San Francisco Ethics Commission

Recording - March 8, 2010 - Ethics Commission Meeting

Tue, 09 Mar 2010 15:31:38 -0800

Recording - March 8, 2010 - Ethics Commission Meeting (27.8 mb)

Recordings are in AAC (.m4a) format. Download Quicktime Player or iTunes to listen. Instructions are available on how to subscribe to Ethics Commission meeting recordings in iTunes.

Minutes - December 14, 2009

Tue, 09 Mar 2010 15:12:32 -0800

(Approved March 8, 2010)
Minutes of the Regular Meeting of
The San Francisco Ethics Commission
December 14, 2009
Room 408, City Hall

I. Call to order and roll call.

Chairperson Studley called the meeting to order at 5:35 p.m.

COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Jamienne Studley, Chairperson; Susan Harriman, Vice-Chairperson; Emi Gusukuma (present at 5:38 p.m.), Commissioner; Eileen Hansen (present at 5:45 p.m.), Commissioner; Charles Ward, Commissioner.

STAFF PRESENT: John St. Croix, Executive Director (present at 5:42 p.m.); Mabel Ng, Deputy Executive Director; Steven Massey, Information Technology Officer; Garrett Chatfield, Investigator/Legal Analyst.

OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY: Andrew Shen, Deputy City Attorney.

OTHERS PRESENT: Charley Marsteller, and other unidentified members of the public.

MATERIALS DISTRIBUTED:
- Memorandum from Executive Director to Ethics Commission re: Contracting for the Electronic Filing System, dated December 8, 2009
- Memorandum from Executive Director to Ethics Commission re: Regulations Implementing Lobbyist Ordinance, dated December 9, 2009
- Lobbyist Ordinance, amendments operative January 1, 2010
- Memorandum from Executive Director to Ethics Commission re: Proposed amendments to CFRO regulations, dated December 9, 2009
- San Francisco Campaign and Governmental Conduct Code, amendments operative January 1, 2010
- Proposed Changes to Regulations to Campaign Finance Reform Ordinance
- Draft Minutes of the November 9, 2009 Regular Meeting of The San Francisco Ethics Commission
- Executive Director’s Report to the Ethics Commission for the Meeting of December 14, 2009
- Memorandum from Executive Director to Ethics Commission re: Budget Proposal for Fiscal Year 2010/2011, dated December 9, 2009

II. Public comment on matters appearing or not appearing on the agenda that is within the jurisdiction of the Ethics Commission

None.

III. Consideration of the renewal of the Netfile contract to be extended for an additional three-year term.

Chairperson Studley made remarks commemorating the life of former Commissioner Joe Lynn.

Motion 09-12-14-1 (Harriman/Ward) Moved, seconded and passed (4-0, Hansen absent) that the Commission finds that renewing the Netfile contract for an additional three-year term is the most efficient way for the Commission to provide electronic filing services related to the Commission’s campaign finance, financial disclosure, and lobbyist reports.

Public Comment
None.

IV. Consideration of possible regulations to implement the Lobbyist Ordinance.

Decision Point 1 and 3

Deputy City Attorney Shen notified the Commissioners that a typographical error occurred in the memo citing the incorrect section of the code.

Motion 09-12-14-2 (Harriman/Gusukuma) Moved, seconded and passed (4-0, Hansen
absent) that Commission adopt decision points 1 and 3, with decision point 1
amended to reflect the correct code section.

Public Comment
None.

Decision Point 2

Motion 09-12-14-3 (Harriman/Ward) Moved, seconded, and passed (4-0, Hansen absent)
that the Commission adopt decision point 2 as proposed by staff.

Public Comment
None.

Decision Point 4

Commissioner Gusukuma stated that some contacts to City officials made by union members falls outside the exception of contract negotiations, and that the proposed regulation should be clear regarding what is and is not considered a contact.

DCA Shen stated that contacts by union members regarding anything not related to contract negotiations would be considered a contact for the purposes of the Ordinance.

Commissioner Studley stated that other contacts by union members are not prohibited; they are just considered as a contact under the Ordinance.

Motion 09-12-14-4 (Harriman/Ward) Moved, seconded, and passed (5-0) that the Commission adopt decision point 4 as proposed by staff.

Public Comment
None.

Decision Point 5

Information Technology Officer Massey stated in response to questions from Chairperson Studley and Commissioners Harriman and Ward, that the State of California also requires photos be published for lobbyists; the only difference is the State requires that the photos be in black and white.

Commissioner Studley stated that she wanted the regulation to be clear that a professionally-taken photograph is not required.

Commissioner Harriman stated that the language should be changed to “professional-like” quality photograph to clarify that the photo does not need to taken by a professional photographer.

Motion 09-12-14-5 (Harriman/Gusukuma) Moved, seconded, and passed (5-0) that the Commission adopt decision point 5 with the amended language of “professional-like” quality.

Public Comment
Charley Marsteller also inquired as to what the State’s standards were regarding lobbyist photographs.

V. Consideration of possible regulations to implement the Campaign Finance reform Ordinance (CFRO).

Commissioner Hansen stated that regulation 1.104-7 omits the definition of “member communication.” Commissioner Harriman stated that the term is defined in another section.

Commissioner Hansen stated that in regulation 1.108-3 there is no definition of “campaign contingency.” DCA Shen stated that the term is described in the code at section 1.108.

Chairperson Studley stated that there is no definition of “campaign trust account.” DCA Shen stated that the term is also described in the Ordinance.

Deputy Director Ng responded to Commissioner Hansen that there has never been an instance in which a campaign purchased equipment with public funds.

DCA Shen clarified for the Commissioners that regarding regulation 1.143-2, the individual expenditure ceiling is raised only when the sum of both supportive and opposition spending exceeds $143,000.

Chairperson Studley stated that she is concerned that the material specified by the regulations that allow an individual to demonstrate San Francisco residency is insufficient.

Commissioner Harriman stated that the presumption is that the material presented demonstrates residency.

Commissioner Hansen stated that regarding the proposed examples in decision point 14, it should have wording the clearly explains the amount of the expenditure ceiling and incremental increases.

Commissioner Hansen stated that there is a concern that candidates who accept public financing will always be behind financially than those that do not accept public financing. Executive Director St. Croix responded that without a mandatory public financing program, there will always be candidates who outspend publicly financed candidates.

Motion 09-12-14-6 (Harriman/Ward) Moved, seconded, and passed (5-0) that the Commission adopt all proposed decision points to the regulations implementing CFRO as amended, except decision points 3B and 11B.

Public Comment
Charley Marsteller stated that the public should have a clearer definition of what is considered residency, and that users of the voter pamphlet are different than online users.

Decision Point 3B

Motion 09-12-14-7 (Harriman/Gusukuma) Moved, seconded, and passed (5-0) that the Commission adopt proposed decision point 3B as proposed by staff.

Public Comment
None.

Decision Point 11B

Commissioner Hansen stated that a word change from “the” to “a” should be made on regulation 1.134-3 addressing the voluntary expenditure ceiling in subsections two and three.

Motion 09-12-14-8 (Harriman/Gusukuma) Moved, seconded, and passed (5-0) that the Commission adopt decision point 11B with the amended language in subsections 2 and 3.

Public Comment
None.

VI. Budget Discussion

Executive Director St. Croix stated that all City departments have been asked to make a 20% cut with a 10% contingency cut to their respective 2010/2011 budgets. He stated that the Commission should submit a budget request that neither increases nor decreases the budget from the current 2009/2010 amounts.

Commissioner Hansen stated that is a good strategy, but is concerned that there will not be an opportunity to increase Enforcement staff. Executive Director St. Croix stated that the 2010/2011 request would include funds for a fourth investigator.

Commissioner Ward stated that it is not realistic to expect an expansion of Commission programs during this time of declining City revenues.

Commissioner Hansen stated that the budget proposal should include funds to televise Commission meetings.

Motion 09-12-14-9 (Harriman/Gusukuma) Moved, seconded, and passed (4-1, Hansen dissenting) that the Commission approve the budget proposal.

Public Comment

Charley Marsteller stated that Enforcement appears to be able to handle its caseload currently.

VII. Closed Session

Motion 09-12-14-10 (Harriman/Gusukuma) Moved, seconded, and passed (5-0) that the Commission go into closed session.

Commission went into closed session at 6:47 p.m.
Commissioner Ward was excused at 6:47 p.m.

The Commission discussed action item b before item a. Present in the room were the Commission members (except Commissioner Ward), Executive Director St. Croix, Deputy Executive Director Ng, Investigator/Legal Analyst Chatfield, and Deputy City Attorney Shen. At 7:01 p.m., the Commission began its discussion of item a. All staff except Executive Director St. Croix left the room.

Closed session held pursuant to the Ralph Brown Act, Government Code section 54957(b) and the Sunshine Ordinance section 67.109b): Public Employee Performance Evaluation: Executive Director, Ethics Commission.
Closed session held pursuant to Charter section C3.699-13, Brown Act section 54956.9 (a) and (c) and Sunshine Ordinance section 67.10(d) to discuss existing litigation as defendant.

Conference with Legal Counsel: Existing litigation as defendant

Number of cases: 2

Myrna Lim v. City and County of San Francisco Ethics Commission et al., Case No. 08-472073 (S.F. Superior Court)

Allen Grossman v. San Francisco Ethics Commission et al., Case No. 09-509868 (S.F. Superior Court)

The Commission went back into open session at 7:19 p.m.

VIII. Discussion and vote regarding closed session action and deliberations.

Discussion and vote pursuant to Ralph Brown Act, Government Code section 54957.1 and Sunshine Ordinance 67.12 on whether to disclose any action taken of discussions held in closed session regarding public employee performance evaluation.

Discussion and vote pursuant to Brown Act section 54957.1 and Sunshine Ordinance section 67.12 on whether to disclose any action taken or discussions held in closed session existing litigation.
Motion 09-12-14-11 (Harriman/Gusukuma) Moved, seconded and passed (4-0, Ward absent) that the Ethics Commission finds that it is in the best interests of the public not to disclose its closed session deliberations re: public employee performance evaluation and existing litigation.

IX. Minutes of the Commission’s regular meeting of November 9, 2009

Motion 09-12-14-12 (Gusukuma/Hansen) Moved, seconded, and passed (4-0, Ward absent) that the Commission adopt the minutes of the meeting of November 9, 2009.

Public Comment
None.

X. Executive Director’s Report

Commissioner Hansen stated that the Report should notify the public of those individuals with outstanding fines owed to the Commission.

Public Comment
None.

XI. Items for Future Meetings

None.

Public Comment
None.

XII. Public comment on matters appearing or not appearing on the agenda that are within the jurisdiction of the Ethics Commission

None.

XIII. Adjournment

Motion 09-12-14-13 (Harriman/Gusukuma) Moved, seconded and passed (4-0, Ward absent) that the Ethics Commission adjourn.

The meeting was adjourned at 7:23 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

________________
Garrett Chatfield
Investigator/ Legal Analyst

Minutes - November 9, 2009

Tue, 22 Dec 2009 13:35:38 -0800

(Approved 12/14/2009)
Minutes of the Regular Meeting of
The San Francisco Ethics Commission
November 9, 2009
Room 408, City Hall
1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place
San Francisco, CA 94102

I. Call to order and roll call.

Chairperson Studley called the meeting to order at 5:33 p.m.

COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Jamienne Studley, Chairperson; Emi Gusukuma, Commissioner; Eileen Hansen, Commissioner; Charles Ward, Commissioner. Commissioner Harriman was excused.

STAFF PRESENT: John St. Croix, Executive Director; Richard Mo, Chief Enforcement Officer; Catherine Argumedo, Investigator/Legal Analyst.

OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY: Andrew Shen, Deputy City Attorney.

OTHERS PRESENT: David Pilpel.

MATERIALS DISTRIBUTED:
- Notice and Agenda for the November 9, 2009 Regular Meeting
- Memorandum from Executive Director to Ethics Commission re: Proposed Amendments to Investigations and Enforcement
- Draft Regulations for Investigations and Enforcement Proceedings
- Memorandum from Executive Director to Ethics Commission re: Policy Priorities Discussion at the October 19, 2009 meeting, October 14, 2009
- E-mail from Executive Director to Commissioners re: Policy Priorities Discussion, November 5, 2009
- E-mail from Commissioner Hansen re: Policy Priorities Discussion, November 8, 2009
- Draft Minutes of the September 14, 2009 Regular Meeting
- Draft Minutes of the October 19, 2009 Special Meeting
- Executive Director’s Report to the Ethics Commission for the Meeting of October 19, 2009
- Executive Director’s Report to the Ethics Commission for the Meeting of November 9, 2009

II. Public comment on matters appearing or not appearing on the agenda that is within the jurisdiction of the Ethics Commission.

None.

III. Consideration of possible amendments to the Commission’s Regulations for Investigations and Enforcement Proceedings (“Regulations”).

Chairperson Studley stated that there has been an amended memorandum from staff, which has been made available to the public, with minor changes to the first page only. Chief Enforcement Officer Mo confirmed the changes were made to the first page only.

Decision Point 2A
Chairperson Studley stated that decision point 2A referred to section IV.A. (Preliminary Review.), starting on page 4 of the draft Regulations.

Commissioner Hansen stated her concern regarding the use of the word “may” in the second sentence. She stated that the word “may” would allow the Executive Director to do none of what was listed in the second sentence and was not sure how to address that issue. Executive Director St. Croix stated that, under normal circumstances, staff would do as much as possible. Mr. St. Croix stated an example of a complainant using a coded message from Life magazine and how there may not be a need to speak with a Respondent. Mr. St. Croix also stated that there are cases where waiting to speak with a Respondent may be more useful for the investigation. Commissioner Ward stated that the section requires the Executive Director to conduct a preliminary review. Chairperson Studley stated that the basis of the complaint may be obvious and so the investigation may move forward quickly.

Motion 09-11-09-1 (Gusukuma/Ward) Moved, seconded and passed (4-0; Harriman absent) that the Commission adopt Decision Point 2A, as drafted.

Public Comment:
David Pilpel stated there was once an important article in Life magazine about Joe Alioto.

In section IV.B., page 4 of the regulations, Commissioner Hansen noted a typographical error in the 4th line of section IV.B on page 4 of the Regulations.

Decision Point 2B:
Chairperson Studley stated that staff has provided four options for guidance regarding the standard for dismissal in section IV.B.1 of the Regulations. Commissioner Ward stated his choice was “c” – “credible evidence clearly refutes the allegations” – and that “credible” should be defined. Deputy City Attorney Shen stated that the definition would be the same as the ordinary, common sense definition. Commissioner Ward stated his preference to create an objective, rather than subjective, definition. DCA Shen asked the Commissioners to return to this item after he had a chance to bring some reference materials from his office. Chairperson Studley asked the Commissioners what burden each Commissioner would prefer. Mr. St. Croix stated that choices “a” and “c” were not mutually exclusive. Commissioner Hansen proposed combining both “a” and “c” in order to give the strongest standard possible. Commissioner Gusukuma asked how the standard would be stronger if it was either “a” or “c.” Commissioner Hansen stated that the standard could be “a” and/or “c,” as she was hoping to include both possibilities. DCA Shen returned to the meeting and stated that there were two definitions in Webster’s dictionary: 1. “offering reasonable grounds for being believed” and 2. “of sufficient capability to be militarily effective.” DCA Shen then read the definition from Black’s Law Dictionary: “worthy of belief” or “entitled to credit.” Commissioner Ward stated his preference for the first definition from Webster’s dictionary. Chairperson Studley stated the Commission could add the definition of “credible” to the definition section of the Regulations. Commissioner Hansen asked whether “credible” is defined somewhere else in the Code or Charter. DCA Shen stated he was not aware of any definitions for "credible" in either the Code or Charter.

Motion 09-11-09-2 (Hansen/Ward) Moved, seconded and withdrawn that the Commission adopt Decision Point 2B, combining the language of options “a” and “c” – “credible evidence does not support the allegations and/or clearly refutes the allegations.”

Commissioner Gusukuma stated her preference for accepting “c” alone as the standard. She stated that the threshold would be higher with “c.” Commissioner Hansen stated her concern that a complaint could be dismissed too early if the Commission chose “c” alone as the standard. Commissioner Gusukuma stated that the only instance where a complaint would be dismissed under the “c” standard would be if there was clear evidence refuting the allegation. Commissioner Hansen withdrew her motion.

Motion 09-11-09-3 (Hansen/Ward) Moved, seconded and passed (4-0; Harriman absent) that the Commission adopt “c” – “credible evidence clearly refutes the allegations” – as the language for section IV.B.1. of the Regulations.

Public Comment:
Mr. Pilpel stated that he had suggested option “c” at the last meeting. He suggested adding a monthly summary, including the reason for dismissal. He also noted a grammatical issue in the first paragraph on page 5 of the Regulations. Chairperson Studley stated that the Commission would discuss the grammatical issue later.

Chairperson Studley then discussed adding the definition of “credible” in the definition section of the Regulations. She stated that “credible” would be section II.E., following “complainant,” and all other definitions would be re-numbered. DCA Shen read the definition: “offering reasonable grounds for being believed.”

Motion 09-11-09-4 (Ward/Gusukuma) Moved, seconded and passed (4-0; Harriman absent) that the Commission adopt the definition of “credible” in section II.E of the Regulations.

Public Comment:
Mr. Pilpel asked whether adding this definition would require new notice, as it was not mentioned in the agenda. DCA Shen stated that it was within the scope of the notice for this meeting.

Chairperson Studley then addressed a grammatical issue in the first paragraph on page 5. She suggested that the sentence read, “…no further action on the complaint, except that he or she may…” rather than the text in the draft Regulations. Chairperson Studley suggested making the change throughout the remainder of the Regulations.

Motion 09-11-09-5 (Studley/Ward) Moved, seconded and passed (4-0; Harriman absent) that the Commission adopt the amendment of the language to “except that he or she may” in section IV.B. and all other similar places in the Regulations.

Public Comment:
None.

Decision point 2C

Motion 09-11-09-6 (Gusukuma/Hansen) Moved, seconded and passed (4-0; Harriman absent) that the Commission adopt the amendments as written, without discussion.

Public Comment:
None.

Decision point 2D

Chairperson Studley asked for clarification regarding the reference of 14 calendar days and 10 business days. DCA Shen stated that the Charter defines the standard, which mentions both 14 calendar and 10 business days. He then briefly described the complaint process. He stated that when the Commission receives a complaint, the complaint is forwarded to the City Attorney (“CA”) and District Attorney (“DA”). Mr. Shen stated that the CA and DA have 10 days to review the complaint and otherwise notify the Commission of their action or non-action. He then stated that at that point, the Commission has an additional 14 days from the CA's and DA's notifications to contact the complainant of the steps the Commission plans to take on the complaint. Mr. St. Croix proposed changing the text to “if neither CA or DA intend to pursue an investigation, the Executive Director shall, within 14 days of such notification, inform the complainant…” Commissioner Gusukuma accepted the change as a friendly amendment to her motion. Commissioner Hansen seconded the amended motion.

Motion 09-11-09-7 (Gusukuma/Hansen) Moved, seconded and passed (4-0; Harriman absent) that the Commission adopt Decision Point 2D, as amended.

Public Comment:
Mr. Pilpel stated that the CA and DA have 10 business days to notify and after hearing from CA or DA, or 10 days have elapsed, then there is a new trigger for 14 days. He asked why the Regulations read “if the Executive Director has not informed the complainant…” if in the previous sentence the Regulations states “the Executive Director shall inform.” Mr. Pilpel then stated that the language “the action, if any, that he or she has taken or plans to take on the complaint” is vague.

Chairperson Studley stated that the motion has been made and revised and that Mr. Pilpel had made some additional comments. DCA Shen stated that the language from this section mentioned by Mr. Pilpel (section IV.C. of the Regulations) came from the Charter.

Decision Point 15
Executive Director St. Croix stated that this decision point is more of a drafting error. He stated that the Commission cannot treat Sunshine Ordinance complaints from the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force (“SOTF”) differently than those filed directly with our office. He stated that all Sunshine Ordinance complaints must be treated the same, regardless of where they are initially filed. Commissioner Gusukuma asked if the Commission would treat Sunshine Ordinance complaints in an open manner, from beginning to end. Mr. St. Croix stated that probable cause hearings for Sunshine Ordinance complaints will be in open session. Commissioner Gusukuma asked whether the fact that a Sunshine Ordinance complaint was made would be open. Mr. St. Croix stated that it would not be open, but referrals from SOTF would be open. Chairperson Studley asked whether there could be violations of the Sunshine Ordinance that are not willful violations. Mr. St. Croix stated that SOTF should forward only willful violations and SOTF disagrees. Commissioner Hansen asked why the Commission could treat Sunshine Ordinance complaints differently than others. DCA Shen stated that the Charter's confidentiality provisions do not conflict with staff's proposed amendments to the Regulations. Commissioner Hansen stated that the proposed approach differs from what has occurred in the past and suggested putting this item on hold until hearing from SOTF. DCA Shen stated that he thought SOTF would support the amendments since this process would be more open. Chairperson Studley stated that there were still outstanding issues to discuss with SOTF.

Motion 09-11-09-8 (Gusukuma/Ward) Moved, seconded and passed (4-0; Harriman absent) that the Commission adopt Decision Point 15.

Public Comment:
Mr. Pilpel stated that referrals from SOTF are not the same as a complaint filed with the Commission. He stated that the Commission may choose to treat a referral as a complaint, but the two are not the same. He stated that a referral is either confidential because it is a complaint, by operation of the Charter, or it is not confidential; therefore, the Commission should create a new process in the Regulations. He suggested postponing this issue until discussing the issue with SOTF.

Mr. St. Croix stated that all ongoing investigations are confidential. Mr. Pilpel stated that there is a distinction between referrals and someone who may file a complaint (regarding a Sunshine Ordinance violation) that does not want the probable cause hearing made public. DCA Shen reiterated his prior explanation to Commissioner Hansen's question. He also noted that it would not be the last opportunity for the Commission to discuss these issues.

Commissioner Hansen stated that although she voted aye, she was not comfortable with her vote. She stated that the Commission needs more input from SOTF. Chairperson Studley stated that she and the Executive Director would reach out to SOTF again and explain why the Commission chose to take action.

Decision point 16

Motion 09-11-09-9 (Gusukuma/Hansen) Moved, seconded and passed (4-0; Harriman absent) that the Commission adopt Decision Point 16, without discussion.

Public Comment:
None.

Decision Point 17

Motion 09-11-09-10 (Gusukuma/Hansen) Moved, seconded and passed (4-0; Harriman absent) that the Commission adopt Decision Point 17, without discussion.

Public Comment:
None.

Commissioner Hansen stated that she had a question about language in the Regulations that was not in any Decision Point.

Decision Points 18-24

Motion 09-11-09-11 (Gusukuma/Hansen) Moved, seconded and passed (4-0; Harriman absent) that the Commission adopt Decision Points 18-24, amending Decision Point 20 (eliminating “or allegation”).

Public Comment:
Mr. Pilpel asked about the reference on page 5 for a monthly summary of dismissals. He asked whether it was possible to have more information about dismissals than what is in the current chart available to the public, but without revealing anything confidential.

Chairperson Studley stated that the report is a desirable and possibly useful piece of information, but that the requirement would not be something to create at this meeting.

Commissioner Gusukuma asked about the 3rd line of section XI.D on page 14, which was part of Decision Point 20. She suggested removing the word “allegation.” The Commissioners agreed and Commissioner Gusukuma amended her motion. Commissioner Hansen seconded the amendments.

Public Comment:
Mr. Pilpel agreed with the Commission’s amendment to Decision Point 20.

Commissioner Hansen proposed a change in section III.D of the Regulations, complaints made at public meetings. She suggested adding “and shall explain the process” to the end of the second sentence. Commissioner Ward stated that Commission staff accepts complaints in writing and this section seems to read that a member of the public is not permitted to come to a meeting and complain. Commissioner Hansen amended her proposal and then moved to delete the item.

Motion 09-11-09-12 (Hansen/Gusukuma) Moved, seconded and passed (4-0; Harriman absent) that the Commission delete section III.D. (Complaints Made at Public Meetings) from the Regulations.

Public Comment:
Mr. Pilpel suggested providing brochures regarding filing complaints at all Commission meetings. He then suggested stating that a stipulated order is a public document in section XIV.D.

Decision point 25

Motion 09-11-09-13 (Hansen/Gusukuma) Moved, seconded and passed (4-0; Harriman absent) that the Commission adopt Decision Point 25, without discussion.

Public Comment:
None.

IV. Policy Priorities.

Mr. St. Croix stated that he had copies of the e-mail he sent last week and also had copies of an e-mail he received from Commissioner Hansen regarding the policy priorities. Mr. St. Croix stated he discussed the priorities with Commissioner Harriman. Commissioner Hansen stated that she made her own list of suggestions. She proposed combining education and communication with the general public and adding conflicts of interest. Commissioner Ward asked why conflict of interest could not be included under enforcement. He added that the Commission should set the priorities earlier in the year. Mr. St. Croix stated that, even though there was no current priority list, the Commission has made significant accomplishments during the past few months. Commissioner Hansen suggested having a retreat. Chairperson Studley suggested the following order for the policy priorities: 1. Education and Communication with the general public, 2. Enforcement, 3. Campaign Finance, 4. Conflicts of Interest, and 5. Campaign Consultant Ordinance.

Motion 09-11-09-14 (Hansen/Ward) Moved, seconded and passed (4-0; Harriman absent) that the Commission adopt the Commission’s top five policy priorities, as suggested by Chairperson Studley.

Public Comment:
Mr. Pilpel asked to see the e-mails the Commissioners were using a reference. He suggested calendaring topics within these priorities in the future. He also suggested providing calendar topics months in advance, if possible. Commissioner Studley stated that the Commission will calendar and discuss these topics more thoroughly.

V. Minutes of the Commission’s regular meeting of September 14, 2009 and special meeting of October 19, 2009.

September 14, 2009 minutes
Commissioner Hansen asked how the Commission would get new information, if there were any required updates, as in the Executive Director’s report. Mr. St. Croix stated that staff would notify him when changes would need to be made to the reports.

Motion 09-11-09-15 (Gusukuma/Ward) Moved, seconded and passed (4-0; Harriman absent) that the Commission adopt the draft minutes of the September 14, 2009 meeting, as amended.

Public Comment:
Mr. Pilpel noted typographical errors.

October 19, 2009 minutes
Commissioner Studley noted a typographical error on page 5.

Motion 09-11-09-16 (Hansen/Gusukuma) Moved, seconded and passed (4-0; Harriman absent) that the Commission adopt the draft minutes of the October 19, 2009 meeting, as amended.

Public Comment:
Mr. Pilpel stated his belief that he commented after Item VII of the October meeting and asked that staff include his comments into the minutes.

VI. Executive Director’s report.

Executive Director St. Croix stated that the amendments to the Lobbyist Ordinance and Campaign Finance Reform Ordinance (“CFRO”) have been passed by the full Board of Supervisors. He also stated that the measures to extend the ban on contracting with the City, under section 3.222 of CFRO, to elected officials and department heads has been adopted unanimously by the Rules Committee and is expected to go to the full Board of Supervisors.

He stated that section 1.126 of CFRO, mentioned by Commissioner Hansen under policy priorities, should be discussed as there has been interest in the community. He stated that staff visited with Supervisor Mirkarimi and he would like to work with the Ethics Commission on this issue. Mr. St. Croix stated that Supervisor Mirkarimi’s staff will review staff’s proposal and give the Commission input, in order to send a proposal to the full Board.

Mr. St. Croix then noted that there will be a number of system upgrades made to the Commission’s website during the weekend of Thanksgiving. He stated that the website will be down for a few days, but ultimately everything on the website will run faster and better. He stated that the Lobbyist Ordinance changes are expected to be on time and running at the beginning of 2010. He stated that there will be one more quarterly report for lobbyists before the monthly reporting begins in January 2010.

Commissioner Hansen asked about a discrepancy in the number of total filers (621) and non-responsive filers (11), from the Statement of Economic Interests section on page 5 of the October Executive Director’s report. Mr. St. Croix stated that 10 filers have been contacted and are therefore not called “non-responsive” and that there are 11 filers who have not responded at all. Commissioner Hansen asked how many attempts are made to contact filers before they are considered “non-responsive.” Mr. St. Croix stated that staff mails two letters and makes at least one phone call. Mr. St. Croix stated that the Commission will need to make a policy decision regarding enforcement for non-filers next year.

Commissioner Hansen then asked about the “Campaign Finance Disclosure Program,” from the November report. She asked whether this information could be more visible on the Commission’s website. She stated that there are people on the list who are elected officials or who are running of office or who are about to announce a run for office. She suggested that these people in particular should make an extra effort and that these people would create an extra interest for the public.

Public Comment:
Mr. Pilpel stated that the Commission used to have a 5-6 month advance calendar so that the public would be aware of when certain topics were to be discussed at certain Commission meetings. He suggested that the Commission resume that practice. He also suggested creating a “hall of shame” for people Commissioner Hansen mentioned earlier.

VII. Items for future meetings.

Chairperson Studley stated that items named as policy priorities will be items for discussion at future meetings. Commissioner Hansen asked to discuss posting items from the “Campaign finance disclosure program” chart (from the Executive Director’s report) onto the Commission’s website. She also asked for a report on how the Commission would continue to engage SOTF in discussions.

Public Comment:
Mr. Pilpel noted a typographical error in the October 2009 meeting minutes. He also thanked staff for its work in the most recent election.

VIII. Public comment on matters appearing or not appearing on the agenda that are within the jurisdiction of the Ethics Commission.

None.

IX. Adjournment.

Motion 09-11-09-17 (Gusukuma/Hansen) Moved, seconded and passed (4-0; Harriman absent) that the Commission adjourn.

Public Comment:
None.

Meeting adjourned at 8:13 PM.

Respectfully submitted,

_________________________
Catherine Argumedo

Recording - December 14, 2009 - Ethics Commission Meeting

Wed, 16 Dec 2009 17:08:51 -0800

Recording - December 14, 2009 - Ethics Commission Meeting (8.8 mb)

Recordings are in AAC (.m4a) format. Download Quicktime Player or iTunes to listen. Instructions are available on how to subscribe to Ethics Commission meeting recordings in iTunes.

Minutes - October 19, 2009

Tue, 10 Nov 2009 17:00:15 -0800

(Approved 11/9/09)
Minutes of the Special Meeting of
The San Francisco Ethics Commission
October 19, 2009
Room 408, City Hall

I. Call to order and roll call.

Chairperson Studley called the meeting to order at 6:34 p.m.

COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Jamienne Studley, Chairperson; Susan Harriman, Vice-Chairperson; Emi Gusukuma, Commissioner: Eileen Hansen, Commissioner; Charles Ward, Commissioner.

STAFF PRESENT: John St. Croix, Executive Director; Mabel Ng, Deputy Executive Director; Richard Mo, Chief Enforcement Officer; Garrett Chatfield, Investigator/Legal Analyst.

OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY: Jon Givner, Deputy City Attorney.

OTHERS PRESENT: Cassandra Costello (Legislative Aide to Supervisor Mar), Dan Boreen, David Pilpel, Richard Knee, Charley Marsteller, and other unidentified members of the public.

MATERIALS DISTRIBUTED:
- Memorandum from Executive Director to Ethics Commission re: Proposed Changes to Investigations and Enforcement Regulations, October 13, 2009
- Legislative Digest, Prohibiting members of City boards and commission from obtaining City employment
- Draft Regulations for Investigations and Enforcement Proceedings
- Memorandum from Executive Director to Ethics Commission re: Regulations regarding Ethics Commission enforcement of the Sunshine Ordinance, October 13, 2009
- Memorandum from Executive Director to Ethics Commission re: Policy Priorities Discussion at the October 19, 2009 Meeting, October 14, 2009
- Draft Minutes of the September 14, 2009 Regular Meeting
- Executive Director’s Report to the Ethics Commission for the Meeting of October 19, 2009
- Annual Report of the San Francisco Ethics Commission, July 1, 2008 – June 30, 2009

II. Public comment on matters appearing or not appearing on the agenda that is within the jurisdiction of the Ethics Commission

David Pilpel stated that Campaign and Governmental Conduct Code, section 3.222, appears to treat contracts and grants from non-profit and for-profit entities differently.

III. Consideration of legislation to amend Chapter 2 of Article III of the Campaign and Governmental Conduct Code to ban members of City boards and commissions from obtaining employment with the City during their tenure and for one year after the termination of their City service.

Cassandra Costello summarized Supervisor Mar’s proposed legislation and the reason for its introduction, which is to close loopholes that may allow the use of a position on a board or commission to secure City employment.

Commissioner Harriman stated that restrictions and rules are already in place to prohibit a board member or commissioner from using his or her position to secure City employment, and this would discourage those who volunteer to serve the City by banning them from employment opportunities.

Commissioner Ward stated that Supervisor Mar could frame the legislation more narrowly to prohibit employment with just the department for which the person served on a commission or board.

Ms. Costello responded that commissions can take up items that reflect the City in its entirety. She also responded to Chairperson Studley that Supervisor Mar proposed a one year ban to be consistent with other employment restrictions.

Commissioner Gusukuma stated that California has a strong public policy against employment restrictions. She also stated that some commissions have very little influence so a waiver provision should be considered as part of the legislation.

Ms. Costello stated that the legislation was proposed to close a potential loophole and was not in response to any specific situation. She also responded to Commissioner Gusukuma that Supervisor Mar had not considered a waiver process with this legislation.

Commissioner Hansen stated that she supported the legislation and she appreciated the effort by Supervisor Mar to close this loophole.

Deputy Executive Director Mabel Ng stated in response to Chairperson Studley’s question that around 500 commissioners or board members would be affected by this legislation.

Deputy City Attorney Jon Givner stated that the law currently prohibits exchanging anything of value for employment with the City and would likely cover commissioners and board members.

Public Comment

David Pilpel stated that this legislation might preclude the City securing the services of someone who is most qualified for a position, as often commissioners serve because of their expertise in a given area.

Charley Marsteller stated that Supervisor Mar should consider the concerns stated by the Commissioners at this meeting.

Deputy City Attorney Givner responded to Chairperson Studley by stating that this ban would only apply to employment, and would not apply to individuals contracting with the City.

IV. Closed session

Motion 09-10-19-1 (Harriman/Gusukuma) Moved, seconded and passed (5-0) that the Commission go into closed session.

Commission went into closed session at 7:05 p.m.

Closed session held pursuant to Charter section C3.699-13, Brown Act section 54956.9 (a) and (c) and Sunshine Ordinance section 67.10(d) to discuss anticipated litigation as plaintiff and existing litigation as defendant.

Conference with Legal Counsel: Anticipated litigation as plaintiff

Number of possible cases: 1
Conference with Legal Counsel: Existing litigation as defendant

Number of cases: 2

Myrna Lim v. City and County of San Francisco Ethics Commission et al., Case No. 08-472073 (S.F. Superior Court)

Allen Grossman v. San Francisco Ethics Commission et al., Case No. 09-509868 (S.F. Superior Court)

V. Discussion and vote regarding closed session action and deliberations.

Discussion and vote pursuant to Brown Act section 54957.1 and Sunshine Ordinance section 67.12 on whether to disclose any action taken or discussions held in closed session regarding anticipated and existing litigation.

Motion 09-10-19-2 (Harriman/Gusukuma) Moved, seconded and passed (5-0) that the Ethics Commission finds that it is in the best interests of the public not to disclose its closed session deliberations re: anticipated litigation and existing litigation.

The Commission went back into open session at 7:47 p.m.

VI. Consideration of possible amendments to the Commission’s Regulations for Investigations and Enforcement Proceedings (“Regulations”)

Richard Mo summarized the proposed changes to the Regulations.

Decision Point 1

Public Comment

Richard Knee stated that the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force should have the opportunity to comment on proposed changes. Executive Director St. Croix responded that regulations regarding the Sunshine Ordinance are being separated from the regulations for investigations and that the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force members received a memorandum for their comments on Sunshine Ordinance regulations.

David Pilpel stated that there are other means of delivery than those outlined in these changes.

Motion 09-10-19-3 (Gusukuma/Harriman) Moved, seconded and passed (5-0) to adopt the proposed changes in decision point 1.

Decision Point 2

Commissioner Ward stated that the regulations, as proposed, appear to leave it to staff’s discretion whether or not a respondent in a complaint is interviewed.

Executive Director St. Croix stated that during the preliminary review process, staff evaluates whether or not an allegation falls within the Commission’s jurisdiction.

Commissioner Ward stated that the proposed basis for dismissal of “evidence does not support the allegations” seems to require some work to determine if the facts are sufficient to show a violation occurred.

Commissioner Harriman stated that there can be times when the evidence presented is unrelated to any violation the Commission has jurisdiction over. She stated that staff should be given some latitude during the preliminary review.

Commissioner Hansen stated that the language as proposed is too vague.

Public Comment

Charley Marsteller stated that the regulations should be clearer to the general public.

David Pilpel stated that staff should inform a complainant that if further evidence is discovered then a matter could be re-opened.

Dan Boreen stated that he understands the need for some discretion during the preliminary review; however, he does not trust the current Executive Director’s discretion regarding complaints.

Chairperson Studley stated that this decision point should be reviewed further and no action would be taken at this meeting.

Decision Point 3

Motion 09-10-19-4 (Gusukuma/Harriman) Moved, seconded and passed (5-0) to adopt the proposed changes in decision point 3.

Public Comment
None

Decision Point 4

Commissioner Hansen stated that she wanted to ensure that the proposed changes will be discussed with the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force. She also stated that she wanted to be clear on how the Commission will handle Task Force referred complaints.

Public Comment

Richard Knee stated that the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force has already made a determination when a complaint is referred to the Ethics Commission, and that the Commission can only enforce their determination.

David Pilpel stated that all of the proposed changes that affect the Sunshine Ordinance should be put aside for now until the Commission and Task Force meet again.

Dan Boreen stated that there should not be any distinction between Sunshine complaints that were referred to the Commission from the Task Force and those initiated by the Commission. He stated that all Sunshine matters are public and there should be no confidentiality afforded to any investigation of Sunshine complaints.

Charley Marsteller discussed an investigation conducted by the Human Rights Commission.

Commissioner Gusukuma stated that she is concerned about releasing investigative notes while a complaint is being investigated.

Deputy City Attorney Givner responded to Commissioner Gusukuma’s question regarding the definition of “handled” that appears in the Sunshine Ordinance regarding referrals to the Commission. He stated that there is no definition in the Ordinance as to what “handled” means, nor are other terms defined in the Ordinance regarding referrals to the Commission, so the Commission can adopt regulations to define those terms.

Motion 09-10-19-5 (Gusukuma/Harriman) Moved, seconded and passed (4-1, Hansen dissenting) to adopt decision point 4 with the amended language: “referred to the Ethics Commission by the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force” in section 8(a)(2), and in section 13(b)(3).

Decision Point 13

Commissioner Hansen stated that there has not been enough discussion with the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force to move on decision points 4 and 13.

Public Comment

David Pilpel stated that the language of “by a quorum” is not needed.

Charley Marsteller stated that the Commission may review these changes after it meets with the Task Force.

Dan Boreen stated that there should be no difference in the way Sunshine complaints are handled whether referred by the Task Force or initiated at the Ethics Commission.

Motion 09-10-19-5 (Harriman/Gusukuma) Moved, seconded and passed (4-1, Hansen dissenting) to adopt decision point 13 with the striking of the language “by a quorum of.”

The Commission took a break at 8:55 p.m. and resumed at 9:01 p.m.

Decision Points 5-12, and 14

Public Comment

David Pilpel asked how excluding a witness from a hearing until he or she testifies comports with the policy of open meetings. Commissioner Harriman responded that it is equivalent to excluding a witness in court, which is also open to the public.

Dan Boreen asked how decision point 6 is a change to the current regulations. Commissioner Harriman responded that it clarifies the burden of proof required at a hearing on the merits.

Executive Director St. Croix stated that any proposed change not specifically addressed in a decision point has not been adopted at this meeting.

Motion 09-10-19-6 (Gusukuma/Harriman) Moved, seconded and passed (5-0) to adopt the changes as proposed in decision points 5-12, and 14.

VII. Consideration of the Annual report for Fiscal Year 2008-2009

Chairperson Studley stated that the introductory paragraph should be more comprehensive.

Commissioner Hansen stated that more metrics should be in the report in order to see the progress the Commission has made and that it should contain more specificity as to the items addressed each year by the Commission. She also stated that she interprets the Charter as requiring the Commission to submit an annual report to the Mayor and Board of Supervisors. She also stated that she is concerned that the report is the same every year and no changes are made after this review process.

Executive Director St. Croix stated that producing the annual report requires about 40-50 staff hours in response to Commissioner Ward. He also stated that the annual report is supposed to be a snapshot of the year.

Public Comment

Dan Boreen stated that there is no information regarding whistleblowers.

Motion 09-10-19-7 (Harriman/Ward) Moved, seconded and passed (4-1, Hansen dissenting) that the Commission adopt the annual report, subject to grammatical changes to be made by the Chairperson and Executive Director.

VIII. Policy Priorities

Commissioner Studley stated that this should be a general discussion about what is working and what should be improved.

Commissioner Harriman stated that education should always be the number one priority.

Executive Director St. Croix outlined the methods in which staff pursues each of the Commission’s stated priorities.

Commissioner Hansen stated that she would like the Commission to schedule an annual retreat. Commissioner Harriman agreed that the annual retreat is important.

Commissioner Hansen stated that the Commission should not limit itself to previously stated priorities and think about new priorities each year.

Public Comment

David Pilpel stated that the Commission should outline what resources are needed to address each priority during the budget process.

IX. Minutes of the Commission’s regular meeting of September 14, 2009

The Commission agreed to move this item to the next regular meeting.

X. Executive Director’s Report

The Commission agreed to move this item to the next regular meeting.

XI. Items for Future Meetings

The Commission agreed to move this item to the next regular meeting.

XII. Public comment on matters appearing or not appearing on the agenda that are within the jurisdiction of the Ethics Commission

None.

XIII. Adjournment

Motion 09-08-10-8 (Harriman/Gusukuma) Moved, seconded and passed (5-0) that the Ethics Commission adjourn.

The meeting was adjourned at 10:04 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

________________
Garrett Chatfield
Investigator/ Legal Analyst

Minutes - September 14, 2009

Tue, 10 Nov 2009 17:00:00 -0800

Approved: November 9, 2009

Minutes of the Regular Meeting of
The San Francisco Ethics Commission
September 14, 2009
Room 408, City Hall
1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place
San Francisco, CA 94102

I. Call to order and roll call.

Commissioner Harriman called the meeting to order at 5:33 PM.

COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Jamienne Studley (arrived at 5:40 PM), Chairperson; Susan Harriman, Vice-Chairperson; Eileen Hansen, Commissioner; Emi Gusukuma, Commissioner. Commissioner Ward was excused.

STAFF PRESENT: John St. Croix, Executive Director; Mabel Ng, Deputy Director; Catherine Argumedo, Investigator/Legal Analyst.

OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY: Andrew Shen, Deputy City Attorney.

MATERIALS DISTRIBUTED:
- Memorandum from the Executive Director to Ethics Commission re: Additional proposed changes to CFRO legislation, dated September 9, 2009;
- Memorandum from Executive Director to Ethics Commission re: Proposed amendments to Campaign Finance Reform Ordinance, dated August 28, 2009;
- Draft amendments to Campaign Finance Reform Ordinance;
- Draft Minutes of the August 10, 2009 Regular Meeting
- Executive Director’s Report to the Ethics Commission for the Meeting of September 14, 2009

II. Public comment on matters appearing or not appearing on the agenda that are within the jurisdiction of the Ethics Commission.

No members of the public were present.

III. Consideration of possible amendments to the Campaign Finance Reform Ordinance (CFRO), San Francisco Campaign and Governmental Conduct Code section 1.100 et seq.

Commissioner Harriman stated that the Commission would wait to review Item III until Chairperson Studley arrived and to allow for arrival of members of the public.

IV. Minutes of the Commission’s regular meeting of August 10, 2009.

Motion 09-09-14-1 (Hansen/Harriman) Moved, seconded and passed (3-0; Studley & Ward absent) that the Commission adopt the minutes, without discussion.

Public Comment:
None.

V. Executive Director’s Report.

Executive Director St. Croix stated that the Commission staff has lost a percentage of an employee and the City is enforcing the loss. Mr. St. Croix stated that he expected to keep all current full-time employees, but the Commission will lose the receptionist. Mr. St. Croix then stated that an auditor left in August and another one has given notice. He stated the auditor’s classification position was in a hiring freeze and that he hoped to be able to fill the positions, regardless of the freeze.

[Chairperson Studley arrived at 5:40 PM.]

Mr. St. Croix stated that any new hires for the auditor position would be provisional hires and that the employees would have to pass an examination in order to become permanent. He stated that filling these positions is critical as there is already a lot of activity related to the supervisorial races for 2010.

Mr. St. Croix stated the need for a closed session to discuss activity with BDR. He stated that the lobbyist changes are going to the Rules Committee soon and that he expects that the changes should be on target for January 2010.

Commissioner Hansen asked about certain figures quoted in charts in items 3, 4, and 6, including waivers, campaign finance disclosure, campaign finance fees, and fines. She stated that the numbers do not seem to match and asked the Executive Director to update all of the charts.

Commissioner Hansen also asked about the differences in the budget for campaign finance listed in the July report and the August report. Commissioner Hansen asked why the budget was $22,000 when it was half of what has been collected previously. Mr. St. Croix stated that the budget was now cut by a half and that staff is trying to reduce the expected revenue.

Commissioner Hansen then asked about what was being done regarding the lobbyists working for the City. Mr. St. Croix stated that the program is now up to date and that staff will stay on top of it. He stated there were several staff changes and the requirement did not get passed onto new staff. He stated that the requirement to take in filings was in the Sunshine Ordinance, not the Lobbyist Ordinance.

Chairperson Studley asked whether an annual report would be ready at a future meeting. Mr. St. Croix stated that it would be ready for the October meeting.

Chairperson Studley then stated that she pulled up the priorities set up by the Commission at a past meeting and that she will circulate them to all Commissioners. She stated that the Executive Director will contact all Commissioners to see what needs to be addressed at a future meeting. She also thanked Commissioner Hansen for a helpful conversation about the past priorities.

Mr. St. Croix referred to a memorandum for the Commissioners regarding amendments to the enforcement regulations. He stated that the changes were proposed a few months ago and that he has not heard any feedback from any of the Commissioners, other than Commissioner Harriman. He asked for feedback so that the amendments could be reviewed at the October meeting. He also stated an interest in following up with Sunshine issues.

Mr. St. Croix then stated that the October meeting would be on October 19, because of the holiday. He stated that the meeting will not begin until 6:30 PM, since there were no rooms available at the Commission’s regular meeting time.

III. Consideration of possible amendments to the Campaign Finance Reform Ordinance (CFRO), San Francisco Campaign and Governmental Conduct Code section 1.100 et seq.

Chairperson Studley stated that the Commissioners would be working from the August 28, 2009 memo from staff. She stated that the definition of “person” was open for discussion, as of the last meeting. Commissioner Harriman stated that her views on this definition have not changed and that she was aware that her view differed from that of Commissioner Hansen. She stated that she was not going to approve this new definition and that the Commission needed four votes to approve, so there was no need to repeat her position on the definition.

Commissioner Hansen stated that she had not changed her position either, so there were not four votes in the opposing stance either. Commissioner Harriman stated that she had no issues with the proposed changes in Decision Point #3.

Chairperson Studley stated that if there were not enough votes, then the current definition of “person” remains in place. Commissioner Harriman thanked staff for its memo, but she stated her view that the definition as proposed was unconstitutional and that she would not support that definition.

Decision Point #3
Commissioner Harriman stated that the Commission should leave the definition of “person” as it is and deal with a change at another time. She stated that she had no issues with any other changes for section 1.104.

Motion 09-09-14-2 (Hansen/Harriman): Moved, seconded and passed (4-0; Ward absent) that the Commission adopt the approved proposed amendments to section 1.104, except for the definition of “person.”

Public Comment:
None.

Decision Point #4

Motion 09-09-14-3 (Hansen/Gusukuma): Moved, seconded and passed (4-0; Ward absent) that the Commission adopt the approved proposed amendments to section 1.118(a).

Public Comment:
None.

Decision Point #5
Commissioner Hansen stated that the loan amount should remain at $5,000 and that she approved all of the other proposed changes. Commissioner Harriman stated that the amount should be increased, but that she would approve the motion so that the rest of section 1.140 could pass.

Motion 09-09-14-4 (Hansen/Gusukuma): Moved, seconded and passed (4-0; Ward absent) that the Commission adopt the approved proposed amendments to section 1.140, except for the loan increase.

Public Comment:
None.

Chairperson Studley asked how the Commission would be able to review CFRO again. Mr. St. Croix stated that the Commission needs to get the manual out for next year and anything that is not adopted will be added to the next round of changes. Mr. St. Croix stated that the Commission reviews CFRO every year.

Decision Point #6

Motion 09-09-14-5 (Hansen/Harriman): Moved, seconded and passed (4-0; Ward absent) that the Commission adopt the approved proposed amendments to section 1.152, without discussion.

Public Comment:
None.

Decision Point #7
Chairperson Studley noted some grammatical errors.

Motion 09-09-14-6 (Hansen/Harriman): Moved, seconded and passed (4-0; Ward absent) that the Commission adopt the approved amendments, as set forth in the draft proposals.

Public Comment:
None.

Decision Point #8
City Attorney Shen noted some typographical errors referencing “per candidate disbursement limit” in section 1.144. Chairperson Studley thanked Mr. Shen for the review.

Motion 09-09-14-7 (Harriman/Gusukuma) Moved, seconded and passed (4-0; Ward absent) that the Commission adopt the proposed amendments to section 1.144(c), after amending typographical errors.

Public Comment:
None.

Chairperson Studley and Commissioner Harriman thanked Deputy Director Ng for her work on the amendments.

VI. Items for future meetings.

Chairperson Studley stated that many items for future meetings were mentioned during the discussion of the Executive Director’s report.

VII. Public comment on matters appearing or not appearing on the agenda that are within the jurisdiction of the Ethics Commission.

None.

VIII. Adjournment.

Motion 09-09-14-8 (Harriman/Gusukuma) Moved, seconded and passed (4-0) that the Commission adjourn.

Public Comment:
None.

Meeting adjourned at 6:11 PM.

Respectfully submitted,

_______________________
Catherine Argumedo

Recording - November 9, 2009 - Ethics Commission Meeting

Tue, 10 Nov 2009 14:43:53 -0800

Recording - November 9, 2009 - Ethics Commission Meeting (18 mb)

Recordings are in AAC (.m4a) format. Download Quicktime Player or iTunes to listen. Instructions are available on how to subscribe to Ethics Commission meeting recordings in iTunes.

Recording - October 19, 2009 - Ethics Commission Meeting

Wed, 21 Oct 2009 16:02:57 -0700

Recording - October 19, 2009 - Ethics Commission Meeting (19 mb)

Recordings are in AAC (.m4a) format. Download Quicktime Player or iTunes to listen. Instructions are available on how to subscribe to Ethics Commission meeting recordings in iTunes.

Minutes - August 10, 2009

Mon, 28 Sep 2009 10:40:24 -0700

(Approved 9/14/09)

Minutes of the Regular Meeting of
The San Francisco Ethics Commission
August 10, 2009
Room 408, City Hall

I. Call to order and roll call.

Chairperson Studley called the meeting to order at 5:35 p.m.

COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Jamienne Studley, Chairperson; Susan Harriman, Vice-Charperson; Eileen Hansen, Commissioner; Charles Ward, Commissioner. Commissioner Emi Gusukuma was excused.

STAFF PRESENT: John St. Croix, Executive Director; Mabel Ng, Deputy Executive Director; Garrett Chatfield, Investigator/Legal Analyst.

OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY: Andrew Shen, Deputy City Attorney.

OTHERS PRESENT: Harry Baker, Maria Guillen, Richard Knee, Marc Solomon, Anita Mayo, Charlie Marsteller, and other unidentified members of the public.

MATERIALS DISTRIBUTED:
- Memorandum from Executive Director to Ethics Commission re: Proposed amendments to Campaign Finance Reform Ordinance, August 3, 2009
- Legislative Digest, amendments to Campaign Finance Reform Ordinance
- Draft amendments to Campaign Finance Reform Ordinance
- Memorandum from Executive Director to Ethics Commission re: Agenda Item V Transcript of July 13, 2009, Commission Meeting, August 4, 2009
- Memorandum from Executive Director to Ethics Commission re: Contribution Limits, August 3, 2009
- Draft Minutes of the July 13, 2009 Regular Meeting
- Executive Director’s Report to the Ethics Commission for the Meeting of August 10, 2009

II. Public comment on matters appearing or not appearing on the agenda that is within the jurisdiction of the Ethics Commission

Harry Baker stated that he attended the meeting to support Oliver Luby, who believes that campaign finance laws should be applied fairly by the Commission.

Maria Guillen stated that she also attended the meeting to support Oliver Luby. She stated the Commission must uphold its own mission statement to promote ethical standards of government officials.

Richard Knee stated that speakers are not required to identify themselves in order to speak. He also attended to support Oliver Luby, who he stated is a dedicated employee of the Commission.
Marc Solomon stated that Ethics Commission staff should pursue the stated mission of the Ethics Commission. He stated that the Commission should adopt standards of professionalism.

IV. Consideration of possible amendments to the $500 contribution limit under section 1.114(a) of the Campaign and Governmental Conduct Code.

Chairperson Studley stated that this agenda item is for discussion to determine if the limit should be raised and if an interested persons meeting should be held. She stated that this agenda item will be taken out of order.

Executive Director St. Croix stated that staff is required to assess periodically whether the limit should be raised. He stated that other cities have raised the limit to adjust for inflation.

Deputy Executive Director Ng stated that staff originally proposed that periodic adjustments to the limit be made, and that comments regarding raising the limit were made during an interested persons meeting. She stated that the FPPC raises the limit by an automatic formula that adjusts for inflation. She stated that the Commission might also consider raising the limit only for City-wide elections.

Commissioner Hansen stated that the limit should remain at $500.

Commissioner Harriman stated that the limit should only be raised if the public overwhelmingly expressed the need to raise the limit.

Deputy Executive Director Ng stated that the City Charter allows for cost of living adjustments to the limit.

Commissioner Ward stated that unless the public demands a change in the limit, it should remain at $500.

Executive Director St. Croix stated that the Commission could send a message out to interested persons to solicit comments regarding adjusting the limit instead of holding an interested persons meeting.

Public Comment.

Marc Solomon stated that the current limit of $500 does not inhibit the ability for candidates to raise funds. He stated that this topic is unnecessary and that the Commission should leave the limit at $500.

Anita Mayo stated that she did not believe the notice for the recent interested persons meeting included changes to the contribution limits. Since one of the purposes of CFRO is to reduce the amount of time spent on fundraising, the City should consider raising the contribution limits. San Francisco's current campaign contribution limits are based on the Los Angeles model. The Los Angeles model recognizes that it cost considerably more funds to run for citywide office than for district office. CFRO also recognizes this distinction since CFRO permits a higher level of spending in citywide elections than in district elections. To be consistent, San Francisco should have different contribution limits for citywide elections and district elections.
Charlie Marsteller stated that there are legal aspects to raising the limit about which the Commission should consult with the City Attorney.
Chairperson Studley stated that staff will determine if this is something the Commission should pursue further after assessing the public comments regarding contribution limits.

III. Consideration of possible amendments to the Campaign Finance Reform Ordinance (CFRO), San Francisco Campaign and Governmental Conduct Code section 1.100 et seq.

Deputy Executive Director Ng stated that staff met with Supervisor Daly regarding the proposed changes. She stated that Supervisor Daly introduced the amendments to the Board of Supervisors, and changes must be approved by 4/5 of the Ethics Commission and a super majority of the Board of Supervisors. She stated if there are no changes to the amendments by the Commission at this meeting, then the earliest the amendments could be adopted is December 2009. She stated that public financing of candidates will begin February 2010.

Commissioner Harriman stated that most changes appear to be technical, but the definition of “person” is too broad.

Deputy City Attorney Shen stated that the definition is the same as the equivalent state law.

Commissioner Harriman stated that the definition should not include “group of person acting in concert, however organized.”

Commissioner Hansen stated that not enough information regarding the policy reasons for the changes have been presented to the Commissioners and would like to hear from the public before acting on the amendments.

Public Comment.

Anita Mayo stated that with respect to the proposed term "membership communication," it is her belief that it is unconstitutional for the City to require a private membership organization to publicly disclose private communications between the organization and its members. In addition, payments for such disclosure are preempted by Government Code Section 85312 which provides that payments for membership communications are not contributions or expenditures. Furthermore, Government Code Section 85703(a) prohibits local jurisdictions from enacting laws which conflict with Government Code Section 85312.

Marc Solomon stated that the loan limits should not be raised to $15,000 as proposed.

Charlie Marsteller questioned if there would be any accompanying regulations to the proposed amendments.

Deputy Executive Director Ng stated that regulations can be considered after the amendments are enacted. She stated that the definition of “member communications” allows for the adjustment of the expenditure ceilings. She stated that the there is no obligation to report the communication if there is no associated cost. She stated that “member communications” is used throughout CFRO and that striking that language would constitute a major revision of the ordinance.

Chairperson Studley stated that the Commission should review each change individually:

Section 1.104

Commissioner Hansen stated that the definition of “surplus funds” should not exclude a ballot measure.

Deputy City Attorney Shen stated the change was in response to a situation in which a ballot measure committee could not move money between committees to pay the debt of another.

Commissioner Hansen stated that money should not be moved between committees.

Deputy City Attorney Shen stated that an indebted committee is able to remain formed to raise money to pay its debt.

Public Comment.

Charlie Marsteller stated that regulations could be used to clarify the definition.

All Commissioners discussed how to proceed, procedurally, to resolve any issues arising out of the review of the Ordinance at this meeting. Commissioners determined that a review of the changes will aid staff in making further revisions.

Section 1.108

No comments.

Section 1.112

No comments.

Section 1.113

No comments.

Section 1.118

Deputy Executive Ng stated that the reason for this change is to establish that the candidate is responsible for accrued debt.

Commissioner Hansen stated that the language of calculating the time to pay the debt of 180 days after goods are delivered, while removing the language of 180 days after receipt of bill is problematic. She stated there is no way to know when goods are delivered without the submission of a receipt.

Chairperson Studley stated that the obligation to pay starts upon the receipt of the goods which would shorten the timeline for paying bills.

Commissioner Ward stated that if a bill is not paid after a certain period of time, it should be presumed to be a donation.

Section 1.122

Chairperson Studley identified a grammatical error.

Section 1.128

Deputy City Attorney Shen stated that this change was initiated because situations can occur in which a candidate under a voluntary expenditure ceiling can be noted as such in a voter pamphlet, and subsequent to the printing of the voter pamphlet, the voluntary expenditure ceiling can be broken without being reflected in the pamphlet.

Section 1.130

Deputy Executive Director Ng stated that inflation adjustments are calculated using the California Consumer Price index for the Bay area compared to when the law was last changed.

Section 1.134

No comments.

Section 1.135

No comments.

Section 1.140

Deputy Executive Director Ng stated in response to Commissioner Ward, that the proposed loan amount increase is to establish consistency for publicly financed and non-publicly funded candidates.

Commissioner Hansen stated that although she is not in favor of the increase, she does not want to deter persons from seeking public funds.

Chairperson Studley stated that this section prohibits the receipt of public funds if the candidate was found to have willfully violated the California Political Reform Act by a court within the last five years. She stated she wanted to ensure that there is a clear determination of such a finding.
Commissioner Hansen stated that this provision should also include findings by the Ethics Commission.

Section 1.144

No omments.

Section 1.48

Executive Director St. Croix said that few if any committees have equipment valued over $100.00.

Section 1.150

No comments.

Section 1.152

Commissioner Ward stated that the supplemental reporting requirement for the Board of Supervisors currently triggers at $5000.

Deputy Executive Director Ng stated that the change to $10,000 will only be applied to mayoral candidates. She stated that the ceiling for mayoral candidates is very high and it would take significant staff resources to review the amount of reports that a $5000 requirement would generate.

Commissioner Ward stated that the lower amount is better, and that the Commission should wait to see if the volume of reports is difficult to review timely. He stated that the lower amount is more transparent, and that the higher limit allows for a loophole that allows candidates to spend more money before reporting.

Executive Director St. Croix stated that staff will go through a cycle with the lower amount and determine how much of staff resources are used to track reporting.

Section 1.156

No comments.

Section 1.161

No comments.

Section 1.161.5

No comments.

Section 1.168

Executive Director St. Croix stated, in response to Commissioner Hansen, that the change in the statute of limitations change was proposed to ensure that the statute of limitations for violations of all laws within the Commission’s jurisdiction is the same.

Deleted Sections

No comments.

Section 1.109

No comments.

Section 1.143

No comments.

Section 1.171

No comments.

Commissioner Hansen stated that section 1.170, the penalties section, should not remove the damages amount.

Deputy City Attorney Shen stated the Charter provides the same language and the provision now just references the Charter. He stated that in effect there is no substantive change.

Motion 09-08-10-1 (Harriman/Ward) Moved, seconded and passed (4-0), that the Commission adopt sections 1.108, 1.112, 1.113, 1.122, 1.128, 1.130, 1.134, 1.135, 1.144, 1.148, 1.150, 1.156, 1.161, 1.161.5, and 1.168, as drafted; delete sections 1.134.5, 1.158, and 1.160; and approve sections 1.109, 1.143, and 1.171 as drafted.

Public Comment

None.

V. Minutes of the Commission’s regular meeting of July 13, 2009.

Commissioner Hansen and Chairperson Studley noted several corrections to the minutes.

Motion 09-08-10-2 (Harriman/Hansen) Moved, seconded and passed (4-0), that the Commission adopt the minutes as amended.

VI. Executive Director’s Report

Executive Director St. Croix stated that staff was pleased with the budget the Commission received for the current fiscal year. He stated that two staff members have resigned from the Commission. He stated that lobbyists hired to lobby on behalf of the City have not been reporting, and will retroactively file all reports. He stated that there are no enforcement provisions in the Sunshine Ordinance for failing to report, which is where those rules are housed.

Commissioner Hansen stated that the Executive Director’s Report should include more information such as: new legislation that is introduced by the Board of Supervisors; who attended interested persons meetings; and press accounts that reference the Commission.

Public Comment
None.

VII. Items for future meetings

Commissioner Hansen stated that she wanted to ensure the Commission continue to have joint meetings with the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force. She also stated that she would like to discuss budgeting for televised meetings. She also stated that she would like to continue discussion of section 1.126 and discuss a press account of how campaign finance laws are being enforced unevenly.

VIII. Public comment on matters appearing or not appearing on the agenda that are within the jurisdiction of the Ethics Commission

None.

IX. Adjournment

Public Comment
None.

Motion 09-08-10-3 (Harriman/Ward) Moved, seconded and passed (4-0) that the Ethics Commission adjourn.

The meeting was adjourned at 8:08 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

________________
Garrett Chatfield
Investigator/ Legal Analyst

Recording - September 14, 2009 - Ethics Commission Meeting

Tue, 15 Sep 2009 15:42:14 -0700

Recording - September 14, 2009 - Ethics Commission Meeting (4.3 mb)

Recordings are in AAC (.m4a) format. Download Quicktime Player or iTunes to listen. Instructions are available on how to subscribe to Ethics Commission meeting recordings in iTunes.

Recording - August 10, 2009 - Ethics Commission Meeting

Mon, 17 Aug 2009 09:21:45 -0700

Recording - August 10, 2009 - Ethics Commission Meeting (17.9 mb)

Recordings are in AAC (.m4a) format. Download Quicktime Player or iTunes to listen. Instructions are available on how to subscribe to Ethics Commission meeting recordings in iTunes.

Minutes - July 13, 2009

Fri, 14 Aug 2009 13:47:42 -0700

(Approved August 10, 2009)

Minutes of the Regular Meeting of
The San Francisco Ethics Commission
July 13, 2009
Room 408, City Hall

I.Call to order and roll call.

Chairperson Studley called the meeting to order at 5:35 p.m.

COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Jamienne Studley, Chairperson; Susan Harriman, Vice-Chairperson; Emi Gusukuma, Commissioner; Eileen Hansen, Commissioner; Charles Ward, Commissioner.

STAFF PRESENT: John St. Croix, Executive Director; Mabel Ng, Deputy Executive Director; Paul Solis, Investigator/Legal Analyst.

OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY: Jon Givner, Deputy City Attorney.

OTHERS PRESENT: Kathy Lawhan; Anne Wintroub; John Buchanan; Luis Cancel; Dennis Kern; Meredith Thomas; and other unidentified members of the public.

MATERIALS DISTRIBUTED:
- Memorandum from Executive Director to Ethics Commission re: Waiver from Compensated Advocacy Ban for Patrick Buscovich, July 8, 2009
- Memorandum from Executive Director to Ethics Commission re: Legislation to clarify application of conflict of interest provisions under Chapter 2, Article III of San Francisco Campaign and Governmental Conduct Code, July 8, 2009
- Memorandum from Executive Director to Ethics Commission re: Legislation regarding the solicitation of donations to friends’ groups, July 7, 2009
- Draft Minutes of the June 8, 2009 Regular Meeting
- Executive Director’s Report to the Ethics Commission for the Meeting of July 13, 2009

II.Public comment on matters appearing or not appearing on the agenda that is within the jurisdiction of the Ethics Commission

None.

III.Consideration of request for waiver from compensated advocacy ban by Patrick Buscovich, a member of the Board of Examiners, Department of Building Inspection

Patrick Buscovich introduced himself and stated that he has been asked to serve on the Board of Examiners. He stated that he is one of about 30 licensed structural engineers in San Francisco. He stated that he conducts his business exclusively in the City and needs a waiver to continue.

Chairperson Studley asked if the Building Inspection Commission (“BIC”) has discussed the issue with staff. Deputy Director Ng stated that the BIC contacted staff and stated that it is difficult to recruit members to the Board of Examiners.

Commissioner Ward discussed the dissenting District Attorney (“DA”) opinion. Ms. Ng stated that the DA’s opinion defers to the Ethics Commission on whether to grant a waiver and, in any event, recognized that the granting of a waiver does not provide Mr. Buscovich immunity from alleged violations of laws other than the compensated advocacy ban.

Commissioner Hansen stated that although she supports this waiver, she does not generally like to grant them. She stated that she would feel less comfortable granting the waiver if the Commission was not addressing Agenda Item IV at the current Commission meeting.

Public Comment:
None.

Motion 09-07-13-1 (Harriman/Ward) Moved, seconded and passed (5-0) that the Ethics Commission grant the Buscovich waiver.

V.Consideration of amendments to create a new Chapter 5 in Article III of the San Francisco Campaign and Governmental Conduct Code

Executive Director St. Croix stated that the legislation does not require Commission approval but the Clerk of the Board referred the matter to the Commission for review. The legislation was proposed by Supervisor Daly.

Commissioner Harriman inquired about the problem the legislation attempts to address. She stated that without comment from Supervisor Daly, the legislation was overbroad as written. Commissioner Gusukuma stated that because the penalties for violation could include criminal penalties, she needs clarification from Supervisor Daly before she would approve. Commissioner Ward stated that he would like the Commission to take some affirmative action on the legislation. Commissioner Hansen stated that she approves of the thrust of the legislation because she believed it addressed some type of past issue, but would like Commission discussion at the current meeting.

Public Comment:
Kathy Lawhan, on behalf of the City Librarian stated that the legislation would prevent the Friends of the Library group from aiding much of the work of the Library. She stated that staff would be prevented from attending events and fundraisers by the Friends of the Library. She also stated that she would like further clarification on what “solicit” means within the legislation.

Commissioner Hansen asked what would happen if the Friends of the Library did not exist. Ms. Lawhan stated that without the Friends group fundraising and cooperating with Library staff, the Library may have to create a new division.

Chairperson Studley asked if donations directly to the Library are tax deductible. Ms. Lawhan stated that they are but that the donations of $100 or more must be posted on the website with the name of the source.

Anne Wintroub explained the work of the Friends of the Library and gave examples of how the legislation would negatively affect the relationship between the City and the Friends group. She stated that City officials speaking at public events funded by the Friends would be deterred from thanking attendees for their efforts. She stated that public-private partnerships are essential to thriving City programs.

John Buchanan on behalf of the Fine Arts Museums of San Francisco stated that Fine Arts Museums were founded by charitable donations. He stated that private sector money is essential to Fine Arts.

Luis Cancel on behalf of the Arts Commission stated that arts in the City would be adversely affected by the legislation and would prohibit the Commission from raising private money. He stated that only $15,000 is appropriated each year to maintain and conserve the City’s art collection. He stated that the Arts Commission needs fundraising efforts to continue its work.

Dennis Kern on behalf of the Recreation and Parks Department stated that his agency seeks public-private partnerships and that this legislation deters them.

Meredith Thomas on behalf of the Neighborhood Parks Council stated that the legislation is overbroad and that it prevents the Council from furthering the progress of City parks. She stated that the Council must be able to work closely with the Recreation and Parks Department and that private groups need to know that their investments will actually involve public agencies.

Commissioner Ward stated that the Commission should send the legislation back with a comment derived from public comment. He stated that the comment should reflect the unintended consequences heard from the public. Commissioner Harriman stated that Supervisor Daly should receive a transcript from agenda item V. Chairperson Studley agreed with the recommendations. Commissioner Hansen stated that a transcript of the relevant portion of the meeting should go to Supervisor Daly and requested that he attend a future meeting, should the legislation go forward.

Motion 09-07-13-2 (Harriman/Ward) Moved, seconded and passed (5-0) that the Ethics Commission send the legislation back to Supervisor Daly with an attached transcript of Commissioner and public comments on agenda item V.

Commissioner Hansen stated that a recent opinion piece in the Examiner had claimed that the Commission supported Supervisor Daly’s legislation. She stated that this claim should be corrected because the Commission has yet to approve legislation.

IV.Consideration of possible amendments to Chapter 2, Article III of the San Francisco Campaign and Governmental Conduct Code

Deputy Director Ng discussed staff’s memo. Commissioner Gusukuma asked why a new waiver system would be created with the amendments. Deputy City Attorney Givner stated that there is no current waiver from the contracting ban and the implementation of this waiver system would promote consistency in the Campaign and Governmental Conduct Code. He also stated that appointing officials have expressed frustration that the current ban hinders their ability to appoint specialized individuals to boards and commissions.

Chairperson Studley asked if the amendments would include members of boards and commissions into the definition of “officer,” to which Ms. Ng responded that the amendments would.

Commissioner Hansen stated that she was concerned that members of the community college board were not subject to the conflict of interest rules discussed in the agenda item. She asked if that issue could be addressed. Mr. Givner responded that the City has only certain powers to regulate community college elections.

Public Comment:
None.

Motion 09-07-13-3 (Hansen/Harriman) Moved, seconded and passed (5-0) that the Ethics Commission approve amendments to Chapter 2, Article III of the San Francisco Campaign and Governmental Conduct Code.

VI.Discussion of Fiscal Year 2009-2010 budget outcomes

Executive Director St. Croix discussed the Election Campaign Fund and stated that he believes there will be enough money for the next Supervisorial election but possibly not the next Mayoral election. He stated that the Mayor’s Office has pledged to return any money taken out of the fund.

Commissioner Ward asked how the Commission will know whether the Mayor’s Office will continue to take out funds. Mr. St. Croix stated that there is no certainty but that there would be significant public concern if the fund was not sufficient.

Commissioner Hansen stated that the Mayor’s Office should appear before the Commission to discuss the matter. She stated that when the Mayor takes money from the Fund without telling the Commission, there may not be sufficient trust in the Mayor’s guarantee to return the funds. Mr. St. Croix stated that a written guarantee by the Mayor’s Office to replenish all the funds has satisfied members of the Board of Supervisors.

Public Comment:
None.

VII.Closed Session

Public Comment:
None.

Motion 09-07-13-4 (Hansen/Harriman) Moved, seconded and passed (5-0) that the Ethics Commission go into a closed session.

The Commission went into closed session at 6:44 p.m.

VIII.Discussion and vote regarding closed session action and deliberations

The Commission returned to open session at 8:20 p.m.

Public Comment:
None.

Motion 09-07-13-5 (Harriman/Gusukuma) Moved, seconded and passed (5-0) that the Ethics Commission finds that it is in the best interests of the public not to disclose its closed session deliberations.

IX.Minutes of the Commission’s regular meeting of June 8, 2009

Public Comment:
None.

Motion 09-07-13-6 (Gusukuma/Ward) Moved, seconded and passed (5-0) that the Ethics Commission adopt the minutes of the Commission’s regular meeting of June 8, 2009.

X.Executive Director’s Report

Executive Director St. Croix stated although there was a three percent increase to the Commission budget, Supervisor Chiu has recently authored legislation to reduce tech budgets from any City department with a tech division. He stated that he must take $4,000 from the three percent increase. Mr. St. Croix also stated that the Commission has a new website and that staff will be implementing changes to address any problems.

Commissioner Hansen stated that she would like to see greater detail about waiver requests in the Executive Director’s report. She also asked if staff could track leaving office Statements of Economic Interests better. Mr. St. Croix stated that leaving office statements are difficult to track because agency staff monitoring the statements cannot always contact the former officer.

Commissioner Hansen inquired about what staff can do to get non-filers to file. Commissioner Hansen also asked if any archive issues would be addressed with the new website to which Mr. St. Croix stated that they would.

Public Comment:
None.

XI.Items for future meetings

None.

XII.Public comment on matters appearing or not appearing on the agenda that are within the jurisdiction of the Ethics Commission

None.

XIII.Adjournment

Public Comment:
None.

Motion 09-07-13-7 (Ward/Harriman) Moved, seconded and passed (5-0) that the Ethics Commission adjourn.

The meeting was adjourned at 8:32 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

________________
Paul Solis
Investigator/ Legal Analyst

Recording - July 13, 2009 - Ethics Commission Meeting

Wed, 15 Jul 2009 11:18:53 -0700

Recording - July 13, 2009 - Ethics Commission Meeting (9.8 mb)

Recordings are in AAC (.m4a) format. Download Quicktime Player or iTunes to listen. Instructions are available on how to subscribe to Ethics Commission meeting recordings in iTunes.

Minutes - June 8, 2009

Wed, 15 Jul 2009 09:46:30 -0700

(Approved July 13, 2009)

Minutes of the Regular Meeting of
The San Francisco Ethics Commission
June 8, 2009
Room 408, City Hall

I. Call to order and roll call.

Chairperson Studley called the meeting to order at 5:35 p.m.

COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Jamienne Studley, Chairperson; Emi Gusukuma, Commissioner; Charles Ward, Commissioner. Vice-Chairperson Harriman and Commissioner Hansen were excused.

STAFF PRESENT: John St. Croix, Executive Director; Mabel Ng, Deputy Executive Director; Garrett Chatfield, Investigator/Legal Analyst.

OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY: Andrew Shen, Deputy City Attorney.

OTHERS PRESENT: Richard Knee; Anita Mayo; and other unidentified members of the public.

MATERIALS DISTRIBUTED:

Supplemental Memo III regarding Proposed Changes to Lobbyist Ordinance from the Executive Director dated June 2, 2009
Lobbyist Ordinance Draft dated June 2, 2009
Draft of the May 11, 2009, Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the San Francisco Ethics Commission
Draft of the April 24, 2009, Minutes of the Special Joint Meeting of the San Francisco Ethics
Commission and Sunshine Ordinance Task Force
Executive Director's Report to the Ethics Commission for the Meeting of June 8, 2009

II. Public comment on matters appearing or not appearing on the agenda that is within the jurisdiction of the Ethics Commission.

Richard Knee stated that the Ethics Commission should develop a separate set of regulations for the Sunshine Ordinance. He stated that when the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force forwards a finding of a willful violation of the Ordinance, the Ethics Commission could exercise some discretion if it discovers mitigating factors.

Executive Director St. Croix stated that the Ethics Commission will continue to work with the Task Force to improve the Sunshine Ordinance complaint process.

III. Consideration of possible amendments to Lobbyist Ordinance.

DECISION POINTS 46 and 47
Commissioner Ward stated that Decision Point 47 appears to be a possible exception to the rule outlined in Decision Point 46. He stated that it is possible to envision an instance in which filings are very late and he would like the Commission to retain some ability to review a waiver of a fine by the Executive Director.

Executive Director St. Croix stated that the Commission could adopt Decision Point 47 instead of Decision Point 46, and if the process becomes cumbersome, then the Commission can revisit this section.

Motion 09-06-8-1 (Gusukuma/Ward) Moved, seconded and passed (3-0) that the Ethics Commission adopt staff's recommendation for Decision Point 47.

Public Comment.
None

DECISION POINT 48

Commissioner Gusukuma stated she wanted to ensure that there is language in this section that requires a Campaign Consultant to file monthly if he or she engages in lobbyist activities.

Deputy Executive Director Ng confirmed that any Campaign Consultant who meets the required thresholds required by the lobbyist ordinance would then qualify as a lobbyist and be subject to all requirements of the ordinance.

Motion 09-06-08-2 (Ward/Gusukuma) Moved, seconded, and passed (3-0) that the Ethics Commission adopts staff’s recommendation for Decision Point 48.

Public Comment.
None

Chairperson Studley thanked staff for their work on the proposed changes to the lobbyist ordinance. Commissioner Ward also thanked Deputy Executive Director Ng for her work on the proposed changes.

IV. Minutes of the Commission’s regular meetings of May 11, 2009.

Motion 09-06-8-3 (Gusukuma/Ward) Moved, seconded and unanimously passed (3-0) that the Ethics Commission adopt the minutes for the May 11, 2009, regular meeting.

V. Executive Director’s Report.

Executive Director St. Croix stated that one position will be cut in November. The Commission is making some sacrifices, and already had mid-year budget cuts during the last fiscal year. He also stated that the Mayor’s Office has assured the Commission that money the City borrowed from the public financing fund will be restored by 2011.

Public Comment.
None

VI. Items For Future Meetings.

Chairperson Studley stated that the Commission will continue to address changes to the Sunshine Ordinance Regulations and Enforcement Regulations.

Public Comment.
None

VII. Public Comment on matters appearing or not appearing on the agenda that are within the jurisdiction of the Ethics Commission.

Anitia Mayo stated that the Commission should develop a clear process to terminate a lobbyist who fails to pay the required registration fees.

VIII. Adjournment.

Motion 09-06-8-4 (Gusukuma/Ward) Moved, seconded and passed (3-0) that the Ethics Commission adjourn.

Meeting adjourned at 6:09 PM.

Respectfully submitted,

______________________
Garrett Chatfield

Recording - June 8, 2009 - Ethics Commission Meeting

Fri, 26 Jun 2009 13:33:16 -0700

Recording - June 8, 2009 - Ethics Commission Meeting

Recordings are in AAC (.m4a) format. Download Quicktime Player or iTunes to listen. Instructions are available on how to subscribe to Ethics Commission meeting recordings in iTunes.

Minutes - May 11, 2009

Tue, 09 Jun 2009 14:18:00 -0700

Minutes of the Regular Meeting of
The San Francisco Ethics Commission
May 11, 2009
Room 408, City Hall

I. Call to order and roll call.

Chairperson Studley called the meeting to order at 5:32 p.m.

COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Jamienne Studley, Chairperson; Susan Harriman, Vice-Chairperson; Emi Gusukuma, Commissioner; Eileen Hansen, Commissioner; Charles Ward, Commissioner.

STAFF PRESENT: John St. Croix, Executive Director; Richard Mo, Chief Enforcement Officer; Paul Solis, Investigator/Legal Analyst.

OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY: Andrew Shen, Deputy City Attorney.

OTHERS PRESENT: Kimo Crossman, Joe Lynn, Allen Grossman, Anita Mayo, Jeff Ente; and other unidentified members of the public.

MATERIALS DISTRIBUTED:
- Draft Report on San Francisco's Limited Public Financing Program, dated May 7, 2009
- Supplemental Memorandum II from the Executive Director, dated May 5, 2009, regarding Proposed Changes to Lobbyist Ordinance
- Lobbyist Ordinance Draft, version dated May 1, 2009
- Memorandum from the Executive Director, dated May 8, 2009, regarding Proposed Changes to Investigations and Enforcement Regulations
- Draft Changes to the Ethics Commission Regulations and Enforcement Proceedings
- Ethics Commission Regulations and Enforcement Proceedings, effective date July 5, 1997
- Draft Minutes of the March 9, 2009, Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the San Francisco Ethic Commission
- Draft Minutes of the April 13, 2009, Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the San Francisco Ethic Commission

II. Public comment on matters appearing or not appearing on the agenda that is within the jurisdiction of the Ethics Commission.

Joe Lynn stated that he is pleased that Supervisor Campos has moved to hold hearings regarding the Ethics Commission. He stated that the Lobbyist Ordinance Amendments are missing a decision point that requires elected officials to keep an up to date calendar of contacts with lobbyists. He stated that the Ethics Commission should have a policy discussion regarding the Enforcement Regulations. He stated that the he had questions regarding a bill for services from Ralph Ochoa to Tony Hall.

Allen Grossman stated that staff does not properly enforce the Sunshine Ordinance. He stated that the Ethics Commission staff should not rely on informal advice from the City Attorney instead of a formal written opinion.

Jeff Ente stated that he is the only complainant that the Ethics Commission interviewed regarding a Sunshine Ordinance complaint. He stated that the Ethics Commission made no attempt to determine if there was willful misconduct regarding his complaint. He stated that the major issue is that Ethics Commission does not talk to complaints regarding complainants.

III. Staff presentation of public finance report.

Commissioner Hansen stated that the report is very helpful. She asked Shaista Shaikh if staff anticipated more information being reported via electronic reporting. Ms. Shaikh responded, stating that many candidates who did not file electronically were not required to do so because they did not meet the financial threshold.

Commissioner Hansen asked if staff had considered ways to increase the level of participation regarding the survey questions sent to candidates. Ms. Shaikh stated that staff sent out reminder e-mails and also reminded them during every phone call with candidates. She stated that it is very difficult to garner responses from the candidates, unless it becomes a condition of receiving public funds.

Commissioner Hansen asked if staff has any response to the feedback from the public regarding public financing. Ms. Shaikh stated that in general public financing recipients were pleased with the way the program was administered. Ms. Shaikh stated that staff expected that responses regarding new provisions would vary.

Commissioner Hansen asked about third-party spending impacting public financing negatively. Ms. Shaikh stated that the major concern was that the expenditure ceiling was only raised in $10,000 increments.

Commissioner Hansen stated that she found it surprising that the survey showed the mandatory training requirement was the least useful tool for candidates accepting public financing.

Ms. Shaikh stated that often candidates get more information directly from staff during the course of the campaign. She stated that the workshop provides an overview, and staff always emphasizes that candidates may contact the Ethics Commission for help and clarification.

Chairperson Studley stated that staff should provide percentages to see patterns or trends. She also stated that as the Ethics Commission moves forward, staff should think about looking to third party providers to conduct research in order to get a better response to the surveys. She stated that additional questions should be considered, such as if higher limits achieve the broader goal the Ethics Commission has for the public financing program.

Commissioner Hansen stated that she would like deeper analysis because the report does not show the actual merits of public financing. She stated that the report did not analyze the result that only five candidates out of the 19 that accepted public financing won their race. She stated her concern is that some people would propose eliminating public financing without better analysis.

Executive Director St. Croix stated that only one candidate can win in each district. He stated that there was actually only one race in which there was public financing where the publicly financed candidate lost.

Chairperson Studley thanked staff for its work on the report.

Public Comment.

Joe Lynn stated that he heard candidates are concerned regarding the turnaround time when the expenditure ceiling is lifted. He stated that Netfile can report expenditure dates, and the Ethics Commission should adopt that as a reporting requirement. He stated that he has heard Supervisor Daly has met with staff regarding changes with public financing, but is not sure if that is true or not.

IV. Consideration of possible amendments to Lobbyist Ordinance.

DECISION POINT 36A

Motion 09-05-11-01 (Hansen/Harriman) Moved, seconded and passed (5-0) that the Ethics Commission adopt staff's recommendation on decision point 36A, as amended to include the language "may" instead of "shall."

Public Comment.

Anita Mayo stated that the mandatory language of "shall" will deter amendments to filings when they have made a mistake because the mandatory language will subject them to an administrative proceeding.

Vice-Chairperson Harriman agreed that the language should be "may" and not "shall."

DECISION POINT 37

Commissioner Hansen stated that she supported the change, but that the language regarding gift limits should not be removed.

Executive Director St. Croix stated that it is possible to violate more than one code section if someone violates the gift limitations in response to a question asked by Vice-Chairperson Harriman.

Motion 09-05-11-02 (Hansen/Gusukuma) Moved, seconded and passed (5-0) that the Ethics Commission adopt staff's recommendation on decision point 37, as amended to retain the language regarding gift limits.

Public Comment.
None

DECISION POINT 38

Commissioner Harriman asked Deputy City Attorney Shen if the mandatory language in subsection (c) is contradictory to other sections. Deputy City Attorney Shen said that the language should be harmonized to be consistent.

Commissioner Hansen stated that the mandatory language of "shall" should be the language used throughout rather than "may" in order to be consistent.

Motion 09-05-11-03 (Hansen/Harriman) Moved, seconded and passed (5-0) that the Ethics Commission adopt staff's recommendation on decision point 38, as amended to change the language only on line 11 from "shall" to "may".

Public Comment.
None

DECISION POINT 39

Commissioner Hansen stated that the language in the section should include "or commission" so that the Commission may also make a determination regarding a late fine or penalty.

Deputy City Attorney Shen stated that there are no regulations at present regarding the commission's ability to make this determination.

Commissioner Ward stated that as it reads now the Commission would not be involved.

Commissioner Hansen stated that she believes it should be addressed through regulations.

Chairperson Studley stated that any change made regarding coming to the Commission regarding this issue should be clearly stated. Commissioner Hansen stated that regulations would take care of any procedural issues, and would like the process to be similar to complaint dismissals.

Executive Director St. Croix stated that the Ordinance allows the Commission to waive a fine if it finds the late filing was not willful.

Vice-Chairperson Harriman stated that the sections appear inconsistent and that they should be looked at more thoroughly.

Motion 09-05-11-04 (Hansen/Harriman) Moved, seconded and passed (5-0) that the Ethics Commission adopt staff's recommendation on decision point 39, as amended per staff's recommendation.

Public Comment.
None

DECISION POINT 40

Commissioner Hansen stated that she did not support the change because it is unclear when one is communicating on one's own behalf.

Commissioner Harriman stated that she favored the change.

Commissioner Ward stated that he sees it as a possible loophole to avoid reporting.

The Commission passed on decision point 40 following the discussion regarding potential issues regarding it becoming a loophole.

Public Comment.
None

DECISION POINT 41

Motion 09-05-11-05 (Hansen/Harriman) Moved, seconded and passed (5-0) that the Ethics Commission adopt staff's recommendation on decision point 41, without discussion.

Public Comment.
None

DECISION POINT 42

Motion 09-05-11-06 (Hansen/Gusukuma) Moved, seconded and passed (5-0) that the Ethics Commission adopt staff's recommendation on decision point 42, without discussion.

Public Comment.
None

DECISION POINT 43

Commissioner Hansen stated that she did not think the Commission needed to remove this particular requirement regarding the gift limit.

Executive Director St. Croix stated that gifts over $25 can no longer be given.

Commissioner Hansen stated that she does not see the harm in keeping the language restricting gifts of any size. She also stated she wants to ensure that gifts over $25 must still be reported.

Motion 09-05-11-07 (Harriman/Ward) Moved, seconded and passed (4-1, Hansen dissenting) that the Ethics Commission adopt staff's recommendation on decision point 43.

Public Comment.

Anita Mayo stated that reporting gifts within those amounts at issue creates extra work for no reason. Commissioner Gusukuma asked if a letter should go out every time a gift is made to accurately report regarding aggregate limits. Ms. Mayo stated that they notify clients when they go over the $50 threshold.

Commissioner Hansen stated that the gifts between $25 and $50 never get reported. Ms. Mayo stated that under local law any value must be reported.

Executive Director St. Croix stated that this is eliminating all gifts over $25 and once in a while there will be a gift given under the state law exemption.

Vice-Commissioner Harriman stated that this is virtually eliminating all possibility of giving a gift over $25 except under some very specific exceptions.

Kimo Crossman stated that it is important to capture gifts given to political officials.

DECISION POINT 44

Motion 09-05-11-08 (Hansen/Harriman) Moved, seconded and passed (5-0) that the Ethics Commission adopt staff's recommendation on decision point 44, without discussion.

Public Comment.
None

DECISION POINT 45

Motion 09-05-11-09 (Harriman/Gusukuma) Moved, seconded and passed (5-0) that the Ethics Commission adopt staff's recommendation on decision point 45, without discussion.

Public Comment.
None

TECHINICAL CHANGES

Commissioner Hansen questioned why on change number one the word "paramount" was changed to "compelling." Deputy City Attorney Shen answered that the change is legally familiar.

Commissioner Hansen stated that on change number 8, removing the language "attempting to influence" is not a technical change, and is substantive. Deputy City Attorney Shen stated that the change isn't to limit activity; it was just to eliminate duplicative language.

Commissioner Hansen stated that on change number 15, it is not clear on how the commission will be able to prescribe the format, such as it doesn't specify if it addressed in the regulations.

Executive Director St. Croix stated that it is contingent on having the electronic reporting implemented.

Motion 09-05-11-10 (Hansen/Harriman) Moved, seconded and passed (5-0) that the Ethics Commission adopt staff's recommendation all technical changes.

Public Comment.
None

V. Consideration of possible amendments to the Commission's Regulations for
Investigations and Enforcement Proceedings ("Regulations").

Vice-Chairperson Harriman stated that she worked with staff in order to draft the proposed changes.

Executive Director St. Croix stated that one change in particular should be noted, that the formal follow-up regarding the joint meeting with the Sunshine Task Force has not been done, but these proposed changes would allow probable cause hearings on Sunshine hearings to be conducted in public rather than closed session.

Commissioner Ward stated that the language on change number 2 should be changed from "may" to "shall" regarding preliminary review of complaints requiring the interview of complainants. He stated that he wants to ensure that complainants are interviewed if respondents are interviewed.

Executive Director St. Croix suggested adding "to the extent feasible" as a way to deal with anonymous complainants that are not able to be interviewed.

Commissioner Ward stated that he wants to ensure that if a complaint is serious staff speaks to both parties.

Commissioner Gusukuma agreed that the complainant should be spoken with, but might be better addressed after a determination is made that an investigation is warranted.

Commission Ward stated that it should occur in a preliminary review.

Vice-Chairperson Harriman stated that a complainant is not a party to a complaint; the complainant may or may not have information helpful to the preliminary review or complaint.

Executive Director St. Croix stated that complainants are always spoken with, except in the case or referrals from Sunshine Task Force, which are not subject to preliminary review.

Commissioner Hansen stated Sunshine referrals should have a separate set of regulations. She also stated that she agrees with Commissioner Ward regarding how staff determines if a complaint is frivolous.

Executive Director St. Croix explained the review process and that staff presents findings to the Executive Director who makes the determination to move forward or not.

Commissioner Hansen stated that some complaints are not reviewed because some complaints are frivolous on their face and there is no reason to pursue them, but if they do fall under our jurisdiction, how does staff determine whether or not to pursue the complaint without doing some kind of investigative work. She stated that she wants to ensure that some kind of initial investigation is conducted.

Vice-Chairperson Harriman stated that staff should be allowed some discretion.

Chairperson Studley stated that the Commission expects investigation to be thorough and balanced.

Commissioner Hansen stated that she does not think that this discussion is an attempt to micro-manage staff, and that there have been many complaints from the public about enforcement, and that some public officials have concerns regarding our enforcement actions. She stated that it all starts at the preliminary review stage. She stated that the Rules Committee has called a hearing to discuss the way the Commission handles investigations.

Vice-Chairperson Harriman stated that staff has tried very hard to improve the procedures regarding enforcement and make the whole process better.

Chairperson Studley stated that the Commission should separate out enforcement procedures in general from those regarding Sunshine complaints.

Commissioner Hansen stated that on change number one, she is concerned that removing the return receipt requirement could be problematic to know if something has been received. She stated that delivery by email should have the response recorded to know the message was received.
Executive Director St. Croix stated that certified mail requires signatures, and in the past respondents have refused to sign the receipt.

Vice-Chairperson Harriman stated that proof of sending documents is acceptable, and that the burden falls to the other party to refute the message or document was not received.

Executive Director St. Croix stated that instances in which receipt is refused, staff will send the documents via process server.

Chairperson Studley stated that the Commissioners would send suggestions to the Executive Director and the Commission will discuss the suggested changes at a future meeting.

Commissioner Hansen stated that regarding complaint dismissals, the Executive Director should not be allowed to dismiss a complaint without it going before the Commission. She also stated the Commission should be allowed to review that the monthly summary of the disposition of complaints prior to accepting a determination.

Public Comment.

Kimo Crossman stated that regarding delivery of messages, software exists that allows one to determine if an email has been opened. He also stated that regarding the Sunshine Ordinance violations should be separated from other enforcement matters. He also stated that staff should talk to all respondents regarding complaints.

Allen Grossman stated that the Commission should be following the City Charter regarding adopting the Sunshine regulations as separate from other enforcement matters.

VI. Closed Session.

Motion 05-09-11-11 (Harriman/Gusukuma) Moved, seconded and unanimously passed (5-0) that the Ethics Commission go into closed session.

VII. Discussion and vote regarding closed session action and deliberations.

Public Comment.
None

Motion 09-05-11-12 (Harriman/Gusukuma) Moved, seconded and unanimously passed (5-0) that the Ethics Commission keep closed session deliberations confidential.

VIII. Minutes of the Commission's regular meetings of March 9, 2009 and April 13, 2009.

Commissioner Hansen stated that the minutes for the March 9, 2009, meeting, should reflect the actual names of the persons who spoke during public comment. She stated that on the minutes for the April 13, 2009, meeting, there was a typographical error in the spelling of Charles Marsteller's name.

Motion 09-05-11-13 (Harriman/Gusukuma) Moved, seconded and unanimously passed (5-0) that the Ethics Commission adopt the minutes for the March 9, 2009, regular meeting as amended.

Motion 09-05-11-14 (Harriman/Gusukuma) Moved, seconded and unanimously passed (5-0) that the Ethics Commission adopt the minutes for the April 13, 2009, regular meeting as amended.

IX. Executive Director's Report.

Executive Director St. Croix stated that he has heard that the scheduled meeting with the Board of Supervisors Rules Committee regarding the Ethics Commission budget has caused some concern at the Mayor's office. He stated that he is unclear as to what authority the Rules Committee has regarding the budget at this time.

Commissioner Hansen stated that she met with Supervisor Campos in order to schedule the hearing to respond to requests that individual Supervisors had received from members of the public regarding the Ethics Commission's budget priorities. She stated that the intent was to separate the discussion from the budget committee as that forum will not address the Ethics Commission budget priorities.

Commissioner Hansen stated that she does not believe it is inappropriate to discuss with her appointing authority business conducted by the Commission.

Chairperson Studley stated that Commissioners cannot individually discuss matters with an appointing authority as a representative of the entire Commission.

Executive Director St. Croix stated that the Ethics Commission itself is tasked with setting out its priorities, not an outside body.

The Commissioners engaged in a discussion regarding the appropriateness of individual Commissioners meeting with their respective appointing authorities. Chairperson Studley, Vice-Chairperson Harriman, and Commissioner Ward, all stated that they believed the Charter prohibited individual communications to their appointing authorities. Commissioner Hansen disagreed with that interpretation.

Commissioner Ward stated that speaking with a Supervisor regarding a hearing is speaking on behalf of the Commission, and not as an individual.

Chairperson Studley stated that the appearance of such a meeting is that a Commissioner would is speaking on behalf of the Commission as a body. She stated that the Commission should clarify the interpretation of the Charter.
Commissioner Hansen stated that regarding the report on the lobbyist report, there was an error and questioned why the error occurred. She also stated the latest lobbyist reports are not online.

Executive Director St. Croix stated that the summary is posted and the individual reports must be hand scanned.

Commissioner Hansen stated that the names of the consultants should be attached to the summary of the amounts.

Public Comment.
None

X. Items For Future Meetings.

Public Comment.
None

XI. Public Comment on matters appearing or not appearing on the agenda that are
within the jurisdiction of the Ethics Commission.

None

XII. Adjournment.

Motion 09-05-11-05 (Harriman/Gusukuma) Moved, seconded and passed (5-0) that the Ethics Commission adjourn.

Meeting adjourned at 9:45 PM.

Respectfully submitted,

______________________
Garrett Chatfield

Minutes - March 9, 2009

Tue, 12 May 2009 13:59:00 -0700

(Approved May 11, 2009)
Minutes of the Regular Meeting of
The San Francisco Ethics Commission
March 9, 2009
Room 408, City Hall

I. Call to order and roll call.

Chairperson Studley called the meeting to order at 5:35 p.m.

COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Jamienne Studley, Chairperson; Susan Harriman, Vice-Chairperson; Emi Gusukuma, Commissioner; Eileen Hansen, Commissioner; Charles Ward, Commissioner.

STAFF PRESENT: John St. Croix, Executive Director; Mabel Ng, Deputy Executive Director; Paul Solis, Investigator/Legal Analyst.

OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY: Jon Givner, Deputy City Attorney.

OTHERS PRESENT: Steve Atkinson; Debra Stein; Kevin Heneghan; Anita Mayo; Charles Marsteller; Joe Lynn; Paul Melbostad; Chris Wright; Raphael Mandelman; and other unidentified members of the public.

MATERIALS DISTRIBUTED:
- Memorandum from Executive Director to Ethics Commission re: Proposed Changes to the Lobbyist Ordinance, March 4, 2009
- Memorandum from Executive Director to Ethics Commission re: Letter from former Commissioners regarding Lobbyist Ordinance, March 4, 2009
- Written Comments Received from Members of the Public re: Lobbyist Ordinance
- Lobbyist Ordinance Draft Amendments
- Draft Minutes of the February 9, 2009 Regular Meeting
- Executive Director's Report to the Ethics Commission for the Meeting of March 9, 2009

II. Public comment on matters appearing or not appearing on the agenda that is within the jurisdiction of the Ethics Commission

Joe Lynn stated that lobbying requires transparency and noted two entities that have spent significant amounts of money on lobbying. He also distributed newspaper articles to the Commissioners regarding lobbying and discussed the contents of the articles. He stated that staff must examine lobbyist reports closely.

III. Consideration of possible amendments to the Lobbyist Ordinance

Commissioner Ward asked whether staff or the City Attorney had reviewed previous public comment regarding modification of the Lobbyist Ordinance that may weaken the Ordinance. Deputy City Attorney Givner responded that the Lobbyist Ordinance is not limited by a proviso that it only be amended to further its purpose.
Executive Director St. Croix stated that all proposed changes are directed towards the goal of electronic filing.

Decision Point 1: Commissioner Hansen stated that she supported an exception for engineers but did not support a blanket exception for attorneys. She suggested that attorneys should be excluded only when "actively" engaged in the practice of law. Commissioner Harriman stated that lobbying and other activities can be done by non-attorneys and that there are not many activities that can only be done by attorneys. She stated that the exception for attorneys is narrow as written and to modify it would be to nullify the effect of the exception.

Decision Point 2: Chairperson Studley suggested inserting language exempting certain requests for information made by City officers. Commissioner Ward stated that a clarification on a matter may be considered a "request" and count as an initial contact. Deputy Director Ng stated that the proposed change could be amended to reflect that if a person is already registered as a lobbyist, they do not need to disclose simple clarifications or follow-ups.

Decision Point 3: No commission comment.

Public Comment:
Joe Lynn stated that he opposes any change that allows the lobbyist or public official to have discretion to disclose. He also stated that oral contacts should be available for public review.

Anita Mayo stated that regarding the attorney exception, licensed attorneys who practice law should be exempted from the Lobbyist Ordinance. She also stated that a request for the status of an action should not be considered a contact and should remain exempted from disclosure.

Decision Point 4:
Commissioner Gusukuma stated that she did not support the proposed change because it would be impossible to regulate.

Decision Point 5: No commission comment.

Decision Point 6: No commission comment.

Decision Point 7: No commission comment.

Public Comment:
Anita Mayo stated that concerning collective bargaining, the better approach is the one taken by Los Angeles where the negotiation phase is exempted from lobbyist regulation.

Steve Atkinson stated he supported the exception for technical experts. He also stated that, concerning decision point 6, he was uncertain as to whether a letter written to the board of supervisors would be exempted.

Kevin Henneghan stated that, concerning decision point 7, staff should include language on negotiations that have nothing to do with collective bargaining to put unions on notice about what is actually exempt.

Joe Lynn stated that the firefighters union recently registered as a lobbyist and that he supported further union reporting.

Chairperson Studley suggested that staff include language concerning what activity is not exempt under decision point 7. Deputy Director Ng stated that staff could include the language in the lobbyist manual or adopt regulations.

Decision Point 8:
Chairperson Studley asked whether minutes are taken during interested persons meetings or workshops to which staff responded that no minutes are taken.

Public Comment:
Joe Lynn stated that the proposal in decision point 8 is counter to the goals of the Lobbyist Ordinance. He stated that lobbyists attending these types of meetings should be required to disclose their presence.

Anita Mayo stated that the purpose of the exemption is to encourage people to provide information to City agencies who ask for it.

Debra Stein stated that she supported the exemption and that without the exemption, important information would be stifled.

Decision Point 9: No commission comment.

Public Comment:
Joe Lynn stated that he did not understand the need for the change.

Decision Points 10, 11:
Commissioner Hansen stated that she supported the changes, except for the last part of decision point 11 concerning "at least one contact" with a City officer. She stated that other jurisdictions do not apply this provision and that regulation in those jurisdictions focuses more on monetary issues.

Public Comment:
Anita Mayo stated that she supported the proposed change in decision point 10. She also stated that the last part of decision point 11 is too low of a threshold. She stated that other jurisdictions require some sort of minimum direct contact and without it, constitutional problems may arise.

Joe Lynn stated that the proposed changes do not require direct contacts with City officials. He stated that the firefighters union's recent ad in the Chronicle illustrated this point. He stated that further definition of "lobbyist" may be needed to clarify these issues.

Paul Melbostad stated that the amount of money spent on contacts should be made available to the public.

Commissioner Harriman suggested inserting a subsection discussing the definition of "contact" as it relates to decision points 3 and 8.

Motion 09-03-09-1 (Harriman/Ward) Moved, seconded and passed (4-1; Hansen dissenting) that the Ethics Commission adopt staff's recommendation on decision point 1.

Public Comment:
Joe Lynn stated that he opposed adopting staff's recommendation on decision point 2. Commissioner Hansen stated that the Commission should address the issue of whether oral comments made at the request of a City officer should be recorded. She stated that she would make a separate motion on this matter.

Charles Marsteller stated that the Commission should consider whether to record interested persons meetings and workshops.

Motion 09-03-09-2 (Harriman/Ward) Moved, seconded and passed (5-0) that the Ethics Commission adopt staff's recommendation on decision point 2, as amended: to state that providing oral information to a City officer in response to a request from that officer is not a contact for the purpose of determining whether the person providing the information qualifies as a lobbyist. But a person who otherwise qualifies as a lobbyist must report such a communication as a contact. Providing written information in response to a request made by a City officer would continue to be an exception to the definition of "contact" in the Ordinance.

Public Comment:
None.

Motion 09-03-09-3 (Harriman/Ward) Moved, seconded and passed (5-0) that the Ethics Commission adopt staff's recommendation on decision point 3, as amended: to provide that a communication seeking the status of an action is not a contact for the purposes of qualifying as a lobbyist. A person who otherwise qualifies as a lobbyist must report the communication as a contact if it is a communication to influence local legislative or administrative action under section 2.105(d)(2)(B).

Public Comment:
Paul Melbostad stated that the definition of an expert should be addressed.

Motion 09-03-09-4 (Harriman/Ward) Moved, seconded and passed (5-0) that the Ethics Commission adopt staff's recommendation on decision point 4, as amended: to narrow the exception for expert communications such that only a person providing purely technical data, analysis or expertise in the presence of a registered lobbyist is not making a "contact" under the Ordinance.

Public Comment:
None.

Motion 09-03-09-5 (Harriman/Ward) Moved, seconded and passed (5-0) that the Ethics Commission adopt staff's recommendation on decision point 5.

Commissioner Hansen asked about the definition of "quasi-judicial" to which Deputy City Attorney Givner stated that although the Ordinance does not specifically define the term, it is the Commission's policy decision whether to further define the term.

Public Comment:
Paul Melbostad questioned whether "proceeding" is interchangeable with "hearing."

Motion 09-03-09-6 (Harriman/Gusukuma) Moved, seconded and passed (5-0) that the Ethics Commission adopt staff's recommendation on decision point 6.

Public Comment:
None.

Motion 09-03-09-7 (Harriman/Hansen) Moved, seconded and passed (5-0) that the Ethics Commission adopt staff's recommendation on decision point 7.

Commissioner Harriman made a motion to adopt staff's recommendation on decision point 8, as amended.

Commissioner Hansen suggested that the Commission keep a record of who attends interested persons meetings. Commissioner Harriman stated that she did not believe it was a good idea to record interested persons meetings in light of budgetary issues.

Public Comment:
Debra Stein stated that she has attended and participated in interested persons meetings without advocating any client's position. She stated she did not believe attendance and participation should count as a contact. She also stated that describing the details of attending a meeting would be too burdensome on the lobbyist. Ms. Stein stated that she would never attend an interested persons meeting to seek clients.

Commissioner Harriman withdrew her previous motion and suggested adding "unless representing a client" to the language of decision point 8. Chairperson Studley stated that staff should add this language where applicable, throughout the Lobbyist Ordinance.

Public Comment:
Joe Lynn stated that the motion was too broad and that lobbyists advocate for a community regardless of whether they have a specific client's interest to advance. He also stated that he disagreed that further reporting was too burdensome on the lobbyists.

Anita Mayo stated that the Ordinance should encourage lobbyist participation and that this type of contact is not an attempt to influence government action.

Paul Melbostad stated that he supported the proposed change.

Raphael Mandelman stated that lobbyists should be required to disclose their presence at an interested persons meeting and that the Commission is narrowing the requirements to a greater degree than necessary.

Motion 09-03-09-8 (Harriman/Gusukuma) Moved, seconded and passed (3-2; Ward, Gusukuma dissenting) that the Ethics Commission adopt staff's recommendation on decision point 8, as amended: to provide that, unless representing a client, a person participating in a public interested persons meeting, workshop or other forum convened by a City department for the purpose of soliciting public input is not making a "contact" under the Ordinance.

Public Comment:
None.

Motion 09-03-09-9 (Harriman/Ward) Moved, seconded and passed (5-0) that the Ethics Commission adopt staff's recommendation on decision point 9.

Public Comment:
None.

Motion 09-03-09-10 (Harriman/Gusukuma) Moved, seconded and passed (5-0) that the Ethics Commission adopt staff's recommendation on decision point 10.

Public Comment:
Joe Lynn stated a definition of "measure." He suggested an amendment consistent with the definition.

Motion 09-03-09-11 (Harriman/Ward) Moved, seconded and passed (4-1; Hansen dissenting) that the Ethics Commission adopt staff's recommendation on decision point 11.

Decision Point 12: Commissioner Hansen proposed a 24 hour disclosure deadline as opposed to a 10 business day requirement. She stated that this type of discourse is necessary to ensure the public has full awareness of lobbyist contacts.

Public Comment:

Motion 09-03-09-12 (Harriman/Ward) Moved, seconded and passed (3-2; Hansen, Gusukuma dissenting) that the Ethics Commission adopt staff's recommendation on decision point 12, but changing the time to register to five rather than ten business days.

Decision Point 13: The Commission postponed consideration of decision point 13.

Decision Point 14: No Commission comment.

Public Comment:
None.

Motion 09-03-09-13 (Harriman/Gusukuma) Moved, seconded and passed (5-0) that the Ethics Commission adopt staff's recommendation on decision point 14.

Decision Points 15, 16, 17: Commissioner Harriman stated that, with the recommendation, staff has struck a balance for all interested parties. Chairperson Studley stated that the decision point is tied to the ultimate goal of electronic filing. Commissioner Hansen made a motion to require lobbyist disclosure on a 24 hour basis stating that the public would benefit greatly from the requirement. She stated that lobbyists could access an electronic form with an automatic reporting system.

Public Comment:
Joe Lynn stated that CFRO should guide the Commission's consideration of the decision point because that Ordinance requires disclosures consistent with immediate public disclosure. He stated that the technical aspects of disclosure could be postponed for an interested persons meeting if the Commission agrees on the principle of immediate disclosure.

Paul Melbostad stated that a three-day disclosure requirement may be a good compromise.

Anita Mayo stated that lobbyist disclosure cannot be compared to disclosures under CFRO because of lobbyist reporting complexities. She stated that quarterly reporting is consistent with other jurisdictions.

Kevin Henneghan stated that monthly reporting is too burdensome. He also stated that lobbyists often meet with staff-level people that does not result an immediate vote or action. He stated that this would complicate immediate reporting. He also stated that the Sunshine Ordinance is the best avenue for the public to access the information.

Debra Stein stated that monthly reporting would not serve the public's interest and it is not consistent with other jurisdictions. She also stated that 24 hour reporting would require excess reporting, too difficult for small firms to comply with.

Chris Wright stated that monthly reporting is too burdensome and does not serve any real public interest.

Commissioner Harriman stated that she was uncertain whether she supported staff's recommendation without certain electronic systems already in place. She stated that although she initially made the motion in support, she wanted more time to consider the issue and would vote no on the motion. Chairperson Studley concurred. Commissioner Ward stated that he favored more frequent reporting, at least monthly reporting, but his inclination was not to report within 24 hours at this time.

Motion 09-03-09-14 (Harriman/Ward) Moved, seconded and failed (0-5) that the Ethics Commission adopt staff's recommendation to require lobbyists to disclose activities on a monthly basis.

IV. Minutes of the Commission's regular meeting of February 9, 2009

Public Comment:
None.

Motion 09-03-09-15 (Harriman/Gusukuma) Moved, seconded and passed (5-0) that the Ethics Commission adopt the minutes of February 9, 2009.

V. Executive Director's Report

Executive Director St. Croix noted an upcoming Lobbyist Ordinance training. He also discussed Bureau of Delinquent Revenues items. Mr. St. Croix stated that he is in weekly budget discussions with the Mayor's Office and the Board of Supervisors.

Commissioner Hansen inquired about the creation of a budget committee in light of major budget issues. She stated that potential staff cuts that relate to Commission priorities are a policy decision that the Commission should engage in. Chairperson Studley stated that staff cuts are solely within the discretion of the Executive Director. She also stated that the Commission may continue to discuss priorities with the Executive Director.

Public Comment:
Charles Marsteller stated that federal funding to California may help alleviate budget constraints.

Joe Lynn stated that the enforcement division has not brought in enough revenues and that too many waivers of late fees and penalties have been granted. He also stated that educational outreach is not working due to the large amount of late fees. Mr. Lynn stated that in 2004, committees who did not pay fees were awarded disproportional benefits over those paying late fees.

VI. Items for Future Meetings

Public Comment:
None.

VII. Public comment on matters appearing or not appearing on the agenda that is within the jurisdiction of the Ethics Commission

None.

VIII. Adjournment

Public Comment:
None.

Motion 09-03-09-16 (Harriman/Hansen) Moved, seconded and passed (5-0) that the Ethics Commission adjourn.

The meeting was adjourned at 8:52 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

________________
Paul Solis
Investigator/ Legal Analyst

Minutes - April 13, 2009

Tue, 12 May 2009 00:00:00 -0700

(Approved May 11, 2009)
Minutes of the Regular Meeting of
The San Francisco Ethics Commission
April 13, 2009
Room 408, City Hall

I. Call to order and roll call.

Chairperson Studley called the meeting to order at 5:34 p.m.

COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Jamienne Stanley, Chairperson; Susan Harriman, Vice-Chairperson (excused at 9:13 PM); Emi Gusukuma, Commissioner; Eileen Hansen, Commissioner; Charles Ward, Commissioner.

STAFF PRESENT: John St. Croix, Executive Director; Mabel Ng, Deputy Executive Director; Catherine Argumedo, Investigator/Legal Analyst.

OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY: Jon Givner, Deputy City Attorney.

OTHERS PRESENT: Enrique Pearce; Paul Melbostad; Anita Mayo; Charles Marsteller; Joe Lynn; Debra Stein; Emily Pears; and other unidentified members of the public.

MATERIALS DISTRIBUTED:
- Informal advice letter issued on March 23, 2009 to Enrique Pearce, regarding Campaign and Governmental Conduct Code section 1.118;
- Letter from Mr. Pearce on April 8, 2009, responding to informal advice letter issued by the Ethics Commission;
- Draft formal advice letter regarding the application of the compensated advocacy ban (San Francisco Campaign and Governmental Conduct Code section 3.224) to a member of the Board of Examiners (Patrick Buscovich);
- Draft staff report recommending that the Commission grant Mr. Buscovich a waiver, should the Commission determine that a member of the Board of Examiners is subject to the compensated advocacy ban;
- Supplemental Memorandum from the Executive Director to Ethics Commission, dated April 7, 2009, regarding the proposed changes to the Lobbyist Ordinance;
- Memorandum from Executive Director to Ethics Commission, dated March 4, 2009, regarding the proposed changes to the Lobbyist Ordinance;
- Written Comments Received from Members of the Public regarding the proposed changes to the Lobbyist Ordinance;
- Lobbyist Ordinance Draft, March 4, 2009 version;
- Lobbyist Ordinance Draft, March 5, 2009 version;
- Draft Minutes of the March 9, 2009 Regular Meeting;
- Executive Director's Report to the Ethics Commission for the Meeting of April 13, 2009.

II. Public comment on matters appearing or not appearing on the agenda that is within the jurisdiction of the Ethics Commission.

Joe Lynn stated that the minutes from the March 2009 meeting were not clear. He asked for further clarification on any amendments made to decision points, rather than saying simply "as amended." He commented on the Commission's advice to Mr. Pearce and stated that the contributors should not be liable for any outstanding debt a committee may have. He suggested future discussion and changes to the current law.

Commissioner Hansen stated that she had the same concern regarding the minutes. Mr. Lynn added that the minutes are otherwise excellent and Mr. Solis is doing a great job.

Jeff Ente stated that the Ethics Commission has never found merit in any referral from the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force. He stated that there is a serious problem and the problem lies on the side of the Ethics Commission. He stated that he filed a complaint after hearing a Supervisor say something about e-mails he had received. He stated that the Supervisor was not telling the truth and failed to provide e-mails. He stated that the Executive Director dismissed the complaint and stated that the Supervisor could only provide one e-mail. He stated that the Ethics Commission has a sworn responsibility to the public trust and that he had independent corroboration from an ABC news person regarding the Supervisor's comments. He asked that the Commission exercise proper oversight. Mr. Ente also submitted comments in writing.

Commissioner Hansen stated that the Ethics Commission and the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force will be holding a joint meeting on April 24 from 2 PM to 4 PM and she encouraged Mr. Ente to attend the meeting.

III. Consideration of informal advice issued to Mr. Enrique Pearce regarding Campaign and Governmental Conduct Code section 1.118.

Enrique Pearce stated that he works for Left Coast Communications and that he requested informal advice from the Commission regarding section 1.118. He stated that he did not agree with the conclusion that a candidate's committee, and not the candidate himself, is responsible for the candidate's debt. He asked how vendors, who are owed money after a publicly-financed candidate has already spent $5,000 of his own money on the campaign, are to be paid. He stated that these candidates would be able to use the law and escape liability. He stated that he had previously received advice from Commission staff that the candidate himself would be liable in similar circumstances and stated that he is unclear how the Commission has changed positions.

Chairperson Studley stated that procedurally, the advice has been issued and stands, unless the Commission votes to change the Executive Director's advice. Mr. Pearce stated that he asked the Executive Director to reconsider his decision. Commissioner Harriman stated that it is an unfortunate situation and it is also what the law requires. She stated that for some time, he will be unable to collect what is owed, but if the debts are not paid within 180 days, then there are penalties that may be imposed on the candidate. She also stated that once penalties may be imposed, then there will be more pressure on the candidate to pay the debts.

Commissioner Hansen stated that a fair reading could impose liability to a candidate and the committee. She stated that section 1.118 was drafted so that people would not amass massive accrued debt. She asked that the letter state that both the candidate and committee are liable.

Commissioner Ward asked whether Mr. Pearce had an informal opinion letter or other writing from staff stating that the candidate is personally liable. Mr. Pearce stated that he did not have anything in writing, but that he had been advised many times regarding several campaigns. Commissioner Ward asked who gave him the advice and Mr. Pearce stated that he had been advised by Mr. Luby and Ms. Ng.

Commissioner Hansen stated that the Commission should address the inconsistency and allow for a candidate to be liable along with the campaign committee. Commissioner Harriman stated that a problem is that a candidate in these circumstances is not allowed to contribute more than $5000 to his/her own campaign. She stated that in this case there is liability that will be imposed and will cause the candidate to have a fundraiser. She stated that the contradiction in the law is something to address in the future through legislation.

Commissioner Ward asked what defense the candidate would have if the candidate paid the debt and exceeded the $5,000 limit. Mr. Pearce stated that he did not know what the defense would be and stated that the vendor should not be responsible for the debt. Mr. Pearce encouraged the Commission to revisit the issue in the future and asked that the Commission apply liability to the candidate.

Chairperson Studley asked City Attorney Givner what the consequences would be if a candidate contributed more than $5,000 to his/her own campaign. Mr. Givner stated that it would be a violation of CFRO and that a candidate could face a penalty of $5,000 per violation or three times the amount that the candidate exceeded the limit, whichever is greater.

Commissioner Gusukuma then stated that the result was not fair and that she was not comfortable with staff's conclusion that "candidate" refers only to the committee and not the individual. She agreed with Mr. Pearce's argument that the individual candidate should also incur liability for debts. However, she agreed with the result in this case because either the candidate or the committee would have the same defense in not willfully violating a separate law by repaying a debt. Commissioner Hansen agreed with Commissioner Gusukuma's statements and added that the Commission could redraft the letter and make its statements narrower. She stated that the letter is too broad and that it should not say that the candidate is not liable. Mr. St. Croix stated that the Commission issued a statement because Mr. Pearce asked for one. He stated that the Commission would deal with the issue of amending CFRO before the next publicly financed race. Commissioner Harriman stated that, under these circumstances, only the committee is liable. Commissioner Ward stated that the opinion given in the letter is not unreasonable and the Commission should address the conflict in the law.

Chairperson Studley stated that Mr. Pearce could withdraw the request for a letter, leave the letter as it is written, or ask staff to come to a different conclusion. Mr. Pearce stated his disappointment. He stated that section 1.118 states that the candidate and committee are both liable and then asked that the Commission withdraw the informal opinion. Mr. Givner stated that the letter was now a matter of public record. He also stated that informal advice has no binding effect. Commissioner Hansen suggested stating there was no consensus regarding the advice.

Chairperson Studley stated that the law should be addressed in the future.

Motion 09-04-13-1 (Hansen/Gusukuma) Moved, seconded and failed (2-3; Ward, Harriman, and Studley dissenting) that the Ethics Commission withdraw the informal advice letter.

Public Comment:
Joe Lynn suggested that the Commission should not advise anything in this case. He stated that people will use the advice and that the advice could be misinterpreted by the community. He suggested that the letter state that liability may be imposed elsewhere. He also suggested withdrawing the letter because the Commission should not issue opinions about third parties' potential liability.

Charles Marsteller asked why the letter was written and why the Commission could issue no advice.

IV. Consideration of formal advice letter regarding the application of the compensated advocacy ban (San Francisco Campaign and Governmental Conduct Code section 3.224) to a member of the Board of Examiners.

Mr. St. Croix stated that Patrick Buscovich, the appointee to the Board of Examiners, is not present. He stated that Mr. Buscovich requested a waiver and that a member of the Board of Examiners is not identified in Administrative Code as a city officer. Mr. St. Croix stated that if the member of the Board of Examiners does not meet the definition, then the compensated advocacy ban does not apply and Mr. Buscovich would not need a waiver. Mr. St. Croix stated that if the Commissioners do not agree, then staff's alternate suggestion is for the Commission to grant the waiver. Commissioner Hansen agreed with the advice letter and stated that Mr. Buscovich did not need a waiver. She stated that members of the Board of Examiners should be City officers.

Motion 09-04-13-2 (Harriman/Gusukuma) Moved, seconded and passed (5-0) that the Ethics Commission approve the formal advice letter stating that Mr. Buscovich is not subject to the compensated advocacy ban.

Public Comment:
None.

V. Consideration of possible amendments to Lobbyist Ordinance.

Chairperson Studley stated that the next decision point under consideration was decision point 13. Deputy Director Ng stated that the Commission had completed through decision point 14, since the Commission decided to bypass decision point 13 until making a decision about decision points 15-17. Chairperson Studley suggested looking at decision points 15 and 16 together.

DECISION POINTS 15 - 17

Ms. Ng stated that at the March meeting, the Commission voted 0-5 to reject decision point 15 and that the Commissioners wanted to think about monthly reporting. Chairperson Studley stated that the reports are currently required quarterly and without any action that requirement would remain.

Commissioner Hansen proposed 24-hour reporting as there is a compelling interest by the public to have a full extent of reporting available as timely as possible. She stated that without 24-hour reporting, the public would not know who or what is influencing the legislators. She suggested making this decision in concert with electronic reporting.

Commissioner Ward stated his support for 72-hour reporting. He stated that he arrived at this decision because all spokespeople from the lobbyist community were opposed to the monthly requirement and more detailed information and he does not think they are interested in the transparency that the Commission seeks. He stated that it is unreasonable to suggest that monthly reporting is burdensome. He agrees with staff that lobbyists would have less to report.

Commissioner Harriman stated that she is unsure what frequency of reporting she supports. She does not support 24 or 72-hour reporting. She stated that she would like to know what the compelling interest would be for more frequent reporting, as lobbyists have a First Amendment right to talk to government officials. She stated that having detailed information in reports is more important than how often it is delivered to the public. She also stated that she does not think that monthly reporting would be burdensome. Commissioner Hansen stated that she believes there is a compelling interest in reporting. She stated that the public should have the information of when and how often legislators are being contacted by lobbyists, especially when some decisions are made quickly.

Mr. St. Croix stated that staff asked for monthly reporting and would like to have some time to see how it works. He stated that staff would like to minimize the reporting burden on the lobbyists and that staff's ultimate goal would be 72-hour reporting. Mr. St. Croix also stated that the e-filing system will be new.

Motion 09-04-13-3 (Gusukuma/Harriman) Moved, seconded and passed (5-0) that the Ethics Commission adopt staff's recommendation on decision point 15, provided that the Commission revisit the item six months from implementation for further discussion.

Public Comment:
Charles Marsteller stated that the reporting schedule should be analogous to CFRO. He stated that the Political Reform Act ("PRA") has a trigger for 24-hour reporting, with a dollar threshold attached. He stated his approval for the Commission's decision to revisit within six months. Chairperson Studley stated that the special reporting requirements are easier to understand within the PRA because the date of election is a fixed point, and asked Mr. Marsteller what date to use as there are many decisions made. Mr. Marsteller suggested using the Brown Act trigger. He stated that three days before a legislative body makes a decision, the body is required to notify the public.

Paul Melbostad, former Ethics Commissioner and member of Harvey Milk Democratic Club, stated that if 24-hour or 72-hour reporting is not possible, then the Commission should make all attempts to have lobbying activity reported as quickly as possible.

Anita Mayo stated that, under the First Amendment, lobbying is subject to reasonable regulations. She stated that no jurisdiction in California has monthly reporting and that most require quarterly reports. She stated that many of her clients require legal review of any reporting prior to filing with the Commission. She suggested that City officials be required to release calendars with a summary of decisions made and the identity of each person met.

Joe Lynn agreed with Ms. Mayo's comment regarding the release of city officials' calendars. He stated that the compelling interest of reporting was to know who legislators meet with before a decision is made and not after. He stated that electronic reporting would be easier on a lobbyist rather than paper ones filed quarterly.

Debra Stein from GCA Strategies stated that 72-hour reporting or 24-hour reporting would be an overwhelming burden on speech. She stated that there would be thousands of reports pouring into the Ethics Commission. She stated that this requirement would be an invitation for people to be out of compliance and that the decision-makers calendars are available. She stated that she was in the hospital last year for five days and she would have been non-compliant during that time because she does not have staff. She stated that there are a lot of neighborhood activists and homeowner's associations and smaller groups that hire lobbyists and choose not to register. She stated that these lobbyists are not complying with the law and staff does not seem to be able to enforce what is currently required. She asked the Commission not to commit to 24-hour or 72-hour reporting.

Commissioner Hansen stated that if Ms. Stein was in the hospital, she would not be out of compliance during those days under the 24-hour reporting proposal, as she would not have any contacts to report. She stated that if there was no activity, there would be no obligation to report. Ms. Stein stated that she did have contacts while she was in the hospital. Commissioner Hansen stated that if Ms. Stein was able to make contacts while in the hospital, then she would be able to report. Ms. Stein stated that she would not have 24-hour access to computers.

Commissioner Hansen then asked whether Ms. Stein had said that there are lobbyists who choose not to register with the Commission because they do not want to burden staff. Ms. Stein stated that individual homeowners may contact lobbyists, but that she did not represent those projects. She stated that there are other lobbyists in the City who represent these projects. She stated that these people do not file with the Ethics Commission.

Commissioner Ward asked when she would report to her client that she spoke with a Supervisor regarding his vote on a matter before the Board. Ms. Stein stated that there was no fixed time. She stated that sometimes she speaks with clients every day and sometimes she speaks with them every two weeks. Commissioner Ward asked if an item would be voted on by Wednesday, when would she speak with her client. Ms. Stein stated that she had different contacts with different clients.

Emily Pears stated that many people have paid staffers and have the resources to comply with more frequent reporting. She stated that many lobbyists work for non-profits or work from home and would not have the resources available to report.

Commissioner Hansen asked what support there is among the Commissioners for 24-hour or 72-hour reporting. Commissioner Ward stated that it was a reasonable request from staff to allow them the time to see how the new filing system works.

The Commission took a break at 7:22 PM, before going forward with decision point 13.
The Commission returned from break at 7:34 PM.

Chairperson Studley stated that the Commission will stop discussion of this item by 9 PM. She stated that the item, if not completed, would be continued to the next meeting.

DECISION POINT 13:

Motion 09-04-13-4 (Harriman/Hansen) Moved, seconded and passed (5-0) that the Ethics Commission adopt staff's recommendation on decision point 13, without discussion.

Public Comment:
None.

DECISION POINT 18

Motion 09-04-13-5 (Hansen/Gusukuma) Moved, seconded and passed (5-0) that the Ethics Commission adopt staff's recommendation on decision point 18, without discussion.

Public Comment:

Anita Mayo stated that the requirement to disclose each contact date is a burden on lobbyists. She stated that the information is already available and that this requirement does not provide any meaningful information to the public. She also stated that there is no similar law in or outside of California. She reminded the Commission that when the Ordinance was amended in 1997, there was a proposal to include the total number of contacts, but it was decided to be an undue burden and the amendment was rejected.

Commissioner Hansen stated that the date of contact is crucial information and that the burden should be on both the city officials and lobbyists. Chairperson Studley asked what the consequences would be if someone made a technical error on the report. Mr. St. Croix stated that it may be subject to a complaint, but a minor infraction would be treated as such.

Paul Melbostad stated that the date of contacts is essential information.

DECISION POINT 19

Motion 09-04-13-6 (Hansen/Gusukuma) Moved, seconded and passed (5-0) that the Ethics Commission adopt staff's recommendation on decision point 19, without discussion.

Public Comment:
None.

DECISION POINTS 20 & 21

Referring to page 17 of the March 4, 2009 version of the proposed Lobbyist Ordinance amendments, Commissioner Hansen asked why an address, phone number, and e-mail address are not requested for all political contributions delivered by lobbyists. Ms. Ng stated that addresses are listed for campaign contributors and may be added as a requirement for the lobbyist to report, but e-mail addresses are not required. Ms. Ng suggested adding street addresses as a requirement. Commissioner Hansen stated that e-mail may be a better way to reach a contributor. Mr. St. Croix stated that there may be privacy concerns, since the Commission staff usually redacts e-mail addresses from public view. He stated that unless the state determines that e-mail addresses must be disclosed, the Commission will keep it as is.

Commissioner Hansen then asked how frequently lobbyists would be required to update contact information under subsection 9 on page 18 of the proposed amendments. Mr. St. Croix stated that the requirement would now be monthly. He stated that currently the requirement is to update contact information on at least a quarterly basis. Commissioner Harriman noted that this issue is not related to decision points 20 or 21.

Commissioner Hansen then stated that she did not support staff's recommendation that lobbyists be no longer required to disclose information about donations to ballot measure committees. Commissioner Ward asked why staff made this recommendation. Mr. Givner stated that it was a policy recommendation based on staff's determination that the information would not be useful to the public.

Chairperson Studley then separated decision points 20 and 21.

Motion 09-04-13-7 (Hansen/Harriman) Moved, seconded and passed (5-0) that the Ethics Commission adopt staff's recommendation on decision point 20, amending the requirement to include the contributor's mailing address.

Public Comment:
None.

DECISION POINT 21

Mr. St. Croix stated that the recommendation is simply a policy recommendation to simplify things.

Motion 09-04-13-8 (Hansen/Gusukuma) Moved, seconded and passed (5-0) that the Ethics Commission not adopt staff's recommendation on decision point 21.

Public Comment:
Paul Melbostad stated that he agreed with Commissioner Hansen. Mr. Givner stated that a candidate-controlled committee is defined in state law, and is generally one where the candidate is the person running the committee.

DECISION POINT 22

Motion 09-04-13-9 (Hansen/Gusukuma) Moved, seconded and passed (5-0) that the Ethics Commission adopt staff's recommendation on decision point 22, without discussion.

Public Comment:
None.

DECISION POINT 23

Chairperson Studley asked whether the new fees would be per individual lobbyist or per lobbyist organization. Mr. St. Croix stated that the fees would be per individual lobbyist and not organization. Commissioner Hansen asked why the Commission is seeking to lower annual fees. She asked what the Commission's enforcement power would be if a lobbyist is not officially registered with the Commission, due to failure to pay annual fees. Mr. St. Croix stated that staff would proceed with an enforcement action, as it would now. Mr. St. Croix stated that enforcement has proven difficult regarding finding unregistered lobbyists, as no one has been able to provide evidence of any.

Commissioner Hansen stated that lowering the fees will not be much of an incentive for people to register. Commissioner Harriman stated that lowering the fees would reward compliance from those who have complied and suggested that the Commission should not charge more than what it costs to administer the program.

Motion 09-04-13-10 (Harriman/Ward) Moved, seconded and passed (3-2; Hansen and Gusukuma dissenting) that the Ethics Commission adopt staff's recommendation on decision point 23.

Public Comment:
Mr. Melbostad stated that there are not many people in the City that are not registering as lobbyists. He stated that labor unions, such as the one on Franklin Street, do not register and the deterrent is not because of the $500 fee. He suggested that reducing the fee could result in backlash to the Commission.

Commissioner Hansen agreed with former Commissioner Melbostad. She stated that reducing the fees sends a bad message in a budget crisis.

DECISION POINTS 24-26

Motion 09-04-13-11 (Hansen/Harriman) Moved, seconded and passed (5-0) that the Ethics Commission adopt staff's recommendation on decision points 24-26, without discussion.

Public Comment:
None.

DECISION POINT 27

Motion 09-04-13-12 (Hansen/Gusukuma) Moved, seconded and passed (5-0) that the Ethics Commission adopt staff's recommendation on decision point 27, with the correction of "more than $25" as opposed to "$25 or more."

Public Comment:
Anita Mayo suggested a correction of the language of the decision point. She stated the prohibition should be on gifts worth "more than $25" rather than "$25 or more." Mr. St. Croix agreed that staff would make that correction in the language.

DECISION POINT 28

Motion 09-04-13-13 (Hansen/Harriman) Moved, seconded and passed (5-0) that the Ethics Commission adopt staff's recommendation on decision point 28, without discussion.

Public Comment:
Anita Mayo stated that attending trainings is a reasonable requirement, but suggested that, instead of mandating additional trainings in Executive Director's discretion, the amendment could require trainings whenever substantive changes are made to the lobbying laws or every 3-4 years as a refresher training, as it is on the state level.

Mr. St. Croix stated that in general the Executive Director would not require trainings unless there were substantial changes in the law. He stated that this amendment would also allow for the Executive Director to call for training when the quality of the reporting deteriorates.

DECISION POINT 29

Commissioner Hansen stated her support for the current ban. She stated that she would not support removing the ban, as campaign consultants should not engage in lobbying. Commissioner Harriman asked the reason for removing the ban. Mr. St. Croix stated that if the commissioners did not want to change the policy, they should follow Commissioner Hansen.

Motion 09-04-13-14 (Hansen/Gusukuma) Moved, seconded and passed (5-0) that the Ethics Commission not adopt staff's recommendation on decision point 29.

Public Comment:
Mr. Melbostad agreed with Commissioner Hansen.

DECISION POINT 30

Commissioner Hansen made a motion to accept staff's recommendation for decision point 30. Commissioner Gusukuma asked what type of circumstances staff anticipates that it would need to ask lobbyists for this type of information, other than an enforcement action. Mr. St. Croix stated that the Commission has subpoena authority, but that a subpoena is a last resort. Commissioner Harriman asked how staff reached the recommendation of a 10-day deadline. Mr. St. Croix stated that 10 days is general practice for this type of request. Commissioner Harriman stated that the deadline for discovery requests in litigation is 30 days. Commissioner Gusukuma stated that there is a potential for abuse and does not agree with staff's recommendation.

Chairperson Studley stated that there was uncertainty among the Commissioners regarding this decision point. She stated there was a motion offered, but no second. Commissioner Hansen withdrew her motion. Chairperson Studley asked staff for more information so that a determination may be made at a later date.

Commissioner Hansen asked to separate decision points 31-35.

DECISION POINT 31
Commissioner Hansen asked about electronic reporting and why proposed section 2.140(a) on page 27 of the proposed amendments states that the Commission "may require paper filing, electronic filing, or both." Commissioner Hansen asked whether January 1, 2010 would be the implementation date of electronic filing and these new amendments and whether, if so, there needs to be an option to file by paper. Ms. Ng stated that the intent is to accept electronic filing, but that in the unlikely event that something does not work with the electronic filing system, the option of paper filing must be available to lobbyists. Ms. Ng stated that paper filing is a necessary backup, but it is the intent of the Commission to move forward with e-filing only. Commissioner Hansen stated her support for decision points 31 and 32.

Commissioner Harriman stated that monthly reporting would not be available until the Commission has implemented the electronic filing system, so why not ask for only e-filing. Mr. St. Croix stated that this option permits staff to designate when electronic filings begin. He stated that if staff chooses to have both paper and e-filing on January 1, 2010, then it may, under the proposed ordinance. Commissioner Hansen stated that she would like to move forward with e-filing on January 1. Ms. Ng stated that this language has been inserted to deal with all possible scenarios, where something happens to the e-filing system, so that lobbyists remain required to file paper filings in the interim. Commissioner Harriman stated that all of these new requirements are to be implemented for electronic filing and if the system does not work, then it is not fair to ask lobbyists for all of this information in paper format. Chairperson Studley stated that there could be issues with the e-filing system and paper filings should be permitted.

Mr. St. Croix suggested changing the language of section 2.140(a) so that it reads, "[t]he Ethics Commission shall prescribe the format for the submission of all information required by this Chapter." He also stated that decision point 44 is regarding the effective date of the amendments and whether the date will be January 1, 2010.

Motion 09-04-13-15 (Harriman/Gusukuma) Moved, seconded and passed (5-0) that the Ethics Commission adopt decision point 31 (section 2.140(a)), with the changes proposed by the Executive Director.

Public Comment:
None.

DECISION POINT 32

Motion 09-04-13-16 (Harriman/Gusukuma) Moved, seconded and passed (5-0) that the Ethics Commission adopt staff's recommendation on decision point 32, without discussion.

Public Comment:
None.

DECISION POINTS 33 & 34
Commissioner Harriman moved to adopt staff's recommendations on both decision points. Commissioner Hansen stated that she would like the Commission to be proactive and not wait for a request from the Board of Supervisors or the Mayor's office. She stated that this information is useful to the public and it is appropriate to report to the Board and Mayor, even without a request. Chairperson Studley stated that if the Commission wanted to issue a report, it could do so. Mr. St. Croix stated that the Commission could direct staff to issue a report.

Commissioner Hansen commented on language ("available on the Commission's website") in the third paragraph of page 15 of staff's memorandum. She stated that the information should be updated in a timelier manner. Mr. Givner stated that, with the electronic filing system, any filings lobbyists make will be updated instantly on the Commission's website. He stated that the information will be automatically online and the public is free to search and generate reports from the information filed. Mr. St. Croix added that when the lobbyist reports are generated now, the reports are sent to a media distribution list and available on the website.

Motion 09-04-13-17 (Harriman/Gusukuma) Moved, seconded and passed (4-1; Hansen dissenting) that the Ethics Commission adopt staff's recommendation on decision points 33 & 34.

Public Comment:
Mr. Melbostad stated that the Commission should retain independence. He stated that in his experience, neither the Board nor the Mayor wanted to hear from the Commission.

DECISION POINT 35
Commissioner Harriman stated that she would like to impose a deadline for the Commission's responses to requests from the Mayor or the Board of Supervisors. Mr. St. Croix suggested 30 days and Ms. Ng agreed. Ms. Ng stated that the requester would give a deadline and the Commission always responds within the time frame. Chairperson Studley suggested giving the response "within the given time limit, or if no time limit given, then within 30 days of the request."

Commissioner Ward stated that the Commission should protect itself from an unreasonable time limit. Ms. Ng stated that if the time limit is not reasonable, the Commission may ask for an extension.

Motion 09-04-13-18 (Ward/Harriman): Moved, seconded and passed (5-0) that the deadline for a response to a request from the Mayor or the Board of Supervisors shall be provided within 30 days from the date of receipt of request.

Public Comment:
None.

Before moving to the next set of decision points, Commissioner Hansen asked about the deleted requirement (currently section 2.140(j) on page 29 of the proposed amendments) mentioned in the first paragraph on page 16 of staff's memorandum. She asked why staff proposed deleting the requirement. Mr. St. Croix stated that there are currently quarterly workshop trainings and if no one signs up, then the training is cancelled, which happens about 90% of the time. Commissioner Hansen suggested making trainings available online. Chairperson Studley stated that once online training is available, then the quarterly requirement would be satisfied. Mr. St. Croix suggested leaving section 2.140(j) in the Ordinance. Mr. St. Croix stated that as there is no decision point, there is no action taken by the Commission and the language of section 2.140(j) will not be deleted.

DECISION POINTS 36-38

Chairperson Studley suggested voting on each decision point in this group separately.

Commissioner Harriman asked about the goal of decision point 38. Mr. Givner stated that currently lobbyist organizations are required to register as lobbyists, but with the amendment, organizations will no longer register, even though they may file on behalf of their lobbyist employees. Under the proposal, the Commission will have the authority to impose fines on individuals and organizations. He stated that each individual lobbyist has an obligation and incentive to file as well. He stated that Commission would be able to hold the employee liable.

Commissioner Hansen suggested changing lines 9-10 on page 31 of the proposed amendments to allow the Commission, as well as the Executive Director, to make a determination regarding the amount of late fines or penalties imposed under the Ordinance.

Motion 09-04-13-19 (Harriman/Ward) Moved, seconded and passed (5-0) that the Ethics Commission adopt staff's recommendation on decision point 36.

Public Comment:
Anita Mayo stated that the new section also holds a person liable if they knowingly or negligently violate a provision of the Lobbyist Ordinance. She stated that there should be a section for making amendments to a report, as people often make mistakes. She suggested that anyone who "knowingly" violates the Chapter (as stated in section 2.145(b) on page 29 of the proposed amendments) should be liable in administrative proceedings, but that those who negligently violate the Chapter should be permitted to file an amendment. She stated that there was no current mechanism to amend.

Commissioner Harriman stated that there is nothing mentioned in the decision points about negligence. Chairperson Studley asked staff to look at this provision (section 2.145(b)) so that the Commission may discuss later. Commissioner Harriman suggested that this provision be a separate decision point.

Chairperson Studley requested that staff address the standard in section 2.145(b), starting at line 19, and anywhere else it is mentioned in the draft Ordinance.

Chairperson Studley states that the Commission will stop discussion on this item, having concluded decision point 36, on the Lobbyist Ordinance as it is 9 PM. Chairperson Studley moved to the next item on the agenda.

VI. Minutes of the Commission's March 9, 2009 regular meeting.

Chairperson Studley asked staff to clarify the "as amended" sections of draft minutes, in the discussion. Ms. Argumedo asked whether the Commission would prefer the actual text inserted in the minutes. Ms. Ng suggested incorporating the amended language in the items mentioned (decision points 2 and 3). Commissioner Hansen asked that the minutes reflect a clear version of what action the Commission took on those particular items. She also noted that from her notes, items 2, 3, 4, and 8 were amended in the meeting and were not so noted in the minutes. Commissioner Hansen also stated that the minutes stated there was no Commission comment on decision point 14, on page 6. Ms. Argumedo stated that staff listened to the tapes and the minutes are correct in stated there was no Commission comment. Chairperson Studley asked that the minutes be resubmitted with all additions and corrections at the next meeting and suspend any action until that time.

Public Comment:
None.

VII. Executive Director's Report.

Mr. St. Croix stated that there is no news on the budget and the potential 25% cut remains in effect for the Commission. He also stated that staff will perform audits of the 19 public financing candidates. He stated that the issue presented by Mr. Pearce needs to be considered in future legislation, as there are five public finance candidates with outstanding accrued debt. He updated the Commission on the recent SEI annual filings and stated that the SEI audits are still ongoing. [Commissioner Harriman excused herself at 9:13 PM.]

Commissioner Hansen asked what the figures were for the budget and proposed cuts. Mr. St. Croix stated that the operating budget for this year was $2.2M and that the proposed 25% cut would be approximately $400,000. He stated that he hopes the cut will be less than $400,000, but he does not know what the Mayor will decide.

Commissioner Hansen then asked whether Tony Hall has paid the $6,000 penalty. Commissioner Gusukuma stated that she received an e-mail saying that Mr. Hall has filed a writ of mandate that the Ethics Commission and its members have exceeded its authority. Commissioner Hansen concluded that Mr. Hall has not paid anything.

While asking about late fees and forfeitures, Commissioner Hansen stated that that the Treasurer should be more involved and take fines collection more seriously. Commissioner Hansen then stated her concern regarding the decision to stop performing random audits in 2008. Mr. St. Croix stated that the public finance audits take priority, but that the Commission reserves the right to do targeted audits. If there is suspicion, from staff review or from a complaint, the Commission will perform an audit.

Commissioner Hansen then asked about the 4th quarter Lobbyist report. She stated that she saw Mitch Katz listed as retained by the Golden Gate Restaurant Association and that there was a possible conflict with his position as the Director of Public Health and the Association's agenda. [NOTE: After reviewing the lobbyist filings, staff has confirmed that Mitch Katz was listed as a contact and not an employee of the Golden Gate Restaurant Association.]

Commissioner Hansen then asked about how Patricia Breslin could be a City official, as Taxi Commissioner, and work for the Hotel Council of San Francisco.

Public Comment:
None.

VIII. Items for Future Meetings

Commissioner Hansen asked about amendments to section 1.126, which the Commission discussed and deferred at an earlier meeting. Mr. St. Croix stated that the Commission may, at the staff level, decide to enforce the filing requirement in section 1.126. He stated that the way the law is written, there are many people who would not be able to make political contributions. He stated that it ultimately may need to be resolved in court.

Public Comment:
None.

IX. Public Comment on matters appearing or not appearing on the agenda that is within the jurisdiction of the Ethics Commission.

None.

X. Adjournment.

Motion 09-04-13-20 (Hansen/Gusukuma) Moved, seconded and passed (5-0) that the Ethics Commission adjourn.

Meeting adjourned at 9:31 PM.

Respectfully submitted,

______________________
Catherine Argumedo

Minutes - February 9, 2009

Mon, 09 Mar 2009 00:06:00 -0700

February 9, 2009

(Approved March 9, 2009)
Minutes of the Regular Meeting of
The San Francisco Ethics Commission
February 9, 2009
Room 408, City Hall

I. Call to order and roll call.

Chairperson Harriman called the meeting to order at 5:35 p.m.

COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Susan Harriman, Chairperson; Emi Gusukuma, Vice-Chairperson; Eileen Hansen, Commissioner; Jamienne Studley, Commissioner; Charles Ward, Commissioner.

STAFF PRESENT: John St. Croix, Executive Director; Mabel Ng, Deputy Executive Director; Richard Mo, Chief Enforcement Officer; Paul Solis, Investigator/Legal Analyst; Catherine Argumedo, Investigator/Legal Analyst.

OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY: Andrew Shen, Mollie Lee, Deputy City Attorneys.

OTHERS PRESENT: Jon Kaufman; Janan New; Steve Atkinson; Debra Stein; Kevin Heneghan; Anita Mayo; John Gevlin; Charles Marsteller; Joe Lynn; and other unidentified members of the public.

MATERIALS DISTRIBUTED:
- Memorandum from Executive Director to Ethics Commission re: Proposed Changes to the Lobbyist Ordinance, February 4, 2009
- Memorandum from Executive Director to Ethics Commission re: Proposed Changes to the section 1.126 of CFRO, February 3, 2009
- Memorandum from Executive Director to Ethics Commission re: Proposed amendments to post-employment restrictions, February 4, 2009
- Draft Minutes of the January 12, 2009 Regular Meeting
- Executive Director's Report to the Ethics Commission for the Meeting of February 9, 2009

II. Public comment on matters appearing or not appearing on the agenda that is within the jurisdiction of the Ethics Commission

Joe Lynn stated that during the recent Hearing on the Merits, he did not believe the case was given a professional investigation. He stated that Mr. Hall outspent many other candidates during his 2004 campaign and that further investigation would have revealed inconsistencies in testimony. He stated that enforcement staff should be cut during the budget crisis. Mr. Lynn also stated that lobbyist reporting should be aligned with campaign finance reporting.

III. Consideration of possible amendments to the Lobbyist Ordinance

The Commissioners agreed to allow public comment on the item and to send Commissioner comments to staff for consideration at the next meeting.

Public Comment:
Jon Kaufman, on behalf of Solem and Associates, stated that the proposed reporting requirements are onerous and that new regulations should focus on enforcement.

Janan New, on behalf of the San Francisco Apartment Association, stated that the Commission should take into consideration small entities with small budgets. She stated that the proposed changes would make reporting too difficult for groups like hers.

Steve Atkinson, on behalf of Luce, Forward, Hamilton, Scripps, stated that many of the proposed changes are burdensome, such as reporting dates of contact and the monetary value of making a contact. He stated that writing letters to various elected officials should not be considered making a contact.

Debra Stein, on behalf of GCA Strategies, stated that compliance with the new requirements would be far too burdensome and that the public interest would not be served by the changes. She stated that it currently takes 4-8 hours to comply with reporting, and that the changes would double that time. She also stated that there is no clear way to report a message that is not received by the intended contact and that it is not important to disclose how much lobbyists charge.

Kevin Heneghan, on behalf of the Sutton Law Firm, stated that lobbying is protected by the First Amendment and that all disclosure laws require a balancing test. He stated that staff has not shown specific reasons for the proposed changes. He stated that the public can currently receive this information via Sunshine requests. He also stated that no other jurisdiction in California requires monthly reporting or disclosure of dates of contacts.

Anita Mayo, on behalf of Pillsbury, Winthrop, Shaw, Pittman, stated that the Commission should not eliminate an exception concerning contact with officials in quasi-judicial roles. She also stated that the Commission should not eliminate an exception for quasi-judicial proceedings from regulation and continue with quarterly reporting. She stated that more than yearly lobbyist training would be a waste of time and resources unless there are amendments to the law.

John Gevlin, on behalf of Reuben and Junius, stated that he agreed with previous comments concerning the reporting of dates of contacts. He stated that staff has not justified why it proposes these changes.

Charles Marsteller stated that the Center for Governmental Studies approves of the changes except for the deletion of section 2.117(a). He stated that it is important to have a variety of reports from a variety of sources.

Commissioner Studley stated she would be interested to know whether the regulated community is comfortable with the changes not mentioned during public comment. Chairperson Harriman stated that e-mails to the Commission should also address changes that are supported.

Commissioner Hansen asked those attending the current meeting to attend next month's meeting.

IV. Consideration of proposed amendments to section 1.126 of the Campaign and Governmental Conduct Code

Deputy Director Ng discussed the memo issued to the Commission. Commissioner Ward asked why, given the staff's explanation for the changes, there is no exception for members of the board of nonprofits instead of excluding board members altogether. He also asked why staff believes the scope of the law is currently too broad. Ms. Ng responded that the law is too broad because the law currently requires too many notifications to be made before a negotiation begins. She also stated that exempting nonprofit board members may be a good idea. Commissioner Ward also stated that he was concerned about the recommendation to increase the percentage of ownership interest threshold in a party from 20 to 50 percent because a controlling interest in a large corporation could be 20 percent.

Chairperson Harriman stated that there should be a bright line test addressing when negotiations begin. Commissioner Ward responded that there is a period of time when an entity decides to enter into contract negotiations. Chairperson Harriman stated that the law must be enforceable and that attempting to define the commencement of negotiations is too difficult. Ms. Ng stated that there is an existing regulation attempting to define the commencement of negotiations.

Commissioner Gusukuma stated that governments usually award contracts through an RFP process and that negotiations do not typically start until the bid has been submitted. She stated that she was unclear as to what contracts would be affected by the changes. Executive Director St. Croix stated that many contracts would be affected and that staff is currently trying to narrow the scope to aid enforcement of the law.

Commissioner Studley stated that there is a public perception component to the discussion as well.

Commissioner Hansen stated that she generally disagrees with the proposed changes and does not think nonprofit board members should be exempted. She also inquired how much staff time it currently takes to enforce the law. Executive Director St. Croix stated that staff has not started fully enforcing the law because in its current form, it presents many logistical problems.

Chairperson Harriman stated that staff should provide more information before the Commission begins to amend the law.

Public Comment:
Charles Marsteller stated that amendments to CFRO should strengthen the law rather than weaken it. He stated that he believes a database of City contracts exists.

Kevin Heneghan stated the current law makes it difficult for campaigns to comply. He stated that the current definition of negotiation commencement is too vague for compliance and that staff should create a list for tracking contract negotiations and applicable restrictions.

Anita Mayo stated that language concerning "boards on which the elected officer serves" should be deleted. She also stated that the Commission should reconcile the prohibited periods for making and receiving contributions.

V. Consideration of proposed amendments to section 3.234 of the Campaign and Governmental Conduct Code

Deputy Director Ng discussed the memo issued to the Commission. Commissioner Hansen stated that she did not believe, in proposed change #4, attorneys should be exempt from the post-employment ban. Chairperson Harriman stated that the California Supreme Court has declared that the state has the sole authority to regulate the practice of law.

Commissioner Ward questioned whether practicing attorneys would be routinely hired to appear before boards and commissions. Deputy City Attorney Shen stated that the exemption has been crafted as narrowly as possible and that it is unclear that those with matters before a board or commission would seek practicing attorneys to represent them over non-attorneys.

Chairperson Harriman stated that she would rather exempt attorneys "actively" engaged in the practice of law and that it is clear in most scenarios when someone is or is not engaged in the practice of law. Commissioner Hansen stated that she did not know how staff would enforce the provision.

The Commissioners agreed on the remaining proposed changes.

Public Comment:
Charles Marsteller stated that he supported the motion and that the changes involve a voter-passed initiative so that the law should not be weakened.

Motion 09-02-09-1 (Ward/Gusukuma) Moved, seconded and unanimously passed (5-0) that the Ethics Commission approve changes #1-3 and #5.

VI. Closed session

Public Comment:
None.

Motion 09-02-09-2 (Gusukuma/Ward) Moved, seconded and unanimously passed (5-0) that the Ethics Commission go into closed session.

VII. Discussion and vote regarding closed session action and deliberations

Public Comment:
None.

Motion 09-02-09-3 (Gusukuma/Studley) Moved, seconded and unanimously passed (5-0) that the Ethics Commission keep closed session deliberations confidential.

Executive Director St. Croix announced settlements in two cases.

VIII. Minutes of the Commission's regular meeting of January 12, 2009

Executive Director St. Croix stated that Charles Marsteller submitted comment via email on agenda item VI. Commissioner Studley noted a typographical error and asked that her comments be expanded in paragraph 12 of agenda item VI.

Public Comment:
None.

Motion 09-02-09-4 (Hansen/Gusukuma) Moved, seconded and unanimously passed (5-0) that the Ethics Commission adopt the minutes as amended.

IX. Executive Director's Report

Executive Director St. Croix stated that staff will begin scheduling meetings with the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force. He also stated that staff is currently reviewing possible changes to the public financing program.

Commissioner Hansen inquired about a budget/finance committee and whether the Executive Director had discussed the issue with the Chairperson. Chairperson Harriman stated that she has not considered the issue. She stated that her personal view is that the Commission is a small body and that budget issues should be considered by the full Commission. Commissioner Hansen stated that she continued to believe that a budget committee would be useful.

Commissioner Hansen stated that a waiver chart contained in the Executive Director's Report was helpful and that after reviewing the numbers, since 2004-2005 the Commission has waived 66% of total fines assessed, amounting to $1.27 million.

Public Comment:
None.

X. Election of Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson

Chairperson Harriman thanked the Commissioners for their support and hard work during her tenure as Chairperson.

Public Comment:
None.

Motion 09-02-09-5 (Gusukuma/Harriman) Moved, seconded and unanimously passed (5-0) that the Ethics Commission elect Jammienne Studley as the Commission's Chairperson.

Public Comment:
None.

Motion 09-02-09-6 (Gusukuma/Studley) Moved, seconded and unanimously passed (5-0) that the Ethics Commission elect Susan Harriman as the Commission's Vice-Chairperson.

Commissioner Studley thanked the Commission and stated that she looked forward to serving as Chairperson. Commissioner Ward stated that Chairperson Harriman completed a fantastic tenure as Chairperson during sometimes complicated matters.

XI. Items for Future Meetings

Public Comment:
None.

XII. Public comment on matters appearing or not appearing on the agenda that is within the jurisdiction of the Ethics Commission

None.

XIII. Adjournment

Public Comment:
None.

Motion 09-02-09-7 (Gusukuma/Studley) Moved, seconded and unanimously passed (5-0) that the Ethics Commission adjourn.

The meeting was adjourned at 8:17 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

________________
Paul Solis
Investigator/ Legal Analyst

Minutes - January 12, 2009

Tue, 10 Feb 2009 00:10:00 -0800

January 12, 2009

(Approved February 9, 2009)
Minutes of the Regular Meeting of
The San Francisco Ethics Commission
January 12, 2009
Room 408, City Hall

I. Call to order and roll call.

Vice-Chairperson Gusukuma called the meeting to order at 5:31 p.m.

COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Emi Gusukuma, Vice-Chairperson; Eileen Hansen, Commissioner; Commissioner Jamienne Studley. Chairperson Susan Harriman and Commissioner Charles Ward were excused.

STAFF PRESENT: John St. Croix, Executive Director; Mabel Ng, Deputy Executive Director; Shaista Shaikh, Assistant Deputy Director; Richard Mo, Chief Enforcement Officer; Paul Solis, Investigator/Legal Analyst.

OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY: Jon Givner, Mollie Lee, Deputy City Attorneys.

OTHERS PRESENT: Meghan Wallace, Office of the Mayor; Kristen Chu, Sunshine Ordinance Task Force; David Waggoner; Peter Bagatelos; Kimo Crossman; and other unidentified members of the public.

MATERIALS DISTRIBUTED:
- Memorandum from Executive Director to Ethics Commission re: Preliminary Budget Discussion, January 12, 2009
- Memorandum from Executive Director to Ethics Commission re: Proposed Regulations to Clarify Sunshine Ordinance Declaration Filing, January 5, 2009
- Draft formal order in Re Ethics Complaint No. 24-050928, In the Matter of The Friends of Tony Hall for Supervisor (ID# 1221830) and Tony Hall, Candidate, Respondents
- Memorandum from Executive Director to Ethics Commission re: Feedback from Persons Involved in the November 4, 2008 Election, January 7, 2009
- Draft Comments to FPPC re: Regulation 18247.5
- Draft Minutes of the October 6 and 27, 2008 Special Meetings; and November 10, 2008 and December 8, 2008 Regular Meetings
- Executive Director's Report to the Ethics Commission for the Meeting of January 12, 2009

II. Public comment on matters appearing or not appearing on the agenda that is within the jurisdiction of the Ethics Commission

Peter Bagatelos stated that at the Commission's last meeting, the Commissioners went to great lengths to reprimand his client, Tony Hall. He stated that Commissioners did not properly address certain actions taken by Olivia Scanlon and asked the Commission to look into possible ethics violations by Ms. Scanlon.

Sophie Johnson discussed false identifications and school programs.

Kimo Crossman stated that he agreed with Mr. Bagatelos' comments regarding Ms. Scanlon and asked for a full investigation by the District Attorney, City Attorney and Civil Service Commission.

David Waggoner stated that the proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law and order did not accurately discuss inconsistencies with the probable cause report. He stated that the Chairperson had previously required the probable cause report to be consistent with the proposed findings.

III. Consideration of a formal order in Re Ethics Complaint No. 24-050928, In the Matter of The Friends of Tony Hall for Supervisor (ID# 1221830) and Tony Hall, Candidate, Respondents

Commissioner Gusukuma thanked both staff and Mr. Hall for cooperating throughout the process of adjudicating the matter and discussed the formal order. Commissioner Gusukuma also thanked Chairperson Harriman for her assistance in guiding the hearing on the merits process. She stated that Chairperson Harriman has reviewed the order and supports it.

She stated in the order, the word "accusation" has been substituted with "probable cause report" for consistency's sake. She stated this does not affect any substantive aspect of the order. She also stated that a paragraph would be added discussing the Respondent's payment requirements.

Commissioner Hansen thanked Deputy City Attorney Lee for her assistance in drafting the order. She then made the following proposed changes to the draft order: pg. 3, para. 6, substituting "great reluctance" for "fair amount of reluctance"; pg. 7, para. 16 and pg. 13, para. 46, inserting "the maximum amount is higher than the proposed amount"; striking pg. 14, para. 50; and lastly, she requested that "Tony Hall" be used throughout the order as opposed to "Anthony Hall." Commissioner Hansen stated that she was on the record as being troubled by Ms. Scanlon's testimony.

Commissioner Studley stated that she concurred with Commissioner Hansen's proposed changes. She also inquired whether, on pg. 3, line 5 of the order, the Commission had a broader concern with Ms. Scanlon's testimony, rather than simply with the timing of the checks. Both Commissioner Gusukuma and Commissioner Hansen agreed that the order should reflect a broader concern.

The Commissioners agreed on a payment deadline for the Respondent. The payment would be due within 30 calendar days of the order's approval by the Commission.

Commissioner Gusukuma noted a typographic error on pg. 2, line 4 and summarized the proposed changes made by the Commissioners.

Public Comment:
Kimo Crossman asked whether the payment would be due in 30 calendar days or 30 business days.

David Waggoner stated that if the Commission recommended striking pg. 14, para. 50, then pg. 3, paras. 5 and 6 should be stricken because they are also not relevant to the charges.

Motion 09-01-12-1 (Hansen/Studley) Moved, seconded and unanimously passed (3-0) that the Ethics Commission approve the order as amended.

IV. Receipt of comments from candidates, treasurers and other persons who participated in the November 4, 2008 election, including nineteen (19) candidates received public financing in the November 2008 election.

Assistant Deputy Director Shaikh introduced the memorandum regarding receipt of public financing comments.

Commissioner Hansen stated that the full list of committees providing comments would be helpful. She also asked if an interested persons meeting was considered on this issue. Ms. Shaikh stated that gathering feedback via a questionnaire was the best method immediately following the election. Executive Director St. Croix stated that staff receives feedback throughout the election and that after the election, there is election fatigue so an interested persons meeting may not be effective.

Commissioner Studley suggested inviting a wide array of groups to submit feedback on elections, including the press. Mr. St. Croix stated that currently staff does its best to invite comment from many groups actively covering elections in San Francisco.

Public Comment:
Kimo Crossman stated that the Commission should adopt an interactive web-based approach to feedback, much like change.gov. He also suggested holding a conference call to allow people to submit comments anonymously.

Commissioners Gusukuma and Hansen supported the idea of a conference call. Commissioner Hansen also stated that the report should explicitly state that committees were allowed to submit the questionnaire anonymously.

V. Consideration of the Commission's communications with other departments, boards and commissions and members of the public

Kristin Chu, on behalf of the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force (SOTF), stated that Ethics staff has patiently taken part in SOTF processes but difficulty still arises. She stated that she hopes to improve cooperation in the future. She suggested: SOTF policies to complement Ethics Commission policies and regular communication with Commissioners about interpretation of Sunshine laws.

Commissioner Hansen suggested holding joint meetings between the SOTF and the Commission because challenges have increased between the two bodies, to which Ms. Chu agreed. Executive Director St. Croix stated that he and Ms. Chu will hold initial meetings to discuss the matters raised.

Public Comment:
Kimo Crossman stated that the Ethics Commission should respond to records request in electronic, pdf format. He also stated that when the Mayor referred the Ed Jew matter to the Commission, the Commission went straight to a hearing; yet when the SOTF refers a matter to the Commission, the Commission re-investigates the matter.

Commissioner Hansen stated that she sees the agenda item as being broader than simply relations with the SOTF. She stated that she hopes the Commission will specifically address issues relating to the SOTF sometime in the future. Commissioner Hansen stated that communication with the public is also important in addressing this agenda item because the public should become more involved in Ethics matters. For example, she suggested a higher level of engagement between Commissioners and the public, during public comment time at meetings. She also stated that documents should be readily available at every meeting for public view.

VI. Budget discussion

Executive Director St. Croix introduced the memorandum concerning the Commission's budget matters and options for budget action. Meghan Wallace, on behalf of the Mayor's Budget and Finance Office, stated that although the City is currently in a major budget crunch, the Mayor's office recognizes that Ethics is an independent agency.

Commissioner Hansen asked whether the Commission's current budget cuts are significant to the Mayor's Office. Ms. Wallace stated that those cuts have been recognized but problems still exist City-wide that require further cuts. Commissioner Hansen stated that although it is a City-wide issue, it is critical that the Ethics Commission be viewed as an independent agency. Commissioner Hansen asked whether there could be any way that no staff member would be removed and replaced by an employee from another department. Ms. Wallace stated that it may be an issue for Human Resources. Commissioner Hansen stated that she believed that it was important to retain staff that is qualified to do Commission work.

Commissioner Studley agreed with Commissioner Hansen's views. She stated that if the Commission adopted option 1 (increasing funding as planned), it may suggest a lack of awareness of budget difficulties. She stated that option 2 (submitting budget request at the current year's figures) may be a proper compromise.

Executive Director St. Croix stated that staff will experience its first personnel loss starting in February. He recommended that the Commissioners adopt option 2.

Commissioner Hansen requested that staff prepare a detailed memo regarding the budget request. She stated that the Mayor's Office and the Board of Supervisors should know that staff reductions will hurt the Commission and the City as a whole. She also suggested forming a budget committee that works with staff in developing a budget and volunteered to be a part of the committee. Commissioner Hansen stated that the Commission should also discuss future priorities within the budget. She stated that she would also like to know why revenues are down.

Executive Director St. Croix stated that he expects revenues to be down because more educational programs and trainings are being conducted by Commission staff. He stated that this outreach lowers the amounts of late fees and penalties.

Public Comment:
None. (Charles Marsteller submitted comment via e-mail to the Executive Director)

Motion 09-01-12-2 (Studley/Hansen) Moved, seconded and unanimously passed (3-0) that the Ethics Commission submit a budget request at this year's current figures.

Commissioner Hansen inquired about the formation of a budget committee and asked one to be formed. Deputy City Attorney Givner stated that the Commission's bylaws already discuss the formation of a finance committee but that the bylaws are not clear as to how the committees are formed. He stated that the practice of other commissions is to allow the Chair to appoint members rather than voting as a whole on appointments.

Commissioner Gusukuma stated that she would not take any appointment actions while the Chairperson Harriman was absent. Commissioner Studley stated that the Commission could relay the issues discussed to the Chair for consideration at a future meeting.

Commissioner Hansen stated that a budget committee would provide a forum for specific attention to budgetary issues. She stated that she has previous experience as a chair of a budget committee on the Building Inspection Commission. She also stated that because the Commission may face large policy decisions on the budget, a committee would assist in those tasks, to which Commissioner Studley stated that the Commission as whole should consider those matters. Commissioner Hansen then responded that the committee would make recommendations to the whole Commission on policy issues. Commissioner Gusukuma stated that she was uncertain about her support the formation of a budget committee.

Deputy City Attorney Givner stated that Robert's Rules of Order provided the Chairperson with authority to appoint committee members. Commissioner Studley stated that, because the Commission is already a small body, unnecessary difficulties may arise when major policy and budgetary issues would otherwise be reviewed by the full Commission. Commissioner Gusukuma stated that if a committee was not formed, she would be comfortable holding special meetings to consider the budget.

Commissioner Hansen inquired about a budget point person and asked that the Chair decide how to move forward on these matters. Executive Director St. Croix stated that he will discuss these matters with the Chairperson.

VII. Consideration of draft regulation to Sunshine Ordinance to clarify that a City officer or employee who assumes office and who is required to file a Form 700 Statement of Economic Interests with the Ethics Commission must file a Sunshine Ordinance Declaration with the Commission within 30 days of assuming office, and an employee or officer who assumes office between October 1 and March 30 and timely files a Declaration need not file another Declaration on the April 1 immediately following assumption of office

Deputy Director Ng introduced the memorandum concerning changes in regulations. Commissioner Hansen asked whether members of the SOTF are required to file form 700, to which Ms. Ng responded that they were.

Motion 09-01-12-3 (Studley/Hansen) Moved, seconded and unanimously passed (3-0) that the Ethics Commission adopt the Sunshine regulation proposed by staff.

VIII. Consideration of comments to Regulation 18247.5 proposed by the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) to clarify the statutory definitions of primarily formed and general purpose committees, and to provide more specific guidance regarding the definitions of state, county and City general purpose committees

Deputy Director Ng introduced the draft comments concerning the regulation under consideration by the FPPC. Commissioner Hansen stated that she agreed with staff's proposed comments and asked why a 70% figure was implemented in the regulation. Ms. Ng responded that the figure comes from previous FPPC advice letters and Commissioner Gusukuma stated that primarily formed committees must operate with higher thresholds. Commissioner Hansen also asked if "local" committee was sufficiently defined in the comments. Ms. Ng responded that the word "local" was used because it is unclear whether county committees are within the Commission's jurisdiction.

Public Comment:
None.

Motion 09-01-12-4 (Hansen/Studley) Moved, seconded and unanimously passed (3-0) that the Ethics Commission adopt staff's proposed comments to Regulation 18247.5 proposed by the FPPC.

IX. Minutes of the Commission's special meeting of October 6 and 27, 2008, and regular meetings of November 10 and December 8, 2008

The Commissioners agreed that Commissioner Gusukuma's entrance should be noted after the motion in Agenda Item VI because she arrived during consideration of the vote, but did not vote herself.

Public Comment:
None.

Motion 09-01-12-5 (Hansen/Studley) Moved, seconded and unanimously passed (3-0) that the Ethics Commission adopt the minutes of the special meeting of October 6, 2008, as amended.

Public Comment:
None.

Motion 09-01-12-6 (Hansen/Studley) Moved, seconded and unanimously passed (3-0) that the Ethics Commission adopt the minutes of the special meeting of October 27, 2008.

Public Comment:
None.

Motion 09-01-12-7 (Hansen/Studley) Moved, seconded and unanimously passed (3-0) that the Ethics Commission adopt the minutes of the regular meeting of November 10, 2008.

Commissioner Hansen stated that the minutes should reflect that the Respondent was found to be culpable regarding the gasoline purchases only.

Public Comment:
None.

Motion 09-01-12-8 (Hansen/Studley) Moved, seconded and unanimously passed (3-0) that the Ethics Commission adopt the minutes of the regular meeting of December 8, 2008, as amended.

X. Executive Director's Report

Executive Director St. Croix stated that he has spoken with most of the Board of Supervisors concerning the budget, including the new budget committee chair. He also stated the November 2008 public financing program required extensive work and that most candidates were pleased with staff's work.

Commissioner Hansen stated that staff should exercise extreme caution in granting waivers due to budget issues, inquiring specifically about a waiver request from "People for Tony Hall" committee. Commissioner Hansen stated that a comparison to last year's revenue would be helpful in assessing this year's budget. She also stated that the Commission should look into whether the Commission should review stipulations and orders before they are agreed upon. Commissioner Hansen then inquired about lobbyist reporting status, to which Executive Director St. Croix stated he is not aware of any delinquent filers. She next inquired about what information is redacted from lobbyist reports. Deputy Director Ng stated that, to her knowledge, only personal information was redacted. Commissioner Hansen stated that it was important to know whether all information was reported. She then stated that there should be significant outreach, specifically to political clubs, to bring attention to the upcoming interested persons meeting on the Lobbyist Ordinance. Commissioner Hansen suggested posting SEI filing officer reports on the Commission website.

Public Comment:
None.

XI. Items for Future Meetings

Commissioner Hansen requested that the Commission take Peter Bagatelos' comments under advisement. Executive Director St. Croix stated that he disagreed. Commissioner Hansen stated that the Commission should be able to inform a member of the public that his or her comments are not within the jurisdiction of the Ethics Commission.

XII. Public comment on matters appearing or not appearing on the agenda that is within the jurisdiction of the Ethics Commission

None.

XIII. Adjournment

Public Comment:
None.

Motion 09-01-12-9 (Studley/Hansen) Moved, seconded and unanimously passed (3-0) that the Ethics Commission adjourn.

The meeting was adjourned at 8:23 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

________________
Paul Solis
Investigator/ Legal Analyst

Archived Agendas, Minutes and Supporting Documents

Thu, 01 Jan 2009 08:42:00 -0800

Archived Past Minutes and Agendas

San Francisco Ethics Commission

Recording - March 8, 2010 - Ethics Commission Meeting

Minutes - December 14, 2009

(Approved March 8, 2010) Minutes of the Regular Meeting of The San Francisco Ethics Commission December 14, 2009 Room 408, City Hall

I. Call to order and roll call.

II. Public comment on matters appearing or not appearing on the agenda that is within the jurisdiction of the Ethics Commission

III. Consideration of the renewal of the Netfile contract to be extended for an additional three-year term.

IV. Consideration of possible regulations to implement the Lobbyist Ordinance.

V. Consideration of possible regulations to implement the Campaign Finance reform Ordinance (CFRO).

VI. Budget Discussion

VII. Closed Session

VIII. Discussion and vote regarding closed session action and deliberations.

IX. Minutes of the Commission’s regular meeting of November 9, 2009

X. Executive Director’s Report

XI. Items for Future Meetings

XII. Public comment on matters appearing or not appearing on the agenda that are within the jurisdiction of the Ethics Commission

XIII. Adjournment

Minutes - November 9, 2009

(Approved 12/14/2009) Minutes of the Regular Meeting of The San Francisco Ethics Commission November 9, 2009 Room 408, City Hall 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place San Francisco, CA 94102

I. Call to order and roll call.

II. Public comment on matters appearing or not appearing on the agenda that is within the jurisdiction of the Ethics Commission.

III. Consideration of possible amendments to the Commission’s Regulations for Investigations and Enforcement Proceedings (“Regulations”).

IV. Policy Priorities.

V. Minutes of the Commission’s regular meeting of September 14, 2009 and special meeting of October 19, 2009.

VI. Executive Director’s report.

VII. Items for future meetings.

VIII. Public comment on matters appearing or not appearing on the agenda that are within the jurisdiction of the Ethics Commission.

IX. Adjournment.

Recording - December 14, 2009 - Ethics Commission Meeting

Minutes - October 19, 2009

(Approved 11/9/09) Minutes of the Special Meeting of The San Francisco Ethics Commission October 19, 2009 Room 408, City Hall

I. Call to order and roll call.

II. Public comment on matters appearing or not appearing on the agenda that is within the jurisdiction of the Ethics Commission

III. Consideration of legislation to amend Chapter 2 of Article III of the Campaign and Governmental Conduct Code to ban members of City boards and commissions from obtaining employment with the City during their tenure and for one year after the termination of their City service.

IV. Closed session

V. Discussion and vote regarding closed session action and deliberations.

VI. Consideration of possible amendments to the Commission’s Regulations for Investigations and Enforcement Proceedings (“Regulations”)

VII. Consideration of the Annual report for Fiscal Year 2008-2009

VIII. Policy Priorities

IX. Minutes of the Commission’s regular meeting of September 14, 2009

X. Executive Director’s Report

XI. Items for Future Meetings

XII. Public comment on matters appearing or not appearing on the agenda that are within the jurisdiction of the Ethics Commission

XIII. Adjournment

Minutes - September 14, 2009

Minutes of the Regular Meeting of The San Francisco Ethics Commission September 14, 2009 Room 408, City Hall 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place San Francisco, CA 94102

I. Call to order and roll call.

II. Public comment on matters appearing or not appearing on the agenda that are within the jurisdiction of the Ethics Commission.

III. Consideration of possible amendments to the Campaign Finance Reform Ordinance (CFRO), San Francisco Campaign and Governmental Conduct Code section 1.100 et seq.

IV. Minutes of the Commission’s regular meeting of August 10, 2009.

V. Executive Director’s Report.

III. Consideration of possible amendments to the Campaign Finance Reform Ordinance (CFRO), San Francisco Campaign and Governmental Conduct Code section 1.100 et seq.

VI. Items for future meetings.

VII. Public comment on matters appearing or not appearing on the agenda that are within the jurisdiction of the Ethics Commission.

VIII. Adjournment.

Recording - November 9, 2009 - Ethics Commission Meeting

Recording - October 19, 2009 - Ethics Commission Meeting

Minutes - August 10, 2009

Minutes of the Regular Meeting of The San Francisco Ethics Commission August 10, 2009 Room 408, City Hall

I. Call to order and roll call.

II. Public comment on matters appearing or not appearing on the agenda that is within the jurisdiction of the Ethics Commission

IV. Consideration of possible amendments to the $500 contribution limit under section 1.114(a) of the Campaign and Governmental Conduct Code.

III. Consideration of possible amendments to the Campaign Finance Reform Ordinance (CFRO), San Francisco Campaign and Governmental Conduct Code section 1.100 et seq.

V. Minutes of the Commission’s regular meeting of July 13, 2009.

VI. Executive Director’s Report

VII. Items for future meetings

VIII. Public comment on matters appearing or not appearing on the agenda that are within the jurisdiction of the Ethics Commission

IX. Adjournment

Recording - September 14, 2009 - Ethics Commission Meeting

Recording - August 10, 2009 - Ethics Commission Meeting

Minutes - July 13, 2009

Minutes of the Regular Meeting of The San Francisco Ethics Commission July 13, 2009 Room 408, City Hall

I.Call to order and roll call.

II.Public comment on matters appearing or not appearing on the agenda that is within the jurisdiction of the Ethics Commission

III.Consideration of request for waiver from compensated advocacy ban by Patrick Buscovich, a member of the Board of Examiners, Department of Building Inspection

V.Consideration of amendments to create a new Chapter 5 in Article III of the San Francisco Campaign and Governmental Conduct Code

IV.Consideration of possible amendments to Chapter 2, Article III of the San Francisco Campaign and Governmental Conduct Code

VI.Discussion of Fiscal Year 2009-2010 budget outcomes

VII.Closed Session

VIII.Discussion and vote regarding closed session action and deliberations

(Approved March 8, 2010)
Minutes of the Regular Meeting of
The San Francisco Ethics Commission
December 14, 2009
Room 408, City Hall

(Approved 12/14/2009)
Minutes of the Regular Meeting of
The San Francisco Ethics Commission
November 9, 2009
Room 408, City Hall
1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place
San Francisco, CA 94102

(Approved 11/9/09)
Minutes of the Special Meeting of
The San Francisco Ethics Commission
October 19, 2009
Room 408, City Hall

Minutes of the Regular Meeting of
The San Francisco Ethics Commission
September 14, 2009
Room 408, City Hall
1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place
San Francisco, CA 94102

Minutes of the Regular Meeting of
The San Francisco Ethics Commission
August 10, 2009
Room 408, City Hall

Minutes of the Regular Meeting of
The San Francisco Ethics Commission
July 13, 2009
Room 408, City Hall

Minutes of the Regular Meeting of
The San Francisco Ethics Commission
June 8, 2009
Room 408, City Hall