London breed. Madam clerk, any announcements . Yes. Items acted upon today will appear on the november 1st board of supervisors agenda unless otherwise stated. Thank you madam clerk call the first item. An ordinance amending did campaign and code to require the members of the commissions toe file the reports regarding the selection of charitable contributions. Thank you. This legislation is a proposal that i introduced in may of this year that will impose certainly reporting requirements on the city commissioners and some city boards which apply to wlektd r lektsdz officials via the state regulation our city has a Broad Commission and boards that are largely comprised of boards in various fields that have a lot of power to have license and land use sdwiements the legislation today is an incremental policy that will shed light on how the Public Officials yield their solicitation to a number of examples ill not call out names but definitely no shortage of names im personally aware of members of the commission have used their position to solicit donations from individuals that appear before their boards for charitable purposes that legislations does require the reporting of that behavior and in the years to come will help to inform this board of supervisors again additional steps this is is a half step i want to thank the Ethics Commission for their thoughts and deliberation on this matter as well as any commissioners and members of the Sunshine Ordinance Task force for their thoughtful input over the course of a number of hearings and particularly any staff lee who had worked and made many compromises to move this piece of legislation with that, maam, would you like to come forward on behalf of the Ethics Commission and make any statement about the legislation you wish. Well, good morning supervisor peskin and supervisor breed thank you for reviewing the legislation with the Ethics Commission we sent your comments without the proposal and a lot of that feedback was considered along what im sure other comments from others that are effected a couple of questions i will leave with you as the Commission Letter indicated we are clearly supportive of having such transparency and we want to try to insure the agency to insure the program as possible two clarifications or questions we will hope that you will consider in terms of language that is before you that that looks like it oozed used governmental and charitable purposes but not the same language for the charitable purposes has defined when we talk about the payment one thought to be the extent the same phrasing and language that helps us to convey advise to those individuals that are required to file when we look to the body of state law that is consistent request the language we use so that that might be a way to broolgs the language to help with compliance, and, secondly, one of the issues that little commission raised during our it discussion 89 need to make sure that we can deliver the online filings and online disclosure piece of that reporting requirement were charjd without appropriation for that challenge in a mooeveng way one recommendation to think about this morning the question of appropriation for this to help insure was we are developing our Electronic Filing system for the next several years that we will be able to center the resources develop this component as well help with the effect date of the operate is i can imagine 18 that will give us time this will be ignored the case of plagued with paper filing if we fund this ill leave it as your considers. Thank you as to the second comment that is precisely the reason we video an Effective Date so far out in the future to make sure that you have the appropriate resources to tackle this task and with regards to the first comment im do you have any language that you would like to suggest. Im just looking for a moment for i have to take another look where this language to clarify and may will have to turn to the City Attorney for guidance i want to make sure it was covered yes make sure that would cover when we talk about the donations and the report we are talking about the payments as used in Government Code Section to the capital small phrase. Why not i let you huddle with mr. Gibner and open up for Public Comment mr. Bush. Supervisor peskin and commissioner london breed im larry ambitious on behalf of the friends of Mission Street were in support of this lfshs and also the amendments that to track the language as exactly in state law no inconsistent one of the effects of doing according to the state law you have a body of opinions from the team and others what constitutes those categories and support the request for Additional Fund in order to implement this clearly implementation is as critical as policy and need this i appreciate the chairs comments about forthcoming and ask that you add an amendment to cover disclosure of contributions to applied entities and charitable and will governmental entities that is similar to what is already the law in los angeles and similar to harvey rose the budget analyst suggested in june of 2012 memo where in los angeles that was prohibition but that legislation is about disclosure we ask a disclosure of contributions to 527 entities busy directive or commissioners, i think what that will increase the transparent legislation thank you. And mr. Bush get to the staff and come to a conclusion where we should continue this and. Next speaker. Im bob plant hold the member of friends of ethics all a former Ethics Commissioner this represents a massive positive which was from the time i was open it is something that is helpful he agree that adding in the word legislative is important for consistency even if the city didnt know how to chaplain it the fact if so in state law legislation worked with that means that has a history of being understood by Government Agency i dont see why there is a problem i know some significant legislation by this disclosure can be ignored addressing a commissioner that is a lobbyist and lobbies are advocates on matters before the commission and seeks donation for charitable activities can be ignored in a very convoluted way that raise a question of are you kidding to disclosure will help the public and commissioners and city staff aware of transparency albeit and fulfilling our fiduciary duties as commissioners without effecting our other activities mr. Plant hold. Good morning, commissioners deb from the San FranciscoHuman Services network when you this legislation was introduced we supported the broad concept but had some concerns because many nonprofit persons serve on commission and have a conflict between their expertise and balancing their contributions they work for their day job and respect the donors skflt i want to say that supervisor peskin respond to those concerns with the proposal to limit the disclosure to interested parties this legislation further narrows the scope of the legislation it does apply to only Interested Party for appearances before the commission that are related to that interest we very much appreciate the response to our concerns a couple of minor concerns that the f pc for the broad list of folks not caught up in the legislation other than we believe this is a Good Government measure and narrowly tailored it is an actual importantly or are appearance of a quid pro quo and happy to support that. Thank you, ms. Letterman and working with my offices any other anyone wish to comment that wants to testimony on number one seeing none, Public Comment is closed. I know that a number of you have been upheld i huddling i think that we have potential language relative to what we call section independent expenditure committees or super packs for the purpose of influencing elections at the state, local or federal level so perhaps i will offer an amendment but ms. If you can remind me of the conforming language relative to california government code thank you supervisor peskin the huddling with the City Attorney trying to disforgive whether the new language is applies to Government Code Section 81 plus from the purpose to go beyond the charitable contribution by the board and members this is a policy that calls for the commission the commission supported the ordinance to have charitable donations reporting i would just request perhaps a positional time to talk with the City Attorney but no additional language well recommend at this time. The 527 question go others in the audience raised it. Id like to do add the 527 organizations and continue this item but deputy City Attorney gibner is shaking his head. Yeah. Im not sure what the 527 language will be ignored my office has not drafted that but government code which is in many ways limits the legislation the political contributions by appointed members of the board and commissions already govern this area there will be ignored significant overlap maybe not conflicting maybe conflicting probably not conflicting but over lapsing in the board requires disclosure of contributions and political contributions in this ordinance so i guess from the committee is interested in making that change and requiring disclosure of those teaches solicitations ill suggest continuing the item and the office will work out language and consider it at the next meeting. That sounds like the sensible pathway ill suggest that we continue this item the floor is yours. I want to talk about a few concerns i have and hopefully, theyll be ignored addressed before it comes back to the board supervisor peskin he know you didnt want to give any examples im trying to understand because we do have a lot of commissioners and we have a lot of commissioners who raise funds and my concern is trying to understand the specific examples of abuse that might exist or things that have been problematic you know maybe things that have been public in terms of the those kinds of incidents im trying to understand the issues here and why this is necessary and if you feel comfortable providing those examples or can give me a better insight the reason he ask ill clarify so i served as you may know as a executive director for a Nonprofit Organization and also was offered an opportunity to serve on the commission that the San FranciscoEnvironment Commission and with an of the things i want to make sure before i agreed to serve on the commission that was definitely a great you know first of all, volunteer responsibility but a great responsibility to serve my community i was also concerned about my ability to fundraiser and whether or not something was a specific conflict and working with the attorney had made sure that not only was you able to continue to fundraiser but an appeared conflict with, of course, check with our attorney ask if it is appropriate to vote or not and make a determination to recuss myself but the organization he representative i want want to make sure i was able to serve as a good commissioner but making sure those conflict were discussed pubically and addressed in an appropriate manner so i guess just trying to understand because when we talk about commission and we talk about people that serve on the commission we talk about people that raise funds that help to serve the community im trying to understand why an additional layer is being at added that would be a burden potentially and something that would maybe create a i guess an additional layer of reporting that may turn some people off from serving so i guess ill trying to understand the abuses and the issues of people who are behaving unethically a consistent thing is that what were seeing on a regular basis and people that are doing business with the city should know better kind of and finally ill say that the other they know that is important to me is when people are doing business with the city or in the community as far as im concerned, i want to know what have you done for the communities have you transmitted to the organizations that help to serve people you know in my community what are those organizations are consistent and involved and active i know to know those things i guess part of it is im just trying to understand is that the right thing to do and are we adding more bureaucratic red tape and a better way to deal with this. Let me i appreciate those questions let me start at a highlevel why we as leshthd officials no modern times are required to file a behest payment report when we solicit a third party to make a donation to a nonprofit in this i go to at t and say hey will you do not 10 thousands dollars to the neighborhood district 3 for the betterment of children what have you im required to fill out a report which anybody can go online and see they can make a connection we obviously have to report when people make donations to the Campaign Cycle and see where the independent money the Budget Committee hetch hetchy say a contract were not approving a 50 Million Contract with at t shouldnt the public have the right at least to know that while they didnt give me a Campaign Donation but did something at my behest quite frankly la is ahead of us they would you cant do this is a half step in the case of you know the Redevelopment Agency and were all commissioners as ethical and interested in checking in city advertising to find out whether or not their doing the right thing but in that incidence and the way it is written 72 hours narrow remember it says section 2 point plus this is only reporting when the participant is involved in a prooekd that is before the commission not all but noriega it is only as someone who has Business Front of the commission that seems to be the place where people should know this is a wake up call for commissioners to say hey probably not okay at this time not prohibiting the behavior but people should know yes. The Redevelopment Agency is considering a contract with at t and at a particular commissioners behest donated 50 thousands to the charity of their choice thats what is it aimed at. He or she the other example ill bring up what from the commissioner didnt request it and it was done. Then theres nothing to report. But for example, we as a nonprofit director you know if at t a contract before me as a contractors and at t without my request depended on money to my organization it is proper for me to recuse myself from that vote that is the case with many commissions when things of that nature occur. I agree without naming names this is a number of years ago we had members of the one of the most powerful commissions the Planning Commission who quite regularly solicited contributions and eventually when you saw who was paying for things in an annual invitation to a diner and surmise which was going on the reality that individual commissioner was approving entitlements and at the same time that individual organization was getting sizeable charitable contributions i think the public has a right to know that. Okay. All right. And why a thousand dollars instead of 5 thousand dollars is consistent with. That was the trade off we have a 5,000 threshold as members of the board of supervisors but the trade off was that by narrowly taylor 2 to only folks that had a proceeding before that commission we voted from 5 thousand to one thousand were at 5,000 but have to report all behest payment above 5 thousand dollars in this incident only read the language if a commissioner directly or indirectly solicits a contribution or series of contributions from any party or agent or brarnt in all a proceeding regularly a series of license for the commissioner the commissioner shall file only about people that are asking the commission for a permit license, land use entitlement thats why we lowered it. Is it more appropriate to their the specific Commission Rather than basically required of all commissioners and i mean all commissions especially those commissions that dont necessarily deal with like either major contracts that or the kinds of things were talking about in terms of land use with the Planning Department and things like that. That point is welltaken the implicitly commissions that are approving licenses or land use entitlements it wont apply by definition and i want for ever ways and Means Committee the Airport Commission approves contracts all the time. I guess im thinking people we have an commission and run nonprofits a number of them including the recent Planning Commission person that we approved at the board of supervisors i want to ask mr. Gibner a question back to the example that we referenced you know for example, if there is a person that the director of a nonprofit theyre on the commission they received their organization without a request receives a large contribution my understanding it is not illegal for them to vote for or against that contract but to disclose it for full fahrenheit and john gibner, deputy City Attorney. That is basically right if theyre an employee of an nonprofit. Or board member. Or board member and person appearing before the commission made a contribution to that nonprofit whether or not it was solicited by the commissioner or board member that generally doesnt create a legal conflicting for the commissioner there or rare exception from the nonprofit basically fully funded or almost fully funded at t a nonprofit then the commissioner mate might have a conflict voting on an at t maefrnt but that sometimes is required to disclosure the relationship with the donor but not creat