>> public comment. >> david pilpal good out reach is going to be necessary to make this work. my understanding is that the mayor's office right now is in pretty good communication with the staff about changes in appointments. i don't think that is informally the case with regard to other appointing authorities. there are some sort of some what appointments that are made by various city officials so bringing them all up to the standard communication within 15 days will be good and i noted as a read the language of the law the failure to provide such notice may constitute official misconduct and so there was contemplation that this 15-day notice requirement was pretty important. and yet, it does not happen as regularly with the folks other than the mayor's office. as it could in my opinion. but points to miss wheaton and the mayor's office for doing their work. so... again, i am sure that this will play out and staff will do a good job with out reach. so, i commend this regulation to you. >> thank you. >> any other public comment? >> commissioners? >> can i hear a motion? >> i m

>> yes, please. >> i like to hear the comments. >> the staff response to david pilpal's question about the 3.1 dash. >> so i am looking at the ordinance that he sites, and well it is true that for instance, the mayor has already listed in section 3.1-103, and the supervisors, the clerk is listed in that section but the memberss of the board of supervisors are not listed there. >> we have to have the regulation to put those folks in. >> the state law requires that the conflict of interest code specifically list out different categories of filers and 87200 filers which were in the 3.1-500510, include the management, managerial employees that manage public investments and so those are listed out in 3.1-510, like the chief investment treasurer that i don't believe are listed under the 3.1-103 section. >> if i could just clarify. >> that is true, however, those are astrisk, and they file with the office and not the ethics commission and therefore would not fall under the electronic filing. and not the filing officer or the filing official. or the 500, or 510 folks are where the ethics commi

>> david pilpal and i am not sure what he just referred to about referals and during the break? >> i am happy to explain. during the... when a question arose, in a closed session discussion about how the commission handles referals. >> okay. >> and that as a public session discussion is to be had. >> okay. >> and a future meeting. >> that is right. >> and there is a concern that some of us have that often such referals appear simply as dismissals. and add to the number of so-called dismissals of which we are accused of having too many. and so, one of the things that we want to look at is that there is a different way to categorize probable cause issues that are referred out to another agency. >> so... >> so it is not a dismissal, but rather a referal. >> but it is a disposition of matters that are before the commission that get referred to another satingcy. >> correct. >> and how to categorize that disposition. >> yeah. >> and this of course is part of the problem when people start looking at the numbers and then like well, if it were about the numbers... >> exactly. >> 49 perce

. >> good evening, david pilpal and i want to clarify as to mr. bush's point about the san francisco housing authority. my understanding is that the housing authority is a separate agency from the city created under state law and subject to hud requirements but not subject to city ordinances, although the mayor does appoint the members of the housing authority board or commission. and i don't believe that our ethics law extend to the san francisco housing authority. thanks. >> thank you. >> any other public comment on this item? >> based on this conversation, i think that for item one, we will go ahead and bring follow up proposals because you are not going to make any decisions tonight >> might we make a decision tonight? >> no. >> you didn't know. >> because you need the specific language. >> right. >> so, we will have language where you will have the option of extending it 12 months. we will look at the threshold for 100,000 dollar threshold and if you want to reduce that and then we will look at restrictions and prohibitions on fund-raising by

>> david pilpal and i have made previous comments about how to increase the transparency of the investigations and the complaints and the handling thereof kout compromising the investigation techniques or whatever and i am not going to repeat those tonight but the staff is aware and i think are trying to look at those and maybe implement some that don't require additional resources. and i also just want to make a general comment on this report. i think that doing things differently, with the existing resources is certainly something that we can do and look at and all of the things that you have talked about generally go in that direction but doing more and different things with the existing resources, is difficult, and i would suggest very strongly that if you are giving staff direction, on these points, that if any of these suggestions require additional staff or other resources, that that be highlighted and called out so those in this room or elsewhere who want to advocate for doing more should know that there is a price tag associated with that and advocate for additional resources to make

>> david pilpal, on page 3, the motion 13-04-22-1, i think that it was actually the same motion that commissioner renne made that was finally seconded by commissioner hur i am not sure that it was a new motion, i think that commissioner hur did not want to second it until after public comment. but it was listed as two separate motions naoe. way, not that important, but i like the typo on page 6, my public comment about section two about gentleman's agreements, it was actually settlement agreement and someone listened to the tape and got it wrong, i suggest that you strike gentleman's and replace it with settlement. >> that was the intended word. >> is that in the first paragraph. >> six 6. >> at the top. >> it is a fun one and a good one, thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> any other comments on the minutes? >> is there a motion to approve the minutes? >> as corrected? >> i move to approve the minutes with the correction about gentleman's agreements being settlement agreements. >> second. >> all in favor? >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> the minutes are approved. >> executive directo