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.

>> commissioner kopp: okay. i will ask the staff. >> there's several we don't understand. in other words, we can't fix them. >> commissioner kopp: yeah. >> you know, we can't fix them. now, the angela alioto checks, we have the donors writing personal letters saying the intent of the donor is a campaign, it was in a campaign envelope. y you know -- it brought us down $11,000 and disqualified us. so then, when miss pelham told me we have one day left, i have to tell you, i could -- for me not to be able to talk, that's a big deal. i couldn't even talk. >> commissioner kopp: here. i'll give you a chance to talk a little more. do you have an approximation of what you took in march 27th?

[ inaudible ] >> commissioner kopp: $370. [ inaudible ] >> we weren't raising money for the 27th because we were prioritizing the last day, so it was 370. but i have to tell you, in this instance, 370 could make a difference. >> commissioner kopp: all right. thanks. >> so thank you all so very much. i really appreciate it -- >> commissioner kopp: well, the statement is you don't have to thank us. you're entitled to an appeal. >> i realize that, but i thank you. because i know this is a special hearing, so i appreciate that. >> commissioner kopp: all right. >> thank you. >> again, for the record, i'm charlie marstellar, and i'm actually one of the proponents of public financing back in 2000. in fact i helped write the

cifro in 1995. it was a common cause suggestion to the board, and mr. halloran picked it up and then we went ultimately to the ballot. when judge wilkin shutdown our ingenius mechanism, we had to rewrite for public financing, which is not a bad system. but we're learning from this because as you can think back, we haven't had a lot of experience with a really truly open mayoral election, so i'm very appreciative to see the kinks that have kicked out in our auditing process and our qualifications of various contributo contributors' attempts to do good faith. and i think it really does point to the fact that we need

to rethink this whole system. there's a model in seattle which is interesting on vouchers, where everyone in the city gets a voucher, essentially and can make a contribution to the candidate of their choice one time. so that -- that would simplify the process of qualifying the audit. but i do want to say this: that it certainly wasn't the intent of this body or the legislative intent of the authors of the public financing system to make the system user unfriendly. to the contrary, it was to make the system exceedingly friendly because the purpose is to provide a platform for debate to the greatest extent possible. it's not to level the playing field. that's unconstitutional, but it's to provide for a platform for debate, and we get a good

debate when -- with our public financing system, as we should, and i think that we'll see in june that we're going to feel pretty good with as many candidates as possible qualified fully for public financing. so thank you for being here today, and i'm looking forward to your testimony. >> thank you. >> yes. my name is mark labarro, and i am here to speak for the integrity of this very important ethics committee. if this committee does not recognize miss alioto's right to qualify to receive funds, this committee will be stained by a grave abuse of its mandate to pass on these electoral issues. as an attorney, i receive various communications from this city with names identified as sffd and ccsf and the like.

yet i understand that the shorthands were rejected as part of her application, clearly, miss alioto did not breach any ethical rules, yet this committee stands to misinterpret the facts and circumstances and its discretion as as independent ethical arbitrator is at stake. the records and the entities and policy considerations are clear and are important. the committee must now allow miss alioto to correct and qualify her application. thank you. >> thank you.

>> honestablorable commissione want to before i share my story, thank you for your service to san francisco. i am a resident here and i too also live in russian hill. i love this city, and this was a city that my husband and i chose to live in as he barely escaped the iranian revolution, the ayotollah, back in iran. in this city my husband and i own a market and bakery. we have locations throughout the city. we're also owners of a premier florist in the heart of the financial district. but more than that we're proud to have raised our only daughter, sophia, who is 18 and born in the heart of this city. so needless to say we are not only proud san franciscans, but we love this city.

we chose to support angela alioto because she loves this city as much as we do, but that is not the reason i'm here today. a short while ago -- and this is the first time i have ever participated in a political campaign, if you can only imagine being a persian, being involved in politics is not very pretty, so we tend to put our heads down and pray for the best. but when we met angela, we knew we had to support her. so i made a small contribution, and i did what was required. i filled out the donor check, and -- sheet, and i gave a check. a few days ago, i was told that my contribution was rejected. i wanted to remedy the situation, so what could i do to prove that i'm a resident? we decided i would take a photocopy of my california driver's license. so we did, and i e-mailed it. now i have to share with you,

as you can tell with my glasses, i'm a bit impaired visually, but i made a point to read my california's driver's license and identify the numbers on the photo before i sent it off. well, a few days later, specifically on april 6th, i was identified that the ethics staff rejected my driver's license because they said it was blurry. now this is a city that i love, and it's every persian girl's dream to live in a city such as this, all right? and i am the persian girl, you know standing here in front of you. but what really is heartbreaking to me is to be denied that i'm a resident from the very city that i've put sweat and blood over. so all i am asking on behalf of myself and my family is to be allowed to participate in a democratic process where i can

support my candidate for mayor which is clearly angela alioto. thank you. >> thank you. >> commissioners, thank you. my name's pia hinkle. i'm a third generation san franciscan. i've known candidate alioto for more than 30 years. i'm supporting her for mayor and i'm a contributor. i don't need to tell you the public financing of our elections is crucial to level the playing field and reduce the influence of big money in our city. but the candidates who accept the limitations of public financing need to feel confident that the rules are going to be equitiablely applied to all candidates, and that the ethics commission has considered for each election cycles, especially special election cycles which we seem to continue to have more of and adjust deadlines accordingly so

that there is reasonable time and no confusion for filings to be reviewed and for candidates to all have the same opportunity to respond to any needs for correction of donation data. i urge you to please grant the alioto campaign the remaining four days allotted to all the other candidates to correct their data. thank you. >> thank you. >> hi. thank you, commissioners. my name is julie. i live -- i was born in san francisco. i've been a resident since '94, registered to vote since 2000. >> commissioner kopp: thank you raise the microphone? >> i, too, contributed to the alioto for mayor campaign in hopes that my donation would count towards the campaign financing effort. i was called because my donation had a p.o. box. i've had a p.o. box for 17

years. i'm one of the people that angela talks about that was harassed and mugged, and i have a p.o. box, so i was really upset to learn that my address has been shared for this hearing. but any way, i -- my utility bill was not sufficient enough, so i came down to the department of elections and spent 45 minutes to get this to submit to the campaign. they said it had to have the official city seal in order for it to count. i'm not sure it'll count unless she gets the four days, so i'm just here to urge you to make this a fair process for all of us that want to support angela for mayor. thank you. >> thank you. >> good evening, commissioners. i'm going to take my time to be quite clear with all these procedures. first of all, i want to say a little history that i have with

angela back when she was at the board of supervisors as the president, but if i can rewind the tape on what her family and her father done for the african americans here in this city and county, in the city by the bay. right now, our population is down to like 3%, and even if all blacks voted and all they cousins, the rats and dogs there still wouldn't be enough for just one block, so let me go past here. i'm here supporting angela and trying to find out -- let me just say everybody makes mistakes, and i'm not going to blame you all, but if i was a lawyer, i'd have exhibit a, b, and c on just the date of this hearing. one paper says at 1:30, one paper says at 2:00, and one paper says at 3:30, and we're all physical fallible, we make

mistakes. the bottom line is -- and i'm not just up here, favoritism, alioto, i'm up here because i have a heart. i would support her. i worked in her last campaign at her security, and i would take a bullet for her back then because she was for my people, and if i worked in her campaign right now, i'd feel the same way. so i'm asking this commission because, you know, we're all fallible, and i'm not going to go back to the 2011 campaign. i know most all of them gangsters and all those crooks. and mayor ed lee, may he rest in peace. the aliotos have done more for the african americans than any other mayor in history. and everybody in history, they will may say who? alioto?

well, think may not know the history, and i can't get out and fight with them, but i can get up here and speak for those who aren't speaking. you see, i read this in the newspaper. she didn't ask me to come down here. i'm just one individual, but my name is ace, and i've been on the case, and i'm going to be all on the case. i'm looking for you all to be fair, square, and show this city by the bay does care, and they're fair for everyone. in closing in 20 seconds, i would say that our community in this city needs new leadership in the city by the bay, and to try to disqualify her from getting funds would be a disservice, and i had anything, i would suggest that you guys all consider that. thank you.

>> thank you. >> esteemed commissioners, thank you for hearing me. my name is michael farentino, and i am a real estate broker, and i live in san francisco. i moved here a year and two weeks ago, and i got a call from the campaign because i'm a supporter and also a volunteer that one of the contributors was rejected. that person is my partner who's lived here for 13ers i can't. he's a consultant, he's a writer, a speaker, and doesn't have a corporation that he's paid through. even as a real estate broker, i have a corporation that i'm paid through, so i was able to put my corporation down. so i think after hearing this, that people that are consultants are essentially difficult to deal with for some reason or hard to verify. even though my partner submitted his driver's license, he has a driver's license that

is at a p.o. box, and then, of course, to verify the address, i think we sent in an electric bill. so that seemed to have done it, i think, but he's lived here longer than i have. i've only been here for a little over a year, and he's been here 13, adding to the city, paying taxes. so it seems like the issue here, one of the issues is that consultants need to be looked at or qualified in some other way, rather than just disqualified because they're hard to verify. i will say one of my other contributors, my friend carolyn just moved here in january . she took a job at facebook, she works in san francisco. she was immediately qualified, it wasn't a problem. you work for a big corporation, you get qualified pretty easily, but her driver's license hadn't been changed from l.a. to san francisco yet, which she has done since then. so any way, thank you for

listening to me. >> thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. thank you for hearing our concerns today. my name is nelda jones, and i was at the campaign office volunteering on thursday, april 5th, when we received news that we had to do some work ahead of us that needed immediate attention. we were given a list of donors' information that needed to be verified within -- within less than 30 hours. we had to quickly pull apart the list and divide it among our team members. we were instructed to get additional information for our donors to verify their san francisco residency as well as additional employment information such as job title and employer. from that same list, we had to then start calling donors.

way after business hours and bedtime hours, which was 9:30, 10:30, 11:30 p.m. to verify if they were san francisco residents. it was stressful, and it was a daunting task. a couple of examples of ethics push back on donor information was realtor needed to be verified. well, there was no verification necessary. the person was either a broker or an agent. another -- now, another push back was officer sfpd. you cannot get any clearer than that. they're police officers employed by san francisco police department. i called one lady, identified myself, and i verified her name. she then said to me, do you know what time it is, and then hung up. i don't blame her. i would have done the same thing, too. the task was overwhelming for a

small campaign relying on volunteers and a 30-hour deadline. i would ask that you please consider our claim for an extended four days to complete the necessary verification. thank you for your time and consideration. >> thank you. >> hello. good afternoon. thank you so much for your service and all you do for your beautiful city here. my name is jackie miller, and i'm the founder and ceo of partnerships for change. we're a united nations ngo headquartered in the presidio. and i'm so proud to live here and be here in san francisco. i've lived here in the marina since 1990, and i wam a wonderful supporter of angela alioto, and we've been working with angela, we've known her

since the -- since 2007, when she began something called the knights of st. francis. and through our humanitarian work, we totally saw angela's vision to help the poor and the underprivileged in san francisco and around the world, and she was wonderful. she's a wonderful speaker and representative for st. francis, and the name sake of our beautiful city. thanks to angela, i've been -- and her efforts through the knights of st. francis, i've been able to see appropriate franc -- pope francis three times and was invited to speak at the vatican in january . she is a champion for so many

of the poor and disenfranchised. i'm here today because had we known that we had march the 27th, i would have spent the entire day calling people for money and asking their support because i'm really -- feel privileged to be on her finance committee. that makes a big difference, but i just really want to commend you, miss pelham, today, and sharing an issue with your office. i really think that's very commendable, and whatever we can do to help you and the city of san francisco get better, we all have room to grow, and no one's perfect, and we'd really like to be able to course correct and move on and make sure that angela's given a fair chance to really have a fair fight in this -- this election

because we need here, and we need to really turn san francisco around. so i thank you so much for your time and everything that you all do to help the city. and i know you don't have easy jobs, my goodness, but i just want to commend you all for doing the best you can, so thank you. >> thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. good afternoon, commissioners. thank you for your service in hearing our claim today. my name is peter ruckman, and i am a supporter and volunteer for the angela alioto campaign. i was able to meet angela as a student when i was studying for my master's in public administration degree. for the past few years i've been interning for a law firm doing interviews for individuals who are claiming discrimination and employment law infringement, and i'm here today to speak about the events

that are affecting our campaign. on thursday, 5th -- on april, thursday 5th, we were informed that we were being pushed back on 200 donations, and for the next 24 hours between april 5th, and april 6th, we were -- we were to verify information for our donors. and i wanted to mention that the value of ensuring that donations are given fair and honestly is immense and needed to preserve our democracy. however denying a campaign contribution due to someone not filling out sfpd or sfusd made our task more onerous. because in the small amount of time, reaching out to over 200 people was a great task. i believe given the additional four days we will be able to meet the 50,000 goal and

receive additional financing. i want to thank you esteemed commissioners for hearing our claim today and thank you for your time and consideration. >> thank you. >> honorable commissioners, my name is susan horstval. please accept my thanks for your service here today. i was a commissioner on a different commission here in the city, and i know it is challenging. choosing a candidate to support for mayor is a thoughtful and serious choice. the ethics commission is tasked with reviewing their information, to confirm that indeed they are san francisco residents, and those efforts are important. equally important is the voters' ability to use their first amendment right as confirmed by our highest court

to voice their support with their hard earned dollars with the candidate of their choice. that's a deliberate decision, and undermining that support is an egregious step. you've heard from folks here today who made their very best effort to verify their local residency when it was demanded and still rejected for reasons th despite their best efforts. there was a retired nun who gave $20 and filled out her donor form perfectly, but lives in a church facility, and that was deemed rejected: the ethics staff uses as a tool the property tax records here, and that's a value tool. it's good that you have it.

however, the property tax records are not a sword of damocles to be used to disenfranchise supporters to voice their right of support for the candidate of their choice. your correction of this mistake by your staff will be a welcome action. your wisdom and experience in this matter are both appreciated and valued. again, thank you for your time and service. >> thank you. is there any other public comment? fellow commissioners, thought? >> commissioner kopp: pardon me? >> any thoughts or -- >> commissioner kopp: yes, i've got a couple of questions. where's mr. malm? did he have to leave? [ inaudible ]

>> commissioner kopp: and why didn't that carpetbagger from san mateo county testify? there he is. there he is. [ inaudible ] >> commissioner kopp: all right. get up here, and don't throw any spit ball at me. >> two things, actually. one, i was asked to come up, and i heard that judge kopp was on the commission. i thought this is a no brainer. he's incredibly fair. and in the law, when there's confusion created by an entity or in writing a contract, like, you're told you get five days and you get one, that confusion is resolved in favor of the person who was prejudiced, and that's all i want to say.

they were entitled to five days. they only got one. it's in writing that it's five days, and i expect that that's what youyou. >> thank you. commissioner kopp? >> commissioner kopp: all right. let me just see. all right. now, i have no questions. i'm satisfied. >> commissioner lee? >> i have a question and then, maybe we can talk about -- maybe we can hear the executive director's -- >> commissioner kopp: i'm prepared to make a motion. >> i think the executive director said she was going to propose some kind of amended action. but any way, my first question is is it unusual to have such a high number of questionable reporting based on addresses and -- and employment status

compared to previous campaigns -- not just this campaign, but previous c compains? >> thank you for this question. i will ask amy to answer this. unfortunately, my computer just died, so i don't have access to the data. >> it's not unusual. >> commissioner kopp: anything else? >> well, i am ready to make a motion. >> commissioner kopp: well, i'm going to ask madam chair woman -- >> no, i do not have any questions. >> commissioner kopp: nobody in testifying mentioned that the fact that the executive officer under the law has discretion to waive any mistake or imperfection which was made.

mr. shen, does this commission have discretion? >> i'm not sure what you're referring to in terms of the discretion of the executive director, but this commission certainly has discretion to do whatever it feels is appropriate. >> commissioner kopp: all right. then my motion is based upon, one, our discretion; and number two, upon the facts. the facts show mistakes that were made. i don't know whether this is an equitiable proceeding because it's an administrative law proceeding, but my friend, ace washington, put it succinctly and common language: everyone makes a mistake because we are all human.

i think mr. marstellar testified that the intent of this law, which he knows more about than anybody in the room -- was to qualify as many candidates as possible for public financing. in case anyone watching in this hearing room or on television doesn't understand, public financing is based upon money from taxpayers, and there is a philosophical debate about whether tax money should be used for candidates. i won't use the word politicians. and it's in that sense that these regulations and the time

for actions, times for action were prepared by the ethics commission staff. and i'm glad they were prepared by the ethics commission staff; otherwise, somebody has the impression that you walk up to the pay master's window over at 25 vanness avenue at the ethics commission, you hand in a form, and you'll get a check for $50,000 or ongoing checks for 10,000 each, whatever the system is. i am persuaded that whether you call it exercise of an equitiable power of an administrative body or whether you call it estoppel or whether you call it detrimental reliance, that this commission

should vacate the executive director's determination; that the appellant the -- determination that the applicant is ineligible for public financing as recommended on page five of the appellant's brief. and secondly that angela alioto be allowed four business days starting on monday, april 23, 2018, ending on thursday, 5:00 p.m., april 27, 2018, to resubmit additional

information. in other words, i guess the word "proof" can be applied in support of her application for public financing. and i am moved, for those who are interested, not about all the campaign advocacy i hear, and as a footnote, mrs. alioto, you may get as many votes out of today's hearing as it is alleged you lost, understandably by bugging people for some kind of documentary proof, especially with these stories about the driver's licenses. so i look to mr. marstellar for great ideas on how you prevent identity theft in this day and age with the need for

documentation. and any way, in any event, my motion is to vacate the decision of the executive officer and allow the applicant for public financing candidate for mayor to qualify by april 27, 2018. >> commissioner lee? >> i'll second it. >> there's a second. and commissioner lee? >> i'd also like to make a motion. based on the executive director's admission earlier

today on the misinformation in the supplemental guide and the other rules, i propose that the -- >> i'm sorry, commissioner lee, could you speak into the microphone? you're hard to hear. >> -- that i would suggest that the committee be allowed one extra business day, starting monday, to submit additional information not only on the march 27th information but any other information that the committee can -- any additional information that the committee can provide to the staff so the -- it's a little bit different from commissioner kopp's motion.

mine is strictly based on the difference between the supplemental guide -- the executive director's admission that an error was made. and i appreciate the staff for recognizing that, and because of that, i do believe that the committee should be afforded the one additional business day to submit that and any other additional information the committee can gather before that. >> so commissioner lee, as i understand your motion, it would be to -- it would be -- you're moving to permit the campaign to have one additional business day until 5:00 p.m. on monday, the 23rd, to submit the

contributions from march 27th and any corrections they wish to make to their prior submissions. is that -- is that the content of your motion? okay. >> well, isn't that the sense of the motion i made? >> well, sorry to interrupt -- >> commissioner kopp: that you're going to verify the donations as coming from residents already, you're going to count whatever the $350 on march 27th. >> well, if i may, i think the difference is based -- >> commissioner kopp: what, to open it up to get more donations to count? that isn't what the appellant requests. >> no, but we didn't know there was a day. we didn't know about march 27th. >> commissioner kopp: well, that'll count. that's in my motion. >> but commissioner lee's motion is to provide one additional business day, not

four. >> and also, the rational is based -- not based on the discretion of the commission, but based on the early admission from the staff, so it's a little bit different. >> commissioner kopp: i don't understand what the difference is. >> so -- >> may i clarify? >> yes. >> city attorney, can you please clarify commissioner lee's motion. >> so at this point, it may just be helpful to clarify where we are. it was the motion of commissioner c commissioner kopp to provide the alioto campaign four additional business days to provide any support for their funding application and allow for any contributions received on march 27 to also be

considered qualifying contributions. >> commissioner kopp: that's correct and your recitation reminds me that there should be a time within which the staff completes that work. isn't there some -- through -- miss pelham, isn't there a problem with certifying so many days before june 5th? >> in response to that question, i believe we already passed that statutorily. >> commissioner kopp: all right. well, what do you recommend as a day to certificate y. april 27th, 5:00 p.m. >> four business days would be thursday, april 26th. 5:00 p.m. on thursday, april 26th. i think the staff would need

five business -- five days from then. >> commissioner kopp: what'd i say? 27th? it's the 26th. >> five business days from then to review it. >> five business days or five days. >> commissioner kopp: five days. four business days. >> yes, but that is your request, and if the question is how many days with the staff. >> commissioner kopp: yes, and you've just said five. >> and i have just said five business days from date. we have a number of claims in process. >> commissioner kopp: so that means april -- may 1st? >> may 3rd. >> commissioner kopp: may 3rd. all right. >> that would be may 3rd, an additional five business days. >> commissioner kopp: and does that still enable a campaign to get the money to spend in a month? okay. all right. that's -- that's my motion, with that additional certification period. >> so thank you for the correction about the date. so commissioner kopp's motion

has received a second from commissioner lee, i believe, is that correct? >> yes. >> and if i could just clarify why i proposed one additional business day starting monday is it would allow a little bit period of time longer between the staff review and if it's certified that they qualify for public financing, then there will be a bigger window because i remember the staff has mentioned about the tight -- very, very tight timeline that we're already in. that's the reason why i propose the one business day. >> commissioner kopp: what are the dates? >> so commissioner lee, in your motion, you would propose that the resubmission from the campaign, including the contributions from march 27th be submitted by end of business on monday -- on --

[ inaudible ] >> i see, so tuesday, april 24th. so it would be two business days. one business day would be the. >> okay. by the morning of tuesday. >> commissioner kopp: wait. what's going to be submitted on the morning of the 24th? the information on the march 27th donation? >> the same thing that you were -- that you're moving to allow them to submit. it would be contributions made on the 27th of march as well as the documentation that would be needed in order to -- in order to correct any deficiencies that were previously identified so they could meet their $50,000 and 500 contributor requirements. so -- >> commissioner kopp: i don't know why the commission doesn't just follow the prayer on page five of the appellant's brief.

>> i think the difference between your motion and commissioner lee's motion is four business days versus one business day, and from my own view, i think the public financing program is really critical to broaden the platform for debate here in san francisco and it's very much needed. and i think that the -- the purpose of taking such care in verifying the contributions of donors is because we are dealing with tax payer money, and we don't want to do that lightly, and we want to make sure that the program has integrity. and so the -- i think that there is -- there's a lot of learnings for everyone here, and i would look forward to working with staff in learning how to make this program work more effectively. i will note as part of the filings that the candidates have to make that candidates sign up to comply with all of the regulations as well as the

statute under the campaign finance and reform ordinance regarding the pursuit of public financing, you know, including the filing deadlines. and ordinarily, i think that this would be covered in the training and laid out in materials which are, i think in this instance, you know, have -- have -- have not been as clear as they needed to have been with regard to these -- to those deadlines. and that if it's the will of my colleagues to allow for additional time to make those corrections, then i would be in support of that. i would note however in terms of the timing that the deadline

of march 27th was -- from january 9th until march 27th was the same amount of time that all candidates had to -- to submit their intent to file and to make their submissions, and as i understand from director pelham, that all the -- four of the six candidates file and had to submit because it is a time-consuming process in order to go through this verification of all the contributors, and you know filing on the last day of eligibility was timely, but doesn't allow as much time as -- as now becoming apparent is needed to verify all of those contributors. and that by moving the deadline out, i would just note to my fellow commissioners to april 26th would be 15 business days

from the date of initial notification on april 5. moving the deadline out to april 3rd would be 12 business days, so it would either be an increase of ten or seven business days from what would otherwise be statutorily provided to candidates. and so you know in terms of fairness to all candidates that the -- that there would have been a -- more than five business days that had elapsed from the time of notification to the time of resubmission. but be that as it may, we have two motions before us, so we'll take deputy attorney shun, is there an order that you would propose that you suggest that we take this? >> my motion was not seconded. >> your motion was not seconded? >> commissioner kopp: i'd like the executive director's

comments on the efficacy of my motion and the time for you to certify. is five days sufficient? >> if the commission is providing additional time for the committee, then i would request that also motion reflect five business days for the staff to review that information and provide notice to the committee at the final determination of the commission by 5:00 p.m. on the last, fifth business day. so i leave it to the commission to determine where it is comfortable establishing a deadline date for the submission of that information, but i would request five business days from that submission date for us to review it and note ifify the committee. and that the executive director's determination will be final, not appealable to the commission again. >> commissioner kopp: all right. i include that.

it's not final on superior court, but it's final for city hall, and its vast environs. all right. so you want the five -- the five business days. that's acceptable as a recommendation for the motion. but i -- i see no reason not to accept the appellant's recommendation as to what the commission should do; and it isn't simply passing out money from tax dollars, but it's protecting a process and maybe the process can be expedited and streamlined and the rest,

but it's a complicated world these days. >> commissioner lee? >> through the chair, can the executive director give me a clear timeline, the two scenarios: number one, if the committee was given five extra days -- four extra days to submit. >> commissioner kopp: for providing information, not for collecting more donations. >> for providing additional information and staff be given the five days to review. >> commissioner kopp: certified. >> compared to the one business day for the additional information submittal, no additional funding, and the additional five days for staff review. so what kind of a calendar are we looking at, based on those

two scenarios? so what is the final date of your final decision? >> if i might just clarify, the date that you were proposing for submission of the additional information is that they would submit it on tuesday, may 24 -- excuse me, tuesday, april 24 by 5:00 p.m. they would submit it on that tuesday. >> morning, because one business day is tuesday morning. >> i think if it were 5:00 p.m. on monday, april 23rd. five business days for us then to have as maximum time to notify the committee would be april the 30th -- monday, april the 30th. >> and then, the four business day scenario. >> four business days means the

committee would submit additional information by thursday, the 26th of april, 5:00 p.m., close of business. and then, the determination would be provided no later than thursday, may 3rd, at 5:00 p.m. to the committee. so as i see it, that's a difference of four days. >> commissioner kopp: that's my motion. >> so what i hear is there is a desire on both of my fellow commissioners to grant additional time. one motion is for one business day and a second motion is for four business days. is there a -- and you know, out of a courtesy to commissioner lee, i will second her motion, but is there a way we can reach agreement? i will -- will -- i would like to know, is there a way for us to split the difference as between one and four?

>> commissioner kopp: i don't want to split the difference. i want to adopt the recommendation. >> so this commission acts by three fifths vote, and that in order for the decision of the executive director to be overturned today, it would require a unanimous vote today. >> madam chair, can you clarify that. >> i confirmed with the deputy city attorney, but i understand that our commission is -- requires a three fifths vote to take action, and since we are three commissioners here today hearing this matter, that we would have to be nonin order to overturn the decision of the executive -- unanimous in order to overturn the decision of the executive director. >> there are five members of the commission. even though we have two members absent today, we still need

those votes to make the decision and grant miss alioto's appeal. >> so we have a difference of opinion as to one day versus four days. >> madam chair, i echo what you said earlier about the importance of respecting the public financing, the integrity of public financing because we are dealing with tax payers' money, and i think that the executive director's report had outlined quite clearly -- before today, before the issue of the supplemental guide, had really outlined pretty clearly that it is the responsibility of the campaign and the committees to follow the laws and the rules.

and the reason why i made the motion of one extra day was -- one extra business day was in recognition of the staff admission that there was a one day difference or however you want to call, it bl it's an oversight or a mistake. it was only based on that that i recommend an additional day, business day be given to the committee to submit additional information. i do not want to open up precedent to challenge future recommendations from the staff who have been doing their due diligence based on whatever information that they had. and it is true, you know, yes, they had until a certain time to submit, but based on the

really unusual nature of a special election this year, maybe the other campaigns submitted more names, more campaign donors? maybe that's why they didn't have the extra burden to resubmit 200 additional research. but normally, the responsibility is on the campaign and the candidates to work with the staff, to work with the presentation that the staff had presented. but you know, an error was made. so my motion was only to address that mistake but not to open it up for future

campaigns, that they would come in and say we need additional time. and i just don't want to open up that -- that can of woerms. and i do agree, we should continue to work with the staff and the community to tighten up the information. but i just think that five additional days is -- i just don't -- don't see my -- right now, i'm not open to agreeing to a five-day period. >> commissioner kopp: may i?

>> yes, commissioner kopp. >> commissioner kopp: number one, it's not five days, it's four. and number one, everybody campaign has a duty to satisfy the law and to follow the law. and every finance agency has the responsibility and duty to provide at all times accurate information. not erroneous information, not conflicting information. and this law in this instance guarantees a nonrigid result based upon dates. it gives discretion, which any court of law in california will honor and respect in the event of litigation. and that means in this instance

another four days within which to obtain information that is more difficult than i ever imagined before today's hearing from people like the young lady who doesn't like the idea of her address being on a public record when she's trying to perform her responsibilities as a voter, a voting citizen who supports a candidate. and it's, to me, a bookkeeping matter to get that information in the five days, and that will be the final