you don't want to - one of the great things of san francisco it is neighborhood neighborhood have dentist corrosive are coffeehouses but 2, 3, 4 coffeehouses in month neighborhoods that are on their own- that's >> my name is onika and i'm part of the mayor campaign. thank you to each member of the ethics commission for your service for the city and for the time for hearing us today.

we have spent month reaching out to supporters all over the city and receiving the. >> these donors believe in angela and they believe that the contribution qualifies on march 27th we confidently submitted over 53,000. for consideration by the ethics admission. and then we waited we knew there was a chance that some donations we submitted could be flagged for ethics by followup and we were prepared to spend the allotted five days clarifying these donations and so we waited. we indicate waited for nine days before we receive speed received the response from ethics on april 5th we were shocked to see just how many donations they have flag order rejected for unreasonable explanations.

>> parcels and abbreviations for occupation like vp and nsvp were flagged for more information. a donor's self reported occupation. an employer as teacher for ssusd was flagged for more information. many donors self reported their occupation and employer as real estated and self employed and they were also flagged for more information. the san francisco ethics commission only gave us hours to respond to hundred of h these mostly unreasonablreasonable re rejections our staff worked tirelessly for 30 hours given we reached out to hundreds of donors asking them for more informing about their occupation and employer. based on ethics requirements we asked donors to send proof of san francisco residency in california ids, utility bills

and bank statements and register agreements and voter registration record, recent paystubs or even voided cheques. to be perfectly honest, this felt like a gross invasion of privacy. >> there were many donors who either did not respond or declined to share this information with us, and i don't blame them. at the end of the 30 hours granted to us we resubmitted our qualifying donations. and the hundreds of updates to the occupations, employers, street addresses and place of residency of our generous donors but it was not enough time to location all. information requested by the ethics staff. that is why we ask that you grant the mayor campaign's more days. please give us a fair shot to carry out the wishes of our donors and qualify for the public funding for the city and county of san francisco. thank you. >> madam chair, i have one more

question. this is public comment. there is on the agenda, number 3. which is missal i will's appeal of an adverse determination of eligiblibility. and i raise the question of whether everyone realizes that you will have an opportunity to comment on agenda number 3 rather than in a vacuum, so to speak, because the commission hasn't heard a report from the staff. and logically, and as a matter of custom and practice, the staff makes a report. and then they will be argument and representations b

by miss ally. and if there need to be further investigation that will be given and the chairwoman will ask for public and then. and you and everyone else will be able to comment, including judge chianelli. a 1,000 a dollars mediator and judge bergeron who hasn't hit that yet. who is a civil rights specialist. thank you, madam. would you just verify that for me for the audience. >> vice-chairperson chiu: so verified we ask that item 3 be given now that public comment number 3 be called. thank you. >> thank you. >> vice-chairperson chiu: is there any other public comment on agenda item 2? >> jerry stellar with friend of ethics i just want to say to the audience and to the body

watching us on television. that this is a quasi judicial body so the matter has legal implications which is important to us all. and the people in the city. so that's yet procedures may seem formalistic. so that's why you will get your right to speak and under the agenda item following the normal process and i appreciate your patient. >> vice-chairperson chiu: thank you. >> good evening. commissioners. welcome to the commission. commissioner kopp. how are you all doing here today? my name is ace, of course and when i read the papers about this issue i was very concerned

not only nor issue but for the rest of the candidates and in particular some of the candidates, in my opinion, need to be brought to this ethics commission. >> i wonder if the rest of the candidates get the same treatment. but i do know one thing -- on my research -- and i'm not favorite itch or people might say -- london breed -- i knew london. i knew her from a young girl. my daughters used to play with her but politics is full of tricks it makes you turn into a lunatic and if you don't watch out you will get -- don't say the word. but the bottom line is here, we will be finished with this case because i'm here to stand toe to toe with ally otto.

because i don't think it's fair. all of that is coming out on the book i'm putting together. city politics here. >> if you got the stamp of woody brown. i used to be 20 years ago but i'm 64 years old now. and i'm questioning -- i mean i read in the paper where he chide to change some kind of fountain and he put in his column -- you either change, come on down because i changed it. what the hell -- he don't put his foot in his mouth. he is getting old. sometimes he looks so young like he was taking some kind of -- you stick to this. but the bottom line, this city hall that, i call silly hall. i'm glad the ethics commission is here that we can rule out all of this corruption. and i do think she is the best

person. in two years i think she can clean it up. because i don't think the pay to play and all of them crooks -- because she done so much and she done sue the city so many times that she has the biggest lawsuit. and i don't think they have to pay to stay or pay to play or pay to lay or pay to turn the other way. anyway i'm here to see what the procedures are in the stand, toe to toe with angela allyotto. >> vice-chairperson chiu: thank you. any other public comment? moving on to agenda item 3 executive directors adverse determination availability for public financing for angela ally otto from 2019. >> madam chair i have a motion that relates to this particular issue, unfortunately. for purposes of the record, i am

familiar with the candidate and the issue before this commission is whether or not the $50,000 threshold was raised 500 individuals were identified and it was done by a certain date. as it turns out i supported this candidate for purposes of public financing, and i am, in fact, one of the contested items on page 123 of the list of supporters. there is an indication that i listed myself as self employed, which i am, and have been for years. however, i don't think it's condition-shus if nothing else to sit on an issue which i am perhaps a participant in. so i am unfortunately in my second hearing, going to have to request to the panel that i be recused from this issue and not rule tonight since i'm -- i'll

so move "d."second . all in favor. aye. >> through to the chair to the attorney. is it traditional for someone in my position to remain for public comment? or traditional for them to leave for purposes of appearances? >> i think at this point it would be appropriate for you to leave the room. >> okay. alright. >> vice-chairperson chiu: thank you, commissioner i commission ryan. >> i have provided to the

committees and the representatives and of course to you today a memo for agenda 3 that details the determination that -- under the program procedures, the executive direction, to i am required to make when candidates have sought to participate in the public financing system am i thought the easiest way to review some of the bake issues would be perhaps to review an illustration that is printed in color. there are copies on the public counter for members of the audience here today and each of you commissioners have also been presented with a copy of that. it summarizes the same information in the memo about the deadlines that are relevant to the determination that i made in regard to the alioto for mayor 2018 committee. in essence for those of you who know, the question before the commission is whether the commissioner for today should determine the edition to the committee to receive public fund

for the june 2018 public election. the memo details an overview of the recommendation, the speck filings that we received from the committee. the appea applicable law and policy considerations regarding the original filing and the submission and the request for an appeal. i want to just briefly walk through the illustration for purposes of establishing some context and time frame. and then i will come back to our recommendation for you today. as shown on the chart that you have, it's entitled public financings eligibility deadline for the june 5th, 2018 election. it's a very comprehensive program that the voters established back in 2002 to create public financing for candidates running for city elected office in san francisco. it is a program not unlike other jurisdictions where there are

very specific requirements established in the law for candidates who wish to participate and, therefore, qualify to receive public fund to assist them in their campaigns. the program here in the city has some very specific deadlines for when candidates need to i've their interest in participating in the program, submitting a request to be certified as eligible which is before you today and once they are eligible to submit claims to receive matching fund in limited amounts for contributions that are qualified as defined by the program. there are a number of deadlines that are established under the law for when those requirements need to occur. there are very specific eligibility requirements established in the law. the san francisco campaign and govern menta mental code for what may be watched and what may not be matched and the

considerations also go into great detail for the staff to be able to review the request for qualifying fund that they submit to us and we appreciate what the candidates have when they are seeking fund. it's a program that is designed to help with the views and election campaigns and we believe it's a program that is worthwhile and we want candidates to be able to participate. we also know that it's a tradeoff that comes with the participation, because these are public fund is the ability to demonstrating that they have met all the qualifications that are established by the law from the program. >> just briefly walking through some boxes at the top of the page. as you see once the candidate opens from the start of the campaign by starting in 18 months before the date of the election, which in this case is june 5th, 2018. as early as december of 2016,

candidates can start raising fund that may be considered qualifying contributions. the law also establishes that no earlier than nine months before the election, even if candidates are fundraising before then. no earlier than nine month before the election is the earliest date to submit the -- a request to be certified as eligible. that's their qualifying request. in practice that hasn't happen inspected this election psych. it's compressed due to the untimely passing of mayor lee. but there is a deadline -- sorry an initial date where candidates cannot submit qualifying requests before that date and that's september 5,2017. in jam where they get on the ballots there is a deadline at that time where candidates detail their intent to either participate or not participate in the program. in this year's election, there were six mayoral candidates who indicated they wished to participate there. were four that almatly submitted

politicians for eligibility: in midjanuary, there is a date candidates can receive funds. that is a threshold date established in the law. and then we look forward to getting into march. as you will see march 27th is a date that the law establishes -- as the 70th day before the election. and that has significance and i will come back to that in a moment as well but that is the deadline to file a qualifying request. candidates who do not file a request can be certified as eligible for public fund at that time cannot be determined to be he willable. >> so clarifying question, if i may, miss pellin. all candidates for -- in this case, the mayor had from january 9th until march 27th, then, to raise fund and then submit their qualifying request.

>> yes, theoretically they could have submitted a qualifying request as early as september 5, 2017 but they are not required to file their intent to participate publicly until the deadline is january 9 when nominating period closes. >> thank you. >> so the 70th day before the elections march 27th, candidates must file their request by that date or they cannot be considered under the law to participate. there are also two additional deadlines established in the law no later than the 60th day before the election which is april 6th this year. that is the deadline for qualifying requests resubmissions. it has been the case that every mayoral candidate and i believe even the supervisorra supervisorral candidates none were determined on the first submission. that was common for this year of but there was a deadline that was april 6th.

if they have a submission it has to happen by that day. and finally by the 55th day of election, april 11th that's the deadline under the statute that the executive director must make all final qualifying decisions based on submissions for the cycle. based on those deadlines as detailed in the memo, we reviewed the claim, determined that the deadlines were not met by the alioto for mayor committee and based on that, made our recommendation to you that the submission -- that the denial for public financing should stand. so those are the speck deadlines that we had operating, and that's what were detailed in the memo to you. i do want to bring to your attention. the question about whether the commission should affirm the determination about whether they are able to receive public fund for june 18 election as deadlines for the committee failed to submit their

documents. that is a recommendation that we believe is a recommendation that is worthy of the commissions affirmation. as we were preparing for this hearing today and tripping checking our informing, do i want to, however, bring to your attention one underlying issue that is not addressed at either our staff report or the douches provided by the committee regarding this appeal and it basically unscores an underlying issue of how we applied those standards. and it goes back to the 70th day. and for this reason, as i walk through, this through this, i want to bring to your attention i cannot in good faith move forward with the recommendation you deny the appeal today i would like tom could through the modified recommendation but as were you looking through this and verifying the information that we have. there is an inconsistency between our supplemental guides that we provide for candidate's benefit. and what the law requires. and i have to say that we pride

ourselves -- or we try to pride our self on following the law to the letter and in this case, i can tell you we did not do. that the supplemental guide is correct the 10th day for the mayor's race. i will take a moment to detail that because this is significant. so if you again look at the chart with the deadline of march 27th which is the date no later than the 70th day. qualified eligibility -- reviewing qualification eligibility, one of the criteria

is contributions must be received on or after december 5th and before the qualifying window closes. when you look the statute, the qualifying window closes by the 10th day of the election -- 70 day of the election. on march 27th. or sump mean supplemental guide states it as the 70th day which would make it march 26th. as a result of that reading and as a result of that advice, i believe we gave the committee, there is a question in my mind about whether the committee, in fact, had contributions that they might have submitted had we indicated that march 27th was the deadline. and in fairness i think we need to ask the committee if they had those contributions, that they would have submitted had we not pulled themmoids. and i would like to suggest that that is a question that the commission raised and posed and that if, in fact the committee has contributions that it does

not submit that were dated march 27th i think we should look at those before final determination is made. so to recap, then, the -- under the law -- and asked the deputies of the attorney to confirm the interpretation that contributions for purposes of qualifying requests can be counted if they were made up to and including march 27th? >> that's correct. there is a slight discrepancy between the deadline for qualifying contributions for supervisor candidates versus mayoral candidates and they appear to be relying on the deadline for supervisorral candidates, slight the slight discrepancy. >> vice-chairperson chiu: so now the recognition is that the contributions if any, were made on the 27th of march, that the

committee be given an opportunity to submit those and have those be counted toward their eligibility requirements? >> yes, when i reviewed depend the claims that were -- the list of contributors that were submitted with the march 27th request, and the april 6th request, again -- i don't have the compaq numbers in front. me. did i it rather quickly today but i believe there were a handful or perhaps at most two handfuls of contributions that were dated march 27th, after march 26th and therefore rejected by us. i would like to confirm if there were contributions dated march 27th that were not submitted, that might have had a bearing in any way on the committee's ability to reach the eligibility threshold to $50,000. the committee submitted on both of their claims contributions totaling 1 4u7 $100,000.

and on the first claim they claimed -- i believe it was around $29,000. and the second claim on april 6th, it was about $39,000. so they may or may not have contributioned dated march 27th but i think in an abundance of fairness and acknowledging if we made a mistake. we might need to own up to it and review that. >> vice-chairperson chiu: thank you. and then with regard to the balance of the submission, what is your recommendation? >> i think we are quite comfortable, again, with the analysis that we did, and the concerns that we had for the followup. we applied the same standards to the committee that we did with all other committees that had been running in both mayoral and

supervisorral races. i can appreciate there may be doubt katz on our credibility and we may be having to work hard to regain in the eyes of some. but the detailed list that we provided the committee gave them very explicit information about what was missing in terms of supporting documentation and we did not see that they were able to provide that in the time -- by the deadlines required. so again i think from our perspective -- from my perspective, certainly, that the environment question is whether there was a question about march 27th contributions. >> vice-chairperson chiu: thank you. any questions from commissioners? >> commissioner lee: i have a clarifying question through the chair, the executive director. the first interpretation apply to other candidates committees?

is one day different? >> yes, it would apply to any of them. and we have the three other mayoral candidates who have qualified are receiving public funds. and those were based on their second -- their second or third claims that they request to be qualified as eligible. >> commissioner lee: but it would not change the outcome for the other committee? >> no, i don't believe it would have. >> commissioner lee: thank you. >> vice-chairperson chiu: thank you. ordinarily i would have the campaign for angela alioto for mayor speak now but we are down a commissioner at the moment. so i think everyone should bear with us for a moment until he returns.

>> commissioner lee: if i may just ask one more -- chu yes, >> vice-chairperson chiu: go ahead, commissioner lee. >> commissioner lee: thank you. is it -- what caused the staff to misinterpret. >> i would say we have to look at it internally. i know we have been scrambling often with the pace of commission meetings, with the fact we are down staff in the front office, that we are still trying to fill -- you wily we -- and i, did not review clearly the law enough in order to analyze this. so i think that there are a number of -- you know a number of issues that perhaps collided at the same time but i think the fuller answer to that would be once we had a chance to take a

deep dive internally. but it does underscore the need for us to continually look to the law directly and to have the kind of rigorous decisions internally. we do make mistakes. >> vice-chairperson chiu: thank you. if there's anyone from angela alioto for mayor who would like to present. >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is sandra rabaraspeed. i thank you for having us today and listening to the matter of miss alioto's appeal on this issue. just to give you a little background on myself, i'm a san francisco native. my parent are also san francisco natives. i grew up in the sunset district

where my parent still live. and i have been here for the past 13 years. seven years of which have been at a law firm on west portal here in san francisco. by way of chronology in terms of the relevant fact that have to do with our appeal here today, i would just like to generally go over the written submission that we provided, and the appeal which is that miss alioto's campaign submitted their qualifying request to the executive director on march 27th which was timely. her staff -- between march 27th and april 4th repeatedly called the office of the beck activ executive director to inquire staff of the determination of her qualifying request. on tuesday, april 3rd was the

first time that contact was actually made with the executive director's office, in which someone spoke to miss alioto's campaign and when her campaign manager had inquired about the status of miss elliott's application -- he was told by a staff member that the office has 30 days to review. which gave the campaign the impression that miss alioto's campaign -- or request had -- the executive director's office had not yet started the review process which was of extreme concern because the campaign was aware that a determination needed to be made by the 55th day which was april 11th and it was now april 3rd. >> commissioner kopp: excuse me, madam chair.

commissioner kopp. >> commissioner kopp: counsel, would you describe the name who you describe as assistant? >> sure, his name is michael mallen is he is exhibit a to my appeal. >> commissioner kopp: thank you. >> sure. so on the morning of april 5th, miss alioto spoke to executive director pellum. and miss pellum told miss alioto there were a couple of items in her application that needed additional supporting documentation. that was at 10 a.m. on the morning of april 5th. later in the afternoon, on april 5th at 2:25 p.m., miss alioto again spoke with miss pellin. at that time, miss pellin said

there were 210 items that required supporting documentation. so it went from a couple of items in the morning to 280 items in the afternoon. subsequently, at 5:08 p.m., miss alioto received notification from miss pellin that the determination letter denied her eligibility to receive public funds. in that letter, it indicated that miss alioto only had one day, until april 6th, to resubmit supporting documentations to pure the defects of these 280 items. now this was the first time that miss alioto had ever heard of the regulation that there were only -- that she had -- only this one day to resubmit. in fact, that information is

contained nowhere in the documents that were provided to the candidates. for example, in the candidate's guide for city elective office, at page 21, section 8, san francisco's public financing program provides partial public funding for candidates for mayor -- or the board of supervisors to help with the cost of election. candidates for mayor or the board of supervisors should support the supplemental guide to learn about requirements related to public financing programs. the supplemental guide specifically prepared for mayoral candidates for the june 5th, 2018 election. at page 13, what happens if you

are not certified? if you are qualifying request or supporting documentation is incomplete or otherwise inadequate to establish eligibility, you will not be certified. the executive director will notify you and within five business days of the notice date, you may resubmit the qualifying request and supporting documentation. this is the document that is given to the mayoral candidates, which miss pellin had referred to. there had been some discrepancy about the march 27th -- whether march 27th contributions. and there was essentially the equivalent of a typo. well in this entire document, there is no indication that resubmissions are prohibited after the 60th day. it is simply not in this document. nor is it in the code, which is

the law. and that is the san francisco campaign and gover governmental canuc conduct code. nowhere in this code, which my understanding was passed by the board of supervisors is there any indication that resubmissions would not be accepted after the 60th day. what it does say is that the executive director has until the 55th day, which in this case was april 11th to make her determination. and that also is reflected in the supplement. but, again nothing regarding the 60th day. nothing regarding any limation on a candidate's ability to resubmit. [ please stand by ]

>>. >> the statute may be silent, but the commission regs spell out the 60th day deadline for resubmissions. >> yes, the regulations do that in the policy rational may be that the executive director has to make her decision by the 55th day, it still gives the staff time actually to examine and review the resubmission. >> thank you. >> so the issue here really boils down to fairness. it is -- pursuant to the san francisco campaign and governmental conduct code, it is the purpose of the code to ensure that all individuals and interest groups in our city have a fair opportunity to participate in elective and governmental processes, and that's on section 1.10(b)2.

here, there was no notification whatsoever that there was -- that mis-alios alioto would no afforded the five days that is provided in the supplement and in the code itself. there is no indication that if she filed timely, timely, but toward the end of the filing period, that she would be prohibited from using the full five days to prepare her resubmission. in fact, if you look at the language of government code 1.142 (f), it states, resubmission. if the executive director declines to certify that a candidate is eligible to receive public financing under

this chapter, the executive director shall notify the candidate. notwithstanding section 1.142 (b) of this chapter, the candidate may, within five business days of the date of notification, resubmit the declaration and supporting material. if the candidate does not timely resubmit, the executive director's determination is final. notwithstanding, that's the keyword there, meaning, in spite of. in spite of the 70th day requirement, meaning, everyone gets the five days, regardless if you submit on the 70th day or you submit prior to that. you still get that -- those five business days in order to resubmit. so imagine miss alioto's shock and that of her campaign on

april 5th when she got her letter, it that -- to

even out the playing field, to make it so that everyone has a fair shot to obtain this public financing. and to be allotted one day when there's absolutely no indication, nowhere does it say, if you submit by the 70th day, watch out. you might not get five days to

resubmit. it doesn't say that anywhere. you know, i don't think the purpose of these regulations is to trick the candidate, i think the purpose, as it says, is to help the candidate. and if you're helping the candidate, transparency is key. the -- and also, my understanding is that the regulations were not passed by the board of supervisors. they're not -- while they may be policy or instructive, they're not law. but more importantly, they were not given to the candidates or directly -- the candidates were not directly pointed in that direction because if you look at this specific supplement for candidates for mayor seeking public funding, which the executive director referred to herself as, you know being something -- a guide for the mayoral candidates and changing her recommendation based on a misstatement that was contained in here, let's not talk

about -- just talk about the misstatements, how about the omission, the policy, whatever you want to call it. that if you wait until the last day to submit your application, you're not going to get time to resubmit. that's a big deal. everyone person who applied for public financing in this campaign has had to resubmit, but miss alioto just gets one day, and everyone else just gets five? she understands that she might not have had further opportunities to resubmit, but there doesn't seem to be any ambiguity or discretion in that five days that's offered to mayoral candidates seeking public financing to submit the resubmissions of supporting

documentation. so with that, the campaign would ask that the commission vacate the executive director's determination that miss alioto is ineligible for public financing and denial of certification. two, allow miss alioto four additional business days as was and is authorized under sf campaign and the governmental conduct code section 1.142 (f) to resubmit documentation in support of her qualifying request for public financing. we would also add to that the inclusion of any march 27th, 2018 contributions that she receiv received. and three, authorize the executive director with the ability to accept miss alioto's

resubmission and review this resubmission in order to make a determination as to miss alioto's eligibility for public financing and certification. finally, i would just like to state that in spite of the fact that the executive director did not consider this information in the final determination of -- of contributing campaign funds in the amount of $39,000 and some change, miss alioto's campaign continued to work and actually did resubmit on april 10th. they did another resubmission in the hopes that the executive director would follow the law on the five day resubmission process, and that pursuant to the executive director's letter

of april 11th, 2018, making her final determination, those supporting materials in that resubmission -- in that second resubmission were not considered. so i would just like to point that out. and i thank you for your time and for your consideration. >> miss rivera, i have a clarifying question. with regard to that second resubmission that was not considered, are you asking us to direct the executive director to consider that submission? >> to consider it, but i -- but miss alioto would need the five business days, so that's still not the five business days from april 5th to -- i believe it's only three business days because two of those are weekend days, but, you know, i think she should be entitled to the full five days, which she had one day, so four business days. so that would entitle her to

one more business day if that april 10th submission was considered. >> so it's -- well, today's april 20th, and it's been -- you -- the campaign received notice on april 5th, is that right? >> yes. >> okay. so there was a -- one business day on april 6th, so you're asking for four additional business days. >> correct. >> okay. thank you. >> mm-hmm. >> commissioner kopp: i have a question. >> commissioner kopp. >> commissioner kopp: i have a question. you're referring to the campaign government code. >> yes, that's correct. >> commissioner kopp: if five days had been accorded, would that have been april 11th? >> yes. >> commissioner kopp: okay.

and how many approximately donations were not counted with respect to your argument about march 27th? >> that, i don't know because that was a new issue that was raised just today, so that was not something i've looked at. and i believe that -- >> commissioner kopp: so is there anybody in the campaign who can provide that? >> sure. >> i know that there were donations that we received on march 27th. i don't know exactly how many. we did not submit those in our filings -- our understanding was that only donations through march 26th would be accepted. >> commissioner kopp: well, do you have a written record of those? >> a written record of the donations that came in on march 27th? >> commissioner kopp: yes. yes. >> not in front muof me, but w

have written records of all donations made in the campaign. >> commissioner kopp: well, do you have someone who can get it over here? well, i will subside. it's your case. >> mr. cop, kopp, just as a p of clarification, that was just told to us as we got here. >> commissioner kopp: i understand that. you have the burden. she doesn't. >> okay. anything else? >> yes, one question. i understand that the ethics commission offered training -- in person training on the public finance. i'm curious to know whether the candidate alioto or anyone from her campaign attended. >> yes. >> thank you.

any further questions from the commissioners? open for public comment. >> hi. i'm al fred cantelli. i'm a native san franciscan, and i know about you. i've done my research. i'll just let you know a little bit about myself. a native san franciscan. i live up in russian hill. i've been practicing law for 50 years. i was the first elected judge of the superior court in san francisco. for one year, i served as an appellate judge. before that i was assistant district attorney under three different district attorneys for # 1.5 years, and before that, in private practice. 17 years i've been working for a.d.r. services as a mediator, and mr. kopp is wrong. i don't charge $1,000 an hour. in fact some of my stuff is pro

bono, as well. i am a supporter and contributor of angela alioto, another native san franciscan. the reason why i'm here is because i know that this commission has very tender and sensitive powers, equitiable powers, we say in the law. and i hear fairness. in fairness, there's a theory of law called estoppel, and estoppel is when you have a rule of law, and you have an authorized agent as we have here -- and i really appreciate the executive director having the courage to sit here and tell you that her office made a mistake; that it should have been march 26th as opposed to march 27th, and i commend you for indicating that there were mistakes. but that -- that's not the only mistake, and that's what estoppel is based on. estoppel is based on the theory of equity where authorized agents like the executive

director makes representations to people who with reason, rely on those statements, and then, there's prejudice because in relying it, because of mistakes, they are prejudiced, like angela alioto, who's prejudiced, who loses public funding of over $1 million. but it wasn't just one mistake, march 27th to march 26th, right? it's t there's the mistake that we hear of amy lee on april 3rd who spoke to mr. mallon and said we have 30 days to review. now it's maybe one word against another, but it's still a fact. what do you mean on april 3rd that this agency still has 30 days to review? that's not true. you don't have 30 days, but they relied on it. next, april 5th. you know, how can you trust

when people say something they don't mean or really don't mean what they say? there's only a couple of items to be done. boy, that's a mistake. how can you say there's only a couple of items to be done when later on that afternoon, you find there's 280 items to be done? wow, that's a misrepresentation by an authorized agent. and then, what happens is there's not only 280 days -- items to be fixed, but it could be done in five days. later on, there's an e-mail in the afternoon indicating you only have one day, april 6th from an authorized agent. and -- >> commissioner kopp: madam chair, i would move -- what do you need? a minute? >> yes, i can -- 30 seconds.

>> commissioner kopp: 30? mark this day in history. i'd move 30 seconds. >> 30 days. >> okay. so what i'm asking for is to vacate this on the grounds of estoppel and equity. it's the only fair thing to do. and add, if you can't add five, add four additional days. and here's the thing that really is the spur under the saddle. the alioto people were told they only had one day to get things fixed, and today, this very day, we're told, for the first time, go get your financial records from march 26th today. that's a big mistake. people should be more well informed, and people should be certainlying informed certainly fod on the authorized agency in making representations. we talk about fairness, we talk about he totestoppel, reasonab

reliance, there's no question. it screams for equity here. thank you. >> thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i'm just going to take a second to express -- express what we did in that 30 hours. generous people gave me a donation to be the next mayor of san francisco. we had these entries, we submitted $53,000 plus. we had this 280 entries where we had to call everybody back and get their proof of residency in one day. we had until -- as miss pelham told me. and you know i think that in fairness, she was really stressed out, too. i mean this campaign has a lot of people in it, and a lot of people -- a lot of things were on the june ballot. so having said that, i want you to understand, we had to call people and tell them that it wasn't sufficient to say

self-employed, like commissioner ryan. it wasn't enough; we had to say something else what they did. maitre' d wasn't considered a job. the street of magnolia doesn't exist. it's down in the marina. the street of 7th street doesn't exist. it's right down here. there were complaints about the entries of these 280 that some of them we absolutely cannot fix. and i really want to point out that calling people back and doing what we had to do, i probably lost more votes than the money could ever get me because people were so angry at me for asking, having all of our staff -- there were ten of us that were calling people and asking them to prove they live in a place where some of them were born. and i want to point out about the woman -- and i want to work on this process. i would love to work on this process because there's something really wrong when --

when the people who public funding is supposed to be for, i.e., the people that can't get the money to run for an election, can't even be part of this process, it's so difficult. so we have to do something to make it a little easier. i want to point out the p.o. boxes. i can't tell you how many women told me they have a p.o. box because they've been assaulted and they don't want people to know where they live. they didn't want to tell us where they live. in other words they wouldn't give us the proof of residency that they needed, and i didn't blame them at all. i said i'm so sorry. i don't want your proof of residency, so that took us down i don't know how many thousands. and then, the cash, the cash donations, none of them were acceptable. it wasn't a lot. it was 600, 700. my brother, lawrence alioto, has been born and raised in san francisco. he signed the envelope, he dated the envelope, he gave the

cash. he's not accepted. we can't even explain some of these reasons why. but it's not the ones we can't explain the reasons why, it's the one where i called so many people who felt harassed and who felt -- who i said oh, my gosh, that's okay, we won't count it because i was not going to make them give us their pg&e bill or give us their place of residence. and then, i called miss pelham yesterday. and i said, you know, i didn't get to talk to her -- and i appreciate how busy everybody is, but what you call just put out today for today's hearing has all of my donors' addresses on it, publicly. publicly. i just want to stress, we have toic at that t to take the donor in consideration here, and we can't harass voters in getting this job done. i can't thank you enough for this hearing.

i really appreciate it. believe me, we're doing the best we can. we submitted 53,000. mark submitted 73,000 plus, and i know that london breed said she had a hard time, and jane kim said she submitted three times because the qualifications are so difficult in this prove of residency, i would love for this commission to take a look at that because we really can't be harassing people that have been generous enough to take the money. thank you so much for listening to me. >> commissioner kopp: wait a minute. >> commissioner kopp. >> commissioner kopp: i've got a question. why didn't lawrence's donation -- was it less than $100? >> $99, which was included in the amount? >> commissioner kopp: so why wasn't it identified as a qualifying donation? >> commissioner, i don't know.