Its defined getting page nur you. That is page 29 of agenda item. The payment that is made at thet of an officer or agent thereof s made principally for a legislatr government or charitable nature. We did create what i think is an important exception. You can see on the next page, ts for public appeal. Public appeal is a request for t when such request is made by mef television, radio, billboard. The distribution of 500 or more identical pieces of printed matr a speech to 500 or more individ. There is an exception in this rg system where if an official maka request, via public appeal, then disloashedisclosurethendisclosu. This came up and we tried to crs exception so the appeal would ne caught up in this because its e kind of conduct that staff belie commission was looking at when s looking at 3. 2784 when it instrs to create a disclosure testimon. Indeed we publicly said thate time. Right. So this is an idea contained in, i wanted to highlight that to st idea has been carried over and t here. Back to the chart, each of the e boxes shows the requirements on different parties to behested p. So the box labeled official st is required of the official make behest. All officials that make a behesd have to notify the donor of the requirements of section 3. 620. Essentially telling the donor, u make a payment in response to te behest, you may be subject to cn requirements which are in the sx labeled donor. Additionally, only if the donorn Interested Party which ill disa second, must the official make additional disclosures. They always have to make the notification. If the donor is interested, thea filing requirement. An Interested Party ill poio the definition of that. Thats also on page 29. An Interested Party shall mean e are two ways, one is a party pat or agent of a party or participt involved any proceeding regardig administrative enforcement, lic, permit or other entitlement for. Officer or including board of supervisors on which the office. This concept is taken directly m 84. 308 state law of the governme known as the political reform a. This is a concept that was alrey existing and in fact, was used e ordinance that was passed last t was introduced by supervisor pet addresses the same area, wha the payment reported. Second is to be an interested ps to be a person who actively supr opposes a government the decisin officer or any board or commissn including the board of supervisn which the officer sits. This is a similar concept to bea party or participant to a proce, however, the reason why we incls is that proceedings for license, permits, entitlements for use ad administrative enforcement, we t was too narrow of a class to adl of the different kinds of pattet the commission has been talking. One example would be an ordinan. If a person was trying to persua supervisor to vote for a particr ordinance and they made a behesd payment at the behest of3me thr while they were trying to persue supervisor to vote for the ordi, that would not be caught up for disclosure that are only looked. Its not a proceeding for a lic, permit or entitlement for use. It falls outside that category. Thats why we included the secop of actively opposing a governmet decision. I wont go into that in depth ba defined term taken from state l, actively support or oppose, that includes lobbying contacts, tesg in person, or otherwise trying o influence that persons decisio. Generally you think of this dise as only being required when then making the payment has some kinf nexus, theyre an interested pa, visavis that official. They have a proceeding pending e another official or otherwise to influence the decision that offs making. The list of disloashes that an l must the list of disclosuresn official must make is listed he. The first four come directly fre law. That is required under the state behested payment reporting systh is done on a form 803. Thats briefly the name and addf the donor, amount and date of te payment, name and address of the recipient and a brief descriptif goods and Services Provided andf description of the purpose of te payment. Thats the information on form. The final two bullet points are disclosures that additionally te official would have to make ands whether the official or related, which i can talk about in a seca affiliate. The recipient sod if an officias brother, wife or son is a c. E. Oe place that the money is going t. Is he directing the money to a relatives organization, that ds to be disclosed. Lastly, whether the recipient hs featured or will feature the ofn communications. This is paraphrasing the statuty language. This looks for the fact patternn official directing payments to N Organization and the organizatin spending money to dislibt liter distribute literature that feate official in a positive light. That is something that should be disclosed. Moving on to the second box, obs that would be playstationed on r by this system. Similar to officials, the donort notify the recipient, this is iy case of a behested payment ne recipient it is a behested paym. This is a headsup to the recips is not just an ordinary check, s made at the behest of an offici. Youll see in the third box, the requirements placed on organizas that receive over 100,000 in bd payments and may not always be o obvious to recipients whether oa given payment is a behested pay. There is a requirement here that descroarns to tell them so theyw whether or not theyre reachinge hundred thousand dollars thresh. If the donor is an interested ps we discussed previously, that wl trigger a disclosure requiremen. This is only one disclosure reqt and that is to say what the mats pending before the official aree outcome theyre speaking and ous they made with official in furte of the matter. The matter could be a proceeding or a decision the person is tryo influence. Lastly, the requirements on majr recipients, note that there aret requirements on all recipients e payments. That is something we had in the. After listening to comment from interested parties, we decide is better to put those particular Disclosure Requirements on offi. Those are the last two bullet ps under the officials disclosure. We dont have any disclosure rer quiermts that apply to all resi. The requirement requirementsl recipients. Only if they receive a hundred d dollars in one calendar year. In looking at 803 filings made e years, it appears only five organizations would qualify. This is not something that wouln a lot. We think that uniqueness justife more indepth disclosure. There are three things that majr behested recipients need to dis. Just to notify the ethics commia theyve crossed the threshold. This wol allow the commission tn would need to file so we can fop and make sure they make their f. The two disclosures they have to which comes a year later after e crossed the threshold is to dise penses paid for with behested f. This is important because typicn recipients receive this much ind payments, its for a particular. Its explicit in form 803s. This is to see if the funds geny went to that cause. Lastly, major recipients would e any matters pending before the. The outcome sought and outcomese with the official in relation te matters. A similar disclosurer to what ds make. Again, wanting ha donors wou. Are the organizations trying to influence decisions being made y officials . Thats a general overview of whe behested Payment System staff cd would do. And kind of a little bit about r process of how we worked with id persons in working towards makig something that was targeted andy out the intent that the commissn directed us to try to achieve. Okay, so again, anchoring ous as to where we are here. Were at the end of a long proc, really, that started out a coupf years ago with commissioner rens chair. Directing that this anticorruptn ordinance be drafted and resurrg propg. We went through a lot of work ae up with a proposed ordinance a w months back. And we which is in here. We debated that as a commissione voted on it and it was voted 3o approve it. We needed 4 votes because of the procedural aspects of what werg here in order to push this forwo the board of supervisors. We then requested commissioner d commissioners lee who were the dissenting votes to work with so see whether or not they could mn what their thoughts and concerno that we could come together witl ordinance that had four votes. Commissioners chiu and lee workd with the staff. We met again and we debated thie and all of the things that are d in it. We talked about this. Orally the staff captured it any opinion, they captured it very. We voted and got four votes to t this on to the boar board of bo. We passed it. The question in terms what havee looking at, what it was that we, does any commissioner disagree e substance of whatever what in there as to what it was that wet our last meeting . Okay. This is what we did and this ise voted on. Once again, i want to commend commissioner chiu to the hard wt she did in the final crafting o. So with that then, commissionerl open it up to any discussion, ts that you may have. First would i like to thank d also members of the public to wk the time, not just in the interd persons meeting about disclosurt through the long process to hann there with us to work on this ts your concerns and views. And propose alternatives that would work for organizations and for support fr concerns. I think that the process has ben educational. But i also feel like its taken, but i think that the time has bn wellspent in terms of drafting something, an ordinance that i s tailored to achieve the goals te set out, which is to make the gt more transparent and accountablh these provisions. Chair keane commissioner le. Commissioner kopp wanted to. Go ahead. Because i object to most of the. Um, first of all, i wanted tk the vice chair for her leadershn working with the staff and puttg together this really good docum. As the chair said, it does capte spirit of all the discussions te had. I have a couple more minor thint is not going to stop this from g forward. I continue to have concern overe definition of payment. Because under the formal defini, payment, that including cash ass goods and services . Under this definition, if the [inaudible] after the warriors e invited to speak on public civia public gathering, that is over a thousand dollars in public serv. That would trigger that someoneo make a report of a behested payn some way. Given the current environment ia lot of nonprofits are bracing r budget cuts to their nonprofit y service programs. This may trigger, you know, potl donters to say, hey, is this nh our while to get into this . Thats my on going concern. The second concern is the discle requirement on the part of the t recipient as stated here, they d need to report file a reportw they spent the donated money. As a nonprofit organization, the already facing a lot of adminise burdens. I am concerned this is one extrn that they may need to deal with. Again, these are just for me, cs that might be brought up at thet threafl this is a good product t captures what the commission ist dod. I want to thank the vice chair f for putting this together. I just wanted to clarify one, commissioner lee, with regard te donor. The donor is an interested partt would trigger that would trie reporting requirement. So if, for example, the warierst have warriors did not have ar before the city and someone wasd to come and speak to a the orga, they would not have a reporting requirement. But theyre having an issue e city for the next, what, three . Only if they had something be official that m made the requesd the disclosure be triggered. It would be a disclosure and thd still be able to do it. They would have to say this is i did and the value of it. Commissioner kopp. Thank you. Ive already given expression ty views on this version which wasd a month ago and which is now tht of demands for more weakening of provisions. The president of the friends ofs characterized, it is resulting a system that exists now that givs nonprofits privileged access. Thats a term to remember. The wellused fraid is half a s better wellused phrase is a loaf is better than nothing. Thats a cliche. Sometimes its accurate, other t isnt. If this is the version presenteo voters come june of 2018, and is approved by voters, the subjectr wont be revisited for at leaste years and maybe a decade. The first point which is made, a understand the procedure, mr. C, there can be further amendmentst was approvedded in october. Or not . Chair keane no, there can be editorial changes that would ree intent of what it was that we p. People voted and passed it. Because you have demands, att ive read a couple of them to me further changes. Further weakening. Id want to be sure that that it part what have is contemplated procedure. Chair keane weve said thats reflects what we passed last ti. Okay. So the private right of action n beaten to death. There is nothing extraordinary. Nothing our packet contained i dont knw many 15 different ordinancese city and county of san francisca private right of action. As a practical matter, there aro aspects. One, i dont fend o depend on oc Attorneys Office maybe the pubc dependerdefenders office to imps execute the peoples representas legislation. Whether its the board of super, this commission or some other. Now, to inspire a private citizo bring a private right of actiono called, you have to make it wore more than being able to look whd for my city and county as a matf civic responsibility. And thats the provision for pe. For an individual recovery of 5. There is nothing extraordinary t that. Secondly, i have doubts about te commission. The mayor regularly has meetingr its monthly or weekly dependine mayor of all the departments, b, commissions, theyre part of the family closed quote. City family. That prohibition should have bee original version before it was d to apply only to the appointing authority. Thirdly, motion of last month od instead of local disclosure rult what exceeds any state requiremd limited it to the payments of 5r more, and only at the behest ofd officials. Lets think about the disclosur. Disclosure is no enforcing mech. Who is going to know this . Except the relatively few peoplf what . A850,000 residents . And probably 420, 430 registeres except those in this room and me more people who are watching on television . Then what happens if there is disclosure . There is no city hall coverage . Yes, i will pull history, when a supervisor, that press room was. Every desk, occupied. Nobody will know about this exca very few number of the 850,000 , approximately, who live in San Francisco. Let me just conclude by saying m disappointed. I voted no last month because i perceived that my fellow commiss wanted something to show for tid effort including all the time at of the staff. Realizing that there are four vt are going to pass it. Then, i com i come in tonight at all the givea ways still donty those San Francisco saints who e any application of prohibitionso nonprofit corporations which the no difficulty applying to forp. The executive director gave me f the people on one of these oi know, it was the spur foundatio. You have to see that list i mean you have public city pubc officials on that list. Ive asked for the planning comn has a nonprofit also called thes of planning. I had the name wrong last month. I want to see that list so we ce just what San Francisco office s are a part of that. Im sorry, mr. Chairman, and mae chairwoman and fellow commissiot this is a gravely weak result fl the time and effort and attentis gone into this since its gone x months. Thank you. Pleelz stand by. Please stand by. As well as equitable recovery, which requires a consent in california via the attorney general and federally the United States attorney general, and there are lawyers in the bay area who practice successfully in that field. Its not common, but i refer you, for example to Neil Mccarthy in burlingame and San Mateo County who specializes. The the question i have, and i dont know if staff, you have the answer to this. There was a list of other ordinances that provided a private right of action. Do those private rights of action also include Civil Penalties of the recovery, whether 100 or 50 . So i confeguess in the list provided, the vast majority of these are all instances where theyre sort of injury in fact to the individual, not necessarily stepping in the place of the government as in as commissioner kopp has said in a key thank you very mu much tam action. Now there is one of the case where nonprofits can step in the hsus of the harmed individual and again, i apologize. I dont recall which one that is offhand, so that is a difference its a point of clarifying. And then, if i may, commissioner kopp, i think with respect to the disclosure and the reporting, i would have to respectfully disagree that no one would ever see this information. I think it would be that i hope that this not just hope, but i would ask that the that once we have the reporting requirements in place, that that we receive reports on on the payments and whos making them, and how much and with the clarity that we will have in this reporting structure, we will know that at t and other companies, how much theyre paying and to whom and what other matters they had pending at the time those payments were made so that we can clearly see the influence, or not, of of money in our city city decisions. President keane thank you, commissioner chiu. Hang on just a minute. Any further comments by members of the commission . Okay. Well, before we go hang on. Just a minute. I just wanted to make a quick comment. President keane could we hear, before you publicize it because weve had some problems oh, its not substantive. Its just sort of procedural. President keane okay. Good. Go ahead. Just to clarify, you know, for this, you know, measure to move forward, you know, as you know, it would require four out of five votes. President keane we have weve already done that. Well, my understanding is it would have to be on this specific, you know, ordinance. President keane thats what it is. We did that last time. We said the staff indicated they had captured all of it in this language last time. We talked about it, we all agreed that we didnt capture it. Now, since we were doing it orally the last time, now, we have before us the printed out aspect of it. Correct. President keane we have voted for it. It is done. I dont agree. I think that president keane your disagreement is noted. Thank you we have a 2. 5 year project. Weve come to i would also refer to supervisor kopps complaints in the past in regard to the city attorneys public coming out with an opinion relating to what were doing before you discuss it with us as the client so that we do have to eat it later on as commissioner kopp and i had to before the that task force that went off and cited you and your office in order to beat us over the head as a violation of the brown act, so weve noted your disagreement. Thank you very much. Hang on. I dont my intention was not to hit you over the head with anything, it was simply to identify that i understand the last meeting, there was some discussion about the president keane were you present at the last meeting . I watched it. President keane you werent present at the last meeting. I was not physically present, but i watched it. Okay. I just dont want you to screw up what were doing. Im not trying to do that. Im just trying to clarify. President keane thats happened in the past and it was not appreciated by commissioner kopp and myself, so one of the things i would suggest to you, and you agree with your client, wed like to hear it before you transmit it to the world and then we have to live with it later on, eve though what you might be saying is totally wrong, which was done about the brown act measure the last time, and we had to live with that. So if you have something that you feel you have to say, then we what we can do is we can go into executive session and hear it from you. Would you like us to do that . Well, i dont its up to you what you want to do. President keane well, your client and we you you give other client confidential information. Supervisor kopp, you give the one of the members of the Planning Commission confidential information that you couldnt disclose to us. Perhaps we could have the benefit as a client of also getting confidential information. Whenever you would like confidential advice from me, im happy to give it to you in closed session. My understanding just coming in today was that there was an understanding amongst the commission that what needed to happen today for this to move forward to the board. President keane is there a motion to go into closed session, supervisor kopp . Yes. President keane i just dont want us to get impaled again by some goofy opinion when it is made public before we have a chance to think about it ourselves and to respond to our lawyer before he tells the world what it is were doing. Because he may want our opinion as to whether or not what his opinion is is correct. We have five lawyers up here, as well. Move may i make an observation or comment . President keane sure, go ahead. As a nonlawyer but as your executive director who was in the room at the last months meeting. I think i speak for the staff, what our understanding was and correct me if i am wrong that we went back, solicited comment, worked with commissioner chiu, commissioner lee, interested persons meeting, and we worked with this language for tonight so that you could see language that was developed pursuant to the policy consensus that you had last month. This is language that the commission has a body has not seen, that the public has not seen, so it was our impression that this language would come back for the commission to take action to codify it in its entirety so it could be forwarded onto the board of supervisors. I just wanted to make that clear for the record because that was what happened at the last meeting, so point of information from your staff as you consider your process moving forward. And that was all i was attempting to convey. I think director pelham conveyed it more concisely and eloquently, but that was my only point. Commissioner. President keane yes. Certainly it was my understanding that tonight, we were going to vote on the final product because we didnt have a final product. We did have directions to the staff what we we wanted them to do, but we didnt have the language, and clearly, i i thought we would come here there would be a motion, and i would make the motion that we adopt this proposed ordinance, forward it to the board of supervisors as worded, and then cause i dont i think one somebody attacking could say we never voted on the exact language. President keane i think we did, but is there a second to mr. Rennes motion . Ill second. President keane okay. Motions been made and seconded. Any do we have discussion on the motion . Okay. Before we well take Public Comment and on the motion. [ inaudible ] president keane the motion to, once again, adopt this entire thing. Charles marstellar for the record again, i think, speaking on behalf of f. O. E. One just slight twist would be on this chart, you could also indicate that the parties could carbon or copy, give a courtesy copy to one another, that they have met their obligations as they move forward to do so, so when they send their report, it seems logical to me and im sure as f. O. E. That the donor i mean, the official, for instance, would want to make sure that the donor met his requirements under the law so this doesnt blow up on them in the press because of some oversight or noncompliance by the donor on the report. So if the donor im sorry. If the official gets a courtesy copy of the notification to the commission by the donor of his actions, then, i think that would assuage concerns about the effect to the official that he might be blindsided, that type of dynamic mr. President , point of order. What are we taking Public Comment on, the motion, which is to go into private session . President keane no, no, no. Were taking on. President keane were taking onto once again adopt this ordinance, which we adopted the last time. Thats where there was a motion made that we adopt it again. No, thats not my motion. President keane no, no, no, that was commissioner rennes motion. Oh, all right. And it was seconded by commissioner lee. Thats where we are now. Mr. Marsden, had you finished . [ inaudible ] president keane all right. Good eng other, commissioners. Debbie lehner from the San FranciscoHuman Services network. At risk of displeasing you, i am going to make the suggestion that this would, under San Francisco law, still be open to amendment tonight. We have submitted some comments today expressing some remaining concerns. I am not going to go through that whole memo but i want to highlight two of them tonight because i actually think they are dangerous issues with the legislation. The first one i want to point out is the nexus that defines Interested Party. Under this draft ordinance, it defines Interested Party essentially as anybody that actively supports or opposes a matter before a public official, including Public Comment, as im doing right now. It would its written so broadly that it would include someone who writes a letter to their legislator or signs a petition thats going to a commission or a board. It would include not just someone with a clear stake a financial stake, something tangible, but even someone who is merely expressing an opinion. If someone were to go to the Police Commission and oppose the adoption of tazers or someone went to the board supporting resolution in favor of maintaining our status as a sanctuary jurisdiction, that would be somebody opposing, and they would get caught up in this legislation. And frankly, i dont know how you would track that. Were allowed to, under San Francisco law, to testify anonymously, so unless theres a sign up sheet with all your information on the way out the door, i dont know know how you would begin to enforce that. I think its very dangerous. I dont think that that targets the stated purpose, which is quid pro quo, so i need to mention that. I also need to mention an issue that i had some extensive discussion with kyle about regarding the disclosure potentially publicly of bidding information, about submissions of proposals even before the bidding process has closed, which would open up the door to collusion, bid rigging, and other types of corruption. I think its extremely dangerous. Even the federal government has very strict regulations about disclosing who, what, how much; any kind of information like that, before the bidding issue is closed. The San Francisco sunshine ordinance will not let you discuss any issue until a contractor is chosen. So i hope you will consider those things. I am putting them on the record for the board of supervisors. I do want to thank the ethics commissions for working over our concerns. We are very thankful for that. We hope this will remain in the legislative realm when it goes to the board. Thank you. President keane thank you. Good evening. My name is lauren kahn much im from health right 360. We provide mental health, Substance Abuse treatment to over 10,000 San Francisco residents, most of them who are unsheltered or very low income. There was a conversation earlier today on the issue of changing the time of this meeting and a bit of the discussion was centered around peoples ability to get home at the end of the evening. I just want to remind everybody here that 7,000 people are sleeping on the streets tonight completely unsheltered and unsafe. Many of us here are from nonprofit organizations that are just trying to shelter and clothe and care for those people. These rules are setting us up to have to lose donors who want to give 1,000 or more money to us because theyre afraid of breaking ethics rules, of breaking disclosure rules, and theyre going to have to choose between Civic Engagement or possibly getting a new permit on their home to make some changes and giving money to aN Organization like ours, and were just trying to care for San Franciscos most vulnerable people, so please consider when you putting large requirements on smaller dollar doeition in as, we have to spend a lot of time educating the people who are going to potentially give us money, making sure that everybodys doing the appropriate reporting. Not just us, but also the actual dope ors, and itnors, a people away that would otherwise be doing outreach on the street or providing for other peoples hepatitis c. So please consider all the requests of my colleagues here today and please consider that when you are asking for transparency at a granular level in other ways, you are hurting the San Francisco residents who are homeless tonight. Thank you. President keane thank you. Hello. My name is david maass. I work at the electronic sunshine frontier organization. Im speaking on my own today, and i want to say thank you for the staff. I am very concerned about this ordinance in that its going to put people like me who work for a nonprofit and of the on a commission in a voluntary position where both services are incompatible, you know, our organization specifically defends peoples privacy and anonymity, and there is no way for me to sign an agreement to put out their name of donors, various pieces of detail about this them. I feel like this is going to caught problems for a lot of volunteers serving on nonprofit boarded. Lets say you had a person who worked as a cashier at safeway, who sat on an Advisory Committee or some kind of board for the city. Every single time they say, do you want to donate 10 cents to whatever charity, theyre going to have to inform them of section 3. 620, because section e on notification doesnt have an amount listed on it. It says any time you solicit money from anyone, you have to go over this disclosure section in case they eventually go up to 1,000. If im fund raising in new york city for any organization, im still going to have to do this sort of thing because this is what the rule says you have to notify people regardless of whether they even live in San Francisco. Somebody earlier had mentioned that people are allowed to comment in committees anonymously, and thats a very important thing, and thats not something that a commissioner, you know, should have the ability to override, that right to anonymity and privacy in the engagement of civil affairs. I think you should hold onto this for some more time and think about the interests that youre trying to provide here while also thinking of volunteer workers who are volunteering in a private capacity fore the city. Thank you. President keane yes, commissioner chiu . Commissioner chiu pat, could you please clarify, if you would, the fact pattern or the scenario that mr. Im sorry, mr. Maass just gave about, for example, soliciting for contribution at safeway, you know, for example, and under what circumstances would that notification as a Commission Member or a board member trigger a notice and a filing requirement. Right. Generally, it is for anything that would constitute a behest of payment, and thats because the recipient needs to know that a payment is a payment, otherwise that recipient will probably not be aware of the fact that theyre receiving behested funds, and then, they probably wont be aware that they need to file under the recipient requirements. Commissioner chiu but the filing requirement at the part of the recipient comes at the 100,000 level. Thats correct. Youve had your comment. Its not a debate. [ inaudible ] youve had your Public Comment, sir. Thank you, all of you, who have worked so hard in the staff, you have so much invested, and your own personal feelings and values invested in the thats been done. Im nancy neilson. I work with Lutheran Social Services here in San Francisco. As one of the previous speakers indicated, most of us are small nonprofits relative to some of the larger ones youve been careful and worried about in terms of political corruption. Most of us struggle every day to pay our staff and keep those who are unhoused off the street. Your desire to make mass changes and significant changes about very what you see as very big problems, when you use a sledgehammer instead of a tiny point, you can do more damage in the effect you have on the smaller nonprofits who are already monitored or already account for every penny we spend in our monitoring and our contracts and everything that you do. When you begin adding more layers of accountablity for very small things because youre trying to get at a very big target, you do more harm than good, so id ask you to keep that in mind. We appreciate the time and effort thats gone into all of this, the changes that were listened to and thoughtfully put into the document you have before you. We have debbie my colleague, debbie, indicated we still have concerns about a number of the items, but we would hope, at this point, you would be ready to move this onto the board and let them take care of the finetuning. Thank you. President keane thank you. My name is january masoca. Im the director of the California Association of nonprofits, kind of a chamber of Commerce Association statewide. We have more than 10,000 nonprofits nationwide, and our office is here in San Francisco. So im a San Francisco resident, i work in San Francisco, im a volunteer for San Francisco nonprofits, and im also a donor for San Francisco nonprofits, and i commend the commissioners and the Human Services network for working so hard on changing this legislation, but i have to say that i am shocked at what is a deeply flawed maybe unfixable piece of legislation with very deeply troubling aspects to it. Yes, behested corruptions are a part of behavior [ inaudible ] behesteh contributions are sometimes a simple measure of goodwill. I recently gave money to the Eugene Mccarthy center for Public Service because a neglected official asked me to do so as part of his facebook birthday wish list. I have no financial interest and i dont want to be suspect for having done so. We know that over reaching laws has unintended very dangerous and often permanent consequences. For example, overreaching in the fight against terrorism has resulted in discrimination against arab people, partially legally and partially because such laws have had the unintended consequences of setting the tone that all arab people are dangerous. We know that overreaching tenants has made landlords reluctantant to rent to anybody whos four years or older because of a fear of being able to remove that person for legitimate reasons at a later point. This bill is fundamentally a deep overreach. It is an over reach that would create an unenforceable bureaucracy in San Francisco, which is just what we dont need, some more bureaucracy. Its expensive to nonprofits who dont have the funds to comply with it. It makes it dangerous to volunteer as a board member because it makes me suspect as a person when i ask other people to support aN Organization or a cause that i believe in. And it makes making a donation to a nonprofit a suspicious activity instead of an admirable activity. For those reasons, i understand many of you have said, weve worked so hard on this. Weve worked on it for a long period of time, but if youre traveling on a rugged path in the wrong direction, no matter how hard you struggle in the wrong direction, you still have to turn back. Good evening, commissioners. Peter cullen with the kouk on Community Housing organizations. Just want to take a couple minutes to thank you, staff and commissioners for the several months of process and from where we were in the summertime and evening in the late spring to where, how this has evolved now. Its in a direction thats much more comfortable for us. All those concerns youve heard about, i dont disagree with, but fundamentally, this is a different piece of legislation this issue than it was before, so we move you to move to a disclosure regime instead of restrictions and bans, which seem arbitrary to us. We gave you feedback over the last month and a half about that disclosure and where youre going to get the most bang for your buck, and i feel that most of those comments were listened to. I feel that this legislation has evolved in the right direction. The details do matter, and i just want to reinforce what youve heard from several speak speakers. As this moves out of this chamber tonight, which i believe it will, wed like the board to get into the details, get into the weeds. The weeds matter very very much at an operational level. Were at, all of us, in uncharted waters, and so the nonprofit in particular is going to be the guinea pig for this, and we would ask you have the patiences for the board of supervisors to go through their hearings, to hear about this details from the structure that you have here, and finetune in ways that make this workable, and if thats the spirit of what the commission is doing tonight, thats the direction and the process that we want to continue to support. This is not the end, this is a good milestone. One specific substantive comment you heard that i want to reinforce is the definition of Interested Party. That seems to change quite significantly, the net, if you will, thats cast. Our understanding was what staff was trying to do here is build upon what weve now referred to as the peskin legislation, which was adopted previously, goes into law in january , which establishes Disclosure Requirements on certain types of electeds or in this case Commission Members who makes behests or requests. That is the nexus or the trigger for which that reporting would be required, and again, for reasons that escape me, theres been a number two, little number two added to that definition that expands it to a person who actively supports or opposes a governmental decision. Irrespective of a quote, matter or financial interest, thats the span of the universe that troubles us. Theres no rationale for that, and it dramatically changes the nature of folks that are potential donors with City Government and is a bit troubling, so wed like to see that removed or changed at the board as we get to that step. Thank you. President keane thank you. Excuse me, mr. Chairman. I may have a questifew questio this gentlemen. Are you familiar with this committee that donated yes i am. Okay. I am familiar with this document. On page 2, the back page, youve raised three additional issues, you called them. You say you raised them previously. First one, nonprofit boards of directors. Are members of your board of directors paid . No. Ive served on probably ten nonprof nonprofit boards of directors without payment. What board of directors nonprofit is paid. As far as i know, theyre not. All right. But that is the point, commissioner, is that the all right. Thank you. These restrictions apply whether its a compensated or uncompensated board member id like to find one of those nonprofit boards. That is an issue that weve raised before. It is a friendly suggestion. Just want to make