he's complied with the ftpc. i don't see any reason to reject this resolution. >> supervisor farrell. >> i think supervisor wiener captured a lot of what i want to say. it's evident that we take these laws seriously and that we comply. i think as supervisor wiener mentioned, these are the same forms, it's out in the public, everyone knows about it. we're dealing with one or two forms. i would venture to guess that members of the public want disclosure, that i they don't care what form it's on. if i'm in the da's position, i call up the ftpc to see what to do and that's what they did. here we are instructing the da to do something different than what the governing body of this document instructed them to do. i don't get that. if we want this discussion later, then i'm up for that, but from the point of view from what the da did, obviously nobody's saying he did anything wrong, but i also take his perspective on the advice from the governing body and in my position that should call the day. >> any additional discus

you're the ftpc is the arbitrator.n this scenario, these facts, based on the ftpc's past advice letters, it's our general advice would apply that a form 801 is the appropriate filing, but as you said the ftpc is the ultimate arbitrator. they also handle allegations that officials have accepted gifts in excess of the gift limit, but this is a law that is set by the state. >> and one follow up. so one of the opinion letters seems to suggest a different direction involving a foundation that purchased the house for the vernor of california and future governors that want to use it and the conclusion that they reached was that the provision of the house was a gift to the government and not the individual. can you reconcile that with the advice that you're providing to us? >> sure. it requires reconciling the various ftpc advice letters. the letter you are referencing, i believe was issued in 1984 two decades before the form 801 existed and sometime before the adoption of the regulation that requires the form 801. the ftpc ha

the ftpc indicated they will not pursue that complaint. our advice will continue to be that you must either file the 801 or treat the gift something to you personally because the ftpc has decided not to pursue any enforcement action against the district attorney in this case, the letter is not the type of published advice letter on which we rely from the ft bepc usually in getting advice. >> can we pass this acceptance of gifts based contingent upon the submittal of the form 801? >> the decision whether to pass the resolution or not is a policy decision for the board and you can take that into account. the fact that you can decide for any reason that's been discussed to support or oppose the resolution. >> could we amend the resolution to say the passage of this resolution is contingent upon the receipt of the form 801? >> you could. i think that may leave a bit of about when the district attorney's office has been authorized to accept the gift. if you do make the resolution contingent you might want to put a timeframe on it such that the

>> well, i have not spoken with the ftpc. i have received two letters, one to the da from the ftpc and one to charlie, a member of the public who filed the complaint. the main question about the 801 is whether the da in this case received a personal benefit and the letter from the ftpc says that based on the facts of the situation, the da did not receive a personal benefit and therefore there's no gift to the district attorney and no form 801 is required. >> so they said the 801 is not required. >> it didn't reference 801, but it said the da did not receive a personal /pwepbl fit. /pwepbl fit. benefit. >> i'd like to move forward and i'd like to support this item so i'd like to make a motion to move on with the understanding that an 801 will be filed. >> so you would like it to ert question to supervisor campos about that motion. so if you need to abide by the requirements in that form, the da actually wouldn't be able to sign that because he isn't within the requirements of 801. >> that would be a question for the city attor

would do, but in case of where we are in this particular case, given that you have a letter from the ftpc, i can't vote against it. i do believe that we as the city, should move forward and clarify some of the rules and it looks like maybe there's an interest in doing that. /tkpwepbl, i think that a form 801 should be filed not because the ft /p*rbgc says we have to, but because we have the advice of our city attorney's office and i think as a matter of policy, all of us should follow the sail rules. that said, in this particular case, you have the ft pc saying there is come come /phraoeupbls compliance so i will be supporting that. >> supervisor wiener. >> just in terms of the retro activity, i think to be clear to benefit members of the public who don't review our agendas every week, we all know that there are retro actives on this board. yes, ideally all departments would submit accept and expends before accepting it. i don't think we should single out the da when pretty much every department has done this before. this is not something where the da has done something that's so out of b

to make two recommendations from our group one is that when enforcement actions are referred to the ftpc and others and they do take action in cases involving san francisco entities that that information be included in the report so that the public can see what happened in the complaints are filed and that in fact they went on to another agency and were handled and what the results were. and so that is one thing that i think would build a little more confidence that there is not just no actions being taken in enforcement. i think that the second thing is that in some cases, contributions that are not allowable, are not being forfeited back to the city. last election the mayor's race, mayor lee returned a number of contributions to the donors but the city law is that he had to give those donations to the city not to the donor, like telling a bank robber, they come in and give the money back to the bank, instead of understanding that there was an enforcement issue that had to be done. i think that in the future, in the cases occur, that there needs to be a message from the ethics commissio

would note that los angeles ethics commission is participating directly in the conversations with the ftpc and the state on the california disclose act and offering their insights from their experience. and i would recommend that the san francisco ethics commission also participate in discussions so that they could have the benefit of your experience. thank you. >> thank you, mr. bush. >> i would just mention to the commission that we are spending the day with the fppc on june 11th. >> and that seems like a good suggestion, to have a regular update, whenever there is pending legislation. that we should be aware of or that it impacts anything that we do. and any other public comment at this time? >> okay. the next item is a discussion and possible action on a request for waiver from alan martinez, former member of the historic preservation commission >> this waiver is different than the last one that the commission considered. the prior one was a waiver that so that someone could serve on a commission th. one is for someone who has left a commission and requires a waiver to conduct this par