hepner? >> yes. >> mr. hepner, why does supervisor peskin want us to incorporate in these two proposals of his rather than letting the board do it at this joint session? >> thank you for that question. i think procedurally we cannot act on anything that this commission has not approved. the idea is to have the commission make the statement today it is ready to move forward this measure donor disclosure piece so the board can approve it at the joints session. that is the importance today is moving forward to send that message. >> when you say that it can't be approved at this joint session without our first tonight approving it? >> i guess the question i would have through the chair is whether the commission would be able to take action in approving this measure donor discan disclosure piece without continuing to the next session of the ethics commission for time approval. the board of supervisors cannot approve anything this body has not approved by a four fifth's vote. >> couple things. it is hard to say w

hepner is going to speak on behalf of supervisor peskin. >> correct. thank you, president keane. in your packet, you have a statement that's authored by supervisor peskin. it exists in budget finance and duplicate committee file right now. i think we were having trouble wrapping our minds around why we were creating a disincentive to recuse. we want board members and commissioners to recuse themselves when they meet a requirement to the recusal, and to that end, amendment a provides some good clarification around when a board member or a commission member should recuse themselves. i would suggest this commission and supervisor peskin, rather than, suggested that this commission delete the sub section relate to repeated recusal that creates this potentially punitive dynamic where if you recuse yourself more than three times, you are subject to removal from your board or commission or the recommendation of ethics commission to be removed from your appointment or commission. that removes the disincentive to recuse. that allows for ethics investigators to instead focus on enforcement

hepner a question? are you gashting that the board of supervisors -- guaranteeing that the board of supervisors is going to pass this? >> i cannot speak on behalf of the board of supervisors, but a genuine effort on behalf of the board of supervisors to move this forward. an alternative you could use is to keep this on the november ballot with the same operative date of january 1, 2019, keep that over the heard of the board of supervisors to act meaningfully. you don't gain or lose anything because even if this is passed on the june ballot, until next year any way. let us prove to you that we can do the right thing and get this effective in effect long before the november election gets really up and going. >> commissioner kopp? >> i'll repeat. mr. peskin told me three weeks ago that we should delay this to the november 2018 election. today, mr. hepner, you represented that it should be on the june 5, 2018 election. i am confused, but i will consider your remarks accordingly with guidance from our fellow

hepner of supervisor peskin's staff. what the current status of the ordinance is at the board, yesterday, the file was duplicated, so there are now two files that are pending before the budget and finance committee. the first one is being called the ethics version, and that's essentially what is attached here as attachment one. that's the version you approved in november with the amendment. the other version, which is being called the committee version, has certain amendmented that were proposed by supervisor's peskin and tang. some of those overlap with staff's proposed amendments, some are the same. some are different, and they go further, and we can go over that, but not in this presentation. and then, also, the committee version of the acao does have supervisor peskin's major donor financial disclosures piece. that has been amended into the committee version of the acao. so before i go through the changes that are in the new staff's recommended amended version, i'll just mention that our recommendation due today is t

hepner -- yes, sir. why don't you go ahead and speak, and then, we'll vote on the motion of commissioner renne. >> thank you, chair keane. so i'd like to wholeheartedly echo what mr. hepner just said and to illustrate an example that shows how you can receive a private financial benefit from a nonprofit. current law already would make the following scenario a conflict of interest. if i were to serve on a city commission, and my wife, let's say, re volunteer board member, or rather than a paid executivor of a nonprofit, and i directed city funds to her employer, that financial interest, her receiving a financial gain through her employer, because of my official action, would be imputed to me as the public official and i would have a conflict of interest in this case under government code 87100 et seq. under state law. so that arrangement is already illegal whether you're talking about a nonprofit employer or a for-profit employer. >> excuse me. before you leave, mr. chair. >> yes, commissioner kopp. >> wh

we need to put the city's money where its mouth is and i guess to lee hepner's point in terms of specifying the motion i want to provide an example of the retirement board and the commitments they make and the follow through. so one of the milestones was to divest from coal as a good first step. they have been forced to do that by the legislature. so they took a vote, i believe december 2015 to divest from coal. staff would come back with an implementation plan and at the time the recommendation was to divest from less from 1% of their coal hold. not 1% of the total fossil fuel but the think they said they'd divest, less than 1% is what eventually put in front of the board and passed and i don't think the divestments have been booked by the managers so we give them time in a way that it won't negatively impact the funds beneficiaries. this is par for the course. and your input and voice is appreciated. thank you. >> commissioner: thank you. >> commissioner: mr. holtzman, a quick question, actually, and thank you for your long-standing advocacy on the issue it's been noticed and appreciated

my name is heather hepner. over the last three years we've been optimizing the bayren rebate program to do energy upgrades in low-income housing in san francisco. so far we've completed six projects they've utilized $8,000 in funds and cdc will front the capital and complete the work on a scheduled deadline be recipient of the rebate at the end of the project. we've done a variety of scopes so far including replacing heating systems, domestic water heating systems, insulating in attics and our residents feel like they're satisfied because we're hopefully reducing our energy bills and reducing operating costs which prevents us from raising rents so everybody's happy and thank you for the opportunity. >> commissioner: thank you. >> any name is candace. i work at stop waste, a public agency in alameda county. i want to say we've appreciated our collaboration with sfe on environmental programs both had programs prior to bayren but what's great about the regional collaboration we had the resources to scale up our be