Appear on the january 30 board of supervisors agenda unless otherwise stated. Great. Thank you. Thank you, ms. Summerall. Can you please call item number one . Item number one is a hearing to consider appointing two members, terms ending november 30, 2018, to the Ballot Simplification Committee. There are two seats and two applicants. Great. We have two applicants, unless there is any initial comments from Committee Members. Lets hear from mr. Scott patterson first. If he is ok. Great. Please come forward. Hello. Thank you for having me here today. Im Scott Patterson, candidate for the Ballot Simplification Committee. My family traces its roots in San Francisco back to when they immigrated from italy in 1881 so weve been around for a long time. Ive been a member of the faculty at San Francisco State University as a professor of broadcast and electronic Communication Arts for over 20 years. For 10 of those years, i served as chair of the department. Ive also been a member of the Nationa
Thank you. Good evening, commissioners from Pacific Islander berry want to make a few comments on the property ballot for the regulation of expenditure lobbyists as ive testified month lobbying is accomplished through the compensation of people to lobby city officials dribble the category was deleted from the law in 2010 because in part very few entities qualified since it appears that you have decided to move forward with adding back the expenditure lobbyists category to the ordinance i would like to thank commissioner renne and city stiff tar stimuli simplifying the definition of city lobbyist it provide for clarity over the previous versions and is consistent with the terminal in the lobbying laws i want to bring your attention one matter not previous discussion since the term expenditure lobbyists will apply inform any person pa makes payment of 2,500 to urge others to lobby the city officers this law my a apply to vendors of major projection in San Francisco that may file 5 report
Care act. Is that a fair criticism . I think in part it is and in part it isnt. Im not sure that it is the dissents right to say that the court had to strain to create ambiguity here anymore than it does in a range of cases that get far less attention. Is it more of a strain to find ambiguity than it did in yates . That im skeptical. Other than the intensity of the spotlight im not sure the court had to work harder to find ambiguity than in any number of cases where it resolves hard questions. I think it is fair to say that whether or not the chief justice or Justice Kennedy thought this was ambiguous, they thought it was a drafting error. Its fair to say in other contexts the court has been less hospitable to that. Im not worried about how we come out because maybe it is mistake and congress can fix it. That argument has a lot more sway in other contexts than it had here because in most contexts its a useful and benign fiction. Here it would have seemed ridiculous. The last thing anyo
Telephone it refers to the corporations the name of each officer of that corporation that could be a lot so lets say youre a tier one bang have offices all over the gloib want to put two atms under the district you have to file or do a get a conditional use permit having meetings and getting people involved and engaged im not sure it is necessary to have all 2 thousand offices to be submitted to the Ethics Commission unless youre the head of Human Resources to be listed theres probably a way to russet that so we know who you are going after this is going to the comments by commissioner hur that plain clothes say you dont want all 2 thesis officers at a bank to go be filed under the initial draft any less closer gloss hurdle it is important to get this done right the first time and ill ask you review that one portion a comment on the airbnb i know there are a lot of the commercials im an attorney but the commercials as played will not be included or covered by this legislation and. What
So you know i always think about truth as an installment to have to come up again sometimes. Okay, just say no. This is for all three of you. One opportunity space you challenges, opportunities, how do you make a decision no im not going to take on that card or they dont like the product even though they want me to be the boys. Note this job is really not for us because there is more to this. We still have some basic principles about what youll taken what you wont take, what works and what doesnt work for the quality of your project and your team. If youve got a baghdad check, dont do it. I still think there is a level of integrity levels of decisionmaking that you know if you are headed down the wrong path for a right path. Youve got to stop yourself and say this isnt worth it. Ill go to the next client for the next opportunity. There have been times in my life where he made the decision i make it halfway down the path and this isnt going to work out. He started stop yourself at any m