will be participating in today's meeting remotely. this precaution is taken pursuant to local, state and federal orders. commission members will attend through video conference and participate to the same extent as if they were physically present. please note today's meeting is live on sfgov tv and stream lined online live as well. once again streamed live at sfgovtv.org. public comment is available on each item of the agenda. each member of the public is allowed three minutes to speak. opportunities are via phone call calling 415-655-0001.

again the phone number is 415-655-0001. access 146 693 8503. again, 146 693 8503 mute the television, radio or computer and especially important if you are watching

the web link to prevent an echo when you speak. when the system says your line is unmuted, it is your time to speak. you will hear staff say "welcome caller." when you start speaking you'll have three minutes to provide public comment, six minutes online with an interpreter. you'll hear a bell when you have 30 seconds remaining. if you change your mind and want to withdraw yourself from the public comment line, press star 3 again. you will hear the system say you have lowered your hand. once three minutes is expired, staff will thank you and mute you. you will hear "your line has been muted." attendees who wish to speak during other public comment opportunities should stay online and enter their hands by pressing star 3 when the next item of interest comes up. public comment may be submitted in writing as well and will be shared with the commission after the meeting was concluded and be included as part of the official

meeting file. written comments sent to ethics.commission@sfgov.org. thank you madam chair. >> chair ambrose: thank you. can you call the roll please? >> clerk: commissioner bell? >> commissioner bell: here. >> clerk: commissioner bush.

>> commissioner bush: present. >> clerk: commissioner chiu. >> commissioner chiu: present. >> clerk: you have a quorum. >> chair ambrose: we're going to call public comment on matters appearing or not appearing on the agenda. members of the public who wish to speak, dial star 3 if you have not done so to be added to the public comment line. please proceed with public comment. >> clerk: agenda item number 2, each member of the public has up to three minutes to provide public comment. if you joined earlier to listen to the proceedings now is the time to get on to the line to speak. if you haven't done so, press star 3. it is important that you press star 3 only once to enter the

queue. once you are in the queue and standing by, 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 a whole. madam chair, we are checking for callers. we have a caller in the queue. please stand by. your three minutes starts now. >> good morning commissioners. my name is ellen zhou. i am a public social worker.

i am a union delegate for government employees and member to remind all of you in san francisco to return to god. i have been coming to you ethics commission many, many times starting from 2016 and the last i spoke to you virtually over the phone was march 12th 2021. 2022, you all know san francisco, one party politicians authorize 5,000 a month for anyone come to san francisco sleeping inside a tent. people who have disability spend

$17,000 a month and for average homeless person, that is $8,000 a month. we, the city because of the lawless politicians, they spent 12.3 billion a year for a sink hole city, san francisco. you all remember 2020 we had more than 700 people die and pass away on the streets. right now we have 20% housing units available but lawless evil politicians talking about building affordable housing when we have 75,000 empty units available. san francisco politicians to murder our unborn babies by using our public money. they support illegal drugs by

continuing advocating to open illegal injection sites. they support drug dealers. i am here today to request ethic commission, you, all of you, to review the situation with the failed city with about 18 elected officials to return law and order to protect us, the people who pay taxes. who pay the price to live in a city, san francisco, we do not -- >> clerk: your three minutes have expired. >> thank you. >> chair ambrose: thank you caller. any further commenters in the

queue? >> clerk: please stand by. no further callers in the queue. >> chair ambrose: thank you. public comment is closed on item 2. i'm going to call item 3, the consent calendar, draft minutes to june 11th, 2021, regular meeting. does any member of the public intend to offer -- i think there's another -- sorry. there are two items on consent, right? the draft minutes and one of the stipulations. >> clerk: correct. >> chair ambrose: we can call them together if they're both on

consent. okay. so i'm going to call the consent calendar items 3 and 4 together with one roll call vote unless someone wants to take either the draft minutes or stipulation on yes on prop c versus universal childcare in san francisco and move it to regular calendar. seeing no request to do so, both of those items are being called together. is there any public comment on the consent calendar if you could please check mr. moderator. >> clerk: thank you. the ethics commission is receiving public comment on consent items 3 and 4 only in this meeting. each member of the public has up to three minutes to provide public comment. you will hear a bell when you

have 30 seconds remaining. if you have not done so, press star 3. it is important you press star 3 only once to enter the queue. pressing it again will move you back into listening mode. if you haven't done so, press star 3 to be added to the queue. for those on hold, continue to wait until the system indicates you have been unmuted. we have a caller in the queue. your three minutes begins now. >> thank you again ethics commissioners. i spoke in item 2 for a lawless

city officials that is running city hall. only 18 elected officials. you the ethics commission had a duty to protect government. i am so sad to see you who volunteer your time, some of them you get paid. only one me in the line for public comment. i remember when you open at city hall in person, you had more people go in and listen. but now you're running an ethics commission public hearings all by yourselves. that means the general public is not informed with anything you

talk about. i believe in my honest opinion. please do outreach to the people that you impact in the items you talk about, childcare, universal childcare, who are the beneficiaries? did you do outreach to parents? did you do any outreach to all who are planning to have families. you all know the entire unified schools is failing because we're not open.

there's no public comments. my name is ellen. i live in san francisco, i live in district number 9. i have seen a failing ethics commission fail to enforce law and order. at least i know that you today, there's only one me in here for public hearing. i don't know if you have public hearings, anyone spoke to you at all from the public the last 15 months other than march because i was here march 12, 2021. please reach out to people on the items that matter to san francisco. not just talk about amongst

yourself -- >> clerk: the three minutes have expired. >> thank you. god bless you. >> chair ambrose: thank you. any further callers in the queue? >> clerk: please stand by. no additional callers in the queue madam chair. >> chair ambrose: can i have a motion to approve items 3 and 4? commissioner bell moved. if you would call the roll on 3 and 4 on the consent calendar mr. moderator. >> clerk: a motion has been made and seconded to items 3 and 4. i will call the roll. (roll call)

the motion is approved. >> chair ambrose: thank you very much. i'm going to call item 5 on the regular calendar. this is proposed streamline stipulation decision and order in the matter of cammy blackstone complaint number 1920-010 and i'm going to ask jeff pierce to speak to this matter and while we're waiting for jeff, if any member of the public wants to enter public comment, they should enter in now. commissioners, if you have questions or comments for jeff that you want to discuss about this, please raise your hand.

>> thank you chair ambrose. i'll hand it over to senior investigator eric willett who administers the streamline program. >> chair ambrose: thank you. >> good morning chair ambrose and commissioners. i can field any questions you have about this. i see commissioner bush's hand up. go ahead. >> commissioner bush: thank you. i want to just by way of background, are these the first cases we've had involving lobbyists? >> yes, commissioner bush. these are the first provisions of law under the lobbyist ordinance we put forward to you. you are correct. >> commissioner bush: in this particular case, did the

lobbyist initially disclose there were no contacts? >> in this matter, no. ms. blackstone has reported all contacts but failed to include the payment she received from her employer which is in this matter, she's an employee of at&t and we contacted her to amend the filings and reflect a portion of her salary to cover the time it took to make those contacts. >> commissioner bush: so it did include who the contacts were? >> yes, that's correct. >> commissioner bush: does that account for the fact that the stipulation is at the level it is? >> can you expand upon that

commissioner bush? >> commissioner bush: the fact that those elements were disclose account for a lower stipulated penalty than it might have been otherwise? >> i see, so ms. blackstone took the corrected action to file the amendments and return the signed stipulated agreement within the first 30 days span, which reflects a tier 1 penalty calculation, in this matter, $500 plus 15% of all payments received. so it is an amount of $1112.

>> if i can offer a clarification. as described, this is not a shadow lobbying case. there was no instance of lobbying we could tell that went undisclosed. we saw it essentially as a paperwork case that the streamline program was designed to handle in this accelerated matter. there were no aggravating considerations here. and all of the calculations were within the thresholds and guidelines that the streamline program asserts. to your question about whether it would have been a different stipulation under different facts, certainly. and staff could have looked at this differently if there were different facts or aggravating factors. >> commissioner bush: thank you. that clarifies things for me on

this case. >> chair ambrose: thank you. any other comments? if not, i'm going to call for public comment. mr. moderator, can you please call for public comment? >> clerk: we are checking to see if there are callers in the queue. please continue to wait until the system indicating you have been unmuted. we are on public comment of item 5 in the matter of cammy blackstone. press star 3 to be added to the public comment queue. please stand by.

we have no callers in the queue. >> chair ambrose: public comment is closed on item 5. thank you commissioner bush for bringing out some of the background on the case. i appreciate it. i would like a motion to approve the stipulated settlement if there is one. commissioner chiu has moved. is there a second? thank you commissioner bush. can you please call the roll. >> clerk: (roll call)

the the motion is approved. >> chair ambrose: agenda item 6, another proposed streamline taken off the consent calendar, decision and order in the matter of jennifer stojkovic complaint 1920-011. i'm going to turn to mr. pierce again to lead us into the discussion. >> thank you chair ambrose. and i'll give it back to senior investigator eric willett. >> this case is very similar to the previous matter resolved in

item 5. the only difference here is that jennifer stojkovic upon reviewing her record noticed she failed to report one contact. in addition to amending her previously reported contacts, to reflect the payments received, there was one month she had added a contact not previously reported in addition to the payments not previously reported. >> chair ambrose: so i'm going to start. i guess maybe i didn't read it closely enough. my impression was there were multiple years when the contacts were not disclosed. is that -- did i read that wrong? >> on the language of the

stipulation, it says and or the payments she received from her employer. maybe there's details lacking there for how many months it was amended to reflect the payments received and how many included payments received and additional contact. the background on this one was one month there was additional contact not previously reported that was amended to reflect -- >> chair ambrose: how did that information about the missing contact come to light? >> it came through self disclosure when she was reviewing records to amend them to reflect the payments received, she noticed she had an additional contact and went ahead on her own and filed that amendment. >> chair ambrose: thank you for that. all right. commissioner bush.

your hand is up. i didn't know if you have comments on this or from the last time. you're muted. >> commissioner bush: thank you. as i read the stipulation, there were many months beginning i think in 2017 in which her reports were going to have to be amended. what were the amendments? >> the amendments were primarily to reflect payments she received from her employer. this is again similar to the previous matter, that is jennifer stojkovic is employed by city and had to amend to reflect the portion of her salary spent on making those contacts. so sarp has specific eligibility

requirements for inclusion in the program and because it was only a portion of salaries, they were still under the sarp provisions eligibility standards. she also took the action in the first 30 days and her penalty is $500 plus 15% of previously unreported payments. that is $431 in this matter. >> commissioner bush: for each of the months, did she disclose with whom she had contacts? >> yes, with whom and the matter she was attempting to influence.

>> commissioner bush: that didn't come through clearly in the stipulation. i would urge that in the future stipulations clarify what was and was not disclosed to the public as part of this process. i understand from looking at the web page, it is a nonprofit. is that correct? >> i believe so. >> commissioner bush: why is the nonprofit making disclosures as though it was a lobbyist? we exempt them from lobbyist disclosures. >> we do for certain types of fee. fee organizations and i believe

the city is a different type of fee organization that is not exempted from the reporting requirements under the lobbyist ordinance. >> commissioner bush: and on their web page it shows they provide to the public and to their members a list of recommendations including recommendations of endorsements and voting for members of the board of supervisors. it is my understanding that nonprofits are not permitted to endorse candidates for office. isn't that correct? >> if they're doing it through the different fee organization types, i think that's a way around prohibition. >> i might add quickly commissioner bush, if there are -- if a nonprofit in the city is engaged in conduct that might jeopardize their tax exempt

status, it would be beyond the scope of the commission's jurisdiction. >> chair ambrose: it's an important thing to know about. and it's important to know -- i didn't realize there was a differences between 501-c-3 that could engage in political conduct but i assume that's the basis of the different treatment under the lobbyist ordinance. is that -- a fair assumption? >> that's correct and -- >> if i may weigh in a bit. i'm not really a nonprofit expert, so maybe i'm entering into unknown ground but there's an exception for contacts made by c-3 or c-4 nonprofit organization. 501-c-3s can weigh in on ballot

measures but not endorse candidates. i'm not that familiar with the organization, city is a c-6. something like the chamber of commerce would be a c-6. they treat different classifications in different levels of political activity. >> commissioner bush: from looking at guide star, it does include them as nonprofit as a c-3. and it includes their filing with the form 990, done by 501-c-3s. and that lends to the question of if that's the kind of organization they are, why on their web page do they promote people to support or oppose

certain candidates running for the board of supervisors. >> and certainly, perhaps we're getting far from the settlement, if there's concern about what they are allowed to do under the tax credit, but as jeff missioned, outside the commission's jurisdiction. the irs would enforce such matters. >> commissioner bush: or the state tax agency as well, right? >> it's possible. i suppose you could reach out to the franchise tax board. >> chair ambrose: i do think -- i appreciate staff's work on

stipulated settlements, we are getting off of the agenda. i'm going to move us back to mr. moderator, can you ask if there's public comment on this particular item? >> clerk: we are checking to see if there are callers in the queue. those on hold, continue to wait until the system indicates you have been unmuted. we are currently on the public discussion on the motion of agenda item 6. in the matter of jennifer stojkovic complaint number 1920-011. if you have not done so, press star 3 to be added to the queue. you will have three minutes to provide comment. you will hear a bell with 30 seconds remaining.

>> while the moderator is looking for public comment, to commissioner bush's question about if nonprofits have to disclose contacts, it is our understanding that there is an -- c 3s and c 4s but only those who filed a 990-n or 990-ev. it is our understanding reviewing the filings those are available only to nonprofits below a certain revenue stream or operating budget but those

who exceed file a 990 do not qualify for the exemption in the definition of context. >> chair ambrose: thank you for that. i always appreciate learning something new. it is good to know as we probably hopefully see more of these. welcome commissioner lee to the meeting. i wish you were sitting on the lovely beach somewhere. i have to learn how to use the backdrops some day. back to the moderator. >> clerk: we have callers in the queue. >> chair ambrose: thank you. >> clerk: welcome caller. >> hi there. i wanted to point out that this type of behavior is the whole reason for the creation of the ethics commission. i really commend the board for taking the action but i want to know there are specific penalties for misreporting

including a $50 a day fee for each instance of not correcting the report. that would make the fine well into the six figures. this penalty seems very short of true justice. thank you so much and for doing what you do. it is so important to continuation of running the city. thanks. >> clerk: thank you caller. we have another caller in the queue. welcome caller. your three minutes begins now. >> good morning commissioners. greetings to those of you i haven't seen for a while. and my greeting to the new

commissioner who i have never met. i just wanted to speak on this matter just briefly to raise the question of whether it is right in the sense that with so many months and years of non disclosure, whether it would not be advise for them to make the recommendation on the stipulation before it comes before the commission. i think the public should see what is going oven and better transparency would be afforded if you required the filings to occur before the item is taken up by the commission. i think that's the case really for any lobbyist.

i don't know your current rules but if that's not the rule, it could be changed to be that way in my view or at least examined and detailed. that's all i wanted to say. again, good to see you all and i'm glad you survived the epidemic and i hope all of those you are close to and your friends also survived well. >> chair ambrose: on the point you raised, i want to take a minute to hear from staff. i noticed that as well. i understand that we want to acknowledge and reward behavior where compliance is within a certain time period and they signed the stipulation and we

can complete the enforcement action, but the question that he raised -- so if they sign and file the disclosure the missing piece, my impression is, we do get that before the commission meeting, right? that was set for june 30th or something like that? so we do have the completed packet. but it seemed like there were options where we could have an action on this but then they would pay more money to not give us the information until after the meeting. is that -- aren't there like three tiers if you don't pay until the end of july, then you owe more money but then we would

not have seen the information before acting on it. >> we wouldn't present a stipulated agreement to the commissioners without having verified the corrected action was taken. some of it is part of the calculation for the penalty amount. >> chair ambrose: so you have the information and it is an available to the public, okay, all right. >> yeah. and the different dates provided are if it takes longer than 30 days to take the corrective action, then it increases the penalty amount.

when it gets to your desk, action has been taken. >> chair ambrose: okay. all right. and i'm also going to assume that on the rightness issue, that there weren't actually undisclosed reports that we haven't seen. that it was just in that instance, it was the payment, the percentage of her salary, a payment but all of the contacts but one she later identified and came forward with were known. >> yes, that's correct.

>> chair ambrose: and the final point that the other commenter made, the $50 fee to not correct the report, yes, of course that would be a lot of money, but i think at least in my view and this instance, if it were to happen again with either of these individuals now that they have been put to notice that they must disclose a percentage of their salary then i would definitely want to look at the additional penalty. are there further commenters in the queue? >> clerk: yes, please stand by.

>> i don't have a horse in the race at all but i noticed people were talking about about exemptions for nonprofits. my understanding of the law and i just pulled it up, this comes up from time to time, any 501-c-3, a charity employee is exempted from the lobbying laws period, regardless of the tax filings they make with the irs and for c-4, social welfare organizations, their employees are exempted if the organizations themselves are quite small and file 990-ns ore z's meaning they have raised $200,000 or less in a year or have $500,000 in assets on the books at the time of the filing and tax returns, which are

generally very small c-4s that fit into that category. any c-4 larger than that, they have to file 990s with the irs, standard tax filings and they do have to comply with the lobbying laws. any other type of c organizations, they have to comply regardless of size. that's my $0.02. thank you for your service. >> chair ambrose: thank you and thank you for the information. are there further commenters in the queue?

>> clerk: thank you. madam chair, no further callers in the queue. >> chair ambrose: thank you. with that, public comment is closed. i do see commissioner chiu i think you had your hand up -- >> commissioner chiu: with regard to the $50 a day. i take from that, it's at the discretion? my clarifying question would be under the new framework that the commission has adopted for the streamline processing of these matters, is the $50 per day fine or penalty, is that at the discretion of the commission? >> yes. so we do include modifiers in addition to the percentage of previously unreported payments received. we also add $500 if they resolve within the first 30 days and that increases as well as the percentage taken for the length

of time that it takes for corrective action to be taken and the stipulated agreement to be signed off on. and the ordinance does still allow for discretion application of the $50. we try to reflect percentage and dollar amount in addition to the percentage amounts. in an effort to demonstrate the severity of -- >> chair ambrose: application of these factors can send a strong deterrent message that if you fail to file and there's a pattern in practice or huge number of incomplete or missing milings, there are consequences from that.

commissioner bush, your hand is up. >> commissioner bush: i want to make sure i understand, 501-c-3 regardless of size do not have to file as lobbyists? >> chair ambrose: i was thinking on that point, given it is highly technical and legal area of law, that we just give the staff some time to pin that down and just provide us with a response at the next meeting because we might be contributing to confusion and misinformation and i think it would be useful to know exactly who our lobbyist

law applies to. and he mentioned that any employee is exempt, which if they hire their lobbyists as employees, that's a whole other curiosity. with that, i really -- it's not on the agenda, i'm going to have staff get back to us with some clarity. >> commissioner bush: i recommend we push this over to the next meeting and not vote on it now. until this is resolved. it's a significant issue. >> chair ambrose: okay. i don't know that i see it ties to this particular stipulated settlement since this individual did file. but if that's your motion to continue this item, is there a

second? >> i'll second. >> chair ambrose, i apologize for interrupting, before you seek a vote on the motion, i want to clarify, as far as i can tell, sf is not a c-3, it's a c-6. >> commissioner bush: they file a form 990 and as a 501-c-3. if you go to guide star, you find it there. >> not as a c-6? >> commissioner bush: right. >> chair ambrose: can you please call the roll on the motion?

>> clerk: a motion has been made and seconded. i will call the roll. (roll call) >> chair ambrose: this is to move the item to next month's calendar. (roll call) four votes in the affirmative and one opposed, the motion is approved. >> chair ambrose: with that, just to make sure when you put it on the calendar, if we could have not all the federal regulations under the irs code but a quick summary of the different categories of nonprofits and which of those

are subject to our lobbying rules, that would be helpful. with that, i'm going to call agenda item 7. looking at the time, go ahead. discussion of possible action on statement of incompatible activities, so-called sia for the department of homelessness and supportive housing, shs. we're going to hear from pat ford about the sia. and mr. ford, when you start, if you can just -- we haven't seen action by the ethics commission adopting an sia since most -- we haven't had new departments in my tenure here, can you quickly explain what the role of the ethics commission is in reviewing and approving statement. >> definitely. thank you chair ambrose.

good morning commissioners. pat ford, senior policy and legislative affairs council. sia is statement of incompatible activities. a statement that each city department must adopt that sets out certain activities incompatible with duties of officials and employees within the department. as chair ambrose mentioned, when a new department is created, it must adopt a new statement of incompatible activities. and each time a new statement is created or existing statement is amended, approval of the ethics commission is required. additionally, the city must meet and confer with affected employee bargaining units and that has to happen before the commission votes to approve or amend sia. the department of homelessness and supportive housing was created in 2016.

this would be a new sia for that department. the department has worked with department of human resources to meet and confer with a number of employee unions. the unions were first notified on april 8th of the new sia and provided a draft of it and on may 5th meeting was held to talk about the sia with the unions and then on june 23rd, meet and confer process was closed out. so at this point, now the next step in the process is for the ethics commission to look at the sia and to vote to approve or not approve it. if it's approved at this point, the sia becomes operative and they can distribute to officers and employees. as you saw in the memo, this sia

essentially mirrors the exact same language in most other departments sia's. there are a few provisions that are unique or different for this particular department. i just called those out on the second page, there are three of them. one says that no employee or officer within the department can be a registered lobbyist. there's also language that clarifies that employees can engage in volunteer activities for nonprofits and that doesn't contradict the rule for participating in activities subject to review by the department. and then lastly, it says no employee or officer can serve as a member of the board of directors of a nonprofit that applies for funding, including grants or contracts that are

administered by the department. those are the provisions unique to this one. otherwise, it mirrors language in the other sia's. staff is recommending the commission approve this sia. and also melanie from the department is here and can provide comments she would like and answer questions you might have. i'll turn it over to melanie. >> chair ambrose: thank you. and welcome. i have a quick question. did i read in here that the employees of this new department are all subject to the form 700 level 3 reporting and if so, why is that? doesn't this department have a fairly substantial budget and

numerous contracts engagement. why would they be level 3 reporters? that's to you, pat? >> i need a second to look at the code to see what theirs are. >> chair ambrose: i think it was in the memo. i swear i didn't make it up. i'm pretty sure i read it somewhere. in any event, maybe melanie, you can explain, what is the department for the department of homeless for a year. >> good morning. i'm actually going to -- if emily is on, i don't have the number memorized. i think it's around 600 million

for this fiscal year but emily cowen is our deputy director of external affairs. i do want to state that not all of our employees are submitting form 700s. >> chair ambrose: we wouldn't expect all of them to submit, but the ones making decisions about the 600 million, i would have expected them to be at least a level 2 form 700 filer. >> chair ambrose, i looked that up. so, the executive director, deputy directors and finance and performance manager all disclose at category 1. the contracts manager, information technology director, personnel manager and homeless and supportive housing managers are category 2 to provide

supplies, materials, machinery to the department. >> chair ambrose: thank you. that makes me not worry about that then. thank you. commissioner chiu you had your hand up. >> commissioner chiu: i had a question for mr. ford. the provisions you highlighted, given the kind of ongoing and ever widening corruption scandal out of dpw, does this statement of incompatible activities capture those activities we think should be restricted or otherwise addressed in sia of this nature?

>> my approach in looking at this sia and any sia is to see if it's in line with other sia's. i think any new policies the commission would want to pursue, the sia is not the ideal vehicle for that. the ideal for new policies is to put it in the code or regulation so it applies uniformly across the board to all departments. unfortunately this is a shortcoming of the model itself. we have as many sia's as

department and changing one doesn't change of all the other departments. as far as new rules needed in light of what we have learned over the last 18 or so months, i think the code is really where i'm fixated. >> in an ideal world we would have rules and legislation applied equally across the

board. but given the allegations that have come out of the corruption scandal, there's an opportunity to address those. as i recall from some of the reports that came out, there was a statement incompatible activities and didn't touch on anything, now that we know about it, why wouldn't we apply these learnings in order to deter behavior that could lead to problems down the road? i fully appreciate that becomes a patchwork and in the absence of policy standpoint, there's legislation and rule making is obviously the most far reaching way to address it. but the moment we are in right now. i'm not suggesting that we have to go back at this point, but i

want to make the point, how do we as an ethics commission, the house is burning down and while it would be great to have a full slate of fire trucks but if we have a garden hose to apply to the fire, shouldn't we use that as well. >> i don't think i'm going too far off the agenda to say reviewing sia's is part of the larger ongoing conflict of interest project that will be a later phase of the project. right now we're looking at gift rules, that's the second phase and in the third phase, we'll look at a number of things and sia's are one of them, is there

a way to drive policy that overcomes that kind of patchwork issue you mentioned. so that's on the radar. not as part of this agenda temper say, but part of the larger policy project we're working on. >> commissioner chiu: right. i think there's -- it can be both and. it doesn't have to be mutually exclusive and i think there is an opportunity to have different sia's addressing different issues because the risks are different for different departments. those that do a lot with public contracting would have different exposures and opportunities for incompatible activity versus a

different type of organizations like the ethics commission where we don't have public contracting and don't deal a lot with these revenues. so i think it's -- more to discuss as we go forward. but, just wanted to make that point. thank you. >> chair ambrose: thank you. i'm going to have the moderator call for public comment on this item. if you want to make the announcement about public comment. >> clerk: we are checking for callers in the queue. for those on hold, wait until the system indicates you have been unmuted. we're on public discussion of agenda item 7.

we have no callers in the queue. >> chair ambrose: thank you. i saw your hand up commissioner bush. i wanted to find out if we had a number of public speakers on this. you had a comment, please. >> commissioner bush: two comments. first i associate myself with commissioner chiu's observations

that we don't want to be the enemy of the good and changing this would be good. i don't think we need to wait for the perfect. more specifically, when you get into the provisions, under activities subject to review by the department and under a, it refers to assistance and responding to city bids and so forth. no officer may provide selective assistance that is not generally available in the matter that confers a bidder or proposer, blah, blah, blah. but then it provides an exception. the exception is, when it's for a charitable organization.

if a city official or employee of this department is assisting a charitable organization in the fundraising opportunities. the definition is very broad and i think too broad for what we have in mind. for example when the mayor established the committee to have 100th anniversary of celebration of city hall, that was a charitable organization. in other cities like los angeles, what they have done is to narrow the definition from charitable organization to charitable organization providing services. so you are not cutting out the ability to assist organizations

that are helping low income people who are in need of assistance but no longer providing city staff or officials to assist an elected official with their particular issues. i would suggest that we take a deeper look at how we define charitable organizationses in this and all other cases. >> if i could chair ambrose. i want to make sure i understand what you're looking at commissioner bush. this is on page 4 of the sia talking about activities subject to review by the department, specifically assistance in responding to city bids, rfp's. you're looking at the bolded

language, is that right? no officer or employee may provide assistance to individuals or entities, including nonprofit charitable organizations. is that the language? >> commissioner bush: that's right. >> that's not an exception. >> commissioner bush: the issue is not just city contracts. you have charitable organizations seeking to influence the decision of who will be hired, who will be named to a commission. so they lobby the mayor over who will be the commissioners. or they lobby the department head as to who is going to be the enforcement actor. or they lobby over the policy of how it's going to be

interpreted. there's nothing new about all this. this is the way the world works in this city. >> chair ambrose: i need to bring this back to this particular department. i hear what you're saying about -- but specific -- the point you made, you thought there was an exception for an employee of the department of homelessness to be able to provide selective support to a charitable organization and i think i heard mr. ford say no, that's not how that reads. is that -- correct? >> that's correct. yes. this language actually is just clarifying that there's no exception. that even if you volunteer for a nonprofit, you still can't provide them with selective assistance. >> chair ambrose: which makes

sense to me. okay. >> commissioner bush: that's only assistance in cases of contracts. it's not assistance in lobbying for policy changes or appointments. if you have been around city hall, you know that's where -- >> chair ambrose: but we're talking about city employees, how to conduct themselves as city employees. the problem you are raising, which i hear you, has to do with the activities of charitable organizations engaged in city activities. but this sia is about -- the thing i'm concerned about is that right now we have a department of homelessness with a $600 million budget and ramping up and they don't have a statement of incompatible activities. bringing it back and we have a lot more items on the agenda today. so bringing it back to the

matter at hand, i agree with everything you all have been saying about how we need to better integrate the good government conduct code and regulations and sia's since it is the thing that everybody in the department gets a copy of every year. but that's not what we're doing right now. right now we're trying to provide the department of homeless and supportive housing with the guidance that is just the sort of fundamentals. to that end, i want to ask for a motion to move this sia and again, we can take up this larger issue as mr. ford was saying as part of the policy priority program. so thank you very much

commissioner lee. sorry. we might have to take a snack break. i can see my blood sugar is dropping. do i have a second to approve this sia? commissioner chiu. mr. moderator can you call the roll on the agenda item 7? >> clerk: (roll call) four votes in the affirmative and one opposed, the motion is approved.

>> chair ambrose: okay. with that, i'm going to -- it's 10:45. we could try to press forward with agenda item 8, but i think what i'm going to do, can we take a five minute break? would that be okay with everyone? and then come back and do -- we have the annual report and discussion of the performance audit on our return agenda. so five minutes. i'll see you back here at 10:50. thank you.

>> chair ambrose: i will call agenda item 8. i assume commissioner bush will be back on any second. there you are. agenda item 8, discussion and possible action on the revised draft of the fiscal year report. i'm going to turn it over to executive director pelham and thank her and her staff for the work they have done to bring this forward to us. with that, i jump in and open it up to comments. i see commissioner chiu, your hand is up. i don't know if that was prior

-- okay. all right. so go ahead director pelham if you wanted to just present the item. >> director pelham: thank you. good morning commissioners. following the last commission meeting where you provided feedback on the initial draft we had for the june meeting. we took that feedback and updated the draft report for your further consideration today. just as a general overview, what you see different in this draft than previous is that we tried to be responsive to categorizing the information in ways that were more in alignment with the goals we want to achieve. we added a table of contents you'll see and divides it to the three key areas we have been

focused on. strength in oversight and accountability and practice and continued to really strengthen our service through the department. there's a final section on looking ahead. we did go through an update of the year end with final numbers that we had based on the june 30th end of the fiscal year on page 5, you'll see a graphic that includes those highlights from the year at a glance. and then the report flows from there. we have organized summary of key highlights around program areas and then the group, the updates that are program and operational and policy according to the goal they're seeking to serve starting on page 9. so certainly hope you had a chance to review it. we recognize that maybe you have additional comments or feedback you would like to provide based

on this draft, happy to hear that from you today and see how you want to proceed towards ultimately finalizing the report to distribute to the public to reflect the work we have done as an agency over the past year. chair, i think you're muted. >> chair ambrose: thank you. i was saying thank you again and to your team for gathering all the information. commissioner chiu, i see your hand raised. >> commissioner chiu: yes. thank you chair ambrose and director pelham and the entire ethics commission staff. what a tremendous year really, congratulations and kudos for not only doing all this work but

doing it from home, from your kitchen juggling childcare and stress and overhanging of the pandemic. this is just tremendous. really proud to be part of this work. i think the only comments i have on the report relate to additional headers and formatting. for example on page 3, maybe right in the middle of the photo -- first paragraph, we could put a heading in there to break things up. the graphs by topic. i can send this off line afterwards. but with areas of focus or program focus and then at the end on page 4, i would love to

see under results like the major highlights, we have the highest percentage of public finance ever in the history of the program. we dispersed however many -- almost $3.5 million and closed out -- so pull some of those highlights into page 4 so at a glance, if the public only reads the first two pages, they will come away with key highlights of our accomplishments. and then starting page 7, same theme. instead of saying programs. i would suggest grouping the work under public finance or transparency, investigation and enforcement instead of having to read each bullet point to find

what they may be looking for, the eye is drawn to, i want to learn more about audits and i wouldn't lead with administration or operations. i would lead with whatever it is, the more hard hitting work that are the highlights in terms of what we have accomplished. not just doing our regular business. on page 7, i think we have done that. but i don't know if we would think of it as the biggest accomplishment this year. and then similarly under strengthening laws and heightening awareness, what about putting the tldr, just bullet points at the top of the paragraph so people don't have to read the whole thing. what are the key accomplishments under conflicts of interest code

so there's more detail down below but you can get the gist in a quick skim of the work we have done this year. i think some of the comments -- i know that not only is this a ton of work to produce the report and i think it's really incredibly valuable to encapsulated everything we have done in this year in particular, because this is an extraordinary year of the pandemic but it also serves as a one-stop resource for people who don't know that much about the ethics commission or do know something and want to understand, what have we been doing when we're not at our desks this past year and i think the exercise is well served to see what did we set out to do.

how did we meet the mark and importantly, celebrate the successes. >> chair ambrose: i appreciate all of your comments. there's so much information in there and yeah, each pass tried to bring more of it forward, but -- and shifting administration and operations down and pulling up the program work not to -- not acknowledge how hard all of the administrative and operations but in terms of reading public, they'll be more interested. i know you are a great editor. if you could provide it to the director, those are great suggestions. >> commissioner chiu:

absolutely. >> chair ambrose: commissioner bush. >> commissioner bush: i concur with the comments that the staff have done a heroic amount of work in a challenging year to make sure that we are meeting the public's needs for transparency and accountability. i have several observations. one is that the annual report, as it makes sense, focuses to such an extent on the ethics commission that it doesn't allow the public to see how we are

tied to other parts of the city government. for example, in the charter itself, we are required to coordinate with the city attorney's office and district attorney's office. we are required to coordinate with the controller over whistleblower complaints. so you also have to work with the sunshine task force on public documents. i think that we need to see ourselves as part of a whole when it comes to addressing ethical culture in san francisco. with that said, the preamble to the annual report refers to us returning to an ethical culture. and i think that's a goal but we

do not have an ethical culture we're returning to. in fact, san francisco lacks an ethical culture and has from its inception. the whole reason san francisco city lines are drawn the way they are is because people didn't want to be associated with the corruption in our city. as i'm sure those who know the city's history know, at one point, the entire board of supervisors was arrested and put in jail, along with the mayor. that was over corruptions taking bribes. the reason we have the 1932 charter is because of corruption. the reason we have ethics commission is because of corruption being addressed. i think if we say we are returning to an ethics culture, we are stating beyond the facts and what the public has come to

see about the city. i think we should say it's our goal and aim to establish a more fully ethical culture for san francisco. having said that, there are a number of points in this that i have outlined in e-mails with the executive director to explain my concerns and considerations. i would direct those too the attention of my fellow commissioners, which i will send separately to you. they are the basis for why i'm hesitate to endorse this as it is now. thank you. >> chair ambrose: any other comments from commissioners?

let's go to public comment. >> clerk: we are checking. if you just joined the meeting we are on agenda item number 8. if you have not done so, press star 3 to be added to the public comment queue. you'll have three minutes to provide public comment, six minutes if you're on with an interpreter. you will hear a bell at 30 seconds remaining. please stand by.

there are no callers in the queue. >> chair ambrose: public comment is closed. i'm hesitate to put this over again. it feels like we've already done that once at this meeting. i identify commissioner chiu's recommendations as more in the nature of the presentation of the existing material. with respect to commissioner bush's note, i could over a bottle of wine sit down and debate with you and my 35 years in city government the various times when ethical culture flourished and where and how and when it might have been dented. but if it's important to you, you can strike the word again

and then that sentence will be aspirational. i think there's -- first i want to second all of the good work of the staff. it is an impressive set of accomplishments for a very challenging year and yet we know there's so much more that needs to be done and we'll talk about that in the next agenda item, reflect upon the performance audit we got last year about this time and where we have been and where we're going. i actually want to move this draft forward with the deligation to the executive director to hear the comments and make improvements that can

reasonably be reflected, but for my own purposes, i would like to see if there's a motion to adopt it with the direction to the executive director to incorporate commissioner chiu's changes and commissioner bush's recommendations to the extent they can reasonably be affected. commissioner lee is seconding that motion. i don't know if there's further discussion on that or friendly amendments to my long motion. >> commissioner chiu: once the report has been advised, could we have an opportunity to review the revised version before it is

posted to the website? i'm not sure how that is done -- what the publication process is. if we could see the product before -- not necessarily to delay but simply have an opportunity to review it before it is given to the world. >> chair ambrose: yeah. i think that's perfectly reasonable. as anyone who has ever produced anything, the more editors, proofreaders the better. on the other hand, there's a point where have you to stop editing. but anyway, executive director pelham, did you want to speak to that? i don't see any reason why if we can turn around another draft before the agenda goes out for

the august meeting and make sure everybody gets a chance to see it and if there are some reason at that point for you to bring it back for further commission discussion, that would be an opportunity to do that. >> director pelham: thank you chair ambrose. i think what would be most helpful -- i appreciate and look forward to receiving commissioner chiu's feedback as well. i did forward to you just commissioner bush's mentioned feedback he provided. i shared that information with you all. you have that in your inboxes. i think what might be most helpful, to get a sense of direction from the commission. if you prefer to have this on agenda for action in august or prefer to just take a look at it and then assume we can finalize off line after having one last look on it.

just a clarity for planning purposes. >> chair ambrose: let me interject here. you just sent all the commissioners commissioner bush's comments and response, then you need to -- i don't know what we do remotely. put that up on the website. anything you share. andrew maybe you can help me, anything you share at the meeting with commissioners has to be something that all the public also has the benefit of seeing. we've already closed public comment on this item. so it's a little awkward. what do you think andrew? how do we make that available to everyone else? >> simply post it on the website and if somebody sees something, they can let us know.

>> chair ambrose: okay. great. >> commissioner bush: i would like to recommend posting it on the facebook page that ethics hasn't updated for several years now. it would be good to have today's agenda on the facebook page because we have hundreds of people who have said they are following us there. >> chair ambrose: that's a different topic and we can take up our outreach in general. but in terms of meeting the sunshine ordinance, whether it's -- the issue is meeting the sunshine ordinance, putting it on the web page is what we need to do. the other question about how we engage with the public on facebook or other social media is a whole other agenda item topic that should be taken up.

going back to your point director pelham, i was trying to make a motion to delegate to you the final authority what i'm hearing from commissioner bush and chiu, they want another look. i'll withdraw my motion and you can take it up on the august agenda. is that where we're going with this? that way i don't have to worry about the public seeing commissioner bush's comments. >> as an alternative, do you want to delegate commissioner bush and commissioner chiu to have one last look before it is posted? >> chair ambrose: if they

disagree, it kind of puts director pelham -- she either has the authority to finalize it based on what we have said here or has to bring it back. my motion is to delegate to the executive director to approve the final version with the comments we have received. but if you guys want to hear it again, then that's -- any other ideas about this? commissioner bush? do you -- i gather you are not ready to approve it in the form it's in. so, commissioner lee, i gather that you are ready to move forward and delegate the authority and i know that commissioner chiu, you want to

give your comments but you want to see it so that leaves commissioner bell. what are we going to do here? >> to clarify, i am fine delegating to executive director pelham to finalize. i just would like to see a final version before it gets posted. i don't feel the need to put it over to the august meeting. >> chair ambrose: okay. >> commissioner bush: i think the tone needs to be aspirational. we have come a long ways but we have a ways to go. we don't take note of the fact that we're getting credit for acting on behalf of behested payments but here we are in july and the board of supervisors has

yet to calendar a hearing on what we sent over there. so there are hiccups in the process that i think should be acknowledged if we're giving a report on the annual report. our annual report is, we did the job, and we're still waiting for the board of supervisors to get its job done. >> chair ambrose: we can send that message in a way to the board of supervisors with a letter of inquiry or something that is not going to be embedded in the annual report. i don't know if you recall, but last meeting when we had the draft, i asked you all if you had specific edits or recommendations for the looking forward section to be prepared to bring them forward and i tried to write an aspirational message in the final section.

so, yeah, i guess i'm acknowledging that there's a lot of information in there and how we bring it forward could use some improvement and sort of visual prop, but -- in terms of what i see a role of an annual report being, it's not -- anyway. i'm going to stop. the motion i made then i guess and commissioner lee seconded still stands with the caveat that before the executive director exercises her authority to finalize the document, she will circulate it to the

commission and that would have to be in a publicly available draft form so that if at that time there was a request to bring it back before the commission, that's something that could be considered or there are some other further improvement to be made. with that, i'm going to ask ronald to call the roll. i think the big substance we all want to get to is our performance audit and where we go from here in terms of action opposed to reporting. >> clerk: a motion has been made and seconded. i will call the roll. (roll call)

it is approved. >> chair ambrose: thank you for that. i'm going to call item 9 discussion and possible action on the staff report of status of implementation of recommendations of the august 2020 budget and legislative analyst report of the ethics commission. i'm going to turn it over to executive director pelham. thank you. >> director pelham: thank you. commissioners this is the item that provides a status report as of june 30th of the implementation so far regarding recommendations made in the performance audit issued last august by the budget and legislative analyst at the request of the board of supervisors. that audit was conducted february through august of last year. we have been reporting since the

issuance of the report in january this year on sort of the status of work at that point and now with this report on how things stood at the end of the fiscal year. on the report, you see there's a summary table to indicate where we were as of january of this calendar year and june 30th at the end of the fiscal year. at this point, as you recall, there were 16 recommendations in the performance report that we fully embraced and recognized all of those are strong foundations to continue to improve our impact as an organization and impact of our programs. and as of january earlier this year, we had 50% of the recommendations that were in progress or completed. 50% still in the planning stages. and only 13% had been completed

at that time. as the end of the year, as you see detailed on the chart, we have 37% of the recommendations completed and 37% in progress and only a quarter of them are in the planning stages. the report we have attached to this agenda item details each of the recommendations, each of the 16 recommendations that were included in the bla's report. it showed recorded in the audit. the due dates that they recommended and then the detailed information designed to

help us be accountable and for you to understand and the public to understand where we are in terms of implementing those recommendations. one of the things we're very aware of, we want to be as transparent as possible. we have identified key milestones as we have recorded them over the last six months and year as the recommendations were issued by the bla and the links to the specific report, you can see here an annual report or ethics training plan, a lobbying audit plan we have developed with our manager. so this is a summary of where we are. i'm happy to walk through any of the details with you. it's clear a number of the items are remaining in progress with either staffing we just hired this past few months, some other

work we'll be continuing once we have additional staffing expected to be onboarded this year once the city approves the budget we anticipate, leading to additional resources and so this is a work in progress. i think we wanted to be as clear as possible in the note section where things stood and what we accomplished in terms of specific deliverables to this point. there's a lot of information here. i'm happy to take the chair's direction as how to proceed. i'm happy to do whatever suits your interest at this point. >> chair ambrose: thank you for this. there's a lot of information, a lot of detail, a lot of work done and work to be done. and yes, getting the existing

staffing positions you have been able to achieve this year opens up the possibility for actually accomplishing all that the performance audit set out as necessary approvements. certainly if that budget is approved -- we won't know that until when? the fiscal year 2022 budget. >> director pelham: i think august. i know the board of supervisors goes on recess for the last part of august. before they recess. we should know next month. i believe. >> chair ambrose: okay. i think probably best to go

directly to commissioner comments and questions. so, commissioner chiu, you have your hand up. >> commissioner chiu: that was from the prior item. i'm just reviewing. i do want to say great progress in moving and converting those items from blue to yellow to green. i have one question relating to item 10. maybe in the nexen forcement investigation update, mr. pierce, maybe you and your team

could talk a little bit about what the goals are for completing investigations and interim milestones. like how are we measuring and what goals are we setting for ourselves to work through the backlog of cases and additional cases that come through. and how successful are we in achieving those goals. that would be very helpful. >> noted, thank you. >> chair ambrose: i'm going to have -- ronald, if you can see if there's any public comment on this item and then i'll wait to see if commissioner bush comes back. there you are. let's do public comment and then i'll come back to the

commissioners. >> clerk: we are checking. we are on agenda item 9. if you have not done so, please press star to be added to the public comment queue. you will have three minutes to provide public comment. you'll hear a bell when you have 30 seconds remaining. please stand by. >> commissioner chiu: if i may while we're waiting to see if

there are public commenters. director pelham with regard to staffing. i'm just curious on item number 4, it says ensure adequate staffing in the ethics commission. i can't recall what the recommendation was from the bla as to additional staff needed given the additional resources we have plus resources approved for the following, for the upcoming fiscal year, are we at or above the recommended staffing levels that came out in that report? >> director pelham: thank you for the question. the report at the time was based on the recommendations we made in the prior fiscal years budget. we required a position not funded last year. in short, the positions we just

filled this fiscal year bring us up to -- well, i think it's fair to say with the recommendations we are seeing potentially funded in the budget, we will have the adequate staffing to ensure. does that answer your question? >> commissioner chiu: yes, thank you. >> clerk: there are no caller in the queue. >> chair ambrose: thank you. public comment is closed. i wanted to suggest that the information contained in this chart, report, be apended into the annual report. i think it provides the -- not as expirations but certainly the

goals we are striving to accomplish and certainly a focal point or checklist for the work program for the year and it would fit in a report. so i don't know if anyone else sees that as something the public would appreciate. it's a much more detail-oriented focus on where we're at and where we think we're going. but with that -- go ahead. >> director pelham: we will make sure the link is live to the current report. if you are preferring an attachment, we can do that as well. i think you have a link to it but sounds like that is buried.

>> chair ambrose: it's an idea. i see a lot of hands. i'm going to go to commissioner bell and see what his thoughts are. >> commissioner bell: thank you chair ambrose. i have of course kind of set back as the newer person on this and respect the work that the staff has done in the annual report. as kind of the newest looking at it with outside eyes and not having the deep history i love hearing from commissioner bush when he educates us on what has been happening in san francisco. what isn't clear to me is the annual report supposed to be things that happened like in

june we did this and july we did that. or is it supposed to be more of a narrative about the ethics commission and what its intents are in terms of successes and failures. it reads to me like a -- i'm just commenting here. it reads to me more like what happened rather than a narrative that one in the public could grab on to. the charts in the audit, even though it is more detailed, looking at the charts you can immediately see progress in terms of things we're moving towards something. i just wanted to at that. it's not clear to me what the

purpose of the annual report is, because i'm not sure everybody understands. if it were a narrative, just something i put as something to think about for next year, it moot read a bit differently. so i just say all of that to support the notion of a chart that kind of shows what we have been doing and that kind of thing. >> chair ambrose: thank you for that. just so you know, historically, the limited history of the annual report has ut was just a list of accomplishments. then there was a break for five

years and then we were willed to do an annual report. this is a work in progress. this -- i do see in the recommendations, that the annual report would be better if it communicated goals and activities and outcomes and set metrics on performance. i think that this chart, which highlights actually on rkzs and is dissection of the things we have been striving to do, where we might be able to move forward

u.i appreciate it is a link and there are all the live links in the report, i actually think a visual going back to commissioner chiu and commissioner bush's point, if you pick it up -- some people would read it from core to cover but most people will just -- i think it presents the information in a way that is readily acceptable. commissioner bush, please. >> commissioner bush: i have to confess that my point of view is based on about three deckids of doing annual reports. sometimes for political office and sometimes for governmental officer. i understand the difference between the two.

in this case, it seems we're at a got governmental. the chair that director pelham created looking at the recommendations takes us in that direction. in that respect, one of the issues that is raised is our ability to close cases. the bla's review, they cited one

particular referral which we required by the charter to do sitting at the city attorney's office for 2.5 years, which is a long time to wait for something to come back. >> director pelham: if i might answer. thank you for the question commissioner bush. as you can see from recommendation 9. the bla recommended an annual case closure rate and goals of doing that, which we identified in the case closure plans. and to report on progress quarterly to the commission. based on that, our first report will be at the end of the first

quarter of this physical year. the referrals to the city's attorney or da office is something we would anticipate on a quarterly basis as recommended by the bla. >> commissioner bush: the other question i have, the charter requires city commissions to have a commission secretary. now that we're staffed up to 35 positions, up from 15 i believe it was when you came on board, director pelham, what are the plans for a commission secretary? >> we have not requested in our budget to date and i don't have that in the upcoming year. in my judgment, we have not been

able to achieve lacking the resources we have had has been a property in my view. whether the commission believes they need a commission secretary is something we can consider putting in a budget. i believe one of the functions that roll serves is done by program staff and executive director. >> commissioner bush: it's not up to the commission, it's not up to you, it's in the charter. it's not we would like to do it, it's we will do it. if we're going to hold people accountable for complying with the charter, we should start by doing it ourselves. i recall we brick it back to the commission, people are feeling they don't have direct as to to

the commission that a secretary is designed to do. i would ask that be concluded as we continue the update on staffing at the commission. thank you. >> chair ambrose: i don't know if there's any other comment from the commissioners. we don't need a motion to approve this. i think it's -- mostly we would leak to see this calendar regularly. particular i i would say after the budget goes through and you

know what your resources are going to be, recommending even with the new positions that are necessary, it will be months before you get the job amentment and another round of hiring but i think then you'll be in a better position to say how we might really be able to knock all of these things into the green category and setting new goals for the commission. this is a useful document. with that, i'm going to close this agenda item and move on to item number 10. >> sorry for interrupting chair ambrose. commissioner chiu and bell, did you have anything further you wanted to bring up. i notice that your hands are

raised. okay. >> chair ambrose: thank you. i made that assumption but thank you for checking. >> clerk: just in case. >> chair ambrose: discussion of the report since the last meeting. dr.er pelham. >> director pelham: this just gives highlights. the deputy director gaythri thaikkendiyil did appear before the board of superviors budget committee and presented the commission's budget and notice the full enforcement -- there

have been in changes in rnlgszs to our budget. if it moves forward as an tase peated, we should have a buzz of roughly 6.5 pillen. we're looking forward to getting the work mrshed. and ut has an ut date on the appointment ordinances. i know this has been ongoing, pending before the board of supervisors for some months. there's been no action to date. we know the budget season has consumed much of the board's attention but we are -- once the board vee sessions in august, it seems unlikely they would continue to take up tims

between now and then. we will be in communication with members of the board to seek the rules committee chaired by supervisor peskin to take up that issue as soon as possible this fall. yesterday afternoon i had an update from starve. the public portal we used to access the information and evaluate the information that's there. i reported last month we were integrating the new disclosure tool, api i believe is the lock word for it to have our data

updated and it has been updated. it's not something written in the report but reconfirmed yesterday that provides information for the public to have new ways to review lobbyist directories, disclose activities, all electronic registration since 2010. this provides a robust way for the public to access and review. one other note on hiring, we do have the two positions that were vacated this spring, they have moved into the an date application review face.

those positions are moving on expedited hiring practical. beo if the .2 last notes. commissioner bush asked for an update on the redistricting commission. we have looked at that. we know there were a number of city provisions that apply to individuals appointed to the commission working internally to put together information for the website that helps the public understand what the rules are that apply to the redistricting commission as city officials filing form 700s with the work

of the clerk's board overs. we can probably have that next month. we did not have further information to report on the racial equity plan. in terms of horted work, i hope to have that for you. and there's a lot of information i lifrnged from this report about the city's reopening. there's been a number of developments related to the city's ability to move forward with greater physical presence. i've attached those policies here. they are policies and developments we will be working to put together. part of this will look at how we manage in a post covid environment with our work in

terms of it is a hybrid online remote i think we're looking forward to applying the lessons we learned about how we with get working with each other and commission meetings for the past months and we look forked to keep the lessons in focus. i understand there may be develop to start physically and ascy rear r rear. but the mayor is having her first reunion of department heads next wednesday. we'll get more updates from the

this will be a significant part of our focus to make sure we do it quickly. i appreciate your patience and happy to answer any questions. >> chair ambrose: so the board is on recess until august and the mayor is not going to make recommendations about the emergency declaration and how to handle public hearings until september, is that correct? >> director pelham: i don't know if that the case or something issued in preparation of new changed use of city hall space. we haven't seen that yet. we know their office is working, spending a lot of time working to provide that guidance.

last we heard, it was roughly around september that boards and commissions would start meeting in physical spaces again in city hall. that's all i know at this point. >> chair ambrose: thank you for that. commissioner bush. >> commissioner bush: i would like to suggest a survey of staff for how many are receiving a bonus for foreign language facility and if they're not receiving a bonus, what are the language capacities at the commission so we can take note of that to do our outreach. thank you. >> chair ambrose: commissioner

chiu. >> commissioner chiu: thank you chair ambrose. i would like to associate myself with commissioner bush's observations and comments on that. i think that's really important information to know. i have one question. with regard to it stalling at the board of supervisors, do i take that it is unlikely it will be heard at the rules committee prior to the recess? >> director pelham: that is my estimate. pat ford is here if he has further information. last i heard we don't anticipate movement. >> yeah. thank you director pelham. through the chair, i did hear from supervisor haney's office today, they have requested that

supervisor peskin who chairs it will do that july 19th. we haven't gotten confirmation yet but that is what they requested. i'll keep you posted. >> commissioner chiu: please do and let me know if we as commissioners could be of any assistance in encouraging the rules committee hear this item as -- as commissioner bush pointed out, this was sent to them last year i believe. was it december of 2020? and if it's not taken up until september -- was it november? yeah. so this is -- to commissioner bell's point, what is the

narrative. people can interpret data and if it's not -- things get focused on and if it's not focused or acted upon and it's been sitting there for them to move forward, i think it says a lot about their priorities. so anything we can do to help expedite the process at the rules committee, please let us know. and then on the city reopening piece, i hope that the city will provide flexibility to departments to be able to adjust to the new reality. because i think just focusing on the ethics commission, 16 months of this pandemic has been about pivoting and adapting and demonstrating tremendous flexibility to be able to do the tremendous work that is captured

in the annual report. and when -- i hope it's not going to be a mandate. you must go back by date certain. i think there's a lot of learnings that will have come out of this pandemic experience i think it will be important to create a new kind of normal. i don't think it will go back to the way it was pre-pandemic. we have come through so much together. please let us know if there's anything we can do to help. (please stand by...) .

>> : to really make san

francisco government transparent and accountable and to catalyze and neuter and grow and mindset and culture here. which given the back drop of what we've been operating against is needed now more than ever. in these extraordinary moments, we have this extraordinary opportunity to meet this moment and make our mark. i would just ask director pellum and the higher ethics director team to look ahead an remember the work. what we're here for and as we navigate our way together and take the great things we learned

through the pandemic about collaboration and working together and without face-to-face, all of that creativity and collaboration that we demonstrated and perfected over time empower that with in person brainstorming and having coffee and eating doughnuts together. and how do we bring that together into a new normal. i, for one, believe that this change is going to knock it out of the ballpark. we can do great things, better things. it might not look like before and maybe it shouldn't look like

before. we can really shape this timely and critical mission. the board and people of san francisco are all counting on us and can't wait to see the amazing result. >> : yeah. keep us posted director so we know what's happening next after you have your mayor's department head meeting. with that i'm going to go ahead and call agenda item 11 which is discussion and. >> : did you want to do public comment on this item. >> : i did do public comment before this discussion, didn't i. someone who is taking notes

please check on that. >> : i am taking notes. i don't see that public comment was taken. >> : sorry. can you please let us know if there are any callers for item ten.

there are no callers in the queue. >> : thank you for that. public comment for item ten is closed. i'm going to call number eleven. does any member of the public intend to offer public comment. they should call in and dial star three now. membersis there anything you would like to have calendared for future meetings. >> : thank you. i would like to put on the agenda a mid year presentation by the director on the racial equity plan.

>> : okay. i think the executive director said that she was planning on doing that in october. i don't know if that's because that's when there's a review with the city's department of human resources work program. in any event, i will let you speak to that. >> : we have been plan to go have our first quarterly report for the fiscal year on the status of the implementation of our racial equity action plan after the first quarter. the commission would like more information sooner, it's likely to say we're working on a variety of things but we don't have a lot to describe in detail yet. if we can have something to report back to you on after the

first quarter and regularize that that would be most useful and productive. want to hear from the commission direction as to how you would like to proceed. >> : all right. >> : madam chair, if i may, the reason i wanted to have a discussion or get a published report next month is as wre we aregetting ready to hire more workers with the new budget and as the ethics works program is going to get into gear, it would be helpful for us to really look at the plan and see where we can really address some of the issues such as how we're going to reach out to some of the under served communities, not

under served but communities who have not been traditionally familiar with the commission. so i don't want to wait for a few months. i do want to look at where we are at so that we can address some of the potential pit falls we may have. it doesn't have to be a thorough presentation but just an update of where we are and we can move from there. >> : okay. thank you for that. commissioner bush. >> : thank you. yes. i think commissioner lee is exactly correct. i think the timing of doing it

in july also works well as the new school year gets started. some of these schools do take an opportunity to do their community participation in government. one of the things i think that needs to be clear to people is that participation translates into action in their communities. it's one of the reasons we have a deficit in some parts of the city, at the same time we have a deficit of participation in the city. they go together. i would like to add for an agenda item general public out reach not simply on equity issues including the use of social media and the purposes of commission secretary as part of our out reach and participation.

as part of that i would hope that the staff would bear a report for us on actual levels of human participation either in our commission meetings, they've called in or by submitting written comments which i've never seen on our commission calendar, or participating in ip meetings. any measure that they have that shows that we have engaged the public more directly. i think that they can break that down into under served communities versus assisted parties who have a professional reason to be present would be useful as part of an out reach to see where we are and where we need to go.

thank you. >> : thank you. any further recommendations for future action? seeing none. i'm going to call for public comment. mr. moderator could you please read the instructions. >> : we are checking to see if there are callers in the queue. please wait until the system indicates you have been unmuted. please stand by.

madam chair, we have no callers in the queue. >> : all right. public comment on agenda item 11 is closed. due to our goals we're going to ask if there are any public comment for commission by laws section two agenda item 12. could you please read the instructions and see if there are any commenters in the queue. >> : madam chair, we are checking to see if there are callers in the queue. we are currently on the public discussion on item number 12. matters appearing or not appearing on the agenda.

if you have not already done so please press star three to be added to the public comment queue. will you have three minutes for public comment. six minutes if you are on the line with an interpreter. you will hear a bell go off when thirty seconds is remaining. please stand by. as a friendly reminder to members of public. public comment may also be submitted in writing and will be included as part of the official meeting file. written comments should be sent to ethics dot commission at sfgov dot org. madam chair, we have no callers in the queue. >> : thank you for that public comment is close haded on agenda

item number 12. item 13 which is adjournment. i want to thank you all for participating today. we've decided we don't need a motion to adjourn. i'm just gavel down. you all have a wonderful month of july. take care. >> : thank you, everyone. >> : have a great weekend. >> : take care.

>> i try to start every day not looking at my phone by doing something that is grounding. that is usually meditation. i have a gym set up in my garage, and that is usually breathing and movement and putting my mind towards something else. surfing is my absolute favorite thing to do. it is the most cleansing thing that i'm able to do. i live near the beach, so whenever i can get out, i do. unfortunately, surfing isn't a daily practice for me, but i've been able to get out weekly, and it's something that i've

been incredibly grateful for. [♪♪♪] >> i started working for the city in 2005. at the time, my kids were pretty young but i think had started school. i was offered a temporarily position as an analyst to work on some of the programs that were funded through homeland security. i ultimately spent almost five years at the health department coordinating emergency programs. it was something that i really enjoyed and turned out i was pretty good at. thinking about glass ceiling, some of that is really related to being a mother and self-supposed in some ways that i did not feel that i could allow myself to pursue responsibility; that i accepted treading water in my career

when my kids were young. and as they got older, i felt more comfortable, i suppose, moving forward. in my career, i have been asked to step forward. i wish that i had earlier stepped forward myself, and i feel really strongly, like i am 100% the right person for this job. i cannot imagine a harder time to be in this role. i'm humbled and privileged but also very confident. so here at moscone center, this is the covid command center, or the c.c.c. here is what we calledun -- call unified command. this is where we have physically been since march, and then, in july, we developed this unified structure. so it's the department of emergency management, the department of public health, and our human services

hughesing partners, so primarily the department of homelessness and supportive housing and human services agency. so it's sort of a three-headed command in which we are coordinating and operating everything related to covid response. and now, of course, in this final phase, it's mass vaccination. the first year was before the pandemic was extremely busy. the fires, obviously, that both we were able to provide mutual support but also the impact of air quality. we had, in 2018, the worst air quality ten or 11 days here in the city. i'm sure you all remember it, and then, finally, the day the sun didn't come out in san francisco, which was in october. the orange skies, it felt

apocalyptic, super scary for people. you know, all of those things, people depend on government to say what's happening. are we safe? what do i do? and that's a lot of what department of emergency management's role is. public service is truly that. it is such an incredible and effective way that we can make change for the most vulnerable. i spend a lot of my day in problem solving mode, so there's a lot of conversations with people making connections, identifying gaps in resources or whatever it might be, and trying to adjust that. the pace of the pandemic has been nonstop for 11 months. it is unrelenting, long days, more than what we're used to, most of us. honestly, i'm not sure how

we're getting through it. this is beyond what any of us ever expected to experience in our lifetime. what we discover is how strong we are, and really, the depth of our resilience, and i say that for every single city employee that has been working around the clock for the last 11 months, and i also speak about myself. every day, i have to sort of have that moment of, like, okay, i'm really tired, i'm weary, but we've got to keep going. it is, i would say, the biggest challenge that i have had personally and professionally to be the best mom that i can be but also the best public certify chant in whatever role i'm in. i just wish that i, as my younger self, could have had someone tell me you can give it and to give a little more

nudge. so indirectly, people have helped me because they have seen something in me that i did not see in myself. there's clear data that women have lost their jobs and their income because they had to take care of their safety nets. all of those things that we depend on, schools and daycare and sharing, you know, being together with other kids isn't available. i've often thought oh, if my kids were younger, i couldn't do this job, but that's unacceptable. a person that's younger than me that has three children, we want them in leadership positions, so it shouldn't be limiting. women need to assume that they're more capable than they think they are. men will go for a job whether they're qualified or not. we tend to want to be 110% qualified before we tend to

step forward. i think we need to be a little more brave, a little more exploratory in stepping up for positions. the other thing is, when given an opportunity, really think twice before you put in front of you the reasons why you should not take that leadership position. we all need to step up so that we can show the person behind us that it's doable and so that we have the power to make the changes for other women that is going to make the possibility for their paths easier than ours. other women see me in it, and i hope that they see me, and they understand, like, if i can do it, they can do it because the higher you get, the more leadership you have, and power.

the more power and leadership we have that we can put out >> by the time the last show came, i was like whoa, whoa, whoa. i came in kicking and screaming and left out dancing. [♪♪♪] >> hello, friends. i'm the deputy superintendent of instruction at san francisco unified school district, but you can call me miss vickie. what you see over the next hour has been created and planned by our san francisco teachers for

our students. >> our premise came about for san francisco families that didn't have access to technology, and that's primarily children preschool to second grade. >> when we started doing this distance learning, everything was geared for third grade and up, and we work with the little once, and it's like how were they still processing the information? how were they supposed to keep learning? >> i thought about reaching the student who didn't have internet, who didn't have computers, and i wanted them to be able to see me on the t.v. and at least get some connection with my kids that way. >> thank you, friends. see you next time. >> hi, friend. >> today's tuesday, april 28,

2020. it's me, teacher sharon, and i'm back again. >> i got an e-mail saying that i had an opportunity to be on a show. i'm, like, what? >> i actually got an e-mail from the early education department, saying they were saying of doing a t.v. show, and i was selected to be one of the people on it, if i was interested. i was scared, nervous. i don't like public speaking and all the above. but it worked out. >> talk into a camera, waiting for a response, pretending that oh, yeah, i hear you, it's so very weird. i'm used to having a classroom with 17 students sitting in front of me, where they're all

moving around and having to have them, like, oh, sit down, oh, can you hear them? let's listen. >> hi guys. >> i kind of have stage flight when i'm on t.v. because i'm normally quiet? >> she's never quiet. >> no, i'm not quiet. >> my sister was, like, i saw you on t.v. my teacher was, i saw you on youtube. it was exciting, how the community started watching. >> it was a lot of fun. it also pushed me outside of my comfort zone, having to make my own visuals and lesson plans so quickly that ended up being a lot of fun. >> i want to end today with a thank you. thank you for spending time

with us. it was a great pleasure, and see you all in the fall. >> i'm so happy to see you today. today is the last day of the school year, yea! >> it really helped me in my teaching. i'm excited to go back teaching my kids, yeah. >> we received a lot of amazing feedback from kiddos, who have seen their own personal teacher on television. >> when we would watch as a family, my younger son, kai, especially during the filipino episodes, like, wow, like, i'm proud to be a filipino. >> being able to connect with someone they know on television has been really, really powerful for them. and as a mom, i can tell you that's so important.

the social confidence development of our early learners. [♪♪♪] >> 7 and a half million renovation is part of the clean and safe neighbor's park fund which was on the ballot four years ago and look at how that public investment has transformed our neighborhood. >> the playground is unique in that it serves a number of age

groups, unlike many of the other properties, it serves small children with the children's play grounds and clubhouses that has basketball courts, it has an outdoor soccer field and so there were a lot of people that came to the table that had their wish list and we did our best to make sure that we kind of divided up spaces and made sure that we kept the old features of the playground but we were able to enhance all of those features. >> the playground and the soccer field and the tennis fields and it is such a key part of this neighborhood.

>> we want kids to be here. we want families to be here and we want people to have athletic opportunities. >> we are given a real responsibility to insure that the public's money is used appropriately and that something really special comes of these projects. we generally have about an opportunity every 50 years to redo these spaces. and it is really, really rewarding to see children and families benefit, you know, from the change of culture, at each one of these properties >> and as a result of, what you see behind us, more kids are playing on our soccer fields than ever before. we have more girls playing sports than we have ever had before. [ applause ] fp >> and we are sending a strong message that san francisco families are welcome and we want you to stay.

>> this park is open. san francisco is surrounded on three sides by water, the fire boat station is intergal to maritime rescue and preparedness, not only for san francisco, but for all of the bay area. [sirens] >> fire station 35 was

built in 1915. so it is over 100 years old. and helped it, we're going to build fire boat station 35. >> so the finished capital planning committee, i think about three years ago, issued a guidance that all city facilities must exist on sea level rise. >> the station 35, construction cost is approximately $30 million. and the schedule was complicated because of what you call a float. it is being fabricated in china, and will be brought to treasure island, where the building site efficient will be constructed on top of it, and then brought to pier 22 and a half for installation. >> we're looking at late 2020 for final completion of the fire boat float.

the historic firehouse will remain on the embarcadero, and we will still respond out of the historic firehouse with our fire engine, and respond to medical calls and other incidences in the district. >> this totally has to incorporate between three to six feet of sea level rise over the next 100 years. that's what the city's guidance is requiring. it is built on the float, that can move up and down as the water level rises, and sits on four fixed guide piles. so if the seas go up, it can move up and down with that. >> it does have a full range of travel, from low tide to high tide of about 16 feet. so that allows for current tidal movements and sea lisle rises in the coming decades. >> the fire boat station

float will also incorporate a ramp for ambulance deployment and access. >> the access ramp is rigidly connected to the land side, with more of a pivot or hinge connection, and then it is sliding over the top of the float. in that way the ramp can flex up and down like a hinge, and also allow for a slight few inches of lateral motion of the float. both the access ramps, which there is two, and the utility's only flexible connection connecting from the float to the back of the building. so electrical power, water, sewage, it all has flexible connection to the boat. >> high boat station number 35 will provide mooring for three fire boats and one rescue boat. >> currently we're staffed with seven members per day, but the fire department would like to establish a new dedicated

marine unit that would be able to respond to multiple incidences. looking into the future, we have not only at&t park, where we have a lot of kayakers, but we have a lot of developments in the southeast side, including the stadium, and we want to have the ability to respond to any marine or maritime incident along these new developments. >> there are very few designs for people sleeping on the water. we're looking at cruiseships, which are larger structures, several times the size of harbor station 35, but they're the only good reference point. we look to the cruiseship industry who has kind of an index for how much acceleration they were accommodate. >> it is very unique. i don't know that any other fire station built on the water is in the

united states. >> the fire boat is a regional asset that can be used for water rescue, but we also do environmental cleanup. we have special rigging that we carry that will contain oil spills until an environmental unit can come out. this is a job for us, but it is also a way of life and a lifestyle. we're proud to serve our community. and we're willing to help people in any wa adjourned. >> shop & dine in the 49 promotes local businesses and challenges residents to do their shop & dine in the 49 with within the 49 square miles of

san francisco by supporting local services within the neighborhood we help san francisco remain unique successful and vibrant so where will you shop & dine in the 49 my name is jim woods i'm the founder of woods beer company and the proprietor of woods copy k open 2 henry adams what makes us unique is that we're reintegrated brooeg the beer and serving that cross the table people are sitting next to the xurpz drinking alongside we're having a lot of ingredient that get there's a lot to do the district of retail shop having that really close connection with the consumer allows us to do exciting things we decided to come to treasure island because we saw it as an amazing opportunity can't be beat the views and real estate

that great county starting to develop on treasure island like minded business owners with last week products and want to get on the ground floor a no-brainer for us when you you, you buying local goods made locally our supporting small business those are not created an, an sprinkle scale with all the machines and one person procreating them people are making them by hand as a result more interesting and can't get that of minor or anywhere else and san francisco a hot bed for local manufacturing in support that is what keeps your city vibrant we'll make a compelling place to live and visit i think that local business is the lifeblood of san francisco and a vibrant community

this is the july 14th, 2021, treasure island development authority board meeting. board members are participating in this meeting remotely via video conferennd