vice chair for live. we're ready to begin. good morning folks. welcome to the february ninth, 2024 regular meeting of the san francisco ethics commission. today's meeting is live cablecast on sf gov tv two and live streamed online line at sf govtv. forward slash ethics live . for public comment, members of the public may attend in person or may participate by phone or on the webex platform, as explained in our agenda document . clerk can you explain how remote public comment will work? public comment will be available on each item on this agenda. each member of the public will be allowed three minutes to speak for those attending in person. opportunities to speak during the public comment period will be made available here in room 400, city hall for those

attending remotely. public comment can can also be provided via phone call by. calling 14156550001. access code. is 266433680498, followed by a pound sign and then press pound again to join as an attendee. when your item of interest comes up, press star three to raise your hand to be added to the public comment line. public comment is also available via the webex client application. use the webex link on the agenda to connect and press the raise hand button to be added to the public. comment line for detailed instructions about how to interact with the telephone system or webex client, please refer to the public comment section of the agenda document for this meeting. public comment may also be submitted in writing and will be shared with the commission after this meeting has concluded and will be included as part of the official

meeting. file written comments should be sent to ethics commission at sf gov. org. members of the public who attend commission meetings, including remote attendance, are also expected to behave responsibly and respectfully during public comment. please address your comments to the commission as a whole and not to individual members. persons who engage in name calling, shouting, interruptions or other distracting behavior may be excluded from participation. thank you, mr. clerk. i now call the meeting to order. mr. clerk, will you call the roll, please? commissioners please verbally indicate your presence by saying i. after your name is called vice chair finley. i. commissioner flores fang i. commissioner salahi i commissioner. ci i commissioner francois i vice chair. vice chair friendly with five members present and accounted for. you have a quorum. thank you, mr. clerk. i want to welcome our newest commissioner. commissioner francois, would you like to say a few words to your

colleagues in the public? it's an honor to be appointed by mayor breed to be a participant on this commission. and i look forward to working with you and the citizens of san francisco. so thank you. welcome with that, i call agenda item two, general public comment are there any speakers in the room who would like to make public comment? yes go ahead, put my name tag so you will not spell my name wrong. good morning. commissioners my name is ellen li jiao l l e n l e zoo. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic which it stands one nation under god in indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. born and unborn, vaccinated and unvaccinated workers. in jesus name, amen. i was a public

health worker for public health for more than 15 years. i am a union delegate for all government employees in san francisco. i have been working and living in san francisco for 38 years. i was nominated to run for mayor in 2018 and 2019 against tyranny at the commission department has been discriminated against against me and retaliating against me after i expose corruption within different departments in san francisco. take note i am not surrendering to evil. i am not afraid of any one of you, nor satan, nor lucifer, nor demonic leaders in the government. take note 2024. this year i am running for san francisco mayor again. i believe god of abraham, jacob and isaac. where revive san francisco if you and me we all repent, turn from the wicked ways and humble ourselves. god will heal our land. san

francisco i don't give up my city. i believe god saved us. when we stop murdering little people, protect our children, let god arise. in san francisco, i have been coming to ethics commission, public hearings with many government employees in different days. 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 20, 21 and 2023. the last time i was spoken to you this ethics commission was in december eight, 2023, which i spoke out against san francisco ethics commission nurse and ethical unethical. all staff and unlawful investigation against conservative candidate like me who do not agree with evil policies that fail to protect our children, our families, our workers and the people's interests. today i'm here to ask you to end your unethical illegal investigation

against any conservatives. do not accept agenda 21, agenda 2030, nor agree with utility policy that fails to deliver a quality of life for san franciscans. save san francisco from god's judgment. i urge all of you to repent, turn from your wicked ways and return to righteousness. return to law and order, and may god bless you all and come back to god's kingdom. come back to jesus. amen. thank you. thank you. any other public comment from the room? mr. clerk, will you check if there are any remote public commenters ? vice chair, we're checking to see if there are any callers in the queue. vice chair there are no callers in the queue. thank you. and no further comment. hearing that? no further members of the public wish to speak general public under item two is closed. i now call the consent calendar. colleagues as noted on

the agenda, there will be no separate discussion on a consent calendar item unless a request is made by a commission member or a member of the public in attendance, in which in which event the matter shall be removed and considered as a separate item. do any commissioners wish to discuss any of the items on the consent calendar? i'd like to pull number four executive director's report, please. thank you. and i actually have a very quick question on the enforcement matter, which is number five. so let's i move to adopt. sorry. adopt number three. the draft minutes. is there a second. seconded. clerk will you call the roll on item number on the motion to adopt item number three in the consent calendar, the draft minutes on the motion to adopt item number three on the consent calendar. draft minutes. vice chair live i. commissioner flores fang i. commissioner salahi i. commissioner ci i commissioner francois i. vice chair with five

votes in the affirmative. the motion is approved unanimously. thank you, mr. clerk, for the item number four, mr. ford. that's probably comes to you. good morning. uh executive director ford, it's nice to have you here. i know there wasn't much time between your appointment to this position and this report, but i just wanted to flag that i think there was at some point, a discussion about putting updates about the status of the audit program on this meeting's agenda. has that been postponed to a future meeting? so i can give you some high level updates right now. um, and we can bring back more information. so the most recent update that we've gotten from the contractor is that they're looking to have all of their draft reports to us by the 1st of april. and so if that target is met, then our audit staff can do the steps that they need to do to finalize them, which involves interacting with the

committees, reviewing them. obviously um, and then getting them approved, uh, by me and then posting them. so we're shooting to do that by the end of the fiscal year. so end of june, we want to have all of the 2022 and 2020 audits final and posted. thank you. that's a really good news. thank you. any other questions for my colleagues? miss flores will correct me, but i think we have to do public comment on this because we considered it is that even though there's no action on it, is that right? yeah. i think in the an abundance of caution, i don't think. yes. in an abundance of caution, we should just do public comment. would any of our participants in the room like to make public comment on this item? only that's the executive director's report. please go ahead. good morning again. my name is ellen li jiao

l l e n l e z h o u. i'm here to remind you, whatever the business you do in here and ethics commission, because you said the new and not ready, whether ready or not. so if you receive a paycheck, then you should be 100% ready for your work. whether you volunteer because you volunteer, you still get stipend. this is a public public hearing. if you're not ready to serve a role as ethics commissioners or work as a ethics commission staff, please don't come to work. i have been dealing with ethics commission staff. many of my questions were able to answer, and some of them not able to answer the question is what i'm doing here? what i don't know this question. and then sometimes they don't get back to me. and when something goes on, they'll say, well, you didn't comply. so i'm here to remind you, if you sign up to do what you do and you're not ready, just don't show up. and if you are sitting in there,

then you should know the policy, the public policy, the brown act and the sunshine ordinary codes and regulations and those codes and regulations apply to paid government employees. pay and appointees. but not apply to the people like me right now in front of you, the people we the people do not comply to your rules and regulations because those are for you. the people who get paid you. the people get appointed. so i'm just reminding you, be the best you can be and work the best you can be. and if you're not ready, don't come to work and don't come to this commission chambers. thank you and god bless you. mr. clerk, would you check if there are any remote callers? vice chair, we're checking to see if there are remote callers in the queue. vice chair. there are no callers in the queue. seeing none. item four is closed again. that was

no action on that part. that was for information only on agenda item five. that's the proposed stipulation. i just had a very quick question to staff looking at exhibit a. the second paragraph describes the violations and i know that the fact pattern are that the organization solicited contributions from its own members and then failed to register as a committee. the mere fact that the contributions were from its own members is beside the point. right it's the failing to register. that's the issue, correct? yeah. and it's the soliciting contributions for the purpose of using them for political activity. that's a required sort of meeting of the minds requirement under law to turn a multi-purpose organization into a required political committee, right. but there's nothing inherently problematic with soliciting its own members. is my understanding correct? yeah that's great. i just wanted to confirm that, um, that was all the questions i had. i moved to, well, sorry. i should see if any of my colleagues have questions on this matter. none for me. thank

you. seeing none, i will move to accept staff's recommendation and to agenda item five. accept the proposed stipulation. second, and then i think before we take the role, we'll take public comment on this item. does anyone in the audience wish to speak on this item in particular? again limited to agenda item number five. seeing none. mr. clerk, would you check if any of the remote callers would like to comment on this item? vice chair, we're checking to see if there are callers in the queue. thank you. vice chair. there are no callers. thank you. mr. clerk, would you take the role, please? on the motion to adopt the consent calendar, vice chair of. just for clarity, this is a motion to adopt item number five. sorry on the motion to adopt item number five on the consent calendar. all right. uh, commissioner flores fang i, commissioner salahi i commissioner sci i commissioner francois i vice chair with five votes in the affirmative of and zero votes,

opposed the motion is approved unanimously. thank you, mr. clerk. that brings us to item number six. uh, mr. ford, do you want to explain how this may go? thank you, vice chair finley, again for the record, executive director patrick ford. um, the commission's bylaws do not provide for a specific method for the election of its officers . the commission has customarily employed the following procedure for the election of its officers . the chair will open nominations for chair. any commissioner who wishes to nominate a candidate for chair will state the name of that person. if that person agrees to run, that person is nominated. commissioners may also self nominate for chair when there are no further nominations, and following any public comment, the chair will close the nominations and take a roll call vote in which each commissioner shall state the name of the nominee for whom he or she is voting. if a nominee receives three or more votes, that person

is elected chair for a one year terms of office beginning march 1st. if no nominee receives three votes, the commission may have further discussion and proceed to another vote. this process shall repeat until one nominee has received three or more votes. following action to elect a chair. the chair will then open nominations for vice chair. any commissioner who wishes to nominate a candidate for vice chair will similarly state the name of that person. if that person agrees to run, that person is nominated. commissioners may also self nominate for vice chair when there are no further nominations , and after public comment, the chair will close the nominations and take a roll call. vote. if a nominee receives three or more votes, that person is elected vice chair. it's essentially the same process as electing the chair. thank you, mr. ford, and, miss flores, i believe i can just take public comment now once for the entire item. right um, yes. public comment should come at any point before you make a final decision so you can

take public comment now or after you deliberate, but before a final decision is made. thank you. we are ready for public comment. it looks like we have a person. please go. well good morning again commissioner. my name is ellen li zhao. l l e n l e z h o u. as you nominate the chair for commissioners, i am here to remind you, whoever that chair that you nominated and all of you is the same position in that you are liable personally for anything that you are not comply to the law and order, not necessarily co and regulation. colon regulation is for the pay people and the appointed people, but not for the people of the public interest. december 8th i was here and speak against who whoever will be hired as a chair. and if you hire this person and you pay this person, i will file another lawsuit to

sue at the commission. i am here to give you the public notice and the reason. 2020 2nd april to the end of. 2022. there. are 1168 public employees who are christians and catholics who file religious exemption. did not accept the covid 19. now we know it's a bioweapon or or people turn in the exemption paper, were wrongfully terminated as of today, we have 11 federal lawsuits, six state lawsuits against san francisco mayor against different department leaders and against ethic commission soon, if you continue to file this process to

hire a person, but you are not reappointed, reinstate all the wrongfully terminated unvaccinated city workers. and i am one of them. the law says anyone receive a medical procedure, any thing related to medical you have to have public consent, which is the person the patient's consent. but san francisco in 2020, 2021, 2022, 2023 and today still putting ads out there watching yourself protect yourself, protect the people, protect the public, protect the seniors. vaccinated yourself. i'm telling you right now, congratulations to all of you today. i didn't see any masked people here. you people have come and sense. thank god for you all the last civil services commission i was in last monday four days ago. they get n95 masks vaccinated. i'm not against mask. i'm not against vaccinated. but if you hire a new employee but un

reinstate all the terminal terminal excuse me. wrongfully terminated 1168 christians and catholics. that is a lawsuit for discriminate ation. thank you. thank you. would any other members of the public like to make public comment present here in person, seeing none. mr. clerk, would you check if there are any folks on the webex who would like to make comment? vice chair there are no callers in the queue. thank you. i'll now open the floor for discussion and nominations. like to nominate commissioner finley for the position of chair. i accept, um, are there any other nominations for chair? well, actually, i guess we will. miss flores. you'll have to help me. do we vote now or do we? then take other nominations first? you vote now for chair. if there are no other nominations, um, i

can do the roll call. vote for that. do we have to second the motion? yeah i'll second it. yeah. thank you. just waiting for roll. or should we say i now or. oh yeah, i can do a roll call for you that way you don't have to do it. um, vice chair finley, i, um, okay, i think you're supposed to state the name of the person. i think i support. vice chair finley for chair. um, commissioner flores fang, i support, um, vice chair finley for chair. commissioner salahi, i support, uh, vice chair finley for chair. commissioner ci. i support, uh, vice chair finley for chair, and commissioner francois, i support the vice chair. i'm sorry. i don't can't pronounce your name first. that's okay. uh, vice chair finley, by a vote of 5 to 0, commission has elected you as the chair for a turn beginning march 1st, 2024. congratulations

thank you. and now, uh, i will open up for nominations for vice chair. i would like to nominate commissioner flores fang for vice chair. i second that i accept. would you call roll, please? yes, chair. finley, i support, uh, commissioner flores fang for vice chair. commissioner flores fang, i support myself for vice chair. commissioner salahi, i support commissioner flores fang for vice chair. commissioner ci. i support commissioner flores fang for vice chair and commissioner francois, i support commissioner flores fang for vice chair by unanimous vote. commissioner flores fang, you are elected vice chair. congratulations. thank you, mr. ford. um, i'll just briefly say i see one of my main responsibilities as chair, as running efficient meetings. um, so that's going to be my priority, in addition to all the

other work we'll be doing together. and i'll call agenda item seven, discussion of possible action regarding the hearing on the merits and the matter of paul allen taylor. um, i think we need to take a small pause for deputy city attorney to make some arrangements. should we take a five minute break? yes mr. ford, can we take a five minute pause? certainly. can. and i'll call agenda item seven. discussion on possible action regarding hearing on the merits and the matter of paul allen taylor. case number 20, dash 2430 1920. dash 031.

representatives of each of the parties please introduce themselves starting with ethics staff. my name is zachary damico . i'm speaking on behalf of the enforcement division. mr. damico is there anyone here on behalf of mr. taylor? seeing nobody, sir. are you mr. taylor. mr. taylor is going to make some comments. great. wonderful. we're happy to have you here. please hold on one second though. but there will be an opportunity for you, sir. i'm glad you're here. thank you. we'll start by calling for public comment on this item. is there anyone in the room who would like to make public comment on this item? and, mr. taylor, you'll have a chance to speak. this is just for public comment. seeing no. yes yes yes. and you? well, good morning

again. my name is ellen li jiao l l e n l e z who for some reason, i feel very honored that my name is mentioned in this commission. i have to give you a thumbs up. 2019 i ran for mayor. that's 2019. people right now is 20, 24. five years later, this this ethics commission, the most unethical department continued to go after conservatives who who love god, who love life, who oppose killing little human beings who do not support mutilating children. from boy to girl, from girl to boy. you all have the guts. keep going after a person in front of you right now. ellen lee zhao i have been

working as a behavioral health clinician for public health for more than 15 years. i provide treatment for delinquent youth who are selling drugs, who are truancy, who are depressed, who are anxious. i also work with adults who are depressed, suicidal, homicidal, just got out of jail. i work with people homeless, dying on the street. i witnessed bodies, dead bodies in front of me. i know the numbers. how much the government corrupted. so i spoke out to the truth. i came to ask the commission on for the last, at minimum, six years, with many, many government employees against tyranny, against many department heads that they are paid and bought into positions they raped chinese women, they

raped people in order for them to get a job. how do i know? i was working with the fbi to investigate those leaders? that was why that people came to me and nominated me to run for mayor in 2018 and 2019. i knew the number. i knew the people. but i'm not at liberty to say it here because that's the law. but i urge you today it's time for you to stop, rise up and work together, save the homeless, save the dying people on the street, catch up those thief in the store and take care of the city like i do. like i have been doing. i have been living and working here for more than 38 years. i love san francisco, so i love you all in here. so stop your tyranny against a person like me. thank you, thank you. your time is up. thank you.

would anyone else like to make public comment here in the room? mr. clerk, would you check if there are any remote callers? vice chair, there are no callers. thank you, mr. clerk. public comment is closed. colleagues there are a couple of preliminary matters that i want to discuss before we start. um i was appointed as a prehearing commissioner previously, and i issued an order, but we never discussed how we will run the actual proceeding itself. we're going to preside as a body altogether. but i think we need someone just to emcee it. at a minimum. i'm happy to do that as the being familiar with the matter. but i think to the extent we have any evidentiary questions or anything like that, my idea would be all discuss it together and, um, address that jointly. my understanding is that within 45 days of a hearing, closing, we have to, uh , basically make. or not make findings, but, uh, vote on the allegations, especially given we have a new member. my proposal would be that we don't do that

today necessarily. we can discuss this after the hearing, but we have an opportunity to do that at the subsequent meeting. and we can designate one of us to propose findings in the meantime and then submit them for the next meeting and vote on them at that time. but that's just my approach. i'm happy to hear or the thoughts the other day is to try to have a vote today after the hearing, and i would welcome if staff for mr. taylor have thoughts on the process. that's how i see it. and i just want to discuss that in advance. so we're on the same page. so if there are any thoughts from my colleagues, i'm happy to hear them. in terms of just the mechanics of how we move forward today, and i should say that all of our deliberations are going to be in public. so there's no kind of separate closed liberation process. you have a procedural question. so you're saying your understanding is that we don't need to vote on findings within 45 days of the hearing? sorry, we do within 45 days. so it doesn't have to be today, but it would have to be at the within

45 days of today. if the hearing concludes today. got it. that's my understanding. and i just like to clarify that today we'd be receiving all the evidence or we'd be seeing all the evidence. so it's not like if we waited until the next meeting, there would be additional evidence to consider in the interim. is that correct? that's my understanding that the evidence would close today, and then we would have 45 days to make our findings, but we would have to vote on those findings within 45 days. so they would be presented at the next hearing and voted on. yeah it'd be kind of at the same time where someone would circulate proposed findings, and then we would discuss them at the subsequent meeting, make any, uh, amendments to the body sees fit at the meeting, and then vote on them. then, as opposed to trying to do that all today. understood and we can revisit that after the hearing today. but i just wanted to kind of make sure that's something that we're thinking about. does that make sense for everyone? yeah. that's helpful. i'd just like to flag that if we wouldn't, if we didn't vote by the next meeting,

the 45 days, i mean, 45 days from now is like the end of march and so. right. have to vote. that's right. yeah, yeah. um, so i'm going to ask the staff and mr. taylor if they have any comments just on the mechanics. you're going to have a chance to talk about the actual merits. but i ■just want to hear from staff and, mr. taylor, if you have any, if they read the rules differently than what i've outlined, no, that works for us. mr. taylor. and again, you'll have a chance to talk on the actual allegations, but purely on the mechanics that we've discussed today. okay great. in that case, um, we will now proceed. so here's the summary procedures. and this is outlined in the rules. and some of it is covered in the preliminary order that i issued each party may present an opening statement. the staff will go first for 15 minutes, then mr. taylor will go for 15 minutes. if he likes to. each party may present a rebuttal for up to three minutes, and then after the rebuttals, we'll have actual evidence and testimony to the extent that there is any.

mr. damico, please go ahead. and, mr. clerk, can you keep time? great. thank you. can we ask questions? yeah great question, commissioner salahi asked if we can ask questions. my instinct is yes. i think we should. but either be now or i think at the at the conclusion of the evidence presented. but i think we should have the opportunity to ask questions of staff and witnesses. can i just ask a question? have you then already decided before i came here that you would preside over this hearing then, and make the decisions on the objections? or is that going to be the body? i think it will be the body. so i'm not presiding as a quote unquote presiding officer, but i'm just kind of emceeing the mechanics. all right. thank you. thank you. uh, first i want to note that we do. we did bring copies of our the enforcement division's exhibits. they're right here. can hand them out at either now or at the conclusion of opening statements. and before we begin, our case in

chief, i already introduced myself, but my name is zachary damico. i'm representing the enforcement division. we also have senior investigator eamonn wilson. he's on webex. he will be controlling our exhibits when we introduce evidence. um we'll ask sf gov tv once that evidence once i ask for mr. wilson to show it, he will share his screen and at that point, if nsf.gov could put it on the tv. but we will obviously wait to deal with any potential objections before it gets shared. um, also note for opening and closing statements, i will be here, uh, for interviewing any witnesses. i would prefer to have the witness here, and i can be sitting there to ask questions as intro to introduce evidence. i would also like to sit there so that the respondent has somewhere to be, which can be at the podium. if he has any objections. i think that's fine as long as the witnesses are comfortable with that arrangement. great so this is primarily, of course, a case about coordination. so our plan

is through evidence and witness testimony to show that the respondent, paul allen taylor, coordinated between the campaign of ellen li zhao for mayor and the asian american freedom pac, also known as afpak. we plan to show that mr. taylor coordinated afpak $10,000 expenditure in support of the zhao campaign, legally turning it into a prohibited contribution, causing both afpak and the campaign to violate contribution limits and reporting laws. the coordination was fairly simple. we plan to show that mr. taylor consulted for the zhao campaign by producing a set of advertisements. he subsequently reached out to the executive director of afpak, introduced afpak to the candidate connect it afpak with a donor who gave them $10,000 and then provided afpak with the same service he provided to the campaign, producing advertisements paid for by afpak expenditure. he told the afpak president that he would arrange all the details related to the expenditure for coordinated with a vendor, made

decisions about the location and substance of advertisements on billboards, ads, and then produced ads identical to ones previously put out by the campaign. when i asked the commissioners to keep in mind that there are numerous independent ways to show coordination under city law and the law, only requires that we meet one of those ways in order to find coordination action in the process of showing this, we also plan to demonstrate that mr. taylor provided campaign consultant services for the lonely zhao for mayor campaign without registering as a consultant. and finally, we'll show that mr. taylor illegally withheld information in his efforts to obstruct the ethics commission's investigation. that also brings me to the issue of why we are here for a fairly rare hearing on the merits in the first place. as you know, enforcement division staff attempts to reach stipulated settlements in nearly all matters that come through our office, which allows us to tackle both a broad and deep range of cases while maximizing a fairly limited staff time and resources. as in this case, the respondent, mr. taylor, refused

to engage with commission staff over a period of several years, ignoring document requests, failing to respond to emails and calls, rejecting the commission's jurisdiction in refusing to produce documents in response to an authorized subpoena, and ignoring attempts to engage in settlement negotiations. we believe this is an important case because of both how blatant the violation is and the respondent's failure to take responsibility through the normal stipulation process, and we hope that today, the case can establish that no individual is beyond the law, as enforced by this commission, that concludes my opening statement. thank you, mr. damico. mr. taylor, would you like to make an opening statement? you have 15 minutes if you'd like to .

mr. taylor, before you start, would you just identify yourself ? i know we did it earlier. would you identify yourself for the record, please? we did it earlier, but it was your colleague kind of waived his hand on your behalf. i paul taylor, thank you. okay. this is going on the public record. correct? recorded? yes, sir. okay great. i, paul taylor surgeries the falsely accused proceeding at common law and proper make this special appearance as a courtesy. and i am here as ambassador of jesus christ, the living god, challenging the sufficiency of servants and the jurisdiction of this tribunal. let me remind you that you and this commission are

already in dishonor and in default with me for the amount of. $110 million. which you have ignored and not paid yet. you have the audacity to come to this forum with unclean hands, bury a false witness against me, flouting your wicked and wanted want an evil motives of your hearts proceeding as though my unalienable rights, my superior authority and my sovereign power means nothing. how dare you? how dare you? i have no contracts with you or this commission which binds me to your supposed jurisdiction. neither have you produced such yet you proceed to

maliciously persecute me. you expect me from the start to respond to all your malicious demands and to obey your unlawful orders. yet none of you ever responded to any of my documents or coerced respondents signify your under your utter contempt for me and your dishonor. let me remind you, the us supreme court has ruled that silence can only be equated with fraud. when there is a legal and moral duty to speak. yes, you have the legal and moral duty to speak and respond to me. your silence and fraud is palpable and evidence of your malicious and criminal intent. and to the fact and to this fact that no prosecutor has performed his

major task by proving jurisdiction on the record and as required by law, as as well as a lack of verified complaint of an actual flesh and blood injury party informing me of a true nature and cause of the accusations against me making all these proceedings a sham and a travesty of justice. with no basis in the law whatsoever. for and since you've denied me the due process of law, every step of the way makes you makes you the actual criminals in this matter, and therefore these proceedings are null and void and without force of law. let me remind you that the ninth great commandment of god, thou shalt

not bear false witness against thy neighbor as a result of your wicked and wanton behavior. here i can conclude only one thing that this is an ungodly tribunal . evil is actually the synagogue of satan, and that all of you are pharisees here are truly your father of the devil. i also have brought documents with me that i would like to enter into the record and be, uh, given to each member of the commission. sir, we'll have an evidentiary portion of the hearing in shortly. so would you mind holding on to those and then you'll have a chance to give these to the clerk now? yeah i need to give them to the clerk now, please, will you not be here for the rest of the hearing? go ahead and grab them. no objection. thank you. sir. thank you sir, thank you. we're

now ready for the department to present its case. rebuttal opening. go ahead. sure. i'll just note for the record, it appears that mr. taylor has left the premises. if he comes back in, i'll note that as well. mr. damico, please go ahead. just briefly. i'll give a rebuttal. uh, mr. taylor, the respondent has made claims of a lack of jurisdiction that mirror claims made throughout the country under what is known as the sovereign citizen theory, that courts across the country, again, i would note, have rejected this theory. the most notable being in the seventh circuit, where they've stated that it very simply laws of the united states apply to all persons within its borders, and that the conspiracy and legal revisionist theories of sovereign citizens are not established law in this court or anywhere in this country's legal system. and while not wishing to give them credence, i do wish to point out that this commission

does have jurisdiction, although the respondent has left. i would just note that the california constitution allows cities to adopt their own forms of government. san francisco adopted their own through the city charter. the city charter grants this commission authority to enforce violations of city law relating to campaign finance , and mr. taylor is alleged to have violated those laws by getting involved in a san francisco city and county election. i would also note that the commission has followed and commission staff have followed all enforcement regulations that were issued by this commission, including related to investigations, probable cause proceedings and hearings on the merits. this enforcement division repeatedly expressed things similar to what i'm saying now to the respondent throughout the course of this case, we sent him copies of our laws, our guidebook, uh, presenting our jurisdiction over this matter. uh, that said, i'll just go ahead and stop and we can move on. could you please address the statement he made about sufficiency of service? it sounds like it was implicit in

what you said about complying with regulations. but if you could just expressly address that, yes, absolutely. we served the respondent twice with subpoenas. uh we served the subpoena and a probable cause report to the respondent in person. and we followed up with service via mail. and we will have a witness speak to both of those service. both of those instances of service. thank you. thank you, mr. damico. i think we're ready for the department to present its case. would you call your first witness? ma'am, can i can i help you? i the staff will call its witness. i'm sorry. my staff. i mean, the ethics commission staff. should.

i should we be considering whether to move for, uh, default since the respondent has left or since he did make an appearance. should we continue in his absence? my preference is that you go ahead and put on your case, and we move your evidence into the record. yeah. my colleagues feel any differently. i'm of the same view. can we clarify whether anyone is here to speak on behalf of the respondent in case something comes up that might require his objection or that's a fair point . i don't see, mr. taylor. is there a representative for mr. taylor in the room who will be appearing on his behalf in this hearing, seeing none. please go ahead, mr. damico. okay uh, sorry, i'd like to start with, uh, an initial phase of evidence before calling my first witness. since we can both introduce exhibits as well as call witnesses. so commissioners, our case is split into three

sections. essentially. first, we plan to establish mr. taylor's work for the jail for mayor campaign, including his involvement in the production of advertisements and billboards. next i will call the president. the former president of afpak, mark nash, to testify through his testimony and additional evidence, we plan to show that mr. taylor coordinated the pac's $10,000 expenditure for knowing that i will call acting enforcement director jeffrey zumwalt, who will speak to the respondent's failure to comply with and efforts to obstruct the investigation later. i'll wrap up our case in a closing statement. so i want to start with mr. taylor's involvement with the jail campaign, the jail for mayor campaign paid paul allen taylor through his company, watt engineering, to produce advertisements for the campaign. mr. taylor worked with an artist to produce these advertisements, worked with a vendor named outfront media to produce some of those ads into billboards paid for by the campaign. i will now move to introduce five exhibits as exhibits i, b, h, g, and d. what

i plan to do is to briefly describe the relevance and source for each exhibit pausing, pausing briefly between each and at the end for any questions or objections. if there are none, i will then ask investigator wilson to pull them up so i can discuss them, each one by one. doing them in batches as they relate to the portions of the enforcement division's case. and it looks like you printed them. are those for us? i know that those are for you. yes, i can bring them up now, or we can give them to you later. great. yeah. yep while you're heading that out, i'll just remind my colleagues that as part of my pre hearing orders, i address the admissibility of evidence. pardon me. and that, um, setting the enforcement. thanks signed the government code. the evidentiary admissibility rule. is that any evidence? evidence. sorry any relevant evidence shall be admitted if it is a sort of evidence on which

responsible persons are accustomed to rely in the business. sorry. our custom to rely in the conduct of serious affairs, regardless of the existence of any common law or statutory rule which might make improper the admission of the evidence over objection of civil actions. that's from government code 11513, subsection c. so i think the salient part or part of that is that that it will be admitted if it is a sort of evidence on which responsible persons are accustomed to rely in the conduct of serious affairs. thank you, mr. damico. thank you. so just briefly, before any of the exhibits are showed, we're moving to admit exhibits. i beg and exhibit. i will be a copy of a california form 460, which was filed by the jail for mayor campaign, which include payments made by the campaign that was pulled from the commission's public website by mr. zumwalt. exhibit b will be a copy of a statement of information pulled by mr. zumwalt from the california secretary of state's public website, showing a file, a filing by a corporation. exhibit

h is a contract between outfront media and the ellen lee jail for mayor campaign, again obtained by mr. zumwalt. this was found as an exhibit, again listed publicly as part of a separate and unrelated civil lawsuit, exhibit g includes two emails between philip morris, an account executive with outfront media, and mr. taylor regarding services provided to the jail for mayor campaign, again obtained by mr. zumwalt. found as an exhibit listed publicly as part of a separate and unrelated civil lawsuit, and finally, exhibit d will be an email from mr. taylor to the ethics commission on behalf of the jail for mayor campaign. this was obtained from commission staff. uh, mr. damico, sorry, could you please slow down just a little bit, because it's taking us a moment to pull through the document. yeah, i'm going to be going through them one by one. this is just to let you know what the relevance and the source are for any objections. but yes, i will slow down. yeah. i don't know if your hope is to move to submit them all together . i think it'd be easier to move to address that individually if

i can change how i'm handling it and go one by one inch, reduce the first. see if there are any objections, talk about it and then go to the second. i can do that. i think that'll be easier for us to manage. yeah thank you. great. so i will start then. i'm moving to admit exhibit i, this is a copy of a california form 460 filed by the jail for mayor campaign. and it was pulled from the commission's public website by director zumwalt. i see no objection to this. do my colleagues see anything based on the representation? sorry. representation that this is pulled from the commission's website? thank you. so that is admitted hearing no objections. investigator wilson, would you please pull up exhibit i page one. if sf gov tv. thank you. hopefully that's visible but but uh, can the commissioners see this exhibit either on paper or on their screen as i can see it,

any of my commissioner is not able to see it. i think we're good. thank you. so as you see, exhibit i is a copy of a california form 460 at the top, highlighted. the statement covers the period from october 30th 1st to december 31st, 2019. also highlighted in the top left the fires. the filer is the ellen lee jail for mayor. 2019 campaign. and if you look to the highlighted text in the bottom left, you can see two payments reported, both to a company called what engineering address on teegarden street. one is for $4,520. this is for campaign literature and mailings. one is for $275 for meetings and appearances. where do you see that? it's for literature and meetings and appearances. the code for the $4,520 payment has. there's a key about a little less than a third of the way down on the page. got it. thank you. i would now like to move to

admit exhibit b statement of information been pulled from the california secretary of state's public website. like elephant be brown. and mister damico, you said this is pulled from the california secretary of state's website. yes. hearing. no objection. let me, um, should i wake my colleagues? okay i see no objection. any of my colleagues. great. will admit exhibit b investigator wilson, please pull up exhibit b, page one. so here, highlighted at the top, you can see this is a statement of information for a corporate mission called what engineering, inc. looking down to the next set of highlighted boxes, you can see that both the principal executive office and the principal business office are located at the same address on teegarden street. if you look

at the next set of highlighted boxes, you will see that the responding paul allen taylor is listed as the sole ceo and cfo located at the same address. the secretary is located at that exact same address. it enforcement division believes it exhibits i and b together show that the jail campaign for, uh, paying mr. taylor for services rendered, including campaign literature through his company. what engineering? i will now move to admit exhibit h, which is a contract between outfront media and the ellen lee jail for mayor campaign. this was obtained by mister zumwalt. it was listed as a public exhibit in a separate and unrelated civil lawsuit that is again exhibit h. um so this was pulled from looks like pacer, the federal electronic docket, is that right? correct you know what? what what's the lawsuit

about? the underlying lawsuit? uh, that was a lawsuit that was related to, i believe it was a complaint made, uh, related to billboards being pulled down. um so i'll just say that the mere fact that something's on pacer doesn't necessarily make it authentic. um, but mr. taylor has had the opportunity to be here and contest any of this evidence. he's not here. i think to the extent that we have questions about what this is and may go to the weight of it rather than the admissible city, but i would happily kind of discuss my colleagues. what we have is a facially appears to be a contract. i have no reason to think it's not. but we don't know much about it. but like i said, i think that goes more to the weight of it than it's admissibility. it does appear to satisfy the evidentiary standard that i read earlier. um any comments from my colleagues? uh, do you know who submitted this to in that case? uh, i don't

know which individual, but it was submitted by the plaintiffs in that case, which are either. so that was a case that both the ellen lee zhao for mayor campaign and afpak brought against someone else for pulling their billboards down. and so it was some party associated with the plaintiffs, the people who put the billboards up. in other words, it was submitted by the liuzhou for mayor campaign or someone affiliated with them. was there a representation by them that this was the purchase agreement for the advertising? yes so i think given that i'm happy, i think we can admit it. and any questions go to the weight, not admissibility. okay. so investigator wilson, please pull up page five of exhibit h. so i highlighted at the top you can see this is an advertiser agreement. just below that there's a contract number on the left. you can see that this is

an outfront media contract. and below that highlighted the advertiser bill two. name is ellen lee zhao for mayor to the right again ellen zhao is listed as the advertiser and you can see that philip morris is listed as the account executive of. and mr. just remind us the specific relevance of this exhibit or if you haven't gotten there yet, then we can address that later. um so i, i will get to it just in a moment. so just looking below that on the left side of the middle of the page highlighted, this is a contract for sf bay area posters. and on the right side the advertising period is from october 7th to november 3rd. this contract shows two will show two things one, it will represent mr. taylor's involvement with the zhao campaign on producing advertisements for billboards and coordinating those billboards and two. these are billboards ads that, uh, are related to. then mr. taylor's work for afpak in coordinating an expenditure. thank you. uh,

we if we could also show the last page of this exhibit investigator wilson, please go to the final page here you can see a check written by the ellen lee zhao for mayor campaign to outfront media. for $4,040. reflects the contract. i would i would now like to move to introduce exhibit g. this includes two emails that were, uh, exchanged between philip manners and account executive with outfront media and mr. taylor, the respondent. um, these emails will show again mr. taylor's connection to the zhao campaign. and his work on the campaign's behalf, coordinating advertisements and billboards. these were obtained from the same civil lawsuit by mr. zumwalt. you know who submitted these exhibits? and the plaintiff in that case? again,

to me, this seems to satisfy the evidentiary rule that i've laid out any concerns for my colleagues. um seeing none, i think we'll thank you as well. i investigator wilson, please pull up exhibit g page one. on the bottom half of the page, you can see an email from philip morris, the account executive listed on the contract that you just saw to the respondent, paul taylor, titled sf poster proposal. this email was sent on september 25th, and i will read the highlighted portions. paul. good afternoon. we. cleared one hurdle just waiting for the final blessing. attached is a proposal for what we can do for a ten, seven, 19 start and a location map. although i'm certain you are familiar with the locations. as a reminder, the posters paid for by the zhao campaign and shown on the contract in the prior exhibit began on october 7th, 2019. the

date reflected in this email, combined with other exhibits, the enforcement division believed this shows that mr. taylor represented the zhao campaign in working with outfront and advertising vendors to secure posters around the city for the campaign's advertisements. this exhibit we now move to introduce exhibit d, which is an email from mr. taylor to the ethics commission on behalf of the zhao for mayor campaign commission staff pulled this email from our own email database. from our own what email database? this is again d as in dog. um, this looks like an email to mr. zumwalt. uh no objection from me. i'm looking at my colleagues. yeah we'll admit exhibit d. thank you. investigator wilson, please pull up page one of exhibit d. on page one, we can see that mr.

taylor sent an email to the ethics commission on august 26th, 2019. the email has no subject line or text. it includes two attachments showing two virtually identical advertisements. if mr. wilson could please move to page two and then zoom out. on page two, you can see advertisements clearly. uh, this advertisement in the future will be referred to as the super mayor. advertisement it it identifies the candidate, ellen lee zhao. it reads vote november 5th for super mayor ellen lee zhao. no, no mail in ballots. it has an image of ellen lee zhao, supposedly in superhero costume. advertisement refers to her as super mayor and includes a disclaimer on the bottom that it was paid for by the ellen lee zhao for mayor campaign. in this exhibit shows the respondent, paul taylor, emailing the ethics commission to provide a copy of this advertisement on behalf of the campaign. thank you, mr. wilson. you can take this

exhibit down. so combined together, these five exhibits show that the zhao for mayor campaign paid mr. taylor through his company, watt engineering, for his services in producing campaign advertisements and working with vendors to turn those advertisements into billboards and further, mr. taylor represented himself as an agent of the campaign to both outfront media when coordinating with them on a contract for campaign ads and to the ethics commission for i. i'll now move to introduce a series of exhibits just for the commissioner reference in their packet. it will be j l m n, and o. so almost all in a row, but i will go one by one again. these all all have the same source and the same relevance. they contain social media posts including copies of five ads produced by the zhao for mayor campaign. we will later show that the ads produced by afpac were the were identical to these ads put out by the campaign, which is relevant for determining

coordination. all were social media posts retrieved through investigation by mr. zumwalt, who took screenshots after confirming the campaign's twitter account through its website. i would also note that that account, the twitter account and website are still active as ellen zhao is running for mayor currently, so these are all from the same twitter account. uh, there is one that when we scroll to one page, there is a facebook post and i will, before i move to introduce that, i will explain that it's multiple things. so you can consider it separately. thank you. so i will start by moving to moving to introduce exhibit j . again this is a just a social media post from the ellen li zhao for mayors twitter account. uh, screenshotted by mr. zumwalt is the part of the exhibit we will be showing at the on page one. seeing no concerns, um, i think any concerns from my

colleagues? none admitted exhibit j. mr. wilson, if you could please pull up exhibit j page one. at the top here, you can see this is a tweet posted by the ellen for sf mayor campaign twitter account. and the bottom half you can see an advertisement with the same image and words as that sent to the ethics commission by the respondent in the in the prior exhibit, the disclaimer that it was paid for by the campaign highlighted at the bottom of the ad and then at the bottom of the social media post highlighted. you can see it was posted on august 15th, 2019. again, this ad will be referred to as super mayor. i will now move to, uh, admit exhibit l, it is an ad. it is a separate ad produced by the campaign, and it was pulled from the zhao for mayor campaign twitter account by the same methods. j like a joker. sorry sorry l l my bad. yes, l, uh, yeah. admit it. same same

reasoning. mr. wilson, please pull up exhibit l, page one. this shows an ad that will be referred to as werewolves. again, highlighted at the top is the campaign twitter account. features a reference to mayor zhao and a werewolves of london tour bus. there is a similar disclaimer at the bottom that it was paid for by the zhao campaign, and a date posted of september 14th. i will now, uh, move to admit exhibit m this will contain two items that we would like to show. the first is a similar ad posted on twitter by the campaign account. the second is posted on facebook by the respondent, mr. taylor. this was also retrieved through a screenshot of facebook by investigators on wall. i apologize. quick question. my printed version of exhibit l has a few more pages than the one that was shown. yes, we're only me, so the rest of it's not been admitted yet. were you only intending to admit the first? is

it all from the same post? it's all of them are from the same social media account. they were all obtained in the same way by mr. zumwalt. they are separate, like separate posts. sorry, i think the question is the four pages on that last exhibit, if they're all from the same post, uh. no, they're not from the same post. they were. i think you can see there. no, i know. uh, we are moving to admit we are moving to admit everything as part of my presentation. i'm only showing certain parts. so for clarity, exhibit l is. is that also some of the facebook, twitter and facebook? yes. yes. and i just have a quick question. is there a declaration that that was filed or like that's going to be submitted alongside this? it sounds like there's a lot of pulling from websites and yes, we have a declaration by senior investigators on walt, um, that's submitted as it was submitted, uh, with the hearing brief. um, we do also have i

will note, we have mr. zumwalt speaking later. um, because of how the evidentiary standards were for this proceeding, we didn't have him here to authenticate every exhibit as we go, but we do have him speaking later and i believe as part of the process, commissioners are allowed to ask questions to witnesses. um, so you are welcome to ask him questions about the exhibits. thank you. um, so i believe i was moving to admit exhibit m. this includes ads from the l and li jiao for mayor, social media accounts, as well as from mr. taylor's facebook account, which was pulled by mr. zumwalt. these are sort of three pages. we just count them all. one to exhibit m is three pages and they're all from the same post. right. is that right? yes okay. we'll admit those. we're going to be

showing two separate posts here. one is from, um, the l li jiao for mayor campaign, and one is from mr. taylor. just to clarify, so if mr. wilson could please pull up exhibit m, page one. this is the third ad we are showing. it will be referred to as police. the campaign twitter account is again highlighted. the ad features a similar cartoon visual reference to elon zhao by name, and a quote saying she'll enhance police efforts to make sf safe. the bottom is another disclaimer that the campaign paid for the ad, as well as a date posted of august 14th. mr. wilson, could you please scroll to the next page and the next post? this is a facebook post by the respondent, paul taylor, on his page. uh, paul taylor for 2018 california us senate, where he posts a similar ad with the same image but different writing and a

different language. it does say that it was paid for by the l and li jiao for mayor. 2019 campaign. then it just to make sure we're all on the same page. exhibit m has posts from sorry page from different posts. right. this is from mr. taylor's account, you're saying. and the other one is from miss zhao's, um. okay. yeah. we'll now move to admit exhibit. oh this is going to be social media post showing a fourth advertisement. again pulled in the same way by mr. zumwalt. we will be showing the last page of this exhibit and pulling the same way. you mean this is from the g for mayor twitter account? excuse me. actually, i'd like to start with exhibit n before. oh but yes, it was pulled by investigator zumwalt. he took a screenshot after confirmed the social media account through the campaign website. and to my colleagues, i'll just note the

declaration from mr. zumwalt will be it's available to you and it's been provided to you, but we'll put it on the website at some point as well as part of the record for this matter. um, and will be admitted as well. thank you. if mr. wilson could please pull up exhibit n this shows an ad that will be referred to as needles at the top. the campaign twitter accounts highlighted the ad shows a reference by name to mayor zhao and states that she will stop the needle giveaway. it includes a needle on the beach at the bottom, highlighted is a disclaimer saying the campaign paid for the ad and a date posted of september 10th at the final exhibit that i moved to admit for this portion will be exhibit oh again. we'll be showing the final page again. this would be campaign social media posts identified by mr. zumwalt and screenshotted after confirming the accounts on the campaign website. i see two

pages on exhibit. oh, is that right? yes. we'll be showing the final page. we moved to admit the entire exhibit and same reasoning will admit that as well. mr. wilson, please pull up exhibit. oh final page. this shows an advertisement that will be referred to as lombard. so first, at the top, you can see the campaign twitter account highlighted and just for folks looking at the screen, mr. wilson, if you could please zoom in on the bottom just so we can see the advertisement at the bottom if possible. the ad depicts a cartoon version of a curvy street, which appears to be the famous lombard street in san francisco. it includes the line coming to a street near you . at the bottom. highlighted is a disclaimer that the campaign paid for it, and again, a date posted of september 25th. thank you, mr. wilson. so later in this case, as i mentioned, we

will show that all five ads are virtually identical to ads later purchased by afpac through mr. taylor's efforts and put on billboard ads. in those cases, the ads instead have disclaimers that afpac paid for them rather than the campaign having established mr. taylor's connection to the zhao for mayor campaign and his work for them in producing advertisements and billboards, i would now like to call mr. mark tsuneishi to testify, mr. tsuneishi was the president of the asian american freedom pac at all times relevant to this case, mr. damico. sorry. before you do that, just you said having established, i would like you just. if you can. we just went through a bunch of exhibits. can you just tie it together? very succinctly? what i gather from what you showed is that basically the ads are identical and by virtue of that is that the association you're pointing to? excuse me? just pulled the exhibits together. they were all admitted because i think you said that we've established something. but i'd like you to establish it for all of us. sure i through the entirety of all of the exhibits, first, we establish that mr. taylor worked

for the or. mr. taylor provided services to the elderly for mayor campaign. he coordinated with outfront media to post billboards. he sent copies of at least one of those billboards to the ethics commission with disclaimers, uh, separately, we established that there were five advertisements. they are the werewolves, needles, police, lombard and super mare advertisements that were posted by the campaign with a campaign disclaimer here, and we will later show that those advertisements were coordinated by mr. taylor and replicate ad with carfax expenditure. i have a question about the email to the ethics staff. yes. why? i gather that the email itself had no subject, no text. but why would someone sign? is there some process whereby advertisement is emailed to commission staff? what do you infer from that? i was not with the ethics commission when that was sent, so i can't speak. i can ask our investigator about that, but we can infer that it was sent as, uh, a means of

fulfilling a legal obligation to report out an advertisement that the campaign put out to the ethics commission. physical billboards were also dropped off at the ethics commission's office, going back to exhibit g, which is the email from out front. it was it out front? yes. paul taylor, i believe it was philip morris, the account executive. yeah. is there any, uh is there any thing indicating whether paul taylor responded to, uh, we don't have emails that show that no, those are this is from the public docket in that federal litigation. yes. yes and because mr. taylor did not comply with the subpoena that we issued. okay. go ahead. mr. d'amico. uh, at this point, i would like to call mr. tsuneishi, who is the president of was the president of asian american freedom pac. he can speak to mr. taylor's involvement in affects $10,000 expenditure that supported the

jail for mayor campaign. please go ahead. okay. i believe someone is retrieving him. he's just in the back room. you know, mr. d'amico, of all the exhibits you've got, how many that we go through. i'm curious how many we've introduced that of the bulk that you've got. uh, we've introduced we've gone through ten. i think i will be introducing another either 10 or 12. most, most during this testimony. would you mind just listing those? if you have a minute. those letters. one more time. i tried to take notes, but i want to make sure i don't miss any. so we have already admitted exhibits. i b as in brown h g d as in dog j l l m n and o. thank you. could you please state your

name for the record? my name is mark sinisi. great. um, before we proceed, would the. yeah i'm going to swear him in. thank you, mr. d'amico. sir, would you raise your right hand? do you solemnly state or affirm under penalty of perjury, that the evidence you give in this matter shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? i do thank you, sir, and thank you for being here. thank you for being here. mr. tsuneishi, i want to start with in 2019, were you associated with the asian american freedom pac? yes, i was. what was your role 2019? i was president, okay. and do you know the respondent, mr. paul allen taylor? do i know him? yes. uh he reached out to me through email when he found out who i was. okay so you do know him? yeah i know him. yes. okay and

so could you just repeat how you first got connected with him? i received an email regarding a campaign. uh, they know that our asian pac supports asian candidates. yes, and he wanted us to look at an asian candidate . okay. and did he mention who that candidate was at that time? he mentioned her name. ellen. liesel okay. and what how did you respond to his request? we're from southern cal. i'm not real familiar with the northern cal candidates. and races. i. i really didn't know anything about her. okay. uh, and did afpak have money to spend on a race in the bay area? uh, no, we didn't at the time. um so we weren't really interested in, in this race. okay. did you communicate that to mr. taylor? yes and i think what was communicated was that he had a

donor that would donate on behalf of the candidate. so that's why he thought it would be good for us to be involved, because we wouldn't have to come out of our pocket for it. basically okay. so he had a donor who could potentially give you money to support this candidate. yes. and just to clarify, up until that point, how involved had afpak been in san francisco or bay area races? zero zero. okay where did you operate? southern california. okay. thank you. now moving on. did you ever end up meeting the candidate, ellen lee zhao? so he asked me to fly up to meet with the donor. and at that time, i've never met miss ellen, but, uh, he agreed. i was staying in a hotel near the airport. he would bring her by for breakfast prior to my meeting with the donor. okay, when you say he

would bring her by, could you clarify? paul brought, uh, missile, uh, by my hotel lobby, uh, where i was having coffee and breakfast. okay. so you met with the candidate, ellen lee giles? uh, met her, uh, briefly. uh we had a nice little conversation. get to know each other. uh just the first time i met her, uh, seemed very nice person. um that was it. and i have to leave, and they had to leave. so okay. and where did you go after the meeting with the candidate? i went to visit the donor who lived up in downtown san francisco. okay. how did you get the address? i was given the address by mr. taylor. okay. and and did mr. taylor attend that meeting? um, no, he didn't initially, because . because it was just supposed to be me. and to get to know who the donor was. i didn't know who she was. okay. uh, mr. uh,

taylor came in when i was leaving toward the tail end. okay. and so he did come in eventually. yes, towards the tail end. okay what is the name of this donor. name of this donor is margaret lou. margaret. lou. yes. okay and was there any discussion at that meeting of what the money might be used for? so miss lou expressed that this money would be used to support, uh, miss out. and i don't even know that she had a relationship with missile. it wasn't really clear. i think our discussion was it was going to be an independent expenditure ad and that it would be run, uh, with billboards that mr. taylor had said he had already designed or created. so mr. taylor said he already designed billboards. well he said he had, um, uh,

print, uh, he showed me a, um, poster board of, of the proposed ad and it was, uh, cartoon. it was a couple cartoon ads. okay and did that ad resemble one of the ads that afpak eventually ended up? um i think i just left it up to him because i don't have any, uh, experience with that campaign up in san francisco, and we don't know who he contracted to do the artwork, but to me, it was a cute thing. it was a superhero flying over the city. so i just said, i'll leave it. we left it up to him. thank you. uh, just briefly, i want to note for commissioners that all witnesses have been sequestered in a back room and have not been present for any part of the, uh, the meeting up until this point. um did you see the candidate, ellen lee zhao, again before you left san francisco? she did text me and said she missed that in my

breakfast. she wanted to take a picture with me. so so she met me outside on the street. um um, a few blocks away because i parked and i had walked out and we just took a quick picture on the sidewalk, and then she left. okay. so she met you a few blocks outside where you met with the donor? yes okay. yes and did miss margaret liu end up making a contribution to afac? yes, she did. how much was that for? it was 10,000. okay, i would now like to move to introduce exhibit s. this is a copy of the form 460 filed by afpak. it will show that payment or that contribution. this was obtained from public filings by mr. zumwalt. just give me one second to catch up. this appears to be a. five one, two, four

page form. 460 filed by my. elena jaffer, mayor 2019 campaign. and this is pulled from the. this is exhibit s sorry i'm looking at our my mistake. thank you mr. damico. used to be a three page, four page form. 460 filed by the asian american freedom political action committee. we're in the right page. yes. thank you. and this was pulled from the sf ethics website. this was pulled from the state website. website? yeah. thank you. that'll be admitted. seeing no concerns from my colleagues. great uh, mr. wilson, could you please pull up page one of exhibit s. great at the top right,

highlighted. you can see this is a form 460 covering the period from july first, 2019 to december 31st, 2019. the top left. the name of the filer is the asian american freedom pac, highlighted at the bottom is a relevant entry, a contribution from one margaret liu for $10,000 made to the pac september 16th, 2019. mr. wilson, you can take this exhibit down. thank you, mr. tsuneishi. what did afac do with that $10,000? well, we were directed by, well, we directed our treasurer, sin ivory, to turn around and, uh, margaret liu's request was that to be used for our, uh, that billboard ad. so we directed those funds to be delivered to, to cover the cost of those ads. i don't remember if it was sent to the billboard company or, uh, uh,

our treasurer forwarded that check. okay. you said that the individuals named sin ivory. yes she's our compliance treasurer. okay. and do you remember the name of the company or individual that you paid for the billboards? no she handled it. um i wasn't aware of who handled that on on that end. i just was my agreement with miss liu was the total donation would be forwarded in completely. okay, so we didn't, uh, deduct anything. we just sent it. okay uh, i would like to move to exhibit, to move, to admit two exhibits. now, i'd like to start with exhibit t this is an email between mr. tsuneishi and sin ivory related to this expenditure. it was obtained by mr. zumwalt from mr. tsuneishi. mr. d'amico, i have a question about exhibit s before i move on, if that's okay. what is the

date of that form for 60 filing? when was it filed? form for 60. was to that listed on there. it would have been due to be filed in january of 2020, uh, because it covers the entire back half of january of 2019. i don't have the date that it was actually filed in front of me. just for clarity, is this the form for 60? that was belatedly filed? according to some of the counts here? according to what? some of the counts against mr. taylor? uh, no. this is but there is a there's a disclosure on the third page of it that that there was independent expenditure made to the ellen for mayor campaign. yes. they so the count, the counts are that mr. taylor caused this expenditure to be a contribution by coordinating it, which means it was so. yes. the third page, uh, citation of the independent expenditure is the

enforcement division's claim is that that was incorrect. and it is a contribution because it was coordinated. yes thank you for clarifying. thank you. uh, so we're now moving to admit exhibit t, which is an email between mr. tsuneishi and miss ivory. uh, again, this was obtained by mr. zumwalt from mr. tsuneishi. so mr. tsuneishi, you provided this email to the ethics staff exhibit t? uh, he can't see it, but, um, mr. d'amico, do you have a copy? you can show him. yeah it looks like, um. my email . okay. have any reason to doubt that it's your email?

eau claire channel. i see. yeah, that looks right. okay. that's admitted. thank you. thank you, mr. wilson, could you please pull up the bottom of page one of exhibit t. i'd like to draw your attention to the bottom of page one here. the highlighted portion showing an email from mr. tsuneishi to sin ivory, margaret liu and the respondent, paul allen taylor. it's titled $10,000 donation to the asian american freedom pac. highlighted portion reads. please forward a check in the amount of $10,000 directly to the name and address below, so that they may purchase billboards for el angeles campaign later. it reads please

forward our asian american freedom pac receipt directly to margaret liu, investigator wilson, if you could just show the bottom of this email here, you can see. uh, highlighted, it states check payable to clear channel outdoor's the exhibit this exhibit shows the pac using the $10,000 contributed by margaret liu to pay clear channel for billboards supporting the zhao campaign. it also shows mr. tsuneishi, including respondent paul taylor on. the email is. the email i will note came on the same day that the contribution from margaret liu to afpac came, according to the prior exhibit, moving on exhibit a, a is a contract between afpac and clear channel outdoor's obtained through investigation by mr. zumwalt. if the commission wants to follow the same approach, i can show this to mr. shi first before i just ask mr. tsuneishi a couple questions about this exhibit before we move on. sure

that's up to the chair. yeah thank you for being here. um, at the time that you received the $10,000 donation from miss liu, uh, was it your understanding that mr. taylor was, uh, working on behalf of miss zhao's campaign or working on behalf of what? miss zhao's campaign? i asked that question, and i was told he was not by whom? kim he said he was a friend. okay. and that was at the time, i think, at our breakfast meeting, i asked what relation does he have to her campaign? and i did check her website. i didn't see his name and i asked if he was connected to her campaign. and you asked him if he was connected to the campaign? yes. and he said no. he said no. okay. thank you. you said there were friends. uh, let me follow up. question. was that that was his denial. the basis for your

belief that this would constitute an independent expenditure? i'm sorry, was his denial of a relationship? uh with the campaign the basis for your classification of this donation as an independent expenditure? yes. we would not have made the, uh, contribution if we had known he was affiliated with her campaign in any manner. so no. and your testimony is that he misrepresented that he was not affiliated with the campaign. i'm sorry, what your testimony is that he made a representation to you that he was not affiliated with the campaign. he was not affiliated with her campaign? yes just another quick question. it sounds like if he provided you the donor who was going to pay for the work you're doing, why? why did he need your pac at all? did he? did you ask him that? well no. i asked miss, uh, lu that question and. uh, miss lu is a very elderly woman.

she's private, individual, and she didn't wish her name to be, um, released. uh, so she thought she would have a little bit more anonymity. donating it through the pac. she's a longtime, um. uh, democrat supporter of over the years. and, uh, she just felt uncomfortable. her name was to be leaked. okay. thank you. uh, so just to go back to my question is, would the did the commissioners want me to show, um, their there are going to be about five more exhibits during your testimony. thank you again for your patience. uh, would you like me to show them to mr. tsuneishi as i move? which one are we on? so we are on exhibit a. this is a contract between afpac and clear channel outdoors for the billboards purchased or any of those five exhibits. the

same source or the same categories, such that we could look at them at the same time, admit them at the same time. i so the next three after this one are all emails, and they were all obtained from mr. tsuneishi. okay. uh, this one is obviously not an email. it's a contract. okay, perfect. so we'll deal with this one by itself. and then you can combine the other three. yes this is aa. please show mr. nash the contract . okay sir. um, mr. damico, what do you purport that this is, uh, this is a contract between afpac and clear channel outdoor for the purchase of billboards and

mr. do you have any reason to believe that's not it, sir. do you have any any reason to believe that this exhibit a is not what mr. damico represented? that it is? uh, it looks looks accurate. i mean, i don't really . yeah, that looks fine. okay. that's admitted then exhibit a thank you. mr. wilson. please pull up the bottom. uh, please pull up page one of exhibit aa. so i'll start on page one of the contract here at the top highlighted. it's a contract for outdoor advertising. clear channel outdoor at the highlighted portions on the top right, you can see the name listed is the asian american freedom pac. and the product name is ellen zhao for mayor. on the left, highlighted in the middle, we can see the contract is for quote posters ten 7 to 11

three. please note these are the exact same dates as the contract. the campaign signed with outfront media, arranged through respondent paul taylor, shown through exhibits earlier. near that you can see a total of 16 posters listed on the contract and toward the bottom right you can see a contract total of $10,000 highlighted on the bottom of the page. you can see highlighted the name cheryl wiest. miss wire stock was an account manager at clear channel outdoors as mr. wilson could please pull up page four of the exhibit. at this point. uh, on the left side, in the middle of the page, you can see a series of four digit numbers highlighted. and these represent locations is the enforcement division will show later that many of these correspond with the same four digit numbers sent to miss wire stock by the respondent, paul taylor. we will show that through email. but what is the difference between,

uh, the contract on pages page one and the contract on page three? the this one shows the location, owns the contract. page one does not show the locations. we know which one is final because neither appear to be signed. and the total invoice amounts are different. i believe the top one is final. the first page. yes. excuse me. yes is final. is that correct? mr. shi, i'm sorry. what is it? your understanding that the first page of exhibit a is the final contract? that was executed after. and clear channel. i looks okay to me. i mean, i, i didn't see these in advance, so i'll. i'm sorry. you mean in advance of today or. no. um i never saw these items, posters,

whatever. uh, never saw them when this contract was entered. no, i understand, but but do you have any reason to think this is not the contract between. i'm sorry, what? do you have any reason to think? this is not the contract? no. it looks it looks right. but, you know, i don't recall that a lot of this, um, specifics regarding the poster size or whatever. okay. thank you. um uh, to that point, mr. tsuneishi, had you worked with clear channel before? never. uh, mr. wilson, you can take down this exhibit. thank you. uh, so who coordinated with clear channel and provided details for these billboards? uh, mr. taylor ? okay, uh, now is when i would like to move to introduce. there are three exhibits that are all, uh, emails between cheryl wire stock and account manager at clear channel. mr. taylor and mr. tsuneishi. all of these emails were obtained. uh by mr. zumwalt from a document request

by to mr. tsuneishi. so mr. tsuneishi provided all of these these are exhibits you y and cc. uh, and if it works for the chair, we could show all of the emails at once to mr. tsuneishi. yeah let me just ask, does mr. zuma's declaration an address, how he got these emails that they're from mr. shi yes, it should. and was the contract earlier also received from the witness? the contract was received from clear channel outdoor's. that was exhibits you and what were the exhibits? are you y and cc? thank you. okay.

mr. domingo, do you happen to have the declaration that mr. zumwalt provided handy? uh it's exhibit f, it's in here. okay i think if these are addressed in that declaration, we can probably just admit them on that basis . i think next time we do this,

having, um, tabs will make it a little bit quicker. for tabs, i think we can do that. okay. here we go. f sorry, i'm just reviewing the declaration to pinpoint the paragraphs that address those exhibits. um, mr. d'amico, do you happen to know which paragraphs of the declaration are going to relate to the exhibits you're about to address? paragraph nine nine relates to at least one exhibit. um specifically asking about the emails you're about to. yeah. yes. uh, paragraph nine, uh, relates. this just says he reviewed it, but it doesn't explain where it came from. so it might be helpful to get mr. sinicki to just confirm i'm sure. yeah, i agree. so let's let's show him maybe he already has the hard copies. he does? yes yes. mr. tsuneishi, can you confirm? i think you have three different exhibits in front of you. they each contain emails. can you confirm that you provided those to the ethics commission staff? i'm sorry.

could you repeat that? sure. i believe you have three hard copy exhibits in front of you. um mr. d'amico, can you just remind me the letters of those exhibits? yes u y and cc are those are the ones you have? mr. yes, i do have them. can you confirm that those three contain emails that you provided to the commission staff? yes. they look like the ones. great. we'll admit those three. great. thank you. so mr. wilson could please pull up page one of exhibit. you. at the top of page one, highlighted, we can see an email from miss wire stock to mr. taylor, the respondent, on september 18th, copying ellen zhao highlighted, she states, quote, the specs are attached so you can get started on creative just below ours. earlier, mr. taylor had emailed miss wire stock copying the candidate, ellen zhao highlighted mr. taylor wrote okay, understood. here is the list so far. junior size,

followed by a list of four digit numbers. investigator wilson could show the remainder of this email and just remind us. miss wire stock is the clear channel rep. she is the account executive at clear channel outdoor's listed on the contract. thank you. uh, mr. taylor then writes the words larger size and then provides two more four digit numbers. i these have all been exhibited so commissioners can check at any point. but i will just note that eight of the ten four digit numbers are listed in this email are also on the contract between clear channel and afpac already showed. mr. shi, do you, um, do you have any understanding why at the email on the first page from mr. taylor to miss wire stock and, uh, yourself that mr. taylor included miss zhao in the email chain. could i ask you to speak into the mic? i'm a little hard of hearing. i'm sorry. thank you for reminding me. uh,

i'm looking at the first page of exhibit you. yes. uh the second email there. the email at 8:43 a.m. from mr. taylor to miss wire stock at. and yourself and miss zhao, do you have any understanding why mr. taylor included? miss zhao on that email? why, mr. taylor would. what included miss zhao on that email? i have not i not sure and looking at this i don't recall seeing her name on it, but it is on there so okay thank you. uh, mr. wilson, could you please show the highlighted email on page three of this exhibit. this is the same exhibit exhibit you page three. there's a highlighted email. we can see an

email from miss wire stock on september 17th saying to mr. taylor, where would the funds be coming from? i have not been contacted by anyone but you. his emails show that mr. taylor coordinated with an account manager at clear channel about the content and the locations of the billboards, and in one email suggested that the represented native had not heard from anyone else except miss taylor about this purchase. mr. taylor about this purchase. uh, the next exhibit. mr. wilson, could you please show exhibit? why it'll be page one on exhibit. why. at the top of this page. at the top of this exhibit, highlighted, you can see the email from miss wire stock to mr. copying paul taylor. the highlighted portion. miss wire stock writes waiting on artwork from paul. this exhibit shows that the respondent worked with clear channel on artwork for their

billboards. finally, mr. wilson, could you please pull this down and show exhibit cc page one? here at the top you can see mr. taylor has forwarded an email to mr. tsuneishi on september 25th in the middle of the page highlighted, we can see what mr. taylor forwarded. this is an email. also on september 25th from miss wire stock to mr. taylor. the highlighted portion reads. hi paul, see attached for what is contracted all of the locations you listed below are already on the plan. this exhibit further shows mr. taylor selecting locations for the afpak billboards. thank you, mr. wilson. uh, thank you for your patience, mr. tsuneishi. i just have one more exhibit to go through with you, and then we'll wrap up. so i'd like to move on to the actual design of the advertisements. uh, i'd like to introduce exhibit d this is an

email from mr. taylor to mr. tsuneishi. and this includes attachments which include the designs of the advertisements purchased by afpak. we'll have, uh, we'll show this to mr. tsuneishi. thank you. did didi. mr. tsuneishi, do you have exhibit d? do you have exhibit d in front of you? yes, i do. does this look like. do you recognize this? yes. uh, they they look.

does this look like an email that you received from. sorry. is this an email that you received from mr. taylor? yes thank you. we'll admit that. great. uh, if mr. wilson could please show page one of exhibit d. so here, highlighted. you can see this is an email forwarded by paul taylor to mark tsuneishi on october first. subject forward billboards is the text highlighted reads sent to clear channel below. this is the initial email that was forwarded by mr. taylor. the highlighted portion shows he received earlier that day. i will now show you the attachments to the email sent by mr. taylor to mr. tsuneishi. mr. wilson could please show page two of this exhibit. so there are numerous repeats in these sets of triptychs of advertisements paid for by the asian american freedom pac will focus on just a few sets of three. first, i want

to note all advertisements throughout the attachment read paid for by the asian american freedom political action committee. now, in the first set on the left side, an ad that includes a reference to mayor zhao and a werewolves of london tour bus, this is substantially similar to the werewolves ad shown earlier, posted to the zhao campaign. twitter, with the disclaimer that it was paid for by the campaign. when you say substantially similar, do you mean identical? except for that disclaimer, are there? yes. yes uh, some of the some of them also, as you can see as we scroll down, some ads have language in english in all different languages. the ads have sometimes that is what is different is the language. uh, next to that is an ad showing super mayor ellen lee zhao and encouraging people to vote for her. this is substantially similar to the super mayor ad shown earlier, which was sent by mr. taylor to the ethics commission in august with a disclaimer saying it was paid for by the campaign. next to that, an ad depicting a curvy street in reading coming soon, coming to a street near you.

this is substantially similar to the lombard ad shown earlier, posted to the zhao campaign. twitter, with a disclaimer that it was paid for by the campaign. uh, investigator wilson, please move down to the sixth and seventh sets. the disclaimers on those will be highlighted. thank you. in the sixth on the right, you will see an ad including including the phrase mayor zhao to the rescue and the same image as the ad released by the campaign police. this is substantially similar to that police ad shown earlier, with a disclaimer that i had been paid for by the campaign in the next set on the left, you will see an ad showing a needle on the beach with the statement mayor zhao will stop the needle giveaway again. this is substantially similar to the needles ad shown earlier, except the disclaimer is different. these five ads super mayor, werewolves, needles, police, and lombard are the only five in this attachment arranged in different combinations of three with text in different languages. all five are substantially similar to ads shown earlier released by the

campaign. this exhibit shows one that mr. taylor sent designs to clear channel for these billboards, and then forwarded them to mr. tsuneishi to give him a heads up. and two, that the designs that he sent replicate five ads previously produced for and distributed by the zhao campaign. i have a question on that point. mr. tsuneishi, i think you said earlier that you did not get involved in the design of the posters. were you aware or when you got these posters in the email, did you know from where mr. taylor got them? for example , whether they were copied from something else? i thought, uh, it was represented as original artwork for the this campaign. i did not know they were used original by mr. taylor. i'm sorry. what you thought mr. taylor created them? no mr. taylor said he had someone who did the artwork. and i thought this was original artwork. he showed me a poster board that was going to be used for this. when you said it was original for this campaign, which

campaign are you referring to? when you you said he represented it was original artwork for this campaign? yes. which campaign are you referring to? well, the one that margaret liu's donation was called toward. okay, so you're advertising an advertising campaign? yes. so we , uh, were under the impression that the funds from margaret liu would be used specifically for the print ads that were shown us. and i was we were told that was original artwork for the campaign. so i think just the question that we're getting at is when you say original, you thought they were designed for your independent expenditure campaign, not for the candidate's own campaign. that's correct. and that you thought that because that's what mr. taylor told you. from where did you get that belief off? i think he told me, and i didn't even know that was used prior. i didn't know there was artwork prior. okay. thank you. so,

commissioner sly, i do have an additional question about slightly different issue, if that. if that's okay. um, earlier you were earlier you were talking about your introductory breakfast with miss zhao and mr. taylor. yes did the subject of miss liu's prospective donation come up at that breakfast? no uh, it was just. i have never met, uh, miss chow, and it was more or less. you know what is she from? you know, what does she do? it was mostly a informal get to know each other. it was a very long. it was a brief meeting. did the subject of how afpak might support her campaign come up during that breakfast? i think she knew, but i never went into specifics because i had not met miss liu. i was not aware if there was going to be a donation. uh, i wasn't going to assure her that we could help in any way, because was at that point i was unsure. we were. we hadn't met with the donor and i

didn't know what miss liu's intention was. and a lot of it would have to do with the donation if it wasn't going to be a significant donation. uh, we wouldn't really need to be involved. did the subject of what afpak ability to support miss zhao's campaign come up at that breakfast? uh, no, i don't we didn't speak in specifics. like i said, the meeting was. i didn't know her. she didn't know me. uh, basically. background. where are you from? you know what? what's your experience? why are you doing this? uh, i was more curious because i wanted to find out. i didn't know anything about her. i wanted to find out her background. so. i didn't go into specifics. did billboard advertising come up in that meeting at all? no i did not. i didn't even know about the billboards, to be honest. yet.

okay, i just have a final few questions. sure um, so were you aware that an independent expenditure for cannot be coordinated with a campaign? yes, i'm aware of that role. and did you intend to comply with. i intended fully to comply with it. and i told my, um, treasurer who said handles other packs and other political candidates to make sure we were in compliance with that. and did you have any knowledge that the campaign had paid for identical advertisements prior to this point? i'm sorry. repeat they already asked, but do you have any did you have any knowledge that the campaign had put out identical ads prior to. i was not aware of any identical ads. okay uh, do you think you would have gotten involved in this campaign without mr. taylor's outreach. well, certainly without mr. taylor's outreach, we probably wouldn't have been involved. and because of the donor, who he knew. and that was a reason that we flew up or i

flew up. okay nothing further from us. i have a few more questions, actually. um, other than the breakfast meeting with miss zhao, did you ever meet her? another time? yeah. like i said, i had a brief, uh, she said she didn't take a picture. she wanted to take a picture, so i said, i'm was flying out after the, uh, meeting with miss liu. so she wants to meet me. she can take a quick picture, which she did. did the subject of miss liu's donation come up at that meeting? no no, it it did not. and it was just a really brief. she she came up to me on the street, uh, we took a picture and then we left. i didn't discuss the ad with her. okay. and other than those two meetings that you described, are there any other communications between you and miss zhao? i have not met miss zhao since that at, uh, street. uh, meeting . um i'm unaware of. there might

have been another email or so, but as far as i was concerned, i was dealing mostly with mr. taylor and did that email have to do with miss liu's donation or the billboard advertisements? i'm sorry. did that did that email you mentioned with miss zhao have anything to do with the billboard advertisements? did my. i'm sorry repeat the question. you mentioned that there might have been another email between you and miss zhao. after those two meetings, you had, you know, when this was all going on, there was a swirl of things going on. and so. so, um, we were not. i'm uh, communicating with miss sal with regards to the billboards. um however, i might have cc'd her accidentally, but i don't really think i need her. it was just, you know, when you hit email, the names pop up, and i don't

really believe it. was about the billboards. i forgot what it was . was it about miss liu's donation then? it might have been, but i don't really think i would have put the amount in, uh, an email. uh and if it was an inadvertent thing, and certainly we had not discussed it with, uh, miss sal, i made, uh, uh, i was real careful not to discuss, uh, miss liu's donation with miss zhao. yes and what what steps, if any, did you take to confirm that mr. taylor was not working on miss zhao's behalf? well. i checked miss cells website. usually they would list people, or i would see photos on it. i didn't see photos of mr. taylor. i didn't see his name as being any on a campaign staff. and when i asked mr. taylor, he said he was a

friend. so so is that all? are those all the steps that you took to confirm that? mr. taylor was not working on behalf of miss zhao? i'm sorry. are those all the steps that you took to confirm that mr. taylor was not working on behalf of miss zhao? yeah when he said i asked him specifically and he said no. so and i didn't see her name. his name showing up anywhere on her materials. so okay. thank you. um, any questions from. i have just one question. um, when was the last time you spoke with mr. taylor? he said hi, mark. as i walked by this morning, but i have not had communications with him. uh, i know. under uh, our attorney, uh, told him this meta . and, of course, we stay away. uh, so we've not had communications with him. since

these communications. about the poster. i'm sorry. what you mean since the communications about the poster that we've been discussing since the subpoena? uh, i know, uh, he texted or reached out, i forgot, but i sent him. it's inappropriate, and i didn't, uh, respond. so we've not had communications. our attorney. i'm sorry. what? earlier you said that you said our attorney, um, advised against communicating. i think i heard you say our. and i'm just wondering my, uh, asian pac, could we have a board member who's an attorney? any other questions from our colleagues? mr. d'amico, are you you're through with your examination of this witness? i am, and i'm. once you are all done, i would just request est if possible. we do not plan on recalling him. and he did travel for this and does have a flight. this afternoon. so if we could

dismiss him. um, if you feel that's appropriate, that would be appreciated. yeah, certainly. and mr. nash has one, too. thank you for being here. i gather you're not a local. i know it's a big burden to be here, but it's invaluable for our work. so thank you so much for taking the time and joining us, i appreciate it. thank you very much. thank you. okay moving on. uh i want to note that the through mr. sanchez's testimony and the exhibits, uh, the enforcement division showed that mr. taylor, the respondent, reached out directly to the president of afpac to connect him or to tell him about a campaign. he connected him with both the candidate and a donor. he facilitated a $10,000 donation, specifically for the purpose of supporting the zhao campaign. and then he coordinated with, uh, clear channel outdoor's on numerous details, including location and content of those advertisements paid for by the expenditure for, uh, we will tie these facts to the legal framework during our

closing statement. but the last part of this case, we would like to focus on, uh, mr. taylor's withhold of information and obstruction of the investigation . and for that, uh, i would like to call jeffrey zumwalt, who's the acting enforcement director for the ethics commission and was the senior investigator on this case throughout it. mr. damico, before we move on, would you prefer if we to the extent that we have questions about how the facts tie to the legal framework, we wait until your closing statement. yes. okay. thank you. thank you. great. uh, yeah. go ahead and please call mr. zumwalt. okay great. someone just went to get him.

thank you. i thought i was supposed to be here for that, but. okay. that's fine. yeah, yeah, yeah, no, that's totally fine. i just want to make sure i didn't miss anything that i was supposed to be here for. okay. thank you with that one. because i just want to get it in. um, could you please state your name for the record? jeffrey zumwalt, last name spelled zs and zebra. um walt. okay. and could you please state your current job? i'm a senior investigative analyst with the san francisco ethics commission, currently serving as the acting director of enforcement. sorry. i'm going to swear you in before we get into the testimony. thank you. mr. zumwalt. would you raise your right hand, please? do you solemnly swear? sorry. do you solemnly state or affirm under penalty of perjury, that the evidence you give in this matter shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth ? i do thank you. and then just please start over with that question that i missed. uh, could you please state your current job, um, senior investigative analyst with the

san francisco ethics commission, but serving serving currently as the acting director of enforcement. and just before we go any further, um, could you please take a look at exhibit f? do you remember putting together a declaration? uh, yes, i do. okay and does that exhibit look familiar to you? yes it does. okay could you briefly summarize it? uh, this is a declaration of, uh, swearing under the penalty of perjury. the investigative steps that i took in this case, various items that i collected as evidence, uh, processes served, um, and just verifying some of my actions. okay. uh, commissioners, we don't intend to show this and talk about it in detail, but given it was brought up earlier and we have mr. zumwalt here, i just wanted to take the opportunity to admit it, admit the declaration itself. moved to exhibit f, the declaration? yeah, that's that's fine, admitted. great. okay. moving on. uh, how long were you. how long have you been in the role

of senior investigator? i've been in this role since february of 2019. okay and what was your role prior to that? uh, investigator later. um, when i started in july of 2017. okay. started with the ethics commission, correct? yes. and what was your role in the, uh, this case? i was the investigator assigned to the initial, uh, investigate of it and have worked the case, um, from when we initially started it through today. okay. and as part of this, did you reach out to the respondent, paul allen taylor, at any point? yes, i did okay. and when did you first reach out to him? i first reached out to him on september the 16th of 2020. okay how did you reach out? uh, a phone call. did he answer? yes, he did. okay. and what did you say to him? um i informed him who i was . i said we had an investigation that we were conducting, that i needed to send him a request for some information. a pertinent to the investigation, and asked him to confirm an email address that i could send it to. okay. and did he confirm that? yes, he

did. okay. and did you follow up with the document request? yes i did, i sent it later that day. okay did he respond to at any point? uh, no, he did not. okay. did you follow up? yes, i did on october 7th and october 28th of 2020, i received added to the email that i had sent with the document request, um, just following up on it and asking when we might expect a response. okay. and did you get one, mr. d'amico? sorry, a quick question. the document request itself that's not in the exhibit , is it? is it among the exhibits? no, it's not. i'm just curious. is that oh, the gps, maybe. oh, sorry. i seen it earlier because my question is whether the exhibit itself says compliance is what voluntary mandatory. that document request was voluntary. okay is it exhibit g? no no. the document request is not in there. all right. thank you. it's not exhibit a to, uh. there's an

administrative subpoena in exhibit g g. i'm not sure if that. is that not the same document? it's not. this was, uh, more of an this was not a formal subpoena for a document request. i think it's like an informal request with a list exhibit g are all documents that the respondent sent to the commission? uh, that i understand because there's his handwriting on it, but just looking at. sorry, i didn't mean to do anything, but just looking at pages. one that is a copy of the subpoena that we sent to him that he sent back with his writing. but this was an informal document request at the beginning of the investigation before he was a respondent, and he was just. yeah, that was my question. okay uh, did, uh, when you followed up in october of 2020, did he respond? no, he did not. uh, when he didn't respond at all, did you take additional steps to get the relevant documents? uh yes we did. what steps did you take? um, we then issued a ministrative subpoena

for documents, um, in december of 2020. okay and did mr. taylor ever produce responsive records? uh, no. we did not. okay. did you attempt to enforce that subpoena? uh, yes. we conferred with the city attorney's office about, um, potential enforcement of it. okay and did that yield any results? uh no, it did not. okay. when did you next reach out to the respondent? wait. sorry. i have a question before you got there. how did. i don't want to know about your communications with city attorney, but how did you try to enforce the subpoena against mr. taylor? uh, we just discussed options with the city attorney's . i, i know that there was an issue with it was personal service or not being in covid. we sent the subpoena via mail. um, because we weren't hearing anything back. so then there was a question of personal service. could we verify service to enforce that sort of thing? so i'm just asking, like what staff actually did. it sounds like you

emailed the initially the subpoena to the address that he provided you. is that right? we mailed it to the address that we had. that was was the business address where the payments on a for 60, where the payments were, were the address listed for those payments. that's where we mailed it to at that point to try to do, uh, mail service. yes. but had the initial step in to email it to the email address that he provided you, i don't know, we did not do an email because we did not. we knew we well, we had not received confirmation that he would accept electronic service. so we were trying mail service, as you said. is it your understanding that mail service is valid service for an administrative subpoena? um, i know personal service is preferred. um, we did not. we honestly didn't know if the mail service was going to suffice for the service. and that's what kind of led into whether or not this was anything we could even enforce at that point. and when you said earlier that the enforce efforts did not yield any results, did you mean

that no steps were taken to enforce the subpoena or that no documents were procured through? sure uh, kind of both. we had asked. that's when we found out. okay doesn't look like this is anything we could enforce. and then simultaneously. yeah, we did not receive anything further at that point. but but no other action was taken to enforce the subpoena. uh, no, not at that point. we just started taking other investigative routes. okay. thank you. when was the next time you reached out to mr. taylor? um, august, i believe the 12th of 2022. okay. and could you discuss what you did in the interim and why you didn't reach out again? sure. so in the interim, we were, um, working other investigate avenues. we were speaking with other individuals that were involved in the case that we had to identify as potential witnesses, uh, serving additional subpoenas, additional document requests, trying to gather evidence from other

sources because it just appeared at that point, we were not going to receive any any documents from mr. taylor. okay. when you did reach out again, when did you reach out? leave august the 12th of 2022. and how did you reach out? that was via email. okay did you receive a response? uh, no, i did not. okay. what did you say in that email? um basically reminded mr. taylor that the investigation was still ongoing. uh, referenced the subpoena that we had mailed in to thousand december 20th, 20. um and then asked if we would when we could expect, uh, responsive documents to that. okay. did you call at any point? i did on september 29th of 2022. i did call mr. taylor. okay. and did he answer? uh, the phone call was answered and immediately hung up upon. and then i believe i called back again and left a voicemail after that. okay. uh at that point in september, late september 2022, what steps were being taken to move the investigation in the

case forward? so at that point, we believed we had enough evidence for probable cause. so we were moving forward with drafting a probable cause report to serve. in that case. okay. and before probable cause was served, had you managed to get any response or contact since that first call? uh, no, i did not. okay. and did investigators serve a probable cause report on the respondent? yes, we did. and did anything accompany that probable cause report? um, a subpoena for administrative records from the ethics commission. okay. could you tell me why you issued that second subpoena? um, for the second subpoena, we were still attempting to gather responsive documents relevant to the case. so we knew we were going to serve the probable cause report. so we were then going to try to serve the subpoena in person to ensure that we had personal service of it. okay. and could you describe how and when service was affected on both the subpoena and the probable cause report? uh, sure. on october 25th, 2022, we went to, uh, mr.

taylor's home in hayward, california. uh, myself and another investigator waited for him outside. we observed him leave. um, we were going to see if we could serve him in public, but we were unable to, so we waited until he came back home. and when he came back home, i served him with the subpoena and the driveway. okay. did you identify? did you have him identify himself? uh, yes. i walked up to him. i said, you know. hi, paul taylor, to which he said yes. and then i identified myself as jeffrey zumwalt from the san francisco ethics commission and said, i have a subpoena for records, um, as well as a probable cause report. okay that the subpoena reflected in exhibit g. yes dated october 20th, 2022. yes. okay uh, and where did you what did you do with the documents? uh, i went to hand the subpoena to mr. taylor. he did not take it, but as i was handing it to him, i saw it touch his body and

kind of crumble up, indicating that he'd been touched by it. and then i asked him, okay, where's where would you like for me to leave these documents? he initially told me to leave them in my desk, and then i said, can i leave them on your car? and then he began to say, okay, he's not going to speak with anyone without his attorney present. um, and then went and basically locked himself in his garage there in his driveway. so i left the documents, um, immediately outside the gate. to his fence. okay. and did you send them in any other way? yes. so the next day i emailed the same documents to the email addresses i had for him, as well as, uh, mailed them through us mail. and you mailed them to the address where you found him? yes. we did. okay uh, did the respondent ever produce responsive documents to the subpoena or the probable cause report? uh, not to my knowledge, no. okay did the respondent ever send anything to the commission? uh, yes. he has. okay. uh, what did he send? uh, he sent sent in, i believe, end of november,

early december 2022. began sending a number of letters to the ethics commission. okay. and did you read all of these letters? yes, i have okay. could you just briefly say what they contained? uh, sure. the first was a conditional acceptance. um, it listed a number of assertions that the ethics commission needed to provide to mr. taylor in order to contract or or move forward with this process. with him, we receive reminders of that. and then later, as we continue to investigate or the enforcement process, we started receiving notice notices of violation often, um, from not responding to the prior conditional acceptance. and along with that, fines that were increasing. in value with each notice that we received. okay. uh, to your knowledge, did respondent ever, uh, submit a response to the probable cause report? uh, no, he did not. okay. uh, did anything in his letters at least to the best of your recollection, address the substance of the case? no it did

not. okay, uh, did any of them address a process contained in the commission's enforcement regulations? uh, not to my knowledge, no. okay. based on your experience, what did you think the point of the letters was? um, it was my interpreting on the point of these letters was for us to stop our administrative enforcement action. okay, uh, i'm going to move to introduce exhibit gps. this is a copy of the letter sent over the course of almost a year by mr. taylor to the ethics commission and commission staff. um just happy to have mr. zumwalt a take a look at them briefly and confirm that. yeah. oh, wait, let me take the back off. thanks. mr. zumwalt, is this a copy of the subpoena you served on mr. taylor in on

october 22nd? uh, yes, it is with the address redacted. yes. and this is what we received back, i believe end of november, early december. but this is the same subpoena that i served. so the handwriting that's on there was on the version of the subpoena that you received back. it was on the version we received, not not on the version i served. thank you. uh, admitted the exhibit, gps. admitted did you say yes? okay. thank you. uh, mr. wilson, could you please pull up page one of the exhibit. uh, i know you were just asked about this, but you recognize this page, mr. zumwalt? yes, i do, can you just briefly again describe? sure. the interpretation of it. the first page of the administrative subpoena that i served on october 25th, 2022, um, that we received served, uh, back again. either late november or early

december 2022. uh mailed to the office of the ethics commission with writing on the front of it. okay. uh, mr. wilson, could you please pull up the next highlighted portion on page 28 of the exhibit. this is eamon wilson. um, is this the correct page? zach should be, yes, but should be. could you scroll down to see if there's a highlighted portion? could you continue scrolling just to see if there's a highlight? there should be a highlighted portion. uh, while we're down on the exhibit. if not, there just may have been an , uh, technical error, but we can you can just go up, copy

this version. yeah um, so do you recognize this part of the document? can you go to the top? of that page? yep yes i do. okay is this one of the letters that mr. taylor sent? yes this is one of the notices of violation that we received. okay. do you recall what mr. taylor, uh, asked for in some of these notices of violation? um, it was he asked for a number of, uh, assertations as to our jurisdiction over different enforcement matters. um, and then there was also a number of lists of violations that the ethics commission is alleged to have, uh, violated. okay i am there's about 50 to 60 pages of these letters. i won't go through all of them. we have them submitted. some of them were also sent to the commissioners. so you may have

them or have already reviewed them. um, so i won't go into detail further, but, uh, they're all part of exhibit g. they are all part of exhibit gg. yes i have some questions. yes, yes, of course. uh, just you said it was personally served on october 25th, 2022. that's correct. and do you have an understanding of what the response its deadline to respond was? um, so our response deadline for documents is 25 days. okay and, uh, the objection deadline is 20 days. the deadline for respondent to object to an administrative subpoena is i'm not. i'm not certain of the objection. deadline did any of mr. taylor's correspondence regarding the administrative subpoena, um, arrive prior. to 25 days after october 25th, which i'm trying to figure out for you right now? uh, commissioner, i would just. the deputy city attorney, um, noted that it's five days for an objection. yeah, i'm looking at your regulation. so it's, um,

under section five investigation on page six. it says any person or entity served with a subpoena or subpoena duces tecum may object by filing written objections with the executive director at least five calendar days before the time required for attendance or production of the of the requested documents. thank you. and in this instance, the time required for compliance was 25 days after october 25th, 2022. yes. um, i just need a moment to figure out that. well, do we know the date of the response that you received? um, not off the top of my head, but i believe i'd have it in my notes somewhere that i could. november 16th. november 16th. sorry. and that was the earliest response from the respondent. if it was november 16th, then yes,

that was november 16th. the date of the response or the 25 days that you just calculated the date of the response. it's in the document at the top. okay. but that's not necessarily i think i was trying to calculate this was the first response that he sent. this is the first. isn't that exactly? feel free to do the calculations. otherwise i'm just stating the first document we got from mr. taylor. so i have, um, 25 days from october 25th would be november 19th. yeah so we said. although i'm not 100% sure, i think we have to look into that. but november 19th is a saturday, so i don't know if that kicks things for any reason, but your response date was november 16th. that was the earliest response from mr. taylor. that sounds correct. yes, sir. thank you. i, uh, did investigators ever offer to settle? yes we did. okay. did

mr. taylor express an interest in settling? uh, to my knowledge , no, he did not. okay, uh, around how many investigations have you been a part of with the ethics commission? um, i'd say roughly between 225 and 250. maybe and do you regularly send document requests? uh, yes, we do. and do you regularly interview witnesses? yes, i do. and have you issued subpoenas before? yes, i have okay. uh, how does the witnesses lack of compliance compare with the rest of your cases? um, i mean, of course, we have people that don't comply that we that don't want to speak with us, that we have to try to, um, get compliance through other means. but i've i've never received responses like this in my career here. okay. i have no further questions. did you take steps to enforce the subpoena after receiving mr. taylor's correspondence on november 16th? yes, we did that as well. what were those steps? uh, again, we conferred with the city attorney's office and requested that they enforce the subpoena. would that be a petition to the superior court? um, i believe

that's what they would do, but they would have to take that up on our behalf. so we reached out to them and asked them to enforce this. was that step taken to your knowledge? i believe there were initial steps and we just, um, we don't want to know what you discussed with your attorney. i think the question is whether factually, did staff move to either compel the subpoena in superior court or otherwise, uh, ask the superior court to get involved. and i didn't mean to cut in for you. mr. that's correct. yeah. we don't want the privilege. no, we again, we'd have to ask the city attorney's office if they could move it forward. and to my knowledge, it was not okay. i can speak to this if you'd like, either now or at the end, as you like. okay. um, so initially, the city attorney's office suggested that they attempt to meet and confer, which they said was typically the first step before they would go to enforce it. and they were unable to get in touch with mr. taylor and at

that point told us that, uh, there was nothing it couldn't go any further. so no action was filed in the superior. correct. no action was filed in superior court. thank you. all right. please proceed. sorry i think you said that. was it from mr. zumwalt? yeah, i have no more questions for the witness colleagues or commissioners. any questions for mr. zumwalt? seeing? none. thank you. you didn't have as far to travel as the other witness. but thank you . i have nothing further except my closing statement. i think that makes sense. i'll just remind my not remind. i was going to read just some of the rules that govern our process here. um, and i think we can discuss again the mechanics of how we go forward, what we can do that after the closing arguments. um, but i just wanted to read out the standard of proof and this is from rule nine. a in the enforcement regulations. i believe the

commission may determine that a respondent has committed a violation of law only if a person of ordinary caution and prudence would conclude based on a preponderance of the evidence that the respondent has committed or caused the violation. so preponderance is our standard. um so unless my colleagues have anything else they want to talk about, we can ask mr. damico to start with us. closing statement argument. please go ahead. uh excuse me, mr. clerk. i think it's 15 minutes again. is the cap again? that doesn't mean you have to go that far. but but that's your that's your, uh, your roof. not the basement. thank you for your patience. i know, uh, can be fairly painstaking to go through slowly the recounting of the facts and the law. but i appreciate it. i want to take this opportunity to demonstrate how the evidence fits into the legal framework. um, again, with the time limit, i would ask any

questions, save for the end. uh, first, first, i believe the enforcement division has demonstrated that mr. taylor worked with the zhao campaign producing advertisements, coordinating with a vendor to place billboards, submitting at least one ad to the ethics commission. next, we've shown that mr. taylor coordinated between the candidate a potential donor, and afpac to arrange for a $10,000 contribution to afpac for the purpose of supporting the zhao campaign. third, we demonstrated that mr. taylor worked with clear channel to supply designs and locations for these ads. identical to ones produced for the campaign. in doing so, we've shown in several ways that mr. taylor coordinated attacks expenditure under law, turning it into to a contribution. so first, if it's helpful, i do have exhibit h, which is just a copy of the coordination law, since it is sort of a complicated law, and i thought it might be helpful to have it projected for everyone. yeah, great. mr. wilson, could you please pull up exhibit h? this is just a copy pulled from the public website of section 1.115

of the campaign. and governmental conduct code. so i will start at the highlighted portion at the top and the law states that an expenditure this is subsection a general. the law states that an expenditure is not considered independent and shall be treated as a contribution if the expenditure funds a communication that expressly advocates the nomination election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate and is made under one of any three different circumstance below. so in this case, the evidence has shown that afpac expenditure funded a communication that was advertisements on billboards, and that communication clearly identified and supported the election of ellen lee zhao for mayor. before moving on to that specific subset of circumstances . just briefly, investigator wilson, if you could show the bottom highlighted portion on. all the way down subsection d or

. yeah. uh, so for the purposes of this section, the terme candidate includes an agent of the candidate. so every time this section says the word candidate, it includes an agent of the candidate. this is relevant because in this case, by producing advertisements, coordinating details of the campaign's spending with a vendor and sending advertisements to the ethics commission, putting himself out to numerous parties as an agent of the campaign, such as outfront media and consulting for the campaign, the respondent was acting as an agent of the candidate. investigator wilson, please move back to the top of subsection 1.115. so now i want to walk through the requirement that an expenditure be made under any one of three circumstances to be considered actual coordination under the law. the evidence has shown that the expenditure in this case was made under at least two. separate of these circumstance sources. so first, the highlighted portion in a one where an expenditure is considered coordinated if it is

made at the request, suggestion or direction of or in cooperation in consultation, concert or coordination with the candidate, including the candidate's agent. by definition , the evidence has shown that mr. taylor first reached out to the president of afpac. he connected him with the candidate and a donor. he brought a copy of an ad to a meeting with the president and the donor, and he arranged details with the vendor . in doing so, as an agent of the campaign, mr. taylor suggested the expenditure and proceeded to consult, coordinate and cooperate in its execution. this means that criteria and alone established that the expenditure was coordinated and should have been treated by law as a contribution, but the expenditure was made under an additional circumstance or circumstance described in subsection a two. a the communication was created, produced or disseminated after the candidate again through her agent, made or participated in making any decision regarding the content or location of the communication. we've shown that we've shown through evidence

that mr. taylor selected billboard locations for afpac expenditure and supplied art to the vendor. clear channel. in doing so, he made decisions regarding the location and content of the communication. this provides separate and independent legal justification for a determination that it was coordinated under any one of these circumstances. the expenditure the expenditure should have been treated as a contribution. investigator wilson, if you could, maybe we can already see subsection b. i'm going to discuss that next. so we believe the evidence shown is enough to conclude that the respondent coordinated attacks $10,000 expenditure. um, just in case, we would like to briefly describe additional legal provisions that would allow the commission to find that coordination occurred. yes. i'm sorry. i'm going to ask a question, mr. clark, is a way to pause the clock. so that we can ask questions during the presentation. i think that'll be more efficient. mr. damico, is that okay with you for a one? we're talking about not rebuttable presumptions. basically irrebuttable presumptions. correct so i think for a one, the, um, expenditure

made at the request suggestion. so on the evidence for that is what that miss zhao is copied on the email. this is that mr. taylor coordinated. right. but what's the evidence that was coordinated with the candidate? because agent is that. yeah, he's an agent. you know, he's an agent and he coordinated with the pac. right. but i'm looking at. a one so you can help me. maybe i'm misunderstanding it. the circumstance that describes this when the expenditure is made at the request, suggestion, so on with the candidate, right? yes and in this case, it was the candidate's agent. because the candidate's agent is included in the definition of candidate for this subsection alone. got it. and then to establish his agency is that you're going to get to that later. i can discuss it now if you'd like or if we're still on pause. uh, we are paused, but

i don't want to derail you. but at some point, you'll address the agency. i think i should just address it now. it's um. so so. yes. so, um, my notes are up there, but so the, uh, there's the california los establishes could you grab me the notes right under the mic? yeah thank you. so california law. that's fine. establishes uh, something called ostensible agency. this exists when a principal fails to exercise ordinary care in clarifying that a person does not have the authority to act on the principles behalf. um, i would first point out a couple of things. first of all, uh, there's a case called common sense voters. uh, in that case, the respondent worked as a campaign consultant and this commission deemed that that was sufficient to call that individual an agent of the campaign. later in my closing statement, i discuss how mr. taylor qualified as a campaign campaign consultant. uh, because . because selecting vendors and arranging for your campaign

advertisement and literature qualifies as campaign strategy and leadership. and if you're paid over $1,000 for that, you're a consultant. i will get to that. but by qualifying as a consultant, this commission deemed that was enough to cause someone an agent separately in the case. lloyd johnson for west covina city council, uh, john shoemaker was deemed by an administrative law judge to have acted as an agent for the candidate, lloyd johnson. uh, what mr. shoemaker did was he arranged for a transaction between the campaign and a vendor for campaign materials, and then when working with a similar vendor for he was considered an agent on working on similar campaign materials. those were fliers and leaflets and brochures. but when working on similar, similar materials, his agency carried over again. in this case, he arranged the transaction for similar or identical billboards with outfront media, and he picked locations with outfront media that made him an agent. and then in the course of that agency,

while working on similar or identical advertisements with a vendor, he this is with now his agency carried over and he was operating in the course of his agency. further, the fact that he copied miss zhao on multiple emails shows not only that he was an agent, but that his work with afac was, in the course of his agency meeting with miss zhao before the meeting with the donor again shows that he was acting in the course of his agency, put up on the screen. thank you. i was going to say the same thing. uh, just so that i can refer to exhibit h.h. yes mr. wilson, could you put that back up, please? i just like to, um, consider an interpretation of the rule. and i'm wondering your thoughts. um once i read it. yeah yeah. mr. wilson could you please put up exhibit h.h.

can also provide, i believe it should be in your physical packet. excuse me. oh that's true. it's the last page. yeah, it's just a single page. okay uh, okay. um, so this, uh, i'm reading a one. the expenditure is made at the request out, etc. the candidate on whose behalf or for whose benefit the expenditure is made. if we are considering, if we're reading candidate as agent are we then considering paul taylor's benefit from the expenditure made, what would you say to how would you respond to that interpretation? because i understand the connection you're trying to make of, you know, if we read this as he was the agent and then in, um, i read it as the, the candidate's benefit. so it's his it's not just him personally, but him as an agent out in his agency. he's

representing the candidate. so i would read the benefit as to the candidate through, uh, her agent. okay. i have another question. um, can a friend be an agent in those cases that you saw, where any of those people considered friends? no. the court didn't discuss that personal relationship had a bearing on it or the commission or the administrative law judge. excuse me. and all of 115 a relies on agency, right. all of your arguments as to those as to those. yes. as to the irrebuttable presumptions. yes. for example, you're not asserting that the expenditure itself was made with the candidate's actual coordination, participation, etc. well in so in this case. this entire case is against paul taylor for causing the violation ins. and at this point, we can't necessarily speak to potential ongoing investigations into it,

but that would have to be an enforcement matter against the candidate or her. and this is just against paul taylor. so yes, it does. those two that i presented so far do rest on agency right. thank you for letting me cut in there. of course, unless we have other questions on that section, we can proceed with your presentation. great. um, i'll resume one second. oh, sorry. just a quick i think, uh, to clarify on the causation standard, that's what you're citing. san francisco charter c 3.699. yes um, and that. yes, that should be in the hearing brief. yes. and that includes, uh, who causes any other person to violate any such provision or who aids and abets any other person in such. yes. yeah okay. are we all set to start the clock? go ahead. yeah. thank you. okay. um, that was a good timing. i hopefully you have exhibit in front of you. i'm going to look now to the rebuttable presumption. so for cases where there may not be enough evidence to show actual

coordination, the law includes a set of circumstances that trigger a rebuttable presumption of coordination. even if an expenditure is made under any of these circumstances, there is a legal presumption of coordination and the burden shifts to the respondent to show that there was no coordination or that he did not cause it. in this case, highlighted is subsection b, which provides five different circumstances that trigger a rebuttable presumption of coordination. we believe the evidence has shown that the expenditure in this case was made under multiple, uh, at least two two. we're going to focus on two. first highlighted is b two. i think this will be fairly obvious given our previous discussion. but this states that an expenditure made by or through any agent of the candidate in the course of the agent's involvement in the current campaign. and again, i'll just reiterate what i went over before. but the evidence has shown that mr. taylor was involved in the ads purchased by afpac from start to finish and made the expenditure was made by or through him when he called mr. sweeney, she arranged a donor supplied designs coordinated with the vendor.

they also showed that he did this during the same time period that he coordinated similar advertisements on behalf of the zhao campaign with outfront media. the dates for the advertising were the exact same, and the advertisements themselves carried similar. the billboards themselves carried similar ads, and that when communicating with clear channel and afpac, he copied the candidate's email address on several emails. this shows that again, not just mr. was mr. taylor an agent of the campaign, but the expenditure by afpac was made in the course of his involvement with ellen lee zhao's campaign and in doing so triggered a rebuttable presumption. second, and separately, i draw your attention to subsection b4. if an expenditure funds a communication that replicates or reproduces republishes or disseminates in whole or in substantial part, a communication designed, produced, paid for or distributed by the candidate. there is a rebuttable presumption that the expenditure was coordinated. the evidence has shown that all five

advertisements paid for by afpac were substantially similar, in whole and in part to advertisements paid for by the campaign. this includes one advertisement sent to the ethics commission by the respondent, mr. taylor. mr. tsuneishi also testified that he was not aware of these advertisements, and that mr. taylor came up with the idea for the billboards. i will note, especially given the questions that this rebuttable presumption does not require paul taylor to have been an agent of the candidate. either of these criteria would be enough on their own to trigger that rebuttable presumption. as i led with, we also believe the evidence meets the standard of two separate definitions of actual coordination. in, uh, the commission need only agree that any of these circumstances were present to find either that a rebuttable presumption or a non rebuttable presumption of coordination exists, and that the expenditure should have been treated as a contribution. we can take down now, uh, moving on, by coordinating this expenditure, mr. taylor turned

it into a $10,000 contribution under the law, san francisco and california law requires certain things of contributions. as san francisco law limits contributions to $500. because this was a $10,000 contribution, both afpac and the campaign violated this limitation. second, city and state law require reporting of contributions on semiannual statements. again neither afact nor the campaign reported this $10,000 as a contribution on their semiannual statements, violating the law. third city and state law require reporting of large contributions made within 90 days of the election. again, neither afact nor the campaign reported this $10,000 contribution as a late contribution because mr. taylor's coordination created all of these legal obligations for afpac and the campaign he caused the violations and that is why he is the respondent in this case. these violations make up counts one through six in the enforcement division's hearing. brief we've also established

that mr. taylor's work for the campaign qualified him as a consultant who is required to register with the ethics commission. so, sorry. before you move, you're moving on to the next counts. is that right? uh, yeah. can we ask some questions about these counts? sure. pause the clock, maybe. yeah. thank you. um. i'm specific interested in the failure to disclose counts. so, uh, looking at count three, which, uh, alleges that, uh, mr. taylor caused the zhao campaign and zhao to fail to disclose. required information and, uh, count four, which alleges that he caused the pac to fail to disclose required information. um and count five, which alleges that he caused the zhao committee and miss zhao to fail to report a late contribution. uh and count six, which is the same allegation, but as to the pac, yes. i understand the

argument and the factual basis for why the commission alleges that he he caused the expenditure to become a contribution and caused the committee to accept the contribution and the pac to make the contribution. um, was not don't miss zhao and the zhao committee and the pac have an independent responsibility to disclose required information under these counts. they have an obligation to report that contributions. yes and it is our claim that mr. taylor caused the violation because he's his coordination turned this from an expenditure to a contribution. so if he had not coordinated both the campaign and afpac would have been in compliance with their reporting obligations because he coordinated it, it was no longer an independent

expenditure but a contribution. and therefore they had different legal obligations that he brought it about. and they did not comply with those legal obligations. so he caused that noncompliance. i would also note that the law, uh, makes them they are jointly and severally liable for these. so this does not necessarily preclude their liability under said. what did he do to cause those entities not to report. he created the obligation and as you heard from testimony mr. tsuneishi was not aware. the, uh mr. tsuneishi asked if he worked for. the campaign. he looked on their website, and so he was not aware that he had to comply with those laws in the first place. he thought he was making an independent expenditure. so he did not. so he by creating the obligation, he caused a violation. often there's a case the fppc has a case. i believe it's referenced in the hearing brief. it's the fury case. it was a very similar case. and in

that case there were four counts that are i essentially identical here? the expenditures were around 34, 35,000 that were made for the campaign and facilitated by a third party. the third party was the respondent, and four of the counts were for, uh, late the late contribution form not being filed and the contribution being reported as expenditures instead of contribution actions. uh, and they were because the person who created the legal obligations caused the violation. so as, as to the, the pac, um and if we credit mr. sunak's testimony that mr. taylor he relied on mr. taylor's representations that it was there was no coordination there. uh, it would it would seem like there's a clearer nexus case as to why mr. taylor caused the failure to report. um but let s presume, hypothetically, that, uh, it doesn't have to be about these

facts, but you're in a situation where, uh, the entity that fails to report is actually aware that there's some skirting of the independence expenditure and contribution limits. um, and they have and so they're presumably aware that they're supposed to be disclosing that information often. um. wouldn't you need to show that the person facing liability in some way was contributed to that decision, not to disclose? uh, not not according to the commissions that have dealt with this before ? um, by creating the violation when he is the one who coordinated by creating the obligation, he is the one who coordinated and, um, there is a secondary question. if this were a case against the campaign or miss zhao of whether she knew or should have known what her agent was doing, but since it's just focused on him just by showing that he created the legal obligation, at least based on

other cases and our interpretation of the law, that means that he caused the violations. so if, if we were to think that the causation showing has to be a little bit stronger for the failure to disclose arguments than just creating the taking the steps to convert this from an independent expenditure to a contribution to begin with, um, are there facts here or evidence here that you've introduced from which we could, uh. infer that mr. taylor did anything to mislead. miss zhao or the zhao committee into believing that this was not a contribution. um other than essentially keeping them out of it for the most part. i mean, that is what we relied on. the fact that he specifically set up a meeting with a donor and did not have, uh, miss zhao attend the meeting. i would also note that miss lee or margaret lee,

the donor she had donated the maximum amount to ellen lee zhao's committee, her campaign committee, and could no longer donate any more. and so they were aware that she could not contribute anymore. and so he then led her to mr. tsuneishi and didn't include, uh, miss zhao on most of the communications and coordinated both the advertisement with out front and the advertisement with clear channel on his own. so just the act of shielding from her, the coordination that he was doing, he prevented her from becoming aware of her legal obligations. but miss, in some of the emails we saw, miss zhao was seaside into the correspondence? yeah, she was on a couple of them and that was in connection with the expenditures by afpac on in support of her campaign. yes. okay i'm glad you raised that issue because i had the same reaction to charges three through six. mr. taylor was not the treasurer or secretary for either of those campaigns, so it seemed as

struggling with the same question that commissioner salahi raised. um so i think that's a helpful discussion. but do you have more questions on that same point? i think i think that's it. yeah great. let's, um, we'll turn the clock back on and then you can proceed. thanks, mr. damico. okay so as i mentioned, we've established that mr. taylor's work for the campaign qualified him as a consultant. uh, he produced or by producing or authorizing the production of campaign literature. this is the definition under law of campaign strategy, service is related to campaign strategy by coordinating with outfront media to produce advertisements and turn them into billboards. he provided services related to campaign strategy. in doing so, he was paid over $1,000 based on the exhibits we have shown today and therefore qualified as a campaign consultant. he also participated in selecting vendors, which consists of services related to campaign

leadership, which is a second and separate service that would have qualified him for becoming a campaign consultant. he did not register as a campaign consultant and therefore violated city law. finally we have shown that mr. taylor repeatedly and willfully withheld evidence from the ethics commission, and in doing so failed to furnish, which is a count eight of the hearing brief. he failed to furnish relevant evidence and violated city laws that are designed to ensure smooth and efficient operation of ethics. commission in investigations. our campaign finance laws, our designed to help voters make decisions and form decisions, and to prevent undue influence of elected officials. his campaign contribution limits are intended to ensure that no single person gives more than $500, and cannot wield outside influence on a single election campaign reporting violations deprive the public of essential information regarding political contribution and when a lack of reporting conceals circumvention of

contribution limits, as it did here. again, this is the reason for counts three through six is the failure to report this properly prevented. the ethics commission or other regulators from finding out that there was a contribution of far over the limit of $500, so when a lack of reporting conceals other circumvention of laws, that harm is magnified. in this case, respondent caused a $10,000 in-kind contribution to be made and accepted 20 times over the legal limit. this illegal contribution also allowed the campaign to purchase 16 billboards using the exact same advertisements it had produced and distributed all on its own, but it had only decided to spend money on four of those billboards that it could get through. contributions so they got 16 additional billboards, all while avoiding contribution limits and disclosure requirements. the coordination also allowed the campaign in affect to align their goals but evade campaign finance rules in the process. mr. taylor also deprived the public of information regarding his activity as a campaign

consultant, again registering as a campaign consultant would have given the ethics commission the opportunity to see that there was potential coordination. furthermore the respondent actively impeded the staff's investigation in ignoring emails and phone calls, failing to provide information in response to a subpoena, and sending letters demanding millions of dollars from staff members. if the investigation was not suspended. we believe the evidence has met the standard of proof that a person of ordinary caution and prudence would conclude by a preponderance of the evidence that respondent violated the law on the eight counts in the enforcement division's hearing brief. in light of this, we ask the commission, find violations on these eight counts, six counts caused by respondents coordination on one count for failing to register as a consultant and one for withholding information from the ethics commission. the enforcement division seeks a total penalty of $15,950. that concludes my closing statement. so we've, um, just some logistics. we've gone out for a while. i wonder whether folks want to take a short break, but

i think at some point we need to have a, i hope, a robust discussion of what we've heard today. we should talk about how we want to proceed in terms of, uh, addressing the merits of the case. i'm just hearing whether we want to do that right now or take a short break to attend to whatever we want to do. i'm okay with taking a short break, but i'd like to ask a few questions about the closing before. let's do that now. yeah um. thank you. just on count eight, on the withholding information on, um. our individual is required to respond to informal requests for information. they're not required. no. so the only basis for that violation would be properly served. administrative subpoena failing to respond to properly served. yes. yes. and uh, is it your understanding that providing objections is in response to an administrative subpoena would constitute a response to that subpoena? uh, not if those objections don't.

come within the deadline for providing an objection. so they have to be timely objections. yes. okay thank you. are my colleagues and staff does maybe a 20 minute break, 15 minute break sound okay? i don't know if folks want to grab lunch or just a shorter break. it works for everyone. also, be respectful of staff who've been here for well as long as we have. um, 15 minutes on okay. great. 15 minutes.

all right, we're back on on item seven. discussion and possible action regarding hearing on the merits and the matter of paul allen taylor. so i think we should talk about mechanics going forward and then substance on the mechanics. i think we've absorbed a lot. we can either vote today on these charges or i think we can have a robust discussion and then designate probably one. well one of us to kind of draft up, propose findings submitted so that it's on the agenda for next month, vote on whatever that is informed by our discussion right now. include if we find violations, whatever penalties or other orders might attach. i think there are a couple matters that we've discussed that i think we can even ask for additional briefing on some

questions that i have, which would, i think be helpful, as opposed to trying to resolve it today. this is my this is my hunch, but i'm curious to see what you all think. i'm curious what you mean by additional briefing. there are a couple questions that i would like more information from staff or frankly, from mr. taylor. he didn't participate in the evidentiary portion, but i would welcome it from him as well. regarding the causation issues for charges three through six, the cause, sorry, the causing violations. i'm just not sure that i'm there yet that his role satisfied the causation liability. i just don't know. and if i had to vote on it right now, i just don't feel like i have enough of a standing of that particular issue. um i'm also. yeah. so that's well, frankly, that's the main one that i think additional probably legal briefing would be helpful. um, but i'll open up to you all for your thoughts. i just wonder if factually it would be helpful. i mean, as i walked out, i saw that mr. taylor is in the building, and i wonder if,

um, you know, prompting him or inviting him back in, urging him and letting him know that the resolution would be, um, you know, facilitate by his presence could help us here. um, well, i don't know. we can't take evidence from him. that part's over, so i'm not sure. how do you think his appearance would? well, to the extent that there are. i mean, i guess it sounds like you're interested in more legal briefing, but i didn't know if for the causation argument, you were also interested in the more factual evidence, but. well, i am i wish he'd participated, but he didn't. so i don't think we can we can cross that bridge now. so i think purely a legal matter. i'm interested in that issue is the effect of requesting would requesting supplemental briefing postpone when the 45 day period begins to run? i don't yeah i don't think so. but i'd welcome our madam deputy city attorney to weigh in, because that's not my intention at all. my intention is to maintain the deadlines. but to the extent we

can get additional, um, help, not additional help, additional legal research where helpful. hold on. let me just take a look at the rule. if it does, then i would forego that request and stick to the deadlines. um, but aside from that, just the concept of us having a robust discussion today, having one of us draft up a tentative or proposed findings and then addressing it at the next meeting, how does that sound to folks as opposed to doing it all today? i'm okay with that as well. i would prefer that, actually. yeah yeah, i think we've taken in a fair amount of information and it's i think we could benefit by having the time to consider it. one question that i have on the logistics of reviewing whatever the proposed order is and voting on it, uh, if there are disagreements as to specific. counts or specific, uh, legal or factual findings amongst the commission on how

does that get manifested at the next hearing? do we submit different? yeah, that's a great question. my understanding is that we would basically we would amend whatever the proposed findings are, live informed by our discussion. then we would vote on each separate allegation . um, so i don't think commissioners would submit kind of dissenting views. i think we would work off the live document in essence. but if any of that doesn't make sense, then i would welcome the deputy city attorney to correct me. can you? i'm sorry. i was reading the other rule. can you repeat that question? sure. so i think do you want to ask commissioner salahi? sure. the question is when we have a proposed tentative order or whatever we're calling it for the next hearing for consideration by the commission, to the extent that there is not a unanimity on any particular count or legal question or factual question, how how would that get reflected in our proceedings? would we have a separate vote per count

and if anyone wants to say anything on, on, on a particular count or point, they would do so in connection with, with, with each vote? or is there another mechanism, um, that we'd need to follow so you you could do it? uh, if i'm understanding your question correctly, you could vote on each count, or you could vote on all the counts together. um, and is that was that your question? and there would nothing to nothing would prevent you from having a discussion during that process of deliberate. is that is that your . i think that's right. and we're not required to submit separate writings from commissioners who don't who might have a different view on anything. um well, the for the body to submit to for each order that the body makes, you need three votes. um, i'm, i'm not aware of anything that would prevent a commissioner who disagreed to write some kind of a dissenting, um, opinion or finding if that's your question,

is that is that what you're asking? i think i understand it now. we can break it down by count and. yeah. i'm sorry. yeah. no. that's okay. no that was um, and then on, in terms of your other question, the, the, um, it says the rule says if the commission conducts the hearing on the merits, the commission will determine no later than 45 calendar days after the date. the hearing is concluded, whether the commissioner, whether the respondent excuse me, has committed a violation of law. so my understanding is this is now the conclusion that you have now all the evidence is submitted. and this is this concludes the hearing on the merits is that is that correct? that's right. and i think that that i think there's an argument that the 45 days will begin to run from the point at which you make the decision, not from today, but from when we vote on the charges. is that what you're saying? no, i think i think you're going to have to make a decision within 45 days of this date, right. and i think as part of the conversation, we're supposed to issue findings of

fact and conclusions of law. i think the question there that commissioner salahi was getting at is if one of us proposes findings of fact, conclusions of law, that we then discuss at the next agenda meeting, commission meeting to extend those not unanimity on those findings and conclusions can we edit that document live at the hearing itself, so that we can still issue it? that's the kind of mechanical question. yes, you can do that. i have a related question, actually, to the development of the proposed, uh, findings, because this is a i think it's kind of a brown act question. is it going to have to fall on one person to develop that, that document and then the rest of the commission needs to wait until it's on the agenda to review and the meeting to discuss. that's correct. any, um , any commission work on the document would have to happen in an open public meeting. but one commissioner could prepare or the staff could prepare a

proposed findings and order and submit it then to at that meeting, where then you could all discuss it and you could edit it at that meeting, or adopt it as drafted. okay. that proposal would be posted before the next meeting. correct no, i think we have to vote on it at the same time to get within the 45 day deadline. right. but for like staff, if, if staff for example, were to were to propose , it would go on the agenda and would have to be posted the friday before. oh, sorry, i misunderstood. yeah, yeah. okay so the public would see it same time we would. the public needs to see it close in time to win the commissioners see it if that's the brown act rule. yeah. so it's a little awkward. we can't deliberate before the next meeting altogether. that's not going to be any separate conversations about the merits. um, so we'll be doing it live. um, but that's, that's the process. so i think does that

make sense for folks? we'll proceed that way. we can we can ask staff, we can ask mr. taylor to prepare findings of fact, or one of us can do it ourselves, and then they'll be on the next agenda. but we're also going to wait for your legal memorandum to. right. well, that's a separate question. i'm just curious for the madam deputy city attorney, if we ask for briefing from the parties, does that somehow push out the deadlines? i think you're saying no. if the if the hearing concluded today, um, i'm just not sure that's a question that i haven't i hadn't anticipated, and i just don't know the answer to off the top of my head. um, whether what what is in effect, sort of post-hearing briefing on legal issues, whether that operates to reopen the hearing and thereby extend the deadline, i just don't i don't know, something i can look into and get back to you right away, but i don't know off the top of my head. well, let me ask the others of my colleagues think it would be helpful to get that briefing because if not, then i think mr. damico cited a couple cases we can look up on our own.

it might be helpful, but i'm concerned about losing 45 days and not getting pushed out and then right, causing procedural problems with i agree. yes so maybe we forego that request. um, so then we should probably decide who's going to take the laboring or on drafting the proposed findings or conclusions. any anyone interested, any preference, whether it's one of us or we ask the parties to do it, i think maybe easier to have one of us do it. so we're we're happy to if you want. um, i think we'll have well, we can have a discussion right now on the merits and then maybe revisit that question. so let's do that. um anyone want to jump out with any reactions? i'm happy to share some thoughts, but i also want to yield to other folks. um, so just going backwards. count eight is the i guess, getting in the way of the process. um, i'm not sure i'm

comfortable without a superior court. basically, in civil discovery, you found subpoenas all the time. someone does not respond. that does not necessarily give rise to contempt. i think here there's been a long history with staff and the respondent being non-responsive. but i think we're focused on just that subpoena. and i think i'm just not sure that, um, without having the court actually weigh in, that i'm here, that i'm there yet on that particular charge has nothing to do with the merits underlying the rest of the case, just purely on that charge. eight, which has to do with the obstruction of the courts. sorry, of the staff's process. i would welcome, um, a discussion on that. let me pull up the brief. have i have a similar, uh, concern about that one? i don't know that it would require superior court intervention for us to find a finding here, but as i understand it, the administrative subpoena that we

are concerned with is the one served on october 25th, 2022. and the respondent had to either produce documents in response to that within 25 days, or objections within 20 days, which is five days before the compliance deadline. and there are some ambiguity as to whether or not i think it's a legal ambiguity as to whether or not the objection deadline of i'm sorry, the compliance deadline of november 19th, which is 25 days from october 25th, uh, november 19th, is a saturday. i'm not sure if that gets automatically pushed back to the following monday, but if it is october 19th, five days prior to that would have been november 14th, and there were documents that could be construed as objections to the subpoena submitted by mr. taylor on on november 16th. and if those are treated as an objection, it's not. it's not the same as compliance in the sense that

documents are furnished. but uh, he did something, um, to serve objections. and in normal civil discovery, it would then be on the onus would be on the propounding party to seek court relief if, uh, to compel compliance. so i share that concern about not finding a violation here. that said, i do think that the evidence shows a clear pattern of evasiveness and non-cooperation, even dodging service, attempting to dodge service. and that's probably a factor that i would consider in assessing penalties under any other counts that are sustained. um, yeah. no, i think it's a really good point. i'll just point out we're dealing with a pro per part, so i don't i think that is relevant to these, um, to his conduct here. um so my inclination just sitting here right now, i agree with everything commissioner salahi said that behavior goes to the penalties if we find violations elsewhere. but i would probably be inclined to not find on on

that count, eight just, um, but welcome additional discussion, just to make sure i understand what you what you, uh, are intending when you say that it could be counted toward that you're not considering it a violation of its own. sorry i was just clarifying. um, what commissioner finley meant when he said that it could be considered for penalties, but that this count itself. um, it wasn't persuaded that we should find, um, against, uh, mr. taylor. that's a great question. so under the enforcement regs, um, there a list of factors to consider when assessing penalties. and i think one of them is the degree to which the respondent cooperated with the investigation and demonstrated a willingness to remedy violations . so i think that behavior, to the extent that they are violations, would be appropriate to consider in connection there. that's what i meant by that. for any of the for any of the

violations counts. right. understood any other i'm sure staff would like to weigh in, but i think at this point we're just deliberating as the commission. so uh, chair, if i could i just wonder if it might be useful to ask the city attorney's office to weigh in on section 1.170. and what is within the scope of failure to cooperate with an investigation if it genuinely is limited only to non-cooperation with a duly issued subpoena, or if it would also include things as simple as ignoring staff investigator emails, ignoring phone calls, just not cooperating. because i think that's certainly how we understand that, uh, that we do have the authority to investigate, which includes just talking to people and if people don't provide us documents when we ask, that actually would be within this, that superior courts are not our only mechanism. i welcome the deputy city attorney to weigh in if she likes. please um, okay. i'm reading just for everyone's benefit. the section we're

referring to is campaign and government conduct code. i only know it by its abbreviation. um, any person who knowingly or willfully furnishes false or fraudulent evidence, documents or information to the ethics commission under this chapter, or misread, presents any material fact or conceals any evidence, documents or information, or fails to furnish to the ethics commission any records, documents or other information required to be provided under this chapter. shall be subject to the penalties provided in this section. so it's that which is there. so the informal requests i don't think would fall under that. the informal request that i understood, um, the response to which was voluntary, but it would be the ones, the items to which she was required to respond. and i understand that to be the subpoena. were there other maybe you could ask if there were other, um, other things he was required to do that he didn't do. i think

that's what i'm getting at is what is the scope of what someone is required to do is, is a subpoena the only thing they're required to do, or are they required to cooperate in any other way with an investigator? because i think that's a pretty core core part of our investigative authority as a commission. um, i mean, it would be up to the commissioners, obviously, to ask the questions, but my understanding is what was presented is an item that he was required to respond to. was the administrative subpoena. thank you. that's that's helpful. um, on item eight, any other sorry on charge eight, any other comments from our colleagues? no um. so go to items. um kind of the core of this on coordination . my understanding is that even if we don't find agency under subsection one, one of the subsection dealing with

duplication of the official or the candidates, um, advertising that creates a rebuttable presumption of coordination here. i think it seemed uncontested that that the ads were in fact basically duplicates of the official, um, of the campaign's posters and since we did not have any participation from from mr. taylor in the evidentiary portion, that presumption i think, is not rebutted. it stands as an as a rebuttable presumption that was not rebutted. i'm not sure i'm there on the agency, but i don't think we have to if because that prong alone, as i understand it, is enough to create coordination, which will then inform the rest of the charges. but i'm curious to hear if folks have thoughts on the agency and the coordination. i think on the agency point, what i'm struggling with is we have a sounds like a pretty, pretty informal campaign. lay actors. is there friends and acquaintances? um, which just makes it tricky. but there may

may very well have been agency, but i'm not sure we have to get into that question. if we find coordination under that rebuttable presumption governing identical or substantially identical posters, communications or sorry, advertising, which i think there is. so i think that gets us to the coordination without having to address the agency question. i'm curious what other folks think and that coordination of course, will inform counts one through six. basically everything that remains. i don't know if it relates to the campaign consultant to the, um, but that's i'm thinking about the coordination issue again. there probably is agency, maybe there is. but i don't think we need to reach that because we have that other prong. um, don't we need to address agency to find that this prohibition applies to mr. taylor because it otherwise only applies to the candidate and the. uh, the

entities engaging in the expenditure. pull up that section. you're looking at 115. yeah so the portion i was talking about was, uh, before communication replicates, reproduces, etc. as i read it, there's no agency here at all. it just if the court guidance by the, uh, sorry if the communication by the would be coordinator rep allocates the campaign's communication lines, then you have coordination irrespective of any agency concerns. i think it's in addition to subsection a, which is what commissioner salahi might be referring to, where we have to get through the agency in order to get to the rebuttable presumption. so i think those are so i think those are disjunctive. i think you can have a or b, right. so under a you have a bunch of irrebuttable

presumptions b stands alone and creates rebuttable presumptions. these are tongue twisters. so i think as i read it before for standing alone creates coordination. if that presumption is not rebutted. but but then the question is coordination between whom and why is mr. taylor involved? why is mr. taylor liable for it? well, i think so. there. the facts are that he's the one who basically duplicated the campaign's official, not official. the campaign's communications, and had them disseminated, but if. let me think about that. yeah. these are interesting, thorny legal issues which is another reason, i think, why having more time to deliberate on this makes sense, but that's how i'm analyzing this. so i agree with that. um, observation. i think we do not need agency for before for and it is a presumption here. right so it's a rebuttable presumption

in um, and i think it does it does not implicate any agency or requirement of it being, um, a candidate's agent that is. yeah, i can see universe where you have a duplication, but then there's testimony evidence that rebuts that presumption. you know, you can imagine what that would be. but we didn't have that here. so i think we that rebuttable presumption stands. but do we also want to decide on agency as well, just so that it is clear that we have it under on because mr. taylor wasn't here today? um, that we have it even under the non rebuttable section a yeah. no, that's a good point. um how are you kind of analyzing that. i think given that, that, um, you know, it was a $10,000 spend, um, with, um, a well known company, um, to create billboard ads. um it's no

one else but an agent of the candidate would have done that act right? i mean, certainly you've got him introducing the pac to the candidate. you've got him copying the candidate on communications to the clear channel. so sorry to belabor this, but be says there shall be a presumption that an expenditure for funding, a communication, etc. yeah, he's not alleged to have made the expenditure. he's alleged to have facilitated it on behalf of the campaign. but i think that creates the presumption of coordination. when you're saying, what's his role in that? right. because because he's he's not directly. the coordination in and of itself is not one of the counts that he's alleged to violate. everything kind of flows from that. right? um i think as a factual matter. well first of all, we can add deputy madam deputy city attorney, is there any objection to us asking staff for their opinion on these

questions? and if mr. taylor were here, we'd ask him to. but he's not. um so you're saying would you then be reintroducing new evidence? so you're reopening that portion of the. yeah, of the proceeding? yeah. i don't think anything prevents you from reopening it. no, no. sorry, sorry. without reopening the proceeding. just asking them for their legal interpretation of these statutes. um, i don't think there's an issue with that , mr. damico. mr. ford, do you want to address that issue? the question is, before standing alone, does that create potentially. yeah. so i think i can get at your potential issue with it. commissioner salahi. and i think it's that it does create my interpretation is that it does create a rebuttable presumption of coordination. but you still we would still have to show that the respondent caused that the violation. and so you still have to show there is coordination, but why should he be liable for it. and i believe we made that argument in the course of it. but so yes, you

don't need to show agency to show coordination, but now you need to show that he is somehow liable by causing that coordination. so do we need to show agency to show the causation or, or you're saying we can show causation. you can show causation without agency. thank you for clarifying that. yeah thank you. yeah. that's how i read it as well. but that's really helpful. thank you. um i think we were discussing then mr. commissioner sides point about also finding agency. and i think those factors were um, introducing the candidate to the, to the pack, copying her on communications with it. other other kind of facts that you're thinking about. um. in terms of agency and i guess you design the ads, the first set of ads, right? never disclaimed any, uh, agency. so our folks comfortable finding. i guess they're kind of two alternative findings. agency

and then there isn't any. there's also coordination under b4. um, so here we're talking about kind of the legal undergirding for the actual violations. but i think the coordination of the agency are crucial for everything that flows after it. um but it sounds like no one's held to this. of course, this is part of a discussion. it sounds like we're comfortable that there was coordination under the presumption. and the irrebuttable irrebuttable presumption. um, and then applying that to the actual charges, one and two are pretty straightforward for me. these are the ones tethered to, um, i want to pull it up so i don't say it wrong. the actual contributions .

on count one is based on causing the committee, the committee, to accept a contribution over the pack limit. um, i'm pretty comfortable there, given what we just discussed about coordination and agency. this seems like squarely within that, uh, those factual fact pattern. um, any one comments on that particular count? it doesn't look like it. um, number two, i kind of see the same way. this is about causing the pack to make a contribution that exceeded the legal limit. i see that the same way. i think if there's coordination, then this follows. it's not disputed that the pack spent $10,000 supporting the candidates candidacy. um, anyone see that?

any other comments on that count to so then three and six are the ones i'm struggling more with. and this is because i'm not. i'm stuck on the fact that the pack and the candidate committee had their own treasurer, that their own persons related. uh, i just need to understand the causation, the causing liability better. i'd welcome thoughts on that. um, madam deputy city attorney, i don't know if you're prepared to remind us on the causation standard or if it's already in the brief. uh, i think that the cited code charter provision, uh, sf charter, the page that on, uh, it's cited under the counts, it's not quoted, it's just cited there. oh, i see, um, sf charter section c, 3.699-13, paragraph d we have that spelled out. try to

pull that up. thank you. would you like me to read that? that'd be great. yeah. thanks. uh, that that subparagraph f says, in addition to any other penalty that may be imposed by law, any person who violates any provision of this charter or of a city ordinance relating to campaign finance, lobbying, conflicts of interest or governmental ethics, or who causes any other person to violate any such provision, or who aids and abets any other person in such violation, shall be liable under the provisions of this section. so it sounds like it doesn't help us figure out what causation requires. um, i take mr. d'amico's point that he created the obligation. he certainly did. but to me, this seems different from one and two, which are also kind of tethered to causing the violation. um, i'd also note that the facts are the same for

one and two. as for all the other ones. so in some sense it's um, creating additional charges based on the same conduct. um, but i'm just not. i'm happy to ask mr. damico, if you have kind of legal authority for what the causation in liability kind of standard is, and maybe there isn't one. so the best, um, authority on the matter was this commission on and how it interpreted that part of the law in the case common sense voters. um, i will just read a paragraph directly from it. so i'm not editorial izing, uh, this first i'll describe it, which this was a case where a campaign consultant for a committee coordinated with a, a, a, i believe it was with a general committee to spend money on mass mailers for the candidate. and by coordinating, he turned that committee into a controlled committee, which meant it had different disclaimers and so the paragraph reads, respondent common sense voters. that's the committee. he

failed to use proper sender identification on mass mailers in sent in support of mark farrell for district two. supervisor for respondent chris lee caused this violation through his role of campaign consultant for the farrell committee and his coordination with respondent common sense voter. and then count one counts one through many who were, uh, against respondent, the individual who coordinated for causing the violation and the violation was that they didn't include the proper disclaimers that were required by a controlled committee, which his coordination turned the committee into a control committee. and they didn't disclaim that they were a controlled committee on their mass mailers. and so he caused those violation, as did that case involve of failure to make reports to the ethics commission or other authority. it was for

failures to disclose, and then also a failure to file one form with the ethics commission. yes. as to amend a statement of organization to clarify. mr. amico, thank you. and i'm sure you did already, but can you just read the site for that into the record? the site for that? yeah. if if you have the case. yeah. so this is common sense voters sf 2010. it's the matter of common sense voters sf 2010 vote for mark farrell for district two supervisor and chris lee fppc number ten 973. it was a there was joint jurisdiction in that case. so both the ethics commission and the fppc and it was cited in the brief. so i think mr. taylor had fair notice of it. yes. it was cited in the brief. is there anything, uh, deputy city attorney that precludes us from asking that that opinion be added to the record in some way or shared with the commission? are you saying that can you. i'm sorry. i'm having trouble hearing. i'm sorry. uh, is there

anything that precludes us from asking that the full opinion in the cited matter be shared with the commission? no, i don't think anything prevents that. so to me, those counts three and six really stand or fall together. it's the same issue that binds them. it's that causation question. there may be one where we kind of put a pin on it, and then we pick it up when we convene in a month after whoever's taking the labor or laboring or, um, can put a draft together. but i'm curious to hear folks have thoughts right now. i had similar misgivings about counts 3 to 6, or at least questions about them. um, i think i, i'm not necessarily committed to this, but i wonder if the counts regarding the zhao committee and miss zhao. uh are distinguishable from the counts regarding the pac, given mr. sandusky's testimony earlier today that, uh, mr. taylor made

representations to mr. senussi, which he relied upon. um that there was actually no coordination with the campaign. yeah, i think that's a really good point. it's kind of a more of an overt act that caused that disclosure failure. um i think that's a good point. yeah um, because i think for the other ones, we don't have any evidence of those kinds of overt acts. i mean, we have her being copied on emails, but not the same kind of affirmative, uh, misrepresentation potentially. and even if there were such a claim, i'm not sure i would credit it or give it much weight given the context. but yeah. no, that's a good point for, um, anything else on these? uh three through six? okay. so i guess just to number seven, um, this is this failure to register as a

campaign consultant. um this seems to me. sorry. too many documents in front of me. so i think he was clearly paid more than the threshold. i guess it's $1,000. um i don't have too many questions on this particular count, but my question is whether does this count require finding of agency? and i'll pose that to mr. damico. no, i don't think so. but i'm curious what his reaction is. no there are campaign consultants. uh, that agency is not in the law for campaign consultant. and does it matter whether a person is a consultant to the candidate campaign or to the pac? like, is it is a consultant a consultant, irrespective of whether it's to

a well, i guess here you're alleging that he was here. we are alleging it was to the candidate campaign. yes. got it. um, so that one i don't that one seems pretty. well, i shouldn't say straightforward, but i don't see any contested evidence that would, uh, support finding that there was not a violation here. um, the facts being, i guess he was paid above the threshold, and he, um, participated in, in selecting, recommending the vendor and producing the production of the literature in her support. any comments on this one? i think that is the most straightforward. correct because it doesn't require agency. it seems pretty clear. so i think those are kind of at a high level, helpful discussion

. um we could talk about. so the way i'm just to summarize, i'm personally pretty comfortable on counts one and two based on the just creating the causing the excess contributions. um, count seven is the one we just discussed about campaign consultant three through six. i'm still working through the causation issues, so i'm going to put a pin on those for me personally. and then eight is the one that deals with obstruction of the of the staff's process or the commission's process. they're even being mindful of what the deputy city attorney told us. i'm still not sure that i'm there on that particular count. so that's how i'm thinking about this at the moment. just to summarize, anyone, are we kind of on the same page here? again, we're not binding anyone to this. we're not voting right now, although we can if folks prefer. but that's how i'm thinking about it right now. and i think this exercise is helpful so that whoever's drafting the proposed findings will start out as close as we can get to the

same page. um in terms of any potential penalties, we can discuss that now. we can discuss that at the next meeting when we've got actual proposed findings. i'll just say at the outset that i don't think, um, the staff asked for 15,000, that . is not where i would end up, given how i'm thinking about the counts. um, but that and i know that the biggest amount was proposed for count eight, um, $5,000, which would obviously be impacted by if we don't find a violation of count eight, although some of that conduct might inform the penalty as to the other accounts. um, but i would welcome any comments on potential penalty considerations just so we can have a that part of the discussion as well. yeah, i have a question. um, with respect to the penalties, are these are their ranges or are these are what is being sought here um, by the enforcement department, the maximum amount

it's just the recommended amount. and but i guess the question is, are there are we limited to certain kind of, uh, you know, one, two, three, four? can it be any number between zero? and so there. yeah, there. maybe you are better suited to answer i believe. yeah it's 5000 per count per violation or three or, or three times the amount of money at issue. um, and i can so because it's not section 3.2421 penalties. right that you're referring to that you're getting . you know this is from um i believe the charter the city charter. yeah. where it's a maximum, um, of up to 5000 per violation. or alternatively, three times the amount of money at issue. so i think the short answer is anywhere from zero to a lot is our discretion here 30,000 i think right. oh, 30,000 per count. yeah. i think it's triple. right. the amount of

issue per count. wow. okay. which would be hundreds of thousands of dollars. well quick math, but and uh, in assessing penalties, we are not bound by staff's recommendation often as an upper limit per count or in total, correct. that's my understanding. we're not bound or limited at all. okay um, and i think the penalty factors are laid out in the enforcement regulations, but i'm happy to just read them into the record if that's helpful, the commission will consider all the following. sorry, all the relevant circumstances surrounding the case, including but not limited to, the severity of the violation, the presence or absence of any intention to conceal, deceive or mislead. whether the violation was willful. whether the violation was an isolated incident or part of a pattern where the respondent has a prior record of violations of law. the degree to which the respondent cooperate with the investigation and demonstrated a willingness to remedy any violations, and the respondent's ability to pay will be considered a mitigating factor. if the respondent provides documentation to the director of enforcement of such

inability, which must include three years of income tax returns and six months worth of bank records or counting statements at a minimum. um, so i take from that, that those are suggested factors, but we're not limited to those that we can consider whatever we think is relevant. um so i think if folks want to talk about specific numbers, we can or we can save that until we are at a place where we're discussing the actual violations that we're finding. yeah or i agree, waiting on the numbers probably makes sense, but is there any discussion that we want to have as to the facts regarding each factor, or is that that's a good no, that's a i think that's a good point. do you want to share some thoughts? sure i can, i can do that. um so just going through them, i think i agree with staff's view on the severity of the violation on at least the couple counts that it seems like, um, we have some agreement on. i also think that factor two, the presence of an intention to conceal, deceive or mislead, um. you know, looking

at at at the facts here, it does strike me as a reasonable inference that, um, this was a deliberate bypassing of the campaign finance laws given that miss liu maxed out at the $500 donation directly to the campaign first, and then her $10,000 donation to the pac was solicited, and, um and further support of the zhao campaign. so i would weigh factor two pretty heavily because that's, um, that's not good when people are violating our campaign laws intentionally. um the other one that i think deserves heavy weight is the number six, the degree to which the respondent cooperated with the investigation, demonstrated a willingness to remedy violations . it seems like there was no indication of any good faith attempt to engage with the

commission's investigation here. and to the contrary, there was, uh, deliberate impediments put in place. non-cooperation with the hearing, unwillingness to testify to produce responsive evidence or to take corrective action, uh, in regard to the counts so those are the three that stand out to me as being pretty heavy and might weigh in favor of penalties that are even higher than what the staff has recommended with respect to, um, assuming not all the counts are sustained with respect to some of the counts that are sustained. uh but that's just my view. yeah, i think that's a really good points. um any other discussion on the penalties? i think as a, um. way forward, maybe we, um, i think we can

designate one of us to do the proposed findings, but also ask staff and mr. taylor for proposed findings that we can work off. that may or may not be helpful, but throwing that out there, i understood they were just, um, curious if we can take a 1 or 2 minute break. so our colleague can join us. that's fine. yeah. let's just wait for 2 or 3 minutes. um and then we'll reconvene or continue . we're back on. still item seven. discussion and possible action regarding hearing on the merits and the matter of paul allen taylor. we're just discussing a way forward. i think it makes sense for us to choose one of us, to then take the laboring

over on drafting proposed findings and conclusions. i'm wondering whether we have any volunteers. um, if not, i'm happy to take the laboring or informed by the conversation we've had today. um, i would ask the staff if i'll wait and see if there's a reaction to that. no i'm sorry. what are you missing? uh we. commissioner fang had to step out for a minute. you you tell me what we need to do. whether we need to. i expect she'll be back any minute. okay? i just want to just maybe say for the record. yes. thank you, madam deputy city attorney, the commissioner flores frank, had to step out for a few minutes. she will rejoin us momentarily. i expect. um madam deputy city attorney, do we need to vote on designating one of us to draft the proposed findings? or can we just do that administratively? i would recommend that you vote in

that case, i think i probably need to wait for commissioner flores fang to come back. right. i would recommend that, um, is there a way we can move on to other agenda items and then come back to this? um, yeah, you could do that. i think there may be an item that does not require a vote. item. eight we just ask staff to. item eight require commission action. it does. um. she's back. not a problem. commissioner flores fang, we were discussing designating one of us to draft the proposed findings and conclusions. um i asked for volunteers. seeing

none, i volunteered, but i'm happy to have you do it. if you're interested. the vice chair. i'd love to. all right. wonderful so i think we will. i move to designate. oh, sorry. and also suggested if it's helpful, we could ask staff for proposed findings. you could ask mr. taylor for proposed findings that you could work off or ignore that would be at your discretion. that would be helpful given, um, the fact that you were present for this conversation. so i moved that we designate commissioner flores fang to draft proposed findings and conclusions. uh, for the next commission meeting, any second, second. do we need to take public comment on this? i guess we do. um, i don't think so. it doesn't hurt you, but i don't think you need to, uh. if we don't need to, then i think we'll skip it. um, can you call the roll, mr. clark? on the on

the motion for commissioner flores fang to draft out the, uh, findings and conclusions. vice chair of a commissioner. flores fang, a commissioner. salahi i commissioner. ci i commissioner francois. vice chair with five votes in the affirmative and zero votes. opposed the motion is approved unanimously. thank you, mr. clark. i think that concludes the presentation. sorry. item number seven. i now call agenda item eight. a presentation public hearing, possible action on ethics commission budget proposal for fiscal year 20 2425 and fiscal year 20 2526. um, just as you're setting up, i

want to thank the staff and i want to thank mr. taylor's friends for being here for a long and productive hearing. thank you. i have a presentation i'm going to load up here. so just bear with me for a moment. stay until anna gets back up. she's on her way back up. i'm sorry i didn't. i didn't hear that part. anna gets back up, but i know she's on her way back up. will you prefer if mr. ford waited? or can you go ahead and proceed? and you can proceed? i just wanted to let you know i'm here. if you have. if you need help. just coming. thank you. i don't. okay, i'll get started then. uh, begin. for the record, executive director patrick ford. um, i will make this as as quick as, uh, we can with still getting through it. it is pretty important, but i do recognize how late in the day it is. and

so i'll try and balance that. um, so, so, um, just for context , again, we are required to have two hearings, two public hearings on our budget before we submit it. uh, the submission is due february 21st. this is the second, um, and final public hearing on the budget. um, and we do need the commission to endorse the budget proposal before we submit it. so that's why this is agendized as an action item. okay. it looks like the slides are up. uh, so first i want to just briefly talk about strategic budget priorities for this budget. it is a two fiscal year budget. even though this process happens every year, it is for a two year budget. uh, so one of the things that we always look at, but especially right now, is to strengthen organizational capacity and effectiveness. um, and in particular, we're looking at divisions right now where we have new staff or where they're entirely new programs. so our engagement and compliance

division right now is largely new staff. it's a very core, uh, part of our office's work. they run all the disclosure forms. they help people who call in with questions. they're in a big way. our public face. and most of those staff are new. they're doing a great job. but we really, really want to support that division because they kind of tie into everything else that we do. uh, also our training division, ethics at work, um, that program area is largely new. so we really want to focus on continue that work. um, in particular, we want to build an effective and sustainable audit program. we know that our outcomes from that division are not up to par right now. uh, the candidate audits, which are required for every candidate that receives public financing, are not being completed until years after the election. we need that to be a lot faster. also, we're no longer auditing other kinds of committees so we don't audit ballot measure committees. we don't audit, i.e. committees, general purpose committees, also known as pacs.

we need to get back to doing that. and you'll remember we've had some enforcement cases that came out of those kinds of audits. they're very important to do. but we are required by law to do the candidate committee audits. so we need to get those done first. then we can move on to those others. but both are very important to get back to the. um, also, i really want to see us deepen our engagement with other city agencies and with other regulated communities like, um, campaign committees, lobbyists, other kind of people who are subject to our laws. i would really like■1 to see our office engage more with other city agencies to help them to help them think through how they can align their business processes with ethics rules. um, it's really something that needs to be ingrained into how the city does business. and these rules are something that not a lot of people know about. so we really want to form those relationships and kind of help people consult. uh, we want to continue to improve our enforcement program.

um, i think we've made great strides in the last several years. lots of new kinds of cases, new things like hearings. um, we want to continue that work. there's more to be done. so that's an area where we really want to continue to invest. um, and lastly, because we do have a negative budget outlook right now, is in a scenario where we do have to sustain cuts that we want to do that in a way that minimizes the impact on the services we provide to the public. uh, you probably saw some of this, um, or you did last month, so i won't go through all of it. but this gives a snapshot of our current budget, which is the first column. and then the baseline budgets for the two two succeeding years. and this is based on if no cuts were to happen. this is just our baseline budget. the numbers change a little bit but not too much. and that's mostly based

around cost of living adjustments. um, and you can see on the bottom that, uh, our budget right now is 87% salary. i know that's a little small, but that big blue bar at the bottom is salary. we in the past, when we've been asked to cut our budget, we always try and cut from non-salary spending , which has resulted in a budget that is very, very salary heavy. also, that's mostly just because of how we do our work. we don't have a lot of equipment, we don't have a lot of funds that we use to administer contracts or grants. we're really a staff heavy agency. so that's why you see that at the end. very small portions for services of other departments like dr. the controller for really essential services and then only 4% for non personnel expenses like software licenses or laptops that kind of stuff. that's only 4. i do just want to mention that the election campaign fund

usually does appear in the mayor's budget proposal. as part of our departmental budget, but it is not part of our operating budget. but those funds are set aside for use for the public campaign financing program, which is where supervisors for mayor or candidates for supervisor or mayor, uh, can receive public funds to help fund their campaigns. only a very small portion of those funds can be used for administrative purposes, and only in connection with that program. so we do use that small portion sometimes to contract to have audits done. but it cannot support our operations in a general sense, only in that very narrow way. so it does go under our budget in the mayor's proposal. but it is not, strictly speaking, part of our operating budget. so i just want to draw that distinction. um, you'll know this already. this is more for the public's benefit, but this is a breakdown of our, um, of our divisions. and this is our current org

chart. and in this org chart, the blue boxes represent positions that are currently filled. the orange boxes represent positions that are currently vacant. and then there are two boxes that are gray. those represent vacant positions that are slated to expire at the end of this fiscal year. so those positions will go away. and that's not actually considered a cut to our budget. they're just scheduled to automatically sunset. um, so the mayor's budget instructions, which i'll get to in in a moment, uh, require us to submit two different kinds of budget proposals. one of them represents a 10% cut to our budget. the other one represents a 15% cut to our budget. uh, we have to do that, and we will. and i'll talk through those, uh, scenario in a moment. but there's a third scenario which

we will be submitting to the mayor's office, which is a zero cut scenario. so essentially it would keep our our budget flat. um, and i will describe why i think we need that and what we would do if we were able to get that funding. then i'll go on and talk about if we do have to sustain the ten and 15% cuts, how we propose us doing that. so this slide talks about, uh, what we would do if, if we were able to achieve no cuts. uh, first and foremost, to improve our audit outcomes, i would propose reclassifying the positions in the audit division, in particular, reclassifying them to higher positions. uh, both that have, um, higher essential duties, knowledge, skills and abilities also that have a higher level of compensation. um, i think that one of the reasons that we have not had good outcomes in the audit division is structural, that the positions that, uh, we have, that we've been given by the

city to do that work are not at the level that we need to do the work in the way that we want it to be done, in the way that it's expected to be done by our office. so i would ask for those positions to be reclassified upwards. uh, similarly, i would ask to reclassify by some, but not all positions, uh, within the enforcement division. um, right now we have, uh, kind of a new way of doing work on that division that i've talked to you about before, where instead of all investigators doing the exact kind of work, we've split up how the work is done. so some investigators do traditional investigative work gathering evidence, interviewing witnesses, other investigators act more like prosecutors. they take that information from the investigators, they write up hearing briefs or stipulations. they negotiate with the respondent's attorney. they bring hearings before the commission. there really is a distinction in those roles. so i want to actually formalize that within our, uh, agency structure by reclassifying some of the positions, uh, i also recognize

that there is a real problem in our agency with bottleneck that we only have two administrative positions overseeing all of the functions within the agency, the executive director position and the deputy director position. and i know from my own personal experience and from talking to staff over the last two weeks that there's an issue where work will get bottlenecked, where people are waiting to have their work reviewed to get feedback, to get things signed off on, and there are just too many things going up at once. and also that those two positions executive director and deputy director, are the only positions we have to deal with a whole slew of administrative issues like h.r, uh, like procurement. there's just so many things that we have to do that are very labor intensive reporting out to other, um, to other offices, that it takes up a lot of time and that, i think is really hampering our ability to actually work with the division heads to talk about what kind of

work they're doing to help them plan on. so that's something that i would like to try and address by adding two positions that would help with administrative work. and this is both administrative work that right now is getting absorbed by the executive director and deputy director. and there's also administrative work that is getting spread across other divisions that right now we just don't have a position to do. um, some of these are kind of, uh, just routine tasks that don't have a home right now. so everybody kind of takes a piece of them. and i think overall that's kind of creating a drag in certain places. so i would propose having two positions that would help take on that work. um, i think it's critical also to fill the vacancy that we have right now on the engagement and compliance division. we actually have two we have two vacancies. but i think there's one in particular that is critical, which is the position that supports the form 700 program. uh, we are making that work right now. we are

supporting it. but there is a position that was, uh, vacated last year that we still have not filled. and i think that that's a really key part of the services that we provide to the rest of the city. uh, we have about 4500 people that file the form 700, and there's almost 500 that file it with our office in particular. and those are commissioners department heads, elected officials. that position provides direct support to them. so when the leaders of the city contact our office to get help filing their form 700, that's the position that they talk to. so i think it's really key to have that filled and to be providing really good service. and as i mentioned, this scenario would involve no cuts to our budget. um, it would involve other positions being held vacant in order to keep us flat. and that's represented in this proposed org chart. so again, the blue boxes represent positions that are filled already. um, the red ones would

be kept vacant. the green ones would be filled and they're currently vacant. and they would be filled. and then you can see with the arrow some positions would be reclassified to a higher classified station. so you can see, um below, the executive director and deputy director. those are the two administrative support positions that i would propose filling. uh, right now, the director of enforcement position is vacant. so i think that's a pretty important position to fill. uh, obviously, we have a great person acting in that role right now, but we do need to do a recruitment to have a permanent candidate. right. um, then you can see on the left, that's our engagement and compliance division. and the green box there is the form 700. um support position, the ones that would be left vacant are the clerk engagement and compliance. the junior policy analyst. so we would keep just a one person policy division and then the

junior investigator on the enforcement division that we would leave those three vacant so that we could at least keep our budget flat and that we're not asking for an actual increase by keeping those three empty. um, so this table just breaks that down. so you can see in fy 25 there would be no additional funding needed in order to achieve that org chart that i just showed you. there would be a very small, uh, funding need in the second fiscal year of this budget in fy 26, it would be only $77,000. so that's, i think, our ideal scenario, if we could get that, if we can't and we need to sustain some cuts, um, things would be a little bit different. um, so i'll recap really quick what the mayor's instructions were. so as i mentioned, number one is to submit a 10% cut scenario. number two is a 15%

cut scenario. so it's another five on top of the ten 5% contingency. we three is they don't want us to increase our headcount. number of ftes. and number four is about maintaining our core services as much as possible, not decreasing the services that we provide to the public. even given a cut. um, something that is not obvious when you think about a ten and a 15% cut. is that that does not count our attrition savings target. so that is a separate kind of savings that we also have to achieve on top of the cuts. and this is true even in a scenario where we aren't having a cut or even when our budget is being increased, we still have an attrition savings target, salary savings. so you can see that's the top line item. and that is in this first fiscal year of this budget $644,000.

then on top of that, the 10% cut would be $680,000. so you have to add those together. so that creates a total funding gap in the 10% cut scenario of 1.3 million. and it's i have the closed captions blocking this here. let me it's 1.6 million in the 15% cut scenario. so those are just the hard numbers of what these cuts represent. so as i mentioned earlier, most of these cuts would need to come from salary. we have very few places where we can save from non-salary. we have done that as much as possible. in particular, we identified a place where we could charge some of our net file contract. net file being the company that runs the electronic filing system that we use to carry out all of our

electronic filings so we could charge some of their work to a different fund rather than to our operating budget or our general operating budget. so we could save $59,000 if we do that . uh, we've also discussed with the department of human resources is reducing our work order with their office. they think that they could still provide us the level of service that we're currently getting, but reducing it to 50% instead of one full fte, which is what we currently have, that would save us 140,000. so we were able to find $200,000, only that we could save from non-salary. so everything else from that prior slide would have to come out of our salary budget. so these bullets represent how how i propose we deal with a 10% cut scenario. uh, first of all, i would still try to reclassify positions within audit and enforcement. i think that's really key to having those positions produce the kind of

work that we need moving forward . um, but that the audit division would be reduced by one position. so instead of having four positions on that division that we would have three, but that they would be higher classifications with higher duty requirements and higher compensation in. secondly, i would still propose filling that 1844 form 700 position on the engagement and compliance division. i really consider that to be a key position in the office. um but we would not be able to fill those two administrative support positions . we would not have the budget to do that. so we would have to basically continue to absorb that administrative work at the ed and dh level. and probably that's going to impact our ability to support the division heads and other people in the office. and this is what the org chart would look like in that scenario. so you can see the

1844, uh, form 700 position and engagement compliance is green. so that would be filled. um, and the director of enforcement position would be filled some positions would be reclassified upward. and mr. ford, i think this presentation is really helpful. i think you can go through the slides a little quicker because we can read them. we'll do so in the 15% cut scenario. so uh, similarly, i would still want to, uh, increase the classification of the audit positions but only have two and essentially roll those divisions together. enforcement and audits. the idea being that we would save on the amount that we're spending on management. so instead of having two separate divisions heads, we would only have one division head. so we would have a director of enforcement and audits and have two auditors performing audits, which is still only a reduction from current in one auditor actually performing audits because although we have four positions on the audit division, that's

one manager and three auditors, only the three auditors actually conduct audits. so in this scenario, we'd be going from three auditors doing audits to two auditors doing audits, but at a higher classification and under the direction of the director of enforcement. i think we could also have a lot of savings there in terms of auditors being able to use existing procedures in the enforcement division, like the case management system, template documents, protocols. i think there's a lot of efficiency that we could find there. so that's why i propose doing it this way. we would not be able to hire the form 700 support role in the first year of the budget. we would be able to do that in the second year of the budget that has to do with, um, you'll remember back in an earlier slide that our baseline increases and that's just because of, uh, basically increases in cost of living and in how salaries go up over time. so we would not be able to fill it in fy 25. but we would in the second year. um, and again, we would not be able to fill the two administrative positions.

i'll skip the org chart. um, this recaps what i mentioned earlier about dates. so we have to submit our budget to the mayor's office february 21st. between then and the 1st of june, there's essentially a negotiation process where we engage with our budget analyst who's part of the mayor's budget office. we try and advocate for what our needs are and explain what the impacts of the cuts would be. and then on june 1st, or by june 1st, the mayor releases her budget book, her proposal, and then by august 1st, the board is the one that has to actually approve the budget. so there's kind of a second process. and you remember that from last year that we engaged very heavily with the board of supervisors between the time that the mayor released her budget and the time that the board approved theirs, because we had a very, very serious budget cut proposed by the mayor's office. so it's kind of a two step process. you work with the mayor's office and then, if needed, you try to work with the board to change it. so that's that's the presentation.

and yeah, glad to discuss it with you. any questions? yeah. just one quickly. miss rhode, you said at the beginning that you had you wanted to explain why you were also adding a zero cut proposal. um, because the mayor's office hasn't asked for that. correct. they have not asked for that. so i just wanted to hear your. that was my purely my decision. on. i think we have done that in the past, okay. that the ed chooses to do that. yeah. i had a quick question and sorry if you covered this, but given the current vacancy for the engagement and compliance officer and the fact that the form 700 is coming up, um, do we have a do we have like support? um, that's prepared to respond to any failure to, to file? we do. we are making due kevin kincaid in our office has really taken on a lot beyond what his work normally would be to help support that. um also on a decrease in our office, who's on

the ethics at work training team ? um, she has been covering form 700 work too. so we have people working out of their positions right now to cover works because we don't have that position filled, which obviously then is dragging those other teams down. so we're not where we would have wanted to be with our ethics training program, because both anna and peter, who's the head of that team, have been doing engagement and compliance work for the last year. thank you for covering for one another. thank you, mr. ford. um, there's no action for the commission on this item, right. um, i think we do have an agenda for action. i think we what? i'm looking at says discussion. well, possible action. i'm not sure what the action would be. okay, i guess it's option. then. you could give me feedback. you know, if you don't want to take action on it, you could at least give me feedback. if you have any. and i could work with gayathri to

incorporate it. i think we're happy to take action. i'm not sure what the action we're asked to take is to basically endorse your your priorities as, uh, yeah, that would be the idea that when i'm negotiating with the mayor's office, that i could say that i have the support of the commission, that they share this vision. in that event i move, that we support the staff's priorities as outlined outlined in director ford's presentation. i second that. then i think we take public comment on that item. anyone in the room like to comment on this item specifically focused on the budget? ma'am, please go ahead. well, good afternoon again. my name is ellen l e n l e z h o u. in terms of response bonds to the budget proposal for ethics

commission, it's not about the ethics commission alone. it's about san francisco budget as a whole. so at the commission was established back in proposition k, there was passed by the voters in november 1993. for the last 30 years without ethics commission or with ethics commission on the san francisco residents or people, has no benefit to it. whether we have a san francisco ethics commission or not. uh, it's useless to the people who live in san francisco . for the last 30 years, we see a lot of different news, a lot of different media about what's going on, about ethics commission. i've been coming in here to report a lot of violations by selected candidate . that's who are running for mayor or who are running for board of supervisor in in any

other public positions, you all know there's only 18 electoral positions in san francisco, but these people, they are all from one party. it's called the democratic party. for the last 55 years. so at the commission has not done a thing about stop corrupt when it was established because of the corruption in that we were facing 30 years ago. however now we learn san francisco has been operating, led by selected people into the office by the deep state cabal. it's called agenda 21. it has been planned and plotted a long time ago to take down america. san francisco is one of the test cities to do what it takes for a big city with small people. so think about it san francisco. we have less than 800,000 residents who live in san francisco.

however, our total budget for the entire city is $14.8 billion. that makes san francisco the number one wealthiest city in the entire global. however, san francisco no, it's famous for pool patrol. uh, no plastic drinking straws. uh, car break in every day. uh, defund the police and the people in charge in ethics commission. they continue to do what is unethical. for example, i come in here and reported to you 1168 unvaccinated people were wrongfully terminated in. 2022. and they are godly people. so the san francisco has been in darkness for a long time. so take note of this. thank you. thank you, mr. clerk. will you check if there are any remote callers. vice chair, there are

no callers. thank you. that concludes public comment. will you please call the roll on the motion to adopt staff's budget recommendation as outlined in agenda item number eight. on the motion to support staff. sorry. on the motion to support staff's, uh, recommendation on agenda item number eight, vice chair love. i commissioner flowers fang. commissioner salahi i commissioner sci i commissioner francois. i. vice chair with five votes in the affirmative and zero votes. opposed the motion is approved unanimously. thank you, mr. clerk. item number nine is eight. is now closed. item number. nine. is. um, discussion and possible action on items for future meetings. does any commissioner wish to speak on

this item? seeing none. yes public comment. um madam. miss flores, we do need to take public comment, right? even though there's no action. ma'am, please go ahead. good afternoon again. my name is ellen. ellen lee. zoo 2019. my. billboard, my campaign, billboard was about human trafficking, homeless problems in san francisco. but the deep state selected officials and some city leaders have two press conferences, told the voters not to vote for me and call me racist. i was told to go back to china. i was told to have. i have no place in san francisco city hall and tell me to get out of their face. and these people are selected into the office and they still in office. my

billboard that i paid for by myself. now, i don't know about whatever pac that you talk about earlier. we have many posters and billboards were illegally removed because of the two interference press conference by the selected leaders and, and, uh, elected officials or selected officials four days in only four days. many of my posters and campaign billboards were illegally removed. and you keep talking about ethics commission. you're talking about how you can help the people to be better. how could it be better as a candidate like me, i work for the city for almost 20 years, and i care about my city. i am a resident in here. i am a workers in here. for the last 38 years. i have been treated differently because i support president donald trump, because i am a christian and because i'm a female chinese immigrant, and because i am against corruption.

that and i spoke the truth to you, and i am here to let you know i am not homophobic. i am not xenophobic. i'm not transphobic. i am not racist. i'm not prejudice or sexist. i don't care who you date or marry or have sex with. i don't hunt you down and scream and yell at you. why are you eating in dinner? i will not talk to you to the street or anybody. and causing riots, burn places or ground or route the store at any belongings. i will not force you. my belief onto you and confronted you to anything that you don't like. i want everyone to live their life or her life. his life or whatever. the life that they like. i will not tell you what car to drive and what appliance to use and how to how to heat your home. i am a chinese american and i am for you and everyone in here. so today i want all of you san francisco commissioners, if you have future future meetings and

god protected your wealth and health, and if you are able to wake up for the next one, the next meeting, by god's grace, wake up, protect our city from the agenda 2030 who are willfully trying to destroy san francisco. i am here to stand in the gap for you and for san francisco. and god bless you all. so do something productive to protect our city. thank you. thank god for you. mr. clerk. can you check if there are any remote callers? vice chair, we're checking to see if there are callers in the queue. vice chair. there are no callers. thank you. our last item is an additional opportunity for general public comment. would anyone like to make public comment? miss.

good afternoon again. i am grateful for all of you that you're serving as commissioners and i know many of you may not get paid and you just volunteer and get a stipend, but you have people who work for the commission as a staff. i worked for the city for almost 20 years along with 1168 christians and catholics. file covid 19 exemption and after we filed the exemption, each one of us wrongfully terminated it. and i'm publicly acknowledged to you. i represent the government employee. i do not give up my freedom. i came from another country for freedom. and you today have the freedom that you exercise, and it's so sad to see each one of you that you're not willing to protect your freedom. think about it. for people unvaccinated in the city government, they all get terminated. you know, people have bills, people have children, people have mortgage.

what are you going to do when you don't have a job? what are you going to do? and you have people sitting in here so called ethic commission, but you're not willing to work with the civil services. you're not willing to work with the labor department or human resources or the mayor's office. and you continue to sit here talk about non discrimination policies as i am just sad to see such a groups. you are just one of this group. we have more than 80 commissions in the city police commission, fire commission. at the commission, civil commission, health commission and just name a few. but none of you willing to step up and look upon what i'm telling you. i am one of the 1168 and vaccinated and government workers refuse to bow

down to the lie that covid 19 was planned. planned to take down an america and they use san francisco as a test city and see how well that the shippers complied. how do i know i work for the public health? i read data, i provide treatments to patients and now we have more than 10,000 attorneys, more than 10,000 medical doctors came out and said this covid 19 virus was never isolate. it was a hoax that people are propaganda, collude by the government, selected leaders with the mockingbird media. liars keep lying, telling you to go test, test, test, test. but there's no body. get a covid other than the flu and cold and bioweapon that causing people get sick. i'm asking you if you continue to have this ethics commission meetings, work with the people

we instead all wrongfully terminated people in san francisco. then it proved me that you are a human being. mr. clerk, do we have any callers in the queue? vice chair, we're checking to see if there are callers in the queue. vice chair . there are no callers. thank you. this concludes the february 9th, 2024 meeting of the san francisco ethics commission. thank you

>> hello everyone. welcome to the bayview bistro. >> it is just time to bring the community together by deliciousness. i am excited to be here today because nothing brings the community together like food. having amazing food options for and by the people of this community is critical to the success, the long-term success and stability of the bayview-hunters point community.

>> i am nima romney. this is a mobile cafe. we do soul food with a latin twist. i wanted to open a truck to son nor the soul food, my african heritage as well as mylas as my latindescent. >> i have been at this for 15 years. i have been cooking all my life pretty much, you know. i like cooking ribs, chicken, links. my favorite is oysters on the grill. >> i am the owner.

it all started with banana pudding, the mother of them all. now what i do is take on traditional desserts and pair them with pudding so that is my ultimate goal of the business. >> our goal with the bayview bristow is to bring in businesses so they can really use this as a launching off point to grow as a single business. we want to use this as the opportunity to support business owners of color and those who have contributed a lot to the community and are looking for opportunities to grow their business. >> these are the things that the san francisco public utilities commission is doing. they are doing it because they feel they have a responsibility to san franciscans and to people in this community. >> i had a grandmother who lived in bayview.

she never moved, never wavered. it was a house of security answer entity where we went for holidays. i was a part of bayview most of my life. i can't remember not being a part of bayview. >> i have been here for several years. this space used to be unoccupied. it was used as a dump. to repurpose it for something like this with the bistro to give an opportunity for the local vendors and food people to come out and showcase their work. that is a great way to give back to the community. >> this is a great example of a public-private community partnership. they have been supporting this including the san francisco public utilities commission and mayor's office of workforce department. >> working with the joint venture partners we got

resources for the space, that the businesses were able to thrive because of all of the opportunities on the way to this community. >> bayview has changed. it is growing. a lot of things is different from when i was a kid. you have the t train. you have a lot of new business. i am looking forward to being a business owner in my neighborhood. >> i love my city. you know, i went to city college and fourth and mission in san francisco under the chefs ria, marlene and betsy. they are proud of me. i don't want to leave them out of the journey. everyone works hard. they are very supportive and passionate about what they do, and they all have one goal in mind for the bayview to survive.

>> all right. it is time to eat, people. >> the city of san francisco is invest nothing resources to care for people experiencing a mental health or substance use crisis on the streets. is this includes new programs and the expansion of successful pilots >> worried about you lying on the street here. >> we can take them to other facilities like mental health facilities or shelters or offer resources and connect them to social workers and follow up. we try to provide safety for the public and for them to let them know than i are not in trouble and we are here to offer them many resources and service they may want and takes buildinged

the relationships with the public president people we contact with. takes time and trust. the city street team include mental health clinicians, community paramedics, emt's, social workers and councillors train in traumatic care u most vagzal interviews. cultural competence and he deescalation. >> san francisco 911 when is the emergency? >> san francisco trained 9 leondis patchers operate inspectly from the police department. through investments and alternatives to law enforcement, the city ruled the police sponses to people experiencing mental health emergencies. >> now that we have a team that is geared toward mental health that helped dispatchers able to assist the public when call nothing for common they don't think needs an ambulance or fire or police they think they need help. i wanted to be that social

worker what wents the extra mile and figured out how to navigate the system. joy feel great when i help someone that's why i got in the work if you are experiencing an emergency or worry body safety on the street call 911. for nonemergencies use 311. you can learn more about the street response program atapply >> (music). >> wishing sfgovtv all the very best ownless 30th anniversary thank you, for keeping san francisco informed how we're fighting. >> the rec and park development i want to thank sfgovtv for thirty years of the community services. >> hi this is shamming anyone water departmenters i want to

wish sfgovtv a happy 30th nonthank you so much >> i'm alice king this is my husband shawn kim and we other ordinance of joe's ice cream in san francisco. joe's ice cream in rich mondistrict since 1959 and we are proud to be registered a san francisco legacy business since 2017. and we offer more than 50 flavors of homemade ice cream. and delicious home style burgers, sandwiches, hot dog, salad and more. we have a lot of different ice cream flavors both classic, long forgotten but classic and asian flavor inspired flavor like 3 red bean and black and now we also brought the korean i'm from

korea. korean coffee krooem. we mix our traditional and trendy flavors all together. shawn and i are the first generation of the immigrants here in san francisco. so as immigrants, we have a special connection to this diverse community, san francisco richmond district. so we made this place our home. that is where we are trying to build our business as a place where everybody can feel welcome like we felt when we first came here what really makes fisher or joe's ice cream we have been growing together with our community. so we support our local schools throughout the fundraiser. we provide job opportunity for high school, i hire them every

year. built a beautiful parklet outside funded by donations from over 200 neighbors and friends and i think this really shows how joe's ice cream and our community like lives together. so -- you see our mission is to serve as a fun community hub in san francisco and richmond district. so, i hope that we can stay this way for many years.

public works commission, even today, is monday, february 12th, 2024. our meeting began at 9:01 a.m. secretary fuller, please call the roll. good morning. please respond with here or present. lynn newhouse. siegel, present. commissioner newhouse siegel is present. warren post here. warren. chair post is present. gerald turner present. commissioner turner is present. paul wolford present. commissioner wolford is present. fadi zabi present. vice chair zabi is present with five members present. we do have quorum for the public works commission. public comment is taken for all informational and action items on today's agenda. to comment in person, you will please line up against