Commissioner ambrose is under the weather and not able join us. Public comment on matters appearing or not appearing on the agenda . Well, thank you, commissioner. I am a public social worker for more than ten years in the city and i am a storer for the Government Employees and the director of public regulations, the San Francisco chapter. I have been a resident for San Francisco for more than 33 years. I love my city. I have been coming to you as the commissioners many times with other Government Employees in in room in different dates in 2016, 2017, 2018 and 2019. The last time i was here was june 28th, 2019. I came before you demanding you as ethic commissioners to investigate government corruption within the Public Officials. Fails policy makers fail to protect Public Employees, tourists and residents. Prior to june of 2019, i have been reporting to you within the Public Officials through Election Fraud. No other Political Parties such as green party, libertarian, nonpartisan or constitution. Democrats only pay to play through funds for 45 years. For example, in 2018, San Francisco taxpayer pay 4. 16 million for matching funds to only one party, democratic parties only. The matching fund and super pact, its a scam. Its a scam to enable debt policy makers. June of 2018, issue wa i was one candidates for San Francisco mayor but not allowed to join more than 20 Public Forums that took place in public, libraries, city hall and many public areas. And those forums and debate supported by super pact and democrats only. I was discriminated because i am not a democrat. I am still not a democrat. Im a proud republican chinese american. Today with the failing policy maker dominating city hall, we have 21,000 Homeless People dying on the street and 25,000 drug abusers and dealers and car breakins everyday and crimes that target minority people like me, chinese american and Asian Americans in San Francisco. We have 50,000 empty apartments and we have so many people and no housing. You are a Public Employee representing the government and you sign up to represent the government as ethic commissions. I am here today to remind you that you personally sign up to do and you are personally reliable sworn in and reliable for what you do for San Francisco. The United States constitution, article 6, constitution right, the supreme court, which states the supreme law of the land is the highest law in the United States. San francisco has been violating so many laws, us, you and me at risk. So im here today to ask you to evaluate the officers in its process, Election Fraud and their policy makers dominating city hall that created a city with crimes and nobody is able to feel good or safe in San Francisco. Thank you. And this is my public record. Thank you. Thank you. Other Public Comment for agenda item number two and moving on to the consent items in item number three, draft items for june 28, 2019 regular meeting. Number 4, proposed stipulation and order in the matter of richard matthews, San Francisco ethics complaint 09150331, agenda 5, proposed stipulation decision and orbed i in the matn peskin, 151611, item number 6, proposed stipulation decision and order in the matter of living wage for educators, San Francisco commission 118 118 11c and 1818026 and item number 8, supposed stipulation, decision and order in the matter of the San FranciscoCommunity College board 2018, San FranciscoEthics Commission complaints number 1818050. Call for a Public Comment on any items. Yes. The items that you have read, its only supported by democrats. Theres no peoples voice, no other political voice in San Francisco. It can be said that San Francisco, its a government controlled by no rule of law. Thank you. Thank you. Other Public Comment on any of the agenda items . Otherwise, i will move to approve agenda items number 38. And a second from commissioner lee. All in favour aye and motion is carried unanimously. So on the nonconsent items, i would like to take some items out of order after item number 9. I would like to call number 12, the discussion of the monthly staff enforcement report and then agenda item number 10, discussion on enforcement process review so well take those two items together and then well call the policy item. So agenda item number 9, information of presentation and discussion regarding anticorruption and accountability ordinance, the implementation overview. Thank you, chair. Commissioners, good afternoon. Im rachel gauge, the Principal Programme manager with the compliance division. Just a quick recap. At the last Monthly Commission meeting on june 28th, the executive director announced that the anticorruption and accountability ordinance, acao, specifically, the forums associated with the acao were launched and made available on the commissions website. Scentsly chair chu requested a presentation on the acao at a future Commission Meeting and todays commissioner is responsive to the request. Thank you. Thing title of todays presentation is the anticorruption and accountability ordinance, legislative implementation overview. Just a bit of background, at the april 18, 2017, special meeting, they approved the ordinance, acao, a comprehensive imagics ordinance is partnership with communitstakeholders. They approved the acao on may 22 and may 30th, respectively. They amended two requirements which became privilege january 1, 2019. This slide offers is summary of all of the newly implemented forums, both new and amended. Those forums that are amended have been flagged with asteris asterisks. The following Requirements Applicable to committees. Im sorry, miss gauge. To clarify, all forms are Available Online at the Ethics Commission website so any members of the public would be able to navigate to any of the forums that they would immediate to fill out and do it all online . Absolutely. All forums were made available june 22nd. I mean all of the electronic forms. The forms were made available prior to them in paper format and some of the forms were launched earlier than june 24th, but june 24th is when all forms were made available. Ok, thank you. The requires for applicable committees. Form sfc114. 5, contributions receive bid certain committees. This is for ballot committees and committees making independent expenditures, the triggers to file this form are the Committee Received contributions totaling 5,000 or more in a single calendar year at the behest of a city officer. Should the Committee File this form, they must disclose certain information about the officer who made the behest, as well as information about the contributions at the behest at the direction of that officer and this will be the Campaign Statement that must report the contribution that makes the cumulative total of the behested contributions 5,000 or more. Once its filed online, would that be searchable by elected official or at t, for example, different vendors to put in a search term to find out how much someone has contributed . As soon as its filed, its available in realtime, not the filing itself but extracted from the doub document. I do want to make sure that hes implemented some additional dashboards and is extracting information to now add to the Campaign Finance dashboards and theyre available as well. So in theory, come election time, we could do a search to see how much any given candidate is requesting payments to certain organizations and total it . Absolutely. The dashboards are very comprehensive, searchable and multiple ways to filter out information per candidate, per committee, per election cycle and per race. There are various ways an Interested Party could review that information. Fantastic, thank you. The form 124, contributions made by business entities. This form is applicable to any committee required to file Campaign Statements with the Ethics Commission. The conditions that would trigger this filing requirement, the Committee Received contributions totaling 10,000 or more from a single business entity and a single election cycle. Should this occur, the committee must file form sec 14, disclosing information about that business entity and disclosing the name of one of the business entities principal officers. In addition to contributions received by that business entity. And this must be filed no later than the deadline to file the semiCampaign Statement to report the contribution to make the cumulative total of contributions entity of 10,000 or more. A committee receive receives contributions 5,000 or more by a single individual. Should this occur, should a committee receive contributions that total 5,000 or more, the committee must file format 125, disclosing information about the contributions bundled by that individual and the filing is due no later than the deadline for the preelection Campaign Statements that must report the contribution that makes the cumulative total bundled by that individual 5,000 or more. This next section includes the forms that are applicable to city officers and city departments. And im going to do something a bit different here. The form 126 f2, i want to show theres a relationship between this filing and the one that follows this and so im going to build a scenario that helps to establish that and i think that will help to understand the relationship to the two Filing Requirements. This form is applicable to city departments. The condition receive ag proposal for a contract with a value of 100 or more in a 100l year and a city officer. And so a scenario would they put out a request fo for evaluation valued at 1 million over a fiveyear term. Or 200,000 per fiscal year. The Contracting Department receives proposals from several contractors and responds to the rfp. Due to the value of the contract, it will require the approval of the mayor. Because the amount of the contract exceeds 100,000 in the fiscal year and the contract requires the approval of the mayor, the Department Must file form 126s2 within 30 days of receipt of the proposals, disclosing information about the sub contractors as administrate of the submitted proposals and the filing is due within 30 days of receipt of the qualifying proposal. Form 126 f4, borrowing from that same ski scent scenario, that cs been awarded and all negotiations have ceased and that is at the mayors desk and requires the mayors approval. Using that same pattern because the contract is valued at 1 million and requires the approval of an elected official, the elective officer now has the filing requirement, as well. The elected official within five days of approving the contract, the elected official must file form 126 s4 disclosing information about the contract, the contractor and listing any members of the contractors board of directors, principal officer and any subcontractors listed in the bidder contract. And this filing is due within five days of approving the qualifying contract. So miss gauge, i have a question about this, because with imagine thereiwould imagie volume of contracts that flows through the city at any given time. What communication have we done with stakeholders and montreal,e contracts because theyre quite tight in some cases and i want to make sure they have the Filing Requirements and that theyre aware of them so that they would comply in a timely way in. Sure. I do want to emphasize that 126 f4 is not a if you filing requirement and its been in place for quite some time. Aco only extended the thresholds. And although we still target the outreach for that form, letting the departments know it was available and just reminding departments of the filing requirement, that is not news, so the amount of interest that has generated is not what i its not what has benefited the other forms. Not they have two, however, 126 f2 is new and essentially extends that prohibition that has a relationship with the contributions, prohibition and it is now extended that on to essentially prior to acao if it was only applied to those contracts after they were approved. Its now applied to a contractor once they submit a proposal so at that point in time, theyre negotiating with the city. They may not be selected but if theyre in the pool. Correct. The question i have for the form 116 f2, since its new, implemented since january, so have you received any information between january to now to see how that has worked out . Absolutely. I actually will say that that form has received the most interest and generated the most calls for engagement and compliance. Specifically, theyve been general in nature, more about the politicia application and gg clarification of the specifics, and i nothing thats been challenging for us to answer and assist with. We did a very comprehensive memo that went out to the departments and city officials. , announcing that the form was Available Online now to file electronically and all of the supporting resources. The regulations that were adopted, i think july 30th, those also helped to implement 126 f2. Out. Does that answer your question. Yes, thank you. I have a question. Yes, commissioner gray. What is the difference between this version of 126 f4 and the previous version . So aco extended the threshold, so prior to that, the Contract Value was 50,000 and its now 100,000. Prior to aceo, the time frame at which the prohibition was applied to the contractors was six months and now its 12 months. The form is due within 15 dates of the recusal occurred. Im going to demo this forum after the conclusion of the power point of this presentation, just to give you an idea of the filing experience. There are several steps that are required in order to recuse for a member of a board or member to recuse themselves and that is not a new law associated with aco, just the filing requirement is new. As of yesterday, there were 19 filed this year. Is there a repeat frequent flier . I have noticed a repeat in some case, yes. Thank you. Sure. Form 3610b, paymen payments byy officers. So im going offer a similar scenario like i did with the 126 forms. With this form and the form that follow this, there are two forms that follow this in the same series are distant relatives, so im going to start with the General Information about the form and give a bit of a scenario and build. This is applicable to members of a booke board or commission with interest. They are solicit payment totaling 1,000 or more from an Interested Party that is made to a thirdparty for legislative, governmental or charitable. So a scenario for this form, which would require a commissioner or elected officer to file this form would be a commissioner who serves on the Planning Commission, asking the developer to make a donation to the red cross and the developer makes a donation in the amount of 1,000 to the red cross at the behest of the commission every and two months later they apply for a Building Permit and it must be approved by the board that commissioner serves. Because the amount was 1,000 and occurred within 12 months excuse me. And occurred within 12 months prior to the commencement of the proceeding, the commissioner must file 36 10b that the officer knew or should have known they became an Interested Party and just to back up, once that developer had a proceeding in front of the Planning Commission, that developer became an Interested Party. And so building on that scenario, form 3620, changing a few of the facts, that developer who is the donor in this situation, who made the behetsed payment, instead of 1,000, payment was 10,000, which triggers a requirement for the developer who is the donor. The donor is required to file form 3620 with the Ethics Commission within 30 days of the payment that makes the total 10,000 or more in a calendar year and must disclose on that filing information about the officer who made the behest and certain ask about the payments made. If theyre a party that behested, they must report any contacts that the donor had with the city officer who behested the payment. So miss gauge, let me ask you a question, if i said on the Ethics Commission and do some fundraising for my sons school and asked them to contribute to the school fund for, you know, art and music and one the other families in the community made a contribution, under what circumstances would i need to