all of the electronic filings in the other cities, posted a website and, the programmers like this group, can actually tap into the data in any city in california, and then they also took the state's data and included it as well. and so you can actually tap into all of the data state wide and so you could build something like this now and again, this is only, it has developed in the past week, so a lot of stuff is moving at the moment. >> thank you. >> any other questions from the commissioners? >> well, thank you very much for the presentation. we appreciate it, and thank you for your hard volunteer work. it is really great, and i think that the public is going to greatly benefit from it. [ applause ] public comment, on agenda item three? >> i too would like to compliment these volunteers, the website looks terrific. i think journalists larry bush

at city report.com would absolutely love this new website. so, keep on encouraging them to work with mr. massey. >> david, pilpal speaks an individual, three comments, it would be nice if the group could explain the light blue and the dark blue, and the difference between the blue and the red and i just saw it quickly. >> and i think that there is an explanation, and a legend, but we could not see it very well. >> okay. >> and it would be good if they can ensure that there is good contrast, i know that there are problems with the video, but just in general it looks like the contrast could be better, on their site. and just in general, i recall in dealing with campaign finance data historically, the problem is that the data really is inconsistent all over the place and so there are typos and there are, wrong addresses,

and zip code inconsistencies and one campaign will report a contributor as a lawyer, and the other will report it as an attorney and so when you try to aggregate the data you have to clean those things up and it is extremely time consuming and i just recall that in the past efforts and so if they have, put in time to try to clean that up, that is all to the good, but it really is a mess trying to work through all of that data. so any way, thanks for all of the work. >> the next item on the agenda is... >> what is that? >> do we need... >> the next item on the agenda is hearing on the merits regarding ethics complaint, 18-121029 in the matter of bob squeri.

>> good evening, commissioners i represent the staff of the ethic commission in this hearing. and it does not appear that the respond ant is here for this case. and was involved two violations of the code section, 1.162 a one, which requires the disclosure statement and a campaign ad to be a certain size and in this case, the respondent ran for district supervisor in 2012 and distributed two campaign ads in the form of two hangers and the statement that is smaller than is required by law. and you have been given a brief, along with eight exhibits. and the staff would request that you accept those exhibits

as submit and rely on them and make a determination that the respondent committed both violations that they are not here to contest the violations. respondent was notified by the hearing by personal service on september 5, and notified on every step of this process since its initiation and has not come tonight. so, i would request that you find the violation based on what has been given to you already. >> can you state for the record what specific efforts you have made to contact, the respondent, and whether you have ever spoken to him? >> sure. sure. so, the complaint was initiated in october of 2012, he was first notified november 7, 2012, by letter. by letter, again, december 5th, by letter again on january 3, 2013. and then, again, in march of 2013, i also made various e-mail and telephone attempts

no messages were ever returned to me. and he was sent a probable cause report in march 28 and he did respond but did not attend the hearing and his response was that he was not going to attend. and the accusation was then sent to him in july, second, 2014, and again, i made repeated attempts by telephone to try to resolve the matter by this process, and no messages was ever returned to me. and so then, the hearing notice, for this hearing was sent on september 5th, and after i sent that i did try to contact him a couple of times as well to see if we can resolve it through the settlement or some other way and again there has been no response. >> questions from the commissioners? >> you know, in my view, i think, clearly you have been able to meet all of the

elements and that there is certainly has been a violation here and i think that the only question to me is the size of the penalty. and you know, for a failure to print the campaign committee in the correct font size, $10,000 does seem some what harsh. and i understand that it is a result of the respondent not at all cooperating or acknowledging the process. but i still do have some concern that that penalty is accessive. >> sorry. we can see that that is actually high. it is the maximum. for this kind of violation, we would, that would not ever happen as a settlement. policies were adopted, back in 2013 that laid out very specific time lines and what penalties will be. this did actually occur, prior to those adoptions. the staff just used it as a

guide to use it as something to consider and it is purely within your purview to do whatever you like. you could issue a lower penalty, or something in between. those are merely a guide at this point, like i said, i don't believe that it would be fair to impose those penalties on him because this happened prior to that, i included that as a guide for you. that was it. >> other comments or questions from the commissioners? >> i think that i share your views, mr. chairman, that $10,000 is not appropriate for this kind of a violation. and i am reminded of a judge who once told me about he had a case before during the second world war and two plumbers were charged with sabotage because they cut a pipe on a job they were doing and he said to the

f.b.i. and he said, well, what are you doing to suggest for a real sabotage? because they wanted to give about a ten year sentence. and i mean, i would think that for this kind of a violation, i would be much more comfortable with something in the range of 2 or 300 dollars. >> if i may, the potential help. settlements that are publicly available, on this violation, or very similar have been in the $500 range, when someone has cooperated at a early stage and resolved the matter in settlement without the staff having to go through all of 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