>> -- and the 12 supplement to the mayoral proclamation declaring the existence of a local emergency dated february 25, 2020, and before we proceed further, i'd like to ask the commission staff member, juana contreras, who is acting as the moderator today, to list some of the rules. >> clerk: thank you. the meeting room at city hall is closed. however, members of the commission will be participating in this meeting remotely. this is pursuant to the local,

federal, and state declarations and directives. please note that today's meeting is being live cable cast on sfgovtv and live streamed live on-line at sfgovtv.org/ethicslive. public comment will be allowed on each item on the agenda. members of the public will be allowed three minutes to speak. public comment may be made by calling 415-655-0001. access code is 146-623-9397, followed by the pound sign, and

then press pound again to join as an attendee. you will hear a beep when you are admitted. you will be on mute and in listening mode only. when your item of interest comes up, dial star, three to be added to the comment line. you will hear that you have raised your hand. make sure you are in a quiet location. before you speak, mute the sound of anything around you, including television, radio, or computer. it is especially important if you are watching the meeting via web link. as soon as you begin speaking, you will have three minutes to provide your public comment, six minutes if you are on-line with an interpreter.

you will hear a bell go off when you have 30 seconds remaining. if you have changed your mind and wish to withdraw yourself from the public comment line, you may press star, three again, and you will hear a comment that you have lowered your hand. attendees who wish to speak during other public comment period may stay on the line and listen for the next public comment opportunity and should raise their hand again by pressing star, three when their item of interest comes up. public comment may be submitted in writing and will be included in this committee file. i didn't know comments should be sent to ethics.commission@sfgov.org. thank you, madam chair. >> president lee: thank you, and with that, we will call the

meeting to order, and next, we'll proceed with agenda item number 1, which is roll call. >> clerk: commissioners, please unmute your microphones so you can verbally state your presence at roll call after your name is called. [roll call] >> clerk: madam chair, with four members present and accounted for, you have a quorum. >> president lee: thank you, moderator. before we proceed to agenda item number 2, as you know, chair ambrose had resigned from the position a few days ago. chair ambrose had served on this commission for three

years, and during this time, the city was hit with two very toxic viruses. while we have little control over the first one, we must confront the public virus that has shaken and eroded the public's trust. the chair has successfully guided this commission to focus on proactive and preventative initiatives to build a healthy and cleaner government so that we can earn back the public trust, so for that, we owe chair ambrose our deepest gratitude and we wish her nothing but the best in her future endeavors. is there any other commissioners that want to share their comments or

thoughts? commissioner bush? >> commissioner bush: i'd just like to underscore what you said and comment that she's brought legal skills from working with the city attorney and other commissions, and she also has a good handle on the values of the commission as it moves forward, and i think that we all owe her a debt of gratitude for her work. >> president lee: thank you, commissioner bush, and commissioner chiu? >> commissioner chiu: yes, thank you, chair lee. i'd like to associate myself with your remarks and with commissioner bush's remarks. chair ambrose took over in an extraordinary time, unprecedented time, and i think

she led with dignity in challenging circumstances and continued to welcome participation and tried to make our meetings at open and accessible as possible, notwithstanding the complication of phone calls and digital distance, and for that, i really want to thank her for her leadership and wish her all the best in her future endeavors. >> president lee: thank you, commissioner chiu. so with that, let's proceed to item 2, public comment on matters appearing or not appearing on the agenda today. moderator, can you check on any incoming call?

>> clerk: please stand by. thank you, madam chair. the ethics commission is now receiving public comment on item 2 in this meeting. each member of the public will have up to three minutes to provide public comment. if you joined the meeting earlier, now is the time to get in line to speak, and press star, three to go into the line to speak. one you are in the queue and standing by, the system will prompt you when it's your turn to speak, so please call from a quiet location. please address your comments to the commission as a whole and not to individual members. madam chair, we are currently checking the queue. we are currently having public comment on item 2, punl comment on matters appearing or not appearing on the agenda. you will have three minutes to

make public comment, and you will hear a chime when you have 30 seconds left. madam chair, please stand by. madam chair, we have callers in the queue. >> president lee: okay. >> clerk: one moment here. welcome, caller. your three minutes begins now. >> hi, commissioners. my name is judith reese, and i'm calling in today about item number 7, about jennifer stojkovic. i did some sunshine on my own and found that miss stojkovic had some communication with supervisor matt haney in may and june of this year, yet she

failed to disclose that on the san francisco logging roj roj -- registry page. i'm confused, and i don't know, because her being on the consent calendar is, like, a slap on the wrist. she's going back to what she was doing and not reporting stuff. i submitted a document to the clerk earlier this morning, and i will make sure to send it to the public comments area so you guys can take a look at it, about you it shows that she has several e-mails to the supervisor. she didn't report it on the lobbying registry website, and what they worked on actually ended up in a bill that matt haney has put forward, and so it's obviously lobbying stuff, yeah. and thank you guys for your

work. in this last year, you guys have been really consistent in looking at these scandals, and that reassures me as a citizen of this city. thank you. >> president lee: thank you, miss lee. next caller, please? >> clerk: okay. please stand by. welcome, caller. your three minutes begins now. >> good morning, commissioners, and thank you for your services. my name is ellen lee zhou, e-l-l-e-n l-e-e z-h-o-u, and i am representing the government

employees. i am here to request you, the ethics commissioners, reopen city hall, reopen your ethics commission so the public can have a chance to know what's going on. i am a member of revival san francisco. i'm here to remind you, our nation, our government, was founded by godly people, and that's why we have the united states constitution, and that's why that we are one nation under god, and in god we trust. for a government and the schools, public schools, pushing people away and brain wash our children has nothing that's going to be good for san francisco. i have been coming to ethics commission with many other government employees back in

2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, and 2020. the last time i spoke to your commission in person at city hall, february 21, 2020, and after that, the san francisco city hall has been running a government for self-interest. there's no public interest whatsoever. the last time i spoke to you was last month, july 21, 2021. i told you there's a lot of corruption inside san francisco city hall. many of the elected officials relate to communism. that is why that we the people have been violated by the elected officials.

emergency order is only good held for 60 days, march 2020 to may 2020. as of now, there's no valid emergency order, and you can see that many of the people that love god and love our country file lawsuits against california. we don't want a dictatorship government, and that's -- >> clerk: your three minutes have expired. >> well, but right now, you guys not doing your job by closing your office. it has to be open to the public. the public has no more emergency. our government -- >> clerk: i'm sorry. your three minutes were up, caller. did you want to give her a little more extra time?

okay. madam chair, we have other callers in the queue. >> president lee: okay. next caller, please. >> clerk: please stand by. welcome, caller. your three minutes begins now. >> good morning, commissioners. i'm calling in today because i was just listening to the ethics commission for the day, and i heard this item about judith lee about jennifer, on item 7, and i just think that it should definitely be severed from the consent calendar, because i think it's important that you really take a close look at it and just send in that packet to the clerk, so i

just think it would be really important that you sever it today, and i appreciate all your work. thank you. >> president lee: thank you. >> clerk: okay. please stand by. we have other callers in the queue. welcome, caller. your three minutes begins now. >> thank you very much. this is anonymous. good morning. first, this commission should investigate the interactions between walter wong, london breed, her campaign and city staff and the shanghai sister city committee regarding records for the 2021 chinese new year parade floats. second, the mitigating factor identified by staff for london breed should be given little if

any weight. your staff said regarding the unlawful gift from a subordinate, in litigation, breed reported the gift, however, that was only after mohamed nuru was arrested, and your staff said, further, breed had no further violations of the city's campaign violation finance laws, and this incident appears to have been an isolated incident. however, this was only brought to light after another individual was arrested and these items were brought to light. in addition [inaudible] and the use of other city services and breed has, in fact, asked agencies to assist [inaudible] when he asks for it, and i have provided documentation to you

about that, as well. breed has been found to have personally committed three violations of san francisco sunshine, all involving breed conducting public business in secret by failing to disclose various information about her meetings and calendars as required by law. and for all of those reasons, you should increase the fine that london breed has to pay. now your new chair talked about how this commission is fighting corruption. you cannot do that if you completely ignore the sunshine ordinance, which apparently this commission or, more importantly, its staff does. you never investigate these violations, whereas the other commission, the sunshine task

force, does and reports them, and this commission does absolutely nothing about them. you need to fix that. thank you. >> clerk: thank you, caller. all right. let me just do one more check, madam chair. okay. madam chair, please stand by. madam chair, there are no more callers in the queue. >> president lee: okay. thank you. now we're on agenda item number 3, which is on the consent calendar. do i have a motion -- or any

additional comments? otherwise, do i have a motion to approve the consent calendar? >> commissioner chiu: so moved. >> president lee: do i have a second? >> second. >> president lee: roll call, please. >> commissioner chiu: do we need public comment on item number 3? >> president lee: oh, public comment. my apologies. public comment, please. >> i'm sorry for interrupting, chair lee and mr. contreras, but i just want to clarify for the benefit of the commission and the public, when you hear items on a consent calendar, you hear all of them collectively, so actually, before you are items 3 through 8, and so, i just want to

clarify that the motion was to approve all of the items together and that public comment will be on all of those items collectively. >> president lee: okay. can we take out the brat minutes first and approve those separately and then take the rest of the consent calendar? >> yes. you have the ability to take those separately. >> president lee: okay. i'm going to call out the draft minutes of the july 9 commission meeting, and if we don't have any comments from the commissioners, let's open up for public comment. >> clerk: okay. please stand by. okay. thank you, madam chair. the other members are resuming

public comment on item number 3. you will have three minutes to make public comment. you will hear a bell when you have 30 seconds remaining. if you just joined the proceedings, now is the time to get on the line to speak. if you have not already, press star, three. it is important you press star, three once as pressing it another time will move you out of the queue and back into listening mode. it's important that you call from a quiet location. please address your comments to the commission as a whole and not to individual members. if you have not already done so, please press star, three to enter the queue and wait until your line indicates you have been unmuted. if you just joined this meeting, this is public comment

on item 3, and please press star, three to enter the queue. madam chair, we have callers in the queue. welcome, caller. your three minutes begins now. >> >> hi. i didn't raise my hand -- >> clerk: well, it showed your hand was still raised. >> so i need to lower my hand. >> clerk: yes. thank you so much. okay. please stand by. we have another caller in the queue. welcome, caller. your three minutes begins now. caller, you had your hand

raised earlier for the first public comment. we are still on item number 3. did you still want to comment on this? okay. looks like he lowered his hand. okay. we are still waiting to see if there are any other callers. please stand by. madam chair, there are no other callers in the queue. >> president lee: okay. so can i have a motion to approve the draft minutes? >> so moved. >> commissioner chiu: i'll second. >> president lee: moved by commissioner bell, seconded by commissioner chiu. roll call, please. >> commissioner bush: motion was by commissioner bush, for the record. >> president lee: my apologies.

>> clerk: a motion has been made and seconded. i will now call the roll. [roll call] >> clerk: with four votes in the affirmative and zero in opposition, the motion is approved unanimously. >> president lee: okay. now we will move to agenda items 4 through 8. item 4, in the matter of norman yee for supervisor 2016, norman yee, and lisa le, sfec complaint number 1617-020. proposed streamlined

transcription, decision, and order in the matter of eamonn herlihy and richard hart, sfec complaint number 1819-026-1920-035, agenda item number 6, in the matter of john dennis for supervisor 2018, john dennis, and kelley lawler. item number 7, in the matter of jennifer stojkovic, and will in the matter of yes on proposition v and rebecca

olson. >> clerk: madam chair, we have callers in the queue. >> welcome, caller. your three minutes begins now. >> hi. this is judith reese again, and

i was just wondering if you could sever item 7. yeah, i just think there needs to be more of a discussion around that, and i'd really appreciate if you could sever it. thank you, and that's all. >> clerk: thank you. >> president lee: thank you. >> clerk: okay. please stand by. welcome, caller. your three minutes begins now. >> hi, good morning. i also called in earlier, and i'm following up on judith's request to sever item 7, and i just want to confirm that it's being severed. thank you. >> clerk: thank you, caller. please stand by.

good morning, caller. your three minutes begins now. >> commissioners, let me tell you, for those of us watching on tv, we did not have the information to call in. the only way you can get it is by going to the internet and getting the agenda item, and that's how i got it. the people who want to call in, the number is not being shown on the screen, and i'm bringing this to your information. so i'm calling in to inform you how this could be corrected.

the gentleman that was facilitating this meeting keeps saying press star, three, but we don't have the number, and we don't have the i.d. code, so correct that as soon as possible. thank you very much. >> clerk: thank you, caller. it looks like -- okay, madam chair. there are no -- there are no -- there's no more callers in the queue. >> president lee: first, i want -- these are really challenging times to hold remote meetings, and on behalf of the commission, i want to thank them for their patience, and we will definitely look into ways to make it easier for the folks to access and to

participate fully in these meetings. in light of the comments and suggestions on the items, i wonder if there's any interest to address the agenda item number 7 or if staff has anything to add or to clarify to the public? >> chair -- chair lee, if i may interject just briefly and make a suggestion on how to move forward? >> president lee: okay. >> so i think that the public had no interest on offering public koomt on -- public

comment on any other item but item 7, so we can take care of the other ones, come back to item 7, invite the commission to speak about item 7 if they wish to do so and see if there's any public comment or per the resolution of that matter. >> president lee: okay. thank you for that, assistant city attorney. so why don't we entertain a moment to approve items on the consent calendar 4, 5, 6, and 8. >> commissioner bush: so moved. >> commissioner chiu: second. >> president lee: so moved by commissioner bush, seconded by commissioner chiu. roll call, please. >> clerk: a motion has been made and seconded -- i'm sorry. it looks like we -- please

stand by. it looks like we had a last submission. please stand by. a motion has been made and seconded. i'll now call the roll. [roll call] >> clerk: with four votes in the affirmative and zero votes no, the motion is approved unanimously. >> president lee: so now, let's go back to agenda item number 7? is there any discussion? i can tell you that [inaudible]

further administrative enforcement, and under our streamlined program, [inaudible] and ineligible for that future matter to be resolved in the streamlined program, so if the allegations that we have heard today, they're approved, then that would be a separate enforcement matter and may be ineligible in the future for the streamlined program. [inaudible]. >> president lee: commissioner chiu, you had your hand up? >> commissioner chiu: yes, thank you, chair lee. i have a few questions, but i'm hoping that mr. willet can

clarify. there's several reports that you need to amend, so is this the reports that were filed and did not contain the complete disclosure that was necessary? >> original file did not contain the required reporting, and they have since been amended prior to taking corrective action, and the matter has been resolved with the stipulated agreement. >> commissioner chiu: these reports cover a period of almost 3.5 years, and do you have a sense of the number of contacts that were disclosed in these 22 reports -- amended

reports? >> yes. the predominant liability here was a failure to report a portion of her salary that she received from s.f. city to make such contacts, so in all by one instance, she had failed to report her salary, so there's been 40 over the time that she's been qualified. >> commissioner chiu: so the bulk of the violations were a failure to report her payment, not the contact itself? >> correct. that's why the penalty here,

which is pegged to the salary received is $931, and then, a salary [inaudible] from her employer, s.f. city. >> commissioner chiu: so i'm going to ask a broader question here. when somebody qualifies as a lobbyist, what kind of training or information or resores do they have so that they know what their obligations are as a lobbyist going forward? >> sure. there is training that the lobbyist can receive, and our website also has an abundance of resources available through the lobbyists, as well as a commission staffer who administers the lobbyist program. john kim is his name, and he's very proactive about engaging with the lobbyist community in san francisco.

>> commissioner chiu: okay. and then -- so presumably, the contacts that were disclosed -- sorry. you answered that question. i note that these -- the first violations, number 22 here, is january 2018, so that's about 3.5 years ago. like, when did this come to the commission's attention as a matter of investigation? >> i can't speak to an investigative record. i can only speak to the information contained in the stipulated agreement because that is an agreement between staff and the respondent. i can say that the liability in this stipulated agreement is a prior liability that staff has

pursued and sought resolution to. >> commissioner chiu: okay. thank you. >> president lee: thank you, commissioner chiu. commissioner bush, you had your hand up? >> commissioner bush: yes. i was muted there for a minute. i understood one of the callers say there was a failure to disclose the contacts in may of 2021. isn't that a period that's also covered in this stipulation? >> that's correct, and she reported contact with board president walton, and she has since amended her statement to

[inaudible] and that would be an additional enforcement matter, and the existence of this streamlined resolution before the commission may necessitate any provisions of law. >> did the staff interview this person in person? >> again, the investigative record is confidential, and i can only speak to the information contained here in this. >> i'm concerned. is there a concern that the commission would not know if

there's an interview that took place? >> the investigative record. >> commissioner bush: yeah, sorry. >> that's correct, commissioner bush. we would consider the scope and method and substance and conduct of the investigation to remain confidential. >> that seems kind of remarkable to me, that the commission would not know what was involved in something like this. was that a part of our regulations? where does that come from? >> well, it's in the charter that we conduct investigations

confidentially, but more to the point would be that the pay that the charter regulations instructed a division of labor within the commission, so that the staff represent the prosecutorial arm of the commission, and the commission represents effectively the judge, and so, the commission can't participate in investigations, and when staff presence a proposed resolution, what we put as a senior investigator, what we put before the commission is a negotiated document, and so generally, we find that what's in the document has to speak for itself. we can't go beyond those four corners, so i understand it may

be frustrating for commissioners having to evaluate when whether to vote yea or nay. you can give feedback, you can express misgivings about the proposal. >> i served on a bond oversight committee where we oversaw

where the city's bond money was being spent appropriately, and we did hear those. perhaps chair lee can give us her opinion on that. >> thank you, commissioner bush. given today's full agenda items, i just have one quick question. can you tell us the difference

between those that we need to fully investigate, or should we just go back and adopt the final proposed stipulation based on your investigation? so what's the difference between approving things now or tabling everything, do the investigation, and amend -- or to reflect that on the stipulation of the commission, so what is the difference?

does that mean if we approve it today, she's going to have a clean bill of health, she's going to continue to do, you know, her professional work? what's at stake right now? because based on that new information, i'm not comfortable approving this until the staff can come back with more clear information for us to consider. >> thank you, chair -- sorry, go ahead. >> no, i was going to defer to you, the director of enforcement. >> well, thank you for the question, chair lee. if i could try to offer kind of a broad response that might the concerns that both you and

others have. i think it would be that if you declined to approve this situation as approved, we likely would no longer treat it under the streamlined program, we would kick it over to the main line program because what the commission envisioned was a fuller mode of consideration there are reasons why conduct wouldn't be handled under neath

this. i think more broadly, if the commission wants additional information about the facts, if the commission wants more information about what staff did or did not investigate, this is not the venue for that conversation. the venue for that conversation would be administrative proceeding, so staff would have to have greater access. finally, my guess is the bond oversight committee had powers to investigate bond compliance but maybe lacked powers to impose penalties, and that is a unique feature of this division of labor.

it imposes specific due process considerations that staff have to adhere to. because you have remedial powers, penalty powers, you may not in this context get to hear as many of the facts or review the investigative record as you would the same way in other circumstances, but you could in a different context, which would be a hearing on the merit. >> president lee: commissioner bush? >> commissioner bush: just to clarify, the oversight authority has the ability to stop the sale of bonds if we found there was something untoward in the way that was being done, so that's a pretty strong authority given to the committee to act in a penalty way. >> president lee: commissioner bell, your hand's up? >> commissioner bell: my hand went up after commissioner chiu, so i'll defer to her?

>> commissioner chiu: oh, so thank you, commissioner bell. there's a range of penalties and signs right now under the streamlines program. can you tell us what, under the regular program, what the fines would otherwise be for the multiple c.j. violations? i'm concerned about the allegations that surfaced in public comment and the extensive number of contacts that were made without disclosure, and i would like to know what the consequences are for such a long, 3.5 year stream of failure to disclose

violations would result in? >> sure, i can field that question. commissioner chiu, under the main lines program, pursuant to the charter, the ultimate penalty is $5,000 per violation or three times the amount of payment miss stojkovic received or double the damages? >> commissioner chiu: do we have that number? >> i wouldn't be able to do the math on the fly, no. >> commissioner chiu: okay. in any event, it would be significantly greater than what's proposed here, the maximum liability? [inaudible]. >> commissioner chiu: thank you.

>> president lee: commissioner bell? >> commissioner bell: thank you, chair lee. so i would like the director of enforcement to weigh-in on this. what i'm feeling is this notion that we're asked to deliberate on something but not have a level of information that we think gives us the ability to deliberate on it, and then, if there are new charges, that we kind of want to send it back, so i want to have you respond to this. so i am not interested in substituting the staff's judgment with mine unless i have some sense of the facts. but then, you say that the procedures are that we can't give you a level of facts. so i'm just wondering, is there a way that we can hear a

rationale for how you came to the decisions rather than this interviewee said this, and this person said that, and we don't want to -- well, i'll speak for myself. i don't want to step into that terrain because your staff are trained for a reason, and so we don't just want a rubber stamp. so there has to be a balance between respecting the staff's abilities and skills and also hearing what you use to come to those judgments so that if we are going to try to substitute -- or not substitute, but weigh-in based on our own public abilities and what the public says, that we have something to weigh.

these are going to keep coming up, and i don't want it to be, staff says this, and yeah, that's okay, but me as a commissioner, i'm a little disturbed by that, but i can't hear why you said what you said, so i would just like to

hear a little bit more balance of the rationale if possible so that we have something a little more to go on well, i did that, but something in my gut said to do that, versus something else caused me to go one way or another. >> president lee: okay. thank you, commissioner. >> commissioner bell: so that was a question to -- [inaudible]. >> commissioner bell: that was a question and a soliloquy. >> thank you, commissioner bell, and i appreciate the quandary that you find yourself in. i'm also aware that deputy city attorney shen is on-line, which means i think he wants to add something. >> yes. commissioner bell, i want to highlight, i think we're sort

of segueing away from the matter into a more general sort of discussion, which we can have, certainly, at a later date. i certainly understand the desire of the commissioners to not be a rubber stamp for what's presented at these meetings, and making sure that there's a respective balance of roles and how we can respect due process if you don't mind, you know, i can certainly get before the next meeting or a future meeting, i'd really appreciate you talking to some of my colleagues in the city attorney's office and we can come up with some options about how to push the issue in the future. that's what i would suggest. >> commissioner bell: okay. but for right now, we're dealing with the hand we were

dealt with on this subject matter, on item number 7. >> yes. certainly, i don't want to get ahead of the discussion, but maybe there is an item that would be continued. and i would also just note as a matter of procedure, that we would want to invite public comment, as well. >> commissioner bell: okay. i appreciate that, and it was a general question that came to me as we were trying to apply it to item number 7, so i appreciate what you said, and we can move on. >> and they're certainly very important questions that we can move into at a later date. thank you. >> so the brief answer to commissioner bell's question is that we implemented, we followed the program, but i think what we might do here is staff will elect to withdraw the proposal as of today, and either we will bring it back at

a subsequent meeting or bring back a different proposal, depending on whatever staff determines, so i think if the chair is ready, we can make room for public comment. >> president lee: okay. do we need public comment? i think we do, so let's open up the public comment. the recommendation is to table the item and bring it back to commission at the next meeting because this has been going on for, like, three-plus years, so i think we really need to close the book on this one way or another, so do we have the staff's availability to make

this a priority, that you will come back with a new proposal for the september meeting? >> we will hope to do that, chair. >> president lee: okay. and can we have public comment? >> clerk: the ethics commission is now receiving public comment on item number 7 remotely in this meeting. each member of the public will have three minutes to make public comment. you will hear a bell when you have 30 seconds remaining. if you have not already, please press star, three. it is important that you press star, three only once as pressing it again will move you out of the comment line and back into listening mode. once you are in line, the

system will prompt you when it's your turn to speak. please address your comments to the commission as a whole and not to individual members. madam chair, we are checking the queue. if you have just joined this meeting, we are currently taking public comment on consent calendar item number 7, proposed streamlined stipulation, decision, and order in the matter of jennifer stojkovic, sfec complaint number 1920-011. if you have not already done so, please press star, three to enter the queue. madam chair, we have callers in the queue. hello, caller. your three minutes begins now. >> hello, commissioners.

i brought it to your attention that the public needs to know the number: 415-655-0001, and the i.d. number is 146-625-9397, and then, you press the pound sign, and then, you press the pound sign again, and then, you enter the queue. now what is it that the moderator doesn't understand. you are just telling people press star, three, but they don't know about the number. and you know, what is happening is this is the ethics commission. under the brown act, you have to make it easy for the people to participate in the deliberations. but you all don't seem to get your act together.

i told you very kindly that the number is not being run on the screen. the only way to get it is to go on the internet and get it, but most people cannot get it, so i'm bringing to your attention somebody needs to fix it as soon as possible because if there is no public comment, and the ability is not given to the public to participate, the item is null and void. thank you very much. >> clerk: okay. please stand by. >> president lee: so moderator, i have a quick question. on my file, the call-in numbers are already included. >> clerk: yes. i'll repeat it, public comment will be available on each item

of this agenda, and each member of the public will be allowed three minutes to speak for comments. we've already provided the telephone number and the access code at the beginning of the meeting. all right. we do have other callers in the queue. please stand by. and we did get confirmation that the number and the access code is going to be displayed on sfgovtv, and it has been completed on their end -- they did apologize, that that is on their end. thank you, sfgovtv. we do appreciate you very much. all right. welcome, caller. your three minutes begins now. >> thank you very much. anonymous again. i don't know either of the parties in this case, but i think the comments of commissioner bell are very

important. since this is a stipulated agreement, why don't staff and the respondent here just stipulate to add more detail so that when this comes back, you can make that judgment. even if you're not allowed to know things in this stipulated process, why don't the parties just add more detail into the stipulation? thank you. >> president lee: thank you. >> clerk: okay. please stand by. >> caller, your three minutes begins now. >> good morning, commissioners. again, i appreciate you severing item number 7 and hearing your comments on the matter and understand your concerns on this because i have the same concerns on this, as well. i would just like the commission to conduct a full

investigation given the information raised by the previous caller. i think that miss stojkovic has been using s.f. city to hide information from tech companies around san francisco, and i think it's your job to fully investigate and do your job as the ethics commission. thank you. >> clerk: okay. please stand by. madam chair, we have no more callers in the queue. >> president lee: okay. let's proceed to regular agenda items. let's proceed to item number 9, proposed stipulation, decision, and order in the matter of london breed, sfec complaint

number 1920-072. >> thank you, presidentially. i'm going to ask jeff sumwa, whose job it was to investigate this complaint. >> good morning, commissioners. jeff sumwa. the commission has the option or can discuss this publicly and then can vote by majority to approve the stipulation. if it does not vote to approve the stipulation, we just ask that it provide feedback to us and not explain what was just discussed in the last discussion, limited to discussing what's within the

document. >> president lee: commissioner bush, you had your hand up? or should we open it up to public comment first? commissioner bush? >> commissioner bush: whatever is up to you, chair lee? >> i believe it's up to the commission, but i believe the commission holds discussion and then a motion is entertained, and after the motion is seconded, the commission hears public comment, but you're welcome to do it in whatever order works for you. >> president lee: i see the deputy city attorney shen camera on. >> yeah, so just very briefly, chair lee, so jeff is correct that you do have some flexibility in how you want to proceed with each item. i would say on this particular item, it would be helpful for the public to hear from the

commissioners and their sort of concerns and questions before they weigh-in, as well. just a suggest. thank you. >> president lee: commissioner bush, you had your hand up? >> commissioner bush: i did. thank you, chair lee. as i read what was submitted to us, it states that mayor breed's brought this issue of a potential violation to the attention of the commission but as i recall, the fact that there was payments in the [inaudible], it was actually in the newspapers before all this. is that true?

>> can you point to where it was brought to our attention before our investigation? >> commissioner bush: i can't -- >> well, we can't explain where it came from, just what's reflected here in the documents. >> commissioner bush: i suppose the broader question i have is does this issue -- well, if you can't comment -- it's an awkward situation. my recollection is that this issue surfaced first in the media, and it did so at least a year earlier than anything we've seen, whether that's because we're going through a

period when we were shutdown most of the year, but i'm just trying to figure out whether or not this was something voluntarily brought by the mayor or whether it surfaced because it had been brought out as an issue. also, it's my understanding that the under writing for the float came from someone who's a city contractor, and i'm not sure that's referenced as an issue here, and that it also would have been underwritten in part by a corporation, john constantine, and it would have been prohibited for a corporation to make contributions. so can you comment to that? >> so on the first part, i cannot comment on what the source to the allegations would

have been. on the second, we would have investigated this for any violations of law, and anything that any party agreed to would have been included in the stipulation. >> commissioner bush: based on what we just went through on item 7, it's my understanding that you cannot inform the commission on whether you had a personal meeting with the mayor over these -- these findings and the penalties? >> i can only speak to the facts that are in the stipulation. >> commissioner bush: and is there a reason that that would not be in the stipulation? >> it's an agreed fact between the commission and the respondent. >> commissioner bush: i have to say, i'm not comfortable not

knowing whether the mayor took personal responsibility for any violation and made a personal commitment regarding how things will move forward in the future. >> i will say that it was agreed upon, so it was agreed to that there were four violations of the law that she agreed to in the stipulation. >> commissioner bush: as i understand the process, though, her agreement is just affixing an internet signature. it does not involve necessarily an actual discussion and an actual paper unless you have put it in the stipulation. is that correct? >> it agrees to adhere to the law as well as pay the monetary penalty attached to it.

>> and is that penalty paid for from her personal funds and is not eligible to be paid out of campaign or election funds? >> i don't believe it's been paid yet, so i don't know how it's paid. >> i apologize for jumping in. one is as senior investigator wong has indicated, the stipulation included language to which the respondent has agreed, and if the commission has an additional opportunity to review not only the exhibit but the -- but the front -- the front piece of the stipulation, what we typically refer to as the boiler plate, the paragraph that refers to the process, the respondent does, in the boiler plate, acknowledge the violations and take responsibility for the violations. secondly, the respondent can

pay the penalty using any lawful means available to her. my understanding, based on representation, that in this matter, the respondent may attend to pay personally, but it's my understanding that the respondent can use any campaign money. >> commissioner bush: but the stipulation could have said she would pay for it out of her personal funds, right? >> it's not the practice of the commission to amend the boiler plate. >> commissioner bush: but that doesn't mean that you're precluded from doing so, is that correct? >> as a matter of practice, we do not amend the boiler plate? >> president lee: if i could jump in, if i could ask the city attorney, that the

commission has the authority to direct us how they would make their penalty payments? is it within the purview? >> good morning, chair lee. so actually, on the subject, i can't quite tell, and maybe justin could sort of clarify whether mayor breed has any representatives at today's meeting that could speak to perhaps commissioner bush's questions or other questions? maybe they're better placed to answer those questions. >> yeah, thank you, deputy city attorney shen. at one time this morning, the mayor's city representative was on the attendee list. don't see his name there now,

but he may be there under a different name. >> and i would just say that the mayor's representative may be better positioned to speak to that than us. >> commissioner bush: if i may just add something to this conversation, i would like to acknowledge that the mayor has directed her staff to take this same ethics training that is required of commissioners and department heads. for herself, that's not a requirement, but she has gone beyond what the requirements are to expand the filings by her staff to recognize what are the ethics rules, and it's my

understanding that they would not be adverse to right lane those files, including statements of economic interest filed -- adverse to having those files, including statements of economic interest filed, so the public could have an opportunity to see -- like right now, you can't see what the chief of financial staff's interests are. my questions are not designed to be a gotcha, they are designed to help understand how

this process works and how we came to be where we are on it now. thank you. >> president lee: thank you, commissioner bush. commissioner chiu? >> commissioner chiu: thank you, chair lee. i have a question for our enforcement staff, and this intersects with our enforcement staff and clarity about the rules that apply to gifts in san francisco. there are the state rules that are in place but that can be more restrictive than the straight rules. i understand that the

definition under san francisco rules of law defers to state law. so i think with regard to -- i think it's count 2, the gift of car repairs, what was the legal rule with regard to filing? did she have to file pursuit to san francisco local rules or state law and what were the rules regarding disclosure, if any? >> sure. so under the city law, it's prohibited to receive a gift from a subordinate, so that would just be a prohibited gift that would not -- she would not have been allowed to have accepted, so they're -- since the gift was prohibited, she shouldn't have even accepted

it, so i don't know if there would have been any reporting requirement since the gift shouldn't have been accepted in the first place. >> commissioner chiu: thank you. and then, the filing in september 2019 regarding the definition, is that -- is that active and accurate interpretation? is that applicable in this case at all or is there a conflict between the two laws? >> i think that might be more of a policy question. i think that might be addressed in the next agenda item. this was just specifically the city's prohibition on receiving a gift from a subordinate. >> commissioner chiu: and then, we have the financial amount of

the four counts. is that the maximum for each count or are these negotiated amounts? >> so as to count 1, that was the statutory maximum. counts 2, 3, and 4 were not, but they were the negotiated amounts based on what the charter allows us to impose. >> commissioner chiu: and then, my next question is about the information on the investigation that we can seek to elicit in this setting.

can you talk about how you came to the amounts? >> those decisions were made in consultation with investigators and respondent and respondent's council. >> i can also add, just quickly, we did review analogous cases, kind of the standard thing that we will do, look at severity of the activity, so there is a process

that we get into for that. >> commissioner chiu: [inaudible] it was six years ago -- it was over six years ago, and this was her committee to run for supervisor for 2012. that was, like, nine years ago, and i just think it's incumbent upon the commission to be timely and expeditious in their investigation because it's attenuated and comes before us, and i would like to have known that before it came before us and now, we have processes in

place that we don't have to wait six years to resolve a violation. mr. pierce, i would love to hear a little bit more about how we came -- staff came to these dollar amounts. >> president lee: if i could interject, in the items, there's seven priorities that you considered in determining the penalty, so could you go over those seven priorities that you went over in determining the amount?

>> sure. the particular considerations that staff used or that respondent and their counsel might have used to reach that agreement remain confidential as settlement communications. the seven factors that you've identified, chair lee, are identified in our regulations, so they are considerations that we apply in every instance, whether in a settlement or a hearing on the merits. in factor seven, i'll clarify that the respondent's ability to pay really goes to considerations that the commission has brought to us

historically in the context of the number of accounts that were -- that are lingering at the department's [inaudible] penalties. we don't, as a matter of course, wish to assess penalties that are impossible to collect. >> president lee: thank you for the explanation. commissioner bush, your hand is up? >> commissioner bush: thank you. thank you, chair lee. if i understood, that sounds like a little bit at odds. if the penalty can be paid from any legal source of funding, then it wouldn't matter if they can afford to pay it or not because they could pay it from a campaign committee or a

nonprofit. let's say it could be paid from the sister city committee or something like that. the ability or reference to pay is not really tied to the financial capacity of the person who's facing the penalty, is that right? >> well, i want to channel deputy city attorney shen here and make sure we follow the item and not have a broader position of how the department arrives at a penalty. but i'll say that the respondent can payout of any lawful source, and i'll say that there are instances in which a respondent is positioned only to pay the penalty out of private funds because that's the only lawful fund available to that

respondent. >> commissioner bush: what would be an example of that? >> commissioner bush, i don't know if we want to run as far afield -- i'm seeing deputy city shen arriving again. >> yeah, jeff. i just think it would be better to advance this discussion. if we could check to see if the mayor's representative is on the line. i don't see his name on the list of attendees, but maybe he has called in. ronald, could you ask someone to raise their hand if they're calling in on behalf of the mayor? >> clerk: it looks like we have three callers in the queue --

>> i'm going to reach out to respondent's counsel and get back to you. >> yeah. if you are not here on behalf of the mayor or are the mayor's legal representative, if you can put your hand down. you still will have the opportunity in offering public comment, of course, but we are interested to see if the mayor's representative is on the line to speak on the issue. >> clerk: hello, caller. are you a mayor's representative? >> yes, i am.

thank you hear me? >> yes. >> good morning, commissioners. my name is tom lewis, and i represent the mayor. i apologize, i've been in the webex and literally, when this item called, my internet went down. if i could, just make one or two brief comments. first, i want to say on behalf of the mayor, she has acknowledged her mistakes that have listed in this settlement, and she takes responsibility and has taken responsibility for them, and that is what she said in her public comments about this. she said, also, at that time that she had learned a lot in these events and that she believes she will be a better

public servant for it. to commissioner bush's comments and others, the ethics commission plays an important function in upholding these laws and applying them to everyone. these fines are significant and are more significant in some respects than in other -- for other activity in the past that the commission has assessed, so they are significant, just to respond to that. i do request, on behalf of the mayor, to respectfully approve this proposal and reiterate that she has taken full responsibility to this, not only to mr. pierce's point in the stipulation, which requires her to say that, but she has said that, you know, publicly, to -- to the broad public.

so with that in mind, i think there was a question about -- and you can still hear me, correct? >> president lee: mm-hmm, yes. >> i don't have a answer on how the mayor will pay for this. i think, as jeff pierce mentioned, in the past, i think, you know office holders used personal accounts, but i don't know how the mayor is going to proceed. the goal here was to, you know, obviously, agree to this and move forward and see if the commission would approve it. and i don't know if there was another question, but i'm happy to respond to any questions.

>> president lee: i think that was the inquiry, and as the deputy city attorney said, the funds would have to be legal. >> correct. >> president lee: from a legal source. >> correct. >> president lee: okay. >> i can't think of an instance where a -- kind of a third party nonprofit could pay for that, but again, i'm -- it would be -- just i can't -- i can't think of a situation where that would fly. >> president lee: okay. commissioner bush, your hand is still up -- okay.

>> commissioner bush: my apologies. i'll take it down. >> president lee: okay. if we don't have any further questions for the mayor's representative, we'll go to move comment. >> commissioner bell: i was trying to move my mouse quick enough to get my hand up. i was wondering, sir, if you could speak to this opportunity for the mayor's opportunity to this commission to use this process, whether folks think that it is severe enough or not severe enough or that she has or not taken personal responsibility. i'm just wondering if you are in a position to speak to the ability or the opportunity for the ethics commission to use this situation, this event, as

a way to more broadly strengthen and utilize our orientation total city employees and others in like minded positions about the authority and respect of their positions. i don't know if you can answer it directly, but i think it's something that the mayor, with the bully pulpit, may be able to say i didn't know, i made a make, but others can use that bully pulpit to raise awareness about issues that this commission often has to enforce. >> yes. am i on? >> president lee: yes. >> clerk: yes, you are. >> thank you.

yes, i think that's a very good point. i just want to point out here and be careful because i represent the mayor in her personal capacity, obviously, not in her mayoral capacity, so i think that you're talking, something about using her, you know, official position to encourage city employees to take additional training, so i hear the statement, but i want to be careful not to speak to the mayor in her official capacity. >> commissioner bell: i'm sorry. >> but leaving that aside, i think it's a very good question. she thought it was very important to state publicly that she took responsibility for this, and that she standup and state that, and state the,

you know, importance of the ethics commission's duties, which she has done not just in signing this stipulation but in her public comments specifically but in how she publicly speaks to this. >> commissioner bell: okay. thank you. >> president lee: okay. i'll open it up to public comment. >> chair lee? >> president lee: i'm sorry. >> no, i was waiting on the hand. before we move to public comment, i would just like to move to approve the -- make a motion to approve the

stipulation as presented to us by staff. >> second. >> president lee: public comment? >> president lee: madam chair, we are waiting to see if there are public in the queue. for those of you just joining the meeting, we are hearing item 9, proposed stipulation, decision, and order in the matter of london breed, sfec complaint number 1920-072. madam chair, we have callers in the queue. welcome, caller. your three minutes begins now.

>> so commissioners, i've been listening intently to this deliberation. i wanted to mention early on, but i couldn't, that attorney ambrose, i've known her for many years, is somebody that could have shed light on this discussion in a better way. what i see here is we have a mayor that's made statements in a manner that is nonchalant. in other words, what the mayor has been saying is that she wasn't fully aware of the

action, but now that she is aware of them, she is sorry, and she will not repeat them. but you commissioners have to do a needs assessment, and it begins with the salary of the mayor, which in the middle of the pandemic was increased to 400,000. find out if that is the right figure, 400,000. as far as we know, from reading in the newspaper, the cap on the stipulation is 23,000. so why all the fuss? if i'm making 400,000, i can easily pay 23,000.

there's no reason for me to go begging anybody to cover up or pay my fees or the fine or the stipulation or whatever the gentleman has been saying. in the past, this gentleman, the investigator have been -- you know, he wants to stick to what he wants to reveal. but the public knows more than the ethics commission, and we are very glad that we have mr. larry bush who is asking the right question so that we have a process. and one of the most important questions of the process is whenever we are discussing something like this, somebody has to be there, like the mayor's representative, who

gives an excuse that his internet went down or i don't know what. >> clerk: thank you, caller. your three minutes has expired. please stand by. thank you, caller. your three minutes begins now. >> thank you very much. good morning again. this is anonymous once more. so i'd like to point you to paragraph seven of the penalty assessment. in paragraph seven of the penalty assessment, it says, quote, in mitigation, breed voluntarily reported the gift and that's referring to the knew rou gift regarding the car break -- nuru gift regarding the car breakdown. and on that, staff stipulates

to an $8,292 penalty. i don't think that you should accept that this, quote, mitigating factor is a mitigating factor. she reported the gift after the person giving the gift was arrested by the f.b.i., and she denied in that public post on her media page, and that should not be a mitigating factor, so just on this very detailed document, you should increase the count 4 multiplicative factor to something else. the fact that these other people -- it looks like you're already using the three factor for some of these other counts, but on this count, the factor 1.5 does not make sense.

these people, other people that have already been arrested, have asked for additional favors, and london breed has provided those, and i have provided those. and finally, you should investigate the london breed walter wong 2019 parade float and how that affected the election committee. >> clerk: okay. somebody else has his hand up. tom, you had your hand up. did you want to make any other comment? >> oh, i'm sorry. i didn't mean to have my hand up.

>> clerk: okay. just to clarify. madam chair, there are no other callers in the queue. >> president lee: okay. i'll close public comment on agenda item number 9. i have a motion to approve made by commissioner chiu, seconded by commissioner bell. any further discussion? >> commissioner bush: i'm not sure what the protocol is on this, but i would like xz inned probable cause' can be is this to -- i would like, in the process of considering this, that the mayor and staff have ethics training, and to welcome her taking a further step of having that posted publicly through the ethics page as one part of what commissioner bell

is saying, as a part of training example to city officials. i'm not sure if that can be attended in some way. it's not part of the stipulation, i understand that. but can it go as a letter with our finding or, in some other way, go on the public page that she has taken that step? >> president lee: we can have the settlement amended, or the deputy city attorney -- >> chair lee, if you don't mind, i'm not sure what the proposal is on the table and it's probably different from the stipulation at the end, so we probably do want to call the roll on commissioner chiu's

motion? honestly, it sounds like, commissioner bush, you are bringing up an item that may want to be heard at a future meeting. >> commissioner bush: i think if we separate it to another meeting, it loses its heft since this is about compliance with ethics laws, and as she's stated, she's become more aware of it and taking steps to make sure her staff is more aware of it. as we're aware of it, one of her staff is already being prosecuted for failing to comply with ethics laws, so i think slow walking it to another meeting is not the answer.

>> president lee: can i make a motion -- proposal? to approve the motion that is on the table, and in response to commissioner bush's comment to highlight the mayor's directive to her own staff, maybe there's something that the staff can do separately that would not require commission action because it's not on the agenda item. so can we just vote on the motion on the table first? and then, we can hear director pelham on your recommendation. commissioner bush, is that agreeable to you? >> commissioner bush: yes. >> commissioner lee, and deputy city attorney, would it be possible to amend my motion,

that in so doing, we also note and affirm her -- her public responsibility and her direction to staff to file form 700 and undertake the ethics trainings and anything else that commissioner bush would like to add and do it that way, so that it's encompassed in the motion itself? >> commissioner bush: i like that. >> sure. why don't we go ahead and pursue that motion. >> commissioner chiu: okay. i then put forward that amended motion. >> commissioner bush: i second it. >> president lee: okay. call the roll.

>> clerk: a motion has been made and seconded. i will now call the roll. [roll call] >> clerk: with four votes in the affirmative and zero votes opposed, the motion is approved unanimously. >> president lee: okay. thank you, everyone. it is now 11:30, and we have couple of major items still coming up, so let's take a five-minute break? >> chair lee, may i just follow up with one item? >> president lee: yes. >> yes. in response to commissioner bush's query and commissioner chiu's amendment that has just been discussed, i think one way to acknowledge the -- the feedback that you've been providing or questions you have about the mayor's apparent direction to her staff to take ethics training and so forth,

we can certainly follow up with the mayor's office to get more information about that. i understand that came in yesterday to an e-mail perhaps to her staff. but as you do know, we do issue press releases about actions that the office has undertaken. happy to include that in the press release that those steps have been taken, but we do include those to make the public aware of the enforcement actions and the steps that have been taken. >> president lee: okay. that's great. so let's take a ten-minute break and meet back here at 11:40 >> we are back for the august 13 ethics commission meeting and we are now on the agenda item number 10, but before i

see, let's remind the public that if they want to offer their publiccomments , they should dial into the number that is on your screen and the moderator will speak to call on you when the comments period is open so with that, we are on agenda item number 10 which is the presentation discussion of action and findings for recommendations. a long-awaited report on gifts to individuals and before we turn it over to mister pat, i want to commend the director and staff for putting together a very thorough, well thought-out, well researched document for us to digest toda . so with that let's proceed.

>> thank you chair lee. hello commissioners this is pat ford, senior legislative affairs council an with me as michael canning, our policy analyst . thankyou for your kind words . it was definitely an office wide effort . we had people in every division helping us so much of that thanks is owed to lots ofpeople around the office so can't even name them all . many people have a handedness and ronald if you could do you mind passing the presenter rol to me so i can share the screen ? thank you. >> i'm going to share a few slides to help prime minister. this is a pretty lengthy and content heavy report so i thought it would briefly it's on some of the highlights here . just to help you begin your discussion and i'dbe glad to answer any questions that you

might have after that . >> you should be able to see my screen now. >> is correct. >> i want to put this report in context. it's a long project and this report is one of multiple reports. i want to remind you the public where we are in theprogress of this project . so the first report taken out of this project which isproject reviewing the city's ethics and conflicts of interest rule , the first report was delivered in november 2020. in that report focused on that half of payments which are payments made at the request of the city official employee to some third-party. and back in november the commission approved some legislative recommendations in that report. those are still pending before the board and we have still not

gotten a hearing date on that ordinance so that ordinance has now been pendingfor about nine months . the last word that i've gotten is that hopefully we will get the first rules committee hearing after labor daywhen the board returns to recess .keep you updated. but that is thestatus of that first report . the report that's before you today is the first of 2 reports talking about gets. and this report specifically talked about gifts to individuals. those are the gifts of some third-party directly to the city official oremployee . the next report we will bring you is a little different and it will talk about gifts that run through city departments before they get busyofficers or employees . and final phase of the project will be kind of the miscellaneous stage of things that we know we want to look at that don'tnecessarily warrant a full stand alone report .

and that are not payments or gifts but that arerelevant to this project we will put in . so some background. about the project in general, especially about gifts as well. just to set the stage, this project was initiated after the federal government started bringing criminal charges againstcity officials , employees and contractors. in particular to department heads in an and an additional city employee were charged with the department heads of course are carlin kelly, eight individuals have agreed to plead guilty to the criminal charges brought by the department of justice. and most recently there were a local criminal charges brought by san francisco district attorney against another former city employee relating to the violations ofethics laws . and to date, six city officials

and employees have resigned or been terminated either because they werecharged or somehow related to those allegations . so just to set the stage a significant number of people in high-level positions with allegations of ethics problems . to provide context i want to reiterate what the restrictive source rule is. the restricted source rule today local gifts law that says city officials and employees cannot accept gifts from restricted sourcesand that's of course subject to some exceptions which you will have read about in the report , a fewexceptions and we will talk about them as well today . restricted source can be one of two things . restricted source is either someone is doing or seeking to do business withthe apartment for the city official or

employee in question for someone who has thought to influence that official or employee in some way . that could be a lobbyist who's contacted them, a client a lobbyist who's paid a lobbyist to contactofficial, a permit consultants or somebody who's just contacted them and tried to influence their actions in some way not a lobbyist . it's a really broad definition but that's what the restricted source rule is and in the federal complaints that i mentioned a moment ago we can see faqs in the legislature thatseem to indicate restricted source rule violations . many of them come in the form of free meals and alcohol. we see that in most if not all of the federal complaints involved, at least some allegation of somebody who is likely restricted source providing free food or drinks to city officials or employees that's a common one. another one you see is travel costsfor trips . some more notable ones that we saw, a $30,000 watch.

a $40,000 tractor and $250,000 of construction services including materials and labor so all these if the allegations are true of your to have been fromrestricted sources so they would violate that rule .what we are seeing on the federal complaints and why we devoted and look for specifically to gift rules is that we can see a wide variety of and intensity of what appeared to be restricted sourcerule violations . to try to determine whether or not these were isolated incidents or whether they are indicative of a broader problem throughout the city organization, we did kind of a novel approach of taking a sample of form 700 filings and doing a deep dive on them to see if we can see any other restricted source violations. we chose six departments that were related in some way to the federal construction

allegations. either they had officials that were arrested or issuing permits to some of the contractors who were arrested and so we chose six departments and look at all the individuals in those departments who filed their form 700s electronically andagain, those are just commissioners, department heads and elected officials . most of the employees filed on paper. those are noteasily accessible so we're not able to review them in a comprehensive way . we are transpiring to e-filing but we've not arrived at that yet so we look only at the e filers, high-level officials and the gifts they've recorded and using public documents we tried to see if any of the sources appeared as if they might be restricted sources and we did find that sixindividuals appear to have reported gets that they have been from restricted sources . in some examples of those are

anofficial wasreported by a , reportedly contacted by a lobbyist . and subsequently accepted a giftfrom that lobbyist . that lobbyist would be in restricted source they were attempting toinfluence that individual. there would be separate gifts for that rule against lobbyist gifts but in this case this is not an elected official . separately official reported receiving dinner at a piece of apparel from an entity when that entity was seeking to become a contractor with that department which makes them likely a restricted source and it officially appears that entity has likely sought to influence the department regarding that contract so that's another indicator of being a restricted source. another example we saw an official report receiving tickets from entities that were doing business and pursuing additional business that department so again, both

indicators of restricted source. the point of this review was not tospecifically identify these people and try to pursue violations against them . the point was to determine whether or not this is a broad phenomenon and i think based on our sample we concluded that it'san issue . it definitely shows usthe restricted source rule needs to be strengthened. and that's what we sought to do . for this project. one last slide on background to give you more context, this is just global data about all gifts reported by electronic filers so commissioners, department heads during an eight year period from 2013 to 2020. there's been recording years and this is all the gifts that werereported . they tally up to just under $900,000 and you can see that travel makes up a large portion of the gifts by value.

tickets, meals and events make up a large portion of the gifts in terms ofnumber of the gifts . this is just to give you an idea of the scope of gifts that are being reported and generally wherethey fall in terms of type and value .and keep in mind that these are gifts that are recordable so gifts that fall under an exception would not appear. they would not be recorded so a gift from a close familymember like your spouse would not be recorded . theseare just reported gets . moving on to our approach to this project. the goals we were trying to achieve by reviewing giftrules . first, to reduce the danger of undue influence. they talk about the restricted source rule again. the main point of that rule is to make sure people who are seeking favorable outcomes from city officials are not giving gifts because that has a danger of causing undueinfluence and affecting that person's

judgment .so that's one of the main things we sought to do through this project is to make sure that the rulesare living up to this goal of reducing the danger . also we wanted to prevent opportunities for brides. the bride is kind of a higher level of gift problem where there is an actual intent to influence the government decision. when a gift is given with the intent to influence a bride. restricted source rule doesn't have to be the intent to influence. it's just a person giving the gift meets one of those categories of being a restricted source if you're a contractor or someone seeking to influence and they can't give a gift but we believe that i gift from arestricted source is often a channel for a bride . that's confirmed by the federal allegations that a lot of those restricted sources giving gifts did in fact intend it to influence officialactions and thosefolks were charged with

bribery . we also wanted to try to improve organizational culture . there's been a lot of talk about the tone of the talk and you see that in the controllers report and we agree that's an important part of addressing the ethical issues we see in the city. it is improving our organizational culture and we think having really strong and really clear gift rules is a huge part of that . and of course restoring the public trust. allthese top three bullets go towards that . that's what is at stake here is do the people of the city trust the governmentincluding we do everything we can to build that trust . our approach in achieving these goals is consisted largely of trying toeliminate loopholes in gift rules . again seeking to make rules strong, make them robust and talented. can be exploited to undermine prism in sickness and we wanted to make the rules much more clear . rules that have a long list of exceptions can be confusing and can actually undermine people's

confidence or have howseriously they take the rules so we wanted to make the rules strong and clear . although these are not partsof this policy project , since we're focusing on the lost themselves i do want to highlight that education and enforcement will always be a part of any renewed focuson any area of the law . so gifts, if the commission decides to move forward with the legislative recommendation will talk about in a moment, education and enforcement will be a part of our office wide approach but idon't talk about them in the report . we're just focusing on the law as well . with that i'll talk about the actual recommendations. in the report i break down the recommendations into 6 separate recommendations then at the end of the report i tried to provide you with a list of each

specific change that those recommendations would entail. each change to the law and i separated them by regulation changes and ordinance of legislative changes that would help you see what would be involved legislatively in terms of moving those recommendations forward and i also hope it would facilitate your discussion and any motion you'd want to make but today, this debt, i kept this organized by the 6 sections in the report. this is an easier way to approach these . the first one is to remove many of the state law sections. currently affect the restricted source rule and i think this goes to a question commissioner chiu asked during a previous agenda item and she's correct that as i discussed in the report, as we discussed in the report, the restricted source rule uses the

definition of gifts except for state law in the california government code, the political reform act and that definition is subject to a long list of exceptions . and when we went through and nice beach exception we concluded that it's inappropriate to apply many of them to restricted source rule . for one, those exceptions were not created with the restricted source rule in mind, they were created for purposes of form 700 reporting and for the $520 annual gift limits under state law. their stateexceptions so they were thinking of state laws when they created them, they being these local practices commission . when you try and apply some of those restrictions or exceptions to the restricted source rule, they either don't make sense and some of them literally don't apply. they don'tmake sense or they result in what we believe is a

negative policy outcome. and in fact they undermine the purposes of the rule . so there's a chart in the report that goes through each of them. and specifies which ones recommends removing and which ones they're retaining. i will go through those right now because there too many of them but perhaps i will talk about them and answerquestions you might have . just to clarify when i say remove them we can't remove them from state law but what we can do is create a local definition of gift within the campaign and governmental conduct code that leads those exceptions out so by defining gifts in our own law, we as a city can decide what we consider to be a gift and therefore what we apply in the restricted source rule so we've already done that with the gifts from subordinates rule that was done in 2004 and for whatever reason that seems to havenot been taken fromthe restricted source rule . that's what we're proposing be done now . >> second recommendation also involves exceptionsto the

restricted source rule . but here we're talkingabout the local exception . so in addition to those state lawexceptions are in the state ranks ,talking about definition of gifts . we also have local acceptance that are in the ethics commission regulations . we took a close look at each of those exceptions and we found that the exceptions create opportunities for abuse that many of them also undermine pieces of the restricted source rule . inparticular there are a number of exceptions involved free meals . one of them allows restricted sources to provide unlimited free food and drink to city employeesas long as it is shared inside the office . and we did not find that to be convincing rationale to allow exceptions . to the restricted source rule. we recommend that accepting the removed. likewise there are three separate exceptions that allow certain departments to accept free meals from certain members

of industries so in particular there are exceptions for the airport, to accept free meals from certain representatives of certain companies that they may sometime do business with and similar exceptions allows for free meals from representatives of the financial services industry and again, we are do not find that was a convincing rationale to allow city employees toaccept what would otherwise be restricted source gifts . we found that the controllers, the accounting policies allow for departments to reinforce employees forbusiness-related meals . we found that would likely be a position channel for employees to get reimbursed from the need to attend a meal as part of their job duties. that's a better and sound are way to pay for those meals and two have the restricted source paper them because that clearly rates a kind of danger of undue influence therule was created to present .

likewise there is an exception for periodic small gifts, the exception allows 4 gifts ayear up to $25 . he tried to date into what will that was therefore and we believe that it's too broad to serve the purpose it's meant for. the purpose. to be allowing employees to do business with vendors, to accept some kind of small routine items from them like if they go on-site to accept a bottle of water or pad of paper or something while they're at meeting . we think that acceptingshould be much more narrowly tailored .the third recommendation is to ensure that the restricted source rule applies broadly meeting to lots of different circumstances where restricted source rules or restricted source gifts are at play. specifically we think it's important to prohibit the giving of the restricted source gifts actually prohibits the

restricted source from giving the gift. you see that principle already present in the lobbyist gift rule. not only did the elected official not accept the gift the lobbyist may notmake the gift . likewise you see that in the campaign-finance context . certain contributions can be accepted by acandidate . it's also unlawful for the person in question to give the contribution we think that same principle should be added to the restricted sourcerule that make the rule much stronger and more enforceable . similarly we think that the use of intermediaries to launder gifts should be explicitly prohibited. there may already be some regulations that could be brought in to try and achieve that purpose so we think it's much better to explicitly say that in the code ones, so that it's just much clearer and easier to enforce but also just really clearly communicate that the people that you can't give a gift to somebody and have them pass iton to a officer ,

it's a restrictedsource . but that would also be a violation. likewise we think it's important to the officials and employees as acting as the intermediary so trying to close that loophole so that intermediaries don't undermine the rule and lastly, we think it's important to prohibit gifts to family members so if a gift to a city officer for the restrictedsource gift, a gift to that officer's spouse should also be a restricted source gifts principal should also be present in the lobbyist gift rule . worth recommendation isto clarify how therestricted source rule applies to those who do business with the city . as i mentioned earlier , a contractor doing business or seeking to do business with an officials department is oursa restricted source but we think it's important to clarify a few things . for one, define what the

contract is. define what a contract proposal is. i know it seems like basic conceptsbut they're not explicitly spelled out in the law . that is done again in the campaign-finance context . if you look at contractor contribution goal that rule and theory clearly spells out what it means to be a city contractor, what itmeans to bed on the contract and submit a proposal . it's important to have those same concepts to benefit from that clarity. iwhat does it mean to be a permanent applicant . it's important to specify someone who apply for a permit for a license also becomes a person doing business with a restricted source. similarly, we think it's important to clarify how the restricted source rule applies to individuals who are associated with an entity who is a restricted source so if some corporation is doing business with the department, we think it's important to clarify that major shareholders, directors and

officers of that corporation or themselves restricted sour otherwise someone could argue that they can get a restricted source because there at a city contractor, there are wholly-owned subsidiary. so we think it's good to explicitly stop out for people that's not the case, that the rule does in fact apply to individuals and that's already done in the campaign-finance context. the contractorcontribution rule as opposed to the same thing here with the restricted source rule . >> the recommendation the fifth recommendation is to perform exceptions to this for new gift rule. we haven't talked about this but it's been discussed earlie today and we have that prior agenda item . the support gift rule prohibits employees from accepting gifts from theirsubordinates . the people who report to them or who are applying for a job . and like the restricted source

rule there are also exceptions to the subordinate gift rule contained in the ethics commission's regulation . we review these and didn't find as many issues with these acceptance but we think it's important to makethem clearer , consolidate them toa certain extent. i think some of them are a little duplicative so we could consolidate some of those exceptions and clarify them . take certain occasions when it's okay for a subordinate to give a gift or i should say it's okay for the official to accept the gift from a subordinate.we think it's important to drilldown and make it explicit what those occasions are that folks know what'sokay and what's not . similarly thereshould be a dollar limit with with a gift . it should be an open ended exception . it shouldn't allow for a gift only up to a certain amount so it's essentially possible to make a gesture to your boss but not togive a gift that would undermine the purpose . lastly, we recommend that gifts

from permit expediters to officials andemployees and permit issuing departments be prohibited . i mentioned the lobbyist gift rule.lobbyists are prohibited from giving gifts toelected officials .similarly, if a permanent expediter or consultant is regulated like a lobbyist there'smoney was a professional influencer . there hired by a client to contact city officials or employees to try to see the official outcomes for their clients so we think the same policy underlying lobbyist gift rules would justify creating a permanent consultant control that would say permit consultants should not give a gift to an official or employee in oneof those permit issuing departments like the department of building inspection or department of public works . that rule should be modeled on the lobbyist gift rule .

so that concludes the recommendation . i wanted to leave you with this segment of section .2 300 which is the section that has the findings and purpose of the government ethics ordinance . that's the chapter that contains all the conflict of interest rule and it says government decisions of employees of the county should appear to be made in a fair and impartial basis. this was something that animated our approach to this project was not just that conflict of interest rule, specifically gift rules should try to eliminate conflicts but they should also eliminate the appearance of conflicts. since we're trying to build a public trust we want to communicate our gift rules are strong and strict and not having a bunch of exceptions so that decisions appear to be,

notjust are madeimpartially but appear to be made impartially . that's something that's really of mind for us . so i will turn back my presenter hours to ronald. i'm glad to answer any questions you might have and also just wanted to let you know that we do have and code is the cfo at the airport here and i think he hassome comments about some of the recommendations so i'll leave it to you how you want to read to discuss it but i wanted to know . >> thank you so much mister four. i must say excuse me, this has been a project with much sweat and tears. many of us attended the consultation meeting and had help with stakeholders and they made excellent recommendations so in addition to these public

consultations i know that the staff has been talking with colleagues across the country and its truly reflected in the deliberations that were put in to this call report. so the reason why i ask is someone from the airport commission was going to be present because with your numerous recommendations one, seems to jump out which is different from your other recommendations so i would pull that off until my colleagues have commented on this report and they might bring the same thing too. so let's open up for discussion from our colleagues. commissioner chiu, you are up.

>> as i said before, i'm still collecting my thoughts. >> commissioner bush. >> i think it's an excellent report, one of the besti've seen from staff in some time . and also very educational for all of us. i had a few questions that i wanted to ask about exceptions to the gift rules. so the gift rules apply primarily to things that have financial value? i'm thinking for example of a city official who was gifted stock options under friends and family because the stock options had not yet been realized and he didn't intend to realize them until he left office but nevertheless, they

were gifted at a certain value and later on would have much more value. are those covered in this? in your rules there? >> the definition of gift uses the word payment sothat's kind of a starting point is payments and the term of art understate law , i wouldguess given stock options yes would constitute a payment . how to value that , how the vesting schedule or stock options affect how and when that becomes the gift i can't say right now but yes, they definitely would fall in some way within the scope of gift rules just as they do in financial reporting and the report in form 700. and. >> i don't think it gets reported on form 700. it goes to the history that you said earlier about what appears

to be clear and so stock options don't appear to be fair given they are within the limits of the law. i'm not sure what the rules are. i know when this took place before the city attorney rule they were not agift because it was not yet realized . and i'm just wondering if that's still the case today. >> i don't know i'd have to look into that . >> also when it comes into things like hotel room upgrade and so forth , is there a cap on how much could be given? >> i think the answer to that question depends on whether or not agift constitutes a gift of

travel . there's a distinction in state law between gifts of travel, specific gifts of travel. so if you're traveling to a speech or to do certain kinds of trading or job-related educational things, it's still a gift if somebody pays for that is not subject to the annual limits. the answer to your question depends on whetherthat would be part of travel accommodation expenses that falls within the exception . there's likely no limit, it does not fall within thelimits are blind . >> should we consider establishing a limit alert to the federal on travel? >> are you talking about for a per diem? >> yes. >> i don't know if it's something that would go within our line. thecomptroller's office already has all these per diem's .

it talks about all that so i think we already have these rules. >> but that's just something they adopted themselves. that's not by the city officials. on a sister city trip to paris for example to accept helicopter rides around sites and so forth. that's notcovered by per diem or anything else as far as we know , right? >> right, and i should point out gifts of travel should no longer be raisins from the restricted source rule so if a respected source is paying for travel, right now that is not subject to the limits and it's also not subject to the restricted source rule. our code is explicit about tha . i think that's a change so that'sone of our recommendations is those should not be able to come from

restricted sources . >> if a donor passes the money through a third-party, is that covered? >> at one of our recommendations as well as an intermediary should not be able to be used as a respected source gift. you can't knowingly give a gift to an intermediary with the intent it be passed on to acity official whenit would be a respected source gift , it's a gift you gave directly to the official . >> i think finally, you have addressed to some extent allowing gifts on special occasions. is that correct? >> that's where the rule against gifts from subordinate . so the subordinate gift rule has exceptions right now that says, there are two separate exceptions. one is an exception that allows gifts on occasions of great personal significance. and another one is for gifts that are given on occasion when gifts are traditionally given.

so what we are recommending is that those two exceptions be rolled together into one and we explicitly list out one it's okay. so in particular we're talking about things like birthday gifts, christmas or other holiday. a birth, adoption of a child. death in the family. something like that when it's traditional to give somebody some kind of offering but we think there should be a low that so you can give some small nominal thing to your boss if your boss as a child . but that we should be explicit about what that is. i knowit's open ended . it's just an event of personal significance that's open to interpretation we should and that openness to interpretation and make it a fixed list . >> i don't know if you look at the rules in hawaii. the hawaii ethics commission

met with us over what they call a low heart gifts. which are given to say aloha, i don't know where it is exactly but below heart gifts are a tradition in hawaii. there are restricting of people that are very unhappy over tha . >> we engaged with the honolulu ethics commission and the last we talked to them they were still working on a project so they had come out with a final recommendation for a law that but you're correct, that is what they were looking at. the initial recommendation that the staff were going to make is all gifts should be prohibited, there should be no exceptions and nowi think to someextent , i don't know where exactly that's going to land . >> is a respected source including someone who is seeking to influence city policy but not a contract? for example, brooks that are

seeking to influence city taxation policy where they clearly would benefit from a change in the tax policy, are they a respected source? >> that would be an attempt to influence. you would need to see them for example meeting with let's just say a member of the board saying we want you to vote on this ordinance . that would be an attempt to influence so they would be a respected source. >> or if they chose to do it through other parties like in addition to contact lobbying we i have other kinds of lobbying. >> we would definitely interpret paying a lobbyist, permit consultants, even somebody who doesn't qualify as a lobbyist but somebody who contacts an official on your

behalf, we would consider that an attempt to influence. >> we have major developers who disclosed that they are making contributions to a nonprofit that will in turn speak on behalf of thedevelopers projects. how does that fit in what you're talking about ? >> that's an interesting question. it does they paint a nonprofit constitute anattempt to influence ? itwould depend onwhether , what is the nonprofit doing ? >> under our city law, the nonprofit agrees to either write a letter or testify publicly on behalf of the developers project. >> so public testimony at a public meeting is not something that constitutes an attempt to influence. there's an exception to that for obvious reasons. we don't want people giving public, to become a respected source . that doesn't make sense if they're writing a letter or meeting with the person that

tends to influence and make them a respectedsource . >> testifying at a public meeting, that were paid to do so by contributions fromthe future development ? >> probably, yes. i think the testimony itself would still be exempt without attempt to influence but yes, there are otheractivities they were doing for that payment, potentially that constitute an attempt to influence . >> that's the specific condition ofgetting the money is they agreed to testify . that's what it says in the law. >> i don'tknow, i have to look at that one. if someone is paid to give public comment at a commission meeting . >> their organization received a contribution . >> i would guess it's probably

uncommon that anorganization would be paid solely to give public comment . i would guessthere is usually other forms of advocacy they do as part of that arrangement . >> all i can tell you is if you go to the major developers they each get over lists the people they've given money to that they will testify so it's not something where you are guessing. it's disclosed on their part. i think that's my question. >> okay, commissioner chiu. >> thank you cheerleading. i appreciate the question. i'd like to thank staff for this comprehensive year, this discussion and presentation of overlap and weaknesses and

conflicts live in this complicated area. it's a matter of undertaking and we filled out all the essential information to follow so thank you. you touched on the discussion with commissioner busch. can you go over more to the benchmarking that you did in this process? ithink that your trip to honolulu and also los angeles , is that kind of typical for gifts and other jurisdiction and what are the recommendations you're proposing in line to the middle of the road, with regard to regulation of gifts to our sister jurisdictions or would we be sticking out ground of

the first question and the second question relates to broadly what are the consequences and are there opportunities for any of the regulated communities to seek a waiver if there's a respected source, seeking arelationship with a city official . what happens if they get engaged and it's an engagement ring. would that be an ethics violation and perhaps the consequences are quite huge and lastly, i would very much like to hear from representatives from the airport commission and also understand what if any feedback you receive from the regulators on these proposed changes?

>> thank you for your questions commissioner. to your first question about jurisdictional comparison, in this report we look to other jurisdictions for potential solutions to problems we were identifying example we look to los angeles to see if they had a similar exception for routine officecourtesies . that's what they call it in lo angeles . they do have that exception what we are recommending is to do something like what they do so if a city employee goes to the office of a vendor and there's some refreshments for a pan or something, they can accept that even though that business is a respected source, they can take those things because they areavailable to anybody who visits the office and they are a very small value . that's an example of where we

identified an issue we had . we looked for how in other jurisdiction saul that issue. we take the approach in this project to try to bring our lost necessarily in line with otherjurisdictions . the way we list this as we saw a clear problem. we saw a clear of issues and we sought to address those through whatever means wehad . if it's the means that we saw in the jurisdiction or the means that we saw that we use to have in san francisco and we created an exception, that's what we're recommending. i think especially since the gift will have been around so long we thought that was appropriate. where morelikely to take approach where we are looking at other jurisdictions right off the bat to guide us we're doing something new . that was very much part of our analysis just to see how other jurisdictions were handling th payments at the time we were waiting into that area . >>.

[please stand by] # .

>> that's two articles that pertain to conflict of interest. they are not sharing the same penalty provisions. each have different penalties associated with them and the penalty provision for chapter 1 is -- well, there isn't one, really, so it is a problem.

>> i think this is important on how best to comply and then ultimately not knowing what the consequences are. [indiscernible] -- continue this work. any feedback -- have you received any feedback from the [indiscernible] -- >> a little bit.

i've gotten feedback from a couple of stakeholders who were at the stakeholder meetings, but we didn't get written comment unfortunately. >> i hope to hear more from the community as we proceed on future meetings on this. chair, i leave it up to you as to when we can hear from the airport commission representatives. >> thank you, commissioner. as commissioner chu mentioned about the airport commission, i noticed and all of us noticed that under the existing rules there are three agencies that received exemptions. this is while you

[indiscernible] to the two other agencies. one of them was the port commission. but your recommendation was either to reform or to retain the current exemptions because the airport commission deals with a different kind of partner who are internationally formed airlines. so i want to thank the call from the san francisco airport commission -- >> shirley, might i clarify that before you move on? is this i apologize if we weren't clear in the report. our primary recommendation is that that exception be removed. that would be our first recommendation. i think the alternative that we offered was that it be reformed, but the best course of action would be to treat the airport

the same as all other departments and not have the exception anymore. >> it seems to be different. >> it is different. there could be interest in the commission and just to be constructive and save time and not coming back to you with an alternative, we wanted to [indiscernible] -- >> the airport commission feels that it is important for them, for the commission, to keep the

exemption. so we will hear from -- >> i had worked on this project as well. i will share with the commission that i had the good fortune of working on this exemption 14 years ago with the ethics commission. i worked with staff closely in creating this exception. as the commissioners may or amenity know, the san francisco airport is an enterprise fund of the city and county of san francisco. we received no support financially from the city's general fund. we raised our own money to pay

our own expenses. so this exception back a number of years to 2007. this followed out of the shipping industry which was these meetings that were held over dinner and particularly the genesis for this really came from the asian carriers who would travel to san francisco to decide if they would deploy their aircraft to serve the san francisco market. because of certain rules, some of the executives at that time had to decline the dinners that for the asian carriers they would lose faith, that they

weren't able to express their gratitude and hospitality. really, the genesis was to accommodate cultural business practices from asian carriers deciding if they wanted to serve san francisco airport. we are competing with los angeles international, portland, seattle, and even some of the inland airports because now aircraft can overfly san francisco and go to places like denver and chicago instead of flying here. so these meetings again were to serve the san francisco