one person procreating them people are making them by hand as a result more interesting and can't get that of minor or anywhere else and san francisco a hot bed for local manufacturing in support that is what keeps your city vibrant we'll make a compelling place to live and visit i think that local business is the lifeblood of san francisco and a vibrant community 27th. 2024 regular meeting of the san francisco ethics commission. today's meeting is live cablecast on sfgovtv two and live streamed online at sfgovtv. .org forward slash ethics live for public comment. members of the public may attend in person or may participate by

phone or the webex platforms, as explained in our agenda document. mr. clerk, would you please explain how remote public comment will be handled? public comment will be available on each item on this agenda. each member of the public will be allowed three minutes to speak. for those attending in person, opportunities to speak during the public comment period will be made available here in room 416. city hall. for those attending remotely. public comment period can also be provided via phone call by calling 14156550001. access cod. is 26616816255, followed by the pound, sign and press pound again to join as an attendee. when your item of interest comes up, press star three to raise your hand to be added to the public. comment line. public comment is also available via the webex client application. use the webex link on the agenda to connect and press the raise

hand button to be added to the public comment line. for detailed instructions on how to interact with the telephone system or webex client, please refer to the public comment section of the agenda document. for this meeting. public comment may be may also be submitted in writing and will be shared with the commission after this meeting has concluded and will be included as part of the official meeting file. written comments should be sent to ethics commission at sfgov .org. members of the public who attend commission meetings, including remote attendance, are also expected to behave responsibly and respectfully during public comment. please address your comments to the commission as a whole and not to individual members. persons who engage in name calling, shouting interruptions or other distracting behavior may be excluded from participation. thank you, mr. clerk. i now call the meeting to order. clerk, would you please call? roll commissioners, please verbally indicate your presence by saying i after your name is called.

chair i. commissioner flores fang i. commissioner. safaí i. commissioner ci. i. commissioner. francois i. chair. with five members present and accounted for. you have a quorum. thank you, mr. clerk. with that, i call agenda item two. general public comment. does anyone in the room wish to make public comment? go ahead. thank you. i want to excuse me. i wanted to know how many minutes i have. okay. three. thank you. good morning. i think, commissioners, my name is ellen li zhao. e l l e n l e h o u. i pledge the allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic of which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all, born and unborn, and vaccinated and unvaccinated. i was a public social worker for san francisco

taxpayer funded government for almost 20 years. i was wrongfully terminated in 2022 due to due to not accepting the covid 19 vaccine. hundreds of christians and catholics were wrongfully terminated. like me in 2021 and 2022. we all have still have 13 excuse me, 33 active lawsuits against unconstitutional vaccine mandates. we all want our jobs back. but the democrat leaders, mayor 11, board of supervisors and city leaders and city attorneys purposely abused public taxpayer funds and refused to allow unvaccinated workers to come back to work. wasting tax public money and fighting the unvaccinated workers in court and refuse workers to come back to work. san francisco government has been run by a group of puppet masters to destroy our safety, health and wealth and freedom. i have been working and living in

san francisco for more than 38 years. i was nominated to run for mayor in 2018 and 2019 at the commissions department has been discriminating me and retaliated me after i exposed corruption in san francisco. my 2019 campaign billboard was about child trafficking, human trafficking, and homeless scams. that it was illegally removed. my billboard was illegally removed by democrat leaders at the commission, did nothing to stop election interference. i am running for mayor again this year, 2024. i have been discriminated by the democrat party leaders and democrat puppet masters, plus the mockingbird fake media's telling the public only five mayor candidates. the truth is, we have 13 people running for mayor on the ballot. the mayor position is nonpartizan ethics commission has the duty to investigate election interference. i am here today to

demand you the ethics commission department to investigate election interference and election fraud. i am a conservative republican, a pro-life mother, and a family social worker. i am against illegal drugs and government corruption. and yes, i am a make america great america. america great republican for my president trump. i am running for san francisco mayor against you and the people who are corrupted. our system and may god bless san francisco. thank you. and this is my public record. thank you. thank you. is there anyone else in the room who would like to make public comment? seeing none, mr. clerk, will you check if there are any remote callers? sure we're checking to see if there are callers in the queue. if there are no callers in the queue.

thank you. hearing no further, members of the public wishing to speak general comment under item two is now closed. i now call the consent calendar. colleagues, as noted on the agenda, there will be no separate discussion of these items unless a request is made by a commissioner or a member of the public, in which event the matter shall be removed from the consent calendar and considered as a separate item. the matters on the consent calendar are. draft minutes of the commission's prior meeting, the executive director's report, and a director of enforcement report. do any of my colleagues, commissioners wish to discuss one of these items? seeing none. any member of the public in the room wish to discuss any of these items. seeing none. mr. clerk, would you check if there are any remote callers? chair, we're checking to see if there's any callers in the queue. chair. if there are no callers. thank you. public comment is closed. i

move to adopt the matters on the consent calendar. is there a second? second. mr. clerk, would you take the vote, please? on the motion to adopt the consent calendar. commissioner finley. i, commissioner florez. fang. i commissioner salahi. i commissioner tsai. i commissioner francois i chair finley. with five votes in the affirmative, the motion is approved unanimously. thank you, mr. clerk. i now call agenda item six. discussion and possible action regarding proposed stipulation decision and order. the matter of walter park. hi. go ahead. good morning, chair. commissioners. for the record, my name is eric willett, and i'm an investigator and

legal analyst with the commission. this matter involves respondent walter park. he is a commissioner of the access appeals commission, and he failed to timely file this form 700 and trainings for ethics and his sunshine ordinance declaration. and he participated in matters at two meetings of the access appeals commission while he was disqualified from doing so. the facts of this case are similar to prior matters presented before this commission. in the recent past and the penalty amount recommended per violation was based upon penalty modifiers present. present in the commission. streamlined enforcement program, and they were also similar to those considered and ratified by commissioners in the recent past as well. those penalties were then reduced because the respondent demonstrated a partial inability to pay pursuant to the commission's enforcement regulations, and i'm glad to answer any questions that commissioners may have. thank you. i very much support this action, but i did have a couple of small questions, for

one, what is the access appeals commission? actually, do you know what's their. i don't mean to detail, i just assuming. well, sure. limited access appeals commission conducts hearings to approve or disapprove the department of building inspections, interpretations of applicable disability access regulations and actions taken by the department to of dbi to enforce said regulations and abate violations of the access of access and disability code. and in particular, the two meetings that respondent participated at. there were a number of items considered and those included. that's right. i didn't really know what the commission did at all. so thank you, i have a couple other small questions, but i'm curious whether any of my colleagues i don't want to. i do too, but go ahead. yeah, so one, i didn't realize that until i read this, which was a very helpful memo that agencies or commissions are supposed to

advise their own members if they haven't timely filed their forms. it seems like a good requirement, and that in this case, the commission didn't do that. i'm just wondering whether our staff makes it a practice. maybe it's not enforcement, maybe it's the other division. does it? obviously we're dealing with the respondent here, but i'm wondering whether you also remind the commission, hey, you guys are supposed to advise your members if they don't file whatever are. you guys have been great. whenever i've had to file my forms, i get lots of reminders internally. so i'm just curious about that. no, it's a great question, sheriff, that notification requirement is on the shoulders of the board. and commission secretaries or clerks, but the commission has taken steps to ensure that those clerk and secretaries are aware of that disclosure requirement, that they are to notify disqualified board or commission members that they are disqualified from participation at those particular meetings. and that's something that engagement and compliance is on top of, to ensure that those

clerks and secretaries know their requirements. got it. okay, that makes sense. also notice here on the timeline when it recites all the times that the engagement and compliance folks reached out to this individual, it looks like unless i got the timing wrong, they start reaching out before it was actually due. i'm talking about the form 700 on the middle of page seven. the fourth paragraph, starting on february 6th, 16th, blah blah blah. those dates precede. right? the due date. so those were like advance, warnings. i guess. yes that's correct. the engagement and compliance division notifies the filers of their upcoming filing requirements. and those notifications go out to the email addresses of record and the filings filing. the filers are responsible for maintaining their email records so that those are up to date and then post filing deadline engagement and compliance division also will notify the filers who have failed to file, that they have failed to file, and they have an

outstanding filing obligation. and then those who are disqualified for participation will also be notified by our engagement and compliance division that they are participating or, prohibited from participating while they're disqualified. got it. okay. then just one last comment. i think the penalty that you all proposed, the 2100 was super appropriate. but i'm also glad that the respondent took advantage of the opportunity to present a financial hardship record or documentation, and that the staff consider that. so i thought that ended up in a good place, no other comments from me. thank you. my questions were along the lines of the chair's initial question. i was just curious about the mechanism for notifying other commissions. is that an automated process, or is it a burden that falls on the enforcement team to actually open the file and reach out to somebody? and if there might be a way to streamline that, if so, to reduce that burden. commissioner selby, if i understand your question correctly, are you asking whether the notifications pre

and post filing requirement go out automatically? i should clarify, i actually meant once the noncompliance has occurred and the individual is disqualified until they resolve that is the notification to the secretary. for example, the other commission, something that occurs through an automated process. or it is does the burden fall on the staff to do that, it's my understanding that the notifications will go out to the filer automatically, but the which may be incorrect. we have our engagement and compliance division officer here who's in charge of this program. it might be better suited to answer. okay. it is manual. it's manual. yeah. i just i'm curious if that is something that seems amenable to automation. i have no idea what resources are actually available to do that, but it might make. i think i understand your question. at this time, i don't believe we have any notifications to the secretaries. it's just a requirement, part of the code that they are to notify commissioners or board members. but again, enforcement i mean,

engagement and compliance is working on that issue now to make sure that they are aware of that obligation to notify board and commission members, because we're seeing these issues and noticing that when we review the minutes that they're actually not doing that. so, yeah, we think it's important that's helpful, that it also seems something like that. the disqualified commissioners might appreciate, too, because they end up facing additional counts if they don't. okay. thank you. any other comments or questions? i have a quick comment, was there any confirmation that the emails were received when i spoke to the respondent? he did indicate that he had received those emails. thank you. and i think the stipulation notes that he eventually did respond to an email. and i assume it was the same address the whole time, right? that's correct. yes, great. commissioner francois

flores fang. i mean, i was just going to commend the commission as well. i mean, i think it's, or the division for kind of engaging with this person and working on, you know, a fee that's reasonable. i think that that really goes to the core of what we do, where it, you know, we are enforcing these rules, but it's also very humane. and so i appreciated the way that you went about that. thank you commissioner. great. so we'll see if there's a motion and then we'll do public comment afterwards. is there a motion on this matter? move to approve. i'll second. i'll second. sorry are you jumping at it, mr. clerk, would you take roll, please? public comment or. sorry. public comment. thank you. does anyone in the room wish to make public comment on this matter? seeing none. mr. clerk, would you check if there are any remote callers? sure. we're checking to see if there are callers in the queue. shamann live. there are no

callers. great. thank you for checking. and now, whenever you're ready, we'll take roll. okay. thank you. on the motion to approve item six. chair. commissioner finley, i, commissioner flores fang i commissioner safaí. i commissioner sy i commissioner francois i chair. finley. five votes in in the affirmative. the motion is approved unanimously. thank you, mr. clerk. we'll now call agenda item seven. commissioner safaí has been previously recused from this matter and will excuse himself. could someone just close the door? thanks.

thank you, mr. canning. agenda item seven is discussion and possible action regarding proposed stipulation, decision and order in the matter of neighbors for a better san francisco advocacy and j. chang. mr. damico. good morning. my name is zach damico. i'm an investigator with the enforcement division. so this. i'll briefly present a summary of the case. the case involves neighbors for a better san francisco advocacy. they're a 500 and 1c4 nonprofit, also operating as a general purpose committee. i would just note that they have an affiliated entity. neighbors for a better san francisco. that's ac3. they are not a respondent in this case. if they come up, i'll refer to neighbors advocacy as

the respondent. the c for the committee and neighbors is the c three. also concerns the executive director of the c4 and also the principal officer of the committee, j. chang. he serves in both roles. so in this case, neighbors advocacy paid its consultant, riff city strategies, to provide services directly to the primarily formed committee supporting the recall of chesa boudin in late 2021 and the first half of 2022, riff city strategies handled media inquiries for the recall committee. drafted press releases wrote talking points for recall staff and prepped recall staff, and spokespersons for interviews. riff city's work for the recall committee was coordinated and directed in large part by j. chang because riff city's work for the recall committee accounted for over 10% of its compensated time for neighbors advocacy. the law required that neighbors advocacy report those payments to riff city as contributions to the

recall committee. non-monetary contributions. in total, neighbors advocacy failed to report just over 100,000. in these non-monetary contributions, including three late contributions made within 90 days of the june election. in doing so, this kept essential information from the public on who was spending to influence that election and how they were spending our proposed penalty in this case is just over half of the unreported contribution amount set in the proposed settlement at 53,916. thank you, mr. damico. i don't have any questions. i would just note that these disclosures are important, but they're also hard to. the violations are hard to detect given the nature of what happened here. so i applaud the staff and you for the work you did on this matter. any questions from my colleagues? no questions for me, again, we'll see if there's a motion. then i'll entertain public comment. is there a. i moved to, adopt

the staff's recommendation and agenda item eight. sorry. agenda item seven. seconded is there anyone in the room who would like to make public comment on this matter? yes. good morning again. my name is ellen. l e n l e z h o u. this year, 2024. i'm running for mayor and i am the one of the 13 qualified on the ballot. i am the only republican a mother and a social worker. against what you have been doing to the asian community. i don't know this person, j. but i know that you target asian people, but that's not the point. i'm talking today. the point is, all this super pacs and all those 500 and 14c, the nonprofit political

pacs. they are targeted conservatives. they are targeted republican. all these debates that they are controlled by many, many of these political pacs in san francisco. they do not allow republicans anyone but democrats. so if democrat is controlling you, the commissioners sitting in here and i have been coming in here for the last many years letting you know i have been discriminated because i am a republican and i am a conservative, and i am not a democrat anymore. after 22 years, i quit. i quit democrats, but this idea that you are trying to find people. so according to what i know, the commission, the commissioner is only a committee and you are not a court. you are not a court of law, and you have no judicial power, which means legally, you

cannot penalize people without a court order going to court. and take anyone to go to court. for example, i ran in 2019, you tried to penalize me a lot of money and, you know, you were wrong because i just said it. you have no judicial power to give anyone. fine, because you are not a court of law. you are only a committee. if people agree with you, you have power. if people don't agree with you, you are. excuse me. useless, hopeless. and you're not helping any of the voters in san francisco. i come here to report to you. my billboard was illegally removed in 2019 about human trafficking and child trafficking. you, the ethics commission. people turn around and try to penalize me for putting up a billboard. you see how the thing is working? so j is a chinese person according to what i know from the last name. i've never met this person. i don't know this person. but you

have no authority to penalize or fine anyone without taking them to court. that's the most important message. thank you. thank you. anyone else in the room would like to make a public comment on this item? seeing none. mr. clerk, would you check if there are any remote callers? chair, we're checking to see if there are callers in the queue. chairman. live. there are no callers. thank you, mr. clerk. on agenda item seven, on the motion to adopt staff's recommendations on agenda item seven, would you please take roll on the motion to adopt staff's recommendations for agenda item seven, commissioner finley. i, commissioner flores feng i commissioner tsai i commissioner francois i chair finley with four votes in the affirmative. the motion is approved unanimously. thank you, mr. clerk. let's take a few

seconds as we're rejoined by ou. erstwhile commissioner. thank you, mr. canning. i now call agenda item eight. discussion and possible action regarding proposed amendments to incompatible activities. regulations to implement proposition d. thank you. commissioners. the draft regulations before the commission today deal with section 3.218 of the campaign and governmental conduct code, as it will be amended by

proposition d on october 12th. section 3.218 contains rules on incompatible activities which had previously been located in departmental statements of incompatible activities. this includes the rule that prohibits officers and employees from engaging in activities that are subject to the jurisdiction of their department, which includes an explicit rule against contracting with one's own department or serving on the board of directors of an entity that contracts with your department. a copy of section 3.218 is included as attachment one to the memo. the draft regulations here are intended to clarify terms and create limited exceptions to and specify the scope of section 3.218 so that it can be effectively implemented. on october 12th, the draft regulations are presented in attachment two in full, and there's a table in the memo, that provides descriptions and rationale for each regulation. but i'll briefly summarize each of them here, regulation 3.218-1 specifies

that while officers and employees are allowed to be a party to matters before their departments, they must abstain from any involvement in such matters as part of their city duties, dash two builds on that first regulation and specifies that if an officer or employee has a single member, llc sole proprietorship, or similar entity, they can also represent that entity the same as they could represent themselves before their department. dash three allows for employment with entities that engage in activities subject to the department's jurisdiction, with guardrails in place to prevent inappropriate influence, dash four similarly allows owning or controlling an entity that engages in activities subject to the department's jurisdiction, again with guardrails in place to prevent inappropriate influence. dash five clarifies that the exception for engaging in nonprofit volunteer activity does include serving on the

board of directors of a nonprofit as long as the officer or employee abstains from participating in matters involving that nonprofit as part of their city duties. and the nonprofit is not contracting with the officer employees department. dash six mirrors language found elsewhere in the code to clarify what it means to contract with one's own department. dash seven specifies that officers and employees may serve on the board of directors of an entity that contracts with their department, if they are doing so as part of their city duties representing the city and not being compensated by the other entity by any entity other than the city, lastly, dash eight duplicates an existing regulation that currently applies to section 3.216 on restricted source gifts, which clarifies how the commission defines department for the purposes of this rule. developing these regulations was a lengthy process last october. staff held two interested

persons, two interested persons, meetings with stakeholders from various departments. and community organizations on potential 3.2 and eight regulations. and in january of this year, initial drafts of these regulations were shared with the commission before being noticed to city bargaining units. subsequently throughout the last year, staff have worked with stakeholders from various departments, including the department of public health, the office of economic and workforce development, the mayor's office, the city attorney's office, the city administrator's office, and others to strengthen and revise these regulations, between march and august, staff also engaged in and concluded a meet and confer process with the municipal executives association over the draft regulations. staff would also like to thank all of the departments and stakeholders who provided feedback and worked with us on the development of the regulations. we believe this process has resulted in a set of regulations that will be

critical to effectively implementing section 3.2 and eight next month. having these regulations in place will allow the engagement and compliance division the ability to provide clear advice to officers and employees on section 3.2 and eight, and have compliance materials in place that will provide clarity to the city officials on how these rules work. as with all the commission's regulatory work, this is an iterative process, and additional regulations may be necessary in the future, but the regulations before the commission today, we believe, are a solid foundation on which to build from. and that's why the staff recommends the commission adopt the regulations as drafted. thank you. and happy to take any questions. thank you, mr. canning. again, i do have some specific questions but don't need to jump ahead if anyone else wants to take the first crack. all right. i have a couple. thank you for doing this. and thank you for engaging with folks through the interested persons process and the other processes. i think

these are all make a lot of sense and are very clarifying and helpful. i have a question on section three, the new one. yeah. about activity subject to the department's jurisdiction. yes. i'm looking at the actual draft language that you helpfully attached, so here there are kind of two prongs to make something not exempt. right? one is the officer. employee does not personally or substantially engage in the activities, and two is as part of their city duties. they're not involved in any matters explicitly involving their non city employer. the kind of two prongs. correct. i'm wondering whether if you could just take out the first prong, because i can imagine a situation where someone is not in their private employment is not necessarily involved in the activity that's subject to the city's jurisdiction, but we still don't want that person using their city role to affect their employer. in other words, if you work at a i'm just going to throw out a if you work at a restaurant, maybe you're not involved in the portion of the

restaurant that gets, checked by the code team. that doesn't mean that if you work for the code folks, you still don't want to work on anything involving the restaurant, irrespective of what your role is at the restaurant. does that make sense? so what i'm concerned is that this may allow if both prongs are not met, if someone only meets the second prong, for example, they would not, as i understand it, would not be barred from engaging in that activity. it would be. it would. it's intended to cover both. basically, we need to recuse kind of on both sides of the equation. so if you have outside employment, you need to not as part of that outside employment work on, activities that involve your department. and then at the same time, if you, at the same time, you're prohibited from in your city capacity working on items that would impact the, the outside employer, right? no, no, i get that. i think i'm not doing a good job of articulating this, and i should have, discussed with you in advance.

i'm sorry. because it's kind of a nuanced point. i'm trying to make, and i'll take another stab. so if you look at the two prongs on the, section three. yeah. right. one, it says that, and i think they're conjunctive. they both have to be satisfied. right? it's not an or. it's one, and two have to be minimum. yeah it's the in order to have the outside employment you need to both not be involved in the matter as a city official and not be involved in matters as a city employee. so, right. that's the second part that i'm struggling with. i feel like if you're in your private employment, it doesn't really matter what you're doing. you should not be doing anything as a city employee that affects your private employer. that's my point. so that and maybe i'm wrong. that's why i'm. yeah, i'm not 100% following your point, commissioner, so the example i can think of is if you work at a restaurant and maybe you're not directly involved in activity that's subject to the department's jurisdiction, maybe it's code enforcement. i don't know what the city does for restaurants. you know, health stuff. yeah but maybe you still

work there as a server. yeah. so maybe you don't satisfy prong a prong one. sorry, but i still don't think you should be under prong two as part of your city duties. doing anything that involves your own restaurant, even though maybe in your private employment, you're not involved in whatever code is looking at. because i can imagine a situation where a city employee is pressured by their private employer, hey, can you help us out or do something? even without pressure, they're taking action in their official capacity to help their private employer, even though in their private employment they're not necessarily involved in that portion. am i articulating that in. yeah, i think i think i understand what you're saying, but as i understand it, that's what this is intended to. yeah. yeah. the, the and is basically if you're doing either of those activities, you wouldn't be the additional employment would be incompatible at that point. if you're engaged in activities on the city side that influence or benefit your outside employer, that wouldn't be prohibited. and if you also do something on the

city, on the non city side, that involves liaising with your department or matters before your department, that would also make it not not allowed. that makes sense to me. but the word and in their in the rule makes me think they both have to be satisfied for that prohibition to kick in. and i maybe just misreading the, the. yeah. i mean i think the intent in the way we've read it with the city attorney's office is that it would be, i think, if either of those conditions is satisfied, that would make the activity incompatible. i don't know, i think i think what makes it a little confusing is that they're both negative, but i read it the way that they're saying is that you you can only work for that outside entity. if you don't, if you if you're not engaged in the, the, the work of that employer that is subject to the department's jurisdiction. and if you're also not participating in anything, but again, that's covered by the city, you're also not doing this. so that makes it conjunctive, right. you have to do both things you can't do either. you have to not do either thing. yeah, do you,

madam, do you want to weigh in? yeah. i think i understand what you're saying. i think the issue that you're raising would be a problem if this was a statement of what would be incompatible. so if this was a statement that these would be incompatible, you would want it to be an or. however, this is a statement of what is permissible. and so because it's a statement of what is permissible, you want both of these things to be true. and that will catch. so if either of these is untrue then then you would get to what you're saying. so i think because it's a it's an affirmative statement, you want the and here got it. okay. thank you. that's helpful. and thank you for that discussion that yeah i may have been the only one confused, but now i'm less confused, so one other point on a different matter on item number seven, that's the one about the definition of serving on the board of directors. yes. so i think this makes a lot of sense. if it's someone's as a part of your job to be on this board, then that shouldn't be a problem. so i like that the regs says if it's in whatever contract the city has, and i'll let my colleagues,

i'll tell them exactly what i'm looking at. so this is, the regulation 3218-7. i'm looking at the actual language on page 19 of 28 of our packet. and, the second to last line in those two paragraphs says, it's describing when you're serving on a board as part of the city duties, only if the service is required by law or by contract with the city. that's in the second line of that second paragraph. that makes a lot of sense. but then it says, or if the department head says it's part of their duties. the second part, i'm wondering whether there will be it would be helpful to have guidance to the department head to help explain. when is it part of their duty? because i could imagine a situation where a department where a subordinate employee asked their head, hey, i'd like to serve on this board. it's helpful to our mission. please sign this letter saying it's part of my duties, and maybe that results in the kind of problematic relationship that we're trying to avoid. so that's my question. yeah, i can definitely work with our

engagement compliance division to see if we can, you know, have that more reflected in the materials. like what are some, you know, guidance on when it may or may not be appropriate to award that, you know, i think the in general is probably pretty narrow in the examples that we give are it's required by a contract or by law. we wanted to leave some flexibility for department heads. if there are other situations. but, for the most part, i don't think we intend it to be incredibly broad. right. okay great, no other questions for me. and i'm personally happy to support these as as written. madam, i had a quick question, and this is please remind me if this if we've already been through this, but i vaguely remember us discussing the potential of kind of expanding

or unpacking what it means to be subject to and personally and substantially engage and i'm thinking specifically, i'm looking to 3.218-3, and it could be that we've already unpacked these, yeah. i believe there's similar language in the post-employment rules, and we have kind of regs that detail what personally and substantially means, so i think those would probably be a strong guide in terms of defining that would be looking to the 3.234 regs to okay, perfect. yeah. i just i had remembered it's like they stuck out to me here again. and i felt like we had already been through them. yeah so to the extent i mean someone else like me is wondering, i don't know if we can put a footnote or something and say, hey, refer to like this is also defined elsewhere. yeah. i don't know if we'd put that directly into the regs, but in the compliance materials we can connect those. thank you. further questions.

any other comments? questions great. seeing none. is there a motion on agenda item eight a motion to adopt. second, it. great. anyone? is there anyone in the room who would like to make public comment on agenda item eight? seeing none. mr. clerk, would you see if there are any remote callers in live? we're checking to see if there are callers in the queue. there's one caller in the queue. welcome, caller. your three minutes begins now. hi, this is debbie lehrman at the san francisco human services network. i have spoken on this issue a number of times. i believe that these final proposed regulations still do not address the serious concerns that we've raised on the issues of employment and serving on

nonprofit boards regarding employment. this is overly broad for non decision makers and frontline workers. there are employees who work for the city, pick up some extra money perhaps on the weekend. case managers, child care workers, specialists such as nurses and psychiatrists, which are very difficult for non-profits to hire and we object to the requirement that that position can't be majority funded. there is still a staffing crisis as non-profits are struggling to hire and the city underfunds nonprofits to pay adequate wages. this proposal undermines the ability to achieve the outcomes that the city is contracting with nonprofits to provide, and it has a punitive impact on entry level employees who are trying to make a living with multiple jobs. these are workers who don't participate in decision making. they don't represent the nonprofit in discussions with the city, and the regulations should allow frontline workers to engage in

part time employment at a city funded nonprofit, even if that position is majority funded by the city. regarding nonprofit boards, again, it is overly broad. for example, there are thousands of d.p.h staff, and many of them would like to share their expertise through board service with the dozens of health care nonprofits that contract with d.p.h. and it's often in service areas that are not part of their jobs. so you might have a city employee regarding substance use who wants to serve on an aids nonprofit. this would prevent them from doing that. and again, the issue is with staff who are not participating in contracting decisions regarding the nonprofit board they're serving on. non city staff should be allowed to serve on nonprofit boards, even if there's a contract with the department. and there are other guardrails that could ensure that they don't participate in matters

involving that nonprofit as part of their city duties, it could require approval by the department, case by case, with criteria to guide the decision. so and we also want to distinguish nonprofit and for profit boards and nonprofit boards. they are uncompensated. they get no personal gain from serving as a volunteer on a board. and there is a negligible risk of corrupting influence. it serves the public interest for this commission to acknowledge those differences and regulate nonprofit boards accordingly. thank you. sheriff. and if there are no more callers in the queue, mr. canning, are you able to the point about the majority funded positions? are you able to address the caller's. yeah, i can speak to that, you know, that language i believe came out of conversations with the

department of public health who had raised. can you first, do you remember, which i don't she didn't specify which section that is. do you happen to know that i remember seeing the language, but i just don't remember the number in front of me. oh, are the it's dash three regarding employment. it's the top of page 18. which kind of, further specifies what contributing to activities, subject to the department's restriction would, would include, so i pulled up mic a little closer. sorry, it's the top of page 18, which is regarding the regulation on employment, which is giving examples of engaging in activities subject to the department's jurisdiction includes, working in a position that is majority funded by the officer or employees, city department, and i believe part of this came out of discussions last year with the department of public health, who was concerned

that the 3.2 and eight language in the code would be overly broad and prevent d.p.h nurses from potentially having outside employment with entities that have business before or contract with d.p.h, and you know, so the goal was to allow that employment, but also putting in the guardrail that we did not want to have a situation where somebody is a city employee and then also has a secondary job that is funded by their same department. that seems like double dipping. that seems like a conflict. like, why is one person being paid twice by their department to do two roles? and this language was added explicitly because there was a concern that some of these contracting entities with d.p.h might receive some funding from, from d.p.h. and some of that funding is more like service based. so it's, you know, general funding to administer covid shots and a nurse who

works for d.p.h, who's working part time for another entity, part of their job might be administering those covid shots. so maybe a small percentage of their outside employment is in some way funded by the department. we wanted to specify that that's fine. if part of the organization's funding is covering, that outside employment, that's not prohibited. but if you're getting to the point where the majority of a position is being funded by the department, that's when it gets, you know, kind of to too close to that. yeah. are you aware of situations where there is a outside position that's majority funded by the city? i mean, i think the city does administer various grants that do fund positions in nonprofits, i'm not aware of examples that currently, like have those, our funding, city officials, secondary employment, but yeah, i think that would also raise questions as to why is the city not paying those people directly if they're already an employee for that

work, so yeah. yeah. no, i appreciate that. i think so at the outset you said this is an iterative process. so to the extent concerns are raised with specific positions at issue, i hope you'll, you know, consider that and probably bring it back to us. definitely, i remember the discussions about this very much about the outside employment generally. i did not imagine that these were positions that were majority funded by the city, but of course, if we're laboring under a misimpression, that'll be helpful to know down the road. but to me it doesn't. i'm still happy to go forward today, as is, and then trusting that you'll work with the stakeholders. if this is an issue in specific situations, any other thoughts? great. we already have a motion, commissioner saleh. oh, i was just going to add to that, that, i think that seems that seems like a reasonable position for now, but it would be useful to know if this actually ends up affecting a substantial number of people who, aren't also involved in the decision making about awarding the contracts

down the line. there might be some way to address that. happy to monitor advice questions for that and report back. great. i think we've already got a motion. mr. clark, would you take roll, please? on the motion to adopt item number eight, commissioner finley, high commissioner flores, high commissioner saleh, high commissioner, psi high commissioner francois i. chair finley with five votes in the in the affirmative. the motion is approved unanimously. thank you, mr. clark. now called agenda item nine. discussion and possible action on items for future meetings. does any member of the public wish to address this? my name is ellen lee zhou. i live and work in san francisco

for 38 years. well, going to 39 if you have a heart to protect our children, our homeless and business has been terminated almost 40%. and these ethics commission is in regulation to stop corruption and money laundering. item number eight. i didn't speak, but i know what's going on with all this proposition going on on the ballot. it's not about proposition, it's about money laundering from corrupted government. deep state cabal, puppet masters in our city. so if you have future meetings about government functions, then you should look about judicial power. you need to have a lawyer in here to find people, take them to court. but not sitting in here as puppet masters and lying to the public. assume that you have power. i am here to

help you. and nondiscrimination paper. let me read it. real quick. i am an unvaccinated worker, along with many people were wrongfully terminated in 2021 and 2022. we have 32 court cases actively suing san francisco government, which many people do not know that the taxpayer had to pay for the court cross the costs. you're talking about millions and millions. that's only the front problem. the underlining proble. when they fire more than a thousand government employees and even even budget in the budget, you're talking about minimum billion, $1 billion that is missing from the government. i raised this concern to you at the commission. now, the entire city is telling people the same lie. go apply for government

jobs. the point is, public health department as of today, if you're not, if you're not vaccinated, you're still not allowed to go work for public health, which is another lie. you know, vaccination is a poison jab. it's hopeless, useless, and it's very bad for children. most of the children who take all this vaccine, they have a lot of problems associated with adhd, anxiety, depression, autism and many others. so today i'm here asking you if you are really for san francisco. you have the duty to work with the mayor and all these puppet masters to return all the unvaccinated workers back to work. and number two, all candidates allow for debates. so if they set up all these debates by democrat parties and democratic puppet masters and leaders and sick and evil people, then you have the right and you have the duty and obligation to stop this illegal debate against republican. thank you. your time has expired.

thank you. thank you. mr. clark. would you check if we have any remote participants? sure. if there are no callers in the queue. thank you. we now proceed to item so no. no vote. there are no action items. now proceed to agenda item ten. additional opportunity for public comment. is there anyone in the room who would like to make public comment? seeing none. mr. clark, would you see if there are any remote participants? chair. if there are no callers in the queue? thank you. hearing no further callers, public comment is closed and this concludes our meeting. thank you.

>> the vibrant south of market neighborhood in san francisco is deep lee rooted filipino if fluences to shape the cultural identity. soma pilipinas known for [indiscernible] night life and art scenes is home to growing filipino community that thrived for generations. >> soma pilipinas is a community, the village that has been over a hundred years in the making. this is home to many generations of filipino from the turn of the century, to the present. continues to be a gateway community for a lot of filipinos just arriving from the philippines. >> one of sth most prominent scines is filipino owned

businesses become staples in the neighborhood. restaurants like manila bowl and jp restaurant offer [indiscernible] >> we call it [indiscernible] this is my passion. everybody's who came right now. we feel good right here. community is like a family. >> the eatery serve mouth watering dishes and provide a sense of home to the filipino community, preserving traditions passed down generation. >> a filipino restaurant utilizing california ingredients we honor traditional family recipe [indiscernible] we shop in the market 2 to 3 times a week. we make the filipino cuisine

proud in san francisco. >> along with the culinary deliteds, soma philippine ow is home to san francisco top mix aulgists. filipino artistry is a facet of soma pilipinas rich tapestry. the filipino cultural heritage district transformed public spaces into canvases that depict the stories and experiences of filipino americans. >> parlt part of the work we do is support filipino artists to work with community to really create and develop community based art. this is murals and designs that really reflect the rich history, the culture and the struggles and triumps of the filipino community. >> the presence of the filipino cultural center which offer workshops, language classes and community resources is a testament to the community efforts to preserve and

promote the heritage. >> features the [indiscernible] philippines which is a indigenous community weaving textiles and tapestry for hundreds of years so proud to feech were modern ones and very antique ones and showcase fashion from the community and we are inviting everybody to come experience that with us. >> the center not only caters to the filipino community, but welcome all who wish to learn about and embrace this culture. >> we want to develop a cultural district where you have the young generation learn their history, language and culture and where you have also the seniors be part of the cultural and share their stories and their traditions, and continue to grow young in the neighborhood. >> the intersection of technology and culture in this part of san francisco provides a unique back drop for a thriving community embracing

the past while looking to the future. the filipino influence ingrained in soma serves as remindser of the power of cultural diversity and importance of celebrating in our ever changing world.

>> everything clear any questions? >> all right. great voters we're going to are important decisions to make for this election on november 5th and the