2010, january 2011. what the law says is that, the agency never ever learned about a potential violation the day it happened. by definition, the district attorneys office and the agency is going to warn about the possibility of a violation at some point. there is never going to be a 4 years to research this issue. maybe it's a year, maybe 2 years. because the commission knew within the 4-year period, then it had the legal duty and you have a legal duty to bring an action by october 2014. now, it might be an entirely different case if the commission and no one learned about this until september 2014, but we don't have that. >> okay, so how do you draw the line then. what if we learned that on december 30, 2014. that's before the statute ran. why isn't that then enough?

>> it was three 1/2 years. >> where is the line, two 1/2. >> the commission could have done this. we have all been involved in cases where the government and i'm not sure the district attorney's office does it anywhere else wants to previous the statute. what does the government do? they rush and prepare the report and they serve it simply to preserve the statute or they ask the defendant, would you wave the statute of limitations. it happens all the time. here it didn't happen because the commission. your executive director made a decision to not move forward. so if there is fraud, he could have brought charges by october 2014. he chose not to bring charges and the most important point is the point you made. i do not know what goes on in closed session. so we do not know what the commission knew or didn't know about pending enforcement matters. i do know

in other cities, the executive director makes a report every month in closed session to his commissioners about all pending enforcement matters and it sounds like that didn't happen here. it sounds like that is not a good procedure. i don't think that is a procedure that falls in other cities. but you cannot penalize supervisor ferrell because the commission had a break down in procedure or didn't follow procedures. your executive decorator -- director chose not to bring charges even if they knew about it 3 years and 10 months early. >> i have one more question and i apologize for monopolizing the time but to help me understand. let's say someone complains about a campaign in november 2010 or december 2010. we look at it, we don't

think anything is there. time goes on. the fppc in the investigation learns, wow, there is really something going on here, why wouldn't the discovery rule apply there? so you didn't know at the time, in 2010, you learn 2 years later. then isn't the question of whether or not the supervisor really did have an agency relationship? >> now i understand your question. the discovery rule is based on the situation where a defendant or someone intentionally fraudulently consciously affirmively hides the information and conducting an interview is reasonable. what happened in the boat right case is, again, i don't know all the facts but senator boat right left

some financial information off his form. there would be no reason to know that. some lawsuit happened years later. part of that lawsuit turned out that senator boat right had this financial interest. the concealment was that the government agency or defendant could not have figured out that senator boat right left the information off that form based on its own and whatever reasonable inquiry would be. here, you had the reasonable inquiry. the agency sat on the interviews. there was no concealment. they saw at the mails. they sat on the interviews. there was nothing concealed from the ethics commission. 2 years before the statute ran, the commission knew what chris lee had done. there is no

concealment that the concealment is an important point. it has to be fraudulent and intentional and prevent the government from acting within this period. that didn't happen here. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. sutton, i have a few questions that i want to ask and i'm going to ask. i made an elusion to water geet -- gate and the inquiries related to the president and people around him. what did he know and when did he know it. that's what i want to pursue a little bit with you. a few weeks ago when you were here, you were asked by commissioner andrews, and we know that this fraudulent coordinated committee got a couple hundred thousand

dollars in campaign. commissioner andrews asked you how much in total did supervisor ferrell spend in his own campaign with his committee and your answer was i'm sorry, i don't know that. >> about $260,000. >> $260,000 that's what he spent for his entire campaign. yet, at the same time during those last weeks of the campaign there is campaign activity going on for him in pacific heights to the tune of another $200,000 being spent out there. pacific heights is not a vast territory. wouldn't that raise some inference that supervisor ferrell would wonder where is this $200000 all of this stuff that's being

spent on me to help me defeat me opponent, where is that coming from? wouldn't that raise some inference that he knew that or at least inquire? >> he or his campaign staff did was went to your website. >> i'm asking what did this do? >> it requires a disclosure and they were able to learn what the public knew, a committee called common sense voters and it was filed within a 24 basis. what he testified under oath to the fppc, what the fppc agreed with and what your executive director agreed with is that he had absolutely no idea of how that committee came into existence. >> no idea, no curiosity. it's wonderful. >> you've answered the question.

>> the opponent had about the $90,000. >> can i ask you another question or are you going to filibuster? >> go ahead. >> please. can you represent to us since supervisor ferrell is asking us to go ahead and exercise our equitable power in effect in regard to waiver. >> it's not waiver. >> let me finish the question. you've got a problem, sir. you had it with commissioner hur and with me. i won't interrupt you. don't interrupt me. let me ask the question and then you can answer the question anyway you want. can you represent to us that supervisor ferrell had no part in the solicitation of $200000, $150,000 of which comes from a gentleman named tom coats. $50

50,000 from a lady dee weezey. part of his circle. can you say with a straight face that supervisor ferrell had no part in the solicitation of those funds? >> i can repeat. >> can you say, we don't have supervisor ferrell, can you do that sir , yes or no. >> i can repeat what he said under oetd oath to the fppc which is that he had no knowledge or interactions with any of the activities of the committee. >> you did not answer the request whether or not he had anything to do with the solicitation of those funds with the two very prominent people who were very close friends of his and the idea that they would give the money to

some little sclump like chris lee is absolutely absurd. >> any others? >> one question, if the forfeiture letter had been sent out in august, september of 2014 and knowing the facts as the fact of the commiters of supervisor ferrell's committee. you can see that this commission has the obligation to take some action. would it have that obligation? >> i certainly agree that the

commission could take an action whether it's forfeit eir or administrative action. >> in other words don't you believe we would have an obligation to do it to hold some kind of a show cause hearing and let supervisor ferrell show how he was innocent of any wrongdoing and that this may have been a terrible campaign violation but he was innocent? >> i appreciate your question, but the way i would answer it is you did do that. your staff for over 2 years was involved in an investigation where you sat in on interviews, reviewed e-mails and conducted that investigation. they did that. now, you, the commissioners didn't do it because investigations are done by staff. investigations aren't done with the commissioners, they are

done by staff and then the staff decided the same thing the fppc decided using the discretion that supervisor ferrell shouldn't be charged. >> i can guarantee you at least as one commissioner that had the stipulation that was entered into the fppc in august of 2014, if that was brought to my attention, i would have moved to take action. >> i appreciate that. >> the thing that troubles me now is that you are asking us to say, make this legal decisions on legal issues about which lawyers can -- disagree. you are asking us to take action which say we are going to preclude, anybody, any judge dealing with the issue? >> if you are talking about the

statute of limitations issue i would say that you are the public officials who have the legal duty to not bring matters after the statute of limitations under the law and the public defenders would criticize that and obviously some of your concerns with the executive director. we would pause it that maybe getting a new executive director is a good opportunity to revisit these issues so that the committee in the future can make a decision or review what the decision is so staff can move forward. but unfortunately you are bound by the law and have the duty to not act now. >> commissioner andrews? >> i have a couple questions, a statement first and then a couple questions. i work for a non-profit here in the city and gets lot of

donations from many caring city city city -- san franciscoans and from percentage wise i would know what dollar amount came in and when it was donated by. that said, i was wondering if you had any understanding or knowledge of the donor acknowledgment process that supervisor ferrell and his committee did. anyone who donated, is there a letter that goes out on behalf of the committee that thanked them for their contribution both in the primary and

this secondary committee? i think there might be a misunderstanding here. supervisor ferrell, the only involvement between his committee and the voters committee were three e-mails that his consultant sent to e-mails. but his campaign people said they have no involvement at all. the only way they knew who the donors of the committee were from the website. >> my question stands well within the committee to reelect mark ferrell do you have any knowledge or understanding of what their process was? >> only the most general where they would have sent a thank you letter. >> my organization does it within 48 hours to get that letter out. >> i don't know. >> okay. it maybe known and i

may need to be reminded of it. i go back to my original question. i'm still looking at the total expenditure that what happened to the 190 plus thousand that came through in support of supervisor ferrell. i'm wondering when was that donation made, those two donations, 150 and $50,000. those are large numbers. the reason i mention that because in your social set and i often say to my staff. if a big donation comes in from an individual you need to let me know because i run around town and i see people all the time and i would be remiss not to acknowledge them for their donation. i wonder how

much time went by when it made common sense. for those two donors it would be hard to believe that supervisor ferrell wouldn't run into either of those donors over the weeks or months to say, i want you to know, i want to support you and because that have support i made this particular donation on your behalf. that's what i would want to hear. if it happened one 1 day and the election happened the next day and not enough time goes by. if months go by, whatever is happening over a period of months. it would be hard for me to believe that one would not have an knowledgement or understanding that if you have the broadest view south africa someone made to supervisor

federal about 40% of the overall expenditures. >> i know that he did not have any involvement. >> let's say we would move forward and not accept this waiver of for feature and we would move forward. would not

text in e-mails and such be a part of discovery in finding out the engagement, the communications that supervisor ferrell had was not only with mr. lee but also with the two major donors. >> we have subpoena power. >> city attorney can correct me, but if we, if the motion that was made by supervisor keane, passes, the waiver doesn't go out. the forfeiture letter goes out and we are out of it. >> the fppc did ask for those e-mails. every e-mail between supervisor ferrell and the people who worked on his campaign and all involved with voters and supervisor ferrell did

campaign boxes of e-mails to the fppc which the staff also had access to and looked at and again, the only interaction between anyone involved in the campaign and with voters were the three e-mails from chris lee to whom ever it was from the beginning. they didn't only ask supervisor campaign for the e-mails. they asked chris lee and the consultant for the independent committee. they did that investigation which of course is appropriate. that's exactly what they were looking for is those kinds of connections and they found absolutely no connections whatsoever between supervisor ferrell and his campaign and the independent spend you -- expenditure pack. they interviewed the donors

as well? >> i know they interviewed everyone on the list. >> we requested the fppc's file after the fact and there is no information of any interviews of any of the donors to address one other question, the timing in my timeline that i provided you. mr. ferrell had a 2-hour meeting with dee dee willse on october 6th, apparently to get a $500 contribution. 2 weeks later she gave the $50,000 to that committee. 3 days after mr. coats had an event for mr. ferrell at his home for the committee he considered 100 of the $141,000 to the expenditure committee.

>> if i can make one correction that i think is important though, what's before the commissioners as i understand is not a waiver request at all. it is that mr. saint kroi issued the letter and he now wants to revoke the letter and that's what he's explained to me and that's what i believe the letter says and the agenda item is to revoke the letter. >> any other public comment? >> good afternoon. robert. on the civil grand jury 2013, 2014, and when this was going on in 2014 i was before you with findings and

recommendation. one of which you the commission are the policy making body and set policy for the ethics commission, not the staff. and you agreed with that and put that into the that you agreed with that finding and i think staff was fully aware of it and i think at this time, you see staff sort of setting their own policy with regard to when to seek for feature -- forfeiture. i also see that forfeiture is seen as a penalty or fine or jail for that matter. it's considered an action against a piece of property. not an action against an individual. and in many semi criminal settings, forfeiture happens quickly

and the onerous is on the owner of the property that it should not be taken. it's a very simple initial threshold and in this instance, i think that threshold is met. here is the sum of money that was obviously used improperly. basically you are asking for his forfeiture. i think you should take that into consideration as you go forward with this. thank you very much. >> thank you. any other public comment? >> hairy bush. just to put on the record, i obtained a provided to the commission a copy of the e-mail to the circumcision staff august 28th stating the fppc prepared a stipulation. it attached a copy

of the stipulation and asked the commission whether it chose to issue a joint statement with the fppc at that time. and provided a copy of what a joint statement would look like. there is no record from the ethics commission records to immediate disclosure request of any response sent back to the fppc. >> thank you. >> my name is ken miller, a resident of district two. i have known mark and liz ferrell for many years and have known their children for as long as they have been alive. i know mark's character and i know his values and delighted to witness to the high ethical standards of this goodman of anybody who wants to listen. i volunteered many hours on mark's political campaigns because i

believe that his high integrity and ethical standards represent the best that we can hope for in our public servants. from that experience i believe i can state with confidence that the actions of mark ferrell, the candidate, are guided by the highest ethical standards and integrity just as are the actions of mark ferrell, the father, the husband the businessman, and the friend. that's it. thank you very much. >> thank you. >> i'm bob plant hold. i support the waiver of letter. setting this forward would be more light shed more

information required and provided. but, despite all the questions and the suggestions from the commissioners, i'm basing my comments on what two attorneys have said. mr. bell raised a point earlier and that goes to there is no indication that mark ferrell gave specific instructions to his campaign consultant where on the lines did you read the required laws. whereas make sure you follow the laws. whereas don't get me in trouble. he said there is no indication. if that's the case, that indicates a casualness, a sloppiness which goes to the question of agency. did he properly instruct his agents, read the law, follow the law, are you sure what this means, are you sure you know what you can't do. if he didn't ask the questions, that's a

sloppiness on mark ferrell's part. we also heard from mr. sutton that the only way mark ferrell found out about the contributions is when he went to the ethics website. what prompted him, when did he find out there was something he should look at and that tells me somebody was telling him something is wrong, but we don't know who. i think the timing on that also is something that is relevant. why should say withdraw the waiver letter, let forfeiture pro and if they want to fight it out in court, maybe more information will be provided. >> thank you. any other public comment? >> good afternoon, david pill pell gel, speaking as an individual. this has turned into a really good commission meeting with lots of back and forth and some of us are learning a lot.

two, the sutton letter provided to the public only offered a number of pages. thanks to staff for fixing that. we have had a chance to read the full letter. the proposed letter actually has i believe the wrong dollar amount. so if the letter does go, the amount should be corrected. fourth, although i have not been involved in this and have only learned a bit through the commission meetings, i wonder out loud if common sense voters was the entity that was found to have become a candidate controlled committee, why shouldn't csv be the entity that needs to forfeit. why shouldn't it transfer to the supervisor if these which these contribution was made, then they have the opportunity to forfeit and

the opportunity with estoppel and concealment and what not tolling. so, that's my question out loud is whether csv is liable for this amount rather than the supervisor. >> my name is vince courtney. i have been active in city politics in san francisco for well over 40 years. i know a lot of supervisors, mayor's, what have you. i just want to ditto what a prior speaker said about mark. i know him to be very credible and very poignant that he wants everything squeaky clean. but more relevant to your discussion. i just learned 10 minutes ago that mckail an aliota was involved with this campaign. at that time she had much more access to money people in district