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 two than

mark ferrell. she was raising money for him. i know because she asked me for money. she knew tom coats. he was one of her contributors. i don't know how well he knew mark ferrell. it is not in incredible to say he was aware of this. the reason i didn't give money, is i'm a director of alliance commission and several of the business people were supporting mark. we didn't have a majority. we wouldn't take a position. but most of the unions, i'm a union guy, we are supporting caroline. think to this day she would have done

a good job. it is not at all in conceivable to me that mckaila alioto was going to raise that money one way or another. she didn't need three e-mails from chris lee. thank you. >> thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is jim maxwell. i'm a neighbor of the ferrel's. we moved in shortly after he graduated from high school in 1992. and i have known, watched this young man grow up and become a real force here for the city of san francisco. i'm not here just speaking on behalf of myself. i am the president of a small business network. and we've worked very closely with supervisor ferrell's office over the years on small

business issues. and in fact when mark decided he was thinking about running and he knew i was very active in small business issues. he asked me, what do you think i should do. should i do this? i asked why would you do this? i would ask why did you do this? it's very difficult for me to sit here and listen to because i know this man's character, i know his family and i know how he ran his campaign because i was there at the very gestation of it. and he is above question the most highest integrity person that i know and that has done some fabulous work for the city and i introduced him to a few people i knew in the business community and everyone of them asking the same thing, idea you run for supervisor, you have a lovely wife, a family, great

job. what are you thinking? he said, i was born in san francisco, i was raised here, i have my family here and i want to make it a better place for san francisco and for city san franciscans here. that's what's carried out every step of the way. to follow this and hear more of this stuff today and see there is absolutely nothing that's come up in all of these years of investigations and serious people involved in this, there is nothing that even vaguely ties him to maybe conjecture that he may have had a jamba juice with one of these people that live on pacific heights. i know mark and raising a family, running a campaign, he wasn't sitting around at the bay club having mimosas. he was out trying to get elected. thank

you very much. >> thank you. >> charles marsel. i just want to say that i'm disappointed the supervisor didn't come here and make his case. i'm saying that's really the problem is that he perhaps was advised to stay away and i think that was a mistake because i think there are unanswered questions that he could have come here to address directly. i don't know if you could have asked him questions or if that would have been appropriate, but i sure think there are a lot of questions that still need to be asked of the supervisor directly.

>> any other public comment? >> chair, i have a question. can we seek advice from the city attorney? >> on what? >> on the legality on the statute and is that something that should be handled in public or closed session. >> item no. 6 was the contingency that any commissioner wanted to confer with the city attorney. so that if you would like to invoke a request that we go into closed session so that you can discuss it with the city attorney, you can so, we will move to agenda item 6 before we vote on the outstanding motion.

>> could i, i don't mean to interrupt you, commissioner. just a suggestion and we are following up. if we do that, and that's fine with me that if we seek city attorney's advice in what the city attorney thinks. i think we ought to do it publically. we often get advice from the city attorney, we are asking him all the time in public and see what he thinks. i know what's going to happen and it's fine. i know what he's going to say because we've all seen the memorandum as prepared by disclosing anything that is not in existence of the memorandum. i'm content with having this discussion openingly in terms of what the city attorney thinks related to the statute of limitations and i think the public should be pure

view to that as well. i didn't mean to interrupt your motion. >> on the issue of whether or not it can be public or not. what i worry is that given the subject matter, given that we've been, isn't that basically a waiver that we are opening it all up which i don't know that we can do, but i'm looking to the city attorney. >> if you wish to discuss the legal issues presented at this hearing, i would request we discuss it in closed session. >> the question is do we have to do it in closed session ? you might prefer something, but is it something we have to do in closed session. we get your advice all the time in open session. >> let me, i guess, let me call

and ask commissioner hur to make a motion under agenda item 6 that we go into closed session and see if you get a second. because if the commission as a group is prepared to stay in public session, they obviously have a right. >> sure. i am curious to the answer to commissioner keane's question. is that just your preference, do you see that as a requirement, what do you mean by that? >> for the purpose of this requirement that we should discuss it in closed session. >> why the requirement? >> given this matter, i think it's in the best interest of the commission, best interest of the city to discuss these issues in closed session. >> i will make a motion then.

>> i would like to interject one point. i will be very brief. >> i think i will let him have his motion first. can i have a second to the motion. >> second. >> what's your comment? >> my point is in regard to the privilege like any privilege, the privilege is held by the clients. we are the clients. it's not held by the lawyer. so if the clients want to wave the privilege. the fact that the lawyer says, well, no, no, you shouldn't wave the privilege. went the ones that can make that decision. the fact that he's uncomfortable with it is irrelevant. the idea that we have to do it even though we have the privilege and don't want to do it is simply that he's wrong on it. >> i don't want to do it. >> i'm suggesting that we should. >> any public comment on the motion to

go into closed session on item no. 6? >> i'm bob plant hold. i want to concur with commissioner keane that the commission had to decide. if you do go into closed session would you at least make known to the public what issues you are going to discuss that way we better understand when you come out of closed session what might be the basis for your decision if everything is held saccharo saint, we are lost. we are adrift. if you go into closed session, it's a good idea to air this because so much has been kept hidden,

unstated, unasked. at least let the public know what are the issues you are going to ask. thank you. >> commissioner, hur, you want to say what it is the question that, i understand, but i want to respond to what is the question that you envision us to be discussing in closed session. >> the topics is the statute of limitations. >> okay. >> hello, commissioners, larry bush. i think it's hard to imagine given my experience with the city attorney's office that you are going to get any advice other than the fact that the provision that would find that the statute of limitations applies and would represent with this commission with whatever it decide. which is not a hard call. everyday, i saw it so many times when i worked in the mayor's office. that's what comes back, you are

likely to lost but we will represent you. you had an irony working on this and it's been hidden for months to allow the statute to expire and now you want to have a discussion to discuss whether or not the expiration should also be done in closed session. it's not good. thank you. charles, again. yes, all the optics has never been good. it would be a disaster for this body to rescind this letter personally because i think, in fact, it's necessary for you to rescind this draft. and let it go ahead

under a forfeiture and you can imagine how it would go to the public and it doesn't help your reputation at all. the chair made a reference to item no. 6. are you planning to take up the executive session with the city attorney on the next item on this matter as well? item no. you kept referring to item 6. this is item 5. >> i said that item 6 was placed on there in case it was necessary for us to go into closed session to deal with item 5. >> both issues? >> yes. >> so you would be doing item 5 and item 6 which i assume has to do with one -- 1114. >> correct. >> okay. that was your thinking. okay, the public wasn't too clear on

that. i understand. >> i will say just for everybody to understand is that item 5 is still open. and if we go into executive session and come out. we are going to deal with item 5 as well in public. any other public comment? all right. i will call the question. all in favor say, "aye". >> aye. >> any opposed? >> no. >> it appears the ayes have it 3- 2. we will go into closed session.