Minutes – June 5, 2015 – San Francisco Ethics Commission

Minutes of the Special Meeting of
The San Francisco Ethics Commission
June 5, 2015
Room 400, City Hall
1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place
San Francisco, CA 94102

I. Call to order and roll call.

Chairperson Renne called the meeting to order at 1:04 PM.

COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Paul Renne, Chairperson; Brett Andrews, Vice-Chairperson; Beverly Hayon, Commissioner; Ben Hur, Commissioner; Peter Keane; Commissioner. Chairperson Renne stated that Executive Director St. Croix was absent from the meeting.

STAFF PRESENT: Jesse Mainardi, Deputy Executive Director; Catherine Argumedo, Investigator/Legal Analyst.

OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY: Andrew Shen, Deputy City Attorney (DCA).

OTHERS PRESENT: Robert Stern, former Director of the Center for Governmental Studies; Corey Cook, Ph.D., Associate Professor, Department of Politics, University of San Francisco; Charles Marsteller; Larry Bush; Anita Mayo, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman; David Pilpel; Bob Planthold; Robert van Ravenswaay; Ken Miller; Vince Courtney; Jim Maxwell; and other unidentified members of the public.

MATERIALS DISTRIBUTED:

– Staff Memorandum re: Further Proposed Changes to C.F.R.O. Amendments, dated June 3, 2015, including proposed amendment;
– Chart provided by Corey Cook, PhD.;
– Spreadsheet provided by Larry Bush;
– Recruitment Proposal from Alliance Resource Consulting;
– Forfeiture letter to Supervisor Mark Farrell, dated December 9, 2014;
– Draft letter to Supervisor Mark Farrell;
– Letters from Charles Bell;
– E-mail from Michael Garcia, dated June 4, 2015;
– Letter from James Sutton re: Revocation of Forfeiture Letter Sent to Supervisor Mark Farrell, dated June 4, 2015.

II. Presentation regarding the potential need for, and implications of, imposing limitations on candidate-controlled ballot measure committees and/or legal defense funds. Presenters include: Robert M. Stern, Former Director of the Center for Governmental Studies, Principal co-author of the Political Reform Act; and Corey Cook, Ph.D., Associate Profession, Department of Politics, University of San Francisco; Director, Leo T. McCarthy Center for Public Service and the Common Good.

Deputy Director Jesse Mainardi introduced the item and introduced both speakers, Bob Stern and Corey Cook. He stated the following:

“Good afternoon, Commissioners. Jesse Mainardi, Deputy Director. You will recall that earlier this year, the Commission resolved to investigate whether to propose a ballot measure imposing limitations on committees controlled by City candidates and officeholders which are not directly related to their campaigns for office.

These types of committees include:

Candidate controlled ballot measure committees, which raise and spend funds in support of, or in opposition to, particular ballot measures;
Candidate controlled general purpose ballot measure committees, which raise and spend funds in support of, or in opposition to, various, generally unspecified measures, usually over a number election cycles; and
Legal defense funds, which allow a candidate to raise funds to pay for legal expenses associated with litigation resulting from his or her candidacy.

By way of background, there are generally no limits on how much these committees may raise from any particular donor, although certain City contractors may be prohibited from contributing. Also, unlike with City candidate campaigns, corporations may generally make contributions to these candidate-controlled committees.

This item today is a part of the Commission’s due diligence and further exploration of this issue. We are very lucky to have two experts today who will tell us more about these types of committees, how they are used by candidates, and whether, as a policy matter, certain restrictions may be advisable.

Our first speaker today is Bob Stern. Bob has been called the “godfather of modern political reform in California.” He was a principal co-author of Proposition 9, otherwise known as the Political Reform Act of 1974, which continues to form the basis of California’s campaign disclosure, ethics and lobbying laws. He was also a principal drafter of the City of Los Angeles’ Ethics and Public Campaign Financing laws.

Bob served as the first general counsel of the Fair Political Practices Commission and later was the President of the Center for Governmental Studies, based in Los Angeles.

Bob has been honored for his public service by a number of good government groups including the League of Women Voters of Los Angeles, Common Cause California, Pomona College, and the Council on Governmental Ethics Laws. Bob is a graduate of Pomona College and Stanford Law School.

Our next speaker will be Corey Cook. For the last six years, Corey has been an Associate Professor in the Department of Politics at the University of San Francisco, where he has also served as the Director of the Leo T. McCarthy Center for Public Service and the Common Good.

Corey teaches courses in American Politics specializing in political institutions, urban and state politics, and the dynamics of political representation. His early work concerned campaign finance reform and his current research focuses on election results and political geography in California.”

Robert M. Stern
Mr. Stern stated his experience and research at the Center for Governmental Studies (“CGS”) of the field, including working for the Fair Political Practices Commission for nine years. He stated that he had studied campaign finance, redistricting, and the initiative process and written a series of reports and recommendations to improve campaign finance laws. He stated that one report in 1990 studied 18 cities and counties and recommended major changes in the law. He stated he was now semi-retired and working as a consultant and speaker.

Mr. Stern stated that CGS came out with a report about 12 years ago that urged the FPPC to adopt a regulation requiring contribution limits on candidate-controlled ballot measure committees. He stated that the court later invalidated the adopted regulation by stating that the FPPC exceeded its authority in adopting the regulation, but did not address the constitutionality of the regulation.

Mr. Stern stated that the purpose of contribution limits was to reduce the appearance of corruption when candidates receive campaign money. He stated that there is no difference in a candidate raising money for his or her own campaign and money for his or her ballot measure committee. Mr. Stern stated that a donor does not care how a contribution is used; the donor only cares about the gratitude of the officeholder. He stated that the donor at the very least wants access to the official; at the most, the donor wants a decision by the officeholder. He estimated that 90% of campaign money comes from people who want something from government. He cited the example of labor unions negotiating contracts, developers seeking a permits or variances, businesses seeking tax breaks or contracts. He stated that all want the support, or at least the ear, of the official.

Mr. Stern stated that allowing unlimited contributions to candidate controlled ballot measure committees allows for the circumvention of contribution limits for other candidate-controlled committees. He stated that officeholders get involved with ballot measure committees for various reasons: e.g., promote an issue, enhance their standing, to raise more money from special interests. He stated that a contributor may not care about the ballot measure, but he or she cares about his or her relationship with the City official. He stated that, in some instances, the contributor may be from out of town and have no idea what the measure is about, but contributes because the official asks for it.

Mr. Stern recognized that limits on candidate controlled ballot measure committees may seem unfair because other ballot measure committees will have no limits per a Supreme Court ruling from the 1980s. He stated that it is also unfair that officials can raise money from people who merely want to influence the candidate or official, as opposed to support or oppose the measure.

Mr. Stern stated that he was less concerned with legal defense funds, as the FPPC has rules on how they can be used: you must have a pending case against you. He again stated that it is unfair that an officeholder has access to money that a member of the public does not have. He stated that special interests would be interested in supporting legal defense funds for officeholders. He stated that fundraising should be strictly limited and have the same limits as candidate committees.

Mr. Stern stated that the bottom line was that if the Commission wanted to support meaningful limits for candidates, the Commission adopt contribution limits on both candidate-controlled ballot measure committees and legal defense funds. He stated that any committee that the officeholder or candidate controls should have contribution limits. He stated that no other jurisdiction has adopted limits on candidate-controlled ballot measure committees, but he thinks they should.

The Commissioners asked Mr. Stern various questions about the proposed limits on these committees.

Chairperson Renne asked whether a candidate controlled committee has to be focused on a specific ballot measure, or whether it can be a general fund supporting many measures. Mr. Stern stated that limits should apply to either type. He confirmed that a committee is candidate controlled because the candidate can help direct how the funds are spent.

Commissioner Hur asked if Mr. Stern would be comfortable with different limits for legal defense funds, campaign committees, and ballot measure committees. Mr. Stern stated that he would prefer the same limit for all based on the prior determination of what was the right limit, but would certainly prefer different limits to no limits. Mr. Stern also stated that he did not think that limits on legal defense funds would not deter people from running for office. Mr. Stern “guessed” that candidates would no longer control ballot measure committees if limits were imposed.

In response to Commissioner Andrews’ question, Mr. Stern stated that there should be contribution limits on any committee controlled by any candidate. Mr. Stern provided an example of a candidate-controlled ballot measure committee controlled by former Mayor Villaraigosa. He stated that the former Mayor had raised hundreds of thousands of dollars from the same people who would have contributed to his candidate committee. He also gave the example of Governor Schwarzenegger raising well above the limits for his ballot measure committees from special interests. He stated that, although not true in all cases, these contributors would not be giving to these ballot measure committees except for the fact that the officeholder was involved.
In response to a question from Commissioner Renne, Mr. Stern stated that, if an officeholder asked a donor to give money to a committee that s/he did not control, the candidate would not control the funds and may not get the benefit of the expenses paid by the committee which might help the candidate. Mr. Stern said there was a difference between controlled and non-controlled committees. Mr. Stern stated that it is not common that these types of committees are created and that mayors and governors have been creating them, and there will be more if there are no restrictions.

Public Comment:
Charles Marsteller stated that Mr. Stern was his political mentor. He stated that an analogy could be made between regulating these types of committee and the need to impose loan limits on candidates. He stated that, after winning an election, an officeholder would have more cachet to raise money and pay back their loans.

Larry Bush stated that he had provided the Commissioners with spreadsheets. He stated that these types of committees provide an advantage to candidates because they allow a candidate to maintain a political infrastructure. He also noted that the contributions to the Mayor’s committee mostly exceeded limits. He supported Mr. Stern’s suggestion to place contribution limits on these committees.

Anita Mayo, Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman, provided documents to the Commissioners. She stated that case law has held that these types of limits are unconstitutional. She stated that free speech and freedom of association would be diluted and cited the state appellate case which struck down the FPPC’s regulation. She stated that this case suggested that the limit would be unconstitutional. She stated that limits on legal defense funds may impact the quality of legal representation.

Mr. Stern stated that there was a constitutional question and he could not predict what the Supreme Court would do, but stated there is a difference between controlled and non-controlled committees. He stated he thought the Court would uphold it. The Commission thanked Mr. Stern for his testimony.

Corey Cook, Ph.D.
Dr. Cook stated the following:

“Mr. Chairman and Commissioners,

Thank you for the opportunity to address the commission. It is an honor to appear before you with Bob Stern, whose work I have admired for some time.

I began studying campaign finance issues in California in 1994 working for the California Research Bureau writing reports to the state legislature on campaign finance. That research was undertaken during the “wild west” period before Proposition 34 when California had few campaign finance regulations – between the passage of Propositions 68 and 73 in 1988 (which ultimately never took effect) and before Proposition 25 (which was defeated) and 208 (which was ruled unconstitutional) and California’s current regulatory regime established by Proposition 34. Additionally, I’ve done research on public finance systems in Maine and Arizona as a graduate student and studied political reform efforts in California and San Francisco since becoming a professor in political science at San Francisco State and the University of San Francisco. I’m going to try to offer a political science perspective.

Beginning with Buckley vs. Valeo, the court has put the prevention of “corruption and the appearance of corruption” at the center of any efforts to regulate campaign financing.

In recent years, the court has interpreted “corruption” according to a narrow focus on bribery and quid pro quos rather distortion of the public interest and the undue influence of campaign contributors. I would dispute that narrow definition of corruption but nevertheless, the regulatory regime’s primary focus has been on distinguishing between direct and indirect speech and regulating contributions to candidates and elected officials rather than direct spending.

For instance, in Citizen United, the Supreme Court held that “independent expenditures, including those made by corporations, do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption.

The logic of San Francisco’s contribution limits, set at $500, is to deal directly with this concern about “corruption and the appearance of corruption” stemming from contributions to candidates and officeholders. In my view, allowing, in essence, for unlimited and unregulated funds to flow through candidates and officeholders to use in ballot campaigns is a clear circumvention of these limits and a clear distortion or the purpose of campaign finance law. It is worth stating, though it is beyond the scope of this hearing, that in my view, behested payments directly solicited by officeholders also create such an appearance, but at least these have been made more transparent, which is not the case with candidate controlled ballot measure committees.

To be clear, I am not asserting that any of the candidates and officeholders in San Francisco or California who have created a candidate-controlled ballot measure committee has participated in a quid pro quo or engaged in corruption. But the appearance of corruption and the potential for corruption is present. And I would add, as importantly in my view, is the potential to increase the cynicism and disengagement of the public through these convoluted and non-transparent campaign funding mechanisms.

Candidate-controlled committees are now fairly widespread at the state level – In a 2009 report, the FPPC estimated that state and legislative candidates raised $150 million in candidate-controlled committees for ballot measures in the first 8 years since the passage of Proposition 34.

Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger had his “Citizens to Save California” which raised substantial sums, including one contribution over $1.5 million. His expenditures gained some public attention including a reported $523,000 on executive jet services. Now, FPPC regulations generally limit expenditures by state candidate-controlled ballot measure committees to purposes related to the qualification, passage, or defeat of ballot measures. Still, Schwarzenegger went to the ballot repeatedly, with some successes and some notable failures to advance his legislative agenda.

Governor Jerry Brown has taken this to new heights. He raised $17 million for his Propositions 1 and 2 in 2014 and $42 million on his Prop. 30 initiative in 2012. Again, the single largest contributor was $1.5 million.

As noted, in addition to concern about the appearance of corruption is that for voters, it is exceptionally difficult to track the various committees. For instance, one $1.5 million contribution from

Californians Working Together To Restore And Protect Public Schools, Universities And Public Safety

Went to Governor Brown’s controlled committee:

Yes On Prop. 30 – To Protect Our Schools and Public Safety, A Broad Coalition Of Teachers, Business, Labor, Law Enforcement, And Governor

I have tried to sort some of this out at the local level and examined six candidate controlled committees (please see appendix below).

As the chart indicates, there is quite a bit of a range in the size and scope of the committees. Most were designed to contest a specific measure, but one is a more general committee. But in every case,

The majority of donors gave more than the $500 limit
The majority of donors also gave to the candidate’s committee
The donors could have made contributions directly to a ballot measure committees (and some of the contributors gave to both.
And in most of these cases, the candidates then distributed the funds to other ballot committees.

Because contributors are able to give directly to ballot committees, it is clear that this is indirect rather than direct speech and ought to be subject to contribution limits.

And this practice raises legitimate public policy questions about the appearance of corruption and potential for quid pro quos, and ultimately the lack of transparency around these contributions.

There exists a substantial literature in political science on ballot propositions and this emerging phenomenon, really since the late 1980s of political actors – candidates and officeholders – turning to ballot measure campaigns to advance their own campaigns.

Ballot measures do influence vote choice in candidate races – have “spillover effects.”

They set the agenda and prime voters.

Ballot measures have a priming effect – they raise the salience of issues that voters use in evaluating candidates. For example, gay marriage in 2004, Illegal immigration, affirmative action.

These issues become important in evaluating candidates – even in cases where the issues are completely unrelated to the race.

And even when candidates are not on the same ballot, candidates can advance policy while advancing one’s political career by taking stands on issues and elevating their public profile. Seeing this around the country. And seeing this in San Francisco.

It is good policy to subject candidate-controlled ballot measure committees and/or legal defense funds to the City’s limits for candidate contributions

Courts have expressed concerns about the free speech rights of donors. But in contributing to a candidate, they are not directly speaking and as such this could and should be regulated as indirect speech.

There is always the option of creating independent ballot committees that can accept unlimited contributions. But passing it through officeholders creates a clear appearance of corruption and has substantial potential for coordination with candidate activities, particularly in light of the lack of regulations mandating that the funds be limited to spending on qualification, passage, or defeat of ballot measures as at the state level.

And lastly, I’m not concerned that this would unfairly limit the ability of candidates to advocate for a City ballot measure. There exist plentiful opportunities for candidates and officeholders to promote measures through their official duties and to contribute their own funds and regulated campaign funds. And as we have seen in San Francisco, candidates have demonstrated a capacity to raise substantial sums to contest competitive campaigns while staying within the contribution restrictions.

The Commissioners asked Dr. Cook various questions about the proposed limits on candidate-controlled committees.

Commissioner Hur asked what else could be done if the proposed limit were unconstitutional. Dr. Cook said that disclosure would be the answer, as well as to ensure that the funds could only be used for advocacy regarding ballot measures. He stated that it is very difficult to discern where the money goes from these committees. He stated that no other jurisdiction has dealt with this issue well and was generally pleased with how San Francisco manages disclosure. He stated that most jurisdictions have not prioritized making data available in a clear manner.

In response to Commissioner Hayon’s question, he also suggested that the Commission not ban candidate-controlled ballot measure committees altogether. Dr. Cook stated that he believes that contribution limits in San Francisco are sufficiently high that candidates can run well-financed, effective campaigns, but are also sufficiently low so as to avoid the appearance of corruption.

In response to Commissioner Andrews’ question, Dr. Cook referenced the information on the chart he provided and stated that the majority of past donations to these types of committees would be in violation of this limit, if the limit had been in place in San Francisco.

Public Comment:
Larry Bush stated that the Commission could create a disclosure form for these types of committees, so that a donor could indicate what interest s/he has in the city and alert the public that the donor had an interest before the candidate. He also referenced the Oak project which bans an officer from making decisions affecting donors.

Mr. Stern clarified that the Oaks Project rules provide that if an officeholder votes on a project, the officeholder cannot receive a contribution or accept a job from the applicant for the next five years. He stated that this is an anti-incumbent provision, but that it has worked well in Pasadena even though it does not really deal with ballot measure committees.

Charles Marsteller thanked the Commission for allowing public comment after each speaker. He supported tying the limit to inflation, but agreed with the $500 limit.

David Pilpel stated that two approaches that have been discussed are to limit contributions or to ban contributions from certain individuals under certain circumstances. He stated that a third approach could be to prohibit an officeholder from taking certain actions following a contribution from an individual that would benefit them for a certain period of time.

III. Discussion and possible action regarding further changes to the San Francisco Campaign Finance Reform Ordinance amendments which were approved by the Commission at its meetings on January 26, 2015 and February 23, 2015.

Deputy Director Mainardi introduced the item. He stated that the Board would consider the amendments approved by the Commission on Tuesday, June 9, but that the Rules Committee meeting generated discussion on two issues. He stated that the first issue related to the 24-hour reporting requirement for electioneering communications. He stated that the Rules Committee asked the Commission to reconsider exempting the requirement for the committees to report vendor information in the 24-hour disclosure reports. Commissioner Hur asked about the amendment procedure and process before the Board. DCA Shen stated that whatever the Commission approved during this meeting would be before the Board when it meets on Tuesday. He stated that it was possible that the Board could send the whole matter back to the Commission with additional changes.

Motion 150605-01 (Hur/Hayon): Moved, seconded, and passed (3-2; Keane and Renne dissented) that the Commission approve the language previously sent to the Board, making it consistent with what the state requires.

Public Comment:
David Pilpel supported the motion. He questioned whether the Board would be able to consider the matter on Tuesday. DCA Shen stated that the draft ordinance has been available for a long time and the Board could consider it.

Bob Planthold stated that the motion should be defeated and the Commission should recommend the amendment.

Chairperson Renne stated that he did not realize that the Commission had removed this requirement and he was inclined to vote against any resolution that sends a message that information that was previously required would no longer be required in the 24-hour turnaround.

Deputy Director Mainardi stated that the second issue related to an exemption for communications sent by 501(c)(3) charity organizations. He stated that federal tax rules already preclude those organizations from influencing elections and that staff saw the rule as a trap for the unwary. Commissioner Andrews expressed support for this exemption.

Motion 150605-02 (Andrews/Hayon): Moved, seconded, and passed (5-0) that the Commission support this exemption within CFRO, thereby retaining the language contained in the proposed draft legislation.

Public Comment:
Larry Bush did not support the motion.

Robert van Ravenswaay stated that he did not understand parts of staff’s memorandum.

David Pilpel supported the motion.

IV. Discussion and possible action on Executive Director recruitment process.

Deputy Director Mainardi recused himself from the next two agenda items.

Chairperson Renne stated that no other responses had been submitted. He stated that only Los Angeles County, four years ago, had used an outside recruiting firm to fill a vacant Executive Director position. He stated that he and Vice-Chairperson Andrews would soon meet with Alliance to discuss the proposal and decide whether that firm will adequately perform the job. He stated that any member of the public would be welcome to attend the meeting and provide input.

Public Comment:
David Pilpel encouraged the Commissioners to meet in City Hall, to avoid a 15-day notice requirement.

V. Discussion and possible action regarding staff’s proposed revocation of a forfeiture letter sent to Supervisor Mark Farrell on December 9, 2014.

Chairperson Renne stated that the Commission must decide whether to take any action on the draft letter submitted by Executive Director St. Croix.

Commissioner Keane stated that the Commission has had an extended discussion on this matter once before and nothing has changed. He stated that the Supervisor was elected on the basis of an illegal $200,000 contribution and that forfeiture was an appropriate measure. He wondered why Supervisor Farrell never addressed the Commission directly. He stated that what he did is corrupt. Commissioner Hur stated that the process was not handled well.

Motion 150605-03 (Keane/Renne): Moved and seconded that the Commission overrule Executive Director St. Croix’s request for waiver.

The Commissioners questioned both Mr. Bell and Mr. Sutton, regarding fraudulent concealment, the agency of Mr. Lee, the discovery rule, the statute of limitations, and Supervisor Farrell’s knowledge of or involvement in the independent expenditure committee.

Public Comment:
Robert van Ravenswaay stated that staff was setting their own policy of when to seek forfeiture. He stated that money was used improperly and forfeiture is appropriate.

Larry Bush referenced an August 2014 e-mail from FPPC to Commission staff. He provided a copy of the e-mail to the Commissioners.

Ken Miller, resident of District 2, stated that he knew Supervisor Farrell’s character and values. He stated that he is guided by the highest ethical standards.

Bob Planthold supported the withdrawal of the waiver letter.

David Pilpel wondered whether the independent expenditure committee was the entity found to have become a candidate-controlled committee and asked whether it would have to forfeit the amount requested as well.

Vince Courtney stated that he agreed with what a previous speaker stated about Supervisor Farrell. He stated that former Supervisor Alioto-Pier had been involved in the independent expenditure at the time and had more ability to fundraise from people in District 2 than Supervisor Farrell. He stated that former Supervisor Alioto-Pier had been raising money for Supervisor Farrell and against Ms. Reilly.

Jim Maxwell stated that he was a neighbor of Supervisor Farrell and had seen him grow up. He stated that he has worked with his office and he has done fabulous work for the city. He stated that Supervisor Farrell wants to make San Francisco a better place.

Charles Marsteller expressed disappointment that Supervisor Farrell was not present.

Commissioner Hur asked whether the Commission could seek advice from the City Attorney on this matter, on the legality of the statute. Chairperson Renne stated that the Commission could move into agenda item six in order to confer with the City Attorney. Commissioner Keane asked whether the Commission could seek advice in open session. DCA Shen requested that the Commission discuss the matter in closed session.

VI. Discussion and possible action regarding a complaint received or initiated by the Ethics Commission concerning San Francisco Campaign and Governmental Conduct Code section 1.114(a) (contribution limits). Closed Session.

Commissioner Keane asked whether the Commission was required to discuss the matter in closed session. DCA Shen stated that it was a requirement and that it was in the best interest of the city and the Commission to discuss the matter in closed session.

Motion 150605-04 (Hur/Andrews): Moved, seconded, and passed (3-2; Hayon and Keane dissented) that the Commission move into closed session.

Public Comment:
Bob Planthold agreed with Commissioner Keane. He asked the Commission to inform the public what issues would be discussed. Commissioner Hur stated that the topic was the statute of limitations.

Larry Bush stated that the City Attorney would say that a court will find that the statute has passed, but will represent the Commission.

Charles Marsteller stated that it would be a disaster to rescind this letter.

Chairperson Renne stated that the Commission would move into agenda item six and later return to agenda item five.

The Commission moved into closed session at 3:45 PM and took a 10-minute break. All members of the public left the hearing room. The Commission members, DCA Shen, and Ms. Argumedo remained in the hearing room during closed session. The Commission returned into open session at 4:18 PM.

Motion 150605-05 (Hur/Andrews): Moved, seconded, and passed (5-0) that the Commission not disclose its closed session deliberations re: anticipated litigation, except to state that no decision had been made in closed session.

Public Comment:
None.

The Commission then continued discussion and possible action on agenda item five.

CONTINUATION OF AGENDA ITEM V

Commissioner Keane restated the pending motion (Motion 150605-03).

Commissioner Hur stated that he did not think that the Commission was considering whether Supervisor Farrell committed fraud or wrongdoing. He stated that he did not want to impugn his integrity or character based on these allegations. He stated that there are reasonable legal and factual disputes related to the statute of limitations. Chairperson Renne added that he too was not making a finding that Supervisor Farrell did or did not violate various campaign finance laws named in the FPPC stipulation.

Motion 150605-03 (Keane/Renne): Passed (5-0) that the Commission overrule Executive Director St. Croix’s request for waiver.

VII. Adjournment.