San Francisco Ethics Commission

Minutes - December 12, 2011

Wed, 25 Jan 2012 09:37:09 -0800

Minutes of the Regular Meeting of
The San Francisco Ethics Commission
December 12, 2011
Room 408, City Hall
1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place
San Francisco, CA 94102

I. Call to order and roll call.

Chairperson Hur called the meeting to order at 5:30 PM.

COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Benedict Y. Hur, Chairperson; Jamienne Studley, Vice-Chairperson; Beverly Hayon, Commissioner; and Dorothy S. Liu, Commissioner.

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

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

OTHERS PRESENT: Jennifer Johnston, Ray Hartz; Patrick Monette-Shaw; Dr. Derek Kerr; Dr. Maria Rivero, David Pilpel; Steven Hill; and other unidentified members of the public.

MATERIALS DISTRIBUTED:
- Memorandum from the Executive Director re: Amendment of DHR's SIA, dated December 1, 2011.
- Memorandum from the Executive Director re: Proposed Amendments to CFRO related to public financing program, dated December 7, 2011.
- Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the San Francisco Ethics Commission on November 14, 2011.
- Executive Director's Report to the Ethics Commission for the Meeting of December 12, 2011.

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

Chairperson Hur stated that Commissioner Ward resigned from the Ethics Commission.

Patrick Monette-Shaw stated that the Ethics Commission has not acted on two Sunshine Task Force referrals. He stated that the Ethics Commission has no legal basis to assert confidentiality regarding its investigations. [Mr. Monette-Shaw submitted a 150 word written statement, which is included at the end of these minutes.]

Derek Kerr, MD, stated that he worked at Laguna Honda Hospital for 20 years and was laid-off after he became a whistleblower. He stated that the San Francisco whistleblower program is viewed as a threat. He stated that retaliation is common, but the Ethics Commission has not found any incidence of retaliation. [Dr. Kerr submitted a 150 word written statement, which is included at the end of these minutes.]

Maria Rivero, MD, stated that she worked at Laguna Honda Hospital for 22 years and that she was harassed and forced to resign. She stated that there is no recourse in San Francisco for whistleblowers. She stated that she was denied attendance at a closed session meeting. [Dr. Rivero submitted a written statement that exceeded the 150 word limit in section 67.16 of the Sunshine Ordinance.]

Ray Hartz stated that the Ethics Commission wants to deny public comment. He stated that the minute summaries misrepresent what the speaker says. He stated that attaching the written statements at the end of the minutes is not the same as including the statements in the minutes. [Mr. Hartz submitted a 150 word written statement, which is included at the end of these minutes.]

III. Consideration of proposed amendments to the Statement of Incompatible Activities (SIA) for the Department of Human Resources (DHR).

Jennifer Johnston, representing DHR, stated why DHR was seeking the revisions to its SIA and that the department had completed the required meet and confer process with the unions that represent DHR employees.

Ms. Johnston responded to Commissioner Liu, stating that the changes were made to provide clearer guidance to employees as to what information must remain confidential.

Commissioner Liu stated that the proposed changes did not appear to be related to an outside activity by employees, but understood the need to tighten-up the confidentiality policy.

Motion 11-12-12-1 (Hayon/Liu): Moved, seconded, and passed (4-0) that the Commission approve the proposed changes the Department of Human Resource's Statement of Incompatible Activities.

Public Comment:

Mr. Hartz stated that the changes must have been prompted by a DHR employee disclosing confidential exam material. He stated this is an example of closing the barn door after it was opened. He stated he was a professor at the University of Hawaii and one of his duties was to aid students to pass the real estate exam. He stated DHR was not being honest as to why they were requesting the proposed changes. [Mr. Hartz submitted a 150 word written statement, which is included at the end of these minutes.]

David Pilpel stated that he had issues with the language in one of the sections, but that it sounded like a grammatical change.

IV. Consideration of possible amendments to the Campaign Finance Reform Ordinance (CFRO), San Francisco Campaign and Governmental Conduct Code section 1.100 et seq., related to the public financing programs for candidates for the Board of Supervisors and Mayor.

Executive Director St. Croix introduced the item.

Chairperson Hur stated that the Commission would hear each decision point and take public comment prior to the Commission's discussion on an individual decision point.

Decision Point 1

Public Comment:

Mr. Hartz stated that he objected to raising the qualification amount from $5,000 to $10,000. He stated that even the $5,000 threshold is too high and only serves to eliminate candidates without strong financial backing from the public funding process.

Mr. Pilpel stated that the $10,000 threshold is not too high given that candidates can now raise funds city-wide.

Steven Hill stated that he appreciated the interested persons meetings that staff held regarding this issue. He stated that the threshold should be raised to $10,000 and is an obtainable amount.

Executive Director St. Croix stated that the Commission had no data regarding the proportion of contributions made in specific districts in response to a question by Vice-Chairperson Studley.

Chairperson Hur stated that he would prefer if the number of qualifying contributions from the candidate's district was changed to 50 contributors, rather than 50% of the contributions.

Executive Director St. Croix explained the procedure for presenting the changes to the Board of Supervisors for its approval.

Vice-Chairperson Studley stated that she wanted to ensure the availability of public funding for grass roots campaigns. She presented an option that would allow the Commission to provide a $5,000 match to the candidate who raised $5,000 with a larger number of contributors than currently required so they could qualify for public funds under the higher $10,000 threshold.

Commission Hayon stated she supported raising the threshold amount to $10,000. She stated the purpose of public financing is to level the playing field and candidates should show they are serious and capable of raising enough funds to present a viable campaign.

Chairperson Hur stated another option was to change the number of contributions ratio. Chairperson Hur directed staff to consider the options presented and propose recommendations at a later meeting.

Decision Point 2

Public Comment:

Mr. Hill stated that raising the ceiling is necessary now that having a trigger is now longer allowed, and stated that the Commission needs to find a balance to keep the ceiling as low as possible yet still be a viable amount of money. He stated that $150,000 is the right amount because the ceiling is currently $89,000 and raising it to $100,000 is only an $11,000 increase.

Mr. Pilpel stated that the amount should be $125,000 which is a 40% increase on the current ceiling.

Mr. Hartz stated that raising the ceiling is equivalent to being penny wise and pound foolish.

Commissioner Liu stated that the Commission must act on raising the ceiling now that the trigger provisions are invalid. She stated that an increase to $125,000 is sufficient. Chairperson Hur and Vice-Chairperson Studley agreed the amount should be increased to $125,000.

Decision Point 3

Public Comment:

Mr. Pilpel stated that the contribution match ratio should be one to two.

Mr. Hill agreed that the match ratio should be one to two.

Chairperson Hur directed staff to draft language codifying the one to two ratio.

Decision Point 4

Public Comment:

Mr. Hill stated that delaying the disbursement of public funds to June is a good idea.

Mr. Pilpel stated that the earliest date that a candidate should be allowed to request public funds is May 15th.

Chairperson Hur directed staff to make the disbursement date in June.

Decision Point 5

Public Comment:

Mr. Hill stated that the individual expenditure ceiling amount for Board of Supervisors candidates should be $250,000.

Mr. Pilpel stated he agreed with the $250,000 amount.

Chairperson Hur stated that the $250,000 amount was appropriate. Vice-Chairperson Studley, and Commissioners Hayon and Liu agreed.

Decision Point 6

Executive Director St. Croix introduced the item. He stated that that currently, a candidate is subject to an individual expenditure ceiling that starts at $143,000 and is adjusted if the sum of total opposition spending against that candidate and the highest level of total supportive funds of any other candidate in the race is greater than the IEC by at least $10,000. He stated that due to the Supreme Court decision, the Commission must decide if it should retain an adjustable expenditure ceiling, or move to a hard spending cap, meaning that a candidate could not spend beyond the cap regardless of opposition or third party spending.

Public Comment:

Mr. Hill stated that the hard cap gives the public assurance that only a certain amount of public funds would be spent.

Mr. Pilpel stated that an adjustable cap is important and adopting a hard cap could cause some candidates to opt out of public financing.

Commission Hayon stated that she favored the hard cap.

Chairperson Hur stated that he was concerned that a candidate could enter the race late spending large sums, and the hard cap would restrict a publicly financed candidate from competing.

Chairperson Hur and Commissioner Liu stated that the hard cap is too drastic of a change and Chairperson Hur directed staff to present both options to the Board of Supervisors for them to consider.

Decision Point 7

Executive Director St. Croix introduced the item. He stated that this provision would allow a candidate who wants to terminate his or her candidacy to resign by paying outstanding debts then returning the remaining public funds to the City. He stated that the current law requires a candidate who drops out of the race to repay the full sum he or she received in public financing. He stated that this results in candidates staying in the race even when they have determined they are no longer viable candidates.

Public Comment:

Mr. Pilpel stated that he strongly supported this change in the law.

Mr. Hill stated that he could see the potential for abuse with this change.

Executive Director St. Croix explained the process of returning public funds to the City to the Commissioners.

Chairperson Hur stated he was concerned that this change could encourage individuals to join a campaign with the sole purpose to make a name for themselves rather than legitimately run for office, and then to drop out of the race without any real consequence.

Responding to Commissioner Hayon, Mr. Hill stated that there is a public perception that some individuals may take advantage of this change to use funds to "hire" friends and relatives to run a campaign with no real intention of being a viable candidate.

The Commissioners directed staff to table this issue.

Decision Point 8

Executive Director St. Croix stated that this provision applies to mayoral candidates and mirrors the provisions proposed for Board of Supervisor candidates.

Public Comment:

Mr. Hill stated that the Board of Supervisors would consider raising the threshold by $50,000.

Mr. Pilpel stated that candidates do not report contributions of less than $100.

Chairperson Hur stated that the Commission should wait to consider changes to the mayoral program until after the Board of Supervisors considers the proposed changes for Board of Supervisor candidates.

After discussion by the Commission, Chairperson Hur directed staff to consider making changes in the amounts for the mayoral program by using the lowest proposed amounts.

V. Closed session.

Motion 11-12-12-2 (Hayon/Studley): Moved, seconded and passed (4-0) that the Commission move into closed session.

Public Comment:
None.

The Ethics Commission entered into closed session at 8:27 PM.

Chairperson Hur, Vice-Chairperson Studley, Commissioners Hayon and Liu, Executive Director St. Croix, Investigator Chatfield, and DCA Givner were all in attendance during the closed session.

The Ethics Commission returned to open session at 8:40 PM.

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

Motion 11-12-12-3 (Studley/Hayon): Moved, seconded and passed (4-0) that the Commission finds that it is in the best interests of the public not to disclose its closed session deliberations regarding the matters discussed in closed session.

Public Comment:

Mr. Pilpel inquired as to whether there would be an announcement regarding closed session.

Executive Director St. Croix made the following announcement:

"At its regular meeting of December 12, 2011, in the matter of Ethics Complaint Number 25-101021, the Ethics Commission made a determination that there is probable cause to believe the following violations of the San Francisco Campaign and Governmental Conduct Code; and that the Respondent, Patrick Collum, committed them:

Two Violations of San Francisco Campaign and Governmental Conduct Code section 1.510. The first violation of section 1.510 for providing campaign consulting services, or accepting any economic consideration for the provision of campaign consulting services, without first registering with the Ethics Commission. And the second violation of section 1.510 for failing to comply with the reporting requirements specified in Section 1.515;
One violation of San Francisco Campaign and Governmental Conduct Code section 1.515(a) for failing to file a campaign consultant registration report;
One violation of San Francisco Campaign and Governmental Conduct Code section 1.515(c) for failure to pay campaign consultant registration and client fees;
One violation of San Francisco Campaign and Governmental Conduct Code section 1.515(d) for failure to file campaign consultant client authorization statement;
Two violations of San Francisco Campaign and Governmental Conduct Code section 1.515(e) for failure to file two campaign consultant quarterly reports.

Each Commissioner who participated in a decision to find probable cause must certify on the record that he or she personally heard or read the testimony, reviewed the evidence, or otherwise reviewed the entire record of the proceedings. (Ethics Commission Regulations for Investigations & Enforcement § VIII.B.2.)

The Respondent is presumed to be innocent unless and until such time that the allegations are proved in a subsequent hearing on the merits. (Ethics Commission Regulations for Investigations & Enforcement Proceedings § VIII.B.5.)

The Executive Director shall issue an accusation in accordance with the San Francisco Ethics Commission Regulations for Investigations and Enforcement Proceedings. (Ethics Commission Regulations for Investigations & Enforcement Proceedings § IX.A.)"

Each Commissioner certified that he or she personally heard or read the testimony, reviewed the evidence, or otherwise reviewed the entire record of the proceedings.

VII. Minutes of the Commission's regular meeting of November 14, 2011.

Public Comment:
None.

Motion 11-12-12-4 (Hayon/Liu): Moved, seconded and passed (4-0) that the Commission approve the minutes of the Ethics Commission's regular meeting of November 14, 2011.

VIII. Executive Director's Report.

Executive Director St. Croix stated that departments have been requested to cut 5% of their individual budgets, and include an additional 5% of contingency cuts.

Public Comment:

Mr. Pilpel stated that the Ethics Commission should include information on its website as to whether a respondent has paid any assessed enforcement settlements or penalties.

IX. Items for future meetings.

Vice-Chairperson Studley suggested that the Ethics Commission consider whether at a future meeting it should try to initiate a public discussion to hear ideas regarding the public financing program. She expressed that she envisioned a forum or think tank to discuss the issues.

Public Comment:

Mr. Pilpel stated that if public meeting rules prohibited current members of the Commission from participating in a discussion like one proposed by Vice-Chairperson Studley, former Commission members could be invited to attend.

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

None.

XI. Adjournment.

Motion 11-12-12-5 (Studley/Hayon): Moved, seconded and passed (4-0) that the Commission adjourn.

Public Comment:
None.

Meeting adjourned at 9:00 PM.

This statement was provided by the speaker, Patrick Monette-Shaw, for agenda item II. The content is neither generated by, nor subject to approval or verification of accuracy by, the Ethics Commission.

"On August 5, the SOTF referred my two Sunshine complaints — 11013 and 11014 — to the Ethics Commission for enforcement. Case 11013 found willful failure and official misconduct against Mr. St. Croix and the City Controller's manager Tonia Lediju, since they had failed to comply with the Task Force's June 14, 2011 Order of Determination ordering release of correspondence related to the Laguna Honda Hospital Patient Gift Fund whistleblower complaint.

Case 11014 found willful failure and official misconduct against Mr. St. Croix for failure to provide the Ethics Commission's investigative file(s) and closing memo(s) authored by Ethics Commission staff regarding the LHH patient gift fund complaint, ordered released on June 7.

Now four months since August, I have not heard one word from Mr. St. Croix. As I asked during the Ethics Commission's November meeting, when are you going to schedule an open public hearing on my two referrals for enforcement?"

This statement was provided by the speaker, Dr. Derek Kerr, for agenda item II. The content is neither generated by, nor subject to approval or verification of accuracy by, the Ethics Commission.

"SURVEYS BY THE AUDITING FIRM PRICE-WATERHOUSE-COOPERS, AND THE ASSOCIATION OF CERTIFIED FRAUD EXAMINERS, FOUND THAT MOST CORPORATE FRAUD IS EXPOSED BY WHISTLEBLOWERS.

SIMILARLY, THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT'S CIVIL FRAUD DIVISION FOUND THAT MOST GOVERNMENT FRAUD IS EXPOSED BY WHISTLEBLOWERS.

BUT IN SAN FRANCISCO, OUR WHISTLEBLOWER PROGRAM HANDLES COMPLAINTS ABOUT HIGH-LEVEL CITY OFFICIALS LIKE THREATS.

THE NATIONAL WHISTLEBLOWERS CENTER HAS DOCUMENTED THAT RETALIATION AGAINST WHISTLEBLOWERS IS COMMON.

BUT IN SAN FRANCISCO, OUR ETHICS COMMISSION WOULD HAVE US BELIEVE THAT WHISTLEBLOWER RETALIATION NEVER OCCURS.

YOU HAVEN'T TRACKED RETALIATION COMPLAINTS.

YOU HAVEN'T SUSTAINED ANY RETALIATION COMPLAINTS.

YOU DISMISS 100% OF RETALIATION COMPLAINTS.

THIS RESEMBLES YOUR TRACK RECORD OF DISMISSING EVERY REFERRAL FROM THE SUNSHINE TASK FORCE IN THE PAST 6 YEARS...EXCEPT FOR ONE CASE, 2 MONTHS AGO - LOWERING YOUR DISMISSAL RATE FROM 100% TO 95%.

PLEASE CONSIDER AN AUDIT TO ANSWER 2 QUESTIONS;

1) HOW ARE WHISTLEBLOWER RETALIATION CASES INVESTIGATED?
2) WHY ARE ALL OF THEM DISMISSED?"

This summary statement was provided by the speaker, Ray Hartz, for agenda item II. The content is neither generated by, nor subject to approval or verification of accuracy by, the Ethics Commission.

"WHY IS THE ETHICS COMMISSION SO DETERMINED TO RETAIN THEIR ABILITY TO CENSOR PUBLIC COMMENT? That they want to do so is evidenced by the 143 page response to a complaint filed with the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force. This response, consisting of an 8 page letter and 135 pages of supporting documentation, has taken an extraordinary waste of City resources to compile. All this effort maintains the Ethics Commission ability to keep a speaker's summary of their comments out of the minutes and allows the Commission staff to replace it with their representation of what the speaker said. It allows the marginalization and/or silencing of free speech. It ensures that a member of the public with a dissenting opinion will be denied the right to have that opinion actually make it into the official public record. In essence it allows a governmental body, this Ethics Commission, to suppress public comment."

This summary statement was provided by the speaker, Ray Hartz, for agenda item III. The content is neither generated by, nor subject to approval or verification of accuracy by, the Ethics Commission.

"IT IS NOT HARD TO DEDUCE THE REASONS FOR THE REQUESTED CHANGES TO THE STATEMENT OF INCOMPATIBLE ACTIVITIES (SIA). Some person or persons in the department of Human Resources have compromised the examination process! They have provided others with information regarding the content of examinations and/or the examination process. At best they may have provided persons with "HELP" that will give them an advantage over others taking the same exam. At worst they may have actually sold such information, used it to make money, or allow others to make money. We will probably never know either the extent to which the examination process was compromised or whether any action was taken regarding people involved. We will probably never know whether this is a case of closing the barn door after the livestock has escaped. So effectively this is a matter being dealt with out of the sight of the public."

Notice About Audio Recordings

Thu, 22 Dec 2011 10:09:48 -0800

Audio recordings of Ethics Commission meetings will no longer appear in the Minutes section of the web site. Recordings have moved to the Ethics Commission Meeting Recordings page.

Minutes - November 14, 2011

Thu, 15 Dec 2011 09:40:13 -0800

Minutes of the Regular Meeting of
The San Francisco Ethics Commission
November 14, 2011
Room 408, City Hall
1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place
San Francisco, CA 94102

I. Call to order and roll call.

Chairperson Hur called the meeting to order at 5:33 PM.

COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Benedict Y. Hur, Chairperson; Jamienne Studley, Vice-Chairperson; Beverly Hayon, Commissioner; Dorothy S. Liu, Commissioner; and Charles L. Ward, Commissioner.

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

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

OTHERS PRESENT: Ray Hartz; Patrick Monette-Shaw; Dr. Derek Kerr; Dr. Maria Rivero; Kimo Crossman; Allen Grossman; Hope Johnson; Bruce Wolfe; Richard Knee; Allyson Washburn, Suzanne Manneh; Tiffany Bohee; David Pilpel; Anita Mayo; and other unidentified members of the public.

MATERIALS DISTRIBUTED:
- Staff memorandum re: draft regulations regarding the Commission's enforcement of the Sunshine Ordinance, dated November 10, 2011.
- Draft regulations regarding the Commission's enforcement of the Sunshine Ordinance.
- Draft Ethics Commission Regulations for Investigations and Enforcement Proceedings.
- Sunshine Ordinance Task Force Recommendations re: Proposed Regulations for Enforcement of Sunshine Complaints and Referrals, dated August 1, 2011.
- Article XV of the San Francisco Charter.
- Appendix C, Ethics Provisions, San Francisco Charter.
- Chapter 67, San Francisco Administrative Code, San Francisco Sunshine Ordinance.
- Staff memorandum re: request for waivers from post-employment restrictions, dated November 7, 2011.
- Memorandum from the Executive Director re: approved changes to the Campaign Finance Reform Ordinance, dated October 27, 2011.
- Memorandum from the Executive Director re: Proposed Amendments to the Campaign Finance Reform Ordinance, dated September 8, 2011.
- Staff memorandum re: draft legislation to delay certification of 2012 Supervisorial candidates seeking public funds, dated November 1, 2011.
- Minutes of the Special Meeting of the San Francisco Ethics Commission on October 19, 2010.
- Executive Director's Report to the Ethics Commission for the Meeting of November 14, 2011.

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

Ray Hartz stated that his public comment was regarding Task Force Order #10054, which was the basis of an Ethics complaint. He stated that the Order was sent for enforcement and that the complaint was dismissed without a hearing. He stated that at issue in the complaint was dissenting political free speech, which is protected by the United States and California Constitutions. He stated that the written summary he submitted during the January 2011 meeting did not appear on the page of the Commission's website with the approved minutes for that meeting. He stated that his statement was included as a link and his critical comments were out of the minutes. [Mr. Hartz submitted a written statement, which has been included at the end of these minutes.]

Patrick Monette-Shaw stated that his Sunshine complaints, numbers 013 and 014, have not yet been taken up by the Commission and asked when they would be placed on the agenda. He stated that there has been no mention of the Jewelle Gomez case and suggested that the Commission agendize the matter and ask the Mayor to attend the meeting. He stated that the Mayor should be ashamed of himself that he did not address this matter prior to the election.

Dr. Derek Kerr stated that he came to appeal to the Commission to review a complaint that he and Dr. Rivero had submitted over two years ago, involving Health Director Mitch Katz and HMA. He stated that they were available to answer questions.

Kimo Crossman stated that he was disappointed that the Ethics Commission is televising Commission meetings only after the Board of Supervisors told them to do it. He stated that Prop. F failed miserably and that it was disappointing that it was even proposed. He stated he was sorry that the Ethics Commission has been reluctant to hold a joint meeting with the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force. He was also disappointed that the Task Force was given no notice regarding the proposed regulations and requested that the item be postponed so that the Task Force could respond to the 123-page document as a body.

III. Consideration of draft regulations regarding the Commission's enforcement of the Sunshine Ordinance.

Executive Director St. Croix stated that staff had proposed changes to the regulations in 2010. He stated that the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force reviewed and discussed proposals and sent a response to the Commission in August 2011. He stated that staff reviewed the Task Force's proposals and presented new draft regulations.

Chairperson Hur stated that the Commission would address each decision point separately and take public comment on each number.

Decision Point 1
Mr. St. Croix stated that the proposal is that the Commission handle only willful violations by elected officials, department heads, and managerial City employees. He stated that the section in the Ordinance only refers to elected officials and department heads, but that staff was attempting to capture those responsible for document requests.

Public Comment:
Allen Grossman stated that he was truly appalled by the Commission's decision to proceed on something that has taken the Task Force almost two years to put together. He stated that the Task Force did not receive staff's report in advance and was unable to provide comment on it. He also stated that the request for a joint meeting was ignored. He also stated that the most disturbing part of the proposal was that the Commission has retracted its decision to hear enforcements of simple violations. He stated that he had created a memorandum listing four important legal principles that are not referenced in the proposed regulations.

Patrick Monette-Shaw stated that the Commission displayed mind-boggling hubris on how it will or will not decide Sunshine complaints. He stated that the Commission is wrongly exempting other City employees and wrongly determining that it is not tasked with the enforcement of Task Force orders. He stated that the Commission cannot adopt regulations that will overturn what the voters have decided. He stated there was too much hubris on that side of the table. [Mr. Monette-Shaw submitted a written statement, which has been included at the end of these minutes.]

Kimo Crossman elaborated on Mr. Grossman's comment. He discussed Proposition 59, a provision adopted with 83 percent of the vote. He stated that a regulation cannot overrule a law. He stated that a new ruling that limits the right of access shall be adopted with findings demonstrating the interest protected by the limitation and the need for protecting that interest. He stated that the Commission could not adopt any rules without those findings.

Ray Hartz stated that if the Commission adopts staff's recommendation, it will result in any person making a public records request to direct that request specifically to elected officials, department heads, or managerial City employees. He stated that the other possibility would be that the person making the request would have to appeal to the Supervisor of Records, whose office has proven hostile to records requests. He stated that failing to do so would leave the requestor dissatisfied with the response and without the possibility of enforcement from the Ethics Commission. He stated that he filed a complaint against Luis Herrera in order to eliminate the excuse for not hearing the complaint. He stated that everyone will only make requests to elected officials or department heads or managerial City employees. He stated that these individuals will still maintain responsibility. [Mr. Hartz also submitted a written statement which has been included at the end of these minutes.]

Hope Johnson, Chair of the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force, encouraged the Commission to schedule a joint meeting with the Task Force. Ms. Johnson disagreed that the Commission cannot hear non-willful violations of the Sunshine Ordinance.

Chairperson Hur stated that he appreciated her invitation to meet with the Task Force. He stated that staff provided a lengthy analysis and that he devoted a lot of time reviewing the materials. He stated that he proposed to discuss each decision point, but reserve motions until the end or a later date, if the Commission decides to hold another meeting or to meet with the Task Force.

Commissioner Studley noted that the Ordinance has serious gaps and ambiguities. She stated that, even if there is not agreement, there could be some value in discussing whether the Commission and Task Force should have a joint meeting.

Chairperson Hur stated that he did not think managerial City employees should be added. He suggested possibly changing the definition of "department head." He also stated that the Commission should not hear non-willful violations at all.

Commissioner Studley stated that she found it frustrating, citing the Jewelle Gomez case as an example, that the Commission does not have jurisdiction over those who are supposed to provide information to the public. She suggested exploring whether the department head could be held responsible through someone else. Commissioner Hayon stated that ultimately the department head is responsible for what goes on in the department.

Chairperson Hur stated that the Ordinance itself lists elected officials and department heads and that the Commission should stay within the bounds of the Ordinance. Commissioner Liu asked about the Commission's authority for drafting regulations.

Chairperson Hur recommended that the Commission move to the next decision point without a vote. He stated that he was in favor of staff's view, except for managerial City employees. He stated that it would be helpful to have a sense of what the Commissioners think the issues are and address them.

Hope Johnson stated that specific exemptions exist within the California Public Records Act. She stated that in state law documents are all public and it is the City's burden to show an exemption to keep them from being disclosed. She stated that the Task Force's experience could help the Commission.

Chairperson Hur stated that one of the reasons the Commission is hearing the item was to prevent a delay in implementing the regulations to improve the Commission's response. Ms. Johnson stated that a joint meeting would be beneficial. She stated that, even if you do not hold a joint meeting, Supervisor Campos may call both groups in front of the Government Audit and Oversight committee.

Decision Point 2

Public Comment:
Patrick Monette-Shaw stated that Commissioner Ward's response regarding the Commission's jurisdiction and some of the questions from Commissioner Studley prove that the Commission does not know what it is doing. He stated that the Commission should continue this item. He suggested that the Commission meet with the Task Force and Supervisor Campos.

Allen Grossman stated that he recognized that the Commission has a need to adopt regulations, but that the cost to the community would be unimaginable. He stated that the District Attorney has declined to enforce the Sunshine Ordinance and the Attorney General has as well. He stated that the Ethics Commission is the only other body that has that capability. He stated that the real question is whether the Commission is going to take its responsibility and enforce the orders of the Task Force. He stated that limiting jurisdiction to willful violations only will eliminate the individual requester's ability to access public records or be heard at a public meeting.

Kimo Crossman stated that if there is ambiguity in the Ordinance, then the Commission should interpret it broadly, not narrowly. He asked why the Commission is continuing considering these points. He stated that if there is a question of interpretation, then the Commission should contact the Task Force as they are the experts. He stated that the Task Force knows the relevant provisions of the law even though the Commission's staff and DCA do not.

Bruce Wolfe, Vice-Chair of the Task Force, stated that he hoped the two groups would meet again and discuss these matters. He suggested that the Commission take no action.

Richard Knee, Task Force member, thanked the Commission for its patience. He stated that the Task Force had trouble maintaining a quorum and the Task Force's response took longer than expected. He asked that the Commission consider the intent of all Sunshine laws. He suggested that the Commission consult Terry Francke, general counsel of Californians Aware, who wrote the original language of the 1993 Ordinance. He also stated that he was able to provide contact information for the co-drafters of Prop. G, Thomas Burke and Stephen LeBlanc.

Allyson Washburn stated that she was the Chair of the Compliance and Amendments Committee of the Task Force. She suggested a joint meeting to review and discuss the complex issues. She also suggested inviting the people Mr. Knee mentioned as well as the Task Force's and Ethics Commission's DCAs.

Ray Hartz stated that if the Commission adopts staff's recommendation, it will result in all boards or commissions being exempted from the Ordinance. He stated that there would be no available avenue to the Ethics Commission for enforcement. He stated that the Commission has moral and ethical responsibilities and should place pressure on members of boards or commissions to comply with the law. He stated that this issue arose during his Sunshine complaint with the Library Commission. He suggested that the Commission meet with the Task Force, instead of leaving work to staff. [Mr. Hartz submitted a written statement which exceeded the 150-word limit in section 67.16 of the Sunshine Ordinance.]

Suzanne Manneh, Task Force member, stated that it has been unfortunate that the Task Force has not had the most ideal form of cooperation and communication. She suggested a joint meeting.
A member of the public stated that Chairperson Hur insulted Allen Grossman. He told Commissioners Hur and Studley not to insult elders in the presence of other elders.
Chairperson Hur stated that he had reconsidered his earlier proposal and suggested tabling the issue for further discussion with the Task Force or perhaps others. The other Commissioners agreed.

Motion 11-11-14-01 (Ward/Studley): Moved, seconded and passed (5-0) that the Commission table the discussion of this item.

Public Comment:
A member of the public suggested that the Commissioners read the Sunshine Ordinance closely. He stated that most people who file complaints choose not to come to the Ethics Commission directly as the Commission does not support open government. He suggested that, after the Commissioners meet with Supervisor Campos, the Commission amend the Ordinance and take it to the voters.

Ray Hartz stated that the Commission seemed to be spending more time discussing what it could not do rather than what it can do. He suggested a joint meeting with the Task Force. He stated that people have the right to make public comment before a policy body.

Richard Knee suggested that any joint meeting the Commission may consider scheduling with the Compliance and Amendments Committee should be held after the New Year.

Commissioner Studley stated that she did not want to leave the implication that Chairperson Hur was disrespectful because he never is that. Commissioner Liu agreed.

Commissioner Studley wanted to thank the members of the Task Force who were present as they presented constructive comments. She stated that there seemed to be a genuine invitation to work through the issues. Commissioner Hayon stated that a meeting was essential and only this item should be on the agenda. Commissioner Ward agreed.

IV. Consideration of request for waivers from the post-employment bans under Campaign and Governmental Conduct Code sections 3.234(a)(1) and (a)(2).

Commissioner Ward stated that he had never met Ms. Bohee, but that his employer, Yerba Buena Center for the Arts, is a San Francisco Redevelopment Agency (SFRA) project and receives a substantial portion of its annual budget from SFRA. For that reason, he asked to be recused from consideration of this matter.

Motion 11-11-14-02 (Liu/Hayon): Moved, seconded and passed (4-0; Ward abstained) that Commissioner Ward recuse himself from this matter for the reasons stated.

Public Comment:
None.

Executive Director St. Croix stated that the redevelopment agency is a state agency and not a competing interest with the City. He stated that the agency's work dovetails with the City's work. He stated that Ms. Bohee will be doing a similar job to what she was doing in her previous position with the City.

Tiffany Bohee, Executive Director of SF Redevelopment Agency, stated that she had previously been a project director for the Mayor's Office of Workforce and Economic Development (OEWD). She stated that the OEWD projects and the redevelopment agency are closely aligned and have the same goals. She stated that she would like to continue that goal and continue cooperating with her former employer.

Commissioner Liu asked whether Ms. Bohee sought a waiver for the legislative package only. Ms. Bohee stated that there is a current court challenge regarding the legislative package and, should there be an opportunity for redevelopment to continue, she would continue work on the legislative package. She stated that the court should make a decision in January 2012.

Public Comment:
None.

Commissioners Studley and Liu stated that the Commission should take waiver requests seriously and review them carefully.

Motion 11-11-14-03 (Studley/Hayon): Moved, seconded and passed (4-0; Ward recused) that the Commission grant waivers from two post-employment restrictions to Tiffany Bohee, as set forth in staff's memorandum.

V. Closed session.

Motion 11-11-14-04 (Studley/Liu): Moved, seconded and passed (5-0) that the Commission move into closed session.

Public Comment:
None.

The Ethics Commission entered into closed session at 7:04 PM. In attendance in closed session until 8:04 PM were all five members of the Ethics Commission, Executive Director St. Croix, Deputy Executive Director Ng, Deputy City Attorney Givner, Investigator Chatfield, Investigator Argumedo, and Respondent.

[Break at 8:04 PM.]

[Return from break at 8:12 PM.]

Upon return to closed session, in attendance until 8:24 PM were all five members of the Ethics Commission, Executive Director St. Croix, Deputy Executive Director Ng, Deputy City Attorney Mollie Lee, Investigator Chatfield, and Investigator Argumedo.

From 8:24 PM to 8:27 PM, in attendance in closed session were all five members of the Ethics Commission, Executive Director St. Croix, Deputy Executive Director Ng, Deputy City Attorney Givner, Investigator Chatfield, and Investigator Argumedo.

The Ethics Commission returned to open session at 8:27 PM.

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

Motion 11-11-14-05 (Hayon/Studley): Moved, seconded and passed (5-0) that the Commission finds that it is in the best interests of the public not to disclose its closed session deliberations regarding the matters discussed in closed session.

Executive Director St. Croix announced that the Commission had reached a settlement agreement regarding the following two complaints: Complaint No. 28-101026 and Complaint No. 03-061016. The Commission approved a settlement in Complaint No. 28-101026 related to the Common Sense Voters, SF 2010, Vote for Mark Farrell for District 2 Supervisor Committee ("Respondent"), whereby Respondent will pay $500 to the Commission. The Commission also approved a settlement in Complaint No. 03-061016 related to the Mak '06 Committee (ID No. 1287595), Jaynry Mak, and Frances Hsieh, Treasurer ("Respondents"), whereby Respondents will pay $18,000 to the Commission.

Public Comment:
David Pilpel asked whether the documents relating to the complaints were available or whether the material terms could be disclosed. Chairperson Hur stated that the information would be posted on the Commission's website the following day. Mr. Pilpel also questioned the presence of a non-City employee during closed session. Chairperson Hur stated that it was appropriate for that individual to be present during closed session.

VII. Continuation of consideration of possible amendments to the Campaign Finance Reform Ordinance.

Deputy Director Ng recommended that the Commission continue Decision Points 7c-1, 7c-2, and 7d.

Decision Point 7a
Ms. Ng stated that these changes would eliminate the requirement that candidates file a statement declaring that they will seek funds.

Public Comment:
None.

Motion 11-11-14-06 (Ward/Liu): Moved, seconded and passed (5-0) that the Commission adopt Decision Point 7a.

Decision Point 7b

Public Comment:
David Pilpel stated that he had no objections, but suggested that those receiving public funds be required to follow a local hiring rule in order to keep jobs in the City. He also suggested that the Commission place other types of restrictions on public funds.

Larry Bush stated that the Commission should ensure that any restrictions it sought to place on those receiving public funds be consistent with state laws. He suggested a requirement that at least one communication should go to every San Francisco voter, in order to encourage voter participation.

Motion 11-11-14-07 (Ward/Hayon): Moved, seconded and passed (5-0) that the Commission adopt Decision Point 7b.

Decision Point 7f
The Commission continued discussion of this decision point.

Decision Point 7e
Ms. Ng stated that this decision point clarifies the audit situation. She stated that the Commission currently has two auditors and they have been engaged in monitoring the public finance system. She stated that audits of public finance candidates could begin, but the other audits could begin at a later time.

The Commissioners expressed concern at having no set start date for audits. Chairperson Hur suggested a year.

Public Comment:
David Pilpel agreed that the audits should begin as soon as possible. He suggested that the losing candidates should be audited first.

Larry Bush recommended language to allow this issue to be revisited when technology improves.

The Commissioners recommended a time limit and differentiating between random and targeted audits. Ms. Ng recommended removing Decision Point 7e from consideration. The Commission agreed.

Decision Point 8

Public Comment:
None.

Motion 11-11-14-08 (Ward/Hayon): Moved, seconded and passed (5-0) that the Commission adopt Decision Point 8.

Decision Point 9

Public Comment:
David Pilpel asked what would happen if someone requested to receive mail notice. Ms. Ng stated that staff would make that arrangement. Mr. Pilpel suggested informing the media and creating a media list.

Mr. St. Croix stated that the Commission already had a media list. He stated that the media receives all press releases that the Commission issues.

Motion 11-11-14-09 (Hayon/Liu): Moved, seconded and passed (5-0) that the Commission adopt Decision Point 9.

Decision Point 10

Public Comment:
None.

Motion 11-11-14-10 (Hayon/Liu): Moved, seconded and passed (5-0) that the Commission adopt Decision Point 10.

Decision Point 11
Ms. Ng stated that staff proposed to expand the current prohibition to communications and not just campaign ads.

Public Comment:
David Pilpel asked for an example of what is not currently prohibited. Ms. Ng stated that information on a campaign's website is not currently encompassed by the law. Mr. Pilpel also questioned whether there were any First Amendment issues with applying this to third party expenditures.

Larry Bush asked whether door hangers had been included. DCA Givner stated they had not.

David Pilpel asked whether the intent was to delete campaign advertisement or add communications. DCA Givner stated that the new definition of "communications" would include campaign advertisement. The Commissioners then discussed a numerical threshold with an advertisement that is publicly displayed. Ms. Ng suggested creating a financial limit (ex., $1,000 or more) instead of the advertisement reaching a certain number of people.

Anita Mayo stated that the $1,000 or more limit exists elsewhere in CFRO. She also suggested creating a presumption in the statute regarding billboards or radio or television advertisements. Commissioner Studley expressed concerns that the internet cost to a committee may be marginal and may not be limited by this amendment.

Larry Bush stated that he did internet ads with the SF Bay Guardian that had 80,000 impressions for $900.

Commissioner Hur suggested continuing this item.

Decision Point 12
Ms. Ng stated that this decision point covered clean up of the proposed ordinance based upon what the Commission adopted at its last meeting.

Public Comment:
David Pilpel referenced a chart from staff's September 8, 2011 memorandum. He asked whether staff could update the chart.

Motion 11-11-14-11 (Hur/Ward): Moved, seconded and passed (5-0) that the Commission adopt Decision Point 12.

Decision Point 13

Public Comment:
David Pilpel suggested that the operative date be amended. He noted a typographical error on line 17, page 1.

DCA Givner stated that staff's intent was to adopt these amendments in September, so that they would be effective in January 2012. He stated that effective dates should always be included. He offered to amend the language.

Motion 11-11-14-12 (Ward/Hayon): Moved, seconded and passed (5-0) that the Commission adopt Decision Point 13, as amended.

Chairperson Hur thanked staff and the public.

VIII. Consideration of legislation to delay certification of Supervisorial candidates as eligible to receive public funds in the November 2012 election until the supervisorial district lines have been finally revised by the Redistricting Task Force.

Executive Director St. Croix stated that the Redistricting Commission may not finish its work until March or April 2012. He stated that candidates for Supervisor could still apply for funds and staff could review applications, but that checks would not be distributed until the lines are finalized.

Public Comment:
David Pilpel asked whether staff determines whether a candidate lives in the district.

Motion 11-11-14-13 (Studley/Hayon): Moved, seconded and passed (5-0) that the Commission approve staff's recommendations to delay certification.

IX. Minutes of the Commission's special meeting of October 19, 2011.

Motion 11-11-14-14 (Ward/Studley): Moved, seconded and passed (5-0) that the Commission adopt the minutes of the Commission's special meeting of October 19, 2011, as amended.

Public Comment:
David Pilpel noted that Anita Mayo was misspelled on page 7.

X. Executive Director's Report.

Mr. St. Croix stated that staff would update numbers in the revenues report in next month's report. He stated that the Oversight Committee adopted legislation to require that Commission meetings be televised. He stated that Supervisor Campos wanted to include the Task Force as well, but could not, so it will be introduced in separate legislation. He stated that televised meetings will begin on the fourth Monday of January 2012. He also reminded the Commissioners that they needed to complete anti-harassment training and that they could do so through a tutorial online.

Chairperson Hur thanked staff for getting the Commission through a busy election season.

Public Comment:
David Pilpel stated that Proposition F failed and suggested that the Commission discuss the status at a future meeting.

Larry Bush stated that he was a member of the group that worked to oppose Proposition F. He stated that the Campaign Consultant Ordinance needed to be amended, but that there are still a number of issues that need to be addressed. He stated that he is happy to meet with the Commissioners.

Commissioner Ward stated that this meeting was likely to be his last with the Commission. He stated that he had been on the Commission for six years and it was time to step aside and let someone else do their public service. He stated that he appreciated working with the current and past Commissioners and especially appreciated the work staff has done.

Chairperson Hur stated that the Commission has greatly appreciated his service and that he has learned a great deal from Commissioner Ward and cherished his comments and guidance on these issues. Mr. St. Croix stated that Commissioner Ward's insights have been great and that he and the staff have appreciated his intellect and comments. Commissioner Ward stated he would return and make public comment.

XI. Items for future meetings.

Commissioner Studley stated that there had been commentary about the public financing system. She asked what limitations there were on Commissioners conversing about that issue. Mr. St. Croix stated that the limitations on Commissioners and staff are on political activity. He stated that dissemination on factual information is permitted.

Chairperson Hur stated that he was looking forward to the results of the upcoming Interested Persons' meetings.

Public Comment:
Larry Bush suggested that the Commission discuss contributions from contractors with the City.

David Pilpel agreed with Mr. Bush. He suggested that the Commission ensure compliance by campaigns and treasurers.

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 11-11-14-15 (Ward/Liu): Moved, seconded and passed (5-0) that the Commission adjourn.

Public Comment:
None.

Meeting adjourned at 9:55 PM.

This summary statement was provided by the speaker, Ray Hartz. The content is neither generated by, nor subject to approval or verification of accuracy by, the Ethics Commission.

This public comment is in reference to the SOTF OD #10054, which was the basis of EC complaint #06-110816. This OD was sent to this commission for enforcement and summarily dismissed by the staff without a hearing. Let me be perfectly clear; this is an issue of free speech! Not only is it free speech, but, political free speech! Not only is it political free speech, but, dissenting political free speech which is protected by both the United States and California Constitutions! The ONLY reason for the position taken by the Library Commission is to ensure that dissenting political free speech, and the political thought that the speech represents, does not find its way into the official record of the Library Commission meetings. As opined by the Attorney General of California: "Any attempt to restrict the content of such speech must be narrowly tailored to effectuate a compelling state interest."

This summary statement was provided by the speaker, Patrick Monette-Shaw. The content is neither generated by, nor subject to approval or verification of accuracy by, the Ethics Commission.

The Ethics Commission is again displaying mindboggling hubris, proposing regulations stipulating how it will handle Sunshine complaints referred for enforcement.
Decision Point #1 asserts Ethics will "enforce or review only allegations of willful Sunshine violations by elected officials, department heads and managerial City employees," wrongly exempting other employees who may violate the Sunshine Ordinance.
Ethics wrongly believes it isn't tasked anywhere in the Sunshine Ordinance with enforcing orders of determination from the Task Force; instead Ethics believes only the District Attorney or the Attorney General are tasked with enforcement of public records requests.
Decision Point 3(a) permits Ethics director John St. Croix to conduct his own investigation of Sunshine complaints, in effect permitting him to re-adjudicate initial Task Force hearings.
None of the proposed decision points and none of these proposed regulations were approved by voters. Ethics may not adopt mere "regulations" that overturn Sunshine open government laws voters passed.

This summary statement was provided by the speaker, Ray Hartz. The content is neither generated by, nor subject to approval or verification of accuracy by, the Ethics Commission.

These comments reference Decision Point 1. If the Ethics Commission decides to adopt this staff recommendation as is, common sense says it will result in any person making a public records request directing that request specifically to "elected officials, department heads, and managerial City employees." If they do not, they will be in the position of working their way through a bureaucratic thicket, until they reach "elected officials, department heads, and managerial City employees." Or, worse yet, having to appeal to the Supervisor of Records (read City Attorney), whose Office has repeatedly provide to be hostile to records requests, representing everything in terms to which Attorney/Client privilege applies. In the alternative, failing to do so would place the requestor, dissatisfied with a response, in the position of appealing the matter to the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force, without the possibility of any enforcement from the Ethics Commission.

Recording - December 12, 2011 - Ethics Commission Meeting

Tue, 13 Dec 2011 15:22:18 -0800

Recording - December 12, 2011 - 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 - October 19, 2011

Tue, 15 Nov 2011 11:39:46 -0800

Minutes of the Special Meeting of
The San Francisco Ethics Commission
October 19, 2011
Room 416, City Hall
1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place
San Francisco, CA 94102

I. Call to order and roll call.

Chairperson Hur called the meeting to order at 5:30 PM.

COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Benedict Y. Hur, Chairperson; Jamienne Studley, Vice-Chairperson; Beverly Hayon, Commissioner; Dorothy S. Liu, Commissioner; Charles Ward, Commissioner.

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

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

OFFICE OF THE OAKLAND CITY ATTORNEY: Mark Morodomi, Supervising Attorney.

OTHERS PRESENT: April Veneracion, Steven Hill; Larry Bush, Ray Hartz; Anita Mayo; Derek Kerr; Maria Rivero; David Pilpel; and other unidentified members of the public.

MATERIALS DISTRIBUTED:
- Informal Advice Letter to Steven Gold re: whether ActBlue may act as an intermediary for contributions made to political committees participating in elections for offices and ballot initiatives in the City and County of San Francisco, dated October 5, 2011.
- Legislative Digest of proposed amendments to the San Francisco Campaign Finance Reform Ordinance by Supervisor Jane Kim.
- Memorandum from the Executive Director re: Proposed Amendments to the Campaign Finance Reform Ordinance, dated September 8, 2011.
- Memorandum from the Executive Director re: Amendments to Bylaws, dated October 6, 2011.
- Draft Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the San Francisco Ethics Commission on September 12, 2011.
- Executive Director's Report to the Ethics Commission for the Meeting of October 19, 2011.

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

Steven Hill stated that he was a co-author of the public financing ordinance. He stated that the public has not been part of the process regarding the revisions in the public financing laws. Responding to Vice-Chairperson Studley, Mr. Hill suggested that the Ethics Commission use email or the internet to inform the public regarding the proposed revisions.

Dr. Maria Rivero stated that she is a whistleblower and that she submitted a complaint to the Ethics Commission over two years ago. She stated that the complaint has not yet been resolved.

Dr. Derek Kerr stated that he worked for Laguna Honda Hospital for over 20 years. He stated that he is a whistleblower and was laid-off from his position after submitting a complaint to the Ethics Commission. He stated that two years to resolve a complaint is too long.

Ray Hartz read Article 20 from the California Constitution. He asked the Commission what role they have played to ensure people can exercise their First Amendment rights. He stated that the Ethics Commission does not stand up for the people of San Francisco.

Larry Bush stated that Oliver Luby had provided a written proposal regarding contractor prohibitions on contributions. He stated that the Ethics Commission offers no training to contractors regarding the prohibition.

Chariperson Hur stated that the Ethics Commission evaluates every case and understands that the confidentiality provisions prohibiting the Commission from commenting on cases can be frustrating.

III. Discussion of the public financing program, including consideration of developments since the Commission's approval of amendments to the Campaign Finance Reform Ordinance (CFRO) to address the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Arizona Free Enterprise Club's Freedom Club PAC, et al. v. Bennett, as well as alternative proposals such as Supervisor Jane Kim's proposal to amend sections CFRO sections 1.140, 1.143 and 1.144.

Deputy City Attorney Givner left the room and the Ethics Commission received counsel from Mark Morodomi, Supervising Attorney with the Oakland City Attorney's Office.

Executive Director St. Croix stated that the Board of Supervisors did not adopt the recommendation submitted by the Ethics Commission. He stated that Supervisor Kim submitted a proposal to the Ethics Commission for consideration. He stated that it is important that the Ethics Commission address revisions to CFRO before February 2012, when public financing for the 2012 Board of Supervisors race begins.

April Veneracion, legislative aide to Supervisor Kim, introduced Supervisor Kim's proposal.

Responding to Chairperson Hur, Ms. Veneracion stated that Supervisor Kim's proposal considered the average spending by candidates in the 2008 and 2010 elections.

Public Comment.

Steven Hill stated that the Board of Supervisors were not comfortable with the Ethics Commission's proposal. Responding to Commissioner Liu, Mr. Hill stated that San Francisco spent an average of $1.50 per citizen on public financing.

Ray Hartz stated that now there are offices for sale and that these revisions in response to the Supreme Court decision disenfranchises voters. He stated that this denies the average citizen from being effective in city government and only allows the rich to continue running for office.

Larry Bush stated that the U.S. Supreme Court has changed the dynamic on election races.

David Pilpel stated that the Ethics Commission does not have to take any action on this item.

Responding to Vice-Chairperson Studley, Ms. Veneracion stated that Supervisor Kim wanted to present a qualifying amount to the Commission in her proposal, but that it could be severed from the proposal.

Responding to Commissioner Liu, Mark Morodomi stated that the Ethics Commission should consider making the changes necessary to comport with the U.S. Supreme Court's decision to avoid a legal challenge.

Responding to Commissioner Ward, Mr. Morodomi stated that the first proposal to the Board of Supervisors severed the connection between outside spending and additional public funds. He stated that the Board of Supervisors rejected that proposal.

Commissioner Liu stated that the connection must be severed otherwise it is unconstitutional.

Chairperson Hur directed the Executive Director to solicit further public input and invite proposals for the Commission to consider.

The Ethics Commission adjourned for a break at 6:44 PM.

The Ethics Commission returned from a break at 6:55 PM.

Deputy City Attorney Givner returned to the room.

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

Executive Director St. Croix introduced the item.

Chairperson Hur stated that the Commission would take public comment on each decision point prior to the Commissioner's discussion.

Decision Point 1a.

Public Comment.

Steven Hill stated that an unintended consequence of public financing is that some individuals, who might otherwise drop out of the mayoral race, stay in the race so they do not have to pay back the public funds.

David Pilpel stated that the form the Ethics Commission requires for disclosure of communications does not ask for the number of communications, only for the dollar amount of the expenditure.

Responding to Chairperson Hur, Assistant Deputy Director Shaikh stated that the revision will make this disclosure provision parallel with the other provisions in CFRO. She stated as the law currently is written, the reporting requirements are different, and they are confusing for candidates and the public.

Deputy Director Ng stated that this revision will eliminate the mass mailing disclosure requirements if the mass mailing is distributed more than 90 days from the election and no candidate's receive public financing.

Deputy City Attorney Givner stated that it is incredibly rare to have any mass mailer issued over 90 days before an election.

Decision Point 1b.

Public Comment.

Larry Bush stated that the reduction in the font size required on disclosures from 14-point to 10-point would be difficult to see and is too small.

Deputy Director Ng stated that the change is to be consistent with state law which requires 10-point font for this type of disclosure.

Commissioner Ward stated that he disagrees with the change and stated that the font size should remain at 14-point.

Decision Point 1c.

Public Comment.
None.

No discussion.

Decision Point 1d.

Public Comment.
None.

No discussion.

MOTION 11-10-19-01 (Studley/Hayon): Moved, seconded, and passed (5-0) that the Commission adopt decision point 1a to establish disclaimer and disclosure requirements for communications that are paid for by third parties and that concern candidates for City elective office.

MOTION 11-10-19-02 (Studley/Hur): Moved, seconded, and passed (4-1, Ward dissenting) that the Commission adopt decision point 1b to establish the content and form of disclaimer statements on third party communications and to require that disclaimers appear in 10-point font on written communications. (Vacated by MOTION 11-10-19-05.)

MOTION 11-10-19-03 (Studley/Liu): Moved, seconded, and passed (5-0) that the Commission adopt decision point 1c to set forth the content and form of disclosure reports regarding third party communications related to candidates.

MOTION 11-10-19-04 (Studley/Hayon): Moved, seconded, and passed (5-0) that the Commission adopt decision point 1d to identify exceptions to the disclaimer and disclosure requirements for third parties making communications related to candidates.

Decision Point 2.

Public Comment.

David Pilpel stated that requiring treasurers to scan mass mailings is too burdensome.

Larry Bush stated that the proposed font size on disclosures under this section is too small and should by 14-point.

Deputy Director Ng responded to Vice-Chairperson Studley, stating that there is some urgency in adopting the changes proposed to ensure they are in place for the 2012 election cycle.

Assistant Deputy Director Shaikh stated that the proposal to require scanning was to ensure information is immediately available to the public.

Commissioner Ward stated that the disclosure requirements for all mailings and communications should be 14-point.

MOTION 11-10-19-05 (Studley/Hayon): Moved, seconded, and passed (4-1, Hur dissenting) that the Commission vacate MOTION 11-10-19-02.

MOTION 11-10-19-06 (Hayon/Ward): Moved, seconded, and passed (4-1, Hur dissenting) that the Commission adopt decision point 1b to establish the content and form of disclaimer statements on third party communications and to requirement that disclaimers appear in 14-point font on written communications.

MOTION 11-10-19-07 (Studley/Ward): Moved, seconded, and passed (5-0) that the Commission adopt decision point 2 to establish the disclaimer and disclosure requirements for candidates who distribute communications and to require that such disclosure statement appear in 14-point font on written communications.

Decision Point 3.

Public Comment.

Larry Bush stated that there should be a 24-hour reporting period starting 10 days before an election.

David Pilpel stated that there is currently no disclosure required on election day.

Responding to Chairperson Hur, DCA Givner stated that the Commission could include election day to be another disclosure day.

Vice-Chairperson Studley stated that the Commission should balance the need for disclosing information to the public as soon as possible without trying to make the reporting requirements unreasonably burdensome. She stated the current proposal appears to achieve that balance.

MOTION 11-10-19-08 (Studley/Hur): Moved, seconded, and passed (4-1, Hayon dissenting) that the Commission adopt decision point 3 to establish a standard timing requirement for all disclosure reports to be filed by candidates and third parties who distribute communications regarding candidates for City elective office, such that the reports must be filed with the Ethics Commission by the first disclosure deadline after distribution of the communication.

Decision Point 4.

Public Comment.

David Pilpel stated that this provision might create a professional class of compliance experts, and would create a burden on small campaign committees.

Anita Mayo stated that San Francisco has one of the most complicated campaign ordinances in the country. She stated that individuals are penalized by using campaign funds to pay for ensuring compliance to the ordinance. She stated that the proposal to exempt 10 percent is reasonable.

Vice-Chairperson Studley stated that this is a way to recognize that compliance costs are a significant cost to campaigns.

MOTION 11-10-19-09 (Studley/Hur): Moved, seconded, and passed (4-1, Ward dissenting) that the Commission adopt decision point 4 to approve amendments to reflect the exclusion of up to ten percent of a candidate's compliance costs from the determination of whether to lift the Voluntary Expenditure Ceiling or to adjust the Individual Expenditure Ceiling.

Decision Point 5a.

Public Comment.

David Pilpel stated that the SFMTA has also used the consumer price index in connection with fare raises. He stated that the Ethics Commission should be required to approve any raises rather than have it be an automatic adjustment.

Anita Mayo stated that the $500 contribution limit has been in place since 1986.

Larry Bush stated that when the Ethics Commission was created there was an escalator clause to raise contribution limits. He stated that the majority of contributions are received in the final reporting period prior to an election and are not disclosed until January.

Vice-Chairperson Studley agreed that the Ethics Commission should vote to approve any raise in the contribution limit.

Chairperson Hur stated that if the limit is not raised automatically with a tie to the consumer price index, then there could be the perception that the decision to raise the limit would be arbitrary.

DCA Givner stated that the City Charter requires an annual adjustment tied to the consumer price index and this section codifies that Charter requirement. He stated that the Commission could include a clause that allows them to ratify the automatic adjustment.

MOTION 11-10-19-10 (Hayon/Liu): Moved, seconded, and passed (4-1, Hur dissenting) that the Commission adopt decision point 5a to preserve the $500 per person contribution limit to candidates, and to require the Commission to adjust annually the limit according to changes in the Consumer Price Index from a February 2010 base, provided that the Commission ratifies any such change.

Decision Point 5b.

Public Comment.

Larry Bush stated that the current limit is not an issue for candidates.

DCA Givner stated that this change is being proposed because the current limit on the number of contributions an individual can make is subject to legal challenges.

MOTION 11-10-19-11 (Hayon/Ward): Moved, seconded, and passed (5-0) that the Commission adopt decision point 5b to delete the overall limit on contributions that a person may make to all candidate committees.

Decision Point 5c.

Public Comment.

David Pilpel stated that this provision should not be deleted.

DCA Givner stated that the Ethics Commission is already enjoined from enforcing this provision and it cannot survive a legal challenge.

MOTION 11-10-19-12 (Studley/Liu): Moved, seconded, and passed (5-0) that the Commission adopt decision point 5c to delete the limits on the amount of contributions a person may make to non-candidate committees that make expenditures to support or oppose candidate for City elective office.

Decision Point 5d.

Public Comment.
None.

No discussion.

MOTION 11-10-19-13 (Hayon/Ward): Moved, seconded, and passed (5-0) that the Commission adopt decision point 5d to delete the section related to when contribution are deemed received so that local law is consistent with state law.

Decision Points 6a – 6c

Public Comment.

Larry Bush stated that the definition of charitable organization is too broad.

Anita Mayo stated that allowing campaign funds to pay for tickets to charitable events should be adopted by the Commission. She stated that charities cannot make contributions to candidates and that there is a corporate contribution ban.

Deputy Director Ng responded to Commissioner Liu that the provision does not put a limit on the amount a candidate may pay for a ticket to a charitable event.

Vice-Chairperson Studley stated that the Commission should consider defining that the amount paid for a ticket is merely for paying for attendance.

Commissioner Hayon stated that the Commission should not adopt requirements that result in heavily restricting how campaign funds are used to express support for candidates. She stated that it is not unreasonable for a contributor to expect some funds will be used to pay for admission to events so the candidate can promote his or her campaign.

The Ethics Commission adjourned for a break at 9:23 PM.

The Ethics Commission returned from a break at 9:29 PM.

MOTION 11-10-19-14 (Liu/Studley): Moved, seconded, and passed (4-1, Hur dissenting) that the Commission adopt decision point 6a-1 to allow campaign funds to be used by a candidate to attend a fundraiser for a charitable organization. (The Commission did not vote on Decision point 6a-2 to permit a candidate to use campaign funds to submit an argument regarding a ballot measure on the voter information pamphlet.)

MOTION 11-10-19-15 (Hayon/Studley): Moved, seconded, and passed (5-0) that the Commission adopt decision point 6b to clarify that a candidate may transfer funds from the candidate's committee only before funds become surplus.

MOTION 11-10-19-16 (Hayon/Studley): Moved, seconded, and passed (5-0) that the Commission adopt decision point 6c to clarify that public funds may not be used for officeholder expenses.

The Commission continued the remaining decision points for consideration at the next Commission meeting.

V. Consideration of possible amendments to the Ethics Commission's By-Laws to change the day of the Commission's regular meeting from the second Monday of the month to the fourth Monday of the month, in order to accommodate the televising of the meetings.

Executive Director St. Croix stated that the Commission will have to move the date and location of its meetings in order to televise Commission meetings.

Vice-Chairperson Studley stated that the Commission should not lock itself into having to cancel a meeting if video recording facilities are not functioning or available.

Public Comment.

David Pilpel stated that he was against televising Commission meetings.

Ray Hartz stated that the Sunshine Ordinance requires the adoption of technological changes. He stated that televising meetings allows greater public access.

Larry Bush stated that he has been videotaping Ethics Commission meetings for several months and posting the videos on YouTube.

MOTION 11-10-19-17 (Ward/Liu): Moved, seconded, and passed (5-0) that the Commission adopt changes to the Commission Bylaws to provide that beginning in January 2012, the Commission's regular meetings will be held on the fourth Monday of each month at 5:30 PM in Room 400 City Hall, and that such meetings shall be televised, where technologically feasible, except for portions of meetings that are held in closed session or otherwise required to be confidential.

VI. Minutes of the Commission's regular meeting of September 12, 2011.

Public Comment.
None.

MOTION 11-10-19-18 (Hayon/Ward): Moved, seconded, and passed (5-0) that the Commission approve the minutes of the Ethics Commission regular meeting of September 12, 2011.

VII. Executive Director's Report.

Public Comment.

David Pilpel stated that the Ethics Commission should send a letter to the Board of Supervisors to preempt legislation proposed by Supervisor Campos requiring the Ethics Commission televise its meetings.

VIII. Items for future meetings.

Commissioner Liu disclosed on the public record that Kevin Henegan, a campaign attorney, joined her law firm. She stated that an ethical screen has been established and she will have no involvement with his practice or have any access to his files or share in his profits in any way from his practice. She stated that she will recuse herself if he comes before the Commission.

Public Comment.
None.

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

Larry Bush stated that the Commission should consider requiring the e-filing of contractor reports.

Ray Hartz stated that the Ethics Commission staff should not have dismissed a complaint regarding the Library Commission's failure to submit a written statement by him in their minutes.

X. Adjournment.

MOTION 11-10-19-19 (Hayon/Studley): Moved, seconded, and passed (5-0) that the Commission adjourn.

Meeting adjourned at 10:08 PM.

Respectfully submitted,

_____________________
Garrett Chatfield

Recording - November 14, 2011 - Ethics Commission Meeting

Tue, 15 Nov 2011 10:45:16 -0800

Recording - November 14, 2011 - 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.

Recording - October 19, 2011 - Ethics Commission Meeting

Thu, 20 Oct 2011 15:50:22 -0700

Recording - October 19, 2011 - 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 - September 12, 2011

Thu, 20 Oct 2011 14:11:21 -0700

Minutes of the Regular Meeting of
The San Francisco Ethics Commission
September 12, 2011
Room 408, City Hall
1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place
San Francisco, CA 94102

I. Call to order and roll call.

Chairperson Hur called the meeting to order at 5:32 PM.

COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Benedict Y. Hur, Chairperson; Beverly Hayon, Commissioner; Dorothy S. Liu, Commissioner; Charles Ward, Commissioner. Commissioner Studley was excused.

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

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

OTHERS PRESENT: Dr. Judy Melinek; Hal Smith; Allen Grossman; Amy Brown, acting City Administrator; Dr. Amy Hart, Chief Medical Examiner; Dr. Venus Azar; Ayanna Jenkins-Toney; David Pilpel; Thomas Long; and other unidentified members of the public.

MATERIALS DISTRIBUTED:
- Staff memorandum regarding Section III.B.3 of the GSA SIA, dated September 6, 2011.
- Letter from Acting City Administrator Brown to Dr. Melinek, dated February 1, 2011.
- Staff memorandum regarding request for waivers from post-employment restrictions, dated September 1, 2011.
- E-mail from Office of the City Attorney regarding Tom Long Waiver Request, dated August 30, 2011.
- Request from Thomas Long for Waivers of Campaign and Governmental Conduct Code sections 3.234(a)(1) and (a)(2) related to employment with The Utility Reform Network (TURN), dated August 29, 2011.
- Staff memorandum regarding proposed amendments to Commission Regulations VI.A and XIV.C, dated September 6, 2011.
- Draft San Francisco Ethics Commission Annual Report (July 1, 2010 – June 30, 2011).
- Draft Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the San Francisco Ethics Commission on August 8, 2011.
- Executive Director's Report to the Ethics Commission for the Meeting of September 12, 2011.

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

Dr. Melinek stated that she had requested advance written determinations ("AWD") regarding outside activity and been denied six times. She stated that another physician at the Medical Examiner's Office had resigned because of the restrictions on working on cases outside of the City. She stated that the Chief Medical Examiner, Dr. Hart, could not define what the adverse consequences were or would be to the City and/or Office of the Chief Medical Examiner ("OCME") if Dr. Melinek were to be permitted to testify in an outside case. She stated that the other four assistant medical examiners as well as the other investigators all agree with her and have issues with the AWD process. She stated that the City administrators do not seem to want to change.

Hal Smith thanked the Commissioners for reviewing the Civil Grand Jury's report. He also stated that the minutes had referenced the amended response had been approved, but could not find it on the Ethics Commission's website. He asked that the amended response be posted on the website.

Allen Grossman noted that tonight's agenda did not include the proposed Sunshine regulations as an item. He stated that the proposed regulations should have the highest priority, as there are nine Sunshine cases pending.

III. Consideration of provision in the Statement of Incompatible Activities (SIA) governing officers and employees of the Office of Chief Medical Examiner.

Deputy Director Ng stated that staff prepared a memorandum outlining the issue. She stated that the Commission had considered a draft advice letter during its April 2011 meeting, but that Dr. Melinek had withdrawn her request for advice during the meeting. She stated that staff had conducted research and met with the General Services Administration ("GSA") and that acting City Administrator Amy Brown was available to answer questions.

Commissioner Hur asked whether the Commission had the jurisdiction to amend the SIA on its own. Ms. Ng stated that the Commission could, but that it has usually deferred to departments, as the department heads are the most knowledgeable about what is most compatible with employee's duties.

Amy Brown, the acting City Administrator, stated that there were several reasons why the SIA was adopted in 2008. She stated that all expert testimony is discoverable and testimony in a jurisdiction outside of San Francisco may have an impact on San Francisco.

[Editor's Note: Due to maintenance work in City Hall, the microphones in all meeting rooms did not work for approximately four minutes.]

Ms. Brown stated that Dr. Melinek's testimony, or that of any other assistant medical examiner testifying in an outside case, could be used to impeach her as a witness. She stated that the City had important interests in trying to protect the OCME. She stated that one court called into question some of her testimony. Commissioner Hur questioned how that testimony would be used in another unrelated matter. Ms. Brown stated that the testimony could be used to call in question her professional opinion as an expert and as an employee of the OCME. She also stated that providing testimony could be time consuming and that the work at the OCME should be first priority. She stated that Dr. Melinek has submitted a large number of requests. Ms. Brown stated that Dr. Hart had received over 30 requests for AWD and only about ten percent had been rejected. She stated that frequently, in jurisdictions which border San Francisco, the OCME works with other offices and the outside work of the doctors could place strain on those relationships. She stated that outside testimony could be a source of concern for the OCME.

Ms. Brown stated that Dr. Hart worked with the Ethics Commission and the City Attorney's Office to create a 6-part matrix in determining whether there would be a conflict. She stated that the matrix had been shared with all of the assistant medical examiners. She stated that Los Angeles does not permit its medical examiners to perform work, as expert witnesses, for any California cases. She stated that San Francisco's approach was similar to that of San Diego County. She stated that the City Attorney's Office does not allow for any outside legal representation and she stated that the situation was analogous as employees in both offices are highly trained and professional, held to high standards, and highly paid. She stated that Dr. Melinek, as an assistant medical examiner ("AME"), earns $261,534 annually.

Commissioner Hayon stated that Ms. Brown had referenced the potential for problems, specifically with San Mateo County. She asked whether Ms. Brown could provide any examples of previous issues. Ms. Brown did not have any specific examples, but that there were some concerns expressed by San Mateo County officials to City officials regarding this issue. She stated that it would open the office to credibility attacks in the future. She stated that the department should have a standard approach in order to be clear on expectations.

Commissioner Liu asked what measure was used to determine that potential testimony would interfere with a working relationship between jurisdictions. Ms. Brown stated that the best example was San Mateo, as San Francisco is the largest landowner in San Mateo County. She stated that after the PG&E pipeline explosion in San Bruno, San Francisco provided assistance as the county lacked some medical facilities and some of the injured were treated in San Francisco. She stated that two AWDs which were recently approved did not have the potential to interfere – one in San Diego and the other a federal case. She stated that other OCMEs have been hit with subpoenas and asked about practices of the office because an AME testified in a particular case.

Commissioner Hur asked whether San Mateo officials asked Ms. Brown not to take the case referenced by Dr. Melinek. Ms. Brown did not recall that that was specifically stated to her. Commissioner Liu asked whether Dr. Hart would know the answer and Ms. Brown stated that she believed that the request was received by the former City Administrator.

Commissioner Hur asked Ms. Brown whether there would be any situation in which she thought it would be permissible for one of the AMEs to testify as an expert witness against San Mateo County. Ms. Brown stated that she could not think of one. She stated that the City had the closest relationship with San Mateo County, but also had close working relationships in Marin and Alameda counties.

Commissioner Hur stated that he would like to know whether anyone from San Mateo contacted someone in San Francisco suggesting that Dr. Melinek not take this case. Dr. Amy Hart, Chief Medical Examiner, stated that she did not know the cases with the specificity as Ms. Brown did. She did not recall anything specific about the Wolcoff case. She stated that she did not have any specific knowledge of who contacted the City Administrator or the City Attorney's Office or any other City agency regarding cases in San Mateo. She stated that she did not have any knowledge about anyone asking that Dr. Melinek specifically not be allowed to testify in a case. Commissioner Hur asked whether there was an unwritten agreement between the counties that AMEs will not be allowed to testify against each other. Dr. Hart stated that there was no suchwritten agreement. He also asked whether a restriction would be placed on a case involving a vendor of San Mateo. Dr. Hart explained that the City's relationship with nearby counties has expanded in recent time such that counties in the greater Bay Area are looked upon as an area of mutual aid; thus, there is much more interaction now than before.

Public Comment:
Dr. Venus Azar, an Assistant Medical Examiner, stated that she had worked at the OCME for 11 years. She stated that when she was hired, she earned approximately $135,000-138,000. She stated that she and Dr. Stephens worked alone for over a year. She stated that Dr. Smith left the OCME and took an $80,000 pay cut. She stated that last week, the father of someone in the Marin County Coroner's Office was dying and asked one of the AMEs for help. Dr. Hart refused. She stated that Marin County doctors are allowed to testify in the City against the OCME. She stated that no other doctors in the City are barred from doing per diem or outside work.

Ayanna Jenkins-Toney stated that she was the attorney in the San Mateo case that had been referenced earlier regarding Dr. Melinek. She stated that she had contacted over 50 doctors and that it took her over a year to find a doctor that would even examine the heart at issue in her case. She stated that her client was not even certain that the heart she had been given was the heart of her son. She stated that the case created a landmark precedent in that coroners are able to keep anything from your body and they do not have to tell you. She stated that the City Administrator's policy regarding expert witness testimony would have a chilling effect on litigants that have actual grievances and would be an unnecessary burden on the First Amendment of doctors to form opinions and to testify. She stated that Dr. Melinek was concerned about her job and felt that she was being unnecessarily reprimanded.

David Pilpel stated that he did not know these employees, but that he supported the City's position to retain the language in the SIA. He urged the Commission to take no action.

Commissioner Hayon asked Dr. Melinek whether she should be able to engage in any and all outside engagements, without having to consult with OCME. Dr. Melinek stated that that was not her opinion and recommended that the SIA eliminate the AWD process. She stated that the AWD process improperly considers the potential testimony that could be offered by an AME. She stated that she believed it would be appropriate to prevent AMEs from testifying as expert witnesses in cases involving San Francisco or a case where the death occurred in San Francisco. She stated that AMEs' past testimony in Alameda, Marin, or San Mateo cases has never had an adverse impact.

Commissioner Ward asked how many outside cases she had consulted in the past year. Dr. Melinek stated approximately 20. She stated that the majority take about one or two hours to review. Commissioner Ward asked what responsibility she had in maintaining relationships in the other nine Bay area counties, in her role as an AME. Dr. Melinek stated that she did not have direct contact.

Commissioner Hur asked Dr. Melinek's opinion on an explicit limit to the range of permissible expert witness testimony, such as an exclusion of cases involving the nine counties in the Bay Area. He added that eliminating the AWD might lead to a bright-line rule that may disallow any outside work; otherwise, discretion must be provided to the department head. Dr. Melinek stated that she welcomed discretion if discretion were consistent and justified. She stated that some cases were allowed and that there should be a better definition of which engagements were appropriate. She stated that if they are doing work on the weekend, then it shouldn't affect the City. She stated that there was no written guideline and that her consultation work has been restricted.

Commissioner Liu asked whether staff discussed the six-point decision matrix with the OCME. Ms. Ng stated that staff had informal discussions with the GSA, City Attorney's Office, the acting City Administrator, and Dr. Hart. She stated that they looked at other jurisdictions, especially within California. Commissioner Hur stated that the biggest problem with the matrix is its vagueness. He stated that he understood that GSA needs discretion to make the decision for the best interest of the County, but criteria need to be clear so that employees can have confidence that it is being handled in an objective manner. Commissioner Liu asked whether the Commission could ask the department to refine the matrix.

Commissioner Ward stated that he did not believe Dr. Melinek wants to be restricted in any way in the work that she is able to do. He stated that it seems reasonable that people who are leading the department and have to maintain relationships with other counties create a policy to avoid conflicts. He stated that an employer has a right to place reasonable conditions on what an employee can do. He stated that if the department had been targeting Dr. Melinek, then it would not have approved any of the 20 outside consultations that were approved.

Commissioner Hayon suggested recommending that the language be clarified and better defined, so that there is consistency. She stated that the process has to be executed in a way that is fair and reasonable and appears so to all the people to whom it applies.

Commissioner Ward asked Dr. Melinek to explain again what she proposed. Dr. Melinek stated that no officer or employee should testify in a case where injury or incident occurred in San Francisco or where the City of San Francisco is a party in a lawsuit or where an adjacent Bay Area county is named as a defendant in the lawsuit. Dr. Melinek also stated that her credibility has never come up in any testimony she has offered in a San Francisco case. She stated that there have not been any repercussions. She suggested that others in her department bypass the AWD process and she is getting punished for being forthright about her outside work.

Commissioner Hur stated that eliminating section III.B.3 is not the way to go, but since three of the four or five AMEs believe the matrix is vague, then the matrix should be be clarified. Commissioner Liu agreed with keeping the SIA as written. She stated that the factors are fine, but the application is vague. Commissioner Hur agreed that there is some problem in terms of perception on how the matrix is being applied, and suggested that the department develop clearer criteria regarding decision-making.

IV. Consideration of request for waivers from the post-employment bans under Campaign and Governmental Conduct Code sections 3.234(a)(1) and 3.234(a)(2).

Thomas Long stated that he had worked as a Deputy City Attorney in the Energy and Telecommunications team. He stated that he began working as legal director for TURN (The Utility Reform Network) on September 6, 2011. He stated that TURN's mission is to advocate for small business consumers, primarily in front of California PUC. He agreed with staff's proposed limitation and would accept that his communications would be limited to those solely made on behalf of TURN.

Commissioner Liu asked whether he was seeking a waiver for the proceedings which were specifically listed on page 2 of his request or a broader waiver. She expressed concerns regarding Rules of Professional Conduct, but then noted that the Office of the City Attorney supported his request for a waiver. Mr. Long stated that the waiver request from the Commission is the first gate. He stated that the second is to request a waiver for each of the matters listed for the purposes of the Rules of Professional Conduct. Commissioner Liu asked what the City's role and what TURN's role had been in the first matter listed, the explosion of the San Bruno pipeline. Mr. Long stated that he was only somewhat involved in the City's participation. His involvement, e.g., writing a paragraph or reviewing a pleading, related to enforcement actions that may be involved with the maintenance of the pipelines. He stated that ratepayers, consumers, and the City have a significant interest. He stated that TURN's role had more of a focus on rate issues and safety.

Commissioner Hayon recommended that the Commission approve staff's recommendation. The other commissioners agreed.

Public Comment:
David Pilpel spoke in support of granting the waiver. He stated that he agreed with staff's analysis and noted that he had prior involvement with Mr. Long.

MOTION 11-09-12-01 (Ward/Hayon): Moved, seconded, and accepted (4-0) that the Commission grant Thomas Long a waiver from subsection 3.234(a)(1) and a limited waiver of subsection 3.234(a)(2).

V. Consideration of possible amendment to Ethics Commission Enforcement Regulations VI.A and XIV.C, which would permit the Commission to calendar proposed dismissals or settlements of enforcement matters based on the request of one, rather than two, Commissioners.

Commissioner Hur suggested the deletion of the word "one" in both VI.A and XIV.C of the proposed amendments.

Public Comment:
Hal Smith thanked Ms. Ng and the Commission for following through with one of the Civil Grand Jury's recommendations.

David Pilpel stated that if the stipulated agreements are not calendared, the public may not learn they occurred. He asked whether the existence of the agreement could be included in the Executive Director's report.

Allen Grossman stated that 14 Sunshine complaints were dismissed under this procedure. He stated that former Commissioner Hansen told him that she had requested that the matters be heard in front of the full Commission. He stated that the reports from staff in those cases were biased and too brief. He also stated that, in the files he requested, he never found any of the requests from former Commissioner Hansen to hear the matter.

MOTION 11-09-12-02 (Ward/Liu): Moved, seconded, and accepted (4-0) that the Commission adopt the amendments to the Regulations, as amended.

VI. Annual Report.

Executive Director St. Croix stated that there has been additional staff turnover and that staff has been very busy with the Mayoral race. Commissioner Ward stated that the Civil Grand Jury report should be mentioned in the annual report, even though it was unflattering and, in his opinion, inaccurate. He also suggested adding the Commission's response, even though it was not written within the year. Mr. St. Croix suggested adding the report and response as an appendix to the report. All Commissioners present agreed with that suggestion.

Commissioner Hayon noted that the report stated the Commission's website experienced a ten percent increase in activity. She asked whether the report could include the actual number, if it is a significant number, as well as last year's number. She also asked how the Commission uses Facebook, iTunes, and Twitter.

Commissioner Hur asked about the last sentence at the bottom of page 5, where it says "[o]nly three commissioners have not filed their annual SEIs this year." He asked whether "individuals" could replace the word "commissioners." Commissioner Ward asked if that statement would be accurate. Mr. St. Croix stated that he would check whether three commissioners have not filed.

Commissioner Hur also suggested changing the word "eternal" on the last line of page 8 to "ongoing." Mr. St. Croix agreed to make that change. Ms. Ng noted a typographical error on the bottom of page 9 – that Commissioner Hayon's term runs until February 2012, not 1012.

Public Comment:
A member of the public noted that there are more than three late SEI filers. He stated that it may be three now, but it was closer to ten in August 2011. He also stated that, in October 2010, the Commission recommended changing campaign finance laws, including those affecting contributions from contractors at state agencies such as redevelopment agencies.

David Pilpel stated that the "commissioners" on page 5 could have referred to members of the Board of Examiners. He suggested adding more than the number of cases resolved in the section for investigations and enforcement, on page 6. He also suggested adding information about results or settlements. He stated that the second paragraph in the "Advice and Opinions" section on page 7 refers to informal advice letters. He suggested noting that these letters and responses are available on the website. He also suggested referencing the Civil Grand Jury report and making the report and response available online. He did not agree with the idea of attaching them to the annual report.

Commissioner Hur suggested creating a link to the Civil Grand Jury report on the website and to include the proposed CFRO amendments related to section 1.126. Mr. St. Croix stated that the proposed amendments were sent to the Board of Supervisors, but no members of the Board of Supervisors were willing to sponsor them. Commissioner Hur recommended adding that additional information regarding to the status of the proposed amendments to the report.

Commissioner Ward stated that he did not object to adding that additional information. He stated that he did not object to including anything the Commission does into the report. He stated that it seems like the reason it is being asked to be included is because of a certain segment of people who follow our activities. He stated that he would not run away from the things that the Commission does.

MOTION 11-09-12-03 (Hayon/Ward): Moved, seconded, and accepted (4-0) that the Commission adopt the draft annual report, subject to the changes indicated.

VII. Minutes of the Commission's regular meeting of August 8, 2011.

Ms. Argumedo noted a misspelled name on page 5 and that the order of the written statements should be reversed.

Commissioner Hur suggested a change to Motion 11-08-08-02 on page 6, regarding Progress for All. He stated that the motion should read "that Mayor Ed Lee was not a candidate by virtue of being sitting Mayor at the time Progress for All was formed."

Public Comment:
David Pilpel noted a misspelling of Ms. Bradford-Bell's name on page 5. He also noted that motions should be renumbered starting on page 7.

Allen Grossman requested that the draft minutes be posted on the Commission's website. He wanted to know the criteria used to evaluate Executive Director St. Croix's performance. He stated that it would have been valuable to have evaluation of the Executive Director's performance in public. He stated that he has experience with the Executive Director's and staff's work product and that there is nothing in a performance evaluation that is subject to privacy rules.

Hal Smith noted that his name was misspelled on the bottom of page 2 and that Brian Kliment's name was misspelled on the top of page 3.

MOTION 11-09-12-04 (Ward/Hayon): Moved, seconded, and accepted (4-0) that the Commission approve the minutes of the regular meeting of August 8, 2011, as amended.

VIII. Executive Director's Report.

Mr. St. Croix stated that he had researched televising the Commission's meetings and he had included that additional information in his report. He stated the main issue is that the current meeting room (Room 408) is not wired for television and the other two meeting rooms are not available during the Commission's regular meeting time. He stated that Room 408 will be renovated for television in the foreseeable future, but the date is uncertain. He stated that he would research when the other meeting rooms are available to see whether the Commission could change its meeting day and/or time.

Mr. St. Croix stated that the Commission had received the comments from the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force in August 2011. He stated that enforcement staff began its review of those comments, but he was unsure whether a draft proposal would be ready for the October meeting. Commissioner Ward asked when the Commission had sent the proposed regulations to the Task Force and Mr. St. Croix stated that they were sent in August 2010. He also stated that proposed CFRO changes would be discussed during the October meeting.

Public Comment:
David Pilpel stated that he does not support televised meetings as it is unnecessary and a waste of funds that would be taken away from other staff activities. He suggested televising some meetings, but not on a regular basis. He asked the Commission not to pursue televising its meetings and disagreed with changing the meeting day and/or time.

Hal Smith disagreed with Mr. Pilpel. He stated that the Commission's work is very important and televising the meetings would aid in informing the public. He also asked how many people listen to the audio recordings of the meeting. He asked for the Commission not to wait for Room 408 to be renovated.

Mr. St. Croix stated that the proposed CFRO amendments are available on the website.

IX. Items for future meetings.

Public Comment:
None.

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

None.

XI. Adjournment.

Motion 11-09-12-05 (Ward/Hayon): Moved, seconded, and passed (4-0) that the Commission adjourn.

Public Comment:
None.

Meeting adjourned at 7:52 PM.

Respectfully submitted,

_____________________
Catherine Argumedo

Minutes - August 8, 2011

Tue, 13 Sep 2011 16:06:49 -0700

Minutes of the Regular Meeting of
The San Francisco Ethics Commission
August 8, 2011
Room 408, City Hall
1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place
San Francisco, CA 94102

I. Call to order and roll call.

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

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

OTHERS PRESENT: Dr. Maria Rivero, Dr. Derek Kerr, Hope Johnson, Thomas Picarello, Ray Hartz, David Pilpel, Patrick Monette-Shaw, Rita O'Flynn, Allen Grossman, Brian Kliment, Michael Breyer, Jonathan Bass, Enrique Pearce, Aaron Peskin, Jim Stearns, Helen Houseman, Kevin Henegan, Tina Moylan, Richard Hanson, Christina Olague, Shelley Bradford-Bell, Hal Smith and other unidentified members of the public.

MATERIALS DISTRIBUTED:
- San Francisco Civil Grand Jury Report – San Francisco's Ethics Commission: The Sleeping Watch Dog.
- Draft Response to the San Francisco Civil Grand Jury Report.
- Memorandum from the Executive Director regarding Progress for All and other committees formed to urge a person to run for office, dated August 3, 2011.
- Informal Advice Letter from staff to Enrique Pearce, dated May 17, 2011.
- Letter and attachments from Aaron Peskin to Ethics Commission, dated July 29, 2011.
- Letter from Progress for All to Ethics Commission, dated August 8, 2011.
- Third Party Disclosure Form for Committee to Support drafting Ed Lee for San Francisco Mayor.
- Form 460 for Progress for All covering the reporting period of January 1, 2011 to June 30, 2011.
- Draft Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the San Francisco Ethics Commission on July 11, 2011.
- Executive Director's Report to the Ethics Commission for the Meeting of August 8, 2011.

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

An unidentified member of the public stated that the Library Commission is corrupt.

Dr. Derrick Kerr stated that, after 20 years, he became a whistleblower and lost his job. He stated that he had reported a conflict of interest regarding a City contract that was awarded to Davis Ja and Associates. He stated that Health Department employee Deborah Sherwood resided at the same address as Davis Ja and co-owned property with him and that she failed to disclose a personal and business relationship with Ja and Associates.

Dr. Maria Rivero stated that she was a whistleblower and was driven out of her job. She stated that she had reported a potential conflict of interest in September 2009 regarding a contract between Health Management Associates and Mitch Katz, the former Director of the Public Health Department. She alleged that Mr. Katz had a conflict of interest due to his consulting work for HMA and that the complaint was still under consideration. Dr. Rivero submitted a statement to be included with the minutes.

Patrick Monette-Shaw stated that the Ethics Commission should update the public as to the status of the referral made to the Mayor regarding Jewelle Gomez.

Rita O'Flynn stated that the Grand Jury report accurately reflects the failings of the Ethics Commission.

Allen Grossman stated that the Ethics Commission does not respect the role of the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force.

Ray Hartz stated that the Ethics Commission has abdicated its responsibility in making Sunshine Task Force referral determinations to the Executive Director.

III. Consideration of possible response to the 2010-2011 Civil Grand Jury Report.

Executive Director St. Croix introduced the item and stated that a response was due in one week.

Chairperson Hur stated that the Commission should solicit public comment prior to discussing the response letter.

Public Comment:
Dr. Kerr stated that the Ethics Commission should not defer its investigations when the District Attorney's office elects to investigate a matter. He stated that meeting agendas should show when a complaint was filed.

An unidentified member of the public stated that the Executive Director should be removed to set a new direction for the Ethics Commission. He stated that if enforcement actions occurred more quickly they would have a better deterrent effect.

Hal Smith stated that the tone in the response to the Grand Jury improved over the last draft, and stated that the Ethics Commission should consider televising its meetings.

Brian Kliment stated that he served on the Civil Grand Jury. He stated that regarding Finding 1, the recommendation was to make the discussion of settlements and fines more public. He stated that regarding Finding 5, the recommendation was that it should only require one Commissioner to calendar a item for discussion.

Dr. Rivero stated that she agreed with the findings of the Civil Grand Jury. Dr. Rivero submitted a statement to be included with the minutes.

Patrick Monette-Shaw stated that the Ethics Commission should not re-adjudicate Sunshine Task Force referrals and that the Ethics Commission should not look at any facts regarding a referral. He stated that the Ethics Commission is not a law enforcement agency.

Rita O'Flynn stated that she agreed with the findings of the Civil Grand Jury and that the Ethics Commission should take this opportunity to fix things that are wrong.

Hope Johnson stated that the Ethics Commission should have open hearings and that the Sunshine Task Force has sent a letter to the Ethics Commission regarding the proposed regulations.

Allen Grossman stated that the Ethics Commission had previously stated that the City Attorney is a higher authority than the Task Force and that the City Charter always pre-empts the Sunshine Ordinance.

Thomas Picarello stated that he was troubled that only two of the five Commissioners elected to speak with the Civil Grand Jury. He stated that the "turf war" between the Ethics Commission and the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force was detrimental to the citizens of San Francisco. He stated that the Commissioners have delegated too much responsibility to the Executive Director.

Vice-Chairperson Studley stated that she appreciated the revisions and tone of the response. She stated that regarding Finding 2, it was the Ethics Commission who invited the Sunshine Task Force to be part of the revision process regarding the Sunshine Ordinance regulations. She stated the Ethics Commission sent a proposed set of regulations to the Task Force about a year ago. She stated that the Ethics Commission just received the Task Force's revisions and that she looks forward to working with them.

Commissioner Liu stated that she also agreed with the changes in the draft response and suggested inserting a phrase in Finding 2 regarding the review and hearing process.

Commissioner Ward stated that he would like to encourage the Commissioners to amend the regulations so that it only takes one commissioner to agendize an item for discussion. He stated that a respondent should be able to request a public hearing if he or she disagrees with a fine or if he or she cannot pay.

Vice-Chairperson Studley suggested that the Commission consider amending the regulations so that all matters are calendared for discussion unless a majority of Commissioners request an item not be calendared.

Commissioner Hayon stated that enforcement actions should be investigated and concluded more quickly than is currently happening. She stated that she would like more of the process to be public.

Chairperson Hur stated that he agreed with Commissioner Hayon regarding the length of time for enforcement actions. He stated that staff should not defer investigations if the City or District Attorneys elect to conduct an inquiry. He also stated that he agreed with Commissioner Ward to amend the regulations to require only one Commissioner to request a matter be calendared.

Vice-Chairperson Studley stated that it should be made very clear to the public that it is the Commissioners who make the final decision regarding enforcement actions. She also stated that Commissioners are notified in advance about what items will appear on the agenda.

Commissioner Hayon stated that regarding Finding 4, it could cause greater conflict issues if Commissioners were appointed by non-governmental entities. She stated that the intent of the voters was that the Commissioners would be appointed by elected officials.

Commissioners Ward and Hayon both stated they were in favor of televising Commission meetings.

Vice-Chairperson Studley stated she was also in favor or televising meetings, but that staff should get a cost estimate. Chairperson Hur and Commissioner Liu agreed.

Motion 11-08-08-01 (Ward/Hayon): Moved, seconded, and passed (5-0) to approve the response letter to the Civil Grand Jury as amended at this meeting.

IV. Consideration of the Status of "Progress for All."

Deputy City Attorney Givner left the room during the discussion regarding Progress for All.

Executive Director St. Croix introduced the item.

Michael Breyer stated that he founded the Committee to Support Drafting Ed Lee for SF Mayor. He stated that his committee had no paid staff and that the Ethics Commission was helpful to ensure that he complied with his reporting obligations. He stated that there was no coordination between his committee and Ed Lee. He stated that the current Campaign Finance Ordinance does not address committees like the one he formed and that he should not be barred from volunteering on Ed Lee's campaign.

Jonathon Bass stated that Ed Lee was not a candidate and the Campaign Finance Ordinance does not apply to committees like the one Mr. Breyer formed.

Enrique Pearce stated that he represented Progress for All. He stated the committee ceased its Run, Ed Run campaign one week ago. He stated that his committee did not have to register because Ed Lee was not a candidate, but it chose to register as a general purpose committee to ensure transparency. He stated that Mayor Lee is not connected to Progress for All and there is no coordination. He stated that no one should be barred from working on an Ed Lee committee if he or she worked with Progress for All.

Executive Director St. Croix stated that the intent of Progress for All was to get Ed Lee to run for mayor which had an identifiable influence on voters. But, he stated that decision-makers from Progress for All should not be allowed to work on an Ed Lee campaign committee.

Chairperson Hur and Commissioner Ward both agreed that the Ethics Commission should only rely on what the code says regarding the definition of a candidate, rather than on FPPC advice or manuals.

Chairperson Hur stated that he is concerned that individuals will take advantage of how candidate is defined and not officially declare until the latest possible date; yet have independent groups "urging" them to run while raising money. He stated that if the Ethics Commission applies the current definition of candidate, then Ed Lee was not a candidate.

Public Comment:
Aaron Peskin stated that Mayor Lee, Progress for All, and Lee's candidacy is a fraud. He stated that he agrees with the Executive Director regarding Progress for All's activities.

Ray Hartz stated that Ed Lee was not a candidate and the Executive Director cannot stop anyone from working on a future Ed Lee campaign who aslo worked for Progress for All. He stated that all Ed Lee did was change his mind and decided to run for mayor.

Jim Stearns stated that if the Ethics Commission determines that Ed Lee did not fit the definition of a candidate, then he and every other campaign consultant will have a "road map" on how to evade campaign finance laws.

Helen Houseman stated that she is a San Francisco voter and the Ethics Commission must hold Progress for All accountable and accept the Executive Director's recommendations.

Kevin Henegan stated that the Ethics Commission should conduct a factual investigation to determine if Progress for All was working at the behest of Ed Lee.

Tina Moylan stated that she is a San Francisco resident and advocate for a fair playing field.

Richard Hanson stated that Ed Lee got a "sweet" deal.

Christina Olague stated that she was a Co-Chair for Progress for All. She stated that the Executive Director cannot bar anyone who worked for Progress for All from working on any Ed Lee campaign committee.

Shelley Bradford-Bell stated that she was also a Co-Chair for Progress for All. She stated that she was outraged by the remarks made by the Executive Director to prohibit volunteers from Progress for All working on an Ed Lee committee. She stated that the Executive Director position should have term limits.

Chairperson Hur stated that this is novel issue and that the Executive Director has made a concerted effort to deal with a difficult situation.

Vice-Chairperson Studley stated that without a factual investigation the Ethics Commission cannot presume that Ed Lee coordinated with Progress for All.

Chairperson Hur stated that if facts come to light that Ed Lee coordinated with Progress for All, he would be subject to an enforcement action. He also reiterated that the Ethics Commission should endeavor to fix this loophole in the law, but as it stands now, Ed Lee did not fit the definition of candidate.

Motion 11-08-08-02 (Ward/Studley): Moved, seconded, and passed (5-0) that Mayor Ed Lee was not a candidate, either as defined by law or by virtue of being the sitting mayor, at the time Progress for All was formed.

The Commission recessed for 5 minutes at 8:25 PM.

V. Closed session.

Motion 11-08-08-03 (Ward/Studley): Moved, seconded, and passed (5-0) that the Commission move into closed session.

Public comment:
Allen Grossman stated that employee evaluations may be conducted in public and that he would like to know the criteria used to evaluate the Executive Director's performance. He responded to Commissioner Ward by stating that he thought all City employees' evaluations should be open to the public.

David Pilpel stated he supported the work of the Executive Director.

The Ethics Commission entered into closed session at 8:34 PM. In attendance at the closed session until 8:54 PM were all five members of the Ethics Commission, Executive Director St. Croix, Deputy Executive Director Ng, Deputy City Attorney Givner, and Investigator Chatfield. At 8:54 PM, Ms. Ng, Mr. Chatfield, and DCA Givner left the room. At 9:37 PM, Mr. St. Croix left the room. At 10:00 PM, Mr. St. Crio\\oix returned to the room. At 10:05 PM, Ms. Ng and Mr. Chatfield returned to the room.

The Ethics Commission returned to open session at 10:07 PM.

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

Motion 11-08-08-04 (Ward/Hayon): Moved, seconded, and passed (5-0) that the Commission maintain as confidential the discussion it had in closed session re: anticipated litigation as a plaintiff and employee performance evaluation.

VII. Minutes of the Commission's regular meeting of July 11, 2011.

Deputy Executive Director Ng stated that there were some typographical corrections in the minutes.

Motion 11-08-08-05 (Ward/Hayon): Moved, seconded, and passed (5-0) that the Commission adopt the minutes of the Commission's regular meeting of July 2011 as amended.

Public Comment:
None.

VIII. Executive Director's Report.

Executive Director St. Croix stated that the proposed Campaign Consultant Ordinance reforms will appear on the November 2011 ballot.

Public Comment:

David Pilpel stated that a summary of the measure should be prominently placed on the Commission's website.

IX. Items for future meetings.

Public Comment:
None.

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

David Pilpel stated that the FPPC has regulations and guidelines as to the definition of a candidate.

XI. Adjournment.

Motion 11-08-08-06 (Studley/Hayon): Moved, seconded, and passed (5-0) that the Commission adjourn.

Public Comment:
None.
Meeting adjourned at 10:10 PM.

Respectfully submitted,

_________________________
Garrett Chatfield

Recording - September 12, 2011 - Ethics Commission Meeting

Tue, 13 Sep 2011 14:04:09 -0700

Recording - September 12, 2011 - Ethics Commission

Please Note: There is a gap in the September 12, 2011 recording from 11:33 to 15:32 due to construction at City Hall.

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 11, 2011

Thu, 18 Aug 2011 09:04:13 -0700

Minutes of the Regular Meeting of
The San Francisco Ethics Commission
July 11, 2011
Room 408, City Hall
1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place
San Francisco, CA 94102

I. Call to order and roll call.

Chairperson Hur called the meeting to order at 5:33 PM.

COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Benedict Y. Hur, Chairperson; Jamienne Studley, Vice-Chairperson; Beverly Hayon, Commissioner; Dorothy S. Liu, Commissioner; Charles Ward, Commissioner.

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

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

OFFICE OF THE OAKLAND CITY ATTORNEY: Mark Morodomi, Supervising Attorney.

OTHERS PRESENT: Sue Cauthen, Jewelle Gomez, Dr. Maria Rivero, Luis Herrera, Dr. Derek Kerr, Judith Rosen, Richard Knee, Hope Johnson, Thomas Picarello, Zack Stewart, Peter Warfield, Kimo Crossman, Ray Hartz, David Pilpel, Bruce Wolfe, Charley Marsteller, Patrick Monette-Shaw, Larry Bush, David Looman, Chris Wright, Bradley Hertz, Vince Courtney, Ken Cleveland, and other unidentified members of the public.

MATERIALS DISTRIBUTED:
- Staff memorandum regarding Ethics Complaint No. 01-100115, dated July 6, 2011.
- San Francisco Civil Grand Jury Report – San Francisco's Ethics Commission: The Sleeping Watch Dog.
- Draft Response to the San Francisco Civil Grand Jury Report.
- Staff memorandum regarding possible amendments to the Campaign Finance Reform Ordinance, dated July 7, 2011.
- Draft Ordinance amending section 1.144 of the Campaign and Governmental Conduct Code, dated July 6, 2011.
- Legislative Digest and draft Ordinance amending section 1.144 of the Campaign and Governmental Conduct Code, dated July 11, 2011.
- Draft Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the San Francisco Ethics Commission on June 13, 2011.
- Draft Minutes of the Special Meeting of the San Francisco Ethics Commission on June 28, 2011.
- Executive Director's Report to the Ethics Commission for the Meeting of July 11, 2011.

II. Public comment on matters appearing or not appearing on the agenda that are within the jurisdiction of the Ethics Commission Chairperson Hur stated that each speaker would be permitted three minutes to speak. He noted that he wanted to ensure everyone was afforded the opportunity to speak.

Dr. Maria Rivero stated that she was a whistleblower and driven out of her job. She stated that she had reported a potential conflict of interest in September 2009 regarding a contract between Health Management Associates and Mitch Katz, the former Director of the Public Health Department. She alleged that Mr. Katz had a conflict of interest due to his consulting work for HMA and that the complaint was still under consideration.

Patrick Monette-Shaw stated that the Ethics Commission was a complete mess and that the Civil Grand Jury's report barely scratched the surface. He suggested changing the regulations and scheduling hearings on all referrals to Ethics. He stated that the Commission's duty was to protect the citizens of San Francisco.

Ray Hartz stated that he had attended the hearing for Mr. Shoemaker. He stated that he had been in the military for over 10 years. He stated that no one has the right to tell him that he cannot talk about something. He stated that members of the Ethics Commission have taken an oath to support and defend the United States and California Constitution.

Judith Rosen stated that she was speaking on behalf of her sister, who lives down the street from her. She claimed that her sister had been subject to a retaliatory complaint regarding visible trash cans. She stated that her sister and her sister's partner are both City employees. She stated that she had two different violations of whistleblower complaints and that would like to discuss them privately.

Richard Knee identified himself as the immediate past Chair for the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force ("Task Force"). He stated that he appreciated the Commission's patience on the proposed guidelines for the Ethics Commission's regulations on Sunshine complaints. He stated that he anticipated the Task Force would send its comments within a month or two.

Kimo Crossman agreed with Mr. Picarello. He stated that scheduling the item for a separate meeting would allow for a full discussion.

Sue Cauthen, a member of the Task Force, stated that she had not read the Civil Grand Jury Report in its entirety. She stated that she agrees with some of the recommendations in the report.

III. Consideration of Ethics Complaint No. 01-100115.

Investigator Garrett Chatfield stated that this discussion was regarding the applicability of section 67.34 of the Sunshine Ordinance and that it was not a probable cause hearing. He played a video of the Library Commission meeting in question. He stated that staff believed a violation occurred and that the issue is whether section 67.34 applies to either Sue Blackman or Jewelle Gomez. He stated that Ms. Gomez was appointed by the Mayor and that Ms. Blackman was neither an elected official nor a department head.

Ms. Cauthen stated that she believed that at issue is not only the application of section 67.34, but also the proper treatment of the public. She stated that the government should treat people with respect.

Mr. Knee stated that he had chaired the hearing of the Task Force where this matter was heard. He stated that the Task Force had found Ms. Gomez violated the Sunshine Ordinance.

Jewelle Gomez, President of Library Commission, stated that she felt compelled to add context to the deliberations. She stated that the video was not complete and that she had asked the previous speaker to sit down as well. She stated that "willful" implies a deliberate attempt to violate the Brown Act. She stated that she had followed all procedure as it had been at all previous hearings. She stated that the Library Commission had never traditionally covered an item both in general public comment and again during a specific agenda item. She stated that Ms. Cauthen had refused to stop speaking and that she was assured by the Deputy City Attorney (DCA) that she was correct in asking her to wait for the agenda item. She stated that Ms. Cauthen had showed great disrespect to the Commission. Ms. Gomez stated that what was willful was the Task Force's deliberate scheduling of the matter when neither she nor the Commission secretary would be able to attend the Task Force meeting. She stated that she testified and acknowledged that the wording of the Commission's agenda may have been misleading and so the Commission changed the wording on the agenda. She stated that the new wording on the agenda was approved by the DCA. She stated that it has been an honor for her to serve on the Library Commission.

Commissioner Ward stated that he saw something on the video that differed from what Ms. Gomez stated. He stated that it appeared to him that Ms. Cauthen was trying to explain what she was hoping to say during public comment. He stated that it was hard for him to understand how someone sitting in the chair would treat a member of the public in that way. He stated that her actions were unconscionable.

Chairperson Hur asked whether Ms. Cauthen was able to express her views under the later agenda item. Ms. Cauthen stated that she was not. She stated that what she was going to say was not related to the later agenda item, since it was about the preservation of libraries city-wide.

Commissioner Ward asked whether Ms. Gomez had ever apologized. Ms. Cauthen stated that she had not. She stated that she was shocked that Ms. Gomez lost control and yelled at her, as she had been attending Library Commission meetings since 1988. She stated that it created a chilling effect on her and some other people who attended the meeting. She stated that neither Ms. Gomez nor any of the Library Commissioners has mentioned the subject.

Ms. Gomez stated that Ms. Cauthen had indicated that she was going to talk about North Beach and I told her to wait for that item. She stated that what occurred may have been indecorous, but she felt assaulted by her. She stated that, as Chair, when you ask someone to sit down, they sit down. She stated that Ms. Cauthen was disrespectful to the Commission, but admitted that she should not have snapped at her. She provided a public apology, saying that her great-grandmother would not approve, but that her point was still on target.

Commissioner Liu agreed with Commissioner Ward and stated that she did not see any assault or disrespect. She stated that she did not understand Ms. Gomez's reaction. She stated that it was a willful violation of the Sunshine Ordinance. Commissioner Studley stated that she agreed with both Commissioners as well. She stated that she was troubled by the jurisdictional issue, as the Commission may not have the tools to address it given the statute. Chairperson Hur agreed and stated that he did not find the notion that the Chair felt disrespected to be credible.

Commissioner Ward suggested that the Commission write a letter to her appointing authority expressing the Commission's view of what occurred and requesting that that person reconsider her service on the Library Commission. Chairperson Hur suggested adding a statement that her conduct willfully violated section 67.15 of the Sunshine Ordinance.

Executive Director St. Croix stated that there may have been a drafting error in section 67.34, but that the Commission could determine what the policy would be. He stated that the policy could not be changed immediately, but that the Commission could request that staff work on it.

DCA Givner stated that the Sunshine Ordinance itself leaves a lot of blanks for Ethics Commission enforcement. He stated that the proposed regulations that the Commission was considered last year addressed some of those issues. He stated that the Commission could not impose penalties until those regulations have been adopted. Mr. St. Croix stated that staff's memorandum addressed the alternatives under the current regulations.
Public Comment:
Patrick Monette-Shaw stated that the sentence in section 67.34 clearly says that it applies to "managerial employees." He stated that the Commission does not need to discuss jurisdiction, as the Task Force already found a violation. He stated that section 67.34 need to be clarified by the Task Force revisions. He stated that the Commission should rule that section 67.34 was violated.

Peter Warfield stated that he had attended Library Commission meetings for more than a decade. He stated that he was the speaker after Ms. Cauthen at the meeting in question. He stated that speaker prior to Ms. Cauthen was allowed to speak longer than Ms. Cauthen before being told to hold her comment until the later agenda item. He stated that Ms. Cauthen was forced to sit down.

A member of the public stated that what occurred at the meeting in question occurs frequently at the Library Commission meetings. He stated that the Library Commission does not want accountability in the future and that there are moneyed interests involved that are suppressing the truth. He suggested that the Ethics Commission honor Sue Cauthen, as it takes a lot for someone to stand up to the ruthless crooks.

Ray Hartz asked why Ms. Blackman was included, since her actions were not in question. He stated that he thought it was a willful violation as it occurred in 2009. He stated that Ms. Gomez could have spoken to Ms. Cauthen and apologized, but she never did that. He stated that Ms. Gomez had a total disregard for the citizens of the City. He stated that Ms. Cauthen would have been generous.

A member of the public stated that she had attended the Library Commission meeting that night and that Ms. Gomez was yelling at Ms. Cauthen. She stated that it was more than indecorous. She stated that she has attended many public meetings and frequently members of the public will get out of control. She stated that no one expected the person in authority to do that. She stated that she had written a letter to the Mayor about two years ago regarding this incident.

Kimo Crossman stated that it was the Ethics Commission's duty to enforce, as the Task Force is given the power to adjudicate. He stated that the Task Force found a willful violation and that it was referred for enforcement. He stated there was no reason to readjudicate everything from the Task Force. He recommended taking strong action against this person.

Thomas Picarello stated that the Commission has now denied 19 Orders of Determination from the Task Force. He stated that the Ethics Commission has to have accountability as there was a serious and willful violation of the Sunshine Ordinance. He would like the Commission to reconsider the motion and refer to the Mayor's office.

Zack Stewart stated that he has been appearing in public meetings for fifty years. He stated that a friend of his had warned him about the Library Commission. He stated that he does not waste his time at the Library Commission anymore, as it is loaded with money. He stated that they crush anyone that does not agree with them. He supported the Ethics Commission's finding a violation.

Luis Herrera, City Librarian, stated that he wanted to speak on behalf of President Gomez. He stated that she had been appointed by Mayor Newsom and elected President of the Commission since 2008. He stated that she has earned the respect of the Commissioners, Library staff, and the community. He stated that he has been City Librarian during her entire tenure that she has been fair and professional. He stated that what the Commission saw on the video was not the Commissioner Gomez he knew. He stated that any action taken by the Ethics Commission would diminish her activities to San Francisco.

Ms. Cauthen stated that she agreed with Mr. Hartz. She stated that if Ms. Gomez had not yelled, she may have let it go. She stated that she was present during the drafting of the Sunshine Ordinance and that the intent was to give the Ethics Commission the authority to enforce violations of the Ordinance. She asked the Commission to send a letter to the Mayor.

An anonymous man stated that everyone makes mistakes. He stated that this conversation occurred two years ago. He suggested that this type of behavior should not be permitted.

Commissioner Liu asked whether the Commission would be able to enforce a violation against Ms. Gomez. Mr. Chatfield stated that Ms. Gomez does not fall into any of the three categories mentioned in section 67.34. Commissioner Studley stated that this situation is akin to a member of the audience stopping another member of the audience from speaking. She stated that it would be unfortunate and willful, but that it would not fall within the powers of the Ethics Commission. She suggested bringing it to the attention of the Mayor.

Motion 11-07-11-01 (Ward/Liu): Moved, seconded, and passed (5-0) that the Commission send a letter to the Mayor stating that Jewelle Gomez, Chair of the Library Commission, willfully violated section 67.15 of the Sunshine Ordinance, include a copy of the video, and recommend that the Mayor consider removing Ms. Gomez as his appointee to the Library Commission.

Mr. St. Croix suggested that staff draft the letter to the Mayor and Chairperson Hur have final approval.

IV. Consideration of possible response to the 2010-2011 Civil Grand Jury Report.

Executive Director St. Croix stated that a response to the Civil Grand Jury Report is required and that the Commission is required to respond to all seven findings. He stated that he had drafted a response for consideration.

Commissioner Ward agreed that this item should be scheduled for a special meeting in order to have more time to discuss and weigh public comment on the response. He asked what would happen if the Commission missed the August 15, 2011 deadline. DCA Givner recommended not missing the deadline.

Commissioner Studley agreed that there were several policy issues that the Commission may want to address, but asked to discuss the findings tonight as well. Commissioner Hayon agreed and stated that the Commission has the opportunity to provide an educational opportunity to the public. She stated that the Commission could discuss the report and hear from the public at a special meeting. Chairperson Hur stated that the purpose of placing this item on the agenda at this meeting was because of the deadline. He stated that he had concerns of setting a special meeting, as the Commission may not get the same attendance. He suggested discussing it and continuing to the next regular meeting on August 8, 2011. The Commissioners agreed.

Finding One
Commissioner Studley stated that this issue has been of interest to the Commissioners and that it needs attention. Chairperson Hur agreed. Commissioner Liu asked what guidelines were used. Mr. St. Croix stated that staff looks at similarities with prior cases, and when nothing is comparable, staff uses a balancing test with public harm and prior history of the actors involved.

Finding Two
Chairperson Hur proposed omitting the sentence following the italicized Task Force. He stated that these issues were a concern and that the Commission would like to address them.

Finding Three
Chairperson Hur agreed with the proposal and stated that the Commission should look into it.

Finding Four
Commissioner Studley and Chairperson Hur agreed that this finding is up to the determination and judgment of the voters.

Finding Five
Commissioner Studley stated that she had discussed this issue with the Grand Jury when she met with them. She stated that they raised some interesting points and that she would be interested in returning to this item. She stated that she would like to look at the process, but added that the recommendations they have been receiving are well substantiated.

Chairperson Hur asked Mr. St. Croix and staff to look at possible alternative mechanisms with dealing with complaints. He suggested removing the language following "decisions" in the second to last sentence of the last paragraph on page 3.

Finding Six
Chairperson Hur agreed with the proposed response.

Finding Seven
Commissioner Liu asked why Commission meetings were not televised. She stated that, if the Commission can get the funding, it would be a good idea for public perception and other reasons. Mr. St. Croix stated that the main reason the meetings are not televised is the budget. He stated that the Commission is frequently ordered to make budget cuts and if he is able to make a request for a budget recommendation, it is always staff-driven. He stated that the Commission has never been fully staffed.

Public Comment:
Kimo Crossman stated that many departments pay nothing for SFGTV and that he was surprised to hear the reason is budgetary. He stated that he was not aware of the Director requesting an estimate for the service recently. He stated that Finding Two is important, as the Commission has not addressed 18 cases that have come from the Task Force.

Ray Hartz stated that Finding Two was his biggest interest. He stated that tonight's scheduling of a Sunshine matter seemed convenient to him. He stated that the Ethics Commission was to enforce Task Force's findings. He stated that the Commission had no intention of doing anything.

Patrick Monette-Shaw stated that the response for Finding Two was terrible. He stated that the Director had refused to release records to him and that the Task Force had ordered him to release them. He stated that the Commission was not supposed to retry and that the Commission is not supposed to go digging whether or not there were enough facts.

David Looman, a campaign treasurer, stated that he wanted to respond to the report. He stated that the report was flawed. He stated that about 4-5 people perform about 80% of the treasury work in the City and about 99% of those who perform continuing treasury work. He stated that not one of the treasurers was interviewed or even contacted by the Grand Jury. He stated that none of their conclusions about campaign finance will stand up to actual facts and that the report was an ignorant set of conclusions.

Hope Johnson spoke about Finding Two and mentioned that she was the newly elected Chair of the Task Force. She stated that she looked forward to working with the Commission during this year and that they have had a hard time coming to agreement regarding the proposed guidelines. She commended Chairperson Hur for striking the language in the proposed response. She stated that the cases deserve to be heard in public. She also stated that the Commission's website does not list Sunshine as part of its duties.

Chris Wright from the Committee on Jobs spoke about Finding Four. He stated that the Grand Jury suggested that members should be appointed from the San Francisco Labor Council. He stated that the Council and 90% of its members have failed to file lobbyist reports. He stated that the Commission should look at members of the business community, as the law requires.

Charley Marsteller stated that the tenor of the rebuttal should be positive. He stated that improvements can be made in enforcement and that the Commission should look at it, such as the technical training of staff and what qualifications the employees have. He suggested thanking the Grand Jury for their work, even though it may not be perfect.

Thomas Picarello stated that he applauded the removal of the language in Finding Two. He stated that if the Commission enforced campaign finance violations, the Commission could afford to televise twice a week as they would collect more than enough money from the committees that violate CFRO.

Peter Warfield stated that he agreed with continuing this item to the next meeting. He stated that it was important that City agencies provide a prompt and timely response to requests for information. It is not timely if the Commission takes over a year. Regarding the prior item, he asked what authority the Commission had in dismissing a violation that had already been found by the Task Force.

Larry Bush recommended that the Commission reach out to former Commissioners and other who have been involved in the past regarding the continuation of this item. He stated that televising meetings generally costs $1,000/hour.

David Pilpel stated that he agreed with some comments, but not all. He stated that the report was thin and did not understand the nature of the work or the constraints that the Commission is under. He suggested attaching the latest Annual Report to the response to the Grand Jury. He stated that there may be policy disagreements but that the Commission is not broken.

Chairperson Hur thanked everyone for their comments. He also thanked the Director and staff for their hard work and the services they provide. Commissioner Studley asked that Sunshine-related enforcement be added as one of the Commission's responsibilities on the website.

V. Closed session.

Motion 11-07-11-02 (Ward/Studley): Moved, seconded, and passed (5-0) that the Commission move into closed session.

Public comment:
Ray Hartz stated that he regularly attends Police Commission meetings. He stated that over 60% of their time is spent in closed session, so that they can do whatever they want with absolutely no public review. He stated that the public needs to know what is going on. He stated that he has seen people sitting on commissions who were not qualified.

Charley Marsteller asked whether the Commission could rearrange the order of the agenda, so that the next item could be heard prior to closed session.

Bruce Wolfe, a member of the Task Force, reminded the Commission that the closed session must be recorded.

Thomas Picarello stated that too many things are being heard in closed session. He stated that he did not understand why a discussion of the Arizona case needed to be discussed in closed session. He stated that the public have a right to hear the discussion and then comment on the matter.

David Pilpel stated that he disagreed with Mr. Picarello and that he saw the need for closed session.

The Ethics Commission entered into closed session at 7:44 PM.

[Break at 7:44 PM.]
[Return from break at 7:54 PM.]

The Ethics Commission returned to open session at 8:33 PM.

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

Motion 11-07-11-03 (Studley/Ward): Moved, seconded, and passed (5-0) that the Commission maintain as confidential the discussion it had in closed session re: anticipated litigation as a plaintiff and possible litigation as a defendant.

Public comment:
None.

The Executive Director read the following announcement:

Finding of Probable Cause for Ethics Commission Complaint 12-100726

At its regular meeting of July 11, 2011, in the matter of Ethics Complaint Number 12-100726, the Ethics Commission made a determination that there is probable cause to believe the following violations of the San Francisco Campaign and Governmental Conduct Code; and that the Respondent, Regina Carey, committed them:
1) Two violations of San Francisco Campaign and Governmental Conduct Code section 1.510 for providing campaign consulting services, or accepting any economic consideration for the provision of campaign consulting services, without first registering with the Ethics Commission and complying with the reporting requirements specified in Section 1.515;
2) Violation of San Francisco Campaign and Governmental Conduct Code section 1.515(a) for failing to file a campaign consultant registration report;
3) Violation of Francisco Campaign and Governmental Conduct Code section 1.515(c) for failure to pay campaign consultant registration and client fees;
4) Violation of San Francisco Campaign and Governmental Conduct Code section 1.515(d) for failure to file campaign consultant client authorization statement;
5) Three violations of San Francisco Campaign and Governmental Conduct Code section 1.515(e) for failure to file campaign consultant quarterly reports.
Each Commissioner who participated in a decision to find probable cause must certify on the record that he or she personally head or read the testimony, reviewed the evidence, or otherwise reviewed the entire record of the proceedings. (Ethics Commission Regulations for Investigations & Enforcement § VIII.B.2.)
The Respondent is presumed to be innocent unless and until such time that the allegations are proved in a subsequent hearing on the merits. (Ethics Commission Regulations for Investigations & Enforcement Proceedings § VIII.B.5.)
The Executive Director shall issue an accusation in accordance with the San Francisco Ethics Commission Regulations for Investigations and Enforcement Proceedings. (Ethics Commission Regulations for Investigations & Enforcement Proceedings § IX.A.)
Each Commissioner certified on the record that he or she had personally heard or read the testimony, reviewed the evidence, or otherwise reviewed the entire record of the proceedings.

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

Executive Director St. Croix stated that a successful challenge had been made to the Arizona public finance system and staff presented possible amendments to the City's public finance program.

Commissioner Studley stated that she was not happy about considering changes at all and stated her disappointment in the Supreme Court decision. She stated that she would prefer to do what the voters had initially passed. Chairperson Hur suggested a change on page 2, line 18 of the proposed amendments. Deputy Director Ng stated that the latest version of the proposed amendments corrected eight technical changes, listed as follows:

• Page 2, line 2,the text should read as subsection (c)(2), not (c)(3);
• Page 2, line 18, the text should read as subsection (c)(2)(A), not (c)(3)(A);
• Page 2, line 21, the text should read as subsection (c)(2)(B), not (c)(3)(B);
• Page 2, line 22, the word "dollar" should be singular;
• Page 3, line 16, the text should read as subsection (d)(2), not (d)(3);
• Page 4, line 9, the text should read as subsection (d)(2)(A), not (d)(3)(A);
• Page 4, line 12, the text should read as subsection (d)(2)(B), not (d)(3)(B);
• Page 6, line 10; the text should read as subsection (f), not (g).

Public Comment:
David Pilpel asked whether the amendment would require a super-majority. He stated that the staff memorandum does not cover the process. Mr. St. Croix stated that the amendments would require a super-majority of the Commission and the Board. Mr. Pilpel stated that changing the rules in the middle of the election cycle could be difficult. He stated that this was a difficult item.

Charley Marsteller stated that this issue was not ripe, as nothing has occurred in the City to trigger it yet. He stated that the Commission had three options: do nothing, repeal, or provide for remedy language that would accommodate the court's decision. He stated that Bob Stern at the Center for Governmental Studies had anticipated the court's decision. He stated that the Center was drafting language to accommodate such a change. He asked that the Commission wait to hear from the Center prior to making a change to the current law. He stated that he had asked Mr. Stern to send the draft language to the Ethics Commission.

Bradley Hertz from the Sutton Law Firm stated that his firm serves as legal counsel to several organizations that participate in local elections. He stated that these organizations are exercising their First Amendment rights. He stated that the firm had sent a letter through staff that day applauding the impact of the court ruling. He applauded the Commission and staff for acknowledging the impact of the Supreme Court ruling, but stated that the firm does not think the proposed amendments go far enough. He stated that the law, even if amended, would still violate certain court decisions.

Mr. Hertz stated that "even if the flow of public money is capped at the ceiling level if… candidates are still able to get excessive private money in response to the actions of independent expenditures or other candidates, that is the kind of 'leveling the playing field' that is not a legitimate purpose under the Constitution." Chairperson Hur asked how, if no public funds are going to that candidate above the expenditure ceiling, San Francisco would be "leveling the playing field" in that scenario. Mr. Hertz stated that if independent expenditure ("IE") spending comes in, then that lifts the spending limit. He stated that that chills the rights of those making IEs. He stated that their speech is answered by more money that is only allowed because of their speech, especially when using the multiplier effect. He stated that, in addition to amending section 1.114, section 1.143 must be amended as well as it chills speech. He suggested that there should be a decision point 3 to review the current CFRO provisions and respond more completely to the Supreme Court's concerns.

Vince Courtney, Executive Director of the Alliance for Jobs and Sustainable Growth, applauded the Commission for working late into the night. He stated that he represented many organizations that do IE campaigns. He stated that there must be a super-majority of businesses or unions in order to make a decision. He stated that one issue is that people are not willing to spend more money because they think it will be matched. He stated that an idea is to spend late, so that the money is not matched, but now more people are voting early. He agreed with the previous speaker. He stated that the only legal option was the third option.

Ken Cleveland stated that he represented the Building Owners and Managers Association (BOMA), which formed a PAC in 1987. He stated that BOMA has a PAC for IEs and one for ballot measures. He stated that BOMA has used the IE PAC very effectively, but that it has changed over the past few years with public financing. He stated that any dollars they spend will be matched and that has a chilling effect. He stated that most buildings are not owned by individuals and that organizations like his have spent less money on IEs, particularly in candidate races. He suggested no matching funds, or their freedom of expression would be severely compromised. He stated that he hoped the Commission would keep their rights as private citizens.

Chris Wright, Executive Director of the Committee on Jobs, stated that he agrees that the current law has a chilling effect, specifically the multiplier. He stated that his group was concerned about the provision and that it should be dealt with as soon as possible. He also asked the Commission to relieve groups from having to comply with the requirement to account for what portion of a slate card applies to one candidate or another.

Commissioner Liu agreed with Commissioner Studley's comments about changing the law at this time. She asked whether the Commission would be able to consider another proposal, such as what Mr. Marsteller mentioned, at a future date. Mr. St. Croix stated that the Board would be able consider two options, if the Commission decided to send two.

Decision point 1
Motion 11-07-11-04 (Liu): Moved and no second that the Commission take action to amend CFRO in response to the Supreme Court's decision.

Decision Point 2
Motion 11-07-11-05 (Hayon/Liu): Moved and seconded that the Commission adopt decision point 2.

Public Comment:
Charley Marsteller stated that the Ethics Commission is only able to amend if the amendment "furthers the purpose of the Act." He stated that a third option would present itself soon and asked the Commission to wait and see that proposal. He asked the Commission not to proceed with the vote. He stated that the Commission could just suspend the provisions pending further developments.

David Pilpel stated that, if the motion passes, he would suggest adding language as to how or why this amendment furthers the law.

Commissioner Ward asked how long the Commission was supposed to wait for this third option. Mr. Marsteller stated that it would be ready very soon. Chairperson Hur stated that there was no third option to consider and that staff's solution is workable. He stated that the Commission is furthering the purpose of the ordinance to make sure it is constitutional. Commissioner Ward suggested having a special meeting in two weeks to see whether there is a third option. Chairperson Hur stated that the Commission needed to take a workable solution. He stated that timing of this amendment was important.

David Pilpel stated that any delay would affect the effective date of any amendment, as the Board is going into recess soon.

Motion 11-07-11-06 (Hayon/Liu): Moved, seconded, and passed (4-1; Ward dissented) that the Commission adopt decision point 2, which is furtherance of the Ordinance and within the Ethics Commission's authority.

VIII. Minutes of the Commission's regular meeting of June 13, 2011 and special meeting of June 28, 2011.

Motion 11-07-11-07 (Studley/Ward): Moved, seconded, and passed (5-0) that the Commission adopt the minutes of the Commission's regular and special meetings of June 2011.

Public Comment:
None.

IX. Executive Director's Report.

Executive Director St. Croix stated that he anticipates that the full repayment to the Election Campaign Fund will be made in the final adoption of the budget.

Public Comment:
David Pilpel commented on Item 9 of the report, regarding non-filers of Statements of Economic Interests. He asked whether staff look at non-filers in previous years. He also mentioned that Chris Jackson was on the Bureau of Delinquent Revenue list and up for re-election to the College Board next year. He stated that Mr. Jackson would not be able to be a candidate or assume office following the election unless he fixed this problem.

X. Items for future meetings.

Commissioner Liu stated that she would like to discuss the Run Ed Run campaign, as there have been press reports regarding whether the committee is complying with its obligations under local and state law. She stated that it raises policy questions and asked the Director to report on the committee during the next meeting. She requested clarification on guidelines in this instance, as the effort is not supporting a declared candidate.

Public Comment:
Mr. Marsteller provided a brief statement about Bob Stern and his work over the past 35-40 years. He stated that the foundation would most likely have a recommendation regarding a CFRO amendment the following day. He urged the Commission to consider a third option for the CFRO amendment.

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 11-07-11-08 (Studley/Hayon): Moved, seconded, and passed (5-0) that the Commission adjourn.

Public Comment:
None.

Meeting adjourned at 9:27 PM.

Respectfully submitted,

_________________________
Catherine Argumedo

Recording - August 8, 2011 - Ethics Commission Meeting

Tue, 09 Aug 2011 10:32:04 -0700

Recording - August 8, 2011 - 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 - June 13, 2011

Thu, 21 Jul 2011 13:05:49 -0700

Minutes of the Regular Meeting of
The San Francisco Ethics Commission
June 13, 2011
Room 408, City Hall
1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place
San Francisco, CA 94102

I. Call to order and roll call.

Chairperson Hur called the meeting to order at 5:31 PM.

COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Benedict Y. Hur, Chairperson; Beverly Hayon, Commissioner; Dorothy S. Liu, Commissioner. Vice-Chairperson Studley and Commissioner Ward were excused.

STAFF PRESENT: John St. Croix, Executive Director; Mabel Ng, Deputy Executive Director; Richard Mo, Chief Enforcement Officer.

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

OTHERS PRESENT: James Chaffee, Dr. Derek Kerr, Dr. Maria Rivero, Charley Marsteller David Pilpel, Don Falk, and other unidentified members of the public.

MATERIALS DISTRIBUTED:
- Memorandum re: Request for Waiver from Post Employment Ban, dated June 7, 2011
- Draft Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the San Francisco Ethics Commission on May 9, 2011
- Executive Director's Report to the Ethics Commission for the Meeting of June 13, 2011

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

James Chaffee stated that a complaint regarding Jewelle Gomez has taken a long time to come before the Ethics Commission. He stated that the Public Library has a long history of betraying the public. He stated that without accountability there will never be democracy. He stated that citizens should be supported in their quest for open government.

Dr. Derek Kerr stated that he was a whistleblower and was terminated from his City position. He stated that his complaint with the Ethics Commission has been going on for too long. He stated that the Ethics Commission has done nothing regarding his complaint. He stated that the monthly Executive Director's reports should reflect how long a complaint has been pending.

Dr. Maria Rivero stated that she filed a complaint along with Dr. Kerr. She stated that she was forced to resign from her position. She stated the Ethics Commission did nothing while she was retaliated against.

David Pilpel stated that the Executive Director's report does not include a list of persons with overdue fines. He stated that this should be included in the report.

Charley Marsteller stated that he was pleased with how the public financing program has proceeded in this year. He stated that audit staff should expand its audits to lobbyists and SEIs to see if there is any problem in those areas.

III. Consideration of whether, under S.F. Campaign and Governmental Conduct Code section 3.234(c), the Commission should grant a waiver to Doug Shoemaker, the Director of the Mayor's Office of Housing, from the ban on compensation from contractors in San Francisco Campaign and Governmental Conduct Code section 3.234(a)(3).

Executive Director St. Croix introduced the waiver request.

Doug Shoemaker stated that his office provides financing to affordable housing developers. He stated that this has been his chosen field for over 15 years, and that the field is relatively small. He stated he has the opportunity to work for Mercy Housing. He stated that he has enjoyed his position with government, but this offer is an unbelievable opportunity.

Commissioner Liu stated that the factors here meet the case for an extreme hardship exemption.

Mr. Shoemaker responded to Commissioner Hayon stating that Mercy House recruited him for this position and that his current position is an appointed position with the risk of a new mayor appointing another person.

Responding to Commissioner Liu, Mr. Shoemaker stated that within the last year only three similar positions in the City have become available. He stated that San Francisco is his home and does not want to move his family to pursue a career opportunity. He stated that the other three organizations also received City funding.

Responding to Chairperson Hur, Mr. Shoemaker stated that he was aware of the employment ban when he accepted his current position. He stated that the value of the Mercy House loans are at least $15 million. He stated that the loans go to non-profit entities to make repairs to low income housing.

Chairperson Hur stated that he is sympathetic; however, this situation appears to be the archetypal instance that the law was designed to protect against.

Mr. Shoemaker stated that his position requires him to sign off on the contracts to all entities. He stated that the public vetting process is extensive regarding financing. He stated that he is not the sole actor in making a loan approval. He stated the loans do not come to him to sign off on until the loans are ready to close. He stated that Mercy House primarily works at the state level.

Responding to Chairperson Hur, Mr. Shoemaker stated that he was offered the position about six weeks ago.

Responding to Commissioner Liu, Mr. Shoemaker stated that he is not seeking a waiver prohibiting communications with the City. He stated that there are other persons within Mercy House who would handle City communications.

Public Comment:
Don Falk, Executive Director of the Tenderloin Neighborhood Association, stated that the affordable housing community is very small, and the work is very specialized. He confirmed that there are very few candidates, and it is reasonable to expect a City officer in this field would re-enter the private sector.

Chairperson Hur stated that the matter should be continued when the full Ethics Commission is present.

Commissioner Liu stated that Mr. Shoemaker should provide any additional information that would aid the Ethics Commission to determine if he clearly meets the hardship exemption.

Motion 11-13-06-01 (Liu/Hur): Moved, seconded, and passed (3-0; Ward and Studley absent) that the Commission continue this matter to the next meeting of the Ethics Commission.

Public Comment:
None.

IV. Minutes of the Commission's regular meeting of April 11, 2011.

Motion 11-13-06-02 (Hayon/Liu): Moved, seconded, and passed (3-0, Ward and Studley absent) that the Ethics Commission adopt the minutes of the May 9, 2011, regular meeting.

Public Comment:
None.

V. Executive Director's Report.

Executive Director St. Croix stated that the Ethics Commission received the budget that it requested. He stated that the budget will go before the Board of Supervisors in June.

Public Comment:
None.

VI. Items for future meetings.

Deputy Executive Director Ng responded to Commissioner Liu, stating that staff wanted all commissioners to be present when Dr. Melinek's SIA issue comes up for consideration. She stated that she is presenting to the Public Library Commission about its SIA this August, and anticipates that the issue will return to the Ethics Commission for consideration is September.

Executive Director St. Croix explained the requirements to hold a special meeting on Mr. Shoemaker's matter.

Public Comment:
None.

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 11-13-06-3 (Hayon/Liu) Moved, seconded, and passed (3-0, Ward and Studley absent) that the Ethics Commission adjourn.

Public Comment:
None.

Meeting adjourned at 6:26 PM.

Respectfully submitted,

_______________________
Richard Mo

Minutes - June 28, 2011

Tue, 12 Jul 2011 17:01:16 -0700

Minutes of the Special Meeting of
The San Francisco Ethics Commission
June 28, 2011
Room 408, City Hall
1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place
San Francisco, CA 94102

I. Call to order and roll call.

Chairperson Hur called the meeting to order at 2:00 PM.

COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Benedict Y. Hur, Chairperson; Jamienne S. Studley, Vice-Chairperson; Beverly Hayon, Commissioner; Dorothy S. Liu, Commissioner; Charles L. Ward, Commissioner.

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

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

OTHERS PRESENT: Doug Shoemaker, Ray Hartz, Thomas Picarello, Diane Spaulding, John Stewart, Tim Colon, Chris Block, Anna Yee, Rita O'Flynn, Don Falk, David Pilpel, Charley Marsteller, and other unidentified members of the public.

MATERIALS DISTRIBUTED:
- Memorandum re: Request for Waiver from Post Employment Ban, dated June 7, 2011
- Letter from Doug Shoemaker in support of Request for Waiver, dated June 22, 2011

II. Consideration of whether, under S.F. Campaign and Governmental Conduct Code section 3.234(c), the Commission should grant a waiver to Doug Shoemaker, the Director of the Mayor's Office of Housing, from the ban on compensation from contractors in San Francisco Campaign and Governmental Conduct Code section 3.234(a)(3).

Executive Director St. Croix introduced the waiver request.

Doug Shoemaker stated that he accepted his position in the Mayor's office to advance the important work of affordable housing. He stated that he never used his position to seek other employment, and that he has a sincere desire to continue this type of work. He also stated that he has many roles as the Director, and that for some contract approvals he plays an active role and for others his role is ministerial. He stated that of the 175 contracts he signed in the last 12 months, five were for Mercy House. He stated that the affordable housing community is a very small and a specialized field. He stated that he would have the same conflict with any employer who worked with the City to obtain funding.

Commissioner Liu stated that she does not take waiver requests lightly, but there is a need to balance the purpose of the code and the right of an individual to pursue employment. She stated that the code has a built in exemption for hardship and that Mr. Shoemaker meets the factors to grant the hardship exemption.

Commissioner Hayon stated that given the small field of employers, Mr. Shoemaker is unduly restricted in pursuing employment outside of government in this field. She stated that it is important to keep families in the City and that Mr. Shoemaker has met the conditions to grant a waiver.

Vice-Chairperson Studley stated that she agreed with Commissioner Liu regarding the need to balance the code against an individual's rights. She stated that the balancing test was considered by the voters when they voted to include a hardship waiver process in the law. She stated that the waiver process itself aids in vetting out whether or not there was any impropriety in seeking outside employment by a government official.

Chairperson Hur stated that it is important to consider how extreme the hardship must be before granting a waiver under that exemption. He stated that it is unclear what the dichotomy is between not granting the waiver and Mr. Shoemaker leaving the City to find employment.

Public Comment:

Ray Hartz stated that the Commission should not have scheduled this matter for a special meeting. He stated that the law exists to protect the residents of San Francisco. He stated that Mr. Shoemaker has the ability to garner support for his application. He stated that Mr. Shoemaker knew about the restriction when he accepted City employment and the waiver should be denied.

Thomas Picarello stated that the Commission should discuss the Grand Jury report at its next meeting. He stated that this situation is of the type the voters had in mind when it enacted the law. He stated that the Commission should deny the waiver request.

Diane Spaulding stated that she is part of an organization that represents affordable housing developers. She stated that the state is cutting redevelopment agency funding, which is the most used local source for affordable housing, so it is important to recruit leaders who understand the field. Ms. Spaulding also responded to Vice-Chairperson Studley, stating that there only about nine full-capacity non-profit affordable housing developers working in the City. She urged the Commission to approve the waiver.

John Stewart stated that his company builds affordable housing in the City and he has known Mr. Shoemaker for many years. He stated that the field is very specialized and it is likely that the best candidates to go into the non-profit sector would be those in government who understand the laws. He urged the Commission to approve the waiver.

Chris Block stated that he has been in the affordable housing community for over 20 years and that a very limited number of similar positions ever come available. He urged the Commission to approve the waiver.

Anna Yee stated that she was a native of San Francisco and an attorney. She stated that she came to support the waiver, and that Mr. Shoemaker did not ask her to come. She stated she also works in the affordable housing field and that Mercy House is a credible organization.

Rita O'Flynn stated that despite the emotional testimony in support of Mr. Shoemaker, he should not be exempt from the Charter requirement. She stated that Mr. Shoemaker has not proved an extreme hardship to qualify for the exemption. She stated that the exemption can only be granted by demonstrated facts. She stated that Mr. Shoemaker attempted to distance himself from his involvement in Mercy House contracts in his second letter in support of the waiver, and that because he approved those contracts the waiver should not be granted.

Don Falk stated that he is an affordable housing developer. He stated that every new mayor has appointed a new Director of Housing, so it is likely after the election Mr. Shoemaker will be removed from his position. He stated that executive level positions in the affordable housing community are very rare. He also stated that the loan granting process is very complex and goes through multiple layers of review.

David Pilpel stated that the Commission should have a discussion about the standards to grant an exemption outside of the context of any one applicant. He stated that given the past precedent applying the standards, the Commission should grant this waiver.

Charley Marsteller stated that the original ban on employment was for two years. He stated that Mr. Shoemaker has a high sense of integrity.

Vice-Chairperson Studley stated that she does not know Mr. Shoemaker, but that she works for an organization that advocates for affordable housing. She stated that she does know Ms. Spaulding. She also stated that the Commission should set a future agenda item regarding The application of the extreme hardship standard.

Motion 11-28-06-01 (Ward/Hayon): Moved, seconded, and passed (4-1; Hur dissenting) that the Commission grant the waiver request.

III. Adjournment.

Motion 11-28-06-2 (Hayon/Liu) Moved, seconded, and passed (5-0) that the Ethics Commission adjourn.

Public Comment:
None.

Meeting adjourned at 2:52 PM.

Respectfully submitted,

_______________________
Garrett Chatfield

Recording - July 11, 2011 - Ethics Commission Meeting

Tue, 12 Jul 2011 10:58:16 -0700

Recording - July 11, 2011 - 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.

Recording - June 28, 2011 - Ethics Commission Meeting

Tue, 28 Jun 2011 15:50:26 -0700

Recording - June 28, 2011 - 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 9, 2011

Wed, 22 Jun 2011 11:28:57 -0700

Minutes of the Regular Meeting of
The San Francisco Ethics Commission
May 9, 2011
Room 408, City Hall
1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place
San Francisco, CA 94102

I. Call to order and roll call.

Chairperson Hur called the meeting to order at 5:37 PM.

COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Benedict Y. Hur, Chairperson; Jamienne Studley, Vice-Chairperson; Dorothy S. Liu, Commissioner; Charles Ward, Commissioner. Commissioner Hayon was absent.

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

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

OTHERS PRESENT: Jill Bourne, Dr. Judy Melinek, David Pilpel, Richard Hansen, and other unidentified members of the public.

MATERIALS DISTRIBUTED:
- Proposed amendments to the Statement of Incompatible Activities (SIA) for the San Francisco Public Library, dated May 4, 2011.
- Draft Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the San Francisco Ethics Commission on April 11, 2011.
- Memorandum re: policy priorities from the Executive Director, dated May 4, 2011.
- Executive Director's Report to the Ethics Commission for the Meeting of May 9, 2011.

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

Dr. Judy Melinek, from the Office of the Medical Examiner, stated that she had appeared at April 11, 2011 meeting. She stated that, at that meeting, she had alerted the Commission of her office's practice of ignoring subpoenas. She stated that there have been informal meetings with Dr. Hart and acting City Administrator Brown, but that there have been no instructions to change the SIA. She stated that Dr. Hart stated she would not change the SIA without written instruction. Dr. Melinek stated that Dr. Hart denied her request for AWD to testify in a case in Napa County. She stated that the Medical Examiner's policy was a First Amendment infringement. She stated that she had reasons to believe that she was being singled out because of her request from last month. She stated that other professionals, such as investigators, toxicologists, and medical examiners, also feel the same way. She also provided written testimony from another employee at the Office of the Medical Examiner.

A member of the public stated that he has been doing some thinking about what ethics means. He stated that the rules apply to people you know and people you don't know. He stated that people had an investment in society, regardless of class or economic status. He stated that no one can afford not to care about how other people are treated. He stated that he made these comments in the hope that the Jewelle Gomez complaint would be heard soon. He stated that the rules must apply across the board. He stated if we give status to friends, those friends have bought that friendship.

Richard Hansen stated that he was speaking as a private citizen and that was not paid to be at the meeting. He stated that he had read things about the Snow Lake fiasco. He stated that, in recent months, there has been some discussion about how contractors have been selected at Treasure Island. He stated that he was concerned that individuals were being paid $500 for testifying at a public hearing. He suggested that City lobbyists should carry identification and gave an example of a medallion each lobbyist could wear. He also suggested that the lobbyist carry an envelope that stated how much s/he was being paid.

Paul Currier, a candidate for Mayor in 2011, stated that he was opposed to the adoption of the draft minutes of the April 2011 meeting. He reminded the Commissioners that they have a fiduciary duty to the voters of San Francisco. He disagreed with the Commission's decision permitting the current Mayor to return to his previous job.

Chairperson Hur stated that the Commission cannot address items not on the agenda.

III. Proposed Amendments to the Statement of Incompatible Activities (SIA) for the San Francisco Public Library.

Deputy Director Ng addressed the Commission. She stated that several provisions that had been adopted were not working and suggested that the Commission consider making changes in the Library's SIA. She stated that the Deputy City Librarian was available to answer questions.

Commissioner Liu asked whether there had been requests for advanced written determinations in the department. Deputy City Librarian Jill Bourne stated that there has been one request. Ms. Bourne stated that the fact that the advanced written determination process has not been utilized was a concern for the Library. She stated that some decisions had been made, for example, cancelling exhibits, because of the SIA, so there has been a public service impact. She stated that there is now an increased awareness in the Library. She also stated that the request for advanced written determination had been approved.

Commissioner Studley stated that she anticipated that local and state conflict of interest laws would take care of most concerns. Ms. Bourne stated that the Library has a detailed collection plan. She stated that there are other documents that will be added to the SIA that would dictate how the Library spends its resources.

The Commissioners discussed hypothetical situations where Library resources could be misused, including where someone in charge of purchasing books from a particular publisher or choosing an exhibit for the Library may have a conflict with the proposed vendor(s). Ms. Ng stated that all officers and employees are also subject to the Political Reform Act and would therefore be prohibited from engaging in a governmental decision in which s/he had a financial interest.

Commissioner Ward stated his opposition of eliminating the SIA provisions for the Library. He presented a situation where someone may be responsible for making decisions regarding a particular vendor, where s/he may be moonlighting for that vendor.

Ms. Ng stated that the general conflict of interest rules govern financial activities of City officers and employees. She stated that the SIAs go beyond those general rules and deal with the use of City resources. She presented an example of what is included in an SIA that is not included in the local conflict of interest laws: no one can be paid by a third party for performing his/her City job.

Commissioner Ward expressed concern that someone (ex. City purchasing agent) would have a financial interest due to being a consultant for a vendor. Ms. Ng stated that there are narrow exceptions, but that person would have a conflict of interest. She stated that if someone receives a gift of $420 or more or $500 in income from a source or an investment of $2,000 or more in a source, that person is prohibited from engaging in a governmental decision regarding that source. Commissioner Liu asked whether that person would be required to disclose that financial interest. Ms. Ng stated that that person would be required to disclose it in either meeting minutes or in the file.

Chairperson Hur asked what in the SIA did not meet the original expectations of the Library. Ms. Bourne stated that the Library administration was completely different in 2004, when it was discussed. She stated that there was not a lot of staff input at that time and that the SIA now prohibits reasonable activities. She gave an example of a staff member who is an artist in the community. She stated that this staff member is part of a residence that requires participation in art exhibits, which is banned by the SIA.

Public Comment:
A member of the public offered to lend others his stopwatch. He stated that the Library Commission approved an SIA on July 15, 2004 and that it has not been withdrawn. He stated that people may be interested in weighing in on what kind of SIA the Library should have. He stated that the Ethics Commission should ask for the Library Commission's comments. He stated that the Library was the quintessential example of incompatible activities. He stated that they conduct fundraising.

Andrea Grimes, who works in special collections at the Library, is an officer in the Librarians' Guild. She stated that the original SIA was approved, but that Library staff did not have adequate or appropriate input until now. She stated that the document presented to the Ethics Commission has been worked on in coordination with Library staff, the Library Commission, and the union. She stated that she is representing the union and that there has been a long bond of trust with the public. She stated that there was a code of ethics, which was promulgated by the Professional Library Association. She also stated that she approved these changes.

David Pilpel stated that he is speaking in support of the SIA changes. He stated that he did not object to adding the ALA code of ethics and stated that the referenced policies are on the Library's website. He stated that there was an interest in including specific items for each department, but that it may not be necessary if the items are covered elsewhere.

Chairperson Hur asked what indication Mr. Pilpel had that it is no longer needed. Mr. Pilpel stated that the Library had some legitimate concerns, such as the artist's living situation or someone who has written a book. He stated that, in those cases, there is not a concern of undue influence or that the activity should be deemed incompatible. He also stated that he was not being paid to make these statements.

Commissioner Studley asked what the Library Commission's role was in the changes. Ms. Ng stated that the approval of the various commissions was not necessary, but that there were many changes and meetings from 2004 to 2008, when the SIAs were adopted. She stated that what was approved in 2004 is not the same version that exists today. She stated that if the commission decides to approve the changes, then the draft version could be provided to the Library Commission.

Chairperson Hur asked whether any of the instances involved officers of the Library. Ms. Bourne stated that none of the Commissioners or the City Librarian was involved in any of these instances. Chairperson Hur asked whether the Library would object if the SIA were restricted to officers only. Ms. Bourne stated that she would want to review that idea, but the intent of the revisions was for the employees.

Chairperson Hur stated that the perception issue is a concern. Commissioner Ward stated that he would only support changes if SIA provisions remained in place for the Library officers. Mr. St. Croix suggested changing the language for employees and leaving the SIA provisions for Commissioners and the City Librarian. Commissioner Liu asked whether the advanced written determination process would still exist, and, if so, who would sign it for the City Librarian. Ms. Bourne stated that the Mayor would approve that request. Mr. St. Croix stated that he anticipates this matter being revisited at the June meeting.

IV. Closed session.

Executive Director St. Croix stated there had been a drafting error in the agenda and, in the abundance of caution, this item has been cancelled.

Public Comment:
None.

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

Public Comment:
None.

VI. Minutes of the Commission's regular meeting of April 11, 2011.

Commissioner Studley made a correction on page 4 regarding the name of a speaker, Mr. Zapala.

Motion 11-05-09-01 (Ward/Studley): Moved, seconded, and passed (4-0; Hayon absent) that the Commission adopt the minutes of the Commission's regular meeting of April 11, 2011, as amended.

Public Comment:
None.

VII. Policy Priorities.

Executive Director St. Croix stated that the Commission staff has ongoing priorities regarding the day-to-day business of the office, but that the Commission sets policy for staff to carry out. He stated that several areas are always a priority, but other areas change. He stated that he has proposed an updated version.

Commissioner Studley stated that she agreed with the list, especially the first priority, as there is a challenge with this year's race. Chairperson Hur agreed. Mr. St. Croix stated that the office could become very busy based on Supreme Court decisions. Commissioner Liu asked whether there are any proposal before a court decision is made. Mr. St. Croix stated that he would propose ideas depending on what the outcome is. He stated that the source of legal advice on this topic would be from the Oakland City Attorney's office.

Chairperson Hur asked about staff building. Mr. St. Croix stated that the budget news would be finalized on June 1, 2011. He stated that the office could fill a vacancy, if there is no bad news. He stated there was expected turnover in the office, but that Human Resources does not allow departments to search for a new position in advance of a vacancy. He stated that there is typically a three-month gap between when someone leaves and when the position is filled. He stated that he expected two vacancies in the coming year. He stated that getting feedback from the Commission is helpful for staff. He stated that he and Ms. Ng do what they can to keep staff morale strong, but that turnover is hard on people. Chairperson Hur asked whether there was a staff retreat. Mr. St. Croix stated that staff used to go to an annual ethics convention, but that the budget has not permitted that in years.

Motion 11-05-09-02 (Studley/Ward): Moved, seconded, and passed (4-0; Hayon absent) that the Commission adopt these priorities for the coming years.

Public Comment:
David Pilpel stated that he was supportive of these priorities.

VIII. Executive Director's Report.

Executive Director St. Croix stated that he had already mentioned the expectations for the budget.
He apologized for brevity for the meeting. He stated that staff anticipated the continuation of a hearing and that he expects a longer meeting in June.

IX. Items for future meetings.

Public Comment:
David Pilpel stated that he had suggestions for two provisions in the conflicts of interest laws. He stated that the first provision was regarding when a public disclosure is required in the context of a public meeting. He stated that the disclosure does not currently need to be repeated at later meetings, nor are the reasons for recusal or disclosure repeated, but he thought that it would be helpful for these reasons to be repeated and disclosed at every meeting. He stated that the second provision was regarding a prohibition on making contracts when you are a City officer. He stated that one exemption is sitting on a non-profit board of directors. He stated that if someone is a City officer and on a non-profit board that contracts with the City, there could be an issue and that person should be making a decision not to contact. He requested that staff look at these two items.

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

None.

XI. Adjournment.

Motion 11-05-09-03 (Ward/Liu): Moved, seconded, and passed (4-0; Hayon absent) that the Commission adjourn.

Public Comment:
None.

Meeting adjourned at 6:53 PM.

Respectfully submitted,

_______________________
Catherine Argumedo

Recording - June 13, 2011 - Ethics Commission Meeting

Mon, 20 Jun 2011 11:57:39 -0700

Recording - June 13, 2011 - 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 - April 11, 2011

Thu, 12 May 2011 09:37:06 -0700

Minutes of the Regular Meeting of
The San Francisco Ethics Commission
April 11, 2011
Room 408, City Hall
1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place
San Francisco, CA 94102

I. Call to order and roll call.

Chairperson Hur called the meeting to order at 5:32 PM.

COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Benedict Y. Hur, Chairperson; Jamienne Studley, Vice-Chairperson; Beverly Hayon, Commissioner; Dorothy S. Liu, Commissioner; Charles Ward, Commissioner.

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

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

OTHERS PRESENT: Judy Melinek, Judson True, Thomas Picarillo, John Gollinger, Steven Brewer, Adam Zapala, and other unidentified members of the public.

MATERIALS DISTRIBUTED:
- Memorandum from the Executive Director re: Legislation to amend one-year post-employment restriction, dated April 6, 2011.
- Draft advice letter to Dr. Judy Melinek regarding whether paid expert testimony in a judicial proceeding in San Mateo County violates the Statement of Incompatible Activities of the General Services Agency.
- Report on San Francisco's Limited Public Financing Program.
- Draft Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the San Francisco Ethics Commission on March 14, 2011.
- Executive Director's Report to the Ethics Commission for the Meeting of April 11, 2011.

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

None.

III. Consideration of legislation to amend San Francisco Campaign and Governmental Conduct Code section 3.234 to allow an appointed former Mayor to obtain full-time City employment within one year of leaving Mayoral office.

Chairperson Hur welcomed Commissioner Liu to the Ethics Commission.
Executive Director St. Croix stated that the Board of Supervisors submitted the amendment to section 3.234 for approval by the Ethics Commission. He stated that staff included members of the Board of Supervisors as part of the amendment to ensure consistency within the Code. He also stated that staff included an option for consideration by the Ethics Commission that would narrow the scope of the amendment so an interim mayor would only be allowed to return the position he or she held prior to the mayoral appointment.

Judson True, representing Board of Supervisors' President, David Chiu, stated that the legislation is narrowly crafted and that the situation that this amendment addresses is a rare occurrence.

Responding to Commissioner Liu's question regarding the policy considerations of the amendment, Mr. True stated that the Board of Supervisors wanted to ensure the amendment was narrowly tailored and straight-forward.

Executive Director St. Croix read the proposed change to section 3.234 that would allow a mayor or a member of the Board of Supervisors to return only to a previously held City position.

Commissioner Ward stated that he was not in favor of including the Board of Supervisors in this change to the Code. He stated that the public would not expect that, in upholding a promise to Mayor Lee, the Ethics Commission would choose to include the Board of Supervisors.

Vice-Chairperson Studley stated that she was in favor of the narrow version which only allowed a mayor to return to his or her previously held City employment. She stated that it is important that the Ethics Commission adopt a change consistent with what the voters approved when they adopted this code section.

Commissioner Hayon and Commissioner Liu both separately stated that they also support the narrower provision.

Deputy City Attorney Givner confirmed that the Mayor Lee's previous position was an appointed position and would be subject to re-appointment by a new mayor. He also stated that another option is to require a cap so that an interim mayor could accept a different position as long as the salary that would be received in the new position did not exceed the salary received in the previous position.

Chairperson Hur also stated he supported the narrower provision. He also stated that the salary cap proposal would limit any risk of the interim mayor setting up a "golden parachute" while in office.

Commissioner Liu stated she was in favor of the salary cap option, and also stated that she would be in favor of including the members of the Board of Supervisors in the amendment with that cap.

Chairperson Hur stated that the inclusion of the Board of Supervisors was unnecessary.

Commission Ward stated that finding an interim member of the Board of Supervisors was likely a much easier process than an interim mayor, and that he would not support including members of the Board of Supervisors in this amendment.

Public Comment:

Thomas Picarillo stated that voters are upset by this proposed change. He stated that this code section was a voter adopted provision and that any amendment must further the purpose of the chapter. He stated that the Supervisors made an illegal promise to Mayor Lee and that they are now asking the Ethics Commission to ratify that promise.

John Gollinger stated that he represented the organization San Franciscan's for Clean Government, and that he was surprised to learn of the proposal to include members of the Board of Supervisors in this amendment. He stated that this provision has remained unchanged since its adoption in the Charter in 1932, and that if the Ethics Commission approves the amendment it should consider including a sunset provision.

Chairperson Hur stated that the Ethics Commission is trying to be consistent with the will of the voters.

Commission Liu stated that after listening to the discussion and the public on this issue, she was not in favor of including members of the Board of Supervisors in this amendment.

Motion 11-04-11-1 (Studley/Ward): Moved, seconded and passed (5-0) to adopt the amendment as follows: Notwithstanding the one year restriction to Subsection (A), a former Mayor who was appointed to that office under Charter Section 13.101.5 to fill a vacancy shall be eligible for appointment to any City employment provided that (i) the former Mayor did not file a declaration of candidacy for election to the office of Mayor after being appointed to that office, (ii) the former Mayor was employed by the City immediately prior to assuming the office of Mayor, and (iii) the salary in the first year of the new employment shall not exceed the salary received by the former Mayor in the City employment that he or she held immediately prior to assuming office as Mayor.

IV. Consideration of letter to Dr. Judy Melinek, including formal written advice, regarding section III.B.3 of the Statement of Incompatible Activities of the General Services Agency, which prohibits employees of the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner from providing expert testimony in judicial proceedings unrelated to their official duties unless such employees receive and advance written determination that they may do so.

Deputy Executive Director Ng introduced the advice letter.

Dr. Melinek stated that the draft letter contains several errors. She stated that it was not true that employees were consulted during the draft SIA process. She stated that it is not incompatible with the department to provide expert testimony in a court proceeding. She stated that it is improper that the advance written determination requires a requestor to disclose potentially confidential information in order to determine whether or not it will be approved. She stated that prior to the SIA adoption, there was no issue with providing expert testimony in a court proceeding in another county. She requested that the SIA be amended to reflect the previous policy.

In response to Commissioner Liu, Dr. Melinek outlined her past work providing expert testimony.

In response to Vice-Chairperson Studley, Dr. Melinek stated that she was only aware of the SIA requirements after it was implemented.

Deputy Executive Director Ng stated that the SIA could not be amended without going through the formal process.

Vice-Chairperson Studley stated that the Ethics Commission could ask the department to consider addressing and/or amending any problems with the SIA.

Chairperson Hur stated that Dr. Melinek appears to be an exceptional expert witness, but the Ethics Commission cannot provide the relief she has requested without the formal process to amend the SIA.

Public Comment:

Steven Brewer stated that he retained Dr. Melinek as an expert witness. He stated that the SIA asks a requestor to answer six questions. He stated that the last question asks if any party already relied on the requestor's abilities. He stated that in this case, he has already relied on Dr. Melinek.

Adam Zapala stated that the SIA policy violates the First Amendment and that political speech is protected.

Vice-Chairperson Studley stated that although the Ethics Commission has no ability to review an advance written determination, she would like the Ethics Commission to contact the department outlining the Ethics Commission's concerns.

Chairperson Hur directed staff to consult with the General Services Agency regarding the SIA.

Dr. Melinek withdrew her request for formal advice.

V. Staff presentation of public finance report.

Assistant Deputy Director Shaikh introduced the report.

Chairperson Hur and Vice-Chairperson Studley both thanked Ms. Shaikh and her staff for the excellent work.

Public Comment:
None.

VI. Closed Session.

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.

Motion 11-04-11-2 (Ward/ Studley): Moved, seconded and passed (5-0) that the Ethics Commission move into closed session.

The Ethics Commission went into closed session at 7:17 PM.

Public Comment:
None.

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

Motion 11-04-11-3 (Studley/Ward) Moved, seconded, and passed (5-0) that pursuant to section C3.699-13, the Ethics Commission finds that it is in the best interests of the public not to disclose its closed session deliberations re: anticipated litigation.

The Ethics Commission went into open session at 9:57 PM.

Public Comment:
None.

VIII. Minutes of the Commission's regular meeting of March 14, 2011.

Motion 11-04-11-4 (Ward/Studley): Moved, seconded and passed (5-0) to adopt the minutes of the Ethics Commission's regular meeting of March 14, 2011.

Public Comment:
None.

IX. Executive Director's Report.

Executive Director St. Croix stated there were no highlights in this month's report.

Public Comment:
None.

X. Items for future meetings.

None.

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 11-03-11-5 (Studley/Ward): Moved, seconded and passed (5-0) that the Commission adjourn.

Public Comment:
None.

The meeting adjourned at 10:00 PM.

Respectfully submitted,

_________________
Garrett Chatfield

Recording - May 9, 2011 - Ethics Commission Meeting

Tue, 10 May 2011 14:11:57 -0700

Recording - May 9, 2011 - 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 - March 14, 2011

Wed, 13 Apr 2011 13:20:03 -0700

Minutes of the Regular Meeting of
The San Francisco Ethics Commission
March 14, 2011
Room 408, City Hall
1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place
San Francisco, CA 94102

I. Call to order and roll call.

Chairperson Hur called the meeting to order at 5:35 PM.

COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Benedict Y. Hur, Chairperson; Jamienne Studley, Vice-Chairperson; Beverly Hayon, Commissioner; Charles Ward, Commissioner. Commissioner Hansen was excused.

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

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

OTHERS PRESENT: Kyri McClellan, Judson True, Nicole Wheaton, Ray Hartz, Anita Mayo, Kevin Hennegan, Shirley Hanson, Richard Hanson, David Pilpel, and other unidentified members of the public.

MATERIALS DISTRIBUTED:

- Memorandum from the Executive Director re: Request for waiver from post-employment restrictions, dated March 9, 2011.

- Memorandum from the Executive Director re: Proposed Amendments to the Campaign Finance Reform Ordinance, dated March 10, 2011.

- Draft Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the San Francisco Ethics Commission on March 14, 2011.

- Executive Director's Report to the Ethics Commission for the Meeting of March 14, 2011.

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

David Pilpel recognized Commissioner Hansen's service on the Ethics Commission.

Shirley Hanson stated that the requirements to report campaign finance disclosures are onerous.

Ray Hartz stated that he submitted a statement in January to be included in the minutes. He stated that the statement should have been typed into the minutes and not attached at the end of the minutes. He also stated that in the online version of the minutes his statement must be accessed by clicking another link. He stated the Good Government Guide is not a legal opinion. [ Mr. Hartz also submitted a written statement which has been included at the end of these minutes.]

III. Consideration of whether, under S.F. Campaign and Governmental Conduct Code section 3.234(c), the Commission should grant waivers to the Office of Economic and Workforce Development employee Kyri S. McClellan from the one-year post employment communications ban (section 3.234(a)(2)), and the ban on compensation from contractors (section 3.234(a)(3)).

Executive Director St. Croix summarized the waiver request for the Commissioners.

Ms. McClellan stated that she worked as the project manager for the America's Cup Task Force in the Office of Economic and Workforce Development. She stated that she was offered a position with the non-profit America's Cup Organizing Committee charged with raising money to assist the City to fund the event.

Nicole Wheaton stated on behalf of the Mayor that Ms. McClellan was an essential team member securing the America's Cup bid for the City. She stated the America's Cup Organizing Committee will work with the City to secure funding for the event.

Judson True, legislative aide to Board of Supervisors President Chiu, stated that President Chui supported the waiver request, and that Ms. McClellan's work with the Organizing Committee will greatly benefit the City.

Commissioner Ward stated that the memorandum indicated that Ms. McClellan would endure a professional hardship if the waiver was denied, and asked her about her career path.

Ms. McClellan stated that as part of her past project management experience, she was able to secure other beneficial contracts for the City and this opportunity allows her to pursue a similar civic service in the private sector.

Commissioner Ward asked whether Ms. McClellan intended to return to City service.

Ms. McClellan stated she could not rule out returning to a position with the City.

Vice-Chairperson Studley stated that the Ethics Commission must balance the justification of a waiver against the public policy of why the rule exists. She stated that she was concerned that aspects of this position could violate the provisions the law was intended to prevent, including an insider knowledge of the City during contract re-negotiations.

Ms. McClellan stated that she was one member of a large team, any one of whom would have the same information as she would.

Commissioner Ward stated that he is primarily concerned with the possibility of Ms. McClellan returning to City service. He stated that she might return to the City supervising employees with whom she engaged in communications while in private service and that could have some undue influence.

In response to Chairperson Hur, Ms. McClellan stated that the City would not make any payments to the Organizing Committee, and that the Organizing Committee is tasked with securing funds for the City to offset the costs of the America's Cup event. She also responded to Chairperson Hur that she was not offered the position until after the contract negotiations were completed. She further stated that the Organizing Committee cannot re-negotiate the contract, but the City has the ability to terminate the Contract if the Organizing Committee fails to complete its obligations. She stated that the City has no monetary obligations to the Organizing Committee.

Chairperson Hur stated that the risks normally present with other contractors is not present here, as the City has no monetary obligations to the Organizing Committee.

Vice-Chairperson Studley stated that Ms. McClellan's knowledge may give the contractor other advantages apart from monetary. She also stated that the public nature of this event might prevent any undue influence from occurring.

Executive Director St. Croix responded to Chairperson Hur that no other City employee has invoked a professional hardship as the basis for the waiver request.

Deputy Executive Director Ng clarified the hardship exemption is used for the contracting ban.

Commissioner Hur stated that the Commission can define hardship more broadly.

Commissioner Ward stated that he did not think the hardship Ms. McClellan would suffer if denied the waiver was extreme, and that he was concerned about the precedent that would be set by a broad definition.

Mr. True stated that the Organizing Committee is a different entity from the Event Committee. He stated that the Event Committee is tasked with making infrastructure investments and the possibility for contract re-negotiation exists with that entity. He stated that between the City and the Organizing Committee the obligations all flow from the Committee to the City and that the City has no obligations to the Committee. He further stated that the City and Organizing Committee have the common goal of securing funds to hold the event.

Motion 11-03-14-1 (Studley/Hayon): Moved, seconded and passed (4-0) that the Commission approve the waiver.

Public Comment:

Ray Hartz stated that he was concerned about what might have been said in private during negotiations.

David Pilpel stated that documents referenced in the memorandum are not available, but supports the waiver. He stated the Commission should charge for waiver requests.

IV. Consideration of policy directives to staff regarding possible amendments to the Campaign Finance Reform Ordinance, San Francisco Campaign and Governmental Conduct Code section 1.100 et seq.

Executive Director St. Croix outlined for the Commission that staff would like input regarding possible changes to the Campaign Finance Reform Ordinance.

Vice-Chairperson Studley stated that she appreciated staff's proposals to reduce some of the burden on reporting and that the proposals appear reasonable on balance.

Public Comment:

Richard Hanson stated that small committees have great difficulty with the many disclosure and reporting requirements.

Shirley Hanson stated that to report one slate card can take hours to complete.

Ray Hartz stated that the Citizen's United U.S. Supreme Court case has put a question mark on who is paying for elections.

Anita Mayo complimented staff for its attempt to try and simplify reporting requirements.

Kevin Hennegan suggested that staff hold an interested persons meeting to solicit input. He also suggested that staff consider using state forms rather than local forms for some of the reporting requirements.

David Pilpel stated that he thought reporting requirements should be streamlined but maintain the most transparency possible.

Deputy Executive Director Ng stated that an interested person meeting will be held on March 24, 2011.

V. Minutes of the Commission's regular meeting of February 14, 2011.

Motion 11-03-14-2 (Ward/Hayon): Moved, seconded and passed (4-0) that the Commission adopt the minutes of the Commission's regular meeting of February 14, 2011.

Public Comment:

None.

VI. Executive Director's Report.

Executive Director St. Croix stated that the April and May meetings will probably be slightly longer. He stated that he recently attended the budget meeting regarding the public financing campaign fund. He stated two candidates have already qualified for public financing.

Public Comment:

David Pilpel stated that the Commission should include in the Executive Director's report a list of items for future meetings.

VII. Items for future meetings.

Executive Director St. Croix stated that the Commission will put an agenda item on a future meeting regarding priorities.

Public Comment:

None.

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

Ray Hartz stated that he received a dismissal letter from a complaint on November 15, 2010. He stated that part of the justification was reliance on the Good Government Guide. He stated that the Good Government Guide is not a law and cannot be used as a justification to ignore a law. [Mr. Hartz also submitted a written statement which has been included at the end of these minutes.]

IX. Adjournment.

Motion 11-03-14-3 (Studley/Hayon): Moved, seconded and passed (4-0) that the Commission adjourn.

Public Comment:

None.

Meeting adjourned at 7:01 PM.

Respectfully submitted,

_________________

Garrett Chatfield

Recording - April 11, 2011 - Ethics Commission Meeting

Tue, 12 Apr 2011 13:33:30 -0700

Recording - April 11, 2011 - 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 - February 14, 2011

Tue, 15 Mar 2011 15:01:50 -0700

Minutes of the Regular Meeting of
The San Francisco Ethics Commission
February 14, 2011
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 5:34 PM. She stated that Commissioner Hansen was excused from the meeting. She stated that Commissioner Hansen’s term ended, but that there has been no new appointee for her position and she is able to continue serving on the Commission.

COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Jamienne Studley, Chairperson; Beverly Hayon, Commissioner; Benedict Y. Hur, Commissioner; Charles Ward, Commissioner. Commissioner Hansen was excused.

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

OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY: Mollie Lee, Deputy City Attorney.

OTHERS PRESENT: Unidentified members of the public.

MATERIALS DISTRIBUTED:
- Memorandum from the Executive Director re: Fiscal Year 2011/2012 Budget Request, dated February 9, 2011.
- Staff memorandum re: Audit Selection of Year 2010 Committees, dated February 9, 2011.
- List of 2010 Audit Pool.
- Draft Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the San Francisco Ethics Commission on January 10, 2011.
- Executive Director’s Report to the Ethics Commission for the Meeting of February 14, 2011.

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

Chairperson Studley stated that the Commission would allocate three minutes to each person for public comment. She also stated that there would be time for public comment during each agenda item as well.

III. Budget Discussion.

Executive Director St. Croix stated that the Mayor’s Budget office asked the Commission to make serious cuts to next year’s budget. He stated that the Commission needs to be respectful that the City is in a budget crisis, but that the Commission is also an independent agency. He stated that he proposed the same strategy as last year and the year before last. He proposed to present a budget without the requested 10% cuts. He stated that the proposal is to make a 2.5% reduction in this year’s budget as a down payment for next year’s budget. He stated that he would like to present this year’s budget and not ask for anything more and that, ultimately, the decision would be up to the Mayor’s Office and the Board of Supervisors. He stated that all cuts would come out of personnel and fringe benefits, as there are no other available funds. He stated that the highest priority of the office is to conduct audits. He also stated that the election campaign fund is separate from the operating budget and the money does not commingle.

Chairperson Studley stated that the balance was a reasonable one and consistent with what the Commission has done in the past. She stated that the budget discussions may be more difficult this year than any other year.

Motion 11-02-14-1 (Hayon/Ward): Moved, seconded and passed (4-0) that the Commission accept the Executive Director’s strategy on the 2011-2012 budget request.

Public Comment:
None.

IV. Selection of Random Audits of 2010 Committees.

Executive Director St. Croix stated that there were three categories of committees and that staff will not audit committees with financial activity less than $10,000. He stated that staff can perform seven audits, in addition to the 20+ audits that are being conducted of the candidates who received public financing. Mr. St. Croix stated that staff recommends conducting four audits of committees whose activity was over $100,000 and three audits of committees whose activity was between $10,000 and $100,000. He also stated that the committee “Carole Migden for Democratic County Central Committee 2010” should not be included in the audit pool list.

Chairperson Studley asked whether the audits of committees (based on financial activity) were comparable to previous years. Ms. Shaikh stated that the odds are 13% higher for the committees in the higher financial activity level and 6% lower for the middle activity level. She stated that staff chose a larger percentage of committees with higher activity levels. Commissioner Hur asked whether there would be a material difference in the amount of work between auditing a committee with $100,000 or more in activity and one with less financial activity. Ms. Shaikh stated that each committee is different and some are more organized than others. Ms. Shaikh then invited a member of the public to help with the audit selection, who read the names of the committees in the audit pool from slips of paper and them in a box for random selection.

The member of the public read the names of the committees in the first category (those with activity above $100,000): Standing Up for Working Families, No on B, A Coalition of Teachers, Nurses Firefighters, Public Employees and Health Care Advocates; Yes on Proposition B; Standing Up to Save San Francisco - No on Measures B and K/Yes on Measures J and N, a Coalition of Teachers, Nurses Public School Parents and Labor Organizations; San Franciscans for a Better MUNI, Yes on G; Economic Recovery San Francisco, No on J & N; San Francisco Earthquake and Disaster Response Plan - Yes on B; Coalition for Civil Sidewalks – Yes on L - No on M 2010; San Francisco Firefighters Local 798, No on B; Coalition to Stimulate the Economy, No on N; Committee to Preserve Rental Housing, No on F; Janet Reilly for District 2 Supervisor 2010; Mark Farrell for District 2 Supervisor 2010; Phil Ting for Assessor 2010; Carmen for Chu for Supervisor 2010; Service Employees International Union Local 1021 Issues PAC; San Francisco Democratic County Central Committee; San Francisco Police Officers Association Issues PAC; Coalition for Sensible Government with Major Funding by San Francisco Association of Realtors; San Francisco Forward Sponsored by San Francisco Chamber of Commerce; Teachers, Nurses, MUNI riders, Neighbors and Working Families supporting Mandelman for Supervisor 2010 sponsored by Labor Organizations; Common Sense Voters, SF 2010, Vote for Mark Ferrell for District 2 Supervisor; Alliance for Jobs and Sustainable Growth, A Coalition of Labor Unions and Business Associations Supporting Scott Weiner for Supervisor 2010; Alliance for Jobs and Sustainable Growth, A Coalition of Labor Unions and Business Associations Supporting Steve Moss for Supervisor 2010; San Francisco Labor Council Labor and Neighbor Independent Expenditure PAC; Alliance for Jobs and Sustainable Growth, A Coalition of Labor and Business Associations Supporting Theresa Sparks for Supervisor 2010; Friends Supporting Debra Walker for Supervisor 2010, sponsored by Labor Organizations; San Francisco Labor and Neighbor Member Education/Political Issues Committee, sponsored by the San Francisco Labor Council; Golden Gate Restaurant Association PAC ; San Francisco SOS PAC; and Municipal Executive Association of San Francisco PAC.

The following four committees were randomly chosen for audit from this pool:

Standing Up to Save San Francisco - No on Measures B and K/Yes on Measures J and N, a Coalition of Teachers, Nurses Public School Parents and Labor Organizations
Phil Ting for Assessor 2010
San Francisco Forward Sponsored by San Francisco Chamber of Commerce
San Francisco Labor and Neighbor Member Education/Political Issues Committee, sponsored by the San Francisco Labor Council

The member of the public then read the names of the committees in the second category (those with activity between $10,000 and $100,000): Why Tuesday San Francisco - Yes on I 2010; San Francisco Rising Committee to Support San Francisco Measures D, E, I, J, N, and opposing San Francisco Measures B, G, K, and L, a Coalition of Community Organizing Groups Working for Low-Income People of Color in San Francisco; Yes on Measure A 2010; Yes on Prop D; Sidewalks Are For People – A Committee Opposed to Proposition L; Tenants for Fair Rents, A Committee to Support Proposition F; Committee to Support Our City College - Yes on A; Murase for School Board 2010; Margaret Brodkin for School Board 2010; Natasha Hoehn for Board of Education 2010; Committee to Re-Elect Supervisor Alioto-Pier 2010; Laura Spanjan for Supervisor 2010; Re-Elect Public Defender Jeff Adachi 2010; Hydra Mendoza for School Board 2010; Lawrence Wong for College Board 2010; Re-elect Dr. Anita Grier Community College Board 2010; Diane Wesley Smith Campaign for Supervisor District 10; Glendon Anna Conda Hyde for District 6 Supervisor 2010; Matt Drake for Supervisor 2010; Re-Elect Kim-Shree Maufas to Board of Education 2010; John Rizzo for Community College Board 2010; Campaign to Elect Stephen Weber District 10 Supervisor 2010; James Pan for Assessor 2010; Committee to Elect Norman for Supervisor 2010; Rachel Norton for Board of Education; Supervisor Michela Alioto-Pier Legal Defense Fund; Coleman Action Fund for Children Committee; San Francisco Labor Council Labor & Neighbor; San Francisco Women's Political Committee; D10 Forward, sponsored by the San Francisco Building and Construction Trades Council; Clean SF; San Francisco Building and Construction Trades Council Political Organization of Workers for Employee Rights (POWER PAC); Protect Our Benefits; San Francisco Apartment Association PAC, sponsored by San Francisco Apartment Association; San Francisco Young Democrats; New Day for San Francisco; District 11 Democratic Club; Sierra Club San Francisco Bay Chapter Campaigns; San Francisco Parent PAC; San Francisco Building and Construction Trades Council Political Organization of Workers for Employee Rights Political Issues Committee (POWER PIC); Bay Area Firefighters PAC Fund Opposing Mark Ferrell for Supervisor 2010; Noe Valley Democratic Club; San Francisco Small Business Advocates; Asian Pacific Democratic Club PAC; Richmond District Democratic Club; and Committee on Jobs Candidate Advocacy Fund.

The following three committees were randomly chosen for audit from this pool:

Noe Valley Democratic Club
Protect Our Benefits
Laura Spanjan for Supervisor 2010

Ms. Shaikh and Chairperson Studley thanked the member of the public for her assistance.

Public Comment:
None.

V. Election of Chair and Vice-Chair.

Chairperson Studley stated that the position of Chair has a two-year maximum, with one-year intervals. Commissioner Ward nominated Commissioner Hur for Chair of the Ethics Commission. Commissioner Hur stated that he would be honored to serve as Chair of the Commission. Commissioner Ward stated that he thought Commissioner Hur would do a fine job as Chair.

Public Comment:
A member of the public stated that he had never attended a meeting before and asked to hear some more information about Commissioner Hur.

Commissioner Hur stated that he is an attorney in private practice. He stated that he has served on this commission for about a year. He stated that he is a former Coro Fellow in San Francisco. He also stated that he was a graduate of Harvard and Stanford Universities. He stated that he also serves on the Board of Directors of Bay Area Community Resources.

All four Commissioners present voted in favor of Commissioner Hur becoming Chair of the Ethics Commission for the next year. Chairperson Studley congratulated Commissioner Hur and applauded his commitment to the people of the City of San Francisco.

Commissioner Ward nominated Commissioner Studley for Vice-Chair of the Commission. Chairperson Studley thanked Commissioner Ward and stated that she would be happy to continue working with the Commission in that way.

Public Comment:
None.
Chairperson Studley stated that she was the President and Chief Executive Officer of Public Advocates, Inc., a non-profit advocacy group based in San Francisco. She stated that Public Advocates focuses on education, housing, and transit justice for low-income people. She stated that she was a graduate of Harvard Law School and Barnard College. She stated that she has served as general counsel for United States Department of Education and had been President of Skidmore College. She stated that she had served on several boards prior to the Ethics Commission and had been sitting on the Commission for five years.

All four Commissioners present voted in favor of Chairperson Studley becoming Vice-Chair of the Ethics Commission for the next year. Chairperson Studley stated that the change in leadership would go into effect at the next meeting (Editor’s note: effective March 1, 2011).

VI. Closed session.

Chairperson Studley stated that there are some matters that are meant to be confidential that the Commission hears in closed session.

Motion 11-02-14-2 (Ward/Hur): Moved, seconded and passed (4-0) that the Commission enter into closed session.

Public Comment:
None.

[Entered CLOSED SESSION at 6:07 PM.]

[Break at 7:31 PM.]
[Return from break at 7:38 PM.]

[Returned from CLOSED SESSION at 7:54 PM.]

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

Motion 11-02-14-3 (Hur/Ward): Moved, seconded and passed (4-0) that the Commission finds that it is in the best interests of the public not to disclose its closed session deliberations re: anticipated and existing legislation.

Public Comment:
None.

VIII. Minutes of the Commission’s regular meeting of January 10, 2011.

Chairperson Studley stated that she had one amendment to the minutes, regarding the first public comment under Item II of the agenda. She stated that the last sentence on the bottom of page 1 should be changed and staff agreed to make the appropriate changes.

Motion 11-02-14-3 (Hayon/Ward): Moved, seconded and passed (4-0) that the Commission adopt the minutes of the Commission’s regular meeting of January 10, 2011, as amended.

Public Comment:
None.

IX. Executive Director’s Report.

The Executive Director stated that he had provided a copy of an informal advice letter to the Commissioners. He stated that these letters offer no protection to the person seeking the informal advice, since the letters do not require Commission approval. He stated that he would be happy to answer any questions regarding the advice letter.

X. Items for future meetings.

Chairperson Studley advised that the Commissioners should advise the Executive Director or the new Chair about any items they wish to hear at a future meeting.

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 11-02-14-4 (Hur/Ward): Moved, seconded and passed (4-0) that the Commission adjourn.

Public Comment:
None.

Meeting adjourned at 8:00 PM.

Respectfully submitted,

_________________
Catherine Argumedo

Recording - March 14, 2011 - Ethics Commission Meeting

Tue, 15 Mar 2011 13:54:14 -0700

Recording - March 14, 2011 - 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 - January 10, 2011

Thu, 17 Feb 2011 15:19:32 -0800

Minutes of the Regular Meeting of
The San Francisco Ethics Commission
January 10, 2011
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 5:34 PM and welcomed the new Commissioner, Beverly Hayon.

COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Jamienne Studley, Chairperson; Eileen Hansen, Commissioner; Beverly Hayon, Commissioner; Benedict Y. Hur, Commissioner. Commissioner Ward was excused from the meeting.

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

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

OTHERS PRESENT: Peter Warfield; Ray Hartz; David Pilpel; Charles Marsteller; and other unidentified members of the public.

MATERIALS DISTRIBUTED:
- Staff memorandum re: Complaint Disposition (No. 01-100115), dated October 14, 2010.
- Staff memorandum re: Proposed Amendments to the Campaign Consultant Ordinance, dated January 6, 2011.
- Draft Campaign Consultant Ordinance amendments, dated January 4, 2011.
- Memorandum from the Office of the City Attorney re: Retention of Outside Counsel for Advice Regarding the 2011 Mayoral Election
- Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the San Francisco Ethics Commission on December 13, 2010.
- Executive Director's Report to the Ethics Commission for the Meeting of January 10, 2011.

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

Ray Hartz stated that section 67.16 of the Sunshine Ordinance states that "any person speaking during the public comment period may supply a brief written summary... which shall, if no more than 150 words, be included in the minutes." He objected to the placement of a written summary as an attachment to the minutes. He asked what the compelling state interest was in refusing to follow the Sunshine Ordinance and refusing to place a summary in the minutes. He stated that the Ethics Commission is enumerated in the Charter and is required to follow Sunshine. He stated that the Good Government Guide gives an opinion that attaching the minutes is sufficient, but the law states "in the minutes." [Mr. Hartz also submitted a written statement which has been included at the end of these minutes.]

Peter Warfield then asked whether he would be permitted to make comments about agenda item 3 now and later. Chairperson Studley stated that the Commission would not address item 3 during the meeting. Executive Director St. Croix stated that the item was to be heard, but staff was unable to reach one of the parties. He stated that the party contacted the office earlier that day and asked for a continuance. He granted the continuance, as the party was unable to come to the meeting.

Chairperson Studley apologized for any inconvenience and for the short notice and asked for public comment.

Peter Warfield stated that he serves on a committee with Ms. Cauthen, but he was not speaking as a member of that committee. He stated that he agreed generally with Mr. Hartz. He stated that the inclusion of the summaries in the minutes is appropriate and intended to permit someone to read along what the person has said.

Mr. Warfield stated that he was extremely disappointed regarding the cancellation of item 3. He stated that his plans have been affected and he would have appreciated some notice. He made several comments regarding staff's memorandum of item 3. He stated that staff stated Ms. Gomez violated section 67.15 of the Sunshine Ordinance, but then later recommended the dismissal of the violation. He informed the Commission of another incident in March where he experienced similar treatment from Ms. Gomez. He stated that staff's memorandum downplayed the incident dramatically. He stated that Ms. Gomez yelled at Ms. Cauthen and asked the Commission to listen to the meeting tape or view the meeting DVD.

Chairperson Studley stated that she allowed Mr. Warfield to speak as though he spoke for two items, as there was a possibility that Mr. Warfield would not be able to return for a future meeting.

Commissioner Hansen asked Mr. Warfield a question about his first point regarding staff's recommendation about Ms. Gomez. She stated that staff's recommendation was not to dismiss the violation against Ms. Gomez, but against Ms. Blackman. Mr. Warfield stated that he was unclear as to why it would be dismissed against either of them, when the violation had occurred. He stated that he raised the question for the Commission to discuss the issue. Chairperson Studley stated that the Commission could not discuss the merits of the item, until it is placed on the agenda.

Mr. Hartz asked whether he would have additional time since Mr. Warfield was given additional time. He stated that he had been at last month's Ethics Commission meeting. He stated that he too had been disrupted by Ms. Gomez and that he had to justify his right to speak. He stated that Ms. Gomez would not come to the Ethics Commission to explain her behavior. He mentioned a Police Commissioner who had also committed a Sunshine and Brown Act violation and failed to explain his behavior.

III. Consideration of Ethics Complaint No. 01-100115, alleging that the Library Commission, through its representative Secretary Sue Blackman, violated Sunshine Ordinance sections 67.15(a) and 67.34 by failing to allow public comment at a Library Commission meeting, and section 67.21(e) by failing to send a knowledgeable representative to Task Force hearings.

Item continued.

Public Comment:
None.

IV. Consideration of possible amendments to the Campaign Consultant Ordinance ("Ordinance"), San Francisco Campaign and Governmental Conduct code section 1.500 et seq.

Decision Point 2
Commissioner Hansen stated that she had concerns regarding this decision point, as the voters should have full participation. Executive Director St. Croix stated that before going to the voters, this matter must go before the Board and they have to agree to this point as well. He stated that whenever changes are made, sometimes there are unintended consequences and allowing super-majorities would permit the Commission to make the necessary changes without going to the voters.

Chairperson Studley asked the deadline for submitting this item for the November ballot. Mr. St. Croix estimated that the deadline was in June 2011.

Commissioner Hur stated that he saw the benefit of this authority. Chairperson Studley stated that the voters should decide what should come to them. Mr. St. Croix stated that the process of submitting items for the ballot is difficult and once the Commission sends an item for the ballot, the Commission must remain silent on the item. When there are proposed amendments with super-majorities, the Commission is permitted to comment and provide advice. Commissioner Hayon stated that many voters may feel overwhelmed with the number of ballot measures on the ballot, especially measures regarding technical changes with legalese.

Motion 11-01-10-1 (Hur/Hayon): Moved, seconded and passed (3-1; Hansen dissent) that the Commission adopt decision point 2.

Public Comment:
Mr. Pilpel welcomed the new Commissioners. He stated that the changes would be more streamlined and are consistent with other local laws.

Decision Point 3b
Deputy Director Ng stated that Commissioner Hansen expressed interest in returning to the original definition of "candidate" and staff agreed to leave the definition basically unchanged.

Motion 11-01-10-2 (Hayon/Hur): Moved, seconded and passed (4-0) that the Commission adopt decision point 3b.

Public Comment:
Mr. Pilpel asked about the definition of "economic consideration" at the top of page 4 in the draft amendments, but then realized the question was for the next decision point.

Decision Point 3c
Commissioner Hansen expressed concerns regarding the last line of additional language on page 4, "reimburse vendors." Ms. Ng stated that staff recommended the language to match language from a 2001 Ethics Commission advice letter regarding economic consideration. She stated that consultants should not be deemed to have earned that money. Commissioner Hansen stated that the Commission would be assuming the reimbursement occurs and that the vendor pays.

Chairperson Studley asked the purpose of this definition. Ms. Ng stated that this definition would be used in defining the minimum thresholds for a consultant, as well as calculating what the consultant earns. Commissioner Hansen stated that she had concerns regarding hidden costs and the timing of reporting. Ms. Ng stated that the client (campaign committee/candidate) would report payments made on its campaign statements.

Commissioner Hur asked about lines 16-19 on page 4, which were proposed to be removed. Ms. Ng stated that the ordinance was too broad and that staff did not see why these exceptions should still exist. The Commissioners discussed possible scenarios of the proposed stricken language.

Motion 11-01-10-3 (Hansen): Moved and not seconded that the Commission approve only the proposed changes to the definition of "vendor" in section 1.510(i).

Commissioner Hur stated that he was not comfortable changing the definition of "vendor," as there could be unintended consequences.

Public Comment:
Mr. Pilpel stated that regarding "vendor," the relationship between candidates, committees, consultants, and vendors was a complex arrangement. He stated that the definition may exclude someone who would not otherwise qualify as a consultant. He stated that just because there is a vendor and economic consideration does not make the vendor subject to the Ordinance. He stated that "services" are defined elsewhere (in 1.510(b)-(d)) and it all goes together.

Mr. St. Croix stated that the intent was not to have reimbursements considered as income to the consultant. He suggested taking "reimbursements" from line 2, page 4, as well as the last sentence of the definition of "economic consideration." Commissioner Hayon asked why attorneys, accountants, and pollsters were originally excluded from the Ordinance. Mr. St. Croix stated that he did not know why.

Mr. Pilpel stated that some vendors, such as printers, are reluctant to work with campaigns because the campaign may not pay or take a while to pay. He stated that these vendors also do not want the cost becoming a contribution, if the campaign does not pay. He stated that the vendors work with consultants because they know they will be paid. He stated that vendors seek business and are eager to be paid for their work.

Charles Marsteller stated that Mike Housch or Larry Bush may be able to explain the reasons behind the inclusion or exclusion of certain groups in the Ordinance.

Mr. Pilpel stated that if someone is a professional campaign manager and that person is also an attorney, then that person would qualify under the Ordinance because that person is not providing "only legal services." He suggested deleting lines 16-19 from "vendor."

Mr. St. Croix suggested changing the language of the second sentence in "economic consideration" to the following: "Economic consideration does not include reimbursements made to consultants for payments made to vendors." Commissioner Hur suggested deleting the second sentence, if there were other ways to limit the payments, such as a time limit. Mr. St. Croix agreed with removing the second sentence. Ms. Ng suggested adopting regulations to clarify "reimbursements." Commissioner Hansen suggested adding a time frame for the reimbursements. Mr. St. Croix suggested adding "made on a timely basis."

Mr. Marsteller stated that a common issue is where a mail house will advance postage to a committee and not bill the consultant and/or campaign committee. He stated that would be an accrued debt, but the Commission now has an accrued debt limit.

DCA Shen reminded the Commissioners that the definition of "economic consideration" is important in order to determine whether a consultant qualifies under the Ordinance. He expressed concerns including words like "timely" or "reasonable."

Motion 11-01-10-4 (Hur/Hansen): Moved and seconded that the Commission adopt decision point 3c, except that the phrase "reimbursements for expenses" be stricken from the first sentence and the second sentence be stricken in its entirety, and that the Commission adopt regulations after further research to clarify this issue.

Public Comment:
Mr. Pilpel approved of the changes, but stated that the language is duplicative and unnecessary.
Mr. Marsteller stated that staff may have a difficult task regarding the timeliness question.

The Commissioners discussed the possibility of kickbacks or commissions from vendors to consultants.

Motion 11-01-10-5 (Hur/Hansen): Moved, seconded and passed (4-0) that the Commission adopt decision point 3c, except to strike the phrase "reimbursement for expenses" from line 2, page 4, and strike the additional proposed language and the second sentence of the definition of "economic consideration"; in addition, the Commission proposes that staff research the issue of providing anything else of value for the potential for reimbursements that are not made in a long period of time and draft regulations.

Public Comment:
None.

Mr. Marsteller suggested adding examples into the campaign consultant manual in order to clarify this issue.

Decision Point 7
Commissioner Hur stated that section 1.525(b) – evasion of obligations – seemed vague and was too broad. Ms. Ng stated that the language mirrored that which is in the Lobbyist Ordinance. Commissioner Hansen noted that the decision point incorrectly referenced lines 12-18 on page 11 of the draft amendments, when it actually referenced lines 3-9 on page 12 of the draft amendments.

Motion 11-01-10-6 (Hansen/Hayon): Moved, seconded and passed (3-1; Hur dissent) that the Commission adopt decision point 7.

Public Comment:
Mr. Marsteller stated that the FPPC may have experience with the evasion question.

Decision Point 10
Commissioner Hur stated that he did not see "preponderance of the evidence" in the draft amendments. Staff agreed to add the language "on the basis of a preponderance of the evidence" in line 15, page 14 where "on the basis of substantial evidence" used to be.

The Commissioners then discussed the proposal to delete language in section 1.540(c) allowing the Commission to cancel the registration of any campaign consultant who has violated the registration or reporting requirements of the Ordinance for up to one year. Ms. Ng stated that the administrative penalty mirrors that in CFRO and that the monetary penalty would be sufficient. She also stated that it had never been used. Commissioner Hur expressed concerns that there was no limitation on the Commission to cancel a consultant's registration. Mr. St. Croix suggested adopting regulations to limit the Commission's ability to do so.

Mr. Pilpel stated that the language in lines 11-14 on page 15 was strange.

Mr. Marsteller stated that the cancellation of someone's registration was a severe sanction.

Motion 11-01-10-7 (Hansen/Hur): Moved, seconded and passed (4-0) that the Commission adopt decision point 10, except for the fourth bullet point from staff's memorandum.

Public Comment:
None.

Motion 11-01-10-8 (Hur/Hansen): Moved, seconded and passed (4-0) that Commission staff consider regulations that would provide guidance when that power would be used by the Commission.

Public Comment:
None.

Decision Point 17
Commissioner Hur clarified that the decision point would take everything discussed at this meeting and during December's meeting into account.

Motion 11-01-10-9 (Hayon/Hur): Moved, seconded and passed (4-0) that the Commission adopt decision point 17.

Public Comment:
Mr. Pilpel stated that line 12 on page 5 may need to be changed; he suggested "employee." Chairperson Studley stated that line 14 on page 5 was being changed. Mr. St. Croix stated that would be taken under consideration. Mr. Pilpel stated that subsections 7 and 8 of section 1.515(b) were unlikely. He also encouraged the Commission to add the requirement for a consultant to disclose whether s/he or any employee serves as an officer or director of a general purpose recipient committee and, if so, to require the consultant to list the name of the organization. He stated that he suggested that the Commission require disclosure and not prohibit it.

V. Possible retention of the Oakland City Attorney's Office as legal counsel to advise the Ethics Commission on matters that directly involve the election or campaign in the November 2011 municipal election for Mayor of the City and County of San Francisco.

Executive Director St. Croix stated that staff would like the Commission's approval on this arrangement, so that staff would have someone if any questions are raised regarding the mayoral race. DCA Shen clarified the nature of the firewall within the Office of the City Attorney. He stated that the City Attorney's office would handle general questions regarding public financing and campaign finance, without the assistance of Dennis Herrera. He stated that the City Attorney's office would not be involved in specific questions regarding the mayoral race.

Motion 11-01-10-10 (Hayon/Hansen): Moved, seconded and passed (4-0) that the Commission retain the Oakland City Attorney's Office as legal counsel to advise the Ethics Commission on matters that directly involve the election or campaign in the November 2011 municipal election for Mayor of the City and County of San Francisco.

Public Comment:
Mr. Pilpel stated that Mr. Morodomi previously worked for the FPPC and asked whether the written agreement was a public document.

DCA Shen stated that there may not be a need for a written agreement.

VI. Closed session.

Motion 11-01-10-11 (Hansen/Hur): Moved, seconded and passed (4-0) that the Commission enter into closed session.

Public Comment:
Mr. Marsteller stated that he had a comment, but missed the earlier item for general public comment. He stated that there may be coordination for ranked-choice voting. He stated that there may be deployment of public financing resources to ranked-choice tickets and coordination between committees. He suggested that the Commission hold interested persons' meetings about it.

Mr. Pilpel stated that he had questions regarding the budget, but then stated that it was not on the agenda. He then asked about the item to be discussed during closed session. DCA Shen stated that there was a constitutional challenge to the public financing program.

[Entered CLOSED SESSION at 8:13 PM.]

[Returned FROM CLOSED SESSION at 8:27 PM.]

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

Motion 11-01-10-12 (Hur/Hansen): Moved, seconded and passed (4-0) that the Commission finds that it si in the best interests of the public not to disclose its closed session deliberations re: existing legislation.

Public Comment:
None.

VIII. Minutes of the Commission's regular meeting of December 13, 2010.

Motion 11-01-10-13 (Hansen/Hur): Moved, seconded and passed (4-0) that the Commission adopt the minutes of the Commission's regular meeting of December 13, 2010, without discussion.

Public Comment:
None.

IX. Executive Director's Report.

Executive Director St. Croix stated that February's meeting will be on Valentine's Day. He stated that there had been a probable cause hearing scheduled, but that has been continued. He stated that another probable cause hearing is scheduled for February and is expected to take the majority of the meeting time. He stated that the Commission will need to consider the annual budget at the February meeting. He stated that the Commission was required to submit $53,000 in savings from this year's budget and that was approved. He stated that there have already been many questions regarding public financing for the Mayoral race and there is a training scheduled for the end of January 2011.

Mr. St. Croix then stated that this meeting may be the last meeting that Commissioner Hansen would attend as a Commissioner, but that she may remain on the Commission in February and March. He stated that he wanted to thank her for her tenure. Chairperson Studley stated that she appreciated Commissioner Hansen's tenacity and candor and her work on the Commission. Commissioner Hur stated that he appreciates hearing her comments and views and agrees with Chairperson Studley and the Executive Director.

Commissioner Hansen stated that at times it was a struggle, but that she has had a phenomenal six years. She stated that she was appreciative to have been able to serve the City in this way. She stated that she hopes her replacement would work well with the other Commissioners and that s/he would continue in the same vein. She stated that she hopes that the Commission sets the bar high enough so that other cities would follow and thanked the Commissioners for their service.

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 11-01-10-14 (Hayon/Hansen): Moved, seconded and passed (4-0) that the Commission adjourn.

Public Comment:
None.

Meeting adjourned at 8:35 PM.

Respectfully submitted,

_________________
Catherine Argumedo

This summary statement was provided by the speaker, Ray Hartz. The content is neither generated by, nor subject to approval or verification of accuracy by, the Ethics Commission.

The placement of this summary, as an attachment to the minutes, violates the clear wording of the Sunshine Ordinance. The Ethics Commission has made specious arguments to justify this variance from the law. The Brown act clearly states, “…any attempt to restrict the content of such speech must be narrowly tailored to effectuate a compelling state interest.” It goes on to say, “…that prohibiting critical comments was a form of viewpoint discrimination.” Further, “such a prohibition promoted discussion artificially geared toward praising (and maintaining) the status quo, thereby foreclosing meaningful public dialogue.” The placement of public comment summaries, in variance with the law, is intended to relegate those comments to a position of secondary validity. In reality, it serves no other purpose. Does anyone believe that a member of the commission would, objecting to how their comments were reported in the minutes, be denied the opportunity to correct the record?

Recording - February 14, 2011 - Ethics Commission Meeting

Tue, 15 Feb 2011 10:08:54 -0800

Recording - February 14, 2011 - 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 - December 13, 2010

Wed, 12 Jan 2011 16:20:47 -0800

Minutes of the Regular Meeting of
The San Francisco Ethics Commission
December 13, 2010
Room 408, City Hall
1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place
San Francisco, CA 94102

1. Call to order and roll call.

Chairperson Studley called the meeting to order at 5:38 PM.

COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Jamienne Studley, Chairperson; Eileen Hansen, Commissioner; Benedict Y. Hur, Commissioner; Charles Ward, Commissioner. Commissioner Susan Harriman resigned from the Commission on November 18, 2010.

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

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

OTHERS PRESENT: An unidentified member of the public.

MATERIALS DISTRIBUTED:
- Staff memorandum re: Proposed Amendments to the Campaign Consultant Ordinance, dated December 3, 2010.
- Draft Campaign Consultant Ordinance amendments, dated December 2, 2010.
- Current Campaign Consultant Ordinance, San Francisco Campaign and Governmental Conduct Code section 1.500 et seq.
- Chart regarding changes between existing and proposed Campaign Consultant Ordinance.
- Copy of Proposition G from Voter Information Pamphlet from Consolidated Municipal Election on November 4, 1997.
- Minutes of the Special Meeting of the San Francisco Ethics Commission on October 18, 2010.
- Executive Director’s Report to the Ethics Commission for the Meeting of December 13, 2010.
- Staff memorandum to the FPPC re: comments regarding proposed reform topics, dated November 30, 2010.

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

None.

III. Consideration of possible amendments to the Campaign Consultant Ordinance, San Francisco Campaign and Governmental Conduct code section 1.500 et seq.

Chairperson Studley thanked staff for its proposal and background of the Ordinance. She stated that the item may need to be divided into two meetings.
Decision Point 2
Commissioner Ward stated that this decision point may be the most significant of all of the changes. He asked for the compelling reason to make the change. Deputy Director Ng stated that the process for making legislative changes is easier with a super-majority at the Commission level and also at the Board of Supervisors. She stated that the same time-saving changes had been made to both the campaign finance reform ordinance (CFRO) and the Government Ethics Ordinance (GEO).

Commissioner Ward then asked how the item(s) would be presented to the voters. Ms. Ng stated that the proposal would most likely be submitted as one item and the voters would vote yes or no. Executive Director St. Croix stated that the Commission makes frequent changes to CFRO. He stated that if the Commission did not have the authority to amend, all amendments would need to wait for the next election. Chairperson Studley asked what the limitations of the scope of changes the Commission would be permitted to make. Deputy City Attorney Shen stated that there is no limitation, unless the Commission chooses to restrict itself. Commissioner Hansen stated that she did not support taking the ability to amend this ordinance away from the voters. Commissioner Ward agreed with Commissioner Hansen. Chairperson Studley asked whether the Commission would be able to present alternatives to the voters, rather than one yes-or-no item. DCA Shen stated that the Commission would be able to do so, although he stated that voters may be confused by two similar items on the ballot.

The Commission suspended discussion of this decision point until the end of the item.

Decision Point 3a
Commissioner Hur stated that part of the definition of “campaign consultant” was ambiguous. He stated that the provision on page 3, line 3 is fine without the added phrase, regarding employees of a campaign consultant. Staff agreed that the sentence would read “[t]he term “campaign consultant” does not include employees of a campaign consultant, attorney who provide only legal services…”

Commissioner Hansen did not agree with increasing the amount of economic consideration from $1,000 to $5,000. Ms. Ng stated that staff was recommending a flat fee for all campaign consultants and any consultant that earns $1,000 would be required to pay a $500 fee. She stated that very few consultants earn less than $5,000 in a calendar year. Ms. Argumedo stated that three consultants out of 47 registered consultants earned less than $5,000 in 2010. Commissioner Hur stated that the change to $5,000 was appropriate. Commissioners Ward and Studley agreed.

Motion 10-12-13-1 (Hur/Ward): Moved, seconded and passed (3-1; Hansen dissent) that the Commission adopt decision point 3a, except to exclude the phrase on line 3, page 3.

Public Comment:
None.

Decision Point 5a
Commissioner Ward asked what the original intent was for having a campaign consultant register with the Tax Collector. Ms. Ng stated that she researched the question but did not find an answer.

Commissioner Hur asked about the added language in section 1.515(a)(4), “any other employee of the campaign consultant’s employer.” He asked who was intended to be affected by the language. Commissioner Ward stated that he could envision a scenario where someone works for a firm that is not a campaign consultant firm and is running someone else’s campaign. Commissioner Hur stated that raising the threshold for campaign consultant registration may alleviate some of the burden, as the requirement may be unduly onerous. He stated that the requirement may have a deterrent effect on someone performing as a campaign consultant as a side job. Commissioner Hansen stated that the requirement should remain in place, as the connections between campaign consultants and lobbyists are important ones.

Commissioner Hur suggested removing the phrase “or any other employee of the campaign consultant’s employer” in line 15 on page 5 of the proposed ordinance.

Motion 10-12-13-2 (Hur/Ward): Moved, seconded and passed (3-1; Hansen dissent) that the Commission adopt decision point 5a, as amended.

Public Comment:
None.

Decision Point 5b-1
Chairperson Studley asked about the attendance at the interested persons’ meetings. Ms. Ng stated that two individuals attended, but that no one raised any comments regarding monthly reporting.

Motion 10-12-13-3 (Hansen/Ward): Moved, seconded and passed (4-0) that the Commission adopt decision point 5b-1.

Public Comment:
None.

Decision Point 5b-2
Commissioner Hansen raised concerns regarding deletions from the current ordinance. She stated that the majority of the deletions occur under decision point 5d.

Motion 10-12-13-4 (Hur/Ward): Moved, seconded and passed (4-0) that the Commission adopt decision point 5b-2.

Public Comment:
None.

Decision Point 5d
Chairperson Studley asked how the fees compare to the lobbyist fees. Ms. Ng stated that the lobbyists fees are $500 and that the Commission had lowered the amount in its initial proposal, but that the Board of Supervisors raised the fees to $500. Ms. Ng stated that staff had debated whether to increase the threshold to $10,000 rather than $5,000, but decided on $5,000 after the interested persons’ meetings. She suggested requiring different fees based on the consultant’s earnings.

Commissioner Hansen asked the reason for removing the client fee from the Ordinance. She stated that all consultants should pay a fee. Commissioner Ward stated that removing the client fee would not create a loss of revenue, as most consultants earn much higher than the proposed threshold. Ms. Ng stated that the client fees do not raise that much money. Commissioner Hansen suggested raising the fees to $1,000, $500, and $250, based on the current three tiers for earnings. Commissioner Ward stated that the fees should have some relationship to the cost of administering the program. Ms. Argumedo stated that most consultants have one or two clients. She also stated that 17 consultants that have already reported receiving over $20,000 this year. Commissioner Hur suggested a $200 fee for consultants making below $10,000 and $500 for consultants making more than $10,000 in a calendar year.

Motion 10-12-13-5 (Hur/Ward): Moved, seconded and passed (4-0) that the Commission adopt decision point 5d, except that those campaign consultants who earn $10,000 or less per calendar year pay a $200 registration fee and those campaign consultants who earn over $10,000 pay a $500 registration fee.

Public Comment:
None.

[Break at 7:20 PM.]

[Return from break at 7:28 PM.]

Decision Point 6

Motion 10-12-13-6 (Hansen/Ward): Moved, seconded and passed (4-0) that the Commission adopt decision point 6.

Public Comment:
None.

Decision Point 8
Commissioner Hur asked for a clarification of the second sentence of proposed section 1.530. Ms. Ng stated that this section would apply to all consultants. Mr. St. Croix suggested adding that “the Executive Director shall report any additional training to the Commission.”

Motion 10-12-13-7 (Hansen/Ward): Moved, seconded and passed (4-0) that the Commission adopt decision point 8, as amended.

Public Comment:
None.

Decision Point 9

Motion 10-12-13-8 (Hansen/Ward): Moved, seconded and passed (4-0) that the Commission adopt decision point 9, without discussion.

Public Comment:
None.

Decision Point 16

Motion 10-12-13-9 (Hansen/Ward): Moved, seconded and passed (4-0) that the Commission adopt decision point 16, without discussion.

Public Comment:
None.

Decision Point 5f
Ms. Ng stated that staff suggested deleting this provision because the restricted source rule generally does not apply to campaign consultants. She also stated that there is no state or local law that bans giving a gift that is worth $420 or less. She stated that all office-holders are required to report gifts received with a value of $50 or more. She stated that only two gifts have ever been reported. Commissioner Hansen stated that campaign consultants should not be permitted to give gifts.

Motion 10-12-13-10 (Hur/Ward): Moved, seconded and passed (3-1; Hansen dissents) that the Commission adopt decision point 5f.

Public Comment:
None.

Decision Point 5g

Motion 10-12-13-11 (Hansen/Hur): Moved, seconded and passed (4-0) that the Commission adopt decision point 5g, without discussion.

Public Comment:
None.

Decision Point 5h

Motion 10-12-13-12 (Hansen/Hur): Moved, seconded and passed (4-0) that the Commission adopt decision point 5h.

Public Comment:
None.

Decision Point 5i
Commissioner Hansen suggested clarifying the language rather than deleting the provision. Commissioner Ward stated that he would not delete this provision at this time. Ms. Ng asked that the Commission adopt regulations in the future to clarify this provision.

Decision Point 5j
Commissioner Hur stated that it would be useful for the public to know whether a City officer was being employed by a consultant to promote a ballot measure. Commissioner Hansen agreed. DCA Shen stated that the office-holder would be required to report any income over $500. Commissioner Hur stated that the report is annual and voters may not know until after an election.

Decision Point 5k
Commissioner Hansen stated that there is a public interest in knowing information about City contracts, even if it is unlikely and reported elsewhere. Commissioner Ward agreed.

Decision Point 5l
All four commissioners agreed to retain this requirement.

Chairperson Studley stated that the remaining decision points are 1, 3b, 3c, 3d, 5c, 5e, 7, and 10-15. Commissioner Ward stated that he would like to discuss decision point 10. Commissioner Hur stated that he would like to discuss decision points 7 and 10. Commissioner Hansen stated that she would like to discuss decision points 3b, 3c, 7, and 10.

Decision Point 3b
Commissioner Hansen stated that she would like to include City officers running for state offices. Ms. Ng stated that staff would return with an updated definition of “candidate” at the next meeting.

Chairperson Studley suggested that the commissioners e-mail staff or the Executive Director with any questions on the remaining decision points to discuss at the next meeting.

Decision Points 1, 3c, 5c, 5e, 11-15

Motion 10-12-13-13 (Hansen/Hur): Moved, seconded and passed (4-0) that the Commission adopt decision points 1, 3d, 5c, 5e, and 11-15.

Public Comment:
None.

The Commission will discuss decision points 2, 3b, 3c, 7, and 10 at its next meeting.

IV. Election of Vice-Chair.

Chairperson Studley stated that Commissioner Harriman has resigned, as she now resides outside of San Francisco. She stated that former Commissioner Harriman was a wonderful commissioner and a thoughtful chair. She stated that her clarity helped the Commission to handle matters and think about procedure for those issues. Commissioner Hur read a statement from former Commissioner Harriman. Former Commissioner Harriman thanked the Commission and was grateful for having the opportunity to work with the commissioners and staff. She stated that each commissioner has the qualities that each San Francisco resident would want for a commissioner.

Chairperson Studley stated that her resignation left a vacancy and suggested electing a vice-chair. Commissioner Ward nominated Commissioner Hur. Chairperson Studley nominated Commissioner Hansen. She stated that Commissioner Hansen’s term was ending in two months and her long service has not been recognized. Commissioner Hur stated his appreciation for Commissioner Ward’s nomination, but stated that he would defer to Commissioner Hansen. Commissioner Hansen deferred to Commissioner Hur, as he would remain on the Commission.

No action was taken.

Public Comment:
None.

V. Minutes of the Commission’s special meeting of October 18, 2010.

Motion 10-12-13-14 (Hansen/Hur): Moved, seconded and passed (4-0) that the Commission adopt the minutes of the Commission’s special meeting of October 18, 2010.

Public Comment:
None.

VI. Executive Director’s Report.

Executive Director St. Croix stated that all departments have been ordered by the Mayor’s Budget Office to reduce each budget by 10%, plus an additional provisional 10% reduction.

He stated that there will be changes to the public financing program that the Commission will need to discuss. He also stated that there have been four new complaints from the October meeting to the current meeting.

He also discussed the interested persons’ list. He stated that staff has converted to a new and better system.

Chairperson Studley asked to discuss the public financing program at a future meeting.

Commissioner Hansen had several budget questions for a future meeting and asked about the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force. She asked whether there would be another joint meeting. She also asked about an attached FPPC letter.

VII. Items for future meetings.

Chairperson Studley stated that the commissioners should e-mail her or Mr. St. Croix with 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.

None.

IX. Adjournment.

Motion 10-12-13-15 (Hansen/Hur): Moved, seconded and passed (4-0) that the Commission adjourn.

Public Comment:
None.

Meeting adjourned at 8:23 PM.

Respectfully submitted,

_________________
Catherine Argumedo

Recording - January 10, 2011 - Ethics Commission Meeting

Tue, 11 Jan 2011 11:38:48 -0800

Recording - January 10, 2011 - Ethics Commission Meeting (40.7 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 - December 13, 2010 - Ethics Commission Meeting

Tue, 14 Dec 2010 15:03:12 -0800

Recording - December 13, 2010 - Ethics Commission Meeting (38.3 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.

Minutes - October 18, 2010

Tue, 14 Dec 2010 09:50:45 -0800

Minutes of the Special Meeting of
The San Francisco Ethics Commission
October 18, 2010
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 6:33 PM.

COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Jamienne Studley, Chairperson; Susan Harriman, Vice-Chairperson; Eileen Hansen, Commissioner; Charles Ward, Commissioner; Benedict Y. Hur, Commissioner.

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

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

OTHERS PRESENT: Ray Hartz, Charles Marsteller, Esther Marks, Anita Mayo; and other unidentified members of the public.

MATERIALS DISTRIBUTED:
- Staff memorandum re: Complaint Disposition, dated October 14, 2010;
- Staff memorandum re: Executive Director’s report and recommendation regarding Campaign and Governmental Conduct Code section 1.126, dated October 6, 2010;
- Staff memorandum re: Amendment to GEO section 3.216(d) – deadline for reporting gifts of travel, dated September 8, 2010;
- Staff memorandum re: Proposed amendment related to gift cards from restricted sources, dated September 8, 2010;
- Draft Minutes of the September 13, 2010, Regular Meeting of the San Francisco Ethics Commission;
- Executive Director’s Report to the Ethics Commission for the Meeting of October 18, 2010.

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

Ray Hartz stated that this was his first time before the Ethics Commission, but intends to come to every meeting. He stated that all City commissions state on their agendas that the public should know their rights under Sunshine, yet all disregard the law. He stated that the Rent Stabilization Board does not record its meetings. He stated that it still does not record meetings after the Sunshine Task Forces stated that it should. He stated that at Police Commission meetings he was continually interrupted. He stated that he believed in the U.S. Constitution. He stated all City commissioners take an oath to defend the U.S. Constitution.

Charles Marsteller stated that he believed it was a problem that the Ethics Commission cannot bring legislation forward under its own name. He stated that the Board of Supervisor rules could be amended to change this issue. He stated that potential problems could arise once proposed legislation goes to the Board of Supervisors due to politics.

III. Consideration of Ethics Complaint No. 01-100115, alleging that the Library Commission, through its representative Secretary Sue Blackman, violated Sunshine Ordinance sections 67.15(a) and 67.34 by failing to allow public comment at a Library Commission meeting, and section 67.12(e) by failing to send a knowledgeable representative to Task Force hearings.

Chairperson Studley stated that Item III was postponed for discussion due to illness. She stated that matter will be scheduled for a subsequent Ethics Commission meeting.

IV. Consideration of possible amendments to section 1.126 of the Campaign and Governmental Conduct Code relating to the regulations of campaign contributions made by City contractors.

DECISION POINT 1a:

Commissioner Hur asked whether staff considered tailoring section 1.126 to exclude contracts put through a competitive bidding process. He stated this seemed the best way to avoid “pay for play” activity.

Executive Director St. Croix responded to Commissioner Hur stating that staff did not consider excluding contracts subject to competitive bidding, and did not have information as to the percentage of City contracts that are subject to the competitive bidding process. He stated that if the Commissioners wanted that analysis, staff could present the proposed amendments with that information.

Commissioner Harriman stated that she was unsure if Commissioner Hur’s suggestion would serve the purpose of this section, and she stated that she would like to know the percentage of contracts subject to competitive bidding. She further stated that she did not have enough information to determine the likelihood of “pay to play” occurring during the competitive bidding process. She stated that it might be over inclusive and would be willing to look at that information.

In response to Chairperson Studley, Executive Director St. Croix stated that there is no time element driving this change.

Commissioner Harriman stated that the Commission could move forward at this meeting, and address Commissioner Hur’s concerns at a later date.

Executive Director St. Croix confirmed that the Commission could decide on some of the proposed amendments at this meeting and address others at a later meeting as they do not need to be decided as a group.

Commissioner Hansen stated that it was her understanding that most City contracts go through the competitive bidding process. She stated that due to that fact, she is unsure how this amendment would relieve any burden on staff.

Commissioner Hur stated that, regarding decision point one, he is not clear on the rationale to exempt non-profits from this section.

Executive Director St. Croix stated that many non-profits obtain funding from the City, and many of the board members of these non-profits are politically active. He stated that the Commission had received intense public criticism that those board members are currently restricted from participating in the political process while also participating in community organizations.

Commissioner Hur stated that, while he understands the issue raised by the Executive Director, it does not necessarily follow that non-profits are unlikely to be affected by “pay to play” type activity, as many do receive large contracts from the City.

Commissioner Harriman stated that board members of non-profits do not have a personal financial stake in obtaining a City contract, thus the personal profit motivation is significantly diminished.

Chairperson Studley stated that there is a relationship between a non-profit obtaining a City contract and its ability to compensate its senior staff. She stated she is not advocating either for or against the amendment at this point, but there could a benefit in other ways, apart from a direct personal financial benefit, when a City contract is awarded to a non-profit that could influence those members.

Executive Director St.Croix stated that anytime money is involved there is a risk that someone could attempt to use the funds for personal enrichment. He stated that the potential for corruption is diminished when non-profits are involved. He stated that the Ethics Commission is tasked with the enormous job of consistently informing a continually changing set of persons of the restrictions. He stated the Ethics Commission’s resources are better spent on actively policing for-profit entities. He stated that if a complaint is filed against an individual involved in a non-profit entity regarding “pay to play” activity, the information will be available to Enforcement staff in order to conduct an investigation.

Commissioner Hur stated that the fact that the information is public could be enough of a deterrent. He stated that it might be worth considering raising the limit on for-profits compared to non-profits, rather than an outright exemption.

Commissioner Harriman stated that constitutional issues could be raised by any restriction on non-profit or for-profit entities.

Deputy City Attorney Givner stated that any court would apply the same analysis by looking at whether the City has a compelling interest in applying the law in this manner.

Commissioner Ward stated that non-profits do not have the same financial motivation as for-profits entities. He stated that public policy should favor participation in the political process and community service.

Commissioner Hur stated that he agreed the motivation is different; however, he is concerned that money awarded to any type of entity is in the public trust and must be protected. He stated the possibility for corruption increases as the amount of money at stake increases.

Commissioner Ward stated that most non-profits are awarded contracts to replace services that are traditionally provided by the City. He stated that the risk of corruption related to non-profit entities is less than for-profit entities.

Commissioner Hansen stated that she sees the issue as whether or not the Ethics Commission should treat non-profit and for-profit entities in the same manner. She stated that the Commission had a previous discussion that suggested the Commission should treat all entities in the same way. She stated that Commissioner Ward correctly articulated the difference between the two types of entities. She stated that the other issue is that of enforcement. She stated that at the time this issue first arose the Commission was not enforcing this section. She stated once the decision was made to enforce this section, the Commission received complaints from the non-profit community. She stated that the Commission realized that it was virtually unenforceable, and that what she has heard at this meeting is that the Commission is not going to enforce this section due to the lack of resources of the Commission.

Executive Director St. Croix stated that it was the actual reporting requirements that were not enforced earlier, and that the Commission did make the decision to enforce the reporting requirements and staff will continue to do that. He stated that the information will be available in the event that a complaint is raised; however, the Commission does lack the resources to actively cross-check every filing but will actively pursue any complaint that may occur.

Commissioner Hansen stated that she does not see that as a deterrent. She stated that people will not take the reporting requirement seriously if there is no active enforcement on each filing. She stated that there were people in attendance at this meeting that would like to specifically address this issue. She stated that she has heard from members of the public that they will continue to make political contributions if the Ethics Commission will not enforce this section.

Executive Director St. Croix stated that this section has been described as unenforceable and that is where members of the public may be getting that idea.

Commission Hansen stated that some press accounts have stated that this section is unenforceable.

Public Comment:

Esther Marks stated that she was disturbed by Commissioner Hur’s comments regarding non-profit entities. She stated that there should be no barriers placed upon people’s political contribution who also serve on non-profit boards. She stated that she was offended that Commissioner Hur’s comments are contrary to public policy.

Anita Mayo stated that the current law is confusing and has an unintended negative impact on non-profit board members who now have to choose between civic participation and the ability to make political contributions.

Ray Hartz stated that not every person who serves on a non-profit board has altruistic reasons for doing so. He stated that many people serve on boards for selfish reasons. He stated the members of the Board of Appeals do not have to know any building codes and are merely there to rubber-stamp recommendations. He stated that the law at issue should be enforced.

Charles Marsteller stated that the Sunshine Ordinance requires that some non-profit meetings be open to the public. He stated that the Ethics Commission should be careful when it attempts to amend voter-approved provisions.

Commissioner Hansen asked Executive Director St. Croix after public comment if the Ethics Commission has ever received a complaint regarding “pay for play” type activity by a non-profit entity. Executive Director St. Croix stated that, although he cannot comment on any current investigation due their confidential nature, there has never been a complaint of this type filed with the Ethics Commission.

Motion 10-10-18-1 (Harriman/Ward): Moved, seconded and passed (5-0) to adopt Decision Point 1a as proposed by staff.

DECISION POINT 1b:

Executive Director stated that this provision is not yet codified into law, but reflects the Commission’s current policy.

Motion 10-10-18-2 (Harriman/Ward): Moved, seconded and passed (5-0) to adopt Decision Point 1b as proposed by staff.

Public Comment:
None.

DECISION POINT 2:

Commissioner Hansen stated that there is a history of problems regarding state agency appointees. She stated that one appointee had to resign his seat because he violated this law. She stated that these are large state agencies that have the potential to run into “pay to play” issues.

Public Comment:

Anita Mayo stated that one of the most difficult provisions to comply with is the one that prohibits contributions when the contract is with the state agency and an appointee of the elected official sits on the agency’s board. She stated that the average person is unaware of this provision and that contributions to that officer are prohibited under this provision.

Charles Marsteller stated that there have been issues with “pay to play” and appointees. He stated that the Commission should consider calendaring this matter to discuss additional staffing to address this issue. He stated that he was glad this amendment was not proposed in 1995, as enforcement of it was always a concern.

Commissioner Harriman stated that, although sympathetic to Commissioner Hansen’s concerns, it is unclear how the average person subject to this provision is supposed to be aware of it.

Commissioner Ward stated that a person appointed to a state commission is not your average person.

Commissioner Harriman clarified that it not the appointee she is concerned about, but the contracting party that falls subject to this provision.

Executive Director St. Croix stated that there is a degree of separation regarding agency contracts. He stated that in order for any “pay to play” activity to occur the officer would have to go through an intermediary. He stated that it could happen, but it is very unlikely.

Executive Director St. Croix responded to a question by Commissioner Hansen stating that there is currently no staff plan to do outreach to affected individuals regarding this provision. Staff includes language on all Requests for Proposals regarding this law.

Motion 10-10-18-3 (Harriman/Hur): Moved, seconded and passed (4-1, Hansen dissenting) that the Ethics Commission adopt Decision Point 2 as proposed by staff.

DECISION POINT 3:

Commissioner Hansen asked if there was any information on the record of the rationale for the increase in the contract amount.

Executive Director St. Croix stated that the amount of $100,000 was the next logical increase in amounts.

Commissioner Hansen stated that she would rather the rationale be based on something less arbitrary.

Deputy City Attorney Givner stated that the City Charter requires the Board of Supervisors or the Mayor to approve of contracts over $10 million. He stated that occasionally contracts of lesser amounts require mayoral approval because it is required by the Charter or some other provision.

Executive Director St. Croix acknowledged that the amount of $100,000 is arbitrary, but was chosen to reduce the burden on staff without negating the law.

Commissioner Hur stated that it appeared to be a balancing of benefit and burden. He asked Executive Director St. Croix what was the number of filings between $50,000 and $100,000.

Executive Director St. Croix responded the amount is approximately 50 to 60 per year. He also stated that contract amounts are generally rising each year.

Motion 10-10-18-4 (Harriman/Ward): Moved, seconded and passed (5-0) that the Ethics Commission adopt decision point 3 as proposed by staff.

Public Comment:

Charles Marsteller asked if the Information Technology staff had considered using tapes to record data, such as is being used at the University of San Francisco.

DECISION POINT 4a:

Executive Director St. Croix stated that this provision is a technical amendment and will allow for consolidated filing.

Motion 10-10-18-5 (Hur/Harriman): Moved, seconded and passed (5-0) that the Ethics Commission adopt decision point 4a as proposed by staff.

Public Comment:
None.

DECISION POINT 4b:

Executive Director St. Croix stated that this provision will allow a designated employee to sign off on reports for the Mayor and Board of Supervisors.

Chairperson Studley stated that she wanted to ensure that this change does not affect the legal responsibility of the person making the report if a designee signs off on the report.

Deputy City Attorney Givner responded to Chairperson Studley stating that the legal responsibility will not be affected.

Motion 10-10-18-6 (Harriman/Ward): Moved, seconded and passed (5-0) that the Ethics Commission adopt decision point 4b as proposed by staff.

Public Comment:
None.

DECISION POINT 5:

Commissioner Hansen stated that she wanted more information on why staff characterized this requirement as unnecessary and unrealistic.

Executive Director St. Croix stated that the phrase “before initiating negotiations” is in itself an amorphous requirement. He stated that the amendment is an attempt to identify a specific point in time in which the requirement is triggered. He stated that staff’s intent is to clarify this uncertainty.

Chairperson Studley stated that without a specific definition to determine when the requirement is triggered, a contractor would not know when or how to comply.

Commissioner Hansen stated that many discussions between contractors and departments occur prior to the first meeting.

Executive Director St. Croix stated that staff will diligently work with departments to educate them on the requirement.

Deputy City Attorney Givner stated that all City Requests for Proposals include language regarding this provision.

Commissioner Hansen stated that she would like information on whether current contractors are complying with the provision.

Executive Director St. Croix stated that it is difficult to know if compliance is occurring at this point, but with a clear definition, staff will be better able to follow-up on a contractor’s compliance.

Commission Hansen stated that she would like to ensure that staff enforces this provision.

Motion 10-10-18-7 (Hur/Harriman): Moved, seconded and passed (5-0) that the Ethics Commission adopt decision point 5 as proposed by staff.

Public Comment:

Anita Mayo stated that currently contractors have no tangible guidelines, so this is a welcome amendment. She stated that the language regarding the contractor ban on contributions, section 1.126, is too broad and could be read to reach into state and local elections.

Commissioner Hansen stated that she would like to see section 1.126 put on a meeting agenda for discussion. She also stated that she wanted to ensure that the definition for “contract” includes all contracts and grants.

Executive Director St. Croix stated that the definition of “contracts” already includes grants.

Deputy City Attorney Givner stated that the language in the draft amendments does delete the word “grant” from the definition of “contract” but that there was no vote at this meeting on that change.

Commissioner Hansen stated that because non-profits are now exempt, “grant” may no longer be needed in the definition of “contract.” She also stated any amendments the Commission makes must strengthen rather than weaken any given provision.

Deputy City Attorney Givner stated that amending a provision by scaling it back might actually further the purpose of the law. He stated that it is a policy judgment that the Commission and the Board of Supervisors are charged with making.

V. Consideration of possible amendments to the Government Ethics Code (“GEO”), San Francisco Campaign and Governmental Conduct Code section 3.216(d), related to disclosure requirements for gifts of travel.

Executive Director St. Croix stated that this is a continuation of a previous discussion regarding this provision. He stated that, currently, elected officials must report who is funding travel and for how much before any given trip. He stated that because the total cost of travel before a trip is unknown, the elected official must estimate the expenses and then re-file the same disclosure as an amendment after the trip. He stated that the benefit of disclosure prior to travel is that the public is made aware of the trip and who is funding the travel. He continued by stating that by making the official file twice, it is duplicative, and often the official has very short notice of upcoming travel, and that weighing the benefit to burden, staff is proposing to only require disclosure after travel.

Chairperson Studley stated that the concern of notice to the public of upcoming travel might be satisfied via an elected official’s public calendar.

Executive Director responded to a question from Commissioner Ward stating that an official’s public calendar must include the identity of the person with whom the official is meeting, where, when, and the purpose of the meeting.

Commissioner Hansen stated that, although an official must keep a calendar, it is not required to be disclosed unless requested by a member of the public. She stated that it has been brought to her attention that the public is more concerned with who else attends a trip, such as lobbyists, rather than who is the actual sponsor.

Executive Director St. Croix stated that, often, an official will not know who else is attending a trip until the official arrives.

Chairperson Studley asked Executive Director St. Croix on whether or not staff considered approaching this disclosure as a two-part process. He responded stating that the current process is, in effect, already a two-part process and that the intent was to reduce the duplicative filing burden on staff.

Responding to Commissioners Harriman and Hur, Executive Director St. Croix stated that officials generally do not know the costs of travel prior to leaving, and in order to comply, they must file the disclosure using their best guess as to the amount. He stated that if the Commission was to require a two-part process in which the sponsor is first disclosed and then the cost of travel, that would not be any real change than what is already happening in practice.

Commissioner Ward stated that it appears the change in the provision is being requested by staff because it is burdensome upon staff, and not necessarily a burden on the filer.

Executive Director St. Croix stated that, as the law is currently applied, even if the official has no information regarding the trip and cannot obtain it prior to leaving, they are in violation of the law if they do not file something, even if it is just a guess and will be significantly amended post travel.

Executive Director St. Croix stated that if the Commission wants, he will look at a two-part process more in line with what has been discussed at this meeting.

Chairperson Studley stated that the most important aspect is that the public is noticed of the trip prior to the official leaving.

Commissioner Hansen stated that the issue is not the total cost of the travel. She stated that it is more important to disclose who is funding the trip and who will be attending the trip.

Executive Director St. Croix stated that he will revise this proposal taking into account the discussion that occurred at this meeting and bring it to the Commission at a later date.

Public Comment:
None.

VI. Consideration of possible amendments to Ethics Commission Regulation 3.216(b)-5 to provide that gift cards and gift certificates are not deemed cash gifts under the exemption to the ban on gifts from restrict sources.

Executive Director St. Croix stated that this item was continued from a prior meeting and has not yet been resolved. He stated that the proposal is to clarify what type of gift card may be treated as cash for the purposes of gift limits. He stated that the proposed amendment is just one solution; however, he primarily would like the Commission to determine how to treat gift cards so there is clarity on this issue.

Commissioner Harriman stated that there is a difference between a store specific card and a general value card that may be used like a Visa or MasterCard. She stated the general value card should be treated as cash as it is as portable as cash.

Commissioner Studley stated that a store specific card has very little value to the recipient if it is not from a business that the recipient frequents. She stated that an individual could be presented with a choice of store specific cards, and choose one that is relevant to the recipient, which would be essentially the same thing as a cash gift. She stated that she would like to see the gift limit reduced to zero.

Commissioner Hansen stated that she views any gift card as equivalent to a cash gift.

Motion 10-10-18-8 (Hansen/Ward): Moved, seconded and passed (4-1, Harriman dissenting) that, for the purposes of subsection 3.216(b)-5, a gift card is a cash gift.

Public Comment:

Charles Marsteller stated that the Commission should seek the advice of Deputy City Attorney Givner as to what is legally sufficient. He also asked Executive Director St. Croix if staff was strongly concerned with obtaining its proposed position on this matter.

Executive Director St. Croix stated that staff merely wanted clarity as to how to treat gift cards.

Chairperson Studley stated that the Commission understood that staff needed clarity on this issue.

Commissioner Ward stated that small amounts can add up. He stated for example, someone could receive multiple $25 cards for a specific store that would not be considered as cash, and would just create a loophole to be exploited.

VII. Minutes of the Commission’s Regular Meeting of September 13, 2010.

Motion 10-10-18-9 (Hansen/Harriman): Moved, seconded and passed (5-0) that the Ethics Commission adopt the Minutes of the Ethics Commission’s Regular Meeting of September 13, 2010.

Public Comment:
None.

VIII. Executive Director’s Report.

Executive Director St. Croix stated that significant public financing funds are being distributed to campaigns for the upcoming election. He stated that the Ethics Commission will likely surpass $2 million in distributed funds. He stated that staff currently projects that next year’s mayoral race will likely surpass $5.4 million in distributed public financing. He stated that staff is currently working hard to police all campaigns during the run-up to the current election. He stated that independent expenditure committees have been extremely active during this campaign cycle and the ceiling amounts are being adjusted every day.

In response to Commissioner Hansen’s question regarding whether or not staff knows the total amount of money being spent, he stated that staff must know the total amount in order to adjust the expenditure ceilings. He stated that some third parties that should file are not, so staff has initiated a network throughout the city to collect electioneering communications in order to police this activity.

In response to Chairperson Studley, Executive Director St. Croix stated that this election has produced the largest number of candidates he has seen since his tenure began and has been the busiest for staff to police and administer.

Chairperson Studley requested that Executive Director St. Croix relay to staff that the Commissioners appreciate all of staff’s effort and hard work.

Public Comment:

Charles Marsteller asked Executive Director St. Croix if he could comment on the chart of enforcement actions listed in the Executive Director’s report.

Executive Director St. Croix stated that he cannot comment on confidential complaints.

IX. Items for future meetings.

Executive Director St. Croix responded to Commissioner Harriman stating that the discussion regarding Sunshine Ordinance regulations is planned for the November meeting.

Commissioner Hansen stated that Ray Hartz raised an issue in his public comment regarding the failure of the Rent Stabilization Board to record its meetings. She stated that issue is of some concern and requested that staff look into the matter. She stated that she would like to have a discussion regarding the Ethics Commission’s ability to independently propose legislation.

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

None.

XI. Adjournment.

Motion 10-10-18-10 (Studley/Hur): Moved, seconded and passed (5-0) that the Commission adjourn.

Public Comment:
None.

Meeting adjourned at 8:30 PM.

Respectfully submitted,

__________________________
Garrett Chatfield

Minutes - September 13, 2010

Thu, 21 Oct 2010 08:58:34 -0700

Minutes of the Regular Meeting of
The San Francisco Ethics Commission
September 13, 2010
Room 408, City Hall
1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place
San Francisco, CA 94102

I. Call to order and roll call.

Vice-Chairperson Harriman called the meeting to order at 5:32 PM. Chairperson Studley and Commissioner Ward were excused from the meeting.

COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Susan Harriman, Vice-Chairperson; Eileen Hansen, Commissioner; Benedict Y. Hur, Commissioner.

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

OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY: Mollie Lee, Deputy City Attorney.

OTHERS PRESENT: Edward Donaldson; Matt Drake; Kristine Enea; and other unidentified members of the public.

MATERIALS DISTRIBUTED:
- Staff memorandum re: Appeal to the Ethics Commission of the Executive Director’s Decision Not to Certify Candidates as Eligible to Receive Public Financing, dated September 9, 2010;
- Draft Minutes of the August 9, 2010 Regular Meeting of the San Francisco Ethics Commission;
- Draft Minutes of the August 26, 2010 Special Meeting of the San Francisco Ethics Commission;
- Executive Director’s Report to the Ethics Commission for the Meeting of September 13, 2010.

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

Kristine Enea stated that she is a candidate for Supervisor in District 10. She stated her interest in having a competitive race and asked the Commission to approve Edward Donaldson for public financing.

III. Consideration of Candidate Appeals – a number of candidates for Supervisor have been denied participation in the Public Finance program because staff determined that they did not meet participation requirements.

Commissioner Harriman stated that the Executive Director had denied applications of both Matt Drake and Edward Donaldson for failure to file statements by the August 6, 2010 deadline. She asked to hear from both candidates.

Edward Donaldson’s Appeal

Edward Donaldson stated that he is a candidate for District 10 Supervisor. He stated that he had filed the intent to participate form and did so at the time he presented his initial papers at the Ethics Commission. Commissioner Harriman asked when he filed those documents. Mr. Donaldson stated that he filed the documents on January 4, 2010. He stated that he has been a strong advocate for public financing. He stated that he had a clean money campaign on Facebook. He stated his understanding that 13 people had applied for public financing in District 10. He stated that it was ironic that he was advocating for public financing and then was told he did not file the appropriate documents. He stated that he was certain he completed the form and filed it. He stated that he made a mistake in not keeping a copy of what he had filed. He stated that he assumed the Commission would be a good steward of the filings. He stated that there is a possibility that someone made a mistake. He stated that he had received a phone call from the Department of Elections about withdrawing his candidacy. He stated that the person from the Department of Elections made a mistake and perhaps this is the case with his form at the Ethics Commission. He again stated that he filed the form on January 4, 2010.

Commissioner Harriman asked Mr. Donaldson what he filed on that date. He stated he filed the Intent to File in paper form. Mr. Donaldson stated that he was unsure whether he kept a copy of the form he filed. He stated that his office is being renovated and that he has looked for the filing.

Assistant Deputy Director Shaikh stated that she spoke with Mr. Donaldson and that he had told her he filed the statement of participation earlier in the year. Ms. Shaikh stated that the Commission had no record of that filing. She stated that he had told her that he had a date-stamped copy and that his copy was in storage. She stated that she had advised him to look for the copy, but to file this appeal in case he was unable to find the copy.

Mr. Donaldson stated that he was unsure whether he has a copy of the filing. Commissioner Harriman asked how Mr. Donaldson was certain of the date he filed it. He stated that he had been an advocate of public financing and, when he was presented with the form, he signed it and filed it then. Ms. Shaikh stated that he had told her that he filed the Statement of Participation when he filed his Form 501. Ms. Shaikh stated that he filed Form 501 in February 2010. Ms. Shaikh stated that she checked with the Department of Elections and Mr. Donaldson had filed a Declaration of Intent with them on January 4, 2010. Ms. Shaikh stated that the Declaration of Intention to solicit or accept contributions is a different form from the Statement of Participation in the Public Finance program.

Ms. Shaikh also addressed an e-mail Mr. Donaldson mentioned about a training. She stated that staff had used an old e-mail and included him when he had already attended the training. Mr. Donaldson stated that, although the e-mail is not relevant to this appeal, a mistake was made and the form may have been lost due to human error.

Commissioner Hur asked Mr. Donaldson when he first learned that his application was denied. Mr. Donaldson stated that he was informed on September 2, 2010. Mr. Donaldson acknowledged that he signed a Statement of Participation on August 24, 2010, when he submitted the rest of his public financing application. Commissioner Harriman stated that the Commission needed to determine whether or not the form was filed timely, by the August 6, 2010 deadline.

Executive Director St. Croix stated that it was within the realm of possibility that staff error could have caused a form to be lost. He stated, however, that it was not likely. He stated that he could not change his recommendation without documentation provided by the Committee. Ms. Shaikh agreed.

Commissioner Hur asked whether there was a rule as to how early one could file the document. Ms. Shaikh stated that the law did not provide for that; the law required that the form be filed by the 88th day before the election.

Commissioner Hansen asked if there was a system in place that records information, such as when people file forms. Ms. Shaikh stated that there is a campaign log. She stated that staff enters the name of the form received, along with the date filed and date due; staff also attaches the form in pdf format. She stated that this information is available to the public. Commissioner Hansen asked whether there was any discussion about this filing when Mr. Donaldson filed the other documents on August 24, 2010. Ms. Shaikh stated that staff stamped and accepted the forms, but the auditors did not review the documents. She stated that the auditors noticed at a later date that the statement of participation was not filed by August 6, 2010.

Commissioner Hansen agreed with Commissioner Harriman regarding the decision depending on the date he filed the form. Mr. Donaldson stated that he was adamant about filing the form and that he could look for the form again.

Commissioner Hansen stated that the Commission has every interest in trying to provide public financing to candidates, but that the Commission has deadlines. She stated that the Commission needed to be fair to all candidates and did not see a way to change a deadline. Mr. Donaldson asked the Commission to take into consideration that human error is possible in this case. Commissioner Hur stated that he was sympathetic and that it sounds like Mr. Donaldson is a worthy candidate for District 10. He stated that it would be difficult to make an exception to the clear rule. Mr. Donaldson stated that he had filed every other required document to that point. Commissioner Harriman stated that she agreed with the other Commissioners – the Commission could not have one set of rules for one candidate and one set for another. She stated that the Commission’s opinion would change if he had proof of filing the document.

Matt Drake’s Appeal

Mr. Drake stated that he could not find a piece of paper that is date-stamped. He stated that his situation was very similar to Mr. Donaldson’s case. He stated that he is confident that he filed the document. He stated that he filed it, but did not have a copy. He stated that he noticed that it had not been filed and so he filed it again. He stated that it was not a substantive issue, as he had raised the money. Commissioner Harriman stated that the Commission was going to enforce the law as it is written.

Ms. Shaikh stated that Mr. Drake spoke with one of the auditors, who sent the rejection letter. She stated that he had never indicated that he had previously filed the form and that he said it was only two weeks late. Mr. Drake stated that he had asked the auditor whether he was able to make substantive arguments for this appeal and he was told that he could only submit a notice of his appeal with no substantive arguments (or paper filings). Commissioner Harriman stated that this was the first time Mr. Drake had mentioned filing the form before August 2010. Mr. Drake stated that he is making the same argument as Mr. Donaldson. He also stated that he does not know when he filed it.

Commissioner Harriman stated that the Commission was not going to reverse the Executive Director’s decision for him to look for a copy of the filing. She stated that staff has not determined whether he would qualify for public financing, but that if he or Mr. Donaldson found the paper, then the Commission would meet again quickly. She stated that staff would review their submissions, only after that time.

Public Comment:
Kristine Enea, candidate for District 10 Supervisor, provided information about the Form 142(a).

IV. Minutes of the Commission’s regular meeting of August 9, 2010 and special meeting of August 26, 2010.

Motion 10-09-13-1 (Hansen/Hur): Moved, seconded and agreed (3-0) that the Commission approve the minutes of the August 9, 2010 regular meeting and August 26, 2010 special meeting, without discussion.

Public Comment:
None.

V. Executive Director’s Report.

Executive Director St. Croix stated that staff has made progress on drafting amendments to the Campaign Consultant Ordinance. He stated that a draft has been prepared and that Interested Persons’ meetings have been scheduled in Room 408 for November 18, 2010 (5 to 7 PM) and November 29, 2010 (noon to 2 PM). He stated that the draft amendments would be presented to the Commission at the December 2010 meeting, with the target of getting the item on the November 2011 ballot.

Mr. St. Croix stated that the Mayor’s Budget office has taken 1% of every department’s budget and put it on reserve. The Commission may no longer be able to hire temporary staff for the election cycle.

Commissioner Hansen asked about item 3C, regarding BDR collections. She stated that one current candidate is on this list and asked to know what policies, if any, were in place about informing the public of which candidates have outstanding fines. Mr. St. Croix stated that a section of people in arrears may not be legally possible, but all information is currently available to the public. Commissioner Harriman suggested asking one of the Deputy City Attorneys about the Commission’s ability to limit candidates from running for office if they had outstanding fines. DCA Lee stated that the Commission needs to avoid engaging in political activity and so it needs to be clear that the Commission is not targeting specific candidates.

VI. Items for future meetings.

Commissioner Harriman suggested adding the previous topic (candidates with outstanding fines) onto the list for future meetings. She noted that the agendas were full for the October and November 2010 meetings. Mr. St. Croix stated that staff could look into adding something on the Commission’s website or other common outlets.

Commissioner Harriman asked the Commissioners to contact Chairperson Studley if they had any other 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.

None.

VIII. Adjournment.

Motion 10-09-13-2 (Hur/Hansen): Moved, seconded and passed (3-0) that the Commission adjourn.

Public Comment:
None.

Meeting adjourned at 6:29 PM.

Respectfully submitted,

__________________________
Catherine Argumedo

Recording - October 18, 2010 - Ethics Commission Meeting

Tue, 19 Oct 2010 13:13:53 -0700

Recording - October 18, 2010 - Ethics Commission Meeting (28.5 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 - September 13, 2010 - Ethics Commission Meeting

Tue, 05 Oct 2010 10:11:45 -0700

Recording - September 13, 2010 - Ethics Commission Meeting (13.9 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 - August 26, 2010

Wed, 15 Sep 2010 11:08:04 -0700

Untitled Document

Minutes of the Special Meeting of
The San Francisco Ethics Commission
August 26, 2010
Room 400, 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 6:05 PM.

COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Jamienne Studley, Chairperson; Susan Harriman, Vice-Chairperson; Eileen Hansen, Commissioner; Benedict Y. Hur, Commissioner; Charles Ward, Commissioner.

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

OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY: Mollie Lee, Deputy City Attorney.

OTHERS PRESENT: John Arntz, Director of the Department of Elections; Mike Hennessey, San Francisco Sheriff; Charley Marsteller; Brent Turner; and other unidentified members of the public.

MATERIALS DISTRIBUTED:

Staff memorandum re: whether proposed ballot measure will have a material effect on Sheriff Department employees, dated August 24, 2010.
Memorandum from Catherine Dodd, Director of the Health Service System, re: assessment of the impact of the recently proposed City Charter Amendment, “The Sustainable City Benefits Reform Act”

II. Consideration of the request by the Department of Elections for a determination by the Ethics Commission, under Charter section 13.104.5, whether a proposed Charter amendment that would increase employee contributions to the Retirement System, decrease employers’ contributions to the Health Service System and change rules for arbitration proceedings about City collective bargaining agreements will have a “material financial effect” on the Sheriff or uniformed personnel in his office.

Chairperson Studley thanked everyone for attending the meeting for this piece of urgent business. Executive Director St. Croix stated that the Commission needed to make a decision under Charter section 13.104.5, determining whether a proposition in the November 2010 election would have a material financial effect on Sheriff’s personnel. He stated that staff has not found that the proposition would create a material financial effect and its recommendation was made accordingly. He recognized that John Arntz, Director of Elections, and Sheriff Hennessey were present at the meeting. Chairperson Studley asked to hear from both of them.

John Arntz, Director of the Department of Elections, stated that he was happy to answer any questions regarding the Sheriff’s role on Election Day and before and after Election Day. He stated that his department meets with the Sheriff’s office to discuss security. He stated that one meeting has already occurred. He stated that the Sheriff would have command of the deputies. He stated that, after the election, the deputies are in charge of security of the ballots and they work closely with the Department of Elections.

Commissioner Hansen asked about the feasibility in terms of cost of an alternative plan to the Sheriff’s Department providing security, and whether there had been research on an alternative plan. Mr. Arntz stated that there had not been any research about an alternative plan at this point. He stated that the Department had previously contemplated it and contacted the National Guard to provide security for the election and ballots. He stated that the City is unable to use federal officers for that purpose. He stated that the Police Department is unable to supply officers either. He stated that the alternative would be to hire private security companies and that the issue with private companies is that one company is unable to provide sufficient personnel. He stated that the City would need to hire 3-4 different companies, as it is such a large job. He stated that the estimated cost would be several hundred thousand dollars, possibly close to a million dollars. He stated that an alternative plan for security would be very challenging.

Commissioner Hansen asked whether an arrangement could be made with another city. Mr. Arntz stated that personnel could not be arranged from another city, as San Francisco is unique in that the Charter requires that the Sheriff’s office oversee the security for the ballots.

Commissioner Hur asked what the Sheriff’s deputies do on election night and afterwards. Mr. Arntz gave a brief account of the Sheriff’s deputies’ duties during previous elections. He stated that approximately 110 deputies pick up the ballots, using City vehicles on prearranged routes to specific precincts. He stated that the ballots are retrieved and transferred to Pier 48, allowing the Department of Elections to trace custody of all ballots. He stated that, during the counting of the ballots through confirmation of the official results, which takes about 30 days, the Sheriff’s deputies are always with the ballots. He stated that the process before the Sheriff’s office involvement was inconsistent and the Department of Elections would have difficulty in locating some ballots. Chairperson Studley stated that the question before the Commission is whether the issues on the ballot will have a material financial effect on the Sheriff’s department.

Sheriff Hennessey stated that he did not believe there would be a conflict, as the Sheriff’s department has provided security for the ballot for several years. He stated that the proposition has a potential effect on all City employees. He stated that the deputies will be and are well trained and will be told not to make any comments to any poll workers or the public regarding their personal feelings about this issue.

DCA Lee stated that the City Attorney’s office agrees with staff’s recommendation. Commissioner Harriman stated that she agreed with staff’s recommendation because the proposition could possibly affect all City employees, not just the Sheriff’s department. She stated that fact lessened the materiality of it.

Commissioner Hur stated that he was less persuaded on the materiality point, but that he agreed with staff’s recommendation. Commissioner Hansen stated that the impact does not need to be a unique impact on the party. She read the proposition as having a material financial impact. She stated that an alternative security plan would be difficult to create, especially as an alternative would be costly. She suggested the Commission determine there would be a material financial effect, but that there would be no alternative security proposal at this time. DCA Lee stated that the Charter is clear in that, if the Commission were to find a material financial effect, then the Elections Commission must adopt an alternative security plan.

Chairperson Studley stated that she supported staff’s recommendation. She stated that the voters intended the Sheriff’s office to provide security. Commissioner Hur asked whether the view among the Commission was that the materiality relates to each individual affected of the department or the department as a whole. He stated that the proposition could have a small impact on each individual, but the effect could be quite large if looking at the whole department. Commissioner Harriman stated that there are so many uncertainties that there is not enough to find materiality. Executive Director St. Croix stated that staff’s recommendation is based on the individuals, as it relates to health care coverage and pension. Commissioner Ward stated that there could be a wide range between how it would impact an individual’s salary. He stated that the Commission is unable to say that the impact would be on the higher end of the range and the effect is uncertain.

Executive Director St. Croix stated that a measure has a “material financial effect” on Sheriff’s Department employees under Charter section 13.104.5 when it (a) has some effect on the employees’ finances, and (b) the effect could be significant enough that it could interfere with the employees’ duty of loyalty to the City in providing security for the ballots. He stated that nothing within the proposition has been negotiated yet. He stated that the Commission should decide whether the proposed changes are enough to corrupt the Sheriff’s office. Chairperson Studley stated that it is uncertain whether there will be a material financial effect, as the employee affected may change health plans and no one knows at this point how much the changes will cost. She suggested asking whether the effect was material enough to override the sworn responsibility of an officer of the law.

Motion 10-08-26-1 (Harriman/Ward): Moved, seconded and agreed (5-0) that the Commission does not find the proposed ballot measure will have a “material financial effect” on the Sheriff or uniformed personnel in his office.

Public Comment:

Charley Marsteller stated that, before Prop E, custody of the ballots transferred from City employees to an officer of the court. He stated that there is a reasonable presumption that the Sheriff’s office can be trusted to do this type of security work in a fair and efficient way. He stated that the public created this body independently in order to establish objective review. He agrees with staff’s analysis.

Brent Turner stated that he applauded the final decision of the Commission. He stated that the Sheriff’s department was preferable to private companies for security issues. He stated that the ballots should be counted at the precinct and that the City should move towards better systems in election reform. Mr. Turner also submitted written comment, which is attached to these minutes.

Chairperson Studley thanked everyone in attendance, including department representatives.

III. Adjournment.

Motion 10-08-26-2 (Harriman/Hur): Moved, seconded and passed (5-0) that the Commission adjourn.

Public Comment:
None.

Meeting adjourned at 6:42 PM.

Respectfully submitted,

__________________________
Catherine Argumedo

Minutes - August 9, 2010

Wed, 15 Sep 2010 10:40:57 -0700

Untitled Document

(Approved 9/13/2010)

Minutes of the Regular Meeting of
The San Francisco Ethics Commission
August 9, 2010
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 5:35 p.m.

Commission Members Present: Jamienne Studley, Chairperson; Susan Harriman, Vice-Chairperson; Eileen Hansen, Commissioner; Benedict Y. Hur, Commissioner; Charles Ward, Commissioner.

Staff Present: John St. Croix, Executive Director; Mabel Ng, Deputy Executive Director; Garrett Chatfield, Investigator.

Office of the City Attorney: Andrew Shen, Deputy City Attorney

Others Present: Ray Hartz and other unidentified members of the public.

Materials Distributed:

Draft Annual Report for the San Francisco Ethics Commission July 1, 2009 – June 30, 2010, and memorandum from Executive Director St. Croix, RE: Annual Report, dated August 4, 2010.
Proposed draft of promotional piece to be submitted to the Department of Elections for inclusion in the November 2010 Election Voter’s Guide.
Draft Minutes of the July 12, 2010, Regular Meeting of the San Francisco Ethics Commission.
Executive Director’s Report to the Ethics Commission for the Meeting of August 9, 2010.
Request for, and Informal Written Opinion, RE: Whether communications with the San Francisco Employees Retirement System on behalf of Michael Kim’s firm, Cendana Capital, would violate the conflict of interest laws of the City and County of San Francisco.

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

Ray Hartz, director of San Francisco Open Government and a veteran of the U.S. Navy, stated that City commissioners and members on all City boards take an oath to defend the U.S. Constitution. He stated that some boards and commissions interfere with the right to public comment and attempt to withhold public documents. He stated that some commissioners are only serving in order to advance either their own, or appointing authority’s, agenda. He stated that only a few commissioners and board members serve in order to advance the public interest.

III. Annual Report. Consideration of the Annual Report for Fiscal Year 2009-2010. (Discussion and possible action.)

Executive Director St. Croix stated that the format for the Annual Report is new and that he hoped it was easier to understand. He solicited feedback from the Commissioners to see if there were any suggested changes.

Vice-Chairperson Harriman stated that she had edits on page 12 beginning with “[d]uring the course of the reporting year.” She stated that it is unclear as to what the Commission is trying to express. She stated that the phrase “from last year” should be added after “reduction in number” and the word “circumstances” should be replaced with “factors.” She stated that the report should state which training modules are available now, and when those not yet available will be ready. She also stated that the final sentence regarding the Education/Outreach Coordinator was not clear.

Executive Director St. Croix stated that the Education/Outreach Coordinator duties that are outlined in the report are new to the Coordinator, and have reduced the amount of time she has available to work on other items.

Vice-Chairperson Harriman stated that a better way to express that would be to say the Coordinator “took on additional tasks which reduced the amount of time she had available for training and outreach.”

Chairperson Studley stated that in that same paragraph there is a reference to the number of trainings and workshops staff conducted during the last year. She stated that a sentence is needed that would indicate something affirmative about what each training’s focus was, or what the actual increase in trainings was over the last year. She stated this is one area in which the Commission receives feedback and that the report should reflect that feedback.

Commissioner Hansen stated that the new format was helpful by making it very clear what the actual changes were from last year. She questioned how the statement on page 13 was determined. Specifically, in the Policy Recommendations section, regarding Education and Communication with the General Public, that there is a “general consensus that these priorities are being adequately addressed.”

Executive Director St. Croix responded to Commissioner Hansen stating that during the June 2010 meeting, the Commissioners came to a consensus that the Commission was appropriately addressing the needs of the public in this area.

Commissioner Hansen stated that it should be clear that it was the Commissioners who came to that “general consensus.” She stated that she believes what is outlined in the policies and priorities should be items that the Commission pursues proactively. She stated that she would like to see additional priorities and that she would like to use this report to determine how the Commission can change its priorities. She stated that she wanted to be certain that it is realistic that the Commission will be able deliver on its promise to revise the Campaign Consultant Ordinance as is stated in the report.

Executive Director St. Croix stated the revision of the Campaign Consultant Ordinance is a major focus this year.

Deputy Executive Director Ng confirmed that the Campaign Consultant Ordinance revisions are a top priority for this year.

Commissioner Hansen questioned Executive Director St. Croix on whether language should be included regarding the remaining policies that will be addressed in the next year.

Executive Director St. Croix responded that the Commission should have a full discussion regarding the any other priorities.

Commissioner Hansen stated that she would like to improve the policy and legislative recommendations that the Commission makes, and inquired whether the Executive Director thought that doing so would be possible in the upcoming year.

Executive Director St. Croix responded that it is difficult to determine, and that the Commission has done a significant amount of work in the recent years revising legislation.

Chairperson Studley stated that the priority list appears appropriately balanced, and that the Commission has completed its priorities in order of importance. She stated that it is important to leave time to deal with unexpected matters. She stated that the report should convey any steps the Commission takes in order to understand how other jurisdictions deal with similar issues. She further stated that the report should reflect the change in Chair and Vice-Chair over the last year, and that on page 12, there was an omission regarding the electronic changes that have been made. She stated that the Commission should attempt to capture how those changes have been implemented.

Commissioner Hur asked Executive Director St. Croix if there was any data that reflected how successful the electronic changes have been and the number of people who access that information.

Chairperson Studley also asked if there was any data on how many people listened to the podcasts. She also stated that on p. 3, the phrase that begins with “[t]he Commission uses a five-year planning format” should be shortened and she suggested it should be replaced with “the Commission uses a five-year planning format to meet the dual needs for the Commission to satisfy its existing mandates.”

Vice-Chairperson Harriman stated that the cover memo should be changed to remove former Commissioner Gusukuma’s name.

Motion 10-08-09-1 (Harriman/Ward): Moved, seconded, and passed (5-0) that the Commission approve the Annual Report with the specified changes.

Public Comment:
Ray Hartz stated that the Annual Report is very typical of most commission reports. There are no benchmarks or goals specified. He stated that this is what occurred in Iraq and Afghanistan, and it is unclear what is to be accomplished there. He stated that he reviewed the items proposed to the Sunshine Task Force regarding changes in how the Commission handles complaints. He stated that the application to make a complaint with the Task Force is too long. He stated that often the members of the Task Force only want to minimally apply the Sunshine Ordinance. He stated that there should not be another hearing after the Task Force has made a determination.

Chairperson Studley stated that she wanted to ensure that the Annual Report accurately reflects the work the Commission has done regarding the Sunshine Ordinance.

Executive Director St. Croix stated that as the regulations for the Sunshine Ordinance are still in development, that work would be reflected in the next annual report.

Chairperson Studley stated that the current Annual Report should state that the Commission is working on those regulations.

IV. Department of Elections Voter Information pamphlet. (Discussion and possible actions.)

Executive Director St. Croix stated that the Department of Elections provides extra pages in its Voter’s Guide that may be available to boards and commissions to promote a board or commission’s work. He stated that submissions are included in the Voter’s Guide on a lottery basis.

Commissioner Hansen stated that this was a good idea and that the proposed text to be submitted accurately covers the Commission’s jurisdiction. She stated that the appearance of the ad could be more interesting.

Vice-Chairperson Harriman stated that she appreciated that the ad was easy to read and did not want the ad to lose its easily readable format by the inclusion of extra artwork.

Commissioner Hur stated that the Commission’s letterhead should be included.

Chairperson Studley agreed with Commissioner Hur that the ad should look more official.

Public Comment:
Ray Hartz stated that he was an election field deputy in 2008 in Bayview. He stated that the African-American community believed the San Francisco Police Department was targeting polling places in order to arrest persons with outstanding warrants. He stated that he witnessed two officers enter the polling place which caused everyone to stop voting. He stated that more outreach should be made to the African-American community.

V. Closed session.

Motion 10-08-09-2 (Harriman/Hur): Moved, seconded, and passed (5-0) that the Commission go into closed session.

Public Comment:
None

VI. 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): Public Employee Performance Evaluation: Executive Director, Ethics Commission.

The Commission went into closed session at 6:12 p.m.
The Commission returned to open session at 6:50 p.m.

VII. Discussion and vote regarding closed session action and deliberations. (Discussion and possible action.)

Motion 10-08-09-3 (Harriman/Hur): Moved, seconded, and passed (5-0) that the Ethics Commission finds that it is in the best interests of the pubic not to disclose its closed session deliberations.

Public Comment:
None.

VIII. Minutes of the Commission’s regular meeting of July 12, 2010. (Discussion and possible action.)

Commissioner Harriman stated that the phrase attributed to her, “Vice-Chairperson Harriman stated that any broad correspondence must be conducted in a fair manner,” does not reflect what she expressed. She stated that she was only concerned that the Commission does not send out spam emails.

Chairperson Studley stated that the phrase attributed to her, “there are mechanisms to send out correspondence to a wide enough audience so as to avoid the perception of bias,” should be changed to “there may be mechanisms . . .” She stated that the minutes for the meeting of July 12, 2010, were brief compared to past meetings’ minutes and suggested that Commissioner’s state any thoughts they may have regarding the format of the minutes. She stated that the compacted sentences in the minutes can blunt the meaning of the idea or point that a Commissioner intended to express.

Chairperson Studley stated that the phrase “regarding that matter” in the last sentence under Item III is too broad and suggested to replace it with “to brainstorm some proposals for letting members of the public know about the Commission’s work and the opportunity to receive information that avoid technology and selectivity concerns and present those options to the Commission.”

Motion 10-08-09-4 (Harriman/Hansen): Moved, seconded and passed (5-0) to approve the minutes of the July 12, 2010, Regular Meeting subject to the proposed revisions.

Public Comment:
None.

IX. Executive Director’s Report. An update of important Ethics Commission staff activities since the previous monthly meeting. (Discussion.)

Executive Director St. Croix stated that an informal written advice letter to Michael Kim was included in this meeting’s agenda packet without a cover memo. He explained that the letter does not require Commission approval. He stated that $1, 800,000 has been set aside by the Mayor’s Office to be restored to the election campaign fund.

Public Comment:
None.

X. Items for future meetings. Commissioners may propose items for future agendas and the Commission may determine the priority of these items. (Discussion.)

Executive Director St. Croix stated that staff has completed the draft Sunshine Ordinance Regulations, but they are being submitted to the Task Force for comment.

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 10-08-09-5 (Hansen/Harriman): Moved, seconded and passed (5-0) that the Commission adjourn.

The meeting adjourned at 6:59 p.m.

Respectfully Submitted,
___________________________
Garrett Chatfield/Investigator

Recording - August 26, 2010 - Ethics Commission Meeting

Fri, 27 Aug 2010 15:31:10 -0700

Recording - August 26, 2010 - Ethics Commission Meeting (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 12, 2010

Mon, 23 Aug 2010 08:51:58 -0700

(Approved 8/9/2010)

SAN FRANCISCO ETHICS COMMISSION
NOTICE OF REGULAR MEETING
July 12, 2010 5:30 P.M.
and AGENDA
Room 408 City Hall
1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, San Francisco

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; Eileen Hansen, Commissioner; Benedict Y. Hur, Commissioner; Charles Ward, Commissioner.

Staff Present: John St. Croix, Executive Director; Mabel Ng, Deputy Executive Director; Richard Mo, Chief Enforcement Officer; Steven Massey, Information Technology Officer; Garrett Chatfield, Investigator.

Office of the City Attorney: Jon Givner, Deputy City Attorney

Others Present: Unidentified members of the public.

Materials Distributed:

Staff memorandum re: Commission Outreach and Education, dated July 8, 2010.
Draft Minutes of the June 14, 2010, Regular Meeting of the San Francisco Ethics Commission.
Executive Director’s Report to the Ethics Commission for the Meeting of July 12, 2010.

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

None.

III. Consideration of education and communication with the public. At its November 9, 2009 meeting, the Commission adopted “Education and Communication with the general public” as one of its priorities for the year. (Discussion and possible action.)

Chairperson Studley stated that the Commission believes Outreach and Education is an extremely important area. She stated that the Commission should consider a broad outreach approach inviting the public to opt to receive communications from the Ethics Commission.

Commissioner Hansen invited feedback from the other Commissioners to help determine if there is an interest in changing how the Commission conducts its outreach to the public.

Commissioner Ward stated that staff’s memo raised some concerns that the Commission may be perceived as targeting some groups to the exclusion of others. He stated that Staff works hard to ensure the public is aware of the Commission’s work and does as much as any other commission in the City. He stated that it may be that the public following the Ethics Commission is a smaller group compared to other City commissions.

Vice-Chairperson Harriman stated that any broad correspondence must be conducted in a fair manner.

Chairperson Studley stated that there may be mechanisms to send out correspondence to a wide enough audience so as to avoid the perception of bias.

In response to Commissioner Hur’s question, Information Technology Officer Massey stated that most unique visits to the Commission’s website are from sfgov.org users.

Executive Director St. Croix stated that currently there is no automated email notification system. He stated that staff manages the Interested Persons list and administers all email notifications to that list.

Information Technology Officer Massey stated that the Department of Technology expressed concerns that unsolicited emails to the public could result in the City being listed as a spamming organization.

In response to Commissioner Hur, Executive Director St. Croix stated that the Commission has held meetings at other times and locations. He also stated that the matters of great public interest generate more attendance than routine agenda items.

Commissioner Hansen stated that she would like to see the Commission reach out to the public in a way that goes beyond what the Commission is required to do. She stated that many members of the public express an interest in the work the Commission does, yet do not attend the public meetings. She stated that the Commission should televise its meetings and send monthly notices of changes in the law and other events similar to notifications sent by the California Fair Political Practices Commission to Interested Persons of that organization. She stated that she is concerned that the Commission often cites a lack of resources to implement any change.

Chairperson Studley suggested that Executive Director St. Croix meet with Chairperson Studley and Commissioner Hansen to brainstorm some proposals for letting members of the public know about the Commission’s work and the opportunity to receive information that avoid technology and selectivity concerns and present those options to the Commission.

Public Comment:
None.

IV. Closed session.

Motion 10-07-12-1 (Harriman/Ward): Moved, seconded, and passed (5-0) that the Commission go into closed session.

Public Comment:
None

V. 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.

The Commission went into closed session at 6:12 p.m.
The Commission returned to open session at 6:37 p.m.

VI. Discussion and vote regarding closed session action and deliberations. (Discussion and possible action.)

Motion 10-07-12-2 (Harriman/Ward): Moved, seconded, and passed (5-0) that the Ethics Commission finds that it is in the best interests of the pubic not to disclose its closed session deliberations.

Public Comment:
None.

VII. Minutes of the Commission’s regular meeting of June 14, 2010. (Discussion and possible action.)

Commissioner Harriman stated there was a typographical error on page 7 in which a verb was needed to complete the sentence.

Commissioner Hansen stated that on page 11 in the 3rd paragraph, she did not state that the Commission should engage in discussions that are not calendared; she stated that what she had said was that the Commission should respond to members of the public.

Motion 10-07-12-3 (Hansen/Harriman): Moved, seconded and passed (5-0) to approve the minutes of the June 14, 2010, Regular Meeting subject to the proposed revisions.

Public Comment:
None.

VIII. Executive Director’s Report. An update of important Ethics Commission staff activities since the previous monthly meeting. (Discussion.)

Executive Director St. Croix stated that the Commission had to make two small cuts in the budget that were part of an across-the-board cut to all City departments.

Public Comment:
None.

IX. Items for future meetings. Commissioners may propose items for future agendas and the Commission may determine the priority of these items. (Discussion.)

None.

Public Comment:
None.

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

None.

XI. Adjournment.

Motion 10-07-12-4 (Harriman/Hansen): Moved, seconded and passed (5-0) that the Commission adjourn.

The meeting adjourned at 6:42 p.m.

Respectfully Submitted,

___________________________
Garrett Chatfield/Investigator

Recording - August 9, 2010 - Ethics Commission Meeting

Fri, 13 Aug 2010 10:31:09 -0700

Recording - August 9, 2010 - Ethics Commission Meeting (11 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 14, 2010

Wed, 14 Jul 2010 13:43:39 -0700

Minutes of the Regular Meeting of
The San Francisco Ethics Commission
June 14, 2010
Room 408, City Hall
1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place
San Francisco, CA 94102

I. Call to order and roll call.

Vice-Chairperson Harriman called the meeting to order at 5:36 PM.

COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Jamienne Studley, Chairperson (arrived at 5:40 PM); Susan Harriman, Vice-Chairperson; Eileen Hansen, Commissioner; Benedict Y. Hur, Commissioner; Charles Ward, Commissioner.

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

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

OTHERS PRESENT: Allen Grossman; Kimo Crossman; Marc Salomon; Peter Warfield; Hope Johnson; Richard Knee; and other unidentified members of the public.

MATERIALS DISTRIBUTED:
- Staff memorandum re: Regulations regarding enforcement of the Sunshine Ordinance, dated June 7, 2010.
- Letter to the Commission and the Executive Director from Allen Grossman, dated June 10, 2010, regarding staff’s above memorandum.
- Staff memorandum regarding possible amendments to Ethics Commission Regulation 3.234-5, to define the term “department, board, commissioner, office or other unit of government, for which the officer or employee served” in section 3.234(a)(2) of the Government Ethics Ordinance (“GEO”), San Francisco Campaign and Governmental Conduct Code section 3.200 et seq.
- Draft Minutes of the May 10, 2010 Regular Meeting of The San Francisco Ethics Commission.
- Executive Director’s Report to the Ethics Commission for the Meeting of June 14, 2010.

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

Vice-Chairperson Harriman stated that each speaker would have three minutes for public comment.

A member of the public stated that the lack of enforcement of violations of the Sunshine Ordinance has a dramatic effect both on the person filing the initial complaint and on the implementation of democratic public policy in the City. He also stated that he noticed his comments from a previous meeting were not accurately noted in the minutes; he had said “ghettoization” not “starvation.” He stated that the only way to guarantee full participation from individuals is to break down the influence that money holds. He stated that the power must be balanced by rules that guarantee public participation. He stated that the public is waiting to see some of these violations enforced by the Commission.

[Chairperson Studley arrived 5:40 PM.]

Marc Salomon stated that the position of Fines Officer used to have a special condition and a policy decision to remove the condition was made last year without bringing it forward to the Commission. He stated that campaign finance laws often require interpretations by the City Attorney and the FPPC. He stated that the Fines Officer was an award-winning staffer and that he had been let go by the slip of the bureaucratic hand. He stated that the public now knows that the person in that position will not have experience in campaign finance. He suggested looking at the fiscal impact of the change, as there would be an expected change in revenues to the general fund. He suggested that all funding to the Commission be cut except for campaign finance-related work.

Kimo Crossman spoke regarding Oliver Luby. He stated there were a myriad of laws about campaign finance and expressed concerns about a new employee having no experience with campaign finance. He asked the Commission to please reinstate the special condition and rehire Mr. Luby.

III. Consideration of policy recommendations regarding the Commission’s enforcement of Sunshine Ordinance.

Chairperson Studley stated that the Commission has been working with staff and the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force (“Task Force”). She also stated that Commission Harriman met with Mr. Grossman. Executive Director St. Croix recommended that the Commission make policy decisions regarding its enforcement of the Sunshine Ordinance (“Ordinance”) and then staff would begin drafting regulations in order to implement those policy decisions. Chairperson Studley stated that any comments or additional ideas from the Task Force would be taken into consideration.

Commissioner Harriman thanked Mr. Grossman for meeting with her and stated that the meeting was helpful. She stated that the policy decisions presented are very broad and that she would like staff to begin drafting regulations. She also stated that the Commission needed input from the Task Force.

Commissioner Hansen stated that she would be willing to discuss the policy decision points as long as there would be ongoing communication with the Task Force. Commissioner Hur stated that the Commission should discuss the decision points. Commissioner Ward stated that Mr. Grossman’s request (that the Commission wait to hear from the Task Force) was reasonable, but that he saw a representative from the Task Force and hoped to hear his point of view. Commissioner Hansen asked to hear from the Task Force representative first, prior to having a discussion.

Richard Knee, the Chair of the Task Force, stated that he appreciated the Commission giving the Task Force so much time to render its opinion. He stated that he was not speaking as a member of the Task Force and only for himself. He stated that the policy decision points presented were broad and did not see any harm in discussing them. He stated that if the Commission did not act on the decision points, then they would be on the Task Force’s agenda for its next meeting on June 22, 2010. He stated that the Commission may need to have another joint meeting with the Task Force regarding this issue.

Chairperson Studley stated that the Commission would discuss each decision point and then allow public comment on each decision point.

Decision Point 1
Commissioner Hur asked whether the policy directives stated under part III.A.3 of staff’s memo (complaints brought to the Commission) were taken from section 67.35(d) of the Ordinance. Executive Director St. Croix stated that they were taken from that section. Commissioner Hur then asked whether staff suggested in its memo, under parts III.A.2 and III.A.3, that the Commission has the authority to act to both make a determination of a violation and then enforce and penalize that violation. Commissioner Harriman stated that a complainant could come to the Commission first and that section 67.35(d) provides that option. She stated that the Commission had the ability to institute proceedings, after which the Commission could make a finding and then move to determine a penalty.

Public Comment:
Mr. Grossman stated that there is confusion on the part of the staff between violations, willful violations, enforcement of orders, and official misconduct. He stated that language in part III.A of staff’s memo – referring to “alleged” violations – is incorrect. He stated that the referrals from the Task Force are not alleged violations. He stated that the Task Force had determined that they violations took place and the referrals are necessary where the Respondent(s) do not comply with an Order of Determination issued by the Task Force. He stated that this work was serious legal work and that staff does not have the capability of doing it. He stated that the Commission needed a skilled lawyer to draft it and only then would there be a draft that has some critical understanding and explanation and articulation of the role of the Commission.

Richard Knee referred to the top of part III.A of staff’s memo. He stated that staff discussed whether the alleged violation was willful in nature. He stated that the Task Force was unlikely to send or refer any violation that was not willful. He stated that the only reason that the Task Force would refer a violation is if it had found that a willful failure occurred. He also stated that a California court recently found that if a lawsuit is not frivolous and the plaintiff still loses, the plaintiff does not have to pay the City’s legal fees.

Chairperson Studley asked Mr. Knee for clarification of his comments. Mr. Knee stated that when the Task Force sends a complaint to the Ethics Commission, it is only for willful violations. He stated that once the Task Force finds in favor of a plaintiff and then the Respondent refuses to comply with an Order of Determination, then that act becomes willful even if the original Respondent’s act was not willful.

Commissioner Hansen asked Mr. Knee whether he would object to keeping the language of “alleged violations,” as there could be a chance that it would occur. Mr. Knee stated that he was not a lawyer and that if the Commission receives a complaint, maybe it starts from step one again. He also stated that the Task Force spends a lot of effort in its work and that it looks at evidence from both sides. He stated that the Task Force looks at the Brown Act, Sunshine Ordinance, and confers with its DCA. He stated that there was an attorney sitting on the Task Force to help the Task Force determine whether there was a violation and, if so, what the violation was.

Marc Salomon associated himself with Mr. Grossman's comments. He stated that the finding of fact and law has been made by the Task Force. He stated that the Commission is the prosecution's agent and there should be no way to re-litigate. He stated that the goal is to avoid Sunshine complaints being filed in the first place.

A member of the public stated that he would make his comments about all three decision points. He stated that he was impressed with Mr. Grossman’s memo. He stated that there seems to be a deliberate attempt to exempt elected officials and department heads. He stated that Mr. Grossman is clear; appointed officials are subject to Sunshine Ordinance. He approved of the idea to have hearings for all referrals. He stated that the public as a whole has an underlying interest in all of these violations, even if the complaint is driven by the complainant.

Hope Johnson stated that she was recently sworn in as a member of the Task Force. She stated her objection to the use of the word “alleged” in staff’s memo. She stated that there should be language that emphasizes that a finding of a violation has already been made.

Peter Warfield stated that he has brought quite a number of complaints over the year, some of which have gone to the Commission as referrals. He concurred with Mr. Grossman’s comments regarding “alleged” violations. He stated that the complaints filed with the Task Force pass through a time-tested process. He stated that there are many hurdles and that there has been a finding of a violation prior to referral. He stated that there are instances of violations when representatives from departments do not appear.

Kimo Crossman stated that he supported Mr. Grossman’s letter and objected to the use of the word “alleged.” He stated that there is no question that the Task Force has made a determination. He stated that there is no question that there does not need to be another hearing. He mentioned the Ed Jew matter. He agreed that appointed officials should be included when they have committed a violation. He also asked that the Commission wait to hear from the Task Force after it has had a chance to meet.

Commissioner Hansen asked for clarification from Mr. Knee, as it seemed that he believed a matter could potentially be re-adjudicated upon reaching the Commission and that the others who spoke seemed to believe that was an incorrect interpretation. Mr. Knee stated that the Task Force is a quasi-judicial body, as is the Commission. He stated that if the Commission received a referral, the Commission could be in the position to want to start from the beginning. He stated that the Task Force, however, has already determined a violation occurred and that is when a referral is made.

Commissioner Harriman asked to address Mr. Knee’s comments. She stated that if the Commission were to cross out the word “alleged,” nothing would change in the decision point. She stated that the Task Force made a referral because it found a violation. She stated that, like anything else that is referred to the Commission, the Commission must do its job. She stated that the Commission is in the same category as a court. She stated that the burden of proof is on the Respondent, but it would still be a hearing. She stated that in the Ed Jew matter, there was still briefing and there was a hearing, as the Commission was not going to just accept the Mayor's charges. She stated that the shift of the burden of proof makes it more difficult on the Respondent and crossing out “alleged” does not change the decision point.

Commissioner Hur asked whether there was anything in the Ordinance that requires that the Task Force to refer only willful violations. Commissioner Harriman read part of section 67.30(c) of the Ordinance – “[t]he Task Force shall make referrals to a municipal office with enforcement power under this ordinance or under the California Public Records Act.” She stated that it appears the Task Force has to make that conclusion before it makes a referral to the Commission.

Chairperson Studley stated that the word “alleged” could change, but that there still may be different perspectives on what the Commission’s role is regarding the referrals. Executive Director St. Croix suggested amending the language in the decision point to delete the word "alleged.": “The Commission’s jurisdiction regarding violations and alleged violations of the Ordinance.”

Motion 10-06-14-1 (Harriman/Ward): Moved, seconded and passed (5-0) that the Commission adopt decision point 1, as amended.

Public Comment:
Kimo Crossman stated that the problem with the word “alleged” is that it would indicate that adjudication would have to occur again once reaching the Commission. He stated that re-adjudicating rather than moving to enforcement is the big problem. He stated that another series of hearings was not envisioned in the Ordinance.

Marc Salomon stated that it is a bifurcated process; once the Task Force has completed its duty, then it is referred to the Commission. He stated that Commission simply imposes punishment for violations and does not review the Task Force's finding of guilt or innocence. He asked how many times has the Commission has received Sunshine complaints directly from a complainant and not through the Task Force.

Allen Grossman stated that there is a learning curve involved. He stated that the problem starts with the City Attorney claiming that the Charter trumps the Sunshine Ordinance. He stated that the Task Force was formed by voter initiative and that it ranks equal to or higher than anything in the Charter because its function is enabled by two sections of state law, the PRA and Brown Act. He stated that the Task Force has an express responsibility created by the Ordinance. He stated that the Task Force makes findings and then goes through another process to see whether its order of determination has been complied with by the agency or official. He stated that only then does it come back to the Task Force. He stated that if the Task Force determines that there has been no compliance then the order is set in stone. He stated that the Commission cannot re-litigate it and cannot hear everything again.

Commissioner Hur asked whether it was Mr. Grossman’s view that, under section 67.35(d), a person instituting a proceeding is only seeking enforcement and not a finding of fact. Mr. Grossman stated that he met the people who drafted the Ordinance and that there are fuzzy gaps. He stated that it is possible for a complainant to short circuit the proceedings and appear before the Commission, but that he did not see subsection d as significant in light of the other provisions.

Decision Point 2
Chairperson Studley asked to remove the word “lesser” from the third sentence of the second paragraph of part III.B.

Commissioner Harriman stated that the Ordinance did not give guidance regarding penalties. She stated that 67.35(d) was the only mention of penalties in the Ordinance.

Commissioner Hansen stated there was a similar issue with the use of the word “alleged” and asked whether it was intentional to leave out appointed officials. Commissioner Harriman stated there could not be penalties of an alleged violation and referred to section 67.34 regarding appointed officials.

Motion 10-06-14-2 (Ward/Harriman): Moved, seconded and passed (5-0) that the Commission adopt decision point 2.

Public Comment:
Marc Salomon stated that there was no language compelling production of documents that are requested. He stated that was important as that is the Commission’s job. He also asked about what penalties the Commission would be permitted to impose, as there were possible labor issues. He asked what ideas have been presented and suggested that a Respondent be provided with no more than five days to produce documents.

Executive Director St. Croix stated that the regulations would clarify those matters. He stated that Commission staff will draft regulations, provide the Task Force its draft, and seek the Commissioners further review. He stated that the actual procedures will be included in the regulations itself.

Richard Knee stated that, at the time of the joint meeting of the Task Force and Commission, the Task Force was unable to give guidance regarding penalties. He stated that, after that meeting, the Compliance and Amendments Committee (“CAC”) proposed an amendment to enable the Task Force to recommend fines from $500 to $5,000 per violation. He stated that the amendment has not yet reached the full Task Force and probably will not reach the voters in November. He also suggested removing “alleged” from the memo. He also stated that Respondents frequently argue that their failure to comply with an Order of Determination stems from their acting on advice from the City Attorney’s Office. He stated that one of the Task Force's members is an attorney and that there are a number of cases where the City Attorney’s advice has been erroneous. He stated that when the Task Force sends a referral in these cases, the reason is because the Task Force believes the City Attorney is incorrect. As an example of such a disagreement, he cited their opposing views with respect to the obligation to produce electronic documents in their native format.

Chairperson Studley stated that the Commission was not voting on language to include in the regulations tonight, but that the Commission would cross out the word “alleged” in part III.B.

Kimo Crossman stated that he read section 67.34 again and did not see "any managerial city employee" in the language. He encouraged the Commission to include that category. He suggested that fines be paid personally by the individual employees and not their departments. He suggested using a percentage of the net income of the person who committed the violation. He stated that Sunshine violations are not only about getting public records, but also about getting public bodies that are not allowing rights to be exercised. He stated that the Commission would potentially tell bodies to reconsider matters if action was taken without proper compliance with the Sunshine Ordinance.

A member of the public stated that the Task Force processes about three to four dozen complaints a year. He described the process a complaint goes through in the Task Force. He stated that a complaint begins at the full Task Force and then is sent to the CAC. He stated that, after the CAC, the complaint is then sent back to the full Task Force, if there has not been full compliance. He stated that only a very small subset of violations is referred to the Commission. He stated that by the time the full Task Force refers the matter, the complainant has already been through 3-5 meetings.

Peter Warfield stated that the Ordinance provides for many violations, other than document production violations. He stated that many times there are no representatives from the departments at the Sunshine meetings and that deprives the Task Force of questioning the department. He stated that the timing of production of documents is important.

Mr. Grossman stated that the way that staff has described the process of enforcement using official misconduct and penalties leaves a little to be desired. He stated that he was educated as a lawyer and spent over 55 years practicing law. He stated that this work requires a serious lawyer and that staff needs to understand what it is writing about. He stated that if a matter is referred for enforcement of an order of the Task Force, there is no investigation. He stated that the Commission would ask the department head why there has been no compliance and if the department head cannot explain why there was no compliance, then the Commission must demand delivery of the public record. He stated that if the person then does not comply, then it becomes official misconduct under the Charter. He stated that the department head could then lose his/her position or be removed or suspended. He stated that would only need to happen once and then everyone would comply.

Commissioner Hansen asked about “appointed officials” in section 67.34. Commissioner Harriman stated that the first sentence includes “other managerial city employees” and the second sentence excludes those employees. She stated that the second sentence is the one that includes the Ethics Commission and so it must be read as if it were done deliberately. Commissioner Hur suggested that the Commission could handle “other managerial city employees” but that it has exclusive jurisdiction over elected officials and department heads.

Decision Point 3

Motion 10-06-14-2 (Harriman/Ward): Moved, seconded and passed (3-2; Hansen and Hur dissenting) that the Commission adopt decision point 3.

Commissioner Hur asked where the Commission obtains the authority to set the standard of review and how the Commission will adjudicate the matters presented. Commissioner Harriman stated that the Ordinance was silent on the matter. Commissioner Hansen stated that she was comfortable approving the concept of a hearing, but asked for clarification on the burden of proof. She asked to hear from the public regarding this decision point. Commissioner Hur stated his approval of a more streamlined hearing process. He agreed with shifting the burden to the Respondent, as it would give some discretion to the Commission.

Executive Director St. Croix stated that this decision point is the most responsive to the proposals presented by the Task Force. He stated that once the Commission receives a complaint, the complaint would be put on the calendar for a Commission hearing.

Commissioner Ward stated that the Respondent would appear before the Commission in a hearing and would be asked to show cause as to why s/he had not followed the Order of Determination. Commissioner Ward expressed approval of the Executive Director’s idea for a referral to come directly to the Commission without staff’s involvement. Commissioner Harriman stated that section 67.35(d) refers to court or the Commission. She interpreted that to mean that the Commission is able to do whatever a court is permitted to do. She stated that this part of the Ordinance creates the basis of the authority of the Commission and allows the Commission to have a hearing.

Public Comment:
Kimo Crossman referred to page 2 of Mr. Grossman’s memo, where he addressed a fast and efficient response to document requests. He stated that it was important for there to be fast resolution of these matters. He stated that the complaints spend about three to four months at the Task Force before they are referred to the Commission. He also stated his belief that Mr. Grossman misspoke and that violations have been determined prior to arriving at the Commission. He stated he was surprised by the burden of proof provision. He stated that the Commission should determine only enforcement of the violation.

Commissioner Ward asked Mr. Crossman why the process takes so long at the Task Force. Mr. Crossman stated that there is an initial hearing, a pre-hearing, and then the matter is referred to the CAC (which occurs about two to three weeks later). He stated that the CAC reviews the status and then the matter is referred back to the full Task Force, where there is another hearing where the matter is potentially referred to the Commission. He stated that meetings occur about every two to three weeks. Commissioner Ward suggested that perhaps the process at the Task Force could be reviewed and streamlined.

Marc Salomon stated that due process occurs at the Task Force. He stated the Commission should only determine penalties. He suggested taking the third sentence of part III.C.

Mr. Grossman stated that he assumed there must be a type of hearing once the referral reached the Commission. He stated that this hearing would be for the Respondent to show why the Order of Determination should not be enforced, not to hear evidence again. He suggested that the referral could follow this process at the Commission: calendar the referral once received; allow Respondent to show cause; permit time for Respondent to comply; and, if the Respondent does not comply, schedule the penalty phase for the next meeting. He stated that the Task Force goes out of its way to accommodate Respondents. He stated that perhaps Respondents may have something new to explain why the Order was not followed.

Commissioner Hansen stated that if the Commission holds a show cause hearing, then the burden is on the Respondent. Mr. Grossman stated that the Respondent would not be able to revisit the initial complaint, but could try to present something that was not presented earlier. He stated that, if there is no other excuse given, the order should be entered and the violation would constitute official misconduct under section 15.105 of the City Charter, not under section 67.34 of the Ordinance.

Richard Knee noted that Commissioner Hur bears no resemblance to Charlton Heston. He responded to a query from Commissioner Ward regarding the complaint process at the Task Force. He stated that the Task Force meets once a month and consists of volunteers. He stated that the complaint process has worked quite well and that sometimes complaints never reach the Task Force because the Administrator is able to resolve the matter. He stated that sometimes an Order of Determination alone is enough to resolve the matter, but other times, it is not. He stated that some Respondents need more time to comply with an Order of Determination. He stated that all parties are given ample time and only then does the full Task Force make a referral to the Commission.

Peter Warfield stated that the Task Force bends over backwards for the parties, especially for the Respondents. He stated that a Respondent may ask for a continuance because of vacation or other reasons and so the matter is postponed for another month. He stated that an enforcement hearing as presented in part III.C is an improvement over staff handling the matter. He stated that he once had a Sunshine matter referred to the Commission and never heard anything from the Commission. He stated that he read a dismissal letter, which was addressed to the Task Force, that there was a finding of no violation. He suggested that the process for these violations be more open, so that everyone may understand the process.

Hope Johnson stated that she disagreed with the third sentence of part III.C as well. She stated that it was inappropriate to allow new evidence, as is the case in an appeal from a trial court's decision. She stated that allowing new evidence would be unfair to the original complainant, as s/he would have no knowledge of the new evidence.

Commissioner Hur stated that the Commission could create a simple mechanism for these cases, like enforcing a settlement agreement. He stated that the proceedings in front of the Commission should be narrower and more summary. He stated that cases involving official misconduct should have a full hearing and the Commission should be satisfied that there has been a violation.

Chairperson Studley asked staff to begin drafting regulations with these policy decision points in mind. She stated that the Task Force will have the opportunity to give its input and that the Commission would continue communicating and working with them while staff develops the regulations. Chairperson Studley and Commissioner Hansen thanked Commissioner Harriman, Mr. Grossman, and staff regarding their work on this complicated issue. They also thanked the members of the public in attendance for their commitment to this matter.

[Break at 7:45 PM.]

[Return from break at 7:52 PM.]

IV. Consideration of possible amendments to Ethics Commission Regulation 3.324-5, to define the term “department, board, commission, office or other unit of government, for which the officer or employee served” in section 3.234(a)(2) of the Government Ethics Ordinance (“GEO”), San Francisco Campaign and Government Conduct Code section 3.200 et seq.

Deputy Director Ng stated that GEO was amended in 2009 and the one-year post-employment ban applies to employees who have transferred between two City departments, as well as persons who have left City employment altogether. She stated that the language of this amendment conforms to the language of section 3.234 itself. Chairperson Studley read the amended language: “officer or employee served, including those in another agency and those who have served and departed.” Commissioner Hansen noted a typographical error in the regulation language at (B)(2): “for which an officer or employee…”

Motion 10-06-14-4 (Harriman/Hur): Moved, seconded and passed (5-0) that the Commission adopt the proposed amendment, as amended.

Public Comment:
None.

V. Consideration of education and communication with the public.

Chairperson Studley stated that there were no members of the public present, but suggested setting a timeframe for this issue. She suggested introducing ideas, but recognizing that the Commission needs input from interested members of the public. She stated that there may be other people, other than those who are actively interested, who may care about the Commission’s work and possibly be able to provide perspective to the Commission.

Commissioner Hansen thanked Chairperson Studley for her willingness to include her and this topic onto the agenda. She stated that she believed that there were people interested in the Commission’s work. She stated her interest in taking staff’s time into consideration and that she was interested in expanding the group of people who are interested in the Commission’s work. She suggested expanding the number of interested persons’ meetings and the topics covered in those meetings. She suggested adding people to the interested persons list, by specifically reaching out to individuals, clubs, and organizations that are engaged in the political process. She stated her interest in obtaining more dialogue on more topics discussed during Commission meetings.

Chairperson Studley agreed with Commissioner Hansen’s interests, but suggested presenting ideas that may be accomplished with minimal resources.

Commissioner Hansen stated her interest in bringing more people to Commission meetings. She stated that the dialogue that occurred with members of the public during the earlier item was helpful. She stated that her second area of concern was about how the Commission conducts itself and relates to the public in meetings. She stated her approval that the Commission is getting a clock for the public, so that each person is aware of how much time has passed during their comment period. She stated that she has heard far too many comments that the Commission is not a friendly body. She stated that the Commission has been rude to people in the public and that the Commission has not listened or responded to members of the public. She stated her interest in responding to members of the public when they speak at meetings. Chairperson Studley stated that it could be difficult to determine where to draw the line, when a topic is not on the agenda.

Chairperson Studley asked the Executive Director how the interested persons list was generated. Mr. St. Croix stated that the list was self-generated and that if people do not ask to receive something, staff does not send it. He stated that most people on the list are online, but there are some who ask for mailings. He stated that clubs could be contacted, if the Commissioners suggest particular clubs and staff could input addresses onto the list. He stated that, in terms of outreach, the Commission always encourages people to ask questions and all meeting summaries are sent to the interested persons list, media, and all office holders.

Chairperson Studley suggested speaking with Commissioner Hansen outside of the meeting about possible ideas and groups to add to the list. She stated that she would bring names for staff to add to the list. Commissioner Hansen stated that she would be happy to meet with Chairperson Studley and asked that staff add all of the political clubs to the list, as they are engaged more often than not in the elections. She stated that various clubs have expressed interest to her in the Commission’s work.

Commissioner Hansen stated that she would like the Commission to respond to a member of the public after a comment is made or a question is asked during public comment. She stated that when nothing happens, that does not generate respect for the Commission.

VI. Minutes of the Commission’s regular meeting of May 10, 2010.

Commissioner Hansen asked whether Marc Salomon received the documents he requested, as noted in the minutes. Executive Director St. Croix stated that there were some documents which he was allowed to view and others that were not disclosed.

Motion 10-06-14-5 (Harriman/Hur): Moved, seconded and passed (5-0) that the Commission adopt the minutes of the May 10, 2010 meeting, with typographical corrections.

VII. Executive Director’s Report.

Executive Director St. Croix stated that the Commission will require temporary staff during the campaign season and that he was looking for student interns. He stated that the first budget hearing was in two days and that there had been no challenges from the budget analyst so far. He stated that the Mayor needs to restore $6.2M to the election campaign fund.

Commissioner Hansen expressed her concern about the removal of the special condition for the fines officer. She expressed concern that someone in the position would have no experience and that Mr. Luby had years of experience. Chairperson Studley stated that this was a personnel matter as well as a management issue. She stated that possible consequences of the personnel shift could be discussed, but not a specific employee, as that is a personnel matter.

Commissioner Hansen stated that the decision was made without the Commission’s concurrence and now there is someone in that position with no experience. She asked what projections staff has made regarding any loss of revenue due to that person's lack of experience. Mr. St. Croix stated there was no expectation of loss of revenue at all. He stated that everyone has the same learning curve when hired and that he does not like the bumping system. He stated that his job is to ensure the Commission does the best with what it has available.

VIII. Items for future meetings.

Commissioner Hansen asked to review the issue of fundraising for the Democratic County Central Committee ("DCCC") races. She stated that there were tremendous amounts of money spent on candidates running for DCCC, who are also running for Supervisor. She stated that there appeared to be a loophole allowing candidates to raise money for the DCCC race that could not be raised for a supervisorial race. She stated that lobbyists and others give money to these candidates with more of an interest in potentially influencing supervisorial races.

Executive Director St. Croix stated that the deadline for electioneering communications is 90 days from the election. Chairperson Studley stated that the Commission would address its authority over this type of behavior.

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

None.

X. Adjournment.

Motion 10-06-14-2 (Studley/Harriman): Moved, seconded and passed (5-0) that the Commission adjourn.

Public Comment:
None.

Meeting adjourned at 8:32 PM.

Respectfully submitted,

___________________
Catherine Argumedo

Recording - July 12, 2010 - Ethics Commission Meeting

Tue, 13 Jul 2010 12:50:24 -0700

Recording - July 12, 2010 - Ethics Commission Meeting (10.1 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 - May 10, 2010

Tue, 15 Jun 2010 14:26:33 -0700

Minutes of the Regular Meeting of
The San Francisco Ethics Commission
May 10, 2010
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 PM. She stated the meeting room had been equipped with new microphones. Commissioner Hansen was excused from this meeting.

COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Jamienne Studley, Chairperson; Susan Harriman, Vice-Chairperson; Benedict Y. Hur, Commissioner; Charles Ward, Commissioner.

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

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

OTHERS PRESENT: Allen Grossman; Kimo Crossman; Marc Salomon; and other unidentified members of the public.

MATERIALS DISTRIBUTED:
- Staff memorandum regarding draft regulations related to the Commission’s enforcement of the Sunshine Ordinance, dated May 4, 2010.
- Letter to Commission from Richard Knee, dated May 7, 2010, regarding the Sunshine-related regulations proposed to take effect July 14, 2010.
- Staff memorandum regarding possible actions related to electronic filing of Statements of Economic Interests (SEIs), dated May 3, 2010.
- Staff memorandum regarding changes to regulations governing Statements of Incompatible Activities (SIAs), dated May 5, 2010.
- Staff memorandum regarding draft amendments to regulations related to post-employment restrictions, dated May 5, 2010.
- Draft Minutes of the April 12, 2010 Regular Meeting of The San Francisco Ethics Commission.
- Executive Director’s Report to the Ethics Commission for the Meeting of May 10, 2010.

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

A member of the public stated he was the Chair of the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force in 1995 and 1996. He reminded the Commission about a complaint from Sue Cauthen that was referred from the Task Force against the Library Commission. He stated the level of corruption in the Library Commission is unique in his experience. He stated that the acts alleged in this complaint are indefensible. He also stated that the Library Commission has a public comment fund to which donations are made whenever members of the public complain about privatization and abuses of various kinds.

Allen Grossman discussed his recent lawsuit against the Ethics Commission. He stated that Mr. St. Croix conceded that he was entitled to the documents he requested. Mr. Grossman stated that Mr. St. Croix made a statement to a news publication that he would have received the documents without the need for litigation if he had been patient. Mr. Grossman stated that Mr. St. Croix serves the Commission poorly and that he was untruthful. Mr. Grossman stated he had made three separate records requests before filing the lawsuit and that Mr. St. Croix had not honored any of the requests and failed to respond to the last request. He stated that Mr. St. Croix undermined the effectiveness of the Sunshine Ordinance.

Kimo Crossman stated that he agreed with both of the previous speakers. He stated that it was inappropriate for Mr. St. Croix to attack the public and that the City chose to pay Mr. Grossman rather than fight. He stated that it is sad that members of the public have to go to court in these types of matters. He stated that while there are multiple references in local law to official misconduct, the Commission has no procedure for handling such matters.

Marc Salomon stated that he had made a formal Sunshine request regarding the investigative files of the Tony Hall and Carolyn Knee cases. He stated that he was provided responsive documents, but that the documents did not include those that pertained to how staff handled these complaints. He stated that Mr. Mo indicated section 6552 of the Government Code as a reason for withholding the documents, but that the Sunshine Ordinance precludes the Commission from relying on that section as a basis for non-disclosure. He stated that he requested a law index and received no response. He stated that he is seeking documents about employees’ duties and the documents cannot be withheld. He stated that the Commission needs to get independent, objective individuals to handle this request. He stated that he would like to see the documents he requested within 48 hours or he will go to the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force.

Mr. Salomon then stated that the Chair is the Executive Director of the Public Advocates . He stated that this group was involved in a lawsuit with Urban Habitat over the past several years in Pleasanton. He stated that the Chair should identify the source of the funding for this lawsuit, as real estate interests are most likely involved. He stated that real estate interests have led to corruption in government. He stated that because Greenbelt Alliance Executive Director argued against the housing cap that would have protected the Mt. Diablo green-space from encroachment and because the Greenbelt Alliance is the fiscal sponsor for the Housing Action Coalition, a developer lobbyist group, it calls into question the objectivity of the Chair in deciding potential issues that may come before this Commission involving real estate interests.

III. Consideration of draft regulations regarding the Commission’s enforcement of the Sunshine Ordinance.

Executive Director St. Croix stated that staff presented eight decision points regarding referrals from the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force (“Task Force”). He stated that the intent is to open the hearings and clarify some ambiguities in the Sunshine Ordinance.

Decision Point 1A
Chairperson Studley stated that the Commission should determine first whether there should be a separate set of regulations for referrals from the Task Force. Commissioner Harriman stated that she did not approve the proposed set of regulations, but she did approve having a separate set of regulations. She stated that after reading the Sunshine Ordinance, she noticed that the Ethics Commission is mentioned only three times. She stated the first mention does not have anything to do with the proposed regulations; the second states that the Commission handles complaints alleging willful violations, by elected officials, department heads, and certain managerial employees; and the third states that any person may institute a proceeding before a court or the Ethics Commission, if enforcement action is not taken within 40 days after a complaint is filed. She stated that in reference to the final mention of Ethics, the Sunshine Ordinance allows only for injunctive relief. Commissioner Harriman stated her belief that the Ethics Commission does not have the authority to enact the proposed regulations.

Chairperson Studley asked the Executive Director and Deputy City Attorney to comment and suggested that the Commission could postpone discussion to a future date. Commissioner Harriman stated that the Sunshine Ordinance is ambiguous in section 67.35(d), especially regarding the use of the word “penalties” without defining the word. Mr. St. Croix stated that staff is attempting to clarify the ambiguities. Commissioner Hur stated that he had the same concerns as Commissioner Harriman. He stated that he would agree to decision point 1B if it were limited to willful violations by department heads and elected officials. Chairperson Studley stated that “other managerial employees” is also included in section 67.34 of the Sunshine Ordinance.

DCA Givner stated that the ambiguities in sections 67.35(a) and (d) could be resolved with regulations. He stated that one could reasonably conclude that subsection (a) refers to proceedings seeking injunctive or declarative relief in court and that subsection (d) refers to proceedings regarding enforcement and penalties in a court or the Ethics Commission. He stated that the Charter allows the Ethics Commission to clarify these ambiguities through regulations.

Commissioner Harriman stated that the Sunshine Ordinance does not allow the Commission to write the penalties. She stated that the responsibility for determining penalties belongs to the voters of San Francisco. DCA Givner suggested that an order of the Commission could be enforced through court, through to a writ of mandate proceeding. Chairperson Studley asked DCA Givner for any examples to give the Commission guidance to set penalties through a Charter provision. Commissioner Harriman stated that it was unclear whether the Commission had the authority to determine penalties. She stated that the Ordinance allows the Commission to handle allegations of willful failures of elected officials and department heads and that it provides the Commission authority for enforcement actions. Commissioner Hur stated that without penalties, there would be no teeth to any findings made by the Commission in these instances. Commissioner Ward stated that if the Sunshine Ordinance needs to be amended, then the people of San Francisco are the ones to make those changes. Chairperson Studley shared Commissioner Harriman’s view that penalties are not the only way for the Commission to accomplish its responsibilities. She stated that a finding by the Commission would carry weight, even without defined penalties.

Public Comment:
Allen Grossman stated that no matter what the Commission decides, the Commission cannot investigate alleged violations of the Ordinance. He stated that the Ordinance clearly provides the Commission enforcement power, but there is no investigative power. He suggested that the purpose of adopting new rules would be to help a complainant who cannot get relief quickly and to get an administrative body to act. He stated that the cases are sent to the Commission by the Task Force for enforcement and that if the Commission gives credence to the work the Task Force has done, more could happen quickly.

A member of the public stated that enforcement power was focused on the idea that the Commission could find official misconduct, which means removing people from office. He stated that the whole reason that the Task Force would be empowered to refer things to the Commission would be so that when the Commission found official misconduct, people would be removed from office. He stated the possibility of being removed from office would lend seriousness into the whole process. He stated that the Library Commission does not send representatives to the Task Force and that people do not take the Task Force seriously. He stated that the Commission needs credibility.

Kimo Crossman stated that sections 67.34 and 67.35 are not related. He stated that the Mayor referred the Ed Jew matter to the Commission for a hearing on official misconduct. He stated that it was clear that the Mayor’s office wanted removal from office, not a public reprimand or fines. He suggested that the Commission address the question of the ability to enforce findings of the Task Force. He suggested adding a provision into departments’ Statements of Incompatible Activities (“SIAs”) requiring adherence to the Sunshine Ordinance, so that if a member of a department failed to comply with the Sunshine Ordinance then the SIA would be violated. He stated that changes to the Sunshine Ordinance could be added by the Board of Supervisors as long as the changes did not weaken the Sunshine Ordinance.

Chairperson Studley suggested acting only on decision points 1A, 1B, and 1C.

Motion 10-05-10-1 (Harriman/Ward): Moved, seconded and passed (4-0; Hansen absent) that the Commission create and adopt a separate set of regulations to govern the investigations and enforcement of complaints that allege a violation of the Sunshine Ordinance.

Public Comment:
Allen Grossman stated the decision point 1A creates a new set of regulations, but the Commission does not have authority to create a new set of regulations. He stated that the description on the draft proposed for this meeting does not adequately describe the concept of referrals. He stated that referrals should never be a complaint. He stated that willful failure does not equal a violation. He stated that failure means official misconduct and that Article 15 of the City Charter describes official misconduct, which includes discipline and/or removal from office.

Kimo Crossman stated that the Commission cannot create a new set of regulations for investigations of findings from the Task Force. He stated that there is no provision for that in the Sunshine Ordinance or City Charter. He stated that he did not see one reference to official misconduct in the proposed regulations and suggested that official misconduct should be addressed by the Commission.

Commissioner Harriman stated that section 67.30(c) of the Sunshine Ordinance provides for the Task Force to make referrals to a municipal office. She stated that once the office gets the referral, the Sunshine Ordinance is silent as to what the office can do with the referral. She stated that enforcement is separate from findings of willful failure. She stated that she agreed with creating and adopting a separate set of regulations, but that she did not agree with the set of regulations presented at this meeting. Chairperson Studley agreed and stated that she also did not agree with the title of the regulations presented at the meeting.

Decision Points 1B & 1C
DCA Givner suggested postponing any discussion on decision point 1B until the Commission approves a new set of regulations. Chairperson Studley agreed and stated that the Commission should postpone discussion on decision point 1C as well.

Chairperson Studley asked the Commissioners to present questions to staff so that staff would be able to research and incorporate any outstanding issues into new set of regulations. Commissioner Harriman stated her interest in meeting with Mr. Grossman to discuss the proposed regulations. Mr. Grossman stated that he would be happy to meet with Commissioner Harriman. He stated that the Commission should make a strong statement and that transparency is important. He stated that the process at the Task Force is a long one and that the process once it makes it to the Ethics Commission should be faster.

Chairperson Studley stated her appreciation of the willingness of both Mr. Grossman and Commissioner Harriman to meet and discuss the proposed regulations. Commissioner Hur stated that he would make suggestions and comments regarding a new set of regulations to staff.

IV. Consideration of staff’s recommendations for changes to state law to permit local filing officers (1) to provide for electronic filing of Statements of Economic Interests (SEIs), thus eliminating paper reports; (2) to require certain or all SEI filers to file electronically; and (3) to permit on-line posting of electronically-filed SEIs.

Deputy Director Ng stated that staff’s proposals were listed on page 5 of the memorandum. She stated that the changes would require more outreach, but would provide for greater efficiency. Commissioner Harriman voiced a concern regarding filer privacy. Ms. Ng stated that the FPPC redacts signatures, addresses, and phone numbers, and staff does the same for local filings, and will continue to do so if State law is amended to allow electronic filing.

Motion 10-05-10-2 (Harriman/Ward): Moved, seconded, and passed (4-0; Hansen absent) that the Commission adopt decision points 1A, 1B, 1C, and 2 from staff’s memorandum.
Public Comment:
Kimo Crossman stated that electronic filing is good. He stated his concern regarding redactions. He stated that in Florida a notice is placed on a similar form that anything provided is part of the public record. He stated that people are able to put a work address or telephone number, so that staff would not have to take time to redact any information. He stated that filing electronically is not a big challenge.

V. Consideration of possible amendments to regulations for section 3.218 of the Government Ethics Ordinance (“GEO”), San Francisco Campaign and Governmental Conduct Code section 3.200 et seq.

Deputy Director Ng stated that staff would like to update the regulations. She stated that some of the changes in the proposed regulations update to current practice. Commissioner Hur stated that the proposed first sentence of decision point 1A (section 3.218-1(a)(1)) should be stricken and suggested striking the next sentence up to the first comma, so that both sentences are consistent.

Motion 10-05-10-3 (Harriman/Ward): Moved, seconded, and passed (4-0; Hansen absent) that the Commission adopt decision point 1A, as amended by Commissioner Hur.

Public Comment:
None.

VI. Consideration of possible amendments to regulations for section 3.234 of the Government Ethics Ordinance (“GEO”), San Francisco Campaign and Governmental Conduct Code section 3.200 et seq.

Decision Points 1, 2, 3
Deputy Director stated that many of the amendments are technical changes to refer to the proper citations and noted a typographical error in the first paragraph. Commissioner Hur stated that the striking of the word “former” (last strike-through in bold) under section 3.234-4(a)(1) should remain included. Ms. Ng agreed with the change and Commissioner Hur suggested a change in subsection (a)(2) as well. Commissioner Hur and DCA Givner discussed possible alternatives for the wording of subsections (a)(1) and (a)(2). Commissioner Hur stated that the strike-through in section 3.234-5(a)(1)(A) is ambiguous and needs to be amended.

DCA Givner suggested language for the end of section 3.234-4(a)(2): “the day-to-day management of the department, board, commission, office, or unit of government for which the officer or employee worked at the time he or she participated in the award of the contract.”

Motion 10-05-10-4 (Harriman/Hur): Moved, seconded, and passed (4-0; Hansen absent) that the Commission adopt decision points 1, 2, and 3.
Public Comment:
None.

Decision Point 4

Motion 10-05-10-5 (Harriman/Hur): Moved, seconded, and passed (4-0; Hansen absent) that the Commission adopt section 3.234-4(a)(1) and section 3.234-4(a)(2), as amended by Commissioner Hur and DCA Givner.
Public Comment:
None.

Ms. Ng stated that staff would revise decision point 5.

VII. Closed Session

Motion 10-05-10-6 (Studley/Hur): Moved, seconded, and passed (4-0; Hansen absent) that the Commission go into closed session.

Public Comment:
None.

The Commission went into closed session at 7:06 PM.
The Commission returned to open session at 7:15 PM.

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

Motion 10-05-10-7 (Harriman/Hur): Moved, seconded and passed (4-0; Hansen absent) that the Ethics Commission finds that it is in the best interests of the public not to disclose its closed session deliberations re: existing litigation.
Public Comment:
None.

IX. Minutes of the Commission’s regular meeting of April 12, 2010.

Motion 10-05-10-8 (Harriman/Hur): Moved, seconded, and passed (4-0; Hansen absent) that the Commission adopt the minutes of the meeting of April 12, 2010.

X. Executive Director’s Report.

Executive Director St. Croix stated that the budget is due in early June and that he remained guardedly optimistic that there would not be any major cuts. He stated there was a large payoff from BDR. He stated that under the new rules regarding public financing, candidates could apply as early as February for this November’s election. He stated that there are already seven candidates certified and $142,000 distributed. He stated that there could be fifty candidates for members of the Board of Supervisor this year and the deadline for public financing is in August. He stated that November would be an active election and that staff has already been busy.
Chairperson Studley asked if the receipts go into the general treasury. Mr. St. Croix stated that everything goes to the general fund, but that 75% of what is received is attributed to the Ethics Commission as revenue.

Public Comment:
None.

XI. Items for future meetings.

Chairperson Studley stated that one item for future meetings is future communications and outreach with the public. She stated that the Commission would also return to the Task Force regulations.

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 10-05-10-9 (Harriman/Hur): Moved, seconded, and passed (4-0; Hansen absent) that the Commission adjourn.
Public Comment:
None.

The meeting was adjourned at 7:22 PM.

Respectfully submitted,

_______________________
Catherine Argumedo
Investigator/ Legal Analyst

Recording - June 14, 2010 - Ethics Commission Meeting

Tue, 15 Jun 2010 11:54:42 -0700

Recording - June 14, 2010 - Ethics Commission Meeting (39.7 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 - April 12, 2010

Thu, 27 May 2010 10:32:05 -0700

Minutes of the Regular Meeting of
The San Francisco Ethics Commission
April 12, 2010
Room 408, City Hall
1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place
San Francisco, CA 94102

I. Call to order and roll call.

Vice-Chairperson Harriman called the meeting to order at 5:30 PM.

COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Susan Harriman, Vice-Chairperson; Benedict Y. Hur, Commissioner; Charles Ward, Commissioner. (Chairperson Studley and Commissioner Hansen absent and excused.)

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

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

OTHERS PRESENT: James Chaffee, Marc Solomon, Peter Warfield, and other unidentified members of the public.

MATERIALS DISTRIBUTED:
- Memorandum from Executive Director St. Croix regarding draft amendments to regulations related to gifts from restricted sources, dated April 7, 2010
- Proposed changes to Regulations to Government Ethics Ordinance
- Draft Minutes of the March 8, 2010, Regular Meeting of the San Francisco Ethics Commission
- Executive Director’s Report to the Ethics Commission for the Meeting of April 12, 2010

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

A member of the public distributed a letter regarding a Sunshine Task Force referral to the Ethics Commission. He stated that the Library Commission is working primarily on the behalf of corporate interests, and not treating members of the public with the same respect as corporate donors. He stated that the Library Commission continuously violates the Sunshine Ordinance.

Marc Solomon stated that Executive Director St. Croix wrongly blamed Alan Grossman regarding a Sunshine Ordinance settlement. He stated that Chairperson Studley should disclose funding sources regarding a lawsuit involving Public Advocates.

Peter Warfield stated that a complaint involving the Library Commission that was referred to the Ethics Commission should be upheld as to the Sunshine Task Force findings.

III. Consideration of proposed regulations to exclude from the restricted source gift rule (Campaign and Governmental Conduct Codes section 3.216(a): (1) gift cards or certificates to designated vendors worth $25 or less; and (2) prizes or rewards received by City employees and officers through their participation in the City’s Annual Joint Fundraising Drive.

Decision Point 1

Deputy Executive Director Ng stated that the purpose of the proposed changes is to clarify how the Ethics Commission will differentiate between gift cards and certificates that are vendor specific and non-vendor specific. She stated that non-vendor specific cards and certificates would be equivalent to cash for purposes of the Ordinance.

Commissioner Ward stated that the changes only restrict the amount of the gift from the source and not the number of gift cards or certificates an employee may receive.

Deputy Executive Director Ng stated that other regulations restrict the gift amount an employee may receive, this is just to classify whether a gift card or certificate should be treated as cash.

Commissioner Ward stated that this classification would make a vendor-specific gift card an exception. He stated that he is not in favor of allowing employees to receive gift cards from multiple sources even though there is currently a monetary limit on what an employee can receive.

Decision Point 2

Deputy Executive Director Ng stated that this change would allow an employee to win a gift that is a raffle drawing prize that may be classified as coming from a restricted source, even though local law does not allow any employee to receive over $25 from a restricted source. She stated that without this change, employees may not be able to receive a prize, and as such would deter employee participation in the Annual Combined Charities Drive.

Deputy City Attorney Givner stated that this is an ongoing problem for any charity drive.

Commissioner Ward stated that this change should only apply if the prize draw is random.

Commissioner Hur stated that there could be conflicts regarding soliciting donations and agreed that the change should only apply to random draws.

DCA Givner clarified that, under the law, the restriction is on the person receiving the gift.

Vice-Chairperson Harriman stated that the language should be changed to “items of any value received by a City employee or officer in a random drawing associated with participation in the City Annual Joint Fundraising Drive under San Francisco Administrative Code Chapter 16, Article V (also known as Combined Charities Fundraising Drive).”

Public Comment:
None.

Motion 10-04-12-1 (Hur/Ward): Moved, seconded, and passed (3-0) that the Ethics Commission approve the language for Regulation 3.216(b)-5(g) as: Items of any value received by a City employee or officer in a random drawing associated with participation in the City’s Annual Joint Fundraising Drive under San Francisco Administrative Code Chapter 16, Article V (also known as Combined Charities Fundraising Drive).

IV. Closed Session.

Motion 10-04-12-2 (Ward/Hur): Moved, seconded, and passed (3-0) that the Commission go into closed session.

Public Comment:
None.

The Commission went into closed session at 5:56 PM.
The Commission returned to open session at 6:04 PM.

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

Motion 10-04-12-3 (Harriman/Ward): Moved, seconded and passed (3-0) 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 as defendant.
Public Comment:
None.

VI. Minutes of the Commission’s regular meeting of March 8, 2010

Motion 10-04-12-4 (Ward/Hur): Moved, seconded, and passed (3-0) that the Commission adopt the minutes of the meeting of March 8, 2010.

Public Comment:
None.

VII. Executive Director’s Report

Executive Director St. Croix stated that the Ethics Commission continues to work to meet the requested budgets cuts from the Mayor’s Office. He responded to Vice-Chairperson Harriman that the annual COGEL conference and all other travel and related expenses have been cut. He stated that he is most concerned about maintaining staffing levels and that some open positions will likely go unfilled.

Public Comment:
None.

VIII. Items for Future Meetings

Public Comment:
None.

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

None.

X. Adjournment

Motion 10-04-12-5 (Harriman/Ward) Moved, seconded and passed (3-0) that the Ethics Commission adjourn.

The meeting was adjourned at 6:09 PM.

Respectfully submitted,

_______________________
Garrett Chatfield
Investigator/ Legal Analyst

Recording - May 10, 2010 - Ethics Commission Meeting

Tue, 11 May 2010 13:36:01 -0700

Recording - May 10, 2010 - Ethics Commission Meeting (24.4 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 - March 8, 2010

Tue, 20 Apr 2010 11:43:29 -0700

Minutes of the Regular Meeting of
The San Francisco Ethics Commission
March 8, 2010
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 5:32 PM. She thanked Commissioner Emi Gusukuma for her distinguished term and stated the Commission’s appreciation for her leadership on the Commission. Chairperson Studley also welcomed Assessor Ting’s new appointee to the Ethics Commission, Ben Hur.

Chairperson Studley stated that Item VI on the agenda would be considered after Item II, public comment.

COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Jamienne Studley, Chairperson (excused at 7:13 PM); Susan Harriman, Vice-Chairperson; Commissioner; Eileen Hansen, Commissioner; Benedict Y. Hur, Commissioner; Charles Ward, Commissioner.

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

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

OTHERS PRESENT: Zachary Nathan, William Scott Ellsworth, Anita Stearns Mayo, Kevin Heneghan, and other unidentified members of the public.

MATERIALS DISTRIBUTED:
- Draft formal written advice letter regarding Zachary Nathan’s application of the one-year post-employment restriction under San Francisco Campaign and Governmental Conduct Code section 3.234, dated March 2, 2010. Mr. Nathan serves as a member of the Access Appeals Commission.
- Staff’s report regarding Mr. Nathan’s request for a waiver from Campaign and Governmental Code section 3.224 (compensated advocacy ban) and/or section 3.234(a)(2) (post-employment restriction), dated March 2, 2010.
- Staff’s report regarding William Scott Ellsworth’s request for a waiver from Campaign and Governmental Code section 3.224 (compensated advocacy ban), dated February 2, 2010. Mr. Ellsworth serves as a member of the Access Appeals Commission as a person “experienced in construction.”
- Proposed amendments and staff report, dated March 2, 2010, regarding possible amendments to the Government Ethics Code (“GEO”), San Francisco Campaign and Governmental Conduct Code section 3.200 et seq. Staff has proposed amendments to sections 3.216 (gifts), 3.220 (dual office-holding), and 3.224 (compensated advocacy).
- Staff memorandum regarding Audit Selection for 2009 Committees, dated March 1, 2010.
- Draft Minutes of the December 14, 2009 Regular Meeting of The San Francisco Ethics Commission.
- Executive Director’s Report to the Ethics Commission for the Meeting of March 8, 2010

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

A member of the public, who wished to remain anonymous, stated his shock that the Commission had not met since December 2009. He spoke to discuss a case referred from the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force, involved Sue Cauthen and the Library Commission. He stated that Ms. Cauthen tried to address the Library Commission and was shouted down. He stated that the Task Force found a willful violation of the Sunshine Ordinance. He stated that the incident occurred nine months ago and the complaint has not been presented to the Ethics Commission yet. He stated that the idea that democracy does not work is a reflection of the starvation that the people are given with respect to the enforcement of their issues. He stated the importance of enforcing the Sunshine Ordinance.

VI. Election of Chair and Vice-chair.

Motion 10-03-08-1 (Harriman/Ward): Moved, seconded and passed (5-0) that Commissioner Studley serve as Chair of the Ethics Commission.

Public Comment:
None.

Motion 10-03-08-2 (Ward/Hur): Moved, seconded and passed (5-0) that Commissioner Harriman serve as Vice-Chair of the Ethics Commission.

Public Comment:
None.

III. Consideration draft formal written advice letter to Zachary Nathan regarding the application of the one-year post-employment restriction under San Francisco Campaign and Governmental Conduct Code section 3.234.

Deputy Director Ng stated that the Commission had received a request for advice regarding the one-year post-employment ban. She stated that the Commission should determine whether the ban should be applied to a member of the Access Appeals Commission (“AAC”), Zachary Nathan. She stated that another question for the Commission is, if the ban is applicable, whether the ban would apply to future communications with just the AAC or also the Department of Building Inspection (“DBI”). She noted that staff drafted a memorandum and recommended that the ban would apply to AAC and DBI.

Chairperson Studley recommended joining the discussion for items III and IV. Commissioner Harriman asked whether Mr. Nathan was present and, if so, whether his preference is to sit on the AAC and work, or leave the AAC and continue communications with DBI. Mr. Nathan stated that his preference would be to stay on the AAC and to obtain a waiver so that he would be able to continue practicing his profession. He stated that he would prefer to remain in contact with DBI. Commissioner Harriman asked Mr. Nathan whether he had attended any AAC meetings. Mr. Nathan stated that he was appointed on December 16, 2009 and attended one meeting in January.

Commissioner Harriman asked Mr. Nathan whether he was aware of any difficult the AAC had in finding someone for the vacant seat on AAC. Mr. Nathan stated that, before he was appointed, several hundred people were contacted. He stated that Ann Aherne (Building Inspection Commission Secretary) conducted an exhaustive search. He stated that there were fewer than a dozen responses and about half had similar conflict issues. He stated that there were few people who met all of the requirements, including living in the City and being able to attend the midday, weekday meetings. Commissioner Hur stated that Mr. Nathan’s seat was a public seat, so there was no specific training necessary for the seat. Mr. Nathan stated that he did have a public seat and that there was no special expertise required, but that he was appointed because he had expertise in the access field. He stated that he had been working in the field for about 25-30 years.

Mr. Nathan stated that he is able to attend the meetings, regardless of the day and time, because he is self-employed. He stated that the pool of the public who would be able to attend this meeting time would be very small. Commissioner Ward asked whether Mr. Nathan knew why the AAC held its meetings during the week and during the middle of the day. He suggested that the AAC change its meeting time so that more people would be available to sit on the AAC.

Chairperson Studley stated that an issue presented is whether the Ethics Commission is permitted to issue a waiver in this case. She stated that the waiver provision does not address seats given to “general members of the public” as opposed to seats given to people with specific expertise in a given field. She stated that Mr. Nathan happens to be an expert in AAC’s specific field, but that he is not in the seat for which that is a consideration. Ms. Ng stated staff’s belief that Mr. Nathan’s appointment to a “general public” seat of the AAC would be a restriction on the Commission’s ability to provide a waiver. Ms. Ng stated that staff recommends a change to the law, but that the change would take at least 90 days from this meeting.

Commissioner Harriman asked to read the restricting language of the Ordinance. Ms. Ng stated that the current law begins on line 12 of section C on page 5 of staff’s memorandum. Commissioner Harriman stated that the current law is very clear and that she agreed with staff’s position. Chairperson Studley stated that the Commission would be unable to provide a waiver under the current law.

Ms. Ng stated that the Commission should also review section 3.224, as the Commission is restricted from providing this type of waiver. She stated that Mr. Nathan would most likely have to resign from the AAC and he would not be able to communicate with DBI. Commissioner Ward stated that the Commission should not allow people who are overseeing departments to be able to do business with the department itself. He stated that a bad precedent would be set for someone sitting on a commission or board.

Commissioner Harriman stated that she understood that Mr. Nathan had no idea about the conflict issues undtil after he had accepted the position. She stated that it was fair to grant the waiver, as he had only attended one meeting. Commissioner Hansen stated that she had a strict standard on granting waivers and would prefer not to grant one. Commissioner Hur stated that he supported a waiver in this case.

Motion 10-03-08-3 (Harriman/Hansen): Moved, seconded and passed (5-0) that the Commission adopt staff’s formal written advice letter to Zachary Nathan.

Public Comment:
None.

IV. Request from Zachary Nathan for waiver from Campaign and Governmental Code section 3.224 (compensated advocacy ban) and section 3.234(a)(2) (post-employment restriction).

Motion 10-03-08-4 (Harriman/Hur): Moved, seconded, and passed (4-1; Hansen dissented) that the Commission grant Zachary Nathan a waiver from the one-year post-employment restriction.
Public Comment:
Mr. Nathan thanked the Commission and stated that the AAC does not oversee anyone in DBI. He explained that the AAC was a body that interpreted accessibility code. He stated that as a member of the AAC he would not set the budget or set goals for the department. He stated that denying the waiver would be an extreme hardship since he would not be able to do most of his work for the City.

V. Request from William Scott Ellsworth for waiver from Campaign and Governmental Code section 3.224 (compensated advocacy ban).

Deputy Director Ng stated that this request presented a similar issue to the Mr. Nathan’s request. She stated that Mr. Ellsworth was appointed to the AAC in September 2009 as a member “experienced in construction” and he seeks a waiver so that he may continue working as an architect in San Francisco. She also stated that Mr. Ellsworth was present at the meeting.

Mr. Ellsworth stated that he owned his own business in San Francisco and that he communicates with DBI regularly. He stated that he would be unable to continue practicing without a waiver. Chairperson Studley asked whether he knew the selection process for his seat. Mr. Ellsworth stated that Ms. Aherne wrote a letter explaining the recruitment process for this seat. He stated that over 700 e-mails were sent and that there were not many responses. He stated that he had no idea about any possible conflict issues.

Commissioner Harriman moved to grant the waiver, as the seat asks for someone experienced in construction. She also stated that she was not sure how the AAC would be able to fill this vacancy without the Ethics Commission granting a waiver. Chairperson Studley seconded the motion. Commissioner Harriman then asked whether it was possible for the candidates to come to the Ethics Commission before appointment. Chairperson Studley stated that the appointing authority needs to advise the candidates of their responsibilities and the possible consequences of accepting the appointment.

Commissioner Ward stated that the appointing authorities know that the Ethics Commission will have to grant the waivers and he suggested that the Commission not grant the waiver to avoid setting a precedent. He stated that he is sympathetic towards Mr. Ellsworth’s position, but that he could not vote in favor of granting the waiver.

Commissioner Hansen suggested educating the appointing authorities so that the candidates for open positions would be aware of their responsibilities upon accepting a post.

Motion 10-03-08-5 (Harriman/Studley): Moved, seconded, and passed (4-1; Ward dissented) that the Commission grant William Scott Ellsworth a waiver from the compensated advocacy ban.

[Item VI discussed after Item II.]

VII. Consideration of possible amendments to the Governmental Ethics Code (“GEO”), San Francisco Campaign and Governmental Conduct Code section 3.200 et seq. Staff has proposed amendments to sections 3.216 (gifts), 3.220 (dual office-holding), and 3.224 (compensated advocacy).

Chairperson Studley stated that she needed to leave the meeting at 7 PM and that Vice-Chairperson Harriman would then direct the meeting.

Deputy Director Ng stated staff proposed amendments to three sections of GEO: gifts, prohibition on representing private parties before other City officers and employees, and prohibition on dual office holding. Chairperson Studley suggested discussing each section separately.

Decision Point 1A:

Motion 10-03-08-6 (Hansen/Harriman): Moved, seconded, and passed (5-0) to approve the amendments to section 3.216(b), without discussion.

Public Comment:
None.

Decision Point 1B:

Deputy Director Ng stated that the amendments to section 3.216(c) in this decision point refer to changing terms from the phrase “gratuity in money or other valuable thing” to simply “gift.” Ms. Ng also stated that the term “under his or her supervision” has been added in order to make it clear that the rule applies to a supervisory-subordinate relationship. She added that staff recommends extending the ban on gifts from subordinate employees or applicants to include loans.

Motion 10-03-08-7 (Hansen/Harriman): Moved, seconded and passed (5-0) to approve the amendments to section 3.216(c).

Public Comment:
None.

Decision Point 1C:

Deputy Director Ng stated that this decision point related to the reporting requirements of travel, lodging, etc. for out-of-state trips. She stated that City elected officers currently need to file reports before these trips. She stated that staff recommends extending the requirement so that it applies to any person, not just an entity, paying for the gift of travel. She also stated that the officer reporting the travel may not have all of the necessary information to report prior to the trip, so staff recommends requiring reporting after the trip concludes. She also stated that staff recommends removing language allowing the City to accept a gift of payment for any elected official’s travel, due to a recent FPPC ruling. She also advised the Commission of some necessary minor grammatical changes.

Adding “a person” to section 3.216(d) –

Commissioner Hur recommended making a change on line 16, page 3, so that the language would include the person funding the trip. Ms. Ng discussed the issue with DCA Shen and then suggested removing “name of” under subsection (d) in line 11 on page 3 and adding “the person funding the trip or the employee or officer of the entity funding the trip…” in line 16 on page 3.

Changing the requirement to report to within 30 days after the end of a trip –

Chairperson Studley asked whether the requirement would allow the public to know about the trip before it occurred, even if some details may not be clear. Executive Director St. Croix stated that typically filers are report twice, since the initial report is usually amended. Chairperson Studley stated that the original intent of the rule was to notify the public that a trip was going to occur. She suggested maintaining the requirement of reporting before a trip. Commissioner Hansen agreed and stated that it was useful to have the information, even if the information is not complete, before a trip is taken. Mr. St. Croix stated that many times people who take the trips are not aware of the total cost in order to report accurately. He stated that the total cost is usually not known until after the trip is complete. Commissioner Harriman stated that there was no way of answering some of the questions in advance of a trip. Chairperson Studley stated that the facts known before the trip is taken – where the person was going, when the person was going, and who was paying for the trip – should be reported before the trip is taken. She stated that other, more specific details, such as the cost of a hotel room or other attendees on the trip, could be amended at a later date. Commissioner Hur suggested adding “estimate” on the form itself. Chairperson Studley suggested that staff review the form and law and decide whether a change to the law is necessary. The Commissioners agreed that they needed more information from staff in order to move forward with this issue. No action taken regarding an amendment to this requirement.

Deleting language regarding gifts of travel to the City –

Commissioner Hansen stated her concern regarding trips where members on a trip may lobby the Mayor or other officials, where there is money given to the City. She asked whether that type of trip would be possible after this amendment. Executive Director St. Croix stated that this amendment would eliminate this type of trip. Deputy Director Ng stated that the FPPC change would require the gift of travel to go to the officer, not the City, so that the gift would be reportable and person receiving the gift would be subject to the $420 annual restriction.

Motion 10-03-08-8 (Harriman/Ward): Moved, seconded, and passed (5-0) to adopt “a person” as mentioned by Commissioner Hur, to table changes to the requirement to report before travel occurs, to delete language covered by the new FPPC rule, and to adopt the minor grammatical changes.

Public Comment:
Anita Mayo stated that “person” is defined broadly in the amendment.

Commissioner Harriman moved to exchange “individual” instead of “person” in the changes and Commissioner Ward seconded the friendly amendment.

Decision Point 2

Commissioner Harriman stated that there were not four votes in support of these amendments.

Decision Point 3

Deputy Director Ng suggested that the Commission should follow state provisions regarding dual office holding. She stated that, under the state rule, if two offices are incompatible, then the officer would be automatically removed from second. She stated that this removal would occur when one office makes decisions for the other or oversees the other office. She stated that it was possible to hold two offices, but that the offices had to be completely unrelated to each other.

Motion 10-03-08-9 (Harriman/Ward): Moved, seconded, and withdrawn that the Commission adopt Decision Point 3 (deletion of section 3.220).

Commissioner Hansen stated that someone should not hold two offices at the same time, regardless of whether they were compatible. Executive Director St. Croix stated that an officer, in this case, would be defined as someone having two City positions and making less than $2500 in those positions. DCA Shen added that “officer” would include all elected officials, every department head, and some levels below department head.

Public Comment

Mr. Nathan asked whether this rule would prevent someone from serving on two commissions. He stated that a member of AAC currently serves on two commissions. He asked for clarification regarding the rule and the $2500 limit.

Commissioner Harriman stated that she was confused by the stricken language and by the replacement language. Mr. St. Croix stated that staff may need to revisit the language and suggest new language.

Decision Point 2

Commissioner Harriman stated that there was no need in voting for Decision Point 2, as there were not four votes in support of the amendments. She suggested discussing the issues in order to give staff guidance.

Commissioner Hur stated that he did not understand allowing for the same level of exemptions for someone sitting in a public seat as someone with specific skills. The Commission invited public comment.

Mr. Nathan stated that it would impossible for someone interested in serving and wanting to participate in government without a waiver. He stated that without waivers departments would have a difficult time in filling vacancies.

Chairperson Studley stated that waivers should be granted under narrow and extreme circumstances, but that she understands Commissioner Ward and Commissioner Hansen’s concerns. She asked staff to look at alternatives. Commissioner Ward questioned the AAC’s need for having its meetings during the day on a weekday. He suggested the AAC change its meeting time in order to increase the selection pool.

[Commissioner Studley was excused at 7:13 PM.]

Commissioner Harriman stated there would be no action on this decision point.

[Break at 7:14 PM.]

[Return from break at 7:23 PM.]

VIII. Selection of Random Audits of 2009 Committees.

Assistant Deputy Director Shaikh stated that staff recommends seven committees for audit and also recommends one general pool of all types of committees which formed for the 2009 election. Executive Director St. Croix noted an error on the audit list of committees – “San Francisco Chamber of Commerce 21st Century Committee” is the old name for “SF Forward Sponsored by San Francisco Chamber of Commerce” – and that the total number in the pool of $10,000 - $50,000 committees should be 11, not 12. Commissioner Hansen asked to alter the percentages, so that instead of 17%, 17%, and 44%, the Commission audit more higher-level committees. She suggested the percentages be 10% on the lowest level, 20% on the next level, and 70% on the above-$100,000 level. Using those percentages, she suggested staff audit eight committees. Mr. St. Croix stated that two auditor positions were vacant from August 2009 to January 2010. He stated that, during that time, the Commission only had one auditor and half of his time was spent on budget issues. He stated that staff anticipates auditing 25 committees after the 2010 election. Ms. Shaikh stated that many candidates have started their campaigns much earlier than they have in the past. She reminded the Commission that public financing for the 2011 Mayoral election may be implemented and that there will be two major elections back to back. She stated that staff will be extremely occupied with monitoring the expenditure ceiling.

Commissioner Ward asked the reason for adjusting the audit percentages. Commissioner Hansen stated that her rationale was about higher level of activity in a more highly funded campaign versus small campaigns. She suggested that there is an assumption that if a campaign can hire a treasurer, then that campaign should know what they are doing; if errors are made, then it is not because of lack of knowledge. She stated that if mistakes are made in smaller campaigns, there are people who do not know what they are doing, even after trainings. She stated that the Commission should pay more attention to the committees that spend more money.

Commissioner Ward asked whether she suggested that there should be a standard for higher-funded campaigns and then a different standard for grassroots campaigns. Commissioner Hansen stated that the Commission was already using two standards. Commissioner Harriman stated that she would defer to staff’s judgment regarding the number to be audited. Ms. Shaikh stated that the numbers are based on past guidance and consensus from the Commission. She stated that the smaller campaigns are the ones that make more mistakes. She stated that staff performs the audits as outreach and education and that staff is available at the counter to help anyone who has questions about reporting requirements.

Commissioner Hansen stated that the public harm from mistakes from a committee that raises only $10,000 is much different than mistakes from a committee that raises $100,000. She stated that the Commission has heard from smaller campaigns that it is punishing them and that what the Commission does is onerous. She suggested auditing more of the higher-level committees. Commissioner Harriman stated that the Commission should not pre-judge and the audits are to be used as education and outreach. She stated that staff is required to take pay cuts and she is sympathetic and not willing to overload them.

Motion 10-03-08-10 (Harriman/Ward): Moved, seconded, and passed (3-1; Hansen dissented and Studley absent) to adopt staff’s memorandum and recommendations.

Public Comment:
Ms. Mayo stated that the Commission should also consider equal protection of the law. She stated that the Commission seems to want to punish larger campaigns and if the smaller campaigns are the ones making more mistakes, then the focus should be on those campaigns.

Selection of Audits:

Ms. Mayo assisted in choosing the committee names randomly out of a box.

Ms. Mayo read the names of the seven 3rd level committees (above $100,000): Committee on JOBS Government Reform Fund; Building Owners and Managers Association of San Francisco PAC – Independent Expenditures AKA BOMA-SF; Choice for Students; SF Forward Sponsored by San Francisco Chamber of Commerce; San Francisco Coalition for Responsible Growth – PAC; Plan C San Francisco PAC; Committee on JOBS Candidate Advocacy Fund. Ms. Shaikh stated that there were also one ballot measure committee and one candidate committee in activity level three. Ms. Mayo read the names of those two committees: Mid-Market ARTS Alliance, Yes on D; Re-Elect City Attorney Dennis Herrera 2009. Ms. Shaikh stated that the Commission would select four committees for audit from this level.

Committees chosen for audit: Building Owners and Managers Association of San Francisco PAC – Independent Expenditures AKA BOMA-SF; Committee on Jobs Government Reform Fund; Choice for Students; and Plan C San Francisco PAC.

Ms. Shaikh stated that there were five general purpose committees in activity level two ($50,001-$100,000). Ms. Mayo read the names of the five committees in this pool: San Francisco Small Business Advocates; Asian Pacific Democratic Club PAC; San Francisco Women’s Political Committee; San Francisco Apartment Association PAC; and Coleman Action Fund for Children Committee. Ms. Shaikh stated that there was also one candidate committee in activity level two. Ms. Mayo read the name of that committee: Cisneros for Treasurer 2009.

Committee chosen for Audit: Cisneros for Treasurer 2009.

Ms. Shaikh stated that there were seven general purpose committees in activity level one. Ms. Mayo read the names of the seven committees in this pool: San Francisco Taxpayers Union Political Action Committee; District 11 Democratic Club; Protect our Benefits; Residential Builders Association of San Francisco PAC; Richmond District Democratic Club; Noe Valley Democratic Club; and Asian American Contractors Association (AACA) PAC. Ms. Mayo then read the ballot measure committees: San Franciscans for Budget Reform: Yes on A; San Franciscans Against Commercialization – No on C, No on D, Yes on E; One California for All – Yee for C; and Protect Our Rec Centers/Yes on C.

Committees chosen for audit: San Franciscans Against Commercialization – No on C, No on D, Yes on E; and Protect Our Rec Centers/Yes on C.

IX. Closed Session

Motion 10-03-08-11 (Ward/Hur): Moved, seconded, and passed (4-0; Studley absent) that the Commission go into closed session.

Public Comment:
None.

The Commission went into closed session at 7:49 PM.
The Commission returned to open session at 8:02 PM.

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

Motion 10-03-08-12 (Hansen/Ward): Moved, seconded and passed (4-0; Studley absent) 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 as defendant.
Public Comment:
None.

XI. Minutes of the Commission’s regular meeting of December 14, 2009

Motion 10-03-08-13 (Hansen/Ward): Moved, seconded, and passed (4-0; Studley absent) that the Commission adopt the minutes of the meeting of December 14, 2009.

Public Comment:
None.

XII. Executive Director’s Report

Executive Director St. Croix stated that he was proud of staff. He stated that everyone received layoff notices for 60 days from receiving them. He stated that staff should be rehired as part-time employees after March 22, 2010. He stated that everyone will have a 6.25% pay cut and that he was asked to take a 10% pay cut. He stated that about 400 City employees will be laid off, but that none of those 400 will be from the Ethics Commission. He stated that he does anticipate bumping into the open position at Ethics. He stated that he would like to replace an investigator in July, if the department has the money.

Mr. St. Croix then addressed BDR (Bureau of Delinquent Revenues) settlements that occurred since the Commission last met. He presented a few screenshots of the new lobbyist site. Commissioner Hansen asked whether there was a downloadable function and whether the information was exportable to Excel. Mr. St. Croix stated he would check with the Information Technology Officer.

Public Comment
None.

XIII. Items for Future Meetings

Commissioner Harriman suggested that the Commissioners e-mail Chairperson Studley directly with any items they wish to discuss at future meetings.

Public Comment:
None.

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

None.

XV. Adjournment

Motion 10-03-08-14 (Ward/Hansen) Moved, seconded and passed (4-0; Studley absent) that the Ethics Commission adjourn.

The meeting was adjourned at 8:15 PM.

Respectfully submitted,

_______________________
Catherine Argumedo
Investigator/ Legal Analyst

Recording - April 12, 2010 - Ethics Commission Meeting

Tue, 13 Apr 2010 14:36:28 -0700

Recording - April 12, 2010 - Ethics Commission Meeting (13.6 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 - 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

Minutes - December 12, 2011

Minutes of the Regular Meeting of The San Francisco Ethics Commission December 12, 2011 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 proposed amendments to the Statement of Incompatible Activities (SIA) for the Department of Human Resources (DHR).

IV. Consideration of possible amendments to the Campaign Finance Reform Ordinance (CFRO), San Francisco Campaign and Governmental Conduct Code section 1.100 et seq., related to the public financing programs for candidates for the Board of Supervisors and Mayor.

V. Closed session.

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

VII. Minutes of the Commission's regular meeting of November 14, 2011.

VIII. Executive Director's Report.

IX. Items for future meetings.

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

XI. Adjournment.

Notice About Audio Recordings

Minutes - November 14, 2011

Minutes of the Regular Meeting of The San Francisco Ethics Commission November 14, 2011 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 draft regulations regarding the Commission's enforcement of the Sunshine Ordinance.

IV. Consideration of request for waivers from the post-employment bans under Campaign and Governmental Conduct Code sections 3.234(a)(1) and (a)(2).

V. Closed session.

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

VII. Continuation of consideration of possible amendments to the Campaign Finance Reform Ordinance.

VIII. Consideration of legislation to delay certification of Supervisorial candidates as eligible to receive public funds in the November 2012 election until the supervisorial district lines have been finally revised by the Redistricting Task Force.

IX. Minutes of the Commission's special meeting of October 19, 2011.

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.

This summary statement was provided by the speaker, Ray Hartz. The content is neither generated by, nor subject to approval or verification of accuracy by, the Ethics Commission.

This summary statement was provided by the speaker, Patrick Monette-Shaw. The content is neither generated by, nor subject to approval or verification of accuracy by, the Ethics Commission.

This summary statement was provided by the speaker, Ray Hartz. The content is neither generated by, nor subject to approval or verification of accuracy by, the Ethics Commission.

Recording - December 12, 2011 - Ethics Commission Meeting

Minutes - October 19, 2011

Minutes of the Special Meeting of The San Francisco Ethics Commission October 19, 2011 Room 416, 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.

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

V. Consideration of possible amendments to the Ethics Commission's By-Laws to change the day of the Commission's regular meeting from the second Monday of the month to the fourth Monday of the month, in order to accommodate the televising of the meetings.

VI. Minutes of the Commission's regular meeting of September 12, 2011.

VII. Executive Director's Report.

VIII. Items for future meetings.

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

X. Adjournment.

Recording - November 14, 2011 - Ethics Commission Meeting

Recording - October 19, 2011 - Ethics Commission Meeting

Minutes - September 12, 2011

Minutes of the Regular Meeting of The San Francisco Ethics Commission September 12, 2011 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 provision in the Statement of Incompatible Activities (SIA) governing officers and employees of the Office of Chief Medical Examiner.

IV. Consideration of request for waivers from the post-employment bans under Campaign and Governmental Conduct Code sections 3.234(a)(1) and 3.234(a)(2).

V. Consideration of possible amendment to Ethics Commission Enforcement Regulations VI.A and XIV.C, which would permit the Commission to calendar proposed dismissals or settlements of enforcement matters based on the request of one, rather than two, Commissioners.

VI. Annual Report.

VII. Minutes of the Commission's regular meeting of August 8, 2011.

VIII. Executive Director's Report.

IX. Items for future meetings.

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

XI. Adjournment.

Minutes - August 8, 2011

Minutes of the Regular Meeting of The San Francisco Ethics Commission August 8, 2011 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 response to the 2010-2011 Civil Grand Jury Report.

IV. Consideration of the Status of "Progress for All."

V. Closed session.

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

VII. Minutes of the Commission's regular meeting of July 11, 2011.

VIII. Executive Director's Report.

IX. Items for future meetings.

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

XI. Adjournment.

Recording - September 12, 2011 - Ethics Commission Meeting

Minutes - July 11, 2011

Minutes of the Regular Meeting of The San Francisco Ethics Commission July 11, 2011 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 Chairperson Hur stated that each speaker would be permitted three minutes to speak. He noted that he wanted to ensure everyone was afforded the opportunity to speak.

III. Consideration of Ethics Complaint No. 01-100115.

IV. Consideration of possible response to the 2010-2011 Civil Grand Jury Report.

Minutes of the Regular Meeting of
The San Francisco Ethics Commission
December 12, 2011
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
November 14, 2011
Room 408, City Hall
1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place
San Francisco, CA 94102

Minutes of the Special Meeting of
The San Francisco Ethics Commission
October 19, 2011
Room 416, City Hall
1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place
San Francisco, CA 94102

Minutes of the Regular Meeting of
The San Francisco Ethics Commission
September 12, 2011
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 8, 2011
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
July 11, 2011
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
June 13, 2011
Room 408, City Hall
1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place
San Francisco, CA 94102

Minutes of the Special Meeting of
The San Francisco Ethics Commission
June 28, 2011
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
May 9, 2011
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
April 11, 2011
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
March 14, 2011
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
February 14, 2011
Room 408, City Hall
1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place
San Francisco, CA 94102