tv [untitled] March 29, 2015 9:30pm-10:01pm PDT
a report and under the occupation of employers if it requires an investigation forfeiture is not required and certainly our position is not the committee is not under the authority to act you certainly have the authority to do it and effectively your staff was doing it your staff not only sat in on several of the interviews but sat in on the interview with chris lee those alzheimer's e e-mails were revealed so, i mean you guys do it every month you look at inspections to propose fines if you want to pursue the legal coordination you have the authority to do it just needs to be done as an administration active penalty not as a forfeiture most of them are in the tunes of 5 hundred to
$200,000 theirs small in every single distanced the committee got the money it makes no logical sense how can you ask them to forfeiture without receiving the money this comes from criminal law the law goes after criminal you bought that car because of a drug sale that money came from smuggling it is things in the respondents possession their asked to give up to the government i mean it is a given that neither supervisor farrell nor his committee never had $190,000 in their possession. >> any other questions public comment? thank you.
>> hello, i'm larry bush i'm speaking for myself i want to urge the commission to wave a forfeiture i've looked through the record and not a clear definition of what constitutes a controlled committee if they don't see or is that this commission is not in the past as recorded i looked at gavin newsom committee his acid law committee and his committee on the banning city officials from sitting on parties i looked at the aggressive panhandling all of them put on the ballot by mr. newsom not one was listed as a control committee and he took a grateful of money from the
people in the committees that coincide and if you look at the materials that are provided by mrooerlz you'll see the minutes from 2008 of the ethics commission as being 10 indoors u thousand dollars or more district by the officials and the commission choose not to move forward they didn't put in a definition as i'm sure you're aware of control committees and contributions to a city offers holders ethic so i went on the ethics website to see a check list to see if it's a controlled committee you have the same consultants or used the same mailing list and there is no check list nothing on the web page itself that outlines how
you can tell if it's a controlled committee we went through some stent with the rules committee he's not a declared campaign and not investigating to file that feels an unusual circumstances we need to wave a penalty in this case and move forward with a clear definition of what are the check marks that tell you what is a controlled committee thank you. >> members of the ethics committee ray heart if you look at the last item on the list 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 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 that is familiar with supervisor farrell he never comes himself to those kinds of hearing why isn't he hear to openly and honestly answer the questions instead, he send a representative that can't answer the questions
i'll say in my opinion because he didn't want to be open on television being forced to be in a situation to being asked those questions he sends a representative to try to give you a song and dance and lastly this letter from the legal firm if sacramento answers all the statements that mr. sutton made as sxhairn did the stimthsdz in effect and basically an admission of guilt >> good evening charles bell i've been corresponding about you most recently as today we believe that you should reject mr. farrell's refusal to pay or
acknowledge responsibility or pay for the forfeiture my letter details that in quite a bit of detail i'd like to address a few points that were made in argument first with respect to the issue of the f p pc stimulation mr. lee stipulated on behalf of common sense voters that was a controlled community of mark farrell new mr. fairly wouldn't have let him stipulate to that unless i audience add this phoney independent committee was controlled by mr. farrell it's a indisputable and of legal significance with respect to the stauchltstute of
limitations he was required to file year-end statements on the year-end statement of common sense voters coming back to the fact the supervisor farrell committee it should have been executed as a controlled committee of mark farrell so the statute of limitation wouldn't have run at the thought it running now as his personal responsibility the candidate is responsible for the liabilities of his committee and mr. farrell is responsible for the controlled committees that one in particular
and there's no escaping that i think with respect to the forfeiture policy that's been discussed mr. sutton says you can only apply those in insignificant matter that is the most insignificant matter that's been before you 2 hundred thousands of alleged independent expenditures controlled by the mark farrell e farrell campaign and committee they stipulated to the fact it was a controlled committee they are responsible and shouldn't be left off the hook the public is entitled to you enforcing your campaign ordinance with an election that was stolen by that
illegal activity thank you. >> i'm bob plant hold i hope nobody feels comfortable with the process and with whatever decision you come up with too many people who are attorneys are reading this from the view point of an attorney i'm bringing that up it can be relevant if i set up a company i've got to set up a accountability and i'm relying on the professional skill and adherence to their duties i'm running a company their supposed to handle that part of the work i'm suggesting that a candidate
that is not a lawyer we know that willie brown campaign and if you hire them this is a track record their supposed to do their job and know their job in this case i'm running and running and running and speaking and speaking so it maybe there was a miss placed trust by farrell and i'm not saying he did a good job he lacks if in the negative invents but if we relied on someone that failed to do his job it may be a problem not only for him i'm going to tell you to look at the information you give to candidates maybe you need to develop something when a candidate files to make sure that the candidate campaign
staff don't do this and don't this and that. >> a bright line of listed do not maybe worth keeping in mind in the future this may be a learning experience nobody is going to be satisfied but you may want to move forward to make it clear duo to candidates their to the all lawyers that candidates have to monitor their own staff and not be the candidate out under speaking and husband illegal and per swud you may have to preclude that lessen the chances of this happening thank you.
>> to my understanding it is under commission policy the staff is the entities that seeks the waiver from the commission where they to deem that appropriate staff has not rid the wave as far as i'm aware that typically it be entities from forfeiture seth sought and the staff thing brings that to the commission i found harassed anyone mr. sincroy is that accurate city attorney i want to weigh in on that. >> i'm sorry so the process is that staff believes the forfeiture is appropriate they'll bring the waiver to the commission. >> the staff is seeking the
waiver if the staff deems the waiver is appropriate they'll request to the commission the waiver be entered if it's over $500 is that accurate. >> i'll defer to the executive director but other waivers that have not been for the commission. >> typically the entities they're not seeking the waiver directly from the commission that is that staff sort of signs opening oh, before it's brought this is an unusual situation we've invited xhaerlz staff to come and submit their response letter typically we don't entertainer a waiver from the entity that the waiver is sought. >> audio building that is correct
my experience most of forfeitures were dealt with at the staff level i was slightly thrown off by the person bringing that to the commission i'm not aware of the waiver from the commission i'll defer to the staff. >> sorry mr. sincroy. >> i don't recall we've had any to the commission in the past and i see so it is something that could be brought to the commission but typically that's not brought to the commission okay sure. >> you can come to the podium. >> as this police has been explained that is a staff jade and staff has the final decision making authority certainly the commissions have the authority to ask someone to come in and talk about the matter and make recommendations to the staff and
adjustments to the staff this is not a request to the commission that's not what we were thoeld told we were supposed to be doing the request to mr. sincroy and taking this opportunity to give them. >> correct that's my understanding as well. >> so mr. sutton and the public for coming in with further information providing to use it was helpful. >> anything else from the commissioners next item a discussion on the discussion of random audits of the committees active in 2014. >> well, good evening i am the
assist deputy director so before we proceeded to the audit selection i want to summarize what we did in the past year in order to eliminate the backlog of audits staff requested the controller's office assist in conducting audits the controller's office conducted 13 audits and staff conducted the remaining 27 work on all the audits has been implemented and most finalized staff is working on finalizing 4 of the audits and 13 that the controller's office did staff expect those audits had been finalized with that the next few weeks and after today's audit selection staff can begin work on the audits that are selected today as explained in the anti memo we recommend that the commission
select 10 campaigns for audit and 4 campaigns it shows how the staff divided the audits into financial activity the chart shows staff proposal in terms of of the numbers committees to be selected from each level do you have any questions about the proposal? >> questions from the commissioners i have a couple of questions i know that ms. shake you and our staff spend a lot of time can you give us a sense of how many hours on an individual audit. >> we don't track hours but we currently don't. >> can you give me a ball park.
>> we estimate each audit about three weeks. >> three weeks at 40 hours a week. >> we over lap so auditors are a not working on one anti at that time, for example one auditor serves on the other hand, at the the commission office of audits so if an anti takes about three weeks and you're going to do 10 you're talking about thirty weeks. >> in some audits they require longer times depending on the complexity or problems that may arise. >> how come how come we scant do more with staff and thirty weeks. >> we also time to build in
time to train the auditors on the campaign they've not done lobbyist audits we want them to be aware the rules to effectively audit the lobbyists and make sure we're not backlogged so before there we want to be able to complete all the audits in a timely manner and get back to the anti processes to be sure we are auditing in a good way. >> it is important to track how long to get a sense of how many it is required thank you. >> any other questions for ms. shade. >> public comment?
>> i'm bob plant hold he wanted to applaud and second trying to keep track of the motivator of time i want to talk about my own experience i think considering you have a later work plan an individual commissioners augment to find a way to communicate with the supervisors how much work is still undone or needs to be done when you look at the chart he the randomness it is acquit possible some of the categories that have a significant number of committees would be unaudited because of the limited number of audits in the process i'll suggesting a basis for you folks to lay the ground work for next year when
the mayor didn't put in money for additional staff that the supervisors knowing their say a need may generate that that's what i engineered when i was chair i've fought and got one extra staff during willie brown's term and that was a lot of work you need more staff many of us believe and white the mayor issues the process it can increase that's not also easy whether there are competing needs but how few committees are audited and develop a strategic analysis of the clusters of committees my be overlooked in the process that requires many
strategical analysis and see groups could be totally ignored that's a reason to say you ought to have more staff along with other reasons for more staff thank you. >> commissioners ray heart director of san francisco i have a apologize i'm not as presented i ask to be retained ovrp on the interested persons list i've stopped getting the agenda and have to wonder the library does that two be that as it may i have a real question as to small business i feel should be on the list that's the friends of the san francisco public library this group engages in lobbying and provided $30,000 a year for the larger than for public relations and raise money in the name of library and a, in fact,
between 2001 and this current year have expended over $70,000 in the name of san francisco and it's public library library and most of the cases had to do with me trying to get information from the library or the library commission why they continue to approve that group and their activities without information as to where the money goes they can't account for 95 percent of the $70 million friends report to private charity group they spend more than $6,000 a year north yet what we give to the library for $375,000 that's approximately 5 percent of what we raised they spend more on their own precisions then they actually raised on above 0 of the library
why aren't they on here? i mean obviously 19 cases i've one most of that p them in any way, shape, or form on the $70 million to they've raised in the name of our public library with the approval and ac convince of the city larger than and yet those public records show those folks don't know where the money went so if you're going to put a group on the list like the san francisco chamber of commerce that does everything by the group why not the friends of the san francisco public library on here half a identifiable from what i've found not done it we'll add this the f p pc found the library for 3 consequence years accepted over 5 thousand
dollars dollars worth of itemser e was required by law to report and filed in penalty of perjury a statement that filed nothing you have a head engaged in a group i think they should be on here >> hello larry bush i would also second the question about the list whether or not it's complete of people engaged in elections who warrant being audited i guess those are the groups that have foiled they're a political committee i piloted a group friends of lib that's not a committee and the people with the lions that have put money into the parks measure
they didn't folly wonder you might want to delay this with a more detailed campaign of details and not by the committees listed thank you. >> ms. shake can you respond to that are we missing entities. >> the memo does state we exclude entities are raise less than $10,000 and we based think that on prior guidance from the commission on focusing on entities with higher levels of activities. >> okay. but understanding that exclusion of anothers do we have
everybody. >> yes. >> is there a motion to select the - >> we don't need a motion. >> only volunteers from the - >> we have in a box the names of each of the committees for each category so we we need a couple volunteers from the public to read them off and select from the box this luke entities that will be audited. >> mr. plant hold i think so. >> have him roll up his sleeves
first. >> i comply. >> (inaudible). >> the group in when entities raised or spent more than $100,000 so mr. plant hold here's the - if you could read them one by one and as you read them we'll fold them and put them in the box. >> non-stop coalition for an affordable city shall i read them all in definition or is that accurate. >> the members of the public have a list with major support from. >>