>> 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

>> david pilpal again, i don't object i just have concerns about burdening city officers who may not have e-mail, may not want to have e-mail and may not want to subject themselves to to the information and privacy policies to a third party aoe mail provisor and for which a city department does not have the resources or does not want to provide the e-mail that they have another option. and so that is what your next provides for, and that is some alternative scheme, i think that it is going to be very important to notify appointing officers. appointing authorities, board and commission secretaries about their responsibilities here, both by 2014 and going forward, and to update the good government guide so that new appointees and members of the boards and commissions know that this is a new requirement so within the 15 calendar days of a change to their address, e-mail or phone number that they need to notify the ethics commission that is an absolutely new requirement. >> so, there is that and i am sure that all of that training is going to happen and it would happen better if we had a

>> david pilpal again, i don't object i just have concerns about burdening city officers who may not have e-mail, may not want to have e-mail and may not want to subject themselves to to the information and privacy policies to a third party aoe mail provisor and for which a city department does not have the resources or does not want to provide the e-mail that they have another option. and so that is what your next provides for, and that is some alternative scheme, i think that it is going to be very important to

so, my suggestion is that we change the first sentence to read, after david pilpal alerted them that... identified in those drafts that regulations after on the third line, after 3.1-103-3, put a comma there and the commission agreed, and accordingly, blah, blah, blah. >> and... >> the action is taken because david made the suggestion that the commission found reasonable. >> yes. >> and so we just wanted to throw the credit his way. >> thank you. >> and then on page 7, in the paragraph under the motion the second line the word should be governmental conduct code. and that is all that i found. >> where is that? >> the last one was on page 6. >> after the moegts. >> i think that i said 7, on the second line, the san francisco campaign and governmental conduct code not conduce code. >> >> i move that we approve the minutes as edited. >> second. >> public comment? >> all in favor? >> aye. >> aye. >> the minutes stand approved. >> okay. >> and do you have a report? >> yeah, a few quick highlights. and item number for you and notice that the revenues for the year, exceeded what we are antic

>> 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

. >> 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