[gavel] good afternoon and welcome to the city of San Francisco Public Utilities Commission Regular meeting. I would like to call the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission Regular meeting of july 26, 2016 to order. Mdm. Sec. , please call the roll. Commissioner moller caen here. Commissioner courtney here. Commissioner kwon here. Here. Pres. Vietor. And commissioner moran is expected shortly. Next item isitem 3 is approval of the minutes from the july 12, 2016 meeting. I have a motion and a second. Minutes of been approved. Your wholesale customers last year were about 36 gallons per day which was very low. Thats about half of what the wholesale customers use on average in less than six times what city shoes. The contract is limited. So limited that they dont know that they can approve the Development Projects within the community. Last week thecity approved a moratorium project because they cant guarantee enough water. I want to be clear its not about the availability of water there is plenty availability within wholesale costs here but i seems unfair and on a and for years the system that they have been in, and we have been in and it needs to be fixed and as a result theaffordable housing is on the back burner in East Palo Alto. Im hoping that you folks can work with boston and others to fix the situation thank you. Thank you. We received quite a bit of testimony and a lot of letters from the East Palo Alto community in support of the issue that you have raised to try to address the water allocation issue. We have directed our staff to move forward as quickly as possible to find some resolutions to these issue because we want to make palo alto hole and make sure the sticks. Also we have a trip to meet with some officials that is right we have a trip to meet with some officials and tour palo alto and meet with the commissioners. Thank you, any other Public Comment or general, comment . Seeing none pleaseitem 5 is communications. We only really of two slides we see that hetch hetchy is about 200 or 300 feet and were seeing this will come down throughout the summer and were meeting that demand with the two Treatment Plants down here and the water bank is about 73 so were still in a decent position regarding the storage but obviously, we did not fill up and that is why we are calling for a 10 reduction in demand by all of our customers. Then, my second slide is the one that is deliveries. That is the one that really is changing during this time of year. As you can see, it appears that the demand is starting to flatten out the summer. I just saw the report for last week and it was down another 3 1 2 million gallons per day about 200 or 300 feet and were seeing this will come down throughout the summer and were meeting that demand with the two Treatment Plants down here and the water bank is about 73 so were still in a decent position regarding the storage but obviously, we did not fill up and that is why we are calling for a 10 reduction in demand by all of our customers. Then, my second slide is the one that is deliveries. That is the one that really is changing during this time of year. As you can see, it appears that the demand is starting to flatten out the summer. I just saw the report for last week and it was down another 3 1 2 million gallons per day to about two 22 million gallons per day and demand is kind of leveled off during the summer and it is well below the 10 reduction dash line that is on there. Again, our customers are still conserving water which is good and our storage is seeming relatively good right now so basically we are going to just ride out the rest of the summer and probably not see much change in any of these things until we get into october or november. So, i would recommend potentially altering the frequency of the reports until we get a into a season where these things would start to happen again in less we get into a change in which we would report that to the commission and that is all thatwe have today. I would be fine with that. Me and the commissioners of what the consumption levels are and keeping track. See if there is any slippage on that that we know about and we can address it at this point i think we should put a memo into the communications further . And when is that . October . October. Any Public Comment on the draft report. Good afternoon Michael Himes i will be speaking on behalf of the power sf programs and be providing an update of our operations forkind enrollments and plans underway for future enrollment. Clean power sf continues to serve we are in our 13th week of service and now there are about 7000 Commercial Accounts and about 400 a residential. As of the beginning of this week the opt out rate for the amine enrollment was 1. 6 . The last time that we were here we reported 1. 7 opt out rate. So a 10 update. I believe we build every customer that was enrolled in may by this time. The super green Participation Rate is currently 3 that was the same that it was the last time that we reported. I wanted to state that we continue to promote the super green offering and we will be sending outa notice soon for existing customers to encourage their friends and neighbors to sign up as well. We will also be doing an Advertising Campaign in the fall to educate and specifically to promote the super green enrollment in the auto enrollment areas that we will be serving. Can forward to our next enrollment we have 551 customers signed up for the august Enrollment Period last month ms. Hale reported that it was 497 so weve had 54 new signups in the last couple of weeks. Customers and they are super green and 28 are super green and we are also finalizing our notice for the next Enrollment Period and we have worked at a little bit differently this time so thatit still informs customers of the terms and conditions of services that were trying to put more emphasis on super green to encourage and opt up. We have also launched a bill calculator on the clean power sf website. And, that is available for both green and super green rates. Id like to thank sfpuc it staff for making that happen in a short order. We are also helpinghave. Customers understand their utility bill and enroll customers started to understand all bill and rate omparison as mandated by sb 790. The comparison shows average rates for residential and commercial customers and provides a comparison of the average, monthly bill. Staff is also in the midst of procuring additionalto meet approximately 30. During planning, assumed a 30 opt out rate that due to the opt out they were seeing we are considering a 20 megawatt reduction megawatt reduction in the fall. What you we viewing later today will allow clean power sf to meet our Program Policy objectives and regulatory requirements consistent with the Commission Adopted business practice policies. Action also set a new limit on the initial size of the program to approximately 75 mw average. This would allow clean power sf to continue to enroll customers to sign up for the program until the next auto enrollment is established this would allow the program to an additional 50 to 20 mw of demand and we expect that to come in in the form of small, periodic enrollments that serve customer enrollments. So not like massive for trying to provide for customers in the fall. We are preparing a growth plan to identify all options to expain cleanpower sf Service Citywide and were working to have that program completed by the end of the year. If the first phase is expanded beyond the 50, this action is intended to allow clean power sf to procure shortterm supplies to meet our customer demand and not delegate authority over multiyear supply commitments which we would intend to bring to the commission. Which we would bring to the commission. Furthermore any supply commitments under this authority would be done in a manner consistent with the power enterprise existing trading and Risk Management policy and the business policy that was created and opted in december. Then finally, related to this action today i wanted to express that now that program is actually operating and not in launch planning mode we realize that it would be beneficial to come back to the commission, again, likely in the next couple of months to layout authority delegated to the manager to meet its policy objectives and regulatory requirements and act at a pace to take advantage of costeffective supplies that we see on the market. But again, bringing again to the commission large supply contracts and multiyear supply contracts distant with what weve done so far. And, that does conclude my report. I just wanted to show you what the bill comparison looks like an any of you that are cleanpower sf should be seeing me soon. I got mine. It looks great. Could you please pass it around . Sure. Commers do you have any questions . I have one question. Anybody that signs up by the first will be included in what,november . That is right. And anyone that is interested should sign up . Yes, please sign up and encourage your friends to sign up too. I think it is great news and i think that we will talk about it when we talk about the resolution again but im thrilled that 75 is on the table appreciate the staff and all of the effort that has gotten us this far. And, i am pleased that in the next couple of months we will get more from you from the power agreements authority. I would like to understand better how its going to affect the rollout of the Program Overall and the different components and how they will fit and i know its a moving target but i dont know how that will affect the local buildout schedule or the financial and revenue picture is so if you could continue to feed us the information as you get it in real time and i think that is ambitious just keep us informed in what the implications are that we stay ahead of it and if we need support from a policy perspective please let us know. That is great. Thank you. Our super green is 100 wind . It is 100 wind as of now. It actually changes. So yeah, our super green product will evolve as we employee additional products over time. In the distant future i think we will see a lot more solar, mostly because solar represents the new resource opportunity and Development Opportunity its also the most competitive from a cost standpoint today. What we had to do for this program was to execute a contract with an operating resource and it turned out that wind energy was the most competitive operating resource available to us. So, the 30 we are involved in now what is the composition of that renewable . All of the Renewable Supplies that we are using today are 100 renewables we are also receiving supplies from hetch hetchy and also from the natural gas and electricity through our combine process as well. Where we using the hydro . It is ours. That combined with the lower oi opt out rate will incorporate into our portfolio and to utilize the patch had she resource in the clean power resource. So, this is a commitment that we have made and also based on the information of the contracts that weve had executed. That will be trued up in next years report to customers. It will be a historical summary of our power content actually is delivered in 2016so staff is working very hard to make sure that pans out. Okay thank you. Any other questions or comments . I have a comment. I just want to say again that the work that you are doing is Pretty Amazing and also given all of the background that we have had i know we deal mostly with the workforce. I did have a conversation with jason earlier today. I still want to stay very much on top of the employment items and staffing and whatnot as we go down that road just so we have a kind of deliberate not necessarily conversation but that we just keep touching on that as we go. But, even materials they think are impressive and i think its a Job Well Done up into this point. Thank you very much and on that point, i want to emphasize, or clarify, that the staffing the staff resourcing will be a major part of our growth plan because we need to have strong staffing to meet the needs of this program and meet the needs as we expand citywides and to make sure that it meets all the comprehensive needs ofour service and that will be part of the conversations we will have as we develop that plan throughout the year. And also to actually identify resources and positions to cca as we roll out the program. Thank you very much. Any Public Comments . Jason fried,executive officer for San Francisco lascaux. We just had Rain Forest Network encouraging them to join super green so theres a lot of buzz and effort out there to get folks into the super green projects. That is what we want to get everyone into. Were very excited when we get them into supporting the program as well. Hopefully over the next few weeks or months we will see those emails but if you are not on their email list you wont get those emails but if you are you will get that type of female. I am also happy to hear the working towards expanding the program and seeing how we get the program enrolled in a quicker way i think going from 50 to 75 is a very positive way to go. I dont see them getting up to 75 because the policies in place that will keep them from getting to that 75 number right away i think its a good step in the right direction instead scaling back to residential just figuring out how to get that same amount of numbers while building more into this mix. The staff has figured out how to address that and get some of the hetch hetchy power to help supplement the needs your water team will tell you that you never know if next year will be a drought are not. You never know if you have that drought have that energy available. I think that your staff is an excellent job and i congratulate them on doing so. Tany other Public Comments on this item . Thank you. Anything else from the general manager . Next item is theall matters listed hereunder constitute a consent calendar, are considered to be routine by the San Francisco Public Utilities commission, and will be acted upon by a single vote of the commission. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a member of the commission or the public so requests, in which event the matter will be removed from the calendar and considered as a separate item. 8a,approve amendment no. 1 to agreement no. Cs1007, Structural Engineering services for 525 golden gate, with soha engineers for continued Structural Engineering support during construction of building modifications; and authorize the general manager to execute this amendment, increasing the agreement by 60,000, for a total nottoexceed agreement amount of 160,000, and with a time extension of one year, for a total agreement duration of four years. how b award job order contractno. Joc60. Approve amendment no. 1 to general engineering alicense for San Francisco, san mateo, santa clara, and alameda counties, for a nottoexceed amount of 5,000,000, to the lowest, qualified, responsible, and responsive bidder, cal state constructors, inc. , to perform general Engineering Construction tasks for all San Francisco Public Utilities Commission Enterprise operations and bureaus. how c accept work performed by Michels Jay Dee coluccio, joint venture, for contract no. Wd2531, Bay Division Pipelines reliability upgrade bay tunnel; approve modification no. 48 final , decreasing the contract amount by 401,175, for a total contract amount of 217,619,067, with a time extension of 319 noncompensable consecutive calendar days approximately 10 months , for a total contract duration of 2,252 consecutive calendar days approximately six years, two months ; and authorize final payment to the contractor. how d accept work performed by jdb Sons Construction inc. , for contract no. Wd2779, college hill learning garden; approve modification no. 1 final , increasing the contract amount by 57,252, for a total contract amount of 580,652, with a time extension of 119 consecutive calendar days approximately four months , for a total contract duration of 189 consecutive calendar days approximately six months ; and authorize final payment to the contractor. how e accept work performed by shimmick construction company, inc. , for contract no. Ww490, Oceanside Water Pollution Control Plant 620 digesters sbr tpad conversion and facility improvements; approve modification no. 11 final , increasing the contract amount by 158,021, for a total contract amount of 19,034,533, and with a time extension of 167 consecutive calendar days approximately five months , for a total contract duration of 1337 consecutive calendar days approximately three years, eight months ; and authorize final payment to the contractor. how f authorize the general manager to negotiate and execute, on behalf of the city and county of San Francisco, a memorandum of agreement moa with the California Department of fish and wildlife cdfw , for an amount not to exceed 585,000, and with a duration of 12 months, which will allow for the sfpuc to provide funding to cdfw for the design, procurement, and installation of a temporary Water Treatment and reuse system pilot recirculation system at Moccasin Creek fish hatchery. Cdfw intends to implement the pilot recirculation system to enable the hatchery to successfully operate from january 3, 2017 through march 4, 2017, a period in which water deliveries through mountain tunnel will be interrupted due to maintenance, and consequently, water deliveries to the hatchery will be significantly reduced. ritchie regular session 9. Authorize the general manager to exceed 50 mw average demand for the cleanpowersf program and set the new Program Enrollment cap at approximately 75 mw average, as long as the additional demand can be met in accordance with the adopted cleanpowersf power content and phasing policies. I would urge the commission to remove the full load of San Francisco and i think that staff should be free to move at whatever pace is expeditious and im not sure whether you would get this information from anywhere else so i will run through this with a couple of things to buy comparison our neighbors in the peninsula will offer a 50 renewable and 70 gst three default product for 2 1 2 cheaper than pg es rates. Theyre going from the date of serving customers to full rollout to their Service Territory will be six months. Further down, the Silicon Valley cca further default product will offer a 50 renewable and ghd project that will be closer to ours and again, that rollout from the date of serving to total rollout to the whole Service Territory will be six months. That will be october 2017 schedule for both of them. So, this achievement in our neighbors and we are the leader in the south bay and were talking about the rollout staff i support your staff i support being prudent and fluid i think we can do both. I urge you to support your staff and following the policies that you have it adopted to bring them as expeditiously as possible to full enrollment in the city with a priority of as soon as possible these will be fully enrolled in shorter time than we are generated a Program Growth plan thank you very much. Thank you. Yes, commissioner moran. Yes, a question and a comment. Is there a rate impact for existing customers with the expansion . We will be assessing that went before we make any supply commitments to serve the expansion. That is part of the business practice policy is the Commission Adopted. The supplies that we looked at to support Fall Enrollment do not cause a rate impact. Okay and if we were getting into a position where the market might require a rate change the commission would know about it for those changes were made . Absolutely the other thing that want to mention is if we go out to purchase power and it is so expensive that we have to take pause. So, that is why we have to be very cautious because we talked about affordability and that is why that has to be measured instead of trying to roll it out just to roll it out. We made a promise to try to make this affordable. So when we do come up with a rate to expand and its more expensive than pg we will have to have you come and we will have a dialogue. That didnt expand beyond that. And finally understand why we have a cap of approximately anything. I dont know how on earth you would administer that. If 75 isnt enough then approximately 75 is meaningless. Question to straight. Yeah, i agree with that. I think we could amend that. That would be my proposal. It sounds like you also have another proposed amendment that is not addressed in this resolution that has to do with the rates. I want to make sure that there was reference to existing policy and unless you have read the policy, its not altogether clear what that entails. I want to make sure explicitly that those polities were such that by extending the program we were not obligating ourselves to a rate increase. If the answer from staff was that the existing policies cover that it would not result in a rate increase i dont think there was an amendment there necessarily. But, i appreciate your support on the approximately and i would make an amendment to move the word approximately in the resolution. And, to delete the number 75 . As long as 75 can sufficient to get us to that point i dont see any point in deleting that. And when would we get updates on that . The end of this year. I think again, the most important part of this rollout is the ability to find the capital or the reserve that we need to continue to purchase contracts and i mean, that is really the main reason why weve been doing it in phases because we want this program to be selfsufficient. The other thing is, we talked about lockbox versus not lockbox and advantages and reassessing that so theres a lot of moving parts and things that we want to include into the program that were talking about that. So, it is a lot of stuff and remember, we shift from residential to commercial and it sometime this year you want to do commercial so all of that were trying to put together and as we mentioned today, we will come back and talk to you about the things that we are thinking about so that you will at least know what we are planning to include and look at the different options and stuff like that. I wanted to make one comment on the approximately term and to explain why that is in there might be helpful. So, a couple things that are at play, whenever we do an auto enrollment there are opt outs. In order to meet a targeted resulting demand we enroll more customers then our demand. We use the data that we have citywide to make projections for customer enrollments and because we are serving a subset of the customers in the city we might have outliers in there so there is an amount of variability thats created due to that. So, the approximate wasnt intended to be510 movement necessarily, but what we didnt want is if we ended up point megawatts to be in that regulation. If you need more headroom well give you more headroom to deal with that availability it sounds like you dont need that initially and if you do you come have plenty of time to come back for an amendment for that. I motion to approve that. Do i hear a second . I second. There is motion and a second is there a Public Comment . I think the approximate 20 we should leave that approximate 20 if we get a higher opt out it will be less. You are talking about paul 75. I will agree with that amendment to my amendment. Only if it is above the 75. Jason fried, michael can correct me on this if im wrong but there is a formula to between the two but if you want to get rid of the word approximate that is fine and i personally agree with some of the comments that the public made about the being there and its as long as you are staying within the pricing policy goal is you should encourage staff to get as big as it can well stay in the procedure in some ways i think take out the word 75 because as long as you stay within your policies and procedures because as long as her staying within your policies and procedures it shouldnt matter if it is 75 or not. This is just bad drafting. At least is clear drafting to take the word out. It should be Something Else and come forward with Something Else. Yes . Jed holtzman i didnt identify myself for the tv earlier but i would like to set can officer frieds comment on the amendment because if we remove the number 75 or commenting on the established policies and proceduresthat your staff is approving and were counting on that to move us forward and of course any report if there is a significant retribution and that path. I would urge you to take officer freids suggestion and remove the number 75 ae thank you. What is the disadvantage of 75 . Do so with the unlimited. And will be governed by the policies and practices weve already adopted civic to be read impact or purchase and supply issues that could potentially come up. Feeling this will come up again if we go to 100 are to 200 at some point. They said they are going to come back and address the longterm growth issues and hopefully it will come back in a way that we dont have to keep rehashing this. Staff hasnt said that they need more than 75. So, i dont see where we need to give them unlimited. If we were giving them Unlimited Authority i would want to review the policies to make sure they were consistent with that kind of authorization and absent the kind of review im not ready to give them unlimited authorization. It removes checks and balances of its unlimited. If i could just comment that this authority is important for our next enrollment and, 75 does give us room to grow the program in a manner that is responsive to customer proactive demand. Customers are reaching out to us and saying they want to be in the program and a staff, one thing we could really use is additional headroom to say that will get you into the program. And, this will help that. And, i think that i can understand the comments of the public and we want to grow the program as quickly as we can and as prudent and that will come out of our planning effort and we do see with the other cc are doing and we are in touch with them and i think that the 75 will help us to be responsive to the customer demand that we are seeing and ensure that we stay on track too with this current phase. I think the issue is if we are limited and the limiting factor is their ability to support above 75. So our son everybody to understand what our top margin is now and we need to reevaluate that if we do Something Differently may come back and propose changing some of those policies so that we can expand faster. So, that is why we put the 75 in there. Is there any other that is helpful. Maybe when we have a rollout plan we can understand what some of those implications are and the rate of rollout if we were to go to 100 or 300 whatever that might be thats a very important consideration. And, there are different options for scaling the program. We actually took a path that no other cca has taken to date. We secured power outside of secure account with a single counterparty in a single supplier that was the model that we were investigating earlier and in earlier efforts to launch the cca program. Will we did here there was that we solicited from and ultimately a broader pool of suppliers in order to create as competitive of solicitation as we could. But, there has been a lot of motivation happening because we are learning there are multiparty out boxes and there are many paths we can take to scale the program up and it might be that we take multiple options. It might be smaller phases or even larger auto enrollments. There might be smaller options available to us now but i just want the Planning Commission to understand what the options are now because i want this to remain competitive. I dont love natural gas i think that is a fuel we should be moving away from. With the solar and all of the great news and supply questions that will give us an opportunity to clean up our green. I should say there is a companion plan to our Expansion Plan and that is an integrated Resource Plan and that is actually part of our business practice policies but we will develop an integrated Resource Plan that provides supply, demand, and the resources going forward. It will make a projection of that plan going citywide and this is really a buildout place of that program aspirations and supply needs and that will bedone in conjunction with the growth plan. It may follow it a little bit because we want to do is lay out some low growth projections and put some inputs into the Resource Plan. So, i wanted to put that out there and with respect to natural gas something that i wanted to do is have as many specified resources as possible rather than just leaning on the grid where you can lean on a mix of unspecified supply projects. That is one of the emphasis of what we had done before and that is to specify within the mix. Yeah, but you specify with natural gas . Isnt that right . There is a third option you can go with the grid, you can specify or you can specify without the gas. The natural gas would have to go 20. As part of the growth plan is it the same as the rollout plan . The two together is what i think you think of as the rollout plan. The growth plan is whether we meet the demand and the rollout plan is the supply and resources and technology and type of Energy Supplies that we will want to procure or developed to meet that plan. I think the integrated Resource Plan we cant even have have them done in the exact amount of time as the power energy enterprise. The Silicon Valley plan is how much less than pg e . Well, the question is how did they achieve that because we arent there, are we . Just to be clear, Silicon Valley has right now just one product. Is 100 ghd free but it is only 50 clean power. In that area its in 50 below. We have an amendment on the floor. Are there any other questions or comments . And, the proposed amendment is to remove the word approximately before 75. I think we have a motion and a second already on the main resolution. Any Public Comment on the resolution . All those in favor say, aye. Opposed, nay. Can you read the next item please . 10. Approve the revised records retention schedule and record retention policy of the San Francisco Public Utilities commission. sandler is there a motion to move the revised schedule . I will move it. I will second it. Is there any Public Comment . Is there any Public Comment on the retention schedule . [indecipherable] thank you. Are there any other Public Comments on this item . All those in favor say, aye. Opposed, nay. The motion carries. Next item please. 11. Approve amendments to agreement nos. Cs211ad, specialized and technical services, Natural Resources division, water enterprise, with cdm smith ats, joint venture cs211a ; icf avila, joint venture cs211b ; shaw environmental and infrastructure, inc. , cs211c ; and Urs Corporation cs211d , to provide continuing permit compliance monitoring of Water System Improvement Program wsip habitat mitigation sites; and authorize the general manager to execute future amendments within the existing contract capacity of 20,000,000, with no single contract exceeding 7,500,000. Is there a motion . I motion i will second. All those in favor say, aye. Opposed, nay. The motion carries. The next item will be closed session16. Conference with Legal Counsel pursuant to california Government Code Section 54956. 9 d 1 and San Francisco administrative code section 67. 10 d 1 ambrose existing litigation federal insurance co. , et al v. San francisco independent taxi assoc. , et al. San Francisco Superior Court no. cgc14543173 City Attorney file no. 150762 17. Conference with Legal Counsel pursuant to california Government Code Section 54956. 9 d 1 and San Francisco administrative code section 67. 10 d 1 ambrose existing litigation federal insurance co. , et al v. San francisco independent taxi assoc. , et al. San Francisco Superior Court no. cgc14543173 City Attorney file no. 150762 19. Conference with Legal Counsel pursuant to california Government Code Section 54956. 9 d 1 and San Francisco administrative code section 67. 10 d 1 ambrose existing litigation stacey a. Lawrence v. City and county of San Francisco, et al San Francisco superior court no. cgc14542269 City Attorney file no. 151275 20. Conference with Legal Counsel pursuant to california Government Code Section 54956. 9 d 1 and San Francisco administrative code section 67. 10 d 1 ambrose existing litigation Civil Service employees insurance co. V. City and county of San Francisco San Francisco superior court no. cgc14538389pursuant to california Government Code Section 54956. 9 d 1 and San Francisco administrative code section 67. 10 d 1 ambrose and items 23 through 25 will not be heard today. Thank you. Are there any Public Comment on the closed session items . [indecipherable] we have to learn about our earthquake issues. We have proceeded in these kind of ways and they say they dont understand that there are understandings that they have to clarify on this request. I think there would be a lot of problems for getting an officer in city hall and, to [inaudible] the supervisors because we really need this office in tune to our needs it we havent been getti answered [timer [gavel] we are back in open session. And we have settled on the items is there a motion on whether or not todiscuss the items during closed session . To not disclose. I second. All those in favor say, aye. Opposed, nay is there any new business . Of commission occurring on july 25, 2016 will begin shortly. Welcome, ladies and gentlemen, to the regular july 25, 2016 meeting of the San Francisco Ethics Commission. I will call the roll. Commissioner keane, commissioner hayon, commissioner chiu. Here. We are still awaiting an appointment for a replacement for commissioner andrews, so all present commissioners are accounted for. Turning to item 2, Public Comment on matters appearing or not appearing on the agenda. Good afternoon, commissioner, charlie mark stellar, for the record, i just wanted to alert the commission to a very important post on the kqed news website that i got over the weekend pertaining to linar corporation, and the developments that are occurring both at both locations in the city. Theres a significant and new items that are being reported in regards to the three indictments that have come down, so i did want to alert you to that and if you dont have it, i can forward it to you. Or to your executive director who will forward it to you, okay, i wanted to alert you to that important item. Im bob plant hold, i just wanted to offer comment about what may be change tos the pending whisleblower ordinance that supervisor breed has introduced and because of their [inaudible] may not be heard in committee for some time. Our group, friends of ethics is suggesting that there ought to be added a requirement that there be mandatory training for all City Employees. Right now, department heads, certain levels of managers, commissioners have to get training in ethics and sunshine, the kurntd draft of the whisleblower seems to require that same type of training for the same type of employees. Were suggesting its not enough and because you folks would help develop, monitor, proofread any training on the whisleblower legislation if it is passesed, i wanted to give you an awareness of theres potential changes. Were asking for this mandatory training because a lot of City Employees do not know about whisleblower ordinance, about protection, about their rights. And because these training could be done online, we dont think it would necessarily be burdensome. I want to give you a reallife example of why and how people may benefit from such training, on the very last night that i was on the Ethics Commission, after i left early for family reasons, a janitorial Maintenance Person stopped me in the hall of city hall and told me some things expecting me to follow through to file a complaint but that person wouldnt come forward, that person was afraid of job retribution. The claims the assertions made were disturbing, unnerving and yet that person did not feel empowered or safe in even asking anybody in that persons union, in that Persons Office for help or understanding how do i complain about this and it was significant financial misdeeds alleged so, this could be a real situation for anybody in all levels of City Government. Youre not going to be involved in enacting the legislation but you may be involved in implementing k it, thats why i wanted to let you know of the possible change, to be more inclusive and more responsive to all in the city staff. Thank you. Any other Public Comment . Hello, michael pe troll lis, iem here to address several matters, theres much talk these days about creating a public advocate here in San Francisco. I believe that we do need a public advocate in part because of the failures of the Ethics Commission and whi say the failures of the Ethics Commission, i was here a few months ago to discuss a complaint i filed on february 24th, five of ago, i brought it to your attention in october, willie brown attend a meeting at the Mayors Office that i obtained the signin sheet through a public records request, willie brown did not list his organization on this signin sheet regarding the meeting he had in october about banking matters with the mayor. Here it is five months later, i have not been contacted by any investigate torx i have come and discussed this complaint with you guys here, nothing has happened. Why should i or any member of the public file complaints when after five months, nothing is happening about the investigations . Nothing. The other matter i wish to discuss with you is something thats coming before you in july, it should have been on your agenda tonight and that is my complaint against steve kawa, the vicemayor, it is found he is in direct violation of city records and retaining city records. Hes been destroying his records. They put it in writing, the Mayors Office put it in writing that steve kawa every two weeks was destroying his agenda, so the complaint finally came from the Sunshine Ordinance Task force to you, it was supposed to be on your agenda for july 25th, yet the may yrs chief of staff sent you a let e i also got a copy of it saying mr. Kawa would be allegedly traveling today and not only that, they needed more time to consult with the City Attorney regarding this matter. Theyve had months of consultations with the City Attorney, who is also in this building yet they requested an extension. Unfortunately, leeann palem on behalf of mr. Renne sent me a letter staining the request of a continuance was granted and there is nothing in this letter fra leeann palem, the drektd toer on behalf of 2 commissioners is indeed steve kawa is out of town. Did you question why the mayor still needs a whole other month to consult with the City Attorney about this matter . Did you verify in any way that steve kawa is indeed out of town . Well, maybe if we had a public advocate, wed get some answers. It is not okay that you have delayed the steve kawa matter until next month. We need urgency from the Ethics Commission. Thank you. Thank you. Alright, ill turn to item number 3, discussion and possible action on draft minutes for the commissions june 27, 2016 regular meeting. Any commissioners have any comments . If not, i have some very minor ones. On page 4, there is a reference to a number of witnesses from represent us, and that should be caps for represent us, initial caps for the organizatione, and thats on both page 4 and 5. Other than that, i have no comment. Any Public Comments on these minutes . Hearing none, i will consider a motion. Move approval. Second. Alright, all in favor . Aye. Minutes are approved unanimously. Turning to item number 4, continued discussion and possible action on proposal regarding a possible november 2016 ballot measure to restrict lobbyist gifts, Campaign Contributions and bundled contributions. And i would just let the executive director palem update us where we are, although i think the memo and is the document that is are attached are very detailed and helpful. Great, thank you, chair renne, i want to draw your attention and the publics attention to the amended documents, supplemental document that is we provides on july 15th when we first posted the memo railroading agenda item 4 with initial draft language as you requested in june, we provide both a june approach and a july alternative as you had indicated an interest in. We provided that on july 15th publicly because we wanted to circulate it as broadly as possible to receive as much Public Comment to enable a full discussion this evening. We received some Public Comment, we did some further revisions based on that and further examination of the language and so we had a memo that we circulated on july 22, i believe, let me just confirm. That has the revised language attached to it, so for purposes of the language that is the most current, they are labeled supplemental attachment 4, item 4, excuse me, supplemental memo attachment 2 and item 4, supplemental memo attachment 3, we will get these straight. Conveniently referred to as the june revised june approach and the revised july alternative. Well get the hang of it before the ef wantoning is over so, we have the lang wang here t memo that was distributed with it explains how the two veers are similar change that is were made to both and they also indicate where the two veers are different, so im happy to walk through that if thats useful to you or to the public or to take Public Comment or discussion that you have. Unless other commissioners feel i think the material you supplied us with is very helpful and explanatory and i would be prepared to not require you to go through it step by step. I agree with that, mr. Chair. Likewise. I guess ill ask, do any of the commissioners have any first, before, as i understand it, what we want whats on the table today is to come up with a final determination as to the proposed ballot measure that we agree to by the end of this meeting because of the impinging, we have to tonight either fish or cut bait. Thats correct. So, with that in mind, i guess ill let the commissioners, any commissioner want to start commenting to either of the options that june or july as to which they may be inclined to favor or any suggestions to changes to the present drafts of those options . Mr. Chair, to get the discussion going, i would just move approval of the revised july proposal. Which proposal . The amended the revised july alternative which would be item 4, supplemental memo attachment 3. I couldnt have said it better myself. Do i hear a second . Second. Alright. I will first ask for before i ask for Public Comment, i have some comments about that draft and questions and possible changes, but i am in support of the july attachment, but if we could turn to that attachment. A question i had first on page pardon me, mr. Chair, could you position the microphone so its closer to your mouth and in a better position, thank you, it is hard to hear you, thank you. I guess the first question and it is on page 4 where there is a question about controlled line 6 it says controlled meeting should have the same meeting as set forth in section 101. 04, this code shall not include any state committees t question is what about committees that are set up to support the candidate but are not controlled by it . They are not covered by this . And is it the City Attorneys view that there are case laws that say they cant be covered . Yeah, and i believe director palem had a footnote, i cant remember if it was the first memo or supplemental memo that addressed a extreme court case in 2007 which involved San Franciscos attempt to place a limit on independent Expenditure Committee or committees independent of candidates control, and that was the plaintiffs move for a preliminary junction which the court grontbacker granted and we settled a case for a not sis cant amount of money, so based on that local case involving our own ordinances as well as case law in the ninth circuit and across the country, i think it would not be particularly legally defensible to include any limits on contributions to whats the rational of saying a lobbyist cant contribute directly to a candidate but he or she can contribute to a committee thats independent but whose only purpose is to get that candidate elected . And im in one of those uncomfortable positions which im trying to defend Supreme Court decisions, but let me try my best. Yeah, so going back buck vvalejo, the big Supreme Court case dealing with contributions versus expenditures and what are the constitutional bounds in placing the limits in what you can do in terms of this recording, different kinds of political mitt taoe, there was a distinction drawn between making contribution directly to a candidate or to a group of people, an Expenditure Committee that is operating independent of the candidate, and this is something that has evolved over time and youve probably seen numerous news articles about super paintings which are independent expenditure mitt taoe, that there are ways to get around this sort of distinction, but for better or for worse, it is a distinction that exists in the case law that there is very little you can do frankly to regulate independent committee that is are not controlled by a candidate. Okay, alder, then on page 5, i know that either friends ethics or represent us that brought that we should add on our definition of lobbyist, Lobbyist Firm, is there any reason why that cant be done . We did look at that question after receiving the Public Comment and one of the changes that we made to clarify that they can be caught up in the restrictions to some extent was to put in language that clarifies the aggregation of gifts and the aggregation of contribution, existing language that we have currently in our city regulations with regard to contributions provide circumstances in which somebody who directs or controls a contribution by another would have those contributions aggregated with their own, so using that, we took parallel approach to include language in this revised version that would have similar result for gifts so, we thought that gets most directly tat question of the Lobbyist Firm may have gifts that or contributions for that matter that are controlled by the lobbyist, they would all be aggregated under this approach. Then turning to page 8, this section starting on line 16, all Campaign Contributions of 100 or more it goes on. How is that even relevant if we said they cant contribute and they cant deliver . Under this approach, you may recall from the june meeting that this july revised alternative intends to create a ban that is narrowly tailored to the individuals of the office that is a lobbyist is registered to lobby, so assuming that the approach if that approach were enacted, there could be offices where a lobbyist is not lobbying and so therefore they would still have a disclosure requirement for any contributions that would not be banned under this approach. I wonder if i mean, because i read it and i thought, why is this here, and it seems to me that maybe to avoid ambiguity say unless otherwise banned, all contributions some language to that effect saying this is applying only to that exception where theyre making contributions to a candidate for whom they have not registered and lobbied. So, very good question, and i guess my or comment, and i guess in terms of drafting the measure, since it is a ballot measure and since it can be in some instances difficult to amend a ballot measure at a later date even though we obviously have something that addresses that issue, we did try to go through and in terms of drafting this keep our edits fairly light, we didnt want to edit unnecessarily to or if we didnt need to, while i certainly understand where youre combining from, i think its best to not edit more than we need to and certainly there could be instances where a lobbyist would need to disclose a contribution if theyre not banned from doing it given the tailored approach of this alternative. [inaudible]. Yeah, and certainly, thank you, leeann, were going to have manual, forms, faqs, regulations and certainly the staff will take [inaudible] presumably from members of the public that will allow tlem to clarify any questions or ambiguity along this front. Because when i read it, i thought, why is this here when what were doing is banning lobbyists from making contributions, youre saying but there are some exceptions or they may not have registered for a candidate who theyre lobbying, and if youre comfortable that it doesnt create sufficient ambiguity that somebody could challenge us later in saying we really didnt intend to ban them, alright. Then on page 11 under section 2. 115, limits and prohibition, the gift prohibition. Is there any reason not to say no lobbyist or lobbying firm shall make a gift . I think its similar to what City Attorney shawn was saying, we dont currently have Lobbyist Firms registered. We might have to create a definition for that and we thoigt that the most direct way to get at that was to use the aggregation rules that we saw similarly applied to contributions. Again, i think its a point well taken and its something we would want to make sure were clear about that those are examples where lobbying activities may be caught under this to the extent has the lobbyist is directing and controlling them. And then in line 23, the it says no contact lobbyist. Wasnt that intended to be lobbyist including both expenditure lobbyist . This particular prohibition is particular for contact lobbyist because its an actual contact with a city officer. So, this is attempt frk this particular prohibition is attempt tog get to a contact lobbyist who misrepresents who they are, since expenditure lobbyists dont necessarily contact city officers, you know, theyre making money to urge others to contact lobbyist, its doesnt seem appropriate. Im not sure what youre saying. Im on line 23. My apologies, yes, thank you. And it should be out, right . Yes, my apologies, i thought you were talking about the next page. Okay. Then turning to page 12, line 8, there was suggestion made in some of the communications, either from friends of ethics or represent us about that we should have a prohibition on city officers soliciting contributions from a lobbyist. Now, as i understand possibly in supervisor peskins legislation on behest, that provision is something nas being considered that would prohibit a city official from soliciting a Charitable Gift to an educational or whatever other institution it might be or governmental institution, but is there any reason why where we say that no officer of the city and county may accept or solicit any gift, is there any reason why we dont include including soliciting contributions to 501 c3 organizations, whether theyre educational, governmental or other purposes . I think its a question of the place that we started from of having this focused on the type of personal benefit that an official might have, either tlau Campaign Contribution from a lobbyist or a gift from a lobbyist. Certainly to the extent that a lobbying firm is providing some benefit to some nonprofit that an elected official cares about, thats a question that probably should be looked at but im not sure that its only as to lobbyists, so i think on balance with approach this measure intends to take, it was narrower than getting at those issues admittedly, but i think those are issues that should be looked at in a broader context with others who might also be asking for those kinds of donations, being solicited for those kinds of donations. And as i understand it, it may be part of what supervisor peskins legislation is looking at on behest, so i will drop that comment. On page 13, one of the suggestions about was how they can circumstance circumvent it and we seek to solve it with a 30 day window, people circumventing changing their designation. Is there any reason why we couldnt with were talking about bundling, is there any reason why we couldnt make a complete prohibition on bundling because in many ways tha,s the most egregious action that goes on is that collecting money by a lobbyist and then delivering it on behalf of a number of people and if we if we just had said you cant bundle if youre a lobbyist, would we be in trouble . Yes, so certainly as you recall from the last meeting, i believe you were the commissioner who proposed taking the targeted approach thats represented in the july revised alternative, certainly if we think that approach is ta tailored approach is appropriate for direct campaign, it would be appropriate for bundled contributions as well, from a constitutional perspective websinger are impacting peoples about to make Campaign Contributions to certain officials and as much as you can make that targeted at the anticorruption concerns this entire scheme is getting at, the more defensible it is. I understand that on individual contributions that its targeted, but if we didnt if we said on bundling because bundling is much of a potential for corruption than the 500 contribution, and some of the testimony weve seen that some of these lobbyists bundle hundreds of thousands of dollars and deliver. If we say theres we dont want them to contribute directly to a candidate but were going to allow them to bundle it to any candidate other than those for which theyve registered, it seems to me we may be missing a chance, we may lose somebody may attack it and some court may say, you should have tattered your bundling, but i would be disposed to try and stop the bundling. So, the rational for preventing in this proposal, direct contributions to the lobbyist to a direct [inaudible] that theyre supposed to o lobby, we think that contribution will allow them to curry favor with the more receptive to whatever the lobbyist is proposing or advocating for or maybe opposing in some instances. I think and correct me if im wrong, i believe that the commissions view on bundling is largely the same, its not different inkind, its different in scope, that instead of simply talking about a single up to 500 individual contribution from a lobbyist, we should also be concerned about the corruptive influence of not my 500 check if i were a lobbyist but a fairly decent stack of 500 checks. Clients, other people, interested parties and how that can also have a potentially corrupt of influence of the recipient of those bundle contributions, so were getting at the same problem, its the same problem but just different in scope. It seems that if we believe for the smaller contribution it ice appropriate to taster and say that the ban should only apply to those officials, the robyn is register today lobby, we would wanted to maintain that parallel, we think that bundle contributions like an individual contribution paves the way for the lobbyist to have a more successful pitch to an elected official. Alright, just a thought that i thought i would throw out. Can i follow up on that . Yes, go ahead. Listening to chair renne, it makes a very important i think in regard to what were attempting to do and just isolating, bundling on it by itself and saying this is something that is by its very nature subject to a great amount of abuse and the whole aspect of political contributions not being limited too much as to be unconstitutional in regard to restrictions on freedom of speech that youve identified in buck lee harvester valeyo where youre preventing somebody from making a statement, i favor this person and youre preventing them from making that statement by making that statement but giving money to that person and you cant do that, you simply cant have a blanket kind of preventing of someone to do that, but we wouldnt be preventing them from making that statement or giving contributions to a person and therefore making that statement if we say, fine, you can do that but you cant bundle. This is a mechanism that weve identified as something that is too much subject to corruption, big pay to play characters come in with a ton of envelopes from big shots and they bundle and they get special favors, so i think if we could and im not so sure we couldnt, in fact, as i listened to chair renne, i became more convinced that we could, if we could take bundling itself and have a prohibition relating to bundling, i think we might be able to do it and i think it might be something that we would want to do. So, is that too ambitious . I wanted to weigh in here as well. I understand the desire to prohibit bundling outright but what im wondering, what does the data show us from the bundling that has gone on in the past, who has it gone to and how much contact has been following the payment because in the absence of content, i dont know if lobbyist would bundle a large amount of money and contribute to the Mayors Campaign and not follow up, how would they further their agenda or their clients agenda in the absence of contact . I did work with the staff to create the foundation for this proposal and we certainly did find some instances in which there was some bundling and then some contacts in a seemingly relevant time period. Perhaps there wasnt always a close one to one connection between a bundle contribution or set of bundle contributions and a contact but certainly there seems to be in some instances some connections there but going back to commissioner keanes point, you know, and i know the commissions well aware of this, that the purpose of Campaign Finance laws as per the Supreme Court is legitimate if theyre seeking to prevent corruption or the appearance of corruption, and what im hearing from commissioner keane is bundling is something that we want to prevent or avoid or impact but for an entirely different it seems like interest. And i would simply urge the commission to keep focused on the anticorruption interest that all these proposals were working on our fundamentally geared towards combating. Well, what i said was not a concern about bundling different from anything other than corruption or the appearance of corruption, so i dont understand when you say that my addressing the aspect of bundling somehow im addressing it in a whole new way different than everything that weve been tattering so far, i think what chair renne brought up and what i followed with is something that is right in line with the whole topic of where were going and that is addressing issues of corruption and appearance of corruption in campaign financing, so what did you have in mind when you just said that im addressing Something Different . And, you knower, i apologize if you misunderstood but if were talking about a tailored approach here, weir talking about prohibited contributions or other fundraising activity from a lobbyist to an official, when that lobbyist is attempt tog contact that official. That is the tailored approach that the commission arise at last months meeting, that seems appropriate. Again, if we think these contributions make the recipient of the contributions more receptive to a lobbyist, then the lobbyist otherwise would be, that the lobbyist has a leg up because they have made a contribution directly or have parented raent presented a bundle of couldnt bourses. I think you have limited what weve been talking about all along, if the lobbyist is bundling for the purpose of contacting the official, nas not any kind of limitation weve been talking about, weve been talking about if the lobbyist is bundling to unduly influence the official, whether theres contact or not, contact is i dont think is relevant at all. Ix im a little bit unclear how with respect to most lobbyists, how would you be influencing the official without contacting them, isnt that how you would be influences them . Well, if the official knew whether you contacted him or her or not, you would be able to bundle together a lot of money and it would have come his way, that would certainly influence him, whether that official ever had any kind of contact with you whatsoever. The money was bundled and the money then got into your Campaign Committees funds and the official knows, this is joe big shot who did this for me and joe big shot wants me to approve his paving over Golden Gate Park so he can make some money there. So, i think ill vote for that. Isnt that wouldnt that be corruption in terms of a quick pro quo contribution. But in the absence of contact, how would the elected official know that the lobbyist wabt wanted to pave over Golden Gate Park . Well, i think that you can get a message to someone in lots of ways without actually having a one on one contact with that person. Clearly thats the more direct way, but if im a politician and i hear that someone has been responsible for an enormous amount of money to be placed at my disposal or through and has done it through bundling, even though i never met that pensioner i never will meet that person, i may tend to feel favorable towards that person with regard to later influence thats going to be put upon me for something that has to be done. I dont think contacting is really the somehow the main test of this. Are we am i talking parallel to something here . Im getting the impression that from your looks that im more incoherent than i usually am . No, i wouldnt say that at all. I guess the question is that logic would apply to those who are also not lobbyists, so how are those messages sent and for what purposes and how far would you take a bundling ban . I mean, it does raise that question i think as well, but its i think the assumption that this discussion has been built on is that these are folks who are either spending a lot of money to directly to communicate a message to elected officials to achieve a certain outcome even expenditure or from compensation through clients and when you remove the communication piece from that interaction, i think it begs a question about whether theres a broader approach that needed to be looked at and whether the it just seems to commissioner chius point, how do you know unless theres some sort of communication about an interest and that seems to be one of the Critical Links in this puzzle . Okay, im not going to beat on it. Let me ask you, your alternative was setting a 90 day limit. Why the 90 days . Is there some magic . No, theres no magic to 90 days, i think in response to the concern that represent us had raised about whether there might be an intentional gaming to have system by people registering and then reregistering just solely so they can contribute or bundle, its in essence trying to create a cooling off period after theres been that interaction and an attempt to establish a relationship through a communication where money would then follow that simply because of the a deregistration. Whats the impinging and when somebody has to file for an office candidate, how far in advance from an election . It could vary tremendously, for a november election would be early august, i think probably a lot more credible candidates probably take out their papers early spring, something along that sort, especially if theyre seeking Public Finance for which they need simple additional paper work and evidence of public support, i think Something Like that. So, probably not quite a year out from the election but not too far from that would be my guess. Im just wonder ifing the date, if you moved it tout 180 days, half a year, the likelihood that somebody would try to game the system by discontinuing his or her contact with a city official with the anticipation that theyre going the raise money more them and maybe you could put it at both ends and would be prohibited from lobbying 90 days or 100 days or that official after, i dont know. I think we had some discussion about the preregistration concept so, the concern that people will give a lot of contributions and then register only thaf activity is done, i think that is fundamentally a part of a process where you are trying to tailor a contribution ban to communication that is are intended to influence a person and under that approach, i think its madder to try to establish a preregistration ban of some sort because in fairness to anybody whos attempting to do that process, if they have not communicated to someone, what would why would we f we say that if somebody saying after im going to lobby the mayor but then 90 days before they deregister, im no longer going to lobby and then raises a lot of money for the mayor and the next day says im going to lobby the mayor, we havent done much, have we, at that point. So, couldnt you you could put a restriction at the other end, couldnt you . Certainly if i could respond to your previous question about why not go to 6 months so i guess 180 day, my general impression although i certainly would defer to the director on this, certainly within the last 6 months of a campaign is where you would think most to have fundraising would happen, six months out relative to a november election puts you in early may, mid spring which is fairly early on i would think in most candidates cycles, certainly more it it comes in at the very end, if you want to extend 90 to 180, i can certainly understand that approach. And turning again on page 13 to the aggregation, that is in there because of the fact that were targeting the lobbyist in terms of who theyve registered to lobby, in other words, one of the ago retailing of contributions is they cant make a contribution. Again, there may be certain circumstances where they cant make a contribution but because theres no entity like a lobbying firm thats prohibited in making a contribution, if the lobbyist is prohibited from making a contribution because theyre registered to lobby that agency, that individual, then if they direct and control the contribution of their firm, that would also be prohibited. Alright. I think those are the only comments. Do any commissioners have comments . Call for Public Comment on the motion that we adopt the july proposal as drafted. Im bob plant hold, im a member of friends of ethics and yes, we support moving ahead with the revised july and ill let you fill in the other 28 words afterwards. I wanted to speak specifically to the questions raised by commissioners keane and chiu from my own experience, so first off, with regard to section 2a 2. 115 a2 which shows up on page 5 about the restriction on soliciting, i want to give you an example aof why its worthwhile, why it might be beneficial. I happen to be in a car driving with somebody to an Agency Meeting outside San Francisco, this person is paid by a Major Company in a major industry in San Francisco. People would look at that person as a lobbyist, maybe official, maybe not. I was in the car, this person got a call from the Mayors Office asking that person to raise a lot of money for a hirable sports event, fo rnl gently no one heard me, but my ears were starting to writing because he was also been appoint today a commission, so is it possible to raise none for the supervisor or assemblymember or do you have to produce money in order to be considered for an appointment, so im suggesting there assist a benefit to keeping that provision in. With respect to bundling and commissioner chiu questioned of what does the record show . Its pretty damn hard to find out if things are really bundled. Ive gone to lots of fundraising dinners, you pay for the dinner and a portion goes to the a committee. Ive seen people walk up and hand checks to somebodyfinger not to the candidate, there was one elected official who had a cousin who was on the Central Committee of a Major Political party, so people knew, go to the cousin and give the cousin the khe, so theres no formal record of whoever handed in a bunch of checks to that cousin. The Campaign Just records the individual khex, who gave it, would was their employer dollar amount, you dont know that joe big shot was the one who brought these but the cousin knows, so the record is hard to find, hard to verify, incomplete, thats why theres a benefit to keeping in a prohe bysing about bundling just because that does happen all too often, if you really sit on the sidelines and watch these events. Thank you. Hello, my names charlotte hill, im the Communications Director for represent us and the direct door of represent california which is our california state branch, im also resident of San Francisco since 2011 and an advocate for mroit cal reform in america more broadly and im so pleased and grateful to see this initiative being considered for the November Ballot here in San Francisco and specifically the july alternative of the initiative which represent us fully supports. San francisco as you know has struggled in recent years with public Corruption Cases and i believe we have the opportunity with this initiative to put those abuses in our past and become leaders in the fiekt against political corruption, so i want to thank you for seriously considering the lobbyist ban weve put forward, we greatly appreciate the thoughtfulness with what youve approached this initiative and look forward to working with you in the future to make our citys elected officials more responsive to the people of San Francisco. Thank you. Thank you. Hi, im morgan ache young with represent us and i wanted to thank you all for your hard work and echo charlottes thanks on the thought put into this mesh yaou, we appreciate it and were excited this is being considered for november and just to be respectful of your time, we have a lot of people here supporting and i want everyone to stand up and you can see everyone woulds in support, friends of ethics and represent us, so people nr the community. Thank you, guys. [applause]. Hell lean graikbacker graik owe, i want to nang the commissioners and the executive director for paying great attention to this and bringing forward a solution, [inaudible] it imposes a clear and more administrative rule and is more likely to with stampeder legal challenge than the june approach, California Law indicates that ablaout f laout laws in lobbying [inaudible] have been upheld, the july alternative by modeling state law accounts for this distinction t june approach while not a ban proposes to treat lobbyists differently, a likely free speech violation given current case law so, we support the july alternative, thank you. Thank you. Good eve anyones commissioners, debbie lur man from the San Francisco Human Services network, i am speaking to a memo that i submitted very last minute dated today regarding the proposed ballot measure, and i have a couple of point tos make, first of all, this is a Good Government measure and we do agree with its intent. The concerns weve raised have only pertained to a couple of situations which would have a detrimental impact on nonprofits but no risk of undue influence, first of all, there is in the language of the ordinance an exception for gifts of food or refreshment and we want to say thank you for include hating in the ordinance, we hope you will accept the staffs draft language on that point and we appreciate it. Secondly, we had asked that there be a restoration of an exemption that is in current law around nonprofit conferences so that we can share information with Public Officials. It is my understanding today, i had a phone call from director palem clarify hating the state definition of gifts which is what is included in this measure does include still that particular narrow exemption for informational conferences in sim pose ya, so my memo, i believe that concern has been addressed and so i just want to say that for the record as well, and those are our two most significant problems with the measure, so that is great news. I do want to make one technical point that i believe should be addressed in this measure and that relates to inflation. The charter of San Francisco which list it is duties and responsibilities of this commission requires an annual adjustment of any kinds of limitation or disclosure thresholds imposed by city law or using the annual increase or decrease in cpi, i believe that since this is a ballot measure, it supersedes the charter which is older and therefore there would need to be language in here specifying that those duties and responsibilities are also part of this ordinance, and thats the problem with ballot measures, things get set in stone. If you have a 25 food or refreshment limit in a few short years in San Franciscos economy, that will only have a dollar value of 20 so, there should be a cpi adjustment made to that and i hope the City Attorney can clarify whether the cheater does in fact apply here or whether something would need to be placed into the ordinance to ensure that the duties and responsibility and authority to make cpi adjustment tos the feature ins this measure would still be within your purview. Thank you. Thank you. Thats c3 6799 c3 69911. Im david, im a member of represent us and i would like to very much thank you guy, thank the commission for taking into consideration this action to try and bring some conference back to government, we formed our group about a year back, this is our first full reign trying to see how Government Works and how we can make our mark on it and attempt tog make sure that every person in the city of San Francisco has an equal voice and no one is given preferential treatment because of the amount of money they can contribute, in what way and what manner and what rules they circumvent is important to us, weve been working to make sure that peoples perception of government which is currently rock bottom both in the city and the state and nationally in terms of corruption and in terms of undue influence of money, we seek to curtail that, and we are very glad that you are helping us in trying to pass legitimate reform that is address this issue and helping turn the boat around and getting voters confident and excited about the direction that City Government is facing. I would like to thank you from my heart that what youre doing is bringing a lot of hope to us and we hope that you stay on the right course. Thank you. Thank you. Good evening, commissioners, my name is jonathan and im a marital elections law attorney mere in the city, i have two minor comments to make with regard to the gift prohibition and the to the Campaign Contribution and bundling prohibition. Reflecting on a comment i made last month during this meeting, i believe you guys should consider amending the gift prohibition to only apply to contact lobbyists as oppose today expenditure lobbyists, the reason for this is reflective in the kind of government purpose for passing this regulation, and that we want to ensure that those who contact city officials cannot curry favor with them through gifts, as i discussed before, an expenditure lobbyist is indirectly urging others to contact in the public usually to contact Public Officials for purpose of influencing legislation. There is no risk of quick pro quo in this situation and corruption in this situation, i feel by having a broad definition of lobbyist for the gift prohibition, you may run some constitutional or legal issues in that respect. I cant see the reason for this legislation and i encourage you to look at that, if a small nonprofit spent 125 thousand dollars to say contact your legislator, your sports supervisor about affordable housing, that should not have them have a gift prohibition, the state prohibition that applies to all local and state officials, i dont see much of a difference by limiting a nonprofit to 460 versus 0. Another kind of just very, very technical cleanup and i believe theses the purpose of
comparemela.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.