debbie lerman, human services network. first of all, i would like to wholeheartedly support and thank the staff and commissioners for accepting the amendment that it only applies if you have a financial interest. i think this is a significant improvement and removed a lot of the risk around this proposal. i am still concerned about this broad language of including as an interested party people who actively support or oppose, and i'll be honest, the first time we saw this language was three days ago. i still haven't read this packet, and i have not had the chance to even wrap my head around what that means, but i know the board also expressed concern about that language at the hearing on thursday. and to me, it says if somebody spea speaks at a public hearing or takes any other action to communicate a position, which could include anything as small as signing a petition or somebody who participates in a rally on the steps of city hall, that that would be included in this definition, and i think that it has a real risk of no

. >> debbie lerman, human services network. i just want to briefly concur with torrance remarks. i also agree that removing organization from there would not affect true conflicts of interest which are already prohibited under the law. and i also have -- but it's just a gut reaction, this is targeting nonprofits, and as mr. bush points out, i believe it applies to for profit associations, as well, but i would urge you, as a minimum to change the word from organization to corporation or something similar or clarify for profit and nonprofit. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> again, my name is mark bruno, and through the chair, i would like to comment on commissioner lee's criticism or description of a situation where a mom and pop nonprofit might be negatively affected because a supervisor or a commissioner, an unelected public official might want to do small favors for a small group. i was cochair with mohamed nuru when mayor lee was chairman of the graffiti advisory board. in those days, and i think the same challenge is faced by all commissioners and boards now, it's a virtue in go

. >> debbie lerman from the human services network, and i find myself in agreement with friends of ethics that we should not place this on the ballot today. there are a few process comments i'd like to make. first of all, there are two, now three versions, i guess, of the legislation floating around. the board has two duplicated files, your original version that you sent over last year, their amended version, the new one coming out of here today. supervisor tang introduced several amendments that are not yet out as of this morning, so the board's committee version hasn't even been publicly released yet, but we believed there were some good ideas in here that this body may be receptive to, and given the desire to get this right, it would be best to allow a full analysis and comparison to all of the versions. secondly, i wholeheartedly want to concur with supervisor peskin's office that there is a tremendous benefit to working collaborately because it could be adopted at a later date. i know this is frustrating to many of you, but we have always agreed with 90% of what is in this measure. t