Had almost a full six years because she had part of an earlier term and she was a stalwart member of the commission. For the record im told charliei think i second that. I think any commissioner that served at this time is responsible for helping to bring the commission light years ahead and its good to see commission growing up and i think commissioner hayon certainly participated in that process and encouraged others to follow such as commissioner kopp. Also, help us secure the appointment of a new stellar staff, so i want to thank her for her service. Commissioner dooley opened out in. So we were talking about the ongoing fraud being perpetrated on the citizens of San Francisco by the office of the mayor. From the findings of the Fair Political Practices Commission in sacramento, respondent luis herrera, will serving city library but the San FranciscoPublic Library failed to report gifts received from the friends of the San FranciscoPublic Library on annual statements of economic interest for calendar years 2009, 2010, 2011 in violation of Government Code Section 87300. These were no small sums. They were 5000 a year approximately that he was getting in gives that he knew he was required by law to report and in the first column, his original filings all set, zero. I will remind you that if you look at the bottom it says i certify under penalty of perjury under the law of the state of california that the foregoing is true and correct. So for years he was filling out these applications and actually was 10 years before this that he was doing it also but they could not any further back because of the statute of limitations. We got him for three years. So City Department head appointed by the mayor perjured himself by lying year after year after year. Almost 15,000 overdue those three years and i calculate another 5050,000 house in the 10 years before we took him to the f ppc. We brought to the Ethics Commission and a former executive director refused to even look at it. So said go away, dont bother us. Which is why they previously had a meeting set here, what is the purpose of having statements of economic interest if someone finds a City Department head was responsible for the entire City Department including himself to file these honestly and he perjured himself year after year and we bring it to the Ethics Commission and the Ethics Commission turns a blind eye . Does he do this knowingly and lethally, . Yes, he did get he knew what he was doing was wrong and the reason i will tell you that is i believe that is that the San FranciscoPublic Library commission has never ever discussed this. What i actually did is when this finding was released by the f pdc they had an unlawful meeting where they met and discussed their support for mr. Herrera and issued a press release based on that. Then, after that was the bill was wrong. We should not have had that meeting good we will withdraw the press release after it was already published in the newspaper. Seeing no further Public Comment from any otheron matters not appearing on the agenda . Sorry. My name is mark solomon mr. 20ish in district of the some issues i like to bring to your attention of the commission. I been working to establish legislative record on prop g. I found out the planning website is deficient in several key matters. Theres no context sponsor or cost information provided [inaudible] project records. The department disavows any responsibility for these emotions erects directly to the dbi and go to a bureaucratic minefield and for yourself. In fact [inaudible] projects and only 20 of the actual Contact Information to figure out who the sponsor is. So really cant connect campaignfinance approvals to figure out who is paying for what. I think the commission should require the Department Updates the records 48 hours after receiving a filing to the public in a with apartment is up to. Major developers maybe feel filing with the Ethics Commission [inaudible] as well and reminded to all developers. I need for a full and complete pipeline of sponsors so folks can Award Campaign contributions go to fund developers, two electives and towards nonprofits make projects more politically feasible. Also as commissioners take on new outside duties and jobs, this is a potential conflict of interest and [inaudible] notify all commissioners of [inaudible] they should be shared with the City Attorney as well. The commission should ensure that the enumeration and compatible activities for commissioners pose such conflict. My working prop g research has led me to some of his work when Planning Commissioner Planning Commissioner Christine Johnson two byebye San Francisco planning journal association, which essentially developed lobby shop. Shes never putting project [inaudible]. Our nonprofit is funded by developers. The consultants attorneys, architects, etc. And shes sitting there proving the projects is great latent conflict of interest. [inaudible] we can and get handle on the. [inaudible] you have the text and risk figure out the rest of it. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Chairman if i may comment, mr. Sohn, i think on that last one, isnt that part of what you are going to propose tonight . Eat yes that would suddenly come in with mr. Solomon just outlined. We are certainly have come under what are about to propose on the restoration of prop j. [inaudible off mic]. Thats fine. Any further Public Comment on matters that are not on the agenda . All right. We will move now to agenda item 3 discussion and possible action on draft minutes the commission february 27, 2017 regular meeting. Do we have any comments or requests for corrections to the minutes . Im going to make a president ial motion but i think commissioner emanuel may work that. To approve the minutes as propose. I would second it with one amendment. [laughing] if you look on page 4, item number seven, the second line, michael patrols his name is misspelled. You left the i out. So that should be corrected and other than that [crosstalking off mic] second. Any further observations on the minutes of our last meeting . Yes . Public comment i would like to turn your attention to page 5 of these minutes. Under the agenda item 8 discussion of the executive directors report. If you notice there it says the following written summary was provided by speaker dr. Deborah kerr content of which is neither generated by the subject to approval or verification of accuracy by the Ethics Commission. That 150 word summary dr. Kurt is the only person i know that is taking advantage of the thing that i thought 543 years to get and that is the law in San Francisco is that if you make a statement a public hearing, and that you provide a summary of 150 words or less, that statement shall be placed in the minutes in the body of the minutes at the point where the discussion was held. Dr. Kerr is the one person who is taking advantage of this and i think anybody leads the minutes of meetings, whether it be this Ethics Commission or any of the body of the city, will find out that you are First Amendment rights are violated on a regular and ongoing basis. They are censored abridged and any other permutation you can think of. If you look at these minutes basically what they say is theres a little brief statement like, mr. Ray hartz got up and said something about something. Thats the summary of your 3 min. Comments. So if you want what you have to say to make it in the official record, submit 150 word summary of your comments and they will be in the record that dr. Kerr has done it and i think if you read his comments he was talking but the Whistleblower Program and he did a very cogent think when he put this in here did some very valuable information to the Ethics Commission. Dr. Kerr should know because he was the recipient of a 750,000 settlement from the city as a whistleblower. He knows what they do and he knows you can hidethe city will do everything they can to hide the wrongdoing and to protect their own. Do we have any further Public Comment on the minutes of our last meeting. We have a motion by commissioner kopp that the minutes be approved. Is there a is there a second . Second. All those in favor say, aye. [chorus of ayes. ] opposed, say nay. The minutes are unanimously approved. We will now go to agenda item number four. Presentation and discussion of staff report on Public Financing in the 2016s elections with an attachment for the march 22nd 2017 staff report and further attachments. Thank you chairman keane. I want to thank our system Deputy Director for leaving the effort on producing report this and she is unable to be with us this evening sohn stepping into bride you a brief overview and to try answer questions any have. I would also note just a clarification on the agenda, we do refer to march 22 staff report that that is referring to the report for item number four which happens to be dated march 23. So just we are one and the same and we will continue to move and correct our errors. Hopefully before they get you but thank you for your understanding on that front. First of all, this is a report that the commission is required to issue. Every year following an election to summit to the mayor and board of supervisors on the Public Financing and the prior election. This is under section 1. 156 of our campaign and governmental conduct code. The report that we have again following last years model provides required information that is specified in that section and poorly, provide some historical overview of our Public Financing programs elections from 20022016. This is based on reports that candidates follow to december 31 of last year. The most important thing i think to think about this report is that as with any Public Policy program it is important to periodically assess what steps are needed to promote the effectiveness of that program. So we have a legal requirement to produce a report and send it on to the board but in poorly, from the staffs perspective and hopefully for conversations Going Forward, this is a document that we hope will be used broadly engage candidates contributors other [inaudible] city elections and the public in a sensing issues related to our Campaign Financing framework and in particular Public Financing program to make sure that it is as strong as possible that encourages candidate anticipation that overall the program is effective in achieving the goals of the voters set out for it. You will remember the program was first established back in 2000 is been through a variety and number of changes over the years. The goals of the program remain the same. Its a program that is designed to offer candidates the opportunity to lie more on the neutral source to funding their campaigns to encourage limited spending as much as possible so that candidates can spend less time fundraising and more time communicating with constituents about Critical Issues in the community. That they are serving and also to leverage the boards of relatively small individual contributions and City Campaigns. So that these programs are designed to help encourage new and diverse voices, both among those who are running for office and those who elected officials are represented. The information we provide we hope will provide an empirical basis for the conversation Going Forward about the Campaign Financing system in the city and county of San Francisco. And as we look to the planned assessment of our financing programs and rules launched later this spring, theres a number of questions that we and the report with. Are there ways for example that the current mechanics of this program might need to be improved so that those mechanics are not acting as unintended impediments for candidate participation . Are there ways the Public Financing program can be strengthened to better balance its benefits for nonincumbent candidates . Are to current time frames for the distribution of funds were for candidates 12 support the goals . Are the given forms were not examined in terms of grants and rates of matching funds to determine whether there might be ways to again further incentivize candidates to want to participate in the system . Most important provider mechanics we should be examining the vehicle to better engage voters in City Campaign . So this board does not intend to answer those questions. It doesnt and to provide Empirical Data from the last election and from prior elections as a basis to start as for the conversation with the most recent expense of Public Financing program. So that brief overview on happy to answer any questions or your Public Comment and respond to any questions am i come up. Commissioners could . Commissioner kopp i got a couple questions about how the money is set up. Theres a legal limit of 7 million for fiscal year right . Is a maximum fund of 7 million at any one time. So, yes. A onetime fiscal year. Yes. Again you know more than 700. Okay. This year apparently, in the budget, there was an estimate because thats what a budget usually is, about 650,000. Right . For the current fiscal year we are and i dont have a number in front of me but that sounds in the ballpark. Well, identify got it here or i got it from ms. Bloom and actually, there was distributed over twice that. 1,000,000. 3 1,000,000. 4 its in there somewhere good very good report. Its an interesting report, too, especially the history. I would assume, and please verify, that the estimate is based upon how many qualifying elections there will be. Tommy board of supervisors elections, mayor, anybody else who qualifies. What do you do now for 201718 fiscal year inputting and the estimated amount . In any year as you point out is a maximum. A budget is a projection as you point out. Other potential draw that might result from the campaign and from the projection of the number of candidates who might participate. So we did have an allocation based on required formula of 2. 75 per resident bennies to be put into the fund if the fund is not already at maximum. We look after this year is because the fund is at its maximum and we dont anticipate draws that are going to put down beyond that, is not going to be required allocation into the fund. How much is in the fund now proximately . I dont have that information off the top i had. I can get it for you. So we dont have to run a deficit to use an inexact word . Is that correct . Its my understanding, yes. Funds allocated for that program. Thank you. Any further comment by members of the commission . Yes commissioner chiu director pelham these questions raised in the bottom of page 9, are very thoughtprovoking. Do you plan to address them when you fully are up to staff for example perhaps when the policy analyst is on board . Yes. As we will see in the second directors report later the commission has for some time had on its annual policy plan reviewing the Campaign Finance reform begins following the issuance of the reports respect to these questions among others will be folded into conversations begin this spring once we have our policy team in place and starting to get it in our City Campaign finance laws. I look forward to that. Commissioner cobbel i have one other question. In doing business with this program with the public, do you get suggestions from applicants for Public Financing yes and do you retain those . Yes. Okay. Do you consider them in terms of the elements and items you mentioned on page 9 of the report . Yes. I would add one of the things i think is critical that we do go point Going Forward is not the information get during the course of the election but once theres time to step back and take stock of the election to really sit down and have interested persons meetings to a proactive outreach lisa down and understand how peoplein a direct way. Any public almonds on the second . Hello. Charlierepresenting at how we at this time. I did want to thank the staff for this excellent report and externally interesting Historical Perspective. I think this is the first time weve seen anything quite like it. Im normally we see a slap shot here yeartoyear but not a conference of tiger reports. Im glad this is on the agenda because this started in 2000 on the ballot and the first year of operation was 2002, i believe in you indicated that we probably now have an update of where we can take up a good look back and see where all this has led. I would say, that your questions are extremely good and then we have questions of our own both in items that have been subsequently repealed by this body for various reasons and