homeownership situations where commercial enterprises on the island will pay. those tend to be property-specific, but there are some things that will be the responsibility of an island wide hoa. for instance, we've talked before about the shared public ways. they have specialized finishes and stuff like that, rather than those responsibilities being assigned to just the fronting buildings. those responsibilities will be covered by a master hoa that will help -- that will help distribute those costs across all of the residences on the island. >> director samaha: so when you mention it's owners that will be paying that. do we anticipate any fee for just living on the island to

help pay for these? basically if you're renter or owner? >> so i think the affordable housing units won't be having anything with hoa assessment or -- well the inclusion would drive down the purchase cost of their unit. but the affordable housing renters would not pay any of those island-wide costs. but the people that purchase units, or people that are managing market rate residential units would participate in the cost.

they would like to be reflected back into rents, but it would be a specific cost that a market rate renter would be paying. >> director samaha: got it, thank you. >> president tsen: any questions from the public? hearing none, next item. >> item number 10, ferry plaza, building one plaza, and hilltop park art proposals. >> i'll be fairly brief on the item, but i did want to provide an update because when we met in april i anticipated bringing recommendations of artists to the tida board for approval. i just want to give you an update where we are in the

process. as we mentioned, the selection panel conducted interviews with the proposing artists on april 17. and the selection panel made provisional recommendations for each site. with regard to each work, there were some questions about the proposal as it had been presented that the panel wanted arts commission staff to go back and engage this dialogue with the artists about. so that dialogue is ongoing. and then the arts commission plans to take the proposals to their visual arts committee to review and comment on at their may meeting which is next week.

the arts steering committee will meet after the visual arts committee. so that meeting is being scheduled. then we expect to come back in june with recommendations for the board to consider. and ultimately, the contracts are held by the arts commission with the selected artist and they manage those on our behalf. in the initial sites, include the ferry plaza, building one plaza, hilltop park, for building one plaza, they were ai weiwei, ai weiwei, gormley and pardo. and for hilltop, sewage moto, booker and gold worthy.

so these images are images of ai weiwei's proposal for the waterfront plaza. the pardo proposal was for pieces, red and green, on either side of the ferry building, the ferry shelter structure. again, recalling navigational buoys as a leaping off point for

inspiration. and then anthony gormley, this was his piece, which was a monumental sculpture figure. and this was the piece that was provisionally recommended by the panel with some questions for the artist on form, potentially location, and some other things for discussion. those are the topics that arts commission is engaged with dialogue with the artist on. building one plaza, this was the proposal by ai weiwei. you see the pieces in the individual quadrants of the building one plaza as you move up toward building one.

and then white, this is a picture, a piece that incorporates both motion and sound. that was a drawing on an installation at the golden gate international expo sayings called the wall of chimes for inspiration. and again the panel had questions for the artist about the massing of the piece, as well as other aspects related to the installation, but this was the piece that was provisionally recommended by the panel. i'm sorry. somehow did not include a slide here of the piece proposed by booker. she had a recommendation for a

piece to be installed in the image that is on the upper right here. she had a piece that she had proposed be installed in that location near the intersection of clipper cove boulevard. and avenue of the palms. and like her piece for yerba buena island, she works principally in a steel form with recycled tires. it's her preferred medium, so the piece that she had proposed for near building one was on a larger scale than the piece you see here. and it was something that individuals could walk in and through. but again, it was the piece by pae white that was recommended.

shah calla booker's proposal. engaging with the stairways of yerba buena island and incorporating natural materials and also some interaction with living elements, trees and other things to create unique spaces. and then the piece provisionally recommended by the panel was this piece by sugimoto. it's called the infinity point. the total height of the proposed piece is 66 feet or 20 meters.

the lower portion is proposed to be in white marble with the other portion in stainless steel. and here, the primary questions from the selection panel that are being investigated, are potential zoning or ffa restrictions on a piece of this height at this location. the plan is to have the visual arts committee have a

conversation as their meeting next week. and then provide an update to the steering committee prior to our june meeting so we could bring recommendations to the board at the june meeting. >> president tsen: ok. so, i'm on the selection committee. let me give a little bit more color and character and detail to there very long process that we've been through. the selection committee was composed of chris meany, who is your joint venture by the development partner, myself, the president of the arts commission, and then two outside curators, one who is the curator of painting and sculpture for the san francisco museum of modern art and curator from the museum in washington d.c. i thought that it was an

excellent selection committee. and in fact, all three finalists that were selected were internationally known. we got more than 500 applications and it was narrowed down to three from each site. two of the artists, we were so interested in soliciting more from them, we gave them two sites. that was ai weiwei and chakala booker. they were given two sites. and bob has mentioned that we provisionally have selected artists. and i would like to go through that with you a little more carefully. it's provisional because there is still conversations that we

have have with the artists to refine the proposals that came in. because the proposals, some of the proposals were not totally acceptable to the selection committee. let me just say that there are several other points along the way. it's going to go through the visual arts committee of the arts commission. but it comes back to a steering committee. and the steering committee consists of two people from treasure island development authority. there is one from the arts commission, one from the private developer. and who else? >> it's actually the president of the commission as well as tom, the executive director from the arts commission. so two from the arts. >> and then richardson and myself are on the steering

committee. so it has to come back to that steering committee before it gets a final vote and decision by this board, by the treasure island development authority has the final decision on it. so there is still a little bit of a process to go through. i would say that unanimously, everybody was absolutely excited and stunned by the proposal by sugimoto, which is very monumental structure, but it also is a concept of infinity, so it goes from a base of about 40 feet and goes to a point, a little bit over an inch. the idea of infinity. but also a sun dial. the summer equinox, there will

be alignment. so it will be in line with the summer solstice. so really it engages the cycles of the season and it's going to be all physically, something worth while to pursue. andy goldsworthy, one of the artists that was selected to do something tore the yerba buena island and he was incredibly excited and came up with wonderful concepts that need more time and i think that direction that the selection committee wanted to go was to think of one of the sites later on to pre-award that to andy goldsworthy and his work fits so well with the type of parks that

we are considering for yerba buena island. for the other two sites, the first site is the waterfront plaza. and the waterfront plaza is so important because it's really the moment of arrival. it's going to be a piece which should be seen as you arrive on the ferry to board the ferry. you should be able to see that piece in a come hither moment. you should be able to see that piece as you arrive. so who that artist is and what that art piece is, is incredibly important to us. of the three artists who made proposals, the only one we felt that responded to the elements, but it was not perfect, there were other issues that we wanted to talk to the artist about, particularly making the piece have a little more emotional

resonance. and so it may be is that we'll give them a little bit of time to come back to us with a revised proposal and see if it's acceptable to the selection committee and to the steering committee. the other piece was pae white, which is an artist, she is emerging woman artist. she was selected as one of the american artists for the finale, which happens every other year. and she proposed the piece which responds to the wind and to the environment, but there are some issues again which we need to explore, one was whether the piece could endure the harsh conditions of the island in terms of the wind and the exposure, because there are chimes she had proposed.

so we want to explore that a little more carefully. those gardens are being designed by andy cochran, who in fact is an artist in other own right as far as being a landscape architect. and the style of those gardens is very different than the style of the art piece that has been proposed. as soon as there are answers, we're going to be coming back to the selection committee first and then to the tida board as a whole. and if you have -- the other thing i would say is that these

art works, the proposals, for the three sites was posted online. they were also displayed here in building one on treasure island. it was displayed at the arts commission in their space. and there has been public comment to that. that first day when the art works were posted an treasure island building one, i was coming back from a meeting over in east bay and i was excited to go and see them, drove to look at them. and they had just been put up and i was surprised to see there was three women who were there pouring over the exhibits. and i was so surprised they knew about it, because it had just been put up and i was curious.

so i engaged in conversation with them. and they were so interested in it. that they had come all the way from the city so they can look at the proposal and i think that there certainly is a lot of interest in the city on what these art works will be. and think we will have incredible pieces of art which will attract many people to this island. so, any questions or comments? >> director richardson: yes. i have some comments. yes, i'm a member of the steering committee with commissioner tsen and jill did mention a great job. we had almost 1,000 pieces to look at. and in my selection of the

artist, i did choose sugimoto, ai weiwei and chakala booker, pae white were part of my selections, but for me, at the end of the day, i think we need to be very cognizant of the diversity of the art. and i was hoping that maybe some partnerships could be entertained for some of the artists so that they work on collaboration and i'm looking at that. some of the sculptures and things this were here and again i saw some again looking at almost 1 thousand pieces i would like to revisit. sugimoto, they had a culture

where you could be looking at

adjourn. >> thank you. >> the office of controllers whistle blower program is how city employees and recipient sound the alarm an fraud address wait in city government charitable complaints results in investigation that improves the efficiency of city government that. >> you can below the what if anything, by assess though the club program website arrest call

4147 or 311 and stating you wishing to file and complaint point controller's office the charitable program also accepts complaints by e-mail or 0 folk you can file a complaint or provide contact information seen by whistle blower investigates some examples of issues to be recorded to the whistle blower program face of misuse of city government money equipment supplies or materials exposure activities by city clez deficiencies the quality and delivery of city government services waste and inefficient government practices when you submit a complaint to the charitable online complaint form you'll receive a unique tracking number that inturgz to

detector or determine in investigators need additional information by law the city employee that provide information to the whistle blower program are protected and an employer may not retaliate against an employee that is a whistle blower any employee that retaliates against another that employee is subjected up to including submittal employees that retaliate will personal be liable please visit the sf ethics.org and information on reporting retaliation that when fraud is loudly to continue it jeopardizes the level of service that city government can provide in you hear or see any dishelicopter behavior boy an employee please report it to say whistle blower program more information and the whistle blower protections please seek

www. commissioner ko . >> clerk: i'd like to call the roll. [roll call] >> clerk: and i h'd like to welcome the newest member of our commission, commissioner norri norreen ambrose. i wanted to thank commissioner ryan for his service to the commission, although brief, and wanted to welcome commissioner ambrose to the commission. so we'll start off with item 2, matters appearing or not appearing on the agenda. okay. no public comment. item number three. this is new for the commission. in january of this year, we approved more -- new enforcement regulations, and they went into effect on march

20, and incorporated into those inforcement regulations was a consent calendar. items appearing here do not require discussion by the commission, but we'll open it for public comment at this time. there being no public comment, we'll move onto agenda item four, discussion and possible action on drost minutes for the commission's february 16, 2018 regular meeting, the march 16, 2018, regular meeting, the april 3, 2018 special joint meeting with the board of supervisors, the april 18, 2018 special meeting, and the april 20, 2018 regular meeting. director pelham? >> thank you, chair chiu. i just wanted to note for the public's information and for the commission's information, we have completed our minutes draft for the april 3 special

joint meeting of the commission. we did not, however complete them in time for the posting on friday to meet brown act requirements. so our plan is to finalize the -- one last proof and have them in circulation to you and the public in advance of the june meeting, but unfortunately because we did not have them posted in time and finalized in time for our 72-hour notice on friday, they are not on your agenda action today. >> that is true of all of the minutes? >> no. that's just for the april 3 special joint meeting. all the other minutes from february , march, and all the other minutes are in your packets for approval and can be acted upon. >> okay. thank you. >> commissioners, any comments? commissioner renne? >> commissioner renne: yeah. on the april 18 draft on page four, about the middle of the page, it says, commissioner

rheno renne moved that the commission accept recommendations of the staff and to send back to the board of supervisors revised ordinance, and it says "with is" and it should be "which is consistent." other than that, i have no other comments. >> any other comments from commissioners on minutes? public comment? no public comment. is there a motion to -- move to approve all the minutes as amended percommissioner renne? >> i'll so move. >> second. >> all in favor? [voting] >> opposed? all the minutes are approved by a vote of 4-0. okay. item number five, at the request of the respondent, this matter is going to be held over to the june 2018 meeting.

agenda item number six, discussion and possible action regarding letter received from the angela alioto for mayor campaign for 2018. just as a reminder and for the benefit of our newest commission member, on april 20, this commission heard a hearing by the alioto campaign and gave her additional time to qualify for public financing, and at that time, the commission noted that the decision of the executive director would be final and not appealable. so our purpose today is to discuss the serious allegations that were raised in miss alioto's allegations to the commission and to ask questions about that. so miss pelham, would you...

>> yes, thank you, commission chair chiu. the item number six memo contains information as requested last friday by the chair regarding a letter that was received from miss alioto for the alioto for -- angela alioto for mayor 2018 committee. the information that we have contains both the letter from miss alioto, as well as the information that is responsive to issues raised in her letter. it contains information regarding various issues and concerns that were raised by the candidate. as chair chiu indicated, the commission at its april 20th meeting had voted to grant the committee until april the 25th to submit an additional public financing qualification request

with additional information, and also for contributions through -- might have received on march 27. the commission motion required that -- the determination to be delivered by me to the committee on may 2nd by noon, and that the determination would be final, nonappealable. the committee did, at 11:30 in the morning on the 25, timely resubmitted its amended request for public financing. we reviewed that in the time frame provided by the commission and established that although the committee had received a slightly higher amount -- a qualified slightly higher amount, it still fell sort of the $50,000 required under the law to qualify for public financing, and that notice was provided to the committee at about 11:30 on may 2, 11:30 in the morning. those are attachments provided

to you in your memo. about 1230 time time, i received an e-mail from miss alioto to bring this to the attention of the commission. i relayed that to the city attorney. the request for additional information from miss alioto and provided additional details relevant to the questions that were raised in that letter in this memo for you. the staff and i reviewed all of our information. we reviewed relevant documentation and e-mail communication to provide to you our understanding of the issues and what we understood at what time, and that information is presented and summarized for you in the memo that's before you. the staff and i are here to answer any questions if you have any for us. >> commissioner renne? >> commissioner renne: i have a question. i was not here at the april

20 -- or 18 session where the subject matter was discussed, but i'm curious, what was -- the problem was, as i understand it, that the committee identified donors who fell within the category in the amount to satisfy the requirements of public financing, but what was missing was evidence showing that they were san francisco residents, is that -- is that correct? >> yes, that's correct. there was a variety of issues, and as is our practice, we provided detail listing to the committee at the conclusion of our review. missing addresses was a significant portion of that. sometimes there was also information that did not allow us to demonstrate -- to verify the -- the contributor and

to -- but the vast majority were items related to residency, so the supporting documentation that was provided by the committee did not enable us to verify san francisco residency as that is required. >> commissioner renne: and you provided them and identified which ones of the contributions that they were claiming did not qualify because they lacked demonstration that they were san francisco residents. >> yes. >> commissioner renne: by name? >> yes. >> commissioner renne: and did the committee give you any explanation why they were unable to give you that information from the april 18 date, to, i think your date was april 25 when they were supposed to supply it? >> the committee provided additional information in its request of april the 25th, and

i'd have to ask amy lee, our audit auditor to provide additional -- if that's what you are -- >> commissioner renne: no. i'm just asking, if they were advised at the april 18 or even prior to that time, that they didn't qualify because this list of contributors didn't show that they were in fact san francisco residents, which was one of the requirements. and i'm just -- did they give you any explanation as to why they just couldn't go out and get that information and give it to you? >> no, they did not provide that explanation. i do know that on the 25th, when they were asked to submit their additional information by noon, we did confirm and received confirmation from the committee that they had submitted everything to us and that their submission on april 25th was the complete record,

so they may have further comment on that, but we can confi -- did confirm that they had submitted a complete record, and that's what they told us. >> commissioner renne: okay. thank you. >> with regard to the software from netfile, in reading the letter from the alioto campaign and also your memo, but also the -- that was received today, public comment from the ceo of netfile, my understanding is that on april 13th, netfile communicated with the commission about a problem with another candidate's filing and went into the system to fix that problem, but that problem related to software that was maintained or sold by netfile

for subscription service and not with the commission's filing system; is that correct? >> yes. >> and so in that e-mail, also, of the same -- at the same day, april 13th, the ceo of netfile says that the problem was fixed. is that your understanding, as well? >> yes it is. o our understanding at the time was that was a different committee, and it was a different issue. >> okay. so that the -- any filings that happened before april 13th, if there was a software -- there was no way that the commission would have known? >> we were not aware that -- from -- again, for issues related to the -- the ethics commission's software, we were not aware of issues related to

ethics commission's software. if you would like, you have steven matthew, our director of information technology services can comment and provide a bit more detail about how our system works and the ways in which committees use a professional services tool that netfile also provides to paying clients that is not part of our net file system. >> and so then, on april 25, at the time of the filings that was the deadline at noon for the resubmission to qualify for public financing, the -- you confirmed with the campaign that they were able to submit all the documents that they wished to submit in por of -- support of their application for public financing, is that

right? >> yes. they had contacted our office to alert us to the fact that they would be filing soon. and when we received the filing, i confirmed via e-mail with a campaign committee staff person that the information was complete as she filed it, and she was able to confirm that it was complete. >> okay. >> commissioner kopp: i have a question to the executive director. how many residential omissions were there? >> if you can just give me a moment. >> commissioner kopp: yes. i'm referring to -- i'm referring to attachment one. this is agenda item six, page seven. actually, on page eight, there's a table, so when the committee submitted its application on april the 25th, there were 40 instances of the 46 contributions that were

deemed to be not eligible. 40 of those, or 87%, did not have the regulation -- the documentation required by the regulations sufficient to demonstrate san francisco residency. >> commissioner kopp: number two, the agreement was to grant the extension of time until april 25th at noon with the condition that there be no further appeal to the executive director. what's the reason for putting this on calendar? >> the reason to put it on the calendar is to enable the commission to have a factual basis to examine the questions that were raised in miss alioto's letter of the 3rd. it was at the request of the chair, and we wanted to make

sure the commission had the opportunity to consider any issues that it thought might be relevant or important to the issues that were raised in her letter. >> commissioner kopp: what was the reason for that part of the motion last month that prohibited any further appeal to snu. >> i think that might be a request to ask miss alioto? >> that was a recommendation from somebody on the staff to the commission that any extension be predicated upon a condition of no further appeal administratively. >> yes. and -- >> commissioner kopp: what's the reason it's on calendar? >> so commissioner kopp, if i may jump in, the reason it's contained on the calendar, there was a letter from miss alioto -- >> commissioner kopp: yes, i know. i've read the letter --

>> that she felt there was fraudulent behavior on behalf of the director of the ethics commission, and i thought that the commission would like the opportunity to discuss the allegations and satisfy themselves. >> commissioner kopp: well, it doesn't give me much confidence in the sanctity of our adopted resolutions. the third question has a petition for writ of mandate in san francisco superior court been filed to your knowledge? >> not to my knowledge, and i would just as a point of information, on your earlier question, i do not understand this to be an appeal. it is on the agenda as a discussion and possible action regarding the allegations made in the letter by miss alioto. so our -- we are -- i do not consider this or i'm not characterizing this as an appeal. >> commissioner kopp: thank you. >> commission, any other questions from the commission? at this time, i'd like to call -- invite miss alioto or

the alioto campaign. >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is sandra ribaspied, and i'm here speaking on behalf of the alioto campaign. just going back to when we were here last on april 20, one of the things that the executive director had mentioned initially which started the whole uphill conversation was that the -- the office of the ethics commission had made a mistake, and that mistake was that conflicting information had been provided to miss alioto's campaign regarding march 27 could be used as a fund raising day or not, and there was conflicting

information. and as a result, miss alioto's campaign did not submit the march 27th donations with respect to their initial submission. we're here today because it is the alioto campaign's belief that the office of the ethics commission made another mistake, and that mistake was not informing the alioto campaign that there was a glitch with the system that candidates, including miss alioto, were using to upload their -- their supporting documentation to establish their $50,000 threshold that they had to establish in order to qualify for public funding. now as admitted, in miss pelham's papers, at page four, mr. montgomery, david montgomery, who was the head of netfile professional, did in fact notify staff that an error had occurred with netfile professional on april 13th.

if you go to the e-mail from david montgomery that's attached as exhibit b to miss alioto's letter, mr. montgomery states, "from our records, there were three qualifying request submissions to the sfec by the alioto committee: 3-27, 4-6, and 4-10, where the submissions were guaranteed to be incomplete due to the missing feature of sending the attachments for the detailed transactions from the filer side software. i personally notified the sfec about the missing feature for detail attachments on april 13th." so what does this mean? this means that when miss alioto was granted the

additional 2.5 days to resubmit supporting documentation, on april 20, i believe it was a different room, but before the commission, miss pelham had not informed miss alioto that in fact there'd been a glitch with the system regarding her prior submissions. so the time that miss alioto spent on her resubmission, which was ultimately resubmitted timely on april 25, was spend curing these defects that were in fact not defects because the issue had been situated or it had been fixed by mr. montgomery, and miss pelham was aware of that. she was aware of that at the hearing that we were all at on april 20. but my alioto's campaign wasn't. on between april 20 and april 20, they were curing these what they perceived errors or submissions that they had to cure miss pelham's office, and

they didn't need to spend time curing them, because there was no error with the majority of those, because there was -- there had been a glitch with the system, and that's indicate index mr. -- indicated in mr. montgomery's e-mail, and it's indicated in miss pelham's letter. >> excuse me. i have a question. >> yeah. >> so you're referencing the e-mail from mr. montgomery to -- >> mr. malin. >> mr. malin, correct. but we actually have as attachment number five the actually e-mail that mr. montgomery sent to director pelham, and is in paragraph one says as a parenthetical. >> it's my understanding that the commission uses a different

version of netfile, not netfile professional. but as the commission new, netfile professional was being used by miss alioto in her campaign. she was not notified of any glitch nor was she notified of the curing of the glitch, and the glitch was the same that happened to jane kim as with miss alioto. >> and in paragraph seven of the david montgomery e-mail of april 13, otherwise everything in the system appears correct and normal, so the problem was fixed. >> right. it was fixed as of april 13, but miss alioto's -- this was not miss alioto's e-mail. she was never informed of this. >> but this was not software that the commission maintained. this was netfile software, and as far as the commission was concerned, there was a problem, and there was a problem that they were told was fixed. as far as the ethics commission was concerned, there was a problem, and it was fixed as of

the 13. so what was there to communicate? >> right. there was to communicate the prior submissions by miss alioto on the 27th, the 5th, and the 10th, as well as on the 20th, she was essentially curing those submissions that -- where there was an inability to upload the information. miss alioto was never informed of that. miss pelham knew that miss alioto from the three prior submissions knew that she was using netfile professional. she was not alerted -- the issue was not that it was fixed, the issue was that miss alioto did not know it had been fixed until her team had been talking to the ethics commissioners office on april 24th, and they said that there was this -- for the first time, were pointing out that there was this glitch with netfile professional. in fact, they had attempted to cure all these proposed defects

with their submission, but they weren't defects. so why we're here today is because of that time that was spent trying to cure defects which simply did not exist, and the ethics -- or miss pelham -- the executive director was on notice of that per david montgomery's e-mails, and she knew that was the system that miss alioto was using, and no one said hey, those bugs have been figured out, so you don't have to cure those defects because they're not actually defected. you don't have to waste your time dealing with those hundreds of submissions. remember, the first time she got her letter of decision back from the executive director, there were 280 items for her to cure. and that number reduced, but it didn't reduce by that much. and i'll just point out that shall -- i mean, you know, it would be one thing if miss alioto's campaign was way off. if there was no chance in heck

that these extra time that she spent curing these defects wouldn't have made a difference. she was $1,074 short on the may 2nd letter from miss pelham, $1,074. i think in miss alioto's letter, she said she spent over 1,000 hours just crying to cure these defects that were problems known to the executive director. >> but i'm having trouble understanding why the ethics commission would have an obligation to inform a filer of a software problem that was -- that was problematic -- it was a third-party software platform that is neither maintained nor provided to the public by the commission and they were told by the software provider that there was a problem with respect to a separate campaign, why that would create any sort of obligation on the part of ethics commission to notify

other candidates. it's kind of like filing your federal income taxes through turbo taxes. does the irs have an obligation to notify the public there is a problem with turbo tax? >> the purpose as we understand it of the executive director and her office and the ethics commission is to help, not hurt, to help candidates qualify for public funding to be matched, not impede their ability to qualify. in this situation, just like the last time we were before you -- this was a mistake that impeded miss alioto's campaign ability to be on the same level

playing field as markleny, jamie kim, london breed, and their supporters. that's all she's asking. the issue was very simple with the netfile professional software. it wasn't uploading supporting documents, whether it was jane kim, whether it was mark leno, it was an issue with the software, and that's admitted in the document that -- that miss pelham prepared. >> on april 25, was the campaign able to upload all the documents that it sought to upload? was there a software problem that persisted on the 25th? >> no, there was no software problem that persisted because it had been cured as you mentioned on april 13 and as reflected in that e-mail by david montgomery. so the sole issue is it was the time wasted by miss alioto's campaign in doing the resubmission on april 25th that they were focusing their time

on all these submissions that they had already submitted properly but for the netfiler roer that they had not been informed about, and which the executive director's office new about on april 13th. >> but you had the opportunity to resubmit on april 25th. >> we had the opportunity to resubmit, but we did not have the proper amount of time. that's why miss alioto is asking for an additional day as a result of the mistake of not informing miss alioto's campaign to attempt to qualify and have the same opportunities as everyone else. she's $1,074 short. this is not -- this is time that she could have used to cure those issues, and we do have some additional speakers. >> may i ask you a question? >> yes. >> and maybe i'm oversimplifying it, but the

additional information that the commission was seeking was information which the alioto campaign had, correct? >> the information which the commission was seeking, the supporting documentation? >> yes. >> yes. >> it had nothing to do with netfile. they had it themselves. >> well, sir, a lot of the documentations -- so the netfile issue was documentation that they had, yes, that could be uploaded. but the thing was is the way it was conveyed on the spreadsheet was that there was an error, so, for example, proof of residency, right? so the alioto campaign had documentation that they uploaded that properly ticked all the boxes to establish san francisco proof of residency, and that's what prompted the call to ethics when the -- the woman who was repairing out the