>> this meeting is held being tele conference pursuant to the governor's order and crash supplement and with the assistance of the local emergency from february 25 and before we proceed, i will ask today's moderator to go over the procedures for today's meeting. and due to the covid-19 the meeting in the city hall are closed. however, commission members will be participating and will be

present remotely. to present to the same extent as if they were physically present. today's meeting is being steamed live online at sfgov.org and streamed live at sfgov tv.org/ethics live. and public comment and each member of the public will be allowed three minutes to speak by calling 415-655-0001. access code is 2499 804 1060.

followed by the pound sign. then press pound again to join as an attendee. you will hear a beep when you are connected to the meeting. you will automatically muted and in listening-mode only. and when the system says your line has been unmuted, this is your turn to speak.

and hear staff welcome, caller. we encourage you to state your name clearly. as soon as you begin speaking, you can provide public comment and 6 minutes if you are online with an interpreter. you will hear a bell go off when 30 seconds remaining. if you wish to withdraw, press star 3 and you will hear the system say you have lowered your hand. once your 30 minutes have expired, staff will thank you and mute you. you will hear your line has been muted. attendee who is wish to speak during other public comment periods may stay on the line and listen for the next public comment opportunity and the next item of interest and will be shared with the commission after this meeting and will be included and written comments will be sent to

ethics.commission@sfgov.org. thank you, madam chair. >> thank you, moderator. with that, i will call the meeting to order. and let's proceed to agenda item number one, which is roll call please. [roll call] i think commissioner bell is having technical issues and accessing the meeting and joining us shortly. >> madam chair, with three members present and accounted for, you have a quorum. >> an again, welcome to today's meeting. and let's proceed to agenda item

number two, public comment on matters appearing or not appearing on today's agenda. >> each member and press star 3 and pressing it again will move you out of the public comment line and back into listening mode. and in the queue and standing by, and prompt you when it is to call from a quiet location. and address your comment to the commission as a whole and not individual members. madam chair, we are checking to see if there are callers in the queue. if you have just joined us this meeting, we are currently on

agenda item two, public matters not appearing on the agenda. you will have three minutes to proside your public comment and 6 minutes if you are online with the interpreter. you will hear a bell go off when you have 30 seconds remaining. if you have not done so, please press star 3 to be added to the queue. for those already on hold, please continue to wait until the system indicates you have been unmuted. please standby. welcome, caller. your 3 minutes begins now. >> caller: good morning, commissioners. my name is jason and from the fine arts museum. and the associated nonprofit and for nearly 60 years, our museum has been supported by two various 501c3's in support of

all the programs including education and exhibitions. and i think it's important to understand 75% of the museum operations actually flow through our 501c3 and this supports over 250 employees and $1.5 million visitor who is come through the doors and during the covid-19 shutdowns, fundraising has been vital to continue operations and the marketing director and the department head. and he is actually also our chief fundraiser. what we're concerned about today is any changes to laws, gift laws in particular, that could fundamentally impact the museum affecting our employees and also

the programs and public that we serve. there is no outreach by the ethics commission staff to the museums or ourselves to actually discuss the operational implications of the upcoming items on your agenda today. and we're very highly concerned about the legal impacts because we have not reviewed any of them. in the past two days and this could fundamentally up end 60 year of activity that has been going on at the museums. and we ask that the commission postpone any fundamental action on item 6 and 7 that are coming up on your agenda regarding gift laws until february so that we can properly meet with ethics staff and our lawyers can review these new rules, and we can

fundamentally understand how they could affect our operations. thank you for that consideration of the postponement because it is very important and we are highly concerned about any surprises that could affect our programs, the public, and our employees who are dependent upon their roles at the museum for their employment. thank you very much. and we're open to discussing any of this with you offline. thank you. >> thank you. >> please standby. >> thank you, caller. >> we have another caller in the queue. please stand by.

>> good morning, commissioners. my name is robert mince with the charitable trust department and i would like to echo the comments that you just heard. we, too, as a combination and we, too, and to postpone actions on items 6 and 7 on today's agenda as we would like to review the content of that very important work done by the ethics commission staff done by the last several months. and the impact could be substantial and we need time to review the content.

>> i think the moderator is muted. >> there are no further callers in the queue, madam chair.

>> is it appropriate to ask the question about the public comment that was just received? >> and commissioner, is the question directed at the speakers or staff? >> at the staff. if it is very brief, i believe they did speak to items that are later on the agenda. we should try to focus as much of the discussion as possible, but if you have have a very brief question. >> thank you. my question is whether or not those speakers are among people who received advance notices of not just the commission meeting but our topic. and and for example, we have been noticing for months discussion on these two items.

are the department heads among those in our interested persons list who routinely received that? >> i believe we have pat online, commissioner bush, in response to your question. we did do interested persons meetings. >> an i am in a meeting. i am not sure if there is anymore detail at this moment, but we can follow up with you. >> commissioner bush, if i might -- since this is going to be part of the agenda item number six and seven discussion, maybe we can hold off. until we can have a more thorough discussion. >> that is fine. can we get a yes or no that

groups like this routinely. i would check that is a start. thank you. >> and next caller please. >> there are no further callers in the queue. commissioner? >> okay. since there are no more, public comment agenda item number 2 is closed. let's proceed to consent calendars. item number 3 to 5 first. agenda item 3, approval of the november 12 meeting minutes. questions?

i see no hands raised. let's -- no questions? let's proceed, mr. moderator, to public comment please. >> thank you, madam chair. the ethics commission is receiving public comment on consent calendar item 3 remotely in this meeting. each member will have up to 3 minutes to provide public comment. you will hear a bell go off when you have 30 seconds remaining. if you joined the meeting earlier to listen to the proceedings, now is the time to get in line to speak. if you have not already done so, please press star 3. it is important you press star 3 only once to enter the queue as pressing it again will move you out of the public comment line and back into the listening mode. and the system will prompt you when it is your turn to speak so it is important you call from a quiet location. please address your comment to the commission as a whole and not to individual member. madam chair, we are checking to see if there are any caller in the queue. please stand by.

if you have not already done so, please press star 3 to be added to the queue. for those on hold, please continue to wait until the system indicates you have been unmuted. if you have not already done so, please press star 3 to be added to the public comment queue. standby. >> madam chair, there are no callers in the queue. >> commissioner, do i have a motion to approve the minutes of november 12?

>> so moved. >> good morning, commissioner bell. >> good morning, commissioner bell. i'll second. a motion has been made and seconded. i will now call the roll. commissioner bush? >> aye. >> commissioner chiu. >> chair lee? >> aye. the motion is approved unanimously. let's continue on the the resolution on continuation of the remote commission meetings. colleagues, this is the same resolution we have been voting on the past few months. so if there is no comment, let's go to public comment.

awe thank you, madam chair. the ethics commission is receiving public comment and you will hear a bell go off if you have joined the meeting. if you have joined early to listen to the proceedings, now is the time to get in line to speak. if you have not already done so, press star 3. it is important you only press star 3 once to enter the queue and pressing it again will move you back into listening mode. once you are in the queue and standing by, the system will prompt you when it is important to speak and it is important to call from a quiet location. address your comments to the commission as a whole and not individual members. if you have just joined this meeting, we are taking public comment on consent calendar item and resolution of remote items. and if you have not already done so, press star three to be added to the public comment queue. please stand by.

>> madam chair, there is no public callers in the queue. >> please call the roll. i'm sorry. we need a motion. >> so moved. >> a motion has been made and seconded. i will now call the roll. >> commissioner bush? >> commissioner chiu. >> aye. >> chair lee? >> commissioner bell? >> aye. >> and four votes in the affirmative and zero votes and the motion is approved unanimously. >> agenda item number 5? which is the ethics commission's regular meeting schedule.

for the new calendar year. i think we have all checked with our very busy schedules for 2022, so any discussion? questions? commissioner bush. >> yes. i want to discuss the start time which is at 9:30. and i know that there are some other people who are concerned about that as well. is there a possibility of having us start at 10:30 instead of 9:30? i didn't know if the problem was having a room with access to a sound system and call-in system at that hour.

>> chair lee, if i might respond? >> we do not yet have a specific date for when we would be resuming meetings back in city hall and remote meeting calendar. one of the issues we do have is a change in the time of the commission's meeting would require a bylaws change and the meetings under article 7, section 4 provide the regular meetings begin at 9:30 a.m. and so with may wish to seek comment about the city attorney if the process of the bylaw change, but that requires a separate notice. one option would be to adopt the calendar so at least we confirm the date of commissioner meetings going forward if those

work for the commission. and then if the commission wishes to meet starting at 10:30, perhaps issuing a bylaws change to that effect for the january meeting. but i see the city attorney shedd online. >> just briefly confirming what the director said to change the regular meeting time for the commission, we need to do a bylaws change to require a 15-day notice. does that require a bilawyer change or a public notice change?

that is a question of if it's a recurring meeting schedule change, that needs to be accomplished by bylaws, but in the past we have adjusted either the location or the time on a single meeting. and i guess would that make it a special meeting, city attorney, or continue to be a regular meeted if it was adopted as part of an action today? >> if it is a one-time, sort of slight time change, that may not be required to be a special meeting, especially if it's the same date and in the same location, and location means anything now days. so one wouldn't need to be a special meeting. i misspoke to make amendments with bylaws, we need 10 days notice, not 15. my apologies. so if we were to make changes for off-site meetings, maybe is

going to happen for the next half a year, a year, we don't know. and does that also require a bylaw change? let's just say that as long as we're going to have these off site meetings, does that require a bylaw change? >> over the past year we have been flexible given all the things going on in the world. so we have been trying to be flexible and especially also meeting remotely with similar options in some respects. and in terms of this item and commissioner bush's proposal, it would be helpful to see if other commissioners are supportive of a similar time change. and then we can decide how to move that forward.

>> the 9:30 time was connected to the availability of the meeting room, right? that is why we chose 9:30. >> commissioner lee? >> yes, commissioner chiu? >> just a thought if we were changing the start time of the meeting from 9:30 to a later time, would put out for consideration an afternoon start time to see if we might -- if that time change might facilitate more public participation since it would be not at the start of a business day or in the middle of a business day, but later towards the business day in the afternoon perhaps. and perhaps that might allow more people to participate remotely. >> okay. maybe i can suggest for all of us to submit to the director the

desired time that we may want to seek for the remote meetings, not for the permanent meetings, at least try it out for the remote meeting times. and then if everyone agrees to have an afternoon meeting and if we are all available, then let's try that. with the proper notice for the temporary change. would that work for everybody? >> that works for me. i think there is a lot to be said for an afternoon meeting, even as late as 2:00 in the afternoon. excuse me, as late as 5:00 and it would go into the evening, but it used to be that that was the time for the meetings. and i do agree that we ought to be flexible and encourage

greater participation. >> okay. let's open up for public comment on item number five. >> thank you, madam chair. you will hear a bell go off with 30 seconds remaining. if you joined early to listen to the proceedings, now is the time to get in line to speak. press star 3 only one time. once you are in the queue and standing by, the system will prompt you when it is your turn to speak. it is important you call from a quiet location. madam chair, we are checking to see if there are callers in the queue. please stand by.

if you have not already done so, please press star 3 to be added to the queue. for those already on hold, continue to wait until the system indicates you have been unmuted. if you just joined this meeting, we are taking public comment on consent calendar item 5, ethics regular scheduled meeting for calendar your 2022. press star 3 to be added to the public comment queue. standby. there are no callers in the queue. >> thank you. i don't think we need to take action on this, right? >> chair lee, it sound like the commissioner's desire would be to have individual commissioners send me the preferred start time and we would resume action or consideration of the item at the

january meeting. once we know that information. >> a my understanding is that we were changing the january meeting as well? >> that was not my understanding. it looks like friday, january 14, date was confirmed by all commissioners in terms of availability and then we have a special meeting january 21 for our first required hearing on the budget priority. >> i agree the date seems to be working for everybody. but were we considering a one-time notification of a time change for that meeting? >> we could. my understanding is it takes a, what, if it's a one-time only

change, that deputy city attorney, it would take 10 days of advance notice. so if, for whatever reason, we want to move the time of the january meeting, i think that we would need to do a 10-day notice. >> sorry if i wasn't clear. my apologies. if we want to make a permanent going forward change to the regular meeting date and time, we would need to do a bylaws change which required more advanced notice, the 10 days i mentioned. if we simply want to change the time of a single meeting on a one-off basis and already scheduled to meet that day, i don't think we need to do a bylaws change. we can do that on a one-off basis. >> so for january, we can change it to 2:00, 1:00. >> that is correct. >> right. and i would just urge the staff

when preparing that agenda to have a note on the top indicating this is a different time than usual, something so that effect. >> okay. u lost my train of thought. there was no public comment. we are on agenda item 6, which is discussion and possible action on proposal regarding a possible june 2022 ballot measure to prohibit certain city officials from slis it thing behe issed -- from soliciting behested payments from interested par tis. before we proceed, i want to take the prerogative as chair to say no doubt it would be the commission's resolve in rebuilding the public's trust for a clean, good, san francisco

government. since the eruption of the scandal a couple of years ago, the commission has worked diligently to explore every opportunity to tighten up the loopholes that were exposed, toughen penalties that were needed and to strengthen accountability of our public officials and throughout this process it was really important that the stakeholders be included in full engagement. so before we proceed to not only agenda item number 6, but 7 because it is similar, i want to ask the deputy city attorney to

give us the legal opinion on the procedures and the timeline for such a ballot measure if we were to proceed for a june 2022 action. i think it would be very helpful to have husband opinion specifically on the timeline and the requirements as we have this discussion. deputy city attorney, do you mind gives us your opinion? >> sure, no problem, chair lee. i am not sure if i have a full fledged opinion, but happy to shaur the highlights. and section 15.102 to submit and

the ethics commissioner can submit by a 4/5 vote of the members and to be within the ethics commission and with the gift laws, of course. and in terms of timing, or the mission ballot measures and i think the staff's memo eluded to this, and if you are targeting the june 2022 election, the deadline for submitting the ballot measures to the voters would be 95 days beforehand. which would be roughly early march. so the ethics commission to submit the measures and to submit them to the voters. >> please let me now if there is anything else on your mind.

>> in light of the public comments, and i have a couple of suggestions regarding six and seven. we can either table this or continue to have the staff to make presentation and hold off or not on the decision. and my personal reference is 200 pages that we along with the public and not only is this done

correctly and input is really important. and this is on the agenda and at least hear the presentation from the staff that is not just a one-off discussion. it will take a couple more discussion to treat out what is in it and any comments and any amendments that the public may want us to consider. to so if we have been any comments, any, if you can have a discussion. no hands raised? so let's proceed with -- >> i can't figure out where my hand is. where is it?

>> an i see you. go ahead, commissioner bush. >> i think that hearing a presentation now is worthwhile because people have been fool told this is an opportunity. and so they may have set time aside to come and give us their input. and we need to be aware that the board of supervisors has a measure that'smore roaring this i think is the term that is being used by by our staff. and while while that process was underway and they already had one vote which was unanimous on tuesday of this week and next, they will have a second reading

and there is an advantage of having the board do something which can be advocates of the measure and we can't. we are precluded to some extent from going out and campaigning even on a measure that we put on the ballot. at least that is the experience that we did ballot measures in the past. and i as a private person and the commission owned leadership was limited only to explaining what it was and how it got on the ballot. that they couldn't urge an enforcement of it by various

groups. so the point being that they can be advocates for the measure. in the past the measures raised money for all of them. so far we have not seen any public opposition at the board since it was taken up on tuesday. and the people who opposed it appear to have reached a comfort level with the current version. it is not that i would say that the version is complete in every respect of who i would like to see in this, but i do think

there is some advantage to chair lee's proposal and hearing it now and then perhaps deciding that we will act on it later because it would give an opportunity for the other steps to be taken. but that doesn't preclude us at some point of adding material that we think would benefit and improve this product. so that's my comment. >> commissioner bell and then commissioner chiu? >> thank you, chair lee. so commission bush's comments went beyond mine. i would like to associate what i believe is the idea of hearing all the substantive

presentations today. city attorney chen has told us we have until march, and what i would be in favor of is letting everybody get their chips in. our staff has done a lot of work on this. we have heard from two important institutions that says we haven't had enough time to look at this yet. around it may be when they look at it, they agree with it. it may be they don't agree, but on something like this, i want to make sure there is a full hearing. having been a lawyer with a short amount of turn around time to make an argument, i am always in favor of having a full hearing. so i like your, if i understand

it correct, chair lee, let us hear all the information today. and if the people that feel they need more time actually have some ideas they want to put in the mix today, they can do that, but do a fuller hearing in january, and vote on it january or february as long as we are able to meet the deadline. so i am hoping i was somewhat coherent in hose those remarks and about what we want and the opposition and get that substantive stuff out from the staff and let us deliberate on it and give people more time to

hear from us, hear what they have to say, and proceed according toly. >> thank you, commissioner bell. commissioner chiu? >> they articulated this exactly so plus 1 to their comments. so we are going to hear from mr. ford the full presentation and the january meeting is coming up and because it is a holiday season that we are dealing with, let's give ourselves more time

because i think it's really important for the staff to reach out to the stakeholders that they have the comments and they participate. and we hear them and this gives us the opportunity to treat out and maybe additional amendments to this, too. we want to make sure if whe we decide to put this on the agenda item number 6 please. >> chair lee, before you do

that, can i ask one additional question? to the timing. we have to have four commissioners who put something on the ballot. force i know that under commissioner chiu's term ends at the end of january, so we could be between a rock and a hard place when it comes to the number of commissioners who are available to vote. >> commissioner lee, if i might, i have my hand up, and you didn't see it.

and commissioner bush in full transparency, that we might be able to finish this issue by the january meeting because i similarly will be rotating off. there is a replacement for me, be u since i will have heard the arguments, i would want to participate in the decision about it before handing it over to a new commissioner. so i would love to advocate that we take the time, hear the stuff today, but vote on it in january. >> okay. that is a bit of a surprise. let's aim for january. i think the meeting in january was -- what date was it? >> it's the 14th. >> january 14. >> two meetings as well in the

event that there is insufficient time on the 14th, there is a special meeting on the 21st, but i believe we could add these items to that agenda to the 21st. >> commissioner chiu, is it possible for you to get closer to the mic? i am having problems hearing you. i don't know if others are. >> we have two meetings scheduled in january. one on the 14th and one on the 21st. in the event we still have -- if we need more time, we could calendar it on the 21st as well. i believe my term end in march as i was appointed in april of 2016. i have a couple more meetings yet. >> why tonight we proceed with the presentation and if we can encourage the staff to conduct

their outreach asap to make sure that we have full engagement by the january 14 meeting and if need be, definitely for the january 21 meeting to make sure that we have the full participation of commissioner bell. with that, mr. ford? >> thank you, chair lee. pat ford, legislative affairs council. i will talk just about item 6 right now and talk about item 7 on the next agenda item. i don't have a presentation on the agenda item 6. this is something that we presented in november of last year about behested payments and we have been working with the board for the last 13 months to move legislation on the behested payment recommendation. as you have already discussed, i can report that the board did

pass legislation that is almost identical to the legislation that is attached to the agenda item six and for that reason, i would recommend to you that you continue the discussion of the item until the january meeting so that you can see what action the board attacks next week, if they approve it again on the second reading, and then what action the mayor takes, if any, on that legislation and that would allow you to know in january where we stand and what behested payment rules will become law. at this point the board has passed is strong and we support it and largely lines up with exactly what is before you and meets the terms of the so you are in a good position to wait and let that process play out, and we definitely like to recognize supervisor haney and supervisor peskin for their work

on this and also deputy city attorney shedd has done a lot of work on this. and lee is here if you have any questions for him about the process on the board side. he is available and would be glad to talk with you, but that is really all i have right now to concur on the recommendation that you continue this until next month so you can see the legislative process play out. >> can you send us a copy of the -- well, the legislation. >> yes, i would be glood to do that. >> thank you. commissioner bell? your hand is up? unmute please. >> thank you, chair lee. i wanted to ask mr. ford and one against, congratulate the staff on all the work they have done and how forthcoming they have been.

and i have been involved in issuing a report to the city and county of san francisco about closing the juvenile hall and the recommendations but the board kept the power to implement. and one of my concerns and the notion of the unfounded mandate. we could have this great, strong legislation in place that nobody knows about, or in fact, have not been trained on. or the issues that i have brought forward in a that once we pass it, how it that people learn what they are supposed to do? is this a two-step process, mr. ford n that the board's legislation miles an hour roars ours or is close enough to ours

that we feel comfortable and as strong? does it address at all the knowledge transfer about the important legislation. >> thank you, commissioner bell. that legislation itself, just like the behested payment doesn't occur on its own terms. that is agenda item 7 and when we get there, one of the recommendations in that measure is about behested payment rules and many, many ethics rules that apply to city officials so completely agree with you that training at this point is clearly needed. they need to be trained on payments and that is where that mandate would exist is in that

other measure. >> well, thank you so much. appreciate you. >> commissioner chiu. >> i would like to associate myself with commissioner bell's comments and commend staff on stellar work here. i have when we opened to public comment, and have a question for lee on the board side as to whether or not he from his vantage point and knows today and has visibility into, if he expects any amendments to the ordinance as it is currently stands. we have heard mr. ford's comments earlier is similar to what was sent to the board over a year ago for the contribution. and in january, mr. ford, if you could highlight if there are to

the ethics board version to the board of supervisors version. and the second point is procedural in nature, but relating to approvals. so the origin of this legislation came out of joint session with the board of both bodies. the board of supervisors 8 out of the 11 and supervisors had to approve it and 4 out of the 5 ethics commission members had to approve it. this ordinance making amounts to that original piece of legislation does not require, as i understand, ethics commission approval. it can be approved by any changes to this ordinance can be approved by the simple majority vote of the board of supervisors. for me what i would like to see and as i understand it and

asking the city deputy to confirm or clarify in order for the ordinance, the changes to the ordinance, to have a provision that would require any future changes to the behested payment ordinance or the gift ordinance. and to require board of supervisors and ethics commission, super majority votes. that would have to be submitted to the voters. [please stand by]

>> yeah, that's correct. >> okay. >> and then, could i just respond to one thing that commissioner bell said? >> yes. >> yes, i completely understood and heard commissioner bell's concern over the training and people's level of engagement. i would like to point out one thing that's currently before the board. so right now, that's kind of a standard operating date, which would become operative 30 days after the hearing date. if you want to provide a little bit more breathing room between the training and education

outreach, we could, if that's something the commission's interested in. >> thank you for that information. very helpful. >> very helpful. >> i also want to say to the commission, i was thinking the same thing. even a delay of 90 days would be helpful. >> okay. let's open it up for public comment. >> oh, are we done on

commission comments? i had a number of questions about the issue itself, if it's okay to do that now. >> yes. >> okay. i'm just looking for clarification, not for amendments, but when we have interested parties defined, it's pretty much someone before this commission. you can't make a behest of a payment of somebody who's on planning, for example, if you have business that's forthcoming. but as i read it, you could ask somebody who's on one of the other commissions -- for

example, building inspection, and we know that things he go from -- they migrate from commission to commission, depending on what it is. it could go from planning to building inspection. it could go from parks and rec to the port commission, as it did in the last bond measure, and so on and so forth. so have we tied our hands when it comes to people who are serving on other commissions being requested, even though it's related to something in a first commission? that's not very articulate. i apologize. >> i understood your question, commissioner bush, and yeah, the answer is that know, your hands are not tied. the law would cover that, so if a person or an interested person or interested party, rather, because they were seeking a permit from a department, they were a party

to a proceeding from a department, and that proceeding was referred to another department in that proceeding in that other department, then that person would become a party vis-a-vis to the other department. they would only not be an interested party in other departments for which they have no matter pending before that department. so for example, in hypo, a matter goes from planning to d.b.i. that person would be an interested party within those two departments but would not be an interested party before the ethics commission because they don't have any matter pending before the ethics commission. >> so is there a time -- like, if they have a matter that is extending in the prior 30 or 60

days so that you capture a broader period of time than just the single date that something goes over? >> yes, and just specifically, we're talking about file 201132. this is the board legislation -- same prison that's in the measure that's attached to item 6, but just to be clear, we're talking about the board legislation. yes, it has a 12-month period following the day in which the decision was rendered in the proceeding, so the rule would apply during the time that the proceeding is going on, and then for 12 months after the final decision. >> and does it apply to people who don't actually have a vote on a matter but who have a -- a significant role in setting the stage?

so, for example, mohamed nuru did not have a vote on rate setting. we had three city department heads who made up the rate committee. so they would have been covered, as they had a matter pending before them. but would nuru have been covered because he didn't have a matter pending, he only had a recommendation making role in the committee? >> yeah. i think we would have to look at whether that constitutes a proceeding within the department of public works. that would be a proceeding for another use, i think would be the term there.

>> that's a good point. attempted to influence sounds like it would cover most of what we're looking at. what about commissioners who are fundraisers or volunteers or that's their profession? so let's call it the [indiscernible] schultz exemption. now a member of several commissions, and who is extremely generous in making contributions to city projects that needed help.

there may be people that don't have matters before their group but are relying on the member to be a fundraiser?

>>. >> there is an amendment who says a member of a board is not an exempted organization because that organization is a party. what it's saying is somebody on a board with that organization is not an interested party. but, for example, if you're on the board of a company, and that company is a city contractor, the company is an interested party, the members of the board is an interested party, but this language was inserted in here to address the condition that you're

describing, that there are commissioners who sit on nonprofit boards who have to be aware of all the conditions like that across the city. >> and for those who are professional fundraisers? >> yes, i think you are specifically talking about political contributions, behested contributions. california state law has a law, and that rule would apply there. and then, also, there are separate city laws about

political activities by city officials and not soliciting political contributions from other city officials. >> and finally, i don't remember if i've got the right form number, a form 803, i think it is, in which there's a provision that says if you're serving on another group, and a member of that group has basis before you, you have to disclose that. in other words on the board of the library, and you have somebody who's on the board of

an oust that contracts with the fire department, you'd have to disclose because you shared a position with that person who serves on several different groups. i'm making a complete hack of this, but do you know what i'm talking about? >> i do. those are recent developments, and i just checked on the website, and that example is not on the website yet. right now, the form 803 only

asks for basic information about the official who made the payment, who the payment went to, how much it was, a brief description. it does not yet represent the kind of information that you're talking about, but i know the fppc has been taking some disclosure actions for their payments with some of the things that you're describing. they also completed some new rules about donor advice funds, so i think they may update that form, and i will keep a close watch on that and let you know what happens. >> if we take this up in january, could you provide a brief memo on the state or federal requirements that impact how our people would operate and whether, as you just said, that applies to

elected officials and how it does not apply to officials that are not elected. i'm not suggesting that we make changes in the legislation or that we ask the board to redo this, i'm just asking that when we take this up in january, that we get into that. >> okay. thank you. commissioner chiu, your hand is up? >> yes, thank you, chair lee. mr. ford, could you refresh us

on what the consequences are for the failure to make required disclosures? >> yes. that would be subject to the same kind of penalties as other disclosures. so it could result in administrative penalties to the ethics commission's administrative penalty provision, and that would be all that the ethics commission would be with administrative policies. >> commissioner chiu: okay. and then, i think the policy then becomes, when we think about enforcement, that we don't know when someone has failed to make a disclosure, because there's no -- there's no way to have clarity or certainty or even disability into what types of behested payments may not have been made

in the application disclosure, so i'm wondering, is there a mechanism by which form 700 filers, when they make such a declaration, they say, in this calendar year, fiscal year, whatever the time period may be, that i have, under penalty of perjury, and they name all the disclosures that i have to name -- that i'm required to make, under all those laws, all those disclosures that they're required to make? >> of officials certifying that? yeah, i think that's something that we would want to be including in any training. as to the disclosure requirements, we certainly don't need any type of certification to penalize

people for not filing disclosures, but we could look at ways to inform people so they're aware. yeah, i don't think we've necessarily had people sign and confirm requirement materials so far. >> commissioner chiu: i wonder if it could be built into a work process or work flow that already exists. what i'm thinking is the analogy that a c.e.o. or c.f.o. needs to answer under penalty of perjury that the representations that they're making are true and correct, and this is a reminder that, oh, yes, i'm signing on the dotted line here that

everything is true and correct, or i'm signing on the dotted line here to say that my financial disclosures on my form 700 are correct, and that, in addition, i've made already any other required disclosures that i'm required to make, that i have disclosed all gifts that i have received; and it's not so much a catalyst or a mechanism for our enforcement, but a way to set a reminder for, you know, people to double-check before they click the button. >> yeah. you should know that we're hiring the people to do the

work ethics program, and they'll do anything and everything to remind people what their ethics obligations are, so that's one that we can definitely talk about, or those folks can. >> commissioner chiu: yeah. at a future date, i think it would be great, after all the dust settles, to have the engagement and compliance team to come and provide an overview of how the education and rollout and training component will look on a [indiscernible]. >> president lee: okay. thank you, commissioner chiu. if there's no further commissioner comments, let's go to public comments.

>> clerk: madam chair, we are checking to see if there are any callers in the queue. for those already on hold, please continue to wait until the system indicates you have been unmuted. for those who just joined us, we are on item 6, discussion and possible action on proposal regarding a possible june 2022 ballot measure to prohibit certain city officials from soliciting behested payments from interested parties. if you have not already done so, please press star, three to enter the queue. you will have three minutes to make your public comment, six minutes if you have an interpreter. please stand by. madam chair, we have callers in the queue. welcome, caller. your three minutes begins now.

>> hello. this is lisa [indiscernible] with the office of economic and workforce development. i'm calling on behalf of item number 6, and i'll wait for item number 7, but we would like to request a continuance of this item. specifically, we'd like more time to evaluate the ballot initiative. thank you. >> president lee: thank you, caller. i just want to reemphasize we will be taking this matter up in the january meetings, so today, we have decided to just have the discussion, and the action will be taken at a

future meeting. next caller, please. >> clerk: please stand by. thank you, caller. your three minutes begins now. >> thank you, commissioners. this is debbie lerman at the human services network. our concern over this legislation has been the need to protect legitimate fundraising and the ability of nonprofit representatives to serve on city boards and commissioners while fulfilling their responsibilities to organizations and to be effective while protecting those activities, we feel the legislation must be balanced and efficient where abuse of the law is more likely to

occur. today, we ask you to support the board's version of the legislation rather than going to the ballot. the human services network worked with supervisor peskin's office to address our concerns, and with amendments, we believe that most have been addressed, and we are supportive of the legislation that passed the board unanimously on first reading on tuesday, and we hope that our participation actually made this a better law. for example, we appreciate the interest of uncompensated board members that are unlikely to be motivated by corruptive

influence. another problematic area was around the attempts to influence legislation. it originally included advocacy that may not involve direct contact with the public officials, even if the public official isn't aware of the attempt to influence. that made no sense in a behested contribution piece of legislation. we believe that the threat of corruption is low for issue advocates who participate in first amendment protected activities. the definition was vague and overly broad, and the legislation could have potentially swept up thousands of people who merely expressed their opinion but are not really interested parties with a financial interest of any kind. it would also have created gotcha moments for public officials. we have not had an opportunity

to review the ethics commission's proposed amendments. we would urge you to support the supervisors' version and we can go to the voters if there are further needs to revise the law. thank you for your decision. >> clerk: thank you, caller. please stand by. madam chair, there are no further callers in the queue. >> president lee: okay. thank you. no further callers in the queue, no further action is required. this item will be continued to the january meeting. item number 7, discussion and

possible action on proposal regarding a possible june 2022nd ballot -- no, 2022 ballot measure and regulation amendments could enact recommendations contained in "report on gift laws part a: gifts to individuals," stated august 2, 2021, "report on gift laws part b: gifts to city departments," dated september 29, 2021, and "report to strengthen essential ethics provisions," dated december 6, 2021. this action will be deferred to a possible future meeting, but we will have discussion and presentations from mr. ford.

>> thank you, chair lee. sorry. i got muted there. i have a slide deck that i'll show you as i talk about this item. just got presenter authority. thank you. chair lee, can you see this now? >> president lee: yes. >> great. so agenda item 7 is a report and has legislation attached to it, and a set of draft regulation amendments. this report is the third phase in the commission's 1.5-year-long project to review the city's ethics laws. this was spurred by the federal

corruption probe, as you mentioned, chair lee, that started almost two years ago. that was january of 2020, and this project kicked off shortly after that. the overarching goal of this project is to learn what we know and make sure that the city's ethics laws are strong enough to make sure that something like that doesn't happen in the future and to start rebuilding the city's trust in the government and progress when it comes to

ethics. second phase of the project is about gifts, and this phase is actually broken into two reports. one that was delivered in august of this year that focuses on gifts to individual, and one that was delivered in october of this year. the focus is on gifts that are made through city departments. the last phase of this project is what we call city provisions, and this is the report that is before you today and that i will run through

with you. and the ballot measure that is agenda item 7 would enact the recommendations of both phase two and phase three, and it's about gifts, and it's also about these fundamental ethics provisions. i will give some context about why i feel the item should be continued until january. we had two meetings that were attended where we talked about gifts to individuals and gifts that were made through city departments. and then, the commission, as you see on the timeline, discussed gifts on both the august and october meetings, and as you remember, in

october, you did receive a letter from the arts museums, and mr. calvin of the war memorial appeared at that meeting, and you had an extended discussion with him, so those departments have been part of this process. then, on october 26, which we sent out a questionnaire to every department head in the city about the phase three topics. we sent out another reminder on november 4 to the department heads that we hadn't heard back from yet. we ended up with about 75% of the department heads responding to us that we've heard from. i think that's about 42 department heads that they designated to complete that questionnaire, and we had meetings on september 13 and 18 with the various department heads that were present there. and then, we also reached out to seven departments to set up

one-on-one meetings, and we're really grateful to those departments who engaged with us. we found their comments insightful and really helpful. a bit about background. i mentioned this on the very first slide. at this point, in total, seven

city offices employees have resigned or been terminated as a result of this corruption investigation. so now, i will talk about what's in the phase three report. so as i mentioned, the third phase focuses on fundamental provisions of the city's ethics laws. these are provisions that are essential to the overall effectiveness of the laws, whereas phase one looked at behested payments, a very specific kind of ethical issues. our recommendation through phase through is that -- or

it's a recommended package of provisions, and we recommend that you take the ballot measure. the main thrust of those ballot measures are, one, to adopt the laws to make them more effective. also, to borrow a fridays from the controller that i think is very appropriate, it's important to build a better tone at the top, and the best way to do that is through education and compliance resources, so you'll see, as i get through that, that there's a big education component to

this. additionally, we think it's important to review and strengthen the ethics laws, and we need to make it sure that you need to follow the ethics laws because if you don't, there will be consequences. a bribe should be considered anything of value that's given with the intent to influence an official action. right now, the law is phrased very narrowly that only something that constitutes a

gift under the law can be a bribe. there are a number of exceptions to it, and that's not what we see in a bribery rule. we closely looked at the federal bribery rules that several people in the investigation were charged with, including the two executives at recology that were accused of bribing mohamed nuru. the federal law -- i can't remember, but it's, like, the statement of anything of value. it's anything that you make with the intent to influence is a bribe. they do not limit it to the concept of something being a gift to the individual.

it's an aspect of the federal bribery law that we do not have in the city's bribery law. case in point, the recology executives did not directly make the payments to nuru. they made them to parks alliance with the intent that they benefit nuru, and this is an aspect of bribery that we should also be prohibiting under local law. and third, the federal law prohibits the solicitation of bribes, however, our local government does not, and these are ways to bring our law more in line with the federal bribery law. we need to have stronger laws that are just as effective as those federal laws that the department of justice is using.

second, this is already a disclosure requirement under city law. it essentially requires city employees and officers to describe on the record if they have a personal or professional relationship with the officer that's making the decision, and those things are defined in the law, what's a person relationship or a professional relationship. however, there's a very unique exception.

-- every other disclosure law carries a penalty, but this one does not. part of what we did as research for this project, as you know, in reading the report, is we reached out to city departments through the questionnaire. we asked them to share all of their disclosures with us that were made under this disclosure requirement, and we asked them to describe the process that they have for receiving, storing, and making available to the public any disclosures that they have within their departments, and we found a small number of disclosures, and we found a lat of variety within departments how they implement this disclosure requirement in practice. so our main recommendation that you see on this slide is there needs to be a penalty, there needs to be a consequence.

so as we build up that confidence and ramp up that program, there needs to be an understanding of city requirements, such as this one, we can tell them, just like disclosure, if you don't make this one, there can be severe penalties or consequences. another recommendation that we make that the ethics commission provide guidance to departments about how they should be administering this program; that there should be some kind of standard protocols about how you receive the disclosures, where you store them, for how long, how you make them available to the public. something that the public should have much easier access to than they do right now.

right now, the law only requires ethics training for elects officials and government heads. however, form 700 filers are those who participate making government decisions. that's what makes someone have to file a form 700. we think that ethics training should just not be limited to the officers that receive mandatory office training, but the city employees that are participating in making government decisions should be trained in this ethics training, and this would be the underlying statutory mandate that ensures that officials will be participating in that mandatory program.

we found that s.i.a.s contain vital principles rules. as you know, from previous enforcement actions, they are really important rules to have in place. however, we found some major issues with the s.i.a. program -- i'll call it a program, this idea of having these departments having their own statements in place.

one big problem is it only contains one slice of the ethics rules, and i'll talk about what those rules are on a later slide, but really important rules like conflicts of interest, not taking action on items in which you personally have a financial interest, and the decision will fundamentally impact that interest. any foundational rules that are not in the s.i.a.s, but what we've learned from engaging with departments is that people will sometimes use the s.i.a.s as a shorthand of ethics rules, which it's not. people should not be relying on it as their sole ethics compliance guide.

another is s.i.a.s vary slight between departments. after we reviewed them, we found that they're nearly identical. they all have the same basic rules in them. there's actually a template that was created back in 2005 when they were creating their statements of incompatible activities, and they used largely the same template with just a few tweaks here and there, so that's good that the rules are clear in there, with some variations. however, those variations create issues. for one things, it creates different rules between departments, and also, departments for a few of the rules in the s.i.a.s are able to have what's called a.w.d.s,

and we found that departments do not apply the rules consistently between the a.w.d.s in the departments. another problem is it leads to a lack of awareness. because of the differences of the rules between departments, it becomes really difficult to include s.i.a. rules in trainings or compliance materials that are going to be used citywide. you always have to remind people, in addition, please check your s.i.a. you need to look there for more rules. you can't put everyone's rules in the citywide resources. a lot of people then don't turn to the s.i.a. and review the s.i.a. they can be seven to ten pages long. there's a lot of preparatory

material, and the rules are often long, big paragraphs, and there's different iterations of the rule, and we've gotten a lot of feedback from people that they're very hard to read, not easy to understand, and then, it becomes hard to insert that material into compliance materials and training resources, then, that makes it harder for people to become aware of what these training rules require of them. as i mentioned earlier, that for a few of the rules -- not all -- in the s.i.a.s. employees are able to request advance determinations from their departments. that should not be the case for certain of these rules. it should still be the case of excessive time demands should be up to the departments.

they should be standard rules that apply to everybody in an department and across the departments, too. and in addition, to codifying the rules in the s.i.a.s, we think it's important to create a short summary of the laws that would be used as a compliance tool, so as i mentioned, there's a real need out there for people to have a short compliance document, and a lot of people are relying on the s.i.a.s, so we're recommending that the ethics commission create a short summary, distribute it to departments each year, and then have the departments use that as a compliance tool internally. so as i mentioned, we're recommending that the rules in the s.i.a.s be codified, that they be placed in the

governmental conduct code just like all the other rules. you can already be subject to a penalty for violating s.i.a. rules, and as i mentioned, we had those recently. but it would become the standardized rules for everybody across the city, and it would start to build shared understanding, just like we do for all the ethics laws, and it would allow the ethics commission to start including them in compliance resources, giving them advice to start complying and all the resources. sometimes we copies them verbatim from the s.i.a.s, sometimes we had to derive what was kind of the common denominator between departments. sometimes, we tweaked them to match the code or in

conjunction with existing rules, but these basically match the existing rules that are within the s.i.a.s. and i won't go through each of them individually, but i think the names of the rules are pretty clear. these are generally fairly straightforward principles. the upshot is the -- they instruct people how to not engage in activities outside of city service that either compromise their ability to be unbiased or in some ways misuse resources or the authority of city office for personal gain, and they address aspects of that. the first one i'll mention appears in a lot of s.i.a.s, and it's important to note that departments would no longer need or have their own s.i.a.s once these rules were to be

codified. s.i.a.s would no longer be necessary. so the last recommendation has a few parts to it, but the gist of it is to strengthen and harmonize basic ethics rules of the code. these are provisions that allow other ethics rules to be administered and enforced. the first one is to standardize the penalty provisions throughout the code. the charter says the ethics commissions may impose

penalties under the charter, but in addition to that, what you see within all but one chapter of the code, and again, there are ten chapters in the campaign and governmental conduct code, officially, you see all chapters have a statement that all violations can result in penalties, and they also just don't talk about physical penalties, there's criminal and financial penalties, as well. there are three chapters of the code that attach a knowing or negligent mental state requirement in order for administrative penalties to be applied. usually, that kind of mental health requirement is only

required, but it has to be shown that the person knowingly or negligently violated the law in order for administrative penalties to be applied, and that's really different than the other chapters. by and law, violations are punishable on a strict liability basis. there's no way to show that the person violated the law in a certain way or with a certain mental state or intent, just that they were supposed to file something and they didn't file it. these are -- another change

that we think is important to make is to add language that just clarifies in article three, chapter one, that contains the information about form 700 filing, that people who fail to file the form 700 as required by law, that there are penalties. the commission has issued penalties in the past to individuals for failure to file the form 700. it also, as i mentioned on the previous slide, the district attorney's office has brought criminal charges under the campaign and governmental conduct code against a former city employee who failed to file a form 700 and who, in other instances, failed to report financial interests. so i think it's important to make it clear to people who are subjected to this, if they don't file the form, that they

can be subject to consequences. >> mr. ford? >> yes. >> commissioner bush: who can impose these penalties? >> this is for the ethics commission imposing penalties through our administrative enforcement process. >> commissioner bush: so i know in some cases, commissioners have been found to be in violation, but ethics couldn't act upon them. it had to be done by the appointing authority, and the appointing authority chose not to act, nothing happened. are there gaps like that these days? >> yeah, i would have to talk

to you about what specific issues you're talking about. these penalty provisions essentially say that failure to follow the terms of these statutes within these chapters is punishable by the charter, and the charter allows the ethics commission to impose penalties of up to 5,000. >> commissioner chiu: i think what commissioner bush is saying, that beyond the $100

penalty, there's no way for the ethics commission to actually file or compel them from taking votes. so mr. ford, could you provide some inclusions in the ordinance to address that? >> the $100 is on late fees. >> commissioner chiu: late fees. >> yes, and those are capped at $100. this would not change the late fee, since that's a state law provision. this would not really change anything. it just provides notice that the commission can and will provide financial penalties for failing to file.

>> commissioner chiu: so do we have abilities to provide financial penalties? >> i won't go through all the eligibility criteria, but for people who go through the enforcement division and fix the problems in their form 700, then they're eligible for a reduced penalty. >> commissioner chiu: i see. okay. >> commissioner bush: in some cases, though, i recall the commission wanted to sanction a commissioner -- not an ethics commissioner -- for abuse of the public. there's a requirement that, in

conducting meetings, you allow people to speak, and instead, in at least one instance, there was a threat of bodily harm, and that was taken seriously enough by the commission that they referred it onto the appointing authority, and that there was no response, to a month later, they referred it over again, and again, there was no response. essentially, the appointing authority was allowing the clock to run out, which would take more than a year, and there was nothing that could be done. does the situation exist now where nothing can be done? >> yeah.

i think you're describing the ability of denying individuals to [indiscernible] so i'd want to check in with the city attorney's office but it's not [indiscernible] so yeah, we did not look at that issue. >> commissioner chiu: for the january meeting, could you come

back, mr. ford, with a recommendation. there's been instances, in my tenure, here, there's always a handful of commissioners or people who have continued to late file and continue to participate in votes in their elected or appointed, and i think that's really problematic. >> yeah, so this recommendation would actually add language to that code section that says if you fail to comply with the requirement, that penalties could be severe.

and since we're continuing this item to january, i can talk about adding more elements to this issue right now. >> president lee: mr. ford, to follow up on commission chiu's question, my understanding is up to the commission to prevent a commissioner from voting, right, if that person has not filed the form 700, so the responsibility is not on us, but it's on the particular

department, which goes back to the training that we provide to make sure the leadership of these departments understand their responsibility in carrying out these enforcement, right, even though it's not us directly holding them accountable. is that right? >> yeah, i think it's an important point to underscore why we are recommending that the existing ethics training requirement be extended to see employees, as well as officials. commissioners are already required to do ethics training, but an employee who's not a department head is not, under law, required to complete training, and we think it's

beneficial to require employees to complete that training, that they would understand ethics training more fully, and they would be able to help city officials if situations happen.

>> and i would imagine that would maybe include training to whether it's commission secretaries and executive directors of the other requirements that the commissioners have to be clear, if someone appears before the commission meeting, if they happen to have a personal relationship, by law, they are supposed to declare it, even though they may not be in the

other conflict, right? so if i know someone, i would need to state at the meeting that, you know, i know, you know, this person from wherever, so that rule is required in the ethics rules of commissioners to disclose, but i gather it's not practiced, you know, in the rule gathering because sometimes commissioners forget. >> yeah, that rule will definitely be a part of that training that people get. we think that's going to be,

along with a failure and a consequence will be another step towards seeing this get used in practice. >> president lee: okay. >> so the second recommendation that we've made that supports this idea of strengthening and harmonizing various provisions of the code relates to how various legislative amendments are made through the code. voters can amend the campaign and governmental conduct code by bringing a citizen's initiative by gathering signatures and placing the issue on the ballot or by the board of supervisors, as that body can do under the charter, and that's not what we're talking about here. that power of citizens to amend

the code exists under the charter, and this doesn't address that at all. what this addresses is lemgs lay tiff amendments, the ability of the board of supervisors as the legislature of the city and county to amend the campaign and governmental conduct code. there's already been several discussions about this at this meeting, so i think it ties billion into this item. so for the main chapters of our code, the conflict of interest chapters, and the lobbyist chapter, there is a double super majority requirement that the ethics commission and the board of supervisors must approve any legislative amendments to those chapters, and it's a very important save guard to have to make sure that

the commission that's charged with enforcing those rules have a voice in any legislative amendment, and each chapter requires that double super majority level. that would require change to article three, chapter three, which it's a very short chapter that talks about the duties of the ethics commission, whistleblowers, and board

protection. and also, article three, chapter six, which talked about behested payments that commissioner chiu raised earlier and commissioner chen also raised earlier that that lacks the super majority requirement. the board is able to enact that through its regular legislative process, through a simple majority and signature by the mayor. so we would request the rules of that also be enforced by

that. these chapters are not adequately protected from legislative amendments which don't get approved by the voters, and it's important that the ethics commission be involved in the legislative process and that the ethics commission's approval be required in those changes. another way that the legislative amendment should be changed is to allow legislative amendments for campaign consultants. those laws were created through the ballot process, and no language was included to allow those amendments to happen, and because of that, it's been many years since that chapter has

been changes. it can't be amended in my way, so even if the commission wanted to do policy changes and legislative laws, that couldn't happen. only if it was sent to the voters would that be possible, and that would be if there are small clarifying or updated changes that wouldn't require a ballot measure. we're asking that these harmonize with the others, but only if the ethics commission and board of supervisors are retained for those amendments. it's a high bar that would ensure a high level of consensus if that amendment were to be changed

legislatively. our last recommendation which talks about strengthening and harmonizing the basic provisions of the code is to standardize the e-filings in the code, and this says that documents can be filed in an e-format version. a lot of disclosure requirements will have e-filing language directly attached to them. it will say, you have to file this, and the ethics commission will require that it be filed electronically. it's a matter of practice.

we already have almost all of our filings, over 100, that would be required to be filed electronically. we are working to close that gap so we can get to mandatory 100% e-filings, and also ensure that if future disclosures were to be added in the future, and that specific e-filing were not added, that would be okay.

so those are all the recommendations that are in the phase three report, but also, i wanted to just quickly recap the phase two recommendations, as i mentioned, the ballot measure that's attached here includes both the phase two and the phase three recommendations, so i'll just really quickly remind you what those are, but as you know, you saw those at the november meeting. you saw this legislation before. you saw the draft phase two ordinance and the draft phase two regulation amendments in

november. but the main point of phase two is to reform the city's gift laws, in particular, reform the gift exceptions, and make sure that there aren't loopholes that are intended for the purposes of the city's gift laws. create a definition of gift under san francisco law. limit the restrictions to the ones that make sense of the restricted source rule. prohibit gifts to departments and other intermediaries, and lastly, to create a disclosure of gifts to city departments. right now, there are three disclosures to gifts of city departments, none of which provides adequate transparency

into these gifts, so instead, we're recommending a single centralized disclosure that would replace those three with all the information included on them that would supplant all of those existing disclosures. it would be something that the public would have much easier access to. it's very difficult to access the three current disclosures. just a reminder, why it's important to talk about gifts to city departments, we talked about how the restricts source rule is being blown by gifts that flow through city departments. it's something that the controller's office has studied, and it's an important aspect of that gift legislation that you saw in november and

that you discussed in october, as well, and just to reiterate those findings, that when the restricted source legislation is enacted, to reiterate why we're recommending the ballot measure at this point, the recommendations in phases two and three are very important. if the commission agrees and decides to approve them, the commission should seek the most expeditious way of enacting these reforms without any delay. we've done extensive stakeholder engagement, and as we've already talked about, we will do more stakeholder engagement in the next month to ensure that any final touches on this can be done, and we can hear any comments that we haven't already heard through the 45 departments that we've

reached out to engage with, the 45 i.p. engagements that we've done, the meet-and-confer process that we did through d.h.r., to make sure that if there are any comments that folks haven't shared with us yet, that they will be able to continue to do so. also, it's important to remember, as deputy city administrator shen pointed out, those can only be enacted through voter measure. so only by placing the voter measure on the ballot can the commission change the amendments. if you go the legislative route, those would have to come out. also, engaging the voters in

rebuilding the public trust. the last couple of years have seen department heads be federally investigated or resigned, and rebuilding city processes is vital, and having the public participate in this process is a good way to rebuild public trust. the amendments would also clarify the subordinate rules

and it would add clarity to the measure if approved, but it can stand on its own, and this is the last slide. i always just close with this one to remind you of this important part of the findings and importance of the government ethics ordinance, that government decisions should appear and should be made on a fair and impartial basis, and before i turn it back over, i'll just back up and mention exactly why we are imposing at this point, even before this meeting started, that the commission wait until january, is because we believe this meet-and-confer process had been completed. we shared the draft recommendations of this measure

with d.h.r. who then shared it with the city's bargaining units on november 10, and had a meeting with n.e.a. on november 17. n.e.a. represents most city department heads and high level city managers. hadn't heard any feedback from n.e.a. or any official since then. that was about 3.5 weeks ago. we believed the process was completed. that's why we agendized for you today, however, late yesterday, we discovered that the n.e.a. asked that the process be continued, so we will be meeting with n.e.a. next week, so that's why we're asking that you wait until january, and obviously, you're on the same page. you'd like that to continue, as

well, so that's great, and i wanted to make sure that you were aware of that development, as well. that concludes what i wanted to present to you, and i'm glad to answer any questions that you might have. >> president lee: thank you, mr. ford. do we have any comments, fellow commissioners? otherwise, we'll open it up to public comment. commissioner bush? >> commissioner bush: thank you for the presentation, mr. ford. it was very detailed and informative. i wonder if you could provide us with a summary of the comments that you got back of the 45 departments. i know you incorporated them in your presentation, but if you looked to see which departments made what kind of comments?

thank you. >> president lee: commissioner bell? unmute, please. >> sorry. i just wanted to say, i'm sure this took a lot of work, and i'm impressed, and also, the arch of sections one, two, and three and how we're going to

progress that. also, going to the ballot gets people's attention and participation in some ways, and it shows there's some seriousness about this. so kudos all-around, and thank you for the hard work. >> commissioner chiu: i'd like to commend you for the amount of work that went into this. i thank the two public commenters from the public art

museum and the asian american museum were concerned that you would have time to meet with them and address their concerns, as well. but i think this was comprehensive and very clear and agree with commissioner bell that the ballot initiative is the way to send this thing out to show that you're serious about reform. thank you. >> thank you. i want to echo my colleagues' comments. i just make one request, mr. ford. it would be great if you put it on our website with the highlight to let people know that this is what we're proposing for the january action so that there will be another vehicle for folks to really access the information,

because it's very thorough, very important for folks to know, and for many of them, they may not be able to read 200 pages that you prepared for us, but this is a great way for folks to understand. so if we have no more comments, let's open it up for public comment on agenda item number 7. >> clerk: madam chair, we are checking to see if there are any callers in the queue. for those already on hold, please wait until the system indicates you have been unmuted. if you have just joined the meeting, we are on item 7, discussion and possible action on proposal regarding a possible june 2022 ballot measure and regulation amendments to enact recommendations contained in

report on gift laws part a: gifts to individuals, daised august 2, 2021, report on gift laws part b, gifts to city departments, dated sept 29, 2021, and report to strengthen essential ethics provisions, dated december 6, 2021. if you have not already done so, please press star, three to enter the queue. when you hear your system has been unmuted, you have three minutes to make your public comment. please stand by. madam chair, we have a caller in the queue. [please stand by]

>> i would say we have to serious concerns with some of the things that are proposed fromthe arts commission's perspective , we definitely appreciate the extra time so that we can have time to delve into further to see whatwe agree with and what we don't agree with so thank you .>> thank you. >> please stand by. madam chair, there are no further colors. >> chair: i want to ask my colleagues, we havea couple more items pending discussion today . one is a possible action

required by us . it is now 12:00. i wonder if we want to continue on or take a 10 minutebreak . >> i love to push through. >> chair: okay, let's push through.agenda item number eight. discussion of popular possible action on request for waiver of sf campaign and governmental conduct code section 3.234 a two,postemployment restriction for marissa rodriguez .i understand the commissioner is also present . so let's have staff recommendation first . >> thank you chair lee.

i still have a slide deck for this one but i will reiterate the basis of what is in the memo for agenda itemnumber eight . i'll start by talking about the law so there are postemployment restrictions that apply to the officials, people who serve as officer or employee. and the point of having postemployment restrictions is to try to ensure that an individual leaves city service, that they do not then use city service as a way to or the recent city service to improperly influence the decisions that are made by cit government . so the point post appointment restrictions that are before you today is section 3.234 a to

the governmental conduct code that section states that no current or former officer of the city or county for one year after termination of his or her service or employment with any department or mission office or other unit show intent to influence agovernment decision to communicate orally in writing or any other matter on behalf of any other person . with any officer or employee of the department or commission office or other unit of government for which the officer or employee serves.i know that's long but it's important to read it to get all the different terms out and the general thrust of it but the point of this rule or the upshot of this rule is that

when you leave city employment for one year afterwards, you can't communicate on someone's behalf with the government that you served and try to influence thatunit of government . the purpose is that you have relationships with that unit of government that youserve. they know you. or they don't know you, they don't don't directly interact with you, they may be aware you are city employee . it's possible they could be a danger or undue influence or unfair advantage so is to create theappearance of a revolving door that they believe city government . they move over into the private sector but then they turnaround and continue to interact with the government to ensure favorable outcomes for their new private employer or clients . the regulations ethics commissionregulations provide further clarity about how these you work. in particular , this regulation that talks about what is a unit of government that's kind of a

special term that's used in this particular context but there are factors todetermine what constitutes a unit of government . so in particular the first two even if somebody works within a particular office,that office is part of a larger unit of government . they are considered to have served at unit of government. that becomes important in this case i'll explain in a moment but the factors that are used are one, whether the budget personnel and other operations of the employees position, employees subject to this restriction who controls? was it within their own office or another unit of government. also, whether or not that employees position is listed in its own action of the campaign

and government conduct code for purposes of 700 filing or is it subsumed into the list of a larger department that would also tend to show thatthey serve that other unit of government . also does the law creating that person's office indicate that they are separate entities or partners of a larger unit of government and also the commission can consider other factors . so that brings me to the current request. this request made by marissa rodriguez who until october 11th of this year is the director of the office of cannabis and the office of cannabis is an office in the city administrator's office and it oversees permits and grants and does other work around the regulation of cannabis in the city and county and as i explained in the report, if you

run through those factors, it's pretty clear the office of cannabis under this code section should be considered part of the same unit of government as the city administrator'soffice . the administrator was involved in the operations of theoffice , the law creating the office indicates the position of the city administrator's office. they don't have the budget, their budget is under the larger budget ofcity administrator . the conduct code section is about 400 fire filing lists the office of cannabis under office of city administrator. that's fairly clear. then there's another provision that exists that's a regulation i talked about that says in

addition tobeing prohibited from contact with the former department or rather your former unit of government , you are prohibited from contacting any other department for that unit of government directs or controls that's under the direction and control in the regulation . so that means that ms. rodriguez as former director of the office of cannabis would be prohibited from contacting obviously the office of cannabis under this law but also from contacting the administrator's office. that's part of the same unit of government she used under those factors i described. additionally she's prohibited fromcontacting any other department that is under the direction and control of the city administrator . as you know under the structure of the city and county the city administrator's office oversees any different departments and offices and programs that are within the larger city

administrator also known as gsa. so that would mean that other offices such as the entertainment commission or dpw which are under that structure that gsa city administrator structure should also be prohibited from contacting so the request that ms. rodriguez made for a waiver is that she be allowed to contact the city administrator'soffice . entertainment commission and the department of public works dpw. she did not request a waiver to contact the office of cannabis . she also talked about contacting other departments that the rule does not apply to you so although we recommending that a waiver, the issue would not prevent her from contactin other departmentsthat she talked about . the record park, police, dph .

those are not part of the unit of government that she served or are they directly controlled by the unit of government she serves the administrator's office so the rule would not prohibit her fromcommunicating with those offices so the scope of her waiver request is just the city administrator's office , the entertainmentcommission and dpw.so to take those in order through the city administrator's office , we don't recommend the waiver issued because for one,she was director of the office of cannabis . she reported to 2 deputy city administrator's as well as the city administratorherself through a monthly reporting process . also i think we just look at somebody who is department head, that's a very high level position that comes with a lot of recognition and respect of somebody who would be known and that really is important when you're looking at potential for

unfair advantage or undue influence. i should state that i failed to talk about that before i jumped in here but although the commission can't issue a waiver the role under both the statute and the rags of one the waiver can be issued in this situation is that it must not create the potential for unfair advantage or undue influence. so i think it's important to point out this is different from other instances in the recent past where the commission has considered waivers for this particular postemployment restriction. and there's other situations commission was considering a waiver for a former commissioner who was post on the commission can only be filled by somebody who represents a particular trade or profession or business. so in particular i think the last one commission looked at was somebody who had to be a certain kind of architect in

order to be appointed to the historical preservation commission . because of the very specific eligibility requirements for those kinds of positions, the law creates a much lower bar for one when a waiver can be issued for thosekinds of city officials . it's in recognition of the fact that because that commissioner had had a certain professional background in order to fill that post on the commission that there's necessarily going to be a certain crossover between their personal professional life and the subjectmatter commission administers . so the recognition of that inherent tension , that creates a lower bar and it is more focused on that person's need for a waiver . howwill it impact them professionally, personally . how will it limit the appointing authority's ability to find all five commissioners if the rule is goingto be applied strictly .

so there's a much lower bar so if you recall those prior waiver applications that you remember very differently that focused more on what would be the impact be on this person. if the waiver is not granted, that's not the case in this instance . miss rodriguez was not a commissioner, she was not required to represent any particular profession or trade so that special provisions for special eligibility is not applicable here. so instead the much higher bar of the waiver would create no potential for undue influence or unfair advantage. that's the standard that applies to this kind of waiver. so anyway, i should have stated that first four i jumped in and talked aboutthe actual waiver request . so with that in mind, i now i'll talk about theparticulars of the request . this request a waiver to indicate with the city

administrator's office and i will repeat what i said earlier but again, she was head of the department and reported directly to high-level administrators in the city administrator's office. those are the two deputy city administrators and city administrator. it's pretty hard to say that's not going to create any potential for undue influence or unfair advantage. so we think that's not a place where a waiver should be granted. for the entertainment commission there's a degree of past interaction to miss rodriguez and theentertainment commission . in particular the warranty that the commission has appointment authority over the cannabis oversight committee. that's actually an employee, one of the five employees that the entertainment commission sits on that cannabis oversight

committee. whichis the committee that the or the office of cannabis and racks with . then in addition the entertainmentcommission was used to review grant applications for the office of cannabis . so there is some hurry in that department. evenif there weren't , with dpw it's difficult to say that the department has a department that's closely overseen by the city administrator's office, is part of the same infrastructure that would create no potential for undue influence and might be different if it was a lower level employee but who didn't have as much visibility or authority but was a department head becomes very different so again we're not recommending the waiver for the entertainment commission fortification with the entertainment commission within this.

likewise we don't recommend a waiver fortifications with the department of public works. miss rodriguez indicated that she didn't work with dpw at all because it's not involved in cannabis related work but the lawsfairly clear that it doesn't have to be prior to medications . within the city service nor does there have to be overlap between what the former city employee did enter city service and what's the department that she has been connecting with does the law says that the rule prohibits attempts toinfluence government decisions including decisions in which the office for employee had no prior involvement .that's a quote from the rags so it does make a decision that is not just the personthat worked on it. there's a different rule for that . it matters that it substantiallyinvolved in, not participating in those .

this rule is about more will your past service, your past title create some potential for undue influence or unfair advantage and i think even in dpw it's hard for us to conclude that her communicating with them would create no potential for undue advantage and in large part just because her high-level position so that's the conclusion we reached. glad to answer any questions you might have about that and again, miss rodriguez is here to give a link. she's on the call. she's available to you and answer questions you mayhave . if miss rodriguez is on the call maybe we can ask her to speak on your behalf before we have questions . >> can everyone hear me? >> yes good afternoon commissioners and i appreciate

you taking the timeto hear from me . my name is marissa rodriguez and i am formerdirector of the office of cannabis of san francisco . i have recently been executive director of san francisco so a little bit about my background. prior to my role as director of the office of cannabis i take this process very seriously and in that role i brought that standard to the office of cannabis.i did so with the important purpose of rolling out regulatory schemesin that capacity . so san franciscans could feel safe knowing that a framework was set up for that work. and i am here today because i appreciate that capacity of the ethics commission and this process and certainly would not want there to be any appearance of impropriety ever.

we with that, i want to speak a little bit about the office of cannabis. the office of cannabis as we can tell is a very niche and specific area of work in law that oversees the regulatory process for our permitting here in san francisco. we work solely on the issue of cannabis. however there was a premise which was an equity premise one that we want to ensure an ethical processfor our permits . and as a result, because our foundation is an equity we were asked to draft a legislation request for our city department as an equity report so in that capacity i did notice that in my request to this body that i did engage with other departments.

the city administrator's office consists of 25 f expert divisions and i would not actually work with, i never influenced any of their decisions . i didn't engage in any survey today and it's been very specific. we do have a oversight body. that body is the commission to speak and they will be similar permitting process of the small office but also we did not engage in day-to-day work at any time. they never asked for our opinions. there was never an opportunity for anything to do with the entertainmentcommission . in fact our city process is issuing our fees, it's sometimes difficult to find third parties who have no interest in their work or no overlap to reviewthose applications . we thought the entertainment

commission was be perfect because there isn't that crossover so they did serve as the third-party alliance and other people who serve on our committee and also don't have a direct nexus as like similar to for example the planning department. those are agencies that we work closely with. the commission was not one of those. when i chose this role i left permitting. i'm a native, i grew up in san francisco and care about the city . during the pandemic i'm still the director of the office of cannabis and like many of us i was concerned with how our budgets are going to be impacted given the economic impact of the pandemic .

and learning more about what will drive our economy given theunderstanding of the downtown very important . while coming down here i was heartbroken to see so many businesses ., many of them boarded up and it's been a real challenge. something that we're seeing depends on that 37 percent of our sales based exists here in the square alone so i thought it was important that i service entity. i want to read in my report as well that our mission here in the alliance is to seek to create a high quality user experience by managing and activating public spaces , making a clean and safe environment, attracting new investment and advocating for thedistrict's success . our primary goal is to ensure that safety is maintained here. cleanliness is maintained

here and certainly the activation of public spaces. that is the basis of my work and in order to bring back the economic vitality of this economic engine for our city i need to be able to do that work and that is why i am here and to really show you commissioners thati am not doing that , it's not going to create a potential for undue influence and i'll explain that with respect to the entertainment commission i am required to do street closers so i can have street activation, and things like that. and really do what any other community improvement district would do no way impacting a policy related decision, just

making sure these things can happen so we can turn around the unfortunate perception of what's happening in our downtown for our walks and the other partwalks in our community . with respect to the public works i want to emphasize i had no interaction with the department of public works. it's a more separate department that is under the umbrella of the city administrator, however they have their own separate budget in the city, they just have the same function. we haven't formallymet . i would be engaging with that person, i'd be engaging with

whoever's in the street space and other items. forexample street cleaning, crosswalks . illegal dumping. or of the that happens about 10 feet because my ambassadors willtake care of what happens below that . and other types of maintenance related activities to really try and help revitalize. i love that the community can enjoy these places. again, not to unduly influence any governmentaldecision . i have no basis with respect to policies for legislative items. this would be the day today that's really importantand critical right now , in particular for the median square area and i would like to be able to get that work done now more than ever and one year would be an undue burden on the so i'm hoping we can look at

this and balance my need to get the work done for the citizens of san francisco here in a very median type way, not engaging in governmental decision making really to just get these permits to get this work done in this space but certainly understanding with that point, i like to submit on the matter of the city administrator myself, even though i primarily work with her deputies and the entertainment commission does not share the same deputy. we never had a deputy at any point during my tenure. with that i'd like to thank you so much for taking my arguments into consideration. it's an important time for the union square community and for us emergent successfully from this pandemic again, taking that into consideration as well

as my background work i've done taking all ethics very seriously. so thank you so much. >> chair: thank you for your service tothis city . i see commissioner chiu's hand up. >> i'm sorry, that was from before. >> chair: do we have anyother comments from the commissioners ?if not, let us go to public comment. >> i had a question. i was just wondering what is the year? when will the year start and end so that if you were restricted from doing this wor , is it until february or is it until, you know, you understand my question.

>> it would be until next october. >> thank you. >> president, i dohave a question, i'm sorry . miss rodriguez, how large is your staff at the square organization ? >> we have a staff of 10 doing different types of work. member services, performing calls and things likethat . >> public comments please? >> we are checking to see if there are colors in the queue. for those on whole wheat until the system indicates you have been under muted.

if you just joined we are currently on public discussion on item number eight, discussion of possible action on request for waiver of sf campaign and governmental conduct code section 3.234 a 2. postemployment restriction of matters. if you have not done so please press star 3 to be added to the public comment queue. three minutes to provide your comments, sixminutes if you're online with aninterpreter . you will hear it all go off when you have 30 seconds remaining . please stand by. my chair, there are no colors in the queue. >> chair: thank you. publiccomment is closed .miss rodriguez, i love union square.

my office used to be near their and when i first came back fro college , the first 15, 20 years of my life i would spend my weekend shopping and eating around union square to what happened there is really heartbreaking . i commend you and the union square alliance for doing everything you can to really bring back the union square that we love and we deserve. but at the same time i am very concerned with you know, under the waiver allowance, one thing that's really concerns me is the appearance of undue influence. that you as a former member of

the city family may have. yes, you may not work directly with the dpw or entertainment commission but this appearance that i am having some concern with because when they say undue advantage, that doesn't mean you knew that person therefore you have the advantage. it's the appearance that you may have the undue advantage and other people who may not have worked with in the oca may have so everything being equal, that's just the one area i am concerned with and i'm glad to hear that the alliance is not the staff of 1. there are other staff members who are carrying

out the work at your direction. so within that 10 people there may be folks who are responsible for dealing with the city or other folks who could work with dpw entertainment, oca instead of you making that call. with that being a good assumption? even if you, let's just say if you did not get the waiver, someone else with that alliance would still be able to work with these three government bodies. on behalf of the veterans of the union square community. >> i appreciate that the and

thank you for your kind words regarding union square . i actually oversee the purview with respect to this type of work so i would be that person but i do ask then if i had to to certainly engage. he will make it work if we need to. >> thank you. >> i do recall a scenario where by a former supervisor left to do work for a similar organization. my supervisor and elected supervisor with this type of day-to-day work. i could be wrong. perhaps mister forrest has a better recollection of that but i think it has been done in the past but i do understand that perhaps in light of recent

events that may have changed and i certainly respect that as well. >> chair: i have one more question to miss rodriguez. when you found your work with the city as he went through the ethics training and all the rules and regulations that you have to abide by, was it ever made clear to you that there's this one year transition perio ? as a city employee, that if there's something that youcould not do ? is that part of your employee orientation ? >> there's one that stood out and i would say it's something that i learned as i was transitioning out more recently and just in light of the work that i'm doing here i wanted to

see if it would be possible for the waiver because it's not that i would be unduly influencing anyone. on any sort of governmental decision but it was more day-to-day and being able to do myjob . which is why i was moving this request and certainly for this particular case here, our surrounding neighbors working with the tenderloin and the downtown office impacted so that's why i am reaching out for the waiver as iunderstand it . but i completely respect the work. that is why i did not request a waiver from theoffice of cannabis . i will not, that's how i understood it to be the office of cannabis will be the department for decision that i

would engage with for a year. that is without a doubt not in my letter to the epics commission. it was specifically tothese other departments . i am engaging under the department i think is the administrator's office is very interesting and unique construct because there's all these divisions that are fall underneath this for even that the department of technology and the department of public works are separate departments. which just fall under the umbrella because of the hr function so the very unique set up but i did not ask for a waiver for the office of cannabis because i understand my staff, i wouldn't do that. so i think with other distinct organizations as individuals those departments i would be certainly apply to that office and not anyother offices .

in the city even if people knew me. so that's why i stand on this. >> understanding on this staff is that we have. there are three waiver requests. one is with the city administrator, the second with the entertainment commission. the third is department of public works. i think we can either have a motion to address all three together for individually. so number one is we can agree if we can act in total or separately. what's your pleasure. >> i submitted on the issue with respect to the city

administrator sothat's no longer one that needs to be voted on . i will not engagewith city administrator's office . >> if i could hear from mister for in response. on to the question ofday-to-day versus policy . in terms of why they denied the waiver and what must miss rodriguez was saying is just day-to-day functionary things . we just are trying to get our wall going. or what's up ice-skating race orsomething like that versus policy . if mister ford could respond if you think there's aresponse that would help me tremendously . >> sure thing commissioner. i think the answer is the law doesn't distinguish the law is pretty clear that it's all-encompassing with that respect with the intent to

influence a government decision does not go intoany details about what types ofdecisions , anything that rises to the level of a decision would be covered . >> so it's all quite astrict liability . it's almost like once you do it regardless of what's underneath it is covered. >> i can imagine some analysis around what constitutes a decision so for example somebody left service park and rec and later they wanted to get a permit to have a table to reserve a picnic table. that's probably something that's not going to constitute a government decision so that person it would be okay forthem to go online and reserve a table . that would not be considered an attempt to influence a decision by reference park things like that that are very small things that don't constitute decisions when the subject to something thatrises to the levelof somebody analyzing or towards determining something that's

going to be a decision . >> very helpful, thank you. >> . >> i share one follow-up comment. mister ford is correct in terms of the initial of the one-year postemployment medication bad. but the commission can certainly within its discretion i guess she or shape the nature of the waiver wishes to grant if it's feasible and again i would defer to mister cork on the feasibility. there could be sort of some intermediate position where perhaps somecategories of communication with tv could be considered . you know, something that would be comfortable with in terms of granting a waiver. it doesn't need to be an all or nothing. >> any comments? >> on deputy attorney shins proposal, not something we loo at . not something we recommend.

that seems difficult to implement in practice and i would really rather have the analysis on what constitutes the decision and if there are certain demoness things. that don't constitute decisions we could get a device on that. what kinds of conditions are subject to the rule, which ones are outside of the rule within things that definitely do constitute decisions i wouldn't recommend allowing medications around some decisions and not others. >> ifthere is no more questions, do we have a motion . >> i have a motion to consider the two items together. the remaining items together. >> clerk: second. >> chair: the first motion is to collapse the two items, the

waiver and propose waiver to the instant institute commission to the department of works. that this motion is not to approve awaiver. this is just to collapse it to . to be consistent. roll call police. >> a motion has been made and seconded, i will now call the role .[roll call vote] >> the motion is approved unanimously. >> chair: now do we have a second motion whether to grant or deny the waiverrequest ? >> i so move a motion to make that decision.

>> to grant or deny. >> my motion would be one or the other. >> i think because we've already decided that we were going toconsider both together . now we have to decide whether we would grant the waiver. four or deny the waiver reques . >> also to the chair maybe jet deputy attorneytend to chime i but my understanding would be granting the waiver does require a motion , not granting the waiver does not require a motion . the rates state that grant the motion the commission must make a finding that the waiver does not create the potential for undue influence or undertheir advantage it doesn't talk about not granting waivers. i'm not sure a motion was

needed there but i would defer to mister shannon . >> this report iscorrect. the ethics commission only needs a majority vote to grant waivers in question . then it would probably be helpful to provide some clarity about whether further steps would be for example, i don't know if commissioner would want tocontinue this matter for another meeting or end the discussion for today . >> my understanding was we need to take the action or do the grant to deny the waiver request.so not that there's clarity, if there is so we can either make a motion to grant a request. for we just take no action.

>> also if the inclination of thecommission is to deny the waiver request , i think we be better in order to dispose of the matter it would be better to make that motionas well here today . >> chair: okay. let's see if we can end the motion either way .>> thank you. >> chair: i would make the motion to deny the request for the ... for the entertainment commission as well as theoffice of public works . >> second. >> are we going to discuss this

motion now? i had a questionabout the department of public works . whether the denial aspects change once the dpw has its own commission. i read that the board of supervisors had set a timetable for appointment of the new commission over dpw revised july 1. so is our denial because it doesn't have a commission and change just when it does? >> if you don't mind chair leave i can respond to the question . under proposition b, the department of public works will become separate from the gsa but it's unlikely to happen untilseptember 1 of 2022 .

so as a practical matter that would only change the impact of the one-year employment span formrs. rodriguez by only a month. i believe that would be separated from the city in october . >> okay. i thought the board passed something that set a timetable to act by july 1 including the appointments by the mayor but maybe i've read too quickly. >> i believe we do actually have the accurate can information commissioner bush. those would happen by july 1 but in terms oftransitioning to the department that's a separate commission . my understanding is that would not be in effect untilseptember 2022 so and in the practical matter it only changes miss rodriguez actionfor about a month .>> points noted . >> thank you . >> chair: call theroll please .

>> the motion has been made an seconded . i willnow call the role . [roll call vote] with three votes in the affirmative and one vote opposedthe motion is approved . >> and miss rodriguez i want to wish youall the luck . on behalf of the city. it's a very difficult vote for me. knowing you know, your passion and your skill set in this. under what we have to operate especially given the current environment withthe optics , i

just want to wish you nothing but the best and for the union square alliance. >> i appreciate it and certainly understand the environment and we will i will do my best and certainly try so thank you very much. come down to union square. >>. >> now let's go to agenda item number nine. directors report. director tomlin. >> thank you chair.the report this month has a number of updates for you. i know given this time frame you may have been interested in questions. i just wanted to highlighta couple of items from the report

. of note, one is that as we approach january 1 we are happy to report that the form 700 e-filing project which will introduce electronic filing finally for all designated filers with form 700 is on track to launch in january so we look forward to givingyou more information about that . rachel gage is the project manager for that effort has been working tremendously with her team to make that happen . i also want toacknowledge the tremendous work at department filing officers have provided . their insights and their constant attention and focus has been critical to our ability to get this far so we will keep working hard over the next several weeks i wanted to let you know that's on track as planned. we have new dashboards we've introduced online and i know that the commission has interest in having a preview and further discussion of those and we'd be happy to schedule

that and all the other items that may be coming up as well but we could have field on staff walk through those dashboards . and speaking oftransparency efforts , one of the exciting things to note this week , the campaign process washington dc based campaign legal center you're familiar with i believe issued a report this week on monday talk about the top 10 transparency upgrades for ethics commission. i've linked to that report in myexecutive directors report this month .it is a report that highlights of transparency work not just at our agency but others around the country that they have cited as being innovative transparency solutions that ethics commissions have established to help engage the public help inform officials and help enforce the law so if you have

questions about that, or would like more information we would of course be happy to invite our friends and colleagues from the clc who obviously have been following our work and local and state agencies in that area. there is also as you know coming up in january it will be budget season. the mayor's office budget office will be issuing directions and instructions to departments at the department head meeting next wednesday so weexpect they will have further information that we prepare in advanceof that january public hearing. as you know the public engagement process for the city's budget ordinances requires two public hearings by departments . we would , we had planned our first for january 21 and then as we have in fact a couple of years we will have the february meeting at this point scheduled for the specific hearing on our departmental budget submissions that we have planned. lastly a couple of items on the hiringfront, we have , we're working with the department of human resources to finalize the

position for our ethics for program managers so we're anticipating adding that out soon and we are also now moving into the stage where application for some of the other key positions we've had posted since last month. we are continuing to make our hiring process a very top priorityfor us and as all of always we lookforward to providing more updates for you and those processes . other than that i'm happy to answer any questions you might have or me . >> questions. for the director. commissioner chiu. >> if not january than the february meeting address. if you could have mister fields and others on the team, and do a presentation on the new dashboard. that would be really helpful especially with thejune election . it would be good to have a refresher and another look at the tool that makes this valuable information available

and very comprehensible to the public and for us as well. >> that's open for public comment. commissioner bush. >> thank you. anddirector helen, i you for the work you're doing . in addition i'd like to see that we have more information on some specific items that have beenbrought up in the past . what can you give us the status of a lobbyist or lobbyists revamping of what was disclosed in the position. >> are you asking me for an update on the lobbying program? the audit team is working on the law on it program asyou

indicated i believe last month . the timeframe was adjusted because of priorities through december 31 and that's the target we're working on to have processes put in place that the process has shifted so it will likely start audits in the first quarter, first calendar quarter of 2022 and we can certainly provide afurther update as planned at the january meeting . >> at this point, something that will be transparent to the public in terms of audit results will be but by the end of march. >> know, the audit is likely to begin the first quarter so it is likely there would be a completion on something to report in terms of auditresults by the and of the fiscal year june 30 . >> is there any way to accelerate that process?

>> we would have to stop doing public financing audits from the 20 19th and 2020 audit cycle with the course are a critical priority we are in the 2022 election and we would have to, that would impact our ability to start before 700 post filing complaints review process we need to plan given we will have online filers, some 4000 starting in april so there are other constraints but the team has focused with great clarityand focus on trying to meet the adjusted deadline. >> my sense is that going to the end of the fiscal year , it's not going to be viewed by the public as us moving forward at a deliberate speed. what about a compact with the controller since they have auditors that are giving even with our process? >> we have been in discussion

with the office of administration to identify how we can secure our own auditing functions.we are not able unfortunately to piggyback on an auditing contract so that's a dead end for us so it requires us to basically initiate a new contract which as you might imagine is a quite cumbersome process and it's something we're still in conversations to figure out how wecan do this most expeditiously. it would be unfair to suggest to you or the public that external audits will be an option every fiscal year. >> financially or for other reasons ?>> for both. we don't have the contract in place as a city that would enable us to piggyback to get those services in time to do an audit in this fiscal year so we're using our resources to do

everything we can as quickly as we can and we will behappy to keep reporting over the next several months to let you know if the progress is happening or if there are more impediments . >> i appreciate your talented staff who are working to move this forward. but i also aware of the fact that the board could easily step in and decide to do some actions that would put the scope of some, their ability to move things forward. and i don't know what that ability is but i do know there have now been several measures of the board to split off works from ethics into other areas. and so i don't want to see us at a vulnerability that we can protect by showing our good work.

so that's one of the imperatives in my view of how we need to move forward. >> i appreciate that feedback commissioners and as you know we share that inheritance . we're looking forward to reporting to youand the public onfurther progress . >> are you in touch with members of the board to let them know what you are doing ? >> our work we do independently and try to provide as much transparency as we can so it's no secret we are working with the priorities that we have set forth before us so every time we issue a report on the bla audit we assume andi'm happy to outreach board if that's useful . i assume the board is fully aware of our reports issued to the commission publicly but anyway, those are our priorities andwe continue to work on them with all due speed . >> so in our january meetingon the budget , is this something

we would want toinclude ? >> i don't have an answer yet. i'm not sure what it is you're looking to include.the larger issueon external auditing is the city contractingprocess . we have not been able to piggyback on existing contracts . we would need to initiate one and that is a process that takes a significant amountof focus and time and we had those conversations . we're in the middle of those conversations and i'm happy to reportback in january if there is a financial impact . we will bring that forward. we know we need to bring forward any requests to make sure we have the resources to do ourjob . >> i'm responding to the fact that when i asked is it financial or other use edits both so i'm looking at thepart that's financial because we're going to havea meeting on that .that's why i brought that forward . >> the issue on public

financing audits is not a problem. we have finances, the public problem allows for a certain amount to be used for administrative costs. we use thatfor external audits in the past even securing those audits is the issue . the issue could be one and we're studying this right now and we will report in january but the issue is that we do not have a bucket of money presently that can be dedicated for that purpose we will come back commissioner bush if there's any issue about us not being able to feature external auditors because there's a funding gap we will mature to put that on the radar . >> just educate me one step further. when you talk about the time involved in creating a contract and getting itapproved , what is that time that you look at?

>> it's certainly longer than six months and i'm happy to invite contract administration forms to share a data point that they have. i don't have that information but i'm happy to provide as much as i can at the january meetingbut it is certainly longer than six months . >> it's longer than six months to get the contract without and approved? >> yes. >> it's called bureaucracy. >> it is but on the other hand i bet it doesn't take that long to get something approved about ... about a streetcaror something where people have to get to work . it is whatever it will be and you guys are going to tell us and that's all we can ask is that you give us a picture of what it is that you're

confronted by. so if contact administration wants to join in , i think that's a good idea. thank you. >> thank you. >> the director has offered a request that we place the update report in our next meeting. i want to make sure that we are aware that this commission has been operating below its full capacity because of the pandemic. several staff members were reassigned to do covid work and even with the budgetthat allowed us to have staff , they're slowly coming in . so i do appreciate this staff workingreally hard .

it is frustrating to know that we have all these important work to do but we just do not have the staff and resources to carry it out. not because of lack of attention. it's just very unfortunate that i do appreciate all the comments to help move this forward becauseultimately , it is the city that really would benefit from our work. so let's have this on our january meeting. where now looking forward to two meetings in january. let's open it up for public comment. on this agenda item.

>> clerk: we are checking to see if there are colors in the queue. wait until the systemindicates you have been un-muted . if you joined we are on public discussion of agenda item number nine discussion of executive directors report, an update of various highlights o ethics commission staff activities . since thecommission's previous meeting. if you have not already , if you have not already done so please press star 3. you will have three minutesto provide yourcomments, six minutes online with an interpreter. a bill will go off when you have 30 seconds remaining . please stand by . madam chair, there are no colors in the queue. >> chair: discussion is closed. agendaitem number 10 discussion

of possible actions for future meetings . i want to just add a couple of items that we've already committed to january. one is from commissioner chiu which is the dashboard presentation so that should be on our january meeting. we could decide whether it's going to be in the 14th or the 21st meeting if it seems like we will have 2 very full meetings. the second one is the update on the audits and the third one, the one i want to add on is because we've been bringing this for the last several meetings which is the whistleblower presentation . i think this is one item commissioner bell had brought up a couple of times and now that we know that january may possibly be, possibly be one of his last meetings i definitely

want to make sure that we have this discussion and we have his input while he is with us. so those arethe three items that we should include . in the january meeting of course or the continuation of the ballot measures. so we do have a pretty full january schedule. if we have any more items to add, commissioner chiu and commissioner bell. >> i would note from the top of our meeting the discussion about potential times for our meetings injanuary . it is a friday and before a threeday weekend . with the goal of still having a later start in order to have more publicparticipation or encourage more public participation . we could start the meeting at 4:00 on a friday before a three day weekend likely is not the

best time for public participation. i just wanted to note that . but considering the start time that we will be sending to the executive director. >> chair: great!.commissioner bush .>> yes, i wondered if we could have a presentation on the dashboards. the systems that we have for public transparency, so for example if you go on the best of payments data that we linked to that's created by us, it is pretty much impenetrable for the average citizen. it's organized for the benefit of specialists in data but not for public participation.

and i purge any of you to go on to the data file that we linked up on who is making the payments, how much it amounts to and what they are for and when it was done and then i'll give you a little quiz that so that you can answer the questions. because i can't and i work with that kind of stuff all the time.so i think in a larger sense we need to have something on the agenda to deal with how transparent the data is that we put out to the public so that's an issue that i think is important.

>> maybe a quick follow-up to commissioner bush's comment. the ftc considered regulations to change how the entertainment filings work and they did not follow our recommendation that local jurisdictionsshould be permitted to mandate electronic filing and it's that feature of state law that makes the date of the way it is . and i can assure you that we completely agree with that and we deal with problems of people trying to access the data periodically and we've been tryingto move towards universal e-filing for a long time and we are prevented from doing so by the state . >> even if the statedoesn't require it or set up a system for it , can't we have our own data, even if it's just a word file or an excel sheet of some kind that would tell people what they want to know most of all?

if i were to look at that and say what are the numbers 12 or three that had the payments so far this year and whomade them and to whom do they go ? good luck. i can't figure that out. not without a lot of work. >> i think commissioner to and suggested february 4 so it sounds like this might be folded into that to be able to walk through thedashboard and give you a sense of how they currently work and how they might work going forward but doing that in the february timeframe after the policy and budgetissues are resolved . >> that would be february. okay . >> the february meeting at least . >> as you remind me of another point i want to make is in future, i'd like to see at the end of each agenda a list of

pending commissioner requests for action and a timetable for them as well as a list of recent state or federal actions that impact what we're doing like there were on behest of payments. it's sort of like what the boardof supervisors does . each of the agendas of their board meetings at the endof the agenda , they put the measures that have been pending and are on a 30 day clock for some sort of action. so if we could use that as a model although for our own purposes i think that would help the public and me.

>> to the chair if i might, one of the things that we have to eat up his once the phase 3 ethics package project is done, it's bringing back to the commission the ethics policy prioritization plan and that maybe something you're familiar with. in prior years what we will do is to bring all those lists of pending items, policy matters, requests so the commission can look at them and as a body sort of schedule them and sequenced them in a way that makes sense of the public and commission can plan around engaging at that time so we have that ready to go following this next completion of action on existing policy plans so i'm happy to bring that forward to you. >> when would you think that might be ? >> i think given the agenda of the policy items on the radar it would likely be after the commission takes action on the

current policy of discussion that is underway so that would be perhaps ... >> to createa policy priority calendar with you think that might happen ? >> it could happen as early as february. >> thank you. so i'm suddenly thinking june. february is much better than june. thank you. >> chair: did we call for public comments on this agenda item? >> clerk: is a reminder to all participants when you raise your hand to speak and if you're done speaking if you can least lower your head because it leaves a visual saying you still have something left to say or you need something else or you want to be called on also. to let you know itso if you can

remember to get in the habit of raising and lowering your hand . okay. madam chair, we are checking to see if there are colors in the queue. please continue to wait until the systemindicates you have been commuted . if you have joined we are on public discussion of the motion of agenda item 10, discussion of action items for future meetings if you have not done so press start 3 to be added to the queue. you will have two minutes, six minutes if you are online with an interpreter . please stand by. nine chair, there are no colors in the queue. >> chair: public comment is close. i want to remind my fellow

commissioners that since this is a short month , if we can submit to the director our desire on meeting times for the next meeting that i think that would be really helpful. so if we can send it in by either no later than monday morning, i think that would be good. >> agenda item number 11, additional opportunity for public comment on matters appearing or not appearing on the agenda . >> clerk: we are checking to see if there are colors in the queue. for those on hold continue to wait until the system indicates you have been under unit. if you have joined we are on

public discussion of agenda item number 11, additional opportunities for public comment on matters not appearing on the agenda pursuant to the ethics commission bylaws article 7, section 2. please press star 3 to beadded to the queue.you will have three minutes to provide your public comment, six minutes if online with an interpreter . please stand by.madam chair, there are no colors in the queue. >> chair: agenda item number 12 is not up for discussion which is adjournment. i want to thank everybody for your patience and your valuable insights. i wish all of you a very happy holiday season and please stay safe, healthy and happy.

see you in 2022.>> happy holidays, everyone