in decision points 2-chapter 2, ii, section d for david, subsection 2. that and chapter 3, iii, section b, subsection 2 differ in setting the majority threshold. majority vote threshold to determine whether a respondent violated the sunshine ordinance. 2, ii d2 states three votes would be required to declare that the respondent did not violate the ordinance. 3, iii b declares three votes are required to declare that the respondent did violate the ordinance. consistency this language is really always the better option. in decision point 2, ii e, and 3 iii c they do not address what would happen if a respondent failed to comply with an order from the commission or if the respondent's employing entity refused to pay a commission-imposed fine and, by the way,, i will add that i do not believe in fining a respondent's employing entity a good idea. if there is a fine, it should go to the respondent. >> 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

i think they really only apply in subsection b. i mean it's difficult to read 16-18 and imports 19 and 20 in, that the "order to support" language. it just gets a little circular, but i do agree that support should include actions or statements whether public or non-public. that are trying to urge or encourage a particular outcome. i think that is the point of "support." and i'm also trying to think through if you have got a committee under state law that you have a primarily formed committee. i know. right. that this is creating a new animal only under scintilla, but is requiring that animal to file reports. all right, i will just keep thinking about it. if we haven't figured out the definitions we should try to get that right. it's dangerous to have a definition here that is complicated and interconnected and say that the commission may further adopt presto clarify this. i think we should get it right and not rely on having to go back later and define by regwhere we already have a definition that is intended to be comprehensive.

2d3 and make that subsection 2d2 and flip it with what currently exists as 2d? >> i'm lost. >> commission renne's suggestion and to add email language to subsection 2c2. other amendments that were proposed? is there a motion to adopt decision point subject to those changes? >> so moved? >> second. >> all in favor? >> aye. >> opposed? hearing none, the motion passes. decision point 3 has do with chapter 3. any comments from the commissioners on decision point 3? >> i think we might want to make the same change that commissioner renne suggested earlier in 3b, reversing 2 and 3. >> agreed. >> b2 would become b3 and b3 would become b2. >> right. >> any other issues? i had a couple of questions. do we have any provision for the situation where something comes to us originally, we dismiss it, and then the same complaint goes to sunshine and comes through their process? >> we have not addressed that. >> okay. or visa versa, if it comes through sunshine and they don't like that and they come directly to us. it would be, i think, helpful to have language that would preve

that is subsection 6. or b-6. and subsection c continues, "that nothing about the state regulatory section shall preclude a local ordinance from authorizing suspension, revocation or other restriction of a license or performance for violation of this chapter or of the local ordinance that occurred at the business premise." i don't think it's the case that ceo can evade the pen penalties that happened in july before they came within the ambit of the state statute. even if you set aside the facts and you sets aside the law, that argument is curious, because it would be the only law i'm aware of which you can say i can commit a wrong, but i can't be penalized because six months later i moved out of your jurisdiction and therefore, it doesn't count that i committed a violation in the first place. that is just a very strange argument. and i think we can leave it at thatment if you have questions, in particular the most serious question raised the 12-day notice received despite 20-day notice requirement. dph acknowledge

two, one violation of san francisco campaign and governmental conduct code section 1.1 16, subsection c, for repaying aloan amount in excess of $120,000. 3 one violation of california government code section 81 104, subdivision a has incorporated into local law by san francisco campaign and governmental conduct code section 1.1 106 for not accurately reporting either the correct amount loan or the date that the loan was deposited into the committee's bank ak. four, one violation of san francisco campaign and governmental conduct code for not providingdoms that were required to keep within ten business days after a request by ethics commission staff. five, 16 violations of california code section 1 4104 as incorporated into local law by san francisco campaign and governmental conduct code section 1.1 06 for faying to maintain detailed records that document the days on which his committee made 15 expenditures, the amounts of the expenditures, the names and addresses of the payees or description of the goods or services. 6,15 violations of san francisco campaign and governmentality condu

oches, by here's the thing that gives us pause it's in business and professions code friction 12 subsections 22 and it says no pro vision of any ordinance enacted by a city, county or city and county that is in effect before the effective date of this chafter and it requires a licenses permit or other authorization for compensation will be enforced to an vivid certified as chapter or massage business or massage established establishment that employs or uses only persons solved to this chapter to provide massage. the way that language is drafted that certainly races the reasonable argument that the moment the establishment becomes certified the city is deprived of the authority to close the doors of this establishment and that is what need to happen in this case. >> this is a farrell new pro vision of the law and this has not been lit gated. >> are you associated in any way in this case? >>> zero. and as i stated. >> so you are saying that you are not prepare to go forward today? >>> i would try william anything but it's very very difficult the brief is extensive as you know. >> is your answe

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 tie problem cause report, et cetera. i'm not sure that you want to reveal any more than you would otherwise, just because someone added a sunshine allegation to a complaint. >> where do we discuss disclosing the contents of the investigative? >> it doesn't, but where it says, "staff shall initiate a complaint of the alleged violations." then staff could be initiating the complaint, but they would have to import the allegation facts, whatever, from the complaint presumably filed by another. unless the original complaint was staff-initiated. if someone hypothetically compl

they should read that this subsection -- this is a part of his new -- enforceable and is not, and it goes back. with that, if there are any questions i will be happy to answer them. we do have our city attorney here to help us if there are any questions. -- who has been working with us on this legislation. other than that we will open for public comment. other members of the public who wish to speak in item number one? >> (off mic) (off mic) ofm(off mic) (off mic) --- (off mic) >> chair: i think you want to speak on item number two. >> i don't mean to be fresh. i am being straightforward. i'm true to this. i'm here at city hall for 20 something years way before you all can hear. i don't know what you were doing 20 years ago, but i am doing the same thing i was doing 20 years ago, trying to find out what is going on at city hall. every department here needs to go over their contracts. for instance ttys signed contract that you don't know nothing about. there's a lot of things going on, i'm going to be here to let you know. i have been here starting city hall for over 20 years. specifi

i would also just point out subsection 4 does allow the ethics commission to propose regulations and i think the reason that we put that in there, we know that to the extent there is any potential ambiguity or loophole, people will try to go there. that is just how things go. >> this whole issue came up because of a loophole, because someone found a leap hole. >> right. so i think to some extent the ethics commission has the ability to address leap hole lope holes. the only downside if we don't define "support" at all there will be the chance of zero gay and lesbian as of what "support means." >> if we had "support" i would define it as public action or statement or actions encouraging or urging -- i will concede that i'm hoping that my hypothetic is ridiculous and it would be interpreted in the way that we have all think it should be. >> you just built them their loophole. >> i was thinking that election makes it more restrictive. >> that was my reaction when you said that. >> the big problem we had last time, the committees kept saying we are not a campaign. we don't have a candida

because close very clearly, very early became my attraction -- clothes became nmy attraction, a subsection. as more attractive to addressing people than addressing myself. it was not my objective desire, my own person. so i think that if i looked, the market inspire me. people different in it the streets or inspiring me. not what was fashion. maybe i was a finding something to were very inspiring. laurant. i like the ones that are different and have their own style. i like the ones that are different. they have style. i love them. so everyone that was different, i'd love it. i was not inspired by the jet set. at that time in 1960's, it was like very -- [unintelligible] for example, when i started to work, i am not all in the quatorze address. that is where some young girl -- among the young, i find more creativity, more interesting fashion in paris than in london. the sense of humor makes them to play more with the clothes and everything. in paris, i could see what was chic in what was not. one time i was working and was arriving at an industry job, and i was wearing boots. they looked at

it turns out there is a subsection of the u.s. code called dominations specifications and design of coins that includes the following profession. the secretary may mint and issue platinum coins and proof platinum coins in accordance with such denominations may prexrip from time to time. the original intent of this legislation is to give the secretary of the treasury latitude to issue kmemtive coins for collectors but the plain meaning of the statute is clear. they can issue a platinum coin in any domination as the secretary of the treasury designates. the idea of trillion dollar coin advocates is the president would direct the treasury to mint a trillion dollar coin and deposit it in the bank account if he federal reserve and we have a trillion dollars more in the bank and we don't have to worry about the debt ceiling. if this sounds surreal or magic magical, you are not wrong. it's bizarre enunprecedented. even if it's illegal, it seems to run against our expectations of how the government does and should behave. it's the kind of

under the rules for elections under -- i did get the e-mail, under division -- section 1, under subsection, let's see here, one second here, get back down there. c4, voting for secretary, treasureerer may be conducted by a show of hands or other means of division. the chair shall be endowed -- if the chair so shall elect or be endowed by the vote upon request of 25% of the dnc members voting, the voting be conducted by roll call. >> at this time i would like to ask if secretary -- [inaudible] will be given an opportunity to be heard before we continue the proceedings. is there objection? thank you. hearing none, secretary -- [inaudible] you have the floor. [laughter] [background sounds] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] finish [inaudible conversations] finish. >> okay. so -- >> madam chair? >> at this time, let's suspend with the election of the slate of officers, and i think it would be appropriate and fitting to give our retiring officers an opportunity to speak so that they can make sure that they have an opportunity to talk about tear really incredible commitment to t

under the rules for elections under -- i did get in the e-mail, under division, section one, under subsection -- let's see here, get back there, c4 to the discussion chair of voting for secretary, treasurer, finance, may be conducted by a show of hands or other means of division. it shall be endowed if the chair so shall elect or be endowed to the result of vote by division upon request of 25% of the dnc members voting in person or proxy, it can be conducted by roll call. >> i would like to ask if the secretary can be heard before we continue the proceedings. is there objection? >> thank you. hearing none, the secretary has the floor. [background sounds] [inaudible conversations] >> at this appointment, leaving the coverage of the winter meeting of the democratic national committee to return to live coverage of the u.s. senate. we do want to let you know that coverage of the dnc will continue on our website. go to c-span.org. senators are about to return from their weekly party lunches, and we'll bring you live coverage of the senate as they return here on c-span2. while we wait for the senat