chair ambrose: no, no, please, yeah, so that's -- boy, that's a lot of public comment. let's go through that really fast, ronald, if you could. >> madam chair, we're checking to see if there are callers in the queue. for those on hold, wait until the system indicates that you

have been unmuted. if you have just joined this meeting we're on the public discussion on the motion of agenda item number 6, the election of commission officers for 2021 per ethics commission bylaws article 5, section 1. if you have not already done so, please press star 3, to be added to the public comment queue. you have three minutes to provide public comment and six minutes online with with an interpreter. you will hear a bell go off when you have 30 seconds remaining. please stand by.

madam chair, there are no callers in the queue. >> chair ambrose: all right, thank you for that. can you please proceed with the roll call on the motion for the chair. >> clerk: motion has been made and seconded. i will now call the roll. [roll call vote] with five votes in the

affirmative and zero opposed the motion is approved unanimously. >> chair ambrose: all right. well, thank you very much for that. and now i would like to ask for nominations for vice-chair, and i'm going to take the privilege of the floor and go first and nominate commissioner lee to serve again as vice-chair of the san francisco ethics commission. and now i'll open up the floor to anyone else in the commission to second or to provide a nomination. all right, commissioner chiu. >> commissioner chiu: i would like to second that for commissioner lee to serve as vice-chair for a second term. >> chair ambrose: all right. and do i hear any other nominations? nope?

so, can we please have public comment on -- oh, commissioner bush. >> commissioner bush: i have questions to ask of commissioner lee. >> chair ambrose: okay. >> commissioner bush: commissioner lee, i respect your work and i think your participation has been an asset, particularly what you have done beyond the confines of the commission. but one of the things that took place about two years ago was a vote on behest of contributions, in which a motion by the commission failed on a 3-2 vote. and you were one of the two votes who opposed a reform of the behested contributions law. and since that time, it has emerged that behested contributions, as was suggested at the time, was a route for

corruption and it is at the heart of much of the public integrity findings by the controller's office. and the proposal that had been made before the commission and supported by three commissioners, those three commissioners were the chair of the commission, the past chair of the commission and the vice-chair of the commission. and it had been the result of two years of hearings at the commission. and at that time you said that you didn't support it because you felt that it was a step too far for the commission to put something on the ballot. and that you were not concerned -- not committed to its impact on non-profits. in retrospect, as now as we have seen with the public integrity reports, do you have any second thoughts about that vote? >> vice-chair lee: thank you,

commissioner bush. i stand by my vote at that time. and i remember i stressed very strongly the need to really make a differentiation between what we mean by "non-profit." i came from non-profit, community-serving organizations. and the way that i understood at that time, the proposed language did not make a differentiation between, say, a non-profit, friends of the opera, than a community non-profit that provides food and other assistance to immigrant families, to childcare centers. so i remember that we went through that a lot. and, again, my understanding at the time and with my experience

working with the true non-profits that i had been familiar with for the past 40 years. i know the importance of non-profits. what i would call community-serving, direct service non-profit organizations in this city. their contributions, their struggles with financial support, both from the private and the public sectors, and the need for them to continue to really raise the voice for their community members, which in this city to this day -- while a majority of our residents are newcomers or persons who do not have the access to city services

or city's attention, i felt that these non-profits provide a much-needed voice and presence to make sure that they're not forgotten. so was that a perfect proposal? no. and, again, i am open to holding groups who are using -- as i said, using the tax exemption status to promote whatever they have at that time. but i felt that combining the true community service, vital service organizations and to the other folks who are basically skirting the system, i felt that i had no choice but to really

stand by the community that i'm very familiar with. so to answer you, i do not regret my vote. however, i am open to continue to work to make sure what we have experienced and i had said at that time people that organize under the guise of non-profit that are not truly non-profit. but as i said, we need to really make a clear distinction and i really do not feel that we should diminish the folks who truly need to have a voice in this city and i'm open to working with you and other commissioners to really push forward to realize the

controller's recommendations. because i agree with you, you know, there are corruptions. but corruptions are not in all non-profits and we need to really make a clear distinction. >> chair ambrose: thank you for your comments, commissioner lee. and i see that your hand is up, commissioner bush. >> commissioner bush: i just wanted to state that my recollection of that is a little bit different. i think the chair had put an amendment in to adopt the san francisco -- the los angeles law on behested contributions, which exempted those which served low-income residents with human services, including housing and health and so forth. but it continued to cover things like the national rifle

association and entities which are non-profits under the law. and which continued to enjoin a dissension in san francisco, so they don't necessarily adopt a federal standards and apply it to our local situation. so my recollection is that the final vote that was before the commission at that time did include an exemption for the kind of non-profits that you're discussing. and i competely agree with you that non-profits that provide those services do not get the support that they need from the public or the private sources. and they need to be supported. that they should not be made as a vehicle for a work around so that dark money can influence our elections and our officials. and as it stands now, dark money

can do exactly that. >> chair ambrose: i'm going to interject here because i don't want -- from an agenda point of view, this is not the time to talk too much substantively about behested payments, vis-a-vis the non-profits and how we might better fix that. the item on the floor is a motion to elect commissioner lee as vice-chair of the commission for a second year. and we have a motion and a second and i haven't heard any other nominations and so i'd like to call for a public comment. ronald, if you could please ask for public comment here and then we will move to a vote. and get on on to our very full agenda. >> clerk: madam chair, we're checking to see if there are callers in the queue. for those already on hold, wait until the system indicates that you have been unmuted if you

have just joined the meeting we're on the motion of agenda item number 6, the election of excision officers for 2021 for ethics commission, with section 1 -- so sorry -- excuse me -- >> chair ambrose: i lost my place too. [laughter]. >> clerk: if you have not done so, please press star, 3, to be added to the queue. you have three minutes to provide public comment and the six minutes if you're on the line with an interpreter. you will hear a bell go off when you have 30 minutes remaining. please, stand by.

madam chair, we have no callers in the queue. >> chair ambrose: all right, with that can you please call the roll on the motion to elect commissioner lee as vice-chair of the san francisco ethics commission. >> clerk: a motion is made and seconded. i will now call the roll. [roll call vote] with five votes in the affirmative and zero votes

opposed the motion is approved unanimously. >> chair ambrose: all right, thank you very much. and i will call agenda item number 7, presentation by the controller's office on the january 11, 2021 report, request the preliminary assessment: ethical standards for contract award processes of the airport commission and other commissioners and boards," and discussion and possible action related to report finds and recommendations. and before i turn it over to director pelham, i want to say to mr. delosriosa, thank you for coming back and making your presentation. i'm going to ask you -- i did see your presentation at the board of supervisors. i know that we have assistant controller todd -- hi, todd, how are you? i'm going to ask that you move relatively quickly through your presentation so that we can get to the substantive discussion, because i think that there are questions about what we as the

ethics commission might do going forward in response to these recommendations. and maybe some others that you make. and i want to make sure that we have time for that deliberation. so with that, director pelham, did you want to make some remarks? >> thank you, chair ambrose. just very, very briefly for context for the public who are viewing and for the benefit of our new commissioner bell, welcome. this is a fourth in a series of reports that the controller's office has issued as indicated in the cover memo. and as a process note, a couple items. one, this is based on the agenda and does not require action by the commission, but we realize that the commission is interested and engaged in these issues and so it's in place if the commission takes action for the findings and the recommendations, you will have the matter to do that as the matter is agendized. these are items that we'll often talk about in a subject matter

area and so all of these items will be as relevant and we will bring them into our policy -- ongoing policy discussions as well. so just with those brief comments i'm happy to turn over to mark and i appreciate the participation of the controller's office once again. thank you. >> good morning, commissioners. definitely noted we will go through our presentation as quickly by not going through a lot of background. but hopefully we'll provide enough so that there is context for some of you and provide some discussion later. good morning again, commissioners. chair ambrose, vice-chair lee and commissioners chiu and bush and bell. as director pelhammentioned, thn

our series of presentations. to provide briefly, we started these reports a little over a year ago when the mohammed nouri investigations became public and really the key goal is to provide recommendations on the internal control weaknesses and to improve transparency for the city. in conjunction with our efforts in the controller's office is the city attorney's focus on the investigations related to the misconduct of the current and former city employees. one thing that we're going to highlight as well on the next slide is just to provide context on some of the key aspects of the federal complaint and the affidavit just so that there's context on how we were able to scope our report for this deliverable. as some of you may know, the f.b.i. affidavit has alleged

that in 2018, mr. nuru and they tried to bribe the airport commissioner linda crayton to get a city lease at s.f.o. for a company owned by mr. bovis. and miss cra yton had indicated a willingness to do favors given the relationship and checking to make sure that the subject of the note was not promised to others, and that she would find out who would be on the selection committee and she'd do everything that she can to provide assistance to mr. bovis. and the role of mr. nuro areu in the tjpa. and his willingness to assist mr. bovis in trying to get a lease with tjpa. but mr. bovis on this particular

example was not successful. briefly as well, you may know... (please stand by)

>>mark de la rosa: any contracts must be approved before the board of supervisors this is just to run through the board process which is a robust process but mostly driven by the revenue management division within the airport. there are three key points in which the rdn division within the airport goes beforethe commission for approval . again, as contexts , these are the contracts that we reviewed as part of our assessment from 2020, there were 99 units covered in our report with a minimum guaranteed revenue of $123 million. the first set of recommendations were findings actually rather that we have really is more of a positive finding in that we found based on our assessments and procedures that the airport

appropriately awarded concession releases based on solicitation results and really despite mister creighton's alleged assurances ibelieve that was , that the subject was ultimately not given to mister bovis and the lease number five was awarded to the winning bid based on theairports competitive solicitationprocess . one thing to also note is in 2019 , our city services auditor also conducted on it separately of the airport commission and concluded based on that audit that the airport administers the solicitation process though the findings based on that on as well as the current assessment are corroborated based on the results of our review. the second set of findings and

recommendations that we have really commissioner creighton having had an improper communication with a potential bidder who in this case is mister bovis. miss craven allegedly agreed to meet with and help they potential bidder and she did not report the improper reques for preferential assistance . miss craven did meet with a proposer during the required training which violated the rfp as to the proposals inception preventing any attempt by the proposer to communicate with or solicit any market officials with theintent to influence the outcome of the selection process .we also wanted to highlight as part of our fieldwork we did a limited scope survey of various commissions and boards in the city . in particularly we look at the court commission, sf mta board of directors as well as the sfp

public utilities commission and the dtpa and what we want to highlight some of the findings based on that comparison, it's that we found none of the commissions reported having their commissioners being involved in the solicitation process with theevaluation process . we also found in terms of the approval authority that all commissions to have responsibility to contract and in terms of writtenpolicy , we found that the airport does have written policy in this prohibition. in terms of the statement of incompatible activity or sia prohibition we all found that all of the surveyed entities had this except for the key jpa which was technically not of city affiliatedentity . and that in terms of rfp

instructions to potential bidders that all actually did have instructions intheir rfp regarding their communication . one thing to note is that none of the departmental sia's that we reviewed included any prohibition related to communication with potential bidders .it mostly focused on actual bidders but not potential bidders and i will talk more about that in the set of recommendations that we have. that really drives to our recommendations related to the communication prohibition . the first is for the city commissions and board to revise their policy procedures to include requirements to address involvement in contract board process. we also have a second recommendation on sia training in conjunction with the commission and board, it should annually train its members on the departments sia and the

training should state that if requesters do request inappropriate assistance that petitioners have a responsibility to report them and to have certain next steps with the cityattorney and ethics commission as well . we also have a recommendation in codifying prohibition, city law should be amended tocodify that city officials and employees who knowingly provide selectiveassistance , to further strengthen the requirements that we have and solicit on the potential proposer for a city contract . fourth is on the inclusion of the communication restriction. really just for departments to include in their competitive documentation, solicitation documentation the restriction on communication with potential bidders and the fifth on

codifying prohibition of the sia. we recommend this commission to work with the city attorney to consider codifying prohibition of the statement of incompatible activities to ensure consistency in their enforcement as well as increasing the visibility of the requirement. and next set of findings and recommendations really how the city may benefit from codifying limitations when the commissioner and board directs their involvement in the contract board process. currently the charter inception 4.102 outlines the powers and duties of boards and commissions but it doesn't say much substantively, the board should not do. one example we found was the qualifications of such a requirement in la county in which they codified thedirector and commissioner involvement as such . though their recommendation

that follows really is for the city to consider whether it would be warranted to codify the rules commissioning boards limitations and the contracting board process. the fourth set of findings really is more on the measures that the airport has taken since the fbi report and strengthening their contracting policies and procedures. one thing we did note was that they did implement a number of new seizures including adding restrictions in the communications by bitter and proposer during thequiet period . that's our rfp request for bid and they also in december implemented their competitive selection processcommunications policy . a prohibited communication with potential proposers during the restricted communications

period. our recommendation specifically follows for the airport to continue with their efforts in improving the various aspects of their competitive solicitation process including regularly issuing reports to the commission that they have waste awareness in terms of the various proposers. the last and final set of findings and recommendations that we have really the increase or enhance data-driven decisions. as some of you may know one overarching requirements the city has related to transparency is the san francisco campaign and government conduct approach section 11.26 which prohibits city contractors or affiliates from contributing to city elected officers where a contract must be improved

approved by the city elected officer or a candidate for an office or a committee . since january 2019 departments and city elected officers have been bound by this requirement. for example, report departments are required to comply with section 1.12622 file their form 126f to within 30 days of receipt of any proposal. these are for contract evaluations for $100,000 or more per fiscalyear. and then for city elected officers , they are now required to comply with section 1.126f4 to file within four days of the contract and really currently the forms 1.126f2 are tracked by the commission but they are not available or tracked such as not trapped in

the financial or procurement system.basically while filing in centrallytracked information is important is before a contract is awarded , the department department and commission contract approvers may not know if contract information that could help them avoid conflicts of interest . one key feature of the form 126f2 is it contains the nameof the subcontractor owners and officers . informationcollected earlier on , would certainly benefit the city as a whole and in particularthose that are proving . another key aspect of this is we also noted that revenue contracts which are those that generate revenue for the city are not yet configured to the duty stored in the city several financial and procurement system information collected through such essential repository can facilitate

awareness of entities or individuals subject to the city competitive selection policy so what follows are recommendations related to the city directing departments to require to submit the information about their thoughts affiliates. basically the earlier date will collect such information the better information, the better site line we will have to avoi potential conflict of interest . and then also to promote data-driven decisions to develop and implement the departments to work with the city controller to develop any new refinements in the evidentialsystem that could benefit the departments . thatconcludes our presentation . we have as mentioned, this is

fourth in a series. we have three currently in the pipeline thatwe will be issuing the next few months . the next one being on the citywide ethics reporting requirements and next one on the department of building inspection and another one on the sf utilities commission in response to the november 30 complaint. that concludes ourpresentation and we would be happy to answer any questions you have , commissioners. >>chair ambrose:thank you very much, i appreciate it , all the work you've been doing and effort as well.i'm going to go to commissioner busch, you have your handup . i don't know if that was from you. if i can get everybody back on the screen. commissioner busch, yes, you had a comment.

>>larry bush: i have a question about conferencefor commissioners , i notice on membership at least two of the commissioners are executives in nonprofits who solicit contribution. and those contributions are not disclosed because they are nonprofits. how would you know if someone is bidding on a city contract was a contributor to a nonprofit that the airport commissioner headed ? was i muted? >>chair ambrose: know, we heard you.i think people are trying to process the question. you're saying there are airport commissioners who are employed by nonprofit organizations and your question is how would we know if they solicited

contributions to their own organizations, is that the question? >>larry bush: they are not just employed by, they are directors of nonprofits and i'm wondering about whether a better make the contributions to their nonprofits at the same time they're making a big at the airport and would that be consent or not? >> one of the things the city currently has in place already is that there is a payment reporting scheme for commissioners so that's been in place for a couple of years now. there are some exceptions admittedly in the ordinance but commissioners do have to report payments or contributions

solicited that they solicit, those need to be disclosed and those contributions are $1000 or more or more those are on file with the commission. >>larry bush: they didn't solicited it and it came across the transom, would you know? >>andrew shen: not necessarily. >>chair ambrose: okay. i'm not going to ... >>larry bush: ifit's commissioners is a serious issue . >>chair ambrose:did i hear somewhere out there the point that , i'm not sure delarosa's informationprovoked some of the commissioners who'd been on the commission for 24 years or more , did i hear board members suggest that their return limits for commissioners or did i just dream that anyone here that ?

go ahead, commissioner busch if you have another question or comment. >>larry bush:that was where i was going at the moment . i think the controller's office has done again another excellent job of getting this information and showing us our roadmap of where to go . >>chair ambrose: i had a few questions if i can interject. first, the recommendation that all departments have written policies precluding what i would call ex parte communications from proposed bettors or proposers on contract or opportunities or leases before the commission, when you presented this matter to the board of supervisors

hearing, did any ofthe supervisors say they were going to introduce legislation along those lines ? because i do think that having consistent written policy applies to all commission decision-makers on these major contracts and development opportunities would be a good policy so is that pending anywhere? do you know? >> chair ambrose, remembering what was the gao, i don't think there was a specific motion to introduce at the time. we are aware that a supervisor may be putting forth a possible set of legislation that relates to this particular deliverable but i don't have the specifics on that and what exactly is covered under that.

>> what we're doing as part of our recommendation and now there are approximately 29 recommendations in the core report, we are tracking where there have been legislative items introduced either by board members or in the case of city attorneys departments for suspensions update to the degree thatthose or mayoral directors, we are tracking that . supervisors as you know at the chance to reach out to do drafting and review. i believe a number of them are still considering whatpotential implications may be especially given that we have three more reports coming out . so what we know and has been introduced, you can see on the registration system specifics, we don't have sightlines so that the proposal. >>chair ambrose: my second question specifically, you referenced form 126 f2 and 4

but that only applies if the underlying contracts are going to be subject to an

>>daina chiu: have you thought about a mechanism or process by which it could force the officials to either certify at the end of the year, if you have any recommendations other than that would be beneficial to say if you are an elected or appointed when you file your forms you also certify.

>> is buried within the first set of recommendations i mentioned. this is in relation to a competitive solicitation document and a new restriction from communication and there's a second part to one of the recommendations that basically requires commissions and board members to certify annually. >>daina chiu: with respect to contracting ... [inaudible]

that's helpful because it could be a great reminder what am i missing and course in place of record-keeping and compliance filing along the way for instance search for march 31. and drive more disclosure hopefully. >>mark de la rosa: the next deliverable assessments willthe concern you just mentioned . it will highlight any improvements that we need to make in order for such ethical reporting and data to be more centrally tracked and located so that there's a public facing mechanism by which either

elected commissioners and department heads can track on regular basis . also for the public to have visibility to compliance on an ongoing basis . we will cover that in our next deliverable. >>daina chiu: just a follow-up question given your work in investigation of these agencies, what level would you put in awareness or understanding to elected officials have their obligations amid these allegations and the various scenarios that are pretty outrageous and egregious and were they knowingly flaunting the law or were peoplearound them just not there ? how much awareness was there would you say if you can do obligations that come with the responsibility of the office

and how much of that was just simple and blatant disregard. i know it's not something we are going to do anyway but how much of it was actual ignorance and thinking it would be all right and how much training is there within city departments? >>mark de la rosa: that's certainly something that we tried to scope these assessments based on the limited at least scope that we were able to create based on the federal complaint. so we didn't really extrapolate beyond the departments that have beeneither implicated or that we survey .again, it's a great foreshadowing to for the final report, so all of the assessments we've completed so far are preliminary and at the end of the series of the

preliminary assessment tool then have a final report. i think last time we boarded we discussed how that final report will be basically cover some of the underlying or overarching themes and issues including tone at the top and the ethical environments in the city. so hopefully we will shed more light on that citywide kind of lens and pulls for the ethical and the values citywide. >>daina chiu: thank you for that, i know this is coming from the corporate world and the strategies get brought before us all the time and the principle of leadership and holding people accountable for ethical behavior and its not just words on paper and having breach of recommendations including actual facts,

leadership and requirements for people to be ethical and be held to account and divide by legal standards. it will be a long time coming to thank you for your work and i look forward to your report and we will read it back here in the meantime. >> you are muted, chair. >>chair ambrose: that is the phrase of 20/20, that youare muted commissioner lee, go ahead . you are muted now. >>yvonne lee: thank you madam chair, i cannotfind my button . >>chair ambrose: its way down in the far right corner.

>>yvonne lee: thank you so muc . it's then another informative presentation. thank you for all your work and leadership. i have one question . when the proposal appeared before the airport commission, they may be legally required to recuse themselves from voting as a requirement but is there any other requirements for the commissioners to disclose their friendships or facilitation with the applicants? out of a total abundance of transparency, they may not meet the legal requirement but there should be anethical

consideration . >>mark de la rosa: i was going to defer to andrew shen. >>andrew shen: i don't mean to interrupt you but vice chair lee, we have a provision in the governmental code actually 3.14 which requires officers leading commissioners to disclose thei personal , professional or business relationships with people that come before them where the commission is making a final decision about the matter at hand so in addition to therecusal requirement you mentioned , vice chair lee there are otherrequirements that does fairly often .thank you. >>chair ambrose: commissioner bush go ahead. >>larry bush: if you can explain where is that disclose

because it's not part of the hundred. i don't know if it's just disclose in the minutes of the commission meeting and not the ethics commission . where is the disclosure taking place? >>andrew shen: commissioners are required to and it's a matter of public meeting they are required to take the disclosure at the meeting itself and that disclosure to be incorporated to reflect the meeting minutes or city employees those disclosures obviously can't be a public meeting if there are committees outside of that context and they're supposed to put a memo to the file and in my experience itusually sent to a department in charge . so it depends on the official involved. >>larry bush: thatsounds fairly inaccessible to the public . >>chair ambrose: just to be clear about this is an instance where a person is disclosing

that they have a personal or professional relationship with someone who as as a matter pending but where they are stating for the record that that relationship is such that there is no financial interest involved. that's if somebody that they know from their church or their in the school committee from their kids high school or something, if someone asked the conflict of interest and they recuse themselves, my understanding is that now we do have a centralized database where we show that somebody recuse themselves because they have an actual conflict of interest that precludes them from voting on a particular matter or being involved in preparation of the contract.

is that correct, city attorney? isn't there arequirement now that that , that refusals be disclosed? >>andrew shen: that's correct, the commissioner needs to recuse due to a financial conflict so they have a financial interest in the matter at hand they are required to file a notification which are submitted and posted with the ethics extension. >>chair ambrose: okay. go ahead commissioner bush. >>larry bush: i like to put on the record that we have groups like the third, a good public civic minded group whose board of directors is made up of city officials and developers . and some of the people on the board of directors are developers who have matters before the city