pillpa? >> i think where we're going with this is on chapter 4ie2 the commissioner or chp may rescheduled the hearing for good cause and might read "may continue or reschedule a hearing at their discretion for good cause," good cause may include absence of one or more commissioners. >> i think that is a little too discretionary for what we're talking about. >> okay. >> anyway, it could possibly go there. >> somewhere in that range. i think on the chapter 2 question, i would probably not change the burden. i think the standard of proof and burden to be kind of makes sense. that is what the whole basis of the chapter 2 versus 3 thing was. i think i would be better with three positive votes needed to make a finding that there was a violation. so even if it requires three votes to find a violation, you can still hold the person to the burden, if they didn't meet their burden, then you go the other way. although it does play out in the same ways that we have talked about. i also would not substitu

>> david pillpa, a couple of things. on the agenda for tonight's meeting discussion possible action on draft regs governing the handling of complaints related to alleged violations and referrals from the task force. i'm not sure i'm not sure within that scope you could actually act to amend the regs for investigation and enforcement proceedings. it pay be a close call, but it may be dependent on whether you take final action tonight or not. i don't have any particular quarrel with the proposed edits to the general regs. if i could, for a moment, on your last comment on subsection i in section 4 chapter 4. in the event that there is a complaint that alleges both a sunshine violation and other improper activities of other sorts, i would hope that the staff-initiated complaint pursuant to the last section doesn't reveal any more or less than necessary for the processing of the sunshine-related complaint, because the regular complaint wouldn't be disclosed under current provisions in the event it's dismissed or doesn't get t

>> david pillpa. i'm trying to kind of work through this language, including the top of page 2, lines 1-4. sorry, it's giving me a headache. i would suggest a few points. on line 17 and 18, i would reword it slightly to say, "in order to support the qualification of an identifiable person for city elective office." because that presumes that that person has not yet qualified, and that the purpose of the endeavor is to have them be a qualified candidate. it's not to support the election of the that person. it's really more about getting them to be a qualified candidate and i'm actually thinking less about the draft someone over the summer or draft someone as a written that actually happened in 1999 in ammiano for mayor. i recall some of that, but try not to recall all of it this sec. you could have the same efforts that happened with "run he had run," and progress for all," in the context of a write-in campaign and i'm not sure under this definition it would get captured. that is why i'm hung up on qua

. >> david pillpa, again. to the extent it makes sense i think chapters and 3 should have parallel language where there are differences in burdens and what not, and they should be different, but otherwise i agree and feel strongly that they should have exactly the same language covering how things work. i also was going to point out the 3-commissioner vote, but actually from a different perspective. in the event that a commissioner is absent, and the commission were to deadlock 2-2. it's not clear what happens then. if a matter would be continued? it it would be -- if there is some presumption under chapter 2 that there was a violation or under chapter 3 that there wasn't or just what would happen? i understand that it requires a majority vote of the body to make a substantive action. i'm not questioning matters that are seeking to do anything different, but just to clarify what would happen in other sorts of events? i have no quarrel with not including the findings in a public announcement. i do agree to the

>> david pillpa, and that is already covered in chapter 4 page limitations and format requirements. but it's a good idea. on chapter 3, i have two points. >> you don't have to be so snaky. >> sorry for the snark. >> but we're impressed. >> following the investigation, the report from the director, we'll talk about that in a second under chapter 4, with access to complaints and related documents, but i believe it's the intent that that report and recommendation be the only document that is available relative to the investigation at the time of the hearing. so i think that really needs to be comprehensive, conclusive. whatever attachments are material to the investigation for the review of the commission or the public should be incorporated or referenced, but that is it. i don't think people should say, okay, you are making some reference to some other thing. i would like that prior to the hearing. it's either whatever is out there needs to be out there for everyone to view, and nothing else. so i just want to be clear on the content of that report and recommendation, because i think

pillpa's point that if you read in what we defined as "support," into it and replace it, it starts to sound fairly redundant. >> well, if i might? i think where i'm having the most trouble now and we're into subsection b for a second. on line 7. that you can have a circumstance where a primarily formed committee perhaps is only filing semiannual reports and not pre-election reports, but in the instance where that primarily formed committee supports a candidate and using the language "support [o-eufpblts/] ," going to the definition here. i think you are trying to get in that instance a primarily formed committee. >> the reason leaving it in is not redundant, they are going to try to self-define, if they want to get around this provision. >> right. >> so i want them, if they say, we're not raising money to elect him or her, we're just raising money to encourage them. that is covered. we say we are not supporting their election. we are only supporting their candidacy. we might be absurd, but we have had absurd claims before. i don't want them to try to self-define their way out of these

:good evening dale pillpa, just wanted to comment and perhaps inquire on the election season that has just concluded. i assume that the staff will be analyzing the effectiveness of the matching -- the public finance program and perhaps compiling a report and i'm just wondering what the thinking is on the timing for that? it's usually a few months down the road, but given the various things that happened this cycle, i believe it will be interesting to look at the numbers after the fact and maybe we can have some discussion at that time about the program and how it works given what we anticipated about a year-ago going into this cycle. i don't know if staff has an indication of when that mike be happening. >> a few months. >> thanks. next item on the agenda is discussion and possible action on the amendments to the ordinance. >> nobody is a stranger to the subject matter in front of us. the commission made some progress and combing through input from the sunshine ordinance task force and the staff's updated and redirected recommendations and then once again, after the last time the comm