Minutes of the Special Meeting of
The San Francisco Ethics Commission
Monday, May 7, 2018
Room 408 – 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.
Chair Daina Chiu called the meeting to order at 1:10 pm.
COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Chair Daina Chiu, Commissioners Yvonne Lee, Paul Renne, and Noreen Ambrose. Vice-Chair Kopp was not yet in attendance. A quorum of members was present.
STAFF PRESENT: LeeAnn Pelham, Executive Director; Jeffrey Pierce, Acting Director of Enforcement;
Kyle Kundert, Senior Policy Analyst; Steven Massey, Director of Technology; Amy Li, Acting Supervisory Auditor.
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY: Deputy City Attorneys Andrew Shen and Jon Givner.
OTHERS PRESENT: Sandra Ribera-Speed, Angela Alioto, Susan Horsefall, Anika Steig, Ali Divari, Jeffrey Walls, Doug Comstock, Nick Bolani, Mike Leboro, Mike Davis, Peter Ookin, Jeff Brown, Charlie Marsteller, Marc Bruno, and other unidentified members of the public.
MATERIALS DISTRIBUTED:
- Proposed Stipulation, Decision, and Order in the Matter of Alice B. Toklas Lesbian and Gay Democratic Club PAC (Ethics Commission Case No. 1617-110, 1617-112).
- Draft minutes for the February 16, 2018 regular meeting; the March 16, 2018 regular meeting, the April 18, 2018 special meeting, and the April 20, 2018 regular meeting.
- Proposed Stipulation, Decision, and Order in the Matter of Olson Lee (Ethics Commission Case No. 1617-99).
- Memo from the Executive Director dated May 4, 2018 and attachments, including letter received from the Angela Alioto for Mayor 2018 campaign, received May 3, 2018.
- Staff memo dated May 3, 2018 regarding proposed Policy Prioritization Plan.
- Staff memo dated May 3, 2018 and attachments regarding Supervisor Kim’s proposed amendments to the San Francisco Campaign Finance Reform Ordinance, Article I, Chapter 1 of the San Francisco Campaign and Governmental Conduct Code, Board File No. 170868.
- Staff’s monthly Policy Report dated May 3, 2018 and attachments.
- Staff’s monthly Enforcement Report dated May 3, 2018 and attachments.
- Executive Director’s Report dated May 3, 2018.
Chair Chiu thanked former Commissioner Kevin Ryan for his brief service on the Commission. She welcomed Noreen Ambrose as the new Commissioner appointed by the City Attorney to replace Mr. Ryan.
2. Public comment on matters appearing or not appearing on the agenda.
No public comment was received.
CONSENT CALENDAR ITEMS
Chiu explained in brief that the Commission’s new Enforcement Regulations enacted in March 2018 including provision for a consent calendar. Items appearing here do not require discussion by the Commission but are subject to public comment.
3. Stipulation, Decision, and Order in the Matter of Alice B. Toklas Lesbian and Gay Democratic Club PAC (Ethics Commission Case No. 1617-110, 1617-112).
No public comment was received and the item was therefore adopted as presented.
NON-CONSENT ITEMS
4. Discussion and possible action on draft Minutes for the Commission’s February 16, 2018, regular meeting, March 16, 2018, regular meeting, April 3, 2018, special joint meeting with the Board of Supervisors, April 18, 2018 special meeting, and April 20, 2018 regular meeting.
Executive Director Pelham stated that while the April 3 special joint meeting draft minutes had been completed they were not completed in time to meet public posting requirements to enable their adoption at this meeting. Instead, the April 3 draft minutes will be on the June agenda for the Commission’s action at that time. She noted all other draft minutes listed on the agenda were able to be acted on at this meeting.
Commissioner Renne offered one typographical correction on the April 18th draft minutes, page 4, to correct “with is consistent” to read “which is consistent.”
Public Comment
No public comment was received.
Motion 180507-01 (Renne/Lee): Moved, seconded and passed (4-0; Kopp not present) that the Commission adopt the Minutes as amended.
5. Discussion and possible actionon Proposed Stipulation, Decision, and Order in the Matter of Olson Lee (Ethics Commission Case No. 1617-99).
Chair Chiu announced this item would be held over to the Commission’s June meeting at the request of the Respondent. The Commission did not discuss or take action on this item and there was no public comment.
6. Discussion and possible action regarding letter received from the Angela Alioto for Mayor 2018 campaign, received May 3, 2018.
Chair Chiu stated the Commission had received a letter on May 3 from Angela Alioto raising concerns about Executive Director Pelham’s final determination that her campaign was ineligible for public funds and asking the Commission for further action. Chair Chiu asked Staff to place the item on the Commission’s May 7 agenda to enable the Commission to discuss the item and ask questions. She asked Director Pelham to make a Staff’s presentation.
Commissioner Kopp joined the Commission meeting.
Pelham briefly summarized the procedural history regarding the Angela Alioto Committee’s original qualifying request and the determination that it had not met the qualification requirements under the law to receive public financing, including the Committee’s appeal heard before the Commission in April and the Commission’s decision to grant the appeal. She stated the Committee then did timely apply by the April 25 deadline established by the Commission. Based on that filing Staff determined that the Committee did not qualify, and that notice was provided to the Committee on May 2 by the deadline established by the Commission for that notification. Pelham stated that Alioto then sought a second appeal by email on May 2 to bring the issue to the Commission, which Pelham then forwarded to Chair Chiu and Deputy City Attorney Andrew Shen for follow up as may be necessary. The Staff memo before the Commission today contains information requested by the Chair in response to Ms. Alioto’s letter to the Commission and the concerns she raised in it.
Commissioner Renne stated that he was absent during the special meeting on April 18 and sought clarification that the missing documentation at issue concerned proof that contributors were San Francisco residents. Pelham confirmed that was the case. He asked whether the Committee explained why they had been unable to prove that contributors had residency. Pelham explained Staff provided that detailed information to the Committee. Commissioner Renee further asked if the Committee had explained why it couldn’t get the additional information. Director Pelham stated the Committee did not provide that record, but that it had confirmed at the time of its filing that the information it had submitted was the complete record.
Chair Chiu asked Director Pelham a series of questions and noted correspondence between the CEO of NetFile and Commission staff related to a communication on April 13 in which NetFile Professional did not make certain documents available in a different candidate’s public financing qualifying request. She asked Pelham whether Staff knew that anything was wrong otherwise. Pelham stated that issue was one that affected a different candidate and that Staff had no knowledge that it had affected any other candidates. Staff was unaware of any issues regarding Ethics Commission software.
Commissioner Kopp asked Pelham how many residential omissions there were in the Committee’s application. Pelham answered that Agenda Item 6, page 8, Attachment 1, shows 40 of the 46 contributions, or 87 percent, had proof of residency deficiencies. He stated that the prior agreement had included a provision that the second decision not be appealable and asked why this matter is appearing on the agenda. Pelham stated the reason was to enable the Commission to have a factual basis on which to review the concerns raised in Ms. Alioto’s May letter to the Commission. Kopp then asked why the condition against appeal had been included at all, and Pelham indicated that would be a question best directed to Ms. Alioto. Chair Chiu stated it is on the agenda because the letter alleges fraudulent behavior on the part of the Ethics Commission Director, allegation which she believes the Commission would like to discuss. He asked whether a petition for writ of mandate had been filed in the Superior Court of San Francisco, and Pelham stated not to her knowledge. She added that she does not understand the May 3 letter to be an appeal from the Committee and have not characterized it as an appeal.
With no further questions from Commissioners, Chair Chiu invited the Alioto Campaign to speak and Sandra Ribera-Speed on behalf of the Alioto Committee addressed the Commission. She stated that the Commission knew from prior correspondence with the CEO of NetFile that a glitch was in the system that candidates, including Ms. Alioto, were using to upload supporting documentation to establish their $50,000 qualification threshold. She stated Director Pelham had not informed Alioto of this software glitch and as a result the Committee spent its efforts trying to cure errors that NetFile had already fixed and need not have spent time on that effort. She discussed an email from David Montgomery of NetFile that referenced issues with NetFile and candidates’ submissions.
Chair Chiu read from the letter in Exhibit 5 from Agenda Item 6 to seek clarification about what Pelham did or should have known from correspondence regarding a problem in a different committee’s treasurer’s software. Ribera-Speed stated that the issue was that Pelham had never informed the campaign they needn’t have wasted their time curing defects related to hundreds of decisions when in fact they didn’t need curing. She noted that the May 2nd letter from Pelham indicated the Committee was only $1,074 short of the qualifying threshold. She indicated had the Committee spent over 1,000 hours trying to cure defects that were problems known to the Director. Chair Chiu asked why the correspondence she cited created an obligation on Staff to notify other candidates that other committees might have the same problem, noting that would be like saying the IRS would have an obligation to inform all tax filers if the IRS learned that Turbo Tax had a glitch. Ribera stated that it’s not the job the IRS to help people save money, whereas it is the job of the Executive Director to help and not to hurt candidates for City office.
Chair Chiu asked whether the Committee had not uploaded all of its information on April 25, meaning whether it had been unable to make its records available to Staff; Ribera-Speed stated that the Committee had been able to do so because the glitch had been fixed, but added that the problem is that the Committee had wasted time during doing a resubmission on April 25 that required them to focus their time on submissions they had already submitted properly. Ms. Ribera-Speed said this is why the Committee is asking for one additional day as a result, because it did not have the proper amount of time.
Commissioner Renne asked whether the Committee had all the documentation it needed to submit, and Ribera-Speed answered yes. He asked further why the Committee hadn’t simply provided the documentation on May 2 when the committee was deemed to again not qualify. Rivera-Speed stated that contributors themselves would speak to that. She said the Committee submitted residence information in good faith but that was then rejected by Ethics Staff. Commissioner Kopp asked to confirm if the Committee now has all the residency requirement documentation for all 46 instances cited in Director Pelham’s letter. She responded that the Committee has many, but only need 11 to meet requirements. After additional brief discussion, and with no further questions by Commissioners, Chair Chiu invited public comment.
Public Comment
Commenter Susan Horsefall thanked the Commission for its service. She remarked upon verbal lease agreements which are lawful; she remarked upon handwritten leases that Staff rejected.
In response to a question by Commissioner Kopp regarding whether the committee had the information for the 46 disqualified on April 25, Ms. Alioto responded that the Committee had $52,000 and only needed $50,000 and stated further that they only needed 11 additional contributors to qualify.
Anika Steig from the Alioto campaign’s fundraising team stated that they spent hundreds of hours seeking proof of residency. She cited one example in which a contributor lived and worked at the same address and that his California driver’s license listed his business address and it was therefore rejected because it was technically a business address even though a simple search shows this is a place where residences exist above businesses on that block.
Commenter Ali Divari stated she is a resident in SF; she stated she and her husband own a bakery, and that their single daughter was born in this City. She stated that she contributed to this campaign and was notified on April 16 that her contribution had not qualified; she submitted her driver’s license, for which the address matched that on her check. She stated the Commission rejected her license because it was blurry, although she said double checked that her license had been clear.
Commissioner Kopp asked Director Pelham how she conveys as soon as possible to the submitter that their documentation doesn’t count because it is a business address. Pelham stated that Staff provides a detailed list on an Excel spreadsheet describing the shortcomings. Kopp asked whether it’s proof of residency that someone is a registered voter; Pelham explained the City’s voter identification records can be used to verify information provided by campaigns, but that it is the campaign that bears the burden of demonstrating proof and that Staff do not independently check 500 or 600 contributors against a voter registry.
Contributor Jeffrey Walls stated that he was discriminated against at work due to a medical condition and he stated further that Alioto resolved his issue and saved his life, and asked that the Commission help make Alioto mayor.
Commenter Doug Comstock read a letter authored by Mike Mallen, Deputy Campaign Manager for the Alioto Committee.
Commenter Nick Bolani stated that he is a lifetime resident of San Francisco and that he lacks trust in the Ethics Commission; he stated the reason the Executive Director might have an obligation to notify other committees about a software glitch is because of the public trust.
Commenter Mark Leboro stated that he is a resident and an attorney in the City, and he believes equity requires that the Alioto Committee receive one more day for fundraising. He urged the Commission to ensure equity and justice.
Mike Davis commented about two contributions that had come from business instead of personal accounts, stating that they were made from sole proprietorships and that under the law, sole proprietorships are not businesses or corporations and therefore should have qualified.
Peter Ookin said he had worked to verify on a team of ten for hundreds of hours, including by driving to individual’s homes; he stated that in the process they aggravated contributors; he characterized the process as one of terrible miscommunication from one side to another and a lack of transparency. Had they known there was a glitch in the process, they could have focused on certain contributions only.
Jeff Brown stated that when there has been information that has not been available to all, departments often have gone out of their way to support those affected. Out of substantial equity, he believes this candidate has “substantially complied” in almost every respect and should be allowed one day to rectify.
Charlie Marsteller stated that users would naturally be confused about the NetFile software because the firm uses the same name for more than one program. He stated further that the legislative intent behind public financing law was that it should be user friendly. He added that this process is like qualifying for ballot measures; one doesn’t quit right at the required number of signatures because some may be disqualified. He stated the committee should have been more aggressive in raising funds to create a margin for safety. He stated further that if the Committee is ready to go today, it should be allowed to submit its documentation.
Angela Alioto stated that the committee is only asking for one day to submit documentation for the 11 contributors who would have in fact qualified because their residences are in San Francisco. She provided an example and said that although they don’t have the 43, they do have information for the 11 which the Committee believes will help them qualify.
Commissioner Kopp responded that he has heard much campaign rhetoric but he is looking for facts. He asked Ms. Alioto whether the Committee could in fact submit documentation within a few hours of tomorrow establishing residency for those 11 and so qualify. Ms. Alioto stated yes. Commissioner Kopp stated he intends to offer a motion to that effect. Chair Chiu stated that the Commission’s determination was not appealable, and this was not an appeal process.
After further discussion between Chair Chiu and Vice-Chair Kopp about the purpose of the agenda item, and additional comments by Ms. Alioto about the intent of her request and the relief she is requesting, Commissioner Kopp said he is ready to act as this item is on the agenda.
Commissioner Kopp moved to allow the Alioto committee until noon on May 8 to allow the Alioto Committee to resubmit the required residency documentation. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Renne. He added that he did not understand why we were here today still discussing this when her campaign supposedly had the supporting documents in April. He is willing to support Commissioner Kopp’s motion, but stated it is not the fault of anything by the Commission or its staff that puts her campaign in this posture. It is the fact that when she was put on notice in April that she should have come up with in 24 hours.
Commissioner Lee referenced the several comments made today regarding the public trust. She reviewed how the Commission got here. She noted that other committees that filed and were approved under the same set of requirements. She believed that out of an abundance of fairness and transparency, the Commission allowed further time at the last meeting with the expectation that it would be the final decision of the Commission. She is concerned that an additional date after that would be shifting the goal post. She stated she has seen no new compelling evidence to show that agreement should be abandoned.
Chair Chiu associated herself with Commissioner Lee’s comments and made a motion to affirm the final determination of the Executive Director regarding the eligibility of the Alioto committee to receive public financing. Commissioner Lee seconded the motion.
Chair Chiu called for further public comment and none was received.
Commissioner Ambrose stated that she did watch the Commission’s hearing from April 20 and read both Staff reports on the issue from the earlier meetings. She shares Commissioner Renne’s position that the problem is not with the NetFile but is a problem with documentation for the $50,000 in qualifying funds. She also agrees with Commissioner Lee that there has been sufficient time for the Committee to correct the lacking documentation. She believes it would not be appropriate to give the Committee an extra day based on the actions the Commission has taken previously. She wanted to explain why she does not concur with Commissioner Kopp’s motion.
Chair Chiu called for a roll call vote on Commissioner Kopp’s motion.
Motion 180507-02 (Kopp/Renne): Moved, seconded and failed (2-3, with Chiu, Lee, and Ambrose voting no) that the Commission allow until noon on Tuesday May 8 for the Alioto campaign committee to submit additional documentation.
Motion 180507-03 (Chiu/Lee): Moved, seconded and passed (3-2, with Kopp and Renne voting no) to sustain the Executive Director’s May 2 decision as the final decision of the Commission.
Commissioner Kopp requested that Staff provide training to commissioners on public financing and Pelham agreed. He also asked for information about the Commission’s NetFile contract, and when it began, when it expires, and whether it was adopted under competitive bidding or not.
7. Discussion and possible action on proposed Policy Prioritization Plan.
Chair Chiu noted that Agenda Items 7 and 9 would be continued to the June meeting to enable Commissioner Ambrose the opportunity to review the materials, as she had just been sworn into office that morning. No action was taken.
8. Discussion and possible action on Supervisor Kim’s proposed amendments to the San Francisco Campaign Finance Reform Ordinance, Article I, Chapter 1 of the San Francisco Campaign and Governmental Conduct Code, Board File No. 170868.
Staff proposed a brief recess to confirm with Supervisor Kim’s office that staff from her office could be present for Item 8. At 2:41 PM the Commission took a brief recess.
The Commission resumed its meeting at 2:56 PM. Commissioner Chiu asked for public comment on Items 7 and 9. Seeing none, she asked Staff to introduce Item 8.
Commission Policy Analyst Pat Ford introduced the item in File No. 170868. He noted Supervisor Kim had appeared before the Commission in November to urge the Commission to adopt the ordinance, and that since that time he and Senior Policy Analyst Kyle Kundert had been working with staff from the Supervisor’s office to help bring the best ordinance possible to the Commission. He stated that office had amended the ordinance a week ago. If the Commission approves it today it could go back to the Board’s Rules Committee and eventually be consideration by the full Board.
He provided a brief overview of the provisions of the Ordinance. Section A refers to Sec. 1.115(e) to create a requirement that candidates sign under penalty of perjury a statement that they have not failed to report non-monetary contributions made to them by another committee. It is a non-coordination attestation. Section B refers to Sec. 1.128(c) to require that the Voter Information Pamphlet state which candidates for certain elective City offices elected to participate in the voluntary expenditure ceiling. This was a past practice that was discontinued in 2009 and would reinstated that practice. Section C refers to 1.152(a)(1) and corrects a mistake in the current language contained in the code to support the mechanics of the public financing process to ensure accurate candidate threshold reporting at $5,000, instead of the $10,000 currently referred to in the Code. Section D clarifies for purposes of Section 1.156 the information Staff will be required to report to the Board about the public financing system after elections in which candidates receive public funds. Sec. 1.165 refers to third-party spending. This codifies a current practice to make available on the Commission’s website information about third-party spending in city campaigns.
After a brief discussion and clarifying questions by members of the Commission, Chair Chiu called for public comment.
Public Comment
Commenter Charlie Marsteller stated that they had been having meetings on this ordinance for a time and that he believes it is of good quality. He urged the Commission’s support.
Commissioner Renne moved adoption of the recommendation as outlined in the Staff report to adopt the Ordinance as presented.
Motion 180507-04 (Renne/Kopp): Moved, seconded and passed (5-0) to adopt Staff’s recommendation as outlined in the memorandum for Agenda Item 8 and recommend adoption of the Ordinance.
9. Discussion of monthly Staff Policy Report.
Chair Chiu stated that Agenda Item 9 was continued to the June meeting. No action was taken.
10. Discussion of monthly Staff Enforcement Report, including an update on various programmatic and operational highlights of the Enforcement Program’s activities since the last monthly meeting.
Acting Director of Enforcement Jeff Pierce introduced himself as Acting Director of Enforcement and Legal Affairs and reviewed highlights from the May 3, 2018 monthly Enforcement Report. He noted that this month’s enforcement caseload statistics show that matters in preliminary review now are, on average, under three months old versus roughly six months old at the beginning of the year.
Commissioner Kopp asked why there were no dates associated with statements that Bureau of Delinquent Revenues (“BDR”) has sent to respondents who have been referred from the Commission. He asked for additional information about why those debts have not yet been collected. Chair Chiu asked that Staff inquire of BDR what their process is and to generally provide an overview to Commission regarding what BDR does to collect debts.
Public Comment
Commenter Charlie Marsteller compared today’s enforcement process to that of ten years ago; he directed the newly sworn-in Commissioner Ambrose to review the information regarding Lynnette Sweet.
No vote on the item was required and the Commission took no action on the item.
11. Discussion of Executive Director’s Report.
Director Pelham highlighted information contained in the Executive Director’s report, including several interim assignments for Staff members. She noted Chief Programs Officer Gayathri Thaikkendiyil has been appointed Acting Deputy Director; Jeff Pierce is Acting Director of Enforcement & Legal Affairs; and Amy Li as acting as interim Senior Auditor. She also described various programmatic work underway in the areas of compliance, Statements of Economic Interests (Form 700s), Ethics/Sunshine training, and the ongoing development of new technologies.
Chair Chiu asked for an update on the budget and Pelham briefly summarized the budget status. Chiu clarified for Ambrose that the mayor has requested cuts from all departments and she expressed optimism that the Commission would not have to do so. In response to a question by Commissioner Kopp, Pelham added that to date we had received 95 percent of electronic Form 700 statements of those required to file online with the Ethics Commission.
Public Comment
Commenter Charlie Marsteller asked whether the behested payment filings were reflected on Staff’s website, and Pelham answered yes; Marsteller then asked which officers and employees do and don’t file with the Ethics Commission; he stated that we want to ensure that someone who must file not be allowed to vote; he asked whether the City could amend the Form 700 to notify filers they’ll not be able to vote if they don’t timely file; Pelham answered that the state promulgates that form so we would be unable to amend it; he stated that we should then make it abundantly clear the consequences of not filing at the time or in the place where they download that form.
Commissioner Kopp then asked Director of Technology Services Steven Massey a series of questions regarding the NetFile contract. Massey stated the original contract started in 2007 or 2008. Kopp asked if it resulted from a bid and Massey stated it arose from a sole source waiver. Kopp asked about who is responsible for waivers and Massey said the Commission participated but the Office of Contract Administration ultimately grants such waivers.
In public comment, Marc Bruno stated that he filed a complaint in July 2017 and that it hasn’t been resolved. He stated that his complaint was against the Board of Appeals, with two of the six members have not filed Form 700s. He stated that we should not pretend to have an “ethics code” when we lack the staff or photocopiers to do the work.
No vote on the item was required and the Commission took no action on the item.
Chair Chiu called for public comment under Item 14 before going into closed session. Commissioner Kopp stated that he did not wish to go into closed session for Item 13. Deputy City Attorney Jon Givner reviewed the requirement for closed session items under existing procedural l requirements.
12. Discussion and possible action regarding status of complaints received or initiated by the Ethics Commission. Possible Closed Session.
Chair Chiu then called for public comment on both Items 12 and 13.
No public comment was received.
Motion 180507-05 (Renne/Lee): Moved, seconded and passed (5-0) to go into close session for Items 12 and 13.
The Commission went into closed session to consider both items.
13. Discussion and possible action regarding probable cause determination for complaint alleging violations of the Campaign Finance Reform Ordinance, Article I, Chapter 1 of the San Francisco Campaign and Governmental Conduct Code.
The Commission continued in closed session to consider and take possible action on Item 13.
The Commission resumed in open session and Chair Chiu announced that on Item 12 the Commission took no action.
With regard to Item 13, Commissioner Chiu made the following statement:
On item 13, the Ethics Commission conducted in closed session a probable cause hearing on Ethics Commission complaint 13-150618. Based on the entire record of the proceedings, the Commission announces it finds probable cause that a violation of law has occurred. The respondent is presumed innocent unless the allegations are approved at a hearing on the merits. In this case, the respondent cannot document more than 2,000 contributions and found probable cause to believe he failed to maintain complete records for contributions received in two counts in violation of San Francisco Campaign and Governmental Conduct Code Sections 1.106 and 1.109. Because the respondent cannot properly document more than $100,000 in expenditures amounting to 16 percent of total campaign expenditures, we found probable cause of a failure to maintain complete records and four counts in violation of Campaign and Governmental Conduct Code Sections 1.106 and 1.109. Because the respondent did not timely report nearly $140,000 in campaign expenditures amounting to 21 percent of total expenditures, we found probable cause to believe he failed to disclose expenditures in violation of San Francisco Campaign and Governmental Conduct Code Sections 1.106 and 1.109. The commission will schedule a hearing on the merits.
Motion 180507-06 (Ambrose/Lee): Moved, seconded and passed (5-0) that the Commission not disclose information about matters discussed in closed session.
14. Discussion and possible action on items for future meetings.
No items were discussed. No vote on the item was required and the Commission took no action on the item.
15. Additional opportunity for public comment on matters appearing or not appearing on the agenda pursuant to Ethics Commission Bylaws Article VII Section 2.
None.
16. Adjournment.
Motion 180507-07 (Chiu/Lee): Moved, seconded unanimously adopted that the Commission adjourn.
The Commission adjourned at 4:57 PM.