Skip to content

Minutes – April 20, 2018 – Draft


Minutes of the Regular Meeting of
The San Francisco Ethics Commission
April 20, 2018
Room 416 – City Hall
1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place
San Francisco, CA 94102
(Approved ____ __, _____)


Note: SFGovTV provides a continuous archive of selected Commission, council and board meetings that allows viewers to watch those meetings online in full at the viewer’s convenience. Video and audio archives of Ethics Commission meetings may be accessed here.

1. Call to order and roll call.


Commission Chair Daina Chiu called the meeting to order at 3:40 PM.

COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT:  Daina Chiu, Chair; Quentin L. Kopp, Vice-Chair; Yvonne Lee, Commissioner; Kevin V. Ryan, Commissioner.  Commissioner Renne was not present due to an excused absence. A quorum of members was present.

STAFF PRESENT:  LeeAnn Pelham, Executive Director; Amy Li, Auditor; Pat Ford, Policy Analyst.

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

OTHERS PRESENT:  Anika Steig; Sandra Ribera-Speed; Alfred Chiantelli; Angela Alioto; Charlie Marsteller; Mark Liboro; Alli Khalatbari; Pia Hinckle; Ace Washington; Michael Farentino; Nelda Jones; Jackie Miller;  Peter Oockman; Susan Horsfal; and other unidentified members of the public.


  • April 16, 2018 Staff memo and attachments, and documents submitted by Angela Alioto for Mayor 2018 regarding the candidate’s appeal of Executive Director’s adverse determination of eligibility for public financing for Angela Alioto for Mayor 2018.

2. Public comment on matters appearing or not appearing on the agenda.


Anika Steig, with the Angela Alioto for Mayor 2018 campaign’s fundraising team, thanked the Commission for taking the time to hear the Committee’s appeal. She described the Committee’s qualification filing and described examples of contributions the committee was surprised to see as flagged for more information by the Commission Staff. She noted the Committee submitted over $53,000 in contributions with their qualifying request, and that the Commission took nine days to review the request and provided only 30 hours for the Committee’s response. She noted the team of staff and volunteers reached out to donors to gather additional information, including proof of San Francisco residency – such as copies of their California IDs, utility bills, rental agreements, bank statements or recent pay stubs — and stated that doing so felt like a gross invasion of privacy. Many donors did not respond or declined to share that information. The committee resubmitted additional information at the end of the 30 hours, but it was not enough time to locate all the time requested. The Committee asks for four more days to carry out the wishes of its donors and qualify for public funding from the City and County of San Francisco.

Commissioner Kopp noted that under item 3, the Committee will have an opportunity to comment on Agenda Item 3 rather than in general public comment, when the Commission has not yet heard a report from the Staff. Commissioner Chiu requested that public comment regarding Agenda Item 3 be given when that item is called.

Charlie Marsteller, Friends of Ethics, stated for the audience’s benefit that the adjudication of this type of matter has legal implications. This is why the procedures may seem formalistic and he appreciates everyone’s patience.

Ace Washington addressed the Commission. He stated he was very concerned about this decision and supports the Committee’s request for an appeal. He believes there are certain selective things that go on in City government. He is glad the Ethics Commission is here to help root out corruption. He is here to stand toe-to-toe with Ms. Alioto.

No other general public comment was received.

Chair Chiu then called Agenda Item 3.

3. Discussion and possible action on candidate’s appeal of Executive Director’s adverse determination of eligibility for public financing for Angela Alioto for Mayor 2018.


Commissioner Ryan stated he has a motion as it relates to his participation in this particular issue. For purposes of the record, he stated that he is familiar with candidate and familiar with the issues before the Commission in this matter. He stated that prior to becoming a member of the Ethics Commission he supported this candidate for purposes of public financing and is identified as one of the items on page 123 of the list of supporters. He does not believe it is judicious to sit in judgment given he was a contributor. He requested that he be recused from consideration on the item.

Motion 180420-01 (Kopp/Chiu): Moved, seconded and passed (3-0) to recuse Commissioner Ryan from the participation in Agenda Item 3.

Commissioner Ryan was excused from the remainder of the meeting and left the room.

The Commission then heard a presentation by Executive Director Pelham. She summarized that a detailed analysis of requirements and timeframes established in the law for the public financing program was explained in the April 16, 2018 Staff memo and attachments. Pelham stated she was distributing to the Commission and making available for the public a one-page overview illustrating timeframes discussed in the memo to assist in today’s discussion.

Director Pelham stated the question before the Commission is whether to affirm the determination that the Alioto for Mayor 2018 committee is ineligible to receive public funds for the June 2018 election. She noted that the memo details the basis for the determination and recommendation to affirm it. It also reviews the specific filings that were received, reviews applicable law, and identifies policy considerations regarding the request for an appeal. Pelham stated she would first walk through the illustration for context, then come back to the action recommendation.

Pelham referenced the handout titled “Public Financing Eligibility Deadlines for June 5, 2018 Election,” and stated that public financing is a very comprehensive program established by the voters. Not unlike programs in other jurisdictions, she said, there are several very specific requirements and deadlines established in the law for candidates who wish to participate and receive public financing. She reviewed the illustration and highlighted deadlines established in the law as they apply for the June 2018 election.

She noted that San Francisco Campaign & Governmental Conduct Code Article 1 establishes program requirements and processes. Ethics Commission regulations further detail specific requirements for when and how contributions are considered qualifying for determining candidate eligibility to receive public funds, including supporting documentation requirements. Pelham stated she and the Staff very much appreciate the complexity and challenge that candidates busy running for office have when they are seeking public funds. She stated it is a program designed to help increase a multiplicity of views in City campaigns, and is a program that is worthwhile for candidate participation.

As illustrated in the handout, Pelham explained that funds raised by candidates in the June 2018 election beginning December 5, 2016 could help them for qualifying purposes. Candidates must declare their intent to participate no later than January 9, 2018. Candidates were required to file a qualifying request no later than March 27, 2018, which was the 70th day before the June 5th election. Pelham noted that for the June election, no candidate seeking public financing for their campaign was qualified as eligible based on his or her first qualifying request. Any resubmission of a qualifying request was due no later than April 6, 2018, the 60th day before the election. The statute requires that the Executive Director make all eligibility determinations no later than the 55th day before the election, which for the June election was April 11, 2018.

As detailed in the Staff report, Pelham said, the basis for recommending that the Commission affirm the Committee’s ineligibility stands due to the Committee’s inability to demonstrate eligibility by deadlines established in statute and regulations.

Pelham stated that after further preparing for this meeting and re-reviewing documents, however, she wanted to bring to the Commission’s attention one underlying issue that has bearing on the appeal but that was not addressed in the Staff memo or documents provided by the Committee. That issue pertains to how language in the statute was applied to contributions that may have been received by the Committee on the 70th day before the election. She stated that there is an inconsistency in how the Supplemental Guide for Mayoral candidates and the statute read with regard to how contributions received on the 70th date before the election are treated. The statute states that qualifying contributions must be received “by the 70th day before the election,” which for the June 5, 2018 election is March 27, 2018. However, the Mayoral Supplemental Guide incorrectly states qualifying contributions are to be received “before the 70th day before the election,” in other words, by March 26, 2018.  Pelham stated that the Committee was informed by our office that contributions received March 27 would not be considered for qualifying or matching purposes. Pelham stated that in an abundance of fairness, the Committee should have the opportunity to identify if they had any contributions received on March 27, 2018 that they did not submit but that they otherwise could have submitted for qualification purposes, if not for our reliance on the language in the Mayoral Supplemental Guide. If they failed to include contributions based on our inaccurate guidance, Pelham said, it is important that we own up to that error and allow any contributions that may have been received on March 27, but not submitted, to be considered before a final determination is made regarding the Committee’s eligibility for public funds.

After further discussion, Chair Chiu recognized the Alioto for Mayor 2018 committee for comments. Sandra Ribera-Speed introduced herself and addressed the Commission on behalf of the Alioto for Mayor 2018 committee. Ms. Sandra Ribera-Speed reviewed the Committee’s basis for seeking an appeal as discussed in the Committee’s letter and attachments, which were provided as attachments to the Staff report.  She reviewed the Committee’s chronology of submissions for public financing eligibility:

  • The campaign submitted the qualifying request timely on March 27, 2018.
  • Between that date and April 4, 2018, the campaign made repeated contacts with the office of the Executive Director to inquire about the status of the request and the determination of the qualifying request.
  • On April 3, 2018 was the first time the Executive Director spoke to someone from the campaign.
  • When the campaign manager, Michael Mallen, had inquired about the status, he was told by a Commission staff member that the office has 30 days to review the request, which left the campaign with the impression that the Executive Director’s office had not yet started the review process. This was concerning because the campaign was aware that a determination needed to be made by the 55th day before the election, which was April 11th.
  • On the morning of April 5, Ms. Alioto spoke to Ms. Pelham and was told there were a couple of items that needed supporting documentation. That afternoon, Ms. Alioto again spoke with Ms. Pelham, who relayed that there were 280 items that required supporting documentation.
  • Subsequently, just after 5 o’clock p.m., Ms. Alioto received notification from Ms. Pelham of her determination of Ms. Alioto’s ineligibility to receive public funds. In that letter, it indicated that Ms. Alioto had only until April 6th to resubmit supporting documentation to cure the defects of the 280 items. This was the first time that Ms. Alioto had ever heard of the regulation that she had only one day to resubmit.
  • Ms. Ribera-Speed referenced candidate guide and supplemental guide provided to Mayoral candidates and said that the 60th day deadline information is provided nowhere in those documents. She stated that the information is not contained in the San Francisco Campaign and Governmental Conduct Code (“Code”), which is the law. The Code and the supplemental guide reference the 55th day, but not the 60th day deadline. She noted these materials are contained as Exhibit H to the committee’s appeal.

Chair Chiu asked DCA Shen a question regarding Ethics Commission Regulation 1.142-6, which she noted  establishes that no re-submissions may be made after the 60th day before the election. She asked if that is correct. DCA Shen confirmed that the Commission’s regulations spell out that deadline. He added that it may be the policy rationale that because the Executive Director is required to make all final eligibility determinations by the 55th day, requiring resubmissions to be made by the 60th day ensures sufficient time for Staff to examine information resubmitted.

Ms. Ribera-Speed responded that the issue boils down to fairness. She cited purposes and findings of the Code at Sec. 1.100(b)(2). She stated there was no notification that Ms. Alioto would not be provided the five days noted in the supplement and the Code. She stated Code section 1.142(f) provides language that allows for five days to resubmit. In the one day the Committee did have to resubmit its qualifying request, the Committee was able to provide additional supporting documentation for approximately $12,000 more of the contributions that had not been qualified. Had she had the full time allowed for other candidates is important, this is more than about $50,000 in qualifying, it is about potentially about $1.4 million in public funds for the campaign, which is a lot in an election.

In fairness, Ms. Ribera-Speed stated, it is the spirit of the law to even out the playing field so everyone has the same fair chance to obtain public financing. She stated that nowhere does it say if you submit by the 70th you may not get five days to resubmit. She believes the purpose of the regulations is not to trick the candidate but to help them. She added that it is her understanding that the regulations were not passed by the Board of Supervisors, and that while that they may be policy or instructive they are not law. They were not given to candidates or directly pointed in that direction. The omission of this information is a big deal and should be considered by the Commission.

Ms. Ribera-Speed concluded by asking that the Commission 1) vacate the Executive Director’s determination that Ms. Alioto is ineligible for public financing and denial of certification; 2) allow Ms. Alioto four additional business days under Code Section 1.142(f) to resubmit additional documentation in support of her qualifying request for public financing, including any March 27, 2018 contributions she received; and 3) authorize the Executive Director to accept and review the resubmission to make a determination as to Ms. Alioto’s eligibility for public financing and certification.  Lastly, she noted that the Committee had resubmitted additional information on April 10, 2018, but that pursuant to the Executive Director’ letter of April 11, 2018, that information was not considered in her final determination.

Chair Chiu asked if the Committee was asking the Commission to direct the Executive Director to consider the April 10 filing by the Committee. Ms. Ribera-Speed responded that Ms. Alioto would still need the five business days if that submission were considered.

Commissioner Kopp asked Ms. Ribera-Speed to clarify if the Committee had been accorded the five days, would that have been April 11, 2018. She confirmed it would have been. He asked approximately how many contributions had a March 27 receipt date but were not counted.  Ms. Ribera-Speed stated she did not have that information. Anika Steig stated in response that there were contributions received on that date but she did not immediately know the number. In response to a further question by Commissioner Kopp, Ms. Steig confirmed she could locate that information.

Commissioner Chiu stated her understanding that the Commission Staff have offered in person training to candidates and treasures on campaign finance and asked whether candidate Alioto or anyone from the campaign attended.  Ms. Ribera-Speed responded yes.

Public Comment:

Alfred Chiantelli stated he is a contributor and supporter of Ms. Alioto’s. He spoke of the need to remedy agency mistakes and misstatements by authorized representatives. He urged the Commission to use its mandate for fairness and on the grounds of estoppel and equity to add four additional days for review of the Alioto request.

Angela Alioto addressed the Commission. She stated that during the 30 hours following notice that the roughly $53,000 qualifying request was insufficient, they had 280 entries for which they had to call everybody back within one day to tell them they needed to provide additional information. There were complaints about some of the 280 entries that could not be fixed. She stated that calling back contributors to get additional information probably cost her more votes than the money could ever get her because people were so angry about having to provide the additional information. She noted that the use of PO boxes and cash contributions, including one from her brother, were not approved. She believes there is something wrong when the people, who public funding is supposed to be for, can’t get the money because the process is so difficult, including the proof of residency requirements. She urges the commission to take a look at that process.

Commissioner Kopp asked why the cash contribution of Ms. Alioto’s brother was not accepted as a qualifying contribution. Ms. Alioto stated she did not know why it was not accepted. She said there are several the campaign does not understand and they cannot fix them. He asked whether she had an approximation of what the Committee took in on March 27, 2018. A Committee representative stated it was approximately $370. Ms. Alioto noted that the Committee was not raising money for March 27 because they had prioritized the last day. She said in this instance, however, $370 can make a big difference.

Charlie Marsteller stated that he is a proponent of public financing and helped write the City’s campaign finance law back in 1995 as a Common Cause suggestion to the Board, which ultimately went to the ballot. He believes we are learning from this as there has not been a lot of experience with a truly open Mayoral election. He appreciates understanding the kinks that the system presents and believes it was not the intent of the system to make it un-user friendly. When candidates participate, the public gets a good debate with as many candidates as possible qualifying.

Mark Liboro spoke about the integrity of the Ethics Commission. If the Commission does not recognize Ms. Alioto’s right to qualify to receive public funds, he stated, the Commission will be stained by a grave abuse by its mandate to pass on these electoral issues. He stated he is an attorney who regularly receives communications from the City and understands the shorthand references to various City departments. He does not believe Ms. Alioto breached any ethical rules, yet the Commission stands to misinterpret the facts and circumstances, and its role as an independent ethical arbitrator is at stake. The record and equities and policy considerations are clear and important, and the Commission should allow Ms. Alioto to correct and qualify her application.

Alli Khalatbari stated the she and her husband operate and own a florist and bakery in the City, are proud San Franciscans and love the City. She stated that when she made a contribution to the Alioto campaign, she filled out a donor sheet and wrote a check but was later told by the Committee a few days later that her contribution was rejected. To prover her residency, she made a photocopy of her drivers license and sent it to the Committee. She was then told her drivers license was rejected because the number was blurry. She is upset that she has not been allowed to participate in a democratic process where she can support her candidate for Mayor.

Pia Hinckle stated that she is a supporter of and contributor to Angela Alioto. Public financing is crucial to level the playing field and reduce the influence of big money in city elections. Candidates who accept public financing need to feel confident that the rules are going to be equitably applied to all candidates. Timeframes for the shorter special elections that seem to be more numerous need to be considered and adjusted so there is no confusion and that all candidates have the same opportunity to respond to requests for corrections to the date. She urged the Commission to grant the Alioto campaign an additional four days to provide all their data.

Julie stated that she has been a San Francisco resident since 1994 and has also contributed to the Alioto campaign and hoped her contribution would help with the campaign financing years. She was called by the Committee because her contribution had a PO Box, which she has had for 17 years. She said her utility bill was not sufficient enough, so she spent 45 minutes at the Department of Elections to get her voter registration with an official City seal. She is not sure it will count unless the Committee gets another four days, and she urges the Commission to provide that additional time.

Ace Washington commented on the Alioto family history.  Although he has not contributed financially to the Committee, he supports Angela Alioto for Mayor. After reading a newspaper article, he decided to come to the meeting and encourages the Commission to show an example that the City does care and is fair for everyone. It would be a disservice to disqualify her.

Michael Farentino stated he is a San Francisco resident and a supporter and volunteer for the Committee. He explained that he received a call from the campaign that one of the committee’s contributors was rejected. That contributor is his partner, who is a consultant, writer, speaker, and longtime San Francisco resident. He stated he believes that somehow the occupation of a consultant appears to present difficulties for qualifying contributions. He added that he had submitted a drivers license for residency but because it showed a PO Box for the address they also had to submit an electric bill, which he believed worked. He noted another contributor who worked for a big corporation was able to be qualified though that individual had worked in San Francisco only briefly and did not yet have a drivers license updated from a prior non-San Francisco address.

Nelda Jones commented that she was at the campaign office volunteering on April 5, when news was received that they had some work ahead requiring immediate attention. They were given a list of donors with information that needed to be verified in less than 30 hours. They had to quickly pull information apart and contact donors to get the additional information to verify San Francisco residency and get additional information, such as occupation and employer. For a small campaign relying on volunteers, the task was daunting. She asks that the Commission provide the additional four days to the Committee.

Jackie Miller stated she has been working with Ms. Alioto for a number of years and supports her vision for the City. She is a member of the campaign’s fundraising committee, and said had she known that they could have submitted March 27, 2018 contributions, she would have been on the phone all day calling. She would like to course correct and move on and ensure the Committee has a fair chance in this election.

Peter Oockman stated on April 5 the campaign was informed about push back on 280 contributions. For the next 24 hours he was involved in verifying information for donors. Denying a contribution due to not spelling out full names of abbreviated organizations made the task more onerous. It was an immense task and believes the Committee will qualify if given four additional days.

Susan Horsfal spoke of the value of ensuring SF residency of donors for public finance to confirm that they indeed are San Francisco residents. Equally important is the donor’s ability to use their First Amendment right to voice their support with their hard-earned dollars for the candidate of their choice. Undermining that support is an egregious step. Donors commenting today show that they did their best efforts to comply and still were denied for reasons that seem to defy their earnest efforts. She stated that use of the property tax records is a useful tool but that it should not be used to disenfranchise supporters of tehri right to voice their support for the candidate of their choice. She urges the Commission to thoughtfully reconsider the determination.

[Unnamed speaker] When in the law there is a confusion created by an entity, or in writing a contract, that confusion is resolved in favor of the person who is prejudiced. He stated if the Committee was entitled to five days they should have received five days.

No further public comment was received.

Commissioner Kopp stated he has no questions and is prepared to make a motion.

Commissioner Lee asked Staff whether it is usual to have so many questionable items based on addresses and employment status compared to previous campaigns. Staff member Amy Li stated that it is not unusual. Commissioner Lee stated she is ready to make a motion.

Commissioner Kopp stated that nobody in testifying mentioned that the Executive Director under the law has discretion to waive any mistake or imperfection that was made. He asked DCA Shen if the Commission has discretion. DCA Shen stated he was not clear to what Executive Director discretion he was referring but stated that the Commission has wide discretion to take action it deems appropriate.

Commissioner Kopp stated that his motion is based on that discretion and the facts. He stated that the facts show that mistakes were made. He noted that the intent of the law was to qualify as many candidates as possible. Public financing is based on money from taxpayers and there is a philosophical debate about whether tax money should be used for candidates. It’s in that sense that these regulations and the times for action were prepared by the Ethics Commission Staff, and he is glad they were prepared. He is persuaded that whether it is the exercise of equitable power of an administrative body or estoppel or detrimental reliance, he believes the Commission should vacate the Executive Director’s determination that the appellant is eligible for public financing as recommended on page 5 of the appellant’s brief, and secondly, that Angela Alioto be allowed four business days starting on Monday, April 23, 2018 ending on Thursday, 5pm, on April 27, 2018, to resubmit additional information and proof for her application for public financing. He is persuaded not by all the campaign advocacy he has heard today. He stated his motion is to vacate the decision of the Executive Officer and allow the candidate to submit information by April 27, 2018.

Commissioner Lee stated she would second the motion for purposes of continuing the discussion.

Commissioner Lee stated moved that that Committee be allowed one additional business day starting Monday to submit additional information not only on the March 27 contributions but any other information that the Committee can provide. Her motion is strictly based on the difference between the supplemental guide and the language of the law as the Executive Director previously described. She believes the Committee should have the opportunity to gather that information. Chair Chiu asked to clarify if Commissioner Lee’s motion is to permit the Committee to have one additional business day until 5pm on Monday April 23rd to submit contributions from March 27, 2018 as well as any corrections to its prior submissions. Commissioner Lee confirmed that is the content of her motion.

In discussion to clarify the motions, Ms. Alioto stated that the committee didn’t know that contributions on March 27 would count so it did not raise funds on March 27. Commissioner Kopp agreed that should count. DCA Shen re-stated the motions pending. He stated that Commissioner Kopp’s motion to provide the Alioto campaign with four additional business days starting Monday, April 23 ending Thursday, April 26 to submit any additional information and allow for any contributions received on March 27 to be considered qualifying contributions. Commissioner Kopp confirmed that is his motion and noted that there should also be a time by which the Commission Staff concludes that work. He asked Director Pelham for a recommended time frame for the Staff’s review, and she responded five business days from that submission deadline for review, which is May 3, 2018. DCA confirmed that Commissioner Kopp’s motion had received a second by Commissioner Lee.

After additional discussion about potential timeframes by which the Committee would be allowed to submit further information, Chair Chiu stated that the difference between the two motions is four business days versus one business day. She noted that as part of the filings candidates make they agree to abide by all regulations and the statute that apply to public financing, including program deadlines. She explained her view that if it is the will of her colleagues to allow for additional time for the Committee to make corrections, she would be in support of that. She added that by moving the deadline out now, however, would be moving the timeframe out of either 10 or 7 business days from what otherwise would be statutorily provided to candidates.

Commissioner Kopp asked for the Executive Director’s comments on the efficacy of his motion and the sufficiency of the time it would provide for the Staff’s certification review. Director Pelham responded that if the Commission is providing additional time that the staff should have five days to notify committee by 5pm on the last, fifth business day. She stated she leaves it to the Commission to determine where it is comfortable establishing a date for the submission of that information; she requests five business days from that submission date to conduct the review and notify the committee as the Commission’s final determination and that the Executive Director’s determination will be final.

Commissioner Kopp urged the Commission to adopt the appellant’s request. Commissioner Lee asked for clarification about the specific dates that would apply as contained in each motion. Director Pelham reviewed the dates. Commissioner Chiu stated she would second Commissioner Lee’s motion. She added that the Commission actions are by a 3/5th vote, so to take any action today will require a unanimous vote of the Commission. DCA Shen confirmed that the Commission acts by majority vote in almost all circumstances. Given two members are absent from the five-member panel today, the Commission would need a unanimous vote of all members present to overturn the Executive Director’s determination and grant Ms. Alioto’s appeal.

Commissioner Lee stated she believes the Executive Director’s report had outlined pretty clearly that it is the responsibility of the campaign and committees to follow the rules. Using that, she made the motion for one day additionally based on a recognition of the Staff’s admission that there was a discrepancy with regard to the contributions of March 27th.  She agrees the Commission should work with the community to tighten up and improve information provided, but she does not agree with giving the additional time provided in Commissioner Kopp’s motion.

Commissioner Kopp agreed candidates have the responsibility to comply with the laws, and administratively agencies have the duty and responsibility to provide accurate advice at all times, not erroneous or conflicting information. This law in this instance guarantees a non-rigid result. It gives discretion. Any court will respect that action. In this instance another four days within which to obtain that information is appropriate.

Chair Chiu called for a vote on Commissioner Kopp’s pending motion.

Motion 180420-02 (Kopp/Lee): Motion made, seconded and failed (2-1; Lee in the dissent) to 1) vacate the Executive Director’s determination regarding the eligibility of the Angela Alioto for Mayor; 2) permit an additional four business days for the submission of correcting materials, including contributions made on March 27 in that determination, due by 5pm on April 26; and 4) to direct the Executive Director to consider that submission and to provide another five business days that review, with a deadline of 5pm on May 3, and that such determination would be final and not appealable to the Commission.

The motion failed on a 2 to 1 vote.

Commissioner Kopp then stated he wished to make a subsequent motion to make April 25 at 5pm the deadline to submit qualifying information by the appellant and all other respects the provisions of the failed motion will be included.

Commissioner Chiu then turned to Commissioner Lee’s pending motion. Before voting, Commissioner Lee said she wished to seek a clarification from the Committee regarding the timeframe for submitting supporting documentation. Ms. Alioto stated that a deadline of April 25 would be an acceptable compromise. After additional brief discussion, Commissioners indicated their support to revise Commissioner Kopp’s motion for an April 25 deadline to establish a noon deadline on that date for the Committee’s submission, and a noon deadline on May 2 for the Executive Director’s final determination and notice to the Committee.

Motion 180420-03 (Kopp/Chiu): Motion made, seconded and passed (3-0) to:

(1) vacate the Executive Director’s prior determination;

(2) allow the Committee to include any qualifying contributions it may have received on March 27, 2018 as part of its qualifying request;

(3) allow the Committee to submit additional supporting documentation in support of its prior qualifying request no later than 12:00 pm on Wednesday, April 25, 2018;

(4) direct the Executive Director to review that documentation and, based on that analysis, notify the Committee of its eligibility for public financing no later than 12:00 pm on Wednesday, May 2, 2018; and

(5) establish that the Executive Director’s May 2 decision will be the agency’s final determination, and that no further appeal of the matter will be heard by the Commission.

4. Additional opportunity for public comment on matters appearing or not appearing on the agenda pursuant to Ethics Commission Bylaws Article VII Section 2.


Public Comment:

No public comment was received.

5. Adjournment.

The Commission adjourned at 5:52 PM.

We are continuously increasing the number of translated pages on this site. Materials on this website that are not currently translated may be translated upon request. Contact us to provide feedback on this page.

Estamos aumentando continuamente el número de páginas traducidas en este sitio. Los materiales de este sitio web que no están traducidos actualmente pueden traducirse previa solicitud. Contáctenos para proporcionar comentarios sobre esta página o solicitar traducciones.


Patuloy naming dinaragdagan ang bilang ng mga isinalin na pahina sa site na ito. Ang mga materyal sa website na ito na hindi kasalukuyang isinasalin ay maaaring isalin kapag hiniling. Makipag-ugnayan sa amin para magbigay ng feedback sa page na ito o humiling ng mga pagsasalin.