It would be for an organization with which he or she is associated. So my i think in the interest of order, in terms of roberts rules of record as well, at this point, since weve had significant discussion, since there was a motion and we havent had a second yet, im going to ask my colleagues whether or not there is a second to commissioner chuis motion to amend and take out the language anything of value. Being no second, the motion dies. Commissioner chui . [please stand by] okay. So in regard to this particular part, there was no action anticipated, we need not take Public Comment since were not going to vote, and well move now onto the next item, which is the item relating to repeated recusals, and we have a presentation relating to that. Yeah. I will set this up, explain just briefly what these amendments are, and then, director pellum will speaks to why theyre here. Section 3. 209 sets up a procedure for the commission to review repeated recusals, to tto so the amendments that are here, one will change this provision so that it only applies to members of city boards and commissions, not including the board of supervisors. Previously, it had a clause that says including a member of the board of supervisors. You wi youll see on page 72 of the packet, the lined version, that that has been struck. An additional amendment is to add a notification procedure, and this language is taken from the municipal code in los angeles, so the notification procedure formalizes a way for a board or commission who are reaccusing him or herself to formally notify the Ethics Commission, and you can see there are certain requirements. They have to state their name, their board or commission that they serve on, where this recusal happens, and theres a 15 day period to accept that. And then, we changed the recusal language again. Also, take it from los angeles because the language, after we reviewed it, we found it to are more precise, and also it would benefit from some interpretation that theyve done in the language to help clarify that process. And then, youll see subsection d was added at the City Attorneys languaadvice to mak that we include language that we dont include the board of supervisors there. So i will turn it over to the City Attorney. Thank you, pat. This is something that we took a very close comment following a comment from the first budget and finance committee, and also hearing comments others made around the time about that. I think in hearing the questions, there were a number of questions about what is the reaccusal views purpose, and how would we count this 1 trigger for a review, so i just wanted to provide a bit of background on that. This language and thrust of this is really a basic tran parency issue. It would provide a way for these who recuse under the law, to do so for a good thing, in order to avoid conflicts. It would give the public a chance to understand repeated recusals, so there would be an opportunity to engage. If there is a repeated recusal, and well get into how this would calculate that, there is a process for the Ethics Commission to review those recusals, and determine if there is a continued conflict that exists for that board or Commission Member, and the commission can recommend that maybe this commissioner should be sit in that role. Its a transparency tool and a way to avoid significant conflict in city decision making. What this would create is a system thats parallel to whats been in service in los angeles for a number of years. Each time a commissioner appears on an agenda, there would be tools for the Commission Member to do that. The form would be filed with our office, and essentially, its a one to one relationship. If there are three recusals as listed here, filed within a 365day period, or a 1 of all matters that have been appearing on the agenda, that would be something that the commission would then review. And in reviewing that, the commission would look to things like is the number of recusals by a particular commissioner significant . It is the impact of the recusals significant, so these are questions that would be part or could be part of every review, and we envision that would be a report to the commission, the commission would have an opportunity to respond and to be able to have a discussion whether or not there is a repeated recusal in place that would suggest that that commissioners financial interests that are causing the repeated recusal might be a reason to talk about when that commissioner should not serve on that commission or be recused or divest of that interest. This is a transparency measure to help with that discussion. So this focuses language more clear in an attempt to be more clear in how this process would work. Were looking at another model thats working in another jurisdiction and also try to be clear with what it is that would trigger the recusal requirement, and what would be the trigger of a recusal requirement. So with that, im happy to answer any questions or hear Public Comment, but i wanted to provide a bit of background on what the change was here as we look to narrow it. Commissioner kopp . Does the los angeles ordinance have a time within which the official must divest or otherwise remove the conflicting interest . I dont know. The Ethics Commission has, as i understand it from their current staff, has not ever required a commissioner to divest. So theres no experience with correct. Well, it seems to me there should be a time limit, mr. Chairman, and i dont know what a practical time limit is, but so that the public may comment, im going to move an amendment on page 26, under c 2, after the words, fails to divest or otherwise remove the conflicting interest, add the words within 90 days of the Ethics Commissions determination. Thats the motion. Is there a second . Chair, chair, may i offer a an additional amendment to your amendment . So within 90 days or as reasonably practical, because in the event that it is an interest that it would take longer than 90 days to divest, i dont think that we can cover everything within 90 days. Commissioner chiu, can i take it that youre seconding commissioner kopps motion, and youre offering some additional language. Yes. And commissioner kopp, do you accept that . Tell me the language. So that the divestiture or the removal of interest would be need to be removed within 90 days or as reasonably practicable. Yes. Ill accept that. Okay. Thats been accepted, so we have the motion to amend the amendment to add that language, and commissioners, any discussion . Its worded youve got a as you amend the amendment, in effect, they have 90 days in which to do it, but if they dont do it in 90 days, they can extend it out if they can show some practical necessity. I would be disposed to say they will do it as promptly as possible, but no longer than 90 days. I dont feel ill accept that. But, i mean i accept that. Sometimes you know if its a divestiture of a private equity interest or something, it might not happen in 90 days. There might be closing terms that would require a longer time period, but if theyve entered into an agreement to divest, i can understand that they need regulatory approvals, it would conceivably take longer than 90 days. Commissioner renne, are you proposing your change in the amendment in term its of the language that you just stated . I will not propose any change from the language that has been moved and seconded. If the commission is satisfied that the extending it beyond 90 days is in the publics interest. Well, my contemplation that it wouldnt be at the discretion of the Commission Member or board member, but if they have removed to divest or remove to remove the conflicting interest, but its not practical or possible to complete it within the 90 days, i wouldnt want them to be p l penalized it. If they have sold shares or stock in a private company, but they couldnt complete the divestiture, that if they take 91 days or 100 days, that that would still be acceptable to us. Or a year. If i may speak through the chair, if i may be recognized. Yes, commissioner kopp. Commissioner renne suggests maybe the Ethics Commission should have the authority to determine whether the time is as practical as or as prompt as is practical. Thats satisfactory. Yeah. From my maybe that should be it so it isnt open end, and then, you have a dispute as to whether its practical or impractical. Can you give us language, mr. Chen. Actually, i would like to take a step back, if i may, on this provision. So this provision well, that isnt what i asked. Well, but i think it may be helpful, regardless. So this provision allows the Ethics Commission to make a recommendation as to a officials potential conflict of interest. It is merely a recommendation. So in that recommendation, should the commission wish to issue it, i believe the commission can also specify at the time that its issued whether they would recommend that that interest is disposed of in 30 days, 90 days, so on and so forth. So im not sure if you necessarily need to introduce a limitation one way or the other at this point. Well, if its a what difference if it makes what difference does it make if its a recommendation, but as far as language is concerned, what difference does it make if its a recommendation . Can you give me language or you want me to write it myself . May i take a stab at reiterating what i think i heard . Yeah. So this begins on page 25. Yeah, right. Page 25, its agenda item 4 amended, page 33. Its shown as page 25 at the end of the end of the page on the right hand corner, but it starts reading online 24, if the Ethics Commission so determines, the Ethics Commission may recommend to the officials appointing authority that the official divest or otherwise remove the conflicting interest, and if the official fails to divest or otherwise remove the conflicting interest, insert, within 30days or within excuse me. Within 90 days or as the Ethics Commission determines as reasonably practicable, the Ethics Commission may recommend to the officials appointing authority that the official should be removed from office under charter section, etcetera, etcetera. I withdraw my previous amendment, and i adapt that language in a motion to amend. Okay. And invite a second. Okay. Ill second. Where are we, in terms of commissioner chiu, youve heard the colloquy between commissioner kopp and seconded by commissioner renne. Does that also encompass your concerns . Well, actually it raises new concerns on my part because i dont think this Ethics Commission should be a position to determine whether a sailor a divestiture is proceeding as timely or as quickly that we would like in that we are simply making a recommendation to the appointing authority. Yes. I dont know. Is it a difference that makes a difference . Only to the effect that you have a motion on the table. Right. Yeah. So im asking whether or not i dont want to do anything that short circuits what has what your intent is. So i think the first motion that commissioner kopp presented, that he has withdrawn, but thats one that i had seconded. Okay. So im fine with that withdrawal. All right. Terrific. So we have the language that miss pelham put forth that has been proposed by commissioner kopp and has been seconded by commissioner renne. Is there any and thats as an amendment to an amendment, so when we take the ultimate vote on this, well take the amendment to the amendment, and then on the amendment itself. Is there any further discussion among the commission on this item . Hearing none oh. I move that we adopt the staffs proposal as to second. Second. 3. 207. Okay. With with the amendment. Okay. That motion has been made and seconded. Commissioners, any further discussion before we go to Public Comment . All right. Well take Public Comment. Mr. Hepner is going to speak on behalf of supervisor peskin. Correct. Thank you, president keane. In your packet, you have a statement thats authored by supervisor peskin. It exists in budget finance and duplicate Committee File right now. I think we were having trouble wrapping our minds around why we were creating a disincentive to recuse. We want Board Members and commissioners to recuse themselves when they meet a requirement to the recusal, and to that end, amendment a provides some good clarification around when a board member or a Commission Member should recuse themselves. I would suggest this commission and supervisor peskin, rather than, suggested that this commission delete the sub section relate to repeated recusal that creates this potentially punitive dynamic where if you recuse yourself more than three times, you are subject to removal from your board or commission or the recommendation of Ethics Commission to be removed from your appointment or commission. That removes the disincentive to recuse. That allows for ethics investigators to instead focus on enforcement of when somebody is properly recusing themselves. The Ethics Commissions can still be the repository for that information. The public can still go and seek the information how many times youve recused yourself, but lets not create a disincentive to recuse by saying you are subject to dice vestiture from your financial interests if you recuse yourself. Lets focus on the correct way to do it. Incidentally, this is also tied to the anything of value issue that commissioner leie because if a commissioner receives anything of value, they must recuse themselves, in your packet, you have a rather eloquent amendment that supervisor peskin has involved, it would be an amendment to anything of definition. That is in your packet before you. It was drafted by the City Attorney for inclusion in the packet tuesday. Lastly, the calculation of 1 weve talked to staff about how you calculate 1 , and we dont think there is an elegant way to do so. How is the 1 being calculated . Retroactively . I understand this exists in l. A. , but i dont think weve been provided with a whole lot of clarity how they calculate 1 . Inlets instead focus on compliance with the recusal requirement. Thank you. Thank you. Let me ask a question. Commissioner kopp . That is off the subject, but im curious. Why is this referred to the Budget Committee . That is above my pay grade. That is the prerogative of the board president. My understanding is because the amount of increase cost, theyve got it at 200,000. Oh, the financial. Which gets it to the financial. Thanks. Mr. Hepner, i do have a question of you oh, i am m sorry. Go ahead, commissioner renne. Where in the packet did you say proposed amendments . I believe they begin on page 87 are supervisor peskins attached amendments. That has a definition of something anything of value . There is a definition a modification to the definition of anything of value. I dont know if its prudent to be discussing the previous sub section i think not. Weve dealt with that. Mr. Hepner, with repeated recusals, i dont think its the intent to chill or otherwise deter other Board Members from recusing themselves if they have a conflict of interest. I think the idea were wrestling with is repeated recusals. Now if a matter comes before the commission, and a commissioner has to recuse himself in the january and february meeting, and over and over again, is this not a problem . Thank you, commissioner chiu. I do believe that is best addressed through the reappointment process. I think it is a fair grounds for the public to scrutinize whether that person properly sits on the body. I think that the problem that you will run into either way is making sure that Board Members and commissioners are properly recusing themselves, and i believe that ethics resources would best be directed at making sure that you properly recuse yourself when a conflict of interest exists. Well, if youre finished, let me point out another way of looking at it, and that is it may give pause to an appointing power to appoint a member of spur to the Planning Commission in the first place so that one, two, three, maybe more recusals dont add if you may respond, commissioner kopp, through the president , i think that is clearly referenced with the recusal statement. This is if you focus on the recusal procedures, you accomplish the entire goal without creating a disincentive to recusing, which i think creates a bad policy move. Chair, is it the number of times of recusal. I think in the policy process, we sit for a six year terms. Does the public have to wait, if i recuse myself eight times over 11 meetings, i cant be reappointed any way, but is this something that the voters and citizens of San Francisco need to wait until it becomes an article in the examiner, oh, like this has become a problem. The commission doesnt have the power to move, but could certainly create transparency around what conflict i may have. Right. Through the chair, again, its not just the number, and i do believe that the appointing authority also has the authority to remove an appointed person from a commission or a board if the recusals start stacking up. I think the question that im getting at is if im being faced with a decision whether to recuse myself and someone has given me a ride to work four times in the past year, and the matter is actually a discretionary review before my body, and do i and im making that line call on whether ive received anything of value, and i know that if i recuse myself one more time, im going to trigger an investigation by the Ethics Commission, thats a disincentive to recuse myself. That is a problem. The decision should be im recusing myself because the perception should be something of value is there. We should be incentives to properly remove incentives from these conflicts of interest. Where does it provide that an appointing power can remove an appointee . Maybe the City Attorney can help, but im confident i am not confident. I am not. That may be the case. I think maybe in m