last month. it was after thought and discussion and we provided a alternative on the right to provide them counter point to that. i want to make one additional note that was oversight on my part in haste to get the memo done so my apology for that. on page 3 under the gift restriction, we had thought at the staff and agreement with what the thrust of the proposal is in this regard that we would like to see additional language under the alternative that does speak to a prohibition on the contact laubiest directly or indirectly or through a 3rd party paying or reimbursing for travel of sit a officer. that was a key discussion and agree that is something important to capture here. it doesn t do that so that is my oversight but want to make that a place holder for agreement in that area. under the lobbyist contsbution limit list a alturn urn to consider that takes a similar approach the proponent of the measure do in applying a contribution limit that apply tooz lobbyist. any and
commissioner chiu, here. all present and accounted for. item number 2, public comment on matters appearing or not appearing on the agenda and make the same caution that if you intend to make a specific comment on a specific agenda, i appreciate if we hold those until we get to that agenda but you are free to do as you wish. i m bob [inaudible] i m leer as a member and also spokes person for the informal association known as friends of ethics. last week a public polling of california completed a polling about ethics commission and potential ethics matters happening in the city. i want to give you brief summary of some the results. it was a simple bakers dozen of question squz people can say yes, punch 1, 2, no, 3, i don t know or 4, i don t care. the one i want to mention that i think stands out is there is a ballot measure drafted that will ban lobbyist from contributing to officials which you support or oppose. out of 521 people, 60 percent said yes they support. only 14 p
appreciate if we hold those until we get to that agenda but you are free to do as you wish. i m bob [inaudible] i m leer as a member and also spokes person for the informal association known as friends of ethics. last week a public polling of california completed a polling about ethics commission and potential ethics matters happening in the city. i want to give you brief summary of some the results. it was a simple bakers dozen of question squz people can say yes, punch 1, 2, no, 3, i don t know or 4, i don t care. the one i want to mention that i think stands out is there is a ballot measure drafted that will ban lobbyist from contributing to officials which you support or oppose. out of 521 people, 60 percent said yes they support. only 14 percent said no. i want you to understand you seem to be on the right track with the public at large. there are other questions if a ethics measure would put on the ballot who would you have most confidence in based on the agency putti
roll. commissioner tan, here. hayon, here. chiu, here. all are present and accounted for. churning to item 2, public comment. on matters appearing or not appearing under the agenda. i would as we have a very long agenda, which i anticipate comments, hopefully the comments will be limited to something other than this on the agenda. thank you. good evening commissioners. on charles stella with friends of ethics. we have been in discussions with board president on the question of the whistleblower amendment. they ve asked for some guidance in our opinion on how to organize the hearing. so, i will send the commission executive director a brief memo on that so that she will see what we have suggested. commissioner board of i think i have to warm up here-ms. breed and her staff and they were actually talking about generating a bit of a crowd or notifying the public in general, which we can implead you for that-for you but you have your own contacts with as well. but there was som
state through s d 20 where they re sold and limiting what smoking can occur in 2005 we adapted the moll act that built on the limitation for sale explicit but consumption and had that s where we call forth with the one thousand rule for schools and recreational facilities advocating for those no 18 years of age this meets all the requirements those are things that were developed could have been recreational facilities or recreational fascists over 18 like or chiropractor d but is explicit we have realize in effect for more than 10 years subsequent in 2011 the state adopted prompt rules it is 6 hundred feats to the in this case the studio across the street this is the justification for denying it but those are as much right no proof neatest for the desirability? as of right and find exceptional or extraordinary to deny those are professional services that karate exceptional or extraordinary that should result in denying one and certainly one of the items you can consider in th