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 tunes of 5 hundred to $200,000 theirs small in every single distanced the committee got the money it makes no logical sense how can you ask them to forfeiture without receiving the money this comes from criminal law the law goes after criminal you bought that car because of a drug sale that money came from smuggling it is things in the respondents possession their asked to give

up to the government i mean it is a given that neither supervisor farrell nor his committee never had $190,000 in their possession. >> any other questions public comment? thank you. >> hello, i'm larry bush i'm speaking for myself i want to urge the commission to wave a forfeiture i've looked through the record and not a clear definition of what constitutes a controlled committee if they don't see or is that this commission is not in the past as recorded i looked at gavin newsom committee his acid law committee and his committee on

the banning city officials from sitting on parties i looked at the aggressive panhandling all of them put on the ballot by mr. newsom not one was listed as a control committee and he took a grateful of money from the people in the committees that coincide and if you look at the materials that are provided by mrooerlz you'll see the minutes from 2008 of the ethics commission as being 10 indoors u thousand dollars or more district by the officials and the commission choose not to move forward they didn't put in a definition as i'm sure you're aware of control committees and contributions to a city offers holders ethic so i went on the

ethics website to see a check list to see if it's a controlled committee you have the same consultants or used the same mailing list and there is no check list nothing on the web page itself that outlines how you can tell if it's a controlled committee we went through some stent with the rules committee he's not a declared campaign and not investigating to file that feels an unusual circumstances we need to wave a penalty in this case and move forward with a clear definition of what are the check marks that tell you what is a controlled committee thank you. >> members of the ethics

committee ray heart if you look at the last item on the list order of determination ray hearts versus metering e mark farrell board of supervisors that was a failure to have a disclosure effect supervisor farrell said that was my staff mr. farrell has the attitude that he's not accountable for hi staff i wonder if he served in the u.s. military your answering or answerable so for it and i'll take the commissioners question on one hand and $91,000 was spent on material that bend his campaign getting yet he was total unbe aware of it never wonder who this generous person was spent all the tens of the

thousands of dollars to support his campaign either directly or indirectly he didn't ask anybody on the staff gee who are those nice people i find that ludicrous but again we hear the explanation that was a person and i'll go back to commissioner keane's point you hire someone you're responsible inform war they do or not your answerable and he took the measures to see this person didn't gadget in illegal activity and saying i didn't know he was doing it to tell us the whole responsibility thing on its head if you hire someone and they do something illegal on our on behalf accountable and something that

is familiar with supervisor farrell he never comes himself to those kinds of hearing why isn't he hear to openly and honestly answer the questions instead, he send a representative that can't answer the questions i'll say in my opinion because he didn't want to be open on television being forced to be in a situation to being asked those questions he sends a representative to try to give you a song and dance and lastly this letter from the legal firm if sacramento answers all the statements that mr. sutton made as sxhairn did the stimthsdz in effect and basically an admission of guilt

>> good evening charles bell i've been corresponding about you most recently as today we believe that you should reject mr. farrell's refusal to pay or acknowledge responsibility or pay for the forfeiture my letter details that in quite a bit of detail i'd like to address a few points that were made in argument first with respect to the issue of the f p pc stimulation mr. lee stipulated on behalf of common sense voters that was a controlled community of mark farrell new mr. fairly wouldn't have let him stipulate to that unless i audience add this phoney independent

committee was controlled by mr. farrell it's a indisputable and of legal significance with respect to the stauchltstute of limitations he was required to file year-end statements on the year-end statement of common sense voters coming back to the fact the supervisor farrell committee it should have been executed as a controlled committee of mark farrell so the statute of limitation wouldn't

have run at the thought it running now as his personal responsibility the candidate is responsible for the liabilities of his committee and mr. farrell is responsible for the controlled committees that one in particular and there's no escaping that i think with respect to the forfeiture policy that's been discussed mr. sutton says you can only apply those in insignificant matter that is the most insignificant matter that's been before you 2 hundred thousands of alleged independent expenditures controlled by the mark farrell e farrell campaign and committee they stipulated to the fact it

was a controlled committee they are responsible and shouldn't be left off the hook the public is entitled to you enforcing your campaign ordinance with an election that was stolen by that illegal activity thank you. >> i'm bob plant hold i hope nobody feels comfortable with the process and with whatever decision you come up with too many people who are attorneys are reading this from the view point of an attorney i'm bringing that up it can be relevant if i set up a company i've got to set up a

accountability and i'm relying on the professional skill and adherence to their duties i'm running a company their supposed to handle that part of the work i'm suggesting that a candidate that is not a lawyer we know that willie brown campaign and if you hire them this is a track record their supposed to do their job and know their job in this case i'm running and running and running and speaking and speaking so it maybe there was a miss placed trust by farrell and i'm not saying he did a good job he lacks if in the negative invents but if we relied on someone that failed to do his

job it may be a problem not only for him i'm going to tell you to look at the information you give to candidates maybe you need to develop something when a candidate files to make sure that the candidate campaign staff don't do this and don't this and that. >> a bright line of listed do not maybe worth keeping in mind in the future this may be a learning experience nobody is going to be satisfied but you may want to move forward to make it clear duo to candidates their to the all lawyers that candidates have to monitor their own staff and not be the candidate out under speaking and husband illegal and per swud you

may have to preclude that lessen the chances of this happening thank you. >> to my understanding it is under commission policy the staff is the entities that seeks the waiver from the commission where they to deem that appropriate staff has not rid the wave as far as i'm aware that typically it be entities from forfeiture seth sought and the staff thing brings that to the commission i found harassed anyone mr.

sincroy is that accurate city attorney i want to weigh in on that. >> i'm sorry so the process is that staff believes the forfeiture is appropriate they'll bring the waiver to the commission. >> the staff is seeking the waiver if the staff deems the waiver is appropriate they'll request to the commission the waiver be entered if it's over $500 is that accurate. >> i'll defer to the executive director but other waivers that have not been for the commission. >> typically the entities they're not seeking the waiver directly from the commission that is that staff sort of signs opening oh, before it's brought

this is an unusual situation we've invited xhaerlz staff to come and submit their response letter typically we don't entertainer a waiver from the entity that the waiver is sought. >> audio building that is correct my experience most of forfeitures were dealt with at the staff level i was slightly thrown off by the person bringing that to the commission i'm not aware of the waiver from the commission i'll defer to the staff. >> sorry mr. sincroy. >> i don't recall we've had any to the commission in the past and i see so it is something that could be brought to the commission but typically that's not brought to the commission okay sure. >> you can come to the podium.

>> as this police has been explained that is a staff jade and staff has the final decision making authority certainly the commissions have the authority to ask someone to come in and talk about the matter and make recommendations to the staff and adjustments to the staff this is not a request to the commission that's not what we were thoeld told we were supposed to be doing the request to mr. sincroy and taking this opportunity to give them. >> correct that's my understanding as well. >> so mr. sutton and the public for coming in with further information providing to use it was helpful. >> anything else from the

commissioners next item a discussion on the discussion of random audits of the committees active in 2014. >> well, good evening i am the assist deputy director so before we proceeded to the audit selection i want to summarize what we did in the past year in order to eliminate the backlog of audits staff requested the controller's office assist in conducting audits the controller's office conducted 13 audits and staff conducted the remaining 27 work on all the audits has been implemented and most finalized staff is working on finalizing 4 of the audits and 13 that the controller's office did

staff expect those audits had been finalized with that the next few weeks and after today's audit selection staff can begin work on the audits that are selected today as explained in the anti memo we recommend that the commission select 10 campaigns for audit and 4 campaigns it shows how the staff divided the audits into financial activity the chart shows staff proposal in terms of of the numbers committees to be selected from each level do you have any questions about the proposal? >> questions from the commissioners i have a couple of questions i know that ms. shake you and

our staff spend a lot of time can you give us a sense of how many hours on an individual audit. >> we don't track hours but we currently don't. >> can you give me a ball park. >> we estimate each audit about three weeks. >> three weeks at 40 hours a week. >> we over lap so auditors are a not working on one anti at that time, for example one auditor serves on the other hand, at the the commission office of audits so if an anti takes about three weeks and you're going to do 10 you're talking about thirty weeks.

>> in some audits they require longer times depending on the complexity or problems that may arise. >> how come how come we scant do more with staff and thirty weeks. >> we also time to build in time to train the auditors on the campaign they've not done lobbyist audits we want them to be aware the rules to effectively audit the lobbyists and make sure we're not backlogged so before there we want to be able to complete all the audits in a timely manner and get back to the anti processes to be sure we are auditing in a good way. >>