tv San Francisco Government Television SFGTV April 4, 2016 8:00pm-10:01pm PDT
that has not been presented - >> thank you is there anyone else who wishes to speak on this item colleagues, any of you that would like to speak public comment is closed. at this time i'd like a recognize supervisor wiener. >> thank you so you know, i think before we decide whether we'll continue i want to know the position of district supervisor and commissioner gilman is not available perhaps someone in the office can come in i think as supervisor represents the district it would be good to know supervisor peskin wants a continuance i don't agree with the separate issue has nothing to do with with one 60 fulsome i'm curious to know the position of the district supervisor. >> thank you, supervisor wiener i too am interested just so you know i've asked
supervisor kim office and she's left a message for supervisor kim's it was understood that supervisor kim was not staying for item 10 i don't know if april in her office is able to join us in the meanwhile i want to see in supervisor peskin has million to add. >> no, i have a motion on the floor to continue. >> in the venture we've not heard from supervisor kim. >> do we know if they're available. >> can we take a 5 minute rec >> the next schedule meeting
is april 11th; is that correct. >> without objection. >> supervisor wiener. >> you know i this is a close call like i said, i want to hear from the district supervisor i'm concerned that supporting this motion will be construed i'm buying into the affordable housing bonus plan i'm not going to support the continuance so - >> supervisor wiener that's fine you've made it clear argue not tying we'll do a roll call vote on this motion supervisor peskin i supervisor wiener no and chair cohen. >> two i's and one no. >> thank you very much that item will be continues for one week additional business to come before this body? >> there's no further business. >> all right. this meeting is adjourned thank you.
hayon, here. commissioner keane, here. we have a visitor. commissioner hur. let me say we welcome you back and particularly in the view the fact we'll cover the wistal blow rr regulations we passed at the last meeting and i see you didn't bring your plaque that you stethly took away in february. >> it wasn't given to me but it is reviding in my office. >> welcome. i will ask for public comment on matters appearing or not appearing on the agenda and believe madam assesser is here to make a few words >> thank you. good afternoon
commissioners. executive director pelm. we were in the crowd wondering about commissioner hurs name tag. glad to hear you have one. today i want to come here because today is commissioner hurs last day with the ethics commission and would prefer to find a way to extend his term but i want to express my gratitude and present you with a certificate of honor on the ethics commission. the mission of the ethics commission is promote the highest level of ethics in government and know how fundamental it is so the people of the city have the trust and faith in government we all kneis so importantism there is a very fast 6 years, not sure if you feel the same way. i believe you have been able to
serve in this role with great distinction. [inaudible] insureing not only fair processes and also transparence and effective processes. he is a complete role model for dialogue and thoughtful leadership. ben stayed true to the principles and integrity and his leadership shined rchlt i'merallyy happy to be able to say thank you to commissioner hur in particular as the appointee even though i wasn't the one who appointed you. i hope will be able to serve and have an appointment to the commission who is able to serve as ablely as you have. thank you for your service and if i could present this to commissioner hur. it is a certificate of honor on behalf the sitee and county of san francisco and our office. we extend our higher accommodation and gratitude for
your service on the san francisco ethics commission. we want to say and note the capacity you have served with distinction, unwaurfbing commitment to insure fair processing and thoughtful leadership guiding on enforcement relulation and policy . we are in your debt and offer our deepest appreciation. thank you commissioner hur. >> thank you very much. >> thank you you very much for those remarks and look forward to commissioner hurs-we look forward to the new appointment commissioner, that you will be appointing. i'm sure that he or she will be equally outstanding. he or she will have a tough road to follow. thank you again. any
other public comment? >> patrick [inaudible] shah. i want repeat thanking commissioner hur for his [inaudible] the ethics commission vote to mr. [inaudible] behavior had not risen to the definition of official misconduct. as i noted previously a once anonymous analysis at the [inaudible] i'm submitting for inclusion in the minutes turned out to have been authored by san francisco private practice [inaudible] it was distributed to the full board of sups. [inaudible] didn't meet the definition of official misconduct.
thankfully along with commissioner hur, supervisors campos and kim reached the same correct conclusion. it is a pity other commissioners including mrs. hayon didn't understand the significance of [inaudible] legal analysis in the face of the mayors bold attempt to strip city employees of protection against faults official misconduct allegations. since larry bush is unable to attend i want to repeat [inaudible] distribution to the commission. first, i agree with bushes recommendation that this commission return to issuing its own annual report. second, i also agree with bushes suggestion calling for annual wistal blower protection
training for all. let me repeat, all city employees, not just city supervisor and man injuryial employees and not just a handful of city employees required to complete form 700. required to take annual sunshine ordinance training and biannual ethics training. i recall as a city employee i as a secretary was required to take annual sexual harassment prevention training which included having to sign under oath i completed the training. adding antiretaliation wistal blower training for all city employees is a logical next step. mrs. bush calls for [inaudible] managerial employees retaliated against city employees, i believe that recommendation
should be expand today include mandatory unpaid suspension for 30 days as a deturant for retaliation. that may be the quick est route to curtailing retaliation against employees. >> thank you. members of the ethics commission, [inaudible] in november 2014 following advice posted on the ethics commission website i contacted ethics investigator garered chatfield. after he was unable to dissuade me from filing he suggested a meeting the following the week. at that meeting [inaudible] tried for a hour to dissuade me from filing a complaint, any complaints. they did promise to look into it and get back to me. in january i contacted the new executive director leon pel umwho insured me i
must have misunderstood the ethics commission investigator and said she will look into and get back to me. we are 4 and half months later and no response from anyone in those conversations including and especially the ecextev director. i believe have grounds to question whether any investigation is partial, starting where your next meeting i'll file complaints directly with theectics commission in full view of the public, try to hide those complaints. when you go to the people who are supposed investigate complaints and before they look at anything they tell you there is no basing for sth complaint and don't understand why you want to file a complaint. it agregious and unacceptable and immoral and it is
certainly unethical. to have the executive director commit to me trice to look into the matter and fail to do anything at all shows me she is just another continuation of john st. croix. the john st. croix who could decide yourhering while you were outf the state or no sunshine ordinance referral would be held because she didn't like the way they did things. you spent years go around and around by it sunshine ordinance and haven't enforced but one time and that was against jewel gomez and recommended the mayor she be removed and the mayor ignoreed you just like everybody else. a year later we embarrassed sending a later to the mayor and saying what is your response to the recommendation and didn't bother responding. you are not worth
his attention. in fact, i'm willing to bet mayor lee holds you all in contempt. he 12349 go isn't going it do anything you recommend. as far as mr. hur, i'm glad you're gone because i can't think of one thing in your term you have done that made the city more ethical for its citizens. >> any other public comment? >> david [inaudible] speaking as a individual as i commented add the jnl meeting i want appreciate commissioner hur and join in the comments of carmen chew and thank for all his time. unfortunately we have term limits but think thank you for the work on the commission. >> any others? seeing none i
return to item 3 on the agenda, which is the annual election of officers and discussion and possible action. to elect a chair and vice chair for the coming year. commissioner keane. >> mr. chair, i-we nominate you to surfb a second year as chair the committee. >> is there a second? >> any discussion? >> yeah, excuse me for jumping in. deputy attorney [inaudible] a chair can't serve more than one year. >> two consecutive years >> you have been violating it many years then. >> that's not correct, it is
two consecutive years >> my apology >> any discussion? any public comment? >> david fillpeal speaking as a individual, i have no objection to president renne continues for another year i just want to ask publicly since there a new appointee to replace commissioner hur whether you want to continue for a month so the new commissioner can have a opportunity to participate but otherwise i don't think there is a problem tonight. >> any other comments? >> my only comment is i think it would be great to have the continuity of you as chair. i think there is a transitional period with our new executive director and the other issues we are dealing with, so i-i think you have done a great job and would like you to continue if you are
willing to do it. >> thank you. >> patrick mu net shah. with all due respect chair renne and due respect to commissioner hur who i will also not be sorry to see leave, if you have been violating your own bylaws as commissioner hur claims, it is time for fresh blood and so i would urge commissioner andrews to nominate commissioner keane who is displayed it during his term on this commission some the soundest legal reasoning and ethical reasoning i have heard on this commission in the 20 years i have lived in san francisco. time for some fresh blood, commissioner.
>> thank you. >> commissioners [inaudible] san francisco open government. this is relate today the election so don't try to tell me you are not talking about the item. during the jan 25, 2016 meeting regarding the [inaudible] mark farrell chair fenny displayed how far he will go to hide from the publics the machination from the commission. first your own members had no idea why it was own the ajnda. placing something on thugenda with attachments but not saying what the hell it is on there for leaves the public at a disadvantage. now the public has no idea why it was on the agenda or what commissioner renne was authorized to do. commissioner hayon doesn't seem to understand much of what goes on here during ethics commission meet ings and contributes little or nothing
meaningful to discussions. that leaves two suitable candidates, andrews and peter keane. with these members i believe there is at least a possibility that the will the citizens of san francisco for ethical government will stand any chance. give ethical government a chance. i have watched you for years now and you are the most sorry bunch of people with exception to mb sellven and keane. mr. keane tried to stand up for something you were doing is hide from the public your backroom deal and whatever meckination you will pull regarding supervisor farrell. supervisor hayon and hur, sure visor hur especially went along with it because it is their position on the ethics commission to withhold as much as they can from the public. again, i ask those members what
have you done on the ethics commission you can name that made any difference in the ethical atmosphere in the town? we have a mayor raising money illegally and a state senator going to prison. the citizens of san francisco are tired of all the different things like going on like [inaudible] gate and whatever and they disappear into the nether world and never hear of them again and think that is what will happen and the matter related to supervisor farrell. you will make a back room deal with him, he will do the deal and somehow it will disappear into the nether world. at least supervisor keane and with some support from supervisor sullivan made a attempt to take the piece of
grbage ouf the agenda. you can attach knck you want to the agenda including the san francisco telephone book, it doesn't mean the item meaningful and when your own members have to come in and start out arguing for 25 minutes about whether you should have it on thugenda i think it is pretty clear the public was disserved. now, as far as commissioner keane remaining or commissioner renne remaining as the president, i don't giver a damn if there is one or two terms he doesn't deserve it. what have you done commissioner to do anything to make the city government more answerable to the people? to make elections fair? you nibal around the edges and go after people who can't defend it themselves and think you do it personally based on your personal animosity and the orders you have from the people who
appoint you. [inaudible] renne should have never been before the body and should be removed on a recall not on a jury rigged policy and you and you and you were at the center of that. >> thank you. any other public comment? any discussion? >> i would like to echo commissioner hayon about the leadership of you. you and commissioner an drews and the selection from the executive director and all the work you did on prop c meeting with the public and serving as our representative, it was a lot of extra work and appreciate it. >> thank you. i call the question. all in favor? >> aye. >> opposed? one obtain and 4 approve.
the second item on- >> actually you can't obstain. >> i have a conflict of interest but i'll vote if that makes you happier. >> i'm happier >> item 3 is the election of the vice chair. do i hear a nomination? commissioner keane? >> yes, i also like to renominate commissioner andrews as vice chair to the commission. >> i hear a second? >> second. >> any discussion? any public comment? >> patrick mu net shah. on the way into this chamber i spoke with commissioner andrews and he said between his work on the ethics commission as a commissioner his work
on the non profit he is too busy for, so if that is the case, and if he were being honest about matters, i think he should thank commissioner keane for the generous nomination and indicate that he isn't interested in the position because he is too busy and futhermore, i think commissioner andrews should nominate commissioner keane, who has displayed the most ethical behavior on the body. >> [inaudible] san francisco open government. while i do support the appointment or election of commissioner andrews as the vice chair, i really do believe it would have been better had he been the chair. i will do
something now that i did at a library commission meeting which got me into trouble and made the newspaper. i talked about ainksant room where they appoint someone for life because the library commission appointed the same two people year after year and i said well, maybe it will be like the roman republic where we have a chance of an asassination to make a change. he is threatening and doing this! the president the library commission, jewel gomez and these are her words not mine. i know 12-people who would bury him. that is the attitude toward public comment. if you don't like what somebody has to say you threaten them and you fight them. i have 7 orders of
determination gaest the library and commission for withholding public records part of which was to keep [inaudible] and found to file false perjureed statements and the group of the san francisco public library who spends 6 million or more dollars a year money raised in the name of the city of san francisco and not one body or individual in this city government can tell anybody where that money went. that was the hearing we had that i was out of state and decided to do it cleverly and announce it before i left and hold it before i got back. you are too much of a cowered-set of cowereds to bring it back and hold a honest hearing. we need new leadership and we need to get rid the two people i think are the worst. we have already
gotten rid of one, mr. hur. commissioner hayon did nothing but stand up and say i was on the library commission and if the friends did it it must be okay which is totally prejudicial to my position. and commissioner keane, i really can't see what you do that serves any purpose at all. >> sorry commissioner keane. commissioner keane has shown some balls if you exkoos the expression. he questioned a item on the agenda last time and the rest of you with the exception of commissioner andrews went along and did what you always do which is go in the back and hide from the public. >> thank you. any other comments? >> sorry, taking a moment. david [inaudible] speaking as a individual and want to support the nomination of
commissioner andrews for vice chair since it appears you having the nomination tonight. >> any commissioners have any comments before we vote? alright, i'll call the question. all in favor? >> aye. >> opposed? >> commissioner andrews will remain vice chair for another year and we'll turn to item 4 which is discussion and possible action on a proposed stipulation, decision and order regarding ethics complaint number 19-131115 luinate sweet >> i'm garret [inaudible] one the investigators on staff. >> can i interrupt you-is mrs.
sweet here tonight? >> no, i don't believe she is. she was notified? >> she isn't required tobe here and she isn't here. so this matter for your consideration for approval the stipulation. this matter was initiated as a audit for mrs. sweet campaigns committee 2010 where she ran for district 3 supervisor and she was publicly funded. sorry, district 10. mrs. sweet committee received public funds so she was subject to a matte mandatory audit which covered the period from january 1- january 31, 2010. mrs. sweet was notified of the audit which she
was as advised to require documents. she required documentation however there were dauments not provided. throughout the course the audit the staff try today obtain the [inaudible] because she stopped responding to them audit staff went forward without the documentation they requested. the final report was issued july 17 making [inaudible] material findings form the basis of the stipulation. this matter has a probable cause hearing january 26, 2015 where the 10 counts were presented and the commission made the funding there was probable cause to believe the violations occurred and staff issued the acquisition on february 5. after the
acquisition was issued mrs. sweet contacted enforcement staff to deal with the matter where she provided additional documentation to staff when evidenced the other outstanding expenses however didn't do all of them. staff proposed as a penalty in thet mayor that generally on line with recent stipulation of the recent violation but higher because she was uncooperative with audit and only engaged with the commission once acquisition was issued. so, i would request respeektfully you approve the stipulation as presented and happy to answer any questions about it for you. >> am i correct in understanding that she was publicly funded? >> correct, she was a publicly
funded candidate >> the audit was mandatory because she afs candidate receiving public finance? >> that is correct >> in any of the other cases you say the recommended punishment in this case is in line with the other ones. were they also dealing with public funds? >> yes, so in i think-one second. the example of complaint 2410, 1021 that candidate was publicly funded and had the same violation where she didn't turn in records and the commission for that violation was a $2500 fine >> to the extent you have records was it a indication they were improperly spent?
>> the indication was the expenditures were okay. they were what they should be. the issue is that originally there was a large chunk that was missing and once the enforcement matter or once mrs. sweet engaged with enforcement she did find additional records that this deal is outstanding reported expenses. there is some still unsupported, however, from what audits saw originally and what the enforcement staff saw after engaging with us, the records do support the right type of spending. >> how much is left unaccounted for? >> about $20,000. the make up as reported is 13,000 as salary payments and the remainder is various
expenses, literature z office expenses, things like that. >> do i hear a motion? move to approval of the recommendation that we approve it. i hear a second? >> second. >> public comment? >> david [inaudible] speaking as a individual. several comments on this item. um, the report here and i would suggest in the future doesn't include the cam pine id number or the treasurers name, that would be helpful. actually i take that back, page 3 includes the [inaudible] number but the treshier isn't named in here and think the id number should be part the
caption on the matter. the audit report referenced wants included so there was discussion of the fact this is a publicly financed candidate but the amount of financing providing wasn't included and think that should be a consideration for the penalty amount. as you just discussed, the report indicates there is 20,000 plus in expendsures and 5 thousand in contributions that is still unaccounted for. it seems to me this is a good or bad example of record keeping and record keeping is kind of a corner stone requirement of campaign finance whether it publicly financed candidate or not. as i said, in the future i would include that information including the audit report that forms the basis of the recommendation squz in summary, i think the 9250 is
low and encourage you to consider rejecting this amount and seek a higher amount and finally, the staff report has proposed stipulation but it is not signed and dated by the eare sponded so it isn't clear if the responded agreed to this amount. normally when there is stip the stip includes a signature by the responded so it isn't clear if the responded agreed to this amount as a proposed settlement. >> before you-you want to respond to that? >> just briefly. mr. [inaudible] stated that the amount of public funds she received waernt in the stipulation and that isn't correct. it is the third paragraph. she was the
57, $439 in public funds. the stipulation attached is proposed so mrs. sweet agreed to it and there is a signed copy should the commission approve it, however i wasn't about to presume this would be approved so if this was rejected we would redraft a new one if that is what we were druckted directed to do. >> thank you. >> commissioners rea heart, [inaudible] san francisco open government. i'm a private citizen and don't pretend to take credit for serving on a committee like you do but i also don't have responsibility to do the job you are supposed to do and i think the very start of this with commissioner keane, commissioner renne admitting he doesn't know if there were public funds. he will vote and approve a recommendation where he doesn't know what the recommendation says. sounds like he didn't bother to read it. i have asked whether this agreement is a
joke. according to your own numbers lunet sweet can't account for 45 percent the contributions and public funds received by hercome pain. that is based on what i received from your staff in the mail and now we find we found another $25,000 which seems ludicrous you send out information to the public that is incorrect and put it on your agenda which is increblth and vote on it. if the ethics commission was asleep at the switch and failed to [inaudible] or she tafailed to follow the law and you didabout do squat about it. this would be something akin to my robbing a bank for $62,000 and when caught asked to return 9, 250 and keeping the rest. she still has a outstanding $20,000 balance and you ask her to pay
9250 which means she made a net profit. i believe the public has a right to know the rational for the exectesk directors recommendations. public money was accepted and expended for the purpose of the politicalcome pain. 45 percent or 25 percent, whatever figure you choose to use because you are flexible in the number, how that money want spent will never be known to the public. why should the public believe this finding is being-this fine is being paid for with the very money that disappeared? i keep 20 thousand dollars of public money, put it in the bank and stick it under my mat rass and when you find the half i go under the mattress and pay you back your money and then laugh about what fools you are. this agreement is in fact
a joke and if you approve it today you are a joke. this person by your own admission, your own investigators facts still has unaccounted for twice what you make the fine. that was like whenueese hurara took 5 thousand a year from friends the public library and fined 200 dollars for lying on a statement of economic interest under penalty of perjury. >> thank you. >> chair renne, i thought about keeping my yaper shut on this item but have to concur with ray hart. you asked the taxpayer tooz foot public financing and then as ray mention td you let lunet stick the money under the mattress and pull out half to pay a fine.
i'm turning to one of you with a ethical backbone. introduce a motion to table this and send mr. chatfield back to the investigative drawing board and finish that audit. why should we do public financing? and finding the -fining the candidate office for less than what they snatched out of the taxpayer coffers? i agree with mr. hart that if you pass this thing without tabling it for further investigation, you will be making a mockery out of your own body.
>> good evening commissioners. charley [inaudible] with foe, friends of ethics. we did pledge to the public back in 2000 with prop o that we would have concurrent and proactive auditing of public financing so we don't find ourselves in a position still deal wg a matter that should have been expedited. i understand why there is delay but hope in the future we will be tighter on the timeline. i did want to say i understand why some the questions are raised the way they are because we are educating the public who is watching on television and all they see is the header on the screen that described what the action is, but no details, so the fact is yes, public
financing is involved and i think it would be important for you to explain to the public if in fact there is missing funds that would raise questions as to whether or not there is a liability and whether the da or the city attorney as they have the right to do with the stipulation plan to proceed with any action or at least are considering doing so to recover any missing funds if it turns out there is a net balance due shortage in the public financing account. that should be explained i think as best as you can orally make that report now on television. i think there is simple explanation that could be explained and clarify confusion on the part of the public. i do think the fine is a little on the low side. i do
think that normally fines should be used as a shield and not a sword. in public financing there is a margin i think or a appreciation that should be given. if there is something that is not making the reports in a concurrent and timely way, so in any event, i would just say at this point given the ability to collect might be a factor. the fact is the party will have to make a effort to make these good on these fines and hopefully that will happen and this will be wrapped up and we can look at any other shortages in the actual public financing accounts in this case, but i do recommend that you raise that and clarify it on television tonight. >> any other public comment? before we vote on it, let me say yashare
when i read this the concern that some of the public expressed. when you deal with pup public money and a candidate can't account for how they spent the money, it would seem that at a minimum the penalty should have to be to pay whatever is missing. now, that may not be doable for a number of reasons. it just-i start from that assumption that if you take public money you got to account for it, that is what our ordinances say and let me ask this question-in our procedures when someone takes public money they have to file monthly reports? what do they have to file with the commission saying how they dispersed the money? >> they file the campaign
statement reports on the schedule that the state mandates. when they apply for public funds there is a more scuteinous process about whether it contributions can be matched and those are vetted at that point but the expenditures come through just as every other campaign files the 460. >> i don't if it is legal but is it possible to set up a system where those candidates taking public financing have to report on a more frequent basis expenditures so we don't up at the end of the campaign they don't have the information that we need? because some of the candidates may be inexperienced and may not have experienced treasurers and they don't find out that they haven't
complied until long after the fact. is there some way that we don't get to the end and find out they failed to comply? >> that is a good policy issue you raise and not one i think i can necessarily answer, but i don't -[inaudible] city attorney but you can impose additional filing requirements. i don't see why we couldn't. i do want to address quickly that that is true there is the money unaccounted for we base this off the prior stipulation that the commission approved rel tivly recently which had money unaccounted for that they never turned documents over and that was a $2500 fine so if you have the [inaudible] we'll go back and talk to the responded about that.
we pushed it up higher because of her unresponsiveness. >> i share chair renne concern and throughout the whole case i have been concerned about the amount that is unaccounted for and for the reason you raise, this is setting a president for the next time and concerned if we don't have a system where we are at least demanding what is unaccounted for that we create a precedent for future individuals will point to previous decisions and claim that approximately half of what is unaccounted for is the appropriate penalty. i'm concerned about that as well. >> did mrs. sweet talk anything about any financial hardship she is having? i want to figure out the rational we apply to this up front. i think $2500 in the first 60 days and
another level payments of 600-i can't remember. >> there was discussion about that and her ability to pay and that is why the payment plan was considered into the agreement. i think that is probably the extent i could say at the moment. >> it was a part of the consideration though? >> as far as the payment plan goes. >> what is the-i have to reread it, but if she fails to make payments as agreed to, what is-is there a
provision she is libel for the full amount? if you can go back to square one so to speak to collect- >> if she fails to make a payment or misses a dollar we can reopen the matter and have the hearing and litigate at a hearing. >> including the amount of the fine? >> the entire matter will be reopened. >> based upon your discussions and investigation the ability to pay is-was a consideration? >> the ability to pay was a consideration in how she was going to pay. we didn't- >> it didn't factor into total
dollar amount that you thought the fine should be? >> i mean, we looked at the past stipulations that fts primarily what we looked at and they were around this dollar figure including the fact that they didn't have a return in the documents to show what they had spent on. again, if you believe the- 3500 is the one dedicated to the failure to disclose records or keep the records. you have the ability to send me back and renegotiate this with her if you feel that is too low. >> so, there are no records what so ever? >> she has no provided them. >> so we dont know whether there are records or not? >> she is unable to account for the remaining 20 some thousand dollars.
>> what is the maximum that could have been imposed under all these counts? >> 5 thousand$5 thousand per violation so 50 thousand dollars could be imposed. or 3 times the amount spent. >> do we know what her financial situation is? i know that is asked, but is there any realty to our being able to collect any of this whether it be the $9250 or whether it be the $40,000 plus that is
unaccounted for? >> she is unemployed and believe this amount is doable on the payment plan we set up. that is extent i know about her financial situation. not sure what to say about that >> she hasn't offered a reason why she hasn't provided the documentation of the money that is missing? >> she has provided a reason -without getting too far into details there is a issue with her treshier i believe the treshier didn't keep the record properly or maintained them in the way they were supposed to, however, as the candidate she is the responsible party. the treshier is also responsible but look that candidate in these matters.
so, there was a legal issue with her treshier that created difficulty for her. >> so you are satisfied there is no ilintent on her part in regards to the records not provided to us? >> i tell you when the audit was issued and had the 45 percent the expenses still outstanding and finally contacted us and provided documentation for another $40,000 of spending that was accounted for. i won't speculate with the remaining 20 but everything else she provided supported what she supported and they were
legitimate campaign expenses >> was there any indication you saw in your investigation she may have been pocketing money to herself? other than campaign? >> there were a couple attachments tote aelg maybe $100. that was the extent that didn't have a receipt or equateed back to a legitimate expense of the 20 thousand remaining 13 thousand is reported salary to various campaign volunteers so that is a area of question. when you report salary without showing me a time sheet or something to support that. >> and you didn't check the individual who she said she paid the money to see if they got the money? >> that wasn't done at this
point. because this had already been determined probable cause based on what we have and can't add new things on it after a acquisition is issued. she contacted us and wanted resolve this. we believed we would bring forward the settlement to you. of course you are at liberty to keep it open and direct me to do what you feel is appropriate at this point. >> call the question. all in favor? >> aye. >> opposed? >> no. >> 3 to 2 opposed. >> turning to item 5,
discussion and possible action to select audit of campaign committees and lobbyists. proceed. >> thanks. >> good evening. this is the item in your materials that provides you with the opportunity to randomly select campaigns that will be part the upcoming audit. these are for candidates and committees active in 2015 and subject to random audits. it is a opportunity to select lobbyist that will be subject to random audit subject to city law that requires random audits of lobbyist. we have a process, we have eric willet from audit staff and by quick background about the selection process. as you may
recall, all publicly financed candidates have a mandatory audit so they will be audited at whatever level of campaignic tavety because they received public financing. the process tonight is randomly select other campaign audits for candidates controlled committees for committees that did not receive public finances, ballot measure committees and [inaudible] more than one election. so, we have again committees active in 2015, lobbyist audits effective july 2014, requires the commission to conduct one or more audits lobbyist. the first group the commission had selected back in march 2015 and we selected 4 lobbyist audits last
year. based on the guidelines you established back in 2008 the commission established in 20 o8, we propose to audit more committees and lobbyist for higher levels. we have a audit pool segregated inoo variety of levels. spending my campaign committees above $20 o8, we propose to audit more committees and lobbyist for higher levels. we have a audit pool segregated inoo variety of levels. spending my campaign committees above a ton thousand thresh hold represented nearly all campaign money reported. 99.7 percent. spending by campaigns committees with activity of 10,000 or less represented.3 percent of all spending. spending by lobbyist is above the 10,000 threshold with $10 thousand or 10 contacts that is the bulk of expenditures reported in 2015 and below the 10,000$10,000
threshhold represented.4 percent of spending. the focus is trying to capture audits putting in the randle audit pool of those engaged in the greatest level of spending activity in citycome painsism we propose we select randomly 20 percent of the committees from a total of 53 committees that were active last year. this is 11 total committees that we propose to audit. 6 is from above $100,000. 3 would be in the midtier between 50 and 100,000 and fwo 2 is 10 thousand to 50 thousand. as we lobbyist audits we propose to select 4 lobbyist which equakes to 10 percent of those active in the last year for a total of 40 lobbyist. this
follows a similar pattern of a category based on money and contact supportive but the focus is try to capture proportionality with largest expenditures selected with a higher percentage chance of beingrendomly selected and in terms of the campaign activity i would note our proposal is well . once the committees are selected we would propose that are going to audit first those candidates based on their level of responding. in the past we have done audits of committees for candidates who were not successful in the elections and think it makes more sense probably a better use of resources to do audits where the public interest is greatest in terms of money raised and spent so we propose to audit first those candidates based on the level of expenditures
reported. there is a lot of data but want to give a opening sense of what our thinking is how it reflects policy discussions you had in the past and happy to answer questions. eric is here to answer questions as well and if there are questions we can take those or proceed to a random selection with erics help. >> commissioner hur >> i appreciate the effort to prioritize because i know we have limited resource squz want to use them effectively as possible. one concern i have-a couple concerns. one, when it comes to those that are spending 10 thousand or less it is perfectly understanding with.3 percent of the totem spending why you wouldn't audit any. i worry about the message that sends. we are saying if you spend 10 thousand of less you have zero risk if you misspent the funds and not
sure that is the message we want to send. even if it is a rel tivly token percentage at least it sends a message there is some risk that fraudulent reporting would be caught and fined by the commission. my other concern, when it comes to the audit i think a lot of that depends on how quickly you can get through them. one thing i'm concerned is let's make sure we do them faster and if people don't comply we should hold it against them and not wait for them to give materials. if you tell me it is lot faster than the past then what you suggested makes sense. if it is about the same speed than we run the risk where candidates who lose don't have a vested interest complying and may be long gone by the time row get to them. part of what you want to do is dependent on how quickly you
get through it. >> i completely agree with the concern with the timeliness to get thou audits. it serves aenchds interest to make sure the audit is thorough, accurate and timely and have rooms we can make improvements. based on my conversation with the auditors there are no guarantees but we are work to provide the autd audits completed within 18 months of the start date which is ahead of the timeframe of the past. one thing that will make the audits folk is say auditors have one hat and have to adjust our resources accordingly. i think one question that i would like to explore with the staff as we finish up the current round of audit squz how to stream line the process kwr bring to you recommendations for what
level and changes we want to make in the audit program overall. it may be worth taking a look at the policy discussion uzfrom 2008 to see if the commission is will toog codify it in a regulation and how to approach the audits going forward. >> based on the timeline that you are recommending or hoping for, when do you think the last of these 11 audit would be completed if they started today? >> by-one moment. probably by september of 2017. >> all 11 would be done? that's pretty good. >> we provide time for the committees foogive their records so assuming we have a selected list tomorrow
who we know will be audited the staff send out letters and provide the record and scheduling them out and asking for the documentation. there is the back and forth sometimes with the committees if they are not able to give the record timely how that extends but that is one of the tools and processes we need to refine on ourened to help insure committees if you are scheduled for a audit at this point we need to try and keep everybody to that schedule. that may come with further thinking how we set up parameters of a audit that are very transparent and predictable or it hast been dusted off. if and are a committee that doesn't provide records what do we do? do we put you to the back of the line and keep moving so we can keep going through the audits? i think there is a variety of methods but it is september of next year assuming all goes well.
>> that is for all of them. you are not saying each audit will take 18 months you say you will be through all 11 of them? >> yes, thank you for the clarification. >> comment by the commissioners? any public comment? >> charley [inaudible] i really had just a question. i know you do a facial audit when the forms are filed and i assume that is to make sure that the filing is correct and complete or complete. you are not really looking at correctness. there may be some systems for auditing that maybe fall short of a full audit. for instance, the sweet committee had in fact
more than a few 40 and 60 dollar atm withdrawals which raised my eyes -eye brows as to what was going on with that committee. there may be some things for smaller committees too that you can do that fall short of a full audit, but would give you enough of a indication as to whether everything looks like the treshier knows what they are doing and are doing a comp tent job. because i suspect early in the process you might see things that raise eye brows and that is what i'm thinking. there may be a mechanism in audits that fall far short of a full blown facial audit that takes 18 months to complete the process for the batch of people selected in the lottery. so,
you might ask schista who did a good job on the audit of the sweet committee from what i could see, from whatever data she put together. the process does need to be sped up and it does particularly for public financing need to be robust, concurrent and proactive and those are the essential words when fendmentally public dollars are being used. thank you. >> thank you. >> commissioners ray [inaudible] given the subject is audit squz heard in the previous items the audits are [inaudible] to begin with, the simple question of she said she paid 13 dollar did you ask the person if they got the
13 thousand and said no? what type of audit is that? any professional stand rds the person would get their credentials removed and probably lose their job if not go to jail. i will make a prediction, i think when we get done with the selection process for audits a small percent objectf the 26 million, we'll be under audit. the large campaign committees will receive all most no scrutiny. i don't ed lee will be audited. neither will most or perhaps any groups that set up to confuse and deceive the public regarding the current housing crisis. there were millions and millions of dollars spent that achieved no purpose dut deceive the voting public but what these items were for. this ethics commission is confusing activity with accomplishment. the only
reason we now know the persons connected to ed lees reelection engaged in ellegal activities is due to federal investigation. i will request public records relate today the last audit to determine if they serve a legitimate purpose or scams designed to fool the publics and let wrong doers of the hook. you look at your meetings and nobody bothers to come i think because nobody believes this committee does anything to improve things in the city. i come here because i like to watch mr. hur laugh with his smirk about the fact you challenge stuff and he cannot and will not disagree with and that is another reason why i'm glad he will be gone. but the bottom line is
these audits are a joke. edpz slee for mayor 2015 if that comes out of the hat give me the piece of paper and i'll eat it. we know from a federal investigation that at least 3 of the staff sulistted contributions illegally. falsifying records to make it seem like it wasn't. and yet here we have the pitally audit squz act like that is seriously going to deter anybody from wrong doing. that is because the people you need to deter are the people who appoint you and you don't want to mess with them. >> thank you. >> david [inaudible] speaking at a individual. several comments. i appreciate that staff spent a lot of time working through this audit proposal and statifying the committees and attempting to include
progressively increasing selection percentages so that the public interest is better served by greater scrutiny for those committees and lobbyists with additional funds and activity. never the less, couple of point here. the list that are attached at attachment 1 and 2 in some cases appear to be curtailed or have their capital lower case changed and so i would appreciate in future lists if they could include the complete name as reported. that would help. also, the suggestion that your director made that the order of audits proceed from those with the greatest activity to least, i
disagree and say the best practice of auditing those candidatecome pains with unsuccessful candidates first is best because those unsuccessful candidates often leave town or move on with their lives and want to terminate their campaign deal with any audit or record keeping issues and just close that activity and so chances are they want to finish that work first and those candidates who are elected if the mayor, the district attorney, the city attorney, the sheriff are selected they are already in office and unlikely to disappear and the records are likely still around so i would just suggest prioritizing those losing candidates if any of them are selected along with ballot measures that have
terminated orneed to terminate opposed to those in office or ongoing general purpose committees. and just fine finally, there is no indication in the report from the last round of audits, the executive director report talks about that but the previous round that is complete i think there should be a paragraph that indicates how many audit said were done, the average length of time and whether they were material findings. to me understanding how many material findings come out of the audit process gets to the issue of invesment of resources for audits so if we are yielding material findings that result in investigations and what not, then this is good work. if we are judging people compliance there may be other ways to approach it. thank you very much. >> to mr. [inaudible] point.
would it be possible to start all the audits at the same time? i know traditionally you started some and finished and then moved to others, but especially if you have a situation where part the problem is waiting for the candidates to get back to you, why not start them all at the same time and if it takes longer to finish them all, a little longer to finish them off because of that maybe that is a worty price to pay so when there are stalls in one audit u have plenty of others to work on and finish. >> my experience tells me it is very difficult for auditors to juggle 3 different audits at the same time due to the level of depth and make sure wecopy track of the documents. my sense though is i think the idea of taking the large est committees and also starting some of the smallest are probably more manageable. i
think we have 4 auditors, having 3 audits for each at the outset is practical but looking how to include the smallest committees and taking a bite at both ends of the process would be a way to approach it that is more manageable to in practice so we can take a look at that and see if we can get that process started? >> and defer to the expertise on auditors. lawyers get deep into many different ones. refer to your judgment. >> you want to go on with the selection? >> let me turn it over to eric and think we'll look for volunteers from the members of the public. >> i would like to volunteer mr. hart. >> we wouldn't want the papers
to be consumed. >> i wouldn't want to be part of your nasty [inaudible] >> i just thought you might want to put your money where your mouth is in regards to being part of the volunteer aspect of it and picking them out and seeing what we come out with. just a suggestion. >> how do i know it isn't rigged? >> you can be the one reading them off. >> i don't whether they are all in there. >> commissioners, if i might i would like to note [inaudible] greg started with our office today as a intern from uc davis and contim plating going to law school. we are glad to have him here as a extra hands on deck. he is appreciating being here. >> welcome. >> to begin the random audit
selection we'll begin with campaign committees with a activ level greater than $100 thousand in expenditures. if i can have a member of the public volunteer to read off the list of campaign activities in campaign level one, i appreciate it. yes, please. we'll follow along with the campaign activity level. >> ed lee for mayor, 2015. >> mrs. hart you will have dinner tonight. >> he is just reading off the-- >> hensy for sheriff, 2015. sf for everyone, [inaudible] sponsored by major funding by air bnb. i
need someone to watch their hands. watch for slide of hands. san franciscans for affordable housing, jobs and parks. san francisco giants, mission bay residents labor small business. sf housing, now, yes on a. san franciscans for real housing solutions, no on i. share better sf, yes on f. landlords affordable housing people. san francisco tenants and families for affordable housing. truth in
energy, yes on h. committee to save the mission, yes on prop i sponsored by coalition of neighborhood organizations. san francisco alliance for jobs and sustainable growth pack. asian pacific democratic club, political action committee. committee for a progressive and affordable san francisco, opposing peskin for supervisor. friends of jewelry
randolph for community college board, 2015. dennis [inaudible] for city attorney, 2015. san franciscoan for open government, 2015, yes on e sponsored by the chinese american voters education committee. yes on j, san franciscans for preserving legacy businesses. save the san francisco flower market. san franciscan's for clean power, yes on h, no on g, supported by london
breed. san francisco labor and neighbor member education political issues committee. san francisco apartment association political action committee. sf forward sponsored by san francisco chamber of commerce. san francisco police officers association independent expenditure committee. alice b toqueious lesbian gay and democratic club pack. sf moderates.
workers commitment phenomenon quality patient care and union democracy transport united workers local 250 a chinese progressive association san francisco labor council labor and neighborhood depict and political action committee fdr democratic club of san francisco homes for all committees supported by the hours association of northern california san francisco deputy sheriffs association pack building owners and managers association of san francisco pack ballot issues aching ballot
have active levels between 50 thousand to one hundred or 50 to one hundred contacts and will be choosing one lobbyist from that active level two. >> love and associates, llc, daniel consulting incorporated, phil lester, google incorporated, michael yack i didn't kissing could systems trust company of the west, building owners and managers association for san francisco
commissioner the public information a level two we list as sf aa we realize that should be the apartment so we moved the dollar amount in the first year puts them into the can go one and didn't appear on the list and the pool for selection. >> may i have another member from the public to draw from the lobbyist between one and 50 thousand to 50 to one hundred contacts one from this pool. >> just the within for the record charley phil lessor fits activity level
>> and that concludes the campaign selections of campaign lobbyist for this evening. >> may not be necessary i'll ask if there is any public comment on this process that took place? >> david pilpal speaking as an individual i would ask the summary of actions the next day or two includes the list so thank you. >> thank you ray hart for san francisco open government and i'll agree with mr. pilpal the by a lyric the
levels of came back should be given out i predicted are mr. brown this no mayor ed lee and no huge $9 million, $4.02 millions all the housing bond initiate on the initiative not one is getting an auditing yet all the oitdz of 50 and 20 and 10 i'll figure out exactly what percentage of the $26 million will get an audit because i don't think that the auditing you know mayor ed lee - mayor ed lee has 3 eggs that have been convicted and sentenced for illegal mayor campaigns and all those people are not going to be audited because you can't audit the mayor well, i'm sorry you could but
you wouldn't your two budget committee hypothetical to them on appointments or whatever happens to be the citizens of san francisco really ought to watch the sfgovtv and especially those meetings and isle like to see more come here and call you out for your dishonest and your lip service to doing something that will actually make are elections more fair every single election the city for the last 12 years i've served is a field election deputy or a poll inspector i believe my abrogations to encourage people to vote and i'm really disturbed when i see the groups some of the ones on this list deceive the public blatantly spend millions of
dollars to do so and yet you have no interest whatsoever the mechanics of their institutions i'll go after a person with $20,000 that doesn't have the resources and consider yourself oh, so virtuous our city politics are for sale the mayors position of city attorney looking want mayor none boktsd to run against him he ran by default and didn't get a mrurlt yet those campaigns list the way is a bunch of crap i don't appreciate the commissioner writing a nasty note to the person next to him while i'm talking.
>> thank you good evening. i'm a neighbor in san francisco my question is i partially agree with the gentleman over here one of the you know the larger committees that were in active one were not selected now my question to the commission when they file their forms and they've recorded their expenditures when the ethics commission revealed that isn't there - do they catch anything not recorded or spent correctly isn't there a way to catch that during the process of reporting
the forms? every time the forms are due some of them are recorded every 3 months and some of them depending on the type of committee they are filed more frequently they file only a monthly i believe or every other month depending on the date my question is that so if a a committee that recorded so much has spent more millions of dollars how can they be held audible it there. i don't know if i'm wording it right mates i that's my question from the committee hadn't been selected like what we did moments ago and they catch something the reporting how is that handled one and two is it public record?
>> thank you. >> thank you do you want to respond to that. >> yes. thank you thank you for the question for purposes of selecting the committees for the audit the committees not selected will not be support to a random audit now the commission has authority under the chapter of the regulations to initiate an inquiry of initiated complaint if we build that someone has not filed or suggested in a wrongdoing we deal with that -- excuse me. within the enforcement arena that puts it into the arena of other complaints are confidential the charter mandate. >> she's asked the question at the - when we file their quarterly are whatever the dates they file a committee files the
report from the staff were to see that for example, a contribution of $10 but the limit is 5 thousand dollars they'll pickup and have an action is there some review. >> there's a process the regulations i can't remember the site exactly but a process that the commission has used to do a facial review and when statements come in i think the question outstanding to what step up to the plate we've been doing that it clearly is an important place to review things at the first instance we'll detect the problems proactively. >> seeing the public comment has not closed no, no i'll let you talk but go ahead - i'll. >> i wouldn't want to speak out of school.
>> i'll remember what you are to say and mr. pelham mentioned you have the authority when a questionable campaign you don't have to rely on a random drawing or chance to decide who audits e.r. go top cadet recorded the expenditures one $.5 million the gentleman informed you it there are 3 people being investigated by the da on now local charges involving the ed lee mayor caption for 2015 don't you think this is the primary campaign to
audit dow don't you think george gascon needs help the ethics commission will have an ethical backbone to audit mayor ed lee from 2015 the public seeing news reports in the examiner about moseley and keith expect this commission to do it's part in auditing those campaigns and those consultants and the co-milking of $10,000 campaign nominations that apparently are twice unpaid
mayor ed lee made aware of the 10 thousand donation being split the people who read the newspapers and can red between the lines know this is something going on here that needs to be investigated and you need to mount on investigation of ed lee campaign. >> thank you. >> commissioner keane. >> can i ask the gentleman mr. pelham would it take something special to audit mayor ed lee's campaign outside of the regular things that are auditing the other matters or i know it was in there he didn't get picked
but if at the golden picked would that be an enormous thing to do or could it be done the regular course of things. >> sandy it wouldn't have an, an enormous pursuant to the audit process. >> i'm not saying i was there and hoping he would get picked so i could see mr. hart swallowing but if it had would that have entailed anything more substantial than the audits of the other matters. >> not other than the dollars amount be a bigger audit again, if i understand your question right from the commission were to initiate an audit in addition
to those who were randomly selected what's the purpose of the random collection that maybe a large question what kind of policy the commission may want to reinvite for the committees and that methodology. >> in addition to the random selection that we have a few moment ago i thought i heard we're in the limit we also want to do anything one and went forward that we have the authority to do that would that be correct? >> again, the current selection is based on the current populated discussed in 2008, from the commissioner were to discuss and want to adopt a different additional prologis ccig oakland global policy my recommendation that is the way to approach the question whether the committees in addition to the process would be audited. >> okay. i understand that in
terms of we'll be doing something out of the ordinary and you would not feel comfortable in terms of the protocol i understand that i also understand how the colleagues and others - would we be preincluded. >> there is not that preincludes the commission for what kind of audits you may or may not want. >> and ged and initially with the random ones nothing that preincludes i move we audit mayor ed lee. >> i'll ask the city attorney if it is on the agenda or whether it has to be agendized for the next meeting. >> well, i'll leave to the city attorney the legal i will
raise from the policies prospective i think that is very, very important for the commission to have with a broader discussion about the factors again, if the commission is call for an investigation that is one thing but i just think that is important for the commission to have a clearheaded policies to determine who is audit so everyone knows our for the purpose of treating everyone fairly and i agree with you entirely i'll not want to do that is it just throughout this year we have had both the press and we've had discussions amongst ourselves in this body interest the members of the public and we've audited about the matters has to do with with alleged corruption at the top levels of san francisco government the federal investigation, and
the indictment of the individuals that were involved, the fact that the da george gascon is involved in a vigorous investigation related to the maertsz has to do with with those taped transcripts mayor ed lee's associates with various individuals that were shown to be illegal, in fact, 3 people that are now essentially they're going to prison and the talk was continually about the mayor and influence pedestrianing i think we have not nor have i asked for more i think would we have enough issue to initiate a
formal investigation of mayor ed lee regarding these things many of them anecdotal but certainly in regards to us having the power to conduct an audit and i hate to agree with mr. hart he gets my obligate on most of the things he says the questions that are raised i think are substantial and since say is not something that will be a lot of effort or hassle for us to do i think there is sufficient justification for us to toss ed lee's name inlets do him as as audit i think we have things that call