Sufficiently addressed until now and i thought it would be useful for the public to walk be walked through to show them the consequences of their inability to meet the realities of a charge and that their interests, fundamental interests are not wellserved. I also wanted to say that, regarding the sunshine ordinance provisions, those were drafted, i believe, by commissioner herrington when she was chair. I noted in 2013. And i wanted to say that it was a very helpful exercise to try to come to grips with these ethics complaints that were coming to the commission and were basically left in an inbox and not really sufficiently handled by our regses. But it does behoove us now to go back and scrub those regs now that weve had more experience with them. So, this is our second bite of this apple. And i wanted to commend the commission for taking that review up in the context of this overall review of our enforcement regs. Thanks. Thank you. Hi. Good afternoon. Was shocked to hear that your representative spoke and said the Sunshine Ordinance Task force, the only function is that you [inaudible] party. Sunshine ordinance Sunshine Task force issued the order determination after minimum of two hearings. Most of the time three hearings. Sometimes more than three hearings to issue the violation. And the department really dont care about that. Because they know that it is a piece of paper. Theres no consequence. All they can do is ask them for more budgets and then get over time, come to the hearing and not quoting the facts and saying that i dont have to provide documents. This is my only experience. Years ago, Sunshine Task force, after hearing, refer my case to your commission. Unfortunately i dont even have a chance to present my case before you. The case was dismissed because the case was [inaudible] support the finding or the order. And then the recent case im talking about this year, august i make this sunshine disclosure request, ignore. And then i remind them, hey, you did not respond to my immediate disclosure request, ignore. And then i filed the sunshine complaint, sunshine sent them an email, tell them that you are required within five Business Days to sub miss your written responses. Ok . This is long page. And they ignore also. Before the hearing, sunshine hearing, the representative willfully [inaudible] and says once we provide her previous sunshine request for this document on different day, we dont have to provide her anymore. And after three hearings now for my august, sunshine immediate disclosure, the last hearing was december 6. Ok . And then september, of course, december. And then they finally ordered against the Department Planning department, ok . You can look at her face. She was smiling when i walked out. Because there is no consequences and we depend on you to enforce the sunshine ordinance. Thats all i want to say today. Thank you very much. Thank you. Any further Public Comment . Yeah. Go to the lower microphone if i turn that on. My name is nancy croft and my name is nancy croft and im here to express some concern, or at least question whether the commission investigates a complaint. And the definition of a complaint. Is it a verified complaint . If its not a verified complaint, its where is the probable cause for you to investigate . Why should you National Convention side process of investigating one side privately and then maybe the other side privately and deciding that there is no probable cause . You cant do that in a Court Hearing that would have any respect to it. Im caught in a situation in relation to the [inaudible] department. And it says yes, we have a wide array of way to open the doors to a shelters if a person is 18 years old and cant take care of theirselfs but it gives the shelter manager power to dismiss that person without any fair hearing. And without any fair process. The shelter director can do this just he saw this staff member no, not him. But somebody else told him that somebody in the shelter had attack one of their employees. Therefore, that person should be dismissed from the shelter. Now there is no fair hearing at all. And they have a funny little processes that says and the shelter manager can conduct where a person being evicted from the shelter simply in private teteatete. This is a place for bribery. This is how we get corruption. Having somebody with a power to do violence and putting a person on the streets. And going through this process with the person two is bringing the charge but not made any of their hearing. It is not a fair process. The rules of evidence are not provided. We needed to look at the people who are disadvantaged by our system to a subclass. Therefore youre at fault. And we can steal from you and you have no remedy from the stealing. Theres no fair process. I would like the Ethics Committee to look into how the homeless situation is is dealt with. The grand jury dealt with homelessness in 19 in 2002 and the board of supervisors suppressed the publication and never responded to and neither did the pay your or the department to that situation. The Clerks Office can tell you all about it. And i can, too, if i have more time. And i i think this is very much at the heart of what you can what you could be doing and should be doing to take care of the most hit people in our community and to protect us from what the president wants to do to manage for us. Thank you. Commissioner kopp . Do complaints have to be verified by law . No, they do not. They can be submitted. If theyre verify, then were required that our law or state law . That is our law. Thank you. Any further Public Comment . So, this room will still be your desire to have further discussion of this next at our next meeting and commissioner kopps requests relating to the City Attorney. Ok. Is there a motion mr. Chairman, before i make a motion to continue it one month, a couple more questions. Sure. There is reference to a Law Enforcement agency. Are we deemed under state law a Law Enforcement agency . That is a matter of some debate. Hmm . That is a matter of some debate. Probably not. But sometimes we try to can you give me a specific answer on that by next meeting . Sure. And then secondly, under the California Public records act, can a local jurisdictions law reduce that 10day response . Yes. We could be stricker. We do have that legal power . I believe so. Were stricker in the sunshine ordinance on a couple of occasions. Ill make a motion to continue this mare. A second to the motion . Is second. Any further discussion among the commissioners . All right. So, all those in favour of the motion say aye . Oppose nod . Motion carries unanimously and the matter is continued to further discussion to our next meeting in january. We go now to item number six, which is discussion and possible action on staff memorandum, updating the commission on proposed rules and there are attachesments of december 13, 2017 staff report and attachments. Theres mr. Ford. Thank you, chair. Good afternoon, commissioners. Pat ford, policy analyst. Ok. The memorandum and agenda item six analyzes staff analysis up to this point of certain proposals regarding online political communications. That way of background on september 22 an oped appeared in the chronicle regarding certains les that the city and county should take up to address perceived problems regarding online political communications. This oped was by former fppc and fec chair anne raffle and two law professors from u. C. Davis and abbey wood from the university of southern california. A the october Commission Meeting, members of the public and the commission expressed interest of having staff look into these proposals and analyze whether or not they could be possible action items for the commission to take. So, as a result, we followed up with anne ravel and we had a meeting in our office on november 20 that commissioners lee and chu were present at as well as a lot of our Staff Members to look at different aspects of how these proposals could possibly be implemented and this memo sets forth some of the major proposal and what staff believes would be the best way forward on these. Starting on page two, the major proposele that staff believes is worthwhile to do further analysis of is a concept of a kind of archive wherein Online Platforms think of facebook, twitter, and other websites that provide advertising space or other areas for people to spread political communications. These kind of platforms would archive certain data about these paid communications. That data would include not the identity necessarily of the person paying for it, but the amount paid, the content of the communication, the way that the communication was targeted to particular groups and this data would be available to the public on some kind of public online database, yet to be determined whether that would be one central database or individual ones maintained by each platform. But the general concept is that this would be publicly available information. Staff wants to move forward with further analysis of this. We think there is a potential that this could be worth implementing. However, we have a lot of questions that wed want to look into first. We think the best way would be to convene some sort of forum or panel where we would invite the professors as well as other experts in this arena to come and speak with staff, with members of the commission and another as to what they think are the unique changs and solutions that we need to be cognizant of. This iss a novel approach. We dont know of any jurisdiction that currently has this kind of archive. It is roughly analogous of the fe ral law for Broadcasting Networks but it is different and much more complex because it covers such a i wider aray of communication styles. Instead of just radio, television, more traditional platforms, were talking about new and very diverse sets of communications ranging from social media to more traditional websites so we think it would be best if we could get the brightest minds that are looking at this cutting edge areaing to and explore the area. At the bottom here of page two, we laid out a rough timeline to organize our ongoing analysis of this. The first thing wed like to do is carry out that forum that i described and start reaching out to people shortly and exploring when we could have that at the next meeting, wed like to come and present our findings, summarizing for you what we gathered from that. And what our conclusions are from that as to whether or not we should forward. At the following meeting we would worth with some kind of proposal, an actual set of rules that would lay out this kind of archiving approach if, in fact, the result of the form seems to indicate that this would be a good idea. There is three other proposals, other than the archiving ones that are listed here. But staff is not recommending that any three of these or fi of these three are items that the chising should take action on. This should show you that San Francisco is ahe of curve when you look at the federal system and other states laws. The proposals made by anne ravel and the two professors are not gauged specifically at San Francisco. They are looking nationally and at other jurisdictions. So, some of those proposals dont really indicate things that we need to change. One of those is the definition of electioneer for communications. At the federal level, they are exempted. But under San Francisco law, that is not the case. In fact, we get filings if our office of internet communications. So, this isnt an area where we need to be looking at to expand. This is already encompassing this mode of communication. Likewise, the electioneering Communications Window is much broader in San Francisco than it is at the federal level. At the federal level, its 30 days before a primary election and0 days before a general election. But in San Francisco, it is 90 days before any election, which is much broader. And lastly on page four, state law has an impracticalability disclaimer and talking about political ads that have to be carried for by a disclaimer. If the communication so small it is impracticalable to provide a disclaimer, they are age to just provide a link where you can click and see the disclaimer on another place. That is different, again, than federal law which basically says if its impracticalable, you dont have to do it. State law, again California Law here, going a little bit beyond what federal law does and we believe that is probably sufficient to provide people notice that something is a paid communication. So, were not recommending this as an area for action by you. So, to wrap it up, we would like to hear your thoughts on whether or not this kind of forum regarding archiving idea is something youre interested in having us pursue. If so, whether or not you agree with the rough timeline that we set out here. Thank you. Thank you. I think she pronounces her name ravel, anne ravel. Commissioners . Thank you. So i am very much in support of the proposal that you lay out here. I think this is really trit cal work that the commission can undertake on a matter of, i think, greater significance than we than we might realise because of the impact that it can have. On our elections. And my only advice or request would be is that to not just limit our inquiry to ms. Ravels proposal but to be open to other approaches as well. I think stanfords law in practicum report is worth looking at as well and i also think a forum bringing in leaders and other stakeholders who could help shed light on this very fluid and initial stages of solution to a complex problem would be a very good idea. Commissioner renne . I joined in the statement about supporting this. I question whether you realistically can do it by the next meeting. I think that its such a significant issue that is emphasis ought to be on thoroughness. Not how quickly you can do it. Put a timeline of it on january or february might be nice. But if you need 90 days to get it right, i would be strongly supportive of it. Were seeing i at the national level. The whole what media what the social media impact can be on elections. And if there is a way in which we can get out front and be helpful to at least at a transparency level, i think it would be a great step forward. Commissioner lee . Thank you, many chair. I echo my colleagues comments. I just want to have one recommendation. We spoke a little bit briefly on the true source of funding. I know that there is a very complicated issue, by think it is something that i think this commission may want to spend some resources in investigating. I dont think you can get it done if a month. But if that could be included in part of your analysis, that would be include in the future Forum Discussion that would be really helpful. In that currently there are laws that say foreign government, nonu. S. Citizens could not be engaged if political activities. But, you know, there may be ways that we can really tighten it up to make sure that the true source should be identified. Social internet communications. Further discussion by the commissioners . Wi eel take Public Comment. Larry bush. Thank you for taking up this issue. It is a critical importance to how we are being informed about interest that people have in our elections. There is some questions that i dont know the answers to that hopefully this process will bring them forward. Currently, some of our laws provide an exemption for disclosures and reporting for member organisations. That provide recommendations, including for candidates that has been interpreted by some. For example, the committee on jobs said that they could send it to all of the employees of all of their member organisations, which is like 50,000 employees and it was all except from being disclosed. So, im not sure under this provision whether Member Communications are defined in such a way as to be exempt from disclosure. The same thing happens, by the way, with the Democratic Party when they would cherry pick just one jurisdiction to put out information on an election. But because they were democrats, they did it. So, thats one thing. Secondly, i in terms of monitoring and disclosing on electronic things, when i post something on facebook, for example, for friends of ethics, i dont put if a disclosure there. I report it on my Campaign Finances that i paid for facebook to put something in. But theres nothing that tells the public that friends of ethics is as material as being paid for by larry bush or whoever it is that i managed to drill up for money. I dont see anybody else putting those disclosures on either. [please stand by] just for background and review from last month. We have set out and more formally update the commission where they amend staff policy items. Going forward, we have current section 1 sets out the ongoing policy initiatives. And section 2, planned and pending policy initiatives. In section 2, we ask that any addictions or subtractions would be formally discussed and voted on, if possible, just for staffs convenience, i guess, Going Forward, just so we understand the policy, priorities of the commission Going Forward. I will not go through every item, as some of these are unchanged from our november meeting that was only a few weeks ago. But going to page 2 of agenda item 7 under section 1, i want to give you an update on the anticorruption ordinance that you all voted and passed at your november meeting. The ordinance was passed along to the board clerk on december 5. The clerk of the board processed that legislation. And it would now carry an ducks date of january 9, 2018. That ordinance will be submitted under what is known as the 30day rule, which requires the passage of 30 days prior to the Board Holding a hearing on the ordinance. That the would elapse on february 9. Weve become aware that that 30 days, however, could be waived, by the board president ,