[gavel] welcome to the regularly scheduled dawg 24 meeting of the San FranciscoEthics Commission. First calling the roll commissioner andrews. Here. Commissioner hayon. [inaudible] commission hur. Here. Commissioner keane. Here. And all present and accounted for. Moving the secretary item on the agenda Public Comment on matters appearing or not appearing on the agenda. Do we have any members of the public who want to speak . Please come forward. Good afternoon chair hur and members of the commission. My name is Kathleen Courtney and reside on green street in San Francisco and owned and reseated at that location for the last 35 years. I have been out of the country for the last month, and therefore i was not returned home on thursday and therefore was not able to give my comments to Eileen Hansen who submitted a complaint about the alliance in connection with jobs with the work theyre doing against darren peskin. I am calling something that occurred to me on june 28 that i think reflects the egregious nature of what is going on. I am a professional marketer and as such i listen to surveys. Anybody that surveys me i listen because i want to know what is going on and how they do it, and if you look at the declaration i prepared for you june 28 after returning from the pride march and i took a sawr have a call and lasted 15 to 20 minutes. The questionnaire suggested and the way they asked the questions suggested they were fully informed about who they were calling. They asked fiwas on a land line or cell phone. I said land and asked for my address and i declined to give to them but nay knew the number and i was in district 3 and i listened to a series of questions and you try to determine who was calling you and the questions were what i do think uber . Mayor lee and supervisors that have been out of office for years and Public Safety and rents and Bicycle Safety were for and next asked to give my opinion of aaron peskin, Julie Christensen and wilma tang and i was familiar with wilma tang but i gave a response to that and using a rating for the names of the candidates i was read a brief description of Julie Christensen and i was taking notes from different surveys and a supervisor in the neighborhood for 20 years advocate who fought for libraries and International Library and jody park and they asked me this is what supporters say about her and everything was generally fine. Next the interviewer described aaron peiveg kin of a president of a nonprofit who halted development on the waterfront, worked against prop posals and elected supervisor of the board and this is what they say about them and the positive comments. I need two minutes. Maam, i think your time is up. Okay. I call to your attention points 10 where they stated that aaron peiveg kin was known for threatening phone calls and fowllanguage your time is up maam you. Need to act on this complaints. Thank you. Good afternoon. Good evening, good afternoon mr. Chairman and members. I am reminded that the last time you had a mayor of any kind here in this room it triggered a boom threat. I am hoping that my comments are not as explosive, but they are important, and i am appearing here to respectfully urge this commission to direct staff as you heard with the previous testimony and the ones that you will hear that you act with all deliberate speed on the complaint by Eileen Hansen who are the way here and the Third Party Spending on behalf of incumbent Julie Christensen and aaron peskin in the campaign has not been reported by law. The complaint states up to that 150,000 has been spent on behalf of supervisor christensen and filed on august 13 and the failure of staff to act on this in a timely manner has the effect of denying mr. Pefngin an opportunity to raise funds that will allow him to compete fairly with his opponent. It shouldnt take that long to determine the facts. In addition the complaint states that the San Francisco alliance for jobs, the third party involved in this independent expenditure and this election has failed to file or disclose their spending. A newspaper article in the San Francisco kron krel last month reported a poll last month by the alliance for jobs that outlined the strategy of defeating him and electing supervisor christensen. Best estimates by that poll done by a National Polling firm would have cost at least 25,000 and yet it fails to appear in any of the filings as an independent expenditure. Two other issues that are worthy of your attention. A reliable report indicates as citizen hansen indicated the complaint was brought to the immediate attention of the former executive director that dismissed it out of hand and there is no disclosure required. I am informed that this is contrary to the last as it existed at the time the complaint was filed. Always the potential conflict of interest mr. Chairman of the current executive director, no personal affront attended, but this includes lawyer james sutton. Mr. Miin regardy was a member of that firm before he took this job as your acting executive director. He should be recused as he was in the mark farrell case because of the involvement with his prior firm. I asked for your immediate attention to this complaint. Mr. Chair. Yes. I know its unusual but we have something being brought to us by a former mayor. There is only one aspect of it, if i could, i would like to inquiry about, and that has to do where it is now . Was the complaint dismissed out of hand by mr. St. Croix . We had problems in the past in regard to the matter of mr. St. Croix overstepping his authorities so this is what has been alleged now publicly by a former mayor of the city and if the case we should have Immediate Response to that one allegation. Commissioner, as youre familiar all investigations conducted by the Ethics Commission are confidential. Were not talking about an investigation. Were talking about just something dismissed out of hand. We as a commission over the course of the last few months had discussions relating to matters not getting to us because of former director st. Croixs deciding he was going to make arbitrary decisions relating to it. I think its important relating to this allegation for us to know was a complaint just dismissed out of hand . And that has nothing to do with the confidentiality of an investigation or anything like that. Was it just tossed out . Again commissioner we treat complaints by the Ethics Commission by the laws and Campaign Laws as confidential. In addition to that may i remind you were currently in Public Comment. If you want to have discussion about matters under the jurisdiction should be noted and agendized as such. Commissioners, my name is larry bush. Commissioner chair i just want to say first of all that none of the commissions rules anyone that files a complaint is to get ac j want its received and its my understanding ms. Hansen has gotten no acknowledgment of the complaint that she filed and its a simple matter to say whether its received. It doesnt get into anything more complicate than that. Secondly, i am reliably informed by reporters that talked about this issue and talked to mr. St. Croix there is no violation here and just send it on its way. As you know when you recreate the campaign recreate the law this year you dropped the provision of those that spend 5,000 or more on a Third Party Disclosure no longer have to file with the Ethics Commission. Ind instead the commission was to under take a review of the record and see if that money was spent. But in the event there is no report filed you have nothing to review and you have a catch 22. There is no report so we didnt review a report. I think that is something that obviously needs to be addressed. Thank you. Good evening commissioners. Im the founder and director of neighbors visiting a viz dareo and i think bringing the biggest ethics concern in the city and we want you to address violations mayor lee of the Campaign Violations and in debt after the 2011 mayors race. Since he is seeking reelection we want this addressed to the public before voters receive the ballots. The public learned in recorded conversations from a human rights commissioner and staff member told an under cover fbi businessman and to use this by using straw donors. Ed knows you gave 10,000 and you will give another 10,000 and we had to break it up said in a 2012 recording. Lee met with the same under cover agent at a human rights commissioners nasally ho hodgers office and raised 10,000 to assist in retiring campaign debt. He met with the agent and discussed breaking up an additional 10,000 contribution. When the agent asked about going into smaller increments and he said we have no problem with this but you cant talk to this about anyone. He was brought up with Campaign Issues violations with the commis hosting a matter and we see that ed lee basically out spent john avalos who the closest contender four to one and still went over the budget by nearly 300,000 and one of the Main Responsibilities of a mayor of the city and county of San Francisco is to stay within the budget, and so its alarming to me that he didnt stay within his means because i was raised to stay and live within my means so since he was out spending four to one why go over budget an extra 300,000 and that makes sense why he is scrambling about his underlings afterwards how were going to pay off the debt in increments . 300,000 to retire after he had already won the election. People contributed millions of dollars in 500 increments and had to figure out a way to retire it so what are you going to do before the election to put our minds at ease about this matter . Please let us know. Thank you. Good evening commissioners. Im here to speak about the district 3 Third Party Spending complaint that is before this commission. My name is ms. Berry and i have lived in the district for 15 years and the election this november is by far one of the most heated in a rather dull Campaign Year at least thats what the newspapers tell us. This campaign is of utmost importance and follow up and investigate the complaint before you and knowing what Third Party Spending is are canning its critical to us and we have a savvy city. We Pay Attention and read and investigate so were here before you to ask you in your wisdom to investigate the issue of the San Francisco alliance for jobs and Sustainable Growth pack because the complaint alleges there is Third Party Spending to influence the race with one supervisor and not the other and that is supervisor christensen there is a statement filed by the alliance that they paid 13,500 to advisers for Campaign Consulting service. However according to the Ethics Commission website its not registered to provide Consulting Services to San Francisco alliance its not a registered Campaign Consultant at all. The advisers are providing field organizers and knocks on behalf of one supervisor in the race, supervisor christensen and not the other. This is very troubling. Were asking you to act on this complaint. None of this information has been disclosed as part of the race. Thats the issue municiple transportation agency, disclosure and make sure that the. Transparency and disclosure and please take action on the complaint before you. Thank you. Good evening. My name is shannon bolt and Owner Operator of a dog walking business in the city i am 30 and a long time San Francisco resident and i wanted to echo amys concerns about mayor lees Campaign Finance allegations against him and the potential ethics breaches in that case especially with the upcoming Mayoral Election its important that theyre investigated so theyre lead to fall on deaf ears. Thank you very much for your consideration. I am Oliver Chalker and lived in San Francisco the last couple of years. This is the first time i am voting in a local election and i want to copy amys statements on the allegations regarding ed lee as someone who is just stepping into San Francisco politics i feel like this has in a lot of ways taintdd and i have a lot of questions and i would like very much for you to respond to all of this. Thank you very much. David pilpel speak as a individual and i wanted to respond to the comments in the chronicle a few weeks ago with the allegations about ed lee from the matter. I was concerned that those remarks appeared to confirm the receipt of a complaint and or investigation on that matter and also suggested to me possible that commissioner keane had already come to a conclusion that there was probable cause finding. Thats how i read it. I am sure others could read it differently. I wanted to express that concern they think as deputy City Attorney shin advised you earlier that complaints are confidential under the charter and although commissioners can speak to reporters and get quoted in the paper and talk about the general practice of how complaints are received and reviewed that one probably shouldnt comment on a specific complaint or specific facts so im not filing a complaint or concern beyond this but i wanted to state that so i had those concerns. Thank you very much. Any other may i respond mr. Chair . In a minute. If you look at the commissions bylaws there is a paragraph that reads as follows. The Commission Shall urge the public in the strongest possible terms not to make complaints at Public Meetings since the Public Disclosure of such complaints undermine any subsequent investigation under taken by the commission. Now, as i think all of you know if you have a complaint it is to be filed with the staff, and dealt with in a confidential manner, and i dont know there have been some references to complaints that have been filed and have been dismissed. I dont know anything about it, but the proper procedure is not in an open forum to discuss it because of the fact that if in fookt there is an Ongoing Investigation you could well prejudice by the remarks that are made when the time comes when Enforcement Actions are taken, but i appreciate the comments and we will certainly follow up on some of the issues you raised, but i dont think at the moment they were not on the agenda and were arent in a position to deal with them as agenda items. All right. Commissioner keane. Thank you mr. Chair. In regard to the statement by mr. Pilpel relating to the my comment to moe green of the San Francisco chronicle and her having put it in the story. Who i said was a little what i said was a little regurgitation of what executive director john st. Croix said in a letter he wrote to the member of the public and the member of the public disseminated widely to other members of the public in an email. One of the people who it was disseminated to was mr. Larry bush, and i then got that email along with other members of the public of what mr. St. Croix had said about that particular complaint. Mr. St. Croix had spoken on behalf of the commission, made a comment relating to it, and i simply regurgitated what those comments were literally. I sent an email to you mr. Chair referencing mr. St. Croixs letter and also mr. Bushs email where he had set out what mr. St. Croix has said, so it wasnt a personal comment of mine in any way relating to the complaint. It was simply a statement of what had been said by our executive director, presumably on behalf of the commission and everyone else, to the public; therefore revealing what was said in these comments, and i simply regurgitated that to ms. Green when she asked the question about the particular issue involved. I did not reveal any confidential information. It was not confidential. Mr. St. Croix had already widely disseminated it to the public and by his doing that in terms of the remarks that were talking about it was not confidential, and therefore there was no improprietiy on my behalf. Very many. We will turn to very well. We will turn to item 3 on the jernldz and position action on Commission Activities regarding the expenditure lobbyist ballot measure. I dont think there is action we will talk about but i wanted to bring my fellow commissioners uptodate on what has occurred in connection with the expenditure lobbyist ballot measure since the last meeting and i think distributed to the public was the ballot statement which was prepared on behalf of the commission, the opposition that was prepared by a single individual who took issue with what he deemed to be exemptions, but not really the substance of the ballot measure, our response to the argument agency and there have been since that time there was also a ballot simplification meeting with the ballot simplification commission which committee which did a great job of doing some i think clear laying out what the ballot measure seeks to accomplish. Mr.