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 -- it only passedy 32.6% of the vote, so we do have an obligation to the residents of the city to be very actively concurrent and proactive on audit enforcement. i know those systems are now in place, but i do want to thank the staff for an excellent system and it's certainly

looking for tight and i won't be bringing in any doughnut holes anymore. >> speaker 1: thank you. item 11. [ reading item 11] the written report cover as range of topics such as commission budget. [reading agenda item 11] director pellham. >> thank you. for agenda item 11 i have a somewhat thingthie lengathyier .

jeff has taken on interim duties as our director of -- we appreciate his responsibility and the call of duty. i am pleased to announce that i have designated chief program's office to be our acting deputy director and as you know, he has been in charge of our engagement and client division and working on operational issues -- she will be working closely with me on all kinds of office wide externally facing and other issues, so you will have a chance to meet with her in coming meetings, and i'm pleased to announce that for our senior

auditor position that was recruitment based on after we completed our process based on assessment of what that position required for the development of the program at this time, in both campaign and lobbying develop program. it was my judgment that we need to reclassify that position -- so in the interim, happy to announce that amy lee will be acting as lead auditor providing more day-to-day duties and interim audit supervisor to the team and me as we get through this busy period. >> speaker 1: is that something that is matter of coars course t from hr? >>speaker: thank you for that question. we have had conversations with

human resource department and the mayor's office and to my next segue, to the point that you see positions listed that list has whittled down over time but because of the last six weeks of extraordinary activity, i have not been able to make progress. our senior business analysis position we are expecting that should be posted this week, it just has to be able finalized and put on the website and turned the switch on. my report contains variety of information. we have the electronic version online links to campaign finance dashboard and information providing on a regular basis -- we are excited about the feedback we have been getting from public from those resources

to enable people to see what's happening as those reports comey ncomein and it's very useful for people to search for the information in the way they want it 24/7. the signs are good so as those of you observing these activities get your hand on these systems we welcome feedback. we are following up with individual who is have not filed timely statements as of may 2, 95% of the electronic files file timely with our office. there are about 3,000 more in the city who do not currently file with us and we hope to see that change over time. we have been notifying board and commission members about the laws that apply to them and 92% of e-filers able to sync their

sun shine and ethics training at the same time as their filing so we think this is a way to get their filings completed and for the public to be able to see where they are in terms of compliance, so over 90% is not ideal. hophoping to see that grow. >> speaker 1: there was a new ordinance that went into effect in january that stated if an appointed board or commission member has not filed form 700 they would be prohibited from participating in drib ration of their commission or board. of the 95% filed and 5% unfiled were any of those board or commission members who should not be participating in their meetings? >>speaker: i don't have the breakdown in front of me, but i

will get you the information. we have efforts that are planned and ongoing to reach out to the board and commission members and also department heads so that we can get information in the hand of everybody who might need support that new process. >> chair chiu: the form 700 late files frees are down. i think that is a testament to you many making sure everyone ee knows about their filing object grace. >> i asked the team to put together a state plaintiff jects ongoing to help us move into a fully electronic or digital era so we can remove paper burden

filings so there are a number of projects here broken out by campaign finance and other programs that haven't had the time to put paper filings online. we do have two staff that joined us this past month who will be with us through the fiscal year and beyond we hope to help get some of those paper-based systems online so some of the information can be more readily accessible to the public so i wanted to highlight that steven massey is here if you have specific questions about any of our it projects but as you can see it's been a very busy election season and promises to be a very busy rest of the fiscal year for us.

>>speaker: is there any update on the budget for the upcoming fiscal year? >>speaker: i think i will have hopeful news to report at the next month's meeting the mayor's office is still finalizing the budget document. i think i will have good news to report back next month. >> the interim mayor has requested that all departments submit budgets with a reduction and that for us would mean cutting staff and we are still in the process of trying to staff up to the right level. [ please stand by]

. lease stand by] >> commissioner kopp: okay. second question, is disclosure of behested payments by city commissioners or board members, have we got that setup? that took effect 1st of january . >> yes, we do have that system setup. individuals are able to file their behested payments on-line. like other laws that recently took effect, that's something that we continue to reach out to affected people to let them now about that requirement, and we have more work to do on that front. >> commissioner kopp: can this commission get a report from you next month on that? >> next. happy to.

>> commissioner kopp: thank you. chu c >> commissioner chiu: any other comments or questions? i just had a question, steven, if you would be so kind. they're discontinuing their existing services where scanned paper documents are going to be, you know, scanned in and posted. so if they're discontinuing, when will that happen, and more importantly, do we have an interim workaround to bridge that time when it's going to go away and what's the plan b to substitute? >> sure, again, i can answer that question. so we were notified by the mayor's office that socrata who is the vendor would be disabling a particular feature of their open data system, which is where they would host scanned paper, pdf-type documents on their server, and we could essentially upload unlimited documents at no

charge, no charge to our department ch. >> commissioner chiu: this is a vendor that provides services to all city departments. >> all city departments, and the mayor's office is the vendor of the contract. we end up posting data about the filings that are coming in, and then, you can actually view the form itself on the service. they are continuing the data service so we can continue to post essentially what looks like spreadsheets. they are discontinuing the postings conservatory which posted the pdf's. instead of creating a new way of posting scanned paper documents, we felt it would be a waist -- a better use of our time to convert the documents into an electronic form

process, and we will continue to post those on-line. so as far as any effect on the public, they will continue to have access to this information, and in the end, it will be better than before when they had this scanned paper process. >> going forward, we won'ting posting additional pdf's, we'll be converting them into electronic files. >> so limly the filer will fill out what looks like an electronic version of the form on-line, and that will transfer the form to a site that we are now hosting, and it will automatically post a 3 df copy of their filing there, and we will also post the data that comes across in some of these forms to the data sf system to be searched and sorted and s h such. >> commissioner chiu: thank you. >> commissioner kopp: would you identify yourself, please. >> steven massey. i'm the director of technology services.

>> commissioner kopp: okay. >> commissioner chiu: thank you. any other questions for steven? okay. public comment? >> charlie marstellar. again, i did have two questions. are the behested payment reports that are filed reflected in some way on our website? yes, that's the answer. very good. and are voter officers of the city and county who file -- i assume they file directly with ethics and not, for instance, a port commissioner would not file with the port commissioner filing officer, but major appointed officials and elected officials would file with ethics, correct? >> board and commission members, department head and elects officials are required to file electronically with the commission, so board and commission members also file

directly with us. >> okay. and those are just charter committees or commissions or boards or are they -- >> yeah, i think it's beyond that. >> it's the whole spectrum of officers. >> board and commissioners. >> who are voting? >> yeah. they're listed on the conflict of interest code in section 3.10 something or another, but that list of individuals -- that list of positions are required to file with us. >> okay. there's probably not much that's being overlooked in that section of the law, i hope, because we don't on don't want to find out that somebody has lost their ability to vote as a result of not filing and have them slip through the cracks and undoubtedly somebody in the public will call it to their attention, but it's good for

ethics to know. the other thing, are we able to amend the s.e.i. form 700 because i know that process is a state law. it's under the pra directly. so if we wanted to put a notice to the applicant that they have to file by a certain deadline or they will lose their ability to vote before their commission or board that they sit on? >> through the chair, the form 700 statement of economic interest are documented promulgated by the state, best political practices commission, so we are not in a position to make changes to those forms or those disclosure requirements. if such change were requested, it would have to have the approval of the fair political practices commission and apply statewide. >> okay. and can we just make that ghirardelliingly apparent to applicants when they go to download that form or to file,

rather, electronically on our access websites? in other words, when they come on-line, they're going on-line to the state, correct? >> well, i think -- excuse me, director pelham. i believe that in the report and as i had asked her and we had a little bit of exchange on this, that the work of the commission in the upcoming year will be to examine the communication and outreach practices of the commission to make sure that those who are affected and who need to file by the deadline in order to be able to continue to participate in their board or commission, that they are well aware in advance of the deadline that they need to file, and that if they don't file, they would not be allowed to deliberate nor participate in their proceedings. so i think that that's a really critical point of -- of communication and of work that the commission needs to do, and i think that guy will kind of

be leading that charge, and i have a lot of confidence to have a whole year to prepare for the up coming, we'll have a robust plan in place. >> well, i just want to make sure that they're properly noticed so we can't be blamed for not being aggressive and robust in our outreach. >> commissioner chiu: yeah. >> very good. thank you. >> commissioner chiu: thank you. any other comments? commissioner renne? >> commissioner renne: i was just wondering, to save the staff some time, that quentin kopp had some questions for netfile, and if he did, maybe massey could answer them, and not waste time by the staff. >> commissioner kopp: i mean -- >> commissioner renne: direct the questions --

>> commissioner kopp: how long has this netfile had a contract with the ethics commission? >> first contract was around 2007 or -8. >> commissioner kopp: all right. and is that on a bid in. >> it was a sole source waiver back in 2007. >> commissioner kopp: and who granted the waiver? the ethics commission? >> the ethics commission had to take part of it. the office of contract administration also had a role in it. >> commissioner kopp: and who signs the final document waiving a bid? >> the office of contract administration. >> commissioner kopp: all right. and how long was that contract? >> that was a three-year contract, and then, there was a new contract in 2010. and then, there was an amendment in 2013 that was a five-year contract. that contract is almost expired, and then, we have another contract that is now running concurrent to the 2013

contract that will eventually pick up support for the system after the contract expires in 2018, and it will also allow us to implement some new projects. >> commissioner kopp: when will that expire? >> that contract will expire mid2020. >> commissioner kopp: you said the contract expires in 2018. >> the 2013 contract expires in 2018. we also signed a second contract with netfile that will pick up support for the system at the end of 2018, when the 2013 contract expires. it will also allow us to build new systems such as the measure c and measure t lobbyists' measures that went before the voters and some other projects. >> commissioner kopp: what date does it expire in 2018? >> i believe it's september 30th. >> commissioner kopp: pardon me? >> i believe september 30th.

>> commissioner kopp: okay. thank you. >> commissioner chiu: thank you. public comment? [inaudible] >> commissioner chiu: yes. >> my name is mark bruno, and i have an ethics complaint before the board since july of last year. and i've -- i had talked to jessica, and the -- another work at the -- jackie, i'm sorry, at the ethics board today to make sure now is the appropriate time to address this issue. not in specifics, i realize that we can't talk about that. i'm here only to address the issue of resources for the commission and for the department because there's something wrong in the city. i've never gone to the ethics commission before in my life until july 7 of last year when, before the board of appeals, since we're on the issue of s.e.i.'s, two of the six people who were there required under the law to have submitted s.e.i. forms, two of six is

one-third, or 30%. two of the six people have not filed the s.e.i. forms for two years. that complaint which was filed in july of last year, still has yet to be resolved, and so i would say to those of you like director pelham, who are going before mayor farrell, that the worst thing for the city -- that the city can do is to pretend to pick up trash when there are no trash people to do it, to pretend you're going to put the homeless people in a hospital and there are no doctors. or here, to pretend when we have an ethics code, and we do not have staff or supporting staff, perhaps the attorneys or investigators or xerox machines to do the work that's being given to this very important body and to the people who work so hard to keep people who are appointed and who are elected acting in conformity with the code, with the government code. and i want to cite quickly, because i know many of you are

attorneys, a case, cohen versus city of thousand oaks. it's cited by governor brown when he was attorney general, when he wrote contracts in interest office, and it's also cited, interestingly by the california league of cities, the government conduct guide. why is this case, cohen versus city of thousand oaks significant to this delay and how this one complaint and perhaps many others has been treated? because we all know, anybody who knows the law on timeliness that there are two aspects to timely requirements to city officials. one is a direct review of that timely requirement, and another one is a yourself jurksal review. well, this body made it clear that the court felt the timeliness was really a directory issue, not a jurisdictional one. in other words they weren't going to come down heavy on the city of thousand oaks, but what they do say is that however, the city council's failure, read ethics department's

failure to file the written findings in the resolutions after appellants filed their petition is one more example of a cavalier manner in which the city seems to disregard the people's due process rights. so i pi on the here that's what being entered here. it might not be a legal case but it still concerns something that affects all of us as citizens our due process rights. thank you so much. >> commissioner chiu: thank you. no more public comment, move to item 12, and discussion and possible action regarding status of complaints received or initiated by the ethics commission. it's a possible closed session, as well as possible closed session under item 13, discussion and possible action regarding probable cause determination for complaint alleging violations of the campaign finance reform ordinance, article 1, chapter 1 of the san francisco campaign and governmental conduct code. so -- >> excuse me, chair chiu? >> commissioner chiu: yes. >> i had believed that we were

going to call item number 14 before we go into closed session just so we can hear from the public before we go into closed session. >> commissioner kopp: excuse me. you're calling -- through the chair, why call 14? >> because this is obviously up to the discretion of the chair and the commission, but i believe the rational is we wanted the public to provide comment on number 14 before we go into closed session. >> commissioner kopp: well, don't you know we're going into closed session? don't we have 13 still on the calendar? >> commissioner chiu: yes, and 13 would be in closed session. >> commissioner kopp: i elect not to go into closed session. [inaudible] >> commissioner kopp: 13. it's a preliminary hearing, and those are heard in the open. and i don't like the idea of going into a closed session on

a preliminary hearing. >> commissioner chiu: hi, mr. givner. >> mr. givner: good afternoon. jon givner. deputy city attorney. i'm sitting in for my colleague on this item. under the charter, enforcement matters must remain confidential until a finding of probable cause is made and a public accusation. so there are matters in this closed session regarding probable cause -- potential probable cause findings. those must be handled confidentially unless a respondent in a probable cause matter requests that they be made public. and if the commission makes a finding of probable cause, the commission then comes out into open session, publicly announces its finding and its accusation, and then, the remainder of that proceeding, including a potential hearing on the merits, is all in open session.

>> commissioner kopp: all right. >> commissioner chiu: so item 13 will be held -- will be in closed session, and item 12, if there's a desire on the part of the commission to discuss the status of complaints and investigations that are ongoing would also be in closed session. so before going into closed session, i'll call for public comment on item -- item 12 and 13 first, and then, we'll just do item 14 at the end. any public comment on items 12 or 13? okay. then -- >> commissioner kopp: madam chair, through the chair, does staff have an idea of approximately how long this probable cause closed session will take?

>> thank you, commissioner. i anticipate that staff's presentation will last five minutes, give or take. the respondent is here to make a presentation of his own. >> commissioner kopp: no, i'm talking about the closed session. how long will that take? >> yeah. it depends how many questions commissioners, have, but it can take as little as ten minutes, or truly, 45. i think it depends on what questions you might have. >> commissioner kopp: all right. >> commissioner renne: i would move that we go into closed session. >> commissioner chiu: is there a second? [inaudible] >> commissioner chiu: all in favor? [voting] . >> you should take public comment prior to voting to go into closed session. >> commissioner kopp: well she had already asked. >> commissioner chiu: i had already asked, so there's no

>> we are back in session. on item 12, the commission took no action. on item 13, the ethics commission conducted and closed session a probable cause characters hearing from may 2011. that san francisco ethics commission complaint 13-150618, based on the entire record of the proceedings, they announce they found probable cause that a violation of law has occurred. the respondent is presumed innocent unless the allegations are approved of merit. the respondent cannot document more than 2,000 attribution's. they found probable cause to believe he failed to maintain complete records for contributions received in two counts in violation of san francisco campaign and governmental conduct code,

sections 1.106 and 1.109. because the respondent cannot properly document more than 100,000 in expenditures amounting to 16 % of total campaign expenditures, we found probable cause to find they maintain complete records and four counts in violation of campaign and governmental contact code 1.106 and 1.109. because the respondent did not kindly report nearly 140,000 it could expenditures amounting to 21 % of total expenditures, we found probable cause to believe he failed to disclose expenditures in violation of san francisco campaign and governmental code, conduct code 1.106 and 1.109. the commission will schedule a hearing on the merits. could i have a motion to maintain confidentiality for all of our discussions in the closed session?

>> we move -- move not to disclose. >> commissioner chiu: you second? >> i second. >> commissioner chiu: all in favour? motion carried unanimously. moving on to agenda item 14. discussion of the possible actions for future meeting. commissioners? public comment? there being none, into item 15. additional opportunity for public comment on matters of hearing and not appearing in the agenda as article seven section two. public comment? there being none. commissioners? >> i move to discern. >> commissioner chiu: a second. a role

call. a role director kim is absent. with that dr. armistead? >> director armistead: here. >> harper?