these steps. i will leave that there and let me give you some food for thought. >> commissioners? >> well, that being said, and you said that the respondent they in past years or others, they were cooperative, and they, settled at around a $500, range, and it seems that this particular gentleman has chosen not to participate with us and engage with us. i would recommend $500 of violation. >> $500 to $1,000, per violation. >> for a total of $2,000. >> what is staff think of that? >> this is a lot of time that the staff has spent on this and i suspect that could have been litigated in some way.

>> sorry. >> this is unusual. honestly to be here at this point, for something like this. so, i am going to defer to the executive director on that to let him decide if that will be an acceptable amount. >> i think that the minimum should be $500 for each count. >> i am siding with commissioner andrews that it should be $1,000 a count, seems right f we otherwise would settle for $500 a count. and i mean, arguably maybe that is a little too low to have the turn about that we want, but i think that is very reasonable. >> yeah. >> and is there a motion, unless there are other comments from the commissioners, maybe we should take the public comment and we will do the motion. s >> public comment on this matter? >> david, pilpal speaking as an individual, i did want to note that the commission does have

this history of settling matters related to this type of allegation, it did seem from the discussion, like at least, $1,000 a count, or $2,000 total is appropriate given the aggravating factors and the effect that you are trying to encourage here and i also recall a few years ago that there was a proposal to eliminate the additional point size, and i think that commissioner hur remembers that and he at the time, expressed a few that it was important to keep that larger point size, and because it is different, from state law, and so we do see these violations from time-to-time. and so, for all of those reasons, i think that at least, $2,000 seems right. >> thanks. >> is there a motion to find a

violation as stated in the complaint with a penalty of $1,000 per count, for a total penalty of $2,000? >> i would so move. >> second. >> all in favor. >> aye. >> aye. >> opposed? >> aye. >> the motion passes, 4-1. and the violation has been established, and the penalty should issue from the commission. >> okay. >> the staff? >> okay. >> the next item on the agenda is a hearing on the merits relating to the complaint, 14.131112, in the matter of jacqueline norman. >> gary again, for the commission, and so this matter involves six violations of the california government code, six 84200 a, which requires to file

the semiannual campaign statements, and so until they terminate the activity and (inaudible) has ruled on how a committee must terminate. this respondent ran for district supervisor in 2010. she stopped filing her form 460s o january, 31, 2011, and she had an outstanding cash balance and outstanding debts and because of the debt she was unable to terminate by law. the state law requires that you have a zero balance. in order for you to terminate. and again, this respondent is not here. so, i would request that you accept the evidence, that has been submitted to you and, find the violations and i will with one caveot in the matter when someone is not filing, in all likelihood they are first not filed form 360 might have resolved everything if they had done it and the subsequent ones, continue to happen,

because they don't file. and so it is possible to have the activity in that first non-filing, but would have resolved it and they could terminated but it is unknown at this point, because, again, the staff reached out to her multiple times, which i am happy to go through again and she never filed and never addressed the issue. >> comments or questions from the commissioners? >> you list the mitigating factors or at least the standard mitigating factors, did you find that any applied here? >> it does not look like there is any finding either way? >> yeah, i don't believe that there was an actual intention to conceal or deceive, i believe that respondent probably was unaware to be

honest of what her responsibility was. i certainly don't think that it was deliberate and it was negligent and it was isolated and there is no existing history with our commission of a violation at all, however she did not cooperate at all, either the campaign finance staff or myself. >> can you describe for us, what communications you had with her, if any. >> i personally have never spoken to her, i sent her various letters starting in november, 2013, and she had a probable cause report in march and we held a hearing which she did respond to but did not attend, and sent out in june and noticed of this meeting in september, i tried to reach her by telephone a couple of times, she either had a message that said that her voice mail box is

full so i couldn't leave a message, or if i could leave a message she did not return my call, the address has been consistent and the it is the same as all of the filings and i believe that it is her home and so everybody was sent there and she never responded prior to the start of this action, to the campaign finance staff who reached out to her, both, via e-mail and telephone and letter to try to get her to file which is what we always do. >> anything? >> public comment? >> >> no public comment? >> any other questions, is there a motion from the commission? >> all right, i just wanted to note that so this january, 31, 2011, it was reported that she

had an ending cash balance of 2300 and outstanding debts of 8,000 dollars and i will bring that to our attention as we go forward in a... some kind of a decision on this violation. >> you know, i think, you know for me, there are always competing concerns when we have complaints like this. you know, on the one hand, i do think that we need to enforce these regulations because otherwise, people are not going to follow them and we need to have some deterrent effect. on the other hand, i want to make sure that people who are running for office, who don't have big campaigns and don't have professionals helping them are not completely discouraged by failing to file forms, that probably would have resolved matters for them relatively quickly. i think for me, the reason why i am comfortable with this

recommendation is because of the great efforts we have made to try to get the respondent to resolve and i think the public, it is recognized that we are willing to cooperate with the respondents particularly in this kind of a situation, who acknowledge that they did not file forms, and get it fixed and you know, this probably could have been resolved, for, much less than what is being proposed here, if the respondent had merely responded to the phone calls. so, and i do think that it is a serious issue to not file your forms. because there could be a situation where they could really be deceiving the public by not filing them. it may not be the case here, but i think to me, that makes the amount although, high, reasonable. and but, i welcome, these from other commissioners. >> and commissioner hayon >> my question is i just need to be reminded of what will happen. and once we decide on this

penalty. and she is not going to respond to the penalty, she is not going to pay it, i would assume. i don't know that. but, given the lack of response thus far, what do we do then? do we garish wages? what do we do? >> it will go to the bureau of revenue and they will, well we will try to collect it first and we have a judgment from you saying here is what we need to pay, and reach out to try to collect that. and they, require a certain amount of effort from us to do that and then it could be sent to them for them to collect, basically they are like a collection agency for the city. and i am not, 100 percent on the process, but that is what happens. >> and do we ever make an attempt to actually go to the individual's home and knock on their door, and see if they are there. >> well, these are done by the process server and so i personally have not done that, and i suppose that it is not beyond the relevant tom realm

to do that. >> we don't normally do that? >> no. >> right. >> and having the delinquent revenues would sue in small claims court and get a judgment, if they have the requisite amount of information they will try to garnish the wages but that is the process. >> and i have another question, thank you. chairman. i would, and in it, and i was going to hold on to it, until we got to the executive director report, but, now, that we are talking about it, i think that it is appropriate. so, once we make a determination, on the amount of the violation, that in some way, we have created this contractual agreement that you owe us money, that is now debt, how do we treat that on our balance sheet? do we carry that as a debt and

is that a liability? i mean, we typically and certainly, in business, on the accounts receivable, you do that, and on the particular judgments you can carry it and at some point the auditor is going to tell you that you need to write that off because it is going against your assets. >> we are not a revenue producing department, there are few that are, the larger ones and so while we do, the city does track the revenues that we collect as deposits into the general fund. there is no deficits recorded, when we have outstanding debts like this. and then, we have 90 days to collect them and then, the city law requires that we refer them to bdr and then it sort of becomes, their responsibility. >> okay. >> so, commissioner hayon. >> more of a general comment that these two cases make me think of, is that it is a shame, and you know, i do have

some sympathy for the individuals involved, and usually it is individuals, who are first time candidates, maybe not completely familiar with the regulations which they are supposed to adhere to. and so, and i just wonder, how we can possibly avoid this, these kinds of situations, and i'm... and i am understanding that there will always be situations of this nature. but, something about the way that we train candidates, if we can do, is there something different that we can do, in the training, or in the way that we inform people who are running for office or running campaigns who may be fairly naive or new to the process. and i don't know if that is a question for you, or for you, mr. st. croix.

>> there is often, an understandable feeling on behalf of candidates, that run and are not elected that they go through all of the rig ors of the candidate and all of the difficulties of understanding the myriad of laws and, we finally frequently just don't want it deal with that process, any more. they would like to just sort of shut it down and walk away from it and unfortunately, they can't do that, there is obligations that they encure to themself and there is a certain frustration level because people don't really how complicated it can be to run for office when they initiate these effort and so unfortunately, you know, in situations like these, really, are too bad, because if we could have worked with this person, and maybe, there would be one count here in stead of

six and possibly none, if they had paid off their debt and cleared out their bank, before that first filing deadline that they missed, you know, we take it retroactively terminate and that would have been the end of it but those obligations do exist and we are pretty clear in the training that the election day is not the end of the campaign. and for example, the public finance, candidates they have even more obligations and so we have to be sure that these folks know what they are, and but it is that syndrome that i just described that contributes a lot to this. >> understandable. >> and the other thing that i would say and what is the number, and it is 9,000 that the staff is recommended and the 9,000 penalty, is that right. >> yes. and if you will allow me to try

to add a rationale to a number. and in our last ruling there was 10,000 and we got to 2,000 and we somehow talked ourselves through that that we got there. and we have 9,000 here and i am thinking someone who did not follow a regulations, and in the fliers that you put out, if you are asking about harm, how many people were harmed, meaning that they could not read that form that they otherwise, could be able to read and be more informed, and from that harm, we made this determination? and for this particular one, there were 6 counts, and i understand, but then i think about how many people were harmed along the way and who is to define harm and how far-reaching that goes, but this is this one individual's failure to file, over and over

and over again. and, to in the absence of any other rationale, that we could apply to a fee, at least i see that there was a balance of $2300, at that time. in which case, i am not sure how we came to 1500 dollars per and maybe you want to say a word about that. >> so i looked at past settlements again where the people cooperated with us on these kinds of violation and it was in that $500 range and because of the effort of going through and going through the process, we thought that three times that was appropriate. and however, i said at the beginning for you to consider that in the majority, and the vast majority of the cases like this, when someone is cooperating with us, they could have terminated at the first filing that they didn't file. the issue of we don't know how she resolved this debt and we don't know if she raised more money from people to do it, we don't know if she took on loans to do it, it is unclear, i

agree that the public harm is probably very minimal. and this respondent and her campaign and she was unsuccessful and did not run again. you know, there is a fine structure in place for these, however, you cannot assess the fine until the filings is filed, and so there is a cap, but the limit would be the amount of activity on the late filing, so let's say that it was a year late, right? and she raised $6,000 but she needed to pass that debt, you could do $6,000. and if there is no activity, there is a different cap, it is much lower. and so you could look at it that way, but because these are never filed, we don't know, that answer. but, that is where i came up with that number and just looking at the effort that was put into this, opposed to people who are cooperative, and because this happens. and the people, and generally the people who once we contact them will work with us to resolve it. >> i guess from all of that,

then, i was just thinking, about that, and these counts, these six counts, at $500 is close to what your ending balance was in 2011. >> although, i am not sure that the ending balance necessarily has a correlation. >> it has no correlation, and i said in the absence of any other rationale and there is rationale and it is consistent on what has, and it was asked in the amount of cooperation, and other mitigating factors that were there and aggravating issues as well and i understand that you have applied that to it. >> is there a motion to accept the staff's recommendation to find a violation in the amount of 1500 per count?

>> i move it. >> second. >> all in favor. >> public comment? >> we did public comment, but... >> you are right, i am sorry. >> we did have a lot of discussion after the first public comment, is there anybody that wants to give public comment on this item? >> all in favor? >> aye. >> opposed? >> no. >> that passes 4-1. >> the next item on the agenda... >> we don't need the stenographer any more. >> thank you. >> the next item on the agenda is possible discussion and action relating to a complaint received or initiated by the ethics commission. is there a vote, is there a motion to go into closed session to discuss possible litigation as plaintiff.

>> so moved. >> second. >> public comment? >> hearing none, all in favor? >> aye. >> opposed? >> hearing none, that motion passes we will go into closed session. [closed session] >>

>> motion to keep confidential. >> motion >> second. >> public comment. >> you are going to entertain a motion keep your deliberations confidential? >> yes. >> all in favor? >> aye. >> opposed? >> hearing none, the motion to keep the deliberations relating litigation of the plaintiff, confidential, passes, 5-0. >> the next item on the agenda, is evaluations of the executive director. >> if there is a motion to go into closed session? >> is there a motion to go into closed session, to discuss the

performance evaluation of the director st. croix, it is a personnel matter? >> okay, public comment? >> wait, i think that we need to, hear if there is a motion. >> i will so move. >> okay >> public comment? >> you need a second? >> did i not, is there a second to that motion? >> i will second it. >> okay. >> assuming that you are having a closed session, i just want to say that the executive director continuing to do a good job, under difficult circumstances, the fact that you don't have enough resources to do the things that you want to do, that need to be done, i don't think is directly the result of the executive director.

i think that it is fine to set performance goals, and to check in with the director on achieving those goals, but, the question of resources to accomplish your tasks is really a budgetary matter. and i just wanted to make that clear. thank you. >> all in favor of going into closed session to discuss the personnel matter of the department head's performance? aye. >> aye. >> opposed? >> i think hearing none, that motion passes. 5-0. we are in closed session.

>> that motion passes 5-0. >> the next item on the agenda is the possible action on the minutes. >> any, just a procedural. >> yes. >> can you still vote? >> you have to. >> i move that we adopt the minutes as written. >> public comment in >> all in favor. >> aye. >> opposed. >> hearing none, that motion passes. executive director's report. >> i will make this quick.

you have an attachment that shows the tech community comments on our new ballot measure dash boards, i want to add that we sent them to the other california commissions in san diego immediately set out to copy in and think that it is fantastic, and we are also sending them to jurisdictions outside of the state and seattle has moved a copy of it as well, and so i tried to help them out and so there is a lot of buzz in the tech community. >> and the only other thing is that i wanted to say, is, we are moving right along in implementing the new lobbyist rules and that is coming along on schedule. >> great. thank you. >> public comment on the executive director's report? >> the next item on the agenda is items for future meetings?

>> at a recent meeting, commissioner hayon asked for an update on the (inaudible) requests and so i went back a year. and put these out, just so you guys have a history of what has been out there. and it is not really a discussion item, it is just that you wanted to know. >> yes, that is very helpful. >> i will give you one. >> thank you. >> sorry. >> oh, one other thing, the sunshine memo that he mentioned earlier, jessy going to give you a copy, this is on next month's agenda, and it is kind of irony that he said that we should not have given it to sunshine without considering it first. if we considered it first without giving a chance to comment, they would have been upset. so, we gave it to them earlier, and i think last week, and we were going to have this on the october agenda and they asked us, until they have a chance to look at it and so, it will be

on the november agenda. and we did extend the consideration a month, and we don't intend to extend it beyond that. >> and you will include it in the november packet as well. >> yeah that is a draft of what we have so far, and as mr. st. croix said, we provided it to the sunshine ordinance task force for their review and i went to that meeting and i went to a subsequent committee meeting and so they are talking about it and give me some feedback and then they are going to provide feedback at the meeting in november and then we also did distributing it to the department heads. and so, the ideas is to get this out to everybody, and get everybody's feedback, and as you will see in the memo, it is just a general, memo about primarily, procedural issues and referral issues that we have been kind of wrestling with at least since i have been here in the hopes that we can take a look and come to some,

con census as to how we are going to treat these issues going forward so that in the future we are get to the meat of the issues without dealing with a lot of procedural stuff. >> is the idea that the memo could change, based on feedback, or are we going to be discussing it as currently drafted? >> yeah, i mean that i would think that it is probably going to be mostly what it is right now, but, based on any if there is any feedback, why we might tweak it a little bit, obviously, and we have obviously extended the invitation for folks to send comments to us and the commission's consideration. >> other comments? >> david pilpal, speaking as an individual. the task force did have a brief presentation by jessy at the august, no at the october, the early october meeting and then, in part, at my suggestion, sent

it to the committee where there was further discussion last week and i think that it is back at the full task force next week, and so the task force and the sunshine advocates will have an opportunity to review it and provide comments, prior to the commission hearing it. so i think that was the intent and that is under way, and i spent some time with jessy on it, beforehand and i think the input was helpful, so, i hope that we have a good discussion, next month. >> great, thank you. >> also, i should note, in terms of future actions, there is an interested persons meeting november 10th, and 13th,; is that correct?? >> yeah. that is true. >> on, well, proposed changes, thank you, david. >> proposed changes to (inaudible) we are looking for community and