Is that considered high or average . That sounds small to me. It is a professional standard that is used not just in public polling but other areas as well. Okay. Thank you. It cost more if you want to get furter refined and we use our own resources. Right. Thank you. Ray [inaudible] i handed my second complaint against city librarian luis her era and [inaudible] violated my rights under the sunshine ordinance on 7 specific occasions. Denying or interfering with my Public Comment not representing the Public Comments accurately in the official minutes of the meeting or denying access to public documents some of which were the documents that got mr. Her era in violation in sacramento and with held the documents as long as he could. They have dozens if not hundreds of such violations. You can only file so many. The friends of the San FranciscoPublic Library is a group of private individuals who have been allowed to raise and expend funds in the name the San FranciscoPublic Library and the city of San Francisco. This group has sinss the year 2000 had more than 80 million pass through their hands and not appeared before the Library Commission for more than 40 months so tell me how much of a fiducialiary responsibility. They have been allowed to do so without oversight from the library or any other city agency. Luis heraa and sue blackman engaged in the group as you dont tell and we dont ask. From december 2012 until earlier this year more than 40 months passed without the friends appearing on the library agenda. We have a group sold as a private Public Partnership and the public knows nothing where 80 millions as gone. You try to get documents from the library and they spent more than a year withholding the documents. I petitioned the supervisor of record with the City Attorney to produce the documents or send to the District Attorney and petitions were denied twice so the point where the City Attorney turned down both of those petition was found in violation of a the sunshine ordinance of a city body trying to with hold public records. Mr. Hurarea is a liar. He took 5 thousand dollars each and every year from the friends under the table and filed statement of interest where he denied getting anything and got a 200 fine. A 600 total fine and 15,000 worth of free stuff he lied about. This group every time he asked he says it is all fine and has nothing to base it on. Thank you. Any other Public Comment at this time . Turning to item 3 , this sadis cushion and possible action to elect the vice chair to serve for the remainder of the coming year due to the pending resignation of commissioner vice chair brett andrews. I regret deeply this item has to be an ajnda item, but i was advised by commissioner andrews this month that for a number of reasons that is known to him, but also part of which he shared with me that he felt it necessary that he resign his Commission Seat as of the end of this meeting, so he is still sitting when we elect a new vice chair that vice chair wont take his or her seat until after tonight. But, commissioner andrews, i want to express my great gratitude and thanks for the work and assistance and wisdom you shared with the commission in the years you sat on the commission and it is with sadness that we wont have you sitting next to us next month. With that, any commissioners have discussion concerning yes. I like to just echo what you said mr. Chair. Commissioner andrew, you have been a great colleague. You have a wonderful demeanor, calm as opposed to some of the rest of us. Deliberate, great sense of humor, tremendously ethical professional individual. We will all miss you. I think the commission is suffering a great loss with you going and understand you need to be out in termoffs the ventures you are going on and wish you a lot of luck and sure you will bring the same assets to those verchers that you brought to this. I would just like to say, please dont go. We really enjoy your presence. I like to echo that, there is only one meeting we worked together but would like more. I hear a motion on this item . As to the election of a new vice chair. Are we making nominations now . I would like to make a nomination and like to nominate peter keane to be vice chair. I accept it, thank you very much commissioner hayon. Before we vote, public discussion . Commissioners [inaudible] open government. As you deliberate filling the position of the vice chair i would like you to keep in mind all the discussion of the budget. The fact the budget was flat for a number of years was remarked upon by the former executive director. Pen her, paul renne and Beverly Hayon constituted a majority of the commission during that period. As documented by the current executive director these budget choices resulted in serious deficiencies in how the commission operated and serious backlogs of complaint particularly relates to a serious backlog of complaints and related investigations. While john st. Croix proposed the budget. Keane and hayon in my opinion have forfitted their right to serve in a leadership position. You can sit and moan about the fact the budget was flat for 6 or 7 years, but mr. St. Croix only proposed that budget. It was the mu jorlt of inmbs of the Ethics Commission that approved the budget and let that budget flatline and as a result we saw from the past executive drether report all the inconsistencies and all most 70 cases backlogged now and find out one of the investigators is leaving which means they will not have one half time investigator and god knows how long it will take to fill that position. With your comp titian going on with supervisor fairm who is chairman of budget and finance committee and dont think there is a snow ball chance in hell you will get the money you ask for, the 30 percent increase. If you do hallelujah but think it is slim to known because mr. Farrell will abuse the position to take prisoners or retbution against anybody found against him which you have. Very frankly, commissioners hayon and renne were here and a significant part the cuball in my perspective that kept the budget flat and if there is a problem with all the backlog the new executive director has gotten they have to take their share the responsibility. Just like the Police Commission is doing is scapegoating greg suhr and denying what occurred was on the backs of [inaudible] charley [inaudible] commissioners. Good afternoon. I was just going to say i do want to thank mr. Andrews for his service. I think you have had a very moments tenure and glad you were there. We navigated a number of things very successfully just recently the appointment of a executive director which was a outstanding pick and now prop c which you worked very hard on and particularly mr. Andrews and mr. Renne worked on those as a joint subcommittee of the commission, so i wanted to thank you for that work. And i wanted to say we are about to aopponent mr. Keane as vice chair which i look forward work wg him so want to thank mr. Andrews on behalf of friends of ethics for his exemplary service. Thank you. Seeing no further Public Comment ill call the question, all in favor of the motion to or nomination of commissioner keane as the vice chair effective after tonights meeting. Aye. Any opposed . The record should reflect the selection of commissioner keane was unanimous. Number 4, possible discussion and request to waver from local post employment restrictions submitted guy julienne christensen recollect a former member of the boferd supervisors. Is mrs. Christensen here . Thank you. Mrs. Christensen was notified and expected she would be here. I dont see her in the room but understanding she ptded to attend. As we speak. Your ajendsa item was called and just asking if you were here and looked around. Welcome and the staff recommendation ill let mrs. [inaudible] articulate what the staff recommendation is and then be happy to hear from the former supervisor. Thank you chair renne. The memo under item 4 outlines request we rereceived from mrs. Christensen for waver for post employment restriction in campaign and governmental conduct code. There are 3 provisions at issue. One is a ban on former officials from communicating with former departments for board of supervisors members that ban extends to more broadly in the city. There is a restriction for employment with parties that contract with the city. Both of those issues are laid out in the memo and the procedures the Commission Must consider and determining whether to wave those. We outlined those on the first couple pages. I left the details of mrs. Christensens request and let her address those but this is request to wave both of those restriction tooz be considered for part time employment with a organization newly formed, the dogpatch and northwest potrero hill green benefits district. There are specific provisions the Commission Must consider in waying whether to grant the waver. In the first instance the question is, the compligz can wave the one year ban communicating with forming agency or agencies if they make a finding granting such a waver will not create potential for undo influence or advantage. There are factors on page 5 the commission is directed to. Also, the consideration of the waver the employment restriction for having employment with contracting to contract with the city, the commission may wave those restrictions if they determine imposing the restriction will cause extreme hardship for the former city officer. In this regard the Commission Shall not approve request for waver unless it makes a findsing that imposing the restriction will cause extreme hardship. It lays out the factors to consider making that determination. On balance as we looked at the information provided by mrs. Christensen and the Job Description and factors that the commission is required to assess, the recommendation that we are making to the commission this evening is that the one year post employment communication ban not be waved but we are recommending that the commission not deny mrs. Christensen from the restriction regarding employment with the contractor for the city. Happy to answer questions or leave it at that and turn to mrs. Christensen mpt mrs. Christensen, we will hear from you. I think i can do that. Got a lot of practing being brief. Good evening commissioners. Thank you. I am grateful for your effort. I can tell from my experience it is a labyrinth out there and appreciate the clarity all of you bring. In this case i have to say it is a litm difficult for me to understand some of the barriers to the employment im seeking i want to be clear i have not gotten this position, i am merely put my name in contention for the position so i dont want to have a negative influence on the efforts of the search for this important position. Just to clarify that. I should say, i became a supers visor not for political interest or be a yes person or tip the political spectrum, i became a supervisor because i care deeply about my district at the Grassroots Level and want to make sure those 234 interests are represented. In december 2014 people that were considered for the position didnt live in the district. One lived in the district but didnt reside there most of the time. There were a lot of people that were interested in the position but non that i felt w were the kinds of people i wanted to work with as a neighborhood advocate so when asked i said yes. As you probably know that came at considerable sacrifice last year to my personal life and health and business. As a supervisor i got units of Senior Housing on the books and Police Station which is worst in the city on had books for replacement. I added other metheds for gaining housing and repaired the [inaudible] alley stairs. I had 60 requests for street signs and cross walk improvements for pubhook safety. I tried to focus on those things which are the things i care about. When i came out of office and people asked me was it a good idea and good thing that you did this, my answer is i will know when i find the next thing. The gbd is a unique organization, one that i think we all want to nurture and it calls aopinion my odd twnt years of experience in a unique way so it seems like good fit should they choose to have me take the position. As i understand, the ethics question and all of you can tell me how this works, buts as i understand it, the question is will the knowledge i gained as a supervisor give unfair advantage in this position. I do not plan to use the knowledge i gained as a supervisor in this position. I came into the roll of supervisor with 20 years as very hard work as a Community Activists rchlt those are the pieces of information and the knowledge i plan to apply. Rather than helping me, my 11 month tenure mayanktually in some ways turn out to be more of a disadvantage. The other thing is i dont want to be supervisor of district, i donts reside in the district and has a excellent supervisor already. The roll is a different one. Influence, the budget for the organizations are fixed. There is a certain level of taxation and that is the amount of money they receive for the budget so no amount of begging or lobbying will change it base budget. I will say there may be a oewd grant for a commercial strip or some kind of Public Works Program or something, but the vast bulk of the funding is already determined and i cant influence that. I can seek outside funding, i have brought over 4 million in private sector funding to city park projects in district 3 over the past 15 years, but that doesnt apply in this case. This is not a entity that will enrich anyone, certainly not the executive director. The influence i have wonets change the basic financing of this organization and it is my experience as a nairpd advocate i would plan to apply. One of the other things that is hard to understand is i can work part time for the city now without coming before the commission. I can take a Part Time Job with the city and assume have all the communication that i wanted, but i am not allowed to take a part time position with a non profitentsty with the contract with the city. The other thing is the naich orthf contract, this isnt garbage or security or street sweeping contract, this is formalized mou which this gbd says to the city, i will take your money and spend it this way. It is done under the scrutiny of the city as a supervisor i had to review the annual reports of a number of gbds so the brown act applies. These are organizations that come under a great deal of scrutiny. The codes of conduct say you can take into consideration the nature the communications that i would have with the city. I would be talking to the Police Department about a homeless encampment and talking to rec park about a dangerous tree. I would talk to public works about the need to step up street cleaning in a certain area. Again, it is difficult to understand how that shows any undo influence and can tell you i had every Department Head on speed dial before i became supervisor and founds some of them more responsive at that time. I ask to be able to continue my Public Service and my question is the interest of the city better served if im forced to go back into the private sector or will it be better served by my being allowed to continue offering myself to the citizens and to the needs of the city and i hope you will agree i still have something to offer and i very much appreciate your help and being allowed to do that. Im grateful the staff recommendation i be allowed to take the position if it is offered but have to say being able to take the position and not communicate with the city basically vendsers me a non candidate so need both of those wavers or im not a good candidate gr for the job. We are talking 6 months remaining in the waver so that means being able to talk to people 6 month earliers. All the restrictions sunset december 8. I hope i can continue service and very much appreciate your consideration in allowing me to do that. Commissioners have any questions of mrs. Christensen . I just wanted to talk abouti know we have a staff recommendation and i want to reconcile the staff recommendation with how mrs. Cristcon son could actually do the job without having one without the other. The funding comes from the city. No, technically the funding comes from the taxpayers, so what it is it is the taxpayers, the businesses or residents agree to tax themselves an aadditional amount and that is processed by the city and returned to the benefits district. So those dollars sit in a particular department . With the assesser. With the assesser. Then you would have communication withyou need to have communication with the assesser . One presumes reporting and request for dispersements, yes. Would you also be meeting occasionally with supervisor cohen . One would presume that would be desirable. I see this role as extection or augmentation of her directors and intentions. The staff recommendation was to not honor the waver of communication but honor the waver of employment with a entity that contracts with the city and you see where im headed . That entity has to have consistent communication. It is the nature of the job. That is what is in front of me as i think about it and how do we approach that . So mrs. Christensen, i noticed in the materials that you would be the only employee . For at least the near future. It is notunion square has a 4 million year budget for Business Improvement district sethis is a tiny start and so initially not only would i be the only employee, i would not be full time. It is 60 percent position to start. If i can just give a example, in communication with the Board Members of the gbd and found the Planning Department used the gbd green space map, the places they created, the street ends and merges and cal train side yards as a visual for Community Meeting on the dogpatch and not invited the gbd. Im sure that was just a administrative oversight but think it is the job of executive drether to remedy a situation like that as quickly as possible. Im always reluctant to grant wavers to former City Employees and particularly somebody at the level of a board member. Board of supervisor member and looking at the primary project responsibilities in the Job Description, only one of them looks like it requires you in the next 6 months to have to be in communication or dealing directly with the city officials or city agency. It says lead, motivate and develop the board and that is speaking of the board the gbd. Gbd. Develop to accomplish the mission and goals including managing the election process which i assume this is something that you will be the First Executive director that they had . Yes, if i was offered the position i would be. Part of the first job is going it be to sort of get organizational things going. Absolutely. Databases mpt s work with the board to develop a annual work plan and budget based on the gbd management plan. Which i think can be performed without violating the restrictions in the code. Insure compliance with all federal, state, local and regulations which emphasis on the brown act. Again, to do that would you have to contact any no. You wouldnt have to contact the City Attorney, you provide the board the information that it needs to comply. And then the last one is the one i think probably raises the question. Advocate for gbd at city hall, build strategy relationshipwise San Francisco public works, sfmta planning, sfpuc, sf recreation and park, district 10 supervisors and other city and county of San Francisco agencies. It is clear that restriction would preclude you from performing that job responsibility but it is that very job responsibility that the regulation that exists in the ethics laws is to say, we dont want people being the supervisor or being an elected official walking out of office and the next day advocating their colleagues for something. It isnt a question so much it would be financially rewarding, but the whole purpose of the statute is to say we want to put restrictions on the ability of individuals who take a job such as yours at the board of supervisors for a period of 12 months to not be advocating and much as i think you have a wonderful record of Public Service throughout putting aside the time you spent in the board of supervisors, but the 20 years before and there is no doubt you bring great experience to this organization and think you would be a great hire for them, but is it your belief that you could not perform your job without having to violate the ban up to december 8 . The Job Description runs 4 pages. Yes and there is maybe a third of one page that involves communication with the city. But because the gbd is very fledgling organization, the neighbors have been working really hard for 3 or 4 years on this and have a lot of graund work done. What they are hoping for is someone that will guide them to the next level. My understanding is they have a few good candidates t. Why would they select someone who is muzzleed for half a year when they are trying to get off the ground . I think it effectively makes me a non candidate. It is like being the symbol play r in the symphony, you dont play in every movement but when you are needed nothing else will do and think they are looking for someone to tutor them. If i took a job with a lobbying firm i could work behind the scenes and write reports and papers and advise clients and tell somebody else what to say. I didnt want a job like that, i wanted one where i could roll up my sleeve jz be involved. I guess the short answer to your question i think if that stays i think they will not have a reason to have me as a candidate. Im sympathetic to the intention of the regulation but as i was told when i first applied, the reason wavers exist is because sometimes they are deserved and hope this is one of those cases and appreciate the commissions dedication to the letter oo thf law. It just seem thrz are so many things about my situation that are not normal. Thank you all very much, commissioners. Commissioner keane. Yes, mr. Chair, i like you am very reluctant to grant wavers for someone who had been in a position of City Government and position of power like the board of supervisors to go into a job which there is relucktdance about using their knowledge and power in order to gain advantage as opposed to just a regular person coming in. But in this situation im convinced mrs. Christensen should get the waver because we are not talking about someone who is the main concern of this type of prohibition, someone who will leave the board of supervisors or some other position in City Government, become a lobbyist, work for developers, be involved in big money deals and be able to use their influence. Here commissioner christensen comes to us with 20 years of really good Neighborhood Service in green belt type park activities and other kind of activities, basic activities concerning libraries and streets that this job calls for and that will enhance our city. She has all of this knowledge, this 20s years of knowledge an enormous amounts of knowledge most dont have. In that sense she would be a fine candidate and we are only talking about something for a few more months. If we were to remain in placeassuming this job would open up 6 months from now she would chbt have a problem and can dance right into it. I agree with her last statement, it is there a waver type of mechanism then the equity should be looked at as to whether that waver should be granted on a case by case basis and think she meets all the equities and i will vote in favor of it. Make a motion. I move that we wave both of the prohibitions. I second. The motion is made and seconded. I call for Public Comment. Bob planthold, i acknowledge former supervisor christensen has extensive experience and roots in the bog patch area but want to point out the staff memo seems inconsistent in the logic as the approach by vice chair andrews. I want to go further on this and base it on the text in page 7 of 12, the third and 4ict paragraph. The director is responsible for funds raising. Funds would normally be from taxes the people pay. They could seek money from grants from public works, rec and park, commission on the environment potentially, my points is that would involve making a proposal and budget and sending it to those agencies. I think that is a say where you can work but cant communicate is inconsistent. What if the controller doesnt audit the entire gbd program . This group is included. How can you prevent the only employee from communicating . It seems the logic in this is inconsistent. That is where i think either pass this motion for both or you should turn around and say, no employment and no communication watt watt what so ever. What if there is a problem with the communication or proposal put in . And there is a question from the agency . They will call this gbd, this one person. If this one person cant talk they lose out on the grant. It just seems like saying yes to one part and no to the other doesnt make sense. Im going to say you need to rethink the memo and say yes to both wavers or no to both wavers. Any other Public Comment . Before we vote mrs. Christensen can i ask you one other question . Could i ask you one other question . Who are the members of the board of gbd . They are residents and Business People from within the district. Are any of them what would be called developers in that district . There is a young man on the board who works for a developer but there are no corporate members. These are people elected by the members of the gbd. Thank you. Ill call the question, all in favor of commissioner keanes motion which is grant a waver of both sections of the communications and the job, all in favor . Aye. Opposed . The motion is carried unanimously. Thank you. Good luck. Turning to item number 5, which is the discussion and possible action on proposal regarding a possible november 2016 ballot measure to restrict lobbyist ability to provide gifts to the officer or make campaign contsbutions to local candidates and bundle contribution. Staff prepared a detaild memo which i appreciate and i will let mrs. Pelumgive a general overview and have discussion. Thank you. This is on the heels of the two interested persons meeting the commission asked us to hold april 25 meeting. May 11 and 16 the ethics sthaf had very productive and useful meetings with individuals to talk about the proposed ballot measures. Friend of ethics and others from the regulated community and lobbyist were there and think it was a good conversation to consider the issues we noted in the interested persons discussion. So, this memo it does at the outset make a general recommendation that if the commission can continue to Center Discussion this evening and take additional pub luck comment and provide with the policy direction howia would like to see ballot measure and components you want to see if you want to see them and what they would look like, we propose it is uptmal to come back at the next meeting for that language for the commission to take final action. I want to raise that as a possible and alternative in order to make sure we have the opportunity to flush out issues that are in the room this evening. I also would point out as we get into the memo under general discussion we provided under the 3 proposals a general staff alternative for the discussion this evening to get reaction from the commission as well as the public. Those alternatives are listed to the right of the proposal we received. We had a modified proposal from the proponents after the second interest persons meeting may 18 so that proposal is slightly different from the initial proposal that you saw 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 doesnt 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 all committees controlled by the candidate they are giving to. The proposal is there would be a contribution limit of 50 and that a lobbyist could give no more than 50. We propose alternative for discussion that will take the same approach but it would retain the existing 500 limit on contributions that apply to lobious and others but the same calculation in the agora get applies so lobbyist are prohibited giving more than 500 in the aggregate to committees controlled by the officer holder or candidate and this thereis restriction on what the candidate can receive. Lastly, there is language on bundling which currently tries to use language that exists in one of our existing regulations to clarify what we mean as to the activities that are subject to a bundling prohibition and think it is worth having more discussion about the distinction does it mean to arrange or solicit and exempt from a bundling ban. Feel free to chime in on the analysis for this as well. Just with that as a introduction i want to flag what the issues were and how the memo was structured but to turn it over to the commission and to hear from the public about the discussions we had and where the proponents see the issues at this point. Propose we deal with the whole memo and before we get public discussion with the commissioners starting with 1 through the last page which is commissioner regulation. I will take comments. Commissioner keane . Thank you mr. Chair. I think the staff has done a excellent job here in terms of writing the language relating to the tenor of everything we discussed last time in terms of having this type of measure on the ballot and the staffs language has clarifyed a number of things, made it much sharper and in terms of all 3 areas that you can look at which is on page 3 and 4 and 5, on the right hand side the staff alternatives, and the language which essentially tracks and is the same with some distinctions from the proposal, thosethe staff alternative language in my opinion is very good and superior and i think thati agree with mrs. Pelum it is better to go forward with more discussion, more input, a couple more meetings and take this up at our next meeting after we had that, but i would be preparedim not going make a motion but im prepared to vote now on the language of the measure just incorporating all of the staffs language. I think they have done a marvelous job writing but in the interest of more discussion, more Public Comment and sharpening it even to a grating extent and having it before us for the next timethe only fear i have is we need 4 votes for this and we are losing one of our members tonight so next time werei dont know how quickly there will be a replacement for commissioner andrews but hopefully anybody have vacation plans the next couple meetings that may take you out may i ask the colleagues whether they will be available because since we need 4 votes . The 4th monday in june and 4th monday in july, any of you know at the presents time whether you are scheduled for a vacation . Not scheduled. Hopefully we will have a replacement in the event of that. That is reassureing. Any other discussion or comments anyone wants to make . Jrblsh what is the deadline to come up with a final recommendation . August 5. If i understood what you said going to the gift section, you would propose moving over into the staffs side the language that is in the top paragraph on page 2 in the represent us proposal. A bit more explicitly. I would suggest we pull the concept related to gifts of travel so that in addition to the language we show under staff alternatives we add a explicit reference with different language than what is shown here. I think it would accomplish the same end. So, something like, no contact lobbyist may directly or indirectly or through a Third Party Pay or reimburse for travel of a city officer. We mean travel include food, refreshment, hotel and transportation. If we assuming that the commission is of the view that should go forward so we got something more concrete at the next meeting, could the City Attorneys office draft a proposed ordinance for consideration at that meeting . Chair renne, i dont think there will be a problem drafting the proposal since we have a lot of the language and it is in good shape. Let me address two other issues in terms of getting prepared. The first is as the commission all knows, whenever any agency is proposing to impose or creating new finance restriction it is incombound to create a ledgeilative record. We are impacting contributions and Campaign Activities and it is the governments burden to demonstrate that restriction as needed. We will want to give the staff more time and happy to assist in developing that record. The second topic i would want to get the commissions thoughts on is you may recall from the pop c discussion we had internal debate whether to allow further legislative changes in stead of going back to the voters for the amendments. When the voters approve a measure it can only be amended or changed by the voters. We haveen quite touched on the subject yet and dont know if the Commission Wants to install that here. I guess what i propose in that regard that whatever you submit for the june meeting, which i would propose it should be in the form of a actual ordinance, and you can include the language and we can decide at that point after comment whether we want to delete it or keep it in. Call for Public Comment on item 5. Bob plantholds and attended both interesting persons meetings and perplexed and think the staff would help the public and you commissioners explain on pages 2 and 4 there is specific reference to contect lobious. Lobbyist. The second interested person meetings i raised the question of those present and who expressed a opinion wanted expenditure lobbyist also covered. There may have been one person who raised a question about that, but the sentiment was include expenditure lobbyist yet this only mentions contact lobbyist and think that is a oversight making us wonder how come. The volters can ask what, how come because we just did see which deals with expenditure lobbyist so leave that chore up to you to consider for the june meeting. Thank you. [inaudible] friends with ethics. I willbefore i get started i want to say thank you all and to commissioner andrews on a personal level. He has given in termoffs the public arena. I was the person of the jury that recommended a Commission Secretary and he supported us every step of the way so thank you for that part, i appreciate it. I also want to talk about the contact lobbyist and expenditure lobbyist. We spent a lot of time last year, you all put a lot of effort into it as some on the outside making sure measure c went through which is all about expense lobbyist and not seeing here when there was supported both meetings to include contact lobbyist and expenditure lobbyist was a bit of a disappoint and hope it gets included. Your staff has a statement above the boxes that says in general existing state law defines lobbyist to mean both contact and any person that qualifys as a expenditure lobbyist but they dont use generic term lobbyist they use contact lobbyist throughout the memo and say if you use contact lobbyist you should also include expenditure lobbyist. Thank you. Is there a conscious decision why you used just contact lobbyist rather than the broader term which includes both the expenditure and contact lobbyist . Yes, it was a choice to leave that out. There was consensus in the room that it is important to have expenditure lobbyist in because they have [inaudible] i think the distinction that at this point for discussion i wanted to raise, we dont currently have registered expenditure lobbyist. That may change so that probably isnt a persuasive point but a poichbt information. The other question about is there sadis tinction that is meaningful for purpose of these restrictions, if somebody is a person who receives compensation for the purpose of lobbying regular with the city and directly communicating with city officials to influence a decision versing someone they may spend more than the thresh hold amount and qualify as a expenditure lobbyist, there is the nexus to the Decision Maker may be one step removed. I think there are argument said on both sides. A expenditure lobbyist could respond millions of dollars in a attempt to get others to communicate. The