candidate's problem. that should be on the department and the department should understand that. number two, residency, you keep going back and forth on what a definition of a residency is. even your commissioner was backed off because he didn't have a definition of residency for san francisco, yet, he is a commissioner. now we are talking about a software glitch that wasn't told to any of the campaign. commissioner chiu, you asked why the commission should tell each and every campaign about that, it's called trust. as a person of the public and a person who has lived in this city for 44 years, i see no trust here so that is what i have to say.

thank you. >>speaker: my name is ed and i am a an attorney practicing over 40 years in san francisco speaking for the second time to this committee because i'm concerned about the public profile and that equity and public policy be recognized. i am sure this, this committee must give the campaign one more day for fundraising because it's clear that they were cut short. so as they an initial mat their seems to be black and white --

>> >> supervisor ronen: commissioe donor. >>speaker: it's clear in this technological data day that is all that needs to be done is to search a simple as a google search and one could see one's residence and if one is a verified voter in san francisco, so i implore the commission to do equity and do justice. thank you. >>speaker: thank you.

>> my name is michael davis and i am a resident and voter in san francisco and an attorney who practiced here for 15-20 year. i wanted to address two of the contributions on the list of 46 that were disqualified because they were drawn on the accounts on the business account as opposed to a set from a personal account. with respect to these two contributions they were each made my sole proprietors and under the law a sole proprietorship isn't a business entity, and the funds in the sole proprietorship are personal funds and as personal funds, they should have been counted. i understand that in the instance in the case of a corporation or an llc where you don't have a voter, you would

disqualify those, but to broadly disqualify any contribution because it's drawn on a business account, well that business account may be that of an individual. i think you have to make those distinctions and these were personal funds of the contributor even though they were drawn on the cri contributs personal account and not their checking account. thank you. >>speaker: my name is peter. i am here speaking to you a second time and here initially on april 20 to discuss some of the claims and issues that we were experiences while going through correcting the initial, let's say, rejection from the commission. the first time we were doing it,

it took us a group of ten of us about three days. the second time it took us we had the full 4.5 days plus the two days on the weekend and again it was a team of about ten of us. that is hundreds of man hours and woman and everybody's hours included to get this information verified and corrected. through that process, we drove out to individual's homes to see if they were home if they could provide us with pictures of any type of. [bell] utility bill or copy of driver's license. while doing this we were aggravating our donors and contributors and finding out today it was for naught. if we had find out there was a glitch in the process we would have been able to limit the number of people we were

actually contacting but due to tethic's megs inability to contact us about this, we had to go out and get every single item. this can be summed up as a process of terrible communication from one side to the other and inacceptance to accept errors and mismudgement and a lack of transparency thank you for your time today. >>speaker: my name is jeff brown rand and i am a residentd former employee of city of san francisco. in the six elections that i have experienced where there have been problems or new information not available for candidates. the department of election and in this case, the ethics commission, has gone out of

their way to allow the candidates to rectify the problem. we are faced with a situation where there has been an information glitch and i would think out of substantial equity we would allow this candidate a day to rectify what has been an understandable problem. i think we can stand on ceremony, we can stand on arbitrary deadlines but we have an important election here with the candidate who has substantially complied in almost every respect and i think under these circumstances san francisco would be well served in what i think is an equitable remedy. thank you very much. having been in this courtroom as an advocate, i would have to say this is not a good place to hold a hearing you can't even see the commissioners from way back

there. >>speaker: so moved. >> i will second it. [laughter] >>speaker: good afternoon commissioners, i am charlie and not necessarily today speaking for friends of ethics, by will in thi willin the future. i think we discovered today while microsoft calls one program word and the other one excel because if you were a word contractor you would not confuse in any way that with excel, so it seems to me that there would be a natural confusion inherent with the utilization of the

terminology of mr. montgomery and his two firms with similar names so, the campaigns would probably assume compatibility which may or may not exist or may otherwise confuse the users. the other thing is it's not every day that they are going to be tapping into the public financing law and attempting to qualify for matching funds. this is something that we do every four years and not necessarily the same people are involved. when the legislative intent was formed, we considered it would be a user-friendly system and that we would have the ability to work with the public in making sure that the system worked, and i see that as a dual responsibility. i would say that in keeping with

everything i've said, this is a little bit also like the situation you have when you're filing signatures for a ballot measure, you generally don't go right to the line to qualify those signatures when you're threshold is 50,000 signatures, you generally go up and over substantially because you would expect disqualifications or troubles, so i think the campaign should really have been more aggressive and submi submia greater number of persons and their contributions they felt were qualified for public finance and matching funds, so as a result they would have that margin they needed for safety that was absent. it should be in the future we might want to advise the campaigns not to confuse these

two program systems and also to submit an excessive number of potential applicant. if they are ready to go, i would say let them submit their documentation now. >>speaker: commission, i didn't plan on talking because i just had a root canal done and half of my face is numb. we are just asking for one day to ask for the 50,000, we believe that they are the correct addresses for the 11. the example of the italian music plan who has his music store on bush street lives right on top and that is his home and those

were sent back. we have many more than 11, but not up to the 43 that would have in fact qualified, so we are just asking in this situation will we be able to show to the commissioner that in fact 11 of them are their homes and as such we should have qualified. we are talking about a situation where a lot of people depended on this funding. we did hand in 53,000. we can't expect teem t people tl us they live in fa san franciscf they don't. hopefully the commission will consider helping the candidate and the committee to help. we have salaries. we have all sorts of debt because we were dependent on this knowing that these were these people's homes and it would be really wonderful if we

were given one day to show that indeed those 11 names are where those people live. >> i have heard two afternoons campaign rhetoric, 80% of it, and 20% of it is fact. you told us you have 11 donors whose proof of residency can be establish and that will meet the dollar requirement, correct? >>speaker: correct. >> can you do that in a couple hours tomorrow? >>speaker: yes. >> so if we adopted resolution of that that gave you until noon tomorrow, would that give you that time? >>speaker: yes. >> that is the end of the case unless somebody just wants to be on television and that is what i'm going to move.

>> speaker 1: i would remind you as you noted at the top of this meeting of our session that the determination of the executive director of the eligibility of the campaign to receive public financing was final and at least in my mind for the purposes of our discussion today was to understand the allegations from the campaign about the software problem which she alleges were fraud on the part of the commission director and staff and what problems flowed from the software problem, which i understand was fixed on the date of the 25th that the campaign was able to submit all of the documents that they wanted to submit to support their application for public financing and confirmed that and then the executive director made her determination and determined that as noted in his letter that

they were short by $1,076. >>speaker: my question is, this is on the agenda just to hear talk so that we can understand the system and not give relief to a an apply can't. >> yes, to understand where or not there was fraud on the part of the commission with regard to the software problem that pre vented the campaign from submitting the required documentation and what i have heard is that the software problem did not pre vent the campaign from submitting all the documents and that the documents fell short separate and apart from the relief that i would be considering today. >>speaker: that isn't true. we learned the day before. we learned on the 24th that

while amy lee was speak with the treasury leah, we learned that amy did not have the backup. we thought amy had it. they knew it had malfunctioned. in order for us to come in here today and prove fraud that would require discovery, depositions, subpoenas and everything else. we are here today with new information is that we didn't know what the department new and as such we overworked ourselves on the documents the department could have had uploaded if the question they had as a subcontractor had uploaded it. we are just asking for relief in this room today. this isn't a trial on fraud. as i have said i have spent 18 years of my life not suing san francisco.

that's very important to me. i turn away cases monthly because i don't want to sue the city. i have to tell you here the injustice that we have been through where the amount of investigating of these people where the department has intentionally investigated ways to find us ways not able to apply. we are the citizens the department should be investigating reasons we are able to apply. we are supposed to be on the same team which is why i haven't taken a case against the city and couny of san francisco for 18 year. you are supposed to help us as we help you. >> speaker 1: so you are saying that you are not here because there was fraud on the part of commission? >>speaker: we are here because there was new information learned after the fact and we didn't know it, so that new information enabled us to have another appeal when the department asked nothing had

ever been appealed again. again, we are not here to fight we are here to try to get along and work together such that this system work. what's wrong with the system working? >>speaker: president chiu: your letter to me addressed grievous letters and omissions -- >> exactly. >>speaker:.if you would like tot on those causes of action, i don't back away from anything. i'm hesitant to do it, yeah, but do i put something in a letter of a chairwoman of a commission of ethics and not believe it with my heart and soul? no, i don't. i believe that the don't has done everything to not help us and indeed omitted telling us

that they had an error in the system i know something about that you all commissioner covingtoned with. contracted with.>> i don't cares you didn't sue or sued the city. i resent this, this has turned into a quasi campaign rally. number two, the letter sent to you by the deputy city attorney makes no mention of having to prove fraud. i have never seen any allegation of fraud with respect to our

staff or with respect to this wanted net file or whatever it is david montgomery. the letter asked for evidence of malfeasance. i don't know madam chair if you want to take testimony from other people. i see a couple other people standing as if they want to testify. i say we have spent enough on this matter. the appellant o or respondent, also, i raised the question why this was on the calendar and madam chairwoman, you stated upon receipt of the letter from ms. alioto that you ordered it put on the calendar and it's on

calendar notwithstanding the april 20 action it's there to be acted on and i make a motion to extend until noon tomorrow the time which the applicant for public financing can submit proof of residency of the 11, 15, or 25, i don't care how many you have residencies in san francisco that donated money between the amounts required by law. that is my motion. >> i will second my motion. before you leave, i still don't understand why we are here today when you were on notice late april, 18th of april, that your submission was insufficient

and your campaign supposedly had the supporting documents and they should have had them here on april 25. i wasn't here at the meeting that gave the cutoff and said no further appeal, so i'm willing to go along with commissioner kopp but it's not the fault on any of the commissioner's staff, that put you in this posture. it's the fact that when you were put on notice by the latest april 19 that you didn't put up with the documentation that you should have been able to come up with in 24 hours. it's you that's supposed to keep these records. >> it was on the april 24 that the commissioner didn't have it

because they were not uploaded. >> you knew they didn't have it because they told you they didn't have it. i think all of this stuff about net file is throwing sand at an elephant. i am willing to give you to noon tuesday and the staff is to supply the same criteria that they have used for every other candidate in determining whether or not the information you supply meets the requirement. the statute and we are not interested in playing favorites and part of the reason i will support this is that i think public financing is a good thing, and i would like to see you have it, but you have to comply with the law. >>speaker: .>> commissioner leek

several comments were made today about trust in the commission staff and this is the second time we have discussed the issue and i think we need to go back to how we got here. this committee is not the only committee that filed for public financing and other committees that file under the same rule, same set of expectation. i think some of them filed earlier expecting there would be the expected requests for additional information. in this particular case, i think the committee admitted they filed at the very last possible minute. i think out of abundance of fairness, this commission at the last meeting had granted extra time which to me was pretty

unprecedented to one committee to submit additional information with the expectation thatauld of us agreed that would be a final decision, and i remember we asked the committee could they live with that condition and they said yes, the executive director's determination would be final. my understanding was there was an allegation that net file or -- two different things -- there was a serious allegation against the staff of fraudulent behavior, that's why we had this item. my concern was that it was agreed upon the decision was

finalized based on the conditions and the second thing was i am very concerned that we are shifting the goalpost. we are giving them an additional days that has nothing to do with the staff and the commission's duties. it is not the commission's responsibilities to inform every of what the issue is because if that is the case we owe everybody, all the applicant. if we were to again allow the extra day then other folks could come in and say it happened to us too and we want an extra day. i haven't heard any new evident to show the reason why the

committee requested additional time, which originally was based on the allegation against the staff. going back to the decision that the staff made at the april meeting which was the additional time was granted for the committee to provide all the information for the staff to review and the staff decision would be finalized, and i haven't seen any compelling new evidence to show that agreement could be abandoned. >>speaker: thank you. i would like my own motion to affirm the final decision regarding the committee to achieve public financing.

>> second. >.>> we have a motion pending. >> mine is to affirm the second motion of the director regarding the eligibility of the campaign to receive public financing, so we have two motion there any further public comment. commissioner kopp your motion was seconded by commissioner renne and that was to grant the committee until noon tomorrow to submit documentation in support of their financing. all in favor?

>>speaker: i did watch the hearing ohearing on the 20th ane read the staff reports for the earlier meetings and this one. i do share the remarks of commissioner renne and i do believe this is a problem of the documentation for the $50,000 and i agree with commissioner lee that over the time there has been plenty of opportunity to correct those submittals if at this hearing the committee had come in and submitted the 11 or 15 and the documentation and put

them on the record, then i would be be prepared to say that we should consider it because it's in the record, but at this point to give an extra day, i feel that it's not appropriate -- i just wanted to explain why i wasn't concurring with the motion of commissioner kop p. >> chair chiu: could you take a roll call. rul[roll]

the motion fails on a 2-3 vote with commissioner ambrose, chiu and lee on the dissent. second motion is to sustain the final determination of may 2 about the alioto ineligibility to receive public funding. commissioner ambrose. >>speaker: aye. >>speaker: commissioner chiu: u? >>speaker: aye.

>> clerk: that motion passes on a 3-2 vote with commissioner's kopp and renne in the dissent. >> madam chair, before we leave this subject, i have a statement to the executiv executive direc. i have been on this commission a little short of 16 months now, and i would have thought that there would have been a session to education commissioners who are new to the commission about the public finance responsibility. including the details which are discussed. in both the applicant's documents and your documents, and i don't know if the other commissioners

who have been appointed have received such a lesson or indoctrine nation but it should be done. i would like to schedule a time for the staff that are dealing with this subject to educate me on the details of it. >>speaker: thank you commissioner kopp. as you know we provide as many sessions as possible and certainly we can make a detailed session available to any and all commissioners individually or as a group if that is useful to you. >> the other question i have is how long have we had a commissioner covington with this, whatever it is, net -.

>>speaker: we have had a commissioner covington with them about seven or eight year. >>speaker: is that renewed annually. >>speaker: no a commissioner covington of term. >>speaker: i would like a memorandum on when it began and when it was renewed and whether it expired and whether competitive bidding was used or whether a request for proposals was used or whether neither was used and who was was executive director seven or eight years ago simply selected this company. >>speaker: items 7, 8, and 9 are all policy matter. policy prioritization plan.

supervisor kim's proposed amendments. [reading agenda items] i would propose holding these over to the june meeting to allow the newest commission member who was only appointed this meeting to allow a more robust conversation at the next meeting. so holding over those item.

>>speaker: i just want to clarify as far as items 7, 8, and 9. it was staff's understanding that only 7 and 9 would be continued and we would hear supervisor kim's attempt. >> because commissioner ambrose was just appointed this morning to the commission and to give her the benefit of coming up to speed i was proposing that -- would be held over to the june meeting. item 8 is someone from supervisor kim's office, is someone here? >>speaker: i did read the

proposed legislation and am familiar with supervisor kim's proposal. if they are prepared to go ahead there is no need to continue it. >>speaker: staff has requested a brief recess to confirm with supper visor kim's office. why don't we break public comments on items 7 and 9 which are being held over to the june meeting and proceeding with item 8. [reading agenda item 8] >>speaker: pat ford, policy analyst. the memo attached to item 8 give

as brief summary of file 170868. this is ethics ordinance that is authored and sponsored by supervisor jane kim who came before the commission at the regular -- meeting. since the november meeting, mr. kunter and i have been working with supervisor kim's staff to review the ordinance, provide them with research about the provisions included in it and to make recommendations to them about what we believe would make the ordinance the best possible ordinance to bring to the commission for prove. through that process, we were able to make several changes to the ordinance and supervisor kim amended the ordinance last week,

so the version of file 170868 that is attached here is the way that it currently is pending before the board of supervisors, so if the commission were to approve this today, it would allow the rules committee to consider this and potentially move it on to the full board for a vote. i will give you a quick overview of the different provisions here and maybe myself available for questions if you have any. section a, on page 2 refers to section 1.115e in the ordinance. this would create requirement that candidates sign under penalty of perjury a statement attesting they have not failed to report any contributions that were made to them by a different committee, and this is what you would call a nonmonetary contribution with a candidate

coordinates to come degree with the committee such that an expenditure that committee makes counts under the lay to the candidate's committee and therefore the candidate would need to report it. it is saying thait -- essentialn attestation. second b refers to section 1.128c. this requires that the voter information pamphlet state with candidates for certain city elected offices elected to participate in the voluntary expenditure city. this is different than the ceiling that applies to publicly financed client. they must participate in the ceiling. the voluntary creeling is for

all other candidates aside from mayoral and supervisorrial candidatesue per visualcandidat. it would note which canadian hearing societcandidatesare elie patch pamphlet. this was discontinued and this would reinstate that practice. the third section is c and refers to section 1.152a1 and this frankly correct as mistake that is in the code. publicly financed candidates have to file threshold reports and what this allow it is staff to do is to know when there is a candidate in a particular race that has raised funds metage

certain threshold. the significance of that is that now enables once a candidate hits that threshold enables any other candidate in the race to now potentially file an application to participate in the public financing program, so it's important these reports come in so that staff notes so when an opponent applies we know when the threshold has been hit. the threshold should be $5,000 and the code states 10, and this would fix that. section 2 refers to 1.156, and this would clarify what staff must report to the board of supervisors when staff makes the report about public financing, so the code already requires staff to provide a report providing statistics and data

about how much money was spent, general administrative data. this language that would be added would require staff to talk about the administration, efficacy and operation. this would require more analysis and provide the board of supervisors and major of evaluation whether or not the program was effective. then, section 1.165 this refers to third party spending, so it's already staff's practice to makes information that's disclosed about third party spending available online. this would codify it and require that staff make available on the ethics commission website information that anyone in the public can inform themselves about third party spending in city election. with that i will make myself available for questions.

>>speaker: section d where there is additional obligation imposed by ordinance to do analysis, is that something that would be burdensome? is this it that we do already it's just not incorporated from the board report? >>speaker: frankly, i think this is something that the staff is already in i the process of doing. we are in this process of reviewing code, the regulations, our internal practices, the forms, everything, so to answer your question, no, i don't think if this were to become law that it would add any burden on to staff. >> speaker 1: the language is quite broad. you could provide update and analysis, but if you are comfortable with the language as it stands.

>> i am confident we would be able to meet this requirement. >> commissioner kopp: do you know why the mayor and board of supervisors aren't included in this voluntary expenditure ceiling? >>speaker: yes, so candidates for mayor or supervisor can participate in the public financing program and that program has it's own individual expenditure ceiling and that is mandatory, so anyone in the program must do it. this one is voluntary. >> commissioner kopp: secondly, the law allows a candidate who declares he or she won't spend more than a specific amount to

change that commitment, in order, it's not mandatory? you have a line here saying such candidates are not required to abide by the vec on page 2. >>speaker: right i apologize for the ambiguity. that refers to candidates generally. those who do choose to participate must do that. >>speaker: commissioner renn renne. >>speaker: what impacwhat impa. is it going to get held up.

>> this should have no impact on the acao. we had to work with supervisor kim's office making certain that was the case. a little bit of background. this ordinance was running to the acao and when they reached the board for the joint hearing, supervisor kim moved in that meeting to include elements from this ordinance in the acl and three of those were carried. subsequently they brought it forth for consistency, and those four had to come out of this ordinance. that was part of the amendment procedure that went on last week was to get those out. >> commissioner rené renne this nonattestation can't that

coordinate his or her activity? >>speaker: it doesn't change the term of the law if the candidate coordinates with the committee this wouldn't change or add i to it in any way. >> does it had a penalty if they sent this attestation in and it's wrong do they get punished more than if they would never have sent it in. >>speaker: i think so. it would be additional violation that the candidate could be penalized and it would serve an educational purpose forcing candidates that they are away of this rule even though ignorance is not a defense -- making them aware of the rules that apply to

them. >> speaker 1: public comment? >>speaker: good afternoon. kelly marseller. we have been attending interested party meetings going on with this bill and it's been large attendance and it's consistent and of good quality. there was some thought to getting into public finances and for instance the seattle vouchers system in this ordinance, but i think it might be that the supervisor would want to wait to discuss that with the ethics commission as a secondary bill, a follow up

bill, don't know, but i did want to say that she suspended consideration of this legislation until after the mayoral campaign because she didn't want to make sure this seemed in concert with her running for major. mayor. you asked about penalties under section a, i did get her to agree that they have to sign in blood, but bamboo shoots under the fingernails are not included as a penalty. i do want to say that i'm glad to see that this public financing and adherence to the voluntary expenditures creeling is going to be in the voter guide to the fuller extent as it was in 2009. we should be in

pretty good shape because there is a staff person working on this bill right now, and i suspect it will be proceeding through the board. it seems like that is the signal that we are going to get, so in short order we should see this legislation going into force, which means you would want to look at your implementation and administrative requirement. they are looking for alternatives to third party reports because there was some discussion about doing a mailer, which would be a report issued by this body to the public, but

they decided that would be onerous administratively and in budget, so now looking at sticking and codifying it to the website. as you know shaista has done good post analysis and i'm glad they are adding additional idea at the board. i think that was all i wanted to tell you. there are a couple of other things but we will talk about it again. are you going to vote on this today? i would urge your support for this measure. >> speaker 1: thank you. any further public comment. do we have a motion? >>speaker: i will make a motion that we adopt the recommendations of the staff that we approve the ordinance as it appears in attachment one. >> second. >> speaker 1: all in favor?

opposed? approved unanimously. >> clerk: item 10. [. [reading] ing agenda item 10] >>speaker: thank you chair chiu and commissioner. as you know it's been about six weeks since you got one of these so the numbers reflect that period of time and they also reflect of course that the former director jessica bloom has left and i think you are aware that i am acting in her place. commissioner kopp asked me at the recess what that means for our investigative staff, and what that mean that we have four investigators officially, but

perhaps operating at 3.5 cylinders, so i have not had as much time to spend on investigation as i would have wished. within the last six weeks the executive director determined that 15 complaints merited dismissal -- yo you will see is diminish accesing with time ande investigators are working hard to review complaints as they come in because the practice was that we would be torn between investigating old matters and also contemplating new one, so improving our efficiency

considering whether new matters belong to our jurisdictions or not. the average age of investigation is around 10.5 months and that is what i referred to with respect to staffing so, a handful of those investigations are quite old because they are matters that we inherited when the entire staff changed over. several of the oldest matters are mine, so i hope to continue working at those. i can assure you that staff is sensitive to any statute of limitation that may apply. we are operating under new enforcement regulations, you adopted those on january 19 and we transmitted them to the board for clarification and the clerk of the board wrote back to tell us those were in fact in effect. as you know regulations

interpret the charter, but there is also the business of interpreting the regulations themselves and that is sort of the stage that we are moving into, so we appreciate your patience as we develop understanding of how to operate under those new regs. a small number of items under which we will operate under the old item. one of the any things you have been exposed to on today's consent calendar. finally, i will point out that we previously had just one last respondent who was on a payment plan through the commission and that's kim shreve, and my understanding is that she is now paid up in full.

i believe the understanding is not to permit payment plan. i will remind commissioners under agenda item 12 when we go in closed session you can ask specific questions within reason about open investigation. >>speaker: >> vice president kopp: there is a reference to jacquelyn norman, that was referred three years ago to the bureau of delinquent revenues and the status is the same statement mailed the debtor's statement of asset's form. i have don't care about whether it's registered make but what is the date that it was mailed and why isn't the date of mailing on any of the four which bear that

as the status? >>speaker: i will double check i don't know the answer to that question. this information we received on a monthly basis from the bureau of delinquent revenue. i can go back to ask them to include the date of any actions they take. >> vice president kopp: can you ask why something why something referred $9,000 has not been collected. >> i can ask. >> vice president kopp: i suggest putting the date of any such mailing in the future. >> chair chiu: i would like to ask that if you could get a better sense from the department of delinquent revenues a sense of the process that's going to follow after this statement because as commissioner kopp noted jacquelyn norman was 2015

and chris jackson 2013. that has been languishing for quite some time, so what are the steps after the statement of assets and what would be the possible timing if their timeframe in terms of finalizing the collection would be very helpful. >>speaker: certainly. >> speaker 7: any otherertainl. >>speaker: charlie for the record again. i would only say you should have been here 10 years ago. we had not an idea what was going on with enforcement and it's totally turned around now and it's much more structured and certainly supportable by the public in comparison with the

past. i did want to draw the commissioner's attention to mrse three. that had a major mix of public financing involved with that issue, and that is quite an embarrassing number given the fact that public funds were involved. i don't think that's going to happen again. i think we have enough of a structured program now where that will just not languish. we promised, i promised many times personally before public bodies we were going to have concurrent an