madam chair, we've reached out to her for a chance. would you like to go to general public comment for now and we can circle back to this? >> chairman: that sounds great. madam clerk, please call item number six. >> clerk: item number six is general public comment. for members of the public who wish to speak on this item, please dial (415) 655-0001. meeting i.d. 24930998339 then press pound and pound again. if you have not already done

so, please press star three to line up to speak. d.t. is checking to see if we have any callers in the queue. do we have any callers ready? >> hello, commissioners. eric brooks with our city sf and californians with energy choice. as i often do, i want to reiterate the importance of the public bank and getting that moved forward as fast as possible. hopefully on the next meeting we're at a good point with the public pang. and all the other things that we're talking about including gig workers. and then on the issue of utility debt relief, that was covered a little bit in today's meeting, but i as a tenant organizer am very in touch with this issue of utility debt relief, rent debt relief and while the moratoriums are helpful in the immediate sense,

the fact that most folks that are making use of those moratoriums are not working means that on october 1st, if it's not extended and even if it is extended, all that debt is going to come due and people are not going to be able to pay that old rent debt and the old utility debt. so it would be good also on the next agenda to see an item that really flushes out what are we going to do to make sure that all the people that were going to get crushed by that debt do not get crushed by that debt and that the debt gets waived. it's not an easy question to answer, but that would be good to have answered by the next meeting especially so organizers like myself can reach out to tenants and others to let them know what's going on with these debts. so that's all i have for that. thanks. >> clerk: thank you for your

comment. i believe that was the only caller. d.t., can you confirm? >> there are no more callers in the queue. >> clerk: great. thank you. madam chair, i believe that completes the general public comment. and we also have juco luxamana here. >> chairman: great. i just want to quickly respond about the debt relief. if they owe the debt, they automatically are rolled into the debt relief program. but that's exactly what we want to see, who else is not covered by that debt relief and who else is being left behind. i just want to clarify that. and it's so good to see you, somehow on the screen. >> clerk: madam chair, can we close public comment on item six. >> chairman: thank you. close public comment is closed for item six and let's return back to item number five where junco can kind of give us a

walk-through the hiring process and whether there's a public vetting component to the hiring for the executive officer position. >> i'm sorry, i just called in. so you're asking about the executive officer hiring plan? >> chairman: we know we have the hiring panel is taking place. taking the interviewers end of this month, end of september, and we just wanted to if you could walk us through the process thereafter. >> sure. okay. so for the executive officer, we have a panel interviews scheduled next week and if the panel selects someone from that

round of interviews, this is an exempt position, we can quickly move with the onboarding process, that should take, that should happen within a few weeks after the interview and i believe that's all we really have at this time. unless you have any specific question about the process. >> chairman: so would the hiring panel determining the candidates or will there be a vetting process that we would have a discussion about the candidates publicly with the commissioners. is there such a procedure and protocol in place? >> okay. >> chairman: or will any of this information be publicly disclosed? >> we can certainly disclose

what we've posted publicly for the job opening and how many candidates we -- how many applications we've received and how many were invited for interviews. i believe we can also -- we cannot disclose the names of the scandinavians that were invited to the interviews. but if the commission has a question about the criteria or metrics that the panel used to score these candidates, we can talk about that, but we cannot discuss specific applicant's qualifications in the public meeting. i believe that's confidential. >> chairman: great. just wanted some clarification. that sounds good. i wanted to make sure that my

fellow commissioners don't have any questions for hunko shgz. if you do put them in the roster now. great. thank you. thanks for the clarification. great. so, madam clerk, could you please call item number seven. >> clerk: yes. and, for the record, there was no action taken on item number five. item number seven is future agenda sites. for any member of the public press star three now to be lined up to the speak. madam chair. >> chairman: thank you. colleagues, are there any future agenda items that you would like to note and make sure that we discuss now for to put it on the future agenda?

okay. so if there's nothing else, then um, madam clerk, is there any other business before us today. >> clerk: we need to take public comment on this item before we adjourn. for this item, item number seven, d.t. is checking to see if we have any callers in the queue. please put any caller forward. >> yeah. eric brooks with our city sf and californians for energy choice. one last time. just wanted to flag again that sign-on letter for the local clean energy and climate justice billed out to do 100% within 10 years on that. i would like to see that right away as an agenda item hopefully in october or if you don't have a new executive

officer up to speed by then, maybe the next meeting. but it's important we get that on the lafco agenda right away. thanks. >> clerk: do we have any other callers? thank you for your comments. do we have any other callers in the queue? >> there are no more callers in the queue. >> clerk: thank you. madam chair. >> chairman: thank you, madam clerk. are there any more business for today? >> clerk: if you can close public comment then we can adjourn the meeting. >> chairman: that's right. seeing no more public comment. public comment is closed. thank you, madam clerk. >> clerk: i believe that concludes our business for today. >> chairman: thank you. and we will see all of you in october. >> clerk: thank you. >> chairman: thanks.

. >> chairman: good morning and welcome to the rules committee of the san francisco board of supervisors for today, september 20th, 2021. i am the chair of the committee, aaron peskin joined by vice chair rafael mandelman and connie chan. your clerk is mr. victor young. do you have any announcements? >> clerk: yes. the board of supervisors legislative chamber committee meeting room is closed. committee members will attend the meeting through video

conference and participate in the meeting to the same extent as if they were physically present. public comment will be available on each item on this agenda both channel 26, 78, 99, and sfgovtv.org are streaming the number across the screen. public comment ask available via phone by calling (415) 655-0001. the meeting i.d. is 24849472191 then press pound and pound again. you will be muted but in listening mode only. dial star three to be added to the speaker line. best practices are to call from a quiet location. speak clearly and slowly and turn down your television or radio. alternatively, you may submit public comment via e-mail to the rules committee clerk at

victoryoung@sfgov.org. it will be forwarded to the supervisors as part of the official file. that completes my initial comments. >> chairman: thank you, mr. clerk. i am still waiting on some last minute amendments to item number one, so can we please call item number two out of order. >> clerk: item number two is an ordinance amending the administrative code march 31st as the annual date for registering fees at auto mated point of sales stations used for commercial purposes, retroactively eliminating fees billed by the tax collector on or after january 1st, 2019, through fees otherwise due prior to march 31st, 2025, for each business with taxi meter devices, refunding eliminated fees paid to the city, and any penalties paid on such fees and updating administrative fees to

conform with the state of california's annual device administrative fees schedule. >> chairman: thank you, mr. young. colleagues, this item does two things. it cleans up the administrative code provision as it relates to how the city by and through our weights and measures function the county in this case, mr. creed morgan with the department of public health administers their job in verifying that various devices from gas pumps to jewelry scales to taxi meters are accurate and so this does a little bit of clean-up, but more importantly as set forth in the long title read by mr. young, it puts a pause on

these fees for taxi meter devices and i'll explain a little bit more why in a second, but i want to thank kate torren and her crew from the sfmta taxi shop for their work and allowing me to sponsor for these measures as well as the treasurer tax collector who's represented today by amanda freed for their collective work that's going to bring some, i think, fairness, a level playing field and relief to our by leaguered taxi community. ms. torren is not available today as court proceedings over our taxi dime scheme are going

on in the civil division across the street, but she's represented by philip crana from the sfmta. with that, i will give a very brief synopsis beforehanding it over to the aforementioned folks which is that the t.n.c. industry lyft and uber are not yet frankly measurable. their devices which are these little things are not measurable by the state and local government as to accuracy and therefore are not being charged fees at this time and it seems to be that their counter parts not be charged for them either.

in addition, the city has been trying to get everybody on a march 31st payment regimen and this ordinance does that along with some other nonsubstantive clean-ups. and good morning amanda. >> good morning, supervisor peskin. thank you for that synopsis. you always make my job easier. california pays a fee for each measuring device. we bill and collect these fees at the department of public health. and so in an attempt to even the playing field and to be and

it's actually retroactive for any fees billed after january 1st, 2019, and would last until march 31st, 2025. the city would refund any so they can be included on the unified licensed bill. this has made it a lot easier because of all the deferrells from the board and the mayor during covid. we've pushed. please remember to pay that and

the penalties were for a day late and then go up the longer you fail to pay. the ordinance also requires the scheduled fee. i know i'm joined today by creed morgan and a cloog from the sfmta and this legislation was an effort by our team offices so i'm happy to answer any questions you might have. >> chairman: i also neglected to acknowledge lee hefner with my office. mr. morgan, i did not know you

were but it sounds like you are running a tight shop. >> i think this is a great opportunity. i think it's important legislation that will go forward and kind of make a level playing field. >> thank you,, mr. morgan. is there anything left for you to say? >> on behalf of sfmta, i'd like to thank you, you supervisor peskin for your leadership getting to this point. i'd also like to thank ms. free on this important piece of legislation. >> chairman: all right. are there questions or comments from committee members.

supervisor chan. >> supervisor chan: thank you, chair peskin. you know, i think identify been i've been in city government for some time now and i would like to be a co-sponsor of the legislation. >> chairman: thank you. all right. why don't we go to public comment list and i've got to go to the meeting list. >> supervisor mandelman: thank you, mr. chair. to look at fines and fees and the variants and some of which make a lot of sense and some don't make sense at all. and i think this is very good legislation and i would also like to be added aas a

co-sponsor. >> chairman: wow. we're off to a good week. >> clerk: members of the public who wish to provide public comment on this item should call (415) 655-0001. the meeting i.d. is 24849472191 then press pound and pound again. if you haven't already done so, press star to speak. a system prompt will indicate you have raised your hand. we have three callers on the line for public comment. >> chairman: first speaker, please. >> i have been watching city government meetings for 20 years and i think this discussion about taxi meters is

boring. city hall meetings have really jumped lately. i don't care about this weights and measures stuff. this has nothing to do with peoples' lives. i don't know weights and measures and taxi meters and supplementals and r.s.b.s. i'm sick of this stuff. i don't really even care. and, by the way, mandelman looks like an ugly rat. >> chairman: you were doing good and by the way this does save individual taxi drivers a significant amount of money on an annual basis. speaker number two. >> can you hear me now? >> chairman: we can hear you now. >> good morning. david pillpell.

i pride myself on being up to date on the more obscure elements of our city government, but this was a little wrinkle that i did not know about so i too learned something. thanks as well to ms. freed, ms. torren, and mr. morgan and their staff for clearing this up. my only question or concern if you might direct it to staff although this is an ordinance that amends the code because there are fees that are waived currently and retroactively that would have some physical impact and i did not see what that physical impact is. i don't oppose it, i just was wondering what that was and if you can bring that forth. otherwise, thank you very much. great work. >> chairman: thank you. i thought i was going to be able to add you as a co-sponsor

this morning but with that last question, i can't add you as a co-sponsor. budget analyst deemed this to not have physical impact. next speaker, please. >> linda chapman. good start to the week i would say indeed. i'm here for a different item, but i want to thank supervisor peskin and co-sponsors for putting this forward to protect the taxi industry. i have to say, one, as a person who is now an older person and also disabled, the taxis are critical to us. yesterday, i actually had to call one to rescue me from the wind tunnels over at van ness around pine and california and the hotel that's caused. also, i live in a neighborhood in knob will where more than two thirds of the households

did not have any kind of vehicle at all and we depend on taxis a lot. you know, i believe that years ago, the city did a real disservice to the taxi industry by putting these medallions that you keep hearing about and promoting uber and lyft. i don't think i have to tell you about the kinds of harms they caused in general to their workers. think of the poor taxi drivers. you know, i'll just mention also, that as you know, those medallions were important investments for conservative investors, city workers and so fords and taxi drivers. my sister's mother-in-law inherited two medallions from her husband and her son drove the cabs and i used to listen at coalition with san francisco neighborhoods to the woman whom you would know and came and represented the cab drivers. whatever else you can do. whatever more you can do,

please do and that concludes my remarks. >> chairman: thank you, ms. chapman. are there any other members of the public here for item number two for public comment? >> clerk: there are no other members of the public waiting for public comment at this time. >> chairman: okay. public comment is closed. in all seriousness, as to the second speaker's question about fiscal impact in so far as this is a fee for a service and that service is not being provided. there is no fiscal impact because there's no work being done to measure the accuracy of the device during this brief period as we figured out and the state figures out how to measure t.n.c. devices which is going to take a little while and just so that that speaker knows the amount of money

collected on an annual base i've been informed is less than $200,000 per end. with that, i would like to make motion to send this item to the full board with the positive recommendation of the co-sponsors of supervisor mandelman and chan. on that, a roll call vote, please. >> clerk: yes. on that motion, [roll call] the motion passes without objection. >> chairman: mr. clerk, in so far as the third item is easy and quick. why don't we get it out of the way, could you please read item number three. >> clerk: yes. item number three is a motion reappointing supervisor melgar term ending september 23rd, 2023, to the association of bay area government executive board regional planning committee.

>> chairman: is there any public comment on this item? >> clerk: yes. give me one moment. members of the public who wish to provide public comment on this item should call (415) 655-0001. the meeting i.d. is 24849472191 then press pound and pound again. if you haven't already done so, please press star three to line up to speak. a system prompt will indicate you have been unmuted. excuse me. you have been unmuted and you may begin your public comment. i believe we have two members of the public in line to speak on this item. >> chairman: first speaker, please. >> howdy there. this is gort or binson and i'm a conservative and a concerned republican here in san francisco. i hold the appointment.

she is a [inaudible] go back to mexico. >> chairman: next speaker, please. >> you can hear me okay? >> chairman: yes, we can, mr. pillpell. >> it is. david pillpell. so on this item, i have no opposition to the proposed reappointment. i am concerned that i think there's a typo here somehow. it is the association of bay area governments. they used to be have a general assembly. they certainly have an executive board. i believe this is the appointment to the regional planning committee. so i think both in the short title and the long title, the reference to the executive board should probably be struck and this is simply the

reappointment to the a.b.a.g. regional planning committee. probably not a reference to the executive board. i believe that's a separate appointment unless i'm confused. but the executive board and the regional planning committee i believe are different entities. thanks very much. >> chairman: i would refer that to legal council. are there any other members of the public for this item, number three? >> clerk: we are double checking. i believe that completes the speakers for this item of public commentors. >> chairman: okay. public comment is closed. madam deputy city attorney as to the last speaker's comment on the title of this matter in

any advice. >> i apologize. i didn't hear the suggested revision. could you repeat it? >> chairman: mr. clerk, you want to unmute the caller, second caller so he can repeat it. >> clerk: i can go ahead and provide a summary. mr. pillpell believes that the executive board is not should be deleted from this title as it is not the correct title. it should be association of bay area governments regional planning committee and he believes the executive board is a different body. >> chairman: sounds correct. >> it seems like something we might want to confirm before amending to reflect that. i have no idea whether or not they're different bodies. >> chairman: i'll tell you

what, why don't we send this item to the full board with recommendation and mr. clerk and madam deputy city attorney, if the title needs to be changed at the full board, we can do that accordingly then. >> okay. >> chairman: all right. on the motion to send the item as is before us a -- supervisor mandelman, something you want to say? >> supervisor mandelman: i was going to say, i think it may be a committee of the executive board even though members -- people can serve who are not on the executive board, so it is worth double checking before we make the change. >> chairman: all right. we'll get to the bottom of that. the workings of a.b.a.g. and on the motion to present an item with the possibility of amending this after due copious

research, a roll call, please. >> clerk: yes. [roll call] the motion is approved without opposition. >> chairman: all right. why don't we circle back around to our first and last item, item number one, please. >> clerk: yes. item number one is an ordinance amending the campaign and government kungt code to expand definition of interested party to include city contractors and persons seeking influence city officers and combes and to prohibit appointed department heads, commissioners, and designated combes from sliting behested payments from interested parties. >> chairman: thank you, mr. clerk. i don't know if supervisor haney has joined us or not.

you'll recall that last week, we had a good and robust conversation about this and i raised a number of issues and in the intervening week have now gotten the amendments resulting from that conversation that have so everybody will have plenty of time to which is a pretty fundamental which is that i don't think there's any reason why any city official whether they are appointed department heads or elected officials like ourselves should be able to, in

essence, solicit or otherwise shake down parties who have pending contracts before those officials whether it's an elected official or an appointed official or who have a financial interest in proceedings before us or these department heads. i mean, this is not a radical concept. this is i think pretty basic anti-corruption work. and what it boils down to is who is an interested party and the way it's defined which i want to broaden a little bit is that has to be somebody with business in front of that department head, in front of this board of supervisors, so it's not anybody in the world. i mean, if you are spending your time as the head of the library department asking third parties to contribute to friends of the library, 99.9% of the universe is still available to you, but you can't

go and solicit the folks who are installing your metal detectors that just seems like common sense and frankly, this is behavior that is rarely ever engaged in and this notion that has circulated and somehow not receive funds because elected officials won't raise money for them is demonstrably false. so long as we can distinguish between interested and

noninterested parties and we can do fundraising without the corrupting influence of these interested parties i mean, this seems wrong. i can't believe that it hasn't been illegal forever, but parentally muhammad nuru has shown us we had to create a law by way of example if you look at the behested payments over the last decade, you'll see a lot of them are being raised from ecology and you'd be nuts not to consider that recology charge friday some of those while they manage to overcharge rate payers by one$00 million over half a decade. so a have a series of

amendments which i promised that i would introduce that i received from an attorney's office. regardless, theses amendments will require a one-week continuance. but back to the simple premise, no public official should be allowed to solicit or, in essence, when you're in the middle of an rs.b. process or granted a contract, it feels like and smells like a shake down from parties who have a clear interest in influencing our behavior. that's just wrong. this is per se corruption and i don't think we should allow it at all period. so the amendments i'm introducing today should, one, as mr. ford said last week on behalf of the suggestion of the ethics commission suggest

elected officials including the board of supervisors and the mayor to the same prohibition on behesting payments from interested parties as other city officials. by the way, this eliminates the filing requirement for officials which is less paper work for those of us who have previously engaged in this. you no longer will engage in it so you won't have to fill out any forms. i've included registered contact lobbyists as an interested party. i have lengthened the scope of the what constitutes an interested party from six-month black-out period for solicitation of city contractors following the term nation of a contract. so anyway.

take a look at it. let's discuss it next week. i'm happy to try to answer any questions you might have at this time, but we'll continue this item for a week. i see that supervisor chan and supervisor mandelman are on the roster. supervisor chan. >> supervisor chan: thank you, chair peskin. and i do want to quickly address some of the nonprofits and i really do agree that this legislation is one key element to good and clean government this really essentially stopped behind the scenes pay and play culture that the entire city government really should not be having from elected officials to city department heads, but i want to clarify through our

deputy city attorney anne pearson around the issues where fundraises specifically about public appeal and how that's a key element to supporting nonprofit and fundraising. >> deputy city attorney anne pearson. is your question for me to tell you a little bit more about what public appeals are in so far as they're an exception to this? >> chairman: yeah. and i actually do want to say there is actual -- there's a reference in the measure that references a specific code section and it's important to understand that communications such as public testimony in front of the board of supervisors are not included in that, so if somebody comes and testifies for behalf of an item, that does not in any way count and i don't have, i can

find the code section here, but communications that involve only routine requests for information such as publicly requested documents are made while attending general information or are made to the press and involves an action that's solely ministerial or a written public comment are exceptions. i'm sorry, madam deputy city attorney, but i meant to mention that in my comments. >> thank you, supervisor. supervisor chan, were you also wondering about the public appeal because that is a term that's used in the legislation and that's also defined in the public code. when the request is made by a

number of means. by television. radio, billboard. through a public message like social media. the distribution of a single e-mail to 200 or more recipients or made in a speech to a group of 20 or more individuals. so that's the definition of a public appeal. >> supervisor chan: and that is an exception in this legislation; correct? >> right. >> supervisor chan: all right. thank you, through the chair peskin. that's all i really want to clarify for especially some of the concerns expressed through the nonprofits. i hope that eases some of the anxieties. again, i really believe this is a good piece of legislation for clean and good government. take away some of the pay to

play culture and the behind the scene and it's good that we extend it to the i electricitied official. and thank you, chair peskin. >> chairman: thank you. supervisor mandelman. >> supervisor mandelman: thank you, mr. chair. i guess i look forward to try to understand the amendments over the next week as well. if the chair could explain why. i understand this legislation is not banning the behested payments in its entirety. it's banning from elected parties. so why would elected officials no longer be filing the behested payment filings? >> chairman: so i do want to

thank patrick ford from ethics and as well as supervisor haney and his staff and deputy city attorney andrew schenn who pivoted quickly in the last week. some of the behested payments are requirements of the state law and they are then additional behested payment requirements up to $5,000 under local law, but i am personally happen to file behested payment stuff from noninterested parties at any dollar point pursuant to local and state law, but why don't i defer to mr. ford or the city attorney for an answer to your question as it relates to noninterested parties. obviously, there would be no filing requirement for interested parties because those would be prohibited. i mean, if you were filing

because you were soliciting a behested payment from interested party, you would be filing to show that you had done an illegal action. >> supervisor mandelman: yeah. i think i'm just under the impression that i'm supposed to filing these behested payment filings whenever i'm whether they're urgent or not, maybe i've been misinterpreting the rules. >> chairman: why don't we get a little advice from ethics or the city attorney. mr. ford, are you available? i've always got to scroll down to see who's in this meeting. i don't see -- deputy city attorney pearson, would you like to weigh in as to what the requirements are for behested payment files by elected

officials from noninterested parties. >> my understanding is that this -- the amendments that are introduced today reflect a policy choice to remove the reporting requirements in favor of a prohibition on making requests to interested parties. >> chairman: okay. so my understanding in the conversations in the intervening week with deputy city attorney schenn is that by prohibiting elected officials from soliciting behested payments from interested parties that obviated the sections 3.0 filing requirements, but if for elected officials, but if what you are saying is that it is a policy choice that section

3.610 can stay for solicitations from noninterested parties, i would be more than happy to keep that. this is a good conversation to have as we proceed towards next week's vote, but we can figure that out. supervisor mandelman. >> supervisor mandelman: and, it may be that there are also -- maybe it's just cleaner. there are state behested payment requirements and maybe the thought was rely on those and don't -- i'm not sure, but i was curious about that. i'm also curious. and i don't know but does this get into -- so imagine the scenario of a seawall or a large infrastructure project where there is a bond measure being put before the voters and are the funds being raised for that behested payments? >> chairman: good question,

supervisor mandelman. mr. ford. >> yeah. thank you, chair peskin. i probably want to understand a little more on what the facts are. >> supervisor mandelman: in the scenario, there's a campaign to save the seawall and we have to raise, you know, many millions of dollars for a campaign to do that and so the elected officials all run around and go to officials who might have a dream in their future, they might have some seawall money to be made and see if anybody will put some money in for this ballot measure. are those behested payments? >> payments to a political committee would not be considered a behested payment under this ordinance. no. >> supervisor mandelman: and, so this really is a situation of that scenario, but with respect to the extra things you

would like to get those people to pay for for the departments. >> correct. yeah. if they're not considered gifts or political contributions, if they are payments to an organization for charitable or governmental purposes, that would be considered a behested payment. >> supervisor mandelman: and what is the friends exception? >> so i have not seen the latest draft amendment, so i can't say exactly what that says. i've seen i think the previous version, so i'm a little out of date. so i think i'll wait until later to see that and talk about that. >> chairman: and, mr. ford, just so that you know, this just happened only a few minutes ago, but you do have a copy of the latest version. >> okay. great. >> supervisor mandelman: okay. i'm sure i'll have more questions for folks going forward over the week. but thank you and thanks for trying to get this right and it's important work.

so thanks again. >> through the chair, if i can answer supervisor mandelman's earlier question about behested payment reporting. i didn't quite have a link yet. but to your question about how that works, as chair peskin said, state law requires elected officials to file behested payment report for any behested payment over $5,000. it doesn't extinguish between interested parties or noninterested parties and that will remain the same, we can't change that. the local behested payment reports only apply if it's an interested party. those would fall in, what this legislation would do is you cannot engage in that behavior anymore. but the state will always be there. >> chairman: yay. thank you, mr. ford. supervisor chan. >> supervisor chan: thank you. i mean, i think because of recently run for election, i do

believe with our campaign law and code is that if you're running for office or if it's a candidate controlled committee that you are not allowed to actually ask for contribution for contractors or lobbyists. the contractors actually again also have actually pending or intent to submit bids six months prior to the individual to take office and running for office. so i believe that there is already a prohibition for electives or just candidates running for office asking for contribution from contractors. i do think that, you know, again, i mean full disclosure, i just filed a series of behest payments for our autumn moon festival and that is both

meeting at the local and state requirements. however, i do believe that majority of those do not include interested parties. it's just the fact that i personally whether they are qualifying the definition of interested party or not, full disclosure and go ahead and do that, but, in essence, i think prohibiting that all together really helps to just put away some of those -- be it perception and reality to pay to play. so i just wanted to add my comments to that and thank you. >> chairman: thank you, supervisor chan. why don't we open this item number one up to public comment. are there any members of the public who would like to comment on this item and, of course, it will be before us again a week from today, september 27th. mr. clerk. >> clerk: yes.

members of the public who wish to provide public comment on this item should call (415) 655-0001. the meeting id is 24849472191 then press pound and pound again. if you haven't already done so, please dial star three to line up to speak. a system prompt will indicate you have raised your hand. please wait until the system indicates you have been unmuted and you may begin your comment. we currently have six callers on the line for public comment. >> chairman: first speaker, please. >> good morning, supervisors. my name is charles head. i'm the president of the coalition for san francisco neighborhoods. we are very much in favor of everything that you are trying to do regarding to this item. personally, back in 2014, i was a member of the civil grand jury which was interested in behested payments and the civil

grand jury's report that is published online at sfcivil grandjuryreports. our report was ethics in the city comments, practice, or pretense. grand jury rules prohibits me from saying anything that's not published in that report. that report became a basis for changes which are still with us today. and is very much worth reading. but, again, coalition for san francisco neighborhoods and i personally am very much in favor of the work of this committee in this area and look forward to next week's iteration and good luck.

>> chairman: thank you. next speaker, please. >> supervisors, my name is francisco de costa. this matter has come before the sunshine task force, the ethics commission, and the controller's office, then to the city attorney and now we see there are some method interests that are corrupt who want to circumvent and not go before the board of supervisors. but your board of supervisors haven't followed your own standards. how many times have people come before you after spending more than $10 million and then ya'll have made mention that this should have come before you, but it did not come before you and giving a slap on the hands.

today, this city is known for its corruption at every level, but what is more disgusting and despicable is that the many aids of government within the city and county of san francisco. this is a legislation, an ordinance that's going in the right direction. but we need to have some enforcement. in order to have some enforcement, we have to have the language and some booklet so that the public can read it and understand it. as these virtual meetings [inaudible] we need it to be put in writing, some booklet as we had before so that the constituents, the taxpayers can

read it and be part of the deliberation. thank you very much. >> chairman: thank you. next speaker. >> bow down. this is satan. corporations should be able to give the politicians as much as they want. two people know this but london breed, i own her soul for all eternity. so, please, this is a violation of free speech. corporations should be able to give money to influence of political process. i have spoken. bow before your dark lord and rafael mandelman is a faggot. >> chairman: you are just

beyond the pail. and you keep that up -- >> [inaudible] >> chairman: this is just completely unacceptable behavior. i'm going to talk to the clerk of the board about what to do. if mr. clerk young, you can look at the number of that individual, there's just no place for that kind of behavior in this board of supervisors, in this city, and on this planet. next speaker. >> linda chapman. well, i'm not a lawyer, but i speak as a native san franciscan and the staff from five different federal departments and first, i want to concur with mr. decosta who was a co-worker of mine for the army when we worked for the army at the pro cede al. you know, we had a government that was not known for corruption in the past. we had a charter that was specifically intended to

prevent corruption. so i'm just not used to the pay to play culture that has developed in the 20th century, i mean the 21st century. when i went to work for the war on poverty in buffalo, i was astonished that people from corruption were granted and my friends from boston, it was the same thing. in the '70s and '70s i was very involved in politics. we occasionally came across efforts at pay to play, but they were initiated by developers, by project sponsors, certainly not by the planning commission or supervisors or whatever and they were essentially what would you say, crushed. i have mentioned before how gordon schenn came before i don't know whether it was the supervisors or planning commissioners at that point because the case was before both and announced that, well, you know, we've been offered the eal