And it has to do with supervisor cohen excuse me, supervisor kim who is going to address us and present a substitute draft of her proposed Campaign Finance legislation and is requestingn of her proposed Campaign Finance legislation and is requesting that we meet to advance her proposals in this regard. Supervisor kim, nice to have you with us. Please proceed. Thank you, chair keane, and thank you to the Ethics Commission. I will do my best to be brief because i likely know that you have a long meeting ahead of you. So i wanted to come and present an ordinance that i first have introduced in july of this year and have recently introduced the second this month, but first, i just want to take a moment to thank the Ethics Commission staff, both the director and also your Public Policy team, kyle and patrick, for really spending almost the entire year working with us on this ordinance, since january. My interest in helping to strengthen our disclosure and transparency requirements is really, i think what we are all seeing here, both nationally and locally, which is incredibly alarming which is the increased cloud over money that is being spent in electoral politics today, and also, the outside proportion that wealthy donors are having and who are representing members of our government, both on a national, state and local level. Since Citizens United decision, our country has witnessed an unprecedented infusion of money into our elections mostly funneled by large corporations and billianaires. We did also submit one page on our ordinance, and i apologize. Were going to continue to work on this, but even here in San Francisco, we included a graphic on the proportion of Third Party Spending just in supervisory raced frs from 200 2016. Last year, in 2016, it made up 54 of all spending in supervisorial raced. So our goal is really, to the best of our abilities, increasing transparency and disclosure requirements, both for them and third party committees. Its a very difficult task because as you create more requirements, people find more loopholes, as well, so were doing our best to continually update and strengthen the requirements that we have. And so the highlights of the legislation are this one is to ensure Campaign Material will now include information on original source of funds, whether its personal or business income for personal expenditures, and to ask that they list their top dope ors of more than 20,000. The second is they run their disclosure before the tv and radio aids, as well as requiring now a 14 point font for written communications instead of the current 12. Third is to include notation in the voter information pamphlets on which campaigners agree to donor limitation. This is to clarify certain candidates, for example, that are publicly financed candidates cant accept the voluntary spending limit, so this would just clarify what can be written in the voter pamphlets. Four is to mail voters a communication, and the way that its written in our ordinance today is the week that the absentee ballots go out that list all the original source funders for Third Party Spending in the previous election cycle. This is a way for us to inform voters that we do have a great degree of Third Party Spending in San Francisco in our elections and to get voters to think about how Third Party Spending in our current election cycle. It will then point to a website that this ordinance is asking the Ethics Commission to maintain that will in as best as possible perform realtime updates on third Party Expenditures being spent on the current election cycle. Five is to compel condid thes to attest that they are not coordinating with noncandidate controllers when they compare. The last is Election Year communications and Member Communications distributed through social media. And just want to add, we know the disclosed act has in many ways updated the social Media Advertising requirements, but we want to he enumeraenumerate our ordinance, as well, not just in television and the emailers, but in the social media aspect, as well. We also want to ask that the annual report that were getting through the charter that included in that are recommendations to the board of supervisors and the mayor how we can continue to update or requirements on social media electioneering. We know this is a field that changes almost month to month and year to year, and what we are regulating today cannot anticipate what new innovations can come from emerging technology tomorrow, so just to ensure that this is something that the commission is always thinking about and advising the city on what we can do to strengthen those regulations. There are two additional pieces of the ordinance that did not actually make it into this second version that we introduced two weeks ago. Most importantly is that we are working with Ethics Commission staff on reexamining our Public Financing program. San francisco was at the forefront with our Public Financing program in the early 2000s, and now were seeing cities other cities increase their investment into Public Finances, cities like new york city and l. A. Are now doing 6 1 matches. But interestingly, on a limited portion of a contribution, so perhaps the first 175 would get matched 6 1, and the rest of the contribution would still go forward to the candidate but would not not matched by Public Financing, there by, hopefully empowering small donors and hopefully increasing the number of unique donors to candidates, so were currently working with a budget legislative analyst to figure out how much that would cost. We think that it is possible, given how little of our Public Financing pot we spend every year currently, so we think that we can increase Public Financing and really ensure that candidates are spending their time doing what theyre supposed to do, going out and meeting voters, instead of spending their time calling their wealthiest donors, and so well be coming back to the Ethics Commission, but we didnt want to come until we had all of the data and the numbers to present to you. The second piece that was not included on this proposed ordinance but we would love your feedback on im sorry, two additional pieces is whether we want to limit fund raising windows or Office Holders. This was a suggestion that came from the commission, and second is whether we should require social Media Companies to archive all of their online advertisements, as well. I we wanted to come to the commission early, before you actually formally heard the item because we want to begin to get feedback from the commission now. Are there ways to strengthen this ordinance . Do you have concerns . Are we missing anything . Are there things that we havent thought of, so were hoping to get really put forth the most robust piece of le legislation that we can around honesty and transparency in our country. I want to thank our community partners. Weve held several meetings since july to get feedback from members of our community on how we can continue to strengthen our disclosure on transparency, and for that, ill open it up for comments if there are any comments by this commission. Thank you, supervisor kim, and we certainly welcome you and commend you on all those different matters and also have tremendous interest in and are working on, as well. I also want to indicate that ill be meeting with you on friday with a couple members of our staff to talk further about it. We have an appointment at 10 00 at your office on friday, and well at that time, ill be bringing to you any specifics that i have in my mind and what Staff Members have indicated, and also what any of the other commissioners want me to raise with you in our meeting on friday, but i just want to commend you once again for all of the good work that youre doing, and with that, ill open it up to the commissioners for their thoughts and comments. I have a preliminary question. With respect to the socalled highlights of the legislation, have you examined and considered how many, if any, are duplicative of what the Ethics Commission has recommended in the last six months . I dont believe that any of our proposed amendments are duplicative, and im looking at kyle, and he says no, because weve been working closely with your staff as weve drafted this ordinance. May i suggest you do that because you have one here about including a notation in the voter information pamphlet identifying which candidates agree to voluntary spending limits. Didnt we do that earlier this year . I dont recall. What was it we did . Was it just on who accepts taxpayer financing, who doesnt . Yeah, im struggling to recall which item that was. Id probably have to take a look at huh . Id have to take a look back at our policy notes because thats not ringing any bells. Would you do that, please, and let me know. Yes. And number three is including a notation no, not number three. Number four, mailing a notice to all voters detailing independent expenditures. Thats in addition to the voter information pamphlet . So the voter information pamphlet, again, you know, is the booklet that comes to the voters with all of the candidates and ballot measures arguments and against, and so the first set, item number 3, under highlights, we wanted to state which candidates in the voter pamphlet have accepted the voluntary expenditure ceiling. However, Commission Staff also wanted us to detail that certain candidates arent eligible. I would think so. Because there was a confusion of voters. It has to be delivered within a certain period of time before the election date. Yes. And what is that . Do you know, miss pelham, offhand . I dont know offhand. I have to reach out to the voluntary election department. I would think its around three weeks. Yeah, its around there. So i would suggest including it if thats the purpose. In regards to your second question about the separate pamphlet, it was actually very important to me when drafting this ordinance that all voters got a separate onepager, separate from the large booklet that highlights Third Party Spending in San Francisco. Originally, in the ordinance that i proposed in july, we had asked Ethics Commission staff to detail all of the Third Party Spending and its original source dope ors of that current election cycle, and we had asked that this pamphlet go out 14 days before election day, and while we certainly missed early voters, we felt that was sort of the sweet spot when not too many people had voted, but also, enough Third Party Spending had come in, because as we know, Third Party Spending tends to come in in the last two or three weeks in local races. However, staff also informed us that they have to go to the mail house for five weeks before that, and we know that a lot of Third Party Spending doesnt happen in september, at least in local races, so we scrapped that idea, and actually members of the community said why dont you just print a complete listing of the Third Party Spending of the previous election cycle. Now, it doesnt comment on what kiep of Third Party Spending is happening in that current election cycle, but it gets voters thinking oh, this is something i should be aware of, and at the bottom, we would refer voters to that website where the commissioners would be maintaining, and they can see how Third Party Spending, and the original source of those funders is current for that election cycle. It is imperfect, and i have to admit this is a very frustrating ordinance to work on because id like to make it strong and robust, but we do have some limit willations, both administrative, and in terms of the Citizens United case. We cant stop money coming into our races, so our goal is really just to make it as transparent as possible and to make sure that voters are thinking about it. I actually have a lot of faith in San Francisco voters, when they are aware of issues, they do the research, and then vote accordingly. And then with respect to number five, what are the requirements now when the candidates, that they arent coordinating with alleged third Party Expenditure committees . Miss pelham, do you know. Im not aware affirmatively in other words, is there any written not that im ware of. Not that im aware of in local or state law. And miss kim, this would be a declaration under penalty of perjury . Yes. Of course, candidates shouldnt be coordinating with third party committees, but this is just an additional statement that wed ask candidates to and the ultimate objective, as far as your presentation and anything that you provide in the next month or two is for the commission to recommend the ordinance . Yes. We would love recommendation by the Ethics Commission of this proposed ordinance, but we would also love your feedback. We know that you look at many different campaigns and elections, and we want to make this as strong and robust as possible, so we know that so we would love your set of eyes to help us in making this a stronger ordinance and to also give us your feedback if you have any concerns on what we have proposed thus far. But i did want the commission to think about three things Public Financing, increasing the match, potentially to 6 1. Two is requiring social Media Companies to archive their online ads. And three, to limit the fund raising windows for Office Holders in fund raising, so these are the three additional issues that i would ask the commission to consider. Its not in the proposed ordinance yet. And what is the status of the ordinance now . It was first introduced in july of this year, and i just introduced a second version two weeks ago, in november. We want, also, members of the public to provide us feedback, which is why i try to introduce it as early as possible, to give the public a lot of time to respond to us, and hopefully improve this ordinance, as well. And i have to say a lot of people have really been giving us good feedback throughout this process. Thank you. Supervisor chiu . Supervisor kim, thank you for coming and thank you for this work on this really important ordinance. I think i speak for myself and i speak for the commission i think that increasing transparency is an important goal and objective. I just have two comments, and if i could crash your meeting on friday, chair keane, i think that would be great, as longs we dont we didnt have your email, commissioner, so we would love to have you there. You can only have two. You cant have a quorum with just two. And we sat down with commissioner renne. Id like to have you with us. I think that would be wonderful. Thank you. The two areas that i wanted to comment on, one, i think our commission will be taking up the topic of Public Finance as a topic in our own body of work, and i would like to make sure that whatever efforts we make as a commission and with our staff that were working in parallel and or in tandem so were not reinventing the wheel, so to speak, but i think its a really important topic that should be timely addressed. And then, second is the social media and Election Integrity thats also on our policy agenda, and then we commissioner lee and i met and are focused on this issue, and so i think we can talk more about that, and hopefully this commission can talk more about that, because i think its a really critical issue for us as you noted. Tech nothing is moving at the speed of light, and our regulations are not, and what happened in the 2016 president ial election started months and months in advance of the november election. And do i think that russia will meddle in San Francisco elections . Its possible, but not lickly, but the tools that th but likely, but i think that anyone with the tools i think 100,000 was used to buy the ads that were seen by 126 million people, so to the extent that San Francisco can take the lead in thinking about this issue and protect the integrity of our elections and create transparency for our voters, i think thats something that i personally as a commissioner feel very strongly about and hope that we will take the time to do that. So we have been working with your staff every step of the way on the Public Financing piece, so everything that were exploring, were exploring jointly with the Ethics Commission staff. Were looking at the same research and have had several meetings about this. The one piece that we havent shared yet is our budget legislative analysts report. We just got a first draft last week. Theyre still continuing to work it and refine it so we can get basically dollar amounts of what it would cost. And i the last online social media ads, you know, actually, you dont need a lot of money. Thats what weve been learning a lot. In fact one of our stakeholders was telling us that her boyfriends a dj, and hell pay facebook 20, and hell automatically get 100 people rsvp to his dj party to make it look like its a party that a lot of people are going, and to encourage people to go to because they think a lot of people are going. And thats whats been alleged in the russian hacking, that people were setting these up with bots, and so were concerned about even those small dollar amount spending on social media and its impact on voters. And the i think the concern is that candidates dont know. Exactly. That these ads are going out, and they can be targeted in a way and we dont know what the criteria are, we dont know what the ads are, and so we cant respond. Its a huge concern. If a social media ad is targeted to for someone who has white supremacists, we will never see those ads, but theyre out there, targeting voters. Since this was agenda item 8, the Public Comment should come at the end of agenda item 8 because we have a number of other matters included in that. That would generally be the way we would do it, but i think in light of the importance and the fact that we have supervisor kim here, i dont know whether im violating anything or not, but if i am, so what. Im going to invite Public Comment specifically on supervisor kims matter from any of the members of the public whod like to comment. Thank you, chair keane, thank you to the commission. I will make sure that i sit down with every one of you, and commissioner kopp, i owe you a phone call, too, and this will not be the last time you see me, and i look forward to working with you over the next year. Thank you. All right. Well take Public Comment now. Hello, commissioners. Larry bush, friends of commissioner ethics. Id like to thank supervisor kim for the robust presentation that she did in involving people in friSan Francisco elections, as well as reaching out to people nationally and statewide. In the early 1990s, i authored an op ed piece in the examiner calling fore for a variable contribution limit at that time that was not pass that was pd into law. Later, lawyers for candidated got it overturned, and what emerged then was the Public Financing that was done. It was also part of our effort to require that the voter handbook show what wo was participating in the Public Financing program, and that was that lasts until Kamala Harriss race until she agreed to the Campaign Spending limit, and after that, the voter handbook was out. So Ethics Commissioner saint croix got it repealed that voters were told who was spending what in the Campaign Spending limits, and commissioner kopp did raise that this last year and suggested it go forward to the board, but i dont think anything was ever writing and sent over to the board so they could pass it, so i think the fact that its going to be in here it good. One of the things is the met rick that weve used in the past to measure the value of Campaign Spending should not be the valuable, it should be the reach that material has. If i want to put something on facebook that announces how friends of ethics feels about the accountablity ordinance, i can spend 30 and reach 6,000 people because its a formula thats right on there. I just check it off. Heres 30, i can reach 6,000 people, so if you had a formula that says how many people are you reaching, rather than i spend 30, youre going to get a lot more information about whats going on. So thats one thing. The second thing that shes doing is looking forward, not just looking backward, trying to close loopholes, but trying to look ahead. Money is like water. Its going to kind any nook and crack that it can to flow through and try and influence things, so the fact that shes proposing that this issue be revisited on a regular basis to see what needs to be done to bring it further forward is a good thing. Thank you. Rather than chasten our tails t people after theyve brocken the have 11 members of the board of supervisors, four volunteer to o tell everybody in public. Im run for supervisor and im o be honest and tell every personh money i got, how it was raised,. Then dare their fellow superviso follow suit. Well, mr. Supervisor farrell, yd this groupive spending money inr favor and you had no doaks it, t looks like you probably got thet of it and knew about it or elsee not competent. So why dunt tell us about it . In other words, lets let our le leaders instead of us chasing tm around and dealing with the fins like rearranging the deck chaire titanic, let them be honest peod sit down and say im not going t any money from anybody, individr party, unless they agree had the it to me that i can tell all the citizens who i wish to vote for, exactly where the money came fr. Now, if i were a member of the f supervisors and i were to do thd then say to my fellow superviso, put up or shut up. Im going to tell everybody i gs money and where it came from son make a an honest determination n whether or not this money may he impacted my money and choices s and everything i do as part of. If you dont want do that, you t have to. But i think the public ought toe to hear from me when i say im t about where my money came from,f it. Why isnt my opponent . We are not supposed to be chasir leaders, our leaders are suppose leading us. The only way government is goine honest is if our leaders are ho. Chair keane do yo. Kn do we c comment . Once again, supervisor kim, thau for coming. Well see you on friday. So well go now to agenda item d when we get to agenda item eighl take the rest. We will a go to agenda item 4 ot ethics bylaws amendments to chae dates, start time and location e Ethics Commission regular monthy meetings. There is an attachment which sus the calendar for next year if wo change the start and location tf the meetings. So, miss pelham. Thank you chair keane. This item is presented as a folo the commissions request last mo identify whether there might ben earlier start Time Available foe meetings. Due largely to the question of e lateness of some of the meetings conclusions. We checked with city hall for requirement that each of our mee televised to determine what time meets are available and times ts are available. As you point out on chart one actually at the the table at thm of page 2 for this report on ey. There could be a change to the f the commission wishes to start n earlier time, due to the constrf the building, the only availabis the second tuesday at the beginf each month beginning at 10 00 a. There is an exception for calenf the commission were to take to a approach to require the meetinge held at the next prick particule time for january, february and h would require friday meetings. Thees arthese closer to the secf the month, moving from the foury at 5 30 to the second tuesday a0 as standing part of the commisss bylaws. We wanted to make sure that thes available for to you act on tonf you wish to. We publicly notice the item as d by your bylaws along with the pd bylaws change and circumstance o the list of our subscribers. With that brack ground, happy tr any questions. But that was the timeframe thate able to identify given the conss for the building and for the ted requirement. Chair keane just to add a cf things to what you said, those y meetings in the first quarter, e on january 12th and february 89d be at 10 00 in the morning. Thats correct. Chair keane and on friday mh 16th, that would be at 1 00 p. M. Correct. Chair keane all the rest aft a tuesdays at 10 00 a. M. Those would be special meetid adopted if you took this approa. The bylaw change would refer tod tuesday meeting that would be aa regular matter, a second tuesdat 10 00 going forward. We presume the dates for that we available into 2019 if the commn were wr to take this approach. Chair keane commissioners, r thoughts. Im for it. Chair keane commissioner p s for it. Commissioner lee. Thank you mr. Chair and i wao thank the staff for the diligenn putting the full schedules toge. I was one of the commissioners d the staff to look into possiblyg other meeting times for future commission meetings. Ive heard from folks who wantep it the way it is. I also heard from folks who woue to see alternative times. First of all, i really appreciae residents of the city who take e to come to these meetings to pae whether it is 6 00 at night or t night and what have you. I think this commission has a e responsibility. Whereas all the cities commisss serve the residents of the citys commission is charged to carry t oversights that impact folks wht be San Francisco residents, butr work impacts San Francisco resi. Their perspectives and engagemee is also critical so that as we deliberate policies and other an items, its good to have all si perspectives. I hear folks who want to keep iy it is. I understand that. But at the same time to really o broaden up the participatory puo speak, id like for us to try tt as a trial run. Because as a bylaw, we can alwae it. But at least make it available s who otherwise could not make ite evening times so that they can , they can add their perspective e engage with the public. So i would like to make a motioo approve this proposal from the. Chair keane is there a seco . Second. Chair keane i agree completh commissioner lee in regard to we said. Id like to add a couple of ower things. In regard to the commission, uss commissioners, doing the best pe job, i think we would be betterd to do the best possible john ife didnt have to stay late at nigd always watching the clock when e heck can we get out of here. In terms of the human reality o. If we came like other agencies f government did our work in the , for the city, wed be much morei think wed be much more energett it and much better at it in tere way we do it rather than stayino the wee hours of the night. The other thing for the staff i, members of the staff, several om live in other areas of bay and o go to oakland and other places. The amount of overtime that hase paid as well is something that a concern. I think this makes sense for cht to a civilized time of governmen terms of other governmental entn the mornings and i think well r at doing our job by having the. We have it televised. People can see what is going on. We can make other arrangements r phoneins, if necessary, but ths something that is overdue. Commissioner. Id like to, i think, agree t my fellow commissioners said. I think my first few meetings ad several meet whtion we g meeo late, we end with an empty room. I hope by moving the times thatl have more participation from th. Chair keane weve heard tham members of the public in regardo getting buses, muni, other typef rides home when its late at nis hard for them to do that. This would facilitate it going a civilized time. I think its all to the good. Commissioner renne. Well, i spoke out at the lasg and said oifs in favor of it. I had some second thoughts whend the poll of the audiences of whd come in the day and who would ct night. It appears that more people heat they would not be able to make g the day which caused me to havee pause. However, when i consider the fat the telephone connection which t exist for these evening meetingd exist for the day meetings. It does appear that certainly wt get a broader Cross Section of c comment than those that we get r 5 30 meeting. The other thing is to those whod this is done only for the convef the commission, i think misreadr or not it is totally more convet because to the extent that we he commissioners who have fulltim, having to give a day up from thb is an imposition that certainlya cost to Public Service on their. So i think that we ought to tryd see what because the other ts when i think about when we go io closed session on the latenight meetings and come back into pubc session, even if we have items , there is nobody here and were g to ourselves and dealing with it would not happen in a daytime m. I think on balance, i think thas change is not being done to cone the commission, but is being doe belief that it will be more effn its role of oversight and public participation. Chair keane further commente members . We have a motion thats been se, well take Public Comment now. Larry bush speak nierg self. Wwe are a divide monday among ff ethics. I was one that said sent a lettt change it. Weve had a larger amount of participations at night. Which is in part because the ets commission is beginning to looke active so there is a greater in. I would like to say, having reat bob said in an email to the commission that hes a former commissioner, that you might wao amend your measure to call for establishment of a capacity fore to call in and make comments thd provide a greater level of participation. He refers to something called ae line information that the city s available to commissions at no d which up to 30 people can be one and they can make comments as ys would call on them to speak. That would certainly increase ts opportunity for people to partin these decisions. So i would recommend that if yoe forward with this, that you adda provision to your motion that cr the commission to explore and af to be, a bridge line for peoplee able to call in and make commen. Thank you. Chair keane thank you. Ill move that as an amendmee right time, mr. Chair. Im also with friends of eth. I have a question because we dow that all the rooms in in the cie usually reserved for a certain f time. Having sat t,rough a number of w at the Ethics Commission, i knou very much in the time of the me, are you going to be constrainedw long you can have a meeting oncu move to the daytime . I believe there are meetingst would start at 3 00, so it givea fivehour window. Thank you. Commissioners ray hart san fo open government. Lets not pretend this change iy reason other than the conveniene commissioners and staff. The only reason i see for makine change is that some members of e commission are not used to beinp beyond their normal bedtimes. The interest of the public be d. Even your inform the poll condut the last meeting kateed three qs of those that reponded would be inconvenienced by change. Without making an effort to sees would affect public participatiu will make the change you intendo make all along. I believe this change will benee ethics staff. After all, why should they be inconvenienced to accommodate te public . This onesided memorandum produy the staff deals with nothing bue mechanics of making the change, the public be damned. I dont know where this came fr. The first thing i heard about ts commissioner lee saying i brougs idea up. All of a sudden, its thrown one public fullblown with no real justification, no effort to cheh the public whether or not it wod affect public attendance and participation. There is nothing in the memo ths any indication that were a goio look at this when it goes forwaf we Start Holding our meetings a0 a. M. And nobody comes, well cht back. It basically is were changing o 10 00 a. M. And if people show uy show up and if they dont, they. As a member of the public, thati see. I didnt vote either way becausn come during the day or during t. If you were hoping to get rid od other malcontents by making ths change, tough luck. Bottom line is you put this oute and say this is to help the pub all of you sit there and say thl be better for us because well e alert and this will be better fe staff because we wont have to m overtime. This is better for you. Think of it. Just think of all the things eau said. All much you said this is for u. This is for our staff. Not for the public. Its not to get more participat. The memo doesnt even address t. The memo says here is the mechan how to make the change. Whether the public cares or notu dont seem to care. I will give commissioner renne r the fact he at least asked last. When nine said it would be an inconvenience and three said it wouldnt, you ignored that comp. Good evening, commissioners e marstellar representing myself. I was wondering if the meeting r 12, whether lunch will be serve. But aside from that question, wi think i know the answer to, i tt id chair keane were going to u to get pizza for us. That would be great. As long as you make it vegetari, thats the better compromise. I was going to say, i should men something on behalf of r. U. , ro represent them, thats represe thats the young people in the t the time that president renney s question about meeting times. I do think that there are good o engage younger members of the pd the next generation thats goino succeed you and me other than tf of course who are younger, but s going to say that i think its t to think of a way to outreach te workers who could not normally. The idea that mr. Former commisn chair plante shoaldz a good one. There are other things that ther could do to reach out to the puo specific groups of people who ae working hard 9 00 to 5 00 as teh workers or whoofer they do. Thank you. Or whatever they do. Chair keane thank you. We have a motion to approve thee and its been seconded. All those in favor of the motioe aye. Those opposed . The motion carries. Commissioner kopp, you had and amendment. Thats right. Okay. I move that the maximum amount f telephones be made available toe who are unable or unwilling to a daytime meeting pursuant to the government code of the state of california and the technical res of the city and county of san f. Chair keane do we have a seo the amendment . Second. Chair keane all those in fay aye, the amendment passes unani. Okay, so we move now to item nu5 has been with draw drawn. Withdrawn. The request for waiver. Well move to item 6, discussiod possible action on formal opinit in response to a request by davs formal opinion regarding the applicability of ordinance 001s duties as a moam o member of the Ordinance Task force. We have an attachment, the stafr memorandum and draft opinion. Ill just give a brief backgd because as us looking back thror records, certainly this commisss is the first time you all have d a formal request for an opinionh has some different legal immunit apply to it if certain conditioe met. This is actually, as we can tele first time in a long time that a request for a formal opinion han made and you all would potentiat on one today. So the charter in provision c32 provides you all with the pra request for ability to request l opinion from the commission. The commission has 21 days unled cause is shown to act on and drt opinion and then pass that alone City Attorney and district attof if those bodies concur within 1, that grants legal immunity to te requester, assuming all the face substantially similar to those presented. So i wont get into the specifit are outlined in the request. I think you all have read that. But again, were speak specificy about as mr. Maasse has asked ar of questions and you all are ong asked to address the first three remaining questions seem to be l matters that are nonspecific qs of general interpretation which generally are not appropriate fl requests for advice. The fec, and other bodies folloe same sort of procedural guideli. With that, i think ill leave io you for discussion, but staff is recommending that you act on ane for the opinion herein so we can transmit that to the city attord District Attorney at the earliet possible date. Chair keane commissioner ko. I was just going to make a mo adopt the recommendation so than the floor. Chair keane is there a seco . Second. Chair keane discussion by te commission. Well take Public Comment and o Public Comment. All those in favor of the motioe this as our position and informe gentleman of that, please signiy saying aye. Aye. Chair keane any opposed . Motion passes unanimously. We now go to agenda item 7, disn and possible action on revised n of the 2017 San Francisco anticn and accountability ordinance fog the commissions actions as itsr regular meeting. From is an attachment which hase language in it of what we did tt time. Just sort of to bring us upto, youll recall what we did with d help of commissioner chiu, a lof language was put forth and staff captured that language and we vn it and we approved this ordinane sent to the board of supervisor. So what were doing now as i und it, pat, is were looking at thn editing body. Is that correct . We have all of the language in t because we discussed an enormout of stuff last time. Staff captured it for us. So now in terms of the minds off the commissioners, in looking ae various language, is there anytt the commissioners as a matter o editing see that should be chanr worded differently to capture wt passed last time . Thats what this item is all abs that correct, pat . Thats correct chair keane. Staff believes that the draft hn item 7 is responsive to the coms motion at the last meeting. There were several changes requo be made. Some were simple edits or delet, others were sub stan i have, a r notification in 1. 126. The other being a behest payment disclosure system which is now 3 chapter 6 in the draft of the o. You stated, yes, we worked with commissioner chiu on that partir provision, we had an interested meeting to hear comment on the e created. We made revisions to the draft n response and believe this drafts responsive to your motion at tht meeting. Chair keane this is what wee passed. We should keep that in mind. Weve passed this. I think with as i recall t happened in october, there weree proposed [inaudible] payment prn in place of a disclosure. It was to come back with the die provision so see whether or note in agreement with the disclosure opinions. I dont think we voted on the oe as it now reads. Not to take issue, but i thid vote on the the substance of whe wanted the disclosures to say. We got four votes on the substaf what it was to say. If any imhitioner were to ify commissioner were to look at thd say this differs from what we v, we should address it. Rather than adding anything to , thats not what we could do her. Does anyone disagree . No, but i invite attention tr procedure now based upon the poy questions starting on page 2 ann other words. Is that a more efficient way to . We can proceed any way any commissioner wants. If you want to address them thats the way i approach it. Thats the way i made my yeses. I think that would be an appe procedure. Commissioner chiu. Commissioner kopp, how do you suggest . Going with the policy questin page 2. First is the prohibition term on contributions by contractors. Then just go through the next s it five pages. 3me so keeping that in mind what commissioner kopp has just stat, commissioners, would you what . Im looking at october 19th. Thats what i was using. Okay. Thats why everybodys puzzled. Well, i will find the answers. There it is. There it is. Okay. Still page 2. Roman numeral iii. If its
comparemela.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.