Contributor and how much money that person or entity gave. I agree. Its a good addition to add that language there in the first sentence. Ok. Those are all the amendments that i would suggest. Im glad to answer any questions about those or anything else in the regulations that you might have questions about. Just more broadly, stepping back for a moment, with this new ordinance and the regulations that are implementing prop f, how will the Ethics Commission be in a position to enforce this ordinance. Is there a data base where all land use matters so defined can be searched to know whether or not Entity Company x and properly made a contribution improperly. These ordinances are only as effective as the enforcement ability. Is there a data base that contains all land use matters . Yes and no. Theres not one that solely contains land use matters as defined here. Theres nowhere that you can just call up a data base and it has all land use matters exactly as that terms is defined and interpreted here in 1. 127. That does not exist. Land use matters are public information. So that they are out there and you cant find them. But its not as easy as just calling up a data base. Its not like 1. 126, the contractor contribution rule where we have two sets of notices that are actually creating a data base and when they file notice you have a data base of approved contracts and you can use that for compliance. What you would be doing is essentially asking the contribute or to identify parcels of land they have a financial interest in or parcels of land has a financial interest in but their shareholders for. You would check to see, for that parcel of land, are there any on going city processes that constitute a lappeduse matter. The best way to do that is to use the Planning Department planning information map, call up the address of the parcel, that will give you a list of any Building Permits or discretionary or anything going on with that property you would want to preview all of those processes and see if there are any, within the relevant time period that constitute what is defined as entitlement, request for an entitlement in the code. And again, thats kind of a ambiguous term. Its not defined in the planning code and so there would have to be some work there to determine our any of these entitlements and we worked with planning to identify which ones are not titlements and its on going advice giving because the fees you played to the Panning Department are based on the value of your project, which are always underestimated and now theyll probably be over estimating or never mind. And any event, i think that you might want to get your i. T. People together because it might be a slightly more simple cross tab. If you are talking about over 5 million projects, there are fewer of those than everything thats spendin pending before te planning commission. At least when you its something to think about comparing and they also have to list the owner of the property. They have to give authorization for an application at Planning Department and you can that would tie in with your list of potential contributors. Putting the machine to work for you. To fer et some of that out. It has to be the donor how will the donor make they cant make their 500 contribution . Well, hopefully they will work with the committee to try and identify it. If they did not make the written attestation to the committee and they declined to do that but the committee wanted to accept the contribution, the committee would have to ask the contribute or why did you not make this written attestation to us. Is there a financial interest you have in a land use matter and work to try and identify what they are and then do the Due Diligence with them of actually looking those items up and seeing if they are in fact land use matters as defined. There are certain things you can rule out off the bat. If its under 5 million and it has to do with their primary residents you can rule it out. If its not a primary resident and its over 5 million, would you have to go through that more detailed process of looking it up and evaluating it. Link particular to the name of the person or corporation or whatever that was the entity and making a contribution. Correct what makes it challenging and impossible to create a data base right now, of people who are prohibited for making contributions, even if there were perfect data base, of all land use matters, no department keeps track of every person who has a financial interest in the land use matters. They dont know who all those people are so they bridge that gap. We have a running list. Im just seeing there is information that gets filed with the Planning Department that when you are looking it will be easier to find than just randomly going through their agenda for a year or something. They have a robust data base on the matters that are pending before that commission. They do have a data base and were trying to figure out what materials to make available to people. They wouldnt have a end product of a data base of names. Theres always a good a leg work and well make it easy and spell it out for them but the pieces are not there to put together in a full proof compliance tool. Theres not. Well, i guess well have to just try and work through the issues as they come up. Hopefully it wont be too much of a budget buster. I dont want to hold this up any longer on this holiday eve so its move we have Public Comment. So i talked about the six amendments. Im glad to talk about those or anything else in the regs that you might have a question about any other questions . Call for Public Comment on agenda item number 6. Good afternoon, commissioners, i wanted to thank mr. Ford for presenting my amendments to you and i think they will provide clarity and to the regulations and the only other additional item i thought about, as you were discussing regulation 1. 13 were you going to do after the land use matter as defined in section 1. 127a. Say excludes a persons primary residents and it leads that way fight a few people will know the primary residents are not if they have issues or matters before the planning commissioner entities of the boards regarding a paper ary residents they wouldnt have to worry about that. Prohibiting them from making a contribution. Thank you. Thank you. We would add that parenthetical into the language . The amendment for regulation 1. 1273 yes, definitely. I would move that any other Public Comment foray again da item number 6 . So, i would like to make a motion to adopt amendments numbers 16 as previously discussed. Do we need to read out everything for the record . I dont think so. I second that amendment for a motion amendments 16 for the regulations all in favor. Aye. So the motion is carried. The amendments 16 are approved unanimously. Thank you. Agenda item 7. Discussion of monthly staff policy report. Thank you, agenda item 7 is my monthly staff policy report. I need a clarifying point. Its unclear on the record whether or not we actually adopted all of the amendments and their totality or just the amendments you itemized. The regulations in their totality ms. Mayos not just the stakeholder suggestions but you have a variety of other suggestion thats you put forward to the commission that you did not itemize, right. You mean the amounts you are revising for the new thresh holds so we didnt talk will be i would propose adopting attachment one with with the edits proposed so theres not any ambiguity. As opposed to the edits before the commission and the attachment, right. Maybe before we move on we can go back and make a motion to adopt, also adopt, everything proposed in attachment one attachment one as amended by amendment 16 that were read into the record yes. So theres, mr. Ambrose making a motion to adopt attachment one as amended by amendments 16. Correct the list there was a suggestion to number the amendments, right and we were talking about specific subject matters and im concerned those topics are notten campusing of everything. Were going to adopt all of attachment one which has all of the written everything the staff but then as further amended by the ones that we talked about that are all numbered. His other stuff amending the dollar amounts is already written in attachment one. Just as long its clear were adopting everyone in attachment one and the suggestions that were previously proposed as amendments 16. I think you made the motion. I move that we adopt attachment 1. The amendment to the regulations that are proposed by staff and tapment one to agenda item number 6 as modified by what weve referred to as amendments 16 as discussed and read into the record and attachment number one. That make sense . Yes, thank you. All in favor, aye. The motion is passed unanimously. Back to agenda item number 7. Agenda i 7, the monthly poy report. I will make this brief and only provides updates that arent already here in writing since i know you already read this. So the first item under policy prioritization plan updates is the Public Financing review project and you approved some regulation amendments related to that project and another thing is to help other divisions in the office who are implementing these changes so they can go live january 1st, 2020. As you know the ordinance lowered the match able amount of a contribution from the full 500 to 150 and weve discovered that net file in its matching request function, when you enter in contributions and submitting matching requests to ask them to be matched, the way it was set up in the code of code meaning like the software code, not our code, but in the net files code, was that net file would search all the contributions that you had entered as receiving. Remember net files is all encompassing system that you use, not just for Public Financing for all of your reporting. So it will search all the contributions you entered and it will essentially generate a request for you and based on your San Francisco contributors that have not been matched and it will build, you can call it the best available match air class for so you it find all of the contributions and put the full amount up to 500 on the matching request. We discovered that mechanism is hard wired into the marching request. Theres not an easy way for us to institute automatic 150 cap on that. Net file will put full 500 contributions on to peoples match request. Theres no way for them to make it just 150. Theres no manual override so it will just kick 500 onto the request every time. That cannot be changed. What that means it cannot be changed by january 1st or at all . It cant be changed by january 1st. As you know, net file has a number of projects for us, including other jurisdictions but always a number just from us of changes to their system that were requesting and theyre always competing for bandwidth and this is big enough for my understanding is it would require enough work even if they did turn to this it would be hard to roll it out by january 1. What were going to do for this election only, is is to allow candidate committees to use the net file and we realize they have no way to limit their matching request contribution to 150 so well allow them to submit full 500 contributions for matching. We wont consider it a violation and we wont get them in trouble for asking for more than theyre entitled to but well have a manual auditing process where our auditors, who add straighted the program, have to keep track of all of the contributors themselves and make sure they never match over 150. Essentially, that process is not automated. That file cant be right now. Were going to have to manually do that for 150 limiting process ourselves is there an e. T. A. On when they could complete the update to the source code . It would be some time during next year. In any event, it will not capture this election and we dont think its a good idea to change the system on people midway. So you mean the march 2020 election or the november . They cant fix it before november 2020 . He cant fix it for november 2020 election period. Thats a year from now . Well, although the election is almost a year from now, the time that people are starting to use net file it would be six months from now well, its now honestly. Committees are already out there and i believe they can submit matching requests earlier in the year. I want to say february i have to check but some time in february they can start submitting. So its a little sooner than you might think. The roll out period would have to be now. We want it to go now so what weve come up with is the best solution to manually do this 150 limiting process for this election in the meantime, work with net file to institute an automated 150 cap that will be in place in time for the following election is there anything to check the manual work on the back end . Just to run a script to test . The math . Yeah, i would have to touch base with our team to see if they can do Something Like that. I dont want to speak for them. Im sure they are automate it and we dont want to be doing everything manually and we have the matching request point in terms of auto make where its automated with a lot of manual oversights that were keeping close tabs on things. Yeah, more on that later. I just wanted to flag that for you because it will be a little strange that were actually telling committees its ok for them to request 500. Because, thats all they can do. I should also note, this is for the free net file. This is for the basic netfile that we make available to filers for free. The net file professional program which is a related separate but private Product Available to committees, its a private transaction between them and net file which we dont get involved with but our understanding is that the net file pro efficientl professionaa way for committees to say how much of a contribution they want to appear on a matching request. They could actually only request 150. They have the technical ability to limit that request is that being communicated to them . Were talking to them. My understanding is that most candidate committee whos are participating in the program, are working with the treasurer who uses net file professionals. So, it could turnout being for more candidates, their treasure will have access to a way to limit their submission to 150 but if they are use our system it will be weird where they wont have that ability communication is critical to make sure that they understand that even though the system is generating a 500 match, theyre actually only entitled to 1 othe150 sothey dont become or e disappointed when the amount they receive in terms of matching funds dont correspond to what the request was absolutely. Were focus recogniz focusing o. On the next page, e filing for all projects, as had he update you had at the last meeting, we concluded meet and confer i havent heard anything that and that suppose done and we are moving forward with that project full steam now and the next thing is i will bring you a draft regulation at the january meeting that would institute efiling for all and it will have january 2021 effective date. Thats a preview of what to expect next month. Another update thats not contained in here is that since writing this, i went to the conference with a number of other members of staff and ill let the director give you the full update but i can speak to my experience there and i was on a panel that focused on relationships that fall outside of the traditional scope of contribution and gift rules so i focused on the payment laws that were created in San Francisco and went into effect this year so those are the new prohibitions on using your value to an organization that you are affiliated with. And also the payment disclosures. That brought into the disclosure to appointed officials as well as elected and lower the threshold to 1,000 so i was giving an update to Ethics Commission staff from around the country and in canada too about this. I got some interesting questions and feedback about that. Its something that not all jurisdictions have on their radar. New york and l. D. Are doing this so it was added context to commission did earlier are did they go for an outright ban . In new york, they have actually created the rule that the commission did not approve last year. Which was to prohibit officials from soliciting from individuals who have matters before them. New york has that rule in place. So that was interesting to learn. Los angeles, i think the Los Angeles CityCouncil Approved a developer contribution rule similar to the one we were just talking about in prop f and there was some discussion in los angeles about whether that prohibition should extend to payments made by developers. I dont think they have that but its been part of the discussion down there. So, to answer your question, yes, its regulated in some cases considering being regulated in those places in a future meeting, if its inappropriate to discuss here, i would like to actually sew a report if possible, just on if theres any trends in terms of the reporting that thats been received to date to see how many payments have been made, how much have been made and to whom. It could be maybe are you talking specifically about the new payment disclosures created here . Yes. Yeah, i would be glad to. I can tell you right now that there have been very few. Of the 3. 610 disclosures by the officials making the ask for the payment, i think weve had a dozen or fewer disclosures and four filers and theyre all members of the board of supervisors. And not a really high aggregate value of the payments and i dont believe theres been any disclosures by people making the payments nor by organizations receiving the payments. The reason could be that the thresh holds were set high for people making payments and you only have to foil a disclosure if you make 10,000 or more in one year. And for organizations receiving the payments, you only have to file if you receive 100,000 or more in one year at the official. Its possible no one hit those thresh holds yet. I dont know. But thats the high level of review of the state of those disclosures right now. Thank you. I would be glad to provide more information and deeper dive into the disclosures we have received, if thats of interest. The only other update i wanted to mention is just to highlight that next month, in addition to the [please stand by] process with other departments. So thats something i would like to put on the policy prioritization plan. But i think there is some bandwidth now that the regulations have been approved and now that he efiling has been discussed, there is some room to have another project. Ill be wor