ray hearts versus metering e mark farrell board of supervisors that was a failure to have a disclosure effect supervisor farrell said that was my staff mr. farrell has the attitude that he's not accountable for hi staff i wonder if he served in the u.s. military your answering or answerable so for it and i'll take the commissioners question on one hand and $91,000 was spent on material that bend his campaign getting yet he was total unbe aware of it never wonder who this generous person was spent all the tens of the thousands of dollars to support his campaign either directly or indirectly he didn't ask anybody on the staff gee who are those nice people i find that ludicrous but again we hear the explanation that was a person and i'll go back to commissioner keane's point you hire someone you're responsible inform war they do or not your answerable and he took the measures to see this person didn't gadget in illegal activity and saying i didn't know he was doing it to tell us the whole responsibility thing on its head if you hire someone and they do something illegal on our on behalf accountable and something t

order of determination ray hearts versus metering e mark farrell board of supervisors that was a failure to have a disclosure effect supervisor farrell said that was my staff mr. farrell has the attitude that he's not accountable for hi staff i wonder if he served in the u.s. military your answering or answerable so for it and i'll take the commissioners question on one hand and $91,000 was spent on material that bend his campaign getting yet he was total unbe aware of it never wonder who this generous person was spent all the tens of the thousands of dollars to support his campaign either directly or indirectly he didn't

farrell has done absolutely nothing wrong the fcc xhublthd a two year discussion where everyone involved with this looked at hundreds of thousands of e-mails and they completely exaggerated supervisor farrell in demi had not teen any action that warranted any type of fine yet we are here basically 5 years later two elections later with a letter demanding he pay $191,000 perp there's absolutely no factual or local basis for such an equitable request again most notably because he didn't violate the law at all also on a procedural ground the establishment bars the commission if the commission wants to ask the committee to forfeit money back to the city the law says it do very clearly your policy says to do that within four years that's by october 2014 now they've been talk oh, there's fraudulent concealment and talked about left lane well nights the stipulation is - the commission was put on notice or received a complaint in 2010 alleged from the realizing attorney ladies and gentlemen, there might be corporation between supervisor farrell and the committee regardless the staff actually sat in on the interviews with the b are f bbc when we interviewed the row committee they did the actions the staff of the ethics commission clearly they can have decides whether to act within it's four years stauchlts if in those interviews was absolutely no reason why the commission couldn't have requested forfeiture before october of 2014 but it self-and because of that and because those rules are clear it can't now you know two elect cycles later ask for for it is your the other thing about forfeiture we role don't think that forfeiture when is kind of a term of art is appropriate in this case as mr. sincroy said forfeiture is authorized by the law in a limit number of circumstances it is when a committee files a report and from the face of that report it is observe the committee accepted a contribution that means it's over the limit of a corporation so the committee files a report which happens all the time why our contribution from