office last month you ring a buzzer to get to the door i rang the buzzer to get a money order it takes a few minutes instead, they denied me assess a woman manager went to the guards desk and claimed to call 9-1-1 a restraining order against me i've endured this for 10 years. >> mr. chair what sort of permit are you talking about. >> it's called a street ordinance permit i have it many my bag my health is at stake it is urban bearable for me through the street artist program.

>> thank you. >> the next item is constitution and possible action regarding a letter sent to supervisor farrell on december 9, 2014 mr. st. kci. >> chair i need to recuse myself from this matter thank you. >> so the commission demonstrated at the last meeting to request that supervisor farrell respond to the forfeiture letter the staff issued in december to determine what if any further actions to take on had matter i believe that someone representing mr. farrell is here. >> is there a representative of many farrell here?

>> thank you, commissioners for the opportunity to discuss this matter i'm sure you're aware of we submitted a detailed letter outlining the reasons why we believe strongly that forfeiture is not warranted in that matter and it is on the city's behave of the forfeiture request most noblely supervisor farrell has done absolutely nothing wrong the fcc xhublthd a two year discussion where everyone involved with this looked at hundreds of thousands of e-mails and they completely exaggerated supervisor farrell in demi had not teen any action that warranted any type of fine yet we are here basically 5 years

later two elections later with a letter demanding he pay $191,000 perp there's absolutely no factual or local basis for such an equitable request again most notably because he didn't violate the law at all also on a procedural ground the establishment bars the commission if the commission wants to ask the committee to forfeit money back to the city the law says it do very clearly your policy says to do that within four years that's by october 2014 now they've been

talk oh, there's fraudulent concealment and talked about left lane well nights the stipulation is - the commission was put on notice or received a complaint in 2010 alleged from the realizing attorney ladies and gentlemen, there might be corporation between supervisor farrell and the committee regardless the staff actually sat in on the interviews with the b are f bbc when we interviewed the row committee they did the actions the staff of the ethics commission clearly they can have decides whether to act within it's four years

stauchlts if in those interviews was absolutely no reason why the commission couldn't have requested forfeiture before october of 2014 but it self-and because of that and because those rules are clear it can't now you know two elect cycles later ask for for it is your the other thing about forfeiture we role don't think that forfeiture when is kind of a term of art is appropriate in this case as mr. sincroy said forfeiture is authorized by the law in a limit number of circumstances it is when a committee files a report and from the face of that report it is observe the committee accepted a contribution that means it's over the limit of a corporation so the committee files a report

which happens all the time why our contribution from abc corporation the committee admitted it accepted and it happens all the time the committee discloses receiving money from sue commissioner president dwight smith and received another money added together over $500 contribution limit as mr. sincroy said no investigation is note in order to reach the conclusion that the committee should forfeit the money and objective we've asked the commission for the forfeiture matters there are one hundred about don't quote me in every single one a corporate contribution that was over the limited that was missing information and important information there was absolutely in question from the face to

face of report that the committee accepted a contribution and that's why the city asked to forfeit the money we are here because of the 2 1/2 year that by definition this is not the type of matter which forfeiture really relates to where that requires a full investigation that's not what forfeiture is all about and the footnote to the point is besides the fact that this farrell committee has long since closed it is really kind of an abstract saurment to make the 235er8 committee never received the $191,000 the other committee ivenl spent $191,000 on mail

pieces that supported supervisor farrell machine campaign but on the bank of america semantics how can you ask a committee to forfeit it money that the committee never received but it's been closed for years now so in talking with mr. sincroy when we raised those issues and you know he's been cooperative and supervisor farrell contacted the commission and immediately starting talking about his position and the implication that even though this committee is closed that supervisor farrell will have to pay that peppering in sum in order to get to the forfeiture in this matter the commission has to apply that provision of law to a situation

which is different than any situation in forfeiture before and it has to ask supervisor farrell to pay this money whether it's $191,000 or something else out of his pocket in creativity to the investigation that has completelyes rated supervisor farrell given those facts and those laws - this law we certainly building that forfeiture in any amount is not we're adjourned and we respectfully request the committee agree and wave this, sir if you have any questions, we'll answer them. >> any questions from the commissioners. >> just a couple of questions one putting aside the stauchlts

that defense what remedy is there where a candidate sets up his election committee and then set up a independent committee which does pieces against his opponent and it is determined that extinct committee quote was not independent but controlled by the candidates committee what's the recommendation if that occurred. >> first of all, it is very important to point out that the f p pc investigations found was that a consultant hired by supervisor farrell's committee

without any knowledge or approval of supervisor farrell or anyone else on the campaign sent two or three e-mails to this independent expenditure committee at the beginning that's all the investigation found okay. so it is not based on what we know what the f bbc has released there's not evidence certainly not is it fair to say saying that there is a whole butch of remedies that are clearly on the charter clearly on the enforcement you open on investigation you interview the parties you talk to the city attorney's office and apply the facts of the law and decide whether or not i think a violation as occurred you talk to the respondent and

most of cases you know better than i do their settled there a stipulation where the person is fined up to 5 thousand dollars and if a settle is not reached you go to court that's a full. >> for if you are turns not one of the remedies that could be imposed. >> we wouldn't think so forfeiture is appropriate if there no investigation needed i don't want to forestall the possibility that some committee could file a report on the face of those reports somehow admit to coordination then i guess forfeiture would be appropriate but that's certainly not the case here. >> any other questions commissioner keane. >> when supervisor farrell hired chris lee he hired chris

lee as his committees campaign consultant i hired him right. >> as far as i know. >> he hired him as his campaign consultant his campaign consultant channels money from another committee that has - channels money and activities supporting supervisor farrell from another committee during the course of the campaign in the amount of $190,000 that's was the fcc has found done by the committee that chris lee is coordinating essentially he's the one doing it what supervisor farrell whether he's the one responsible if the

long run for the activity of the campaign consultant he can't say he didn't know what he's doing by funneling campaign contributions to my campaign in the form of others activity i didn't personally know that it that's not the law is it. >> with with all due respect your exaggerating what we found was one e-mail to the committee with a contributor west that was public he sent a second e-mail to the committee with kind of the hall of a committee and eventually give the committee the contact information for a consultant to hire so is 0 at least there's no evidence i've read the summaries of the

interviews sdls no evidence he funneled money and he certainly and absolutely no evidence in the record at all that chris lee has nothing to do with knowledge or saw the mail pieces that was at the beginning of the one this independent committee was being set i think he gave them affordable unit a memo and contributor list and a campaign consultant first of all, that's what he did. >> that's not what we did i'll stop you on november 20th, 2014, the fcc approved that stipulation that's an agreement between its staff and common sense voters that was that committee that we're talking about that chris lee used to channel money and support to supervisor farrell during the election so that was that was one of the parties to the stipulation in

addition to the common sense voters the stipulation was also entered into by the vote for mark farrell for supervisors committee. >> i'm going to purport you. >> and let me finish chris lee in effect 3 stipulation that was entered with the f t what direction or c was a total admission of chris lee doing those things and endorsed by the supervisor farrell committee we've got a admission and saying supervisor farrell and have any personal knowledge of there's no question those things happened and the stipulation entered into

so no harm no foul. >> commissioner your confused as i was this he stipulation was not entered into vote for mark farrell district 2 is part of the name of the committee the full name of the committee was congressman voter sf 2010 vote for mark farrell for district supervisor. >> it was entered in by chris lee. >> yes. >> yes entered into by chris lee supervisor farrell's campaign die or dbi so supervisor farrell is responsible for chris lee and here he's saying i did that while working for supervisor farrell. >> supervisor farrell certainly takes full responsible for the action of his committee. >> no, he has never said or done anything he fully coordinated with the ftc c and

the commission in this matter he was interviewed empty the f bbc an two occasions follow-up phone calls they've determined that given the facts all the information they gathered that it was not - he had done nothing wrong the consultant did, yes the committee they sent out the 3 overwhelms they've talked about in their stipulation and the packet ever materials there is - supervisor farrell is not acquit the opposite he's not very happy to find out what it is it 3 years laterthree or four e-mails and he took responsibility. >> i'm sure he's not happy no

one is saying in this factual information that supervisor farrell is an evil man what's being said that the arrangement it was set up clearly violated the section of the san francisco campaign and government code this is that supervisor farrells campaign staff consultant worked with this other committee and channeled illegal campaign contributions in the form of money and also as all sorts of things to help supervisor farrell that is an illegal campaign contribution that's the one thing that remains left after the mc congressional and the hunching even and citizens

united that whole idea that contributions can be closely regulated and illegal attractions can be prohibited and punished as they are under the section that's the only thing that remains to the people in the electrical process if becoming corrupt that's policing campaign attractions if we go ahead and just wave this away we're essentially saying san francisco is saying well, it doesn't matter we have a committee that is channeling this illegal campaign money to supervisor farrell well, we may have not known even though he didn't he is still responsible under the law if we don't have that we'll have this evil man

washington his hands in order for this section to have validity. >> any other questions for mr. sutton. >> thank you, mr. chair do you happen to know how much was spent overhead on the campaign the mark farrell campaign. >> i apologize. i don't it might be 2, 3, 4 some of the documents i don't know if you know. >> and i ask because to me. >> several hundred thousands of dollars. >> it brings some of the when you're spending half a million dollars half a million dollars is a lot when you're running for president you spend billion dollars it is a small campaign with hundreds of dollars of dollars on local television so

see that amount of activities and that level of an expenditure within a campaign that probably is somewhere in the mid hundreds of thousand dollars it is for me a little bit hard to believe that r a reasonable person wouldn't know about this activity because that amount of money paid for a lot of things it is not a significant immaterial amount of money in relationship to the money spent on the campaign with the xhuchdz. >> everyone told the f b b credit that everyone involved in the campaign had 90 no idea i think corresponding all medical cannabis mail pieces that's when we learned about and the committee is required to report

between twenty-four hours so that's when the supervisor farrell committee know what was going on and other independent expenditures maybe in the hundreds of thousand dollars on the odds independent expenditures all over the place our question with that much money how can it be reasonable he didn't know about it that wasn't until the mail orders hit the mailbox talk to the f bbc they're the ones that reached the conclusions that was absolutely no knowledge no one on the mooerp campaign knew about the mail pieces the only connection the e-mails that mr. lee sent to the commission at

the very, very beginning. >> fair enough i still say if my campaign my primary consultant it is a hard fought contest they'll not be meeting with me and tell me my activities how far we're reaching with our message and what particular angles they're taking and opposition to my opponent i don't know it - i understand there's been a full investigation but i will a hundred and $90,000 is a decent amount of money i'm not clear once supervisor farrell found out what action was truly taken what action did he take to indemnify himself to make sure

that dot all the i's and cross the t's that it was this was a reasonable aboveboard expenditure so we didn't have to find ourselves here. >> again what was f bbc we told them i certainly restricted everyone on the campaign to comply with the letter of the law and the spirit of law that's certainly in the record and supervisor farrell didn't, of course learn what his consultant had done until mid 2012 when we was being interviewed a and those 3 nominees handed to supervisor farrell had never seen them before i'm not sure exactly when but - >> my last question thank you you wouldn't happen to know how many campaign containments on

one hand were hired. >> it's important to note to be verified supervisor farrell as we know is very different than the candidate mark farrell of 2010 he was not an located official or figure not did front runner my understanding there might have been other staffers that was paid but chris was his on true quote/unquote consultant. >> other questions from the commissioner. >> i have a few just to be clear who specifically are you here representing supervisor farrell and his campaign committee not on behalf of chris lee or the f b cc. >> that begs the question as

we've talked about many our letter. >> just answer my question. >> all right. i have regular materials and think you've raised some important legal points but i want to ask one question about something you said earlier you agree that this $500 contribution is not an intent requirement; right? >> for exposing it. >> yes. >> it's a general matter yes. yes. >> so what i'm trying to said what additional investigation would be necessary in order to determine this $500 contribution was exceeded i want to set aside what i agree are important regarding the stauchlts if there was a primarily formed committee that was determined is to be

within the control of the candidate i'm not sure why you need to investigate those are contributions quoted the limit i understand but if they're considered part of this controlled committee than i judge don't know the facts as you i think you miss understand our forfeiture there recent remedies that the commission has the authority to pursue you know most cohen an administration fine up to 5 thousand dollars or go to court to seek an inner jurassic relief or other penalties or having ask a committee to forfeiture money our point if there's an investigation to reach the conclusion that a law has been

broken you can't reach the conclusion that the committee received over the limits without interviewing people and finding out what happened and if not nobody the e-mails we won't be here because it required an investigation to reach the conclusion that that may have been reached then our point is excuse me for it is your is not the appropriate remedy. >> because it was not known in into custody. >> because you can't reach the conclusion that the law was violated unless you interview people with the document forfeiture is really only allowed in m in circumstance where the committee admits they were accepting contributions or don't list the contributors occupation there's a report and

under the occupation of employers if it requires an investigation forfeiture is not required and certainly our position is not the committee is not under the authority to act you certainly have the authority to do it and effectively your staff was doing it your staff not only sat in on several of the interviews but sat in on the interview with chris lee those alzheimer's e e-mails were revealed so, i mean you guys do it every month you look at inspections to propose fines if you want to pursue the legal coordination you have the authority to do it just needs to be done as an administration active penalty not as a forfeiture most of them are in the tu