Requirement be added to the city laws and that expenditure lobbyists be required to register with our commission when they engage in expenditure lobbying one of the big changes that i made from my original writing that was put before this group i made at the suggestion of commissioner hur who said that in his opinion there should be a provision on for the board of supervisors to change it if they feel appropriate there was a fair amount of opposition but narmdz to the board of supervisors can change it in the future so if something is not located into stone they have to change it so it selfchange the spirit and in accordance with the rules relating to the commission and if they change it they will not chapping it in a way to lesson the reporting you want the reporting in regards to the question its the expenditure lobbyist what is that well expenditure lobbyists is someone who is going to spend all sorts of money to go forward and effect a city proposal or a city piece of legislation or a city election but not having direct contact for example situations uber and airbnb have spent large amazes amounts of money for mobilizing people to come down to city hall for various types of things that were on before the board of supervisors or 09 matters spent fairly large expenditures in terms of training for those people meetings and lobbyists be lobbying and chore leading efforts and transporting them no where is it in regards to how those measures are being affected that those high paying paid to play characters were involved in spending a great deal of money influencing city policy i think in terms of the interested persons meeting colleagues it was clear that everyone agreed that in terms of the people in San Francisco they should know what sort of money is being spent and who is spend in native americans to measures before our City Government we shouldnt have a hidden pay to play not a question or outlawing they can do it unfortunately, because of the decisions like citizens united, anybody can pretty much government can be corrupted by money very easily and it is we live in a time of extremely corrupt governments in terms of people and high to pay to play characters spending money to determine basic policy within our system and people dont know that any of this is going on because there are no disclosures all this does that makes transparent to the public so a person can side who is behind and policy and what is glen eagle being done rather than clothed in a deceptive type of good citizens narrator of an pie and motherhood and behind the scenes weve got all sorts of things that are not only questionable theyre corrupt and even dirty in regards to shining a light on those various things this going goes accountant way this is indeed a modest measure were putting it on the ballot if mire colleagues agree i think it should go on the ballet i ask my colleagues to vote for that. Any other commissioners. I have a question about the language under the section 2. 115 provisions called prohibitions. It talks about the no lobbyist shall make a gift to an office of the city and county as a market rate ever more than 25 except so on and the future employment would an expenditure lobby x would be one that is prohibited from making contributions to a candidate and other things the lobbyist is prohibited from doing. Yes. In terms of what it says no lobbyist no contact lobbyists can do that so this would it i defer to mr. Chin this is on the clung that is already in the study this is not a change in the language only in the language in the statutes so in terms of the exist effect how that carries over ill defer to the City Attorney and right to clarify so currently no prohibition of lobbyists making contributions either lobbyists actually there are required to report the contributions. How about the gift. So as current would apply to the two lobbyists so the expenditure lobbyists are subject to a gift limit in terms of what they can give to an officer of the city and county. Weve had some of the big money interests that paid 450 the maximum that is allowed for gifts for travel but if this individual is demonstrated an expenditure lobbyists his or her what make those expenditures. The gift there are exceptions that allow exception to the travel but your fundamental point a new expenditure lobbyist would be subject to give a gift to certain officers. Commissioner hur. First of all i do want to thank commissioner renne and City Attorney and the staff i can tell a lot of work within the draft and this draft it is much improved i presented putting in the repeal section is it so important to make sure that it can fixed in needed i have questions and some proposed changes i think there are some things still unclear in section 2. 1013 my hope that will reflect what we do in c from we need a super majority of board to fix this and the commission you know making sure that it is consistent with the purposes of the chapter American People appropriate view there is additional language not in c from this is in subsection a it further the proposers of that chapter but everyone else is unique thirty to this provision i dont why we need it from the amendment for the chapter is done by 4 5ths of the commission and those other requirements are met the amendment should be allowed we dont need the specific finding that is, your honor can substantiate the finding i dont know from the amendment explicit relative in the disclosure i imagine a world where you want different information and we verbatim that is necessary i dont know if that is considered a reduction or not i worry about it creating more problems. If i can address that where this language comes from is a basic suspicion that members of the civil jvrnl and ethic and others have concerned of changes made by the board to the jurisdiction of the this commission and just have done it with sort of a boil plate statement that furthers the purpose with the act and there is a viewpoint to the changes in history that was just gratuitous last thing that was used what it did it restricted what had been the jurisdiction of this commission tremendously and cut down on a lot of very valuable areas of oversight and transparency so the thought was that rather than members of the board of supervisors a political body that are subject to the whims of many things including pay to play and lobbyists hopefully were not and were not thats one of the bouts of this this body is that we would sort of hold their feet to the fire and is what we you can amend this for the purposes if youre amending it to the conformity of the act but if you cut the heart out of this is not what youre doing your amend it but youre doing it disingenuously this is an attempt to sort of keep the process a little bit more honest we see what this does this adds levels of disclosure if people agree with the act they agree the levels of disclosure are good anything that reduces the levels of disclosure why are you reducing the levels of disclosure we want finding rather than having the board again subject to lobbyists, subject to all the things it go back to the play to play were holding the tide migrants an incentive to make sure they dont within the scope it out wipeout the heart of what were doing and say were complying with the spirit of the act that says nothing. Two comments i appreciate the explanation first would be i agree with you did board obviously a political body we want protection from the being computed in are a political way but this requires 4 5ths of the commission so there is protection in the event you know from the board and the other point ask that the way i read this it will prohibit any, any circumstances an amendment if it reduces the closer not that we need more are finding but we should strike everything that comes after that first clause in a in other words, 2 point e is good. I have other questions or comments shall i share commissioner renne whats our preference. We could close the there isnt a motion why not go through our comments and when a motion is made you want to move to amend well see where we go there. Okay. My next question has to do with the definition felt spent lobbyists on page 5 of the memo. My first question has to do with with the word indirectly on the third line ill read starting from the begin of that clause who makes payments totally 5,000 in a calendar month to solicit directly or indirectly persons to contact with a person of the community in order to influence people with administrative action im not sure what indirectly is meant to encompass. Well, i think that is part of the whole problem we are trying to address you had those layers and those levels of essentially laundering of who is behind things this is attempting to address so in terms of the doing something indirectly if you have for example airbnb to get one group to influence another group to do something directly it is done indirectly if anywhere along the chain of causation you have a particular entity or group or person that is doing these things to have the ultimate effect of what were talking about thats an expenditure lobbyist. I see so it is meant to modify we are trying to find people that are indirectly youre going others to communicate with an officer or of the city and county. Not under theirs ways to indirectly communicate. As it is now it is almost actress lee like Money Laundering a series of tractions transaction or individuals or individuals that at some point the strings are being pulled by some puppet master that effects policies of the city and county of San Francisco and that whoever that person is no matter how many indirect issues that person is a lobbyist. Bans if i people one change ill propose where we say who makes payment totally 5 thousand one hundreds i might add directly or indirectly who so we talk about who is paying i thought it was talking about indirect ways to communicate with an officer but to make sure the person paying is not directly or indirectly effecting the action. Commissioner renne that will ill accept that is a a friendly amendment. Another question relate to this Section Works of what we are going after for example, on page 2 we say we wanted to prevent or just have disclosure of people that are urging others to attend legislative haergdz to speak on their bailiff or using transportation or outlets to call city officials i get that i think that is an important thing to address but then the examples we use in expenditure lobbyists appear more o packaging pack and vague things like the public and Media Relations and Outreach Research to me i think that creates a level of vagueness that is potentially harmful for example are you an expenditure lobbyist you conduct a lot of research on whether or not you want others to communicate with officers are you a lobbyist on the day you spend a lot of money on communication to encourage others to reach out to an official its problematic to me not an expenditure lobbyists but based on the text it would be. I think if you have the resources of an airbnb or uber and you are commissioning a bunch of people to come up with the most effective way to influence city policy to get a measure passed or got someone elected to engage if grassroots pieces or things related to other peoples backgrounds that aspect of research if it is gathered those towards those efforts the research and reports and analysis if their geared towards the end of effecting whatever the pga of on ordinance or whatever else that might be involved that would that is an example of expenditure lobbyist engaged in all sorts of activities theyre spending a lot of money that is done now behind the scenes and ultimately something pops up for the publics radar and what pops us at best is the head of a mole that says citizens for Good Government underneath the surface a gigantic dinosaur thats involved in creating in terms of spending money and mobilizing people and things the public is not aware of that is what it is geared towards addressing getting down there under the surface and seeing what is going on in that rathole. So well, i appreciate there are things beyond just the have direct communication it so you would ill agree commissioner Vice President haney a nexus between the study or the report and the research and the communication or the efforts to encourage others to directly communicate with an officer im curious to see what the public thirng knows i want to see some communication between the nexus of those i imagine a situation you do the research or you do the research for some other purpose and later determine that research had different information i want to now use to communicate with the San Francisco. And at that time that research was made not making that person a lobbyist but later on is it perhaps does if we dont tie them together there are untended circumstances. Okay. Commissioner. I had more but ged. Relatively in section 2. 00 maybe the nexus can be made here but it relates to the same concern the expenditure lobbyist should be to disclose at that time theyre doing the urging of others to communicate with elected officials. Ill accept that also a friendly amendment mr. Chair. I was a little bit confused with activities expenses so if you look at page 14 and excuse me. Commissioners so was there a change made to the text in 2. 10. Im not sure what the best language but ill propose something after the word studies that ties those activities to actually communicating with an officer of the city and county. I understand that point did you propose someone else leaving aside the definition. I want to make sure im not losing anything. I didnt propose language to 2. 11 a if you fixtures it in the lobbyist definition. Got it. It can done with active it expenditures a couple of things. What page. Im sorry page 14. So activity expenditures for a expenditure lobbyist may not be inclusive enough in other words, for a contact lobbyist it make sense you have active expenses and active expense to find in part a gift to an officer or aid within 3 months of a came back but kind of main not by definitions but an exposure e expenditure lobbyist to extend we are trying to encompasses any sort of kind of payment or gift to a candidate or their immediate family or aid im not sure were capturing that if we use the definition in this contact of lobbyist. Now im sorry. When it comes down to the actual elected person it may not make a difference you cant make any gift totally more than 25 under any points of the statute but for those who are you know the immediate family or the aide or others there may be a will that unintended will that. One thing commissioner hur you recall if our profess discussion the question related to relate to gifts and having to do with contract lobbyists thats in the language this amendment is a very secret amendment that has to do with with the category of expenditure lobbyists setting up that category it of the not intent to make a change to contact lobbyists so your remarks just now in regards to we dont contract that were not deal with contract lobbyists so ill be hesitant to the scope weve said all along were proposing and amending something that has to do with with expenditure lobbyist were not touching any contract lobbyists whatever is there is there now to make the jump and make some kind of chapping in contract lobbyists it not appropriated in terms of our tafblg. I understand and agree i probably was the not clear in my point but im not trying to change the contract lobbyists but if we use the term activity lobbyist is the same term for contract lobbyists it maybe under inclusive the definition of a acceptance is how close in time one that contact with an elected or with the elected aid so that really didnt apply for an expenditure lobbyist you may excluding payments so i make a you know enlist to an aide and never see that aid and probable want to capture that it wouldnt be captured bails they wouldnt have made the contact within 3 months i dont know how we want to address that. I see mr. Minority and mr. Chin nodding they are heads i agree with the point so. Right we were actually brainstorming there are a few points raised so right now as you mention the activity extensions well, an expenditure lobbyist will never report an activist expense an expenditure lobbyist is not making contact theyll be requiring a monthly reporting that is not happening. Let me stop you through if i make if im an expenditure lobbyist and provided some benefit to the supervisors aid. Yep. Why isnt that an activist expense. Because the activity acceptance or expense only counts if it is made within 3 months of a contact and expenditure lobbyist didnt make contact their indirectly lion so were requiring the reporting of something that is not be recorded i totally understand our point. A few Opening Statements i think that first option one is that you decide not to require the reporting activities one option and option two we could have a definition for expenditure lobbyists option 3 is to change the definition of activity expense as a months reference in the and second sense the definition on page 4 line 3 through 7 has a 3 most time limitation we can remove that