I think it lines up with the 10 change of other jurisdictions and realizing this was the threshold. We werent sure why it was set the way it was back in 2003. We didnt see a strong justification for that at the time. What was the justification in new york city for 10 . I guess it was they had a substantial white paper done by nyu on the number of individuals that were associated with contractors and business entities in the city that were giving and they had given around 25 of all contributions. We have not been able to do the same analysis that was done by a university working with the Campaign Finance board to complete that. But it seemed to given the sort of similar circumstances between the two cities seemed to be well reasoned. Is that the same argument for why the threshold for the dollar amount in the contract was raised from 50 to 100 . We were able to break that down in our analysis based on the reports we had seen and it appeared to us that the 50,000 threshold was capturing potentially wasnt capturing a lot of the money, i dont have the specific numbers in front of me, but raising it to the 100,000 threshold reduces the number of affected parties by 100, 120 i think it was. But captured 80 of the money. So we thought it was a substantial amount of the money still captured but not having less sophisticated or the parties that shouldnt be captured. That was based on your own analysis. Correct. And page 12 line 22, why is the term of the period of prohibitions expanded from six to 12 months, is there data that supports that change . Again, so this is linking similar laws in other jurisdictions, again, new york city, this information is admittedly very hard to capture and research. I think we received in Public Comments as you will note in supporting materials and supporting materials associated with the ordinance. We found a number of antidotal examples by interested members and interest of the public that were able to cite hard numbers, i dont think we have those for you today but we have antidotes and im sure members of the public will speak to that as well. Some of this as i read it, as someone who has run four times, is this real life concerns, i mean, i have i think out of the five Ethics Commissioners, only one of them has run for office and knows what its what the words on a piece of paper mean in terms of real life behavior and to that end, im jumping to 1. 126 on page 14, has the clerk of the board been assaulted by the requirement that she notify ethics of every contract approved by the board of supervisors. As you will note that is in current law. It has not changed. Its merely a number change. And does the clerk send that to you every contract . Are you guys yes, we get i want to say we get 4500, is that a year . I believe we get about 4500 of these notifications a year give or take. But whether thats the entire that should be reported to us, that is something we do not know at this time. Section 3. 203 page 24. Hold on a minute. This is the definition of solicitation. Does inviting a person to a fundraising event include mass email invites . Sorry, could you give me the page again. Page 24, line 4. Fundraising shall be, invites to fundraising event, what about on social media . I dont have a specific answer at this time. I think thats something we would need a determination from our commission as to the scope of that. We have issued a recent opinion advice that addresses some of the issues i think. So these are real life concerns. When i read to, i think a strict reading would indicate that the answer is yes. Which in real life is problematic. I dont know if the commission thought about those things. I will give up the microphone. I do have a number of proposed amendments which i have not even had an opportunity to share with the many people who have come to the Ethics Commission and interested persons and nonprofits that i can distribute to my colleagues and speak about later in the meeting, but the big one is the one that i talked about earlier, and that is my desire to have form 700 type disclosers for ies and super packs, i think that would be a huge step forward. That is a much i dont want to chill little donors, but the people have a right to know the motivations of these super big donors is and where all those tentacles go and i think that would be a profound Ethics Reform and would like it to be a part of the package. Supervisor cohen thank you. Next i would like to call on supervisor tang. Supervisor tang thank you, thank you for having me today. I had spent probably an hour with Ethics Commission staff yesterday, an hour with our City Attorneys trying to get through the legislation, trying to understand it and i think i have a better understanding of kind of the goals that the Ethics Commission is trying to go for but along the lines of supervisor peskin asked in terms of questions, im not going to rehash a lot of what i spoke to you about but i think our broader comments and based on what i heard earlier about what was said in terms of trying to come up with some regulations to help those non incumbent candidates who dont get a lot of money and cant pay for compliance. I would push back a little bit on that and say legislation like this, although well intentioned forces us to spend a lot more time and money on our attorneys. Im grateful to have a great one, hes probably watching, to comply with the regulations, but the people who are going to follow the rules will follow the rules, right . So i think some of my broader stroke comments around the piece of legislation, when i was reading through it, there were references to behaviors such as sought to influence or sought a favor from someone. That were very vague. I dont know how they would determine how someone did something wrong. I would like to where there are references to vague terms such as that, for us to get a better definition, whether we peg it to a financial stake in something or state existing local law, again, so its very clear, the last thing i want to see in legislation such as this is that we dont know how to comply with this. Its so broad and vague, that if were going to have to ask our City Attorneys if we have a conflict or so forth that we dont know how to follow the regulations. The other portion that i had an issue with, im speaking more broad stroke but will speak in details in the coming weeks. In terms of the land use section, supervisor peskin raised that as well. My concern is theres a reference to the fact that the Agency Responsible for the initial review of any land use matter, that may appear before the board of appeals supervisors, shall inform any person with a financial interest in the land use matter and duty to notify the Ethics Commission regarding a land use matter. Basically when i read the section in addition to the entire land use portion, it is completely broad, i think the Million Dollar threshold isnt even enough. I think were trying to get at the big, big projects where i think in your own words, you might see pay to play politics, right . I think the Million Dollar threshold is far too low and putting burden people staffing our public and planning information counters for example, theyll have to start giving out the notifications and it wasnt clear to me what the particular person applying for permit or even submission of a request, again, i think thats very broad, too. Would have to report to the Ethics Commission. Thats unclear to me. So if were going to have a section on land use, i would like it all to be spelled out so its tight to what were trying to get at here which i think are the bigger projects, the people involved in those. And then obviously not creating a huge burden for planning staff, were constantly saying hurry up and here they are trying to figure out how to comply with ethics legislation. Some of the other issues i had there is a reference to someone who might be a donor but who might appear before Public Comment and might say theyre in support or against something and end up later donating to a nonprofit. I dont want that person to feel they shouldnt come and speak during Public Comment because of a potential appearance of making a donation on behalf of an official. I want to seriously address that. I dont think anything that someone coming to testify here should be included in the regulations. And then the recusele issue, as i mentioned to you yesterday as well, i think its strange to include the whole section because i think its important for us to recuse ourselves when theres a conflict, the board of supervisors, the Planning Commission, we should encourage that, we shouldnt encourage people with an actual conflict, potential conflict or appearance of one. When you say were going to take note and maybe investigating if you have three or more recusing or 1 of the total agenda items that year, it makes people uncomfortable to have to recuse themselves from items. I have many more details but i would say in broad strokes, i think were all here not to try to derail this legislation. I know the Ethics Commission is interested in getting this moved forward whether through the board or ballot. All i ask is that the commission had about a year to spend on the legislation and we have a couple of weeks, i would like for us to at least maybe continue the item for two weeks so we can hash out the amendments we want to propose to make this something that i think is enforceable on your part and allow us to understand how we can all comply with the regulations. Supervisor cohen thank you. Supervisor stephanie. Thank you. Can you hear me . I have a question for land use matter lines 13 and 14. Land use matter shall not include discretionary hearings, there are three kinds of discretionary reviews, you have neighbor on neighbor, Planning Commission on important policy matters and third, mandatory review required for residential demolitions and dwelling unit mergers that has the potential to take housing off the market. Those are two things that are very concerning to a lot of the neighbors in my district. Im wondering why were lumping all that together and not looking at review for something that has to come before the commission. So, is the question why are we exempting or broader than that, why are we exempting the discretion views and mandatory views are not involved. My question stems from the fact that if its mandatory it absolutely has to go before the Planning Commission, correct . In something as important as a residenti residential demolition that we know has a lot of controversy around demolishing homes in any neighborhood or unit mergers, a lot of controversy around that, where you would see maybe pay to play politics with developers. Im wondering why, i think its something that we have to look at that might come up later, why you would lump discretionary review without mandatory discretionary review. If youre trying to get at somebody donating, why not pars out mandatory dediscretion review. We based this out of conversations with the department of planning and building inspection. So it was our understanding that this definition sort of encompasses the best possible set of what should be reviewed without sort of mixing in individual resident on resident sort of disputes. That is my understanding, that its based on our not wanting to necessarily be reviewing each and every neighbor dispute, understanding theres a lot of those and those arent necessarily what we intended to review. Right and thats the first form of discretionary review but the second and third are mandatory. I mean, i understand theres a lot of drs and weve talked about dr reform a lot. Everyone likes to dr Construction Projects in the neighborhood. We see it over and over but when you talk about mandatory and it has to go before the Planning Commission and theres potential for pay to play with developers and unit mergers, which is very controversial, taking housing off the market and demos of homes for historical reasons and stuff like that, i think it could come up and something we need to take a broader look at. Thank you. Supervisor cohen all right. Supervisor peskin. Do you want to get the last word in . Just a few things. Just one, this is important for me relative to my initial ask about wanting to do this here discharging our duty as legislatures to legislate and requesting sufficient time and maintain the leverage for a possible November Ballot. If we fail to do that, which i think we will manage to discharge our duty and well and with Public Comment, but the one thing i want to be clear about, while you may be under the impression that this was transmitted from your commission to this body, this thing did not get a file number until january. The board went dark in early december, the mayor died, it did not i did not know that this legislation sometimes the department head, im not picking on you, says by the way this thing arrived at the board. I mean, theres all these different commissions, i was aware there were ongoing deliberations but not until a couple weeks ago, oh, it arrived at the board of supervisors. It didnt get a file number until early last month. I just wanted to put that on the record. I was going back through the conversation we had about you said the Million Dollar threshold is in there. Its not how i read it. If financial interest modifies the definition of land use matter, the way it reads it says financial interest shall mean an ownership interest of at least 10 or a Million Dollars. So the way thats written, if i have a financial ownership interest of more than 10 but i do a 5,000 project, it covers me. Thats not what you want to do. I mean, i hope thats not what you want to do. I think its just bad drafting. But i dont think you want toi implicate the 5,000 projec. You want to implicate the Million Dollar project but there is no dollar threshold and i see the deputy City Attorney saying to this non lawyer that i just read it correctly. These are the things we want to fix in deliberative process. The thing around recusing, i want to associate myself with the wores of social tang. Its a good thing. I mean, we want supervisors to i mean, my form 700s, pull them up online, youll know Southwest Airlines is asking for a lease and i have more than 2,000 in Southwest Airlines, i shouldnt vote on the lease. You want me to recuse myself. This last year i recused myself twice and by the way at the board, its very rare. I recused twice on the advice of the City Attorney because there was a conditional use appeal, i cant remember, within 1000 feet of my house. The City Attorney says im presumed as a matter of law to have a conflict whether it diminishes the value of my property or increases the value of my property or doesnt affect it at all, i have to recuse myself. I say colleagues, Julius Castle is within 1,000 feet of my house, i have to recuse myself. Isnt that what we want. If i had three land use appeals that came to the board im subject to the higher level of reporting. I want to be part of the regulated community where it makes sense. That looks like a solution in search of a problem frankly. If i could provide a brief comment in perhaps. I think you are right, we want folks to recuse in conflict but when there are repeated and significant conflicts continuing to be able to raise the question in some way with individuals, board and commission members, perhaps more so the members of this body, is that such a significant and ongoing conflict that prevents them from doing the job that the public expects them to do. Just injecting a review process in that arena is something that i think our commission is of the view would be a benefit to good Decision Making and allow the public to have transparency of conflicts and i looked recently at some of the information from los angeles, a similar model based on their charter mandate where their Ethics Commission can require divestment for continuing conflict and of the 267 Board Members over the course of the year, i think the board reviewed six of the ongoing conflicts and its not an investigation, its more of a public process to have discussions about conflicts. Its building on what we have and enhancing it to provide accountability. I havent thought about it in the board context, through the chair, mr. Gibbner, theres a handful, if not for im required as a matter of charter to vote on them. Maybe in Commission Land i dont nothing is occurring to me as to any set of commissioners where this seems to be a known problem. But i hear you. The last thing i want to say, around the behested stuff as the author of what came effective january 1st, it seems odd to me that were not letting that legislation that has been in effect for 31 days to work before were changing the rules on it again. Generally, you know, there are people who come to me every day and they want to do more stringent regulation on Short Term Rentals and i say folks, youre looking at the supervisor who has been at the forefront of regulating Short Term Rentals but we just had a lawsuit with a airbnb and see how it works for a while before changing the rules again. And so i kind of have a thing here, our new payment legislation that for commissioners etc cetera just went into effect. I dont know why were anyway just a general comment. What i would like to do rather than madam chair, i know the hearing is going on for quite a while and you have other items, is what i would like to do is make my amendments available to staff and public so people, mr. Bush and friends of ethics and everybody can look at them. I would like to introduce them but not adopt them today. I hav