Transcripts For SFGTV Ethics Commission 20220906

Sfgov. Org ethicslive. Before the members may attend in person or participate by phone or web explatform as explained in the agenda document. Moderator can you explain how the remote Public Comment will be handled today on each item on this agenda of each member will be allowed 3 minutes to speak. For those in person opportunity during the comment president will be made available in room 400. Remote, opportunity to speak during the Public Comment period are provided via phone call, calling 4156550001. The number is 4156550001 access code is access code 2491 770 8997 again, access code 2491 770 8997. Join as an arc tendee. Callers you will hear a beep when you are connected. You will be muted and in listening mode only. When your item come up dial star 3 to raise your hand and be added to the comment line. You will then hear, you have raised your hand. Wait until the host callos you. The line will be silent as you wait to speak. Ensure you are in a quiet location before you speak mute device urnld television, roor computer. It is important that you mute your computer if you are watching via the web link to prevent feedback. When it says, your line has been unmuted, this is your turn to speak. You will hear staff say, welcome caller. State your name clearly. As you speak you will have 3 minutes to provide Public Comment. 6 minutes if using an interceptor. Bells go off when you have 30 seconds. If you wish to with draw from the comment line press star 3 again. You will hear the system say, you have lowered your handful once 3 minutes expires staff will thank you and mute you. You will hear, your line has been muted. If you wish to speak stave on the line and listen for the next comment opportunity and raise your hands to the Public Comment line by pressing star 3 when the next item of interest come up. Public comment may be submitted in writing and shared with the commission after the meeting concluded and include as part of the meeting file. Written comments sent to ethics. sfgov. Org. Thank you, i call the meeting to order. Call the roll call. Approximate create your presence by saying, aye after your name is called. Commissioner bush. He is being connected to the meeting. Commissioner green. Aye. Commissioner finlev. Here. Chair lee. Present. Commissioner romano. Aye. Chair lee with 4 members present you have a quorum. Okay. Thank you. Now lets go to agenda item 2, which is Public Comment on matters not appearing on the agenda. Mr. Moderator can you check and see if anyone in the queue. Ronald you are muted. [laughter]. Thank you. [laughter] thank you, madam chair. For remote participates if you joined early to listen now is the time to get online to speak. Members of the public wish to comment on matters not appearing on the upon agenda under item 2, should now dial star 3 or raise your hand in web ex. If you vo not done so to be added to the Public Comment line. The system will prompt when you it is your turn to speak. Address your comments to the commission as a whole and not individual members. We are checking to see if there are callers in the queue. Stand by. We have no callers in the queue. No Public Comment. Agenda item number 2 Public Comment is closed. Go to agenda item number 3, 4, 5 which is consent calendar. Noted on the agenda there am be no separate discussions on consent calendar items unless a request made by Commission Member or member of the public in attendance. Which event matter be remove friday consent and considered as a separate item. If a commissioner asked to discuss item that item will be taken out following action on the figuring actions on consent calendar item on the regular calendar for discussion and action. Does any commissioner members wish to discuss any item . Seeing none. Lets is commissioner bush connected now . Moderator . No, he is not. Okay. Lets have Public Comment, please. On this agenda item. Thank you, madam chair. We are checking to see if there are callers in the queue that wish to discuss any consent item. There are no callers in the queue. Thank you. Public comment is closed. Lets go to our the consent calendar item 3, 4 and 5. I have a motion to approve . Um im sorry. Lets take them one at a time. For agenda item 3. Resolution on continuation of remote hybrid Commission Meetings do i have a motion . They can all be done together that is the point. Yes. Madam chair you are able to take a motion to approve all consent item in one vote if well is a motion and second. I move to move all consent to one vote. Read item 3 resolution on continuation of hybrid Meeting Agenda item 4. Ethics updates for 2022 no conflict of interest code review. Item 5. Executive directs report for programs and operations, motion was made by commissioner romano. Second that. Seconded by commissioner feng. Roll call . Commissioner bush. Sorry. Commissioner feng. Aye. Commissioner finlev. Aye. Chair lee. Aye. Commissioner romano. Aye. With 4 votes in affirmative and zero opposed the motion is approved unanimously. Okay. Thank you. Lets go to agenda item 6 which is condition discussion and possible action on legislative proposal from the board of supervisors and Committee Regarding city behested payment rules. Lets go to our policy analyst michael kenny. To give us a very, very brief are summary thank you to arc void restate whatting is available in the public materials i will recap what was sent yesterday. Which is update that we received a new version of the legislation from supervisor peskin as well as it is Mayors Office. And this new version adopts most of the recommendation staff made in the memo published on monday august 8. With the exception of 2 items. One is proposal 6 regarding the proposed waiver process from the board of supervisors. Some two out of three recommendations were adopted there for increased transparency around this waiver process. And the other one some language added mitigate that. Staff does not believe this should be a blocker to action there. As the other transparency piece were add. The other item was regarding the proposal 9 which is changing adding an exception for now i need to start the video. Right . Adding in exception. Hello. Um yea that is the outstanding items the commissioner to consider and also has been we expect to hear from the sfpuc regarding proposed changes to the exception for competitively secured bids and so to tell you where you are today there is the new legislation before the commission the commission can vote on today. The commission can make changes or suggest revisions to that legislation and be able to vote today with the changes integrated. If the changes are substantial and require more work the commission can also push the best item to a future meeting. But those we have supervisor peskin in the room. Im not sure if representatives from the Mayors Office are on the line . I believe representative from thes sfpuc are on the line, thank you. Thank you, mr. Kenny. I understand supervisor peskin is in the room. And i wish to recognize him and if you wish to speak. Chair lee, members of the Ethics Commission, the executive director and staff im aaron peskin, supervisor and author of the legislation that is before you, which as staff indicated responds to the vast majority of the issues that staff has raised and staff has pointed out the 2 places where there is still a slight difference. Happy to visit with you about those. But we have had a collaboration with my office, Mayors Office, which is joined by hank heckle remotely this morning. And your staff and to that end, we went from the 2 competing versions to the combined version and now you have the combined revised version that addresses the various amendments and points of contention in large part if not almost fully, i also would like to raise for your consideration some suggestions from counsel that that is that mr. Bush . Commissioner bush . I will proceed. Im error. Im sorry i thought i muted. And those are just some changes to the long title that properly reflect the changes that were made in the substance of the body of the legislation namely, to insert at line 9 on page 1 in the long title. The words, narrowing the prohibition against soliciting from person who is have attempted to influence legislative or administrative actions. That would replace item 3, i think it is a better representation of what the legislation does. And item 4, changing that to read accepting solicitations made in connection with types of city contracts and instructor the acquisition of Real Property that is done by contract and therefore covered. Those changes in long title and then some conforming changes that counsel suggested with regard to conforming at page 4 line 5, in the definition of intdz party, which includes those who attempted to influence city officers or employees regarding the approval, denial, extension or amendment of city contract. But thats existing language. Prohibition on page 7 line 22, says, regarding a city contract and so, i agree with council that, that that more defined term should carry over and the words approval, denial, extension or amendment should appear on page 7. It is a diminimus change and there was discussion going both ways and may be mr. Heckle can talk in regard to the missing word, a, on page 8 may be supposed to be, the, i will leave that. Other than that, i recommend and commends to you the legislation as now amended per your staffs recommendation and happy to discuss the 2 outstanding issues. I agree with staff that relative to item 6, having to do with the waiver process, that the back and forth negotiations and language that resulted should be acceptable to all parties. The remaining outstanding issue is the exemption cumulative per a thousand dollars of contributions, i leave that to this commission. The issue that chair lee raised about the safe harbor until january 21 of 2023, has been removed. Im available for the duration of the discussion on this item. Thank you, supervisor peskin. Do you minds waiting until we hear from mr. Heck and he will we can ask questions. Yea im going nowhere i will go to my office when you are done and hit the e mails. Thank you. Is mr. Heckle on the line . If he can also speak to this. If he has anything to add . Moderator can you check and see if mr. Heckle is on the line . We are checking madam chair. Okay. We have the puc on the the attendsees list in case the commission has questions or if they want to comment this morning. Good morning, mr. Heckle, can you hear us . I have unmuted mr. Heckle looks like he is not there at the moment. Meanwhile if the puc representative online . I needed to find the name of the representative i have been inform today is john scarpulla. John, can you hear us . I can, good morning, i am going to refer to my colleague ronald flynn on the call our deputy general manager he will represent the San Francisco puc, ron flynn on the call. Hello. Please, stand by, hold on. Mr. Flynn . Good afternoon, commissioners. Thank you so much for giving me a moment to discuss the proposal number 4. Can you hear me . Uhhuh. Please, go ahead. Great. In the thank you so much for the work the commission has done, Mayors Office and supervisor peskin to get this a combined, new ordinance. There is one recommendation that staff made to take out of section 362d, which was an exception for competitively secured program solicitations. And can take out a grace period that had been in the original version went to the end of 2024. They suggested the grace period go away entirely. I have worked with um staff and have talked to the Mayors Office. And supervisor peskin i was going to ask for a grace period. When we are proposing is that we do have a grace period but it is a short one. Staff has recommended that if you do add a grace period back in it goes through the end of the year. Im asking for january 31, 2023 because of getting an ordinance passed sometimes the ends of the year is tricky. The San Francisco p public utilitys program of partnership program, is only authorized and we are seek authorization to include it when we are doing a public, posting our requests for proposals. Which means that our on going program, which we believe we have supported at the board to go in the future, we have Large Infrastructure Projects that are going to be happening in the southeast community. And you know one of the most impacted communities by the pu c Infrastructure Projects and that we would if we put those out to bid and we are not able to ask for those Community Benefits at that time, and the projects last 45 years we would never be able to go back and ask the people to be Good Neighbors and help do mentoring and help doing things in the community. Because the only time when we are allowed are in the process of the public participation, of course, we would not go to someone who we were in contract with and ask them to take gifts to nonprofits. For this reason and because we have been working diligently with staff and with the board. We ask for a small grace period to allow our program to continue and to do that until january of 2023. We provided language. I believe the City Attorney has the proposed language i read the language but at the upon end of subsection 3. 620d. To allow our program to continue until january 31, 2023, and we dont have approval at that point. We would have to stop seeking further solicitation from this and public procurements until we had an ordinance passed. Im happy to answer questions. Okay, thank you mr. Flynn. Is mr. Heckle on. Can we hear from him, please . I will check. Stands by. Jury room go morning, hank, can you hear us. Can you hear me . Yes. Good morning mr. Heckle can you update us with any late information. We heard from supervisor peskin regarding the joint proposals already. My web ex. Im sorry. Hank im sorry can you start again i dont know where i unmuted and you then you were muted im on the phone it had to dial in. I need you to go ahead and leave now we hear you. You are muting yourself it looks like. Go ahead. Good morning mr. Heckle, can you hear us . Yes, can you hear me . Yes. Good morning. We have already heard from supervisor peskin regarding the joint proposal. I would like to you give you the opportunity to add or have anything to share with this commission. Before we have questions for you. Yes, im sorry can you hear me, now. Yes. Okay. Thank you. I dial in the web ex audio was not working i dialed in but it looks like it is working sorry about that. Technical issue i go through the Ethics Commission. Yes, i would like to echo supervisor peskins comments. We and thank supervisor peskin for his help and collaboration on these amendments. And also thank the ethics staff and the commissioners for their attention to the issues. We it does look like the parties are in agreement on the some of the base said on the feedback from staff. I dont believe there are open issues other than the diminimus exception the thousand dollar threshold that remains in our version. Regarding the definition of, payments. And i will say a few words. This is up to the commission. You know, we do believe that it is a useful threshold and we for a few reasons one is consistent with the previous behested payments reporting regime in place, which required reporting from parties and amounts of 1 thousand dollars or over. The state regulation guess up to 5 thousand. I think a thousand dollars was a workable number locally and it will help to alleviate the Administrative Burden in terms of need to vet small donations if the department received a box of ppe they would need to first what it is a complex vetting process that has to go on for every behested payment under this ordinance. There are a number of categories and interested parties the categories need to be checked. Someone needs to run down whether well is a contract in issue or someone is subject to permit. Whether they lob ed the department and so on. And that does create work for staff and the City Attorney and may be ethics staff if they need to be advised on trickier situations that require a thorough analysis. If you exempt the minimal amounts tell arc leaveiate the burden and a safety valve so that people making chartable solicitations in their lives that have nothing to do with their will role as a city staffer they are covered under this ordinance. If they wanted to ask their neighbor for a donation to their kids soft ball team or march of dimes. Those amounts would be less than a thousand dollars. So i think that would help. We believe that would be an important safe harbor to allow for people to engage in the work in their lives believe staff has a response about lowering the threshold from a thousand to 250. If that is what staff is in agreement with. I would like to point that out to the commission. A higher amount would be more workable 250 i dont believe is would cover all of the smaller nonproblematic donations. There was a reference to some of the corruption with bert kershawin from department of building inspection it is terrible. All of those were bribes that were it was clearly proquo. Donations in favor of inspections it is covered by federal and other laws and local laws against bribery. In terms of the eliminating play to pay and appearances and inproprietor, the thousand dollar safe harbor is an appropriate amount that strikes a balance. Thats our position, but happy to discuss and receive questions on that issue or other parts of the amendments the commission would like to discuss. Thank you. Thank you. Actually thank you mr. Heckle and supervisor peskin and thank you mr. Flynn for your update. Taking time to share with us. Commissioners, if you have comments or questions . For our guests. Lets first turn to vice chair bush. To see if he has comments or questions . Vice chair bush . Can you hear me . Yes. First, i would like to thank my colleagues and the chair for your indulgence of my challenge as i tried to participate in the meeting. I do want to participate and i appreciate the work getting us up to this point. In terms of the thousand dollar threshold, do you [inaudible] the kind of examples of the real world. For example, do you have many examples of people directing a thousand dollars in the behested payment as opposed to somebody doing 250 . It seems to me that 250 is what will happen more often. Was that a question to me . Yes. Thank you. Um well we respected the 250 dollar response from staff. So we have not had the opportunity to compare instances where there were behested payment in the nature of charitiable solicitations, for example, below 250 versus up to a thousand. But a thousand was the number in the behested payment legislation prior to this. I know that there has been an effort to improve upon that. But it seemed that was in affect 4 years ago. It seems like a thousand dollars was a reasonable threshold at that points to cover personal, Charity Solicitations staff makes in their own lives but the extent there are behested payments for donations, sf program, other instances the city receives chartable support in ppe supplies or something that is not a high dollar value item, it would allow more of that to go on without getting in the need to conduct the whole vetting process, which is complex. Not only on the staff level but often the City Attorney is brought in and sometimes ethics staff. A thousand dollars we view as a safer safe harbor. Okay. Other questions . For our guests . Vice chair bush . Is not lets go to the can you hear me . Yes, sorry. Im sorry im having challenges here. Are there [inaudible] on the kinds. [inaudible] for example, can you use that for behested payment to a nonprofit employing your partner in a paid position . Can you repeat the question im not sure i understood it. Can you make a behested payment request to benefit a nonprofit that also is paying money to your partner . Or your child . Yea that is a good question. Im aware there are other ethics law in place that i believe would cover that situation. There is i believe it is campaign governmental code 3. 207 prohibit an official from using their position to benefit an organization with which they are associated. I know renovation in order to what you serve on the board or benefitting a Family Member. Immediate Family Member or partner. And there is conflict of interest laws. The disclosure local disclosure requirement where if you make a decision in the public setting you need to disclose that. But in a situation you are describing it would look like that was benefitting an organization with which you are associated and therefore would be presented under a different section of law. That will be made clear to the city official before an act, is there are the other restrictions that show up in other laws. I want to make sure our our public minded city officials who do make the request for behested payment are aware of all the considerations and not the ones the specific to this law. Yea. Great point, that is something that is in the training materials the annual training that elected officials and commissioners under take. It is something that everyone in the Mayors Office takes training. It is something the City Attorney has a memo on a number of those issues relating to commissioners and something that the City Attorney advises commissioners and other officials on. It is in existing luin a different section of the code. More out reach can never hurt and more training and education. [inaudible]. That means that the public listening participating in the meeting, listening to our discussion, has now been given a view of facts. That will help them understand the parameters, correct . I believe so. And i believe something that is city form upon 700 filers receive advice of i know it is in the training as well. Gi want to make surety public understands. Not just the donor. Right. Important for the public to be aware of the restrictions. Thank you. Thank you, chair lee. Okay. Thank you vice chair bush. Any commissioners i have a question for this could go for mr. Heck and he will supervisor peskin. I dont have occurrence but a couple of specific questions. The definition of perimeter of entitle reuse understand that we want to exclude nondregzary actions exceptions includes all permits issued over the counter. I dont know whether only overnight counter for example i know that dbi issues Building Permits overnight counter which are not as purely administerial if the goal is to exclude we can do that as describing it. A check list. Criteria, including the term, over of the counter without qualifications i wonder if that captures more than intends federal you can speak to that im curious hapermits are issued overnight counter and is it limited to those administerial type permits. Supervisor peskin. Commissioner finlev you are referring to i think a term of art and not of science. But i think one assumes over the counter permit has no discretion and is issued pursuant to a check list but more definition would not hurt this supervisors feelings or excising it and being significant and relying on the words of a check list or what have you. It would not be. My preference is to take the three words out, over the counter if mr. Heckle has a thought on that . Yes, thank you. I dont have objection to that. I understands the point you are making. I believe the the standard really was inupon tended to exclude permits that dont involve discretion. The dbi inspection permits would be included. But i understands over the counter may be is a loose could be a loose term that could create confusion. No objection here if you believe striking that would make it clearer that those types of permits are still on the table and included. That is fine on our end. Over the counter, on the table it is surfaces. [laughter]. There you go. Out of the picture. Okay. I have a question. Keep on going i have some, too. That was my substantive question. I have nittygritty textural questions about drafting. I discussed them both with the City Attorney one is proceeding, which it is what that is. Defined with a reference to the california code of regulations. If you look at the definition it only means permit or entitlement for use. Excludeings administrative enforcement. And i think if that is the definition we gutted half of the point of the law. The City Attorney, deputy City Attorney and i spoke about it yesterday. I think she has a suggestion for amending the definition of proceed to make clear it includes administrative enforcement and i discussd that with mr. Congressman as well. When i spoke with him i did not have the specific language. My guess neither supervisor or mr. Heckle intended to exclude it but it is important that we address it. I think deputy City Attorney florez, if you could share the language you showed me, that would amend the definition of preceding. Thank you, commissioner finlev. For everyones purposes this is the defyination of preceding found on page six. To the end of that sentence online 18, after public space. We would add, for purposes of this chapter 6 the definition shall also apply to precedings regarding administrative enforce am actions, period. Thank you. When we do this is administrative enforcement without that our precedings would not be covered in the oranges. Supervisor peskin i will give you a chance to react. If i may through chair lee to commissioner finlev thank you for that catch. I am not a lawyer so that is precisely why proposition e involved all of you in this process. I do while i have the floor, want to thank the City Attorneys office and deputy City Attorney florez for their on going work on this matter. I welcome that change. Great. Mr. Heckle i assume you dont have an objection but if you do, let us know. Thank you, commissioner finlev. No objection here and yes. Thank you for catching that. It was not the intent in referring to this state regulation to exclude administrative precedings and arc like. That definition the amendment to the definition suggested as clarity and we near favor of that. Great. I have one more quick textural comment then a question for the puc. May be we can defer that. Interested party on page 3 of my version subsection a1 that talks about party appearing before an officer. I think in the revision ambigutey about what the officer is. And the language i refer to the suggested language online 3 where it says, before any officers in the department of officer or designated employee. That officer or designated employee modified it but not clear what officer of the sentence is referring to. Used to say, interested parties mean any party appearing before an officer when it said this you knew who the officer is. Here it skips that step. So i continuing should be modified to say, start with before online 3, before any officers or designated employees and any officers within the same department of the officer or designated employee temperature it is a minor thing but without that if you read it in a vacuum the sentence is a circular reference that does not point to a specific officer. Not a pol point just a drafting issue. That does not at all change the intent of the what this goes for. I will read my suggestion again. I will read the entire sentence. Should read. Interested parties mean, a, any party, payment or agent of a party or participate involved in one, preceding regarding add stritive enforcement or license or needlement for use before, here is what i suggest. Before any officers before any officer or designated employee and any officers within the same department of the officer or designated employee. Because without that, again it is not clear how the officer triggers the Interested Party definition. Again im not trying to change the substance just make it clear what this accomplishes. I would be happy to go into that and i think deputy City Attorney florez. Thank you, commissioner finlev. If i may have you repeat that our changes one more time. Sure. I will read starting with the word before in the third line, before any officer or designated employee and any officers within the same department of the officer or designated employee, yea. And i have one question for puc unless mr. Can suggest looking as if. Question on that. And also not a lawyer in the room. I want to make sure that does not broaden what the intent is. I think now it is supposed to imply if you are involved in a preceding going before any officer in the department that would make that party an Interested Party for all of the other officers and sez iing nayed employees in the department. Specific to any officer triggers that if you go before a designated employee in a preceding that would not make them not a preceding before officers. So i want to make sure we are not. Broadening the intent thank you. The intent it is the officer in front that triggers not the designated employee. A preceding before any officer would make that party an Interested Party for all of the other officers and designated employees got it. If you are an officer it captures other designated employees if you near front of an employee that does not trigger anything. I the language is consistent with the other subsections. If you look down to d it is also of dives into officer designated employee is, yea. Contract with the designated employee or Officers Department y. Great. Thank you for that. And that is really important. I think in that case my suggestion would be before any officer and any officer ass or designated employees within the same department of the officer i dont expect the City Attorney to analyze that on the spot but after today if this is Going Forward that is the nonsubstantive change that could be made without us revisiting temperature it is noted a substantive change it is a drafting issue. Yes. So thank you for that question. The commission is inclineed make nonsubstantive typo technical changes today, i would probably be inclined to allow that. However, if there are further changes that go to the substance or that materially change a sentence or anything further than a word or period, i would have to take this back and have my unit look at it. So it is important that any changes we make today only go to you know typo or technical changes. Like hey there is an amissing and they should be, the instead, type of changes. Thank you for that. Thats what this is. Thank you. Yea. If we have anything substantive we have to revisit that. Those are my only comments i have a question for the puc to understand his point. Mr. Flynn is still there. I want to understand the desire for you grace period is because puc is about to issue bids and without the grace period they would not include the social s ip program . Do i have that right. Wants to issue a bid before the board of supervisors may enact this . I see supervisor peskin shaking his head. So thats fine i wanted to understand the purpose for the grace period was. Thank you, everyone. Commissioner romano. Sure. I have 3 points or questions. One is technical and i will try to get through that as quickly as possible. I will direct you to the same sentence that we were talking about in on page 3 line 13 on my draft. So it said this is the definition of Interested Party. Any party, participate, et cetera and then involved in one, this is what we were talking about with commissioner finlev and online 13 says, and any other gentlemanal decision regarding. I think that, account should be an, or. Okay. I will move on quickly to a substantive question concern. So the definition of Interested Party to my understanding is really crucial buzz it defiance who is covered here. And my concern is that it is limited. It is limited to only to people who are involved in permits or contracts. And there are exceptions to those not certain nonprofits and communication by e mail. Are all exempted from Interested Party issues. Which i think drive huge hole in this issue. Furthermore, i think that the definition of intent to influence. I appreciate has been added back, creates further confusion. For example, im on page 4, beginning line 2. This line one. I should say. Any person attempts to influence and designated employee and approval, denial, extension of a city contact. Only limited to contracts. I would want it to go beyond that, it used to be for anybody who tried to influence legislative or administrative action. The confusion enters when is it says contract provide influence set forth in section 3. 216b1 of this code. Section that section, does not define, attempt to influence. In fact, it has nothing to do with attempt to influence. Furthermore, it says as set fog in Ethic Commission regulations the regulations go beyond influencing a contract. I believe it says supporting, opposing governmental decisions. I would prefer that attempt to influence means adopts ethic regulation, which is attempt to influence means, supporting or posing any governmental decision. Rather than, amending just a contract. I wonder if anybody had thoughts about that. Yes, i will start with mr. Congressman. I think this was the staffs recommendations the compromise from what was originally proposed in the mayors version which was to later adopt in the the joint version to remove the attempt to influence prong entirely. To mitigate the harm of losing that prong staff suggested had narrow it to capture attempt to influence over contracts. That was the rational there. And the language around the exceptions and not including e mail were the existing language in the attempt to influence prong i believe the commission argued against during the initial passage. But that exception made it in there. And that was copied in this newly proposed version. First is should we limit it to contracts, i dont think so. I love to hear the supervisor or Mayors Office to speak to limiting it that way what does that leave out of the scheme . Supervisor pes pel for the record this got complicated in real life quickly as it relates to one upon ordinance that is passed annually, which is the appropriations ordinance known as, the budget. Where in as your director pelum knows virtually every stripe of human being in San Francisco works to influence budgetary decisions in a relatively truncated period of time between the months of june and july. And that impacts literally thousands of people. And who are going about influencing legislative action around the expression of how 14 billion dollars of the taxpayers funds and fees should be spent. It was trying to address the real life application of that annual exercise that made this very difficult and ultimately lead me from the position i had to where we are now. Mr. Heckle can add. I did not see an elegant way and did not want to discourage all of the people who should participate in that process. So hence, the problem. I appreciate that and im curious about mr. Heckles position. This does not stop the people from participating the process. Would wha it stops is city officials asking for behested payments. And furthermore, limiting it to contracts only anybody hospitals to influence legislation, real live legislation is not an Interested Party. You know. Yea. I guess the where i got to on that is in so farz the lobbyists regulations are extent and deal with the vast majority of that already, i felt that there was a colorable argument that was proper leave already regulated through the lobby group. Gi disagree, there are people who attempt to influence you every day who are not lobbyists this would cover lobbyists. Representative from Tipping Point he has lots of contributions to legislation and the city and guessing he is not a registered lobbyist. I think that just limiting it to lobbyist is too narrow. Gi appreciate your position, commissioner romano and i will turn it over to mr. Heckle from the Mayors Office. Thank you, supervisor peskin and commissioner romano. I like to respond to a couple of the points you raised. The attempt to influence prong is the one that receives the most attention in all of our discussions over the past 8 months in wrestling with this ordinance with departments and City Attorney. The most confusing, self defeating part of the ordinance. This is what was killing all of those relationships because you cant take the money. You cant engage with Tipping Point and other foundations, crank start, that come in and advocate to you for a policy like a Pilot Program. Witness they had the discussions they are off limits you can low longer engage with them to accept the grant money thats when we were advised by the City Attorney the cabin Pilot Program and Tipping Point paid for by providing fundses to nonprofits. With the core mission of the department of homelessness and Supportive Housing and last year the City Attorney advised us that would be dead and presented under this ordinance. So the approach the compromise mr. Canning said was to preserve elements of the attempt to influence. Now it exist in the the context of a contracted the contract is broad in that it covers that contractors as well as parties seeking a contract and it could cover a company that is not seeking a contract but wishes to toward a competitor from receiving a city contract they advocate against issuing the contract. Those are covered and in the context of lobbyists regulations that supervisor peskin mepgzed the existing law and another change that staff had suggestd and we agree with. It is in their memo lobbyists prong expanelleded it covers not only the lobbyists but the lobbyists this have registered with your department and clients for whom they have made lobbying contacts with you in the last 12 months. All of their clients for whom they lobby through the department become off limits. Which get a number of, types of commercial lobby that could create play to pay appearances. Our view is that with those changes you are covering a lot of the landscape. You have the administrative precedings prong, which is broad. Mentions permits but other entitlement and any administrative preceding like the Ethics Commission or all of the various administrative enforcement and other precedings that happen at the many City Departments and commissionless would all create interested parties that would be off limits for in terms of behested payments. Our view the changes have addressed the occurrence of ethic staff and the strongly advocate for leaving the change in place. I understand your point about the reference to the regulations. Might have been confusing. Point is that there are other things that describe what attempt to influence is. That section off to the attempt to influence of context of approval, denial or amendment of a city contract. It should be clear enough but we dont want to create confusion in the substance where the attempt to influence restrictions reside now we believe that is an appropriate compromise that addresses the occurrence of parties. All right. Let me restate my position. I dont think that limiting to just contracts and permits is sufficient. In terms of defining who is an Interested Party and vote to reject this proposal until this position is tightened up a bit. I understand the occurrence raised by many involved and trying to interfear but does not interfere with all business it is asking to give money to their organizations of choice. That is what it stops. Furthermore, i think at minimum am the definition of attempts to influence on page 4 line 3 is extremely confusing for two reasons i said. Section 3. 216b1 of the code is not the definition of attempt to influence. That is an error. Number 2 is, attempt to influence defined in the ethics Commission Regulations, reaches any government decision. Now is it any government decision or is it city contract . Right there it it is conflicted. I would prefer any government decision. We can may i responded. Please. Thank you, commissioner, we can clarify the language in terms of the reference to the code section this might have been narrowed the City Attorney can address the reference to 3216 b. In terms to the regulations, it is probably surplus because they are forth coming from ethics staff. The revving ligzs themselves can clarify the definition without spelling out the ordinance it is referring that to a definition making the same regulations i dont have issue with claire on the substance our view attempt to influence built in the contract prohibition and the lobbyists prohibition to cover lobby and clients in combination with the existing restrictions on administrative precedings and lobbyists and permits insolvents, really covers a lot of activity and to go beyond that. Again to your point about the policy advocacy can happen it can help but not in the context of grants and, thats not true other either. I doenl dont think that is true not that context it can happen within the context what cants a City Employee cant ask for money to are paid. The grants sorry. On that exact points. I think mr. Heckle i want to understand it goes to what commissioner romano is saying your point is that if i love puppy. Orgments to propose legislation the city create a project to take our puppies and the nonprofit wants to pay by advocating that nonprofit is an Interested Party. It cannots then work with the city to pay for the program. It can work for the city the City Employee cant ask for them. Points is that the definition of behested payment includes payments made with the nonprofit. The nonprofit advocates the program the nonprofit can low longer work with the city to coordinate how to pay. Mr. Heckle. . Redefine coordination i think nacoordinating with the city is fine what were trying to present is City Employees from making behested payments. The current definition is broad it captures the passive involvement of the city that is what mr. Heckle is saying. I hear that but perhaps that is the problem we should not mr. Heckle am i accurate low convague how it is current written . Yes. Thank you, commissioner finlev. So right. The concept of behested piments is broad and it is deratify friday state law not just directly asking one person asking for a payment. It is coordinating, suggesting, et cetera. I say we want to preserve the concept of this legislation. The problem is that in certain situations like the grantses it is self defeating you cant if you have the discussion about a grant for the city initiative. You are asking for money because a grant provides a Financial Support through the city initiative. If that money goes from foundation a to nonprofit b. In coordination with city officials that are implementing the program promoting the program and so on and perhaps legislating to implement and universalize Pilot Program and other projects all of that is regulated under the ordinance. What we say we should take out attempt to influence concept or in broad terms and limit today to the contract context and you would also still have coverage, lobbying clients who is might be trying to do another influencing through lobbyists. That is the concern and we believe it is addressed correct me if im wrong the definition is on page 2 lines 810. And it does say in cooperation and coordination at the request of the City Employee. It is what prohibiting a request by the City Employee. Not prohibiting coordination, consultation. It is the requests made bite City Employee. Am i missing the point. No thats right. My understanding this is based on City Attorneys advice whenneen if they a Foundation Came in the city that we have a pilot for cabin shell and willing to pay and we believe it has benefits to help address the homelessness crisis. The conversation involved if the city is in favor of that and agrees andments the funding for the project even though you did not initiate the conversation. You are still requesting that in fact the offer is consummated and a grant is executed and the program is fund the i disagree, it seems like an appropriate thing we can define by regulation rather than limiting what an Interested Party is only to contracts seems like. Obscure. Ask our staff analyst to provide the commission because my understanding is we had this discussion about why limited contractors permit and paid lookyists versus commune Service Issue Community Based service organizations. Not sure that distinction. Might be help if you stands upon so we see you. The upon grant exception which the ethics staff has through advise clarified that communications around a grant would not be an attempt to influence. A program to be funds the the conversations lead up to a grant they would not be part of an attempt to influence. Not an attempt to influence they are not a contract. This is about attempt to influence is influence being contracts and permits. In the current law, an attempt to influence on legislative or administrative action. I prefer the current lu. And yes, the point. To your point. A request for grant is not an attempt to influence under current law. The grant exception does allows for an organization or party to give a grant to the city and not an Interested Party as a result. A Grant Agreement is a form of contract afternoon exception say you dont become an Interested Party based on that grant. May i respond . Mr. Heckle . Yes. Go ahead. So the currently legislation there is a carve out in the contractor the grant of the city does in the make you a contractor but does not in the influence prong it has been read in by ethics staff and the words no split this carves out the concept of attempt to influence that says you make the grant to the city. It is not written there. Problem 2, it does not carve out grants in coordination with the city where the payment goes to a third party. [inaudible] part of that Tipping Point and others. Faring and a common arrangement a grant the Grant Funding was not in the city it was a complex arrangement among the city providing cabin pilots built paid another nonprofit to build the pilot and staff them and maintain them and build the cabin structures and maintain them. Here is run arc foul of the current legislation. Thats one of the things we are trying to solve. Gi think the solution of limit thanksgiving to permits and contracts goes too far. If there are way this is is my concern at the last meeting we were trying we understand there are issues the current law perhaps sweeps broadly it attempts to narrow the law to allow for activities we think benefit the city. Limiting it to contracts and permits limit its too far. The nan purpose of the board of supervisor system to pass laws. And if you say that anybody who attempts to influence allow is not an Interested Party seems sweeping way too far in my opinionful i would urge the parties try to and i would be happy to work on this. Come up with a better solution than limiting to contracts and permits. I like to move on. I want to understand why e mails are exempted from attempts to influence. Chairly, aaron peskin. I believe that was in the original legislation e mails are Public Records and available to anybody under our chap 67 the code upon request i believe why that is why it was in the legislation and mr. Heckle, perhaps you can remind me i think that is. They are not part of the Public Record. I think we should that seems like a giant loophole. I think that as i recall, during earlier Public Comments. The e mails also involved the freedom of expression. And involved what. Freedom of speech. That was brought up and the second thing was it is true that anyone can access the e mails. Anybody cannots but i think it goes back to an on going challenge of balancing who is was the definition of influence. If you are a childcare centers, Community Service or organization. Going to speak before the supervisor, you know urging for public funding, is that the same part with the contractor trying to this would allow. Allow a contractor a full on covered contractor and a permit person and lobbyist to contact mr. Peskin by e mail and because it is e mail not considered exempt to influence. If they are a contractor they are covered by the other. But not considered an attempt to influence. I dont understand i could file a records act request and get all of your e mails and the same for texts include your texts and note that you draw. We dont do that and not limited speech primary motive of communication is e mail and we are excluding that as attempt to influence seems like a make. Yea i dont care and while i have the floor, i want to say that the amendment requesting is acceptable to to me and the second is to through the chair the commission you are putting your finger on a number of things that back to the conversations that we had my original intent in this legislation dating back to the year 2021, was that this department would have regulations had that been done timely i would not be standing here the reason i want today to incentivize the said regulations but now i like to be done with this project. I hear you. Im new to the commission. I have no problem with the of safe harbor i put in a dead line on this commission to implement regulations that would solve we put this in and took out the safe harbor i did push back on the sentence that said, Something Like you would be held hrmless. I felt it was unnecessary and took that out. All right. The supervisor did not care the e mail sentence if the mayor does not care either then. Does mr. Heckle have an opinion . Yea. I dont believe that i dont believe that is critical having hain there. The intent was supervisor peskin said was to it would take accounts of the fact e mails are Public Record and can be requested and taking account the things of the nature staff and the like in the nature of Public Comment and hearing i understand they are not. Upon given the erroneous commissioner romano raised that change would not alter the intent of the restrictions nor create any [inaudible] as far as that would be okay. One last piece and i will yield my time. I think there was a request about the waiver and the board of supervisors make a resolution to exclude itself. I dont know if this has been resolved. I suggest this any waiver to excloud the board of supervisors need to be approved by this committee. Supervisor peskin. Chair lee. I would be more than happy and i think i expressed at the last meeting to have it impossibility that the board of supervisors could wave itself. The suggestion you made which would be even one step further which is only this body could wave it for the board. It is acceptable. Thank you. Any other. I want to make myself clear, i will not vote for this today. Unless or because the attempt to influence definition is too narrow. And i would choose the commissions current regulation definition of attempt to influence over the definition in this proposed legislation. I would say i read that there is dissonance, i understand why we want to wait im wondering the time line. If we revise this would we and sends it to the City Attorneys office. What is the process. I agree there is no need to delay and say we will edit the regulation but pass this. It makes sense if we draft this to get it right but i want to ask about the time line yoochl madam chair and commissioners as much as i would like go back it my summer break you have yet one more Commission Hearing prior to the ends of the board of supervisors legislative recess. Which is on september the sixth. But of the first meeting of the rules committee is now until assessment the 12th. I believe is after your first meeting in assessment. I would like to agendaize this at the rules committee on september 12th so i think not putting word in the mayor a mouth, there is without requiring a special meeting one more opportunity before september 12. For your notice, i did not receive this until yesterday afternoon and i know other members did in the receive it until this morning. That is part of the issue here. Noted. And other questions from commissioner sns okay. Thank you. Im going to ask our director to give us a time line for administrative sake. Our next meeting is september 9. The supervisor mentioned that the next possible inclusion of the commission is the following monday. My question is, if if commissioner romano, i want to extend the definition im sure we would not resolve this on september 9. We have gone through this many times and i think that if we are going to extend our discussion on this it will involve the not Nonprofit Community. To me Nonprofit Community means 2 things the ones created for purpose and there are those who are truly Community Service organizations. So im talking about the Community Service organizations who will have a lot of concerns if we were to extend the attempt to influence question. And i dont think one meeting in september 9 will resolve that. So my question to the both the director and the City Attorney is if we were to take action the proposal in front of us today can we go back. To work with the supervisor, Mayors Office, to address the attempt to influence question that commissioner romano realliments to have a broader discussion . Or do we need to can we not take action today. Until september 9 until we have that broader discussion . I to be honest my preference is we have been at it lets take a vote and see where this go and then schedule Something Else for september ninth. But the expectation we both have something have a resolution on september 9 with a change of definition of attempt to influence. Given our past public hearings on this item i dont think tell happen on september ninth. But yea, thank you im not sure how to answer that. I believe that the most helpful thing for this resolution of the issues is to hear from the full body about the policys view issues commissioner romano is raising. We can go work with mr. Peskin office and the Mayors Office and City Attorney to refine language and bring it back september ninth as mr. Peskin indicated so it would be on time. Whether this commissionmented to explore the narrowing of the exceptions this august 10th draft has would we want to narrow that as a policy matter or whether this body is feeling comfortable with moving ahead as is. That is a critical issue. I dont know we could be effective in negotiating or redrafting until we have clarity from the body. We can address this proposal and on the accept ninth meeting we schedule on the agenda item to revisit. The commissions and other supervisors and the mayor an office and others entered parties a reevaluation of what attempt to influence City Government should be including legislative items and also who will be under that broad universe. Because this proposal is limited for a reason. And i heard my colleagues say they want it to be more broad. Including the current definition under the Ethics Commission. I like to clarify my point i think this needs more attention im not saying that you know dont think we should adopt everything that is in the code and there are cut outs and exceptions that can be made and take into account that people who want to be active or involved and worried and how that limitd that i want to think about it more. There are important parts we can include here. I think that like i want to put that out there. Im not saying this is their over but we can tweak it a bit. I dont know if this is something i work with staff or be involved moving forward to spend more time. Im not saying we need a special meeting but i think that i like to acknowledge. I foal we moved fast. I think this is great and grateful for. Agreed. That everybody is spent on getting make thanksgiving so complete. I receive today this morning but because everybody has been working on it throughout the week. That is all im saying i would like more time. Joo i want to put on the record that it it is not that we received it it was presented to us this morning it was through technical. Glitches. That some of us did not get it until today but was available on monday. It was available yesterday. I will make that clear. So what is your pleasure . We dont have any madam chair, i thought your question approve today but continue to work on this issue. I think the answer is, yes, we can and then always suggest the board make an ordinance on other time line. If there is a. Madam chair . Yes, please. No audio. So, the reason why wore here is because of prop e. In june. That requires this body to make a decision on a piece of legislation on amendments to the behested payment ordinance that will then be sent to the board of supervisors. So if you approve something today, it will be sent at this time board of supervisors. And you cannot amend it later. So right. But we can separately suggest other laws that affect the behested payments. Totally separate from what is here today this is referring to the piece of legislation in front of you now. As a regular function for the commission, you can later pick thumb and say we would like to work on this prong we approved and the board past in october or november when this passed if it does. You can do that any point. This piece of legislation if you want the board to act on it you have to make a decision from this body. If i can clarify. We can take action today on what is before us. By a vote a majority vote. Yes. And the board of supervisors would need to act on it 3 quarters or. 2 thirds vote. This body can later on at some point by a major vote, propose to the board of supervisors any changes we may continue to see not only on the attempt to influence could be Something Else continue tain in the what we pass today . Right . We can do that at a future time if we find out that you know the waivers and the does not work. So we have the prerogative to by a majority vote of this body submit to the board of supervisors of our recommendation . To strengthen prop e. Is that correct . Down the line, in a different peeves legislation, you could prosoez amendments to whatever these amendments become. But on this piece of legislation if you vote to send it to the board of supervisors the board gets what you vote on today that is the legislation they work to pass. And then converse low, if the board of supervisors disagrees with whatever you agree to today, andment to make changes that piece of legislation come become to you. It is a ping pong until everyone approves. By the volt threshold necessary. Also, but further amendments to this very languaged dont need go through the same process. Yes, everybody. This but ordinary legislation does not. Just this is related the behested payment. If we amend today 2 years from now guess through this process. Yes. Thank you. Could i get repcasion regarding the time line discussed . I believe there needs to be 30 days after the commission acts on legislation before the board of supervisors can act. So would that disrupt the potential time line if the commissionmented to delay action on this legislation and vote on september ninth would that prevent supervisor peskin from taking up on rules on september 12th . How is the 30day i have to look at the prop e language to confirm. I can get become to you once i get become to my computer. Thank you. And i want to be mindsful that 59 of San Francisco prop e in upon june and if we delay this i dont think that will be fair. To the people of the city. If i may, we are doing is amending what the people approved thats what we are specific low going against what they approved thats what we are trying to do in a manner. By doing nothing we are supporting upons what 59 of the votersmented anything we do here is rolling back what they enacted. I take issue with the idea we are going against the view of voters by spending more than 24 houros this piece of legislation. This has come before us last month and im saying that if we were to move this to september that would be 3 months i think that at some point we need to have a resolution. My point is we have it now this is current law approved bites by the voter what is we are being asked here is roll back protections. I agree some make upons sense but we are diluting ethic laws by this action. Your point is taken im not sure 59 vote is unanimous vote at the board of supervisors. Your point is well taken. Okay. So yes. So. 30day question. Yes. So if i may, members, so whatever you approve today or any point it must be made available for public review for 30 days before considered by the board of supervisors. At rules or the whole Board Committee as well. Okay. So given hawe have to move today in order if the board will be able to have rules look at it on september 12. Right . Yes. If we ruled on september upon 9, when would be the earliest time the board of supervisor could based on the advice of the City Attorney and given the fact that 30 days would be required from your action on september the ninth and the first meeting thereafter of the rules Committee Meets every monday; it would be october the 10th where there is no meeting because of Indigenous Peoples day take us to 17 october. Got it. Board of supervisors votes. I would then in the normal course of business appear at the board of supervisors on the 18th of october for the First Reading where require pursuant to prop e a 2 thirds vote and the second reading on the 25th although there are mechanisms where in it could go to the board of supervisors on the 11th and the 18th. If we did it today would be an among earlier . Thats correct. So any other. Gi will say madam chair, that deputy general manager of the puc ron flynn is on the line if you want to hear from him. I. Thank you. I know you had a question i was not able to payment. Now i can answer the questions the commissioner had. And explain why we would like this change to the amendment, which is supported and was in the record before im happy to respond to the question if you allow me. Mr. Flynn, i remember, the reason why have this amendment was because of the funding cycle. Was that correct . Yes. Yea. We are we are contract that will be issued between now and the end of the year. Which the puc in order to allow those references and those nonprofits and schools to seek to get Public Benefits or guest Community Benefits. Would not be allowed. Until we go through a staff press with the board. We will do that but after today, each meeting cause another delay. We were asking for it went to the commission and board in assessment. Was through the end of january to give us this room to go through the 30day hold on the legislation to go throughout committees on our legislation and get it passed as fast as possible. I know that the supervisors support its i believe the Mayors Office support its. It was this was in the material provided. It was in the material provided to this commission in july. It was only in yesterdays provision the exception was excised we are asking for it to be put back in with a much smaller time frame and i believe that would be you know be allowed go forward as part of an amendment today. So, clarify for me, if this commission does not act the earliest the board Supervisor Rules Committee would consider this would be october 17k how would that affect your rfqs with nonprofits . It would provent us between now and as we are now in october 17th putting our rfps we have been delaying to wait to see what happens here. It would allow us in october to include those solicitations through the next few months. It will not go through october i ask for the end of february to give us this run way. [inaudible] the boards final on it and give us the grace period through february 28th. 29th, or 28th. 2023. I would ask through the chair whether that language the language that we have proposed is available to the staff and to the City Attorney. I can read it but i believe it is there for inclusion and ask it be included if you pass if today. Gi understands we did not have problems with the language. Yea. Okay. Thank you mr. Flynn. May i follow up. Mr. Flynn, i think the question that i was wondering more if there is the delay until october, how does this affect the programs you are trying to fundful i understand you want to extend the grace period that is a different question the question is when delay would that cause to the programming you are trying to do and the funds you are raising for worthy causes . Yes. I will give you an example. We are in the process of putting out bids on the planning bidos Major Construction projects. Ful will one of them is at 2,000 marine. It is going to be a large proposal that has services for a new Water Department building. And another one is a sewer new sewer pump station on treasure island. Both of those, we would like to ask the people to include the benefits with people in the communities. If we dont get the grace period we would not be able to hold off until february or march of putting those out they would go out to bid be large multi100 thousand dollars projects and no point in the future we would seek benefits to get it in there it is the moment what makes the program separate different and not a behested payment we do a public low when you do a proposal and so it is it is timing that is important to us. We would like to continue this program that the board supports, the staff says that it does not fooul fall in the purview or shouldnt so we are anything for that. My 83 are you waiting to issue the rfqs until this measure is passed . We have been holding off but that is our ability to do so is ending. We have been. When is it ending . Well if it is not going to last until next year. If this commission reject its it will ends right away and put it out and ends then. And so we would like to start in september or october to be able to do this backlog and push them forward as waiting through this process. Im confused. If we dont pass it today you can put out your rfps. I can put out my rfps without Community Benefits. I cant put them out and ask for Community Benefits until this board, commission and the board pass it. Why is there a way we can allow to you do your rfp without pass thanksgiving legislation. That may be a question to the City Attorney. Might be helpful to recap why the provision or that is in place. Through an opinion . Or issued bite City Attorney . Yes, my office opine body this matter earlier this year when the behested payment it is legislation took affect. So the City Attorney the opinion as written can no longer have the program. The sip communities benefits program. That no way to amend that opinion or regulations or some other way . Can we. Mr. Peskin suggesting we can principle a regulation allowing the puc to proceed without approve thanksgiving legislation. He is in favor with if. I support i concur. Just commissioners if i may, a regulation would take just as long as will doing this as well. So. You know it is in the just about approving today. It is about your staff have to draft this with our office. And then put it out for the public and come back and vote on it. So. Just keep that in mind. There is also take 60 days for regulations to start if the commission were to have a regulation today would be 60 days before it would be operative. Chair lee, is it the case does the City Attorney revise advice is is that an opportunity to reconsider the issues and provide updated advice. Would that be an option . Thats a question for that was for the City Attorney. I cant speak for my entire office. But i know that the advice we issued regarding that program took in account the legislation as written. These folks opine for a contract are interested parties as the legislation is currently written, i can take this back and ask my office they consider amending our advice but if the regulation if the legislation continues to be written as is, i am highly doubtful that will be possible. This is not a Perfect Piece of legislation but appropriateed support it today. And i hope that the supervisor would work with our staff and office in good faith Going Forward if the opportunity to amend the influence prong i think there are several poses that longterm could be clarified and remedied. But it accomplishes comp nooiz myself with our staff the Mayors Office and the supervisor. The paymented created a strangle hold on projects and want to alleviate t. Is not perfect i think it gets us there and i think to be a good partner to the other City Partners we got in a good place but i chair the americans concerns and life to work on the issues as a separate piece of legislation but given the timing issues we are facing im and would be comfortable support thanksgiving today with the amendments we discussed and curious whether the technical amendments are some of that would not require additional time and im referring to the technical amendments that peskin mentioned about the title and striking the word, via e mail and over the counter. And oshg mitting preceding as the deputy City Attorney read. And the definition of Interested Party i discussed earlier and including the pucs recommendation for the grace period do those amendments trigger. But im not the deputy City Attorney. Why if i may. I can answer that. All of the amendments that were proposed today the long title is submit City Attorneys over sees and a more of a brown act issue than anything written admit legislation we have purview over that and can amend that any point to reflect what is written in the legislation. And the other technical clarifications that you addressed would not run arc foul of making changes the puc language had been sent by mr. Canning a few days ago. I did vet it with my office and would be fine. Before if00 autocommission is inclineed vote, before i like to go over all of the technical changes so we have that reflected on the record. Thank you. So if there are no more question and comments from the commission, do i entertain a motion from my colleagues commissioner you are you have a 2 second delay. To see if you have any last minute comments or you want to take any action. Vice chair bush . Thank you, chair lee. I want to get clarification for us in this public process. When we talk about entities this are beneficiaries of the funding requests. We are not just talking about nonprofits but the behested payment clouz allow for contributions through educational or governmental purposes. And in the past what that is meant specifically is the mayors and other city officials have established small committees to accomplish a purpose directed by them and staffed by their own people. ve the americas Cup Committee which raised in the millions of dollars. Or committee to mark the historic anniversary of the city hall. Or the committee to seek to have San Francisco named for the superbowl. So these are committees that actually raised far more money than any of the nonprofits we talked about. And in those case, those committees are directed exclusively by the official asking for the money. Almost all of it from people whom have contracts or businesses in the city. And most often they are staffed either by a direct employee of the official. So. I want people to have a broader view. Than just saying nonprofit and thinking narrowly when the law allows for a pretty broad range of gifts that it require reporting but are allowable. And which can have a direct political impact on the official make the request. Thank you. Okay. I wanted to put supervisor peskin on the spot my thing today i love his nonbinding but public commitment in the event if we see a positive to revisit the issues that he will work with our staff to do so. Commissioner finlev through the chair i welcome that and as i said publicly, ethics law is a constantly evolving field the reason that proposition e allowed for amendments with the majority approval of this body and 2 thirds approval of the board of supervisors, was to acknowledge that this is an ever changing, evolving area of law. And to that ends, the discussion that you had today is precisely what i wanted when i wanted volve the Ethics Commission. You have my commitment to continue to work on this and other pieces of of the legislation as you have heard now and as i have heard repeatedly some legitimate and some manufactured. Not to put too fine a point between dynamic that is frustrating is that there are City Attorney opinions, lack of ethics regulations. It is fallen to me to clarify them in order to deal with that uncertainty. Otherwise, i would not really be here and the process that i put in place would be working. I for one, no offense to the City Attorneys office, did not intend nor do i believe that the sip program of the puc is implicate in the this legislation but lacking regulation everybody deferred to the City Attorneys office i understand why. Having said that, i find myself in a position of having to clarify. I would be delighted condition working with you on things that are not clarified by regulation. It was look the original intent of this to bring in legislative and administrative attempts to influence. Is where i started. But given the dynamic, i had to retreat. I would be happy to see i think commissioner romano put his fingers on certain things definition and interception of the definition of behested of. What does that mean. There are other ways to get at this and im happy to do that in the months ahead. Thank you. I do see any. Request i addon to that comment. Yea. I believe there are a lot of things we could do through regulations around the definition of at the behest of and dont have that proposal in front of you there are ways to claire foil that and have it be clarified different low going to the city opposed noncity entity is something we can explore in the future. If i may, chair. Before if am a motion will be made i would like to review the changes. So everyone has the changes when they make this motion. Is this proper . Yes. I thought we would make the motion and you going to clarify what motion we made. Go ahead. And also we also need Public Comment. A reupon minored. We were going to have you yes. Make changes and make the motion and go to Public Comment. And take a vote. Works for me. Starting on the first page of long title. The changes that we are making today are to item number 3 in the long title. We are changing it to say, narrowing the prohibition soliciting from persons who have attempted to influence legislative or administrative actions. And then the next number 4, accepting solicitations made in connection with the certain types of city contracts. And the next change is to Interested Party on page 3. Per commissioner finlevs suggestions. Im starting up the before. Before any officer and any officers within the same department of the officer. Is this had you contemplated include designated employees. I think it should be before any officer and any officers or designated employees within the same department of officer. I think before any officer or officers within the department of the officer designated employee. I want to get there as well if you mentioned designated employee at the emends it is not clear which designate today is referring to the concept is if you are in front of an officer then the provision captures that officer and any other officer or designate nitted employee in that first Officers Department. If i may. This may be something that can be addressed through a regulation. To clarify if we are going back and forth on the language special know the concement. That seems fine. I think mr. Mar. Line 13 should be and changed to or. Yes. Going back we are not going to make the changes to before. The sentence. Do it by regulation. Yea. Okay. There are no changes to what was proposed the only changes we are changing before in the same sentence before number 2. We are crossing out, and and writing in, or. Is that what you are referring to . Yes, thank you. In that sentence Interested Party section on page 3 the only change the, or. The next change is in and and adding or. Right after in b 1 in the same page any city contractor the paragraph beginning with that at the bottom of that paragraph turns to the next page, which is page 4. We are crossing out via e mail. I think the word. E mail. Made via petition or social media. Just e mail. Commissioner romano. Yes thank you. I will cross out the comma ever petition. Yep. Grammar. And the next change is on page 5 in the license permit or other entitlement for use usual mean paragraph. We are crossing out the end of this paragraph crossing out are issued over the counter. Or. It will read. Facts presented or as of right. And or as of right. Crossing out is are issued over the counter, or. And then next page, page 6 the paragraph starting with preceding shall be defined. At the end of that we are adding, for purposes of this chapter 6 this definition shall arc notice to precedings regarding administrative enforce am action. Yes, thank you. And then the next is the change that supervisor peskin mentioned. To conform the titles to what is earlier ahead on page 7. Of section 3 penalty 620a2. Contracts. We are adding right now it if you if the entered party is a city contract or affiliate a party to or seek to contract with the officer or designated employees department or person attempted influence the officer regarding right there we add, the approval, denial, extension or amendment of a city contract. Is everyone okay. The next change is on d. Exception, competitively program solicitation. At end of the paragraph we are adding, a program existed on over before january 23, 2022 the San Francisco puc Commission Social Impact Partnership Program Considered for this subsection and authorized program. I. 1, only a department that implemented program on or different january 23, 22 include it in the competitive solicitation and the authorize granted under this subsection expire on january 31 of 23 unless the board of supervisor authorizes an exec of the program. If the authority under subsection for preexisting program expires, the department shall stop including the program but may condition to administer the preexisting program for contract where proposals received boor the expiration date. That sound correct, everyonech those were the only changes. I have another on my list. The definition of Interested Party. Prong b. There ask that reference to section 3. 216b1 pointed out incorrect. Upon 1 could be to drop off the reference there and say, attempt to influence defined set forth in strike ethics Commission Regulations that would allow us to not use the existing revving ligz and create regulations for this prong. It is current definition referenced is for the restricted source rule has different meetings. This is my subassistantive problem. I dont want to excise what i think the stronger language the Ethic Commission revving ligzs if you want to excise the reference to 3 penalty 216b im happy with that. Thats what she suggests and the reference. No , i want to keep the everyones to the regulations allow for the commission to make changes to them in the future. Cutting out in section 3. 216b1 of the code. Page 4 line 3. Confirm that is the language . Yep. As set forth in ethic regulations and discussed the waiver provision with regard to board of supervisors and waiver implicating the board of supervisors approved by a major vote of this commission. Would this be an exception waiver . Repeat that. If it would be like footwork 1. Or tacked on at the end. Any waiver implicating the board of supervisors or a member thereof must be approved by a major vote of the Ethics Commission. Substantive change. Fimay. I this is more of what substantive change and so i cannot approve this without gg going back and having them check this conforms. All right. Is that a submit narrow deregulation specify that any request made by the board of supervisors would need to be approved or too much to do regulation . I would think this it guess with what the exemption on point with your exception i think it is would be available through regulation. You any substantive change i have to check and have them review the language. Supervisor peskin i didnt see you there. No problem. I this is a rather unique organizational dynamic between this commission and the board of supervisors there is a parallel relative to the powers that the Planning Commission has over changes to the planning code where they have the ability to advise. It is a lesser standards than your standard where you have the authority to stay, yes or no or suggest not suggest, bring forward amendments. However in the spirit of the Planning Commission dynamic if it is acceptable to the City Attorney, and is not violative of prop e, i would suggest that your transmittal to the board of supervisors includes the notion that commissioner romano expressed that as stated which is that any waiver for Department Number one the board of supervisors requires the expressed approval of the Ethics Commission. And then they can word smith the language and may be if mrs. Florez allow we adopt that word smith language perspectively. So we i had discuss third degree topic with my coworkers and unfortunately whatever is written in the legislation as approved today abcents technical or typo or grammatical errors it has to come back for approval. Let me try this on the City Attorney through the chair, making law on the spot which always makes City Attorneys appropriately nervous. Would the City Attorney consider to be substantive, i would suggest that it it is not, if in the first sentence of subsection f exceptional waiver on my page 10, line one, the end of that sentence upon request by a City Department the board may wave the requirements this this section 3 penalty 620 by resolution that may not wave it for itself. That would be i think that would be okay. It is not a substantive change. Perfect. That would do the trick. Can you repeat that supervisor peskin. Yes. Of upon request by a City Department board of supervisor may wave the requirements of this section 3. 6020 by residence laugz but may not wave it for itself. I think that is okay. It didnt change the substance the only question i have is you know are you asking you could say other than the board of supervisors as well. That is not as clear in my opinion. This is a request and okay. I play lawyer on tv. But may not wave it for itself is appropriate. And i would approve it as to form and the reminder i add if the commissionmented to add a regulation the board of supervisors may come to the commission to get waiver i dont know if this is a consideration the commissionments to maim. Through the chair, insofar as i suspect this will be an on going project of refinement over time, we can put that in the file for future changes that we canityerate with our 2 bodies would be my suggestion. We all in agreement with that one. Is there no other one more proposal changeip wanted circle back on discussion of the definition of payment and addition of the thousand dollar exception. There was suggestion of having that be a lower thresholdmented make clear if the commissionmented to leave it or suggest an alternate amount thank you mr. Canning. I think lower would be nice the reasons articulated by the Mayors Office im comfortable with the thousand dollar i see that has a low amount. Not perfect but in the compromise im fine with that as is. Speaking for myself. Any other changes mr. Canning . Not this im aware the thouz anldz dollar there is no change . Thank you. Okay. So do i have a motion to approve this proposal with the amended changes as articulated by the City Attorney . Commissioner bush . 2 second delay. Do you have any . You are on mute. Vice chair bush you are on mute. Am i on now . Yes. All right. I want when you are red to vote i will vote, yes. Okay. Do we have a motion . I move to adopt the proposed measure amended today the amendments by deputy City Attorney florez. Could you take Public Comment. I will second. Okay. We have a motion and a second to approve this. Lets open up for Public Comment, please. We have i think we have someone who wished to make a comment. On site. Go ahead. Meanwhile moderator can you check on any potential commenters in the queue. Go ahead. Yes, madam chair. Please, go ahead. You recognize me im going to take my mask off. I dont like to go incognito im charles furthermoreerly with common cause. We sorry. And also the friends of ethics. I would refer you at some point may be not today. To reread the voter statements or the sponsors statements regarding this legislation. Because i of course there is an appearance risk among the public on this issue. That is there is an appearance to me as a member of the public i will be knowledgeable. But other members of public and possible low ultimately to the press that of this process of amendment has been manipulated and you have been caught in a bit of a web. How many voter passed initiatives in San Francisco have been immediately put through this process of amendment that was originally sponsored or suggested by bob stern. With the center for governmental studies as a reform measure. How much times have we immediately repealed and reenacted using the stern provizo or amendment mechanism instead of doing what we have done in the past and that is for the board to essential low propose as they did for the elections commission. Come turned out to be unconstitutional in the first draft in 2001. To propose its repeal and reenactment, what happened in 2002. If this bill is so flawed it needs an amendment process so massively adjusted as you are doing. That it is so bad it should be repealed by member and proposeed be reenacted. Probably by the mayor who is working in this room. As we speak. To get you to do the other duties or dirty work in affect, or to go back to the board and repeal and reenact like we did for elections commission. For this body to get its fingerprints in this thing or get itself sullied is not appropriate. This it is a vaseration of that mechanism the amendment mechanism. Thank you. I should say nice to meet you all i have not met most of you before except mrs. Lee. And staff. Nice to meet you, also. Operator do we have other callers . To comment on this . Yes, we have 2 caller in the queue we still have hands raised by mr. John and mr. Ron flynn. I dont know if they had anything to ad before we go on with Public Comment. If you dont would you police lower your hands. I dont have anything. Im sorry. Thank you. I dont either apologies not sure how to lower my hand. No worries thank you for confirming. We have 2 callers, stand by. Welcome, your 3 minutes begins now. Hello this is debbie from San Francisco Human Services network in association of 80 Community Based nonprofits. We had deep concern about the impact of the behested contributions measure on the citys ability to raise donations for Urgent Community Needs Service for homeless and other vulnerable residents it lead to consequences due to a broad approach or lack of clarity and caused harmful delays now required for the City Attorney to review all potential solicitations on a case by case basis. We support the amendments put forth bite Mayors Office and supervisor peskin. They will mitigate the provisions that caused the greatest harm to the ability to funds vital programs. Regarding the attempt to influence government action, this language goes beyond benefit to include anybody who expresses an opinion on any pending legislation or administrative action. This broad and vague definition sweeps up thousands of people making impossible as a practical matter for Public Officials to track it to comply. Fails draw a line what is and not permitd and chilling affect on per missable and desirable funds raising the amendment creates an enforceable po hibitification applies to lobbyists and hold the risk of possible corruption. Regarding e mail my recollection the concern was the hundreds of letters that supervisors received from members of the public on every [inaudible] issue imaginable that make the interested parties and impossible to track that concern is less if the broad definition is amended. And there is a much lesser risk of corruption at low everybody level donations which the bribery laws already cover. We thank staff for your review of the legislation and urge the commission to approve it today with urgency in order to allow Fundraising Efforts to move forward. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Stand by. Welcome your 3 minutes begins now. Commissioners, im francisco decosta. I followed the behested [inaudible] for the last 15 years. Why are you commissioners trying to work with a board of supervisors . Why are you trying to work with the Mayors Office . Yall have the ability to discern. The [inaudible] other is a [inaudible] [echo], you are confusing the public. You listen to the garbage for hours and hours and because you cannot not educated on issues simple issues you cannot come up with the right type of ordinance. Dont know how much time it takes for the ordinance to pass. You are that [inaudible] back and forth with the City Attorney. Changing the language and making a mockery of what should be the Ethics Commission doing its work. You have obscured members in San Francisco who work very, very hard with Ethics Commission. Today the ecics commission is at the all time low. And [inaudible] or whatever is the [inaudible]. Weer fed up with you. Fed up with yall. [inaudible] a big nonprofits wing with [inaudible] the mayor who does not want any type of monitoring. Any type of enforcement. Her mentality is like the [inaudible] that is simple. The supervisors, should remin in the chamber. [inaudible] stop. Stand by. There are no further caller in the queue. Why okay. No more Public Comment. It is closed. Now before us is a motion proposed and seconded to adopt the amended city behested payment rules. Call the roll, please. Madam chair on the motion to adopt with amendmented i will call the roll. Commissioner bush. Can you hear me . Yes. Yes. Commissioner feng. Neigh. Commissioner finlev. Yes. Chair lee. Yes. Commissioner romano. No. Madam chair with 3 votes affirmative and 2 in decent the motion is carried by 32. Okay. Thank you. We are now on know number 7 discussion of items for future meetings. Vice chair bush . Thank you. I issues we could [inaudible] [echo] mostly a question of providing information on data [inaudible]. For example. Since we just will have completed a reporting period, who are the top 5 Campaign Donors and to whom which campaigns do they give and how much do they give . Secondly, what about the operation of 501c4s allow to be politically active but dont show up as part of a campaign. I have a list of those things. Which i think would be important for the public to understand the influences that are at work in our campaigns and where the data is collected by us but not provide in the a format that is easily accessible to the public. I will submit those for consideration to be added to the next agenda. That would be in the september ninth meeting then. Yes. Kreshth. Okay thats correct. Okay. Not for next meeting but some point helpful to have an educational session on issues he raised in terms of Political Action by nonpolitical entities. Commissioner bush mentioned 501c4s and i would lo of to have an expert to ask to get an understanding of the issues in case we feel need to regulate. That piggybacks with commissioner bushs suggestion. I think we should start by educating ourselves and the public on the substance. That is my item for next session more of a wish list for down the road when we have a lighter agenda. I think we should have it at september meeting Everything Else will be connected to that. Lets have that as an informational presentation by staff. For september ninth. And in that process, this is wish again, i think it will be helpful for us to know in what form the public is informed with commissioners recuse themselves. From voting. There are rules that require recusal but does not require that recusal be publicly disclosed and provided to the Ethics Commission. We need to note things like that. And i also as we consider continue to involve ourselves in negotiations with mea and others overnight behested payment requirements, i would like to suggest this we add a new issue. To those discussions. And that is a requirement that [inaudible] officers must confirm that check and verified the accuracy of what is filed. As it is now, filing officers receive a form 700 for their filers in their department but no requirement that the filing officers review and when not the disclosures are accurate. In kidnap way, shape or form. Take no responsibility for doing anything other than in [inaudible]. When i talked to dhr, for example, they point out there is no requirement. This filing officers review that anything filed with them is truthful and accurate. And appropriate for public which strikes me as obtuse. And so, i think that the fact is we know that there are examples of form 700 filers who never disclose some of things that were going o. Which is why we have criminal trials with the federal government. So, i suggest that in our next discussions with the [inaudible] behest payments what we tell them we like to have and want to insist that filing officers must review and certify that they have reviewed for accuracy the form 700 filed. Thank you. 2 items i like on the agenda. I dont want to over fill ourselves. I leave it to staff as to the best way to sfred out. 2 items one like to agenda strategy presentation from staff on regulation process and what areas of law would require regulations and how to approach that not specifics on proposed legislation but how to go about seeing where we need to put in legislation and get that rolling. And number 2, so separately, is an update on where things stand on the ballot measure and potential next steps, if any. My colleagues, now that we made it well. Now that the ballot measure is sort of in the slow [inaudible] and earlier this year and since we have a majority of of the commissioners who joined just this year, usually will if agencies would have orientations orb to bring everybody on board with what is happening and some of the other issues facing the commission. So much of what is proposed today could be grandd and say orientation kind of a discussion from the staff. From the from the director and her staff. May be for september. Thats carve out a sizeable time to address not just the 700. 700 is part of the reporting process and regular process. If we have an agenda item as an orien tailgate of sorts just to bring all of us up to ped what this commission is empowered to do. And what administrative power the staff currently has. So we can look at what areas we can consider [inaudible] the workings of this commission and the staff. So for september, lets have dont call it orientation, do like a update. Of some sort. Of all the programs that we do. The enforcement and policy the 3 Major Department that the staff is doing that has a presentation and a discussion upon among the [inaudible]. Members for september that would be great. That should be a very lengthy discussion. And then the regular ballot measure, process, should be on the september agenda item also. Tell be a long meeting for september. On the, thank you. Orientation it is good i suggest that staff reach out to commissioners ahead to discuss specific issue this is folks might be interested in so it is not incorporating things that are on commissioners mindses to learn more about so it is a collaborative agenda setting. Thats my suggestion. We can have a presentation it is a public meeting. So that the public will know what our areas of concerns are. And we can follow up individual low with the staff. I think that transparency is key. I agree i did not mean the substance talk ahead to discuss when we want to cover at that meeting so it is driven by commissioners interests opposed to top down that does not consider when we want to look into. Suggesting that to steer the topics. We should have the ethics at work update now that we are in full operations. Anything else before we go to Public Comment. Public comment, please. Members of public on line and wish to provide comment on item 7. Should dial star 3 okay. Moderator it will take a couple of seconds to get people in queue we have member of the public who wish to make a comment. It is is charlie. I have been dealing with bob stern in at the formerly president of the center for governmental studies in los angeles for many years. Probably he and i did business in 95. I have been attending your middle eastings since pretty much the d. Want to say bob is really one of the best experts in the state on our laws. He wrote the political reform act for jerry brown in 1974. And it almost predates me. But i was going to say, if you need an expert to consult with, he is now retired im sure willing to travel and meet with you on certain important matters if you need his assistance. Thank you for the recommendation. Moderator . Do we have anyone else in queue . Stand by. Each member has 3 machines to provide comment. We have one caller in the queue. Welcome, you have 3 minutes begins now. Hello, caller . This is a caller that may provide comment on the last agenda item and left their hand up. I think may be they left their hand up. Thank you. There are no other callers in the queue Public Comment on item 7 is closed. Agenda item 8 is additional opportunity for Public Comment on matters not on the agenda. Moderator do we have any caller. Why stand by to see if we have callers in the queue. We have no caller in the queue Public Comment is closed. Agenda item 9 is adjournment. Thank you very much, everybody for a wonderful meeting very productive. See you september ninth everything we do in the tenderloin, we urban outfit. Here, this gives us an opportunity to collaborate with other agencies and we become familiar with how other agencies operate and allow us to be more flexible and get better at what we depo in the line of work in this task. Sometimes you go down and its hard to get up. So we see ourselves as providing an opportunity for the unhoused to get up. And so i really believe that when they come here and theyve said it, this right here is absolutely needed. You cant ask for nothing better. The tenderloin is the stuff that aint on the list of remedies, liked the Spiritual Connection to recovery and why would i . Why would i recover . What have i got to live for . Things like that. And sharing the stories. Like i was homeless and just the team. And some people need that extra connection on why they can change their life or how they could. We have a lot of guests that will come in and say i would like you know, i need help with shelter, food, and primary care doctor. And so here, thats three rooms down the hall. So if you book them, they get all of their needs taken care of in one go. This is an opportunity for us here in the tenderloin to come together, try out these ideas to see if we can put get connect people to services in a in the bay area as a whole, thinking about environmental sustainability. We have been a leader in the country across industries in terms of what you can do and we have a learn approach. That is what allows us to be successful. Whats wonderful is you have so many people who come here and they are what i call policy innovators and whether its banning plastic bags, recycling, composting, all the Different Things that we can do to improve the environment. We really champion. We are at recycle central, a large recycle fail on San Francisco pier 96. Every day the neighborhood trucks that pick up recycling from the blue bins bring 50 o tons of bottles, cans and paper here to this facility and unload it. And inside recology, San Franciscos recycling company, they sort that into aluminum cans, glass cans, and different type of plastic. San francisco is making efforts to send Less Materials to the landfill and give more materials for recycling. Other cities are observing this and are envious of San Franciscos robust recycling program. It is good for the environment. But there is a lot of low Quality Plastics and junk plastics and candy wrappers and is difficult to recycle that. It is low quality material. In most cities that goes to landfill. Looking at the plastics industry, the oil industry is the main producer of blastics. And as we have been trying to phase out fossil fuels and the transfer stream, this is the fossil fuels and that plastic isnt recycled and goes into the waste stream and the landfill and unfortunately in the ocean. With the stairry step there will be more plastic in the ocean than fish. We can recycle again and again and again. But plastic, maybe you can recycle it once, maybe. And that, even that process it downgrades into a lower quality material. It is cheaper for the oil industry to create new plastics and so they have been producing more and more plastics so with our ab793, we have a bill that really has a goal of getting our beverage bottles to be made of more Recycled Content so by the time 2030 rolls around t recycle content in a coke bottle, pepsi bottle, water bottle, will be up to 50 which is higher thatten the percentage in the European Union and the highest percentage in the world. And that way you can actually feel confident that what youre drinking will actually become recycled. Now, our recommendation is dont use to plastic bottle to begin w but if you do, they are committing to 50 Recycled Content. The test thing we can do is vote with our consumer dollars when were shopping. If you can die something with no packaging and find loose fruits and vegetables, that is the best. Find in packaging and glass, metal and pap rer all easily recycled. We dont want plastic. We want less plastic. Awe what you we do locally is we have the program to think disposable and work one on one to provide Technical Assistance to swap out the disposable food service to reusables and we have funding available to support businesses to do that so that is a way to get them off there. And i believe now is the time we will see a lot of the Solutions Come on the market and come on the scene. And is really Logistics Company and what we offer to restaurants is reasonable containers that they can order just like they would so we came from about a pain point that a lot of customers feel which wills a lot of waste with takeout and deliver, even transitioning from styrofoam to plastic, it is still wasteful. And to dream about reusing this one to be reimplemented and cost delivery and food takeout. We didnt have throwaway culture always. Most people used to get delivered to peoples homes and then the empty milk containers were put back out when fresh milk came. Customers are so excited that we have this available in our restaurant and came back and asked and were so excited about it and rolled it out as customers gain awareness understanding what it is and how it works and how they can integrate it into their life. And they have always done it and usually that is a way of being sustainable and longterm change to what makes good Financial Sense especially as there are shipping issues and material issues and we see that will potentially be a way that we can save money as well. And so i think making that case to other restaurateurs will really help people adopt this. One restaurant we converted 2,000 packages and the impact and impact they have in the community with one switch. And we have been really encouraged to see more and more restaurants cooperate this. We are big fans of what reecology does in terms of adopting new systems and understanding why the Current System is broken. When people come to the facility, they are shocked by how much waste they see and the volume of the operations and how Much Technology we have dedicated to sort correctly and we led 25 tours and for students to reach about 1100 students. And they wanted to make change and this is sorting in the waste stream they do every single day and they can take ownership of and make a difference with. An i feel very, very fortunate that i get to represent San Francisco in the legislature and allows me to push the envelope and it is because of the people the city attracts and is because of the eco system of policy thinking that goes on in San Francisco that we are constantly seeing San Francisco leading the way. Kids know theres a lot of Environmental Issues that they are facing. And that they will be impacted by the impact of climate change. They will have the opportunity to be in charge and make change and make the decisions in the future. We are reinventing the way the planet does garbage founded in the environmental ethic and hunger to send less to landfills. This is so many wonderful things happening in San Francisco. I feel very fortunate and very humble to live here and to be part of this wonderful place. Modifying requirement for in person meeting during the virus emergency. We will mote remote low. Public comments available on each item. Each allowed 2 minutes. Comments or opportunity to speak calling 4156550001 and access id 2497 531 8347 pounds and pounds again. When connected you will hear the discussion but muted and