to deal with the question is who they want to grant the waiver or somehow deal with the forfeiture letter whether any other action or whether they want to close the matter for a number of reasons so that is it with that introduction i'll open to discussion but i view it two questions and their contained both in the letter the craft letter that the staff has filed and one is whether or not the forfeiture letter should be waived and whether the matter should be closed so with that i will ask if any commissioners questions or comments. >> excuse me. i have to recuse myself before the discussion.

>> i understand. >> commissioner renne you had your hand up first. >> thank you commissioner renne i think we ought to put this into context just in plain language about we go into who there's a waiver or whether or not a statute of limitations precludes us the matter from going forward or not the question is and what happened here was that supervisor farrell in his 2010 campaign took an illegal campaign contribution of almost $200,000 that's what happened then in terms of it being the mechanism in which it was done, it was done through a committee another another committee that was cooperated by his own campaign chair that was running

his campaign so it is as syrup as that a $200000 illegal campaign contribution that contemporarily took in 2010 question hesitate become in turn of the attachment we have to the agenda tonight t is who the statute of limitations has run on that matter and first mandates to the statute of limitations question i would point out to everyone here that illegal matter that a court will decide a judge will decide that a couple of our members are not its third reading i'm an attorney been one more 50 years deans of a law school i teach and practice law for a practitioner for thirty years i look at the letter that was put

in by mr. bell relating to who the statute of limitations has run i've also read the case that thought citations put forward showing the statute of limitations has 0 not run in their opinion the sthaument has not run the final accounting that was due in relation to the coordinated committee was due on december - january 31st, 2011, that was when the final accounting was done our commissions demand in the letter was issued december 9th. that was within four years in terms of what we did was within

the four years statute of limitations even if that were seen this is clear that's the end but if this is not enough to satisfy people mr. bell put in his letter to the come back /* doctrine the statute of limitations can only run when something it known in terms of that being known it was not indeed milled by the farrell people until last autumn when they did the stipulation and in fact farrell's people are plead guilt to say they took this illegal campaign contribution i

understand mr. farrell is indicated that he sees the action of f pc having completely x reporting him mr. farrell should be ashamed ever making those statements owning up to what has happened he's not done that and taken this as a victory this is one the most e entrenches campaign violations the only thing remaining the supreme court has left us in coping campaign tricks is honest that is the campaign contribution limits dribbling to a candidate are in place they were violated the idea - so on the yes of statute of limitations it hadn't run fellow

commissioners of it had run let's let a judge a court decide that in regards to the usual course of litigation i don't think it has i'll volunteer to be the one that arrests this in front of the destructing and the board of appeals i'll agree that in regards to the idea of a waiver then then moving on to the next question this thing can be waved by us a commission why should we wave one of the most egregious campaign violations that has come before this commission and it's history why wave it because people have come to us and say farrell is an honorable man directing your

attention of the forfeiture proceeding he can negotiate with staff with our staff and if he wants to reject some sort settlement of the $200,000 i think that he is legally gothd to pay back the city because of the illegal campaign contributions if he wanted to negotiate something some sort of deal with us our staff will listen to him if it is an questionably thing and this question hose an honorable man had enter into that we may accept it but the matter should just go forward some people made statements about the fact powerful individuals in the past that had matters before the commission by

visible of their power tossed aside matters if we do this we will be showing with their saying is absolutely correct no absolutely no reason why we should roll on a question of the statute of limitations as this body let a court could that in the normal forfeiture if the statute of limitations is run we lose and supervisor farrell wins in terms of our waving it saying in effect yeah, you did that and you've convicted to that but it's okay forgive you i ask my colleagues not to do that. >> thank you mr. chairman i have a couple of questions about procedurally our options are

here i understand we are considering whether the commission should make the determination about whether to grant a waiver of request our policy is the executive director handles waivers in the typical situation a routine matter for which it seems like up until now appropriate for the executive director to make such a decision do i have it right so for. >> right. >> should the commission take over that respondent in all situations some situations in some situations ho do we determine which situations and the other thing i'm somewhat i have a question about what the procedure will be if the commission were to continue to pursue forfeiture but the

supervisor farrell or whoever it representing him were to make the statute of limitations argument where's the argument made and who makes that decision ultimately about whether they mutt pay the fine or not. >> i mean i guess ordinarily in a typical circumstance if a forfeiture letter is sent and the person who receives the alert didn't pay it the matter is referred to the revenue for an attempt to collect it and so that will customarily you be the next step in the person i guess at this point i'm not sure what the precise legal mechanism some sort of tax things associated ultimately the recipe

of the letter could foil an action in stroirt to have the forfeiture letter essentially vacated and the court the stoisht in san francisco will have so say its correctly sent. >> in the case the recipe of the letter foiling the case who's the opponent. >> the real part of interest is the whoever was the recipient of the letter and i guess whoever was representing b d ii assume someone - i guess the it is part of accessories office or the intruders office. >> the b dr is the opposing

party. >> or the treasurers office b dr is part of treasurers office. >> okay thank you. i think i understand so given that it is not clear to me our task is to adjudicate the statute of limitations there are other decision points ahead of that we should address. >> any other commissioners have any comments? as i understand the answers you got from the city attorney what happened then with a forfeiture letter it remains outstanding it goes to b dr and it becomes a bad debt they'll seek to collect

if the commission plays no further rule other than we didn't wave the letter so our option it seems are either to wave the letter or to pass it on to b dr and have b dr attempt to collect the if that from supervisor farrell to respond to that that basically is what we're talking about here? >> more or less i think that b dr you know could seek advise from the city attorney's office regarding you know the proper actions to take and we know the city attorney's office to declined to bring any civil procedures in connection

with the matter. >> i guess one of the problems i've had from the outset is that the forfeiture routing route which seem what was called for it maybe what's called for in terms of total sum but the given if it's a violation of the campaign and governmental code of conduct status it is the enforcement provision role is $5,000 penalty maximum $5,000 penalty but we can only reach that by having a hearing i am not supervisor farrell you know commissioner president keane has made statements but there is no

understanding that supervisor farrell committed any wrongdoing so we'll see have to go through a process to give him a right to present his case as to whether or not he violated any of the campaigns. >> yep. >> commissioner president keane and chair i disagree there's no finding supervisor farrell's people stipulated in and not limited to and plead guilty before the fcc this being an illegal campaign no finding by us because what we've done is taken that stipulation and we've gone forward with our forfeiture letter which i can't mention we we talked about in closed session but we come out of a

closed session and revealed the fact we're going forward with the forfeiture that pretty much tells us what happened in regard to the idea that somehow there's been no jaushgs regarding supervisor farrell i disagree with the chair any other comments? comments to the public >> well, i regardless of what the - there's certainly in my view no fbt by the commission in violation we have typically a hamburger and due process from both sides and we issue an order so i agree with the chair we've not had a hearing and made on

the merit i think there is a status on that we haven't can you think that the status is run and forfeiture is an attempt to circumvent wouldn't be the right word but attempt to get the right design watt a jaushgs i know that is an thinking popular view personal when you locate the reports on what happened then and read that f t e report it is in doubt troubling but producer is an important part of law and i'm certainly open to hearing from my fellow commissioners i'm troubled by

the statute and the lack ever hearing on the jaushgsadjudication. >> commissioner president keane i have questions about the timeline one the things that bothers me and, of course, here we're in april of 2015 discussing that happened quite a few years ago and so can you remind me why we're only deal with this is now and i don't remember all of the steps that led to this being calculated over such a long period of time and creating this problem with the statute of limitations. >> well, i will respond to that as best i can and commissioner hur as i roll call had the

containment was filed in 2010 it was foiled both with the initiation and with the f p p credits c and when it the f p pc came to us and said they wanted to go forward with it and asked us to stand down which i think all of us feel this was the start of mistake from day one that we let it get into their hands. >> right. >> that some of our volunteers participated with the f pcc in the investigation and but the when the f p pc

finally reached a conclusion and advised us they were tipped a she means to i think almost 4 years or more than 4 years had run at this point we in the interim did nothing to as a commission to say hey you know look how long this is dragging out again that i think that is part of problem we're facing today is that we didn't handle it right. >> let me ask you this if from the beginning when we turned it over to the t p pc at their request and stood down do we in general have a legal right to continue or create our own concurrent investigation if the f p pc takes on a matter and do

our own investigation or does it have to be one or the other. >> city attorney. >> as a matter of comfiest. >> co m mit y. >> yes. >> it is the practice to allow them to conduct their investigation with the resources to preceded simultaneously but no legal requirement that ourethics commission couldn't simultaneously pursue an investigation. >> commissioner. >> i think the mistake that was made by the commission at this time was we explicit continue to pursue an action under our specific regulations to the

extent that state law offer los angeles police department with our law if the f p pc wants to take over they didn't we've opened an started an investigation we could have i still don't think that is good public policy to conduct redundant investigations and friends i have ethics and others told the grand jury we should refer to more of cases not gone after the specific san francisco regulations certainly was a decision we're now looking with more scrutiny. >> commissioner vice president andrews. >> well, i share in

commissioner hayons decision we're going a little bit in circle i feel like here we are and this is where i say we could do better with engaging with our partners whether the referral process where the particular complaints come before us from the sunshine task force or bystander down or standing aside and kind of passively watching something heap and could have played a better role or monitored it so whatever developments that happen or had troofrpd would be brought back to the commission for deliberations it is frustrating but a bidding bit of a what end to me it feels like a forfeiture

direction that has a statute of limitations issue potentially it feels like this was a possible way in which we could august violations fine to the $10,000 i want to as a commission to be clear where we're headed and ultimately trying to achieve we are doing the right thing by having this discussion every time we become more clearer but i want to be as clear as we can to what at the end the component we can do our absolutely best to achieve but outcome ifeven if we end up being the loser we you try to jump ♪

the middle and this is another one thing in the middle if we can have as much information before we precede. >> well, one question should we the commission as policy matters approve forfeiture waivers? i mean >> i'm sorry. >> whether we as a commission should change our policy and approve or disapprove waivers. >> i don't know whether or not its opinion established we'll be changing our policy what we have so for is statement of rights anecdotal statements to the fact that waivers in the past have been done having why'd been done by the executive director who we established that our policy is that the waivers have done by

the executive director only that's i haven't horde that and that is not been established i don't think there is anything to change there i really doubt that the history of the commission or the spirit behind what the commission does is such in regards to a matter no matter how egregious we would just leave it to the grace of the executive director whoever that is whatever judgements to go ahead and say okay. it's over and duplicate if this is the case we as a commissioners are a bunch of super no bosses that is the tail wagging the can you go i doubt this is the policy. >> commissioner president keane if you look at the forfeiture

section in the code not an enforcement provision as opposed to finding a violation of the code and imposing a penalty in terms it appears to be an administrative step this is taken and i think that - that's what has troubled me from the outset whether forfeiture was the route to go putting aside the statute of limitations whether forfeiture was a the route or the route under i think section 1.170 b that provides for civil penalties for neglect or intentional violation of the provisions of the campaign code and but when i look at the forfeiture and particularly if

we decide and wave the letter the letter goes to the assessor's officer that is the end of the matter and we will have done our task we'll have done our task honestly rather than step in without any reason and somehow savage it for supervisor farrell we went ahead with forfeiture the executive director issued the forfeiture letter being the administrative or penalty matter that was issued we then had a meeting and at the meeting we the chair disclosed we as the outcome of that meeting in the closed session we were requesting that in regards to the matter of forfeiture it continue and that the farrell people respond to the letter that's what we - >> if we're asking the farrell

people to respond to the forfeiture letter what we're saying is forfeiture is going forward and that's we're in the process of it right now unless we decide to interrupt it to put the brakes and bring it to the screeching halt i haven't heard a reason we should. >> the only reigns that come - that i think of you say the farrell received $190,000 that's it was the amount spent by the controlled committee part of it went to his campaign but the majority went to negative campaigns. >> well. >> and the question didn't i don't know the answer whether or not this constitutes that the

same thing as get an illegal campaign contribution where you can say here's a check that your campaign committee or you individually received. >> well commissioner renne with all- i'm not a supervisor. >> for many years i appeared before the public drordz and she was the chair of the finance committee so 20 years of saying supervisor commissioner renne in regard to the whole matter of whether or not i don't know what i was going to say i lost my train of thought i better not say anything oh i do know you to say for it