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 to be said

that well, there was this other campaign committee that was under the coordination of supervisor farrell's campaign share and they were doing a number of things including giving him direct contributions but they were those other things they were just doing hit pieces on the opponent therefore that's not a campaign contribution the fact that group was doing hit pieces on the opponent that full $200000 for that committee controlled by supervisor farrell's people during the time of the campaign was gave me in all the secret activities that pisses on the opponent and expenditures on his behalf it is

2 hundred thoughts u thousands of illegal money for his campaign this is a campaign contribution. >> any motion by anyone? >> i don't have is a motion. >> okay. >> mr. chairman i want to make a comment before a motion or any public comment i do know i want to remind administrative review at commissioners of the discuss it seems there protect no way to have it would be an all-or-none proposition by which internally within the staff as a practice we were going to do somewhat

more closely monitored and have oversight over others forfeitures it come before i understood whether this was a spreadsheet or more review and more work on the commission size with that said, we were going to lean in to have an ovend of what forfeitures were in play at the staff level and at least have our eyes on a more consistent basis that will have us raising on and bro or getting more information as and move forward i want to locate what we seek to do as a practice in terms of whether that's an mosaic active or penalty task so built in more robust oversight at least at the

commission level we say an understanding of what is happening around forfeitures. >> maintenance was it was not so much focused on forfeitures but focused on complaints that were either passed or where we stepped up to the plate down we would get a monthly report of the status of claimed that might include forfeitures but coping us on top of so we wouldn't get into a situation adapting rules and regulations that will cause it to be before the commission on a periodic basis to make a determination but i don't think that was limited to forfeitures. >> commissioner.

>> in response to commissioner vice president andrews i'm certainly not against the procedure that has the commission have to approve forfeiture waivers over a certain amount policy wise i think that could be a go policy determination wasn't i'm hearing to throughout this discussion this sound like we are trying to make a decision about whether the statutes apply and whether this is an appropriate mechanism a lack of a hearing, whether you know in some ways trying to make factual determinations without roll in somewhat of a half-baked way i have concerns about appropriately we're trying to accomplish with this agenda

item. >> we're trying to accomplish make a decision. >> make a decision. >> make a decision either to grant the requested waiver or deny it in which case the forfeitureblast will go it's course and make a decision whether the commission wants to do anything fourth those two decisions have to be made. >> just if i can add the commission could also choose to defer to the commission staff with the waiver it is a historical policy the question of waivers of forfeiture letters has been handled by the staff i want to throw that out there as an option. >> in terms of not an

obligation this the commission hesitate adjudicate tonight that's a decision left to the staff and in other words we redact it we're washing our hands so. >> i'm not trying to. >> i understand i'm. >> i'm trying to satire the option not anything personal to you that's the up shot of what that option is you're presenting. >> i'm not asking you to - >> it's not a question i wanted to make sure. >> i would also add i mean tonight the commission has the right to go into closed session as you know the city attorney has advised previously we've not

changed our view but if the commission wants to have questions in closed session that is an option for tonight. >> as i say is there anyone present to make a motion? >> is there any precedent for any type of abbreviated hearing or adjudication by the issue of going forward with the forfeiture typically they're made directly to the executive director and the executive director makes the determination based on what the forfeiture letter and discussion with the

parties what's the precise mechanism. >> i would defer to the executive director open the mechanism i'll tell you that i don't building there's a procedure before this commission for adjudicating the priority of one about it the executive director is here i'll defer. >> how does that work. >> it is similar to the waiver process we used for other campaign finding that depends on the pathologist past record of the campaign involved whether we determine it was not intentional and the value so a certain conditions are met we usually are lenient on the treasurers these kind of consideration.

>> i would suggest we hear public comment. >> okay not hearing any motion i'll take public comment. >> i'm charley for the record i've been here for a long time i'll take the big view that is it is ultimate on your heads because a decision such this for instance by accident executive director or but you to wave or grant the waiver it something that you are going to be accountable as the commission accountable for in the press and in the consequentially in the publics mind so i'll think is it would be behove you to monitor closely waivers grand by

the executive director not necessarily to roars them or have a formal reviewer every month but it is certainly something that each and every one of you might want to be sensitive duo to you're a quasi hot bottom committee. >> a and you're on the hot seat on something of this magnitude i think commissioner renne is correct this is not small potatoes and larger questions with that particular case nate's that's my only comment to you, your ultimately it is on your heads and a as commissioners. >> he will larry bush for friends of ethics i'll point out that it is the commission that is going to be held accountable

and not staff their protected by civil servant computerization can be recalled by voters if you're not doing our jobs it is one of the of you commission you voluntary a recall and in the past there were waivers or reduced penalties there were high school questionable and involved very powerful political people with reasons such claiming that the person being fined didn't have the financial resources but their form seven hundred they had millions of dollars in property why don't those match up so long as we were unable to hold the staff

unaccounted goable only public confidence by the commissioners. >> good evening. i'm janet reilly in 2010, i ran for the board of supervisors in district 2 i campaigned for this officer pretty much full-time for 18 ms. and put together a campaign team i assembled the kitchen cabinet and staked out position i met the district 2 residents at holmes in the street and on playground i shook hands with voters and gave out litter as volunteered consulted to work and during the earnings i raised money i participate in debates and enforcementometers and editorial furmz i walked day to

day in every neighborhood in the district i worked hard as did hundreds of volunteers during the campaign i worried about many things but the skrith of our election system was not one of them less than one week a negative attack was on my campaign nasty blatant information was in hair mails and all the work ever an expenditure committee on the on behalf of supervisor farrell supervisor farrell's campaign manager military i set up this committee and actually operate that knowingly and willingly completely violate campaign laws it was charting cheating and

despite attempt to win an election and it worked several no way to have millions of dollars raising it 5 hundred at a time i received the first choice votes i failed to cross the 50 period of time thresholds after multiple rounds of accounting i lost that race by it hundred and 50 votes i filed a complaint with the commission and i heard particle nothing for nearly 4 years but last november the f pc said egregious campaigns violations occurred and supervisor farrell got illegal documents the f p pc

lefd a fine one hundred and $90,000 despite our directive supervisor farrell residue to pay and does not intend to payee said on tonight agenda there is an item to ask you to resend our forfeiture letter i'm asking you no to not limited to violations ever this magnitude go without real consequence i have nothing to gain- (inaudible) (inaudible). >> thank you. >> mr. chairman and commissioners charles bell i've sent you some leaders and

most recently one that was received the other day i think the chair captioned pubically one the questions i've raise about this is lemon focus on the issue first, i think that the commissioner has commissioner president keane as really dramatically explained what is at stake here and you have before you the forfeiture issue i think that i've demonstrated that you don't have a statute of limitations problem with that and indeed it is the function the court to decide whether a prosecutor in presenting a case has made the case and has a responsibility to show that the statute of limitation was not violated it seems to me you should let the court decide that whether it

is an action brought by supervisor farrell and his attorneys or whether an action is brought by the revenue collection department to collect the fine in this case the issues will be raised but for this commission at this time to let this serious a matter go and wash its hands of it is like folding our cards before you even play them i don't think you should do that now the discussion has raised some issues about your procedures and may well be that is powerful to located our producers in how you handle enforcement cases and how you consider and exhaustive the forfeiture and others matters but this case shouldn't blew up the commission it should referred to the revenue department you should stand with

the letter that was sent in december i'll say at least at the last motivating the impression i got was the status quo was made and argued by mr. sulg and people responded so there's been some due process whether this is sufficient due process you should decide but not fold our cards at this meeting let this process go forward it is really to fulfill the mission that you have set forth in the charter to vigorously enforce the law and the electoral process were seriously put into question by this action you shouldn't be

accredited. >> mr. bell does that issue hinge on the statute of limitation in terms if we were to fine or determine that there was no violation with the statutes i presume you think we should go forward and not wave the forfeiture request but if we think or find there's a statute of limitations problem would you agree that we show wave it or your view to send it off not with the - >> i think your function is to enforce the laws to let a body or a judge decide whether there's a statute of limitations problem i think as commissioner president keane indicated and i certainly have said is in a couple of letters with respect to the forfeiture issue there's absolutely no statute of limitations issue you brought

the letter between the 4 years before this report at the end of the cycle was due with respect to the action of usually own under the provision of our statute i think that 23r5u7b89 concealment occurred if you look at the record here was not fully revealed under the f p pc stimulation even assume our staff participate in assembling in the discussions the f p pc had of the eater communications and intensifies of supervisor farrell that we're no late 2012, 2013 almost too years after the complaint was filed the tolling the statute of

limitations will give you a couple of more years if we have this before the supreme court i'll agree that before the court. >> thank you. >> hi, i'm greg bryant i with represent us this is my fit at being at to hearing i want to say commissioners is it seems clear that was a clear ethics violation and it was liquor i don't know what our producers are you deferred them to another group why exercise a waiver given the decision has been made and that you would want to step in and overturn a clear ethics violation the york of the ethics commission to

endorse the ethics for the city and county of san francisco yeah, and that's pretty much all i have to say thank you. >> thank you. >> commissioners or good evening, commissioners this is like 2003 all over again what we got a a criminal conspiracy to dpaufd the voters and procure the certificate of election object fraunl if a way to go back this is the election it should not be able to seek re-election by violating a allowing law i wonder where supervisor farrell is not here making his case i see if i can when the city attorney wants to make things happen they can we saw it with the xoef a

settlement was reached quickly so when you're a member of the city family one standard and one set of family resources when you're not a member of the city families those resources are magnified for the city ties in this case the notion there's a question raised you don't have to change our direction you have to uphold the law and if the stooument has not run your going back job to make sure that you can't fraunlt deprive the violator it is not liquor mr. farrell came as a citizen he's a successful hedge fund person he cheated and if the job of the

commission to represent the people to stand up and do what we need to do if it is possible to slow walk this because another body is slough walk that this is the job of executive director and to make sure the law is upheld we're living in a liberal world if if your connected there's great accountability and if not no accountability. >> and that's what this commission has to make it's priority right now. >> thank you. >> good evening, commissioners jim representing supervisor farrell and his so-called committee just a few comments

you're dealing with a lot of issues we'll put the matter and what happened then for the 5 years in context who the staffer did the right or wrong thing the f p pc did an incredible thorough investigation and interviewed ever witness and party they requested and went through thousands of overwhelms and looked at every factual issue and every legal issue and whorn the guilt parties sunshine who should be fined and they levied a significant fine against who they thought were the culpable party a 3 years investigation and then over the course the city attorney's office does the same thing goat all the e-mails and decided the

party who were already opinionated that that was enough a - we have no reason to building the p f p pc or the city attorney went lighting on anyone they decided and they have been a lot of miss statements of fact the only two the idea that supervisor farrell's fraunlt concealed something the ethics commission staff participated in the interviews and there was nothing concealed and supervisor farrell and his campaign staff spoke with the f p pc some of the ethics commission and the chris lee operated this committee is not just completely not true

what the f p pc fined he sent that overwhelms out one to solicit donors but explicitly said there was no involvement with the supervisor farrell consulate with any overwhelms or phone calls that he was involved for a short moment of time at the beginning to include where you call it a statute of limitation or the other ethicable e stop not okay to start an investigation about matters that happened two election cycles ago when the complaint was received by this commission almost 5 years ago and especially, when this commission staff participated in the interviews 3 years ago i want to conclude by reading a quotation if you'll humor me

from the chair of the f p pc at the meeting just two, that months ago the f's p pc was considering to levy final side against certain violations that happened several years ago there were annexations of allegations of fraudulent conceal they said they're applicable what our considering and the chair said the public must have trust in us as well we're going to follow our own rules and regulations and to the extent we uphold those i'd rather obeying be on the fence. >> you've exceeded our time. >> well, thank you very much we i hope you'll close this matter evening. >> david speaking as an

individual there are clearly a lot of issues at stake i'll start by saying the agenda item description and the two attachment appear to be minimal for this grant and what commissioner president keane said a good summary for the public there are clearly parties with interests and public interest i'm not converging in the facts of this matter not a lawyer not an expert on co-laterales disposal or whatever fraunlt concealment some of the comments about approving the tracking and investigations and how they implicate investigations within our purview are interesting