tv Government Access Programming SFGTV May 12, 2018 9:00am-10:01am PDT
closed session item, prior to your calling public comment. item 17 is pending litigation, charlene maghzi versus city and county of san francisco, proposed partial settlement of claim with city to pay $510,698 for home foundation repair work and claimant to retain the services of an engineering firm with at least five years of sub grade foundation repair experience. >> any public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. >> we need a . >> thank you, donna. i have an announcement following our closed session that an item number 17 was
approved unanimously by the commission. a partial settlement of the claim with the city in the amount of $510,698. is there a motion regarding whether to disclose discussions? >> so moved. >> it's moved not to disclose discussions. is there a second? >> second. >> and i'll call for a vote. all those in favor signify by saying aye. the ayes have it. the motion carries. thank you, matthew. so i did -- i'm sorry. do we have to call public comment now? okay. there being none, public comment is closed. new business. i had a special treat for us, but i think she left. so we're not going to meet -- miss ellis, we're not going to meet before the golden pride
awards, so i was hoping we could have a conversation about what the planning was 'cause the commission won't meet, but maybe we'll do that offline. [inaudible] >> okay. [inaudible] >> we won't meet, though? [inaudible] >> oh, okay. perfect. perfect. is there any other new business, commissioners? hearing none, is there any public comment? hearing none, public comment is -- >> wait a minute, i question. >> okay. >> no. >> please. >> no, i changed my mind. >> is there any public comment on other new business? hearing no public comment, this meeting is now adjourned.
adjourned. >> shop & dine in the 49 promotes local businesses and challenges residents to do their shop & dine in the 49 with within the 49 square miles of san francisco by supporting local services within the neighborhood we help san francisco remain unique successful and vibrant so where will you shop & dine in the 49 my name is jim woods i'm the founder of woods beer company and the proprietor of woods copy k open 2 henry adams what makes us unique is that we're
reintegrated brooeg the beer and serving that cross the table people are sitting next to the xurpz drinking alongside we're having a lot of ingredient that get there's a lot to do the district of retail shop having that really close connection with the consumer allows us to do exciting things we decided to come to treasure island because we saw it as an amazing opportunity can't be beat the views and real estate that great county starting to develop on treasure island like minded business owners with last week products and want to get on the ground floor a no-brainer for us when you you, you buying local goods made locally our supporting small business those are not created an, an sprinkle scale with all the machines and one person procreating them
people are making them by hand as a result more interesting and can't get that of minor or anywhere else and san francisco a hot bed for local manufacturing in support that is what keeps your city vibrant we'll make a compelling place to live and visit i think that local business is the lifeblood of san francisco and a vibrant community commissioner ko . >> clerk: i'd like to call the roll. [roll call] >> clerk: and i h'd like to welcome the newest member of our commission, commissioner norri norreen ambrose.
i wanted to thank commissioner ryan for his service to the commission, although brief, and wanted to welcome commissioner ambrose to the commission. so we'll start off with item 2, matters appearing or not appearing on the agenda. okay. no public comment. item number three. this is new for the commission. in january of this year, we approved more -- new enforcement regulations, and they went into effect on march 20, and incorporated into those inforcement regulations was a consent calendar. items appearing here do not require discussion by the commission, but we'll open it for public comment at this time. there being no public comment, we'll move onto agenda item four, discussion and possible action on drost minutes for the commission's february 16, 2018 regular meeting, the march 16, 2018, regular meeting, the april 3, 2018 special joint
meeting with the board of supervisors, the april 18, 2018 special meeting, and the april 20, 2018 regular meeting. director pelham? >> thank you, chair chiu. i just wanted to note for the public's information and for the commission's information, we have completed our minutes draft for the april 3 special joint meeting of the commission. we did not, however complete them in time for the posting on friday to meet brown act requirements. so our plan is to finalize the -- one last proof and have them in circulation to you and the public in advance of the june meeting, but unfortunately because we did not have them posted in time and finalized in time for our 72-hour notice on friday, they are not on your agenda action today. >> that is true of all of the minutes? >> no. that's just for the april 3 special joint meeting.
all the other minutes from february , march, and all the other minutes are in your packets for approval and can be acted upon. >> okay. thank you. >> commissioners, any comments? commissioner renne? >> commissioner renne: yeah. on the april 18 draft on page four, about the middle of the page, it says, commissioner rheno renne moved that the commission accept recommendations of the staff and to send back to the board of supervisors revised ordinance, and it says "with is" and it should be "which is consistent." other than that, i have no other comments. >> any other comments from commissioners on minutes? public comment? no public comment. is there a motion to -- move to
approve all the minutes as amended percommissioner renne? >> i'll so move. >> second. >> all in favor? [voting] >> opposed? all the minutes are approved by a vote of 4-0. okay. item number five, at the request of the respondent, this matter is going to be held over to the june 2018 meeting. agenda item number six, discussion and possible action regarding letter received from the angela alioto for mayor campaign for 2018. just as a reminder and for the benefit of our newest commission member, on april 20, this commission heard a hearing by the alioto campaign and gave her additional time to qualify for public financing, and at that time, the commission noted
that the decision of the executive director would be final and not appealable. so our purpose today is to discuss the serious allegations that were raised in miss alioto's allegations to the commission and to ask questions about that. so miss pelham, would you... >> yes, thank you, commission chair chiu. the item number six memo contains information as requested last friday by the chair regarding a letter that was received from miss alioto for the alioto for -- angela alioto for mayor 2018 committee. the information that we have contains both the letter from miss alioto, as well as the
information that is responsive to issues raised in her letter. it contains information regarding various issues and concerns that were raised by the candidate. as chair chiu indicated, the commission at its april 20th meeting had voted to grant the committee until april the 25th to submit an additional public financing qualification request with additional information, and also for contributions through -- might have received on march 27. the commission motion required that -- the determination to be delivered by me to the committee on may 2nd by noon, and that the determination would be final, nonappealable. the committee did, at 11:30 in the morning on the 25, timely resubmitted its amended request for public financing. we reviewed that in the time
frame provided by the commission and established that although the committee had received a slightly higher amount -- a qualified slightly higher amount, it still fell sort of the $50,000 required under the law to qualify for public financing, and that notice was provided to the committee at about 11:30 on may 2, 11:30 in the morning. those are attachments provided to you in your memo. about 1230 time time, i received an e-mail from miss alioto to bring this to the attention of the commission. i relayed that to the city attorney. the request for additional information from miss alioto and provided additional details relevant to the questions that were raised in that letter in this memo for you.
the staff and i reviewed all of our information. we reviewed relevant documentation and e-mail communication to provide to you our understanding of the issues and what we understood at what time, and that information is presented and summarized for you in the memo that's before you. the staff and i are here to answer any questions if you have any for us. >> commissioner renne? >> commissioner renne: i have a question. i was not here at the april 20 -- or 18 session where the subject matter was discussed, but i'm curious, what was -- the problem was, as i understand it, that the committee identified donors who fell within the category in the amount to satisfy the requirements of public financing, but what was missing was evidence showing that they
were san francisco residents, is that -- is that correct? >> yes, that's correct. there was a variety of issues, and as is our practice, we provided detail listing to the committee at the conclusion of our review. missing addresses was a significant portion of that. sometimes there was also information that did not allow us to demonstrate -- to verify the -- the contributor and to -- but the vast majority were items related to residency, so the supporting documentation that was provided by the committee did not enable us to verify san francisco residency as that is required. >> commissioner renne: and you provided them and identified which ones of the contributions that they were claiming did not qualify because they lacked demonstration that they were san francisco residents. >> yes. >> commissioner renne: by
name? >> yes. >> commissioner renne: and did the committee give you any explanation why they were unable to give you that information from the april 18 date, to, i think your date was april 25 when they were supposed to supply it? >> the committee provided additional information in its request of april the 25th, and i'd have to ask amy lee, our audit auditor to provide additional -- if that's what you are -- >> commissioner renne: no. i'm just asking, if they were advised at the april 18 or even prior to that time, that they didn't qualify because this list of contributors didn't show that they were in fact san francisco residents, which was one of the requirements. and i'm just -- did they give
you any explanation as to why they just couldn't go out and get that information and give it to you? >> no, they did not provide that explanation. i do know that on the 25th, when they were asked to submit their additional information by noon, we did confirm and received confirmation from the committee that they had submitted everything to us and that their submission on april 25th was the complete record, so they may have further comment on that, but we can confi -- did confirm that they had submitted a complete record, and that's what they told us. >> commissioner renne: okay. thank you. >> with regard to the software from netfile, in reading the letter from the alioto campaign and also your memo, but also the -- that was received today, public comment from the ceo of netfile, my understanding is that on april 13th, netfile
communicated with the commission about a problem with another candidate's filing and went into the system to fix that problem, but that problem related to software that was maintained or sold by netfile for subscription service and not with the commission's filing system; is that correct? >> yes. >> and so in that e-mail, also, of the same -- at the same day, april 13th, the ceo of netfile says that the problem was fixed. is that your understanding, as well? >> yes it is. o our understanding at the time
was that was a different committee, and it was a different issue. >> okay. so that the -- any filings that happened before april 13th, if there was a software -- there was no way that the commission would have known? >> we were not aware that -- from -- again, for issues related to the -- the ethics commission's software, we were not aware of issues related to ethics commission's software. if you would like, you have steven matthew, our director of information technology services can comment and provide a bit more detail about how our system works and the ways in which committees use a professional services tool that netfile also provides to paying clients that is not part of our net file system. >> and so then, on april 25, at the time of the filings that was the deadline at noon for the resubmission to qualify for public financing, the -- you
confirmed with the campaign that they were able to submit all the documents that they wished to submit in por of -- support of their application for public financing, is that right? >> yes. they had contacted our office to alert us to the fact that they would be filing soon. and when we received the filing, i confirmed via e-mail with a campaign committee staff person that the information was complete as she filed it, and she was able to confirm that it was complete. >> okay. >> commissioner kopp: i have a question to the executive director. how many residential omissions were there? >> if you can just give me a moment. >> commissioner kopp: yes.
i'm referring to -- i'm referring to attachment one. this is agenda item six, page seven. actually, on page eight, there's a table, so when the committee submitted its application on april the 25th, there were 40 instances of the 46 contributions that were deemed to be not eligible. 40 of those, or 87%, did not have the regulation -- the documentation required by the regulations sufficient to demonstrate san francisco residency. >> commissioner kopp: number two, the agreement was to grant
the extension of time until april 25th at noon with the condition that there be no further appeal to the executive director. what's the reason for putting this on calendar? >> the reason to put it on the calendar is to enable the commission to have a factual basis to examine the questions that were raised in miss alioto's letter of the 3rd. it was at the request of the chair, and we wanted to make sure the commission had the opportunity to consider any issues that it thought might be relevant or important to the issues that were raised in her letter. >> commissioner kopp: what was the reason for that part of the motion last month that prohibited any further appeal to snu. >> i think that might be a request to ask miss alioto? >> that was a recommendation from somebody on the staff to the commission that any extension be predicated upon a
condition of no further appeal administratively. >> yes. and -- >> commissioner kopp: what's the reason it's on calendar? >> so commissioner kopp, if i may jump in, the reason it's contained on the calendar, there was a letter from miss alioto -- >> commissioner kopp: yes, i know. i've read the letter -- >> that she felt there was fraudulent behavior on behalf of the director of the ethics commission, and i thought that the commission would like the opportunity to discuss the allegations and satisfy themselves. >> commissioner kopp: well, it doesn't give me much confidence in the sanctity of our adopted resolutions. the third question has a petition for writ of mandate in san francisco superior court been filed to your knowledge? >> not to my knowledge, and i would just as a point of information, on your earlier question, i do not understand this to be an appeal. it is on the agenda as a
discussion and possible action regarding the allegations made in the letter by miss alioto. so our -- we are -- i do not consider this or i'm not characterizing this as an appeal. >> commissioner kopp: thank you. >> commission, any other questions from the commission? at this time, i'd like to call -- invite miss alioto or the alioto campaign. >> good afternoon, commissioners. my name is sandra ribaspied, and i'm here speaking on behalf of the alioto campaign. just going back to when we were here last on april 20, one of the things that the executive director had mentioned initially which started the whole uphill conversation was that the -- the office of the
ethics commission had made a mistake, and that mistake was that conflicting information had been provided to miss alioto's campaign regarding march 27 could be used as a fund raising day or not, and there was conflicting information. and as a result, miss alioto's campaign did not submit the march 27th donations with respect to their initial submission. we're here today because it is the alioto campaign's belief that the office of the ethics commission made another mistake, and that mistake was not informing the alioto campaign that there was a glitch with the system that candidates, including miss alioto, were using to upload their -- their supporting
documentation to establish their $50,000 threshold that they had to establish in order to qualify for public funding. now as admitted, in miss pelham's papers, at page four, mr. montgomery, david montgomery, who was the head of netfile professional, did in fact notify staff that an error had occurred with netfile professional on april 13th. if you go to the e-mail from david montgomery that's attached as exhibit b to miss alioto's letter, mr. montgomery states, "from our records, there were three qualifying request submissions to the sfec by the alioto committee: 3-27, 4-6, and 4-10, where the submissions were guaranteed to be incomplete due to the missing feature of
sending the attachments for the detailed transactions from the filer side software. i personally notified the sfec about the missing feature for detail attachments on april 13th." so what does this mean? this means that when miss alioto was granted the additional 2.5 days to resubmit supporting documentation, on april 20, i believe it was a different room, but before the commission, miss pelham had not informed miss alioto that in fact there'd been a glitch with the system regarding her prior submissions. so the time that miss alioto spent on her resubmission, which was ultimately resubmitted timely on april 25, was spend curing these defects
that were in fact not defects because the issue had been situated or it had been fixed by mr. montgomery, and miss pelham was aware of that. she was aware of that at the hearing that we were all at on april 20. but my alioto's campaign wasn't. on between april 20 and april 20, they were curing these what they perceived errors or submissions that they had to cure miss pelham's office, and they didn't need to spend time curing them, because there was no error with the majority of those, because there was -- there had been a glitch with the system, and that's indicate index mr. -- indicated in mr. montgomery's e-mail, and it's indicated in miss pelham's letter. >> excuse me. i have a question. >> yeah. >> so you're referencing the e-mail from mr. montgomery to -- >> mr. malin.
>> mr. malin, correct. but we actually have as attachment number five the actually e-mail that mr. montgomery sent to director pelham, and is in paragraph one says as a parenthetical. >> it's my understanding that the commission uses a different version of netfile, not netfile professional. but as the commission new, netfile professional was being used by miss alioto in her campaign. she was not notified of any glitch nor was she notified of the curing of the glitch, and the glitch was the same that happened to jane kim as with miss alioto. >> and in paragraph seven of the david montgomery e-mail of april 13, otherwise everything in the system appears correct and normal, so the problem was fixed. >> right. it was fixed as of april 13,
but miss alioto's -- this was not miss alioto's e-mail. she was never informed of this. >> but this was not software that the commission maintained. this was netfile software, and as far as the commission was concerned, there was a problem, and there was a problem that they were told was fixed. as far as the ethics commission was concerned, there was a problem, and it was fixed as of the 13. so what was there to communicate? >> right. there was to communicate the prior submissions by miss alioto on the 27th, the 5th, and the 10th, as well as on the 20th, she was essentially curing those submissions that -- where there was an inability to upload the information. miss alioto was never informed of that. miss pelham knew that miss alioto from the three prior submissions knew that she was using netfile professional.
she was not alerted -- the issue was not that it was fixed, the issue was that miss alioto did not know it had been fixed until her team had been talking to the ethics commissioners office on april 24th, and they said that there was this -- for the first time, were pointing out that there was this glitch with netfile professional. in fact, they had attempted to cure all these proposed defects with their submission, but they weren't defects. so why we're here today is because of that time that was spent trying to cure defects which simply did not exist, and the ethics -- or miss pelham -- the executive director was on notice of that per david montgomery's e-mails, and she knew that was the system that miss alioto was using, and no one said hey, those bugs have been figured out, so you don't have to cure those defects
because they're not actually defected. you don't have to waste your time dealing with those hundreds of submissions. remember, the first time she got her letter of decision back from the executive director, there were 280 items for her to cure. and that number reduced, but it didn't reduce by that much. and i'll just point out that shall -- i mean, you know, it would be one thing if miss alioto's campaign was way off. if there was no chance in heck that these extra time that she spent curing these defects wouldn't have made a difference. she was $1,074 short on the may 2nd letter from miss pelham, $1,074. i think in miss alioto's letter, she said she spent over 1,000 hours just crying to cure these defects that were problems known to the executive director. >> but i'm having trouble understanding why the ethics
commission would have an obligation to inform a filer of a software problem that was -- that was problematic -- it was a third-party software platform that is neither maintained nor provided to the public by the commission and they were told by the software provider that there was a problem with respect to a separate campaign, why that would create any sort of obligation on the part of ethics commission to notify other candidates. it's kind of like filing your federal income taxes through turbo taxes. does the irs have an obligation to notify the public there is a problem with turbo tax? >> the purpose as we understand it of the executive director and her office and the ethics commission is to help, not
hurt, to help candidates qualify for public funding to be matched, not impede their ability to qualify. in this situation, just like the last time we were before you -- this was a mistake that impeded miss alioto's campaign ability to be on the same level playing field as markleny, jamie kim, london breed, and their supporters. that's all she's asking. the issue was very simple with the netfile professional software. it wasn't uploading supporting documents, whether it was jane kim, whether it was mark leno, it was an issue with the software, and that's admitted in the document that -- that miss pelham prepared. >> on april 25, was the
campaign able to upload all the documents that it sought to upload? was there a software problem that persisted on the 25th? >> no, there was no software problem that persisted because it had been cured as you mentioned on april 13 and as reflected in that e-mail by david montgomery. so the sole issue is it was the time wasted by miss alioto's campaign in doing the resubmission on april 25th that they were focusing their time on all these submissions that they had already submitted properly but for the netfiler roer that they had not been informed about, and which the executive director's office new about on april 13th. >> but you had the opportunity to resubmit on april 25th. >> we had the opportunity to resubmit, but we did not have the proper amount of time. that's why miss alioto is asking for an additional day as a result of the mistake of not informing miss alioto's
campaign to attempt to qualify and have the same opportunities as everyone else. she's $1,074 short. this is not -- this is time that she could have used to cure those issues, and we do have some additional speakers. >> may i ask you a question? >> yes. >> and maybe i'm oversimplifying it, but the additional information that the commission was seeking was information which the alioto campaign had, correct? >> the information which the commission was seeking, the supporting documentation? >> yes. >> yes. >> it had nothing to do with netfile. they had it themselves. >> well, sir, a lot of the documentations -- so the netfile issue was documentation that they had, yes, that could be uploaded. but the thing was is the way it was conveyed on the spreadsheet was that there was an error,
so, for example, proof of residency, right? so the alioto campaign had documentation that they uploaded that properly ticked all the boxes to establish san francisco proof of residency, and that's what prompted the call to ethics when the -- the woman who was repairing out the treasurer contacted amy lee of ethics and said, look, i submitted this stuff to you. >> it wasn't a question whether you submitted it. you were being asked to submit it now, not some earlier date. now, and why wasn't it submitted immediately? >> it was submitted. >> well, and then, according to the report by -- that's attached as exhibit -- what is it, the may 2nd letter to you,
attached to it is a schedule. it says, there are insufficient documentation to verify san francisco residency of 40. why didn't you, on the 27bd, say here's the documentation -- on the 2nd, say here's the documentation? >> well, there's a lot of proof of residency that people will speak to that that needed to be cured that
information for a number of our donors. the issue has been that residence information which was submitted in good faith by the donor and by the committee was then rejected by the ethics commission staff. for instance, there are five donors who submitted as proof of their residency, when they were rejected after giving their correct street addresses, a rental receipt from their landlord. now, we all know that there's a housing shortage in san francisco. we know that a verbal rented agreement is accepted as legally binding. we learned that in the case of the dover club a few years ago here. these folks live here in rooms rented from a homeowner. the receipt was from that homeowner. there were four brothers in one
with the requisite residential proof? >> we have many. the names that i was assigned, which was about a dozen. we do have. even with the 46 rejected -- >> commissioner kopp: but do you have 46? >> yes. >> commissioner kopp: okay. >> we only need 11 to meet your requirement. we don't need the whole 46 because we have, still, over 500 san francisco donors. the 46 did not -- >> commissioner kopp: excuse me for a moment. madam chair, through the chair to miss pelham, is it 46 or 11? >> i do not understand the 11. i have not seen a list of 11. there were 46 instances where contributions on the april 25th submission were insufficient for eligibility purposes. i'm not sure what the subset of 11 is referring to. >> commissioner kopp: yeah. miss horstfeld, what did the 11
refer to? >> with the 11 additional donors, we would reach the $50,000 threshold. we have exceeded the 500 donor threshold. >> commissioner kopp: i don't want to want -- i want to go back to the 46. >> yes. >> commissioner kopp: did you have the 46 at noon on april 25th? >> i don't have a yes or no to that because a couple of those names -- >> commissioner kopp: does somebody know, and have a yes-or-no answer? >> a couple of those were not rejected on april 25. >> commissioner, angela alioto. we had 46, and of those 46, we had 15 where the person clearly lived, and that was the problem with the software not uploading
all of the documents in the first place. we were reworking those same proof of evidence, and so as a consequence, we have the $50,000 threshold plus two or $300. we don't need the 46 to qualify for the 43, we only need 11 to qualify, and we have those out of -- we actually have 15. and if you take a good look at who they are, you will see that they do, in fact, qualify. >> commissioner kopp: thank you. >> thank you to each member of the ethics commission for their service and for the city and for taking the time to hear us today. my name is annika steg, and impart of the team for alioto for mayor. based on the commission requirements, we asked san francisco voters to send us copies of their proof of
residency in the form of driver's license licenses, recent pay stubs, electric bills, and even voided checks. between staff and volunteers, we spent hundreds, maybe even thousands of dollars asking for proof of residency. one such contribution was done by a donor who listed a business address. it has a unit number. it is where this business owner both lives and works. we reached out to him for business residency. we reached out to him, and he sent us a copy of his california license. it has that same unit number and this was rejected because it was technically a business address. based on a simple google search, you will see this is a place where their residences above businesses. this is a place where many business owners live and works.
another one was a business owner, and he was able to send us proof of residency in the form of a california driver's license. he understand that address is registered as an absentee voter. we have confirmed his voter i.d. number, and we believe if the address is good enough for a voter registration, it should be good enough to proof prove of residency in the city of san francisco. these generous donors do not have other proof of residency documentation to provide. they are in fact san francisco residents and deserve to have their contributions recognized as such. >> thank you. >> good afternoon, honorable commissioners. my name is ali devari. i'm a resident here in san francisco. before i start i want to really thank each of you for your city
to i love. this is a city that my husband and i chose to live in before he escaped iran during the ayatollah revolution. and my husband and i -- just give you a little brief background, we're the owners of focaccia bakery. i was here on april 20 to share my story, and i'm here to share it again. we've got locations all throughout san francisco. we're also owners of san francisco florists, a premier floral boutique located in financial district, but i think what our biggest joy is that we are parents to our single child who's 18 years old, sophia, who was born in the heart of this city. so as you can imagine, we're very invested in the city that we love. we chose to support angela alioto because we believe that she loves the city as much as we do, but that is not the reason i am here. the reason that i am here is
that a few months ago, i made a small contribution. i wrote a check, i filled out the donor form as i was supposed to, and i made this contribution to angela alioto's campaign. on april 16, i was notified -- on i believe it was either a friday or a saturday -- from the campaign committee that my donation was rejected as a nonresident. i didn't make a fuss about it. i decided to take a copy of my california driver's license which happens to have the same address as on my check. i took a picture of it, i looked at it, and given that i am impaired in my vision as you can see, i made sure that i could read all the digits on the photo that i sent. well, a couple of days later, i was told -- i got a call back -- and i sent it, and everything, i thought was fine. a couple of days later, i was called by the campaign and told that the ethics committee had
rejected my california driver's license because they stated it was blurry. now i was heart broken, to be honest with you. this is the first time i was to reiterate that i'm persian. in my culture, we are taught to keep our heads down and not get involved in polictics. seeing angela alioto for the first time was what got us excited and decided to support her for mayor. now to live in this city is every persian girl's dream, but right now, this persian girl standing in front of you, all i'm asking of you is that i be allowed to participate in the democratic process that i tried to escape iran from, a democratic process that did not allow us to support angela alioto for mayor. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> commissioner kopp: let me
ask a question of director pelham. >> commissioner kopp? >> commissioner kopp: if your driver's license and these other documents show the place of business, that's it, right? you have qualified. >> committees, in order to qualify somebody when there has been a driver's license submitted shows an address that is consistent with a voter identification or with some other proof of residency, if for san francisco. >> commissioner kopp: yeah, well this driver's license is a business address. >> that is our understanding. >> commissioner kopp: all right. so that doesn't qualify. so then what? >> so it was rejected -- >> commissioner kopp: yeah. >> i apologize. i want to make a clarification -- >> commissioner kopp: no, i'm sorry. don't interrupt me. >> okay. i apologize. >> commissioner kopp: so then, what do you do? do you tell -- i don't know, do you tell the alioto campaign
this doesn't qualify because it's a business address? you only have two of those on this letter you sent. >> actually, to clarify, the two from may were contributions that were drawn -- >> commissioner kopp: all right. so those aren't the -- to include this woman's application. >> i would have to -- >> commissioner kopp: hers was in april. hers was in april. all right. so those two are irrelevant, but how do you convey as soon as possible to the submitter that this doesn't count because it's a business address? >> we provide a detailed list on an excel spreadsheet by the contributor's name with the information that was lacking. we tell them it was rejected, we tell them the basis for the rejection.
>> commissioner kopp: and is the burden on the submitting campaign? >> yes. the committee -- the candidate acknowledges -- >> commissioner kopp: the commission doesn't have to do the campaign's work. >> the public financing program confirms it's the burden of the candidate and committee to determine straight proficient contributions. >> commissioner kopp: all right. because this woman is a registered voter in san francisco. assume that to be a fact. isn't it simple to just check voter registration? >> we do check that when the committees supply documentation of that. committees are required under regulations to provide proof documenting residency. it is not the job of this commission, and i'm not speaking to this particular matter. i don't know this individual's name, but it's not the job of the commission to take a list of 5 or 600 contributors and
check proof. when we look, we do look, for example, to make sure that the contributor listed is the contributor for whom the i.d. is being provided. in some cases, we found a contributor listed with a supporting documentation being a voter i.d. we looked at that voter i.d. and found that, for example, the person associated with that voter i.d. on the city records was born in 1993. the contributor listed was in law practice much, much prior to that. so there were a couple of inconsistencies where the voter i.d. did not match the contributor, so those are another examples of where voter i.d. is important. >> commissioner kopp: wait. what's the voter i.d.? >> the voter i.d. is the number registered to the individual registered to vote in the city and county of san francisco. >> commissioner kopp: and we have those.
okay. am, you wanted to say something? >> yeah. commissioner kopp, honorable, i wanted to say this was not a residential address, this was a business address that was the same as the one on my check. so i just wanted to make that clear. thank you for your time. >> good afternoon, honorable commission. my name is jeffrey wong. i'm a resident of san francisco. i've lived here for 32 years. i was recently discriminated at my workplace due to the fact that i have hiv. i contacted several lawyers here in san francisco to try to resolve my problem at work. i came to miss alioto with my issues. she solved the problem. she not only solved my problem but she saved my life. we've all been working very hard on this campaign. we thank you for your time today, and we're hoping there can be some clarification to rectify the situation that we're in right now so we can continue to bring miss alioto
aat that point of discovery. when we had the proper software in place we came up $1,100 short with 76 cases to dispute. search for 46 to fix. -- thank you. >> my name is nick. i have been a lifetime resident. i want to talk about public trust because that is what this commission is supposed to stand for. i sat through two of these meetings and listening to this and nothing give mess trust in e department. there was no continuity and understandably with everything that was rushed and all it can happen, but that shouldn't be a
candidate's problem. that should be on the department and the department should understand that. number two, residency, you keep going back and forth on what a definition of a residency is. even your commissioner was backed off because he didn't have a definition of residency for san francisco, yet, he is a commissioner. now we are talking about a software glitch that wasn't told to any of the campaign. commissioner chiu, you asked why the commission should tell each and every campaign about that, it's called trust. as a person of the public and a person who has lived in this city for 44 years, i see no trust here so that is what i have to say.