Is that we can only pass something that is identical to what the Ethics Commission passed. So to a certain extent making these amendments today is a little absurd if they are not taken in whole by the Ethics Commissioner tomorrow or in future meeting. Is that a correct understanding . Deputy City Attorney. Yes. In order to pass the ordinance or any ordinance amending the chapter, the board and the Ethics Commission must adopt the ordinants. The same ordinants. The board by 8 out of 11. Typically, the way this works is the board will propose something or ethics will propose something and it will go to Board Committee. The Board Committee if they do not agree or wants to amend what ethics proposed, the Board Committee will make amendments and continue it to the call of the chair typically. The clerk will send the ordinants to commission. The Ethics Commission may pass it. They may offer something else. It will come back to committee. It could be a back and forth. Ultimately, both bodies
And have at least those provisions that we are able to vote on and pass become Effective Immediately upon passage long before this would become operative work to go to the june ballot. As a threshold matter, i would like to ask the deputy City Attorney and Ethics Commission staff about the nature of this process because my understanding is that we can only pass something that is identical to what the Ethics Commission passed. So to a certain extent making these amendments today is a little absurd if they are not taken in whole by the Ethics Commissioner tomorrow or in future meeting. Is that a correct understanding . Deputy City Attorney. Yes. In order to pass the ordinance or any ordinance amending the chapter, the board and the Ethics Commission must adopt the ordinants. The same ordinants. The board by 8 out of 11. Typically, the way this works is the board will propose something or ethics will propose something and it will go to Board Committee. The Board Committee if they do not a
Requirements among the contributions and this is just mirroring the staff recommendation to the conditions. Section 1. 127. The section which you have recommended to delete to the commission. I make the recommendation. I do feel there is such a broad range of matters that we deal with here at the board, whether small, or big such as 5 million project. I assume that our goal was to capture those big projects. I recommend that we have one version. And another version that deletes it. And move forward with both for the Ethics Commission. As long as we can finetune what this section means. The next section, i would like to more clearly define the terms about where the violation occurred. For example, for private financial where it said credit financial, and then where it says representative. To make it clear, what is being done with the violation and who it pertains to. Section 7a3. We would like to add the adding qualifier. To influence the officers actions or judgment with respect to a p
The Ethics Commission by the vote. We have the negotiation. The last little bit of information i heard in my office with mr. Ford was that they wanted to put it on the ballot tomorrow. Which means this that they have a handful of dates to take it off. That is the wrong path. I would offer if the president is willing and in the spirit of the amendments that are made by commissioner tang and the ones i am about to make to offer the concept of a joint meeting to see if we can get it done quickly and as i said at the last meeting, get it done right. Again, not to sound like i am picking on anybody, but staff at the Ethics Commission is holding new staff. It is relatively new. You gentlemen are relatively new. The reality is, you guys have been working on the piece of legislation for quite some time. I mean for over a year. And then it comes to you and we have a compressed time frame to discharge our job and up until this week, i personally communicated my disappointment that the level of c
Notify the Ethics Commission of when they recuse. And we also revised this to no longer apply to members of the board of supervisors. In discussions, we realized that perhaps this would be triggered by too many things. Its too sensitive. When you look at it in terms of the kind of subject matter that the board looks at, its very broad in nature and members of boards and commissions that are more narrow in terms of their purview, they look at particular areas subject matter, that its more appropriate in that context. Because if someone is recusing many times within that particular purview, that is more likely to indicate something as significant conflict of interest, whereas with the board, it may not be the same. So this provision has been narrowed so it does not apply to the board of supervisors. And then lastly, we amended the ordinance to change the payment disclosures in one very significant way. That is that party in the prior version, what you saw two weeks ago, a person could be