>> good morning welcome to the august 12 ethic's commission. >> this private meeting is held pursuant to the 45th [inaudible]. [cannot hear speaker] >> sfgov.org and online at sfgov.org/ethicslive. before the members may attend in

person or participate by phone or web explatform as explained in the agenda document. moderator can you explain how the remote public comment will be handled today >> on each item on this agenda of each member will be allowed 3 minutes to speak. for those in person opportunity during the comment president will be made available in room 400. remote, opportunity to speak during the public comment period are provided via phone call, calling 415-655-0001. the number is 415-655-0001 >> access code is access code: 2491 770 8997 ## again, access code: 2491 770 8997 ##.

join as an arc tendee. callers you will hear a beep when you are connected. you will be muted and in listening mode only. when your item come up dial star 3 to raise your hand and be added to the comment line. you will then hear, you have raised your hand. wait until the host callos you. the line will be silent as you wait to speak. ensure you are in a quiet location before you speak mute device urnld television, roor computer. it is important that you mute your computer if you are watching via the web link to prevent feedback. when it says, your line has been unmuted, this is your turn to speak. you will hear staff say, welcome caller. state your name clearly. as you speak you will have 3 minutes to provide public

comment. 6 minutes if using an interceptor. bells go off when you have 30 seconds. if you wish to with draw from the comment line press star 3 again. you will hear the system say, you have lowered your handful once 3 minutes expires staff will thank you and mute you. you will hear, your line has been muted. if you wish to speak stave on the line and listen for the next comment opportunity and raise your hands to the public comment line by pressing star 3 when the next item of interest come up. public comment may be submitted in writing and shared with the commission after the meeting concluded and include as part of the meeting file. written comments sent to ethics.

@sfgov.org. >> thank you, i call the meeting to order. call the roll call. >> approximate create your presence by saying, aye after your name is called. commissioner bush. >> he is being connected to the meeting. >> commissioner green. >> aye. >> commissioner finlev. >> here. >> chair lee. >> present. >> commissioner romano. >> aye. >> chair lee with 4 members present you have a quorum. >> okay. thank you. now let's go to agenda item 2, which is public comment on matters not appearing on the agenda. mr. moderator can you check and see if anyone -- in the queue.

ronald you are muted. [laughter]. thank you. [laughter] thank you, madam chair. for remote participates if you joined early to listen now is the time to get online to speak. members of the public wish to comment on matters not appearing on the upon agenda under item 2, should now dial star 3 or raise your hand in web ex. if you vo not done so to be added to the public comment line. the system will prompt when you it is your turn to speak. address your comments to the commission as a whole and not individual members. we are checking to see if there are callers in the queue. stand by. >> we have no callers in the queue.

>> no public comment. agenda item number 2 public comment is closed. go to agenda item number 3, 4, 5 which is consent calendar. noted on the agenda there am be no separate discussions on consent calendar items unless a request made by commission member or member of the public in attendance. which event matter be remove friday consent and considered as a separate item. if a commissioner asked to discuss item that item will be taken out following action on the figuring actions on consent calendar item on the regular calendar for discussion and action. does any commissioner members wish to discuss any item? seeing none. let's is commissioner bush --

connected now? moderator? >> no, he is not. >> okay. let's -- have public comment, please. on this agenda item. thank you, madam chair. we are checking to see if there are callers in the queue that wish to discuss any consent item. there are no callers in the queue. >> thank you. public comment is closed. let's go to our the -- consent calendar item 3, 4 and 5.

i have a motion to approve? >> um -- i'm sorry. let's take them one at a time. for agenda item 3. resolution on continuation of remote hybrid commission meetings do i have a motion? >> they can all be done together that is the point. >> yes. >> madam chair you are able to take a motion to approve all consent item in one vote if well is a motion and second. >> i move to move all consent to one vote. read item 3 resolution on continuation of hybrid meeting agenda item 4. ethic's updates for 2022 no conflict of interest code review. item 5. executive direct's report for programs and operations, motion was made by commissioner romano.

second that. >> seconded by commissioner feng. roll call? >> commissioner bush. sorry. commissioner feng. >> aye. >> commissioner finlev. >> aye. >> chair lee. >> aye. >> commissioner romano. >> aye. >> with 4 votes in affirmative and zero opposed the motion is approved unanimously. >> okay. >> thank you. let's go to agenda item 6 which is condition discussion and possible action on legislative proposal from the board of supervisors and committee regarding city behested payment rules. let's go to our policy analyst michael kenny. to give us a very, very brief are summary >> thank you to arc void restate whatting is available in the public materials i will recap

what was sent yesterday. which is update that we received a new version of the legislation from supervisor peskin as well as it is mayor's office. and this new version adopts most of the recommendation staff made in the memo published on monday august 8. with the exception of 2 items. one is proposal 6 regarding the proposed waiver process from the board of supervisors. some two out of three recommendations were adopted there for increased transparency around this waiver process. and the other one some -- language added mitigate that. staff does not believe this should be a blocker to action there. as the other transparency piece were add. the other item was regarding the proposal 9 which is changing

adding an exception for >> now i need to start the video. >> right? adding in exception. hello. >> um -- yea that is the outstanding items the commissioner to consider and also has been we expect to hear from the sfpuc regarding proposed changes to the exception for competitively secured bids and so to tell you where you are today there is the new legislation before the commission the commission can vote on today. the commission can make changes or suggest revisions to that legislation and be able to vote today with the changes integrated. if the changes are substantial and require more work the commission can also push the best item to a future meeting. but those -- we have supervisor peskin in the room.

i'm not sure if representatives from the mayor's office are on the line? i believe representative from thes sfpuc are on the line, thank you. >> thank you, mr. kenny. i understand supervisor peskin is in the room. and i wish to recognize him and if you wish to speak. >> chair lee, members of the ethic's commission, the executive director and staff i'm aaron peskin, supervisor and author of the legislation that is before you, which as staff indicated responds to the vast majority of the issues that staff has raised and staff has pointed out the 2 places where there is still a slight

difference. happy to visit with you about those. but we have had a collaboration with my office, mayor's office, which is joined by hank heckle remotely this morning. and your staff and to that end, we went from the 2 competing versions to the combined version and now you have the combined revised version that addresses the various amendments and points of contention in large part if not almost fully, i also would like to raise for your consideration some suggestions from counsel that -- that is that mr. bush? commissioner bush? i will proceed. >> i'm error. i'm sorry i thought i muted.

>> and those are just some changes to the long title that properly reflect the changes that were made in the substance of the body of the legislation namely, to insert at line 9 on page 1 in the long title. the words, narrowing the prohibition against soliciting from person who is have attempted to influence legislative or administrative actions. that would replace item 3, i think it is a better representation of what the legislation does. and item 4, changing that to read accepting solicitations made in connection with types of city contracts and instructor: the acquisition of real property that is done by contract and therefore covered.

those changes in long title and then -- some conforming changes that counsel suggested with regard to conforming at page 4 line 5, in the definition of intdz party, which includes those who attempted to influence city officers or employees regarding the approval, denial, extension or amendment of city contract. but that's existing language. prohibition on page 7 line 22, says, regarding a city contract and so, i agree with council that, that that more -- defined term should carry over and the words approval, denial, extension or amendment should appear on page 7. it is a diminimus change and

there was discussion going both ways and may be mr. heckle can talk in regard to the missing word, a, on page 8 may be supposed to be, the, i will leave that. other than that, i recommend and commends to you the legislation as now amended per your staff's recommendation and happy to discuss the 2 outstanding issues. i agree with staff that relative to item 6, having to do with the waiver process, that the back and forth negotiations and language that resulted should be acceptable to all parties. the remaining outstanding issue is the exemption cumulative per a thousand dollars of contributions, i leave that to this commission. the issue that chair lee raised

about the safe harbor until january 21 of 2023, has been removed. i'm available for the duration of the discussion on this item. >> thank you, supervisor peskin. do you minds waiting until we hear from mr. heck and he will we can ask questions. >> yea i'm going nowhere i will go to my office when you are done and hit the e mails. >> thank you. >> is mr. heckle on the line? if he can also speak to this. if he has anything to add? moderator can you check and see if mr. heckle is on the line? we are checking madam chair. >> okay.

we have the puc on the the attendsee's list in case the commission has questions or if they want to comment this morning. >> good morning, mr. heckle, can you hear us? i have unmuted mr. heckle looks like he is not there at the moment. >> meanwhile if the puc representative online?

>> i needed to find the name of the representative i have been inform today is john scarpulla. john, can you hear us? >> i can, good morning, i am going to refer to my colleague ronald flynn on the call our deputy general manager he will represent the san francisco puc, ron flynn on the call. >> hello. >> please, stand by, hold on. >> mr. flynn? >> good afternoon, commissioners. thank you so much for giving me a moment to discuss the proposal number 4. can you hear me? >> uh-huh. >> please, go ahead. >> great. >> in the thank you so much for the work the commission has

done, mayor's office and supervisor peskin to get this a combined, new ordinance. there is one recommendation that staff made to take out of section 362d, which was an exception for competitively secured program solicitations. and can take out a grace period that had been in the original version went to the end of 2024. they suggested the grace period go away entirely. i have worked with -- um -- staff and have talked to the mayor's office. and supervisor peskin i was going to ask for a grace period. when we are proposing is that we do have a grace period but it is a short one. staff has recommended that if you do add a grace period back in it goes through the end of the year.

i'm asking for january 31, 2023 because of getting an ordinance passed sometimes the ends of the year is tricky. the san francisco p public utility's program of partnership program, is only authorized and we are seek authorization to include it when we are doing a public, posting our requests for proposals. which means that our on going program, which we believe we have supported at the board to go in the future, we have large infrastructure projects that are going to be happening in the southeast community. and you know one of the most impacted communities by the pu c infrastructure projects and that we would if we put those out to bid and we are not able to ask

for those community benefits at that time, and the projects last 4-5 years we would never be able to go back and ask the people to be good neighbors and help do mentoring and help doing things in the community. because the only time when we are allowed are in the process of the public participation, of course, we would not go to someone who we were in contract with and ask them to take gifts to nonprofits. for this reason and because we have been working diligently with staff and with the board. we ask for a small grace period to allow our program to continue and to do that until january of 2023. we provided language. i believe the city attorney has the proposed language i read the language but at the upon end of

subsection 3.620d. to allow our program to continue until january 31, 2023, and we don't have approval at that point. we would have to stop seeking further solicitation from this and public procurements until we had an ordinance passed. i'm happy to answer questions. >> okay, thank you mr. flynn. is mr. heckle on. can we hear from him, please? >> i will check. stands by. jury room go morning, hank, can you hear us. >> can you hear me? >> yes. >> good morning mr. heckle can you update us with any late information. we heard from supervisor peskin regarding the joint proposals already.

my web ex. i'm sorry. hank i'm sorry can you start again i don't know where i unmuted and you then you were muted >> i'm on the phone it had to dial in. i need you to go ahead and leave now we hear you. you are muting yourself it looks like. go ahead. good morning mr. heckle, can you hear us? >> yes, can you hear me? >> yes. >> good morning. we have already heard from supervisor peskin regarding the joint proposal. i would like to you give you the opportunity to add or have

anything to share with this commission. before we have questions for you. >> yes, i'm sorry can you hear me, now. >> yes. >> okay. thank you. i dial in the web ex audio was not working i dialed in but it looks like it is working sorry about that. technical issue i go through the ethic's commission. yes, i would like to echo supervisor peskin's comments. we and thank supervisor peskin for his help and collaboration on these amendments. and also thank the ethic's staff and the commissioners for their attention to the issues. we it does look like the parties are in agreement on the some of the base said on the feedback from staff. i don't believe there are open

issues other than the diminimus exception the thousand dollar threshold that remains in our version. regarding the definition of, payments. and i will say a few words. this is up to the commission. you know, we do believe that it is a useful threshold and we -- for a few reasons one is consistent with the previous behested payments reporting regime in place, which required reporting from parties and amounts of 1 thousand dollars or over. the state regulation guess up to 5 thousand. i think a thousand dollars was a workable number locally and it will help to alleviate the administrative burden in terms of need to vet small donations if the department received a box of ppe they would need to first

what it is a complex vetting process that has to go on for every behested payment under this ordinance. there are a number of categories and interested parties the categories need to be checked. someone needs to run down whether well is a contract in issue or someone is subject to permit. whether they lob ed the department and so on. and that does create work for staff and the city attorney and may be ethic's staff if they need to be advised on trickier situations that require a thorough analysis. if you exempt the minimal amounts tell arc leaveiate the burden and a safety valve so that people making chartable solicitations in their lives that have nothing to do with their will role as a city staffer they are covered under this ordinance. if they wanted to ask their

neighbor for a donation to their kid's soft ball team or march of dimes. those amounts would be less than a thousand dollars. so i think that would help. we believe that would be an important safe harbor to allow for people to engage in the work in their lives believe staff has a response about lowering the threshold from a thousand to 250. if that is what staff is in agreement with. i would like to point that out to the commission. a higher amount would be more workable 250 i don't believe is -- would cover all of the smaller nonproblematic donations. there was a reference to some of the corruption with bert kershawin from department of building inspection it is

terrible. all of those were bribes that were it was clearly proquo. donations in favor of inspections it is covered by federal and other laws and local laws against bribery. in terms of the eliminating play to pay and appearances and inproprietor, the thousand dollar safe harbor is an appropriate amount that strikes a balance. that's our position, but happy to discuss and receive questions on that issue or other parts of the amendments the commission would like to discuss. >> thank you. >> thank you. actually thank you mr. heckle and supervisor peskin and thank you mr. flynn for your update. taking time to share with us. commissioners, if you have comments or questions? for our guests.

let's first turn to vice chair bush. to see if he has comments or questions? vice chair bush? >> can you hear me? >> yes. first, i would like to thank my colleagues and the chair for your indulgence of my challenge as i tried to participate in the meeting. i do want to participate and i appreciate the work getting us up to this point. in terms of the thousand dollar threshold, do you [inaudible] the kind of examples of "the real world". for example, do you have many examples of people directing a thousand dollars in the behested

payment as opposed to somebody doing 250? >> it seems to me that 250 is what will happen more often. was that a question to me? >> yes. >> thank you. um -- well we respected the 250 dollar response from staff. so we have not had the opportunity to compare instances where there were behested payment in the nature of charitiable solicitations, for example, below 250 versus up to a thousand. but -- a thousand was the number in the behested payment legislation prior to this. i know that there has been an effort to improve upon that. but it seemed that was in affect

4 years ago. it seems like a thousand dollars was a reasonable threshold at that points to cover personal, charity solicitations staff makes in their own lives but the extent there are behested payments for donations, sf program, other instances the city receives chartable support in ppe supplies or something that is not a high dollar value item, it would allow more of that to go on without getting in the need to conduct the whole vetting process, which is complex. not only on the staff level but often the city attorney is brought in and sometimes ethic's staff. a thousand dollars we view as a

safer safe harbor. >> okay. other questions? for our guests? vice chair bush? is not let's go to the -- can you hear me? >> yes, sorry. >> i'm sorry i'm having challenges here. are there [inaudible] on the kinds. [inaudible] for example, can you use that for behested payment to a nonprofit employing your partner in a paid position? can you repeat the question i'm not sure i understood it. >> can you make a behested payment request to benefit a nonprofit that also is paying

money to your partner? or your child? >> yea that is a good question. i'm aware there are other ethic's law in place that i believe would cover that situation. there is i believe it is campaign governmental code 3.207 prohibit an official from using their position to benefit an organization with which they are associated. i know renovation -- in order to what you serve on the board or benefitting a family member. >> immediate family member or partner. >> and there is conflict of interest laws. the disclosure local disclosure requirement where if you make a decision in the public setting you need to disclose that. but in a situation you are describing it would look like that was benefitting an organization with which you are associated and therefore would

be presented under a different section of law. that will be made clear to the city official before an act, is there are the other restrictions that show up in other laws. i want to make sure our -- our public minded city officials who do make the request for behested payment are aware of all the considerations and not the ones the specific to this law. >> yea. great point, that is something that is in the training materials the annual training that elected officials and commissioners under take. it is something that everyone in the mayor's office takes training. it is something the city attorney has a memo on a number

of those issues relating to commissioners and something that the city attorney advises commissioners and other officials on. it is in existing luin a different section of the code. more out reach can never hurt and more training and education. [inaudible]. >> that means that the public listening participating in the meeting, listening to our discussion, has now been given a view of facts. >> that will help them understand the parameters, correct? >> i believe so. and i believe something that is city form upon 700 filers receive advice of i know it is in the training as well. gi want to make surety public understands. not just the donor.

>> right. important for the public to be aware of the restrictions. >> thank you. >> thank you, chair lee. >> okay. thank you vice chair bush. any commissioners -- >> i have a question for this could go for mr. heck and he will supervisor peskin. i don't have occurrence but a couple of specific questions. the definition of -- perimeter of entitle reuse understand that we want to exclude nondregzary actions exceptions includes all permits issued over the counter. i don't know whether only overnight counter for example i know that dbi issues building permits overnight counter which

are not as purely administerial if the goal is to exclude we can do that as describing it. a check list. criteria, including the term, over of the counter without qualifications i wonder if that captures more than intends federal you can speak to that i'm curious hapermits are issued overnight counter and is it limited to those administerial type permits. supervisor peskin. >> commissioner finlev you are referring to i think a term of art and not of science. but i think one assumes over the counter permit has no discretion and is issued pursuant to a check list but more definition would not hurt this supervisor's feelings or excising it and being significant and relying on the words of a check list or

what have you. it would not be. >> my preference is to take the three words out, over the counter if mr. heckle has a thought on that? >> yes, thank you. i don't have objection to that. i understands the point you are making. i believe the the standard really was inupon tended to exclude permits that don't involve discretion. the dbi inspection permits would be included. but i understands over the counter may be -- is a loose could be a loose term that could create confusion. no objection here if you believe striking that would make it clearer that those types of permits are still on the table and included. that is fine on our end. >> over the counter, on the

table it is surfaces. >> [laughter]. >> there you go. out of the picture. >> okay. >> i have a question. >> keep on going i have some, too. >> that was my substantive question. i have nitty-gritty textural questions about drafting. i discussed them both with the city attorney one is proceeding, which it is what that is. defined with a reference to the california code of regulations. if you look at the definition it only means permit or entitlement for use. excludeings administrative enforcement. and i think if that is the definition we gutted half of the point of the law. the city attorney, deputy city attorney and i spoke about it yesterday. i think she has a suggestion for amending the definition of proceed to make clear it

includes administrative enforcement and i discussd that with mr. congressman as well. when i spoke with him i did not have the specific language. my guess neither supervisor or mr. heckle intended to exclude it but it is important that we address it. i think deputy city attorney florez, if you could share the language you showed me, that would amend the definition of preceding. >> thank you, commissioner finlev. for everyone's purposes this is the defyination of preceding found on page six. to the end of that sentence online 18, after public space. we would add, for purposes of this chapter 6 the definition shall also apply to precedings regarding administrative enforce am actions, period. >> thank you. when we do this is

administrative enforcement without that our precedings would not be covered in the oranges. supervisor peskin i will give you a chance to react. >> if i may through chair lee to commissioner finlev thank you for that catch. i am not a lawyer so that is precisely why proposition e involved all of you in this process. i do while i have the floor, want to thank the city attorney's office and deputy city attorney florez for their on going work on this matter. >> i welcome that change. >> great. >> mr. heckle i assume you don't have an objection but if you do, let us know. >> thank you, commissioner finlev. no objection here and yes. thank you for catching that. it was not the intent in referring to this state regulation to exclude

administrative precedings and arc like. that definition the amendment to the definition suggested as clarity and we near favor of that. >> great. i have one more quick textural comment then a question for the puc. may be we can defer that. interested party on page 3 of my version subsection a-1 that talks about party appearing before an officer. i think in the revision ambigutey about what the officer is. and the language i refer to the suggested language online 3 where it says, before any officers in the department of officer or designated employee. that officer or designated employee modified it but not clear what officer of the sentence is referring to. used to say, interested parties mean any party appearing before

an officer when it said this you knew who the officer is. here it skips that step. so i continuing should be modified to say, start with before online 3, before any officers or designated employees and any officers within the same department of the officer or designated employee temperature it is a minor thing but without that if you read it in a vacuum the sentence is a circular reference that does not point to a specific officer. not a pol point just a drafting issue. that does not at all change the intent of the what this goes for. i will read my suggestion again. i will read the entire sentence. should read. interested parties mean, a, any party, payment or agent of a party or participate involved in one, preceding regarding add stritive enforcement or license or needlement for use before, here is what i suggest.

before any officers before any officer or designated employee and any officers within the same department of the officer or designated employee. because without that, again it is not clear how the officer triggers the interested party definition. again i'm not trying to change the substance just make it clear what this accomplishes. i would be happy to go into that and i think deputy city attorney florez. >> thank you, commissioner finlev. if i may have you repeat that our changes one more time. >> sure. >> i will read starting with the word before in the third line, before any officer or designated employee and any officers within the same department of the officer or designated employee, yea. and i have one question for puc

unless mr. can suggest looking as if. >> question on that. and also not a lawyer in the room. i want to make sure that does not broaden what the intent is. i think now it is supposed to imply if you are involved in a preceding going before any officer in the department that would make that party an interested party for all of the other officers and sez iing nayed employees in the department. specific to any officer triggers that if you go before a designated employee in a preceding that would not make them not a preceding before officers. so i want to make sure we are not. >> broadening the intent >> thank you. the intent it is the officer in front that triggers not the designated employee. >> a preceding before any officer would make that party an interested party for all of the other officers and designated

employees >> got it. >> if you are an officer it captures other designated employees if you near front of an employee that does not trigger anything. >> i the language is consistent with the other subsections. if you look down to d it is also of dives into officer designated employee is, yea. contract with the designated employee or officer's department y. great. thank you for that. and that is really important. i think in that case my suggestion would be before any officer and any officer as's or designated employees within the same department of the officer -- i don't expect the city attorney to analyze that on the spot but after today if this is going forward that is the nonsubstantive change that could be made without us revisiting temperature it is noted a

substantive change it is a drafting issue. >> yes. so -- thank you for that question. the commission is inclineed make nonsubstantive typo/technical changes today, i would probably be inclined to allow that. however, if there are further changes that go to the substance or that materially change a sentence or anything further than a word or period, i would have to take this back and have my unit look at it. so it is important that any changes we make today only go to you know typo or technical changes. like hey there is an amissing and they should be, the instead,

type of changes. >> thank you for that. that's what this is. thank you. yea. if we have anything substantive we have to revisit that. those are my only comments i have a question for the puc to understand his point. mr. flynn is still there. i want to understand the desire for you grace period is because puc is about to issue bids and without the grace period they would not include the social s ip program? do i have that right. wants to issue a bid before the board of supervisors may enact this? i see supervisor peskin shaking his head. so that's fine i wanted to understand the purpose for the grace period was. thank you, everyone.

>> commissioner romano. >> sure. i have 3 points or questions. one is technical and i will try to get through that as quickly as possible. i will direct you to the same sentence that we were talking about in on page 3 line 13 on my draft. so -- it said this is the definition of interested party. any party, participate, et cetera and then involved in one, this is what we were talking about with commissioner finlev and online 13 says, and any other gentlemanal decision regarding. i think that, account should be an, or. okay. i will move on quickly to a substantive question/concern. so the definition of interested party to my understanding is

really crucial buzz it defiance who is covered here. and my concern is that it is limited. it is limited to only to people who are involved in permits or contracts. and there are exceptions to those not certain nonprofits and communication by e mail. are all exempted from interested party issues. which i think drive huge hole in this issue. furthermore, i think that the definition of intent to influence. i appreciate has been added back, creates further confusion. for example, i'm on page 4, beginning line 2. this -- line one. i should say. any person attempts to influence and -- designated employee and approval, denial, extension of a

city contact. only limited to contracts. i would want it to go beyond that, it used to be for anybody who tried to influence legislative or administrative action. the confusion enters when is it says contract provide influence set forth in section 3.216b1 of this code. section that section, does not define, attempt to influence. in fact, it has nothing to do with attempt to influence. furthermore, it says as set fog in ethic commission regulations the regulations go beyond influencing a contract. i believe it says supporting, opposing governmental decisions. i would prefer that attempt to influence means adopts ethic regulation, which is attempt to influence means, supporting or

posing any governmental decision. rather than, amending just a contract. i wonder if anybody had thoughts about that. >> yes, i will start with mr. congressman. i think this was the staff's recommendations the compromise from what was originally proposed in the mayor's version which was to later adopt in the the joint version to remove the attempt to influence prong entirely. to mitigate the harm of losing that prong staff suggested had narrow it to capture attempt to influence over contracts. that was the rational there. and the language around the exceptions and not including e mail were the existing language in the attempt to influence prong i believe the commission argued against during the initial passage. but that exception made it in there. and that was copied in this

newly proposed version. >> first is should we limit it to contracts, i don't think so. >> i love to hear the supervisor or mayor's office to speak to limiting it that way what does that leave out of the scheme? supervisor pes pel for the record this got complicated in real life quickly as it relates to one upon ordinance that is passed annually, which is the appropriations ordinance known as, the budget. where in as your director pelum knows virtually every stripe of human being in san francisco works to influence budgetary decisions in a relatively

truncated period of time between the months of june and july. and that impacts literally thousands of people. and who are going about influencing legislative action around the expression of how 14 billion dollars of the taxpayer's funds and fees should be spent. it was trying to address the real life application of that annual exercise that made this very difficult and ultimately lead me from the position i had to where we are now. mr. heckle can add. i did not see an elegant way and did not want to discourage all of the people who should participate in that process. so -- hence, the problem. >> i appreciate that and i'm curious about mr. heckle's position.

this does not stop the people from participating the process. would wha it stops is city officials asking for behested payments. >> and furthermore, limiting it to contracts only anybody hospitals to influence legislation, real live legislation is not an interested party. >> you know. >> yea. i guess the where i got to on that is in so farz the lobbyists regulations are extent and deal with the vast majority of that already, i felt that there was a colorable argument that was proper leave already regulated through the lobby group. gi disagree, there are people who attempt to influence you every day who are not lobbyists this would cover lobbyists. representative from tipping point he has lots of contributions to legislation and the city and guessing he is not a registered lobbyist.

i think that just limiting it to lobbyist is too narrow. gi appreciate your position, commissioner romano and i will turn it over to mr. heckle from the mayor's office. >> thank you, supervisor peskin and commissioner romano. i like to respond to a couple of the points you raised. the attempt to influence prong is the one that receives the most attention in all of our discussions over the past 8 months in wrestling with this ordinance with departments and city attorney. the most confusing, self defeating part of the ordinance. this is what was killing all of those relationships because you can't take the money. you can't engage with tipping point and other foundations, crank start, that come in and advocate to you for a policy like a pilot program.

witness they had the discussions they are off limits you can low longer engage with them to accept the grant money that's when we were advised by the city attorney the cabin pilot program and tipping point paid for by providing fundses to nonprofits. with the core mission of the department of homelessness and supportive housing and last year the city attorney advised us that would be dead and presented under this ordinance. so the approach the compromise mr. canning said was to preserve elements of the attempt to influence. now it exist in the the context of a contracted the contract is broad in that it covers that contractors as well as parties seeking a contract and it could cover a company that is not seeking a contract but wishes to

toward a competitor from receiving a city contract they advocate against issuing the contract. those are covered and in the context of lobbyists regulations that supervisor peskin mepgzed the existing law and another change that staff had suggestd and we agree with. it is in their memo lobbyists prong expanelleded it covers not only the lobbyists but the lobbyists this have registered with your department and clients for whom they have made lobbying contacts with you in the last 12 months. all of their clients for whom they lobby through the department become off limits. which get a number of, types of commercial lobby that could create play to pay appearances. our view is that with those

changes you are covering a lot of the landscape. you have the administrative precedings prong, which is broad. mentions permits but other entitlement and any administrative preceding like the ethic's commission or all of the various administrative enforcement and other precedings that happen at the many city departments and commissionless would all create interested parties that would be off limits for in terms of behested payments. our view the changes have addressed the occurrence of ethic staff and the strongly advocate for leaving the change in place. i understand your point about the reference to the regulations. might have been confusing. point is that there are other things that describe what attempt to influence is.

that section off to the attempt to influence of context of approval, denial or amendment of a city contract. it should be clear enough but we don't want to create confusion in the substance where the attempt to influence restrictions reside now we believe that is an appropriate compromise that addresses the occurrence of parties. >> all right. >> let me restate my position. i don't think that limiting to just contracts and permits is sufficient. in terms of defining who is an interested party and vote to reject this proposal until this position is tightened up a bit. i understand the occurrence raised by many involved and trying to interfear but does not

interfere with all business it is asking to give money to their organizations of choice. that is what it stops. furthermore, i think at minimum am the definition of attempts to influence on page 4 line 3 is extremely confusing for two reasons i said. section 3.216b1 of the code is not the definition of attempt to influence. that is an error. number 2 is, attempt to influence defined in the ethic's commission regulations, reaches any government decision. now is it any government decision or is it city contract? right there it it is conflicted. i would prefer any government decision.

>> we can may i responded. >> please. >> thank you, commissioner, we can clarify the language in terms of the reference to the code section this might have been narrowed the city attorney can address the reference to 3216 b. in terms to the regulations, it is probably surplus because they are forth coming from ethic's staff. the revving ligzs themselves can clarify the definition without spelling out the ordinance it is referring that to a definition making the same regulations i don't have issue with claire on the substance our view attempt to influence built in the contract prohibition and the lobbyists prohibition to cover lobby and clients in combination with the existing restrictions on administrative precedings and lobbyists and permits

insolvents, really covers a lot of activity and to go beyond that. again to your point about the policy advocacy can happen it can help but not in the context of grants and, that's not true other either. i doenl don't think that is true not that context it can happen within the context what can'ts a city employee can't ask for money to are paid. >> the grants -- sorry. on that exact points. i think mr. heckle i want to understand it goes to what commissioner romano is saying your point is that if i love puppy. orgments to propose legislation the city create a project to take our puppies and the nonprofit wants to pay by advocating that nonprofit is an interested party. it cannots then work with the city to pay for the program.

>> it can work for the city the city employee can't ask for them. points is that the definition of behested payment includes payments made with the nonprofit. the nonprofit advocates the program the nonprofit can low longer work with the city to coordinate how to pay. mr. heckle. ? redefine coordination i think nacoordinating with the city is fine what we're trying to present is city employees from making behested payments. >> the current definition is broad it captures the passive involvement of the city that is what mr. heckle is saying. >> i hear that but perhaps that is the problem we should not -- mr. heckle am i accurate low convague how it is current written? >> yes. thank you, commissioner finlev.

so -- right. the concept of behested piments is broad and it is deratify friday state law not just directly asking one person asking for a payment. it is coordinating, suggesting, et cetera . i say we want to preserve the concept of this legislation. the problem is that in certain situations like the grantses it is self defeating you can't if you have the discussion about a grant for the city initiative. you are asking for money because a grant provides a financial support through the city initiative. if that money goes from foundation a to nonprofit b. in coordination with city officials that are implementing the program promoting the program and so on and perhaps legislating to implement and

universalize pilot program and other projects all of that is regulated under the ordinance. what we say we should take out attempt to influence concept or in broad terms and limit today to the contract context and you would also still have coverage, lobbying clients who is might be trying to do another influencing through lobbyists. that is the concern and we believe it is addressed >> correct me if i'm wrong the definition is on page 2 lines 8-10. and it does say in cooperation and coordination at the request of the city employee. it is what prohibiting a request by the city employee. not prohibiting coordination,

consultation. it is the requests made bite city employee. am i missing the point. >> no that's right. my understanding this is based on city attorney's advice whenneen if they a foundation came in the city that we have a pilot for cabin shell and willing to pay and we believe it has benefits to help address the homelessness crisis. the conversation involved if the city is in favor of that and agrees andments the funding for the project even though you did not initiate the conversation. you are still requesting that in fact the offer is consummated and a grant is executed and the program is fund the >> i disagree, it seems like an appropriate thing we can define by regulation rather than

limiting what an interested party is only to contracts seems like. >> obscure. >> ask our staff analyst to provide the commission because -- >> my understanding is we had this discussion about why limited contractors permit and paid lookyists versus commune service issue community based service organizations. >> not sure -- that distinction. might be help if you stands upon so we see you.

>> the upon grant exception which the ethic's staff has through advise clarified that communications around a grant would not be an attempt to influence. a program to be funds the the conversations lead up to a grant they would not be part of an attempt to influence. >> not an attempt to influence they are not a contract. this is about attempt to influence is influence being contracts and permits. >> in the -- current law, an attempt to influence on legislative or administrative action. i prefer the current lu. >> and yes, the point. >> to your point. a request for grant is not an attempt to influence under current law. >> the grant exception does

allows for an organization or party to give a grant to the city and not an interested party as a result. a grant agreement is a form of contract afternoon exception say you don't become an interested party based on that grant. >> may i respond? mr. heckle? >> yes. >> go ahead. >> so the currently legislation there is a carve out in the contractor the grant of the city does in the make you a contractor but does not in the influence prong it has been read in by ethics staff and the words no split this carves out the concept of attempt to influence that says you make the grant to the city. it is not written there. problem 2, it does not carve out

grants in coordination with the city where the payment goes to a third party. [inaudible] part of that tipping point and others. faring and a common arrangement a grant the grant funding was not in the city it was a complex arrangement among the city providing cabin pilots built paid another nonprofit to build the pilot and staff them and maintain them and build the cabin structures and maintain them. >> here is run arc foul of the current legislation. that's one of the things we are trying to solve. gi think the solution of limit thanksgiving to permits and contracts goes too far. if there are way this is is my concern at the last meeting we were trying we understand there are issues the current law perhaps sweeps broadly it

attempts to narrow the law to allow for activities we think benefit the city. limiting it to contracts and permits limit its too far. >> the -- nan purpose of the board of supervisor system to pass laws. and if you say that anybody who attempts to influence allow is not an interested party seems -- sweeping way too far in my opinionful i would urge the parties try to and i would be happy to work on this. come up with a better solution than limiting to contracts and permits. i like to move on. i want to understand why e mails are exempted from attempts to influence. >> chairly, aaron peskin.

i believe that was in the original legislation e mails are public records and available to anybody under our chap 67 the code upon request i believe why that is why it was in the legislation and mr. heckle, perhaps you can remind me i think that is. >> they are not part of the public record. i think we should that seems like a giant loophole. >> i think that as i recall, during earlier public comments. the e mails also involved the freedom of expression. and >> involved what. >> freedom of speech. that was brought up and the second thing was it is true that anyone can access the e mails. >> anybody cannots >> but i think it goes back to an on going challenge of

balancing who is was the definition of influence. if you are a childcare centers, community service or organization. going to speak before the supervisor, you know urging for public funding, is that the same part with the contractor trying to >> this would allow. allow a contractor a full on covered contractor and a permit person and lobbyist to contact mr. peskin by e mail and because it is e mail not considered exempt to influence. if they are a contractor they are covered by the other. >> but not considered an attempt to influence. >> i don't understand i could file a record's act request and get all of your e mails and the

same for texts include your texts and note that you draw. we don't do that and not limited speech primary motive of communication is e mail and we are excluding that as attempt to influence seems like a make. >> yea i don't care >> and while i have the floor, i want to -- say that the amendment requesting is acceptable to to me and the second is to through the chair the commission you are putting your finger on a number of things that back to the conversations that we had my original intent in this legislation dating back to the year 2021, was that this department would have regulations had that been done

timely i would not be standing here the reason i want today to incentivize the said regulations but now i like to be done with this project. >> i hear you. >> i'm new to the commission. i have no problem with the of safe harbor i put in a dead line on this commission to implement regulations that would solve >> we put this in and took out the safe harbor i did push back on the sentence that said, something like you would be held hrmless. i felt it was unnecessary and took that out. >> all right. >> the supervisor did not care the e mail sentence if the mayor does not care either then. does mr. heckle have an opinion? >> yea.

i don't believe that i don't believe that is critical having hain there. the intent was supervisor peskin said was to it would take accounts of the fact e mails are public record and can be requested and taking account the things of the nature staff and the like in the nature of public comment and hearing i understand they are not. upon given the erroneous commissioner romano raised that change would not alter the intent of the restrictions nor create any [inaudible] as far as that would be okay. one last piece and i will yield my time. i think there was a request

about the waiver and the board of supervisors make a resolution to exclude itself. i don't know if this has been resolved. i suggest this any waiver to excloud the board of supervisors need to be approved by this committee. supervisor peskin. chair lee. i would be more than happy and i think i expressed at the last meeting to have it impossibility that the board of supervisors could wave itself. the suggestion you made which would be -- even one step further which is only this body could wave it for the board. it is acceptable. >> thank you. any other. >> i want to make myself clear, i will not vote for this today.

unless or because -- the attempt to influence definition is too narrow. and i would choose the commission's current regulation definition of attempt to influence over the definition in this proposed legislation. >> i would say i read that there is dissonance, i understand why we want to wait i'm wondering the time line. if we revise this would we and sends it to the city attorney's office. what is the process. i agree there is no need to delay and say we will edit the regulation but pass this. it makes sense if we draft this to get it right but i want to ask about the time line yoochl madam chair and commissioners as much as i would like go back it

my summer break you have yet one more commission hearing prior to the ends of the board of supervisor's legislative recess. which is on september the sixth. but of the first meeting of the rule's committee is now until assessment the 12th. i believe is after your first meeting in assessment. i would like to agendaize this at the rules committee on september 12th so i think not putting word in the mayor a mouth, there is without requiring a special meeting one

more opportunity before september 12. >> for your notice, i did not receive this until yesterday afternoon and i know other members did in the receive it until this morning. that is part of the issue here. >> noted. >> and other questions from commissioner sns okay. thank you. i'm going to ask our director to give us a time line for administrative sake. our next meeting is september 9. the supervisor mentioned that the next possible inclusion of the commission is the following monday. my question is, if if -- commissioner romano, i want to extend the definition i'm sure we would not resolve this on september 9. we have gone through this -- many times and i think that -- if we are going to -- extend our discussion on this it will involve the not nonprofit community. to me nonprofit community means

2 things the ones created for purpose and there are those who are truly community service organizations. so -- i'm talking about the community service organizations who will have a lot of concerns if we were to extend the attempt to influence question. and i don't think one meeting in september 9 will resolve that. so my question to the both the director and the city attorney is if we were to take action the proposal in front of us today can we go back. to work with the supervisor, mayor's office, to address the attempt to influence question

that commissioner romano realliments to -- have a broader discussion? or do we need to can we not take action today. until september 9 until we have that broader discussion? i to be honest my preference is we have been at it let's take a vote and see where this go and then schedule something else for september ninth. but the expectation we both have something have a resolution on september 9 with a change of definition of attempt to influence. given our past public hearings on this item i don't think tell happen on september ninth.

but -- yea, thank you i'm not sure how to answer that. i believe that the most helpful thing for this resolution of the issues is to hear from the full body about the policy's view issues commissioner romano is raising. we can go work with mr. peskin office and the mayor's office and city attorney to refine language and bring it back september ninth as mr. peskin indicated so it would be on time. whether this commissionmented to explore the narrowing of the exceptions this august 10th draft has would we want to narrow that as a policy matter or whether this body is feeling comfortable with moving ahead as is. that is a critical issue. i don't know we could be effective in negotiating or redrafting until we have clarity

from the body. we can address this proposal and on the accept ninth meeting we schedule on the agenda item to revisit. the commissions and other supervisors and the mayor an office and others entered parties a -- reevaluation of what attempt to influence city government should be including legislative items and also who will be under that broad universe. because this proposal is limited for a reason. and i heard my colleagues say

they want it to be more broad. including the current definition under the ethic's commission. >> i like to clarify my point i think this needs more attention i'm not saying that -- you know don't think we should adopt everything that is in the code and there are cut outs and exceptions that can be made and take into account that people who want to be active or involved and worried and how that limitd that i want to think about it more. there are important parts we can include here. i think that like i want to put that out there. i'm not saying this is their over but we can tweak it a bit. i don't know if this is something i work with staff or be involved moving forward to

spend more time. i'm not saying we need a special meeting but i think that i like to acknowledge. i foal we moved fast. i think this is great and grateful for. >> agreed. >> that everybody is spent on getting make thanksgiving so complete. i receive today this morning but because everybody has been working on it throughout the week. that is all i'm saying i would like more time. joo i want to put on the record that it it is not that we received it it was presented to us this morning it was through technical. glitches. >> that some of us did not get it until today but was available on monday. >> it was available yesterday. i will make that clear. so -- what is your pleasure? we don't have any >> madam chair, i thought your

question approve today but continue to work on this issue. i think the answer is, yes, we can and then always suggest the board make an ordinance on other time line. >> if there is a. >> madam chair? >> yes, please. >> no audio. so, the reason why wore here is because of prop e. in june. that requires this body to make a decision on a piece of legislation on amendments to the behested payment ordinance that will then be sent to the board of supervisors. so if you approve something today, it will be sent at this time board of supervisors. and you cannot amend it later. so -- >> right.

>> but we can separately suggest other laws that affect the behested payments. >> totally separate from what is here today >> this is referring to the piece of legislation in front of you now. as a regular function for the commission, you can later pick thumb and say we would like to work on this prong we approved and the board past in october or november when this passed if it does. you can do that any point. this piece of legislation if you want the board to act on it you have to make a decision from this body. >> if i can clarify. we can take action today on what is before us. by a vote a majority vote. >> yes. and the board of supervisors would need to act on it 3

quarters or. >> 2 third's vote. this body can later on at some point by a major vote, propose to the board of supervisors any changes we may continue to see not only on the attempt to influence could be something else continue tain in the what we pass today? right? we can do that at a future time if we find out that you know the waivers and the does not work. so -- we have the prerogative to by a majority vote of this body submit to the board of supervisors of our recommendation? to strengthen prop e. is that correct? >> down the line, in a different peeves legislation, you could prosoez amendments to whatever these amendments become. but on this piece of legislation

if you vote to send it to the board of supervisors the board gets what you vote on today that is the legislation they work to pass. and then converse low, if the board of supervisors disagrees with whatever you agree to today, andment to make changes that piece of legislation come become to you. it is a ping pong until everyone approves. by the volt threshold necessary. >> also, but -- further amendments to this very languaged don't need go through the same process. >> yes, everybody. this but ordinary legislation does not. >> just this is related the behested payment. if we amend today 2 years from now guess through this process. >> yes. >> thank you. >> could i get repcasion

regarding the time line discussed? i believe there needs to be 30 days after the commission acts on legislation before the board of supervisors can act. so would that disrupt the potential time line if the commissionmented to delay action on this legislation and vote on september ninth would that prevent supervisor peskin from taking up on rules on september 12th? how is the 30-day >> i have to look at the prop e language to confirm. i can get become to you once i get become to my computer. >> thank you. >> and i want to be mindsful that -- 59% of san francisco prop e in upon june and if we delay this i don't think that will be fair. to the people of the city. >> if i may, we are doing is

amending what the people approved that's what we are specific low going against what they approved that's what we are trying to do in a manner. >> by doing nothing we are supporting upons what 59% of the votersmented anything we do here is rolling back what they enacted. i take issue with the idea we are going against the view of voters by spending more than 24 houros this piece of legislation. >> this has come before us last month and i'm saying that if we were to move this to september that would be 3 months i think that at some point we need to have a resolution. >> my point is we have it now this is current law approved bites by the voter what is we

are being asked here is roll back protections. i agree some make upons sense but we are diluting ethic laws by this action. >> your point is taken i'm not sure 59% vote is unanimous vote at the board of supervisors. your point is well taken. >> okay. >> so -- yes. so. >> 30-day question. >> yes. so if i may, members, so whatever you approve today or any point it must be made available for public review for 30 days before considered by the board of supervisors. at rules or the whole board >> committee as well. >> okay. so -- given hawe have to move

today in order if the board will be able to have rules look at it on september 12. right? >> yes. >> if we ruled on september upon 9, when would be the earliest time the board of supervisor could -- based on the advice of the city attorney and given the fact that 30 days would be required from your action on september the ninth and the first meeting thereafter of the rules committee meets every monday; it would be october the 10th where there is no meeting because of indigenous people's day take us to 17 october. >> got it. >> board of supervisors votes.

>> i would then in the normal course of business appear at the board of supervisors on the 18th of october for the first reading where require pursuant to prop e a 2 third's vote and the second reading on the 25th although there are mechanisms where in it could go to the board of supervisors on the 11th and the 18th. >> if we did it today would be an among earlier? >> that's correct. >> so any other. gi will say madam chair, that deputy general manager of the puc ron flynn is on the line if you want to hear from him. >> i. thank you. i know you had a question i was not able to payment. now i can answer the questions

the commissioner had. and explain why we would like this -- change to the amendment, which is supported and was in the record before i'm happy to respond to the question if you allow me. >> mr. flynn, i remember, the reason why have this amendment was because of the funding cycle. was that -- correct? >> yes. >> yea. >> we are -- we are contract that will be issued between now and the end of the year. which the puc in order to allow those references and those nonprofits and schools to seek to get public benefits or guest community benefits. would not be allowed. until we go through a staff press with the board.

we will do that but after today, each meeting cause another delay. we were asking for it went to the commission and board in assessment. was through the end of january to give us this room to go through the 30-day hold on the legislation to go throughout committees on our legislation and get it passed as fast as possible. i know that the supervisors support its i believe the mayor's office support its. it was this was in the material provided. it was in the material provided to this commission in july. it was only in yesterday's provision the exception was excised we are asking for it to be put back in with a much smaller time frame and i believe that would be -- you know be allowed go forward as part of an

amendment today. >> so, clarify for me, if this commission does not act the earliest the board supervisor rules committee would consider this would be october 17k how would that affect your rfq's with nonprofits? >> it would provent us between now and as we are now -- in october 17th putting our rfp's we have been delaying to wait to see what happens here. it would allow us in october to include those solicitations through the next few months. it will not go through october i ask for the end of february to give us this run way. [inaudible] the board's final on it and give us the grace period

through february 28th. 29th, or 28th. 2023. i would ask through the chair whether that language the language that we have proposed is available to the staff and to the city attorney. i can read it but i believe it is there for inclusion and ask it be included if you pass if today. gi understands we did not have problems with the language. yea. okay. thank you mr. flynn. >> may i follow up. mr. flynn, i think the question that i was wondering more if there is the delay until october, how does this affect the programs you are trying to fundful i understand you want to extend the grace period that is a different question the question is when delay would that cause to the programming you are trying to do and the funds you are raising for worthy

causes? >> yes. i will give you an example. we are in the process of putting out bids on the planning bidos major construction projects. ful will one of them is at 2,000 marine. it is going to be a large proposal that has services for a new water department building. and another one is a sewer new sewer pump station on treasure island. both of those, we would like to ask the people to include the benefits with people in the communities. if we don't get the grace period we would not be able to hold off until february or march of putting those out they would go out to bid be large multi100 thousand dollars projects and no

point in the future we would seek benefits to get it in there it is the moment what makes the program separate different and not a behested payment we do a public low when you do a proposal and so it is -- it is timing that is important to us. we would like to continue this program that the board supports, the staff says that it does not fooul fall in the purview or shouldn't so we are anything for that. >> my 83 are you waiting to issue the rfq's until this measure is passed? >> we have been holding off but that is our ability to do so is ending. we have been. when is it ending? >> well if it is not going to last until next year. if this commission reject its it

will ends right away and put it out and ends then. and so -- we would like to start in september or october to be able to do this backlog and push them forward as waiting through this process. >> i'm confused. >> if we don't pass it today you can put out your rfp's. >> i can put out my rfp's without community benefits. i can't put them out and ask for community benefits until this board, commission and the board pass it. why is there a way we can allow to you do your rfp without pass thanksgiving legislation. that may be a question to the city attorney. >> might be helpful to recap why the provision or that is in place. through an opinion?

or issued bite city attorney? >> yes, my office opine body this matter earlier this year when the behested payment it is legislation took affect. so -- the city attorney the opinion as written can no longer have the program. the sip communities benefit's program. >> that no way to amend that opinion or regulations or some other way? can we. mr. peskin suggesting we can principle a regulation allowing the puc to proceed without approve thanksgiving legislation. he is in favor with if. i support i -- concur. >> just commissioners if i may, a regulation would take just as long as will doing this as well. so. you know it is in the just about

approving today. it is about your staff have to draft this with our office. and then put it out for the public and come back and vote on it. so. just keep that in mind. >> there is also take 60 days for regulations to start if the commission were to have a regulation today would be 60 days before it would be operative. >> chair lee, is it the case does the city attorney revise advice is is that an opportunity to reconsider the issues and provide updated advice. would that be an option? that's a question for -- that was for the city attorney. i can't speak for my entire office. but i know that the advice we

issued regarding that program took in account the legislation as written. these folks opine for a contract are interested parties as the legislation is currently written, i can take this back and ask my office they consider amending our advice but if the regulation -- if the legislation continues to be written as is, i am highly doubtful that will be possible. >> this is not a perfect piece of legislation but appropriateed support it today. and i hope that the supervisor would work with our staff and office in good faith going forward if the opportunity to amend the influence prong i think there are several poses that long-term could be clarified and remedied.

but it accomplishes comp nooiz myself with our staff the mayor's office and the supervisor. the paymented created a strangle hold on projects and want to alleviate t. is not perfect i think it gets us there and i think to be a good partner to the other city partners we got in a good place but i chair the american's concerns and life to work on the issues as a separate piece of legislation but given the timing issues we are facing i'm and would be comfortable support thanksgiving today with the amendments we discussed and curious whether the technical amendments are some of that would not require additional time and i'm referring to the technical amendments that peskin

mentioned about the title and striking the word, via e mail and over the counter. and oshg mitting preceding as the deputy city attorney read. and the definition of interested party i discussed earlier and including the puc's recommendation for the grace period do those amendments trigger. but i'm not the deputy city attorney. why if i may. i can answer that. all of the amendments that were proposed today -- the long title is submit city attorneys over sees and a more of a brown act issue than anything written admit legislation we have purview over that and can amend that any point to reflect what is written in the legislation. and the other technical clarifications that you addressed would not run arc foul

of making changes the puc language had been sent by mr. canning a few days ago. i did vet it with my office and would be fine. before if00 autocommission is inclineed vote, before i like to go over all of the technical changes so we have that reflected on the record. >> thank you. . so -- if there are no more question and comments from the commission, do i entertain a motion from my colleagues commissioner -- you are -- you have a 2 second delay. to see if you have any last minute comments or you want to -- take any action. >> vice chair bush? >> thank you, chair lee.

i want to get clarification for us -- in this public process. when we talk about entities this are beneficiaries of the funding requests. we are not just talking about nonprofits but the behested payment clouz allow for contributions through educational or governmental purposes. and in the past what that is meant specifically is the mayors and other city officials have established small committees to accomplish a purpose directed by them and staffed by their own people. 've the america's cup committee which raised in the millions of dollars. or committee to mark the

historic anniversary of the city hall. or the committee to seek to have san francisco named for the superbowl. so -- these are committees that actually raised far more money than any of the nonprofits we talked about. and in those case, those -- committees are directed exclusively by the official asking for the money. almost all of it from people whom have contracts or businesses in the city. and most often they are staffed either by a direct employee of the official.

so. i want people to have a broader view. than just saying nonprofit and thinking -- narrowly when the law allows for a pretty broad range of -- gifts that it require reporting but are allowable. and which can have a direct political impact on the official make the request. thank you. >> okay. i wanted to put supervisor peskin on the spot my thing today i love his nonbinding but

public commitment in the event if we see a positive to revisit the issues that he will work with our staff to do so. >> commissioner finlev through the chair i welcome that and as i said publicly, ethic's law is a constantly evolving field the reason that proposition e allowed for amendments with the majority approval of this body and 2 thirds approval of the board of supervisors, was to acknowledge that this is an ever changing, evolving area of law. and to that ends, the discussion that you had today is precisely what i wanted when i wanted volve the ethic's commission. you have my commitment to continue to work on this and other pieces of of the legislation as you have heard now and as i have heard

repeatedly some legitimate and some manufactured. not to put too fine a point between -- dynamic that is frustrating is that there are city attorney opinions, lack of ethic's regulations. it is fallen to me to clarify them in order to deal with that uncertainty. otherwise, i would not really be here and the process that i put in place would be working. i for one, no offense to the city attorney's office, did not intend nor do i believe that the sip program of the puc is implicate in the this legislation but lacking regulation everybody deferred to the city attorney's office i understand why. having said that, i find myself in a position of having to clarify. i would be delighted condition

working with you on things that are not clarified by regulation. it was look the original intent of this to bring in legislative -- and administrative attempts to influence. is where i started. but given the dynamic, i had to retreat. i would be happy to see >> i think commissioner romano put his fingers on certain things definition and interception of the definition of behested of. what does that mean. there are other ways to get at this and i'm happy to do that in the months ahead. >> thank you. i do see any. >> request i -- add-on to that comment. yea. i believe there are a lot of things we could do through regulations around the definition of at the behest of and don't have that proposal in front of you there are ways to

claire foil that and have it be clarified different low going to the city opposed noncity entity is something we can explore in the future. >> if i may, chair. before if am a motion will be made i would like to review the changes. so everyone has the changes when they make this motion. is this proper? >> yes. >> i thought we would make the motion and you going to -- clarify what motion we made. go ahead. >> and also we also need public comment. a reupon minored. we were going to have you yes. >> make changes and make the motion and go to public comment. and take a vote. >> works for me. >> starting on the first page of

long title. the changes that we are making today are to item number 3 in the long title. we are changing it to say, narrowing the prohibition soliciting from persons who have attempted to influence legislative or administrative actions. and then the next number 4, accepting solicitations made in connection with the certain types of city contracts. and the next change is to interested party on page 3. per commissioner finlev's suggestions. i'm starting up the before. before any officer and any officers within the same department of the officer. is this had you contemplated

>> include designated employees. i think it should be before any officer and any officer's or designated employees within the same department of officer. >> i think before any officer or officers within the department of the officer designated employee. i want to get there as well if you mentioned designated employee at the emends it is not clear which designate today is referring to the concept is if you are in front of an officer then the provision captures that officer and any other officer or designate nitted employee in that first officer's department. >> if i may. this may be something that can be addressed through a regulation. to clarify if we are going back and forth on the language

special know the concement. that seems fine. i think -- mr. mar. line 13 should be and changed to or. >> yes. going back we are not going to make the changes to before. the sentence. do it by regulation. >> yea. >> okay. there are no changes to what was proposed the only changes we are changing before in the same sentence before number 2. we are crossing out, and and writing in, or. >> is that what you are referring to? >> yes, thank you. in that sentence interested

party section on page 3 the only change the, or. the next change is in and and adding or. right after in b 1 in the same page any city contractor the paragraph beginning with that at the bottom of that paragraph turns to the next page, which is page 4. we are crossing out via e mail. >> i think the word. e mail. >> made via petition or social media. >> just e mail. >> commissioner romano. >> yes >> thank you. >> i will cross out the comma ever petition. >> yep. >> grammar. and the next change is on page 5 in the license permit or other

entitlement for use usual mean paragraph. we are crossing out the end of this paragraph crossing out are issued over the counter. or. >> it will read. facts presented or as of right. and/or as of right. >> crossing out is are issued over the counter, or. and then next page, page 6 the paragraph starting with preceding shall be defined. at the end of that we are adding, for purposes of this chapter 6 this definition shall arc notice to precedings regarding administrative enforce am action. >> yes, thank you. >> and then the next is -- the change that supervisor peskin

mentioned. to conform the titles to what is earlier ahead on page 7. of section 3 penalty 620a2. contracts. we are adding right now it if you -- if the entered party is a city contract or affiliate a party to or seek to contract with the officer or designated employee's department or person attempted influence the officer regarding -- right there we add, the approval, denial, extension or amendment of a city contract. is everyone okay. the next change is -- on d. exception, competitively program solicitation.

at end of the paragraph we are adding, a program existed on over before january 23, 2022 the san francisco puc commission social impact partnership program considered for this subsection and authorized program. i. 1, only a department that implemented program on or different january 23, 22 include it in the competitive solicitation and the authorize granted under this subsection expire on january 31 of 23 unless the board of supervisor authorizes an exec of the program. if the authority under subsection for pre-existing program expires, the department shall stop including the program but may condition to administer the pre-existing program for contract where proposals received boor the expiration

date. that sound correct, everyonech >> those were the only changes. >> i have another on my list. the definition of interested party. prong b. there ask that reference to section 3.216b1 pointed out incorrect. upon 1 could be to drop off the reference there and say, attempt to influence defined set forth in strike ethic's commission regulations that would allow us to not use the existing revving ligz and create regulations for this prong. it is current definition referenced is for the restricted source rule has different meetings. this is my subassistantive problem. i don't want to excise what i think the stronger language the ethic commission revving ligzs

if you want to excise the reference to 3 penalty 216b i'm happy with that. >> that's what she suggests and the reference. >> no , i want to keep the everyones to the regulations allow for the commission to make changes to them in the future. >> cutting out in section 3.216b1 of the code. page 4 line 3. >> confirm that is the language? >> yep. >> as set forth in ethic regulations and discussed the waiver provision with regard to board of supervisors and waiver implicating the board of supervisors approved by a major vote of this commission. >> would this be an exception waiver? repeat that. if it would be like footwork 1.

or tacked on at the end. any waiver implicating the board of supervisors or a member thereof must be approved by a major vote of the ethic's commission. substantive change. fimay. i -- this is more of what substantive change and so i cannot approve this without gg going back and having them check this conforms. all right. is that a submit narrow deregulation specify that any request made by the board of supervisors would need to be approved or too much to do regulation? i would think this it guess with what the exemption on point with

your exception i think it is would be available through regulation. you any substantive change i have to check and have them review the language. supervisor peskin i didn't see you there. >> no problem. i -- this is a rather unique organizational dynamic between this commission and the board of supervisors there is a parallel relative to the powers that the planning commission has over changes to the planning code where they have the ability to advise. it is a lesser standards than your standard where you have the authority to stay, yes or no or suggest not suggest, bring

forward amendments. however in the spirit of the planning commission dynamic if it is acceptable to the city attorney, and is not violative of prop e, i would suggest that your transmittal to the board of supervisors includes the notion that commissioner romano expressed that -- as stated which is that any waiver for department number one the board of supervisors requires the expressed approval of the ethic's commission. and then they can word smith the language and may be if mrs. florez allow we adopt that word smith language perspectively. >> so we -- i had discuss third degree topic with my coworkers and unfortunately whatever is

written in the legislation as approved today abcents technical or typo or grammatical errors it has to come back for approval. >> let me try this on the city attorney through the chair, making law on the spot which always makes city attorneys appropriately nervous. would the city attorney consider to be substantive, i would suggest that it it is not, if in the first sentence of subsection f exceptional waiver on my page 10, line one, the end of that sentence upon request by a city department the board may wave the requirements this this section 3 penalty 620 by resolution that may not wave it

for itself. >> that would be i think that would be okay. it is not a substantive change. >> perfect. >> that would do the trick. >> can you repeat that supervisor peskin. >> yes. >> of upon request by a city department board of supervisor may wave the requirements of this section 3.6020 by residence laugz but may not wave it for itself. >> i think that is -- okay. it didn't change the substance the only question i have is -- you know are you asking you could say other than the board of supervisors as well. that is not as clear in my

opinion. this is a request and -- okay. >> i play lawyer on tv. >> but may not wave it for itself is appropriate. and i would approve it as to form and the reminder i add if the commissionmented to add a regulation the board of supervisors may come to the commission to get waiver i don't know if this is a consideration the commissionments to maim. through the chair, insofar as i suspect this will be an on going project of refinement over time, we can put that in the file for future changes that we canityerate with our 2 bodies would be my suggestion. >> we all in agreement with that one. is there no other >> one more proposal changeip

wanted circle back on discussion of the definition of payment and addition of the thousand dollar exception. there was suggestion of having that be a lower thresholdmented make clear if the commissionmented to leave it or suggest an alternate amount >> thank you mr. canning. i think lower would be nice the reasons articulated by the mayor's office i'm comfortable with the thousand dollar i see that has a low amount. not perfect but in the compromise i'm fine with that as is. speaking for myself. >> any other changes mr. canning? >> not this i'm aware >> the thouz anldz dollar there is no change? >> thank you. >> okay. so do i have a motion to approve

this proposal with the amended changes as articulated by the city attorney? >> commissioner bush? 2 second delay. do you have any? you are on mute. vice chair bush you are on mute. >> am i on now? >> yes. >> all right. i want when you are red to vote i will vote, yes. >> okay. do we have a motion? >> i move to adopt the proposed measure amended today the amendments by deputy city attorney florez. could you take public comment. >> i will second. >> okay.

we have a motion and a second to approve this. let's open up for public comment, please. we have i think we have someone who wished to make a comment. on site. go ahead. meanwhile moderator can you check on any potential commenters in the queue. go ahead. yes, madam chair. >> please, go ahead. >> you recognize me i'm going to take my mask off. i don't like to go incognito i'm charles furthermoreerly with common cause. we sorry. and also the friends of ethics.

i would refer you at some point may be not today. to reread the voter statements or the sponsor's statements regarding this legislation. because i of course there is an appearance risk among the public on this issue. that is there is an appearance to me as a member of the public i will be knowledgeable. but other members of public and possible low ultimately to the press that of this process of amendment has been manipulated and you have been caught in a bit of a web. >> how many voter passed initiatives in san francisco have been immediately put through this process of amendment that was originally

sponsored or suggested by bob stern. with the center for governmental studies as a reform measure. how much times have we immediately repealed and reenacted using the stern provizo or amendment mechanism instead of doing what we have done in the past and that is for the board to essential low propose as they did for the election's commission. come turned out to be unconstitutional in the first draft in 2001. to propose its repeal and reenactment, what happened in 2002. if this bill is so flawed it needs an amendment process so -- massively -- adjusted as you are

doing. that it is so bad it should be repealed by member and proposeed be reenacted. probably by the mayor who is working in this room. as we speak. to get you to do the other duties or dirty work in affect, or to go back to the board and repeal and reenact like we did for election's commission. for this body to get its fingerprints in this thing or get itself sullied is not appropriate. this it is a vaseration of that mechanism the amendment mechanism. thank you. >> i should say nice to meet you all i have not met most of you before except mrs. lee.

and staff. >> nice to meet you, also. >> operator do we have other callers? to comment on this? >> yes, we have 2 caller in the queue we still have hand's raised by mr. john and mr. ron flynn. i don't know if they had anything to ad before we go on with public comment. >> if you don't would you police lower your hands. i don't have anything. i'm sorry. >> thank you. >> i don't either apologies not sure how to lower my hand. >> no worries thank you for confirming. we have 2 callers, stand by. welcome, your 3 minutes begins now. >> hello this is debbie from san francisco human services network

in association of 80 community based nonprofits. we had deep concern about the impact of the behested contribution's measure on the city's ability to raise donations for urgent community needs service for homeless and other vulnerable residents it lead to consequences due to a broad approach or lack of clarity and caused harmful delays now required for the city attorney to review all potential solicitations on a case by case basis. we support the amendments put forth bite mayor's office and supervisor peskin. they will mitigate the provisions that caused the greatest harm to the ability to funds vital programs. regarding the attempt to influence government action, this language goes beyond benefit to include anybody who expresses an opinion on any

pending legislation or administrative action. this broad and vague definition sweeps up thousands of people making impossible as a practical matter for public officials to track it to comply. fails draw a line what is and not permitd and chilling affect on per missable and desirable funds raising the amendment creates an enforceable po hibitification applies to lobbyists and hold the risk of possible corruption. regarding e mail my recollection the concern was the hundreds of letters that supervisors received from members of the public on every [inaudible] issue imaginable that make the interested parties and impossible to track that concern is less if the broad definition is amended.

and there is a much lesser risk of corruption at low everybody level donations which the bribery laws already cover. we thank staff for your review of the legislation and urge the commission to approve it today with urgency in order to allow fundraising efforts to move forward. >> thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. stand by. welcome your 3 minutes begins now. >> commissioners, i'm francisco decosta.

i followed the behested [inaudible] for the last 15 years. why are you commissioners trying to work with a board of supervisors? why are you trying to work with the mayor's office? y'all have the ability to discern. the [inaudible] other is a [inaudible] [echo], you are confusing the public. you listen to the garbage for hours and hours and because you cannot not educated on issues simple issues you cannot come up with the right type of

ordinance. don't know how much time it takes for the ordinance to pass. you are that [inaudible] back and forth with the city attorney. changing the language and making a mockery of what should be the ethic's commission doing its work. you have obscured members in san francisco who work very, very hard with ethic's commission. today the ecic's commission is at the all time low. and [inaudible] or whatever is the [inaudible]. weer fed up with you. fed up with y'all. [inaudible] a big nonprofits wing with [inaudible] the mayor who does not want any type of monitoring.

any type of enforcement. her mentality is like the [inaudible] that is simple. the supervisors, should remin in the chamber. [inaudible] stop. >> stand by. there are no further caller in the queue. why okay. no more public comment. it is closed. now before us is a motion proposed and seconded to adopt the amended city behested payment rules. call the roll, please. >> madam chair on the motion to

adopt with amendmented i will call the roll. commissioner bush. >> can you hear me? >> yes. >> yes. >> commissioner feng. >> neigh. >> commissioner finlev. >> yes. >> chair lee. >> yes. >> commissioner romano. >> no. madam chair with 3 votes affirmative and 2 in decent the motion is carried by 3-2. >> okay. thank you. we are now on know number 7 discussion of items for future meetings. vice chair bush? thank you. >> i issues we could [inaudible]

[echo] mostly a question of providing information on data [inaudible]. for example. since we just will have completed a reporting period, who are the top 5 campaign donors and to whom which campaigns do they give and how much do they give? secondly, what about the operation of 501c4's allow to be politically active but don't show up as part of a campaign. i have a list of those things. which i think would be important for the public to understand the influences that are at work in our campaigns and where the data is collected by us but not

provide in the a format that is easily accessible to the public. i will submit those for consideration to be added to the next agenda. >> that would be in the september ninth meeting then. >> yes. kreshth. >> okay that's correct. >> okay. >> not for next meeting but some point helpful to have an educational session on issues he raised in terms of political action by nonpolitical entities. commissioner bush mentioned 501c4's and -- i would lo of to have an expert to ask to get an understanding of the issues in case we feel need to regulate. that piggybacks with commissioner bush's suggestion.

i think we should start by educating ourselves and the public on the substance. that is my item for next session more of a wish list for down the road when we have a lighter agenda. >> i think we should have it at september meeting everything else will be connected to that. let's have that as an informational presentation by staff. for september ninth. and in that process, this is wish again, i think it will be helpful for us to know in what form the public is informed with commissioners recuse themselves. from voting. there are rules that require recusal but does not require that recusal be publicly disclosed and provided to the

ethic's commission. we need to note things like that. and i also -- as we consider continue to involve ourselves in negotiations with mea and others overnight behested payment requirements, i would like to suggest this we add a new issue. to those discussions. and that is a requirement that [inaudible] officers must confirm that check and verified the accuracy of what is filed. as it is now, filing officers receive a form 700 for their filers in their department but no requirement that the filing officers review and when not the