we're trying to have as minimal operational impact as we can knowing that there will be operational impact. we're just trying to minimize it so not too few but there will likely be some changes in post six month report with our six month meeting with the comptroller's office you might also have a better sense of what your year end spending projection is and that might also might also plan to this, correct? we can do that. thanks. >> thank you commissioner see me for your cold shower comments but very but very valuable but very valuable and important comments and i seriously seriously thank you for them commission maybe we'll reach out to bart and see if bart can provide additional funding for some of our national personnel. >> all right. there are no other comments or questions we'll open this item to public comment members members of the public who wish

to make three minutes of comment in person on the department of public works fiscal year 2025, 2026 and fiscal year 2026 and 2027 operating budget and priorities may line up against the wall to the audience left if commenting from outside the chamber press the raise your hand button in the webinar or press star three on your phone to be recognized as having tb. we do not have any callers and that concludes the public comment. >> thank you and i apologize. we've gone a few minutes over but i believe we do not need item five general public comment continued so at this point our next public works commission meeting as we've all heard will be on thursday, february 13th here in this room for await at city hall at 11:00

three weeks from now. i can't imagine how the finance team will be spent in the next three weeks. i mean i don't know how long humans can go without sleep. >> i don't think you can go three weeks straight without sleep. >> but anyway, thank you all again, this was a very helpful joint session. thank you to our colleagues on sanitation streets for your valuable input as always and we are now adjourned

morning folks welcome to the january 17th 2025 regular meeting of the san francisco ethics commission excuse me. today's meeting is live webcast on s.f. gov tv two and live streamed online at s.f. gov tv dot org for 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 materials. mr. clerk would you please explain how 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 will be made

available here in room 416 city hall for those attending remotely public comment can also be provided via phone call by calling 14156550001 access code is 26633755989 followed by the pound sign and then press the pound sign 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 be 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 a 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 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 self-governance. org members of the public who attend commission meetings including remote attendance are expected to be here 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 and interruptions, foul language or other distracting behavior behavior may be excluded from participation. >> thank you mr. clerk. and now call the meeting to order. clerk would you please call the roll under item number one. >> commissioners, please verbally indicate your presence by saying i after your name is called sheriff and live. hi commissioner salahi i commissioner francois i performed live with three members present and accounted for you have a quorum. >> thank you but i'll call you an item two general public comment does anyone in the room wish to make public comment?

not seeing anyone in person mr. clerk would you check if there's anyone on our online platform driven live? we were checking to see if there are callers in the queue

. sheriff i live there are no callers in the queue. >> thank you for checking seeing no callers i call item two is now closed. we're going to proceed to the calendar. i'm going to take things a little bit out of order to accommodate some folks are here in person so we'll start by calling agenda item 11 then we'll call the rest of the calendar in the regular order. so i now call again item 11 discussion on possible action regarding request for a waiver of compensated advocacy provision for hans laid off mr. canning thank you chair commissioners. i'll briefly summarize the matter which is a request by hans off for a limited waiver to the ses compensated advocacy rule after i introduce the issue mr. baldauf is present and available to speak as well. section 3.2 24a of the campaign and governmental conduct code prohibits city officers from directly or indirectly receiving any form of compensation to communicate

with any other officer or employee of the city with the intent to influence a decision. this rule is an important safeguard for ensuring the integrity of decision making and seeks to prevent situations where city officers could use their positions to exert undue influence over city officials on behalf of paying clients. the commission, however, has the ability to waive this prohibition for any officer who by law must be appointed to represent any profession a trade business union or association. mr. baldauf serves on seat two of the historic preservation commission a seat that may only be filled by licensed architects that meet certain standards related to historic architecture. given this, mr. baldauf is eligible to receive a waiver should the commission deem it appropriate to grant him one. mr. baldauf is also a founding partner of the bcd architecture plus interiors. in his waiver request he explains how part of his role requires him at times to speak

with city officials on behalf of his firm and their clients which is why he is seeking a waiver to communicate with the departments listed in the request. mr. baldauf has also said that if granted a waiver he would delegate such communications to the best extent possible only using the waiver in situations where other qualified members of his firm are not available. >> when determining the appropriateness of a waiver for mr. baldauf, the ethics commission regulations specify that the commission may consider the following factors. one. the ability for the city to recruit qualified individuals to fill the position in question. if the waiver were not granted to the ability of the member to engage in their particular vocation if the waiver were not granted and any other factors the commission deems relevant. looking at these factors in the past the mayor's office has requested waivers for seats on the historic preservation commission particularly seat

one. a waiver was granted back in 2019. as part of that communication the mayor's office stated that filling these positions can be very challenging given the unique qualification requirements and that not granting these types of waivers could create situations where only retirees or members of very large firms are able to serve on the hpc. to the second factor mr. baldauf has stated that not receiving a waiver may lead to a situation where it's not feasible for him to continue serving on the hpc while meeting his obligations to his firm. >> based on the factors based on these factors and the limited nature of the request especially the fact that mr. baldauf is not seeking a waiver to communicate with the hpc or the planning department or its employees staff recommends the commission grant the waiver to mr. baldauf that's limited as specified in the staff memo specifically that it's only applicable to the entities listed in the waiver request that it's only applicable to

situations where other members of mr. mold ups firm couldn't reasonably make the communication. and additionally the waiver should be limited only to communications made on behalf of bcp plus interiors or its clients. thank you and i'm happy to take any questions and as i mentioned mr. boulder is here and able to speak as well. thank you for that. i have no questions but i can just share my thinking and then we can pick up mr. baldauf and that way you have the benefit of what we're thinking as you talk with us. i was just going to ask that madam deputy city attorney can we take public comment now? just so we have the benefit of the extent we have any comment as we move on we don't have to wait too long, right? >> no, you can take great. >> does anyone in the gallery wish to make public comment on this item? seeing none. mr. clerk, would you check if there are any callers? >> chair from that we're checking to see if there are

callers in the queue. >> sheriff i love there are no callers in the queue. >> thank you mr. clerk. mr. baldauf thank you for being here. we look forward hearing from you. my only question is i'll just tell you how i'm thinking. i intend or sorry. right now i very much support staff's recommendation. i think they laid out the issues well. well, the question should be whether you have any issues with the narrow kind of not narrow but the waiver as envisioned in the recommendation which is based on communications only with the agency's bullet bulleted and the memo.

those are my thoughts and i'll just before we speak i'll get my colleagues a chance to talk. >> that way you can direct any comments toward any questions they may have. i have nothing further, dad. >> all right, mr. ball off the floor. >> no. first of all, thank you very much for hearing this first. i appreciate it. i you know, i asked for this waiver out of an abundance of caution. i am trying to not get into any situation where i'm running afoul of the both the spirit and the letter of the rules here. but there are times in just the practice of architecture where you are all of a sudden at a meeting and something comes up and you a supervisor walks into the meeting and it becomes awkward and complicated and so i'm trying to make sure that i am following the rules and i think very narrowly.

i as i say, i'm trying to delegate anything that would to other people in our office. but there are just times where situations present themselves and i don't want to just by my presence or saying something be construed as advocating. as a lobbyist i'm not trying to do that. >> i'm just trying to practice architecture. well i think we all thank you for so thoughtfully raising the issue to me i don't see any real risk of untoward influence in your roles. i think the city is lucky to have folks like you stepping up to serve on commissions and i think it would be a shame if you couldn't do that. so any other comments from my colleagues? >> yeah, i agree with chair finley. >> thank you very much. so with that i would move to adopt the staff's recommendation as outlined in the memo on agenda item 11. >> thank you and i'll second mr. clerk would you take roll please? >> let's start before we do

that. i'm just asking that madam deputy city attorney. do i need to spell out on the record the specific recommendation in terms of how the waiver is kind of framed? >> yes. and that's well, thank you. since that's spelled out in the staff recommendation, if you'd like to just move to adopt the waiver as specified in the staff recommendation that would be sufficient. >> right. thanks. thank you. i think that's what i did. so i think we have a pending vote. thank you, madam deputy city attorney. >> on the on the motion to adopt staff recommendation on agenda item 11 sheriff and live by commissioner salahi high commissioner francois sure. finally with three votes in the affirmative the motion is approved unanimously. >> right. best wishes to you. thank you. that will go back to the consent calendar i now call item it was item well, so i

should say there's one item on the sound calendar i'd like to move which was previously item four. >> i don't know if it's now item five but the executive director's report will move everything else on the consent calendar will remain there unless my colleagues want to pull anything and discuss it separately. seeing none i move to adopt the consent calendar which would be the draft minutes previously item three and the enforcement report item five second mr. clerk would you do any take public comment? yes. thank you. is anyone in the room who would like to make public comment on the concerned calendar? seeing none mr. clerk, would you check if there are any callers, please? >> thank you. the chair finally, if there are no callers in the queue. all right. thank you. >> on the motion to the to adopt the consent calendar item three and item five a chair from high commissioner salahi i

commissioner francois i chair friendly with three votes in the affirmative the motion is approved unanimously. >> thank you. that i now call item can't keep track of the numbers because we ran a little bit but it will be the executive rector's report previously item four thank you mr. ford. >> director ford thank you chair for the live. do you have any questions about the report? i'm glad to go through it if you'd like or it could just talk about any items that are of interest. >> noble questions the reason i call it is i was really happy to see all the new staff mentioned in the report and i see some folks are here in the gallery so i want to take this opportunity to welcome you all to the commission. it's a great place to be. i'm really happy to see you all here. i know the staff has put a lot of work into finding the best and the brightest so welcome here. i'm not asking you all to say anything because this is public and on the record i want to

welcome you all and give my colleagues a chance to say anything anything that they'd like to say. yeah, i echo that and that was one thing that really stood out to me some really great additions to the commission staff and so congratulations and thank you to everyone who worked on this and making it happen. you know, i definitely want to recognize gayathri and our h our analyst nikki choo if she's watching they put in a ton of work getting all these recruitments through. it is a lot of work to hire in city and also to all the managers and everybody else in the office that participated in the interviews we interviewed many, many people for these 13 recruitments. yeah and seeing the wealth of experience and backgrounds that people have i think they're going to valuably contribute to the commission. so it's really great to see. thank you and thank you director void i think i have to take public comment since i pulled this item. so does anyone in the gallery wish to make public comment on this item seeing none. mr. clark would you check if there are any callers?

>> chair found that there are no callers in the queue. >> thank you adam that item is now closed. with that i call to make sure i have the number and right would it be number five so just keep the same number separate. i call item number six which is discussion and possible action regarding the push the relation decision and order the matter of randy collins mr. demicco thank you chair. good morning. and so this is a matter i'll give a brief summary and then i'm available for questions. the matter involves randy collins who is a respondent. he was a member of the board of examiners from 2014 2024. during that time he was also the founder and ceo of ftf engineering i the three counts

in this case are that during the period in question that is included in the statute of limitations from 2020 to 2024 count one there was one year in which respondent did not file a form 700 as 2022 count two there were five occasions in which the respondent mr. collins did not include paid the various contracts over the $10,000 threshold that ftf engineering received and then count number three there was one year where respondent did not file a certificate of taking the ethics training and did not file a sunshine ordinance declaration. now the unique thing about this matter and the reason that our proposed penalties are at 200 per count for a total of 600 is that respondents the board of examiners did not meet at all during the period covered by the statute of limitations. the board met four times during respondent's ten years.

he attended two of those meetings. the final meeting of which was held in 2018. this means that respondent did not have a practical opportunity to influence a decision during the period in question in which he did not complete all his relevant filings and trainings. that said, we do still believe a small penalty is appropriate because we do still believe these laws are important especially it's important to make sure that all of one's financial disclosures are complete so that if the board had met both we as regulators and the public would be able to figure out if there were any potential conflicts of interest for example. >> but because the board did not meet we believe it would be unduly harsh to penalize respondent anything more than a de minimis amount to emphasize the importance of the loss. >> but just on that point so the violations themselves are within the statue limitations. >> it's just that the board happened to not me during that time. yes and again because important

because in 2020 and 21 and 22 the respondent did not know that the board would not meet ever again during his time there and so he was still required to complete these filings. it's just that he never actually had any sort of opportunity to influence a decision in that time. >> yeah, that makes sense to me. i'm just curious though what is the board of examiners and how do they not have any meetings and that's kind of irrelevant but i guess as a matter of curiosity. >> sure. yes. so the board of examiners they they determine whether or not new construction material or methods of construction are compliant with certain safety rules around construction and architecture in the city and ftf engineering, as i mentioned is an engineering and architecture firm that respondent worked at. got it. thank you. thank you for the write up. i agree with the analysis and the outcome particularly given the unique circumstances of the

case and one question i had was with respect to the violations outside the statue limitations whether there is anything that you learned in the process of reviewing that about whether they had been flagged earlier or not and whether there's something that could change moving forward to help identify violations before they become too old to take action on. >> yes. so it's something that i i don't want to the someone else may be better to speak about. it's been something that we've started working on and will be continuing to work on is certain not necessarily automation but we're working with our at a department to be able to more quickly essentially scan filings and again i'm not a technical expert so my language is not correct but essentially automating the process of looking through filings and looking through city officers to be able to pick out people that we should take a closer look at earlier in the process. so that's definitely something

that will be incorporated into that effort. >> thank you commissioner francois, any questions? >> i do just have a question. i saw that i was reading that commissioner i think that mike is oh i'm sorry. can you hear me here? i'm moving closer. he said on okay. i just have a couple of questions. we're just really one because it said that he didn't file for 2000 for three years 2017 did i did i misread that there were several years before the statute of limitations covers that he also did not file and what is the process when someone doesn't file for one year rather than 2 or 3 years? how does that happen? i'm just curious. well, our office sends we send reminders in the lead up to the filing deadline for annual filers. we also send out notifications

when someone is late on filing and i. i personally cannot speak to what our process was in 2017 and 2018 for dealing with late or non-filers but i know that now we have you know enforcement staff is working to try and sort of create a streamlined process and we have the streamlined process but also create an expedited process for bringing non-filers and late filers into compliance . okay? so that we don't end up with a situation of multiyear non-filers thank you. is there a motion a move to adopt the item item number six the staff recommendation and the stipulation? i'll second thank you mr. tamika. thank you. i'm sorry did we skip public comment? we haven't done that. sorry. does anyone in the room wish to

make public comment on this item? seeing none. mr. clerk, would you check if there are any callers chair filled live? >> there are no callers in the queue. thank you. whenever you're ready you can take a vote on the motion to adopt staff recommendation for item number six chair friendly i commissioner salahi i commissioner francois i chair friendly with three votes in the affirmative the motion is approved unanimously. >> thank you mr. clerk. item six is now closed. i now call agenda item seven discussion and possible action regarding proposed ssab stipulation decision and order in the matter of budget policy because i should say sorry how do you say sorry? what's the we do say chair i thank you chair commissioners good morning. this is a matter that involves respondent bert pileggi. he's a senior vice president of and community relations at maximus real estate partners

and he's been a contact lobbyist lobbyist registered in reporting with the commission since at least january of 2014 and april of 22. mr. platt you acted as an intermediary of the $10,000 campaign contribution and failed to report that contribution on this monthly lobbyist disclosure report for the month of april 22nd through investigation the commission did not find any additional campaign contributions that mr. pileggi failed to report. he took responsibility for the violation and filed an amendment to disclose that campaign contribution on the relevant disclosure report. this matter was resolved on the commission's streamlined administrative resolution program site where the penalty amount is $500 plus the penalty modifier of 15% of the unreported contribution in this case that was $500 plus $1,500 because mr. polaski filed that amendment and timely engaged with the program within the

initial 30 day span. >> i'm glad to answer any other questions that commissioners may have about this matter. thank you. i don't have any questions. i thought the writeup was very clear and helpful. >> i agree with that. i agree it's well there's public comment. is there anyone in the room wish to make public comment on this item? seeing none. mr. clerk would you check if there are any callers please

? >> chair found that there are no callers in the queue. >> thank you mr. clerk i move to adopt staff's recommendation an agenda item number seven second on the motion to adopt staff recommendation for agenda item seven chair fellow high commissioner salahi i commissioner francois i chair friendly with three votes in the affirmative the motion is approved unanimously. thank you sir john item seven is now closed and i call agenda item eight discussion and possible action regarding proposed step stipulation decision and order and that julio ramos and julio ramos for college board 2024. >> for the record, eric willett, investigator with the ethics commission enforcement division this matter involves mr. julio ramos and julio ramos for college board 2024.

mr. ramos was an unsuccessful candidate in the november 2024 general election. during that election cycle mr. ramos and his committee failed to include proper disclaimer language on campaign communications that they made in support of mr. ramos's candidacy for city elective office. these communications had improper campaign disclaimer language included that was partially correct but ultimately did not meet the standards and requirements. these included communications such as yard and window signs and the committee's website. as a result of the investigation, mr. ramos corrected the website disclaimer within approximately one month of that website being live and for the yard window signs only through 30 of which were distributed and any future ones he had corrected the disclaimer on those that were distributed after that initial throw with the improper disclaimer this matter was also

resolved in the commission streamlined program and that is a $500 penalty when the respondent corrects disclaimers where practicable and within 30 days of contact by the enforcement division i hear mr. ramos did correct those disclaimers engaged with the program timely and first a $500 penalty was applicable. >> welcome. any questions for commissioners? thank you mr. willard. i think this is a good action. i'm just curious the the website issue is that it didn't list that the financial disclosures were available at as of ethics but what was the specific issue with the website let's trying to sort that out in a paragraph towards the bottom on page six well that's where i was looking i don't want to direct you anyway. correct. so the website had the following disclaimer paid for by julio j. ramos for s.f. college board

which is the incorrect name of his candidate control committee . okay. and is it all because of the initial correct so he had incorrect community name and he also failed to include the self ethics disclosures for the financial statements. >> got it right. and those are important because that's where folks need to go to see the actual transactions behind them. indeed and not the correct committee so they can look up. great. thank you mr.. but i don't have any other any other questions nor do i thank you. thank you. all right. i move to adopt staff's recommendation on agenda item i would although i keep forgetting sorry. thank you. is there anyone in the room who would like to make public comment on this item? seeing none mr. clerk, would you check the three callers please? >> sure. friendly. we were checking to see if there are callers in the queue and live there are no callers in the queue. thank you for checking i will move again. okay. remember forgot to second i moved to adopt the staff's

recommendation an agenda item eight so you can second i think commissioner commissioner francois seconds second on the motion to adopt staff recommendation for agenda item eight chair for live i commissioner salahi i am commissioner francois i chair finally with three votes in the affirmative the motion is approved unanimously. >> thank you jenna item eight is now closed. i now call agenda item nine presentation the public hearing and possible of actions on ethics commission budget priorities for the fiscal year 2025 through 26 and fiscal year 26 through 27. >> thank you chair for live for the record pat for detective director got a slide deck mat load up right goodness of gov

tv display that great thank you city law requires that we have two hearings on the budget before we submit the budget to the mayor's budget office. so this is the first of those two hearings and the second one will be at the commission's next meeting february 7th. so today i want to give you an overview of what the mayor's budget instructions are. recap what the ethics commission's departmental budget is and give you the opportunity to have a conversation with each other about what priorities you have

in the coming fiscal year and that will help me and guy three as we go through and create a budget proposal to bring back to you at the february meeting. so then you'll actually have a proposal to react to we don't have that today. we just kind of have the landscape for you and then we can have a conversation and then over the next couple of weeks we'll we'll put that together. >> so as i mentioned we'll have to submit the budget to the mayor's office, the proposed budget february 21st and this is the first of those two public hearings that city law requires. this is something that started about 4 or 5 years ago. i think the the board really wanted to make sure commissions were having an opportunity for the public to come in and not to have all that funneled into the board's budget process. the slide shows some strategic priorities that i've identified

. i'd definitely be curious if you have feedback on these or if you have additional priorities that are important to you but these roughly track what the commissions main operational programs are and roughly aligned with our divisions. but i wanted to put a finer point on exactly what we're trying to focus on in the next couple of fiscal years. so the first one is to provide effective educational materials and compliance assistance and that's of course to better inform the people who we regulate and i'm talking about political committees, city officers and employees, lobbyists, etc. to make sure that they understand the law and can follow it and also to engage members of the public, people who are trying to learn about our laws just to inform themselves or to hold public officials accountable always want to make sure they have good information so secondly to conduct thorough and timely audits right now we are revamping the audit process and really making it new and more

modern with the goal of getting all of the audits of publicly financed candidates done within about a year of those final filings which are going to be due at the end of this month. thirdly, to strengthen enforcement in particular by doing more proactive investigations and by doing larger and more impactful cases . obviously we've had some of those recently. we want to do more. we want to make sure that we're focusing the resources in a way that allows us to do those big long term cases next to make sure that our electronic disclosure systems are very strong. you may have seen in the id report i had a couple of updates that we just converted our final disclosure program to electronic filing. so we now have full e-filing of all of our disclosures. that's something that we've been trying to work toward for a really long time. yeah, probably 10 or 15 years and we finally closed the gap

on that one. but there's still work to do in terms of going back in modernizing those systems, making sure that they're effective, that people can use them well and then the next bullet point really talks about our policy process of reviewing the laws that the commission administers, making sure that they're working. i think we've got a couple of projects in mind that we could talk about at a future meeting one involving campaign finance ,one involving lobbying laws that would be really impactful and then the final two bullets are really just general goals that we have across all of our operations which are to enhance operational efficiency in particular by implementing standardized procedures using more detailed performance indicators, increasing automation and using more data driven approaches. these are things that we know we have the tools to do and we want to really implement them more to make sure our work is as efficient as possible and

lastly to maintain the staffing that we know that we need in order to get all of that work done. and that's going to be a major theme of this budget cycle which we'll talk about in a moment. so this slide gives a high level overview of the commission's current budget and what we call the baseline budget for the next two fiscal years and i'll explain what that is so the current fiscal year budget for fiscal year 25 which ends at the end of june we have a $6.75 million annual operating budget and we actually have 29 funded positions currently but during most of the fiscal year we were at this bizarre 27.61 number those are you see things like that doesn't mean we have 27.61 people it means that's the average number of funded positions we have during the fiscal year and that has to do with timing of when we are allowed to hire a position sometimes the mayor's office

will say you can hire this position but you have to wait until this date. you can't start paying somebody until then just because that's how much money they're willing to give us. so that's why you get these weird fractional numbers of fte is what the baseline budget is is it's basically a way to say if we continued our current operations and current staffing levels and current contracts that we have at their planned rate, what would the budget be ? the reason why it increases is mostly because of the planned cost of living adjustments that are baked into all of the city's ammo use with the bargaining units. so there's a schedule right now i think every six months for the next three and a half years there's a cost of living adjustment of 1 to 2% every six months. so that's why even if we keep existing fte count you'll see the budget increase in other similar things like contracts that we have with net file work orders we have with other departments even if we keep those more or less level they

can fluctuate over time. so that's why you see these numbers changing but basically you see the fte count remaining right at 29. this slide just shows you how that breaks down again, you see the same numbers you saw in the previous slide for our current approved budget and the next two fiscal years if we were to stay with our baseline and you can see that right now we're just over 85% salary and benefits were very staff heavy organization. we don't have a lot of equipment or grants or contracts that we make with community based organizations or vendors. we really are mostly an organization of people doing this work and you could see that that actually just deepens over the next couple of fiscal years with those planned cost of living adjustments our budget becomes even a little bit more heavily weighted towards salary and benefits.

>> just a quick note because this is always something that's part of our budget which is the election campaign fund and this is how the city's public financing program is funded. this is a distinct fund separate and apart from our operating budget. so whenever the mayor's proposed budget comes out it'll say the ethics commission's budget is $15 million. it's not $50 million. we have the operating budget around about 7 million and then the election campaign fund will actually fluctuate quite wildly year to year because of how the city funds it and because of major expenditures out of that fund during an election year in this last election in 2024 i think it was around $9 million of expenditures out of that fund plant. >> imagine we can use that money for operating expenses, right? >> it's we we can in a very limited way in we're actually exploring that right now what is the the full extent of what we are allowed to do? there is a provision in the code that allows us to use i believe it's up to 15% of the balance of the fund for costs

that are associated with administering the program. the balance of the fund is a moving target so i think we have to figure out what that means. what is 15% of the balance when that changes all the time and what is the cost associated with administration of the program? so we definitely want to use that to the fullest extent we can but we are fairly limited because previously those costs have been absorbed by the operating budget, correct? >> for example the main cost would be the staff hours that go into reviewing those claims for public financing and then on the back end doing the statutorily required audits. got it. >> exactly. but we have for example use that 15% of the fund in the past to pay external auditors. as you remember we've in the past used external vendors to complete those statutorily required audits. we've been able to use funds from the election campaign fund to help pay for that. thank you. so more details on that to come as we learn exactly how that works and this is what our

divisional org chart is right now and you might remember that we have a new division, the operations division which we created through the last budget. >> so gary three now has a team to help her with all the important budget operational and h.r. work things like running commission meetings all kinds of you know basic department wide functions that we have those are now all subsumed within that division and then you'll see the standard five divisions that we've had for a long time and this is our position or chart and as i mentioned in the report we have 29 funded positions and we currently have all 29 of them filled which is a first as far as any of us are aware of in the history of the commission. i don't know that we've ever had zero vacancies before. the red boxes that you see here

those are positions that are technically in our org chart. they are not funded. we have no authority to hire those positions. they are required to be held open permanently in order to meet what's called our attrition savings target which is just a weird feature of how the city does its budget. it says well technically you have 32 positions but your attrition target is going to require you to hold three of them open. so pick three that you want to never hire for. that's what these three are. so you can see there's a senior clerk position, there's a senior policy analyst position and there's an investigator position. so i would consider right now we have no vacancies where we're fall but we do have these kind of weird kind of zombie positions that we can't use. >> so now that we've talked about commission's operations in our budget i want to segue into talking about what the mayor's budget instructions are and these budget instructions

actually came from mayor london breed these came out let's say early december so we did know the outcome of the election at that time. however, she did issue budget instructions. mayor daniel lurie has not issued any additional budget instructions or anything at this time that would change what these are. so we do understand these to be the budget instructions that we will be operating under for this this budget. the only thing that he did which i'll talk about in a moment is to institute a hiring freeze. so these are the three main high level priorities that mayor breed put into the budget instructions. first one is to maintain core city services including public safety and clean streets. the second one is to continue significant progress decreasing unsheltered homelessness, ensuring effective mental health treatment and the third one is to propose opportunities to improve operational efficiency and service delivery and reporting across all areas of city service and in

furtherance of those priorities. these are the instructions that we're given. the bottom line number here is a 15% cut and that is 15% in both years of the budget. so as you know, every time the city does its budget which is every year it's actually a two year budget. so right now we are going through the process of determining what the budget is for both fy 26 and fy 27 but we will come back in 12 months and we will do fy 27 again. >> that's how the city does budget. >> they call it a two year budget but we do it every year so there's 15% would be across both years so it would be for fy 26 and fy 27. this is not just a temporary 15% cut. this is going on into the future. the second one is that this doesn't really apply to the ethics commission too much but assessing community based organizations grant allocations for efficiency we don't make

grants to cbos third to reexamine all contractual services and non personnel expenditures. we don't have a ton of those but we certainly will look and see if there's savings that we can find but we really have very few contracts. mostly we have net file and doc is signed for our e-filing systems. those are our big vendor contracts forth to eliminate vacancies and not add new ftes into hire only for core departmental functions. and lastly to consider a hiring freeze. those were the instructions in december but on january ninth, mayor larry's first full day in office he declared a hiring freeze. so luckily we have no vacant positions right now or a full 29 member staff. however, if we were to have a vacancy we would not be able to fill it unless we went through a process that the mayor's office is creating right now to request an exception because

this is not a complete hiring freeze. the mayor did say that public safety positions and positions that are necessary for operations or something like that can be hired but you have to get approval so if we find ourselves in that situation we will definitely be going through that process and making a request and that separate from the budget that's for right now any positions you have right now. >> so the way that this 15% budget cut would translate for our department is that it would be an ongoing cut of $1.1 million and we are required to submit a budget that meets that cut. we have to input that into the city's budget system and we have to be in compliance as you remember from previous budget years, we can also make a separate request for something that does not involve a 15%

cut. it could be something less than that or it could be no cut. but we do have to propose a scenario to them for them to consider of what that would look like to do a 15% cut and because of the fact that we are about 86% staff and a lot of those non personnel costs are things we cannot stop paying for. we can't stop paying the rent on our office. we can't stop paying net file to run our disclosure system. we can't stop paying other departments like da to provide necessary services to us a lot or nearly all of that cut would come out of our staff budget so that would involve a reduction in the number of positions that we have. so to recap what the process is, february 21st is when we need to have our budget proposal submitted to the mayor's office.

i should have added on here that also february 7th will have an additional hearing here with you. but then following that february 21st we need to submit our proposal by june 1st the mayor submits his proposed budget to the board and it is still at that time just a proposed budget. the mayor does not actually have the full authority to set the budget. the board actually does that. then in june the board goes through its budget process so that's when it forms up the full budget and appropriations committee five member committee and holds lots of hearings and departments come in and make presentations so we will be making a presentation at some point during the month of june . sometimes you have to come back for a second round if they want to make changes to your budget and then by august 1st the board has to pass the two ordinances that constitute the city's budget and that's a piece of legislation just like

any other ordinance. and the mayor needs to sign it and for it to become operative. so obviously that is already into the next fiscal year but that's just how they do it. they approve the budget already in the fiscal year that we're approving the budget for. so that's an overview of the process and where we are. be glad to go back and talk about any of that or answer any questions would definitely be curious to hear your feedback about the priorities that i articulated. >> i could go back to that slide two if you want to talk about that any additional priorities you have what you're thinking here, anything you can you can share. i have a question the the 15% target cut for the commission is that because some of the mayor's office has specifically said you ethics commission should target 15% or is that drawn from the citywide kind of 15%? >> that would be citywide and this is the approach we've seen every year is the mayor will articulate a single number that just reflects where they want to be. they want to reduce the deficit

by a given amount. so they want to cut across the board that amount. they do not give different departments different percents in our experience although oftentimes departments end up in different places, some departments get cut more than others. >> got it. and then i was curious to hear the 9% or so that's for other services of other departments is that kind of contract support or what does that go through? >> do you want to talk about that? sure i can. so the services of other departments are work orders with departments such as department of technology. they provide all of the infrastructure to communications as up of tv software licenses and things like that. we also have a quarter of a d a charge for our services but the comptroller's office, the office for accounting services ,real estate for and things like that. >> got it sounds like those are not things that can be done in-house or enjoyed by so those are like very you know, basic operational needs. >> yeah. okay.

well the parties you laid out director ford make a lot of sense to me. welcome any comments from my colleagues i agree yeah i agree as well yeah i think i think you're doing good work and i think that's that for our granular input but everything you laid out makes sense. okay thank you. and like i said you'll have something more concrete to react to at the next meeting so that might you know, drive more conversation. also hopefully we'll have two more commissioners at that meeting. we can see if they have any any specific ideas but we'll come to you with a full proposal of of how we think we could best sustain what would be a pretty serious cut to our budget without disrupting our operations more than more than we can avoid. and just out of curiosity about the process will you have an opportunity to get input or engagement from the mayor's office before you come to us on february 7th or even if it's informal, just a sense of it

we're not too sure what that's going to look like there there is a process for that. so when we submit our budget proposal at the end of february historically then there has been back and forth with the mayor's budget office. so we have a budget analyst that's assigned to us that budget analyst reports to the mayor's budget director. the budget director is in charge of putting together the mayor's proposed budget to send to the board so basically during march and april the mayor's budget office is reviewing our proposal and the proposal of all the other departments trying to assess what their priorities are, figure out where they want to spend their time and money and attention. oftentimes in the past i think we have not gotten a ton of attention on our budget. i think it's been hard to get the mayor's budget office to prioritize the ethics commission. i would love to see that change. i would love to see the mayor's budget office really take seriously the cuts that they're talking about doing to our office and think about the

impact that's going to have and give us some time and attention on this budget and hopefully avoid some of these cuts because cutting a tiny department like ours does almost nothing to balance the overall budget. we understand it's part of their approach. they want fairness. they want an across the board haircut for everybody. but that just doesn't make sense for a small department that isn't issuing big grants and contracts. we're not spending cash. we're very small staff doing important work so hopefully they will take the time to meet with us, learn about what we do and keep us from having to roll back the services we provide. >> yeah and i think that's exactly right. the cost benefit analysis seems kind of skewed in our situation and there's no way that we can do as commissioners to help with that message. >> just let us know, okay? i will. yeah it could be helpful in the past when you've had particularly difficult budget discussions we have involved the chair or other commissioners so i could see that being something where we may want to do but hopefully not and hopefully we can negotiate and come to a good

conclusion. >> we won't have to do that. right. all right. thank you director for public comment. does anyone in the room wish to make public comment on this item? >> seeing none. mr. clarke, will you check are there any colors if there are no colors in the queue the clerk that closes item number ten sorry nine a now call item ten discussion of enforcement regulation review project excuse me. >> thank you for the record my name is dr. mico, senior investigator with the enforcement division. >> this is so our our department, as you know over the last few years has made an increased effort as well as

showed an increase increasing willingness to bring cases through the entire process. that's sketched out in our enforcement regulations, especially focusing on probable cause process, the pre hearing process and then the hearing on the merits process in that process we have learned a lot both from the hearing that we held last year as well as from the many cases we have brought to the probable cause phase. we've learned a lot about how our enforcement regulations apply to these areas and how they could potentially be improved the enforcement regulations as you may know, were adopted in the late 1990s . in the past 28 years they've been amended 11 times. the most recent time was in 2018. so a lot has changed since then in our department's operations and i think regulation ones

that were written in theory have now been put to practice and as i've mentioned we've learned about four opportunities to improve those regulations so as part of this we've identified a couple of different types of issues with the regulations that we think we can improve upon. the first two are just very basic updates to reflect current practices as they've evolved. the second two are opportunities to provide clarity where there are currently ambiguities from our experience especially with the hearing that we held last year these are just things like the basic mechanics of how a hearing is held, how and who is appointed as a pre hearing officer and a hearing officer things like the order of who asks questions to witnesses and again you were all here for the hearing and i think you all experience that in real time as we did that additional guidance would be helpful both for us as the commission and staff but

also for respondents giving them clarity on what they can expect as they move through the process. >> and then finally there are a few places where we feel the enforcement regulations contradict themselves or other laws and there can be improvements made on that regard as well. >> so our department is kicking off what we hope to be a six month or so process to revise these enforcement regulations. the past four months we have been working on researching the regulations in other jurisdictions, talking to folks in other jurisdictions about what they do and how they address some of these issues that we've identified. and so we're using this meeting to sort of publicly announce this project to let you all know what the process will look like. we're not requesting any action at this time, but we'd like to give you the opportunity to weigh in on the process if you'd like and ask any questions essentially for the

next few months we will be soliciting ideas and feedback from a number of parties. we're going to do at least one round of ip meetings, interested party meetings to solicit ideas and feedback. we welcome and encourage active participation from you all as commissioners getting your ideas and and getting feedback as the proposed amendments work their way through the process. we've also already started working with the city attorney's office to ensure that we meet all requirements for potential meet and confer throughout the process and we hope to have final proposed amendments before you all by the end of the fiscal year which would be the end of june of 2025 and again there's no action that we're requesting today if you do have substantive suggestions we're welcome to take them today although today is mostly about sort of announcing the project

and going through the process. but if you do have things you'd like us to take note of now or we're happy to thank you. mr. d'amico seems like a great effort. i'd be particularly interested in anything relating to the hearing process after the hearing we did a few months ago which i think went well but there definitely room for improvement and things that we learned a lot of takeaways from that but no other comments from me at this point at this time yeah i agree with jeff and live thank you i'll take up public comment does anyone the room thank you mr. d'amico anyone in the room wishing to make public comment. seeing none. >> mr. clerk, would you check if there are any colors? chair friend that we are checking to see if there are callers in the queue. >> sure. if there are no callers in the queue. oh caller thank you mr. clerk that closes item ten a now call

item 12 items for future meetings. i have nothing personally colleagues anything for future meetings. does anyone in the room wish to make public comment on this item? seeing none mr. clerk would you check if there are any callers chair friendly there are no callers in the queue out of an abundance of caution let's take public comment on the agenda item regarding the budget that was agenda item i did. >> yes you did. i did. before we close the meeting i want to confirm with the clerk that we have a motion on item four that was pulled off the consent calendar and if not we could you did take public comment on that. i just want make sure we have the motion directors report. >> i'm not sure there was any action required it you don't need one it's would be consistent with the the past practice i think to to do one so you could out of an abundance of caution if you want for the minutes i'm not sure the motion would be i

guess would be to because there are no specific recommendations in there now there's there's no action so if you're if you're comfortable there's there's no reason you need to have that i'm comfortable with that. thank you. and then for i think i just say on agenda item 12 nothing from the commissioners on future meetings and i think we check public comment in the room there was none mr. clerk will you check if there are any colors or none? thank you mr. clerk. item 12 is now closed. sorry. item. yeah, but was closed and i'll call item 13 additional opportunity for public comment . does anyone the room wish to make public comment on item 13 seeing none mr. clerk would you call item sorry would you see there any colors on item 13 chair for that we are checking to see if there are callers in the queue chair from if there are no callers in the queue.

>> all right. item 13 is closed. i call item 14. >> adjournment. thank you everyone

>> let's glow sf is the largest holiday projection mapping festival. and something this we kicked off around 4 years ago as you know, downtown sf partnership envision how people use downtown san francisco. >> there are 18 projectors for this. 14, 30,000 and 4, 20,000 projectors at different areas. >> we select the building

through an interesting process that take in account several factors. things like architectural. the ferry building are a fantastic fit for that. [♪music♪] ♪♪ ♪♪ >> it is fusion of digital art and dance theatre. which is a tech nobodying my studio specializes in creating dance theatre that interacts with visual animation and digital effects >> the flag performances in the piece a lot of video projection mapping does not have anything live. no human performers or nothing like that. i like bringing that human

element in it and bringing real performance in the digital space temperature gives it more life and more and the audience connects in a different emotional way. [♪music♪] [applause] [♪music♪] >> is a you can see huge future. made of art official material react to the natural light. which means a day when the sun come in, it creates a lot of combination of different court reporters and light, like a living sculptor. and at night we can show it with additional light, which create

so many different ambience the idea was to dream. [♪music♪] >> this is our fourth year kwa let's glow sf we have been involved since inception in 21 and will moving forward. we are see it grow every year with audience daens and artist participation. different level and quality of artists we having access to participate grown every year and the number of locations has grown as well as the footprint well is more to come downtown this is something imperial coming to see and to participate in it it is a health and he fun friends and family activity. we love to see it going for many years to come. [♪music♪]

you're watching san francisco rising with chris manners. special guest is david chu. hi i'm chris manners and you're watching san francisco rising the show that's about restarting rebuilding and re imagining our city. i guess today is david chiu, the city attorney for the city and county of san francisco , and he's here today to talk to us about the opioid crisis, reproductive rights and the non citizen voting program. mr chu, welcome to the show. thanks for having me on happy to talk about whatever you want me to talk

about, so can we start by explaining the difference between the city attorney's office and the district attorney's office? i think it could be slightly confused. that is a very common fusion with members of the public so um, if you get arrested in san francisco by the san francisco police department, all criminal matters are dealt with by the san francisco district attorney . we handle all civil matters on behalf of the city and county of san francisco. what that means is a number of things. we provide advice and counsel to all actors within city government from our mayor. every member of the board of supervisors to the 100 plus departments, commissions boards that represent the city and county of san francisco. we also defend the city against thousands of lawsuits. so if you slip and fall in front of city hall if there's a bus accident if there is an incident involving the san francisco police department, we defend those matters. we also bring lawsuits on behalf of the city

and county of san francisco, where most famous for litigating and obtaining the constitutional right to marry for lgbtq couples have sued gun manufacturers, payday lenders, oil companies, you name it, who are undercutting the rights of san franciscans and the city and county of san francisco. so now moving on to the opioid crisis. i understand you've had some success in court, um, dealing with manufacturers, distributors and pharmacies. could you elaborate a little bit on that for us, so the opioid industry and by that i refer to the legal industry that prescribes pain pills. um over years. uh, deceived americans and resulted in literally thousands upon thousands of deaths and tragedies that we see on our streets every day when it comes to the addictions that folks are experiencing. many of the addictions really stemmed from what happened over a decade plus

period where the prescription pain industry marketed prescription pills in ways that were false. we were one of thousands of jurisdictions around america that brought a lawsuit against the opioid industry. but we've had a particular set of successes that others have not. ah we initially brought a lawsuit a few years ago against every part of the opioid supply chain, and that included manufacturers, distributors and retailers, including pharmacies over the course of four plus years. a number of these corporate defendants settled with us. we've as of this moment brought in over $120 million of cash and services. to the city to help address the root causes of what we're talking about. but a few months ago, we had a really historic verdict against the pharmacy, walgreens and their role walgreens was responsible for literally over 100 million pills, flooding the streets of

san francisco over a period of years where they flouted federal law that require them to track where they're pills were going to. they had a what? what we refer to as a phil phil phil. pharmacy culture where folks would bring in their prescriptions, and the pharmacist would just fill them without checking why someone was coming in multiple times without checking why certain doctors were seen a 100 fold increase in the number of opioid prescriptions that they were prescribing. so we had a historic judgment against walgreens recently, but it's been a very intense lawsuit. and we know that will never bring back the lives that we have lost to opioid addictions. but it's critical for us that we get the resources that we need. maybe one other thing i'll mention because it's often confusion. a large percentage of folks who are addicted to street level drugs say heroin or fentanyl started their addictions. with

painkillers, opioid medications that were prescribed through doctors provided through pharmacies and so literally the suffering that we're seeing on our streets was caused by the opioid industry over many, many years and has created the significant crisis that we are dealing with right now. right right now moving on. i understand after the recent supreme court ruling, striking down robust as wade that you've put together an organization that's designed to help mm. provide free services to people who are both. seeking abortions and providing them can you tell us about the organization? sure so, um, before the dobbs decision came down, but after we learned about the leak from the supreme court about the draft that suggested the decision would be as bad as it has turned out to be, um, i reached out to leadership from the bar association of san francisco because we knew that if that decision came down there would be tens of thousands of patients around the country as well as providers whose legal situation

would be in jeopardy. women doctors, nurses who could be subjected to lawsuits who could be arrested who could be prosecuted, particularly in red states? 26 states where rights are being rolled back or in the process or have already been rolled back because of the dobbs decision. so we put out a call to lawyers all over the bay and frankly, all over the country, and as of this moment there have been over 70 law firms that have answered our call to be part of the legal alliance for reproductive rights who have committed to reviewing cases and providing pro bono assistance to patients and providers who are at legal risk. we also are looking at potential cases that these lawyers can bring against various states. in these areas that are looking to deprive women and patients and providers of their of their rights. um it is a very dark time in america, and i'm really proud that that

barrier attorneys, the legal community care have stepped up to answer the call. it's very important that's great. so now the non citizen voting program that was passed by voters just for school boards has faced them court challenges recently, but it was in place for the most recent election that we've had. how do you see that situation panning out? in fact, it's been in place for now. five school board elections. um so a little bit of background in our san francisco schools over one out of three kids. has a parent who is a non citizen who doesn't have a say in the election of the policy makers that dictate the future of our san francisco public schools, and so over a number of years, there has been a movement to allow immigrant parents to vote in school board elections. few things i'll mention about that is our country has a very long history when it comes to allowing immigrants to vote. from 17 76 for 100 and 50 years until after world war. one immigrants were

allowed to vote in most states in our country on the theory that we want to assimilate immigrants in american democratic values and institutions, and it wasn't until an anti immigrant backlash in world war one that that sort of ended. but in recent years, um cities across america have allowed this to happen. in fact, at this moment, believe there are over a dozen cities that have voted to allow non citizens to vote in a number of context. now, this is particularly important in our schools just given how challenge our schools are, and given that we know that when we engage more parents in her school system, regardless of their citizenship it helps to lift up our schools for all parents. and so in 2016 the voters of san francisco past about measure that allowed this to happen. unfortunately earlier this year, there were conservative organizations that came to san francisco to bring a lawsuit to try to overturn this , and i should also mention it

is obviously the perspective of our office and our city that this is constitutional. nothing in the constitution prohibits non citizens from voting. and in fact, there's an explicit provision in the constitution that allows chartered cities like san francisco when it comes to school board elections to be able to dictate the time and manner of those elections. and so, uh, we are involved in litigation on this issue. there was an initial ruling that was not good for us that essentially said at the trial court level. we shouldn't allow this. um we appealed it up to the appellate level. the appellate court made an initial decision to allow this past november election to proceed as it has for the last previous four elections. we're going to be in front of that court soon. stay tuned. we'll see what happens. it was good to hear that the city was able to reach a settlement with the center for medicare and medicaid services are meant laguna honda could still operate. how did you manage to reach that agreement? it was not an easy conversation

. just a little bit of background. so laguna honda has been an incredibly important institution in san francisco for 150 years, taking care of our most vulnerable patients are frail, very elderly patients, many of whom are at end of life. and a few years ago, there were some issues in that hospital. some violations of rules that we very much want to make sure don't get violated. there were folks that weren't using proper ppe, who are bringing cigarette lighters into the facility, who might have brought some contraband into the facilities. we have zero tolerance for that and have made that very clear. we self reported some of these violations to the federal authorities. and unfortunately from our perspective, they took the very disproportionate step of ordering the closure. the permanent closure of lugano, honda. problematic on a number of reasons. first and foremost, there are just no skilled nursing facility beds not just in california but around the country. after their order came

down. we literally were putting 1000 calls a day to skilled nursing facilities around california and around the country and could find nowhere to move the 700 patients that we had had in the gonna honda but just as disturbingly as we were forced to start moving some of these patients, a number of them died. there's a concept in medicine known as transfer trauma. when you move someone who is that frail and unfortunately, folks folks died and we were at a point where we were five weeks away from the deadline for the federal government. that they had provided to us to close the facility. so uh and we have been trying for months to get the federal government to reconsider their action, so i was compelled to bring a lawsuit on behalf of the city and county of san francisco and very pleased and appreciate that we were able to come to a settlement whereby transfers will be delayed at least until next year. we're going to have at least a year of funding. to keep the facility

open, and hopefully we can get back up on our feet and ensure that no future violations occur because this is an institution that has to stay open for the good of these patients. quite right, quite right. so finally, congratulations on winning an important public power service dispute with pg and e. um why is it important that the city's rights as a local power provider maintained well, so san francisco has been a local power provider for decades. we are fortunate to have access through our hedge hetchy hydroelectric system to provide electricity to a number of providers, particularly public recipients of that. and unfortunately, pg any has used its monopoly when it comes to private electricity to try to stop that, and to block that, and from our perspective, they violated federal law in adding literally tens of millions of dollars of expenses to san francisco and institutions that we're trying to ensure um, public power

infrastructure. put years of delays on our ability to do this, and so we had to bring a number of appeals in the federal commission. ah we were successful in those appeals, and there was a decision recently that basically held the pg and e could not use its monopoly to unfairly delay or add tens of millions of dollars of cost. to the city and county of san francisco, as we are trying to move forward with our vision of public power. clearly pgd has not been able to serve not just san francisco but northern california. well we all know that with the wildfires with its bankruptcies, with all the issues that they've had, we think there is a different model to move forward on and we are grateful to the court. and providing a ruling that allows us to move forward. well thank you so much for coming on the show. i really appreciate the time you've given us here today. i appreciate and thanks for your thanks for your questions. thank you. well that's it. for this episode, we'll be back with another one shortly for sf gov t

v. i'm chris manners. thanks for watching. yeah.

>> san francisco has always been very diverse, very progressive and not only open in other ways but music as well. musicians always want to try to find something new to play and if they are thinking about playing something new or different. i'm the product of the san francisco schools. i started when i was 10. i

joined the band and that was th play. and you have to be able to put yourselves in different situations. that's what made me better. if you do with two or three ingredients, that makes it pretty boring. most people know me for playing with carlos santana, touring the world all over the place. phenomenal place with music and also being around him you have a lot of fun and learning a lot about music and things beyond music too. this place is history, i have

been here many many times like any 70s and seen some really incredible groups and that is being here a number of times is kind of a full circle moment. it's really something that we cherish when we play is getting the energy back and forth with the audience and kind of a symbiotic thing. playing for the home crowd and your family is really a meaningful thing to be and just a fun place to be in. a lot of great memories seeing so many groups here over the

my name is mark, the general manager of condor beach in san francisco. condor was created [indiscernible] when it started in 1964, the club becoming the first adult entertainment, club regal in america, that was something big, that was huge. condor givers you a little of everything. we open in the day on the weekends so we have a live band that play and night time we transform where the entertains come on and we have the gentleman's club vibe along with the sports vibe. we show the ufc and boxing

events and major sports and do little things like [indiscernible] comedy nights you can find what we are doing through our website. condor gives you a little bit of everything that you want when you want to go out and have a good time. being here in north beach and part of san francisco we put a lot of ourselves in the business. the good work we were able to do over the last decade to build it and make it what it is today t. is a honor to say, we are one of few businesses in san francisco that is a legacy business.

>> call attendance or roll call. in dam secretary. >> president stacy >> here >> vice president arce. >> here >> commissioner jamdar >> here >> commissioner leveroni. >> here >> before the first item the san francisco public utility's commission acknowledges stewards of the unceded lands within the