Skip to main content

tv   Ethics Commission 52316  SFGTV  June 7, 2016 7:00am-9:11am PDT

7:00 am
ethics commission for may 23, 2016. i will call the roll. commissioner hayon, here. commissioner andrews, here. commissioner keane, here. commissioner chiu, here. all present and accounted for. item number 2, public comment on matters appearing or not appearing on the agenda and make the same caution that if you intend to make a specific comment on a specific agenda, i
7:01 am
appreciate if we hold those until we get to that agenda but you are free to do as you wish. >> i'm bob [inaudible] i'm leer as a member and also spokes person for the informal association known as friends of ethics. last week a public polling of california completed a polling about ethics commission and potential ethics matters happening in the city. i want to give you brief summary of some the results. it was a simple bakers dozen of question squz people can say yes, punch 1, 2, no, 3, i don't know or 4, i don't care. the one i want to mention that i think stands out is there is a ballot measure drafted that will ban lobbyist from contributing to
7:02 am
officials which you support or oppose. out of 521 people, 60 percent said yes they support. only 14 percent said no. i want you to understand you seem to be on the right track with the public at large. there are other questions if a ethics measure would put on the ballot who would you have most confidence in based on the agency putting it on, ethics, a petition drive or officials that can put it on the ballot. it was that rank choice order. people felt most confident if a ethics measure is put on by you folks they are more likely to vote for it. the second is petition drive, more likely to vote if it is a petition drive than elected officials. i want you to
7:03 am
understand the cofds and expectations you folks have that erned from the general public. there are other ethics questions about whether there should be restrictions on developers and other seeking financial benefit. when we asked these questions about, do you think this or that type of activity ought to be regulated or monitored, there was strong support. we then ask if a candidate for supervisor supported some of these same concepts or restricting or regulating these activities are you more or lez likely to vote. 60 percent said we are more likely to vote [inaudible] i encourage you to keep pushing ahead with looking at where you have regulatory power, see
7:04 am
if those regulations can be amended, adapted to include some of these additional concerns. you got strong public support, not just from we few, but from across representative sample. >> thank you. >> mr. planthold, i have a couple questions. what was the methodology used in the poll? >> a recorded voice mail so there wasn't a change in voice tone inflection or slurring of speech. >> secondly, you said that you had 500 plus-521 so that is out of a population of all most 850,000 people, how statistically significant? >> the confidence ranges plus or minus 4.3 percent. 521 is
7:05 am
approximately the standard size for many quick polls, not related to a actual ballot measure but a opinion type poll. plus or minus 4.3 percent. when i mentioned 66 percent or 60 percent you will add or subtract 4 percent. >> so, it is significant to a degree of 4 percent, is that what you are saying? >> yes. the cofsds interval is what it is called in statistics. >> is that considered high or average? that sounds small to me. >> it is a professional standard that is used not just in public polling but other areas as well. >> okay. thank you. >> it cost more if you want to get furter refined and we use our own resources. >> right. thank you.
7:06 am
>> ray [inaudible] i handed my second complaint against city librarian luis her era and [inaudible] violated my rights under the sunshine ordinance on 7 specific occasions. denying or interfering with my public comment not representing the public comments accurately in the official minutes of the meeting or denying access to public documents some of which were the documents that got mr. her era in violation in sacramento and with held the documents as long as he could. they have dozens if not hundreds of such violations. you can only file so many. the friends of the san francisco public library is a group of private individuals who have been allowed to raise and expend funds in the name the san francisco public library
7:07 am
and the city of san francisco. this group has sinss the year 2000 had more than $80 million pass through their hands and not appeared before the library commission for more than 40 months so tell me how much of a fiducialiary responsibility. they have been allowed to do so without oversight from the library or any other city agency. luis heraa and sue blackman engaged in the group as you don't tell and we dont ask. from december 2012 until earlier this year more than 40 months passed without the friends appearing on the library agenda. we have a group sold as a private public partnership and the public knows nothing where $80
7:08 am
millions as gone. you try to get documents from the library and they spent more than a year withholding the documents. i petitioned the supervisor of record with the city attorney to produce the documents or send to the district attorney and petitions were denied twice so the point where the city attorney turned down both of those petition was found in violation of a the sunshine ordinance of a city body trying to with hold public records. mr. hurarea is a liar. he took 5 thousand dollars each and every year from the friends under the table and filed statement of interest where he denied getting anything and got a $200 fine. a $600 total fine and $15,000 worth of free stuff he lied about. this group every time he asked
7:09 am
he says it is all fine and has nothing to base it on. >> thank you. any other public comment at this time? turning to item 3 , this sadis cushion and possible action to elect the vice chair to serve for the remainder of the coming year due to the pending resignation of commissioner vice chair brett andrews. i regret deeply this item has to be an ajnda item, but i was advised by commissioner andrews this month that for a number of reasons that is known to him, but also part of which he shared with me that he felt it necessary that he resign his commission seat as of the end of this meeting, so he is still sitting when we elect a new vice chair that vice chair won't take his or her seat
7:10 am
until after tonight. but, commissioner andrews, i want to express my great gratitude and thanks for the work and assistance and wisdom you shared with the commission in the years you sat on the commission and it is with sadness that we won't have you sitting next to us next month. with that, any commissioners have discussion concerning-- >> yes. i like to just echo what you said mr. chair. commissioner andrew, you have been a great colleague. you have a wonderful demeanor, calm as opposed to some of the rest of us. deliberate, great sense of humor, tremendously ethical professional individual. we will all miss you. i think the commission is suffering a great loss with you going and
7:11 am
understand you need to be out in termoffs the ventures you are going on and wish you a lot of luck and sure you will bring the same assets to those verchers that you brought to this. >> i would just like to say, please don't go. we really enjoy your presence. >> i like to echo that, there is only one meeting we worked together but would like more. >> i hear a motion on this item? as to the election of a new vice chair. >> are we making nominations now? >> i would like to make a nomination and like to nominate peter
7:12 am
keane to be vice chair. >> i accept it, thank you very much commissioner hayon. >> before we vote, public discussion? >> commissioners [inaudible] open government. as you deliberate filling the position of the vice chair i would like you to keep in mind all the discussion of the budget. the fact the budget was flat for a number of years was remarked upon by the former executive director. pen her, paul renne and beverly hayon constituted a majority of the commission during that period. as documented by the current executive director these budget choices resulted in serious deficiencies in how the commission operated and serious backlogs of complaint
7:13 am
particularly relates to a serious backlog of complaints and related investigations. while john st. croix proposed the budget. keane and hayon in my opinion have forfitted their right to serve in a leadership position. you can sit and moan about the fact the budget was flat for 6 or 7 years, but mr. st. croix only proposed that budget. it was the mu jorlt of inmbs of the ethics commission that approved the budget and let that budget flatline and as a result we saw from the past executive drether report all the inconsistencies and all most 70 cases backlogged now and find out one of the investigators is leaving which means they will not have one half time investigator
7:14 am
and god knows how long it will take to fill that position. with your comp titian going on with supervisor fairm who is chairman of budget and finance committee and don't think there is a snow ball chance in hell you will get the money you ask for, the 30 percent increase. if you do hallelujah but think it is slim to known because mr. farrell will abuse the position to take prisoners or retbution against anybody found against him which you have. very frankly, commissioners hayon and renne were here and a significant part the cuball in my perspective that kept the budget flat and if there is a problem with all the backlog the new executive
7:15 am
director has gotten they have to take their share the responsibility. just like the police commission is doing is scapegoating greg suhr and denying what occurred was on the backs of [inaudible] >> charley [inaudible] commissioners. good afternoon. i was just going to say i do want to thank mr. andrews for his service. i think you have had a very moments tenure and glad you were there. we navigated a number of things very successfully just recently the appointment of a executive director which was a outstanding pick and now prop c which you worked very hard on and particularly mr. andrews and mr. renne worked on those as a
7:16 am
joint subcommittee of the commission, so i wanted to thank you for that work. and i wanted to say we are about to aopponent mr. keane as vice chair which i look forward work wg him so want to thank mr. andrews on behalf of friends of ethics for his exemplary service. >> thank you. >> seeing no further public comment i'll call the question, all in favor of the motion to or nomination of commissioner keane as the vice chair effective after tonights meeting. >> aye. >> any opposed? the record should reflect the selection of commissioner keane was unanimous. number 4, possible discussion and request to waver from local post
7:17 am
employment restrictions submitted guy julienne christensen recollect a former member of the boferd supervisors. is mrs. christensen here? >> thank you. mrs. christensen was notified and expected she would be here. i don't see her in the room but understanding she ptded to attend. as we speak. >> your ajendsa item was called and just asking if you were here and looked around. welcome and the staff recommendation i'll let mrs. [inaudible] articulate what the staff recommendation is and then be happy to hear from the former supervisor. >> thank you chair renne. the
7:18 am
memo under item 4 outlines request we rereceived from mrs. christensen for waver for post employment restriction in campaign and governmental conduct code. there are 3 provisions at issue. one is a ban on former officials from communicating with former departments for board of supervisors members that ban extends to more broadly in the city. there is a restriction for employment with parties that contract with the city. both of those issues are laid out in the memo and the procedures the commission must consider and determining whether to wave those. we outlined those on the first couple pages. i left the details of mrs. christensens request and let her address those but this is request to wave both of those restriction tooz be considered for part time employment with a organization newly formed, the dogpatch and northwest potrero hill
7:19 am
green benefits district. there are specific provisions the commission must consider in waying whether to grant the waver. in the first instance the question is, the compligz can wave the one year ban communicating with forming agency or agencies if they make a finding granting such a waver will not create potential for undo influence or advantage. there are factors on page 5 the commission is directed to. also, the consideration of the waver the employment restriction for having employment with contracting to contract with the city, the commission may wave those restrictions if they determine imposing the restriction will cause extreme hardship for the former city officer. in this regard the commission shall not approve request for waver unless it makes a findsing that
7:20 am
imposing the restriction will cause extreme hardship. it lays out the factors to consider making that determination. on balance as we looked at the information provided by mrs. christensen and the job description and factors that the commission is required to assess, the recommendation that we are making to the commission this evening is that the one year post employment communication ban not be waved but we are recommending that the commission not deny mrs. christensen from the restriction regarding employment with the contractor for the city. happy to answer questions or leave it at that and turn to mrs. christensen mpt >> mrs. christensen, we will hear from you. >> i think i can do that. got
7:21 am
a lot of practing being brief. good evening commissioners. thank you. i am grateful for your effort. i can tell from my experience it is a labyrinth out there and appreciate the clarity all of you bring. in this case i have to say it is a litm difficult for me to understand some of the barriers to the employment i'm seeking i want to be clear i have not gotten this position, i am merely put my name in contention for the position so i don't want to have a negative influence on the efforts of the search for this important position. just to clarify that. i should say, i became a supers visor not for political interest or be a yes person or tip the political spectrum, i became a supervisor because i care deeply about my district at the grassroots level and want to
7:22 am
make sure those 234 interests are represented. in december 2014 people that were considered for the position didn't live in the district. one lived in the district but didn't reside there most of the time. there were a lot of people that were interested in the position but non that i felt w were the kinds of people i wanted to work with as a neighborhood advocate so when asked i said yes. as you probably know that came at considerable sacrifice last year to my personal life and health and business. as a supervisor i got units of senior housing on the books and police station which is worst in the city on had books for replacement. i added other metheds for gaining housing and repaired the [inaudible] alley stairs. i had 60 requests for street signs and cross walk improvements for pubhook
7:23 am
safety. i tried to focus on those things which are the things i care about. when i came out of office and people asked me was it a good idea and good thing that you did this, my answer is i will know when i find the next thing. the gbd is a unique organization, one that i think we all want to nurture and it calls aopinion my odd twnt years of experience in a unique way so it seems like good fit should they choose to have me take the position. as i understand, the ethics question and all of you can tell me how this works, buts as i understand it, the question is will the knowledge i gained as a supervisor give unfair advantage in this position. i do not plan to use the knowledge i gained as a supervisor in this position. i came into the roll of supervisor with 20 years as very hard work as a community
7:24 am
activists rchlt those are the pieces of information and the knowledge i plan to apply. rather than helping me, my 11 month tenure mayanktually in some ways turn out to be more of a disadvantage. the other thing is i don't want to be supervisor of district, i don'ts reside in the district and has a excellent supervisor already. the roll is a different one. influence, the budget for the organizations are fixed. there is a certain level of taxation and that is the amount of money they receive for the budget so no amount of begging or lobbying will change it base budget. i will say there may be a oewd grant for a commercial strip or some kind of public works program or something, but the vast bulk of the funding is
7:25 am
already determined and i can't influence that. i can seek outside funding, i have brought over $4 million in private sector funding to city park projects in district 3 over the past 15 years, but that doesn't apply in this case. this is not a entity that will enrich anyone, certainly not the executive director. the influence i have wonets change the basic financing of this organization and it is my experience as a nairpd advocate i would plan to apply. one of the other things that is hard to understand is i can work part time for the city now without coming before the commission. i can take a part time job with the city and assume have all the communication that i wanted, but i am not allowed to take a part time position with a non
7:26 am
profitentsty with the contract with the city. the other thing is the naich orthf contract, this isn't garbage or security or street sweeping contract, this is formalized mou which this gbd says to the city, i will take your money and spend it this way. it is done under the scrutiny of the city as a supervisor i had to review the annual reports of a number of gbd's so the brown act applies. these are organizations that come under a great deal of scrutiny. the codes of conduct say you can take into consideration the nature the communications that i would have with the city. i would be talking to the police department about a homeless encampment and talking to rec park about a dangerous tree. i would talk to public works about the need to step up street cleaning in a
7:27 am
certain area. again, it is difficult to understand how that shows any undo influence and can tell you i had every department head on speed dial before i became supervisor and founds some of them more responsive at that time. i ask to be able to continue my public service and my question is the interest of the city better served if i'm forced to go back into the private sector or will it be better served by my being allowed to continue offering myself to the citizens and to the needs of the city and i hope you will agree i still have something to offer and i very much appreciate your help and being allowed to do that. i'm grateful the staff recommendation i be allowed to take the position if it is offered but have to say being able to take the position and not communicate with the city
7:28 am
basically vendsers me a non candidate so need both of those wavers or i'm not a good candidate gr for the job. we are talking 6 months remaining in the waver so that means being able to talk to people 6 month earliers. all the restrictions sunset december 8. i hope i can continue service and very much appreciate your consideration in allowing me to do that. >> commissioners have any questions of mrs. christensen? >> i just wanted to talk about-i know we have a staff recommendation and i want to reconcile the staff recommendation with how mrs. cristcon son could actually do the job without having one without the other. the funding comes from the city. >> no, technically the funding comes from the taxpayers, so what it
7:29 am
is it is the taxpayers, the businesses or residents agree to tax themselves an aadditional amount and that is processed by the city and returned to the benefits district. >> so those dollars sit in a particular department? >> with the assesser. >> with the assesser. then you would have communication with-you need to have communication with the assesser? >> one presumes reporting and request for dispersements, yes. >> would you also be meeting occasionally with supervisor cohen? >> one would presume that would be desirable. i see this role as extection or augmentation of her directors and intentions. >> the staff recommendation was to not honor the waver of communication but honor the waver of employment with a entity that contracts with the city and you see where i'm headed? that
7:30 am
entity has to have consistent communication. >> it is the nature of the job. >> that is what is in front of me as i think about it and how do we approach that? >> so mrs. christensen, i noticed in the materials that you would be the only employee? >> for at least the near future. it is not-union square has a $4 million year budget for business improvement district sethis is a tiny start and so initially not only would i be the only employee, i would not be full time. it is 60 percent position to start. if i can just give a example, in communication with the board members of the gbd and found the planning department used the gbd green space map, the places they created, the street ends and merges and cal
7:31 am
train side yards as a visual for community meeting on the dogpatch and not invited the gbd. i'm sure that was just a administrative oversight but think it is the job of executive drether to remedy a situation like that as quickly as possible. >> i'm always reluctant to grant wavers to former city employees and particularly somebody at the level of a board member. board of supervisor member and looking at the primary project responsibilities in the job description, only one of them looks like it requires you in the next 6 months to have to be in communication or dealing directly with the city officials or city agency. it says lead, motivate and develop the board and that is speaking of the board-
7:32 am
>> the gbd. >> gbd. develop to accomplish the mission and goals including managing the election process which i assume this is something that you will be the first executive director that they had? >> yes, if i was offered the position i would be. >> part of the first job is going it be to sort of get organizational things going. >> absolutely. databases mpt s >> work with the board to develop a annual work plan and budget based on the gbd management plan. which i think can be performed without violating the restrictions in the code. insure compliance with all federal, state, local and regulations which emphasis on the brown act. again, to do
7:33 am
that would you have to contact any- >> no. >> you wouldn't have to contact the city attorney, you provide the board the information that it needs to comply. and then the last one is the one i think probably raises the question. advocate for gbd at city hall, build strategy relationshipwise san francisco public works, sfmta planning, sfpuc, sf recreation and park, district 10 supervisors and other city and county of san francisco agencies. it is clear that restriction would preclude you from performing that job responsibility but it is that very job responsibility that the regulation that exists in the ethics laws is to say, we don't want people being
7:34 am
the supervisor or being an elected official walking out of office and the next day advocating their colleagues for something. it isn't a question so much it would be financially rewarding, but the whole purpose of the statute is to say we want to put restrictions on the ability of individuals who take a job such as yours at the board of supervisors for a period of 12 months to not be advocating and much as i think you have a wonderful record of public service throughout putting aside the time you spent in the board of supervisors, but the 20 years before and there is no doubt you bring great experience to this organization and think you would be a great hire
7:35 am
for them, but is it your belief that you could not perform your job without having to violate the ban up to december 8? >> the job description runs 4 pages. >> yes >> and there is maybe a third of one page that involves communication with the city. but because the gbd is very fledgling organization, the neighbors have been working really hard for 3 or 4 years on this and have a lot of graund work done. what they are hoping for is someone that will guide them to the next level. my understanding is they have a few good candidates t. why would they select someone who is muzzleed for half a year when they are trying to get off the ground? i think it effectively makes me a non candidate. it is like being
7:36 am
the symbol play r in the symphony, you don't play in every movement but when you are needed nothing else will do and think they are looking for someone to tutor them. if i took a job with a lobbying firm i could work behind the scenes and write reports and papers and advise clients and tell somebody else what to say. i didn't want a job like that, i wanted one where i could roll up my sleeve jz be involved. i guess the short answer to your question i think if that stays i think they will not have a reason to have me as a candidate. i'm sympathetic to the intention of the regulation but as i was told when i first applied, the reason wavers exist is because sometimes they are deserved and hope this is one of those cases and
7:37 am
appreciate the commissions dedication to the letter oo thf law. it just seem thrz are so many things about my situation that are not normal. thank you all very much, commissioners. >> commissioner keane. >> yes, mr. chair, i like you am very reluctant to grant wavers for someone who had been in a position of city government and position of power like the board of supervisors to go into a job which there is relucktdance about using their knowledge and power in order to gain advantage as opposed to just a regular person coming in. but in this situation i'm convinced mrs. christensen should get the
7:38 am
waver because we are not talking about someone who is the main concern of this type of prohibition, someone who will leave the board of supervisors or some other position in city government, become a lobbyist, work for developers, be involved in big money deals and be able to use their influence. here commissioner christensen comes to us with 20 years of really good neighborhood service in green belt type park activities and other kind of activities, basic activities concerning libraries and streets that this job calls for and that will enhance our city. she has all of this knowledge, this 20s years of knowledge an
7:39 am
enormous amounts of knowledge most don't have. in that sense she would be a fine candidate and we are only talking about something for a few more months. if we were to remain in place--assuming this job would open up 6 months from now she would chbt have a problem and can dance right into it. i agree with her last statement, it is there a waver type of mechanism then the equity should be looked at as to whether that waver should be granted on a case by case basis and think she meets all the equities and i will vote in favor of it. >> make a motion. >> i move that we wave both of the prohibitions. >> i second.
7:40 am
>> the motion is made and seconded. i call for public comment. >> bob planthold, i acknowledge former supervisor christensen has extensive experience and roots in the bog patch area but want to point out the staff memo seems inconsistent in the logic as the approach by vice chair andrews. i want to go further on this and base it on the text in page 7 of 12, the third and 4ict paragraph. the director is responsible for funds raising. funds would normally be from taxes the people pay. they could seek money from grants from public works, rec and park, commission on the environment potentially, my points is that
7:41 am
would involve making a proposal and budget and sending it to those agencies. i think that is a say where you can work but can't communicate is inconsistent. what if the controller doesn't audit the entire gbd program? this group is included. how can you prevent the only employee from communicating? it seems the logic in this is inconsistent. that is where i think either pass this motion for both or you should turn around and say, no employment and no communication watt watt what so ever. what if there is a problem with the communication or proposal put in? and there is a question from the agency? they will call this gbd, this one
7:42 am
person. if this one person can't talk they lose out on the grant. it just seems like saying yes to one part and no to the other doesn't make sense. i'm going to say you need to rethink the memo and say yes to both wavers or no to both wavers. >> any other public comment? before we vote mrs. christensen can i ask you one other question? could i ask you one other question? who are the members of the board of gbd? >> they are residents and business people from within the district. >> are any of them what would be called developers in that district? >> there is a young man on the board who works for a developer but there are no corporate members. these are people
7:43 am
elected by the members of the gbd. >> thank you. i'll call the question, all in favor of commissioner keanes motion which is grant a waver of both sections of the communications and the job, all in favor? >> aye. >> opposed? the motion is carried unanimously. thank you. good luck. turning to item number 5, which is the discussion and possible action on proposal regarding a possible november 2016 ballot measure to restrict lobbyist ability to provide gifts to the officer or make campaign contsbutions to local candidates and bundle contribution. staff prepared a
7:44 am
detaild memo which i appreciate and i will let mrs. pelumgive a general overview and have discussion. >> thank you. this is on the heels of the two interested persons meeting the commission asked us to hold april 25 meeting. may 11 and 16 the ethics sthaf had very productive and useful meetings with individuals to talk about the proposed ballot measures. friend of ethics and others from the regulated community and lobbyist were there and think it was a good conversation to consider the issues we noted in the interested persons discussion. so, this memo it does at the outset make a general recommendation that if the commission can continue to center discussion this evening and take additional pub luck comment and
7:45 am
provide with the policy direction howia would like to see ballot measure and components you want to see if you want to see them and what they would look like, we propose it is uptmal to come back at the next meeting for that language for the commission to take final action. i want to raise that as a possible and alternative in order to make sure we have the opportunity to flush out issues that are in the room this evening. i also would point out as we get into the memo under general discussion we provided under the 3 proposals a general staff alternative for the discussion this evening to get reaction from the commission as well as the public. those alternatives are listed to the right of the proposal we received. we had a modified proposal from the proponents after the second interest persons meeting may 18 so that
7:46 am
proposal is slightly different from the initial proposal that you saw last month. it was after thought and discussion and we provided a alternative on the right to provide them counter point to that. i want to make one additional note that was oversight on my part in haste to get the memo done so my apology for that. on page 3 under the gift restriction, we had thought at the staff and agreement with what the thrust of the proposal is in this regard that we would like to see additional language under the alternative that does speak to a prohibition on the contact laubiest directly or indirectly or through a 3rd party paying or reimbursing for travel of sit a officer. that was a key discussion and agree that is something important to capture here. it doesn't do that so that is my oversight but want to make that a place holder for
7:47 am
agreement in that area. under the lobbyist contsbution limit list a alturn urn to consider that takes a similar approach the proponent of the measure do in applying a contribution limit that apply tooz lobbyist. any and all committees controlled by the candidate they are giving to. the proposal is there would be a contribution limit of $50 and that a lobbyist could give no more than $50. we propose alternative for discussion that will take the same approach but it would retain the existing $500 limit on contributions that apply to lobious and others but the same calculation in the agora get applies so lobbyist are prohibited giving more than $500 in the aggregate to committees controlled by the
7:48 am
officer holder or candidate and this thereis restriction on what the candidate can receive. lastly, there is language on bundling which currently tries to use language that exists in one of our existing regulations to clarify what we mean as to the activities that are subject to a bundling prohibition and think it is worth having more discussion about the distinction does it mean to arrange or solicit and exempt from a bundling ban. feel free to chime in on the analysis for this as well. just with that as a introduction i want to flag what the issues were and how the memo was structured but to turn it over to the commission and to hear from the public about the discussions we had and where the proponents see the issues at this point.
7:49 am
>> propose we deal with the whole memo and before we get public discussion with the commissioners starting with 1 through the last page which is commissioner regulation. i will take comments. commissioner keane? >> thank you mr. chair. i think the staff has done a excellent job here in terms of writing the language relating to the tenor of everything we discussed last time in terms of having this type of measure on the ballot and the staffs language has clarifyed a number of things, made it much sharper
7:50 am
and in terms of all 3 areas that you can look at which is on page 3 and 4 and 5, on the right hand side the staff alternatives, and the language which essentially tracks and is the same with some distinctions from the proposal, those-the staff alternative language in my opinion is very good and superior and i think that-i agree with mrs. pelum it is better to go forward with more discussion, more input, a couple more meetings and take this up at our next meeting after we had that, but i would be prepared-i'm not going make a motion but i'm prepared to vote
7:51 am
now on the language of the measure just incorporating all of the staffs language. i think they have done a marvelous job writing but in the interest of more discussion, more public comment and sharpening it even to a grating extent and having it before us for the next time-the only fear i have is we need 4 votes for this and we are losing one of our members tonight so next time we're-i don't know how quickly there will be a replacement for commissioner andrews but hopefully -anybody have vacation plans the next couple meetings that may take
7:52 am
you out- may i ask the colleagues whether they will be available because since we need 4 votes? >> the 4th monday in june and 4th monday in july, any of you know at the presents time whether you are scheduled for a vacation? >> not scheduled. >> hopefully we will have a replacement in the event of that. >> that is reassureing. >> any other discussion or comments anyone wants to make? jrblsh >> what is the deadline to come up with a final recommendation? >> august 5. >> if i understood what you said going to the gift section, you would propose moving over into the staffs side
7:53 am
the language that is in the top paragraph on page 2 in the represent us proposal. >> a bit more explicitly. i would suggest we pull the concept related to gifts of travel so that in addition to the language we show under staff alternatives we add a explicit reference with different language than what is shown here. i think it would accomplish the same end. so, something like, no contact lobbyist may directly or indirectly or through a third party pay or reimburse for travel of a city officer. we mean travel include food, refreshment, hotel and transportation. >> if we assuming that the
7:54 am
commission is of the view that should go forward so we got something more concrete at the next meeting, could the city attorneys office draft a proposed ordinance for consideration at that meeting? >> chair renne, i don't think there will be a problem drafting the proposal since we have a lot of the language and it is in good shape. let me address two other issues in terms of getting prepared. the first is as the commission all knows, whenever any agency is proposing to impose or creating new finance restriction it is incombound to create a ledgeilative record . we are impacting contributions and campaign activities and it is the governments burden to
7:55 am
demonstrate that restriction as needed. we will want to give the staff more time and happy to assist in developing that record. the second topic i would want to get the commissions thoughts on is you may recall from the pop c discussion we had internal debate whether to allow further legislative changes in stead of going back to the voters for the amendments. when the voters approve a measure it can only be amended or changed by the voters. we haveen quite touched on the subject yet and don't know if the commission wants to install that here. >> i guess what i propose in that regard that whatever you submit for the june meeting, which i would propose it should be in the form of a actual
7:56 am
ordinance, and you can include the language and we can decide at that point after comment whether we want to delete it or keep it in. call for public comment on item 5. >> bob plantholds and attended both interesting persons meetings and perplexed and think the staff would help the public and you commissioners explain on pages 2 and 4 there is specific reference to contect lobious. lobbyist. the second interested person meetings i raised the question of those present and who
7:57 am
expressed a opinion wanted expenditure lobbyist also covered. there may have been one person who raised a question about that, but the sentiment was include expenditure lobbyist yet this only mentions contact lobbyist and think that is a oversight making us wonder how come. the volters can ask what, how come because we just did see which deals with expenditure lobbyist so leave that chore up to you to consider for the june meeting. >> thank you. >> [inaudible] friends with ethics. i will-before i get started i want to say thank you all and to commissioner andrews on a personal level. he has given in termoffs the public arena. i was the person of the jury that
7:58 am
recommended a commission secretary and he supported us every step of the way so thank you for that part, i appreciate it. i also want to talk about the contact lobbyist and expenditure lobbyist. we spent a lot of time last year, you all put a lot of effort into it as some on the outside making sure measure c went through which is all about expense lobbyist and not seeing here when there was supported both meetings to include contact lobbyist and expenditure lobbyist was a bit of a disappoint and hope it gets included. your staff has a statement above the boxes that says in general existing state law defines lobbyist to mean both contact and any person that qualifys as a expenditure lobbyist but they don't use generic term lobbyist they use contact lobbyist throughout the memo and say if
7:59 am
you use contact lobbyist you should also include expenditure lobbyist. thank you. >> is there a conscious decision why you used just contact lobbyist rather than the broader term which includes both the expenditure and contact lobbyist? >> yes, it was a choice to leave that out. there was consensus in the room that it is important to have expenditure lobbyist in because they have [inaudible] i think the distinction that at this point for discussion i wanted to raise, we don't currently have registered expenditure lobbyist. that may change so that probably isn't a persuasive point but a poichbt information. the other question about is there sadis tinction that is meaningful for purpose of these restrictions, if somebody is a person who receives compensation for the
8:00 am
purpose of lobbying regular with the city and directly communicating with city officials to influence a decision versing someone they may spend more than the thresh hold amount and qualify as a expenditure lobbyist, there is the nexus to the decision maker may be one step removed. i think there are argument said on both sides. a expenditure lobbyist could respond millions of dollars in a attempt to get others to communicate. the question is contribution limits and limiting that it is helpful to ask the question what is innexus we create and talk about restriction of the contributions. it is a conscious point to put that here and should have spelt it out in more detail but it was a conscious choice. >> the expenditure lobbyist may be a corporation that has to register as expenditure lobbyist and why
8:01 am
should they not have to be under the same restrictions as a contact lobbyist? >> if i can chime in. as i mentioned, we have a obligation to gep legislative record that justifies these restrictions and given there are no expenditure lobbyist it is difficult to develop a regard. how do we demonstrate having a undo influence through contributions on city officials? it is a impossible thing to prove from a evdincherary. >> we read about the corporations that pay for trips the public officials go arounds viz tding sister cities. the fact they are not registered as a expenditure lobbyist right now -i'm not-the fact they don't exist
8:02 am
doesn't mean if there isn't a need to put the same restrictions on them as there is on a contact lobbyist. >> right and i just observe the [inaudible] did a great job in compiling the current slate of contact lobbyist and all the contributions they made to officials. a lot of what is bundling activity on their part. since we don't have expenditure lobbyist we can't develop the same type of regulation for that category of people. >> in the need in developing a record would it be sufficient or useful to go back to the reasons a expenditure lobbyist provision was created in the first place and look to that even if people are not currently registered? look at circumstances that led to the creation of the law and see what those activities were? is that something that can be- >> since wree talking about gifts and
8:03 am
contributions we would have to look at gift squz contributions to the expenditure lobbyist but at the current time there doesn't seem to be one. >> i didn't mean to interrupt public comment. >> zack from represent us and appreciate the questions because was curious about the changes as well. want to make a general point in support the proposal and add a data point about travel gifts and think could be useful and subimate afterwards with e-mail lf want to echo others appreciation for commissioner andrews work, think you have done an amazing job and thank you so much. so, i guess my point of support on the proposal lobbyist shoulden be able to use gift squz donations specifically to influence city officials. we think our
8:04 am
group thinks lobbyist serve a important purpose but when they can use contributions and travel gilfts and bundled mun athere is risk of corruption. the data point i want to add about travel gifts and i need ed to bring my phone up because i can't remember anything myself. just to be clear, we and i am not making acquisition about the people where mention but just pointing out nrfshz r information we were able to find that has the risk of appearance of corruption. mayor ed lee wents on a 5 day trip in october of 2013 to china and south careera and cost 20, 500. richard petertion, a lobbyist for good year and vartoff investment
8:05 am
which is a large real estate investment firm, the largest in san francisco. the ear marked contributions were made through a non profit named san francisco shanghai sister city committee for the travel. it was a 5 day trip. vartaus investment is a client of good year, hayward and peterson associates. [inaudible] contributed over $500 to the trip. the exact amount is undisclose said. richard peterson contributesed $500 to the trip. the amount undisclosed and was able to acomany ed lee on the trip for 5 years. less than one month after the twip november 2013 vartaus investment picked up property said in san francisco for $100 million with intents of making improvements to furkter enhance
8:06 am
the appeal to residents and tenants. in 20 freen richard peterson assisted vartaus investment with permit and community related opportunities. the following year richard peterson bundled [inaudible] for ed lee 2015 campaign. thank you. >> [inaudible] for lacking a voice. thank you all for your attention to detail in this matter, we rely appreciate all the efforts of the staff. i feel very productive and think it is important we get this right so it means something if it goes to the ballot. i like to bring to your attention san francisco residents support this measure. prop c passed with flying color squz believe voters will show up to support the measure in november. to back that up a
8:07 am
poll conducted pie the public policy polling found 82 percent of san francisco voters support banning gift of travel to alected afilthss and 79 percentf voters support the banning of gifts of any kind to elected officials from lobbyist. a change outward position we posted shows over 360 signatures from san francisco residents in support of this ballot initiative. thank you. >> thank you. >> my name is david and also from represent us and like to thank you for taking the time to entertain or potential proposal for the ballot. another thing i like to bring up is currently peoples confidence in government especially in san francisco is at a all time low. as you may recall from the gentlemen at the beginning of the meeting, the ethics commission is still the most trusted for meaningful ethics reform.
8:08 am
if one of the chief rolls we are looking for is instill people with confidence of government. we are trying to make sure people know their system is being fixed and the loop holes in the law code that could give people the ability to provide undo influence on government actions is being taken care of and you guys are the vanguard of it. i also like to point out i feel it is critical both contact and expenditure lobbyist are included in this even if there isn't a local and emphasis on only local for expenditure lobbyist having influence over government here in san francisco, it is a problem that is being faced in similar matters throughout the nation and need to make sure people know that we are not just replacing a loop hole with another and make sure the foundation we biltd is solid so we don't need to provide more proposals in the future to
8:09 am
further close loop holes and praid a foundation to make sure the government works for us. >> [inaudible] represent us. i want to say this initiative still maintains the lobbyist legal rights and allows them to still contribute or give contributions just as a smaller level. we think maintaining lobbyist rights to contribute are very porbt and don't want to demonize or minimize their contbulation but think that this initiative should be supported and look forward to your support in getting this on the ballot in november. i want to echo what was said about having expepdture and contact lobbyist included , we don't have expenditure lobbyist is equivalent to say the house isn't on fire so why do we need
8:10 am
insurance. we should sure the law makes sense and thorough and doesn't put burden put help minimize the perception or risk to corruption in government. thank you. >> thank you. >> hi again commissioners, charley mar stellar for the record. i want to go through several items so i'll be very brief. election cycle is 2016, 17, 18 and 19. i should want to mention 17 is off the list as i remember we go from twnt 16 to 18 to 19. with the first policy area to be discussed as lobbyist because we reviewed current laws and see that this is the simplest area to do right now and then in the future we can do more complex items like
8:11 am
campaign finance. you want to think this be aglobbyist reform, not acome pain finance matter even though it ovlays a little bit it is focused only on lobbyist. i see the new executive directors report doesn't show the number of registered lobbyist, just income increases in the current fiscal year which is 3 times the estimate that mr. st. croix placed in the budget for the current fiscal year. might be useful to prepare a chart showing variation in the registered number of lobbyist over the years. say the past 10 years or so. i think a simple summary would be useful to see. i also think you need a simple summary and the public needs it for the origin and genesis oof the ordinance itself because it started in the 70's as i understood it through the board
8:12 am
of supervisors- preidates the ethics commission which wasn't in business until 95 and so it is a hybrid bill because in 2005 we revisited it as part of the comprehensive so call, ethics reform and some of these things all interlay, so as far as applying the super majorityies to a-mind these ordinances, that certainly we will need to know the origin and genesis of the original law because there is aspects of that law we will have to repeal and reenact so it would be covered by super majority reform later. there is legal issues that need to be ironed out regarding the application of what i call the stern proviso. i see a unifiication and think so do the advocates in the community
8:13 am
between simple contact lobbying and expenditure lobbying. we don't see major difference. i think the public views it as lobbying and think that is what we want to also get clear in our mind. thank you. >> hello, [inaudible] member of represent us. thank you for your time. it is a pleasure getting involved in the political process in san francisco work wg your executive director and staff. it is great at the interesting person meetings. we looked and reached out to some of the people opposed to prop c and had a opportunity to work with them at the interested persons meeting and talk to them and really tried to improve the process for reaching compromise and understanding what the issues others have and received positive comments from those people opposed to prop c we really
8:14 am
turned thing around. we are not opposed to lobbying and want to support lobbyist ask and do play a role in government and have information and the ability to do research, we just want to restrict their influence by not having the amount of donations and gifts they can make. we think they have riget to make some donations and other courts upheld some level of donation is okay. what is important is the roll of san francisco and the city and country isf is has a history of bringing up the fomost politicians in the country and what we would like to see san francisco lead by example by having strict codes where strong politicians can rise and work through the ranks and not be persuaded to spend all their
8:15 am
time raising money get nothing fluence working to bundles of mun oney they can focus on serving the citizen jz needs and knowing they are playing on a level playing field so if you do that you will make it possible for politician tooz rise through the ranks from san francisco to sacramento to washington dc and will carry the sense of fair play. the citizen jz voters support the efforts to clean up things. yoi look at the presidential campaign, read on the way over, mu caulis [inaudible] hillary clintons is investigated by the fbi. the notion of corruption in politics is the forfront of the news and in san franciscan's mind and support this and appreciate the support of the commission. thank you. >> thank you.
8:16 am
>> good evening commissioners and director pelum. wanted to bring to the commissions attention, one of the members from represent us outlined quickly mayor lee's trip to one of the sister cities or a couple sister cities and his trip to israel which had a aunt rauj of 29 people, members of various city departments a large number of non profits that included one of the developers from prodo development group. there is a very strong pattern of the same sort of sister city visits largely financed by non profit groups and it is something for the commission
8:17 am
to remember. if it is just one sister city that is one thing but most of the mayors visits have all been sister city funded primarily by non profits. thank you. >> thank you. >> hello. i am a san francisco resident and really love the city and i think fixing corruption is important to the people who live in it and [inaudible] people beyond it and wanted to say i'm excited to vote for it in november if it passes. >> good evening commissioners peter cohen with council of community housing organization. good to see several again. mrs. pelum, did the commissioners get the letter
8:18 am
submitted? it came late but after the packet and copies because i have some here if you need them. we submitted along with human service network very minor but important detailed comments suggestions on the draft for your consideration. before i get into those, a few things on process. support staff recommendation to take comments, let this digest, come back with revised draft in june, take your timeism you have until august as the staff report says. from our experience with prop c we think it is very important to get it right and take the time to go through all the details and make sure when and put forward your vote you ironed out whatever wrinkles are necessary so we support staffs recommendation
8:19 am
to continue this. shoked point is we had chance to talk to represent us folks. i have to say they are really professional peep squl it is a pleasure to work through this stuff. i'm not a lawyer or ethics professional but it is helpful to talk to folks who can break it down and explain in pragmatic terms what this is about and intent and target and compared to our previous experience it is very refreshing it allowed hsn and choochooto get to the specifics quickly so we appreciate that. which leads to our general support of this measure and intent to the extent we understand what is being drafted so makes sense and looks good, we encourage you to reach out to the broad non profit community. we are a couple coalitions in it and make sure there are not unin10ed traps but so far
8:20 am
it looks straight forward. we offer the specific details there that have to do with the type of activities non profits are engaged in. it may be clarifying existing exemptions of things already in law and make sure they are not swept away like events or conferences, when we invite someone to speak at an event we have, these are very simple day to day activities, not sending delications to china for 5 weeks so want to make sure those type of things are allowances for us in the world we operate in and happy to work with you and the legislation sponsors going forward and the staff. i'll take any questions if you have them. thanks. >> alex kaplan, the policy director for represent us. on behalf the organization i want to thank
8:21 am
you for entertaining this and taking the time to read and specifically thank the staff for their hard work on this. the interested persons meeting we had we had a good group of people to make sure the proposed measure addresses what we see. the interest and [inaudible] create reasonable exemptions that don't address the problem. i want to say we appreciate the city attorney and staffs attempt to create language and not [inaudible] will differ to the city attorneys choices. i think the core problem here is the perception of corruption and the south korea trip is a example to [inaudible]
8:22 am
corruption to bundle a lot of money and give large contributions. that isn't to say there are not instances of corruption occurring but we are not trying to accuse anybody, the focus is on the san francisco voters and perception of voters that is occurring here and across the country. also want to make clear, it is my understanding stream court juriss prudence on how this works in response to the findings the city attorneys office brought up, a jurisdiction need not suffer specific problems that they see occurring in other places in order to enact measures. i think that is important to address the concern of the expenditure lobbyist. i spress the concern director pelum brought up, we haven't soon a problem because it
8:23 am
hasn't existed. i suggest we insert the super majority similar to prop c to empower the commission to extend from contract lobbyist to all lobbyist. i think we can think create ivly making sure we don't have to go back to the voters. i want to point out on page 4 the language of bundling suggested by the staff. shall deliver or bundle or otherwise transmit. we spent time talk about what that means because we want a clear definition. we want the regulated parties to be clear what they can and can't do. we suggested no lobbyist transmit or arrange for a person to transmit on behalf of the lobbyist. that is trying to mirror fcc regulations at the federal level and think it is wurkt looking at the simpplicity and want to make clear that
8:24 am
second clause, the range or any person to transmit on behalf is about circumvention so the bundling words deliver and transmit and concern about the word arrange is it is hard to understand what is means. sorry about the time with my concern, my main kernel about the lower contribution limit. we suggested $50, that isn't a hard number but also not uncommon across the country for lower limits that are specific to parties doing business. public contractors so lobbyist to be sig competently low er a 10th or 5th. i dont think the $500 limit that mirrors what is currently in place for everyone in san francisco does anything to instill voter cfsds to say lobbyist also only contribute $500 but it more taylored to include the committees controlled so urge the commission to consider dropping that $500 down to something low enough that instills voter confidence. thank you.
8:25 am
>> good evening. [inaudible] i submitted written comments may 19 but have the following comments this evening regarding gifts, the proposing gift ban is not needed. the current limit of $25 is so low that it cant inpossibly have a crupg corrupting influence on a city officer. the proposed gift ban will prohibit gifts of travel from governmental agency, educational institution or charity for legislative or governmental purpose or related to state, national or international public policies. prohibiting such gifts mean all such travel is funded by the city using tax money used for other critical governmental functions. the lobbying law also prohibits lobbyist
8:26 am
from making a gift exceeding $25. the ethic law prohiblts a auftser to [inaudible] since the ethics law provision is narrow drawn, the commission should take the opportunity to reconcile the two provisions by deleting the lobbyist gift ban with language indicating a lobbyist is subject to gift restrictions in theectics law. regarding contribution limits the amendments bring up the lobbyist from contributing more than $50 regardless if they are registered to lobby. $50 is similar to the states former ban on contributions that was invalidated by the california supreme court
8:27 am
in 1979. the contribution ban was a substantial restriction on the lobest freedom of association and the state failed to demonstrate a important interest or employ means closely drawn to avoid bridgment of associated freedoms. in reaching the decision the court relied on the fact the ban applied to all candidates eerfben though a lobious may not lobby a particular candidate. regarding [inaudible] the ban on the bundling of contributions is not needed since bundleds contributions is subject to detail disclosure requirements. in addition there is fram court precedents a ban on bundling by lobbyist violates the first amendment and green party och connecticut a[inaudible] not only invalidated a ban on lobbyist ntd contribution it was also state law [inaudible] staif candidates.
8:28 am
reaching this conclusion the court state adlimit on the solicitation of permissible contributions prohibits the type of activity that lies at the first amendment-core. that is because it involves speech to solicit contribution on behalf of a candidate is to make a statement. you should support this candidate not only at the polls but with a financial contribution. speech utters during the campaign requires the application of the protection set forth in the first amendment. i urge you to not impose the ban of contribution by lobbyist. >> can i ask a question of you please? on your last points regarding reporting, could you clarify
8:29 am
how in your view reporting on for example, the shanghai and south korea- >> everyone knows who is contributing. under san francisco law out of town trips the elected officials can not take the out of town trips funded by persons other than government unless that information is provided on the report and assume that is how they obtain the recommendation. the disclosure is there. court held providing disclosure is one of the main reasons that you can actually provide the information people need to make decisions whether it is who to vote for or the decisions being made by
8:30 am
the legislative body so disclosure is very important and that-bundling, gifts are all disclosed on lobbying reports. >> so that is disclosure for the benefit of the public but how does that impact the decisions made by the elected official receiving the benefit of a bundled contribution? how does a disclosure get tothat question? >> the official clearly knows the information is being disclosed and i'm assuming most people make decisions in the best interest of the public. if there is a conflict they can't make a decision and the law provides for conflicts under political reform act in san francisco so if there is proper disclosure and no conflict they should be able to make the decision.
8:31 am
thank you. >> thank you. >> ray [inaudible] i like to remind the previous speaker about the fact that the city librarian lieu eshurarea received 5 thousand a year for gifts from outside group he was supposed to provide oversight to and then lied about it year after year after year on a statement of economic interest so if we rely on the fact somebody will report the fact they gave somebody a nice big fat gift of a trip or whatever it was i think we are pinning our hopes on something that isn't dependable. i think many of the previous speakers said what i believe is quh the voters vote, a lobbyist is a lobbyist and don't give a rip to whether they fall into a specific category or not. [inaudible] consequences says the bottom line as you formulate the change to the law, the lobbyist are
8:32 am
looking at the changes you are making and thinking how they will out maneuver you so basically if you leave out one type of lobious i guarantee that next year you may not any this year, you will next year because they are sitting there thinking we are not subject to the law so we'llchange from this lobbyist to that lobbyist and give our money this way instead of that way. that is what everybody is looking at. there are a lot of people that gain the system. they hann money to someone who is supposed to do something and that person fails to do it. the city librarian, thousands of dollars worth of gifts he received and lied about it under penalty of perjury, this is matter of public record and then when and go and say what happened to it $10 million over the last year the group friend of the library raised and expended, they can't give a
8:33 am
answer. they can't tell you where a penny of that money went. the board of supervisors on authorized to accept a gift from that person in the amont of $375 thousand which means 94 cents out of the dollar is going to fund raising. we have seen the public detriment that groups that proport to be supplying or providing gifts and benefits to a group are allowed to raise money and just spend the money on themselves. what i said to the library commission over and over is what we get for the friends is the friends. basically they raise money to support their own operation and if you ask the city librarian, the library commission, show me anything you received from this group that shows what the library got from them and will tell you there are no
8:34 am
responsive documents. so, this needs to be all lobbyist and the fact we need a record is a way of leaving it out and the bottom line is it needs to be done and it needs to cover all lobbyist because that is what the voters will think when they vote. >> thank you. >> my name is greg brian, the attorney and also with represent us. i would just going discuss a few issues i think are important. one is under the gifts section, they removed the ear marking thing in the recommended changes and think it is important people not able to give gift s to a thirdperty and go to the official in the end. that is a important provision i feel should be
8:35 am
back in the proposed legislation. the other thing i want to talk about is regard to the expenditure lobbyist. we have to establish a burden to show that it is needed. i think we should be able to incorporate what we saw with proposition c and what is going on in other jurisdictions if we don't have expenditure lobbyists that are not registered. if they are not registered there is a good possibility following the laws and guidelines and there may be ways to show that is the case. in which case, there would be a way of showing there is some meeting a burden on us to show that is a issue. the last thing i want to say is if we don't address the expenditure lobbyist what will happen is you will get contact lobbyist and other corporations
8:36 am
working ways to circumvent going the expenditure lobbyist route to get around the regulation. there is a $5 olimit is still a limit and not a flat out ban so it is like we can kis cuss like the $50 limit and $500 limit but the fact of the matter it isn't a ban so should meet constitutional definition. they have the requirements. that is all i want to say. i think the legislation is well written and appreciate everybodys time and commitment to this and want to thank you and thank everybody here for all their hard work on this. thank you. >> thank you. i'm going to jump to item number 8, which is a discussion and possibly action on items
8:37 am
for future meetings. the reason i skipped 6 and 7 is both call for the possibility of a closed hearing and we will assuming that the commission votes to go into a closed session we will deal with both 6 and 7 at that time and we will try and deal with the rest of the agenda in advance so people who don't have to sit and wait for us when we come out of closed session to take up these other items. is there any commissioner who has any suggestions of for items for future meetings? i will take public comment on that. hearing none, turn to 9, which is discussion of the executive
8:38 am
drethers report. >> thank you commissioners renne. item 9 is the material summary of the key items from the office over the last month. most notebly good news in terms of the electronic filing e filing conversion project. we received the green light from the information of technology to fund the project for the next two years including staffing. the mayor is expected to announce the june first budget i believe on the 31 and so we expect we'll have more detailed information about the final budget package and as we do we will share that information with you. my sense at this poipt is we are optimistic
8:39 am
there will be strong support for the commission to advance work in the coming years. i wish i had more details but as soon as the budget package is finalized we will get that to. you had 120 applications for deputy director positions. i look forward giving further updates on that soon as we move forward and want to make a note, i regret that to share the highlighter garret chatfields has take an promotional opportunity to move to departmentf opublic health so his last day was last friday and will post that position and trying to fill that as soon as we can. he was a good person and great person to work with. just wanted to note that. >> are we posting both
8:40 am
positions? the one that isn't funded that is authorized but not funded? >> we are prepared to get out the gate as soon as possible on anything for any position. it is a priority to get those then door as soon as we can. >> kooyou have a target gate for hiring the deputy director? >> we are at the end of may, i would love to have someone here at the early part of the fiscal year. i will leave the other information-just a quick note under policy and legislation. the state legislative committee follow up to support sb 1107 is the bill that have the effect going to the voters to enable public financing systems to be created at the local jurisditional level, the committee on state legislation approved it
8:41 am
unanimously and will communicate that to the state lechblg slairt. we will continue the discussion of policy plan for the coming year at the next meeting. simply didn't have the band widt to do the work necessary to bring it fully to this meeting and think the next meeting we will have a realistic sense of the time for that consideration so thank you for your indullgence. happy to answer questions. >> questions? >> yes, mr. pelemsprz regarding to e filing conversion project, since that is funded bithe city, will the commission budget be reduced? >> no the funding is separate and apart from operational budget decisions so that is terrific news >> will then the project be able to get started right away in the beginning of
8:42 am
the fiscal year cephal >> yes we have the nrfgz technology officer who will start that and as soon as we bring on the staff person to assist with that that will be the person involved with the project development and anticipate we will start that as soon as we can. >> great news. >> yeah, thank you. >> public discussion? >> ray san francisco open government. i like to acknowledge the chairs rearrangement of the agenda. i looked and said we will have two closed session squz if the public wants to have the executive directors report and comment they will be denied unless they want to sit and wait at the pleasures of the ethics commission induterminant return from the closed sessions. i would like to point out that one part where we are talking about
8:43 am
garret chatfield leaving. if i understand correctly, the reason we were 69 or 70 complaints behind in investigations is because mr. chatfield and other investigator are only part time positions so we are down to one part time position and i didn't hear a answer when that position will be filled or relating to the one that is open for god knows how long. part the reason your budget didn't go up is because you had a position and didn't fell it and the city will look for low haj ing fruit. you have a position that should be filled and isn't and will take the money away assuming if you don't fill the position you don't need it. i worked with the state government in hawaii and that is how it works you use it when you have the money or you lose it. that is why i thought it was ludicrous you
8:44 am
didn't ask for increase whether everyone else was going ball tooz had wall, everyone in the city everyone was hiring and city employees has risen enormously over the last 6 or 7 years and the ethics commission was sitting with unfilled positions and money to fill them and didn't. we had that discussion but and if the mayor should approve your 30 or 40 percent increase i suggest you dont repeat that bad behavior which is having the position and funding for it and fail toog fill it. my opinion is mr. st. croix left those positions vacant for the intent it would slow investigations. mr. st. croix was well established history of using all sorts of administrative tricks to get
8:45 am
hearings heard in odd ways or not heard at all. i will reaffirm the one that ticked me off is the fact i was a interested party in the ethics commission which was announced the day before i left for vacation and heard the day before i returned. notifying me that hearing would be held. i also like when i say the last word and the bell rings and you ring it and others come up and you let them go on and on and on. >> any other public comment? hearing none, we'll turn to item 6. discussion and possible action regarding mark
8:46 am
farrell versing for district 2 supervisor 2010 versus city and county of san francisco >> do you want to take item 10 prior to going into discussion of closed session? >> approve the minutes? i'm happy to do it but my feeling is that not a item but we'll take 10 and do i hear any motion to approve the minutes as written? >> so moved. >> second. >> moved and seconded. any discussion among the commissioners? any public discussion? >> ray san francisco open government. i like everybody who has the opportunity to review these minutes and see there are two 150 word summaries i provided in the body of the minutes. i fought long and hard to insure
8:47 am
the law which states if a person submits a summary of 150 word or less of public comment it will appear in the minute. as these two do. the reason i fought so long and hard is i was tired having my public comments misrepresented, abridged senseards and otherwise changed bay the cities library commission and basically they would take things and i would write a comment and go to the meeting and they talk about the minutes and i would say this is not what i said. this is exactly the opposite of what i said and what they would do is if they found a comma out of place they change it. if the member the public came up and said my comments are not representative of what they said they ignore that and continue to do that. i put the 150 words in not because some species people do
8:48 am
and say he wants a transcript what is said in the minutes, no but i like it representative because it is constitutionally protected political free speech. the fact a public record is printed by the government and mis represents what a member of the public says is looked at as no big deal. my first amendment and free speech right jz rights under the brown act means something. i don't come here to jap my jaw, i have something that feels needs to be said and it is amauzing how many times i have to fight to say thing jz not be interrupted and fight to have what i actually said represented in a reasonable fashion in the official record. i fought hard for this because the thing where mentioned several times earlier is the library
8:49 am
commissions $80 million shifted through the hands. the public knows nothing about it. $80 million and what did the library get? ask mr. her era and mrs. blackman and the library commission. show us something the library got from the friends. what mr. her era got is he got $75 thousand a year as a [inaudible] fund. money he can pass out as goodies to the staff at the library. no wonder he doesn't get disagreement on that. then he perjures himself and lies that he didn't get anything. >> thank you. seeing no other public comment, call the question, all in favor of approving the minutes for the meeting of april 25? >> aye.
8:50 am
>> opposition? approved unanimously. turning now to item number 9, which is-i mean item number 6, which is a discussion and possible action regarding the mark farrell complaint which was attached to the agenda. i will first raise the question of any commissioner believe this should be in closed session? >> move we go into closed session. >> any second? >> second. >> any public comment? >> ray san francisco open government. i raised objections about this item. it is related to the money that supervisor farrell has been asked to repay. i see the punch by filing his
8:51 am
court case against you so basically you are keeping it hidden from whatever you are doing, keeping it hidden from the public didn't do any good. i like to be frank about something. i was sort of on the sly [inaudible] because i made a remark that something was being pulled or secret deal is done, but i hate to break it to you, that is what the citizens of the city think. when you go into closeed session they do believe there is something going back-on back there and asking the old days where it is like we are honorable people serving here for the god of the citizens of san francisco, that is gone. people don't believe that because most the people appointed to the commissions and boards get appointed because they want aopponented to another board or commission.
8:52 am
the old idea anyone serving their own time is automatically supposed to be assumed as being this above question -cesars wife. above reproach. those days are gone. the more in private session don't be surprised people say i question it. i'm only saying out loud when i question you going into closed session, other people are thinking it, they just don't get up and say it and the reason they don't say it is they know it is a popularity contist. i may be before you with a case at some point and want you to rule in your favor so have to be careful not to say something that puts your nose out of joint. i learned it doesn't make a difference so mine as well be honest about it and say it. closed session is the perception
8:53 am
of the public is you are back there cooking the books mptd i center 24 orders of determination and every one is a violation oof the sunshine ordinance found by the body leaguely counsituteed to hear the matters and decide them and they were members of board, commissions or city agencies decide they would ignore the responsibilities under the law, interfere with my speaking, they were going to misrepresent what i said when i spoke in the official record and they would with hold public records from me which i needed to effectively per sue my first amendment rights. bottom line is, just be aware when you go into closed session, people are watching. >> thank you. >> good evening commissioners. charley again mar stellar for the record. i want to say i'm glad we have at
8:54 am
least seen a little something from mr. farrell but it isn't in person. i would invite him to make a appearance before the body at any time but now that you are in litigation maybe that isn't something his council would advise. i would like a legal opinion and wonder if in closed session you could raise the following question, should you be stood up in the future and say the party did not respond to you with a counter suit or whatever this is technically called, does the commission have the power to fine someone in contempt? and realize there is not a penalty to that, but it seems to me that had we never heard from mr. farrell we would have just been left hanging and i dont thichck think it was the intent when we wrote
8:55 am
the heart in 93 and i didn't personal do that, that was done by mr. shelly and bush, that they intended for you to be stood up or ignoreed and have no re-dress. i think that is a good legal question for you to ask council to research for some future case where this might come up because frankly, up until we finally heard or saw some signal from mr. farrell, we didn't know what he was thinking or what he would have said because he never came to this podium to say a word. he went through proxy and i think that by in itself is in a sense somewhat contempious but he had his rights with council to act that way,
8:56 am
but he is an official of the city and county of san francisco and his standard of behavior and conduct should bow be far higher than the average citizen because he took a sworn oath and that oath i think fundamentally he has violated by his behavior in this manner. that is all i will say. >> call the vote on the motion to go in closed session on the item number 6. all in favor? >> aye. >> opposed? carried unanimously and i will turn to item 7 and discussion and possible action regarding complaint received or initiated by the
8:57 am
ethics commission concerning san francisco campaign and government conduct code section 3.230 prohibition on knowing directly or indirectly soliciting political contributions from other city officers or employees. motion to take that in closed session? public comment? hearing no public comment i'll call the question, all in favor? >> aye. >> opposed? carried unanimously, the commission will go into closed session on items number 6 and 7. my estimate would be that we should have completed that within the next 30 to 60 minutes and we will go back in open
8:58 am
session after it is completed.
8:59 am
9:00 am
>> the commission unanimously voted to accept a stipulation on behalf of respondent george gascone. respondent
9:01 am
christine soto debari and michael swart where in they stipulated that they violated section 3.230 which prohibits any city officer for sulitinging political contributions #23r5u78 any other city employee directly or indirectly unless the solicitation is a communication targeted to the significant segment of the public which may include city officers. they stipulated at a fundraising event there were solicitations made of city employees to mr. gascones
9:02 am
campaign, where the bulk if not all of the participants were employees of his office or other city employees. mr. gascone has accepted responsibility and has agreed to pay a fine of $4 thousand for the alleged violation or stipulated violations and mrs. dubari, agreed to pay a fine of $14,000. i mean, 1, 400
9:03 am
and mr. swart agreed to pay the fine of 1, 400. i would say i think it is important for the public to understand that all 3 of these individuals admitting they have violated the section said they were unaware of the prohibition about city employees solicit other city employee and in the case of mr. gascone, he certainly had attended ethics training which contained training concerning the specific prohibition which all 3 of them said that they were really
9:04 am
not aware existed partly because they had been solicited by other city employees in the past. hopefully this disposition of these will be a message to all city employees concerning the ban on city employees soliciting other city employees. there were also listed a number of individuals from the office who were part of the host for this fundraiser on november 13 and those individuals, no fines are being assess against them, but they will receive
9:05 am
warning letters reminding them of the ban so that it will not occur in the future. any- >> mr. chair. during the closed session i put on the record at the request of the city attorney that over the years i have had professional contacts with chief and district attorney george gasconon various matters dealing with the cities crimial justice system and it was the sense the commission in regard to those contacts that i have had with him on those matters that those did not
9:06 am
arise to any kind of level of requiring me to recuse myself and the city attorney also agreed that those pasted contacts i had with district attorney george gascon procedurely professional on matters deal wg the cities criminal justice system and did not require me to recuse myself. >> any public comment on the matters that were covered in closed session? hearing none, do i hear a motion to adjourn? >> so moved. >> before we adjourn, i think commissioner addrews wants to make a statement. >> thank you chair. i should have made it before closeed session because now my audience is gone. i did want to
9:07 am
take the opportunity to say what a honor it has been serving on the commission over these past 3 years and want to thank the commission while i was on a steep learning curve at the same time quit interested in good government and it plays out so much in our personal and professional lives and continues to be clear to me with my service here. i am empressed with the work we have done thus far. with the passing of prop c and with chair renne and myself servings as a commission of two and commission support and hiring executive director pelumand continue to be impressed with her. throughout that process i had a opportunity to spend some time with your staff, your
9:08 am
now staff and i recognize the level of dedication and commitment and passion they have for the work and their high level of skill and it looks like a great partnership you will have with them and encourage you to create professional opportunities for them as often as you can. to commissioner chiu, sorry i didn't have a opportunity to work with you. i know in the few comments and the few amounts of work we have done together that i know that the commission will be well served by your seat, so thank you for your service in advance. i did want to say that i took last month to assess the work at my organization and recognize that there were increasing demands and those increasing demands were not going to go away any time soon and know the
9:09 am
commission deserves someone who has the time and energy it needs to commit to this very crucial work and i knee i wasn't going to be able to do that in the way i feel good about and frankly for what the commission deserves so it is with heavy heart i do stand down and i look forward to sitting in the odd ynss audience on the other side and continue to know about the work on the commission and want to thank everybody for their collegeial friendship along the way and wish you all best wishes. >> thank you. likewise we wish you good luck and best wishes in the expanded endeavor. i will be interested to hear how it goes. >> thank you. >> i will now entertain a motion to adjourn. >> so moved. >> second.
9:10 am
>> public discussion? no comment? alright, the meeting is adjourned. [meeting adjourned] >> good morning and