Transcripts For SFGTV LIVE Special Ethics Commission 20160301

[gavel] good afternoon ladies and gentlemen and welcome to the february 29, 2016 meeting of the Ethics Commission, which is substituted, or continued our regular meeting which is on february 22 our regular meeting which is on february 22, 2016 get our first call of the role commissioner andrews, here. Cohen here hur, here. Keane, here. Renne, here. All commissioners are accounted for. Turning to item to Public Comment on matters appearing and not appearing on the agenda. Do i have any members of the public who wish to comment at this time . Yes, good evening commissioners and director pablum. Dr. Derek kirk. January meeting for a view expressed resistance to the mayors directive to cut your budget by 3 over two years. It is troubling that your funding depends on the good graces of the same city hall folks that youre supposed to monitor. That inhibits your independence. If you like to sharply into city corruption your funds can be choked off because your budget is your leash. There is enough control just by having your appointments made by elected city officials. Compare your funding to that of the controllers City Services auditor program. It also was placed on the ballot and approved by the board and the voters, but its funding is a guarantee 0. 2 of the total city budget. That makes it fiscally independent from city hall. Since you are the cities ethics auditor, why is in your budget sat like this City Services auditors . So, consider a Charter Amendment to liberate the Ethics Commission. Ask for an automatic fraction of the citys total budget instead of having to grovel for a city hall allowance every year. Thank you very much thank you. Any other Public Comment at this point . Hearing none, we will turn to the third item which is a presentation and discussion of university of San Francisco masters of Public Affairs candidate recommendations to improve the transparency of the San Francisco Ethics Commission. This is a class taught by alexno, okay. Anyway, all the students are here and theyre going to make their presentation. I looked at the slides you initially filed and im impressed with the work and looking forward to your presentation. Thank you very much. You may proceed. Good evening, commissioners. My name is sebastian con and im a graduate student at the university of San Francisco can today im joined by my colleagues [calling names]. Today my colleagues and i are representing the university of San Francisco masters of Public Affairs roger program and our class analyze the Ethics Commission website and the enforcement ethics in San Francisco. Today we like to offer some suggestions will improve the website as itll consider the following achievable recommendations. We would like to indulge the website section titled lobbyist activities is already identified discrepancies that exist within the names reported section get in San Francisco lobbyist are required to report under the lobbyist ordinance earnings are frequently [inaudible]. Im not mentioning any negative light in a being [inaudible]. By using examples real to grocery problems that allow us these do exist and it is no fault of those of the commission. So, under the mapping reported main section of the website is a list of typographical errors that been corrected by the commission and the section titled, reported, as we see egan is spelled incorrectly however it has been noted these three names should be reported as edmund egan. It would like to share with you a video we put together. So, lets say we want to search for uber under client name. If you go to the reporting website. If you typing Uber Technologies incorporated this is only result three results. Honestly huge companies. Doing a lot of work the problem is if we go back and type in Uber Technology without incorporated search yields over 20 results. The same organization but depending on how you enter the name was he many different results. When searching under one spelling not getting all the data even though its been reported by the lobbyist that a working on these different issues. The problem weve identified our First Addition i like to introduce my colleague as shall be going over the next section. Good evening. My name is bridget mahoney. On the begin upon reception of a presentation by introducing the first of our three immediate suggested erections to the website. So, from the video in the mapping reported main section we found that in addition to that we come many other instances of multiple records that all lead to the same individual or firm. Due to this problem, we suggest a designated Identification Number should be implemented that connects all entities to all the reported information. Anyone that has report to the Ethics Commission such of the parties listed on the screen would receive their own output america vin. Id like to note this dia and was a backend internal use only. Design vin would create less inconsistencies on performing a search. Are you suggesting the gain would be assigned at the time the lobbyist registers . Just internally to the Commission Staff . Yes. I implement canadian system it would illuminate the mapping reported name section. No matter how reported it but didnt function would the data was being uploaded and all be housed under that aside vin. It also illuminate multiple entry. I like to stress this vin function will emanate either ours and time searching through the website which is beneficial to the public. Here are the results that you would get if you search for the law firm holland and knight llp. The correct spelling of the firm is shown in the first result. You can see there are several different listings offer the same firm and however we do not know if there are any other reports on the website that do not appear in our search due to spelling. For example, and could be spelled out instead of using the symbol. So although we have multiple results may not be recessed receiving all the available information for holland and knight cared this is a big problem because the data should not be this hard to find and comb through. Here is how the vin would capture reported data using the same example of holland and knight. This is with the backing page would look like. Colin and i would receive the di and 2314. Every single report that holland and knight supports summits to the commission would be captured. Another of the public were to conduct a search of holland and knight however they spelled it all the results would appear under one search and one spelling which will be further expand in a later suggestion. To further expand have it vin system is beneficial, with a him a concern member of the public and i want to see what the lobbying firm Barbary Coast consulting is up to. Unfortunately, the current website is no simple or directly to do this. In order to see everything that lobbying firm is doing i have to know every registered lobbyist within that firm and search through each of their individual reports and flip through pages and pages of data. This is extremely inefficient and since the data is all reported they should be able to type in Barbary Coast consulting and easily get the results through one search. This is our di and would work with the lobbying firm. As you can see, Barbary Coast consulting would repeat the di and 2705 from our personal system and all registered lobbyist within a firm would receive a di and connected to the firm they are part of. For example, alex comments would be 2705a jamie rossi 2705b and so on. All lobbyist would be categorized within the same manner. Youll still be able to search for individual lobbyist reports that this will allow you to get all the results for the entire firm quickly and efficiently. I would now like to introduce Trevor Martin will be giving the next part of the presentation. Thank you, bridget. Good evening. My name is Trevor Martin. I will begin with our second recommendation, which wouldsorry. [pause]. Our second recognition has to do with increasing the efficiency of search options. We suggest this can be done in two ways. First, by introducing predictive test within search boxes. Secondly by including sorting functionalities for all the categories. This is the current search page for individual lobbyist on the ethics webpage. This can be daunting for those who are unfamiliar with the site or have minimal information to begin their search. Even category titles are confusing and inconsistent as well as what used to be client is now referred to as payee and Public Officials are now referred to as beneficiaries. When users enter into complete or wrong data they may end up with incomplete or wrong search results. Thats why we suggest that the search box look like this. With predictive text. With inclusion of vin predictive test would make the search process easier and easier to find all the available information about all be entities on the website. The benefits of the sorting punching can be shown by looking at the lobbyist subject area page. Which my colleagues and i think is a great way to find which policies are being influenced by which entities. However, trying to find the information on the webpage can consume a mass amount of time. For example, if you look through transportation we see that all these entities are in some way involved in transportation policy. However, the only way to filter through this information is by date as you see on the left. Lets say you want to see a specific legislation, particular official is being lobbied on. You have to sit through all this information by date and pull out those instances. Or, say we would look to see what policy the French Chamber of commerce is lobbying on. Oregon, with a particular lobbyist is lobbying on. Got to go through the entire list searching for that entitys involvement it would assert sorting function which we shown the results category, we can use the list for Albert Porter and a bunch of these entities together will enable users to extract large amounts of data with relative ease. Finally, arthur recommendation which would be implement it with existing data if you so choose, integrate hyperlinks for all quantifiable or categorical information. Each category listed on a nancys profile, which would include all entities clients lobbyist firms or Public Officials should be hyperlinked to make that easier locate and view. We use the profile of the Barbary Coast consulting as an example to all this reported information should be hyperlinked. Reported contacts payments promised, activities, political contributions. As it stands users have to perform multiple searches and sift through multiple reports to find desired data. For example, we see that they have 40 reported Barbary Coast has 40 reported contacts here. But we dont know who made these contacts were who those contacts are to or how many individual contacts were made. Without going to each lobbyist within this firm and combing through their quarterly reports. Here, again, we see that there are nearly 20,000 in payments promised but to who . How much are those individual payments with it and who made these bonuses of payment . To find out again would have to go into multiple quarterly reports could with the introduction of hyperlinks all quantifiable or categorical information would be compiled, organize, and available to you with speed and ease. I like to now introduce kim from her plumber. Hello, chairperson and commission give money this karen and all for three additional recommendations that we feel will further increase transparency within the website. However, these regulations will require minimal data to be reported and gathered by all entities. The next three recognitions will greatly enhance the publics right to know and will further show the city of San Francisco is a leader and ethical reporting. We recommend lobbyist who make donations exceeding 500 to nonprofit organizations voluntarily report these donations quarterly. This will expose any potential conflict of interest situation between lobbyists and nonprofit organizations they donate to. Employment histories currently not of able on a profile. Plumbing history within the city and county of San Francisco should be disclosed on each individuals profile page. This way we can track whether or not Public Service have gone on to become lobbyists and vise versa. Again, this will expose any potential conflict of interest in situation at this will increase transparency in relationships. For example, without clemens the paycheck from ed lee that nexus should be definitely be disclosed. Lastly, we recommend voting records be available on public and government officials profiles. This will ultimately show if lobbyists are successful or not. Lobbyist contact artie reported by quarter. So the public can see what those coincide with these meetings the public will be a will to see who, if anyone, had input and sway in that vote. The public has a right to know if elected officials and to the influence of the lobbyist could. Good evening commission. My name is john Clinton Conrad and i will end with a brief recap of our recommendations and answer questions. As weve stated, are six set of recognitions will not require Additional Data and increase efficiency in standardized patient of the data now available. Those three recommendations are use of one internal pim search boxes with filter options and functions and hyperlinks to every category. Our second set of recommendations to require Additional Data and maintenance but increase transparency. Those recommendations are, disclosure of nonpublic contributions by lobbyists excluding 500, disclosure of employment history, and combining voting outcome data with lobbyist activities. The intention behind our project and our findings is a combined appreciation for the mission of the Ethics Commission as well as that of the university of San Francisco. We hope these recommendations aim to increase transference rnc efficiency in standardized asian of Information Available on the Ethics Commission website. On behalf of the 13 students of the advocacy lobbying and Governmental Relations class at the university of San Francisco we thank you for your time and are happy to answer any questions. Thank you. Thank you very much. Very informative presentation, and i think some excellent suggestions. The staff will have to deal with and implement, but i want to on behalf of the commission, i want to thank your class for the thought and work that you put into this and also the enthusiasm that you show for what, i think all of us feel is one of the most important things that is increasing transparency. An ability of the public to quickly get information and not have to sort through all sorts of records. Do any of the commissioners have any questions or comments . Beaded purse of all congratulations. Very impressive. Im wondering if youre planning to be lobbyist or government officials were Ethics Commission members. What i think is particularly important and impressive with your recommendations is that the simplification, the ease with which anyone could find this information is extremely important. I know for myself, im not a policy wonk. Im not a legislative wonk, and to try and find this kind of information, to me, is difficult and arcane. I think most members of the public would feel the same. So, to know that there could be these ease of access, removes the intimidation factor in wanting to find out this information. Now, of course, like to hear from the public and of course from our executive director in terms of how difficult or how easy it would be to implement this. I like to think it wont be a big problem, but i look forward to hearing those comments. But, thank you. I think it is terrific and as i said, before very impressive. I share the view; commission. Thank you for your efforts and no that theyre going to be useful to the public. San francisco. I know it took a lot of work, look closely at the could i did have a question. I dont know who is best suited to answer it. What if any involvement did you have with steve and nasty and with the staff as you prepared this presentation and look into our system . Conrad, use of the designated spokesperson . Apparently. Actually, we became familiar with the website just through our owni guess we did it on our own and i think alex clemens was craig at suggesting things that we might want to look into but other than the class in the fall, that was our first instance or lease mine, going through that Ethics Commission website and looking at ways that you could look through the data and figure out things. It was confusing and theres a lot of things to download but that was the extent of our involvement with the Ethics Commission to so, im not sure of the classes over were continuing . It was last fall. This was the first chance we all had to get together and present to the commission. Can i request that mr. Matthew or staff want to get in touch with you all to discuss your implementation with you be willing and available to continue to work with us on it . Absolutely. You are authorized to commit for all these people . Too late. Yes. On the handout. The email for our Program Director is on there but we would be happy to answer any further questions and provide any further recommendations. Peter thank you. Thank you. Any other commissioners . I just want to say congratulations to the class on a really topnotch presentation. A lot of the stuff can be wonky and hard to get to suggest your presentation skills and your delivery was top notch. Im always impressed when i can get a presentation and fully get something out of it and you walk through it stepbystep. I then much appreciate the examples. A lot of times when we get into this stuff we dont have clear examples you stay around long enough later in the meeting you will hear will sometimes need some examples in order for us to make sense in some of our ordinance and things that help us and guide us to do to good government. I appreciate the examples you used guerrilla situations and congratulations on good work. I wish you all really bright and exciting future. I just want to make it unanimous in regard to the comments of my colleagues could very impressive presentation. Quite a bit of food for thought for me. In regard to a number of things that i hadnt really considered, and look forward to analyzing and discussing further with our staff and taking up and incrementing many of the things that you put forth. You made a real contribution to us and to the city and to the people of San Francisco. I really thank you for it. Executive director . I certainly would just added my thanks. This is actually welltimed as we start to look at modernizing our website and making our tools the strongest possible for public disclosure. But is that my thanks on behalf of the staff and glad to know we can find you when we need you for further enlightenment and questions. I would second that. I would hope to release some of you would be willing to do some hobo no time with the staff and to a set assist the staff and incrementing a lot of the ideas you put forward. I will call for Public Comment on the presentation. Barry bush. Its exciting for us to see new people being heavily involved in these issues. They are critical. I feel somewhat like oliver whos been given a wonderful bowl of food and he turns around and says, more. I would like to suggest that when they look at things like employment that they include unpaid positions. Because people who are lobbyists are sometimes put on a task force so you have a lobbyist for cocacola on a task force on obesity. Theres a relationship there whether theres a payment or not. So, thats the more that i am asking for. Thank you. Thank you. We did good evening. Mike solomon here, legislative wonk, a policy wonk in my day job in Software Engineering and computers are hard. They really are. The ability to take adi and which would be awesome is really difficult to implement. Because you want to give five is the ability to enter their data on prompted we want to go and suggest what the right answer is to be sure they get it right and have you do the normalization of the data so the data sets one up. Its top Computer Science problem. It does not lend itself to easy solution. When the city took filing and outsource it to not file the really kind of what the commission do some control over how it software evolve. See that is independent contractor relationship so the tradeoff between competence and flexibility. Something you might want to revisit. Also, it might make sense to get some sort of independent technical advisory body to come to the commission on how to make these systems work because you dont have the expertise inhouse anymore. Its basically relying on the contractor to get the answers like it goes like this could be good for that and a lot of other folks that of the Technical Knowledge julie get the brass ring insane if you do lobbying work contributions then how does that play out in the boats and china together from soup to nuts is what this commissions mission what large should be. Its not an easy problem but its a cool problem to tackle. Thank you. Good afternoon commissioners. I would just like first of all to echo everything that all of you have said to the students. Kudos to all of you are a tremendous presentation. I noticed in the area of the presentation three additional recommendations. On page 21 they speak about employment history. I really have more of a question. Since San Francisco voters made it clear they demand transparency, which is why proposition c path with an overwhelming percentage. Nonprofits are the biggest opponents fighting against proposition c disclosure regulation especially those related to staff time report. Commissioner Brett Andrews entire work history is in the realm of nonprofit organizations and currently commissioner andrews as executive director of the nonprofit group, positive resource center. More to the point, he also serves on the Human Services Network Steering committee. Doesnt this present a conflict of interest issue . Might be in the best interest of ethical standards of the commissioner andrews recuse himself while this commission establishes regulations for proposition c . Id also like to remind all of you gaining the public trust is a very worthy goal for this commission. I would like to believe this agency staff with the new executive director will work in the best interest of voters who not only demand, but deserve, transparency. Thank you. Thank you. Im bob plant holder. The balance of my remarks will be on this side of the guys but i want the students here to note many in the room today are former Ethics Commissioners were veterans of one or more grand juries that did research on ethics on whistleblowers and so forth. So, commendations to you folks know what to call to mind after you get a job and in it for a year to think about applying for the civil grand jury because its an excruciating over the years to find anyone over 45 was a member. You have fresh eyes and fresh insights. Im impressed with the recommendations with the analysis and without detail. I want to call attention to pages 16, 17, and 18. It really gives good detail that anybody who is interested to find out what a lobbyist is doing or what agency that hires a lobbyist, what that agency wants, which is on page 8 on 18 is a tremendous breakdown of the different types of issues or projects that are lobbyists might work on. The chart on page 16 also is quite helpful in general categories. So, i hope in the future staff can get a better it budget and some it group to help with some of this. I want to go beyond this. You talk to the one recognition that needs followup about 500 donation by a lobbyist to a nonprofit. I think that is worth pursuing, whether in the context of c or subsequent. It could be that a board member or a executive staff member of a nonprofit serves on a commission that is power and authority of the claimant. Maybe mta board. Maybe Public Health. To know that certain agencies got money from a developer or from cocacola, or from google can help understand what is the background motivation because i didnt, and he talks and nonprofits are often not rich. So, they will be more responsive if then politicians baby to money. I want to support something that dr. Kurt said in that you have to go to the mayor to get your budget approved. The second significant comment at the bottom of your summary sheet promoting a common good that transcends the interest of particular individuals. Here again, not to try to do that because for writenow, you dont know what the mayor will decide you also dont know what any one of the five members of the supervisors budget and finance committee decide. Any number of people outside you that could force or hinder the performance, the effectiveness of this body by cutting your budget. So, i urge you to look at that for future ballot measure thank you. Good evening. I want to start out by disagreeing in part with mark solmans comments. I think the commission now has actually better control over its lobbyist disclosure information by going with that file by then the gis. Over time the gis to be less responsive and more costly and a delay in so the choice was made to contact with that file and i think thats worked well. I support the recommendations from the students. I would ask you in particular, to ask your executive director to come back next month with their reports come after talking to Stephen Stephen massey, about how much the three changes can be implement it or how soon on the website. Without legislature changes and to come back to you with amendments to the lobbyist ordinance to consider the other three recommendations that would require legislative changes. I think we should see this happen sooner rather than later because otherwise this could get buried or take months. Finally, if i had a question about what alex clemens were Barbary Coast are doing, i just called out annies very forthcoming about it. But everyone should have access to that information on the website and i think the additional search tools and other suggestions the students made are very well taken. Thank you very much. Any other Public Comment . Thank you. Im here without giving a name because we need protection in what i am saying. I am disappointed that this does not include people outside the official and employees of the city. There are a lot of people that know a lot about abuse in the homeless area and the people that manage. For example, one of the shelters were the two i am familiar with they are under contract with the city to manage the shelter. Theres about 400200 residents in the shelter. The information, the management of people that have a contract with the city has a board, and i have endeavored to find out i guess its information about people who are on the board of the nonprofit that is managing other contracts with the Human Services agency. I was unable to get the information when i came to the Ethics Commission. The attorney for the contract, the manager said the matter of jurisdiction came up and their attorney said, oh well, we will concede jurisdiction. I give you the information you. But they never did. That was kind of dismissed by the Ethics Commission is if they consented to what i asked but they never followed through. I think that the board nonprofit should also be required to have a publicly disclosed forms and to see whether they are competing or have any interest in the properties, very substantial properties, that the city owns. It doesnt follow the ethics rules as far as benefits to the people who are on the board. I would like to see the people on the board included in what is described as information that is required, and also that the people who are supposed to be beneficiaries of these big contracts that involve thousands of people are not subordinate to be promised to being homeless. I is Something Else that may be beyond the presentation here, but i like to be able to bring that up i will give you one more minute but youve exceeded the time that is allotted to each speaker during Public Comment. Icy. It was a comment on Something Else. This matter of dysfunction in the homeless area by looking up that topic among different reports. The grand jury. I got to one in 2002, homelessness in San Francisco, which i started researching and i found there was no response described in the penal code from the people who are responsible, and when i went to the board of supervisors, it was suppressed by a subcommittee without a brown act notice or even any kind of notice c and kept from going to the full board by a threemember subcommittee which is the public could not find out whats going on. They reputed who said they were there. Maybe in a clerical capacity. They decided it was not in the Public Interest for it to go to the full board. I would like to see things checked out like this and that we have a response to the homelessness in San Francisco grand jury reports of 212002. It has some very pertinent ideas for what we have missed for all the time from then until now. Thank you very much. Good evening, commission. Im executive director of the San Francisco Housing Action coalition. Were 16yearold 501 c 3 of greenbelt alliance. Environmental organization. Our purpose is policy and legislation. More specifically advocacy for housing in addressing the Housing Affordability crisis in San Francisco. Im concerned a lot of it about the requirements under proposition c thats what brought me here tonight. Ive never been a lobbyist could never registered as one. I know clients in any sense and our compensationwe are staffed of fouris invariants. We get not paid in any sense to do anything other than advocate for housing policy. The reporting requirements appear burdensome we have no account we have no banking. We have no payroll. Thats farmed out to our fiscal sponsor and taking on something new, a big new reporting requirement is not a trivial matter and i would become not just ours, but our fiscal sponsors burden. The 2500 a month threshold in a little nonprofit world, thats a very large chunk of change for us. Thats not an expenditure that made easily or frequently. That seems like its going way down into very very Small Organizations and sane, have you ever done anything to trigger 2500 a month and that causes us some concern. My purpose in coming is to say that we fully understand and support the need for transparency in our public process, and erosion of that confidence is bad for the city and enacting policies that we need specifically, in our area, for the Housing Affordability crisis, but we do think that there probably are there to be a lot of nonprofit organizations that are to fall into this same, while youre going way way down into small groups that are actually lobbyists in a sense and getting them into a commerce and reporting requirements. Its cumbersome, not in the sense that we object to transparency, but to a Small Organization without the resources to do it is taking on a considerable new function could so, i would urge you to look at the report. Theres a lot of folks talking to one of the meetings and expect their concern as well. I urge you to take them to our. Thank you for your time thank you. Get i would remind the public Public Comment at this point should be on the item to which was a presentation by the university of San Francisco. There will be more than ample opportunity to comment as we go through the proposition c regulation. If theres no other Public Comment, i will, again, want to thank the students and because this coversprof. Alex cummins for shepherding this project and galvanizing the students to take it on. So with that, thank you very much. We would turn now to item number four. A discussion and possible action on revised draft regulations for implementation of proposition c. Unless any commissioner would like to have us do it definitely, i would propose we take the regulation, one regulation, discussion of the commissioners. Have discussion from the public, and either reach a conclusion, yes, that is the regulation, or however we may amend it in the process, but then call for a vote as we each one separately so that i would ask the members of the public, when you are doing your comment, keep it specific to the draft regulation thats under consideration. Youll get plenty of opportunity as we go through it to deal with each one a you may have some objection to or may have some concern. I would like to say, i appreciate it. There has been a lot of written communication between the public and the Commission Staff on the draft regulation that were first circulated in the revised draft , which i believe the public has some two weeks ago. Close to that, or 10 days. We have got responses back. So, with that, i will ask executive director to turn to the proposed report and start with the first regulation and we will go down the list. I want to address the commission and the public as well about what concern has been raised around some potential of conflict of interest. As we discussed these regulations. I do want to say a few points. I had an opportunity to go back and look at my comments that i made in june ofjune 29, i believe, last year when we started to discuss proposition c. What i can say now is what i said then. My concerns are the same. My concerns were the same as i had an independent vote in the affirmative to place opposition c for better transfers the on the ballot. So, in principle i fully support proposition c. Im concerned about how it does impact nonprofits. I will remind the commission and the public, im an executive director of a nonprofit named positive resource center. We do provide direct service. We dont do advocacy. We dont do public policy. We dont do lobbying. We provide Employment Services and benefits counseling to people disabled by hiv and aids and Mental Health disabilities. Im a member of many member associations, Human Services network, hiv provider network, the Nonprofit Workforce coalition, National Working coalition, so i feel when im speaking about what is happening in the Nonprofit Community and how potentially they could be impacted them up is because of my 24 years of being an executive director. My last 13 here in San Francisco. But i want to be clear. The Human Services network, i can tell you that network is not what not be thrilled with the decision that i voted in the affirmative. Id be very clear with you, i do not circle back with them. Im sure i did circle back with them many of them may not have appreciated the vote i had in the affirmative to place it on the bucket if that same sense of independence and bringing to this discussion around the regulation. They have no bearing on the decisions that i make it i voted my conscience then and i seek to have informed inappropriate conversation about any amendments and revisions were going to have on the regulations. So, i want to bring that forward and in the form of a disclosure to the commission, and remind the public as well, all of those associations are recognized in my application could i did have my independent thought in june and i remain at that level of independence as we move forward with these discussions. Thank you, commissioners could this item is a rather lengthy winter we want to make sure we provided all the Public Comment we received as you said, we have our draft regulation. Just by way of a note of background following the commissions last meeting on january 25 we revised for circulation to the public a set of draft regulations to elicit further comment on. Based on that we received a number of comments on february 16. I guess i made it last week we had had a chance to review them, digest them, discuss them and debate them internally and so the draft in your package this evening we flex our best thinking about how to balance the need for reasonable regulations, strong disclosure, workability and enforceability of the regulation. There are clearly from the comments, still discussions to be had here in the room and so i hope youim sure youll do that very vigorously. Our intent was to provide some language, provide a starting point for the conversation and hopefully get this a little bit closer to the sense of the commission about where you see these implementation regulations playing out. So, with that, we have on attachment to, the actual draft regulation and about four pages. Made of this highlight the first of the items for you. Go ahead the first is a question regarding the section in the ordinance the fines activities that count towards the qualification of an spanish or lobbyist, and the level of those activities that trigger the requirement to register and file reports. We had some Public Comment and questions early on following our meeting in december and january about what counts, howling when those activities are to be counted. Under the first regulation, proposed regulationsexcuse me one moment2. 105 five a we try to address when the payment is considered made for purposes of qualifying for registration. So, this regulation proposes a person makes a payment at the time and expenses incurred for the activity to solicit requests or other urge others to communicate directly with the city official an attempt to influence legislative administrative action. Any discussion commissioners . Commissioner hur thank you, to staff and to the public for all their hard work on these regulations. When it comes to a payment is being made im concerned this still does not addressa concern i raised beforeabout how you would deal with a payment that was made prior to the decision that that activity was going to be used for purposes of communicating with the city officer or employee. For example, if one were to conduct a Research Report on january 1 without the intent to use it to influence the city officer, and then inon april 1 decide, actually, that report is pretty useful and i think it would be helpful when we advocate for the position, they could on april 1 record by payment made on january 1 at the time it was incurred. So, im not sure how this definition would deal with that situation. I think that is a fair question. One of the things we tried to clarify in the memo let me see the best way i can handle it. What im wondering if we need in some sort of language that says whichever comes earlier. On april 1 under your hypothetical, on april 1 to have an organization or person decides to use information that they had previously paid or incurred an expense for back in january i guess theres a couple things that have to happen. First, is there a communicationwhen is the communication. I assume that medication is on april 1. If they put on a mailer beside this study that supports their position. They pay for in january i think what we are listening on april 1 this mitigation the references that generally first report, they would have a 12 month look back. So, that would qualify it was over 2500 on april 1 two report because i generally first, if they had not communicatedim not sure about making this clear or more cumbersomei generally first of the had not yet communicated toward anyone to be anything there hasnt been that, that has met. Because the defense has already been incurred it has but theyre making a payment for these activities it assumes theres another activity beyond just make a payment for something that may be used. Im not sure thats helping. So, a couple points. I think commissioner hur your hypothetical is also getting at with the next regulation. I dont know who want to consider them both at the same time. He deals with this timing issue whether this would be january and what if you dontmaybe you want to do it separately or maybe dont. Going back to subsection a about the making of payments, i believe staff can correct me if i get this wrongi believe one of the reasons for doing a is that a entity that wishes to evade the lobbyist ordinance with intentionally delay the payment in order to avoid registering as potential lobbyist. I dont know how likely this is the could be a hypothetical situation in which someone also mail. I want to send out all these mailers, but i dont register as a lobbyist until months down the road and avoids making the actual payment until some later date which would bewhich would does delay disclosure to the public what that entities up to. The example provided, the 10,000 militants never used, i understand that, what is confusing is, if the time between when the mailer is ordered and paid for is different than the time but its going to be used by a substantial margin, its going to be difficult for the filer to understand when they report that. It sounds like what youre saying is, if the payment is actually needs to be reported at the time the activity takes place. That sounds like what youre now describing. Yes. I think the staff memo gets to this, but i think really theres two things you need to set aside to become an expenditure lobbyist. You need to make a payment and then that payment needs to be done for the purpose of urging the public to lobby city hall. So, in a situation where that urging that second element is not yet satisfied, and entity is not qualified as a lobbyist you. That second element is the present is when you need to register on the registration they may need to disclose their tomato payment in january but they would in fact be a lobbyist until a later date. I think the language, if thats the intent is confusing. So, is it a 12 month i think every single pipe so its always a 12 month look back on the triggering event that they communicate to effect some kind of legislative administrative influence . Isnt that just the triggering event that would always make someone look back 12 months . They have no choice but to is what it sounds like to me. The momentit doesnt matter lets say that that study were the evaluation happens and was paid for in january, the communication went out in april, and the moment it went out in april someone in the organizing says that with a look back for the last 12 months and look at all our expenditures or anything that had to do with this it seems to me that as mr. Insane the triggering event is the moment you communicate or seek to. Immediately the clock turns on and you look back over the last four months as he would your expenditures were over 2500. Is that true . Yes. That make sense in which case the definition not to be a person makes payments for an activity and then the rest, to request words other persons to communicate directlyim wrestling with the language here. At the end i think you should put at the time the activity takes place. So, a person makes payment for an activity to solicit, request words persons to communicate director with an officer with the city and county in order to influence the matter of local legislative Work Ministry of action the time the activity takes place. That sounds like what youre getting at and what i would agree with. You can cut the payment when the communication or activity that is being used occurs. Whether that be the mailer goes out. Whether that be when the bus delivers the people to the meeting. When the members go out. I mean, that seems to me the most sense. How would you word it . Because im not sure this best wording but one possibility is a person makes payments and then i would cut out this praise, at the time and expenses incurred. Leave the rest and at the end say at the time the activity takes place. So, basically, a person makes payment at the time it takes place. So, does it also make sense to strike online seven the words, for an activity . Would just read a person makes payment to solicit. Then, at the end of your additional language at the time and activity takes place . I dont know that it matters that much. Okay. I was wondering where the want to say its no later than the time the activity takes place . Well, i think we need some clarity on when that Research Project needs to be reported. If you say no, later, i do worry that they dont know whether they ought to pay for it , when they ought to pay for it. Not necessarilyno later. Meaning that, what would be an example where that the station would make a difference . There to be examples in which someone is making a payment. I dont know, the month before the actual committee patient goes out to the public urging them to contact their city hall representative but then in the staff example i think thats the precise example they say you would not have to disclose to so, i wear a mailer in april. It was out in may. On april 29 i decided im not quick to send it. According to the staff that does not count. So, if you made them disclose it in april when it was paid for then it would be too late could they wouldve already disclosed something they do not use. But im not sure were answering the question about what is making a payments. I mean, i understand where youre going with a regulation i think fundamentally and this because we have a question on the public on. Is not purely intellectual that we did your question from the public fairly early on when is the date of payment is made. Is the payment made on which the entity that could be an expenditure lobbyist makes her quest of a printer to print some stuff, draft some stuff, design a flyer, whatever it is or isnt a date on which the entity that could be a lobbyist actually cuts a check to a vendor . It sounds like what the staff is inventing and what i agree with its really neither. Its when it happens. They cant get around it the way you described. You can say alright and all even 12 months so we can do this covertly not tell anybody about it until its too late and no one knows. No one until no one cares about it anywhere down the road. This ensures thatat least as of the date that the activity takes place that payment would have to be disclosed. For the following month. I am not clear on why it matters whether they pay for it the day of or a month later. That doesnt have bearing on it. As bearing it is being used to influence, and the moment that triggering event happens, whether thats the bus, the pizza, whatever that is, that then sets the ball in motion, which is the look back of 12 months. Is that right . Even in a situation where someone decided to feel like a bit of sleight of hand and say, we will produce the paper. I wont payall produce the paper and fabric. Well publish the paper and will send disseminate the paper in march or april but then ill pay for it in august or september, what happens then . I think under the current under what intended i think would reported at the time the event happened. Not later than was paid for i think thats essentially where he started from. Starting so that we have when the expenses incurred. Those in expense incurred when they made the subject was ultimately used to communicate. So, if you incurred expenditure but you never actually send it out you havent done an expenditure giveandtake in an activity to qualify. We want to make sure it under your hypothetical that money does get reported even if theyre not made the payment yet. I see. One additional point. He important when a payment is made is important for two reasons it is important when you qualifies in expense or lobbyist. Secondly, once you do qualify as an expenditure lobbyist unique monthly disclosures of course. So, on this monthly disclosure at ordinance currently requires you need to report the date the payments are made. Now, and for taking universal definitions of the payment is made connectivity takes place the expenditure lobbying takes place, were actually not really adding any information always for the purpose of monthly disclosures. I think your point is well taken in terms of when you qualify, but then we just have this sort of an odd way to interpret that in terms of the monthly reporting that an expenditure lobbyist would actually need to complete it. I am wondering if the language that commissioner hur suggested that maybe needs to be a subsection 1 or subsection 2 for purposes of monthly reporting. A person makes a payment at the time the activity to solicit his incurred or paid, whichever comes first. Does that kind of approach clarified for the purposes of monthly reporting . What payment would have to be reported and when. Not really because if you made a payment and chose not to use it i think this would be for reporting what you already qualify. You qualify but you never used that item that you incurred payment for. Then thats probably not activity that is an expenditure lobbyist activity period but even if the time you get a report, you could incur an expense that ended up not beingnot qualifying is something you have to report. So, maybe we go back to what mr. Chen suggested insane, no later than good if you know is can be used for lobbying anyone reported on january 1 i guess theres nothing that prevents you from doing so and perhaps thats beneficial. But, i do think tying it to the date that the activity takes place provides protection for the public because soon after the event were going to get a disclosure of activity and it also provides convenience for the filer because they know exactly what date the items have to be reported by. I want to say after we talk this through the to somehow make it very clear for everyone who asked to do this filing. Just this alone a little that gives me a portal into the layperson whos trying to do well, the Labor Organization or whomever it happens to be. I guess maybe im a lone wolf here. I think you over complex a simple issue. Is it when some entity or individual decides its going to go and make a communication, and the cost involved in making the communication is about 2500. Theyve got to report. Now, whether they incur the 2500, i didnt know we had a 12 monthincurred two years ago, but they used what they pay for two years ago to try and influence the public on a given issue, it should be reported. When . When they initiate to medication. Thatll were talking about it right now, if i read this, i think its when two years ago when i paid for the study. I mean, if i read it for the first time thats what screams out to me. At the time incurred. But you have amended it and i think that amendment is good. The focus should be a person makes a payment when any expenditure and connection with a communication. Or am i oversimplifying . Nope. I think the chair has stated it quite accurately. I think you go beyond it gets into some levels of complexity that that starts the confusion and in regard to the fact that someone has thebased venture is made and then is triggered at the time the event takes place for which the expenditure was intended and you look at that as the point court reporting. For reporting. Do we have a recap of the language that was just most recently being discussed . Sure. A person makes payment and then if youre looking at proposal in which of the staff, i would delete, at the time and expense is incurred. So, a person makes payment for an activity. All the rest of the language is the same and then come at the end, i would add, edit, the activity takes place. Basically, person makes payment at the time the activity takes place. After describing with the activity is in the middle. Alternatively we could say, no later than that the activity takes place. I think that may be adding confusion but im not against it. Then, subparagraph b, any comment . 51 comments. I think we ought to delete a single matter. My view on that is related to my view on the d, which i agree we should not be requiring payments made to employees be included, but we take off that burden, i dont think we need to decided by Single Market i think the single matter is important if you are requiring entities to include payments to employees. If you take that out i dont think it gets hard for them to agree there outside payments. I would cut out the single matter of in d. Do any other commissioners have any comments on letter d . Now, there was some public opposition to limiting it to a single matter has been a means by which an organization or individual could play games by parsing what is meant by single matter, and to a certain extent im sympathetic with that argument could i wondered if there was some other language that would capture the idea that its an issue. A single issue, as opposed to a matter. Im not even happy with that wording but to, for example, i think the illustration was given in one of the comments weve received, that somebody could take the position that general opposition to a certain legislative action would be deemed as one separate issue. Then, when they felt specifically with it they would say thats a separate one because now its a different matter. First, we were generally educating the public. Now, we are focusing in on something. And saying, shouldnt it at least be capturing everything that lets say, for example, the need for lowcost housing. Could that be broken down by each little issue that comes up in the course of that . I would be more disposed to broaden that from single matter. If i could jump in for a moment. I think the intent of overtime to get at here is looking at some guidance in the existing language of the ordinance about what is late of administrative action and the referenced any resolution, any item that disclosure requirement tied to any item. So, it seems like there was some logic to the considering this in the singular. Using your example commissioner stephen, our intent was to say if there was a question innocence about legislative body about say, the use of bus stops about how those should be. We were not trying to parse the hearing to discuss the matter, the appearance before board of supervisors was a separate matter. Only steps in the prosecutor thats not the issue. Philosophically, were trying to capture i think as youve described, a question before a legislative body were a resolution, emotion, a ordinance regardless of only steps are in the process to get there. So, this one which may not get there, but whether we insert the word, issue, or Something Like that, the question i think is still out there whether its your desire to count any and all legislative and administrative action in the aggregate, or whether its a one to one relationship from the expenditure to the issue. Commissioner keane what we will wind up doing is having someone just parse things. Well it doesnt relate to that particular matter. All this archaeology will be needed in order to try Something Back to its roots. So, i dont understand why in terms of the language itself in c where it talks about a payment that if you have 2500 paid, why there is this concern and the statement that it would notin writing that you would not accumulate payments for all activities, but it would count all payments for a single manner. Then, you really drop down the rabbit hole and trying to figure out what this is it the intent of c someone spending 2500, there come under expenditure lobbyist. If youre doing it for advocacy and lobbying in regard to what we have described. I think that was the clear intent of the workbooks itself. That was what the voters wanted. The idea that they were going to have to do all of this individualwell, it does vary on this matter. Theyre doing advocacy and lobbying but it only ads appear to 2400 on our. So lets see what else weve got. Then theres another matter that theyve got something and its 2400 and 99. That doesnt apply. I think the word looks is quite clear. He spent if youre one of these entities you spend 2500 hours in regard to advocacy and lobbying. You expect your next amateur lobbyist or not. End of story. That was what the voters saw thats what it said. This is going to unbelievable amount of confusion, fights, and may even wind up making the heart of what we did and what the voters wanted worthless good so, i would make it light cumulative amount. Thats very simple. Could you spend 2500 cumulatively quit mac to urge others to lobby on some matters quit accurate expenditure lobbyist. Period. You would delete the phrase, a single matter . Yes, i would in order to influence local legislative or administrative action . Yes could otherwise work reading a set of problems. Commissioner andrews was talking about the difficulty in regard to small entities and nonprofits figuring this out. Under this, they be spending all their time saying, well, the thing we did back there where we bought a carnation in order to go to supervisor joness daughters wedding, well does that apply . You would be going to all this. If it comes out to 2500 that relates to lobbying on matters, that is it. You have to register. You are an expenditure lobbyist. This is crazy. Any other comments on this particular section . I want to be clear. That isthat the br single matter or aggregate of a variety of matters . Exactly. If youre in the lobbying and advocacy business, whatever your range of stuff is, but its 25 2500 you have to register. Commissioner andrews, when i propose that, for me it is subject to the green with a staff because i think its a big difference between talking about outside expenditures for your actually paying vendors. You can keep track of that stuff. When it comes to parsing out for individual employees to much me, thats very different. So, i agree with commissioner keane. Im still on b. I saw one comment. I think with you change the 12 month to six months. I think based on the comments i read, there was a lot of concern that 12 months was too long could i saw the friends of ethics, switching to a greek i think they thought you was okay to go to six months. I think we ought to cut that back to six months rather than 12 if i have one of the clarifications to the previous point online 12, reference to the single matter comes out is probably appropriate to take out the reference to an officer of the city and simply make it plural, officers of the city. You are suggesting we reduce it to six months. I guess, why if it is a payment that was made two years ago, but it is then being used, why is it not covered . Again, its an issue of burden for benefit. Again its an issue for burden for benefit its unlikely that someone commissions a study on generate first 2016 for the influence of legislation when the actual lobbying is going to be done on december 31, 2016. So, the benefits of that is you would capture such actions. The burden is not good to go back and look for a year instead of six months and all the expenditures that relate to this activity. All right. Going to c, do any commissioners have any comments on the charlie . D, where it would completely eliminate salaries paid i am forced to employee from county for 2500 hour threshold, and the other one was put a 50 if the employee spend more than 50 of their time than his or her salary should be counted. Any commissioners want to comment on that one . Commissioner hur a couple thoughts. I share my initial views on this bulimia explain a little bit more why. When i read through this ordinance when when we were putting it together and discussing and drafting it, i dont think it was clear to the public and certainly not clear to me that this was meant to capture payments to employees of the expenditure lobbyist. Its a little bit different than the language we have for contact lobbyists, and so this idea that, yes, we want to implement with the voters agreed upon. Im not sure the voters actually agreed and believed that was what we were capturing. Secondly, this is a very broad ordinance, and i think that is good. It doesnt just capture legislative act. It doesnt just capture which you have to report on irs 990. It also captures administrative action that requires great detail and requires it on a monthly basis. Thats a great benefit. Were we were initially interested in when we talk what this was, if theres a board of supervisors hearing you of 100 people there and it seems like the public really cares that company a is doing the right thing and always people support what company a once, well we want to know that actually those people were paid to be there or provided dinner for being there. That limousine bus picked him up and brought them that. Thats the sort of outside expenditure we seem to be most interested at the time. Requiring the employer to look at especially for nonprofits, to look at what this employee is spending on, how much time for activity a b or c is quite onerous that the reporting requirements are orders of think were getting much bang for the buck for it. I agree its harder when it comes to buy 1c3 but on balance i think would be better to go with it for d any other comments . This is not limited to nonprofits. Maybe mr. Chen can educate me, but if something pulley is a Major Corporation is paid to roundup people to go all and come down to meetings, when he beat covered with thick if we excluded all employees salaries . Noted under that scenario that employees time doing those kinds of activities would not count toward the threshold of reporting. So, the reason that we bracketed some optional additional language to have this conversation whether the commission thought that salaries paid to employees under an organization for activities that urge others to communicate and lobby whether that should count or not count. I can see the concerns about nonprofits, but this language am as i beat it, and thus am reading it wrong, reads if pg e once have a fulltime employee whose only job is to agitate in the community to get people to go down and support positions that pg e wants, they would not have to be an expenditure lobbyist and they would notthat employee would not be considered a lobbyist. Would it . I think thats correct is not a contact lobbyist unless he personally goes down and contacts, but hes out there, his job is to go out and agitate the public and being paid thousands of dollars as a fulltime employee, why should that not have to be reported . Commissioner keane i agree with you. The basis of the concern in terms of should it be 50 of the employees payments, 50 of the police time, how did you do with advocacy or lobbying or should it be exempt altogether, one of the things that the funds of ethics talked about in the proposed regulations is you have the tail wagging the dog here. Commissioner renne these common this is attempting to apply all advocacy and lobbyist groups, all them that are attempting to influence policy and other things within the process. At the public has a right to know who is behind it. So, the concern well, its going to be hard for a nonprofit. You have these major groups. You have carl rose, the cobrothers and all sorts of others could they are employing lots of people as they their employees and those employees are going and influencing policy all over the place and money is driving the process within the united states. Not just in San Francisco. So, to say that the millions of dollars that the coke brothers or carl rove spends on his employees to go out for the employees to do all sorts of things, call up people and say go down and lobby this person. Call up these talk shows , well we dont want to cover that because it might be onerous to the employees of nonprofits, democracy is onerous in lots of ways but this is a question of facilitating democracy so the voters and people can know who is behind things. Much more important now than ever in our history. When i saw in the law itself, if you come under this aspect of advocacy and lobbying, and you are paying more than 2500, the public has a right to know who you are. Whether youre a nonprofit whether youre the coke brothers were called rove and the fact that the employees are being played when he, that money that adds up to 2500, it doesnt make any difference. Its 2500 thats being spent for these thing. So, mr. Chairman, i would say we should reject both of these things in terms of having employees payments to the employees exempt or it will only count if they spend 50 of their time. I think that amounts almost to our amending the ordinance itself. Theres a process for the amendment of the worst. If we want to do that we have to go through a vote and send it to the board of supervisors and to amend it and change it in these very drastic ways because im a well, we are really helping out some nice organizations and granted their nice organizations, that were in favor of because theyre doing things for housing or doing things for little children or whatever it be, thats wonderful, but we are losing the grand scheme of whats behind this ordinance. So, i say its 2500 wouldve paid to employees or not, and the advocacy and the lobbying is done, thats the end of it. We are creating all sorts of problems with this. 75 of the voters voted for this ordinance. 75 of the people of San Francisco voted for this ordinance. If you would submit it gives anything about what well do is tinker with it and that 2500, this is not to be part of that 2500 because employee salaries might be some small nonprofit only like that nonprofit thats going to be tough for them to do it. I dont think we have the right to do that. I honestly disagree with commissioner keane but its not clear to me the ordinance anticipates talk about employee socket we talk well with the voters voted for, i think we disagree on what the voters thought they were voting for it certainly it wasnt clear to me when were putting this together. So, i dont think reducing the augment what the voters wanted is the answer to. I think we need to look practically and what it means, how is going to be implemented and what benefit we get from it. Pg e is not to hire someone whose job is going to be to defined as agitating people to get them to do what pg e wants. Its can be more nuanced title. Theyre going to say well was to my job is Public Relations were public policy. How do we definehow do we define what activities they do thats captured within that and how are they going to capture themselves . But its a very complicated issue and im not sure get the benefit, the public is getting that much benefit by knowing pg e has an employee as part of their job is calling people up. I think what i was concerned about mostly with these outside expenditures to thirdparty vendors, and especially this directly to people who are coming to try to influence the public. Other commissioners comments . I would say i do respectfully disagree with commissioner keane. I do agree with commissioner hur but i would also say this. Im hoping we are not seeking to just be so expedient that the out of hand completely not consider a amendment in which case some things could be taken care of through some revisions of the regulation and there may be other things we may need to pick up. If it turns out that we still want pg e to register, but it also turns out into or three or four or five nonprofits get impacted maybe its worth pick up that conversation and parsing that out and finding those ways which can do two things. Protect the nonprofits and make sure that they dont have todont know how consistently and consulate but also keep it broad enough that pg e does have to register these particular people but i agree with commissioner hur is way more new ones. Its the Director Committee engagement that the higher and pg e will think they need to register those employees. I dont know how you get at that. I dont know how you then, if that is the case commissioner andrews, what were saying is its going to depend on what sort of job title that these Companies Give them and then we are lost because the job titles can be made very innocuous but the actual to these can be advocacy and lobbying. So, if we keep it in terms of the simple language that we put forth to the voters in terms of advocacy and lobbying, we dont have a problem. The other thing, in terms of what you said was, you were hoping that we as a body would not reject out of hand and amendment i dont reject out of hand eight amendment. I listen to any proposed amendment by any of my colleagues but and amendment means we go through the amendment process which the charter requires. We have for this vote in favor of it that has to go to the board of supervisors and get a super majority in there. We cant amend something. If we actually do amend and collect the regulation were being dishonest. Well, i understand the prosecutor thank you for the reminder and i understand. I just dont want the expedients of us implement something not to fully consider the process of a amendment and taking up a particular component that could help solve a lot of what were talking about. Which is just breaking out some of these organizations and how they do business. Thats fine. Thats fine. Let me ask, putting aside the questions of a nonprofit, putting that aside, is there any reason why a corporate entity or a partnership for individual was spending money to have employees agitate to affect legislation . Is there any reason they should not have to report . Is it complicated . I think it is complicated we start with your first question. I much much less opposed to having them break it out to take out the 501 c 3 from that requirement. The rationale for excluding it for everyone includes i think the following. One, i dont think its necessarily so easy to figure out what these employees are spending their time upon. If i make a call that relates to a mailer thats going to be done. Thats 5 min. Maybe that is. 1 hour or. 05. Whatever. So, wouldnt they need to track all the time to figure out whetherand you take the time and you divided by the total salary and then you determine on a monthly basis whether that is above or below 2500. As a law firm, we do track our time as you know, but most companies dont and most companies, the people in these Community Development director of Community Relations walls, not everything they do is going to be whats captured by expenditure lobbying. I do think it is complicated even for the for profit. Like i start off with much less concerned if we take it to 501 c 3 s. When we get to the 501 c 3 , in three and four which im not a tax attorney, but theres indication and some of the materials that the friends of ethics filed, that there are certain filings that, apparently, identified truly sort of nonprofits that are representing Public Interest, as opposed to the coral roses could they make some reference to a file of the Internal Revenue service form 990 n or 990 easy which i take it our requirements which the Internal Revenue service has put in for specific organizations that are sort of different than other 501 c threes and fours. Im also not a tax expert, but what i understand on the 990 is a nonprofit is not allowed to do more than a certain amount of lobbying type activity. To maintain their 501 c 3 status. Right. But for the seefor they can do as much a lobbying as i wanted i dont know they need to report with the same level of regularity we are requesting. Maybe somebodydo you know, andrew, what form 990 n, which i take it is for the c3 and the 990 easy e that limits below will be the normal 2990 . Minor says different classification of 90 forms turned on the helping the organization is good if youre Small Organization you file easy and if youre bigger at different 990 from. Again not a tax effort not a nonprofit lawyer but i did skim some of the 90 forms and it does seem than 90 forms to ask for this kind of information. Exactly what level of granularity i dont know how loosely maps onto their garments of proposition c i am not sure but something we could Public Comment could share with us at that something youre interested to the extent people here from 501 c 3 s and are at least involved in the preparation of the stipends may they can knows more about the details but they do and many tracking dave baby do that help them thought those forms at the end of the year. That might be helpful. I was just saying some 501 c threes have a bible and c3 arm in that regard which is a different type of reporting and i think more details and ways that out. Commissioner speaking i may be wrong but i think i saw materials cemented to us by friends of ethics that actually dress this point in terms of the difference relating to the reports and the reporting that go in to it. Maybe when we get to Public Comment. I take subsection e, though payments made by any person prior to february 1, 2016 implementation date of the proposition c shall be counted toward the 2500 are qualifying thresholdany discussion on that provision . With that, i will ask for Public Comment relating to 21055 and you can address any one of the a, b, c, or d sections that you wish. Im bob crandall. First i want to go back to the text of c and reference to commissioner hurs version of applicability of payments. Look on page 5 lines 915. Its visit restates what is excluded. Was excluded as i mentioned the concept he was talking about good further high up it does the things that can be included. So, theres no exclusion of payments to staff. I think that is telling if you want to follow a strict construction approach. I want to suggest, also, this is all those in favor say, aye we dont do that. The materials handed to us if you become a joke handed to us by the usf students, page 16 indicates different topics would have to be reported. If you follow what is in their daughter and any agency could segment out in staff time and avoid reporting. You havent talked about real issues noted your very abstract. You havent played out how this would apply to current issues. I will give you an example. The commuter shuttle program. Google could assign one person to talk to the Economic Development benefits and told people to go to the commission on the about. Another perperson to go to Public Health another person about transportation. You could segment out. Topics of an overall issue and never meet that threshold, never have to report. If you follow w that could be on meganonprofit that could extend shook substantially rezone this a good provide for services, Health Services to people again have meganonprofit assign people to different commissions and try to get people to go to each of those commissions and never reports. I think thats when you fail in your obligations could you not look at this concretely. Finally, i want to go back to what last commissioner stephen pointed out if you look at e youre putting everyone in trouble because this is 20 february. The legislation was posted starts every first. If you pass anything tonight you group of people in a conundrum what is going on for february. They dont know what the rules are. They havent reported anything. They havent done anything. Yet by this language they could be in trouble. I am suggesting even though this is commissioner hurs last meeting, you need to do more discussion, debate, and continued this may be a new person will have additional insights that can help everybody, not just those fears tonight in the agencies that are a part of. Thank you. Im not going to sound coherent but ominous throw things at you. In terms of large corporations i took a look at the major donors, the developers and money they give to nonprofits which is specifically stated that its given 5000 to a nonprofit in or to the nonprofit speed publicly on behalf of the development. In 2015 the 5m development paid 240,000 to nonprofits in chunks of 25,000. The questions of whether corporations are developing you know that someone in the 5m organization had to be spending time choosing which nonprofits are going to get the money and deciding to make arrangements with them and all the rest of it. So there is somebody on staff was making those kinds of decisions and probably played pretty well for. In terms of nonprofits, im going to get out a copy of 890 easy. Visit from the San Francisco ter. Unit which is a small nonprofit. Theyve f file and i 90 easy. They do not support proposition c like a moron exemptions, but you will see in this under schedule o in their form though itemize each of the things theyre spending money on. They also have an accounting keeping track of how much money they spent on voter registration, on ballots, announcements and all the rest of it. So, its all bad. In terms of when expenses are incurred, if you look at a Model Campaign finance report, they have to report whitson and colluded expense. Exactly to avoid someone making a longterm commitment, but not paying it out so it doesnt show up. I think of you Something Like an accrued expense it works. For example, right now also loses out doing an opinion poll over april street location they want to put a whole foods into. Its obviously designed to ultimately influence the permit process. I dont think theres much question that down the road once there the results of that poll they will have asked some of nonprofits on polk street to support their position and give them copies of all. Should be reported now that theyre paying for the pole where should you wait until they actually use it for that purpose . Then i would also point out you have groups like the pla which is a registered lobby and they regularly give out of 5000 or grants for community empowerment. Its a good thing. Theres nothing wrong with it. In the case is not a quid pro quo the way it is on other developers but i think you need to look at this in the real world specifics. Thank you. Hello. I want to just speak to the specific language of the regulations the way i understood or would write subsection a. A person makes payments for activities, plural, to slit request or communicate directly with an officer of the city and county to influence local legislative or administrative action when those activities occur. I think that is more clear. 4b, i think the person qualifies as an expenditure lobbyist if they make payments totaling 2500 or more in a calendar month to communicate with her directly with an officer to influence local legislative or administrative action period. Again so its consistent and fewer words, less interpretation. Im not sure if the sub i is needed without repetition because it payments occur when he activities occur, then you dont necessarily have to do this because they only appear when action is taken that relates to that. In subsection c i dont like the language charitable organization. Thats a new concept and does not appear in the law. I was just using language nonprofit organizations throughout, and again, i dont know what a charitable project is. It could be for a project. There certainly are entities that are fiscal boxes but i dont like this idea of charitable because its not defined anywhere. For d i think that a lot of discussion at the cuts different ways. As bob indicated on page 5 of the law, theres language about what constitutes payments. I think that is actually fairly clear and i tend to think although im certainly open to hearing more, that salary payments should be included here that someones do get salaried payments exempted that be why of amendments to the law. The law itself isnt suggest salary payments should be excluded for profit nonprofit or organization or person phenomena. Those are my comments. This is continue to the next meeting would ask you additional copies the proposed regulations. There only proposed of the [inaudible]. Good evening. I had some remarks prepared on breaking this up into three distinct units. Let me say im not here to give legal advice but bible and see threes could you speak into the microphone. Im having trouble hearing. 501 c threes are charitable organizations may provide direct services. 501 c four get their tact tax exempt status exact because they engage in lobbying activity. 501 c threes are limited in the amount of lobbying they can engage in they file a schedule c with her tiny and 99. The schedule c itemizes the amount of lobbying theyve engaged in during the reporting period. There was a question raised also about before easy and fourman. Minor sinning but i may have this incorrect eligibility to form easy if the budget is under 500,000. The reason the ec and n form lease from the friends of Ethics Commission, its a marker where organization should be exempt from the registration fee. Thats the only reason why its significant. I respectfully disagree with commissioner hurs comments that the items that statute contemplated would include, does not salary. Im going to read from proposition c, if i may. Examples of types of activities for payments. Payment for which can count toward the threshold. In the previous sentence, include but not limited to Public Relations, media relations, advertising, public outreach, research, investigation, reports, analysis, and study. That is exactly the sort of activity 501 c fours engage in activity inhouse. And im better run out of time. The state law be has a identical language requiring that organizations report salary time. If the employee spends more than 10 of their time on expenditure lobbying adjuster you can compare the language, is that the enemy finish your sentence just so you can compare the language with proposition c the language in state statute limit read two senate. In person directly or indirectly to influence legislative or ministry of action of 5000 or more in a calendar quarter must file periodic reports. Payments made to influence legislative or administrative action include payments for wording connection with urging other persons indirect communication with any elected state official, legislative official or agency of his. Im happy to provide citations. Thank you. Good evening. My name is judy swartz the second dr. Derek is a small firms whose advocacy three services to build community and inspire positive social change through education and Career Training Health Promotion or leadership endowment lesbian gay transgender. For live the gospel of the proposed regulation limiting proposition c to client tracking extensive logging would impose an extraordinary burden. We are primarily serves expenses on holistic Institutional Support to the interacting forms of oppression they encounter in schools and workplaces. Unified model and Youth Leadership development and youth workforce to moment is core to our Successful Program design we know that by giving marginalized queer and gender transgender youth to have a voice in shaping the city policies and Budget Priorities that affect their lives they not only developed self efficacy but grow in their engagement as computers to community. We also know hes youth must be paid for their work. This is important not only for that about of their job skills but also for queer and transgender youth expense work as legitimate numbers of them labor market and pursue economic selfsufficiency. When first coming to better secure percent of the youth are not part of the labor market and some are part of the underground economy. The proposed rule requires tracking would throw an overly wide net to include almost 100 actually low income lgbt people employees each year and put an unnecessary burden on an agency with a regular stop only 14. Additionally, the potential disclosure about dbt recipients