Skip to main content

tv   Government Access Programming  SFGTV  March 18, 2019 11:00am-12:01pm PDT

11:00 am
[please stand by]
11:01 am
>> chair ronen: -- that have a mixed government so that we're getting the expertise and the knowledge and the brilliantance of not just white men but women and people of color in our society, that those are often the smartest investments and have the best returns that we can possibly get. so i believe that a strong focus on e.s.g. principles is what will also make sure that
11:02 am
we continue to have one of the strongest pension funds in the country. so i will be supporting mr. heldfond in this appointment. i have not been happy with the way this was handled out of the mayor's office, and i would have very happily supported wendy paskin-jordan had she been appointed and came before me today. i do want to say, mr. heldfond, i appreciate your firm commitment to divesting in fossil fuels and the e.s.g. in this fund. and i hope that you will continue to represent us very strongly on this board, so thank you for your willingness to serve. colleagues, do you have any comments or -- >> supervisor walton: no comment. i just want to make a motion.
11:03 am
a motion to recommend thmove t the full board with a positive recommendation. >> clerk: we will be sending this as a motion, so i believe you want to send it as a report. it will be the expiration of a five-year term, which is what is stated in code. >> chair ronen: okay. >> supervisor walton: okay. so move -- move this item to the full board as a committee report for consideration. >> chair ronen: with a positive recommendation? >> supervisor walton: yes. >> chair ronen: and that passes. yes. can you please read item number seven. >> clerk: item number seven is a hearing considering appointing four members, term ending january 31, 2021 to the
11:04 am
golden gate bridge, highway and transportation district board of directors. >> chair ronen: so i wanted to give you a few minutes to speak, so mr. hill, do you want to start us off? >> okay. >> chair ronen: thank you. >> good morning, madam chair and supervisors. it's pleasure to be before you today, asking for your recommendation for my seat to be renewed. i currently -- let me tell you about myself. i'm a san francisco resident, born and raised here, came up in the public schools, served as business representative for
11:05 am
ibew here in san francisco. i'm a state certified electrician. i still have my tools shined up and ready in case you ask for me. currently, i serve as president of the board. i started out on the board in 2004, and then, in -- i ran into a life situation that made it difficult for me to attend meetings, so i resigned. when my life changed again, and i was able to continue participating to the degree that i felt was important, i came back to the board and was reappointed in 2014. so i've served as president for almost the last two years. it's been a great honor and huge responsibility. i serve with an amazing group of folks on the board of directors and i would just like to toss in i fully support all of colleagues today all of whom will be speaking to you a
11:06 am
little bit later. i think the golden gate board of directors are an amazing package of legal expertise ethics that you can't challenge, advocates for working people, people who will strive to represent the district, engineering background, just -- i'm proud to serve with them all. as president, i attend all meetings, i sit on all ad hoc committees. i rarely miss a meeting. it's been exciting for the years that i've been able to serve. i've voted on the suicide deterrent project which as you are aware is coming. we're excited about that. we're also working on lots of legislation to protect folks from things like drones, who
11:07 am
might crash onto a car. we are working on a seismic retrofit, and we're looking for funding to finance these projects. we're very proud to have this bridge in our arena and do everything we can to take care of her, and keep her sparkling and strong. we make the best decisions we can on a daily basis to ensure that that happens. and i'll be happy to answer any questions if you would like at this point. >> chair ronen: any questions? okay. no. thank you. >> thank you very much for your time. >> chair ronen: thank you. mr. hill? >> supervisors, my name is bert
11:08 am
hill. but n by now, you have read and reread all of my qualifications. i'll answer any questions that you have at the end. i'll state i've had a 40 to 50 year concern in climate change -- environmental that evolved into environmental. i want to thank you for all of your work. i know all of you have spent a great dale of time concerning my nomination. i very much appreciate how much you've done for me, and i also want to thank all of my colleagues on the board. they're unique and special in what they cover and the expertise they provide. i also want to thank the community advocates and friends and family, and everybody else who have also helped in this
11:09 am
endeavor. i want to last -- i'm going to be very short on this. i had the opportunity, as many people did, to attend the american bicyclists summit. one of the days we are up on capitol hill. what i provided you this morning are my crew sheets for my presentations to six different house members and senate members -- not the members themselves, but the staff, which is actually more important than the members themselves, if you've done it before. i hope that's helpful because it shows that this is going to be a different year than it has the previous years. it appears that both sides and all sides are for increasing our spending on transportation and integral to that, transportation includes active transportation, which is us. so with that, i am open to any questions you may have. >> chair ronen: thank you. any questions? no questions. thank you so much. >> okay. thank you so much.
11:10 am
okay. mr. grosboll. >> thank you. my name is dick grosboll. i've been serving on the board since 2006. i currently serve as the chair of the suicide advisory committee. as now, that's probably my biggest priority. our goal is to finish the net portion of that project by january 2021, so that is an ongoing challenge with any large construction project, but we are hopeful we will finish that in time in large part because we made that commitment to the families. and of course, we're also trying to improve transit. we're a great bridge district, we're also a great transit district. we're trying to increase the number of ferries out of larkspur so we can increase the number of ferries instead of driving. but it is an excellent board and we have a great staff, and
11:11 am
i've appreciated having the opportunity to work on it, so thank you. any questions? thank you. >> chair ronen: thank you. thank you so much. mr. theriault? >> i am retired, as you know, and are that retirement -- with that retirement, i stepped down from many of the commissions and boards on which i served, including supervisor walton's board, young community developers. this is the board i wanted to stay on, and it's because we're on two efforts that we're midstream. one effort is the completion of the suicide deterrent system. i am an ironworker. i don't claim to being a bridge
11:12 am
m man, but i have bridge men behind me as support, and i am proud. i did 12 years as an ironworker. i did regale you with all the details. i did 3.5 years as treasurer of the second and building trades. in all of those capacities, i learned a good deal about the industry, all of which helps me in what is a very complicated project. all the bids came in, and they were substantially above estimate. the low bid was almost equal to the operating budget of a district. nonetheless, it gives you a hint to the scale of the complexity of the project which is the first of its kind on a -- on this scale, on a long
11:13 am
spanse extension bridge. it will need close scrutiny to make sure it stays on schedule. we are facing some challenges there, and i want to be there with the knowledge that i have. also, we are midstream on the reform and rehabilitation of the bus drivers pension fund of the district. that is well shy of the 90% that sf retirement fund is at, and it is a mature plan with a high retiree to retirement ratio, and we are trying to work through all the details in that. i do also want to add at the end of my comments, my support for my fellow san francisco representatives on the board. i always want to give bert grief. i have 1800 miles on my bicycle
11:14 am
this year. >> chair ronen: i'd now like to open this up to public comment. any members of the public wishing to speak, lineup to my left, your right. i have several cards. miss, you can go ahead and start. thank you so much. >> thank you. my name is lorna hill, and i'm bert's wife. i want to thank you for bert's reappointment to the bridge. he has a strong passion for the work. we've been married over 40 years. i want to give the insight to his inner self. he's always on his bike, except recently, with his injury. he's always walking, 20,000 steps a day. we've been married over 40ers i can't. i worked at s.f. state for close to 30 years. i retired a couple years ago.
11:15 am
when i was there, i was the union representative for unit four, academic professionals california. we are a small union, but we are on all of the 23 campuses. those are wonderful opportunities when i was there as a union stewart, so i'm here to advocate for bert, and thank you for reading his resume, and i'm here if you have any questions. >> chair ronen: oh, thank you so much. >> okay. thank you. >> good morning, supervisors. my name's ed reyes. i'm a member of iron workers local 377 that michael theriault was a member of. he's a fierce, strong advocate for all working people, and he would be a perfect fit as he has been over the years. i have a couple of ironworkers
11:16 am
here. i've worked at the bridge. he would always do his due diligence, and he's one of the hardest workers around. please support him. thank you. >> chair ronen: thank you. next speaker. >> chair ronen: good morning, supervisors. my name's darren bailey, ironworker. i'm here to support mike theriault. and i think bert would be an exceptional member, also, long with sabrina, all friends of labor, and mr. grosboll, also, and i urge you to support all four. thank you. >> good morning, supervisors. my name's robert cooper. i'm the steward for the ironworkers that work at the golden gate bridge.
11:17 am
i'm here to support mike the theriault. i've known him a long time -- a long, long time, through his positions in the local and other places. i know him as a good man, a fair man, and we'd all like to see him be reappointed as a member of the board of the bridge. thank you. >> good morning, supervisors. my name is r.j. ferarri, local representative from local 28 plumbers and pipe fitters. mike's work on subcommittees on the bridgeport and board of trusties is recognized and with a true leader on the board. mike has full understanding what it takes to maintain the bridge and his facilities. he has been a voice of labor and understands of importance
11:18 am
of good labor and relations. i urge the reappointment of mike theriault to the board of transportation and bridge. thank you. >> good morning, supervisors. my name is michael mckenna, and i'm the president of ibew local six. i'm torn who to support first. sabrina is one of the hardest working people and certainly any office or place that she works for, and i know she works just as hard for the bridge district as she does us. i've worked for the last few years with mike theriault, and he'd worked to help me get more involved in everything else besides just going to work, so i also know his dedication and expertise and support. him on his appointment. and we work with dick grosboll
11:19 am
on the pension funds. he's a fierce advocate and a fountain of knowledge, so i would support him, too, also. thank you. >> good morning, supervisor walton, chair ronen and supervisor mar. joel koppel, district four resident. i myself, electrician by day, planning commissioner on thursdays. have an office right next to sabrina hernandez, sister hernandez and brother theriault are very near and dear to my heart. we refer to each other as siblings because we work on job sites that are dangerous to the point of life or death so we are that close. definitely supportive of the two reappointments of brother
11:20 am
theriault, sister hernandez. very well aware of bert and his work in the hard, but speaking a little bit more on behalf of brother theriault and sister hernandez. thank you. >> chair ronen: thank you. any other comments or questions? any other public comment? thank you. colleagues, any comments? >> supervisor mar: i just wanted to thank mr. hill and mr. theriault for your commitment to our bridge board. we really thank you for all of your service, and i very much
11:21 am
support you being reappointed. thank you. >> chair ronen: okay. is there a motion? >> supervisor walton: definitely looking forward to working with all of you, and i would like to make a motion that we forward this with a positive recommendation for sabrina hernandez for seat one -- [inaudible] >> chair rone >> chair ronen: thank you. is there any other items on the agenda? >> clerk: that completes the agenda. >> chair ronen: thank you. then this meeting is adjourned.
11:22 am
sustainability mission, even though the bikes are very minimal energy use. it still matters where the energy comes from and also part of the mission in sustainability is how we run everything, run our business. so having the lights come on with clean energy is important to us as well. we heard about cleanpowersf and
11:23 am
learned they had commercial rates and signed up for that. it was super easy to sign up. our bookkeeper signed up online, it was like 15 minutes. nothing has changed, except now we have cleaner energy. it's an easy way to align your environmental proclivities and goals around climate change and it's so easy that it's hard to not want to do it, and it doesn't really add anything to the bill. >> i moved into my wonderful, beautiful, affordable housing march 7th. i have lived in san francisco since i was two-years-old. i've lived in hunters view for 23 to 24 years now.
11:24 am
my name is vlady. i use titus and i am the resident commissioner for the san francisco housing facility. from the very beginning, this whole transition of public housing and affordable housing was a good idea. but many, many residents didn't think it would ever actually happen. it's been a life changing experience. and i'm truly grateful for the whole initiative and all those that work on the whole sf initiative. they've done a wonderful job accommodating the residents, who for many years have lived in delap tated housing. now they have quality housing. i was on a street where the living room and the kitchen and stairs. it wasn't large enough to
11:25 am
accommodate. the children are grown. i had the accomplish of having a dishwasher in my home. i really like that. [laughter] i really like not having to wash dishes by hand. we still do it from time to time. the mayor's office has been a real friend to us, a partner. we know that our city supports us. i love san francisco. just to be able to stay in my community and continue to help the residents who live here and continue to see my neighborhoods move into new housing, it's been a real joy. it's been a real joy. >> right before the game
11:26 am
starts, if i'm still on the field, i look around, and i just take a deep breath because it is so exciting and magical, not knowing what the season holds holds is very, very exciting. it was fast-paced, stressful, but the good kind of stressful, high energy. there was a crowd to entertain, it was overwhelming in a good way, and i really, really enjoyed it. i continued working for the grizzlies for the 2012-2013 season, and out of happenstance, the same job opened up for the san francisco giants. i applied, not knowing if i would get it, but i would kick myself if i didn't apply.
11:27 am
i was so nervous, i never lived anywhere outside of fridays know, andfridays -- fresno, and i got an interview. and then, i got a second interview, and i got more nervous because know the thought of leaving fresno and my family and friends was scary, but this opportunity was on the other side. but i had to try, and lo and behold, i got the job, and my first day was january 14, 2014. every game day was a puzzle, and i have to figure out how to put the pieces together. i have two features that are 30 seconds long or a minute and a 30 feature. it's fun to put that altogetl r together and then lay that out in a way that is entertaining for the fans. a lucky seat there and there, and then, some lucky games that include players. and then i'll talk to lucille,
11:28 am
can you take the shirt gun to the bleachers. i just organize it from top to bottom, and it's just fun for me. something, we don't know how it's going to go, and it can be a huge hit, but you've got to try it. or if it fails, you just won't do it again. or you tweak it. when that all pans out, you go oh, we did that. we did that as a team. i have a great team. we all gel well together. it keeps the show going. the fans are here to see the teams, but also to be entertained, and that's our job. i have wonderful female role models that i look up to here at the giants, and they've been great mentors for me, so i aspire to be like them one day.
11:29 am
renelle is the best. she's all about women in the workforce, she's always in our corner. [applause] >> i enjoy how progressive the giants are. we have had the longer running until they secure day. we've been doing lgbt night longer than most teams. i enjoy that i work for an organization who supports that and is all inclusive. that means a lot to me, and i wouldn't have it any other way. i wasn't sure i was going to get this job, but i went for it, and i got it, and my first season, we won a world series even if we hadn't have won or gone all the way, i still would have learned. i've grown more in the past four years professionally than i think i've grown in my entire
11:30 am
adult life, so it's been eye opening and a wonderful >> chair chiu: since our last meeting in february, commissioner kopp resigned. lifelong public servant, i wish to thank him for his dedication and service to the city and people of san francisco. also for his service and contribution here on the ethics commission. second is hous housekeeping mat. i like to note the change and date for the regularly scheduled meeting of the ethics commission next month. we usually meet on third friday.
11:31 am
that is start of passover and good friday. we moved the meeting to april 12th. we'll be starting early in this room. we invite the public to come and make any comments that they wish to make. >> thank you commissioners. i'm a government social worker for the last 10 years. our union has more than 16,000 government employees. we are 52% of the workforce for public servant. i have been coming here almost every month. i'm also director of public relations for the california association, san francisco
11:32 am
chapter. as a public employee, i'm trained and practice good government practices. i'm here today as a resident of san francisco for the last 33 years. i have been coming to the ethics commission many times in 2016, 2017, 2018. in april, 2017 to april 7, 2017, i still remember, i brought up a lot of bribery and corruption cases. today i'm here ask you again to stop government corruptions. ethics commission department was set up to stop corruptions. the last time i was here, last. , february 5th. i reported to you that possible abuse of powers within some of the elected offices who support criminal behaviors.
11:33 am
such as sanctuary city and allowing recreational cannabis to drug people first and then tell people to go rehab. it is government waste and abuse. it has no form of government in san francisco. san francisco have been paid, bought, controlled by super pac action committee. we the public employees, residents and visitors have been suffering from election fraud. super pacs, illegal drugs, crimes and public abuse. people are dying on the streets. i was one of the eight candidates to run for mayor for the june 5, 2018 election. i was not allowed to more than 20 male candidates to debate in public places such as city hall with public buildings, public
11:34 am
libraries and parks. i found those gait debates that organized by the democratic parties and democratic related agents. it has been running by one party, democratic party. all democrats only nothing, no republican no libertarian and no independent and none partisan party. i'm here today to ask you to interpret, the law and follow the law. >> chair chiu: thank you. any other public comment. agenda item three. >> good afternoon commission.
11:35 am
i lived in san francisco 67 years. unfortunately, i have to be here today. due to the absence of larry bush, quentin kopp and peter king and it's necessary for me to come back to city hall. certain things need to be put on the record so later on there will be no reason why nobody knew what was going on to happen. that's the reason it's on the record. let's be honest. certain factions allow the local people to try to do what they wish. obviously, when the locals can't get the job done and literally throw in the towel, then others have to step in.
11:36 am
people like me have other duties mainly outside the united states but unfortunately, we have to help our hometown when necessary. the same example is it took a long time but eventually, al capone found his rightful home. if you can't get him in the front door, we will come through the backdoor and it looks like san francisco has to be treated like other cities like new york, chicago, new orleans. it may seem to local press that the government is untouchable? unfortunately, in history, there used to be the untouchable.
11:37 am
let's put it this way. when the locals can't get the job done, then people will step in, people will observe from far away and eventually somebody is going to make the decision to allow others to clean up the city. there's only so much that can be allowed to happen. maybe somebody from the national security administration, will give us permission to do what needs to be and they will no longer laugh at us and make fun of people like me. thank you. >> chair chiu: chalk. any other public comment?
11:38 am
agenda item 3, draft minutes of the ethics commission february 15, 2019 regular meeting. public comment on this item? i move to approve these minutes. second from commissioner smith. all in favor. aye. minutes are approved unanimously. item 4, informational presentation on report required by s.f.c. and government code section 1.156 on public financing in the 2018 election. >> thank you chair chiu. i'm pat ford senior policy analyst. you want top introduce brian cox. lee ann -- leann will give you a full intro. i wanted to let you know who he
11:39 am
was. >> chair chiu: welcome. >> talk about this agenda item. the report which i just handed to you in which is available on the table, public table for review is a report that the ethics commission must deliver to the board of supervisors and to the mayor after any election in which the city's public financing program is used. as you remember last year in 2018, we an election in june and in november and in both elections, there were races in which public financing was distributed to candidates. in june, there was a special election to fill the vacancy following the death of mayor ed lee and also to fill the vacancy in the district eight supervisor seat after scott weiner was elected to state office. those occurred in june, candidates sought and received public financing in both races. in november, regularly scheduled election happened in which all
11:40 am
of the even numbered supervisorial seats were up. certain candidates received public financing. ceqa requires that we report on how the public financing was used. we sought to include other information that we thought would give folks the mayor, board of supervisors, also anyone else reading this report, would give them an idea of kind of the bird's eye view what happened with distribution of funds. to be clear, this report is not part of the commission ongoing review of the public financing program. this is separate item. this is really meant to describe or just provide numbers and information. it's not really meant to analyze a program or to make recommendations. we're doing that through the separate review process.
11:41 am
you wanted to tee this up. that's what this is. i know you haven't had time to look at this, what aisl i'll doy is quickly go through the tables. we tried to represent the data in text but also in tables and charts. brian is going to go through the report and he'll go up on the screen. you can also follow along if you have a hard copy. in the report, we give overview how the program is set up. what it takes to qualify and what kind of funding candidates get under the program and then we also talk about how the program is funded through the election campaign fund. first we addressed june and then
11:42 am
secondly november. first table gives you an idea how many candidates ran in these two races. how many mayoral candidates there were and how many supervisorial. there were 11 candidates, 6 applied for public financing and 5 were certified and received funds under the program. next we talked about the public funds that the candidates got through the program. for here, you can see this is the mayoral race. you can see the candidates that ran three candidates that got public financing, how much they got under the program is in the first program. you can see that two of the candidates got the maximum amount of funds. that's $975,000. in total there was about
11:43 am
$2.6 million distributed to mayoral candidate. we showed for all of the candidates in the race, the level of contributions that they received. that's from private contributors, more than $500 a piece. adding together public funds for those candidates that received public funds to the private contributions received that gives you the candidate's total funds. you can see that the mayoral candidates together had about $5.8 million in funds when you combine contributions and public financing. for the public finance candidates, we gave percentage of looking at all of their funds. what percentage of their funds were made up of public funds they received through the program. it's hovering around 50% roughly for those candidates. lastly, we gave the number for at the timthe expenditures the s gave. the data within this report reflects 460s that the
11:44 am
candidates filed. the 460 data runs through end of the calendar year. for the june election, it's probably all these candidates will report. it's possible that for november, they may file 460 for the first half of 2019, could report some more activity. this report will most likely be everything, all the activity for these candidates. there could be another report in the future. moving on from the basic numbers about the candidate's funds for the mayoral race, here's for the district 8 race. this is the same information provided for these three candidates. you can see that two of the three received public financing. both of those candidates received the maximum amount of funds available under the program. that's different for the two because one was an incumbent and
11:45 am
get $152,500. he was able to get little bit more. those candidates contributions, they are felt funds when you add contributions and public financing. their public financings made up just under 50% of their total funds. you can see how much those candidates spent during the campaign. we additionally wanted to provide some information about spending limits. candidates have to agree to abide by spending limit in order to participate in the program. this is special condition for receiving public funds. however, the spending limit is adjustable. it will be changed if certain events occurred. that is contributions received by an opponent in the race or spending by third parties. either to support the
11:46 am
candidate's opponent or to attack that candidate. you add them together, if that exceeds the candidate spending limit, the commission must adjust that candidate spending upwards. we wanted to give some statistics about spending limits before they started where they were razeed to and etcetera -- raised to etcetera. that's an important part of the program. in the top table, you can see the three publicly financed mayoral candidates when they began to experience increases to their spending limits and how many spending limit increases they had. there were a total of 30 increases you can see which candidates received them. you can see the highest level to can the candidate's spending limits were raised. then at the time they experienced final spending limit increase, that last column shows you the level of funds that the candidate had at that time. you can kind of compare where
11:47 am
they were in terms of their funds versus what they were allowed to spend. the same information is provided for the district 8 race. it's not too dissimilar. it's pretty much the statement pattern. there are multiple increases, the candidates get up to much larger number than where they started and the level of spending limit is little bit above the amount of funds that they had had. lastly for the june election, we gave some information about third party spending. this is, of course, spending by groups other than the candidates own committee. this can be to support a candidate or oppose a candidate. it could be an independent expenditure where the communication is expressly advocating for or against a candidate. it could be a member communication where it's expressly advocating but only to
11:48 am
a particular subset of people. like members of a political association or a union. it can be an election communication. essentially, saying something about the candidate. we assign whether or not it's positive or negative and we count that for purposes of spending limit adjustment. all of those are together here. >> chair chiu: can you refresh my recollection the timing on the filing requirement the for the third party spending. from the time that the money is spent, what the requirement for the filing? >> you're within the 90 days before the election. it's called the late reporting period. within that period, you have to report within 24 hours of the distribution of the communication. it's a pretty quick turn around.
11:49 am
additionally, these committees that are making these expenditures, they may also have to file as a committee and then this will be filing a 460. we'll be getting a full picture of that committee activity. as you seen through tyler field's presentation about dashboards, we pulled together all of those. this data will reflect any activity whether it of koss through the 460 or it comes through these more limited in scope, 24-hour reports. this data is comprehensive of that. >> chair chiu: thank you. this tabl >> this table is separated by two seats. first we listed the third party spending in support of those candidates. you can see there's about
11:50 am
$2.1 million in support of spending. right around $2 million, third party spending in support of a candidate. opposition spending was less. it's about just under $400,000. then adding that all together for the two races, there was about $2.5 million of third party spending. we also broke this down visually. we included a pie chart here that shows you supportive versus in opposition spending. the vast majorities of third party accidenteddin -- spendingt rather than oppose. lot of the discussion about independent expenditures, revolves around whether or not they support or attack. there's a lot of criticism of negative third party spending. third party spending can also be a way to support a candidate without giving to their campaign. we think it's relevant.
11:51 am
we parsed them out separately here in this chart. i will quickly go through november but the format and type of information provided here is the same. it's little bit different because we only had supervisorial districts. we would list them here. there were five seats in the midterm election. we list the candidates, how many candidates appeared. in total there were 22 candidates. most of those candidates, 9 received public financing in the program. we provided the same kind of data for the candidates that received public funds. we show how much they received and for all candidates, level of contributions, their total funds, how much of their funds represented by public funds and
11:52 am
then their total expenditures. we proud five different tables - we provided five different tables here one for each race. we provided the same kind of information as in june about spending limits. this shows all of the candidates publicly financed because only publicly financed candidates has spending limits. other candidates don't. this is all of the publicly financed candidates shows you when they begin to experience spending limit adjustments, how many adjustments they had in total, there were 122 adjustments. i think there are 43 in june. that makes 165 total spending
11:53 am
limit adjustments last year. you see what their highest spending limits were. how high they got. i should have said this, it starts at $250,000 for supervisorial candidates. you can see the funding that each had at the time. but their spending limit was raised for the last time. we provided a chart for this information too. we provided contrast between their final spending limit adjustment and the level of funds that they had. it's little bit easier to compare rather than looking at the numbers. you can look at the chart. we thought this was important to parse out because it kind of demonstrates where the candidates were in terms of the funds that he had to run their campaign. that's shown in orange. that's the candidate's total funds. in gray, what they are spending
11:54 am
limit was. you can think of spending limit as a proxy for what the candidate is up against. it represents the fundraising of the candidates highest funded opponent, independent spending in support of that opponent as well as third party spending in opposition to the candidate. add all three together that's what the gray bar is. you can see for some candidates they're pretty close. for other candidates they're far away. we thought that was relevant and interesting look to parse out. we also provided information about third party spending for the supervisorial ideas. broken down by supportive opposition and then total third party spending. looks there was about $2.1 million of third party spending in november election. at least for these particular
11:55 am
races. we're only addressing races that are eligible for public financing. we broke this information down into this chart. this shows you how much third party spending was done for each separate candidate. how much of that spending was in support of the candidate versus in opposition. as in june, the same was true in november that the vast majority of spending was done in support of a candidate. you can see there's a pretty big disparity between the third party spending done in regards to the different candidates. there's quite a bit. some had very little or none. this pie chart just breaks down how much support versus opposition spending there was. we concluded the report with an overview of the commission's
11:56 am
review of the public financing program. we talked about phase one where we looked more procedural or administrative side. tried to identify places where the program was creating burden on candidat candidates. we tried to identify those as we ways we could increase participation and increase impacts. you approved an ordinance that is pending at the board of supervisors. we talk about that. i think this will be helpful for folks on the board who maybe considering this to see the context and seeing how the program is administers and this review is part of the commission's overall administration of that program. secondly, we talk about the ongoing phase, phase 2. we're looking at the most fundamental aspects of the programming like how much funds can get under the program, what it takes to qualify, what the
11:57 am
matching ratio is, when the candidates received the funds, etcetera. i can give you little bit more details on what we've done since last meeting. this just gives little overview to the board and the mayor about that project. i'll be glad to any questions you have. i know this is dropped on you now. lot of information to process. you can reach out any time in the future if you wanted to discuss any of it. also just i wanted to highlight this was a real offic office-wie effort. brian worked closely with me on it and our audits division provided lot of this data.
11:58 am
it's a real collaborative effort. this will be on our website as well. for folks watching at home, you can access it online. >> chair chiu: thank you this is a lot of information and thank you pat and brian and amy and everyone else in the office who put in the work to pull this report together. it's a lot of information to take in. open it up to my fellow commissioners if you have questions? anythincommissioner lee. >> commissioner lee: i have quick question, it's nice to hear opposition funding is really a very small amount compared to what public
11:59 am
perception is in in the city, -- do you think that has some impact over the amount of opposition funding compared to other cities? is that a factor? >> i'm not sure. i would have to really dig into that and compare. i know that that's certainly one of the stated purposes of choice voting. it's intended to encourage coalition building rather than just one on one trading punches between candidates. i would like to think this is a feature of rain choice voting. i was surprised by the ratio of support to oppositional. you usually hear about attacks. it's things that the candidates does not want to do or say. they rely on the independent spending to do that. that was not the typical model in last year's elections.
12:00 pm
>> commissioner lee: i thought you had extra support. i would love to see data to show if there's any correlation between one choice and one voting versus the opposition funding. that will be policy discussion to have. that will be policy discussio >> chair chiu: i have a question, the 2018 election was unusual. we mayoral election in june and november. sorry in june. the amount of public funds spent in the mayoral was was almost $3 million. the board of supervisors was someone else $.2 million. i have to look at my numbers again.