Commission. Todays meeting is a live cablecast on sfgovtv two and live streamed at sfgovtv. Org. Forward slash ethics live for Public Comment. Members of the public may attend in person or may participate by phone or on the webex platform, as explained in our agenda document. Mr. Clerk, would you please explain how remote Public Comment will be handled . Public comment will be available on each item on this agenda. Each member of the public will be allowed three minutes to speak for those attending in person. Opportunities to speak during the Public Comment period will be made available here in room 400, city hall for those attending remotely. Public comment can also be provided via phone call by. Calling 14156550001. Access code is 26643680498, followed by a pound sign, then press pound again to join as an attendee. When your item of interest comes up, press star three to raise your hand to be added to the public. Comment line. Public comment is also available via the webex client application. Use the webex link on the agenda to connect and press the raise hand button to be added to the Public Comment line for detailed instructions about how to interact with the telephone system or webex client, please refer to the Public Comment section of the agenda document for this meeting. Public comment may also be submitted in writing and will be shared with the commission after the meeting has concluded and will be included as part of the official meeting file. Written comments should be sent to Ethics Commission at sfgovtv. Org members of the public to attend commission meetings, including remote attendance, are also expected to behave responsibly and respectfully during the Public Comment. Please address your comments to the commission as a whole and not to individual members. Persons who engage in name calling, shouting, interruptions or other distracting behavior may be excluded from participation. Thank you, mr. Clerk, and ill call the meeting to order. Clerk, will you please call . Roll under item number one. Commissioners, please verbally indicate your presence by saying i after your name is called chair finley i. Vice chair flores fang. Commission salahi i. Commissioner ci is out with an excused absence. Commissioner francois i chair family with four members present and accounted for. You have a quorum. Thank you. Better call. Agenda item two. General Public Comment. Is there any Public Comment in the room seeing none. Mr. Clerk, would you check if theres any remote Public Comment . Chair finley, were checking to see if there are callers in the queue. Chair finley theres one caller in the queue. Welcome, caller. Your three minutes begins now. Caller, are you there . Caller. Youre unmuted. Caller. If youre trying to call in, therell be another opportunity for Public Comment later in the program. You can try again. Then thank you, mr. Clerk. Are there any other callers in the remote queue . Chair finley, were checking to see if there are other callers. Chair finley, there are no other callers. Thank you. Hearing no further, members of the public wishing to speak general Public Comment under item two is now closed. I now call the consent calendar, colleagues, as noted in the agenda, therell be no separate discussion unless one of us remember the public calls for it. Do any of my colleagues wish to address any of the matters on the consent calendar . Seeing none, any of my or, seeing no Public Comment, i think we will now take Public Comment on the consent calendar. Seeing none in the room, mr. Clerk would you check if theres anyone online . Chair, if we were checking to see if there are callers in the queue. Chair. Finley there are no callers in the queue. Thank you. I move to adopt the items on the consent calendar. And those are the draft minutes of the prior meetings on item four, three and four is the executive directors report, which is not an action item. But just for our information, i moved to adopt the consent calendar. Is there a second . Second . Mr. Clerk, would you please take role on the motion to adopt the consent calendar . Chair finley, a vice chair. Flores fang. Commissioner salahi i, commissioner francois i chair and live with four votes in the affirmative. You the motion. Has it been approved unanimously. Thank you. I now call agenda item five. Discussion and possible action regarding the proposed stipulation, decision and order in the matter of David Wasserman , were going to have a thank you. Thank you, i just want to really quickly take Public Comment on this item and then well hear from you. Thank you, mr. Clerk. Would you seeing no one in the room, i will ask you to check if theres any remote callers. Chair finley, we are checking to see if there are callers in the queue who wish to comment on item five. Chair finley, there is one caller in the queue. Thank you. Welcome, caller. You have your three minutes. Begins now. It appears the caller does not have a microphone. Caller has left the queue. Thank you, if those are caller out there again, therell be another opportunity for Public Comment later in the program. So if you fix your issue, feel free to call back, miss matthews, thank you. Happy to hear a presentation. And then well open it up for any questions. Sounds good. Good morning. Commissioners, so this matter was placed on the regular calendar following the request by this commission at the last meeting that going forward, all proposed stipulations be placed on the regular calendar, this matter involves respondent David Wasserman, who is a member of the rent board who failed to report the names of certain sources of income, 10,000 or more, that were derived from his business entity. After comprehensive review of mr. Wassermans form 700 filings over the past four years, investigators identified 28 violations which have been subsumed into one count, as noted in the stipulation, mr. Wasserman acknowledged his mistake and took full responsibility for the violations and also amended his form. Seven hundreds, to come in compliance with the law. The facts of this case are similar to prior matters that have been presented before this commission , and the Penalty Amount recommended per violation is the same as has been considered before and ratified by this commission. Ill be glad to answer any questions that you may have at this time. Thank you. I think this is a great enforcement action. So i want to thank you and the staff for their work. I do have one quick question, but i first want to see if any of my colleagues have any questions or comments. I might have a quick question or comment, but i dont know. It isnt. One of them is in. How about how this information was presented . And the other one was to second what you said about this being a i think, a well explained action. At first i was a little bit taken aback by the number given that he was, you know, a willing, you know, very compliant. Right, i think in understanding what the staff better understanding the precedent and why the 600, per, you know, per penalty was applied and understanding that thats connected to srp and what we did there, that that was very helpful for me, so i think that given that this, this amount, this penalty is appropriate. So i share that in case anybody else is also kind of taken aback by the fact that somebody who was compliant may still be penalized, i would also encourage the public to, when filing, the, you know, form 700 to read the ancillary materials that are in support, even if youve done it several times before. And i say that because there are some sections that say theyre optional and some that arent, but that isnt necessarily obvious from the form, so i would encourage all of us to, to have that handy when we are reviewing, and then as far as how the materials are presented, i think at the bottom it says it kind of implies that this is still part of the consent calendar. So i would just remove the last line, okay. Where it says members of the public may comment on the proposed step, noting that the commission receives Public Comment once for all consent items collectively, which doesnt seem relevant right now, but thats all. Thank you. Thanks for that, yeah, i had one, comment. Again, he, he became compliant, which is great, but he wasnt compliant. Of course, at the time of the problem. So that informs part of the clarification. Yes, but i think its good that the staff considered the fact that he did then voluntarily and quickly become compliant once you all raise it, the one question i had, though, from the stipulation, and we wouldnt go beyond the whatevers in here, but it wasnt really clear what it is that he failed to disclose. I think thats a matter of public record, because now its on his form 700. My assumption is that its a bunch of basically rental properties that he owned or interest in properties that he owned. Is that and again, so im not asking anything beyond whats probably public somewhere. Right. So its i, i think, its helpful that you, you know, didnt think that it was clear, but really, he didnt list the names of each individual source of income. He reported that he received income of 10,000 or more by checking that box, but he didnt go forward, further and list the names of each individual source of income. So, tenants or wherever that source derived from. But it was for him. It was tenants and Real Property. Like, were not talking about stocks and no no no no just right. So sources from Real PropertyGreat Rental Properties to his business. Got it. Thank you. Yeah i think thats just a helpful fact. Even though its in the form 700, we can all see it. But i think its helpful to because thats helpful. Im not sure thats reflected in the memo itself, but again great action. I think given the number of violations, i think the penalty makes sense, anything commissioner salahi or francis francois, i echo both of my colleagues comments and thanks. Thank you for that feedback. Well definitely keep that in mind going forward. All right. Thank you, thank you, thank you. Good case, is there a motion . Ill move. Second, adopt the stipulation. Approve the stipulation. Second. Thank you, mr. Clerk. Would you take roll, please . On the motion to adopt the stipulation and the pro stipulation in agenda item five. On the on the motion to adopt the stipulation on item five. Chair finley i. Vice chair flores feng i commissioner salahi i commissioner francois i. Chair fan live with four votes in the affirmative. The motion is approved unanimously. Thank you, mr. Clerk. I now call agenda item number six. Discussion of possible action regarding proposed amendments to Ethics Commission, Campaign Finance regulations. Good morning everyone. So for anyone that i have not met yet, my name is ryan abuza and i am the engagement and Compliance Officer for the Ethics Commissions Campaign Finance and Campaign Consultant programs , first time in person at the meetings. Have always watched, but very excited to be here and glad to have the opportunity to present our proposed amendments to Campaign Finance regulations on behalf of our policy and legislative affairs manager, michael canning. So before we kind of doing high level overviews across kind of all of our proposed changes, i just wanted to do kind of a quick summary of how we got to this point, and then we can pivot and Start Talking a little bit more about these proposed changes. So kind of within our department and our work as part of our ongoing efforts and review processes, as far as Program Implementation goes, we get a lot of feedback internally and externally and over the last handful of election cycles, we have identified several ways to simplify, streamline and increase transparency regarding the operation of San Franciscos Campaign Finance laws. So kind of our our big ticket change here within kind of all of these suggested changes stems from the temporary Electronic Filing procedures that we had in place during the covid 19 pandemic, when our office was closed, our kind of big changes there are set to modernize our processes to better match kind of both state level procedures and reflect the kind of increasing and now wider availability of secure document signing and Electronic Submission formats. In tandem with that, we have several other kind of proposed changes to the Campaign Finance regulations to clarify rules and processes and better allow our staff to streamline a lot of the commissions functions for sake of efficiency and kind of just our peace of mind when were getting work done. As part of this process. We did hold two interested persons meetings during the month of march, primarily to discuss changes to our Electronic Filing program and solicit some additional feedback from members of the public and regulated community. Kind of for these proposed changes as a whole. So with that, what i would kind of like to do here is do kind of the bulk of the detail here, talking about the proposed changes to our Electronic Campaign disclosure regulations and then from there just kind of do brief, kind of high level overview of what the other proposed changes are. And then of course, opening for discussion, comment, whatever you all might have. If that sounds good, sounds great. Okay, lovely. So this one is the one that i personally am most excited about because of its effect on my program. And we have also gotten overwhelmingly positive feedback from members of the public and the regulated community. So when we are looking at our proposed amendments for regulation 1. 1122, the way that our elected sonic filing kind of process currently exists is very cumbersome for both filers and for our staff. Of course, under the law, all political committees are required to electronically file their Campaign Disclosure statements with our office under the existing language of reg 1. 1122. All responses. Officers for a committee are required to have a form 112 a signature verification card on file with our office in order for any of their statements to be accepted. In order to complete this form. This requires one of two things either an inperson visit to our office or, if they wish to complete the form remotely, they have to do it in the presence of a notary public, which means seeking out a notary reasonably, making an appointment, paying their fees, and then either mailing the form to us, coming to drop it off in person, whatever kind of works best for them. Additionally we are still currently accepting documents through, excuse me, a docusign based temporary transmission portal that we set up through the covid 19 pandemic. And although we are still accepting forms that way, we are really hoping that with these reg changes to basically move our process to be fully online and both compliant with kind of local code and then state laws, the way that this kind of current process looks to stand is full removal of the form. 112 a so we would be getting rid of the entirety of the signature verification process in a kind of an updated format thats going to more closely mirror what the city of oaklands Ethics Commission has done recently, where they would effectively be filing a kind of expanded version of the existing form 112 b that would give us all of the necessary information to register the committee, and we would then be able to set them up with their account so they could file all of their kind of following statements electronically, versus this kind of weird mix of what happens. Hard copy versus what happens electronically versus what happens in hard copy that is then scanned and submitted electronically. Kind of creating too many parallel paths when we could have one much more efficient and much easier streamlined path. Here i will also mention that based on the feedback we received from the secretary of States Office and the fair political practices commission, these proposed changes are acceptable and not disruptive to any of the states practices. As they currently exist, one thing that i will also kind of mention about this process, when they are filling out kind of this updated form 112 b i would also like to mention that it does include kind of a designation of signer authority, of course, with the understanding that electronic documents that bear a persons signature are treated the same as original paper documents for purposes of all applicable state and local laws, those forms are similarly signed under penalty of perjury, and whoever is kind of acting in a signer capacity on that form similarly maintains responsibility for the security of any sort of file or id or password or signature info that our Office Issues to their committee. So that is kind of about as much into detail as i will kind of go pending any questions. But that is kind of our first big ticket item as far as the proposed reg changes go here. I had one quick question on that. Sure. You said getting rid of the e signature requirement, but then separately everything will be filed signed under penalty of perjury. Anyways, so am i understanding that right. Theres no kind of pre signature verification form. Folks are going to submit things that are signed. So that one is kind of a yes and no. So what we are basically doing in lieu of having this kind of physical form that they need to sign, either in the presence of one of our staff members, we are basically folding it into an ex