Skip to main content

tv   Government Access Programming  SFGTV  December 22, 2019 2:00pm-3:01pm PST

2:00 pm
>> december 20 of 2019. we'll take roll call. commissioner lee is absent today. agenda item number 2, public comment on those items not appearing on the agenda.
2:01 pm
>> good afternoon. thank you, commissioners. my name is ellen. i have my name tag here. i am a public employee. i am a union delegate for government employees. i am also the director of public relations for california for the grand jury for the san francisco chapter. i have been coming to you at the commissions with other government employees, many times. in 2016, 2017, 2018 and 2019. the last time i was here was november 15, 2019, which is last month. i came before you demanding as a commission to investigate corruption within the commission department. between april 2017 to july 2017, six public employees reported bribery, extortion and retaliation with the ethics
2:02 pm
commission department, but no record was found, and they never got back to us. i was one of the eight candidates for mayor, june 2018 election. i just finished my mayor run for the november election. i was one of the six mayor candidates for the last month's election. i was bullied by democrats and democratic leaders from city hall and from different departments and different leaderships from different communities. many of my billboards and posters were illegally removed because i am a conservative republican. i am a conservative republican, and i am for the people. i have been coming out to you about possible corruption with electoral officials and election
2:03 pm
fraud. in 2018, san francisco payers, taxpayers, paid $4.16 million in matching funds to support government scam. the government has been running a scam for election fraud to empower democrats only. for the last 45 years, no other party other than democrats. it is a public scam created by democrats. november 19, $6 million bond for 2800 housing units is also a violation for equality for all. the united states constitution article 6 and the supreme court which stated that united states constitution is the supreme law of the land, the state and city violate the constitution. it's called treason.
2:04 pm
recreational cannabis is also a violation of federal law. it is a government race to raise a lot of money to do drug rehabs because the illegal drugs support it and pay for our taxpayers. you as ethics commission, i believe you have the duty to investigate many of the complaints that i am bringing to you -- before you today. we the people have been facing a tyranny government for the last many years. we lost our quality of life in san francisco. we are worse than a third world country in san francisco. so today i'm here again because you ethics commissioners to restore law and order to protect san francisco for the way you sign up for. thank you. and for public record, my packet. thank you. >> thank you. any other public comment on
2:05 pm
agenda item number 2? moving onto consent calendar items to consider number 3, draft minutes for the ethics commission november 15, 2019, regular meeting, agenda item 4, the proposed stipulation, decision and order in the matter of the coalition for san francisco neighborhoods, complaint number 16/17-056. and agenda item 5 the proposed stipulation decision and order in the matter of affordable housing for all, yes on d, complaint number 1718-134a. call for public comment on all three of these items? seeing no public comment, i'll move the items. >> i second. >> all in favor. >> aye. >> so the agenda items 3, 4, and 5 are unanimously approved. agenda item 6, discussion and possible action on proposed
2:06 pm
amendments to regulations related to article i chapter i of the campaign and governmental conduct code. >> thank you. good afternoon, commissioners. i'm pat ford, senior policy and legislative affairs counsel. this agenda item contains a set of regulations or i should say amendments to the regulations that support article i chapter i of the campaign of governmental conduct code, which we call cfro because it's the campaign finance reform ordinance. the amendments represent updates that are part of two separate projects. i've condensed those into one document so that essentially for convenience that you can act on it if you choose to do so at one time. two different projects are the
2:07 pm
campaign financing review project, phase 2. this would update regulations to match the statutory changes. and secondly, the regulation amendments also address changes to the code brought about by proposition f, which was passed in the last election and the same idea, brought changes to the code so we need to update the regulations to follow that and especially in this case to provide guidance about these new laws, because these are new provisions of law, don't provide all the details someone would need to comply with them. so this is to help fill in the blanks. what i would like to do is briefly go over at a high level what these regulation amendments are. and i would like to suggest to you five different amendments that were requested by stakeholders. i think all five of them make sense. and i will explain what they
2:08 pm
are. and i will also read the text of them where you don't already have it. i provided you with he mails from -- e-mails from these folks so you have that. these are also on the table for the public. so in some cases you have the amendments in writing. in other cases they were proposed to me in concept-form and i have texts for you that i will read. >> before we proceed, i would like to ask the city attorney, is it okay for us to consider these amendments? >> yes. >> okay. thank you. >> so i'll start by going over what's actually in this agenda item first and then move on to the amendments. so the way that i structured this is in the actual attachment to this which has the regulation amendments that are ordered by regulation number. so on the public financing-related amendments are
2:09 pm
combined in with the prop f amendments. i can tell you that the vast majority of what is in here is really prop f. the public financing amendments are very, very minor. so we'll talk about those first i think just to kind of get them out of the way. so really the only thing in the regulations that needs to be updated because of the changes to the code from the public financing phase two ordinance is basically just update the initial iec amounts, the individual expenditure ceiling, the limit that each candidate must agree to. the ordinance changed where that starts. it used to start at $250,000 for supervisor candidates and at $1,475,000 for mayor candidates. it will change $300,000 and
2:10 pm
$1.7 million. the places where those need to change are called out here in the amendments. so in regulation 1.140-2, which is if you are looking at the attachment with the amendments, that's on page 8. you can see that's changed once for each number in that regulation. then on the next page, regulation 1.143-1, it's changed there and in regulation 1.142-2 it's changed throughout. i had to do a little bit more updating in regulation 1.143-2 than just changing the initial iec levels, because this regulation consists of a set of examples to explain the mechanics of the iec adjustment process. so i had to go through and make sure they still made sense, given the new levels. some of the numbers just didn't
2:11 pm
work out. so i kept the mechanics the same, the concepts are all the same. but you'll see there are a number of changes throughout. it should basically keep the spirit of these as is. i did the same thing with phase 1 ordinance that changed the increments of the adjustment, made the increments larger. i had to do the same thing back then, going through the examples and updating them to make sure they still made sense and showed the new regime. so this is the same idea, going through the examples, making sure they add up and now reflect the new law. so that's all for the public financing-related changes. maybe i'll stop here and ask if there are any questions about those set of changes before moving on. >> the only question i have relates to the change in the matching ratio. that was done in the ordinance itself so it's not required to be addressed here in the
2:12 pm
regulations l. >> surprisingly there was nothing in the regulations that talks about the matching ratio. i was surprised myself to find the only things that needed to be updated pertain to the initial iec level. there's nothing in the regulations about the matching ratio, nothing about what portion of a contribution can be matched, which went down from the full 500 down to 150. those things weren't in the regulars. the regulars i would describe as being more about process of how the financing program is administered and how the different mechanics work, not so much about the goal posts or the actual parameters of it. those are just set forth in the code, and the regs, i would assume didn't see the need to elaborate on those because they were just very clear in the statute. >> okay. thank you. any other questions from commissioners? >> no. >> okay. i'll move on to the prop f-related changes, which are a
2:13 pm
lot more substantive and may be have more room for discussion. and this is where the amendments are. so i think maybe i'll start by giving a quick overview of what is actual in prop f. i know commissioner ambrose asked about that the last meeting. so i included some bullet points here. and i'll roll through those quickly so you are all primed with what is in this ballot measure. so this is on page 3 of this agenda item. starting at the top of the page, the first thing that is in prop f is that it expands the prohibition on corporate contributions, which is currently construed narrowly, it could apply to just corporations. it expands it to cover llps and llcs. and i would presume that the intent behind this was that it doesn't matter what form of
2:14 pm
entity you choose, that these are business entities, they are for profit, they should be treated the same way. >> i'm just curious. was there any date that showed -- data that showed how limited partnerships and limited liability companies were not being picked up by the prior prohibition of a 100 contributions were 95 coming from llps and llcs therefore we needed to address this issue? >> i'm not aware of any kind of data like that. the only thing that i'm aware of that i can speak to is actually addressed in the regs, which is that the regs used to address when llcs might be actually captured by the rule and it was based on how the l.l.c.s had elected to be taxed. i found the taxation principles to be complicated, and i am not
2:15 pm
familiar with an actual application of that regulation to an entity, so i can't tell you too much about how it worked. but that's the only thing i saw in here about non-corporation business entities making contributions. and i really couldn't tell you how common that was, only that we didn't get any advice questions that ever came to me about it. >> thank you. >> so the next bullet point, there's a new contribution prohibition now in section 1.127. and the basis of this rule is that the person who has a financial interest in a land use matter, as defined, may not make a contribution to any candidate or office holder of mayor supervisor or city attorney, so anybody currently holding the positions or running for them. and financial interest in land
2:16 pm
use matter are both defined terms in the code. and that's where a lot of the clarification in the regs focused on, what does it mean for something to be a land use matter, what exactly does that term encompass, and what does it mean to have a financial interest. so the third bullet point is related to 1.127, to that contribution prohibition. and it essentially requires that certain departments post a description of this rule in their agenda materials and on their websites. and those departments are the same list of departments that is used in the definition of land use matter. so we are talking about the planning department, commission, board of appeals, essentially, any of the city departments that would be making decisions on land use matters. they have to put a notice that's
2:17 pm
publicly available that just tells people that the rule exists, that they should be aware of it. >> so just to clarify the prohibition on making contributions. so this is the $500 political contribution so that $500 is now going to zero? >> correct. it's similar in its format to the contractor contribution prohibition, which says that if you are someone who is currently bidding on a city contract or who has had a city contract approved in the last 12 months, you can't give a contribution to an elected official who is considering that bid or approved that contract. this is loosely similar, saying that if you are someone who currently has a land use matter pending or a land use matter that was resolved within the last 12 months, you cannot make a contribution to a certain set
2:18 pm
of officials and candidates. it's not pegged in the same way as the contractor rule that you can't make a contribution literally to the officials who approved that land use matter. it instead takes a different approach and defines a fixed set of officials and candidates and says you can't make a distribution to that entire set of people, regardless of whether they were actually involved in the land use matter. >> so if you are remodeling your house because of flood damage and you need to get permits, does that qualify as a land use matter and therefore that person would be prohibited from making a contribution? >> most likely not. there is an extension in the code for primary residence. that's carved out of the definition of land use matter. there's also a dollar threshold that's baked in. so you have to have a financial interest of $5 million or more in the project or in some cases the project has to have an estimated construction cost of
2:19 pm
$5 million or more. so depending on which type of financial interest applies, there's different ways you can have a financial interest. in each one of those ways, there's a $5 million threshold that's baked in. so that would probably exclude the scenario you were describing. >> thank you. >> so the one, two, three, four, the fourth bullet point moves on to a different part of prop f. and the next few are all related. and it's about disclaimers. so the fourth bullet point refers to an existing requirement in state law, and it builds upon it. so state law requires that certain political advertisements contain disclaimers and that the disclaimers state who the committee paying for the advertisements top funders are.
2:20 pm
so if a committee pays for independent expenditure and they've received contributions of over a certain amount from other individuals or committees, they have to put the names of those individuals or committees on the advertisement. even before prop f was passed, san francisco law expanded on that and made it the top toledo nowheres and lowered the thresh -- the top three donors and lowered the threshold. this lowered the threshold to $5,000. and it also requires that the dollar amount contributed by each of those people be included in the disclaimer. and further more it requires that if any of those major donors -- i shouldn't use the term major donor. that's something that's used
2:21 pm
elsewhere. top contributor, we'll say. if any of the top contributors are themselves political committees that have taken in political contributions that the disclaimer must additionally list the top two contributors to those contributors. so to phrase it differently, you could have a disclaimer that says this ad paid for by abc committee, major committee funding from xyz committee, which is funded by these two people. additional funding provided by california voter committee with funding from these two people. so you could have up to, i guess it would be nine different funders listed in a disclaimer. and with each of them it would have a dollar amount that they contributed. and from what i saw in the voter information pamphlet talking about this measure, the idea is
2:22 pm
to put more information in front of viewers or readers who see political advertisements about who paid for the advertisement and who that person got their money from. so trying to give you a glimpse into the chain of funding. sometimes people talk about nested committees or gray money when committees give money to other committees. so the policy rationale here is to try to shed some light on that series of transactions that is behind a particular advertisement. and aside from the merits of that idea, it comes with some degree of confusion for people making advertisements. some of the regs try to provide people with guidance about how to put all that information -- because it is a lot of information, into a disclaimer that both complies with state
2:23 pm
formatting requirements, which say nothing about any of this material, the funders of the funders or the dollar amounts, and also something that looks readable and legible to people. so that's what the regs endeavor to do. i'll go over that in a moment. so the following bullet point, prop f changes the font and format requirements for disclaimers. the highlight here is that it changes the font requirement to larger. it's now 14.5 for all disclaimers. so leaving the disclaimer world, the second-to-last bullet point prop f requires committees making independent expenditures to disclose separate cost associated with any independent expenditures during what we call the late reporting period, the 90 days before the election. so during that 90-day period, as you know, any time a committee
2:24 pm
makes an independent expenditure of $1,000 or more, they have to file a form 496, the late independent expenditure report, within 24 hours. what prop f says is not only must you file that form, which the form basically just says what expenditure did you make and how much did it cost. additionally you need to disclose the separate costs associated with that communication, which the code says includes things like that photography, design, printing, postage, et cetera. so basically the different costs that the committee incurred in putting out that communication. that's not included right now on the 496. but prop f says you need to disclose this information as well. >> so just to make sure i understand, what is required to be disclosed right now is the aggregate cost, and this prop f
2:25 pm
is requiring a breakdown of those separate cost components? >> yeah, i think that's a good way to phrase it. the 496 requirement is aggregate. you typically would just put out literature supporting this candidate for supervisor's $10,000. >> now we need to know how much the printing was, the photographer, the design? is there a policy rationale underlying this? >> i don't recall that this particular requirement was addressed in voter information pamphlet, which is usually where you go to look for legislative intent, what the voters were thinking when they approved this. i don't recall that this was addressed in those materials. i can tell you that a similar requirement already exists for candidate mass mailings. when candidates send out 200 or
2:26 pm
more pieces of identical mail, they have to file what's called an itemized disclosure statement that discloses the total cost of the mailing and breaks down the separate costs associated with the mailing. and essentially what prop f does is it duplicates that requirement for i.e.s. so the final bullet point here, it's a good segue, i was just talking about candidate mass mailings. the final bullet point expands that disclosure requirement in mass mailing disclosure requirement, to i.e. committees. so this is kind of a technical thing, but the interaction between these final two bullet points is a little complex. but the way that it works is
2:27 pm
before the 90th day before an election, let's say 91 days or more before an election, if a committee incurs an independent expenditure, they will only have to make a filing, an immediate filing. they always have to do statements but they only have to do an immediate filing if the i.e. is a mass mailing. so if they do a mass mailing, 200 or more identical pieces of mail, within five days they'll need to file the mass mailing form which breaks down the separate cost of the mass mailing, and they have to include a copy of the mass mailing. once they hit that 90th day before the election and they enter the late reporting period, now it doesn't matter what form the i.e. takes on. as long as it's $1,000 or more, they have to file a 496. and already under existing law,
2:28 pm
when you file a 496, you have to attach a copy of the ad. and as i was describing under prop f, when you file a 496, you also have to break down the separate costs. so i think the easiest way to think of it is the disclosures are now going to be the same no matter what, for i.e.s. whenever you do an i.e. that requires immediate disclosure, you have to disclose a copy of the ad, you have to disclose the aggregate cost, you have to break down the separate cost related to the i.e. the difference between the late reporting period and prior to the late reporting period -- >> there's no distinction anymore. >> not in what you file but whether you have to file. so if you are before the late reporting period, you are 91 days or more out, you only have to do the immediate filing if it's a mass mailing. if it's not a mass mailing you
2:29 pm
don't need to file immediately. once you reach the 90-day late reporting period, than any i.e. of $1,000 or more triggers that immediate reporting. prosecution please stand -- [br-
2:30 pm
2:31 pm
>> what the conversation was that his public comment relates to is that eye reached out to a number of treasurers and political attorneys to get feedback. especially i wanted to hear about them of whether or not from a technical and compliance perspective, if they thought that was feasible and what they highlighted is it is feasible but only if done in certain ways. the concern that they had is that on the 496, there's a section that's called park 2 where you actually list the independent expenditures and you do those in aggregate disclosure style. if you do a $10,000 mailing, one line item in part 2 says,
2:32 pm
june 1st, mass mailing. cost $10,000. that's one line item. what the treasurers flagged for us was that it's not feasible to do separate line items in part 2 for each of the separate costs. it's not feasible to say june 1 printing of the mail, $400. june one, design of the mailers. that would not be feasible because that schedule is populated from information in that file and that information also feeds into a schedule on the form 460. the pre-election statement. by requiring filers to enter into into the file that would produce that breakdown, that would disrupt their 460 filing
2:33 pm
and that would populate schedule d on the 460 which is a schedule of expenditures that support or oppose a candidate. that would populate that schedule and with that broken down information which is not sense cal on schedule d. they flagged for us we should not require that could be given in part two. what they suggested and what i think we will suggest to filers is that they do either one of three things. that they even provide the breakdown in the description, for each i.e., so when you do a line item, on the 496, it's possible to enter a description of the line item >> so this one, he made a specific example. this is that acceptable to you? that is what i was getting at.
2:34 pm
you don't need to know into the details. i commend them for their skill at filling out these forms but i don't think we have a policy discussion about that because i do want you to talk about the other definitional aspects and make sure we've got that right and there aren't any unintended consequences or whatever >> sounds good. the bottom line is that i don't think any amendment to regulation 1.161-2 is needed. filers will use the 496 and it's the most feasible and i think ultimately the most useful way to have this information provided. >> ok. >> great. >> so i will go to the amendments at this point and talk about one amendment i do think should be made based on the response i've heard from
2:35 pm
stakeholders. >> can you tell us who you talked to? i mean, not everybody that you talked to but most particularly since this was measures sponsored by the board or the board's legislative aids that they review it and the city attorney get a chance to review the definitions >> yes. the city attorney's office as and the people who propose the amendments all work with the regulated community to do the disclosures. so the amendments that they proposed are all in the nature of either technical amendments or those who clarify or correct things to make them more accurate. >> ok. great. >> the first mendment is to regulation 1.161-2. is that the one we were just
2:36 pm
looking at? a treasurer asks that a cost estimate provision be added to this regulation. and if you look back on the previous page, in regulation 1.16-1 you see the cost estimate provision and what this says is that even though you are required to disclose this information short lie after the communication goes out, you have to disclose the separate cost associated with it and if you don't actually know the separate cost yet, because maybe your vendor hasn't billed you for them. it's ok to put an estimate and to amend the filing later when you get the invoice and you know the separate costs. that is already in effect here for mass mailing disclosures and it's something that also acceptable for the 496 so the treasure asked that we also
2:37 pm
institute that concept here with the 496 separate cost disclosure in regulation of 1.16-2. i would recommend to break that regulation into two parts. the text in there rit now, just make that part a. and then add part b the cost victim provision for that proceeding regular. >> just for the record, same as 1.161-1 sub section c you will make that same language and of 1.161-2 >> with some changes. i should read them right now. i read what i would suggest so it's in the record >> the provision would say sub section b estimated cost of independent expenditure, period.
2:38 pm
filers who do not know the actual costs associated with an independent expenditure when they file form 496 as described in sub section a of this regulation, may provide a good faith estimate, provided that they amend the form within 48 hours of receiving more information about the actual costs of the independent expenditure. >> ok. >> how do you propose to move these amendments one by one or? >> i think i would leave that >> we don't have a written substitution, right. we have to i'm just trying to figure it out. what your system is for making clear how we're going to move each one of them >> sure. >> they call this amendment number one? >> sure. >> ok.
2:39 pm
>> three of them are in writing. three of them are in public comment. it's in front of you. >> this is not so this is the -- >> this one is not. >> ok. >> so, i think what i'd like to do is tell you the two that are not. first the two that i am just going to head into the record because it is not submitted to us in written form. for the three that were submitted to us in written form, you have that in front of you >> ok. great. the second one is on page 8 of the agenda item under regulation 1.127-3. this regulation relates to the land use matter contribution prohibition. there's a safe harbor that says if a committee gets a written attestation from a kin contributor saying the contribute or does not have a
2:40 pm
financial interest in the land-use matter if the candidate accepts a contribution from that person, the candidate will not be liable for the violation if it does turnout that the person in fact does have this provides language we would accept from a candidate in order to trigger that safe harbor so it gives them something to copy and paste and run with into their contribute orchard. someone proposed we add clarification that this can be accepted in electronic form. that when it says in written, that does not mean a physical writing, exclusively it could include an electronic writing. the purpose is that a lot of contributions these days are received over the internet and they go on the website and they enter the credit card information and these as
2:41 pm
testtations, can you do it for contribution and prohibition as well, it's a check box that someone clicks. so what i was suggesting is that these first line of the regulation be amended so that it says the candidate will meet the due diligence requirements of section 1.127c if the contribute or certifies in writing in electronic format to the candidate at the time the contribution is made that the following is true. >> so ragged the words includinn electronic format. >> correct. >> >> can we call that amendment number two and then i wanted to ask you though, sta substantive, say this form comes up and you are making a contribution, the
2:42 pm
regs won't come up so i see people asking questions about what a land use matter is and whether or not the commissioner was asking and said if you are remodeling your bathroom you can't contribute to anyone's campaign so is there some citations or link or something that people are going to find when they have to sign this attestation >> i sought to put the minimum of what we would
2:43 pm
>> i'm still thinking if we're going to get a lot of frustration because there's a lot of people who aren't going to be able to sign and won't attest to this because it's so broad. anybody that has had to rebuild the deck on their house has had a land use matter at the building inspection commission right, because you have to get a permit for it so just trying to anticipate that and and the regs
2:44 pm
if someone can find it or then they could put a link in on the candidates website because we'll just confuse a lot of people and you will get a lot of phone calls. >> i'm fine with that -- >> you get a lot of phone calls anyway. i'm just trying to think out loud if you are looking is there some -- we're all lawyers up there, is there a way you can give people a clue where they would go to figure out if they can check this box or not? or do they just need to go back to the candidate? >> so, i'm hoping and kind of assuming that committees and their council are probably going to be tangling with us and developing their own approaches to how to best present this. it's fine if some kind of
2:45 pm
parenthetical is added as those terms are defined by statute and regulation. i think that's fine. i would probably advise against including those definitions here or starting to. you could reference the code amended, you know, they do define land use matter in section 1.127 in prop f. that gives someone a tow-hold into where am i looking. i don't know if adding that just one little citation┬░ i mean i'm a lawyer and maybe i'm looking at citations and i know we need to do this today. obviously, as this rolls out
2:46 pm
we'll get feedback and we can make improvements to make it more workable. i'm sure a lot of people want to try and get this information from their donors at the outset because chief want to end up with the liability on the backside so i want to try and make it as you user friendly as you can. you do include the building inspection commission in here and building inspection is usually just building permits so i'm trying to think of what discretionary entitlement comes in front of the building inspection commission. did you get any feedback on that from the folks you consulted? >> we talked with folks at the planning department to dig into all of the mechanics of this new
2:47 pm
co section. for the reasons that department and that commission handles the vast majority of land use matter as defined. i can tell you what we found is that 1.127 is not perfect. it does not match up perfectly with how land use matterser dealt with in the city. what the regs endeavor to do is faithfully carry out that code section. warts and all. you make a valid point about the building inspection commission but we thought to include the departments included in the code so to not artificially limit it and not impose the elementtation that was not imposed by the voters. looking at this further
2:48 pm
highlights in my mind i would like to at least put in, i do not have a financial interest in the land use matter as defined in code section 1.127 and everything else flows from that so i'm trying to think of -- there are code violations issues that might be tied up with the building permission. the building inspector does have some incre incres ary authority. i appreciate you were trying to be all encompassing as possible. so, that would be my recommendation we put some tie into what a land use matter as defined in some code section and that at least gives them a starting place.
2:49 pm
>> should we call that amendment 3? >> you can do that >> to add the words as defined in campaign and governmental conduct code section 1.127 immediately following the term lapped use matter? >> right. it's 1 point -- i'm just looking at the prop f. it's defined in -- where did it go? 1.127. >> 1.127 sub section a >> right, thanks. >> thank you for that. >> so the -- i guess we'll call
2:50 pm
it amendments four, five and six, are contained in written form in the public comment that you have in front of you and it's also on the public table from anita mayo. she has amendments 1, 2, 3 and we'll call them four, five and six. all of these are good amendments. i would recommend all three of them. and i would call them technical in nature. just correcting the language to make it more concise. the first one is to clarify in regulation 1.114-1 that it is ok
2:51 pm
for partnerships that have business entity members to make contributions to committees as long as they do so through a separate segregated fund. so if you look at the regulation itself that is on page 6 of the agenda item, you can see that in section -- sub section a. that already talks about the separate segregated fund. it clarifies if any of the business entities that use a separate segregated fund, that they can it's something because we are not able to prohibit. we have to allow that. go to the next page and sub section i >> it's just to make sure i
2:52 pm
understand, so that if these business entities companies and partnerships and corporations wanted, really wanted to make their $500 contribution they could set up a separate fund. >> correct. >> a separate segregated fund is a type of pack so essentially a corporation can set up a pack and they can raise money for the pack. if they don't actually put funds from the corporate treasury into the pack and then give to the candidate. if they were to use the pack to solicit contributions from us, let's say, then they could use the treasury of the pack to make contributions. that kind of use of a pack is called a separate segregated fund >> it's important to clarify that here in the regulations. i appreciate ms. mayo in the audience. thank you for this and the other feedback. >> so her amendment essentially is to just call out that sub
2:53 pm
section a that use of a separate, segregated fund down here in sub section i. sub section i is different. it talks about partnerships that are made up of business entity partners so if let's say two corporations enter into a partnership, this is talking about whether or not the partnership can make a contribution to candidates. in the first line, she pointed out is too narrow and too constricconstrict tive. it's prohibited under 1.14b for make a contribution to a candidate committee.
2:54 pm
this proposes adding the action unless it's made by the partnership separate segregated fun pursuant to sub section a of this regulation so basically just making that first sentence not overly restrictive because if you read it in isolation, could you read it to mean that the partnership cannot have a separate segregated fund but under sub section a it could. i would suggest adding that. the next amendment, we'll call it amendment 5. it's just to make the definition lineup with how it appears in the code. this is on page eight and now we're in the land use matter rule. so one of the defined terms or one of the terms that is used that is defined in the regs is
2:55 pm
discretionary review hearse because as you can see i only called it discretionary review but it should be called discretionary review hearing because it's how the term is used in the code. ms. mayo points out it needs to lineup. amendment 5 is to add the word "hearing" in that subsection b after both uses of the term discretionary review. the title would read discretionary review hearing and in co quotations it would say discretionary review hearing it means the process by which, et cetera. >> again, from a citation point of view, when you talk to the planning department staff, i mean, i think discretionary review is like an obscure part of the municipal code. did they have a citation that they could give you for that? >> no, so, it is in deed obscure but it's not an obscure part of the code. it's a special power of the
2:56 pm
planning commission that is not set fourth in code or in the charter. so there's no citation to make >> right. what about dish think they have adopted regulations like outlining. i'm sure they have very elaborate provisions for how you seek discretionary review on someone's project. because again, it is just seems so -- discretionary review is hearing when a hearing is not required. i mean, if no one else is brought it to our attention or worried about it, it's a fairly hefty part of the planning commission calender. there's a fair amount of discretionary review hearings that they process all the time. i mean, probably it doesn't
2:57 pm
matter because i'm hug there are some that involve $5 million worth of construction. anyway, i just don't have a citation for the regs so i can't really help. if there was someway to pin it to something a little bit more than just -- >> so my initial plan and approach for all of the 1.127 definitions was just to have references to the planning code. >> ideally >> those don't exist. they don't exist. i can tell you that a lot of the work that went into the regs was devoted to this particular regulation and trying to identify or define rather terms that are not defined. but that everyone seems to understand. but that are not defined. so, this represents my best effort at doing that.
2:58 pm
you might want to do it for your own staff implementation. i imagine that you can go to the planning commission and get the discretionary review packet that describes how one goes about seeking that that might, at least if someone gets fancy and tries 20 argue they're entitled to this ex semmion because, anyway. >> we have that material on planning website about what a discretionary review it. this is the best we could do at boiling that down to a definition but beyond this, there's definition going to be a degree of interpretation and
2:59 pm
advice giving around 1.127. there's no way around it. it is a morfis and it's complicate and a lot of it we have to figure out as we go >> maybe it helps by referring the hearing they do that. so it's a discretionary hearing and it's at issue. so ok, i'll let us move on. >> the final amendment we can call amendment 6, is regarding the displacementer formatting rules in regulation 1.161-3. so that is on page 11. of the attachment and ms. made owe called out where language needs to be added that's in subsection a2. and this is talking about how to
3:00 pm
format the names of the contributors to the top contributors. so if you are listing your top contributors and the advertisement and those are committees and you are additionally listing the contributors to those committees, she points out that the words and contribution amount need to be added in the first sentence so it would read for any major contribute or that is a recipient committee the names of the top two major contributors of $5,000 or more to that committee, which i defined as a secondary major con contributor must be following the name, contribution amount of the major relevant contributor. you need to put the dollar amount after t


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on