that that rfq does come empowere chair to work with council and administrative officer to scopee the person identified for the r. >> thank you. do we have a second? okay. i think -- so this is moved by i have to -- do we have to approve amendment? or can we have that as one moti? >> clerk: the motion hadn't beee yet, so she was adding to it. >> supervisor fewer: is commissr pollock making that motion or m? >> clerk: should be one or the . >> i'm happy to make the motione an rfq and empower the chair tok with the legal council and exece officer to create a process andn individual for the position. >> supervisor fewer: thank you. moved by commissioner ronen secy commissioner pollock without ob. the commission authorizes the cr to -- this motion passes. madam clerk, please call item 7. >> clerk: public comment. >> supervisor fewer: are there y members of the public that woulo speak? seeing none, public comment is . i'd like to thank everyone and u all happy mol days. >> clerk: we have item 8. item 8 is future agenda items. >> supervisor fewer: any futures that commissioners would like td calendar to discuss? no. public comment. seeing none. public comment is now ended. >> that concludes our business. >> now happen holidays and a haw year to everyone. >> we have to adjourn. >> okay. [gavel] >> everybody, welcome to the regularly scheduled meeting of the ethics commission for november 27th, 2017. i'll now call the roll. vice mayor -- vice mayor. >> i've been elevated. >> actually been demoted. vice chair chiu. >> here. >> commissioner renne? >> commissioner kopp, we expect him at any moment. commissioner lee? so we'll start with matters appearing or not appearing on the public agenda. go ahead, just...yeah. what you do is it'll be at the -- the public comment will be at the microphone, so just after this gentleman, you come on up and have your say. sure. >> commissioners, i'd like to have the slide on the overhead up on the screen. the civil grand jury of the city and county of san francisco 2010-2011 issued a report entitled san francisco's ethics commission, the sleeping watching dog. the report included the following statement: because of the ethics commission's lack of enforcement, no city employee has been disciplined for failing to adhere to the sunshine ordinance. the commission has allowed some city officials to ignore some of the rules of the sunshine task force. the law hasn't changed. you also decide in favor of the city against the citizen. citizens are the complainants, the city are the respondents, and every single time you find for the city; in other words, the city committed no violation. i myself have 37 orders of determination from the task force saying in their opinion, the law had been violated, and every one of those that has been referred to you, you always find in the same manner. now, i don't know how due process works in your lawyerly minds, but to me, due process does not result in always coming up with the same decision against the same party and for the same party, and that's what you do every single time as regard sunshine. the kapuki theater piece, in your last meeting, which purported to be a meeting on a sunshine task force referral displays this body's blatant disregard for the rule of law. in the good government guide, there is a section that i would suggest you read. it's called roles of commissioners. the section mentions things like due process, and direct commissioners when acting in a quasi judicial capacity to, quote, base their decisions on the evidence and the governing law. as the civil grand jury reported in 2010, so it is now and so it shall continue. this body has a responsibility under the sunshine ordinance to enforce the ordinance. you never have. you're dishonest people. you hold hearings that are nothing but farces. that hearing that you held last month was a farce. you always intended to find what you found, which is no violation; and, the interesting thing is that commissioner kopp, who's the only one who tried to justify the decisions, actually picked out three things from miss calvillo's letter to this commission that were dishonest and misrepresented. she said that the advice of the task force had changed. there was never changed. there was simply a period where there were four empty seats on the task force, and they did not find a violation because they needed 6 out of 6 votes. >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is audrey leong, a-u-d-r-e-y l-a-n-e-o-n-g. i have been here in san francisco for 26 years, and i spoke to you after witnessing my chinese co-worker who was harassed by a caucasian manager. after this, i started harassment and retaliation by the same caucasian male program manager. i'm here today to thank you all for having department of ethics commission contact me regarding my complaint. thank you. my current job class is 1630. i have been a union steward for more than ten years for seiu 21. i have exercised my responsibility and duty for the city of san francisco employees. my doctor asked me to take care of myself, reduce my stress and stay away from this program manager to avoid harassment. i was advised a year ago to stay away from harassment. now, this year, in june 2017, i was reassigned back to the same program manager. human service agency, hsa failed to apply fair treatment to me. i love my job. i want to come back to work, but i cannot under the same program manager who has a history of harassment -- of harassing and retaliating against me and my co-workers. please, you must investigate this matter. thank you. >> thank you. >> i have a doctor's slip. do you want my doctor's slip, too? >> yes, why don't you give that to our staff and we'll make that part of the tifile on you complaint. >> good afternoon, ethics commissioners. thank you for serving our city. my name is ellen lee zhou. for the purpose of record, e-l-l-e-n l-e-e z-h-o-u. i am a bargaining team memorier for seiu 1021. we had approximately 7,000 seiu members city and county. i am here to support audioly leong who just spoke to you before me, and many public service employees. many of them are afraid of coming here to speak to you today. city and county employees afraid of being retaliated by city and county staff. as you learned, audrey today, her situation is many that we face today within different departments. audioly leong and both exercised our seiu shop store responsibilities and duties. we stood up and testified against harassment, discrimination, bullying and corruption. audrey, myself, and many other city employees from different departments spoke and testified in front of the civic services commission in december 2015, and many times in 2016, we report some of the people pay to get their jobs, while other people who passed the exam and more qualified and make it to the hiring list were never had a chance to be hired? the civic services commission was created to stop corruptions. the mission of ethics commission is to practice and promote the highest standards of ethic behavior in government and promote a work environment that is value health, well-beings, and diversity. the merit system, it's for fair employment and fair hiring practices. director of human services director mickey callahan and achie chief officer susan guard, they acknowledge the problem that we have brought in front of them, and they have said it to the commissioners for the last six years. they agree to change practices and make changes, but nothing happened. as you know, many people have been investigated by federal investigated, the fbi and the district attorney, since 2011 we have brought many complaints to you in different departments, and i have filed many complaints on behalf of many workers to ethics commission, so please investigate the complaints that we file with you, and i hope that you continue to serve our city, and thank you. >> thank you. >> for the purpose -- because the time does not allow me to say the whole thing. thank you. >> okay. >> hello. my name is vivian impuralli. the stronger the rules are to prevent undue influence, the better. let's face it. human beings are vulnerable, and can lose perspective when trying to advance their careers. they rationalize that they're doing nothing wrong. they think that they are the exception to the rule. they maintain they are not influenced by money. they think they cannot be manipulated, but they can be. we need donations to be open and not hidden under the guise of quickly formed committees pretending to be what they are not. we need to know who is supporting whom and what legislation is being pushed. money talks, and people listen. candidates and officials accepted to build a war chest, and war it is; a fight for political survival. big bucks influencing big decisions that have a big impact on all of us. we are here to remind you that in these david and goliath battles, there are many davids who are looking to you to advance reasonable requirements, providing limitations, and transparency. our voices must be heard, and to our credit, cannot be bought. >> thank you. any further public comment? okay. we'll then go to agenda item 3, discussion and possible action on draft minutes for the commission's october 23rd, 2017 regular meeting. it's the attachment -- has the draft minutes. are there any comments or suggestions by members -- members of the commission? >> on the -- i ask -- on the next to last -- page 5, at the top of the page, there's reference to a couple of proposed ordinances, and the last sentence states that chair keane advised that at its next meeting, which would have been the november meeting, that should have been the december meeting. >> that's correct. >> otherwise, with that amendment, i would move adoption of the minutes of the october 23, 2017 meeting on the record. >> and commissioner renne has some observations. >> this may be a silly question, but what is the purpose of the minutes? why are they required? [ inaudible ] >> but for what purpose? the reason i ask is, when i read these minutes, if i were a private citizen looking at these minutes, i would have no idea what the various speakers said. it'll just say -- you look at, for example, it'll say -- let's go to page 3, item 4. discussion and possible action regarding proposed amendments to the ethics commission bylaws to change the time of the commission's regular meeting. it goes down to ray hart, and david leehan all spoke on this agenda. the public had no idea what they said. now, is it that they can then go to the transcript to find out what was said? i'm just curious. i read the minutes, and i said, i would have no idea on any given item, when the speaker's identified, what he or she said. >> if -- if -- the question is whether these are legally sufficient. i think the answer is yes. whether -- but i think it's up to the commission whether to add more detail or to -- you know, to instruct, you know, the staff to put greater detail in the -- in the -- in the minutes. >> i mean, i hate to put a burden, but i assume there's someone who, when they prepare them, is listening to the record and could, if they -- if he or she wished, could summarize -- in fact one of the complaints that mr. hart has always made is that when we do summarize, we misstate, but i just was struck by this set of minutes that almost every time, when it said somebody spoke, i don't know if they spoke for or against. >> if i could commissioner renne, this is a good thing to provide feedback on and for the public to provide feedback on. as josh said, the minutes are legally sufficient, but we know we want them to be more than that, so the public can actually understand what the commission is doing. the balance i was trying to strike is we also have televised meetings that are available on an archive on the website, so over time, i think we're trying to find that balance of how much detail is necessary in the written minutes and how much are we assuming that people will be going to the audio or the video on-line. that said, i think, again, to the extent that your feedback is that these are not sufficient to really understand what the discussion was, we can certainly go back to adding a bit more, so if that's useful to you, we can certainly do that. we want to make sure that they are useful, but we also don't want to provide an exact transcription. we do have somebody literally listening to the audio the next day and can add more detail, if that's useful. >> i want to include on the minutes or something that for greater detail, go to whatever the website is, for them to -- if it piques their interest. >> we'll make sure to add that. >> okay. we have a motion by supervisor -- by commissioner kopp to -- i can't -- i can't figure out what -- where i'm sitting. >> i'll second the motion. >> the motion has been made and seconded. we have public comment in regard to the minutes. >> well, now, you see why i have spent the last ten years fighting to get the 150 word summaries into the minutes. it varies from board and commission. the clerk of the board of supervisors says all you need to do is meet the very minimum the law requires: the person's name, what they spoke about, and whether they were for or against. that's the minimum. other bodies make an honest effort because they want the public to participate and they want what the public's input is to actually be reflected in the official record, and that's what the minutes are: they are the official record. the videotape and any other form are not the official record. in the minutes before you are two 150 word summaries: one by dr. derek kerr, and one by myself. i would challenge any member of this commission to provide any evidence that the responsibility for record keeping minutes has been in some way compromised. for approximately five years, from 2011 to 2016, this body relegated my statements to the status of an addendum. then, in 2016, the summaries began to appear as they are now, quote, in the minutes, unquote. so the sunshine ordinance states, so the task force has for years both rule and direct it be done, and the wheels of government have yet to grind to a halt. i find it truly hypocritical that the only person who expressed any basis for exempting the board of supervisors from this requirement was commissioner kopp who was appointed by the board of supervisors. what was particularly interesting is he happened to pick out several examples which the clerk of the board put into her letter which were dishonest. she said the task force had given conflicting advice. now, there were several cases she mentioned where there was no violation found, not because there wasn't a violation but because the board of supervisors for two years left four seats on the task force empty, and you had to get six out of seven votes to prevail, or in some cases, to get a quorum, six out of six, and every case they failed to find a violation that miss calvillo presented that failed to find conflicting information was a case like this, where i got five out of six or six out of seven votes, so his calvillo was dishonest, and you took it just hook, link and sinker. now, i'm telling you every board has put these 150 word summaries in their minutes. last month, you gave her permission to not do that. based on what, i don't know. she's never discussed it before the board. >> any further public comment on the minutes? all right. we have a motion. it's been seconded. all in favor of approving the minutes, please say aye. the minutes are approved unanimously. what we're going to do next in deference of supervisor kim who has joined us is take a matter out of order, and that is we're going to go to agenda item 8, and we're going to take item 8ha2 -- 2aii. >> i'm sorry, agenda item 2, ii, which is aagenda item 8, and it has to do with supervisor cohen -- excuse me, supervisor kim who is going to address us and present a substitute draft of her proposed campaign finance legislation and is requestingn of her proposed campaign finance legislation and is requesting that we meet to advance her proposals in this regard. supervisor kim, nice to have you with us. please proceed. >> thank you, chair keane, and thank you to the ethics commission. i will do my best to be brief because i likely know that you have a long meeting ahead of you. so i wanted to come and present an ordinance that i first have introduced in july of this year and have recently introduced the second this month, but first, i just want to take a moment to thank the ethics commission staff, both the director and also your public policy team, kyle and patrick, for really spending almost the entire year working with us on this ordinance, since january . my interest in helping to strengthen our disclosure and transparency requirements is really, i think what we are all seeing here, both nationally and locally, which is incredibly alarming which is the increased cloud over money that is being spent in electoral politics today, and also, the outside proportion that wealthy donors are having and who are representing members of our government, both on a national, state and local level. since citizens united decision, our country has witnessed an unprecedented infusion of money into our elections mostly funneled by large corporations and billianaires. we did also submit one page on our ordinance, and i apologize. we're going to continue to work on this, but even here in san francisco, we included a graphic on the proportion of third party spending just in supervisory raced frs from 200 2016. last year, in 2016, it made up 54% of all spending in supervisorial raced. so our goal is really, to the best of our abilities, increasing transparency and disclosure requirements, both for them and third party committees. it's a very difficult task because as you create more requirements, people find more loopholes, as well, so we're doing our best to continually update and strengthen the requirements that we have. and so the highlights of the legislation are this: one is to ensure campaign material will now include information on original source of funds, whether it's personal or business income for personal expenditures, and to ask that they list their top dope ors of more than $20,000. the second is they run their disclosure before the tv and radio aids, as well as requiring now a 14 point font for written communications instead of the current 12. third is to include notation in the voter information pamphlets on which campaigners agree to donor limitation. this is to clarify certain candidates, for example, that are publicly financed candidates can't accept the voluntary spending limit, so this would just clarify what can be written in the voter pamphlets. four is to mail voters a communication, and the way that it's written in our ordinance today is the week that the absentee ballots go out that list all the original source funders for third party spending in the previous election cycle. this is a way for us to inform voters that we do have a great degree of third party spending in san francisco in our elections and to get voters to think about how third party spending in our current election cycle. it will then point to a website that this ordinance is asking the ethics commission to maintain that will in -- as best as possible perform real-time updates on third party expenditures being spent on the current election cycle. five is to compel condid thes to attest that they are not coordinating with noncandidate controllers when they compare. the last is election year communications and member communications distributed through social media. and just want to add, we know the disclosed act has in many ways updated the social media advertising requirements, but we want to he enumeraenumerate our ordinance, as well, not just in television and the e-mailers, but in the social media aspect, as well. we also want to ask that the annual report that we're getting through the charter that included in that are recommendations to the board of supervisors and the mayor how we can continue to update or requirements on social media electioneering. we know this is a field that changes almost month to month and year to year, and what we are regulating today cannot anticipate what new innovations can come from emerging technology tomorrow, so just to ensure that this is something that the commission is always thinking about and advising the city on what we can do to strengthen those regulations. there are two additional pieces of the ordinance that did not actually make it into this second version that we introduced two weeks ago. most importantly is that we are working with ethics commission staff on reexamining our public financing program. san francisco was at the forefront with our public financing program in the early 2000's, and now we're seeing cities -- other cities increase their investment into public finances, cities like new york city and l.a. are now doing 6:1 matches. but interestingly, on a limited portion of a contribution, so perhaps the first $175 would get matched 6:1, and the rest of the contribution would still go forward to the candidate but would not not matched by public financing, there by, hopefully empowering small donors and hopefully increasing the number of unique donors to candidates, so we're currently working with a budget legislative analyst to figure out how much that would cost. we think that it is possible, given how little of our public financing pot we spend every year currently, so we think that we can increase public financing and really ensure that candidates are spending their time doing what they're supposed to do, going out and meeting voters, instead of spending their time calling their wealthiest donors, and so we'll be coming back to the ethics commission, but we didn't want to come until we had all of the data and the numbers to present to you. the second piece that was not included on this proposed ordinance but we would love your feedback on -- i'm sorry, two additional pieces -- is whether we want to limit fund raising windows or office holders. this was a suggestion that came from the commission, and second is whether we should require social media companies to archive all of their on-line advertisements, as well. i -- we wanted to come to the commission early, before you actually formally heard the item because we want to begin to get feedback from the commission now. are there ways to strengthen this ordinance? do you have concerns? are we missing anything? are there things that we haven't thought of, so we're hoping to get really -- put forth the most robust piece of le legislation that we can around honesty and transparency in our country. i want to thank our community partners. we've held several meetings since july to get feedback from members of our community on how we can continue to strengthen our disclosure on transparency, and for that, i'll open it up for comments if there are any comments by this commission. >> thank you, supervisor kim, and we certainly welcome you and commend you on all those different matters and also have tremendous interest in and are working on, as well. i also want to indicate that i'll be meeting with you on friday with a couple members of our staff to talk further about it. we have an appointment at 10:00 at your office on friday, and we'll -- at that time, i'll be bringing to you any specifics that i have in my mind and what staff members have indicated, and also what any of the other commissioners want me to raise with you in our meeting on friday, but i just want to commend you once again for all of the good work that you're doing, and with that, i'll open it up to the commissioners for their thoughts and comments. >> i have a preliminary question. with respect to the so-called highlights of the legislation, have you examined and considered how many, if any, are duplicative of what the ethics commission has recommended in the last six months? >> i don't believe that any of our proposed amendments are duplicative, and i'm looking at kyle, and he says no, because we've been working closely with your staff as we've drafted this ordinance. >> may i suggest you do that because you have one here about including a notation in the voter information pamphlet identifying which candidates agree to voluntary spending limits. didn't we do that earlier this year? >> i don't recall. >> what was it we did? was it just on who accepts taxpayer financing, who doesn't? >> yeah, i'm struggling to recall which item that was. i'd probably have to take a look at -- >> huh? >> i'd have to take a look back at our policy notes because that's not ringing any bells. >> would you do that, please, and let me know. >> yes. >> and number three is including a notation -- no, not number three. number four, mailing a notice to all voters detailing independent expenditures. that's in addition to the voter information pamphlet? >> so the voter information pamphlet, again, you know, is the booklet that comes to the voters with all of the candidates and ballot measures arguments and against, and so the first set, item number 3, under highlights, we wanted to state which candidates in the voter pamphlet have accepted the voluntary expenditure ceiling. however, commission staff also wanted us to detail that certain candidates aren't eligible. >> i would think so. >> because there was a confusion of voters. >> it has to be delivered within a certain period of time before the election date. >> yes. >> and what is that? do you know, miss pelham, offhand? >> i don't know offhand. i have to reach out to the voluntary election department. >> i would think it's around three weeks. >> yeah, it's around there. >> so i would suggest including it if that's the purpose. >> in regards to your second question about the separate pamphlet, it was actually very important to me when drafting this ordinance that all voters got a separate one-pager, separate from the large booklet that highlights third party spending in san francisco. originally, in the ordinance that i proposed in july, we had asked ethics commission staff to detail all of the third party spending and its original source dope ors of that current election cycle, and we had asked that this pamphlet go out 14 days before election day, and while we certainly missed early voters, we felt that was sort of the sweet spot when not too many people had voted, but also, enough third party spending had come in, because as we know, third party spending tends to come in in the last two or three weeks in local races. however, staff also informed us that they have to go to the mail house for five weeks before that, and we know that a lot of third party spending doesn't happen in september, at least in local races, so we scrapped that idea, and actually members of the community said why don't you just print a complete listing of the third party spending of the previous election cycle. now, it doesn't comment on what kiep of third party spending is happening in that current election cycle, but it gets voters thinking oh, this is something i should be aware of, and at the bottom, we would refer voters to that website where the commissioners would be maintaining, and they can see how third party spending, and the original source of those funders is current for that election cycle. it is imperfect, and i have to admit this is a very frustrating ordinance to work on because i'd like to make it strong and robust, but we do have some limit willations, both administrative, and in terms of the citizens united case. we can't stop money coming into our races, so our goal is really just to make it as transparent as possible and to make sure that voters are thinking about it. i actually have a lot of faith in san francisco voters, when they are aware of issues, they do the research, and then vote accordingly. >> and then with respect to number five, what are the requirements now when the candidates, that they aren't coordinating with alleged third party expenditure committees? miss pelham, do you know. >> i'm not aware affirmatively -- >> in other words, is there any written -- >> not that i'm ware of. not that i'm aware of in local or state law. >> and miss kim, this would be a declaration under penalty of perjury? >> yes. of course, candidates shouldn't be coordinating with third party committees, but this is just an additional statement that we'd ask candidates to -- >> and the ultimate objective, as far as your presentation and anything that you provide in the next month or two is for the commission to recommend the ordinance? >> yes. we would love recommendation by the ethics commission of this proposed ordinance, but we would also love your feedback. we know that you look at many different campaigns and elections, and we want to make this as strong and robust as possible, so we know that -- so we would love your set of eyes to help us in making this a stronger ordinance and to also give us your feedback if you have any concerns on what we have proposed thus far. but i did want the commission to think about three things: public financing, increasing the match, potentially to 6:1. two is requiring social media companies to archive their on-line ads. and three, to limit the fund raising windows for office holders in fund raising, so these are the three additional issues that i would ask the commission to consider. it's not in the proposed ordinance yet. >> and what is the status of the ordinance now? >> it was first introduced in july of this year, and i just introduced a second version two weeks ago, in november . we want, also, members of the public to provide us feedback, which is why i try to introduce it as early as possible, to give the public a lot of time to respond to us, and hopefully improve this ordinance, as well. and i have to say a lot of people have really been giving us good feedback throughout this process. >> thank you. >> supervisor chiu? >> supervisor kim, thank you for coming and thank you for this work on this really important ordinance. i think i speak for myself and i speak for the commission i think that increasing transparency is an important goal and objective. i just have two comments, and if i could crash your meeting on friday, chair keane, i think that would be great, as longs we don't -- >> we didn't have your e-mail, commissioner, so we would love to have you there. >> you can only have two. >> you can't have a quorum with just two. >> and we sat down with commissioner renne. >> i'd like to have you with us. i think that would be wonderful. >> thank you. the two areas that i wanted to comment on, one, i think our commission will be taking up the topic of public finance as a topic in our own body of work, and i would like to make sure that whatever efforts we make as a commission and with our staff that we're working in parallel and/or in tandem so we're not reinventing the wheel, so to speak, but i think it's a really important topic that should be timely addressed. and then, second is the social media and election integrity that's also on our policy agenda, and then we -- commissioner lee and i met and are focused on this issue, and so i think we can talk more about that, and hopefully this commission can talk more about that, because i think it's a really critical issue for us as you noted. tech nothing is moving at the speed of light, and our regulations are not, and what happened in the 2016 presidential election started months and months in advance of the november election. and do i think that russia will meddle in san francisco elections? it's possible, but not lickly, but the tools that th but -- likely, but i think that anyone with the tools -- i think $100,000 was used to buy the ads that were seen by 126 million people, so to the extent that san francisco can take the lead in thinking about this issue and protect the integrity of our elections and create transparency for our voters, i think that's something that i personally as a commissioner feel very strongly about and hope that we will take the time to do that. >> so we have been working with your staff every step of the way on the public financing piece, so everything that we're exploring, we're exploring jointly with the ethics commission staff. we're looking at the same research and have had several meetings about this. the one piece that we haven't shared yet is our budget legislative analyst's report. we just got a first draft last week. they're still continuing to work it and refine it so we can get basically dollar amounts of what it would cost. and i -- the last on-line social media ads, you know, actually, you don't need a lot of money. that's what we've been learning a lot. in fact one of our stakeholders was telling us that her boyfriend's a dj, and he'll pay facebook $20, and he'll automatically get 100 people rsvp to his dj party to make it look like it's a party that a lot of people are going, and to encourage people to go to because they think a lot of people are going. and that's what's been alleged in the russian hacking, that people were setting these up with bots, and so we're concerned about even those small dollar amount spending on social media and its impact on voters. >> and the -- i think the concern is that candidates don't know. >> exactly. >> that these ads are going out, and they can be targeted in a way and we don't know what the criteria are, we don't know what the ads are, and so we can't respond. >> it's a huge concern. if a social media ad is targeted to for someone who has white supremacists, we will never see those ads, but they're out there, targeting voters. >> since this was agenda item 8, the public comment should come at the end of agenda item 8 because we have a number of other matters included in that. that would generally be the way we would do it, but i think in light of the importance and the fact that we have supervisor kim here, i don't know whether i'm violating anything or not, but if i am, so what. i'm going to invite public comment specifically on supervisor kim's matter from any of the members of the public who'd like to comment. >> thank you, chair keane, thank you to the commission. i will make sure that i sit down with every one of you, and commissioner kopp, i owe you a phone call, too, and this will not be the last time you see me, and i look forward to working with you over the next year. >> thank you. all right. we'll take public comment now. >> hello, commissioners. larry bush, friends of commissioner ethics. i'd like to thank supervisor kim for the robust presentation that she did in involving people in frisan francisco elections, as well as reaching out to people nationally and statewide. in the early 1990's, i authored an op ed piece in the examiner calling fore -- for a variable contribution limit at that time that was not pass-- that was pd into law. later, lawyers for candidated got it overturned, and what emerged then was the public financing that was done. it was also part of our effort to require that the voter handbook show what wo was participating in the public financing program, and that was -- that lasts until kamala harris's race until she agreed to the campaign spending limit, and after that, the voter handbook was out. so ethics commissioner saint croix got it repealed that voters were told who was spending what in the campaign spending limits, and commissioner kopp did raise that this last year and suggested it go forward to the board, but i don't think anything was ever writing and sent over to the board so they could pass it, so i think the fact that it's going to be in here it good. one of the things is the met rick that we've used in the past to measure the value of campaign spending should not be the valuable, it should be the reach that material has. if i want to put something on facebook that announces how friends of ethics feels about the accountablity ordinance, i can spend $30 and reach 6,000 people because it's a formula that's right on there. i just check it off. here's $30, i can reach 6,000 people, so if you had a formula that says how many people are you reaching, rather than i spend $30, you're going to get a lot more information about what's going on. so that's one thing. the second thing that she's doing is looking forward, not just looking backward, trying to close loopholes, but trying to look ahead. money is like water. it's going to kind any nook and crack that it can to flow through and try and influence things, so the fact that she's proposing that this issue be revisited on a regular basis to see what needs to be done to bring it further forward is a good thing. thank you. rather than chasten our tails t people after they've brocken the have 11 members of the board of supervisors, four volunteer to o tell everybody in public. i'm run for supervisor and i'm o be honest and tell every personh money i got, how it was raised,. then dare their fellow superviso follow suit. well, mr. supervisor farrell, yd this groupive spending money inr favor and you had no doaks it, t looks like you probably got thet of it and knew about it or elsee not competent. so why dunt tell us about it? in other words, let's let our le leaders instead of us chasing tm around and dealing with the fins like rearranging the deck chaire titanic, let them be honest peod sit down and say i'm not going t any money from anybody, individr party, unless they agree had the it to me that i can tell all the citizens who i wish to vote for, exactly where the money came fr. now, if i were a member of the f supervisors and i were to do thd then say to my fellow superviso, put up or shut up. i'm going to tell everybody i gs money and where it came from son make a an honest determination n whether or not this money may he impacted my money and choices s and everything i do as part of . if you don't want do that, you t have to. but i think the public ought toe to hear from me when i say i'm t about where my money came from,f it. why isn't my opponent? we are not supposed to be chasir leaders, our leaders are suppose leading us. the only way government is goine honest is if our leaders are ho. >> chair keane: do yo.kn do we c comment? once again, supervisor kim, thau for coming. we'll see you on friday. so we'll go now to agenda item d when we get to agenda item eighl take the rest. we will a go to agenda item 4 ot ethics bylaws amendments to chae dates, start time and location e ethics commission regular monthy meetings. there is an attachment which sus the calendar for next year if wo change the start and location tf the meetings. so, miss pelham. >> thank you chair keane. this item is presented as a folo the commission's request last mo identify whether there might ben earlier start time available foe meetings. due largely to the question of e lateness of some of the meetings conclusions. we checked with city hall for requirement that each of our mee televised to determine what time meets are available and times ts are available. as you point out on chart one -- actually at the the table at thm of page 2 for this report on ey. there could be a change to the f the commission wishes to start n earlier time, due to the constrf the building, the only availabis the second tuesday at the beginf each month beginning at 10:00 a. there is an exception for calenf the commission were to take to a approach to require the meetinge held at the next prick particule time for january, february and h would require friday meetings. thees arthese closer to the secf the month, moving from the foury at 5:30 to the second tuesday a0 as standing part of the commisss bylaws. we wanted to make sure that thes available for to you act on tonf you wish to. we publicly notice the item as d by your bylaws along with the pd bylaws change and circumstance o the list of our subscribers. with that brack ground, happy tr any questions. but that was the timeframe thate able to identify given the conss for the building and for the ted requirement. >> chair keane: just to add a cf things to what you said, those y meetings in the first quarter, e on january 12th and february 89d be at 10:00 in the morning. >> that's correct. >> chair keane: and on friday mh 16th, that would be at 1:00 p.m. >> correct. >> chair keane: all the rest aft a tuesdays at 10:00 a.m. >> those would be special meetid adopted if you took this approa. the bylaw change would refer tod tuesday meeting that would be aa regular matter, a second tuesdat 10:00 going forward. we presume the dates for that we available into 2019 if the commn were wr to take this approach. . >> chair keane: commissioners, r thoughts. >> i'm for it. >> chair keane: commissioner p s for it. commissioner lee. >> thank you mr. chair and i wao thank the staff for the diligenn putting the full schedules toge. i was one of the commissioners d the staff to look into possiblyg other meeting times for future commission meetings. i've heard from folks who wantep it the way it is. i also heard from folks who woue to see alternative times. first of all, i really appreciae residents of the city who take e to come to these meetings to pae whether it is 6:00 at night or t night and what have you. -i think this commission has a e responsibility. whereas all the cities' commisss serve

Related Keywords

China , Russia , San Francisco , California , United States , Russian , Chinese , Audrey Leong , Larry Bush , Mickey Callahan , Ellen Lee Zhou , Ray Hart , Derek Kerr ,