Good evening ladies and gentlemen and welcome to the regular meeting march 28, 2016 of the San Francisco Ethics Commission. Commissioner andrews, here. Commissioner hayon, here. Commissioner keane, here. We have a visitor. Commissioner hur. Let me say we welcome you back and particularly in the view the fact well cover the wistal blow rr regulations we passed at the last meeting and i see you didnt bring your plaque that you stethly took away in february. It wasnt given to me but it is reviding in my office. Welcome. I will ask for Public Comment on matters appearing or not appearing on the agenda and believe madam assesser is here to make a few words thank you. Good afternoon commissioners. Executive director pelm. We were in the crowd wondering about commissioner hurs name tag. Glad to hear you have one. Today i want to come here because today is commissioner hurs last day with the Ethics Commission and would prefer to find a way to extend his term but i want to express my gratitude
When it comes to those that are spending 10 thousand or less it is perfectly understanding with. 3 percent of the totem spending why you wouldnt audit any. I worry about the message that sends. We are saying if you spend 10 thousand of less you have zero risk if you misspent the funds and not sure that is the message we want to send. Even if it is a rel tivly token percentage at least it sends a message there is some risk that fraudulent reporting would be caught and fined by the commission. My other concern, when it comes to the audit i think a lot of that depends on how quickly you can ge through them. One thing im concerned is lets make sure we do them faster and if people dont comply we should hold it against them and not wait for them to give materials. If you tell me it is lot faster than the past then what you suggested makes sense. If it is about the same speed than we run the risk where candidates who lose dont have a vested interest complying and may be long gone by the time
C as set forth in the [inaudible]. Speaker mr. Keane. Speaker ill second that. Those two specific aspects, the Supreme Court of the United States has been rather definitive that thats something that we cannot indeed enforce. And we did vote a few months ago exactly the way commissioner reanne is proposing and we voted unanimously thats not in our power. On those i dont have a problem with, and i think its redundant and i second mr. Hurt. Speaker all in favor. Speaker aye. Speaker opposed. Hearing none that motion passes. Speaker can you go to the next. Speaker thank you, chair. The second set of amendments is with respect to reporting requirements for third parties who are involved in supporting or opposing candidates for city elections and the city has instituted three c fro a number of reporting requirements over the years, which are designed for primarily for two things. One is general disclosure to the public. So that the public can fairly judge messages. So that there is a transpa
Those two specific aspects, the Supreme Court of the United States has been rather definitive that thats something that we cannot indeed enforce. And we did vote a few months ago exactly the way commissioner reanne is proposing and we voted unanimously thats not in our power. On those i dont have a problem with, and i think its redundant and i second mr. Hurt. Speaker all in favor. Speaker aye. Speaker opposed. Hearing none that motion passes. Speaker can you go to the next. Speaker thank you, chair. The second set of amendments is with respect to reporting requirements for third parties who are involved in supporting or opposing candidates for city elections and the city has instituted three c fro a number of reporting requirements over the years, which are designed for primarily for two things. One is general disclosure to the public. So that the public can fairly judge messages. So that there is a transparency with respect to political actors. But then also so the voluntary and the
Thank you. Speaker so im happy to hear from other commissioners on this particular one. I mean, to me this one seems pretty clear. If we think we need to defer it to another meeting, im happy to consider this with other issues, but i also dont want to have to revisit things that weve already addressed. You know, to mr. Bushs point, i also dont think that we have to deal with all c fro changes in one meeting. Theres other c fro changes we can address. I do think mr. Bush raises a good point if there are things that we havent addressed that we should be, lets take those up. I dont know that we should holdup all proposed changes because it doesnt include everyone we want to change in c fro. But i open it up to my fellow commissioners. Speaker im prepared to move that we on Decision Point 1 that we approved the section 1. 114 a 2 and 1. 114 c as set forth in the [inaudible]. Speaker mr. Keane. Speaker ill second that. Those two specific aspects, the Supreme Court of the United States has b