help any way possible we can, so come by, visit at barber lounge, 907 taraval in the sunset. you can find us on instagram. >> time for teraival bingo supporting small business, anyone can participate. it is easy, collect stickers on a bingo gameboard and enter a raffle event. the meeting will come to order. this is the may 13th, 2024 rules

committee meeting. i'm supervisor hillary ronen, chair of the committee. i'm joined by committee, temporary member dean preston. and we shall be joined by supervisor ahsha safaí shortly. our clerk is victor young, and i would like to thank matthew ignored sfgovtv for broadcasting this meeting. mr. clerk, do you have any announcements? yes. public comment will be taken on each item on this agenda. when your item of interest comes up and public comment is called, please line up to speak. alternatively, you may submit public comment in writing either the following ways. email them to myself. the rules committee clerk at victor. you and g at sfgovtv. org if you submit public comment via email, it will be forwarded to the supervisors and included as part of the file. you may also send your written comment via us mail to our office at one. doctor carlton b goodlett place, room 244, san francisco, california 94102. please make sure to

silence all cell phones and electronic devices documents to be included as part of the file should be submitted to the clerk. items acted upon today are expected to appear on the board of supervisors agenda of may 21st, 2024, unless otherwise stated. that completes my initial announcements. thank you and i would like to make a motion to excuse supervisor sherman walton from this meeting. yes, on the motion to excuse, vice chair walton, supervisor preston preston, i supervisor safaí safaí chair. ronan i ronan i the motion passes without objection. motion passes. thank you. mr. clerk. can you please call item number one? yes. item number one. item number one is the ordinance amending the administrative code to amend the language access ordinance. to clarify

department's responsibility to provide language access services to members of the public, and to clarify the role of the office of civic engagement and immigrant affairs. thank you so much. and on behalf of a supervisor, walton, i would like to introduce two amendments to this ordinance. the first is on page 11, lines 20 through 24, a adding the language upon request in lep person may request written materials that provide vital information to the public about the department's services or programs into a language not captured by the required languages. however, the public utilities commission and the tax collector shall make resources available for lep persons to understand their property tax and utility bills and then additionally on page 24, lines 23 through 24, a revising the top 20 languages to the ones with the highest access needs.

so the language that we'd be adding to the ordinance is the know your rights brochure shall be translated and made available in at least the top 20 most spoken languages in san francisco that are most spoken and have the highest rate of language access needs. so if i can make a motion to amend, and i will wait to vote on that motion until we hear public comment, yes. oh, and i question or comment from supervisor preston. please add me as a co-sponsor on this. thank you. thank you. are we prepared for public comment now? yes, please. yes. members of the public who wish to speak on this item should line up to speak at this time. each speaker will be allowed two minutes. there will be a soft chime when you have 30s left and a louder chime when your time has expired. are there any members of the public who would like to make public comment at this time? there does

not appear to be any public commenters on this matter. public comment has been is has is closed. now, if you can take a roll call, vote on that motion . yes. on that motion to amend. supervisor preston preston, i supervisor safaí safaí chair. ronen i ronen i. that motion passes without objection. the motion passes unanimously. and if i can now because there are fiscal implications to this ordinance, i need to refer this item to the budget and finance committee. yes. on the motion to refer the matter to the budget. and is the budget and finance or budget and appropriation budget and appropriations budget and appropriations committee, as amended, on that motion, supervisor preston preston, i supervisor safaí safaí. i chair ronen i ronen i that motion

passes without objection. motion passes. thank you. can you please read item number two? yes. item number two is an ordinance amending the administrative and business and tax regulation code to change the frequency of the housing needs overview for seniors and people with disabilities. and the housing needs assessment and production pipeline report for seniors and people with disabilities. and update all reference to the department of disability and aging services consistent with the charter, and make other non-material corrections. thank you so much. and susie smith is here. from hsa h.s.a to report. thank you. good morning. supervisor ronen, yes. so the housing needs overview report provides a snapshot of existing affordable housing units occupied by

seniors and adults with disabilities, as well as the production pipeline designated for these populations and the housing needs assessment and production pipeline report provides an analysis of senior and disability housing needs. the department proposes publishing the aging and disability affordable housing needs assessment report every eight years instead of every three years, and publishing the aging and disability housing affordable affordable housing needs report every other year instead of every year. and we're proposing this change for a few reasons, the first is that the proposed eight year cycle for the needs assessment would align more closely with the housing element, which, of course, is the city's premier prominent housing roadmap to meet unmet needs. this way, the research and findings on senior and disability housing needs can better inform and support macds formal housing plans. so that's one important reason. another

reason is that housing needs and the supply of units simply don't change significantly from year to year. what we see from the data on senior occupancy and unit accessibility is that there's little year to year change in, because affordable housing units simply don't turn over that quickly. the existing three year needs assessment report is also too frequent to develop insights about community housing needs. and importantly, as we make policy changes and implement the recommendations to these reports, we need a frequency that we can actually see the effect of those policy changes. and when we're doing it every other, every other, every year and every three years, we just simply can't see the impact of our policy choices, finally, these are very labor intensive. it takes about a year to produce these reports, full time staff person from h.s.a is assigned to it. we also have a consultant because we have a very engaged community process to find out from the community, not just the

data that we're seeing, but what's the impact in the lived experience of people with disabilities and older adults and so we have a consultancy of about $170,000 that that we also go into this. so for all of these reasons, we think it makes more sense to have a longer cadence between both of these reports and have more details and have escalator here. that is the expert behind these reports. if you have questions or concerns. thank you so much. is there any questions? no, i just i completely understand the reasoning behind this and it makes a lot of sense to me, we want these reports to be meaningful and we want them to take the appropriate amount of staff time and resources to create and actually show us something that we can act upon. so i, i think this legislation makes a lot of sense. i'm happy to support it. thank you. thank you. thanks so much, mr. clerk, can we please open this item up

for public comment? yes. members of the public wish to speak on this item should line up to speak at this time. each speaker will be allowed two minutes. are there any members of the public who would like to make public comment on this matter? there does not appear to be any additional speakers. public comment is now closed. i would like to make a motion to send this item to the full board with positive recommendation. on that motion, supervisor preston preston i supervisor safaí safíi i chair. ronen i ronen i that motion passes without objection. without objection, the motion passes. thank you. can you please read item number three? yes. item number three is ordinance approving surveillance technology policy for human services agency use of call recording technology. and i believe susie smith. yes. hello. welcome back. still here. it's going to present on this item as

well. so h.s.a operates telephonic service centers to help clients access our supports and services. and this our use of telephonic services skyrocketed during the pandemic. we had regulatory relief from the state that allowed us to do a lot more digitally. telephonically importantly, using telephonic signatures so that when people apply for benefits, they did not have to come in. and for a lot of these processes, we're still allowed to do like telephonic signatures in particular, and it makes it a much smoother process. so, what we seek here is authorization under section 19 b2a to use call recording technology at our call centers to record and store audio phone calls. these recordings will be used to ensure equitable and consistent service delivery to all of our services across our various programs, and will also be used to deliver services more efficiently and by enabling telephonic signatures. as i mentioned, this is common practice. you know, whenever we

are in call centers as customers , we hear, you know, this will often be recorded for quality control issues. we want to operate like the private sector. we want to be efficient. we want to make sure that we can do our own quality control. and having this technology enables us to do so, on march 23rd, 2023 and on june 15th, 2023, coates, the committee on information technology and its privacy and surveillance advisory board conducted two public hearings on this matter at which they considered this policy and the impact for hsa's use of call recording technology, and developed a surveillance technology policy for hsa's use of call recording technology. on june 15th, 2023, coit voted to recommend that the board of supervisors approve our use of this technology. so that is why i'm here today. happy to answer any questions. thank you. any questions? colleagues seeing none. no questions. thank you. thank you. can we please open this item up for public comment?

yes. members of the public wish to speak on this item should line up to speak at this time. each speaker will be allowed two minutes. there will be a soft chime when you have 30s left and allow to chime when your time has expired. is there anyone who would like to make public comment on item number three? there does not appear to be any public comment on item three. public comment is now closed. i would like to make a motion to send this item to the full board with positive recommendation. yes, on that motion, supervisor preston preston i supervisor safaí safaí i chair ronen, i ronen i the motion passes without objection. motion passes. thank you. thanks so much, mr. clerk, can you please read item number four? yes. item number four is a hearing on artificial intelligence and local elections and requesting the department of elections and ethics commission to report. and

i'm going to turn it over to supervisor preston, who called for this hearing. thank you. thank you, chair ronen. and thank you for, calendaring this and looking forward to the to the presentations. i want to give a bit of, of context for why we called the hearing, before we get started, but the hearing, as you mentioned, is on artificial intelligence in local elections. and since we introduced this hearing, my office has had extensive conversations with department of elections, with ethics commission, with ai experts and advocates, and i think we're all i hope we're all aware that with the growth of artificial intelligence and growing concerns about its role in elections, that this is a good time for us to be asking whether san francisco law adequately address guesses potentially

false and misleading ai generated ad election material, whether the city needs to adopt new policies and protocols to address ai's role, all in san francisco elections, and whether enforcement mechanisms are sufficient to ensure that ai is not used to spread misinformation regarding elections in our city. i, i'm sure we all agree we need to do everything possible to ensure the integrity, transparency and security of our elections. and i should say that as as i think the presentations will make clear, this is not a conversation solely happening in in city halls across the country. this is a conversation happening at the federal level, at the state level. but it's also one that it's important that we have here. we are already seeing how, ai is being used to generate images and videos in political ads nationally and in cities around

the country, creating new avenues for misleading content and without adequate guardrails, technologies making it increasingly difficult for the public to accurately identify fraudulent video and audio material. during the hearing today, we'll hear from the department of elections, and the ethics commission regarding the city's current protocols in responding to ai in our elections, and we'll discuss proposals to prevent the use of fraudulent ai generated content in campaign ads to the greatest extent allowable under under the law. this hearing comes on the heels of some pretty outrageous misuses of ai technology around the country to generate false and misleading content that this includes robocalls with ai generated voices happening in major elections, including the use of deepfake videos of

president joe biden, supposedly calling for a us military draft in in something he has not called for, but was artificially created and misleading in new hampshire, there were videos of the president saying that the date of the election had changed, misleading voters, and threatening to compromise the integrity of those elections and voter participation, locally, we haven't seen as much. we'll talk about that. fortunately to date, i will say i will note that just in the last week, a video circulated widely on social media using an ai generated voice of president former president barack obama claiming to endorse someone for san francisco district attorney, mr. obama has made no such endorsements in our local district attorney race. but, you know, the public viewing that

video, video circulating on social media would not know that. so across the country, we're seeing an increase in political ads released this year already with ai generated images with text to voice converters to depict candidates negatively. and so disinformation in elections. so i think that fortunately it's been limited to date in san francisco, and we want to keep it that way, and so hopefully this this helps us get there. i will say that a recent ap poll found that nearly 6 in 10 adults in in this country are worried about artificial intelligence tools increasing the spread of false and misleading information in the 2024 elections. and i think they are right to be concerned. concerned. so as i mentioned, federal and state governments have begun to respond. we're seeing a number of bills. we'll talk about those at the state level. if these pass, which is

no certainty, we'll need to have all hands on deck to enforce them, in addition to the departments who have worked with our office and particular with my chief of staff, preston kilgore, we also want to thank and appreciate, common cause and particularly professor david harris, a faculty member at uc berkeley and an advisor to the california initiative for technology and democracy, for agreeing to be here and present on some of their work to support local, elections officials and state bills in california. so hopefully we'll bring more transparency through this, and without further ado, and i believe we are i, i see our director up, but i think we were planning to start with mr. harris, if that is okay to help frame maybe the broader, broader perspective before we dive into the san francisco response. professor harris, welcome. thank

you . so. and. and as you are setting up, i do just want to note, because there's obviously a lot of ground to potentially cover, but we are, requesting the presentations. be no more than

seven minutes, and we'll. perturbation onto the, laptop in the room. if you have a thumb drive, we can just, transfer it over. i'm sorry, i don't have a thumb drive. i was told to. oh. that's fine. okay oh, i believe it's up. thank you so much, supervisors. i'm very happy to be here, my name is david harris, and i'll be speaking about ai, disinformation and the 2024 elections, what i'll cover today is a brief introduction, and then i'll talk about why we should be concerned about ai and elections. i'll talk about the cited the california initiative for technology and democracies package of bills that's currently in sacramento, working its way through the legislature and then per request, i'll give

a bonus teaser about the brennan center for justice's ai elections report, which i contributed to, and i'll keep it under seven minutes, so about me. as you mentioned, i teach at berkeley, also an advisor to cited and the brennan center for justice. and, the cited is a project of common cause, california common cause in particular. and this is an organization that works to build a democracy and a government that reflects our communities and is accountable to us. at the same time, we believe strongly that the threat of election disinformation, turbocharged by ai is too grave. we can't just go with business as usual. we need to take real proactive steps forward to ensure that our elections are not subverted with technology. now, i can do lots of great things. it brings us suggestions for what to watch on netflix. it helps optimize renewable energy. there are possibilities that could help address climate change disease. but in this domain of politics, of governance, of government administration, there are lots

of ways it could go wrong. minority report is a famous movie example where predictive policing takes place and causes big harms to people, and that's something that we've already seen in the criminal justice system. this is an example of generative ai. this is the new ish generation of ai systems that launched and got a lot of public acknowledgment with chatgpt. and this is spongebob squarepants in the style of van gogh. just one example of what an ai based image generator could make for you. and that creativity could be put to fun, interesting uses. or it could be put to harm. i'm going to show you a series of examples. do you know which of these two images is real and which is fake? this is the pope. turns out the one on the left is the fake. here are two images of official buildings with smoke. and you want to know which is real? which is fake? the one on the right is real. the one on the left is fake. that's the pentagon. and when this fake

image of an explosion and a fire near the pentagon was circulated, it causes a caused a brief crash in the stock market and a huge opportunity for people to make money if they plan those kinds of attacks in advance. these are ai generated images of donald trump hugging and kissing doctor anthony fauci. again, a ploy to interfere in politics and sow confusion and mistrust. this is the miami chronicle, a fake newspaper generated purportedly by russian state actors designed to spread misinformation about the war between russia and ukraine. these are fake images of donald trump with black constituents purportedly designed to help with his outreach to communities that he has struggled with. and there is a big countervailing factor that's making it actually harder, not easier, for us to deal with these threats. this is a headline from the washington post following elon musk's lead, big tech is surrendering to disinformation. instead of seeing the teams that are tasked

at tech companies growing to deal with threats from ai, we see them shrinking. elon musk famously let go of about 81% of twitter's staff after he did that. mark zuckerberg said that he admired what a lean company elon was able to make twitter, and these cuts have been across excellent report by the free press documenting the shrinking of these teams designed to address trust and safety and integrity issues. so this leaves us a big question. whose job is it to protect our communities from these threats? and it cited, we'd argue it is a public responsibility. and that's why we brought a package of four bills to the california legislature. as i mentioned, there, currently making their way through three of the bills are in the state assembly. one is in the state senate. the first is the california provenance, authenticity and watermarking standards. ab 3211. this is a comprehensive proposal requiring that ai generated content contain an invisible watermark that tells you that it

is ai generated. it also places requirements on makers of phones and cameras to put invisible watermarks in authentic media, so that we know what's real and that two pronged approach is designed to help in improve the integrity of our information environment. in broadway's. also, it places requirements on social media platforms and messaging platforms to display labels that clearly communicate to users. that content is either authentic, synthetic, or of unknown provenance. the second bill is the deepfake labeling on social media bill from oh, i'm sorry. the first one is from assembly member buffy wicks, the second one, deepfake labeling on social media is from assembly member mark berman. ab 2655, and this one is designed to fight disinformation by placing specific restrictions on deepfakes and how they can circulate, banning them from circulating in certain limited, narrow circumstances around elections. certain types of

deepfakes that have to do with elected officials, for example, like yourselves, election equipment, election infrastructure, because we anticipate there will be lots of questions around the first amendment, the strategy on this and the following bill is to make it very, very narrowly tailored so that it has the minimum possible impact on people's freedom of speech. the third bill is the deepfake deepfake free campaigning close to elections bill from assembly member pellerin. and this one also deals with deepfakes. you can think of it as a sibling bill of the previous one, but it talks about deepfakes offline and requirements for billboards, magazines, print and all of the impacts they can have there. and last but not least is the know your customer bill. sb 1228 by state senator padilla and that one requires that online platforms take information from the most influential users to verify that their actual human beings, and not bots or sophisticated foreign interference actors. so i was asked specifically to talk about

the possibility of the san francisco board of supervisors passing a local version of ab 730, the 2019 deepfake law. you'll note that that was passed or authored by mark berman, the same assembly member who is currently working on one of the three bills that i mentioned in the package, ab 2655, what we would recommend to the board of supervisors is to wait until august or september, or perhaps earlier, when we know the outcome of ab 2655. that's currently making its way through before taking any action with regard to extending or making a local version of ab 730, now i'm going to switch gears and i'm hoping i have sound here. oh, i don't see me a moment. adrian fontes, this video was produced as part of our 2024 statewide election security tabletop exercise. it was created with both the consent and cooperation of the real secretary fontes, which, again, is not me. so yes,

that was fake to your point. yeah, it's pretty good, right? so i went to arizona in december as part of my work with the brennan center for justice at nyu school of law to help run a tabletop exercise for election officials. we had more than 200 local election officials from every county in arizona attend this exercise, and we prepared them for a day and a half for the types of ai threats that they should expect. we've released a report based on the experience of that. it's called how election officials can identify, prepare for, and respond to ai threats. and it gives a preparation checklist for election officials as it goes through how they how they can take the necessary steps to be ready for these these attacks goes through a number of different scenarios of how ai threats could take place in elections. it gives a playbook for how election officials can respond to all of these threats as well. and i know i'm running low on time, so i'll move over to questions. thank you, let s,

i think we'll hold the questions unless my colleagues have something burning and have the other presentations and then we can ask questions of, of multiple members. i did the one clarification, just on the bills you mentioned. yeah, because we're kind of getting news in real time. but my understanding is two of these, i think the wicks bill and the 2655 that you mentioned are, in the place i usually refer to as hell, which is being on suspense in the state capital, which is means you're maybe it's more like purgatory, i don't know, but do we? and i don't know if you're the right person to ask. maybe our staff knows, but just on those are i really concerned? i just learned that those were on suspense, which puts them in question of whether they're moving forward. so i don't know if there's any breaking news on whether we should be worried

about these two bills, so i'm not a lawyer and i'm not an expert in how sacramento works. but i will tell you, i've testified on both of those bills alongside assembly member wicks and assembly member berman and the hearings that i testified in the privacy and consumer protection committee and the judiciary committee saw those bills very favorably. they passed through both committees and so, just because they're on suspense in the appropriations committee, does not in any way indicate anything negative. in fact, the chair of the assembly appropriations committee is assembly member wicks, and she is the author of one of those bills. so it would stand to reason that they're being in suspense in her committee would not indicate anything negative about the prospects of that bill. great. thank you. and we'll definitely keep in touch with our city lobbyists on those as well. but we'll go on and do the other presentations. please stick around. i'm sure we'll have questions for you, and so next up, director ernst, welcome and thank you again for all the time and attention to this before our hearing today. oh, yeah. thank you. welcome. thank you .

are we up, can we have the presentation? yeah. there it goes. okay. thanks all right. good morning, john. our director of elections. so today we'll provide a short presentation on the department's, role around artificial intelligence and so the topics of discussion today that i'll present will be the possible impacts of ai in local elections. the department's role in relation to misinformation, disinformation and mail information and protocols for

responding to misinformation, disinformation and misinformation. and just for purposes of definition. so misinformation would be false information that's spread without the intent to deceive, and then disinformation would be , false information spread with the intent to deceive. and then mal information is information that's based on fact or reality, and it's used out of context with the intent to deceive. so examples of using ai to affect local elections could include deepfakes. an example would be using ai to generate inauthentic audio of someone making false statements, and using such audio to make phone calls to voters, false or misleading content. using ai to generate content that appears authentic or official and provides inaccurate messaging, and also social media accounts and websites that resemble official sources. so that would be using ai to create social media accounts and websites that imitate the look and tone of official sites and

provide inaccurate information in so also regarding possible impacts of ai and local elections. it's really important at the very beginning to indicate that current security measures safeguard voting systems from ai related threats, and one of the primary defenses is the voting system itself, and all the equipment is not connected to the internet and not able to be connected to the internet. so the servers are, they're gapped from the internet and all the all the equipment is incapable of actually connecting to any wi-fi and any any bluetooth enabled devices, the system software obtained in person from the secretary of state is reinstalled onto the system before every election. so this means that we wipe clean the software of the voting system before we create the next election. and then we reinstall the software using a trusted version that we received in person from the secretary of state's office. then we create the next election. all equipment is tested before every election. verifying the system accurately scans ballots, tabulates votes

and reports election results. so every election we have, ballots that we primark and we know the outcomes of those markings and we run them through the equipment, we run them through tabulation, we create results reports. and so we, we test to make sure that the entire system is acting as it should in relation to, to counting, scanning, counting and posting results, the department cryptographically hashes all result results reports, which ensures the results from the department. the department's website are authentic, and that's it creates so hashing means that we run the reports through a program that creates a value string that represents all the content on those pages of documents of the, of the numbers, on the pages for the results, that anyone can take that same report and run it through this similar program and compare the string of values against what we posted on our website to make sure that the information has not been changed

since we posted it the day after each election, the department manually tallies the ballots to compare against the systems election results reports, and the department conducts a risk limiting auditing of contests with the closest vote totals. so we manually count 1% of the votes cast at the polling places. 1% of the votes cast by mail, and 1% of the votes cast provisionally. and we compare those hand counts against the machine counts after every election. and that is to verify that the system recorded the votes correctly and also tabulated and reported those votes correctly, that on top of that, with the department of technology, we've been developing an open source program, that conducts that allows the conducting of risk limiting auditing, which is a higher level manual audit with a lot of statistics and math behind it that we use, that we apply to the contest that have the closest vote totals. so if there is a close contest or measure in san francisco, it's essentially being audited twice. and that information again is posted on our website. and it's hashed so that people can verify that it's accurate. the next

topic would be the department's role in relation to misinformation, disinformation and misinformation. so the department's primary role is to be a trusted source of information regarding election related processes, such as voter registration, voting and results reporting. the department focuses on preserving the integrity of election processes and voting, and on issues that may impact the public's trust in the conduct or the outcome of an election, importantly, the department does not monitor or regulate or regulate campaign speech. should the department become aware of faults or misleading statements, the department can alert other agencies of the situation. and of course, we could support their efforts. but the department of elections does not have the legal authority to monitor any sort of campaign speech or any sort of content that might materials, that of materials that might be out there regarding candidates, measures on the ballot. so we we're not the place for people to go to, to seek enforcement, regarding that sort of speech. but we can certainly support and

alert other agencies that would, review and potentially enforce, that the, the requirements around speech, the department develops a multilingual, multi-format outreach strategies intended to maintain the department's presence as a trusted source of accurate election related information. so we prioritize publishing clear, easy to understand information on our website and in printed materials. we inform all san francisco registered voters about key election dates, rules and operational changes. we engage in robust, multilingual outreach efforts through notices, press releases, social social media channels, and live and virtual presentations. we also actively participate in over 100 community events to engage with residents, community organizations, and other outreach partners before and during an election cycle. the department continuously provides notices and updates to local media and community organizations throughout an election cycle, so we don't try to do it by ourselves. we

leverage our contacts in the media and also in the community organizations, and we provide content for their articles, for their newsletters, we'll we'll appear in remote meetings for them. we'll provide information, as they require for their, for their meetings. so we're not we're not trying to just be the sole source of information, election information, trusted information in san francisco. we're trying to leverage our relationships with the media and the organizations, then also before each election, the department meets with and meets with and receives information from state, federal and local agencies regarding election security and responses to possible issues. and so, through a cycle of the california secretary of state's office of elections, cybersecurity will organize meetings with counties and provide updates throughout an election cycle. the oec is connected to several other agencies, organize their resources around election security, such as the department , department of homeland security's cybersecurity and infrastructure security agency, better known as cisa or cisa,

the federal bureau of investigation and the california department of technology, the oac is the has established a dedicated email address vote share at sosa.gov for the public to use to alert the agency to possible adverse impacts on an election in which the department of elections also provides in its materials and then separately, the department. we meet with the oec individually and also with with other partners such as the fbi and the da's office, who i've already met with, before this meeting. actually, for the in relation to the november election. and also, i need to say, before every election, the department of emergency management organizes meetings with about 20 agencies local, state and federal agencies, that centers on election security and the purpose of those meetings is for the department of elections to move through its time frame, its operations, its locations, and have the other agencies be alerted and notified, of what's happening in san francisco in relation to the election, to understand who has jurisdiction

over those certain components of the of the election cycle, and also for us all to make sure that we have a good and reliable contact information for, for one another should something arise. then our protocols for responding to misinformation, disinformation and mal information. the department has developed protocols for identifying and responding to false or misleading election information. when the department becomes aware of a possible incident involving bad information, the department will activate its mdm evaluation and response plan. by following this plan, the department can make quickly provide accurate information to voters and alert the public. in response to a potential situation. this plan also guides department personnel to collect information on the situation that may investigatory and law enforcement agencies in relation to their responses. so one example of the department's response to potential situation involving a video intending to suppress voter participation circulating on social media, the

department would inform and reassure the public and local voters by posting a statement on its website clarifying that voting continues through election day, to an acknowledgment that the department is aware of the misinformation and is details and three a link to more information about the steps the department is taking. such notices would be in addition to press releases, press briefings, posting updates on the department's social media accounts, and also informing community partners, then again, the department would alert its partner agencies of the incident to increase the scope of the response to the incident, so again, just to reinforce, we do we do meet with other agencies, even before i became an issue. and this is something that we've incorporated into our processes through time. and we're going to , incorporate now i concerns into these processes. and with that, i can take any questions or wait for the next. thank you very much. and just so, just

just broadly here before we hear from from ethics, you made the distinction around, elections not having jurisdiction over the content or misleading or deceptive content about an issue, and so as i understand it and tell me if i'm getting this right or put it in, in whatever words are appropriate, but if, if a, misleading ad of some kind, if you had a ai generated ad with a leader saying, you know, recognize leaders saying, you know, the election won't be held on tuesday, it's going to be held on thursday this year, right, or something of that nature that goes to the actual dis misleading people about the act of voting that would be within, within your

something about the, you know, a false endorsement or completely misrepresenting the contents of a bill or, or something of that nature, it would not be within elections, correct? yeah we're more on the operations side than we are on the i call it campaign speech side. and so if there was any sort of false statement around the voting process, registration and election results, that's when we would, we would take action that we would be directly involved in trying to resolve that situation and providing good information to the voters and to the public. got it. and for the things that are within your within your jurisdiction, i'm curious if there are any are there any rules that are specific to ai generated content, or is it just the existing rules? i mean, people didn't need ai to send out a mailing saying the

election is thursday instead of tuesday, right? but it's just it's just now much easier to get that out and also easier to do deep fakes and have trusted people, carrying those messages through, through ai generated content. but i'm just. so are we just still applying the standard, the same rules that applied before this technology existed? or are there other than the state bills that are pending , are there any on the things within your jurisdiction where you're applying a regulation or law that is specific to ai generated content? that's i'm aware of, i'm not aware of anything that's in the that's that's on tap to be to apply. because really the impacts on the operation would be the same. the way to impact the operations might change. and so really we want to make sure that the elections process, you know, remains whole throughout the entire cycle. so how someone might try to adversely affect the election and or the elections process isn't the concern as much as the potential

impact on the election? thank you. i will just i will just offer the comment that and this is not directed at you or departments here. it's just amazing to me that we are in 2024 and it's good. these bills are pending. but, that we don't actually have, you know, that someone could put out. i generated content that is misleading people about when an election is and we don't have specific laws that target that as a different sort of threat than what existed before that technology was used potentially in this way. is a it's concerning that at the federal and state level that we don't yet have that. but i digress. thank you very much. and let's hear from from ethics next .

welcome good morning. supervisor preston. hello, chair. rodan. supervisor. safaí good to see you all, for the record, i'm patrick ford. i'm the executive director of the ethics commission. this is my colleague, michael canning. you may know him. he's our director of policy and legislative affairs, he's the one that's been tracking this issue primarily for our office. so i wanted to make sure he was here today. so you can give the information that is of most interest to you, i know that you had requested some information, supervisor preston, about our staffing and our enforcement process. so i'll start with that . then i'll turn it over to michael, and he can talk about more of the specifics regarding, i, i'll just jump right into it, save on time, so our enforcement process, is an administrative hearing process. and that's actually not how most cases are resolved. most cases are resolved through a stipulated

settlement. but i'll just give you a quick overview of how our hearing process works, so a complaint is received, we can receive complaints through many different channels. also, our investigators can initiate cases without receiving a complaint if they see, evidence of a violation on their own, be that through public disclosures or any other means, then our investigators will open an investigation. and at that time, they will confer with the city attorney and the district attorney to see if there may be a criminal or civil element to those cases that should be looked into, then our investigators will conduct a confidential investigation, our department does have subpoena power, which at times we are we do use we'll interview witnesses, we'll request documents. it's a very comprehensive live investigation process, at the end of that, if a stipulated settlement has not been reached, the investigators will serve a probable cause report on the respondent that

really kicks off the hearing process. at that point, the respondent has the right to request a probable cause conference, and that's a conference with the enforcement division and the respondent before me, before the executive director, then the executive director may find that probable cause exists that basically then sends the case to the commission , for a hearing to take place. that's a public hearing. so that's the point at which the case is no longer confidential and it becomes public. so that's when you would find out about it, for the first time. and then if a violation, has occurred, if the commission finds that there is a violation, the commission can impose a monetary penalty. and also there can be other remedies, like requiring the respondent to file, disclosures that they failed to file, and then just to, to reiterate, stipulated agreements are really how most, cases are resolved. it's a much faster process. most respondents prefer that. and

really those negotiations can take place at any time during the investigation. and usually this happens before a hearing has actually been been kicked off. and the commission does have to approve that. and i will just mention that we have a streamlined administrative resolution program. that's a program that essentially sets a streamlined process for a settlement and has a list of set penalties. so there's less to negotiate. it's just on a table. we find this to be a really effective way to get through lower level cases a lot faster. and then a quick note about penalty amounts that is set in the charter. and the charter allows the commission to impose a penalty of $5,000 per violation or or a penalty of three times the amount that was unlawfully received, given, expended or not reported. whichever is greater. so, for example, if a committee fails to report a $10,000 expenditure, in theory the penalty for that

could be up to $30,000. then i'll briefly talk about staffing on our enforcement division and audit division. i know that was of interest to you also mentioned the staffing in our policy division, so the enforcement division, unsurprisingly, is our division that carries out enforcement, we are, on paper, a division of eight, employees. but in reality, right now we have five, one of those vacancies is because i vacated the director of enforcement position when i assumed my current role as ed, but actually, two other positions are kept essentially permanently vacant in order to meet our attrition targets. so right now, we are recruiting for the director of enforcement position, but we are not recruiting for the other two investigator positions within the audits division. that is a four person division, right now we have one vacancy, and we have one audit manager and two auditors and we are not in

recruitment for that position. we do not have authority to do that. and then before we move on, i'll just mention that on paper, our policy division is two people, but for many years it has been one an we simply do not have the funding to have a two person policy unit and some context there. our policy division is the division that studies issues like these, like i or any other emerging issues that face the city, whether that's with ethics, elections, conflicts of interest, lobbying, that's really how we study, digest new issues, come up with new laws, interact with your offices and then implement those to actually make them work in in practice. michael's our policy unit. so we do have a, you know, a limitation on our bandwidth when it comes to studying new issues and working with you to create new laws, so with that, i'll turn it over to michael and he'll talk to you a little bit more specifically about i. yeah. thank you, doctor ford, so,

yeah, i'm happy to give an overview of the current, disclaimer requirements for political advertisements. these are disclaimer requirements that come from both local and state law. they vary a great deal depending on the type of committee that is producing the advertisement, as well as the type of advertisement itself. we have several detailed charts on our website that go through the various types of disclaimer requirement and get into things like the size of the font required, the background color requirements, placement of the disclaimer within the ad, that's all specified in greater detail, but since we're short on time, i will just kind of give a high level summary of some of the most common, disclaimer types for different committees and focus on the content of what needs to go into those disclaimers. so for communications by city candidate committees for their own election, this is for general communications, print, radio, telephone calls, television videos. they need to include paid for by the committee name, as well as a statement that

financial disclosures are available at sf ethics.org. for independent expenditure ads referring to city candidates, they need to identify their committee name and then for their top three funders who have contributed more than $5,000, those funders need to be identified with the names and dollar amounts contributed. and additionally, if any of those top three contributors are themselves committees, the ad must disclose the top two contributors of $5,000 or more to those, committees, in addition to the financial disclosure, website reference, as well as a statement that the advertisement is not authorized by a candidate or a committee controlled by a candidate for independent expenditure ads on ballot measures, it's the same as the previous requirement with the committee name, the top funders as well as the secondary funders and the statement of, the website, just for a little

illustration, here's one of the disclaimer charts. this is one of eight charts, which, you know, just to stress the level of complexity with the current disclaimer rules, can't really fit them all on one slide, all that easily. they also wanted to flag that the current disclaimer rules have been the subject of litigation in recent years, with plaintiffs arguing that the city's additional rules violate the first amendment, particularly the secondary contributor requirements, which were approved by voters via prop f in 2019. also, a note on enforcement that since 2019, the commission has issued penalties in 16 enforcement cases involving failures to comply with the disclaimer requirements , to talk about the use of artificial intelligence in local elections, the ethics commission is generally aware of a lot of the information that's already been discussed today, specifically, the potential harmful use of ai in local

elections and agrees that this is an important issue to monitor, better understand and safeguard against it, largely with the concerns of, ai being focused on using ai to create, information that can deceive voters, potentially by including such deceptive information in their political advertisements, however, i also want to note that the commission does not administer laws regulating the content of political advertisements, or that penalizes campaigns that publish false statements in their advertisements, regardless of if the source is artificial intelligence, with the exception being the aforementioned disclaimer requirements. those are what we look at and enforce to make sure those are properly disclosed, the commission is aware of the state's current rule regarding deceptive audio or visual media, which is in the california elections code, which was already referenced, this was the rule adopted in 2019 via ab 730, which, as discussed,

requires a disclaimer when material that is distributed with actual malice materially deceptive audio, audio or visual media with the intent to injure a candidate's reputation or deceive a voter into voting for or against that content. it requires a disclaimer in that situation, and also allows, the candidate featured in the manipulated material to take legal action, in that situation, this state rule does currently apply to san francisco elections. however, the ethics commission, enforces violations of the state's political reform act, which is in the california government code, not the elections code. so currently violations of this particular state law is not something that the commission would currently investigate, enforce, or issue penalties regarding, however, the ethics commission's engagement compliance division is currently working to update our compliance materials for candidates and committees prior

to the november election so that candidates and committees will be aware of this rule and how to best comply with it. yeah. and i'll just finish quickly with, yeah, go ahead. because you may be answering what i was about to ask. sure, sure. just a few, you know, recommendations from where we stand. as you look at this issue, you know, specifically with disclaimers, something that we always look at and we're looking at disclaimers is we want to make sure they're useful to people, and with all of the requirements that michael showed you, that chart is very, very long. the disclaimers themselves are becoming quite long. and there is, you know, a limit to how much a reader or listener can actually absorb. in a disclaimer. so we want to make sure we're not putting too much in. we're not really using the disclaimer to try to get too much out of it, you know, another part is the compliance and administration side, compliance on the part of the people creating the ads administration on the city side, the longer and more complex they get, it is harder for those campaigns to figure it out and do it right. and it's more, you know, on the city side for us to

try and get them to do it. and like michael mentioned, the legality. there is a first amendment limitation on how long they can be, we found that out, you know, over the last two years going through this litigation process. and we now do have, federal order limiting our ability to create disclaimers as a city, and i would say you know, even more so if you're looking at laws that will actually dive into the content. i mean, as you know, that's going to be a very fraught area. there's going to be a lot of first amendment concerns when you're getting into what's being said, the city did use to have a false endorsement law that prohibited people from saying that a candidate had been endorsed by an organization when they had not maybe a organization of very poor reputation. we no longer have that law that was found to be unconstitutional, so we i think we do have to just recognize if we go in this direction, we're going to want to work really closely with the city attorney's office and figure out what can and can't. we do, like michael said, we definitely want to track what's going on at the state level and try and harmonize a lot of the

laws that the ethics commission administers are either state laws or they're local laws that are built on top of state laws. so it's really a system that depends on a lot of harmony. so i think that would be really important part of, of this process, likewise, working with the department of technology to make sure as a city, we have the tools to actually identify ai if we're going to have a law that's triggered by ai, something being ai generated, we need to be able to prove it, like to identify it and prove it. otherwise we won't be able to investigate and effectively enforce. if we can't actually know when we're looking at it, and then lastly, disclaimers. yes. but especially any law that's going to get into, content of, of ai generated material. if the ethics commission will be the department to administer that, that's going to be kind of a new frontier. that's going to take a lot of resources. so i just want to flag that. thank you, director, and thank you both for your work. and i just want to clarify a couple things that i know my colleagues may have questions as well, but, the ab

730 that was referenced. right. which which so that that is currently california law. you put on the slide and i think it's important people understand. so that's that's the 60 days prior to the election. and it's a pretty high bar. someone if someone with actual malice circulates ai generated a misleading or deceptive content about, a candidate or measure, without a disclosure. right? that is, is violates ab 730. i'm sure i'm butchering the language, but essentially that's the gist of it. my concern, and i appreciate you. you raise this and we learned this through this process is who actually enforces that. because we've heard from department of elections that it's not within their, role to

enforce the laws around, around content that's, you know, deceptive about a candidate or measure. but what i'm hearing, if i understand it correctly, the way it was written into san francisco law does not actually give you jurisdiction to enforce violations on that. so i want to make sure i have that right. and also just in terms of local potential local change, one that, that, that, that we may be interested in would be to grant that power to make that part of what ethics can enforce, subject to i understand the budgetary and other concerns, but can can you explain, just address, address that like is that right, that right now it's not within anyone's jurisdiction to be able to enforce ab 730. you can educate people about it and that's your plan. but if there's a violation of it, maybe, i mean, you tell me who maybe the city attorney. i mean, who would enforce that? i think perhaps

the city attorney or the district attorney if the conduct in question rose to the level of potentially being a crime, i can tell you that it's not within our jurisdiction. we enforce the campaign and governmental conduct code and provisions of the california government code, specifically title nine. that's the political reform act. we do not enforce provisions of the california elections code, which is where ab 730 lodged the new laws that it created, city attorney's office or da may be able to got it. but as you understand and i understand, we would city attorney would have the final say. but there's not a barrier per se to i mean that's that's just a city legislative choice whether to, to define the jurisdiction so that it includes enforcing that may be in the charter. what's that? that may be in the charter. it may not be in the code. we'd have to look at that to see. all right. we will we will explore that separately. i do want to say though, it's one thing that has come out of this process of preparing for the hearing,

seeing that gap, all due respect to our city attorney's office and our district attorney's office, the idea that they are going to be the body that intervenes in time to make a difference on violations that are occurring within 60 days of an election. as someone who has tried to get these offices to intervene, for example, when you know there are fake covid tents stealing my constituents private information like it takes time, right? and i think they'd be the first to tell you they're not usually the rapid response entity. and some of this if the only time that's actually actionable right now is the 60 day period before an election, it's very concerning that the only only the law enforcement bodies, that you mentioned would, would have jurisdiction. and i do think that's something we should bring under your jurisdiction as well. if we can legally, a couple other, questions. i, i'm just i'm trying to make sure i understand this. so, so if and i'm like,

was alarmed in this process to learn what you laid out, which is basically the complete i don't want to say complete legality, but lack of any real ability to enforce against completely fraudulent. so someone can generate fraudulent conduct, false endorsements and so forth. put it out there. and what i'm hearing, at least from elections and ethics, and maybe we'll hear differently from our from our professor, but there's not a tool to address that. not a readily available one. no, this is an area of core political speech. and for, for better or worse, lying has been found to be to a large extent, constitutionally protected speech, alarming. so. so someone generates a video that's like donald trump endorsing, you know, somebody in a local race

here, which would be, you know, kind of kiss of death or the opposite, very popular figure endorsing the endorsement doesn't exist. there's no disclaimers. if complainants were to come to elections or to ethics, they would be told that there's that there's nothing either agency could do. we do not have laws on the books. right now that would that would prohibit that. i mean, i'd be interested in working with the city attorney's office to see what they think is the furthest extent we could go, but we don't have that tool in our toolbox right now. with respect to, i wanted to invite back up mr. harris. so, i don't know if this is the first public hearing you're at since the brennan center report came out. if so, i'm glad we're giving the public forum to this. i was when we called for this hearing. we did

not know about your efforts and work, and then we're really struck by how what you all put together responds in so many ways to the concerns that we were trying to elevate at the local level. i was wondering if you could just elaborate a little on that report, and in particular, if you've engaged in any work with municipalities, or plan to about how to implement the recommendations of that report. yeah thank you so much for the question, i, we have had some conversations, mainly with the communities in arizona that we worked with because the secretary of state, was, you know, the lead in hosting the event that i referred to where we did that work. the brennan center is also in the planning process with a few other states, not including california right now, to run similar tabletop exercises and trainings. i've had one initial conversation a couple of weeks ago with the members of the elections team here in san francisco, and i'd be happy to continue that conversation about how the

recommendations in that report could be adapted for san francisco's particular needs. thank you. and also in your work, i know you've surveyed what other jurisdictions are doing, looking at other states in your advocacy at the state level, i'm curious if there are any best practices. in terms of legislation or regulation on this topic, that you've seen, any. well, i should start with just anything adopted locally at the city level. and we were aware of you've talked about the state bills. i assume those are the bills that reflect the recommendations and best practices that we're seeing from other states. but can you can you comment on, on what, if anything, is being passed at the municipal level, it's an overwhelming time right now for anyone trying to keep track of ai legislation. there the last number i heard was at the state level. there are more than 51 ai

related bills, and in just in california nationwide, i heard 400 recently, state bills. and i'm not able to follow the local ones, but i would be very happy to look into that and see if i can get back to you with any information. thank you very much, and supervisor safaí, i'm on. oh, i'm sorry, i could just speak to your previous question about ab 730. my, my understanding is that the candidate would have to sue directly. if it's a candidate that appears and they could sue for damages and injunctive relief under ab 730. but also the reason that assembly member berman has drafted and authored ab 2655 is to expand and build upon that bill, and enforcement was one of the reasons for the new what you can think of as a new expansion of that bill. so sorry to interrupt you. thank you. no problem. i just wondering if you could add anything going on federally. oh, yeah. you know, i, i personally

have i went and met with the white house last fall to talk about the ai executive order, and i do from time to time get requests from members of the us congress to review drafts of legislation about ai issues. but after talking to many people that i know and trust in washington, dc, i personally have decided to spend more of my time in sacramento and actually brussels. i actually think that brussels is a very interesting place to look at the legislation. that's going on. it's really unclear to me that things are going to move in congress in a way that it's worth me personally, as as an academic who has choices of jurisdictions to, to work in and to spend time with, to spend a lot of time in dc, it seems like , you know, if they can barely pass budgets, how can they legislate on ai effectively? makes sense. so is the eu, way ahead of us in terms of their regulations? yeah, the eu is way

ahead of us in terms of their regulations. absolutely. and i think a lot of people have heard about the eu ai act in particular, you know, going back to the us congress, one of the things i've heard versions of said a number of times by members of the us congress is we failed as the united states to regulate social media. we can't fail again on ai. and my message to anyone who thinks that way is that it's not that we failed to regulate social media. it's that we continue every minute of every day to fail to regulate social media and thinking of it as something where the window passed is silly because it's still a big threat. what europe has done is pass not only the eu ai act, which is in the very final stages and will most likely soon be coming into force. but they also have a law called the digital services act, and the digital services act is a very broad regulation of online platforms that includes social media and also search engines, and has enormous implications for elections. in

particular, the digital services act requires that any social media platform or search engine conduct a risk assessment to figure out what risks to a number of different areas, including mental health, children in democracy, elections. so they have to conduct an assessment of the risks posed to elections. they have to report on their planned risk mitigations. for that, they have to hire an external auditor to audit those risk assessments and risk mitigations, and then they have to open up their platforms to independent researchers who are vetted to study whether the platforms are doing enough and to study the problems created on those platforms. and so the digital services act just came into force last august, and the platforms have submitted these risk assessments and just recently, in the last couple of months, the eu issued additional specific guidance about elections and the digital services act, making very specific requirements about what the companies are expected to do to protect democracy in europe.

and, you know, we get some side benefits from that here in the us. i had an experience recently where i gave a talk in berkeley and an employee of tiktok approached me after the talk and invited me to join tiktok's researcher data access program. that was very interesting because that's not legally required of tiktok to do in the united states. it is legally required of them in europe. and so i expect that we get more of those side benefits. the extraterritorial implications that once they've done something better in europe, some of those things, it doesn't cost them a lot more to do better in the us. but i think that at the at the federal, at the state level, we need to do more things like the eu's digital services act and like the ai act. if we're serious about this. thank you. that's super helpful. thank you. thank you for the question. thank you. and i don't know if the professor safaí so okay, great, and then, you you referenced, this is, ethics. i

think mentioned in their presentation around the previously existing law to prohibit, basically fake endorsements. that was not an ai specific, and, but that, that has been withdrawn. i just wanted to get clarity on that was is there and either from the city attorney, or from mr. director ford just is that a, was there, was there a court ruling that set that aside, or was that withdrawn in? i would want to talk to the city attorney's office about that. i think that whatever event spurred that was before i joined the department. i think that was probably nine or so years ago, but i when i joined, it was still on the books, but we could not enforce it. and then there was a legislative process to just clean it up and take it out of our code during my time. okay. thank you. we will

definitely want to follow up on that. it just i find it mind blowing that, that courts would hold, that that one has a first amendment right to issue false endorsements. right that's, i understand there's some gray areas when you start getting into content and debatable content, but when we have, but a, a right, a right to, blatantly lie in that fashion about something so objective as an endorsement. not, all due respect to some of the constitutional folks on our various courts, i didn't see that in my constitutional law classes in law school. we deal with so many of these kinds of rules, especially in the campaign finance world. right. like we can't regulate, i.e. committees. we can't do so many different things that would be helpful. and to mr. harris's point about europeans being

ahead of us in this area, there are many ways in which the first amendment limits governments in the us from doing certain things that governments in europe are allowed to do. so it's not necessarily surprising that you would see them like they just have more ability to do that, whereas the same laws, some of the same laws, if implemented here, potentially would be struck down. and that's true for so many things. second amendment, there's so many things that it's just different in europe. so i'm not saying we shouldn't try and mirror them, but we just have many more restrictions on us. so where do where do we go from here on this. and i'm curious, anyone who wants to speak to this is fine. and what i'm hearing is, await the state legislation and see what the outcome is, as that may address some of the issues. and lack of regulation we're talking about is a recommendation from mr. harris. and should that not pass, i assume the question would be to what extent can we do some of that locally, that's one. two

would be, with ab 730 looking at whether we can vest, enforcement power at ethics by, by a change to our local ordinance. three i think and i'm curious and maybe you can address this. i think some level of. i'm glad to hear there was a conversation. with mr. harris or, you know, but but some level of just planning around this of how to respond locally in light of the threats from, from ai. so that's, that's not a legislative issue. that's and maybe either of you can speak to that just to, you know, whether there are plans to engage with either that brennan center report and the folks working on that or or other thought leaders here to make sure we're at the forefront of whatever protections we can engage in, in legally. i think that seems like another potential step we can take. and,

i guess the question is, any comments on that list? but also, what am i missing? because i think the board, you know, i don't want to speak for colleagues, but i think there would be some appetite to looking at what we can do to head off these threats locally, but obviously we're going to be doing we would be doing that amidst a fairly hostile legal climate of different court rulings from citizens united on down. so, yeah. so but but can you just i mean, have i in terms of those action steps that i've mentioned, have i kind of captured, the main things we can be doing? and then particularly on that last one just around engagement, i do find it like i'm encouraged that the brennan that that report is out and, and that they've had that deep level of engagement. it sounds like in arizona, i'm wondering if we in san francisco can't are or can be doing that same level of

engaging so that we're maxing out everything we can do here. sure. yeah. i'll start with that one. i mean, we engage with brennan center, campaign legal center, common cause stakeholder organizations in this space all the time. i mean, i'd love to work with mr. harris. and, you know, we're digesting the brennan center report, right now. i'd love to see director answers, mdm, process. i think that's something, frankly, probably any city department should have. but i think especially in our area, it's critical, i would add to your list, supervisor preston, i think getting a memo from the city attorney's office about the constitutional landscape that we're operating here would be crucial. so we know what we can and can't do, and we don't waste our time, and we don't end up in court with the city attorney having to spend a lot of time figuring it out. then on the back end, knowing on the front end what what we could do, i think would be great, looking at other jurisdictions and seeing what what they're doing, what success they've had constitutionally, what kind of resources and tools, both staffing and technology they're throwing at this issue. i mean, i can tell you that if my department were to take on,

investigating and administering rules about the content of ai generated advertisements, that's going to be a huge undertaking for us. so i would want to really do it in a wholesome way that's going to set us up for success. thank you. and i and i do see the both legal issues and the resource limitations. i just i think most san franciscans would be surprised to learn that if they, you know, received something in the mail or watched a video or got a robocall and it was like blatantly, i generated false endorsement, blatantly illegal that essentially there's no one to report that to. who's really going to do anything about it with the narrow window of maybe if it's in the 60 days and they could show actual malice, and the candidate complained about it, maybe, you know, that might be one example. so, i, i recognize some of the limitations, but also i think that we, we will need to develop a better answer for those

constituents and response, and hopefully the state laws help in that. and i do think one thing and we'll be bringing forward a resolution in support of a number of these state measures, because i do think that it doesn't make a lot of sense for each city to have across california to have to be creating its own extensive regulation of something that really should be addressed federally or at the state level. but if they're not going to address it, then we'll need to, but thank you for your work and director orenstein, i don't know if there was anything you wanted to add. thank you, chairman. mr. clerk, can we open this item up for public comment? yes. members of the public who wish to speak on this item should line up to speak. at this time. each speaker will be allowed two minutes. are there any members of the public will make public comment on this matter? there does not appear to be any public comment. public comment is now closed, do you want to make a motion? thank you. yes. and i

just want to reiterate the thanks to all our presenters. and this will obviously be an ongoing conversation. and i think we all share some of the frustrations on some of the limits that are on us to address this, but also want to make sure that our city really is at should be at the forefront of this. so thank you for your work. and, would like to move to file the hearing. thank you. can we have a roll call? vote yes on that motion supervisor preston i, preston i supervisor safaí safaí. i chair ronen i ronen i the motion passes without objection. motion passes unanimously. thank you all so much. thank you, supervisor preston. mr. clerk, can you please read item number five? yes. item number five is a hearing on the ethics commission. adoption of regulations, amendments regarding campaign finance rules contained in the campaign and governmental conduct code. thank you so much, colleagues. i called for this item today, and

i just wanted to make some opening remarks that since my first run for supervisor here, i've been a very strong supporter of this department. and, you know, i want to say to, mr. canning and, to, sorry, mr. ford, that, i think you do some of the most important work in the city, and, you know, really have never been properly staffed, as far as i'm concerned to do that work. and as a matter of fact, and, you know, i played a role in last year's budget process to make sure that you had the minimum amount of staff to do to do the job. but there's been a huge backlog for a very long time. and ethics violations committed in a given cycle is related to the item we just heard, are often not enforced until someone finishes their

entire term, or even retired, and so i can't impress upon you how important it is for voters to know if the candidates that are electing to represent them have violated the law. and currently, that doesn't happen in in a timely manner, that said, i have, concerns about the regulations that you recently passed or the commission recently passed and have been sent to us, requiring specifically the one i have the most concern about is requiring that the value of the use of an individual's home or office as a fundraising event venue, venue be listed as an in-kind contribution to campaigns, i have concerns about the impact that this regulation will have on civic engagement, so long as a registered voter isn't prohibited from donating to any given campaign, we shouldn't be

making it harder for that individual to engage civically, if this new regulation takes effect, any voter who wants to convene friends and families at their home to meet a candidate who they're excited about would have to figure out the prorated rate, an amount of the space used and reported as an in-kind donation, and so that's my understanding of the regulation. so i just want to give an example of what this would look like in real life, and if i'm wrong about this, you can come up and tell me, a nurse living in an apartment paying $3,000 rent per month would have to report $4.17 per hour if they were to throw a small house party. that doesn't even factor in if they only use one room. and at what point do we stop, campaigns have to pay for billboards to get their signage up across the city. are we going to start requiring that voters

report in-kind donations for window signs or banners next, when millions of dollars are being spent by pacs to influence our elections? this just doesn't make sense to me that we would be nickel and diming individual voters, for small gatherings in their home, i would like to see the department prioritize using getting at the backlog and getting violations ruled on within six months of an initial complaint. before we start adding new laws to support. but even that, i just i believe the focus here is just wrong. that candidates who have billionaires supporting their campaigns can, you know, there's a million loopholes and ways to contribute largely to sway an election for the average citizen who wants to invite some, some friends over to meet a candidate, that's

really the only way for candidates that aren't backed by billionaires to compete. and to win campaigns. and so adding this new requirement, just doesn't make sense to me. it feels like the priorities are, are off. and, i'm not really sure what's going on here, so please. oh, sorry. before i have you come up, i want to pass it to, supervisor safaí to ask a question or make a comment. yeah, i just i just want to add on to that. i just, as a candidate that's going through this in real time, i mean, the definition of a grassroots campaign is going in meeting in people's homes or offices. many of them are small business owners and the only way that they can really help and support is through that. and so if you cut that off or you make that evaluation or if you're adding that to the process, you're literally closing the door on grassroots campaigns. and i

don't think that's what you're intending to do. i really don't, and i understand that, you know, there's also conversation about if there's a band contractor and that contractor uses their home, but they're not technically donating. and i don't know if that's part of the conversation, but it just it gets so convoluted that then what ends up happening is people just freeze and they're like, you know what? i can't be involved at all. i literally have people call me and say, i'm i'm a member of a nonprofit. i can't donate to your campaign or i'm a city employee. i can't donate to your campaign. i'm like, that's not true. i can't solicit from you. you can donate as long as you're not on the board and you haven't signed a contract within the last year. but the rules have gotten so minute that people then just freeze and they say, i can't. i can't contribute , but at the same time, there's literally a candidate in the mayor's race right now that their mother wrote them $1 million check. that is crazy.

crazy. that is crazy. in san francisco today. you know, my mother is following the rules. she wrote $150 check, right? that's going to be multiplied by six. she's a san francisco donor. but i'm just saying, like, this has gotten so to the point. and then i have a question for you. and this is to the director, why haven't we updated in, i don't think 20 years the contribution limit. i mean, the city of oakland allows up to $800 an individual. and again, i understand 20 years ago when i was working on gavin newsom's campaign, one individual that had an llc or a dbi, they could write 6 or 7 checks all from the same person, and we closed that. but then we never raised the number of individual donors and all we did is shift all the money into private kind of dark money coming into the campaigns that no one has control over, and billionaires are coming in and they're throwing money into the campaign. and so ultimately, what ends up happening is we've

created this entire kind of parallel universe of campaigning, and then the grassroots candidates are worried about someone hosting an event in their house. so again, this is not just directly, but i just i think it's important to have that honest conversation about what's happening in real time. thank you. so please come up and then i'll have some questions as well. yes. thank you very much, for the record, michael canning, policy legislative affairs manager for the ethics commission, i'll speak briefly to this and then let director ford as well make comments, yeah. thank you for that introduction and those questions, i'd just like to clarify kind of the factual nature of the regulation, it's definitely not intended and would not have the impact of prohibiting, all voters from posting, you know, fundraising in home fundraisers or on office fundraisers, the regulation is narrowly targeted to existing, people who are already prohibited from making contributions, the city has

rules against city contractors and those with pending land use. matters are prohibited from making contributions. and as all this rule does, is align that to say that if you're prohibited from making a contribution, you also can't host a fundraiser, that would be the extent that that's not. but that's not what it says. it just says in the house. so if you have it in the house and you're and you're married or you have an individual and it's in your house and you're not hosting means you put your name on it and you actually solicit and do the invitations. so it can be in your house. and you can. and that doesn't necessarily mean you're not hosting. wait, can we ask the city attorney this question? because that is not what i'm reading either when i read this regulation. so i am so let's see. okay. so we're looking at regulation one,

1.126-9 hosting home or office fundraisers. the way that i read that is you have to do it. you have to register as an in-kind contribution in the value of the space that you're using to, host the fundraiser, only limited to for the purposes of section 1.126, which is the prohibition on on, contributions from city contractors. so it's just saying that for the purposes, if you're a city contractor, this does not, the state exemption does not apply, which is in a line with the way the state treats lobbyists who are similarly prohibited from making contributions. the state has a general exception that says if you're hosting a home or office fundraiser, the total value is less than $500. that doesn't count as a contribution, doesn't need to be reported. the state also then says, however, if

you're a lobbyist who's generally prohibited from making contributions, you don't get to use that carve out. you're prohibited from making the contribution, and you're prohibited from hosting it in your home or office, what the local regulation does is just kind of take that same principle from the state level and apply it to our local prohibitions on city contractor and people with pending land use matters to say, if you're already prohibited from making a contribution, you can't host a fundraiser, which came out of a couple of advice questions that the ethics commission fielded earlier this year, where we had two city contractors reach out to our office and say, essentially, we know we're prohibited from giving contributions, but we have candidates for city elective office asking us if we can host a fundraiser for them. can we do it? and we identified what we think is this loophole where we had to say, yes, you can host a fundraiser for them, even though you're prohibited from giving directly to them, so this regulation seeks to close that loophole. ferm with the city attorney, deputy city

attorney ann pearson. i think the challenge here is that this individual regulation is not seen in the context of the broader body of regulations. and i'm assuming that if we saw this in on the page, we would see other regulations that precede it, including the ban on contributions from contractors and large developers. so i want to that's my assumption here. and maybe you can confirm, yes, what's listed is the amended language. so the full regulations that are on the commission's website, it's 1.126-9. so there's eight other regulations that are just specific to section 1.126, which is all about the contractor contribution ban. and this is one of those regulations specific to that section, and is definitely not, intended to discourage people who are not prohibited from giving contributions from hosting office fundraisers any means.

okay, any questions? colleagues yeah. again, i would just reiterate what i said. i mean, you people are married, they have spouses, they have grandparents, they have live in extended families. what is the definition of hosting. so that mean in in your definition, the way you've written it, that nothing could happen inside that person's home because they might be from what you define as as banned contributor, because there's a lot of situations where someone says, you know, my spouse is going to host for me, i can't contribute to your campaign, but my spouse is my spouse is going to host the event. they're going to send out the invitations xyz the way i would read this, that would remove that ability altogether. and again, you're taking away an option for couples and small business owners and others that are i mean, that language was chosen to mirror what the state's, guidance is around lobbyists who are also prohibited. so you know, that was the intent there. it's limited to, occupant of the home

or office, which, so is that so is that already prohibited then? by the state, if someone is a lobbyist, they would not be able to lobbyists, but not a city contractor exemption. got it. and i mean it if this regulation passes, what do you assume that you i mean, this is only going to lead to a further delay in enforcement, etc, because you're going to have to enforce a whole new area of prohibitions. if you could talk about that, what does that mean in terms of budget implications and the backlog and, and all of those issues? sure. glad glad to speak to that. and i'll first go back to the comments you made at the beginning, the, the backlog you referred to. i think you must be just talking about the campaign finance audit backlog. we don't have a backlog in enforcement right now. we've eliminated that over the last two years, thanks primarily to the budget

investment that was made in our department, so that we were able to double the size of our enforcement unit. previous to that, we did have a backlog where we had cases that were 2 to 4 years old that were still being worked. we don't have that anymore. i think we have maybe 2 or 3 cases that are over one year old. other than that, all cases are being resolved during that one year. and then one of you is reading comments about, trying to resolve all cases within six months. i would love that. but the regulations and city law provide due process to respondents, and if they want to request the hearing process i was describing earlier, if they'd like to request a probable cause conference before the executive director, we have to provide them sufficient notice and an opportunity to be heard. likewise with the hearing, there are a number of steps that are laid out for the person to have notice and an opportunity to be heard. we can't force them into a timeline like that. we have to provide them due process because we are essentially taking their property when we impose a monetary penalty on them. and i think that is an important part of our process. i think what we can do, we have the power to do

and we are doing is to compress the work that that we're doing on our end before we initiate the hearing process. doing the investigations in a really expeditious way. and we are doing that now since we have the budget resources to do it. regarding audits, as you know, we have a contractor that's currently doing our audits, and i think i've spoken with each of you about my budget requests right now that i am trying to reclassify our audit positions to be an appropriate classification that can complete the audits on the timeline that we all want them to be done by. but that really does not bear on what we're talking about today, which is trying to close a loophole. and to the question that you just posed, i really don't think that this particular closing of the loophole is going to impose any considerable administrative burden on us. frankly, it would allow us when somebody calls us and asks us the question that mr. canning said we've gotten recently, we can tell them no, essentially, no, this is not a workaround. if you're not allowed to personally give a contribution to the candidate, you can't get around the rule by just instead hosting a fundraiser at your house. i think if constituents saw that happening, i think they would

really not see a distinction between a contractor giving a contribution versus a contractor hosting a fundraiser in their house. that's what we're trying to do. we're trying to show that there's no pay to play in san francisco, that this rule is meaningful. there's no workaround, and that it really does have effect. so i don't see this as being something that's going to create any kind of enforcement backlog for us. okay. that's helpful. supervisor preston, thank you. and thank you for this this clarification, because i was under the impression that this was significantly broader than what you're describing. so it is helpful to hear the intent of as you say, plugging that loophole. but but i would like to just get on the record. i understand what this is trying to get at, but i think the issue that both my colleagues were raising about the concern of potential impact, so on so, so outside of the context of the contract, the city contractor, if a person hosts a fundraiser for a

candidate in their home, is it accurate that that that is not that the costs of the space separate from what they may buy for that event, that the cost of the space is not considered an in-kind donation to a campaign. yeah, that's correct. as long as the total is less than $500 and that's a state law that we administer locally. sorry. what does that mean? if as long as the total of is i'm asking if the value, are you saying that the value of the space is counted as an in-kind donation? if it's over $500, then that's that's the you want to. yeah yeah, it's the total cost of the event. so yeah, to include you can include things that are not

part of the, the rental space there. and that's not again, i want to get crystal clear on this because because i, i want to make sure i think we're all trying to grapple with like none of us. i again, i don't want to speak for my colleagues, but i'm reading from what they said. none of us wants a situation where a person who wants to engage in local democracy by inviting people over to their home and, and throws an event. i think we all understand that if that person pays money for something, that that may be a an in-kind contribution to the campaign, right, that's not a change in law. i think what we're alarmed by was our initial read of this suggested that the cost of the space in their home somehow now had a value and was considered a contribution. and what i'm hearing is the intent was. to call that a contribution for the, for the city contractor. but i want to get crystal clear on. so for the person that doesn't, let's imagine a situation where

somebody is hosting a house party for a candidate. in this scenario, they don't spend any money on anything related to that. what they're providing is the space in their home does that is regardless of the amount , is that considered a contribution. and in-kind contribution under under the current rules? i believe it is not. that would be a matter for state law, which we're not impacting at all with this. so, i believe that would not be included. i believe the $500 is the if you are hosting a home fundraiser, you can spend up to $500 to host that fundraiser. and, you know, drink snacks, whatever. you can do $500 for that. and as long as you keep the cost of the event under $500, that's not a reportable contribution, i am fairly confident that is the state's

interpretation. is that the value of the space is not part of that calculation, but but as i said, if it was, that would be kind of a state decision that would be out of our hands in terms of what needs to be reported or not reported, but yeah, it would not be something we're trying to impact with with this in terms of what's required to be disclosed or considered a contribution. okay. i i get what you're trying to do, i think and it would be really helpful as part of this exercise to have an unequivocal answer. because because the worry even with the hedging a little bit on this is someone you don't want. everyone who hosts a, a party, whoever their favorite candidate is, hosts something. let's say that person also gives the maximum donation to a campaign unless they have it. it is crystal clear that the value of their home is not a campaign that contribution. right? if that's not crystal clear for them, then they are in danger of being

themselves in violation of giving over the 500. so i think you're you're suggesting but but i just one thing because if that's not clear under state law, if that's ambiguous, i would think part of this exercise would make sense. while you're saying we're going to we're going to treat it as a prohibited contribution for the contractors. maybe we need to more if it's not clear, more explicitly point out that it is not considered a contribution for. for the value of someone's of someone's home, that they they are hosting in. yeah, i believe we definitely can make that clear. i think there's definitely an answer to that question. i just don't want to, you know, say the incorrect answer in front of all of you. but i'm sure our engagement compliance division probably has that answer right now. and we can definitely make sure that's clear in our materials that go to contributors and to committees so they know exactly what needs to be reported on that. and we can confer with the fppc at the state level to make sure we have a clear

understanding of what they how they apply that definition at the state level. thank you. and i don't know what the timing and sensitivities on time. so i'm going to i meant in terms of disposition of this. i mean, one one thought might be to try to get clarity on that. we have time. we have until june 30th to veto this. so i will i will intend to continue this item so that we can, because i had a very different understanding of, of what was going on here. but i do think it brings up these questions that we'll want to talk about. so i'll just state my intention right now to continue this item. but let me turn it over to supervisor. yeah. i just wanted to add on to the point i understand the conversation about lobbyists, because this was taken about lobbyists. we have a broader definition locally, which then expands the universe in a much larger way. and the impact of that, there's a fewer number of lobbyists in the universe versus people that might have a, a land use decision that might be a on

a board or a contract. so then the universe of people then and then their spouses would be impacted by this. that's the problem i have with it. and the other thing that i have is that at the end of the day, what we're really trying to do is you have a ban on people that are physically writing monetary contributions to candidates, and i support that. but this is taking it and expanding it to a much larger universe of people, and not even then impacting the financial contributions. you're impacting people that might be associated. with them by their spouse or others. i think it's i think it's a little bit far reaching at the local. i understand the intent of it, but i think the impact would be much more significant. and at the end of the day, if you're a banned contributor, you can't write that check. you can't make that contribution. i think that's what we're doing. and the impact is what you see out on the streets and see out on the campaign side. i do want to hear

you answer the question about the contribution limits, though. i would like to hear that director. sure. i think your question is why that hasn't been increased, right? i mean, i can speak from the ethics commission side. i can't say why legislation hasn't been introduced at the board, which it certainly could at any time, and we would engage with you, as we always do. but but i would like to hear your i mean, i understand it's supposed to have been adjusted for inflation over a period of time. and i think if you did that, i think the contribution would be around 8 or $900. an individual. so we'd just like to hear that. so if you're saying that we can do that and it's legislative and that's something that your office would support, i just want to hear what your thoughts are on it. i can't say that the office would support i can't speak for the five members of the commission. right. like the commission would vote on this. i could certainly we would study it. michael would study it, we would write reports to them, and ultimately it would be their decision whether or not the ethics commission supports it. i could tell you that i would engage with you in a wholesome way and, you know, study it, i can't say that we have a position on it yet without studying it. can you give me

some thoughts? now, i'd like to hear what it's been $500 for over 20 years, so i'd just like to hear what your thoughts are. i'm not trying to put you. i'm not against it. it's not a gotcha. i just i literally just want to hear what your thoughts are because it is the role of the commission, and it's one of the most i think you've done a lot of like constricting contributions. there hasn't been a conversation about expanding the individual. so i just why are you shaking your head? i just want to hear i just want to hear what the thoughts are on the law. like this is where it is. tell me what can happen if it's a legislative process, how your commission can weigh in. give us the mechanics. you don't have to give us the thoughts on on raising the limits. just give us the mechanics, the mechanics of how our policy process works. that's the question. and how long it's been stuck at $500. yeah, i think it's been $500 for, like you said, 15 or 20 years. i don't think it's gone up, can i talk about the mechanics of our policy process? deputy city attorney anne pearson i was just going to point out that i think that this

line of questioning is beyond the scope of this noticed hearing, which was limited to these regulations and don't address the maximum. but impacts campaign finance. madam city attorney, through the through the board. i mean, we're talking about contributions. we're talking about restricting contributions. we're talking about taking away people's ability to host. all of that impacts campaign financing. this is a subset of that. the notice item are these regulations. and the discussion really should be focusing on this. okay. i would like to hear the mechanics of how you what how long it's been there and what the mechanics are. sure. i'll talk about the mechanics of our policy process. i'm not going to get into the history of that's fine. this law right now, that's fine. okay, sure. so the policy process is essentially we have a one person policy division that's in charge for studying all kinds of emerging issues, like the previous one that we talked about today, coordination with i.e. committees. i think you brought up concerns about i.e. committees. that's something

that we've studied a lot on the policy side. so we have one person, and that person, you know, works with people like mr. harris from stakeholder groups. we try to reach read white papers. we try to listen to experts, academics, people who are working on these issues. we engage with other jurisdictions, especially within california, but across the country, michael and i are both members of cogul, which is a community of ethics regulators that meets every year . we have an annual conference. we discuss issues about ethics, campaign finance, policy. we engage with each other throughout the year. so our, policy process involves a lot of engagement with other jurisdictions to see what they've done, what they've tried, how it's worked, you know what? what we can do here in san francisco, so we will write reports. i could definitely share them with you. i could share our policy page with you to show you the past policy projects that we've done and the kind of reports that we create. and then we deliver those reports to our commission, and we have an agendized item. we

present the report, we give a slide deck, we present to them what our findings were, what our recommendations are, we'll have a series of interested persons meetings that we convene. we usually do two rounds of two meetings. we'll have meetings different times of the week. people will come in and share their thoughts with us. we've had legislative aides from this board come in and engage in those meetings quite a bit, we have other local stakeholder groups. sometimes we'll have national groups or academics come in to those meetings. so there is a nice forum that we create for people to discuss these issues. the commission will usually have a couple of meetings, sometimes 3 or 4, if there is a impact on city employees of the laws that we're recommending, then we have to go through the meet and confer process. so then that will be kind of a side process that's going on. in addition to the commission process, i'm sure you're all familiar with that, but that's a big part of our policy process. and then ultimately the commission will vote, on the recommendations. if they're regulations, then we send them to you and then you

have the opportunity to hold a hearing, like what we're doing today, if it's legislation, you're familiar with that process. and then basically the ball will be in the board's court and we'll engage with you if the board amends, the legislation at all has to come back to the commission, and then the commission would have the opportunity to either approve the amended version or amend it again and send it back to the board so it can be a back and forth. and that's because in all the chapters of the campaign and governmental conduct code, it requires a majority and sometimes supermajority of both the ethics commission and the board of supervisors to amend those chapters. so that's why it's kind of a unique policy and legislative process. does that answer your question? yes i have one more question. what's the intent of the having the regulation 1.108 dash for bank account location? it says it has to be in the city and county of san francisco, yes, i can speak to that. the city code requires that, committees establish their

banks at a, bank located in the city and county of san francisco. however, you know, given the changes to modern banking. over last many years, there's lots of you know, remote banking and banking that can occur without having a brick and mortar location in the city. this just clarifies that that, that term is fairly broadly defined. so if your treasurer opens a campaign office at a bank that's in sausalito, as long as that bank is legally authorized to do business within the city, that's sufficient and doesn't have to, you know, you don't have to go into a physical brick and mortar to open your account. what does that mean? legally authorized to do business in the city? largely, you all define it, do you want to speak about the, i think we generally we look at something that would be subject to the subpoena power of the commission as long as they're, you know, bank that can legally be operating in the city and would be subject to subpoena, potentially, for enforcement.

okay. thank you, madam chair. thank you. i have, i still have a question reading this again. now that regulation 1.126.9, especially in relation to the outstanding question that we'll get clarity on for the next hearing, which is whether our, you know, just making crystal clear that the value of the home is not a contribution. i just don't know why we have to bring this up at all in this in, in this context, because you're, you're saying and i agree with that, that any if you're if you're banned from giving a contribution to a candidate, you are also banned for spending money on throwing an event for that person. oh, that makes sense to me. but why do we have to just bring up the house at all? because to me, that then creates the it creates a contradiction. if it if the value of the home, in that case,

it should be included as a contribution, then why shouldn't it be in the case of a non prohibited campaign contributor? right and i just i mean i'm just whether or not you know, we have a disagreement about. a banned person being allowed to host a fundraiser. i would just like to take this language out about the home because it creates a whole issue that i don't think we should be creating, and i'm not sure it it adds anything to what you're trying to do here. so just so i have something concrete to take back to our commission so we can get back to you. so you're you're proposing essentially striking the language that's the after the last comma. so as is the value of the use of the home or office as a fundraising event venue, striking that. right. so essentially the use of the home or office as a fundraising event venue, that would be okay for a

contractor. so a contractor could not give a monetary. you're i mean, i guess you're saying that so let me ask you. so if we strike that, you're basically saying as long as the contract, the contractor doesn't have wine or cheese, they're not the ones spending for the costs related to wait, can i finish? and then you can ask questions. so if, if as they could use you're saying they could use their home as long as they don't spend any money on it? i think that would be the effect of deleting that language. so why can't we just say a contractor cannot host a prohibited person cannot host a fundraiser, and host means spend, spend money on top of the mere use of the space. that's what the word host would mean, right? because you're saying you want the use of the space to not have any value in this or even, you know,

given given supervisor safaí concern or be present at a fundraiser? right? because if that's if that's legally possible, because what if a spouse does want to hold an event, right? i don't think this would affect presence, an individual's presence at an event in any way. i think it's the use of a space of which they're an occupant. that's that's what this addresses. so i understand that. but then to supervisor safaí point, then you're prohibiting anyone else who, who lives at that or works at that space from holding an event. and that's a problem. i mean, that exists. i mean, like, look, you work at a nonprofit, you know, let's say you're you're the director at a nonprofit and your spouse, you know, is a school teacher. and that school teacher wants to hold a fundraiser in your house

for a school board candidate, you're basically saying you can't that school teacher can't do that because their spouse is the executive director of a nonprofit, right? i mean, this happens all the time. you know, there are we prohibit so many people, which is fine, right? that we do that. but when you then say that the use of their home or business can not be used to host an event, we are eliminating a lot of people in san francisco that all of a sudden cannot use their space to, to host an event, and that's problematic to me. so is there another way we can get at what you're trying to get out without prohibiting the use of the home or business? given that there are many people living in a home often, and there are many people working at a business, often, i

just i worry that this that this really inhibits a lot of people from participating in our democracy, in these grassroots campaigns that some of us who aren't connected to billionaires have to rely on in order to, run a successful campaign. when we're going to take this back to our commission. right. i can't make a call for them on. i mean, essentially, we have two competing policy interests, right? i mean, there's a policy interest in making sure that contractors don't give a contribution or appear to be giving a contribution by hosting a fundraiser, which is what we're trying to address, which we know folks are doing, and we're getting those advice questions. this is a practice that's going on, versus what you're describing is the ability of people to have events and to, you know, support grassroots campaigns. so what i'm trying to do right now is basically take in your feedback, understand where you're coming from. we're going to study it, and we're going to take it to our

commission and see what they want to do with it. i mean, i can't make that call right now on the spot. so yeah. okay. that's great. yes. so i am, i am i continue to be concerned, i don't understand why we why we have to bring up the value of the use of the home because the minute you bring that up in this regulation, when you're bringing up the value of the use of the home for every san franciscan. and i don't think that that should should be prohibited or be required, that the value of the home or space is considered a contribution that would that would crush the way that grassroots campaigns campaign in in san francisco. and given how much money is coming into our local elections in all of these other ways right now to, to, to really put that in question is, i think, doing a disservice to, to put into question the use of

the home as a gathering space without, you know, without calling it a contribution, is a problem. does that we totally understand what you're saying? yeah, we are we're hearing and understanding everything you're saying. fantastic. supervisor preston. thank you. just a technical question. so i think you've explained on 1.1, two six and but there's also, and i just don't have all the regs in front of me. there's also similar provisions on 1.127, that, that then define the house as a contribution. is that, is that also prohibited donors or a different. yeah the city's prohibitions in 1.126 is about city contractors, and 1.127 is about those with pending land use matters, before the city. got it. thank you, and then this is more of, just a process

question. so i think this hearing has been really important and fleshing this out, i will say that for the public and certainly for, for it seems like all of us, the, the, the limits. and while we can debate whether those limits, you know, of this, you know, make it okay or not and we're discussing that but but those limits of these regulations. not really. apparent in what is noticed in what is before us. and i would just encourage where there are referenced regulations because essentially what you're saying is, look, if you read this, you're going to think all house parties essentially are now a contribution, but actually it's modified by reference to another section. and i would just encourage in terms of like what's included in the packet that comes from ethics, i think it would be really helpful, for because like, i don't see you have to know the code pretty well to know that that limit, which is a very small and

significant limit, applies. so that's again, that's more procedural. that doesn't change anything. but just i do think it would be helpful not only with our offices but for the public to know. even just reprinting that what is cross-referenced there i think would be helpful. so folks know what i think it's a good point. and i think what we can do is when we refer the regulations to you, we can include the report part, because that probably would have gone a long way. that would have been something that you could have had readier access to, rather than having to go to our website to pull it. you could have just had it right in front of you with the regulations, and you could have seen exactly what these are. so we will absolutely do that in the future. i think that's great feedback. thank you. supervisor safaí. thanks, and again, sorry for trying to jump in. i was just trying to add on to your point, because your line of thinking was exactly in line with mine. i think that removing any reference to home or office in this makes the most sense, because i think what you're trying to get at is, if we're talking about the home or the

office really has no value, there isn't anything. the state that says it does unless it's over, you know, there's additional cost, like renting chairs and all these other things that gets into the minutia. but it's really about the individual. and in the state code, they talk about lobbyists. they don't talk about the definitions that we have locally, which is a much more expansive. and i think what you're hearing from three individuals that have actually campaigned and out there consistently, when you talk about the nonprofit universe, you talk about the people that are builders, like it gets into a really large universe, and then you add on their spouses and you're taking away a significant portion of people like a nonprofit, you know, director married to an educator. and i think that is a that is a real life situation. and i can tell you that i, that i have gone through, but i think what what what we're really trying to get at is the individual that is not allowed to contribute to the campaign spending money, and that ends up being you say it here for costs related to the

meeting or fundraising event. and so i think if you kept it to the cost or like, like they can't spend money for costs related to the event because they're already on the list, they can't contribute that that to me. and removing any reference to any home or office is what i think would would make the most sense. and i think it's in line with i think that's in line with what you were saying, chair, because if the individual has it in their home or office, as long as the person that's not allowed to contribute is not spending actual money going out and buying things related to the event, remove the reference of home or office. but saying that person still can't spend money that i think that would that would be okay. i would be okay with that. supervisor preston, is that what you. i'm just sorry to jump back in and just, you know, since we're all just kind of laying out our views on this, i want to just be be clear on mine because i'm not sure i have a problem with saying that a

someone who is barred from giving is also barred from from hosting an event, even if they don't spend money on it. i'm open, you know, it's i'm learning that that's the scope of this. i'm i, i'm i don't want to predict a vote in the future, you know, thinking about it. but just right off the bat, that state approach of saying, for example, if someone's a lobbyist that you can't give, if you're barred from giving money, maybe you're also barred from having that event in your business or something. i'm i'm i don't find that necessarily, objectionable. i do think and it's probably beyond the scope of this particular rule. i, you know, i do think that as we're doing that, we, you know, i think we are probably overbroad in who is barred from giving. i think there's no question and i appreciate your comments on this, that over the years we've, you know, while other eyes and all these other forms of giving

are raging, we're barring like, you know, unpaid nonprofit board member, i mean, it's just kind of ridiculous that so i so i do feel like that, you know, i share that concern, but i but that that's kind of not be before us whether to change that that definition. but i but i would add to that and to, to chair ronan's point that there is a question of the breadth of these not just on the couple like you described, but a lot of our constituents are in group living. i mean, they're like five roommates living in a in a place. and the idea that, like, one of them who serves on a board that has a contract with the city now, like the other four roommates, i mean, i actually kind of understand it more with spouses. like, we often kind of impute some conflicts, you know, within, within an actual married couple. but this goes this goes beyond that. and someone who shares a home with someone, which in san francisco is often many people who don't have any financial

entanglements relationship beyond paying the rent together that they would all be barred. so. so i am concerned about the potential over overbreadth of both. the broader question that's not before us of like who's barred, right? which we should kind of look at that more carefully. but also with these regs specifically see whether, there may be some refinement needed. so just leave it at that. appreciate this discussion very much. and just a point of clarification, the to the chair. is that okay? the state law is only about lobbyists, correct? correct. they do. we were really we were really to mirror it. what would make probably make the most sense would be to just say lobbyists, because that's a much smaller universe of individuals in san francisco, just as a i mean, you know, just something else to consider. but i, i still think the way that that the chair has talked about it, we've talked about it is if you just say the individual

that's banned can't spend any money for the related event, then it gets at what supervisor preston is saying, what chair ronen is saying, because there's a lot of individuals that that could host an event that but sorry, you're not allowed to spend any money on it because you're already not allowed to contribute at all. anyway and just to be clear where i'm at in this discussion, i think i'm very similar to, to supervisor preston. i, i don't have a problem with the contractor or the board member not hosting an event like they shouldn't be able to host an event if they can't give the money, if they're conflicted out, that's all fine. it's the use of the home that is the part of it that that that is overbroad and problematic to me, both because of these issues we brought up with spouse and group living and, and, you know, if it's a business, the many people involved in the business. right.

that's the problem. and then and then also having this language in it, it brings up this issue for everyone else. if there is a value that needs to be accounted for in a home or business that i think is problematic. agreed so if we could find language and revise this so that we do not, whether it's spending money or hosting or, you know, and maybe the definition of hosting is spending money and attendance, i don't know if we can regulate attendance, but but, you know, just if we could grapple with those issues without talking about the value of the home or the office, that's that that's my particular interest. supervisor preston. yeah thank you. i i'm just wondering. this is just a process question. having not being a visiting member in this committee, maybe you've dealt with these regs

before, but but i'm just you mentioned possibly continuing it. i'm just wondering to the extent that it's going to get refined, does it make like i don't think we actually have a process for review because we can't make revisions. right. so yeah, so i do want i don't want to prolong. yeah. right. so if we in the end i'm just kind of wondering if, if the direction is that there's some further refinement needed. is does continuing. it's just pause pause pose a delay instead of i think we were trying to facilitate that discussion. but that's a that's a great point. so if we so to the city attorney, if we reject or veto this right now, then then they can come back to us with revised. you can pass revised language based on the conversation we're having. and we can we can take it up then. is that correct? deputy city attorney ann pearson, i think you have a number of procedural options. i think if you were to

continue this for another week, you would still have time to figure out after that where you want to go. i think you could if you want. and during that time, it's possible that the ethics commission could withdraw your their submission of the particular regulation that's at issue. so that there would be no need to veto it. i think you could also send it to the full board to veto these, i think no matter what, a one week delay doesn't do any harm. i don't think to figure out a little bit more about what the issues are and how you want to move forward. okay. so i think the way that i want to handle this, is i do want to veto regulation 1.1269 and 1.1274, and move that to the full board, because i, because of the issues that i stated that i have an issue with

bringing up the value of the home or office as a, as a fundraising event venue, no matter what. right. and then but we do welcome i guess i want to say in that this veto message and we'll see what happens at the board, when this is heard by the entire board. but that as the chair of the rules committee, i'm very open to having something come back to us that is more narrowly tailored. that gets at the issue. you were trying to solve with this regulation, which is if someone is banned from contributing at all, they should also not be able to host a fundraiser that i'm in favor of. and i and i understand it's the it's the use of the home that's particularly problematic with me. so if do you have any do you have any comments about that? before i open up for public comment, no, i think that that makes sense, you know, our commission meets once a month, right? so we don't

meet as often as, as this body, so we won't be able to come back as quickly as you'll be meeting again with that. and we we'll have to, you know, prepare draft language. we'll have to bring that to our commission. they meet again the second friday in june, so that would be our next opportunity to bring them revised language and then send it over to you, so the path you described, i think works fine. so the other just to clarify the other regulations you're not vetoing. right. so the other regulations are fine. it would just be these two two. and then if the ethics commission wants to, then they can send you a new couple of regulations with revised language in it. that's right. sounds good. okay. i think we have our path forward, mr. clerk, can you please open the item up for public comment? yes members of the public wish to speak on this item. allow him to speak at this time, each speaker will be allowed two minutes. are there any members of the public who would like to comment on this matter? there? does not appear to be any commenters on this matter. public comment is now closed, so i'll i'm assuming this is a

motion i'm making a motion to veto items regulation 1.126-9 and regulation 1.127-4. sending the that veto to the full board with recommendation, yes, this matter is prepared in committee as a motion to veto, regulation 1.1269 and 1.12744 on that motion. supervisor preston preston i supervisor safaí safíi i chair ronan i ronan i that motion passes, without objection, i'd just like to note that the deadline for the board to take action is june 17th. okay, i thought it was later, but we just took action, so that's great. that motion passes , unanimously. without objection. mr. clerk, do we have any other items before us today

that completes the agenda for today? the meeting is adjourned

[music] >> opening this space with my sister, and being able to continue the very deep literary lineage that exist in the mission is part of the fabric of the neighborhood. this is neighborhood of poets and litary readings. you see the writers from the neighborhood, their books are here. paul flores books are here. --that is what we are doing, keeping the litary lineage alive and going, you know? [music] >> san francisco is actually the only place that i can do

this. in its quite way, something i can actually do that is a benefit. sure, i like to open up a really cool well curateed spot. it would be beneficial but not the same beneficial it is here. when i say young folks that remind me of us, when we were that young, and they come in here, they can relax. nobody is following them around like they are going to steal anything. that means they can be a little more free and little more of themselves and i can do some small thing that helps them do that and that is part of what lets me know i'm doing exactly what i want and need to do. [music]

>> we have events here that focus on the deep neighborhood history here on the artists and writers. if you look now there is antany, his exhibit and focus is on neighborhood people. artists muralist, the space was basically a gift given to us in a really weird way. we had to work our asses off for, but it was that opportunity for me that chance to be that link in the long literary chain of the neighborhood. it is a blessing to be here. [music]

>> good morning everyone! and welcome to china basin park. [applause] my name is jack bear and for the last 30 years i had the honor of working for the san francisco giants and for a great many of those years, i had the distinct pleasure working with many of you on all of this. we are still putting a few finishing touches on the park, some light, way finding signs, picnic benches and will reinduce the messages engraved in tiles and part of the park. more later, but not today. we removed the construction fencing surrounding the park just a few