gov. tv 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 platform, as explained in our agenda document. mr. clerk, would you 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 public comment period will be made available here in room 400, city hall. for those attending remotely, public comment period can also be provided via phone call by calling 14156550001. access code is 26644795037, followed by the pound sign, and then press pound again to join as an attendee. when your item of interest comes up, please 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 about 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 also be submitted in writing

and will be shared with the with the commission after the meeting has concluded and will 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 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. better gavel. mr. clerk, would you please call the roll? under item one, commissioners, please verbally indicate your presence by saying i after your name is called. chair i, commissioner safaí i, commissioner francois. i chair finley with three 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 general public comment? ma'am. good morning. happy friday. my name is ellen lee zhou. right there. l l e n l e z h o u. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands. one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. born, unborn and vaccinated. and unvaccinated. i am here today to remind you, for the commissioners you are willing to take oath to protect our city.

for the staff you pay, to take the oath to protect our city. on election night, november fifth, 2024, i was at pier 31 as a poll watcher and see what's going on. and the situation is at the commission. you received many complaints about election interference, the media and the puppet master keep saying five people running for mayor. so today i am giving you public record. today is the report five in the ballot running for mayor. it's 13 people plus two write in candidates. so a total of 15 people. but on the ballot 13 people. i am one of them running for mayor. i have coming in here reporting to you. it is

unethical. it's election interference for many of the democratic leaders, parties and associates. keep lying to the media and the voters. of course, about election. only five people running for mayor. so this is public record. i'm going to give it to you. report number five. 15 people running for mayor. and on election night, november 5th, 2024, i was at pier 31, approximately 150 ballots. that has not counted yet. the puppetmasters already say they are winning. so? so what's the point for election? there's no point for election because we know it's selected into the office today. i'm also giving you a record right here. this is dated november 7th from the election office. and they still

have a lot of votes. you are talking about 143,000 votes and has not counted totally yet, but the result is already there. and the same thing with california at 8:00 shop. they already announced the situation. so i urge you today to do investigation for about election fraud. thank you. your time. so this is public record for you. thank you. thank you. mr. clerk, would you check if there are any remote public commenters? we have one caller in the queue. welcome, caller. you have three minutes. begins now. knock, knock. well, no, actually, this is my chamber. this is my city hall. so my name is san francisco, and i'm to hear myself and my voice only for the next three minutes. so say the

constitution and the brown act. law. so this ethics commission was established in november of 93 after the tax, after the voters and the taxpayers passed proposition k, it was approximately 30 years ago. what have we done for the last 30 years? i see a lot of complacency. i see a lot of ignorance. i see a lot of arrogance. i see a lot of appointments by city officials such as the mayor or former mayor. at this time. there's a lot of things going on in the city, and you've been apprized of many of those matters. in fact, the one from mark farrell is coming up very shortly. so we need to get this straight and we need to get it straight with the new mayor. all of you need to leave. you are absolutely up to your ignorant, your arrogance. you have no purpose in this city and every single candidate on the ballot should be voted for.

every single vote should be counted. if city attorney needs to, if we need a new city attorney that knows how to read the constitution, so be it. it's called the first amendment. freedom of speech. freedom of the press, freedom of religion, and so forth. so we need to get this shit together because right now, as it stands, i'm looking at four or whether 4 or 5 ignorant buffoons. there's a clerk, there's any more profanity, just cut him off, okay? and i don't know if. is there an attorney there? is there an attorney present at this meeting, or is that cue ball in the corner over there? so keep your shit together and get packed up and leave. thank you. as a reminder, members of the public persons who engage in name calling, shouting interruptions or other distracting behavior may be excluded from participation. so if i hear more profanity, i'm going to ask the folks in charge to cut off the comment. we appreciate all public comment and we encourage it, but this is not a place for name calling or

other distracting behavior. that's not relevant to what we're doing. mr. clerk, would you check if there are any other public commentators, commenters? public comment. chairman live. there are no more callers. thank you, mr. clerk. i now call the meeting to order. sorry, i'm on the wrong page. hearing no further public comment. public comment on item two is now closed. i now call the consent calendar. colleagues, as noted on the agenda, there will be no separate discussion on the consent calendar unless the request is made by a member of the public or a member of the commission to discuss that item. if any commissioner wishes to discuss an item, it will be taken up and we'll discuss it. does any commissioner wish to discuss any item on the consent calendar? seeing none, does any public. does anyone in the room wish to discuss an item on the consent calendar? seeing none, mr. clerk, would you check if

there are any remote public comment on the consent calendar? chair, we were checking to see if there were callers in the queue. chair findlay there are no callers. thank you, mr. cler. public comment on the consent calendar is now closed. i moved to adopt the staff's recommendations on the consent calendar, which, to be specific, includes adopting the draft minutes. and i believe that's the only action item on the consent calendar. is there a second? second. mr. clerk, would you take roll, please, on the motion to adopt the consent calendar? chair finley, i commissioner safaí i commissioner francois i chair finley. with three votes in the in the affirmative, the motion is approved unanimously. thank you, mr. clerk. i now call item number six. discussion and possible action regarding proposed stipulation in the matter of mark farrell for yes

on prop d. mark farrell for mayor 2024. mark farrell and roy herrera. miss matthews. good morning. chair finley. commissioners. for the record, my name is bc matthews. i'm the director of enforcement. so this case involves eight counts of campaign finance violations against mayor mark farrell. i'm sorry. he's a candidate. committee. the mark farrell for mayor 2024 committee and his candidate control ballot measure committee. the mayor, mark farrell, for yes on prop d committee and for the record, mr. roy herrera who served as the treasurer for both committees, is also named, but only in his capacity as treasurer for the committees and bears no personal liability in this matter. the counts in this matter are straightforward, and the law is very clear. the law imposes a $500 contribution limit for candidate committees, and any payments to a candidate committee are presumed to be contributions, unless the committees can show that the

contributor received full and adequate consideration. no such consideration. excuse me. no such contribution limit exists for ballot measure committees. here, the investigation revealed that the ballot measure committee made a series of payments to the mayoral committee, but did not receive full and adequate consideration for certain payments that was made to the mayoral committee. therefore, those payments that were over the $500 limit were illegal. contributions to the mayoral committee. the investigation determined the series of prohibited contributions to be over $93,000. this amount excludes the payments that were refunded as described under counts one and two. this matter was initiated following a complaint that was received by the enforcement division in late june, and we consider these violations in this matter to be very severe and recognize how important it was for us to do

everything in our power to publicly resolve this matter prior to the election day, so that the public would have the information about these violations when it mattered most. this recommended record penalty reflects the serious harm that was done to the public's right to have a timely and accurate, to have timely and accurate information about how campaigns are funded in san francisco. it also reflects the severity of violating the $500 contribution limit, which is one of the most basic rules that all candidates must follow. i would like to add here that this case is a demonstration of the enforcement division's commitment to vigorously enforce against major violations. we're grateful for the support that we received from director ford in channeling enough resources towards resolving this matter in a timely this matter in a timely manner, and will continue in future elections to pursue campaign finance violations during the election. i'd also like to commend the efforts of

the two investigators assigned to this case, senior investigator jeff zumwalt, who's here who conducted the investigation, and senior investigator zach zach d'amico, who supported the investigation. as the attorney assigned to this matter and helped negotiate the settlement agreement. finally, i would also just like to recognize and thank mr. david lazarus, who's counsel for respondents. he's present here today for working with us and cooperating in this matter. we're happy to answer any questions. and i'll have mr. zumwalt here to assist with answering any questions that you may have. thank you. thank you, director matthews, and thank you for your to your staff for your work on this. i have 1 or 2 quick questions, but i'll yield to my colleagues if they i do too. but i can follow you just. i don't want you to speak beyond what's in the stipulation, because i know you can't, but. and i think it's in there. but i wanted to confirm, as i understand it, the only basis

for the intended 50/50 split was some kind of assumption. i guess that the campaigns would benefit equally. but then there was no follow up tracking to make sure that actually happened. is that right? i mean, the 50 over 50 was just kind of, as i understand, based on a forward looking assumption that was then not actually tracked to ensure it would happen. is that basically right? right. the evidence did not reveal any tracking done by the respondents to support the assumption for 50 over 50. that's correct. right. okay. i have a question following up on that. but i first wanted to commend you and the team for a really excellent investigation. it looks like a complex analysis and a difficult thing to try to trace. trace and confirm. but on on those lines on page 15, there is a reference that the respondents compliance counsel issued a memorandum in july 2024 claiming that staff time was tracked and accounted for regarding how much was spent on the campaign versus the candidate committee. was that a

representation that was made to the ethics commission during the investigation? it was not made to the ethics commission. the ethics commission discovered that memo during the course of our investigation. okay. were there any similar misrepresentations made by the respondents in response to requests for information by the commission? not that we're aware of during our investigation. all of the requests that were made, we the most for the most part, received responses to and we didn't determine any false representation from the respondents. thank you. that part stuck out to me, particularly because it looks like through your investigation, those representations appear to be false. from that july 2024 memorandum. and it is a violation of the government code for a person to furnish false or fraudulent evidence to the commission. but i also am struck by the fact that this is a law

firm that appears to be representing the respondents and separate and apart from the requirements of the government code, the rules of professional conduct that apply to attorneys. and there are several here that apply, would suggest that if that was a knowingly false statement, there were violations of ethics rules there that apply to attorneys. maybe beyond the jurisdiction of the ethics commission, but to the extent that you and staff think it may be appropriate to consider whether a referral to the state bar or other relevant authorities might be appropriate rules of professional conduct 3.31 says that a lawyer shall not knowingly make a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal. it sounds like that may not apply here, depending on who they sent that memo to. but the ethics commission would be considered a tribunal under the rules of professional conduct. but beyond that, there are separate rules that prohibit a lawyer in the course of

representing a client from making a false statement of material fact to any third person. and that's rule 4.1, a and separately 3.4 c, a lawyer shall not falsify evidence or counsel or assist a witness to testify falsely. so i, i don't know if we have a procedure in place for considering those kinds of referrals, but that to me, struck, struck me as pretty shocking that there would be a false claim along those lines. thank you for that feedback, commissioner salahi. we do refer matters out to different agencies and departments, so we will take that feedback. we recognize the severity of that as well. and it was important that we highlighted that. so we'll take that for sure. and work on it and see. thank you. and just to clarify is the respondent who was the treasurer the same principal of that law firm? i'm sorry. can you repeat

that? the respondent who was the treasurer. i think that was roy herrera. is that is he affiliated with that law firm? that's correct sir. okay. yes. he is. commissioner francois, do you have any questions? does anyone in the room wish to. thank you, director matthews. any more questions, commissioner salahi? thank you. does anyone in the room wish to make public comment on this item? yes. good morning again. my name is ellen elan. l e z h o u. this item you sitting in here and say about making false statements. so i'm echoing and we respond to you accordingly. this item is a civil. it's not a civil case.

it's a criminal case. according to what we learned from local newspaper, that's 28 pages. possible indictment paper regarding this individual, including nine community leader. the nine community leaders, including including board of supervisor and three former mayors about criminal behavior. they request the san francisco da and california general attorney attorney to do investigation for criminal activities. so that's one item going back to your fourth statement that you do things has to be truth. and clear, but yet you lie. item number three consent calendar. you lie about what i did not say in october 11th, 2024 consent calendar on your minutes. so on your minute. item number four from october

11, 2024 that you falsely accuse me. say something i never have said publicly, but you have the guts. whoever take the minutes and whoever's in here last month, october 11th, 2024 i never said a name about my volunteer who passed away, but whoever made the minute put the name in your minute. full name, three different names last name, middle name, and first name that is called public accusation. now, i'm not sure if this is a violation of your conduct, or i'm not sure if this is a civil lawsuit for wrongful accuser. and i'm not sure if this is a violation of public statement that i did not make. but you accused that. put it in your minutes. so right now, because you're doing things that are not

according to the people's government, i am here to urge you, you remove the name from october 11, 2024, because you are wrongfully accused for something i did not said and it's in public record. so i'm asking you if you tell people wrongful accuser, i'm asking you stop your wrongful accuser statement told me ellen li zhao and i demand you to correct your record. this is public record that you put some name i never mentioned in there. it became a privacy. it became a public record that you violate your own very old oath, make a statement that i did not quote. thank you. your time has expired. thank yo. thank you ma'am. and we don't normally respond to public comment, but i'll just note that to the extent the minutes, i don't think those comments were directed at commissioner sly specifically. i think the point is that the minutes may be inaccurately reflect some of your prior public comments. and if that's the case, we will correct them to reflect what you

stated and that was thank you for bringing that to our attention. mister clerk, would you check if there's any remote public comment on the item that we were discussing? chair, there's one caller in the queue. welcome, caller. your three minutes begins now. so who is the one that was speaking when i was speaking during public comment? so think about these two words. public comment. public comment. what do those two words mean? those are sacred space for public to make. comment. no commissioner, no attorney. the public makes the comment with regards to mark farrell. if you know anything about mark farrell. mark farrell can no longer practice law in the state of california. so says his record from the state bar look it up. so, you know this keeps going on about will we report it to the state bar. it's

a moot point. he cannot practice law. it's a criminal investigation that should be done by the local authorities. i mean, this is the most ridiculous commission that i've ever, ever seen. well, besides the police commission, of course. so get your act togethe, pack up your bags. just leave. say goodbye to breed and all the other appointees that appoint you. because you guys are worthless. mr. clerk, are there any other public callers? chair friendly. there are no more callers. thank you, mr. clerk. is there a motion on agenda item six? discussion and possible action regarding the proposed stipulation and the matter of mark farrell. and so on. i moved to approve it. second. second. sorry. commissioner francois seconds. mr. clerk, would you please take roll? on the on the

motion to approve agenda item number six. chair i, commissioner salahi. i, commissioner francois, i chair friendly with three votes in the affirmative. the motion is approved unanimously. thank you, mr. clerk. i now call agenda item number seven. and i'll note at the outset that because we only have three commissioners present, we will not be able to vote on this item today. but i hope but we're going to have discussion on it. so i hope the representatives from, i think the supervisor's office and whoever else is here will participate because i have some questions. mr. canning. yes. thank you. chair, just to introduce this item, this is legislation referred from supervisor ronan's office, the board of supervisors, regarding the whistleblower program. the legislation would require reporting to the board of supervisors when a whistleblower

investigation is completed by the comptroller's office involving an elected official or department head, and this is before the commission today, because per section 4.103 changes to article four, chapter one of the campaign and governmental conduct code require a 4/5 vote by the ethics commission, as well as a two thirds vote by the board of supervisors to be enacted. staff have reviewed the proposed legislation and do not believe that it will impact the ethics commission's investigations, and would, you know, not have a detrimental effect and would potentially bring more transparency to the board of supervisors regarding the enforcement efforts of the comptroller's office and do not see a objection to that legislation. but yeah, as mentioned, a representative from supervisor ronan's office is here. thank you, mr. keating. i

did have some questions on that point, and at some point i'd like our deputy city attorney to weigh in. but first, i welcome the representative from supervisor's office to greet us. hi. good morning, anna herrera from supervisor hillary ronan's office. unfortunately, as you stated, you can't move forward because you don't have the four commissioners. so i'm here to answer any questions. but the fact is that as the lead sponsor and supervisor supervisor ronan is termed out. so we won't be able to move this forward. so maybe this comes back to you if another supervisor decides to pick it up. but do you mean because the supervisor won't be here next month when we reconvene? yeah, there's not enough time in the calendar to then move it to the board of supervisors. oh, i see, yeah. okay. well, in the event it comes back, i did have some questions that hopefully you can help us understand. and my colleagues may as well. the first question i have is just

why? what's the point of this. why do we need this measure? it's just a simple, very narrow amendment right now. currently, there's no requirement that the whistleblower program has to report to the board of supervisors once they substantiate that there's been wrongdoing by a department head or an elected official. this is just requiring them to take that step. but why does that matter? does the board what's the board's role in disciplining public employees? it's less about discipline and more about just public information. anytime this has come up in the last five years, which has been pretty frequently, it's been out in the news. it's been out in the media. we get constituent questions, we get media inquiries, and the supervisors are just as caught off guard and have no idea what what had gone on, what why this is going on. so it's just to provide more transparency in the process. and then thank you for that. and i had another question. and then this may not be within your area. i'm curious when it's when the controller resolves an investigation or substantiates i think is the term you used. i don't know what that actually means. are they doing like a

public hearing? is it does the accused person have some kind of role in it? because i don't think the legislation as proposed defines or explains the comptroller's process. so it wasn't clear to me what triggers the actual proposed notification to the board. that's the whistleblower program has its own process. that's already that's already established. i'm not privy to all the details, but i think it's substantiated. once they conclude the investigation, which finds that they're guilty, you know, for lack of better words, for whatever wrongdoing. but do you know whether the employee at issue has any kind of a role in that any due process, or is it more of a one sided the controller investigates. and then my understanding is there is some process within that investigation. right? okay. and it may be moot if this isn't going forward, but if it comes back, that's something i'd want to understand better. and that may be more on the controller side. do my commissioners just the clarifying question, are the outcomes substantiated or not?

otherwise public, or is this creating a way just for the board of supervisors to figure out what the outcomes are once they're substantiated? i think they would be. they are public records. there's just no like requirement to share that. so unless someone knows, i'm sure they could ask. but the idea is just to share that that's happened. i see. so they're not published as a matter of course. it's right. right. thank you. then i did have just a question that maybe our mr. adams can weigh in, that my question was, when i read this, it looks like it would affect the ethics commission's investigations. but if that's not the case, i'd love to understand how that how that works. i think you're asking here about the reporting requirements specifically. correct? that's right. yeah. my concern is that it would require the controller to report ethics commission's investigations and 60 days in the world of investigations is not that long. and my concern is that that would interfere with the enforcement division's work. if.

yeah. and without getting into the, you know, advice that our department has given to our office is given to the other departments. but you might ask the sponsor how they interpret that language about the which particular investigations the controller would be referring on. i think the legislative digest also speaks to this pretty clearly, perhaps even more clearly than the language of the statute. when it talks about reporting of controller investigations. if you look at the look at that language in front of me, it says to report to the board of supervisors. i'm looking at the legislative digest, the result of any investigation where the controller concludes that a department head has engaged in unlawful activity. so that may speak a little bit more to your point about which investigations the controller is referring or not referring on. excuse me, reporting on. no, that's interesting because i think the language of the statute, the proposed text of the statute itself, doesn't say that. right. it says the results of any investigation that concludes that, etc. so maybe that if this comes back, we can reconcile the language of the proposed statute

itself with the legislative digest, but then also begs the question, what if both parties are investigating it? the comptroller's office and the ethics commission then? but the but the controller's office has made a conclusion, but the ethics commission has not. does that then create kind of dueling and inconsistent reporting? and they may they may not be an answer to that. but that's another concern that i'd have if this comes back. madam deputy city attorney, i don't know if you have an immediate reaction to that, but i don't. but it does seem like there's a possibility for some further. it seems like this is going to have to come back in a new format and so to the extent that the commission is sharing some concerns out with, you know, the supervisor's office and with us, we can keep those in mind as the, you know, possible similar legislation comes forward. yeah. so, mr. chair, thank you for being here. maybe this is moot, but thank you for your time. and to the extent it does come back, those are some of the concerns, i think that they're not even concerns. they're just i think information gaps that like to understand better. commissioner

francois, commissioner salahi, any other questions? thank you. while you're here, is there anything else you want to tell us? but thank you for being here. no, that's i'm glad this is on the record and hopefully someone else does pick this up and that sounds like a clarifying amendment that could be added. okay, next time you hear it. great. thank you so much. okay. thank you. even though we're not taking action, i think we have to take public comment because it's on our agenda. thank you. does anyone in the room wish to make public comment on this item? yes. good morning again. my name is ellen. l e n l e z h o u. i work for the public health for many years as a previous public employee, i was a whistle blower and after we the people report what's wrong with certain department and we the public employees being retaliated. for example, in my example i report about covid 19 shots, a poison jab, a

bio weapon and tell my public health leaders and the whistleblowers and the city leaders, including the mayor and our board of supervisors. so what do i get? suspension and termination. so the whistleblower department is not like what you talk about in here. so for all the board of supervisors receiving and telling them from the medical perspective, covid 19 shot is a bio weapon against our very own people. many people will be dead. it has been die dead, suffering from public health. another area this is for the clarification of public, public practices. the government only have two responsibilities one public health, two public safety, and none of these two carry by any of the board of

supervisors or the mayor or anybody working in here in the san francisco ethics commission. and from the record that i have been coming here for the last many years, because i ran for office in 2018, 2019 and 2024 as a mayor candidate and also as a public employee for almost 20 years. i was wrongfully terminated because i report the truth about covid 19 shot. it's a bio weapon and due to religious exemption, many of the christian, i would say most of the christian turn in the religious exemption. what do we get? all christians, all catholics who turn in religious exemption was wrongfully terminated because we are unvaccinated. and till this day we have so many court cases. and who pays for the court cases? we, the plaintiff, paying our

own cases, the defendant, the public, the public money defendant spent millions and millions on whistleblower defending a bio weapon and refuse the public workers who are wrongfully terminated because we refuse to take the bioweapon covid 19 vaccine. so i am here to remind you your department has no power and your department is just another public puppet show for the public. so wake up. thank you. your time has expired. mr. clark, would you check if there's any remote public comment on this item? we are checking to see if there are any callers on this item. chairman live, there are no callers on this item. thank you. agenda item seven is now closed. i now call agenda item eight. discussion and possible action regarding the authority of the

executive director to make amendments to the ethics commission's ethics commission regulations. mr. canning. thank you. chair. this is more of an administrative matter for the commission regarding ethics commission regulations. from time to time, staff will observe not minor non-substantive errors with regulations. there are a couple of examples presented in the memo one with regulation 3.205-1, where clearly from the context of the reg and the legislation was intended to be march 31st, was entered as march 30th, as well as other kind of numbering and formatting issues. the recommendation before the commission today is to pass a motion that would give the executive director the authority to make minor non-substantive amendments to commission regulations without requiring a vote by the commission, which we believe will just allow staff to, you know, efficiently maintain the regs without having

to put matters before the commission that might not require your attention. thank you. and those are helpful examples in the memo. this seems like a pretty straightforward no brainer to me. but colleagues, any questions? yeah, i agree with that. what? just for clarity, in the public record, is there a process for documenting what those changes are and reporting them out publicly other than actually modifying the text? just some way of keeping a record of when such changes are made. maybe. maybe there's maybe it's a good idea to have some sort of mechanism for that, whether it's publishing to the website or letting us know whenever that happens. just so there's some record of it. yeah, we can explore that. i think we currently don't have like pac versions of the regs on the website for kind of search reasons. if somebody looks and they looked at something that was maybe amended in the past, we want to have kind of on the website, have the current accurate version. so we might be able to explore ways to like

have prior versions or, you know, have at least a document on the record. if not maybe on the website for those kind of changes. yeah, i think, i think i was less concerned about having an archive of the past versions and just something that says on x date, we corrected this typo. okay. yeah, yeah. we could do like a notice on that, that goes on the website and doesn't, you know, restate the regs but just or, or just in an agenda packet. yeah. or maybe sorry i didn't mean to. no. it's okay. i was just thinking out loud. maybe in the executive director's report every 3 or 6 months or whatever, you can just compile. yeah, but it's a good it's a good point to kind of just make sure that people are aware of them. yeah. i think the executive director's report would be a good place for that. yeah. great. thank you. any commissioner francois does, anyone does anyone in the room wish to make public comment on this agenda item? seeing none. mr. clerk, would you check if there are any remote callers? chairman. live. there are no callers. i move to adopt the

staff's recommendation and agenda. item eight regarding the authority of the director to make amendments to the ethics commission regarding revisions. is there a second i second, mr. clerk, would you take roll, please? on the motion to adopt the agenda, item number eight, chair finley, i, commissioner safaí i commissioner francois, i chair finley with three votes in the affirmative. the motion is approved unanimously. thank you, mr. clerk. i now invite. oh, sorry, mr. director. board, are you approaching for. sorry? where are we? please. okay. sorry. i may have skipped something. i thought we were at the number nine. number nine? which is? please go ahead. yeah. thank you, chair finley, for the record, patrick ford, executive director. item nine contains a

proposed meeting schedule for calendar year 2025. this is a routine process that the commission goes through of setting its meeting schedule for each calendar year. and the schedule that is in this agenda item would follow the commission's current schedule for calendar year 2024, which is to meet at 10 a.m. in this room. city hall, room 400 on the second friday. except for january and february, we're proposing to the commission that those two meetings be held on other days in order to accommodate the budget process that's required by the board of supervisors. essentially, before a department submits their proposed budget to the mayor's office, we have to hold two public meetings to discuss the budget. and it's very difficult to follow the board of

supervisors and mayor's budget timelines. if we were to keep those second friday meetings first, we wouldn't have enough time from when we get the budget instructions to actually publish a budget proposal and be ready to discuss it by the second friday in january. and then in february, i think we wouldn't have enough time again to digest and have that meeting and be fruitful. so we're proposing just departing for those two meetings, but for the rest of the year to keep that standard schedule. i don't think i have anything else to say about this item. so glad to answer any questions you have. thank you. mr. ford. any of those states raise flags for my colleagues? not at this time. does anyone in the room wish to make public? thank you, mr. ford. does anyone in the room wish to make public comment on this item? yes. thank you. my name is ellen. l e n l e z o you. regarding this item,

the ethics commission meetings, i would appreciate that the ethics commission, when you cancel your meetings, that you send a mail alert to people. so people like me are coming in here. i've been here 20, 24 many times, but there's two times you cancel the meeting just one night before, just the day before, the morning before. so i took my time to be in here. i raised my guess. i raised my time. and as a courtesy. and you are a government public servant. and so that's my request. please alert people that you change your schedule farther away. not the morning, two hours before your meeting. being canceled. thank you. mr. clark, would you check if any remote public comment live? there are no callers. thank you, mr. clark. i moved to accept staff's

recommended calendar and agenda. item nine second. mr. clark, would you take roll, please? on the motion to accept item number nine. chair. chair finley, i. commissioner safaí, i commissioner francois i chair finley with three votes in the affirmative. the motion is approved unanimously. thank you, mr. clark. i'll now call item ten. discussion and possible action on future meetings and apologies, director ford, i thought this is the item we were on last time. that's why i was confused when you were at the podium. so that was my apologie. i had one kind of thought, and it's about the factors that we consider when we're looking at employment waivers. the disqualifications, and also, frankly, the penalty factors we consider in enforcement actions. to what extent are those

something that we can supplement or add to? are they. and i didn't give you a heads up about this. so maybe you don't know. but my question is how much we can weigh in on considering additional or updating or modifying those factors that we consider. sure. so for the waiver standard that is in the code, but i think that the commission has shown a willingness to look at other factors beyond what's strictly stated in the code. that could be a reg project to memorialize additional factors that you look at. otherwise it would have to be a legislative project to go and actually change. for example, if you wanted there to be the same standard for each of the different kinds of waivers, like to just make it no possibility for undue influence or unfair advantage as opposed to extreme hardship. if you just wanted to have one single standard, that would probably require legislation. but if you wanted to just iterate some additional factors that you want

to have standardized as part of the process, i think a regulation would want to talk with the city attorney's office, but to me that seems like that would be doable. is that the thank you for that? is that the same for the penalty considerations? yeah. penalty considerations. i know that those are in the enforcement regulations. so those are certainly within your purview to change. and i know that that's on the enforcement division's schedule for the rest of this fiscal year, is to be reviewing those regulations and studying them and presenting some proposals to you of ways that they want to change the regs to support a better case resolution process. so i will communicate to them to also look at penalty factors and to talk with you about if there are additional factors or different factors you think would be better in there. we can roll that into that project. yeah. then could we also then roll in the waiver criteria for the employment waivers as part of that same conversation? or do you think they should be separate? i would suggest keeping those separate just since one is enforcement and one is, you know, compliance

side project that probably michael would would lead on the waivers and bc would be leading the enforcement one. that's a good point, right. keep that separate. and then for the madam deputy city attorney, i didn't flag this issue. so you may not have any immediate thoughts, but if you wanted to weigh in on, i guess, to pinpoint the question as what where do we have this space to kind of supplement the considerations that we consider in weighing the employment waivers and penalties? you know, i don't have anything to add at this point to what the executive director said, but i can certainly look into that as well. and we would, of course, work closely with the staff on whichever, whichever aspect we're looking at. but i do think that that idea of looking at those as two separate tracks on the compliance versus the enforcement side is probably one one helpful step. there. and then, of course, thinking about what's in the statutes versus what's in the regulations. great. thank you. i have a question on that for the waiver criteria side. to the extent that that standard is set in the code is our what room do we have

through regulations to try to construe that and elaborate the factors that we think fall under what what the code says? i assume it's just as long as it's not inconsistent. i think that's sort of the first cut is it's not inconsistent. depending on the specifics of what you're looking at, we'd have to work with the staff to make sure that that's, you know, within a plausible reading of the statute and is there room? is there room as an interpretive device through regulations, or is it really changing the meaning of the statute, which would probably require a legislative process? okay. thank you, mr. canning. yeah. if i can add to add to that the what's in the code are the standards that need to be met. so the finding extreme hardship or the potential for undue influence or unfair advantage, all of the factors that the commission looks at to determine if those standards are met, those are all in the regs. so there is you know, i think and one of those factors is any other factors the commission deems relevant. so in

recent waivers, the commission has taken a pretty broad interpretation of that and pulled in additional factors when it thought relevant. thank you for that clarification. that's super helpful. great. commissioner francois, any further meetings? future meetings? great. did i don't think i took publicomme on this yet. does anyone in the room wish to make public comment on agenda item ten? discussion and possible action on future meetings? seeing none. mr. clark, would you check if there are any remote folks? if there are no callers for item ten is now closed. i now call item 11 one additional opportunity for public comment. does anyone in the room wish to make public comment? yes. well good morning again. happy friday. my name is ellen l l e n z h o u. i want you all to know if you spend

your time working for the government, get paid or volunteer as commissioners, you sit in there, but you're not productive to our life. we still have a lot of homeless people dying. we still have a lot of missing people from san francisco street, and we still have all those corruptions going on. and we have 13 positions for november 5th, 2024 election. we had about 100 people. candidates come out to run for 13 offices, myself for example. this is my third time that i that i come out, run for mayor. i run in 2018 and 2019 and 2024. i am a conservative mother, a pro-life mother, a christian, and an immigrant, and was a public worker for almost 20 years. and yes, i'm a proud supporter for president trump. so this is the point. the government only has two public duties public health and public safety. with your ethics commission or civil

commission or any other commission, has nothing to do with the quality of life in san francisco. obviously, many of the people are appointed into the position as commissioners. so in your department at the commission, it was established by the voters in 1993. so since 1993, right now, 2024 for 31 years, what have you done that is good. good for public safety, good for public health? the answer is nothing. so with you commission alive or close. terminate nothing. nothing. impact. there's no impact for you to raise your time in here. i'm not talking about you as an individual. i'm talking about at the commissions because obviously san francisco has been controlled by the deep state. the puppet masters is called agenda 21, fail dead. now they're working on agenda 2030, which is the new world order. another word for globalists, the

elites, the non-elected public people trying to kill you and me and other people in america so they can take america. we move you the liberty, happiness and safety. take a look in san francisco, 59 years, one party democrats, anyone who's conservative opposed them, what do they do? harassment, discrimination. before the election begins, they've already picked five criminals and say, these are the people that they will support. so you see at the commission, you have no judicial power for what you do, and you're just sitting here wasting your time, your personal time, and thinking you're doing good. but san francisco has been worse than the third world. and more people die, more drug dealing and more people left san francisco. thank you. your time has expired. mr. clark, would you check if there any remote

callers? fan live. there are no callers. thank you. hearing no further callers. this additional opportunity for public comment under 11 is now closed. i now call agenda item 12 adjournment. thank you. this concludes our november 8th, 2024 meeting of the san francisco ethics commission.

[music] san francisco emergency home program is a safety net for sustableable commuters if you bike, walk, take public transit or shares mobility you are eligible for a free and safe roadway home the city will reimburse you up to $150 dlrs in an event of an emergency. to learn more how to submit a reimbursement visit sferh. >> i finish 11 times.

i don't wish no one to be shot, but it is something that i never get over. the wrap around program really changed my life and they was there for me day one and i thank them so much. i couldn't do it without them. >> wrap around formed as a result of understanding early on in my career that what i was doing as a trauma surgeon was not enough. i needed help. i needed the community that was impacted the most by violence to direct me to understanding what was necessary to be more comprehensive in creating

care for patients and to really change people's life course. >> the number of people coming into the hospital were youth. we wrap our arms around the people who come through so we try to equip with not only services, but just love and you know, we really try to meet their needs. >> we helped support them with services after recovery or while they are here, they need services anywhere from housing to basic needs, clothing, employment. we link to those services in hopes that we don't ever have to see them come back. >> my biggest wish and goal for the future of the wrap around

project is that it wouldn't have to exist. that we wouldn't have anymore violently injured people that our job is trauma surgeons would be defunth. >> to see them start walking again, to see them laughing and being happy, to feel like you know what, this happened to me, but i'm going to make it, you know? i think no amount of money can ever pay us for that. >> it is rewarding to intercede and you know [indiscernible] change the trajectory of a child's life is awesome. we want to give them tools to be productive members of society, and give them a chance to have a future.

>> it gives me joy to be able to be a part of a young person's life and help them map out what their future looks like. you know, you can never get over trauma, but you can live with good amazing life after it and learn how to manage it and stuff like that,

so we hope do that with them. >> mike, you know what, i am a manager now at this job. the job you hooked me up, that is impact. that is a heartfelt, you know what, me work want in vain. that work is unmatched so to speak. >> they like family. they help, they check in, call me, see how i'm doing, you know? and i'm very thankful. they have that good at mosphere where you don't have to be scared, you don't have to feel you all by

yourself, because they there and they have been there. [trolley bells] >> where the heck are we? >> also, when the heck where r we? >> who cares, we are here. >> we are here union square in the city of saint francis; what do we do first? >> let's go shopping. >> who is paying?