neighborhood with a face, this is something that we've seen work and something you can trust. >> together, city and community-based teams work daily to connect people to services, this meeting of the san francisco ethics commission. this hybrid meeting is being held declaring existence of a local emergency data february 5th, 2020. the minutes of this meeting will reflect that pursuant to the february 10th mayoral proclamation, city commissions and boards created by the city

charter shall hold meetings in person with conditions specified. the ethics commission has now resumed in-person meetings in city hall with a new hybrid format. before we proceed further, i'd like to explain some of the procedures regarding the format of today's meeting. members of the public may attend and provide public comment here in our meeting room in person and may also observe the meeting remotely by electronic means and are offered the opportunity to provide public comment remotely by phone or through the webex platform as detailed in our agenda. please note that also pursuant to the february 10th proclamation, commissioners, members of the public, and any presenters, parties, or participants, must comply with all applicable health orders, guidance or directives from the

department of public health and the department of human resources and rules governing the use of the facility in which the meeting occurs. under current city requirements, masks are continued to be used in city hall while meetings are in session. as a result, individuals meeting today in the hearing room will be wearing masks. also participating remotely may wear masks. streaming live online at sfgovtv.org/ethicslive. and, colleagues, wonderful to see your beautiful faces with our staff and our deputy city attorney for the first time in two years. now, i'd like to ask our moderator to explain how public comment will be handled in hybrid meeting form today. >> thank you, madam chair.

public comment will be available on each item on this agenda. each member of the public will be allowed three minutes to speak. comments will be made available in the meeting room. comments or opportunities to speak by calling 1 (415) 655-0001. again, the phone number is 1 (415) 655-0001. access code is 24816297240. once again, access code is 24816297240. and then press pound followed by the pound sign. you will hear a booep when you

are connected to the meeting. you will automatically be muted and in listening mode only. you will then hear you will raise your hand to ask a question. please wait until the host calls on you. the line will be silent until it's your turn to speak. the before you speak, mute the sound of anything around you. it is especially important that you mute your computer via watching the web link to prevent feedback and echo when you speak. this is your turn to speak when the system says your line has been unmuted. you will hear staff say welcome caller. and you need to state your name clearly. you will hear a bell go off when you have 30 seconds remaining. if you change your mind and with to withdraw yourself from the public comment line, press

star three again. you will hear the system say you have lowered your hand. once your three minutes has expired. staff will unmute you. attendees who wish to speak during public comment period may stay on the line and listen for the next public comment opportunity and raise their hands to enter the public comment line by pressing star three when their next item of interest comes up. it will be shared with the commission after the meeting has been concluded and will be included as part of the file. once again, written comments should be sent to ethics.commission@sfgov.org. thank you, madam chair. >> chairman: thank you, moderator. now i will call the meeting to order. we will proceed to item number one which is commission roll call. colleagues, please unmute your microphones so that you can

verbally state your presence at today's meeting after i call your name. [roll call] i just want to remind the audience is the reason why commissioner busch is not physically present with us is because under the covid protocol, vulnerable persons are exempt from attending meetings in person. we hope to see commissioner busch joining us in future meetings. we now have a quorum. let's proceed to general

comment. mr. moderator. we don't need to have public comment. to agenda item number two we don't have anyone present. therefore. let's proceed to moderator. do we have a new one in queue for public comment. >> please stand by. madam chair, we are checking to see if there are callers in the queue. so far, we have three callers in the queue, please stand by.

welcome, caller. your three minutes begins now. >> caller: good morning commissioners. my name is lois scott and i've been a resident of san francisco for 42 years and i'm proud to say i've voted in every election in those 42 years. i am also a member of an informal group. we call ourselves the anti-corruption coalition that's been trying to monitor good government issues and it's very good to see you back live. i think from some of the senior citizens or less mobile benefited from the access to

meetings that is electronic. today particularly as you solute service on your commission, we want to solute someone who did very good work. peter keen and we want to make a special request related to independent expenditure committee. we think it's very important as voters who want a level playing field that you reign in independent expenditure committees and that you continue work in this area with more analysis and more proposed regulations. and, of course, we commend your continuing work on behested payments both on this ballot and hopefully on the november ballot and we thank you very much for your work and we're

watching and we're cheering you on and have great expectations. thank you. >> chairman: thank you. >> please stand by. two callers in the queue. welcome, caller. your three minutes begins now. >> caller: good morning commissioners. my name is mark soloman. i'm a 33-year resident of the north mission district san francisco. i've done work over the past. but trying to get the ethics to do a job that san franciscans get the amount of government we're entitled to. we've worked for a long time on

restoring prop j but after years of doing this work, after going through the process, after hearing after hearing at the very last minute yanked out under the measure causing commissioner keen to resign. he did the right thing and it turns out that within a year or two later, the u.s. attorney and fbi find that sf government is corrupt on the exact same behested payments that caused those votes to switch at the last minute. because ethics was too narrow of focus when the appointing authorities from ethics have their own agendas and we're trapped in a situation where the federal government's able to find these crimes and the local commission is essentially covering for them and it didn't really seem to cause a problem

and now we're at the point where corruption in government is laid bare, we all see it, and it's really time for san franciscans to rise up looking at our city around us and the shape it's in to demand a government that meets our needs, not the needs of those who finance campaigns like recalls and things like that. so a situation now where the progressives have been completely compromised by nonprofits, all we have are crypto swindlers and tech billionaires financing recall campaigns to veto san franciscans and there's no real effort there to do anything to raise above the corruption. so what we're needing is san franciscans to come together to say we're not going to do it anymore. you're not delivering the basics of government. it's all been pretty much a disaster and that is because government is serving interest

other than those of the voters of residents and citizens. and that's what we need to do. and do what it takes to ensure that we're not celebrating those who are standing in the way of honest government. thank you very much. >> chairman: thank you. next caller, please. >> please stand by. welcome, caller. your three minutes begins now. welcome, caller.

caller, are you there? okay. please stand by. madam chair, there's no further callers in the queue. >> chairman: thank you. hearing no further callers, general public comment and agenda item number two is now closed. i now call consent calendar, agenda item number three. the draft minutes of the commission's february 11, 2022, regular meeting. and, commissioners, i just want to remind you if you wish to speak, please press the request to speak button and

commissioner bush, if you wish to speak, please raise your hand so that we can recognize you. any questions from the commissioners before we hear from the public? okay. let's go to public comment, please, mr. moderator. >> thank you, madam chair. we are checking the queue to see if there are any callers standing by. madam chair, we have a caller in the queue. welcome, caller. your three minutes begins now.

welcome, caller. your three minutes begins now. madam chair, there's no callers in the queue. >> chairman: okay. public comment is closed for agenda item number three. commissioners, do we have a motion to approve this agenda item? >> commissioner: i so moved. >> chairman: by commissioner ramano. >> commissioner: i'll second. >> chairman: seconded by commissioner chiu. roll call, please.

>> [roll call] madam chair, with [ indiscernible ] we have four votes [ indiscernible ] >> chairman: okay. thank you. now we proceed to agenda item number four which is presentation for outgoing commissioner chiu. before we go to the actual presentation, i want to ask if

our fellow commissioners would want to make any comments. commissioner bush. >> commissioner: yes. can you hear me? >> chairman: yes. >> commissioner: i'd like to acknowledge the work that commissioner chiu has done for the past six years. she's added value to the work of the commission and she's added value to the citizens of san francisco. she's going to be missed because she brings intelligence and attention to the issues which are invaluable to this community. thank you. >> chairman: thank you, commissioner bush. anyone else? commissioner ramano. >> commissioner: i just want to say quickly i've only been on this commission for a short period of time, but it's obvious you care a great deal about the work here.

it's nice to meet you and i look forward to collaborating and continuing our relationship. so thank you for all the work and holding my hand in the past few weeks. >> chairman: let's go to public comment, please. let's recognize the person in the room. please proceed. >> hello. i would just like to acknowledge and thank commissioner chiu for her service for the past six years. and full disclosure i'm her husband. our family appreciates the work she's done and has given to the city. >> chairman: thank you for sharing her with the city. >> commissioner: yes. thank you for coming today.

>> chairman: okay. public comment, please. >> thank you, madam chair. we are calling to see if there are any callers in the queue. please stand by. madam chair, we have one caller in the queue. welcome, caller. your three minutes begins now. >> caller: hello. my name is sean mcmorris. i just want to recognize and thank commissioner chiu for her years of good work on the commission. on the ethics commission it's such a vitally important part of the democratic process and a lot of us in the good government field consider san francisco commission to be not just the gold standard in

california, but in the united states. so this really thank commissioner chiu and wish her the best of luck. thanks. >> chairman: thank you. any other public comment? >> please stand by. one more caller in the queue. welcome, caller, your three minutes begins now. >> caller: good morning. this is debbie lemon from the san francisco human services network. i just want to express appreciation to commissioner chiu for your years of service on the commission. and just speaking as a member of the public who has frequently spoken before this commission and worked on some of the initiatives, i want to

say how much we appreciate the leadership and the open mind that commissioner chiu has always brought to our conversations. she has always taken the public's comments seriously and thoroughly considered what the public has to say before making her decisions and we are deeply thankful for all the work that she's done. thank you. >> chairman: thank you. >> checking to see if there's any further public comment. please stand by. madam chair, there's no further

callers in the queue. >> chairman: thank you. public comment is closed for this agenda item. i had the honor of serving with chair chiu the past four plus years. i have learned a tremendous amount from her not only on the operations of the city's ethics rules and what have you, but most importantly what it means to be an ethical leader and that is something that i will carry with me. thank you very much. chair chiu was thrust into a leadership role in a very challenging time. she did not shy from the responsibility. in fact, she steered the commission and steadied it and continued moving forward to

serve the city and the people of san francisco. three years ago when san francisco was rocked by the sfral investigation which really exposed the vulnerability of san francisco's government in terms of corruption and other vulnerabilities, again, chair chiu steered us away from the storm and more importantly, to find to charter a new territory that not only do we need to close loopholes, but really to expand coverage to make sure san francisco will truly have a clean accountable government

for the people of san francisco. she is an inclusive person, always open to diverse opinions, always willing to listen to different ideas, but never strays away from her core beliefs and the whole mission of what this commission stands for and she's always carried her work and reminded all of us that we serve the people of san francisco. she has served this commission and most importantly, the people of san francisco through grit and grace. for that, i am eternally grateful and i know people in san francisco will join me and recognize you for a job beyond

well done. we needed you in a critical time and i join my fellow commissioners to say we know you will continue our phone calls. so with that if you want to say a few words before i call on our executive director to join us up here. >> director: thank you, chair lee. and former commissioner chiu. i would like to read into the record that the resolution has been prepared on your honor. i can only add the deepest gratitude of the commission staff both past and present for your commitment to doing the work that it takes, the hard work that it takes, never shying away from the hard work and being a strong supporter, a

strong corraler. it's been a very busy time. so i want to thank you on behalf of all of the staff for that and if i might just take a moment to read the resolution, whereas the people of the city and county of san francisco have declared that public office is a public trust and that the proper operation of the government requires that public officers be independent, impartial and responsible to the people. and whereas the ethics commission has been charged by san franciscans to impartially and effectively camping finance and lobbying laws and where as daina chiu has served with distinction as a member of the san francisco ethics commission since she was appointed in april 2016. whereas she was elected to serve as commission vice president in 2017 and was elected by her fellow members

to serve as chair in 2018 and 2019 and whereas guided by her leadership and practical vision, the commission overhauled the city's public financing program, established new regulations secured critical new resources to enhance compliance and championed a new focus on education and training. and whereas her ten year as chair was distinguished by her co-presiding of the first ever meeting in 2018. to enact the anti-corruption and accountability ordinance and whereas commissioner chiu this month is completing her full six-year term of office. the san francisco ethics commission honors daina m. chiu for her commitment to san

francisco city government. thank you. >> commissioner: thank you. i am speechless at all of the well wishes and kind thoughts from everyone and i'm deeply thankful for this opportunity to have served in san francisco and to contribute to the strengthening and further transparency and accountability for our city government for everyone in san francisco. and my work would not be possible without the incredible efforts and diligence and expertise of staff under leeann, executive director pellham and the collaboration and incredible thoughtfulness and dialog that i have with my fellow commissioners at every meeting as well as the steady,

thoughtful, practical, and very insightful advice from our partners in the city attorney's office especially deputy city attorney schenn. and everyone else in the ethics commission who make these meetings possible from our wonderful moderator mr. contreras and the unsung heroes in compliance and enforcement and engagement who really make ethics come to life and meaningful in san francisco. and so it is with great pleasure and sorrow and bittersweetness that i end my ten year today, but i have stood on the shoulds of giants and i'm really grateful for the honor of having served. thank you. >> chairman: commissioner, do you want to join us? commissioner bush, we are representing you. we're saving you a spot here in

the middle. >> commissioner: i'm sorry. am i okay? >> chairman: can you see us? we have a spot for you right here. >> commissioner: yeah. it's the empty chair spot. 'so i'm reading this plaque that says in gratitude and appreciation for commitment to public service that builds on public trust. congratulations and thank you again for being my guide post and wish you all the best of

luck. >> chairman: it's personally a very sad day for me. but anyway. let's proceed to agenda item number five with just

discussion on possible action and proposed amendment to commission by laws article seven section four to change regular starting time of ethics commission regular meetings. this is a proposed resolution to make changes to our commission meetings from 9:30 to 10:00. do we have any discussion? commissioner bush. >> commissioner: now am i being heard? >> chairman: yes. >> commissioner: i think that the 10:00 start time is more user friendly than the 9:30 that we've had and i think that

it's going to allow people to participate more fully than at the earlier hour. it's possible that we might revisit this and make the time start in the afternoon once before, but we are being sensetive to the fact people have to go to work. they have to get their kids off to work and to school and so 9:30 is too difficult to accomplish all of that. so that's my comment on all this. thank you. >> chairman: thank you, commissioner bush. we have no more discussion among the commissioners. let's open it up for public comment, please.

>> thank you, madam chair. we are checking to see if there are callers in the queue. we have two callers in the queue. please stand by. thank you, caller. your three minutes begins now. >> caller: >> welcome, caller, your three minutes begins now. okay. please stand by. the caller did drop. please stand by. one caller remaining.

welcome, caller. your three minutes begins now. >> caller: i apologize. i forgot to lower my hand. >> no worries. thank you. appreciate it. madam chair, there's no further callers in the queue. >> chairman: thank you. public comment is closed. before -- after we approve -- do we have a motion to approve this? >> commissioner: so moved. >> commissioner: second. >> chairman: okay. moved by commissioner chiu, seconded by commissioner ramano. roll call, please. >> [roll call]

>> you have four votes in the affirmative and 0 votes opposed. the motion is approved unanimously. >> chairman: thank you. the motion is approved. the meeting. before we go to the next agenda item, i'd like to ask the executive director, because of the continued concern from my fellow commissioners on the lack of unlimited participation from the public partly because of the time, i'd like to number

one, remind the public that we -- our meeting time is dictated by the availability of the meeting rooms. so i would like to ask the executive director to continue to look at potential openings for these meeting rooms specifically for the next year so that if there are other meeting blocks -- meeting time blocks available in the later afternoon, and not on a friday, that would be great. i remember we used to meet on mondays at 5:00 and we used to have a lot more participation from folks who need to, worry and because we changed the meeting to the morning, it's pretty evident that they were unable to attend. so if we can ask the executive director to continue to monitor

the availability of these meeting rooms and in the meantime, i'd like to remind the public that even though the meeting is supposed to be starting at a certain time, but the deputy city attorney has advised that as long as we give ample advanced notice, we can always change the meeting time if the meeting room is available. so we're not completely set for these tombs that's called for that we need to meet in the later time to accommodate more participation, we certainly can have that option. again, it's really key that we have public participation because policy cannot be made without the voices of the people. so with that, let's move to agenda item number six which is

presentation discussion and possible action on proposed amendments in strengthen cities gift and ethics law under consideration as, one, potential ethics commission ballot measure and as, two, amended ethics commission regulations. do i have comments? do we have comments commissioners? commissioner bush, did you have your hand up? okay. >> and, chair lee, we also have staff available for a brief presentation if that's of interest to the commission. >> chairman: okay. commissioner bush, do you mind holding off your comments until we hear from staff? >> commissioner: that's fine. >> chairman: okay. mr. canning. >> thank you, chair lee. one moment. let me share my screen.

excellent. can folks see my screen? >> yes, i can see. >> okay. i'd just like to add i'm privileged to be presenting before commissioner chiu for the last time today and i appreciate the passionate work you bring to the commission. i'd like to briefly provide an update on the government ethics and conflict of interest review projects and revised recommendations. >> excuse me, mr. canning, are you sharing your screen? i wasn't sure what your question was. >> yeah. is the slide visible? >> we can't see you. we can't see the slide.

>> looks like sfgov was checking on their end. >> how about now? >> yes. >> perfect. >> i think that was user error on my end. yes. opening update on provides recommendations to the ballot measure and regulation amendments that the commission has been considering so that the commission can provide feedback on the concepts before languages included in the future versions of the measure and regulation amendments. so to briefly review in september 2020, the commission identified a review of the city's conflict of interest rules. this project was seen as essential in light of the ongoing investigations into alleged corrupt activity by numerous city officials and contractors. that then revealed over the last two plus years. these allegations demonstrate an alarming level of unethical

conduct in and around city government and our decision making processes. this project is set to learn from the findings to identify improvement ethics laws and programs to prevent future instances of corruption. this project was broken down into three phases. point in time the first of which dealt with behested payments that was issued in 2020 that led to legislation passed by the board of supervisors and new rules went into effect from legislation? january of this year. the second phase is gifts. the first was gifts to individuals where the report was to august 2021. and presented in october, 2021. and the third phase was on the

report presented to the commission is december and these last two phases of the project that recommendations were folded into a ballot measure and draft regulation amendments that the commission has been considering since december. and as far as update, the meet and confer process is ongoing. state law requires to take measures before taking action. and they have advised that the changes made by the regulation amendments proposed would qualify for the process, that action needs to be taken. and first met with the executive association on the

package on and staff has had four meetings since that initial one. the most recent one was this past monday and as of today, the meet and confer process has not been included this is the timeline for potentially placing the ballot measures before voters which meant that the deadline for placing something on the june ballot that was passeded on march 4th. the next available time to present the ballot measure to voters would be the november ballot. so after today, there will be

four commission meetings where the commission could potentially vote to place this on the november ballot. and as we move forward, as necessary make revised recommendations to the commission which is what i have for you today. which is the revised feedback from revised recommendations. there are two revised recommendations for the draft ballot member. they're being presented today mostly as concepts with draft language in the attachments to the memoship of the commission with the goal of getting feedback from the commission on these items. if the revised recommendations are supported, they would be integrated into future versions of the regulation amendments

which would then come back before the commission for a final vote before being sent to the ballot. the first recommendation is to remove liability for restricted sources who give unlawful gifts. this item has been discussed at several recent commission meetings and is a concept supported by several of the stakeholders that we've heard from. the initial proposal here was to extend liability on the giving of restricted source gifts which potentially exposed the gift giver for the penalties for the act of giving the gift. the concern was that it would potentially overreach and snare public members unaware of the rule.

with the exception of lobby gists and permit associations which would still get penalties for giving a gift. and i'll point the commissioners to a letter of support from common cause expressing support for this change. the second revised recommendation is to revise how the seeking, obtaining, or possessing a licensed permit or other entitlement could make a restricted use for source. to include licenses, permits, and other entitlements for use.

under doing business as under the restricted source rule which is currently the way contractors are treated. and that makes a person who's seeks, obtaining, or possessing, it would make them a restricted source for the entire department. we heard concerns we would overly broaden the rule since many officials are not necessarily involved in the issue of these items and wouldn't be aware of them. for example, if you work in h.r. for a department, you wouldn't necessarily have a window into what permits are being considered or approved through your department. >> through the chair, may i ask

a clarifying question? >> chairman: sure. >> mr. canny, can you hear me? >> yes. >> i have a question about this revision to the seeking and obtaining of resisting a license. so what is that? what does that look like? is it that that restricted source will be eliminating this or is it narrowing or further refining the definition of what seeking, obtaining, or possessing a license what criteria would be used to determine whether or not they are a restricted source. yeah, i can walk you through that on my next slide. >> yeah. the idea was just people are suggesting we just narrow it so only permits for use trigger the restricted source rules.

and the potential award by an employee an employee could still be receiving a gift from someone when they're working on a licensed permit or titlement per use. so the revised recommendation is that instead of all licensed entitlements for use, only those obtaining or possessing a in the issuing of such items. it's both a narrowing of the doing business with prong, but then a focusing of the rule on the individuals who were actually involved in reviewing and approving these so the

person applies for a permit with the department and is that permit approved by the department's head or the board of supervisors. if the answer is yes, then the person would become a restricted source for all of the city officers and employees of that department the same way that a contractor is considered a restricted source for all of the officers and employees if the permit was approved at a high level by the department head, the commission or the board of supervisors. same thing, restricted source for all of the officials in the department. however, if the answer is no, and it's not approved at this high level, then the person would become a restricted source only for the city officers substantially involved in that permit process. so this would, you know, like i said kind of narrow the overall doing business with prong, but then focus in on the city officials who are personally

substantially involved so they -- so the person is clearly a restricted source for them. commissioner chiu, does that clarify what you were asking? >> commissioner: yes, that does. thank you very much. i think it's very tailored to the situation so that the employees who are involved whether at a high level or not are prohibited from receiving or those who are seeking the permits and the official decision from those decision makers would become restricted sources. >> correct. >> chairman: mr. canny, how do you define substantially involved for instance if someone worked at a front desk that receiveded the application, would that person be considered substantially because that person would have the power of making sure that applat gets to certain

desks. >> the term personally and substantially involved is a term already used in section 2.34 of the code which deals with post employment restrictions, so we do have regulations that define what personally and substantially involved means and participate means to participate directly which includes participation of a directive and participate substantially means that the officer employment appears to be significant to the matter. and another kind of player significant to the matter requires more than official responsibility, knowledge, or involvement on administrative issue. relates not only to the effort devoted to the matter, but also

important to the effort. the single act of approving or participating in a critical step may be substantial. so to your hypothetical, i would think if the person at the front desk is you're just sort of as a matter of process taking the envelope and, you know, funneling it to the proper person, that probably wouldn't be personally substantial, it would kind of depend on what that person is doing and are they part of the review process, do they have discretion or are they just taking the form and delivering it to the permit office? that would be the question there. >> chairman: thank you. >> great. so moving on to other recommendations. these are the two for. >> commissioner: hello?

did you hear my question? >> yeah. i can hear you. >> in the process of a permit, sometimes a permit is issued and then a neighbor or other person may file a complaint against the issuance of the permit at which point does that then trigger it to a higher level or most traditionally that still resolves at the staff level. so the complaint is made that in fact a secondary unit is actually not something that's alloweded to be permitted shgts so they'll be an inspection that will take place and the complaint will either be regarded as meritorious or

dismissed as resolved. that doesn't ever go to the point of supervisors or the department head. so at what point does it take place that you're trying to influence the outcome of that complaint? >> i think based on what you're describing is that would expand and still be in the no category presented here, but it would expand the number of individual officers and employees who are personally substantially involved. so if it was just before the initial approval process but then there was an additional complaint or review that needs to take place, then those employees would become involved in the process and the person seeking the permit would become a restricted source for them as well. >> so just to clarify, it's not

just a person who is seeking the permit, but people who might be opposed to the permit as a restricted source. >> um. >> that's what i believe mr. bush was asking. >> okay. sorry. i need to -- yeah. i would need to research that a little more and consider how that would apply. i don't have a clear answer right now. >> in addition to a private home permit, there are questions being raised about permits for relay boxes on corners being sought by at&t and other companies and some neighbors are complaining that they don't want those because they block parking or whatever

it is and so it can be a question that has to be resolved from a corporate level and not just an individual homeowner. so in other words, it becomes more complicated when you look at as commissioner canny pointed out, commissioner ramano pointed out that when an opposition to a permit is filed, how did that expand the process that you're looking at? >> yeah. i'd like to say that with that it wouldn't actually driger them being a restricted source. they wouldn't become a restricted source under this prong, but if they were, you know, trying to -- if they were

attempting to influence a city officer or employee, that's also another pathway to becoming a restricted source. so i would think that if someone is attempting to influence a city official to revoke or deny someone else's permits, that would probably be the pathway for them to become a restricted source where it's more about the person seeking or possessing or obtaining the permit themselves. >> so what does that mean in practice? >> seems to me that a person in practice who is opposing the who would be opposing the permit would be seeking to influence a public official and then would become a restricted source. >> and by being a restricted source, what are the consequences of that? >> same as any other restricted

source? >> yeah. >> commissioner: and if they did give a gift, are they still liable? you're changing the liability to no longer apply except to city officials. so if there's no liability for a restricted source seeking to influence by giving a gift correct. it would be on the city official to not solicit such a gift. >> commissioner: okay. it seems to me we're better off retaining liability for the giver as well as the recipient. but that's an issue that we've got before right. >> yes, that's recommendation

one here. >> if i may. perhaps recommendation number two, it can be clarified that persons seeking to influence the seeking obtaining or possessing of a license maybe that would solve at least some of commissioner bush's concerns. might be redundant but it seemed to accomplish concern. >> i think that clarification is helpful because it then puts the, identifies the act of the person trying to block the permit. it's not just objecting, but taking action and furtherance of those objections to try and influence the outcome. >> we can look into how that

would be added. >> a recommendation to add greeting cards with something that staff's interpretation would be that a greeting card isn't really a thing of value and not trigger the restricted source rule as intended, but this was an item that was brought up by stakeholders in recent times, so the recommendation would be here to add it as an exception in the rags so that it's clear and same place and folks can see that accepting a greeting card from a restricted source wouldn't be the trigger of violation of the restricted source rule and adding another gift exception for things that are available in that regard:

this lines up with our understanding of what a gift is. >> courtroom can you explain the discounted rates? can you explain what the discounted rates mean? >> yeah. so if pete's coffee is having a labor day sale. you as a city official to purchase that mattress. >> you're not getting special discounted rates. >> exactly that's one of the things we would not consider to be a gift, but for clarity and city officials to look at the

rags and say here's a complete list of things, but i think we're not actually giving in to exception. it's more of a clarification to current interpretation. >> makes sense. credit update. >> can i go back where we lee that topic. >> we talk about exception for greeting cards, but as many of us know, there's a tradition at different occasions like chinese new year where people receive a greeting card, a red letter, a red card and the red card will often have some money on it. so does the gift exception, the greeting cards include greeting cards that include a gift inside of it? >> no.

definitely not. it is the card itself if you stuff cash in the card that would still be a gift. >> commissioner: and greeting cards that are actually works of art and have a value? >> i guess. what we talked about for that would be to specify i don't think it's made it to the draft language in the attachment, but would be to say personalized greeting cards so there's a personalization. your name is on it to get rit rid of or diminish the resale value, but, yeah, i don't know if greeting cards as art can

then kind of convey a personal benefit beyond receiving the card. i'm not too familiar with those. >> commissioner: my experience is that i've seen a number of examples of those and they are of high enough quality that people put them up in their homes. these are not hallmark cards.

>> chairman: i think in addition public comment has suggested cards being created by children, seniors in appreciation of certain activities. so i think it's rare, it could happen, but i think when we talked about greeting cards that's what the public comment was saying that these are the cards specifically tailored to the recipients. it had no other value except, you know, a show of gratitude. but since commissioner bush has brought up maybe people want to include a piece of art worth a

million dollars inside an envelope, inside the greeting cards. >> perhaps we can -- >> commissioner: i've raiseded the issue because i've seen it. to me, it's not hypothetical and particularly you see it when someone has sent a greeting card as an invite to a fundraiser or a special celebration and an artist has been paid to develop cards for that purpose. and they are suitable and keep worthy. so the greeting cards, i'm just curious as to why that's coming from the meet and confer

process, they must have something in mind other than a hallmark card they bought at the store. >> here's my suggestion. somewhere we're going to have to define what a greeting card is. in any event, i would suggest that it has some retail dollar value that should not exceed some reasonable number and that's it. including the definition of greeting card. >> commissioner: that works for me. >> just to clarify not those coming out at the meet and confer, these were comments made at previous meetings regarding greeting cards, but we're fine to clarify that one. >> chairman: concern that, you know, their service recipients will not be able to show the

gratitude through paintings, finger paintings from kids or knitted caps from seniors because those may not have a monetary value, but it means a lot to the participants of those centers and i do think that, you know, they don't have a monetary value, but they really meant a lot for the givers, so i think that we need to find a way to recognize that and make sure those continue. you're right, those comments did not come from the employees, they came from community-based service providers. >> and i think that makes perfect sense and i don't want to limit these at all. i think we can address commissioner bush about secret monetary, but keep community engagement with public officials which is what we want to encourage. >> i certainly don't want to

curtail finger paints from kids. >> commissioner: excellent. >> so just to provide an update on behested payments. the board of supervisors recently placed a measure on the june 22nd ballot which would do two things. this going to be proposition e on the ballot and this would require all future legislative amendments be passed by the ethics commission and two thirds vote of the board of supervisors and it would expand the prohibition on the solicitation of behested payments to city contractors. both of these items are, you know, pretty close alignment with previous recommendations the staff has made to commission and that's what this ballot measure would do is these two pretty narrowly

defined items. >> commissioner: this is commissioner chiu. question about the first change. it would require a majority vote and not a super majority vote. >> correct. that's one of the discrepancies of what staff has recommended in the past to the commission would be to have a super majority vote. >> correct. that's a bit of discrepancy from what's being proposed in the ballot measure, the other ballot measure that's being proposed for the other chapters. this would just be a majority. >> commissioner: thank you. do you have any insight or background on why it was majority versus super majority vote. >> not really sure what the rationale was there; yeah.

>> yeah. so i wanted to make the commission aware that the measure will be on the ballot and also some general updates staff is continuing to be in communication with the board of supervisors rule. which went into effect on january and as continuing to have those discussions to see if there are issues that need to be clarified related to the behested payments rule. so next steps. staff will continue working with d.h.r. and m.e.a. to confirm the meet and confer process. as revised recommendations are developed, it will be presented to the commission as the ones were today and right now feedback from the commission and the public is sought regarding the revised

recommendations presented today which is some of which the item was received. and however, that's not necessarily chair that has been already by individual commissioners and then those could be worked into future revisions because anything could change today and go before the commission again before being in a final version of the ballot measures so we have decided how we'd like to weigh in or provide feedback. >> commissioner: through the chair, for the meet and confer process, mr. canning has meetings. i think the last meeting was in

february or january. has there been additional meetings and are more meetings scheduled going forward? >> the most recent meeting was this monday and, we're still waiting -- sorry. i'm trying to figure out how to stop my screen. ouch. yeah. thank you whoever did that. yeah, the most recent meeting was this monday and we are working to schedule working to get written clarification on some of the items discussed on monday as well as to figure out what the approach is for the next meeting to resolve the outstanding issues. >> commissioner: okay. so i hope that regular meetings can be scheduled going forward as the august 5th deadline for the commission to be able to

act place this on the ballot to come sooner than we all think. >> chairman: commissioner chiu, would you like to make a motion to direct the staff to continue the current negotiation process and outreach process toward a november 2022 ballot measure and then to continue to recommend the staff on recommendations there were made today and come back every month with a report? >> commissioner: yes. i would like to make that motion. >> chairman: okay. motion by commissioner chiu. seconded by commissioner ramano. let's go if there are no other comments from the commission, let's go to public comment,

please? >> commissioner: could i be heard? >> chairman: my apologies. i lost you. >> commissioner: with you hear me? >> chairman: yes. >> commissioner: yes. i would like to amend commissioner chiu's excellent resolution to include the staff provide a list of what proposals have come from the meet and confer participants compared to the proposals that have come from ethics staff and commissioners so we can see side by side the level of involvement and what it amounts to and the union and city employees versus the commission side. >> if i can speak to that

briefly. >> chairman: yes. >> i think we might run into issues of confidentiality. so fully publicizing what issues discussed in that process and i don't know if the deputy has a position on that and how visible they think it is and what we can share and not share. >> chairman: and also, i want to remind the public that we can hold public -- i mean, confidential sessions to discuss these matters, but whatever's being discussed, it cannot be disclosed.

i do want to ask number one, to give the specific time line to place the ballot on the november ballot, but at the same time, we now have four more meetings before the deadline and we went through over four months of meet and confer, public outreach, the staff has been very diligent in trying to address all the concerns that were brought up and unfortunately we still could not meet the march deadline. at some point, we do need to arrive at a conclusion one way or another that, you know, if we can proceed with everybody coming together or if not how

do we say the meet and confer process is concluded. so do we have a point legally that we can say we met that threshold? are there any other step that is we can take as a commission to proceed without meeting this meet and confer agreement? >> if i can. >> chairman: you know, we've already missed one deadline and i'm definitely not willing to miss the november one. >> commissioner: chair lee, if i can elaborate on your point one of the things as i understand meet and confer is

that both parties need to meet and confer quote in good faith and one way of measuring in my opinion of good faith is whether or not both parties are coming to the table with proposals of what they want to see done if one side is only proposing things they don't want done and trying to in effect delay action by raising issues, but not offering alternative proposals, it seems to me that the ingood faith provision might come into play and that's one of the reasons why i wanted to list what staff has proposed compared to our partners because my sense is

that all of the adjustmentments and changes have come from staff responding to complaints about what was in our proposal as opposed to actual proposals to improve transparency and accountability which is the entire point of the gift legislation. so i raise that as a significant and serious issue for our consideration. >> chairman: thank you, commissioner bush. if i may ask our city attorney to walk us through specifically to give your legal opinion of what can and cannot be closed by this commission and the members of the commission and the second thing which is more timely is are there any legal

options that we can look at beyond what we've gone through the last few months? >> good morning commissioners. deputy city attorney andrew schenn. i think you raised a few brief issues in terms of reaching the november ballot. the deadline would be friday, august 5th. as you know, we have been doing a meet and confer for a number of months i think the ethics commission has reason to be optimistic to meet and confer by august 5th and i believe those discussions are continuing. as we've discussed on a few occasions, the actual substance and what is exchanged at meet

and confer session social security confidential in sharing those in a nonconfidential manner or publicly disclosing those discussions can constitute unfair labor practice. i'm happy to reach out to d.h.r. and see what can be confidentially provided to the commissioners and by the current status of any proposals that have been shareded at those meetings. i'm happy to make that outreach. lastly, i can also say this is not eminent by any means, but this is an option under state law where a meet and confer if it's ultimately not successful, there is a possibility to either party to declare an impasse. if an impasse is declared, that does require further stepses. it's not a sort of band aid for any lingering issues. it does require a mediator. addition at fact finding and additional procedures and time. that is a possibility. i don't mean to suggest that's

at all. >> so the impasse problem is long. >> that's correct. impasse can take a number of months and if someone feels the procedures were not properly followed, there's also the possibility of litigation. >> that could extend well beyond august. >> correct. it can consume months and

years. >> chairman: any other questions i cannot see commissioner bush. i cannot see your hand if you have any other comments. >> commissioner: what happened to me? i was off everything? >> chairman: did you hear city attorney schenn's comments? >> commissioner: i did. >> chairman: okay. do you have any questions for him? >> commissioner: can he tell us how he would define negotiating in good faith? >> i don't think there's any bright line test for what constitutes good faith. but i don't think there's any bright line test. >> commissioner: okay.

>> chairman: commissioner. >> commissioner: am i allowed to ask whether the recommendations today would address. whether or not i can ask that question. >> i think it would be confidential. i think mr. canning is more directly. we always have the option of doing a closed session, but whether we've seen those being

asked of the other. >> chairman: commissioner bush, do you have any more questions for the city attorney? >> commissioner: if the city attorney would provide some information for us on where these rules about confidentiality come from if it's a state law, what is the specific state law. i don't think it's a so that if what comes up are being able to ask on the june ballot and puts

at risk what happens in november that the public is entitled to know what are the obstacles. >> if i can respond. yes, i can certainly try to follow up with the commission to see what i can share confidential. >> commissioner: and the basis for the rules in the law. >> certainly, commissioner bush. i understand as much as possible i will provide the legal notations. >> commissioner: thank you. >> chairman: okay. if there's no more questions. thank you, deputy city attorney

schenn. let's go to public comment, please. >> thank you, madam chair. we're checking to see if there are callers in the queue. for members of the public joining us remotely and if you joined the meeting earlier, now's the time to get in line to speak. if you have not already, press star three to raise your hand. it's important you press star three only once. it will move you out of the public comment line and back into listening mode. it's important you call from a quiet location. we also ask that you please address your comments to the commission as a whole and not to individual members. please stand by. madam chair, we have two callers in the queue. >> caller: welcome, caller, your three minutes begins now.

hello, commissioners. i note that you receiveded our letter, but i'll go ahead and read it now dear commissioners thanks so commission staff for considering the amendments in today's agenda, specifically the focusing of liability on gift receivers and removing liability from gift givers. for those who are most familiar with the law or otherwise good actors with exceptions from lobbyists will diminish the

effectiveness of the law, but potentially improve upon it by making clear where responsibilities lie and i look forward to forwarding these much needed san francisco ethics laws. thank you for your dedicated and hard work on this important legislation. thank you. >> chairman: thank you.

>> please stand by. madam chair, we have one more caller in the queue. welcome, caller. your three minutes begins now. >> caller: good morning commissioners. my name is raffle remmington. i think without looking at all of the proposals for the ballot measure it's a naked and raw exercise of white supremacy. i also believe the focus should be on bribery. the past conversation about tickets or side shows and wholly not jermaine to the issues. no one has been arrested or accused of misusing tickets. this is in search of a problem. two comp tickets are the

industry standard as well as promoting the healthy life for our keep in mind when we attend these events, we attend as professionals carrying our signs. the ballot measure will have a harmful impact on disenfranchised communities by limiting government access it

feels like to commissioner bush's good faith comment, this is not an exercise of good faith and i think you need to examine that if we're going to make any progress. >> chairman: thank you. >> please stand by. we have one more caller in the queue. welcome, caller. your three minutes begins now. >> caller: hi commissioners. this is debbie lurman. we appreciate the proposed amendments to eliminate liability for members of the public which would still allow enforcement of bribery laws. changes still don't fully address our concerns. we still believe the measure goes too far in prohibiting

gifts that don't rise to the level of corruption and its overly broad definition of restricted sources. our biggest concern continues to be the limits on comp tickets to nonprofit fundraisers. that would allow and officials that make a clear case for artist and exhibit performances but it's unclear whether the standard would recognize the benefits above the city and community based organizations and attended events held by san francisco and human service nonprofits. by participating in these in supporting by front line service providers. historically, city policy has been to underfund these contracts and expect nonprofits to secure additional funding. right now, we're facing a

recruitment and retention crisis that threatens nonprofits' ability to meet their contractual outcomes or take on. the attendance at these events or learn about new organizations that they could be funding including both large organizations that have to raise millions of dollars from saul p.b.o.s struggling for it's extremely unwe're also skeptical at mere attendance of an event would influence an official's decision around

rewarding contracts. those decisions are subject to extensive r.f.p. and review processes. we urge you to adopt language that allows attendance at events and recognizes they are a necessary part of public officials' jobs. secondly, even without liability, this law would have chilling impacts on the relationships between public officials and members of the public and threaten the reputation of the person who offers to give a gift. we are troubled at the broad definition of restricted sources even without liability. the mere expression of policy -- >> your three minutes has expired. >> chairman: thank you. do i have anymore callers on the queue? >> please stand by.

madam chair, there's no further callers in the queue. >> chairman: okay. public comment on agenda item number six is closed. the let us proceed on a vote on a motion made by commissioner chiu seconded by commissioner ramano which directs the ethics commission staff for activities with the city partners including the d.h.r. as well as continued engagement and outreach with our stakeholders and other interested persons. roll call, please. >> commissioner: can we comment before roll call? >> chairman: comment. i thought we. okay. >> commissioner: i'd just like to point out that action by the

staff to come up with proposals follows against twelve city officials or those seeking action by the city. so it's not creating a response to a nonexistent situation. we have a very compelling case of criminal charges tending in the ports involving senior city officials. not all of them, but some of them are senior city officials. and so our actions are designed to address what emerged in that process and what emerged did include gifts and private arrangements that took place

that provided a benefit. if not to the person, to the organization. >> chairman: thank you. let's proceed to role call, please. >> [roll call] madam chair, with four members present and voting, you have four votes in the affirmative and zero votes opposed. the motion is approved unanimously. >> chairman: thank you. and thank you all my fellow commissioners. we now proceed to agenda item seven which is the executive director's report in a programatic operational highlights of ethics commission staff activities since the commission's previous meeting.

director, please. >> director: thank you, chair lee. this month's report is fairly brief and straight forward. you know that we are all resuming our onsite public hybrid meetings here in city hall and others have remarked today it's really wonderful to see colleagues live and in person and so we are appreciative of your coordination and cooperation with this new hybrid process and with our city partners at sfgov tv, department of technology and, of course, the public for engaging us online and also now availably back here at city hall. so we look forward to seeing folks at their convenience, but welcome their participation either way. we are in the middle as you know of our annual statement of economic interest filing process throughout california public officials are required

to file their annual disclosure statements to help avoid conflicts of interest and to provide transparency about the interest we hold that could be potentially affected by the work that we do and so this year you'll recall that we have a new online filing process for all of the city's designated filers who are designated by their departments under the law in their conflicts of interest code for their departments. we at present, i think we are just about over the 50% mark with over 2,500 filers and we have two weeks to go. so we are working in our office and with filing officials throughout city departments to make sure that folks have the information that they need. yesterday, was a banner day for us. our compliance team had the third information session this season and there were over 150 participants. and so these are remote sessions, but we're up almost to 300 people who have participated in one of our information sessions. we're very much looking forward

to getting feedback. good, bad, or otherwise about how people found it so we can continue to improve these sessions. but we're really delighted to see we're reaching out and making a difference to this very important filing season. i did want to also mention in terms of job opportunities with the commission that we are continuing to receive applications for our ethics at work unit we're putting together. point in time we did just this last week post an additional position, two positions for that who would be training an outreach specialist that will be working with the manager on that new program. we're hoping in the next day or so, also have the training technology specialist. so the whole round of announcements for these positions and what the unit looks like will be obvious to folks who are interested in these positions and this type of work will be coming to work for the ethics commission. so we continue to look at that and people and their skills and

we're very interested to get the program up and running. and finally, staff news, i also noted in the report that we have a new senior investigator that i'm delighted to announce ammon wilson who has been in our office for just over a year. just coming up on a year. he's been an investigator and he's now going to be one of our senior investigators. he previously served to the california auditor's office where he did a number of complex analytical audits throughout the state of california on state operations and programs. we also have news to announce today, it wasn't timely for the report, for my written report, but we have now confirmed that we are having a second senior investigator who will also be joining us on april the 5th, i believe, ashley mockett will be joining us. she also comes from the california auditor's office where she's done some interesting complex research. so we want to thank the

california auditor for the fine training they've been providing and we're delighted to be looking forward to welcoming ashley to our staff this next month as well. i do want to note a senior investigator since last october decided he wanted to resume work back up at the state or federal level. his last day was march 11th. i wanted to make sure you were aware of that as well. so we'll continue to work closely with our colleagues, the department of you'll resources to hire and fill these as quickly as possible. happy to answer any questions. >> chairman: thank you very much. and job well done about the participation rate going up all the time. thank you. commissioners, any comments? >> commissioner: director appealham, i just wanted to congratulate you on the successful launch of the e-file 7400. i know that's been a long

aarduous process. but please give my heart felt thanks to steven masse and his incredible team and what a message thaw have so many people participate in the information sessions and this is going to be just make much more information and data available to the public and i think that that is absolutely the work of the commission at large and so kudos. >> i agree, it's a great accomplishment and thank you for all your hard work. >> commissioner bush, do you want to say any comments? >> commissioner: yes. i would also underscore that director pelham has had to juggle an ever increasing array of issues that we have thrust on her and the situation that's

also emerged and she has handled it well. >> chairman: here here. okay. let's go to public comments, please. >> thank you, madam chair. we're checking to see if there are callers in the queue.' please stand by. madam chair, there's no callers in the queue. >> chairman: okay. public comment is closed for agenda item number seven. agenda item number eight, discussion and possible action on items for future meetings. commissioner bush. >> commissioner: yes.

can you hear me? >> chairman: yes. >> commissioner: i have a couple of items that i'd like to put on the calendar for a future meeting. one is on expenditures. i'd like to see a report if we can get one on expenditure committees focusing on otherwise prohibited donors in other words lobbyists and contractors who give [ indiscernible ] including slate mailers and state committees. those are all routes that are used as a get around to avoid both our campaign contribution limits since independent expenditure limits can accept contributions of any amount as well as avoid prohibited

sources because independent expenditure committees do not have prohibited sources. i understand that in general, committees are not regulated because they're not considered to be part of a specific committee, but we do have independent expenditure committees that exist in total either to support or oppose a specific candidate and that raises an issue of whether the rules that apply to candidate committees might apply to independent expenditure committees that are linked to a candidate. the opinions that i've gotten from attorneys in campaign finance is that that is an area where we might have group act. at any rate, it will be good

for us to be able to report to the public exactly what it is that's going on. also, i have a question. i'd like to add when we do the gifts as the committee staff moves forward, i would like to see that we include a transparency requirement identifying the donor, the recipient, and the amount involving any city approvals. and it should include major donors because if you go onto our pages, major developers donate to nonprofits pending approval of their projects. and i have not seen us make specific mention of the major developers and the contributions they make to nonprofits. i would like to see that the

board approve gifts when it's for a city purpose and above a certain amount. so, for example, the gifts that came for america's cup or for the super bowl or for the new lighting system at city hall, those were all arranged more or less privately by the then mayor who then hired his own campaign consultants to be in charge of the fundraising and the operation and i think that it would be more appropriate for those kinds of events which do have a city purpose to go through a board approval process. in some cases, it involves the use of city property, for example, for the america's cup.

it required making available the marina green to the exclusion of the traditional use by youth sports gang committees -- i said gangs. i don't mean gangs, but obviously. youth sports clubs. to have a regular season of play involved of which all had to be canceled. so i would also point out that the issues that we've been raising on gifts that are not unique to san francisco. san francisco was contacted by the honolulu and hawaii ethics commissions over what they have as aloha gifts and other

jurisdictions have contacted us about so i would suggest that we take a look as we move forward on this with other jurisdictions and how they have handled even relatively modest things like the aloha gifts in hawaii essentially involved peanut butter sandwiches that go to every new legislator at the time they are sworn into office. thank you. >> chairman: okay. commissioner chiu. >> commissioner: through the chair, i will not be here to participate in this, but i would suggest and i think this

was contemplated for earlier in the year would be a presentation from tyler field and his team in the dash board for the new commissioners as well as the public to show how information can be obtaineded on form 700 filings as well as campaign finance reports. the accessibility of the data i think is marvelous and i think that everyone would benefit from one of those excellent presentations. >> chairman: i remember that one. you made that several times and i would ask the director to check with mr. field to see if we can do that next month now that we are meeting in person again. hopefully commissioner chiu can show up in person. >> commissioner: yeah. the visualization of the data is really powerful because you can see where the money's coming from to support ballot

measure and who knew that $8 million is coming from north carolina and only several hundred thousand from california. it's very informative. >> chairman: and i think by then you may be able to give us an update or report on the recall that we just had because i know that we've gotten a lot of interest on that one. so that could be very timely. if there's no more comments, let's go to the public comments, please. >> thank you, madam chair. members of the public who are joining us remotely and if you wish to provide public comment on agenda item number eight, please press star three to raise your hand. of it's important that you press star three once to enter the queue. pressing it again will move you out of the public comment and back into listening mode. please stand by.

madam chair, there are no callers in the queue. >> chairman: okay. thank you. public comment is closed for agenda item number eight. agenda item number nine, additional opportunity for public comment on matters not appearing on the agenda pursuant to ethics commission by laws article seven section two. >> madam chair, please stand by. madam chair, there's no callers in the queue. >> chairman: thank you. public comment is closed. agenda item number ten adjournment.

today's meeting is adjourned in honor of commissioner daina chiu. [ applause ]

>> thank you. mr. clerk, ladies and gentlemen, let me welcome you to the san francisco redistricting task force march 21 meeting. and at this time, the meeting is called to order. mr. clerk, could you take us to agenda item number 1, roll call. >> clerk: agenda item is 1, roll call. members, when you hear your name, please indicate that you are present. [roll call] >> clerk: mr. chair, we have all nine members