. >> dpjdz to the regular meeting of san francisco ethics commission we'll begin by taking the roll call sxhaerp commissioner hayon all members obey present first is public comment on the appearing or not appearing on the agenda with the simplification. >> i came to talk about a need for responding to complaint both filed with you as well as those

referred to the suspect ordinance task force because i'm involved in would both aspects of complainant an incident in december of 2013 when i complained about nearly a year ago i've never heard a response nothing not to say we're looking at it it self-come within our jurisdiction silence that's a problem because what i was on the commission about mike dparz we talked about whether complaints what about stale so the fact i've not heard makes me wonder maybe i h had a valid point but want to talk about the complaints referred to the shoerns task force i've had complaint where i got a

unanimous or overwhelming vote sometimes i'd get a response you don't think this would hundred thousand dollar hold up in court i spent time on the task force envelope was there a draft of minutes or instruction to the shoerns on those saying there has to be a court lawsuit case present to ethics that's not been communicated to the task force or communicated to complainants when we make a complaint i have several overwhelming unanimous decisions get figuratively gotten away what is your criteria and not just as board statement it

didn't meet evidence for a court kinds why not made known to the larger public nor the task force that's the timelyness of preponderance response to compliment those foiled directly to you and sunset in another matter i saw minutes from 2008 people talked about the need have a priority may not but dismissing complaint will have overwhelming support seems like you're not paying attention to the task force maybe they need education but you can't say no and walk away. >> can i get the overhead there you go

members of the administration ryan heart from open government i'd like to read this quote from kennedy in the citizens unit case the government may comment a constitutional wrong that identities preferred speakers by taking the right to speak if some and give it to others the government denies the person the right to establish work and respect for the speakers voice the government may not deparagraph the public to determine for itself what speech and speakers are worthy ever consideration the first amendment protects speaker and speech and the jed idea from each i'd like to agree with our timeliness and here's why i agree i have 19 orders of determination every one has failed to be enforced by

you the last one was the city larger than and held a hearing to announce it the day i left the city to go out of the state i was not given notice by e-mail or postal mail a hearing was held when it gets to point you can't dismiss them like in the past are go do an enron i think that some real questions need to be answered when you look at 19 times are you going to say their all faulty this is a pattern of behavior of city government because i speak about things they don't want spoken of or access to records they decide they're not going to follow the law if you look at those cases each is a first amendment case

in the official record and the right to access public records i need to effectively experience by first amendment you're going to tell me 19 cases none was worth our consideration in fairness i've come to you before and is a the good government guy says you have to give the appearance of fairness you can't look at those 19 cases many have not had a hearing and saying in any way, shape, or form you're in anyway being fair to me, i'm not paranoid under of other members that try to get public records i have the perseverance to take it to the whole crap deal to get those orders when are you going do get off our

backside and enforce the law this sunset says this body is responsible for endorsing the law. >> i guess i would be one of the people that are having an enormous amount of problems unfortunately, i'm an all over the i have a simple permit it's a mess they have a communication officer who didn't communicate it she decided to give documents they're completely irrelevant this has been spending the last 5 years the majority of my time is getting simple documents simple questions asked regarding permit reluctance a little bit information here and there i can't get it

i'm not going to take you through what it is like to work in a situation like that but in 2013 they held a hearing to revoke my permit without importing and exporting me and denied me my due process rights i was in the hospital when the hearing took place i was slander they did not know how to run public meetings at all mr. hearts was there defended that he that was on by doing a public record search by my name they filed a case at the same time i had to wait for that to close out 3 medias later and filed on appeal and one and since that time i'm afraid that work in the streets it's not a fear of retaliation only lies in venting

incidents that haven't happened and trying to get bits and pieces of information point me to the code point me to the ordinance or the section that would be regarding bottle caps as stupid as it may sound at the can't get it today and everyday i go through that i am am afraid to go to their 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