Skip to main content

tv   Government Access Programming  SFGTV  February 21, 2018 4:00pm-5:01pm PST

4:00 pm
supervisor breed's office who was the sponsor of the 2016 legislation she was interested. that is a point of information so you can consider that in the next steps. with that i just want to open it up for questions or public comment. >> commissioners any questions? >> i make a motion we adopt the ordinance identified as 2017 wpo ballot measure, attachment one, and have it placed on the june ballot. >> i have a clarifying question for staff. i understand that the ballot measure and the ordinance as drafted there are slight differences as between the two. could you give a summary of that to make sure i understand what
4:01 pm
is -- what would be miss from the version that would go on the ballot? >> due to the jurisdiction of the authority we had to slightly scale back and narrow what would be in the full legislative proposal. it is 4.105 to govern the overall scope of complaints whichca raise other -- can raise other concerns. those were removed. the other big category were the proposed edits to 4.107. that would have addressed the whistleblower program outsides of the ethics commission as well. the bulk and i will let the staff speak to the policy impact. the bulk of the amendments are still there in the ballot measure version. >> for those provisions excluded
4:02 pm
from the ballot measure provision, what could the board act to incorporate those or do they just disappear forever? >> i think if the ethics commission were to move forward i am not sure supervisor breed would want to introduce the remainder that is a different decision point for her. >> comments or questions? >> let me express myself. one of the problems voters face is too many ballot measures to figure out. that is why i would just prefer an ordinance especially when apparently ms. breed is committed to this and president of the board. she ought to be able to get enough votes to get it passed.
4:03 pm
the other matter is a question. why is the controller involved in whistleblower complaints? anybody give me the rationale? >> the charter designates the controller office with the authority to run the whistleblower hot line that is how it is set up. >> what is the rationale? >> i can't speak to that. it is versus 311 or the ethics commission. >> or the ethics commission. or the city attorney. >> my understanding from the whistleblower director because of the controller expertise in financial matters. most complaints allege fraud and waste of city resources in contracts or different financial capacities. their auditors have a special
4:04 pm
expertise. thathat is the rationale i have been given. >> that is a weak rationale why can't the city attorney do that or the ethics commission do that? >> but does the ethics commission have jurisdiction on those items that the control lawyer is deemed -- controller is deemed to be most knowledgeable, misuse of city funds? >> our jurisdiction is over conflict of interest, campaign finance, government ethics rules in 4107. if anyone is retaliating against it does not matter the complaint. >> if the complaint is somebody misused city funds they come to the ethics commission staff they are directed to go somewhere else? >> unless it was misused to personal financial interest we
4:05 pm
would direct them to the controller's office. any public comment? >> commissioners open government. whistleblowers in the city and county of san francisco are courage weilgus sometimes it is the -- courageous. they come forward trying to right a wrong knowing they will receive nothing for their trouble but abuse. to my knowledge this ethics commission has never protected a single whistleblower. they keep rewriting the law hoping the public doesn't notice the complete lack of law enforcement. commissioner keen earlier this evening talked about going to the ballot and the will of the public. the sunshine ordinance passed with a 67% margin. you won't enforce that. what is it you enforce one law because the public votes for it and ignore another law because
4:06 pm
the public voted for it? i don't understand any sense of logic there. you keep rewriting the law. why would you in the name of those holy enforce this law? this law with the sunshine ordinary are approved to control city government particularly elected officials. the very people who appoint the members of this commission. from studying the his for cal record no reasonable person would expect these appointees with side with the whistleblower against the political masters. how many times will the public allow them to repeat this farce. when will the public demand results? achievement, not simply activity. you pass a law and enforce it. if you pass the law and don't enforce it there was no point in
4:07 pm
peacing it in the first place. the city of san francisco passed the sunshine ordinance. i have 36 orders of determination myself as one individual, all of whom you have refused to enforce. basically why should the public accept this oxymoron logic where you say this was passed by the public as a ballot measure, we will enforce it. we have another law we are responsible foreign forcing that was passed by the public and we won't enforce it. you don't like my comments. i know that. sometimes as i said earlier this evening. sometimes it is a matter getting it in the public record so three or four years in the road when we are in the same discussion i can say i told you so or the possibility maybe you will actually do something and i will come back and say i was wrong,
4:08 pm
in the official record i made a statement. i will admit now, i am wrong. i hope that i prove to be wrong. >> thank you. >> i am one of the last men standing out here. we have lost mr. bush, we lost doctorker who submitted a letter with his comments. i would urge you to take his carefully considered comments in hand and make sure that you give them due consideration. i am not an expert in this area, certainly mr. bush was because he is a member of the controllers advisory committee which is called general obligation bond committee. i think the reason it is true that i think controller ended up
4:09 pm
with this because it is a historical artifact in early charter, however, i think also with prop c moneys coming into the controller's office to do audit this boosted resourcing at the controller's office and that is probably why ethics is quick to refer certain types of complaints right over to the controller. it is probably a dollar and cents and resource issue, that is less now that the commission staff has grown with the support of the board and the mayor, including mr. lee, who we want to appreciate for his support of the ethics budget. that is all i really wanted to say on this. i hope you will put it on the ballot. i don't know if supervisor breed
4:10 pm
has the time for it until certainly after january -- sorry june. it is likely if these elected. of course, she will not have time for it at all. it might be something you might want to do if you have your votes. >> thank you. any other public comment? so on the motion commissioner renney to take the whistleblower protection ordinance and place it on the june 20, 2018 ballot all in favor. >> wait, wait, wait. i want to comment from staff on the first point doctorker makes. the second point i am not concerned with. he refers to state legislation that sounds like it is pending.
4:11 pm
do you know ab403? was it enacted and he is using the bill number. do you know? >> i followed it in the news, but it did pass. >> then get to the substance of using the words interference with and retaliation for making protected disclosures. is that preferable language? >> we have not undertaken an analysis of any of doctorker's public comment we received yesterday. >> you don't have an answer? >> no. >> do you have any feeling? i kind of like the phrase interference with, but all right.
4:12 pm
no answer. >> are you okay? >> well, all right. i would like staff quick analysis at your convenience. >> on analysis on ab403 outlined in section one? >> this one. >> you would like the analysis? >> of that language from a bill which was just passed by what was it signed by the governor? >> right. >> so it is law. i would like an analysis of the use of that phrase in that legislation with what is in our proposed ballot measure.
4:13 pm
>> in view of mr. cop's comments, i will withdraw my motion and have this put on the march agenda. >> okay. >> withdrawing your motion, putting it on the march agenda precludes putting it on the june ballot? >> that's right. >> that means november then? >> correct. >> are you satisfied with that? >> that is fine. >> okay. >> it has less impact on the elections as opposed to our anti-corruption ordinance. >> i have a procedural question for the city attorney. with the withdrawal of commissioner renney's motion for the june ballot, does the commission need to take action or hold this over to the march
4:14 pm
meeting? continue it pending staff's analysis of the language? >> i understand the motion to be withdrawn so no proposed action on this item. this goes back to the ethics commission docket and what they want to reconsider they can reconsider it. >> we will take this up at the march meeting then. >> item number 6. discussion of staff update on research about online paid political commissions. >> thank you. quickly as you all know in november of 2017, commissioners met with the staff and former fec chair. the professors. that was related to a proposal those three had worked on together that highlighted some
4:15 pm
analysis that requested that some localities review online political communications. from that the most significant provision was a provision highlighting a political filing or archive system. from the january meeting of this body from december and january of this meeting you requested we continue to sort every view the legal and policy implications of these documentations. we worked through our leann, jessica and i's visit through the government ethics and lobbying to provide a legal analysis. i want to recognize professor abbey wood and her two research as assistants from the gold
4:16 pm
school of law. they prepared an analysis of the legal concern regarding federal and state preemption as creating the political filing system. the research concluded there would not be a preemption issue at the federal or state level. you know, i will let you all consider that attachment if you have not had the chance to review their legal work. in addition to that effort by professor wood and her research assistants. staff has been monitoring a number of white papers, law reviews in the area. in particular we have been focusing on two other localities on this issue. the first and most important system we are monitoring is the city of seattle and state of washington. both of those entities, i guess
4:17 pm
i will call them for lack of better term, have had on their books for roughly three decade esto the 1970s a provision to require a professor wood and former chair are proposing that would require each commercial advertiser who has provided advertising to maintain for public inspection a political archive of the items. although the provision had been on the books for about three decades, that law really wasn't used before until recently. the seattle ethics and elections commissions recently instituted a procedure that they were going to enforce that provision. they asked that facebook provide comment to them
4:18 pm
regarding whether they were going to comply with this provision in the political file. facebook did comply. the director of the seattle ethics commission determined that what they provided was insufficient. we are continuing to monitor what if any sort of administrative or legal action they are working with their local attorney to deter min how they can force facebook to comply. we haven't seen updates since a couple weeks ago. we are monitoring york and the governor has relayed an interest in a similar proposal more directly related to the honest ad's act. there are slight differences it is not important to get into those today. what is more important for our purposes is section c on page 5
4:19 pm
of item 6. although we have gotten nice legal analysis from professor wood and her research assistants. there are a number of open policy questions that we have ascertained from documents stanford directed by former senator russ fine gold and others that raised a number of questions regarding the public file or archiving system. in section c we laid out the questions for exploration as we go along and identified concerns in each of those categories. we want to continue to explore and work with other partners we identified those are what we continue to research.
4:20 pm
on on page 6 of item 6 is a schedule going forward. this might have to be slightly modified because of the action on agenda item 4 pushing back the dates we proposed. this is a tentative schedule of dealing with the items with the next two months being continued research working with the professors to continue to research this item to see whether we can put forward a rationale piece of legislation. [please stand by]
4:21 pm
any other comments?
4:22 pm
>> chair kopp, i would just like to say please extend my thanks to professor wood and to law students who did stellar work on the analysis because i think that the preemption question was a large one and a significant one that needed answering and for them to be able to prepare such a detailed and thorough analysis in the time frame that they were working under is -- was -- is greatly appreciated so -- and please keep up the great work, and look forward to continuing this dialogue and engaging with the stakeholders. and i don't know if you saw, but there was an article a couple days ago that the fbi was warning that there will be more russian meddling in the 2018 elections. >> there were 13 indictments yesterday. >> yeah, so this is very much of the moment. any other public comment? okay. moving on, then, to agenda item
4:23 pm
7, discussion on staff report including updates to the annual policy plan. >> thank you. i think i will run through this quickly fairly quickly. i think we've addressed a number of these items. the only thing i really want to specifically point out, 'cause i think we've addressed everything else is on agenda item 7, page 2, the form 700 nonvoting ordinance, that was taken up by a committee -- the rules committee this week, and that was voted on unanimously. it was voted onto go to the entire board, so it will be approved perhaps at the next full meeting of the board of supervisors there, given the positive recommendation of the
4:24 pm
rules committee. i really don't have any other updates on this, but if anyone has any questions or any of the commissioners have questions based on this, i'd be happy to answer them. >> i have a question on supervisor tang's legislation. we tried to meet with her and it never happened. >> yeah. so we passed along a letter to them sort of outlining our scope and questions and potential concerns that we had for them, and that was january 17th of 2018 that we sent that letter across, so the policy division had concurred, and we will reach back out to them after this meeting to see sort of if they've had a chance to review and sort of where that progress is, but we've not heard any subsequent item -- >> well, she is running for mayor. >> correct. >> but i heard from her last year that she wanted to enact
4:25 pm
something or have it put before the full board before the mayor's race -- down the road, but not in june. i don't know if these events have overtaken her and it's behind in her timetable. >> yeah. thank you. >> thank you. any public comments? >> yes. i can update you on supervisor kim. she's had numerous interested stakeholder parties, meetings. foe has been attending every one, and she has commissioned a study by the legislative and budget analyst to look at all the budgeting finance systems or at least six or eight of them, major, in the united states. that study is in phase two development. it's very impressive. i send bob stern a copy at
4:26 pm
their request. they expect to have a third draft, which will be the final draft. it's very robust, and at that point, they'll release it, and i'm sure they'll be happy to share it with the staff, but now that it's a moving target, there's very few people that have seen it. they have a general policy preference, but they're open-minded, and they have asked everybody they're talking to to get prepared to make comments to them after june election. she doesn't want to appear that this is done for campaign purposes, and she's busy, any way, so after june, she'll -- this summer, maybe next fall, she'll be working on it, depending if she's elected. >> thank you. any other comments? hearing none, we'll move onto agenda items 8, discussion of
4:27 pm
staff monthly enforcement report, including an update on various programatic and various issues since the last meeting. >> thank you, chair chiu. the staff has been busy. we're busy every day. i barely see a couple of them. they're doing great work. we just received nine complaints since our last meeting. we decided five merited dismissal and opened two new investigations based on audit findings. we continue to work toward resolution of complaints. we have scheduled our first probable cause hearing since the new investigative staff came on board for march, and have a meeting with that respondent in an attempt to reach a negotiated settlement in advance of the meeting but plan ongoing full steam ahead if that doesn't pan out. i've updated the number of open complaints, open
4:28 pm
investigations. the bureau of delinquent revenue chart, the payment plan chart, and everyone's up to date so far, and then, the caseload data for -- visual caseload data for your review, and i'll take questions. >> any questions or comments from the commissioners? >> yeah. get me an answer from the -- what's it? bureau of delinquent revenue as to whether an order of examination has been conducted in the first four cases you've got there. the last one is bankruptcy, but i see nothing about oex having -- >> okay. any public comment? okay. then moving onto agenda item
4:29 pm
nine, discussion of executive director's report. >> thanks, chair chiu. the ed report is a little bit long this month. we started -- included some information about the public financing program since the june election is underway in earnest, we have two candidates today that we have certified to receive public funds for their campaign. we will continue to update our webpages live with information about candidates who qualified as well as disbursements they've received, so that's contained in this information. we've outreached to departments, we've had our first information session for filing officers to help them understand what to expect this year, including some new regulations about the sunshine and ethics certification and training that the commission has adopted recently. we also have good news in terms of our campaign audits. we have completed four of the
4:30 pm
five nonpublicly financed candidate committees through our in-house staff. we are also very probably in the next week or so expected to post on-line, in addition to those, a slew of publicly financed candidates audits that were conducted through the city services auditor contract audit team that did those, so we've made some good progress. our audit team has pulled off daily dealing with the public financing qualification program, so that is putting in abeyance some of the continued audit work, but on that front, i am pleased to let you know we have a new auditor joining our staff in two weeks. rob hodge couldn't be here tonight, but he is going to be joini joining our staff. he's very familiar with the requirements of the city law and lobbying laws, as well, so we're looking forward to having
4:31 pm
him join the staff. i think you also earlier in the evening met thomas mclane who will be joining our office next month as our fourth senior investigator to round out that team working with jessica, and both individuals have terrific on spot experience. we're delighted that they're able to bring their experience to the staff joining us in the coming weeks. we have instituted a department work order with the department of human resources to continue to be as aggressive as possible to fill our outstanding positions by the end of the fiscal year. and then, lastly, but very importantly, we have, as you know, all budgets are due to the mayor's office next wednesday, the 21st, and i've attached to this an overview of the budget that -- the budget package that we plan to submit.
4:32 pm
there's no action report on your part. this year, the mayor's office again has -- as mayor lee, the late mayor lee asked in december, mayor farrell is continuing his direction to mayoral departments to continue to submit budgets with a 2% cut each fiscal year and to not increase budgets with any full-ti full-ti full-ti full-time equivalencies. we will not be seeking new fte's in this next year's budget. we are not however in a position to offer any cuts. we are trying to continue the trajectory of making the improvements and innovations and changes that i think you've seen on a monthly basis. we know that we have a ways to go in terms of continuing to improve our program across
4:33 pm
program area to continue to deliver audits in a most thorough and timely way, continue to make strides with jessica and her team, and bringing the significance of cases we review up. we are at a period where we need to continue those gains and that we need to invest in the staff who will be in the chairs doing those jobs, so our budget request provides three particular things. one is a retention of all the staff that we currently have, 24 authorized positions. we are also asking that we have a full funding for those positions because as you recall that when we have new positions authorized, they are authorized only for a partial year, and so in the normal course of things, this next year, we would have positions at a full-time 100% full year capacity, and we want to make sure we have funding for that recognize that any structural salary account shortfall is dealt with.
4:34 pm
we also are asking that the atrition savings amount be returned to our operating budget. this is a formula that often in the budget process this essentially takes off from the top and makes department that have a lot more staff and turnover than we do, manage to a lower target than a full salary savings account. that doesn't work when we're a small organization, and it particularly doesn't work when we've recently justify been staffing up, so we are asking to not be held to an atrition savings target in the coming year, so we can have seats filled, bodies in those seats, and the work being done. and then we are recognizing that we want to expand not only our policy outreach, but education, outreach and public engagement in communities that are not fully served. we have not had a line item for communication other than english. we're not communicating well with them, so we've asked for a budget increase of $15,000 to
4:35 pm
make sure we can both in on-line and offline materials, help provide information to people when they're at a time, as you heard tonight, significant political change in this city. it's important to make sure that we reach out as fully as we can, and lasthen lastly to develop staff and support retention. we've added additional $37,000 for training to invest in employees' knowledge, skills, and abilities continue work order with the department of human resources to provide expanded human resource and personnel services administratively, because we don't have them now, and our department needs them. all in all, this is a roughly 10% increase over our base operating budget, and this is something that we think is critical to get us in the right structure and setting to keep
4:36 pm
delivering on the things that we've identified as a priority as a department in the last couple of years. so i'm happy to answer any questions. we've basically presented an overview and score card based on the goals we identified two years ago in our blueprint for accountablity, and this reflects our best judgment where we've been able to make some strides and the work we still have to do. the last we talk often about our performance indicators, and how we're doing. we hope our work speaks for itself. we have a lot of work to be done, but we're proud of what we've done, so one of the things that we have done this year is to make sure that we are closely aligning our individual performance goals each year with the overall organization's top priorities, so we have an annual performance goal discussion
4:37 pm
with employees, so we know how our work contributes to the overall success of us as an organization, and that's an important and now seriously process engaged in our organization. so with that, i will stop and answer any questions that you might have and happy to provide more information if you don't see it here, but you'd like it. >> i'm sure -- >> i just have two questions related to the revenue report. why -- how do you explain why the campaign finance fines are so much higher than what you anticipated and the ethic fines are so much lower than you anticipated? [ inaudible ] >> sure. you know, it's hard to pinpoint or guess what forms people are
4:38 pm
going to file late and which they are going to file on time, but this year, we saw an uptick in the forms that people filed late in the campaign context, and so fines were assessed at a higher rate than we anticipated. and then, the sei forms came in on time. that's one of our priorities for the coming year, and with the hiring of guy three, that can be a lot of chief programming officers. >> just one last note, as well, that number for receipts in the ethics area may change towards the end of the fiscal year because the annual statements come in in april, so this also may be subject to the unique timing. >> commissioner? >> couple of questions. i found no mention in your report or any other document about my request for
4:39 pm
legislation to prohibit candidates for local election using funds that were part of a campaign for a party central county committee. >> we have, in our -- we reviewed the minutes -- or i'm sorry, the video, and you requested that in the independent council memo for march. >> the march meeting? >> right. >> thank you. and then, secondly, what happened with that hearing at the sunshine ordinance task force? >> you know, they haven't contacted me and said that they're going to go forward. >> all right. >> so i'm assuming it died, but we did not participate. >> okay. thank you. >> commissioners, any other comments from commissioners? i would just like to comment on the -- what i believe is really critical that we communicate to the mayor and controller that
4:40 pm
we have no reductions in the up coming fiscal year, because this has been an ongoing process trying to staff up, and that to curtail that now would be a significant and material critical hit to our ability to be effective, so i'd really like to emphasize that. and the second question i had was this regard to the public finance funds because we are having an interim race for mayor in june, and we have a lot of supervisorories, and we have another election in november , will we have sufficient funds to cover all the public financing needs. >> based on our analysis of the controller's office of the required fund amount, we will be fine for the june election, which carries us through the end of this fiscal year. for the november elections, we were working with the mayor and the elections office.
4:41 pm
they are aware it will require a significant infusion to cover that election as well as the next election in november of 2019, everybody's -- it's on radar that we're working with it. >> and lastly -- actually, second to last, on page 15, what a fantastic chart, two of them. it's -- i think that this -- that these graphics are incredib incredibly powerful, and this is what makes the story come alive. the show. this is why you are under staffed, and this is why we need the staff to do this work, because when we had zero and complaints hit an all time high of 31, you know, it dropped to less than half in january . picked up a little bit, but i think this is, if anything, this is a testament to the --
4:42 pm
to the power of hiring the right people and turning them loose and doing what they do best. and i like how the lines cross, where we have more complaints that we're actually investigating as opposed to trying to figure out if it's actually worth investigating, so i think that's a really great development. and then lastly, i don't think you addressed it, director held hheld -- held -- pelham, but you would like to hear from you and staff as to what your recommendation would be. >> well, i'm happy to also have the input from pat ford who was also in the meeting with steven massy and the city hall telephone people. the headline and the unfortunate headline actually is that there are technical requirements that make it
4:43 pm
impossible for us to have a telephone line currently for the meeting, and this time, in this room. there is technology that the system uses, a hybrid unit. i won't go into the details, but it is something that essentially allows for a party line. right now it's used by one commission, the commission on disabilities, and so everybody kind of cues up on the telephone line and then waits their turn to speak to the commission. here, that technology would require -- it prevents the ability, like a radio call in show to be the first cued-in person to speak, and if there is any kind of discussion or disruption among the group, the entire group has to be muted, and it requires a staff person to monitor that during the time of the phone calls coming in. so it's -- i would say it's rather archane and probably not the most nimblest of systems.
4:44 pm
so that, unfortunately, does not look like a terrific option of sort, but if therepat, if t anything to add to that. >> icon occur with lee's assessment of the folks specializing in this stuff down stairs. this is the only option, and it's not a very appealing one. very inflexible. it seems like the communications infrastructure here in city hall. >> is not 2018? >> yeah. it's not able to accommodate other terms of technology. it's pretty narrow in terms of not being able to accommodate this way. it would basically be everyone calling in at once, and there would have to be a dedicated staff member to monitor the lines at all times, and there's no way to police it. literally, you just turn it off and on. that's it. >> commissioner lee?
4:45 pm
>> do you know how much a simple podcast costs in. >> i'm sorry? >> a podcast costs? >> i don't. >> because it seems like a simple thing to do. we have one a week, and we have upwards of 200 people coming in, and all it takes is a staff member to monitor the questionnaires. >> if you want to -- [ inaudible ] >> -- and then, we'll just cue them in. they could participate the entire meeting. >> right, so my understanding -- >> couple hours. >> -- from talking to the experts here, that kind of option, which i believe is called voice over ip, rope, vo not available here. it has to be able to be patched into the television system, and
4:46 pm
it's not feasible to do that. the only way to do that is to mount something in the audio system that we're all speaking into, and they don't have the voip system patched in that way. the only way would be a voip line, and a conference line, that they call into our office. they call into a conference line just on the actual telephone, so not through voip, like, through the internet. doesn't work that way. >> and these are also -- these are constraints based on the assumption of city hall meetings. we haven't researched this, but it is probably the case if there were meetings available in other buildings somewhere else in the city of san francisco, this technology hurdle may not be the challenge, so in terms of the next steps, to the extent that we can continue in conversation with city technology people to see if there are other places or other ways where meetings are handled with a little bit more of 21st century technology, we can check on that and report back where and when that might be possible.
4:47 pm
ultimately, it might require a decision where city hall is the best location to engage the public in that way, but we can certainly continue to ask and engage and monitor conversations about that. >> yeah. my comment would be sort of similar to commissioner lee's, and that would be to go back to experts in i.t. for the city. is there a way to incorporate a feed into the television itself, you know, when you watch cnn or something else, you've got the ticker tape that goes on the bottom that can update with tweets or other comment? it seems very standard for, you know, current media, but it might be much too complex or incompatible with our current city systems, but i think it's worth asking the question. >> i'd be glad to reach out to them with that question. >> thank you. any public comment? >> hi again. it's mark bruno, and the real
4:48 pm
reason i came tonight was i just wanted to familiarize myself with the ethics commission, because i have an ethics complaint that was filed in september. i won't refer anymore with regards to the complaint execute with reference to this executive director's report. i think one of the things the ethics commission must consider for the sake of the public, people who might be filing ethics complaints, and in my case, it was a conflict of economic interest at the board of appeals, is that without enough staff and without enough resources, what has occurred in my case and might happen in other cases is that we've gone forward with an appeal to the board of supervisors and now currently before the superior court what's called a ceqa case, and as you all know, there's a very strict schedule of how that proceeds. and when you all doing your
4:49 pm
best work -- ethics staff has been incredibly positive. i get a sense of people who are not over worked, but doing a fantastic job of pretending they're not over worked, and really spending time with people like me, a nonlawyer to explain what the law is, and help put together a meaningful complaint, which they did. here we now have a superior court judge in department, i believe, 603 is a specialist in ceqa matters, and we now have a settlement conference, i do, next week, with the city attorney's office all as a consequence, and i think this is a valid argument before the budget people deciders for you guys. a lot of people have been resourced and spending money, city money because the ethics commission is not being given the resources to do a quick job. i realize there's also due process elements when a complaint is made and some things have to take a while, but my sense without knowing for sure, but my sense, with
4:50 pm
two of the supervisors who are friends of mine and other people in government, is the delay is there are simply not enough resources in your staff, so i think we're wasting money but not having enough staff here at the ethics commission. thank you. >> thank you. >> i'll try to be brief. the rules committee met last wednesday and took up mr. -- well, the commission's proposal to encumber the vote of someone who has not -- if they're a commissioner, who has not filed their sei. i i'm wondering if anybody could report on feedback from that meeting. >> yes, charlie. that was voted favorably to advance to the full board. that was unanimous going forward, so the full board will hear it at the next full board meeting. >> great.
4:51 pm
congratulations. it sounds like it's moving very fast. i'm wondering if you are on-line here on your pc's. i think you are, and if you could designate an e-mail box that's on germane during the meetings, so that people would know that they could send an e-mail with a question or comment on any agenda item that may be sparked during the discussions or the debates of the commission, and that might be the simplest and best way to bypass the complexities of the city hall network. and i did want to say that i'm very pleased to see such high caliber talent that's attracted because obviously our salary system, the city's salary system is very commensurate, so
4:52 pm
you've done a great job attracting the funding levels, and obviously strong talent from the agenda, what your report is saying, we're doing very well in talent, and i can see it on the staff. but i was going to say, i see you're having oral interviews for the senior auditor. will they be on-line within the next two months, three months, hired? and then, that's good, because this year is going to be a busy year, and they need training. the other thing is when you say job posting and development, how much of a lag time is that before the actual staff person would be hired? is that more like nine months? >> our goal is to have those positions filled by the end of the fiscal year so that's an aggressive goal, but we have dhs working with us.
4:53 pm
>> i see that, and i think that's a great plan. and i'm optimistic on the budget, the support for the ethics commission budget. and i wanted to also say i found the graphics very useful. i think the public would, as well. and i -- oh, i'm sorry. i'm running out of time here. i think i'm done, any way. thank you very much. >> thank you. any other public comments? okay. next item, agenda 10 is discuss and possible action regarding status of complaints received or investigated by the ethics commission and possible closed session, so i think we need to take public comment. >> i'm going to speak tuesday with ms. blome rather than go into closed session. >> any public comment on this
4:54 pm
agenda item? seeing none, we'll move onto possiblient ite possiblient -- possiblient items for future meetings. >> yes. i would like to see placed on the april agenda a discussion of a possible campaign finance ordinance to either end or limit super pacs and ban foreign influence corporate spending in city elections. >> would you restate it, commissioner renne? >> it would be a proposed san francisco campaign finance ordinance to either limit or end super pacs and ban foreign influence corporate spending in city elections. and i hopefully before that will provide the staff with some legal research and some
4:55 pm
proposed drafts that are being prepared by a group that is very interested in trying to get san francisco to adopt such an ordinance, even though it may be over the objection of the city attorney because as i understand it, the city of st. petersburg has done that, and it might become important from a litigation point of view. >> question for staff on this. would this be incorporated into the review of cfro that is currently contemplated? >> i think generally, if there are items that relate to campaign finance law, being able to fold it into a broader review of our city's laws that
4:56 pm
were...[ inaudible ]. >> okay. >> but i -- well, i -- yeah, we can follow up offline. >> well, i was looking at the policy report on page three, and it had repaview of cfro regulations beginning in april of 2018. >> okay. any public comment? nope. our last man standing is walking out the door. okay. that's -- and i guess we are adjourned. >> so i will move to adjourn. >> sorry. all in favor of adjourning? we are adjourned. >> now, we're adjourned. >> please contact our chair.
4:57 pm
4:58 pm
4:59 pm
5:00 pm


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on