i'm the director of the ethics commission. a chair person can has outlined the net and bolts of the legislation and i would just like to say the first proposal has the full it backing of the ethics commission. we sought and got quality public input into this. i think it was a good process to come out with a measure that faces the unpleasant realities of recent supreme court binding's which we do not care for but must live with but also preserves the integrity of the public finance system and it's a good one and i believed staff as an excellent job of administering. it we have realistically look at all of the numbers and the structure makes some housekeeping changes, but the important thing is we preserve the integrity of the program and it kept it attractive to candidates because without participation, it doesn't mean much. i will leave it for any questions that you have. >> i know one of the issues we talked about was the actual number for the ceiling for the board of supervisors. i wonder if you could speak briefly to those n

this complaint was also dismissed by the ethics commission. the laguna honda gift fund was reported as well. it is a charitable fund for poor patients that was being plundered for staff parties and perquisites by the laguna honda administration. nine months later, pressure led to an audit which restored three under $50,000 for the patience of a good on that, but again, this complete was ignored by the ethics commission. and lastly, i was driven out after 22 years, and the doctor was laid off. our whistle-blower complaints were dismissed by ethics without a hearing. is this an ethical decision making? thank you very much. >> good evening. i am peter, the executive director of the library users association. first of all, i want to thank the ethics commission for having publicly televised meetings, which will make it much easier for the public to observe what is happening at your meetings compared with audio only. i hope that the ethics commission will continue progress in the direction of open government by improving in a variety of other ways an

i also think in terms of procedure, where the ethics commission takes a vote on a matter, they should communicate in writing to the board of supervisors with their vote is and not have that merely be reflected by a line in the city's attorneys digest of legislation. they should communicate formally to that and. -- to that end. i'm not concerned with the particulars, i tend to favor the soft cap at i would have eased slightly different numbers, but i think this goes a distance to fixing the thing and making it work. i can live with all that. i want to focus on the municipal election code and the potential change any they want to follow- up on this, moving back the deadline date 58 days, almost two months to early june has the effect of commingling aspects of a june and november elections that do not exist. now the june election is done and put to bed, the best can't settle at least for with the november election. this moves the deadline so close as to require the department of elections to be verifying signature at the same time they are conducting the canvas. it is confusing to others

the ethics commission, on the other hand, has none. that statement and others in the article are gratuitous comments intended to discredit the task force work and discourage members. prop 59 adopted in 2004 by an 83% majority created the public constitutional right of access to public records. the commission complete lack of involvement in these cases and the executive director misuse of this position has denied those 26 complainants that right. i think the time has come to recognize that that right exists. thank you. >> good evening, commissioners. my name is dr. washburn. i am a member of the sunshine ordinance task force. i occupied seat number five and was appointed by or recommended by -- of san francisco. i also share the compliance and amendments committee of the sunshine ordinance task force. i appeared before you in november at your regular meeting to urge you to meet with us jointly about your proposed regulations for handling sunshine enforcement cases, and i think that the consensus seemed to be that that would be a good id

we know this is a lot of paperwork for the ethics commission to handle. they can start qualifying but will not get public dollars until june. this ordinance will also raise the supervisor or a cap to $250,000. this was brought to the at this commission after looking at the actual cost of our district elections. the previous cap was $143,000. realistically, every race that came before us in the past couple of years, the cap had always been raised because of independent expenditure dollars. we felt this was an average number that reflected what the generally costs to run in a real supervisor election. it would also make public financing continue to be an attractive option for candidates running for office. they could spend time talking to voters and engaging with voters while also fund-raising. i also want to recognize the department -- our ethics department and our ethics commissioners for working so quickly with office. they were really tremendous, as well as our city attorney kind of dealing last-minute changes and number crunching. it was difficult. i ap

through this, the ethics committee has sided with the city and against citizens in every case where public records were withheld. not only has this ethics commission failed in its duties, in as woefully and knowingly avoided the efforts of the sunshine ordinance task force. it has done this for years while representing its efforts as trying to work with the task force. it has been derelict in its duties by allowing every case to be dismissed by staff without a hearing. after taking an oath to support and defend the california and united states constitutions, the committee has acted in ways that knowingly and willfully violate the constitutional and civil rights of the citizens of san francisco. some may feel that i am being too harsh in this, but i think prior speakers and myself have to really look at the records, and for the first time, we are now on the public record so that the citizens of this city can actually see what this ethics commission has done up until now in the dark. and i will quote senator barry goldwater in his 1964 presidential acceptance speech of the republican nominat

in addition to the review the ethics commission gave the first item, i think it is important to note their review by the comptroller found are no additional costs associated with these measures, so i hope he will approve them and help move san francisco forward. supervisor kim: thank you. >> a good afternoon. i live and work in san francisco and i would like to voice my support for both proposals before the committee today. i think both should be passed with a preference for the proposal coming from a non- partisan ethics commission. san francisco's public financing system is a strong system and the change in both proposals would make the good system even better. these are common sense and straightforward changes that would make a number of improvements to various aspects of the system. it will bring the law into compliance with the recent supreme court ruling about triggers and increase the funds can't receive and will compensate for the supreme court changed and it's also good in its own right with the increase in expenditures. it will address these offbeat candidate issue we saw a

we would wait the 30 days for the ethics commission to return the report to the board. of course, public comment could be taken. is that required on this report? >> public comment would be taken when it comes back. if you refer to committee you should refer to the ethics commission where it will have a 30-hole. >> we will refer it immediately. >> i was -- wrsupervisor chu: thank you. president chiu: supervisor kim has made a motion to refer this back to the rules committee. is there a second? supervisor wiener. can we refer this without objection? without objection, that shall be the case. on item 23. supervisor kim: i would like to re-refer this to committee. president chiu: any discussion? >> supervisor campos: i wanted to make the point i am happy that we have come to what i believe is a resolution of these issues. i think that i know it is a lot of work to get to this point. i want to thank supervisor kim and her office for all the work they have done. and -- as well as the other supervisors, supervisor farrell and supervisor elsbernd to raise the issues about the n

the five-year plan of the ethics commission would require more staffing among other things for us to be able to leave the entire mission because of the budget situation. it is extremely unlikely. out of respect for the budget process and acknowledging the ethics commission's independence, i am recommending we put in a request equal to this year's budget and would allow us to go forwarrd with the same staffing level as they are now. there are no other accounts with insufficient funds to meet the targeted cuts. it would mean an immediate loss of staff for next year and an additional loss for the following year. we would respectfully work with the mayor's budget office and the board of supervisors. >> thank you for our working -- for working very effectively with the staff, considering the budget cuts. >> i would mention that the budget analyst was here for a while but i guess he had to go. >> public comment on this matter? >> this is a two-year budget. the memo is not so specific. the calendar item is not that specific. there is a public hearing requirement for the budget and the captio

is not coming from the city attorney but the ethics commission staff reflecting the work of the ethics commission. thank you. until next time. supervisor kim:. -- supervisor kim: thank you and i appreciate the work on this ordinance. >> thank you. supervisor kim: is there any public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. i wanted to state that we do have a public financing ordinance coming before rules committee next week. hopefully that can address these issues as well. i think this is an important amendment to make as the redistricting task force is considering major changes to our district lines. that will be important to delay certification of any candidate to determine where folks live and which districts that can run for. i do support this ordinance. any thoughts? supervisor campos: i would make a motion to move this forward with positive recommendation supervisor kim: we can do that without opposition. -- positive recommendation. supervisor kim: we can do that without opposition. is there any other announcements? >> no, ma'am. supervisor kim: meeting is adjourned.

gosh we are free to go back and change the ordinance, but as always, you need a super majority of the ethics commission and the board. these changes are going behalf very simple. >> i still favor the lower amount. >> this will be speaking with a soft cap, right? it would make more sense to me if we did the lower amount. >> there are concerns, constitutional concerns about the soft cast. in light of what the decision says, where the president has come out today, it is a risk worth taking. and what about the issue of equalizing the amounts for incumbents and not incumbents? are we an agreement that the number should work out so that an incumbent would earn $2,500 less on publicly available funds? so that the total amount that they could spend would be the same, and there wouldn't be a campaign surplus to deal with assuming there was no expenditure khafre's? the action that makes sense to me, too. and >> so then is there a motion to amend the thing as proposed with the following recommendations, before an incumbent for the board of supervisors race, there would be an adjustment in the matching

we are here to support the ethics commission proposal because it insures there will remain a level playing field in san francisco for candidates are from new and emerging communities. that is where the heart of our concern is. we strongly support ranked choice of voting. we want to make sure elections work smoothly and we should not have perverse incentives that forsake tended to stay in an election when they do not want to. we should not have a situation where the election laws are in danger of getting struck down by the supreme court, albeit for reasons we may not agree with. we are strongly in support of the ethics commission proposals and look forward to working with you. supervisor kim: thank you very much. >> i would like to think the ethics commission for bringing this proposal forward. they did a nice job of incorporating public input and i think they listened to those of us to have been around this issue for a number of years. i was one of the original drafters of the program passed in 2000, so i would like to think you for taking to heart keeping the intent of this program. a sup

the fact this is coming from the ethics commission, is a non- partisan body with no vested interest in the outcome and i think the board should think about that and defer to their judgment on these matters. you might have some differences, but it is a good proposal they have sent to you. the budget analyst has determined there is no additional cost as a result of this proposal. there is no fiscal note at all. in -- it is important for the members of the public to know what they've lost from a terrible supreme court ruling. candidates could receive more money if they can't approach the spending cap. but as a result, publicly financed candidates would not be able to receive more money. the solution to increase the spending caps by small amount is the smart way to go. and there -- dealing with the zombie can't it problem is a big one. we talked about should we allow candidates to withdraw all and not have to pay the money back. [tone] we did not find a lot of support for that proposal. this political consultant talking to people just to get money. the way this is crafted, it is the smart

. >> the ethics panel determined and the senate agreed that senator currie used his position for personal gain and to help shoppers food warehouse. this is the first time in 14 years that the senate has chosen to censure one of its own. before being censured by unanimous vote, senator ulysses currie, seemingly humble and contrite, shook the hands of every senate member of the ethics panel. he looked them each in the eye and said, a job well done. the joint committee on the legislation and ethics investigated his relationship with shoppers food warehouse. the grocery store change paid him to order 45,000 others over five years as a consultant. -- they paid him $245,000 over five years as a consultant. the provide a written response to the committee's questions and the panel grilled him five hours. >> we are all here today to discuss an important and somewhat unpleasant matter, discipline in one of our own members. >> the panel submitted a 31-page report that determine that career filed inaccurate and incomplete financial disclosure, failing to disclose the conflict of interest, failing to

fighting the power plant at patrarro, an expansion, and i've always found him to be the most straightforward and ethical reporter. now, that may be an oxymoron, i don't know. but -- so when i saw that, i said, well, hmm, good luck, rob, with a, you know, a straight-across-the-board waiver so i guess i'm here as much as a character witness as much as someone who is often could -- accused of being a lobbyist because i may know who to call to file an appeal or try to get something resolved and i'm not a fighter, i'm a solver, and i think you get a lot more accomplished with education than you do with placating so that's why i'm here and i really -- anything you can do for mr. selna, he's a great asset to the city or anyone he works for. very bright guy. thank you. chairperson hur: thank you, mr. boss. >> i just happen to have with me the final e.i.s. for the f-line extension. if i can share that with mr. selna, we can go over it after the meeting. i think you've actually captured the issue very well. i think this request actually is a bit premature. i'm not sure given both the description on the agenda and

in the employee handbook, there's reference to the ethics commission, also to conflict of interest laws and state of incompatibility. the handbook itself doesn't summarize every single rule but i believe employees are advised to contact the ethics commission if they have any questions. that's number one. number two is that when our commission -- when our staff provides ethics training and we have done that for a number of departments in the past, especially when we're dealing with the statements of incompatible activities, when we're rolling them out, we talk about the rules that governor city employees, in particular, post-employment rules. we have not hit every single department and one of them is timing issue, one of them is whether or not the other department has space available for us to provide the training. but we try to do that. we do let people know, do let other departments know that we are available to provide training. the third thing is that all these things are posted on our website. one -- i mean, we try to inform people of what the rules are. we don't always succeed and

the elements of this are based in, both documents produced by ethics and by supervisors campos and kim. they have pulled them together into a proposal that maintains the best elements of the public finance program and allows us to move forward but also to accommodate the constitutional restrictions by the supreme court -- that has been placed on us. and having said that, the supervisor is here so i would like to see if she wants to add anything. >> supervisor kim, thanks for joining us. supervisor kim: thank you, and i know that this has been a lengthy process that we have been engaging in, and so we appreciate your considering a variety of different ordnances around public financing so that we could need -- the unfortunate ruling on public financing, and i address the trigger, the enforcement of public funds in response to this, because as the court has stated, they believe there is a substantial burden with the independent expenditures, and first- amendment rights. and the argument around leveling the playing field and encouraging the usage of public financing, which is viewed as eli

secondly, i would like a work plan involving the ethics commission. all you have to do is mention -- that is sufficient to explain why the ethics commission needs to be checked out. thirdly, it is the whistleblower program. there is no need to explain that. if the whistleblower program was clean, it would not have needed civil grand jury. i, myself, would like to challenge the mayor to have a face-to-face discussion of the whistleblower program because i have been told he was one of the formal letters of that program and he ought to be able to defend it face to face. >> thank you. i will pass on your challenge request to the mayor. any other members of the public who wish to speak? public comment is closed. colleagues? we have a motion to move to item 4. so moved. are there any other items? >> are we are adjourned. -- we are adjourned. >> when stephen de staebler died, he was working on one of the biggest shows of his career, matter and spirit. it is a retrospective look at the many faces and faces of the life of an innovative artist from the californ

violation in the history of the city and county of san francisco, and the entire 17-year history of the ethics commission. at the february 2 meeting, the library commission endorsed this abuse by reelecting a president to continue as their president by a unanimous vote. the privatization of our public assets goes hand in -- hand in hand with the degradation of our democracy and our traditions of open government and public participation. as we have seen many times, the public is guilty until proven innocent, but those who do corporate dirty work are innocent even after proven guilty. that is why the lies cost more than money. thank you. >> i am peter warfield, executive director of the library usersa

violation in the history of the city and county of san francisco, and the entire 17-year history of the ethics commission. at the february 2 meeting, the library commission endorsed this abuse by reelecting a president to continue as their president by a unanimous vote. the privatization of our public assets goes hand in -- hand in hand with the degradation of our democracy and our traditions of open government and public participation. as we have seen many times, the public is guilty until proven innocent, but those who do corporate dirty work are innocent even after proven guilty. that is why the lies cost more than money. thank you. >> i am peter warfield, executive director of the library users association. a little history and questions about the possible influence of money as a relates to the bernal heights branch library merrill, which features an unidentified african-american singer. two years ago, the library commission approved a compromise to restore the front of the mural at a cost of $18,000, but expressed great concern as to where that $18,000 funding would come from. a so-called

with respect to most other employees of other departments, for instance, employee with the ethics commission, the one-year ban would only apply to communications with the ethics commission to influence a governmental decision. but there is an exception carved out for the mayor, for the members of the board of supervisors and also for the legislative aides of the supervisors so it is in the law itself that the one-year ban applies to communications with all city departments. commissioner liu: thank you. chairperson hur: any further questions for mr. selna? >> just a comment. my feeling is that you're presenting us with a problem that doesn't yet exist as the previous commissioner mentioned. this is all hypothetical. this legislation is not intended to prevent you from gaining employment and as someone who spent many, many years as a public affairs professional with many companies, there's no reason to think that you can't find a public affairs position and that doesn't necessarily mean that you will be interacting with the city and county of san francisco in any way whatsoever. so i think tha