Draft Minutes – June 13, 2025 – San Francisco Ethics Commission

Draft Minutes of the Regular Meeting of
The San Francisco Ethics Commission
Friday, June 13, 2025

Hybrid meeting conducted in-person in City Hall Room 400, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, San Francisco, and also held online as a Remote Meeting via WebEx and aired live on SFGovTV

Note: SFGovTV provides a continuous archive of audio, video, and Caption Notes recordings of Ethics Commission meetings that allows viewers to watch those meetings online in full at the viewer’s convenience. These archives of Ethics Commission meetings may be accessed at SFGovTV at http://sanfrancisco.granicus.com/ViewPublisher.php?view_id=142.

(Note: A complete recording of this meeting can be found on SFGovTv.)

COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: With Chair Argemira Flórez-Feng, Vice-Chair Yaman Salahi, Commissioner David Tsai, and Commissioner Karen Bell Francois participating, a quorum was present. Commissioner Kevin Yeh had an excused absence. Commissioner Francois departed the meeting at 12:54pm, but a quorum was still present.

STAFF PRESENTING: Executive Secretary & Commission Clerk, Charlie Machado-Morrow; Executive Director, Patrick Ford; Policy & Legislative Affairs Manager, Michael Canning; Senior Policy Research Specialist, Ryan Abussa; Director of Enforcement, Bisi Matthews; Senior Investigative Analyst, Bertha Cheung.

REPRESENTATIVES OF THE OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY PRESENT: Kathleen Radez, Deputy City Attorney.

MATERIALS DISTRIBUTED:

Item 1. Call to Order and Roll Call

Chair Florez-Feng called the meeting to order at 10:09am and stated that members of the public may participate in-person or remotely.

Commission Clerk Charlie Machado-Morrow summarized the procedures for participation by members of the public for the meeting.

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

Public Comment:

David Pilpel called in. He asked staff to please post PDF versions of all agenda materials stating documents are still only HTML and it takes several extra steps to convert to PDF. Mr. Pilpel stated he attended the Interested Persons meeting that was held a few weeks prior and found it to be very helpful and appreciate the staff’s work. Mr. Pilpel mentioned the training materials on the annual ethics and sunshine training to be quite heavy on legal matters and light on practical matters. He continued stating the existing training and compliance efforts are falling short and could be better.

CONSENT CALENDAR: Item 3, 5, and 6

Under its Consent Calendar, provided the opportunity for public comment on all consent calendar items and voted 4-0 to adopt a motion by Chair Flórez-Feng and seconded by Commissioner Tsai to approve the following consent calendar items that required action by the Commission:

Item 3, Draft Minutes for March 14, 2025, Regular Meeting

The following Consent Calendar items were informational and required no action by the Commission, but the opportunity for public comment was provided.

Item 5, Enforcement report dated June 9, 2025
Item 6, Audit report dated June 9, 2025

Public Comment:

David Pilpel called in and requested that Executive Director Patrick Ford give an update on the Board of Supervisors budget hearing that took place on June 11, 2025.

Motion 250613.01 (Flórez-Feng/Tsai ): Moved, seconded, and approved unanimously (4-0) to approve the consent calendar items requiring action by the Commission.

REGULAR CALENDAR

Item 4, Executive Director’s report dated June 9, 2025. (This item was removed from the consent calendar for further discussion)

Executive Director Patrick Ford gave a quick update on the Board of Supervisors budget hearing. Director Ford stated the budget hearing was recorded and is available for viewing. One budget committee member, the chair, spoke during the session, expressing concern about the potential elimination of certain filled positions which we share. We’ve reached out to schedule a follow-up meeting and are prepared to work collaboratively. Given the committee’s full schedule in recent days, we haven’t yet been able to meet, but we remain hopeful and will continue to advocate for our budget.

Public Comment:

David Pilpel called in and thanked Director Ford and the Commission for the update regarding the budget hearing.

Item 7, Presentation, Discussion, and Possible Action on Ethics Commission Streamlining Project Regarding Major Developers, Campaign Consultants, Recusal Notifications, and Trustee Candidate Reporting Requirements.

Policy & Legislative Affairs Manager, Michael Canning and Senior Policy Research Specialist, Ryan Abussa, presented the item. The Policy Division is currently evaluating various programs and policies administered by the Commission to determine if they are effective, efficient, adding value to the City, and furthering the Commission’s mission of promoting the highest standards of integrity in government. This project is focused on several programs and policies that appear to be ineffective or inefficient, including: the Major Developers Program, the Campaign Consultant Program, the supplemental recusal notification requirement, and the reporting requirements for trustee candidates.

Chair Flórez-Feng acknowledged that low usage and user confusion are being used as performance metrics and expressed her concern that some programs might need more clarification rather than removal. Chair Flórez-Feng stated feedback from the Interested Persons meeting indicated certain programs have structural issues and is eager to hear more feedback from those attending the Interested Persons meeting.

Policy & Legislative Affairs Manager, Michael Canning responded giving the example of San Francisco’s unique campaign consultant program, noting that such a requirement is uncommon elsewhere and often unexpected. Mr. Canning shared that in most places, registering a consultant isn’t standard, which can confuse the public. While general campaign spending is available online, information only on consultants may not be that valuable.

Vice Chair Salahi expressed appreciation for the presentation and support for the project, particularly its focus on reducing redundancy and inefficiency. Vice Chair Salahi raised a question about the campaign consultant program, asking how many different sources a person currently needs to consult to gather that information. He also inquired whether the proposed dashboard could enable users to search across all sources by campaign consultant to consolidate the data.

Senior Policy Research Specialist, Ryan Abussa responded stating campaign consultant details, including names, payments, and activities, are primarily found in Form 460 disclosures. Public versions may have redacted contact info, with full versions are available by request. Contributions, vendor info, gifts, contracts, and appointments can be found across various forms and databases, including Forms 126 and appointment notices. Information may require checking 2–3 sources based on the level of detail needed.

Vice Chair Salahi followed up on the trustee issue, asking if the 7 filings that have been made were because there were only 7 candidates, or only 7 have complied with the requirement. Mr. Abussa responded, stating that there were 7 candidates in total but they each had multiple filings. As part of the program, you are required to register and file the relevant disclosures.

Vice Chair Salahi questioned the low number and that it is not a problem with compliance but just a low activity area which requires a lot of administrative work, to which Mr. Abussa claimed to be correct.

Chair Flórez-Feng had a follow up question regarding campaign consultants and the confusion on the language regarding who is and who can be a campaign consultant. Chair Flórez-Feng asked if we still provide resources for people who are unsure and if so what are those resources. Mr. Abussa responded, stating the Commission has an existing campaign consultant manual and the Engagement and Compliance team is working alongside the Policy team on updating information ahead of the 2026 election.

The goal is to make the information easy to read and in an understandable format as well as letting anyone know if they have any additional questions they can always come to the office so staff may assist them. Mr. Canning confirmed currently the main requirements are registration and reporting as well as campaign consultants are prohibited from lobbying their former clients.

Vice-Chair Yaman Salahi asked if anyone has asked the Commission through discussions or the Interested Persons meeting, to keep any versions of these programs, to which staff answered no.

Chair Flórez-Feng stated she notices that these programs can become redundant and wonders how that came about. What was the purpose of the program initially, and how did we not realize it was redundant and how can we avoid doing that in the future?

Mr. Canning replied stating that this was created by the Board in 2014 and was part of a larger package with substantial changes to the lobbyist chapter as well as creating the permit consultant chapter. This was included but there is not a great record of why and what they were trying to accomplish.

Commissioner Tsai had a question regarding the campaign consultant program and asked if there is anything we need to do in terms of having a separate form for the item missing on the chart that was shown.

Mr. Abussa replied, stating staff can potentially explore options and when reviewing campaign consultant filings, they are only available as PDFs through 2024, making them hard to search for. There is not a clean searchable data set to be able to review.

Mr. Canning reminded the Commissioners that with the Commission’s current budget, adding new programs or maintaining ones that don’t add a lot of value can be challenging.

Director Ford stated that with the uncertainty of the budget, staff is directing focus on core programs: campaign finance, ethics, lobbying, compliance work and enforcement work.

Chair Flórez-Feng acknowledged that the program is governed by the administrative code, limiting their ability to revise problematic aspects. She indicated a willingness to sign a letter with Director Ford as recommended, given the context, but questioned whether doing so is standard practice or if it would meaningfully impact the situation, noting their position has already been stated publicly.

Mr. Canning mentioned he has been in contact with staffers with the Board of Supervisors and they find a public letter would be helpful to reflect the discussion and support reform, noting some board members already showing interest and the letter would help prompt action.

Public Comment:

David Pilpel called in and requested that presentation PDFs be posted online and expressed general support for staff recommendations. Mr. Pilpel suggested standardizing disclosure and recusal requirements, especially for personal or professional relationships. He raised concern about a recent ordinance reducing public reporting, noting it may contribute to a perception of declining transparency and accountability. Mr. Pilpel encouraged staff to retain focus on disclosure issues, improve public access to information, and prepare a comprehensive report on impacted programs for broader use.

Motion 250613.02 (Salahi/Tsai): Moved, seconded, and approved unanimously (4-0) to approve to authorize the Chair to sign a letter on behalf of the Commission to the Board of Supervisors regarding legislative changes to the trustee election disclosure requirements.

Item 8, Presentation and Discussion on Streamlining of Expenditure Ceilings & Reporting Requirements for the Public Financing Program and Other Changes to Campaign Finance Rules

Policy & Legislative Affairs Manager, Michael Canning and Senior Policy Research Specialist, Ryan Abussa, presented the item. Staff developed recommendations regarding the expenditure ceilings and supplemental reporting requirements associated with the City’s Public Financing Program and the City’s campaign finance rules. Staff held a series of Interested Persons meetings on March 11 and March 13 to solicit feedback from candidates, treasurers, and members of the public based on their experience with the Individual Expenditure Ceilings and the Public Financing Program.

Chair Flórez-Feng inquired about the projected timeline for future incremental increases following the proposed jump from $500 to $900. Mr. Abussa explained that adjustments would align with the state legislative cycle occurring at the start of each odd-numbered year based on the CPI.

Mr. Canning added that the process could be structured to allow the Executive Director to implement these adjustments administratively, without requiring Commission votes or new legislation. Director Ford noted that the $400 increase reflects 16 years without adjustment, averaging to about $100 every four years, which would align with the expected CPI trends.

Commissioner Tsai raised the idea of increasing to $1,000, citing Los Angeles to which Mr. Canning responded that while possible, mirroring LA isn’t necessary; the $900 figure was based on a December poll and held steady despite recent inflation.

Chair Flórez-Feng asked for clarification on why the first alternative public financing program—eliminating the expenditure ceiling while capping fundraising—was not selected. Mr. Canning confirmed that the City already limits contributions generally, and adding a separate, lower limit for publicly financed candidates could create administrative difficulties and confusion, especially for treasurers handling both participating and non-participating campaigns. The second option, adjusting the expenditure ceiling once rather than lifting it indefinitely, aligns more closely with existing practices and models used in other jurisdictions.

Vice Chair Salahi asked how often ceilings are lifted, staff noted that while high-dollar or contentious races often trigger the removal of ceilings, not all races do. In the 2024 cycle, two to three of the seven races would have remained under the ceiling throughout, due to low overall spending.

Commissioner Francois asked a question, but audio was distorted and inaudible.

Mr. Canning described efforts to ensure stakeholders stay informed, including promoting sign-ups to the Commission’s mailing list and directly inviting relevant officials and campaign staff to meetings, particularly those who regularly engage with the public financing system. This item was informational only and no action was taken by the Commission.

Public Comment:

David Pilpel requested that presentation PDFs be posted on the website. He acknowledged the complexity of campaign finance laws due to legal and practical challenges, as well as public interest concerns. Mr. Pilpel generally supports staff recommendations but proposed adding a date system to review the program four years after implementation. He prefers a lower contribution limit of $700–$800 without periodic adjustments, rather than the proposed $900.

Mr. Pilpel emphasized the need for basic funding to help candidates build name recognition and communicate their platforms but believes excessive spending has diminished returns. He also noted that independent expenditures will continue to allow virtually unlimited third-party spending, as money will always find a path into politics through various motivations.

Item 9, Discussion and Possible Action Regarding Preliminary Matters In the Matter of William Walker in SFEC Case No. 2223-507.

Senior Investigative Analyst, Bertha Cheung presented the Item. The Commission may take any action it deems necessary to ensure a fair and efficient hearing on the merits in this matter. The Commission is, however, not required to take any action at this time as no preliminary matters need to be resolved. The hearing on the merits has been scheduled for July 11, 2025, and no preliminary matters need to be resolved.

Chair Flórez-Feng confirmed that the process is proceeding with the exception that there will not be an exchange of preliminary motions. However, commissioners will still receive the hearing briefs. Ms. Cheung clarified that on June 11, the Enforcement Division emailed commissioners the hearing brief, exhibit list, and exhibits, and also prepared physical copies, which will be distributed at the end of the meeting for reference ahead of the July hearing.

Chair Flórez-Feng asked whether the hearing order will be drafted by staff and finalized at the meeting following the July 1, 2025, hearing. Ms. Cheung confirmed this is correct and aligns with what was previously presented to the Commission. This item was informational only and no action was taken by the Commission.

Public Comment:

No public comment was received and public comment on the item was closed.

Item 10, Show Cause Hearing In the Matter of Matthew Lotocki v. San Francisco Police Department SFEC Case No. 25-998 (File #24021) Based on a Sunshine Ordinance Task Force Referral.

Director of Enforcement Bisi Matthews presented the Item. On May 2, 2025, the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force (SOTF) referred File #24021 to the Ethics Commission for enforcement proceedings under section 67.35(d)[1] of the Administrative Code, citing the San Francisco Police Department’s (SFPD) failure to comply with a SOTF Order of Determination.

The Enforcement Division recommends that the Commission take no action regarding this referral. Ms. Matthews stated there is no evidence of a willful violation by an elected official or department head. SOTF has provided no evidence that Chief Scott willfully violated the Sunshine Ordinance. Thus, there is no violation over which the Commission has jurisdiction. Even if such a violation occurred, the Commission is not empowered to impose administrative penalties or compel the Respondent to comply with SOTF’s Order of Determination. Before the hearing began the Commission had some clarifying questions.

Vice Chair Salahi asked if the issue today is if the Commission needs to decide whether there is a cause to conduct a merit hearing or are we conducting the merits hearing. Ms. Matthews responded that based on the current enforcement regulations the Commission should conduct the Show Cause Hearing, however SOTF is asking the Commission to enforce the order of determination. The Enforcement team is here to help guide the Commission on what you can and cannot do.

Vice Chair Salahi stated as part of this Show Cause Hearing, the question we need to decide first is whether there was a willful violation of the Sunshine Ordinance. Ms. Matthews clarified that the matter at hand does not concern a willful violation of the Sunshine Ordinance, which would typically be referred to staff for investigation and handled through the standard referral process. Instead, this is considered a non-willful violation. It was noted that, regardless, the referral would still follow the regular process. Additionally, a key issue raised was whether enforcement of the order by the Commission is feasible.

Vice Chair Salahi said the Commission needs to decide if there was a willful violation and if we think there was, can we even do anything about it. If we don’t think there was then we won’t have to deal with it.

Director Patrick Ford spoke stating the Commission can hold a hearing to determine if the Sunshine Ordinance was violated, but even if a violation is found, the Commission has no authority to impose remedies or penalties, making the outcome purely advisory. Ms. Matthews suggests discontinuing this process due to its limited utility.

Vice Chair Salahi questioned if the Commission can find official misconduct but not issue a penalty or order someone to do something. Ms. Matthews stated the Commission could if it is an elected official or department head. Vice Chair Salahi questioned whether the commission was interpreting the provision regarding department head responsibility too narrowly, noting that while public records requests are usually delegated, ultimate responsibility still lies with the department head. There was concern that the commission may be construing its authority too restrictively.

Chair Flórez-Feng suggested possibly swapping agenda items to allow discussion of certain subsections of Item 11 to clarify the commission’s scope of authority in relation to the hearing, without delaying proceedings or wasting participants’ time. She emphasized the importance of understanding the commission’s ability to make findings of official misconduct in cases of willful violations, noting that while the commission cannot directly impose penalties, it can recommend action to the appointing authority.

Chair Flórez-Feng proceeded with the Show Cause Hearing In the Matter of Matthew Lotocki v. San Francisco Police Department SFEC Case No. 25-998 File #24021, stating the hearing procedures beforehand. Chair Flórez-Feng identified the individual parties that were present as Mr. Matthew Lotocki (petitioner) and Lt. Johnathan Ozol (SFPD). Chair Flórez-Feng called on Mr. Lotocki to the podium to state his case.

Mr. Lotocki addressed the Commission to clarify that the matter referred by the Sunshine Task Force should be treated as a Section 10(a) complaint, not 10(b), as the referral itself provides a sufficient basis to conclude this. On October 2, 2024, the Task Force determined that the requested records were not exempt and ordered their release. On October 29, 2024, the Police Chief sent a letter to the Task Force explicitly stating he would not comply with that order. Mr. Lotocki argued that this deliberate refusal constitutes a willful violation, contrary to claims that compliance with such orders is discretionary.

He cited Administrative Code Section 67.21(f), which allows the Superior Court to address failures to comply with such orders. Mr. Lotocki acknowledged the Commission’s limited enforcement authority but urged it to still find that official misconduct occurred, emphasizing the importance of transparency and calling for the Commission to reconsider the matter as a willful violation by the department head.

Chair Flórez-Feng called upon Lt. Johnathan Ozol to speak. Lieutenant Jonathan Ozul of the San Francisco Police Department presented the department’s position regarding its refusal to release the compiled map of Automated License Plate Reader (ALPR) camera locations. He stated that while individual ALPR cameras may be visible from the street, the complete map is more sensitive and could aid criminal actors in evading surveillance, disrupting the camera network, or targeting those involved in its installation.

Lt. Ozul continued that the department considers the map a record of security and intelligence information protected under California Government Code §7923.600(a) and exempt under San Francisco Administrative Code §§67.24(d)(4)-(6), and Government Code §7929.210(a), as its disclosure could reveal investigative techniques, endanger law enforcement personnel, compromise investigations, and expose vulnerabilities in technology systems. The Chief of Police and legal counsel, including the City Attorney, continue to assert these legal grounds in withholding the map for public safety reasons.

Chair Flórez-Feng moved forward with presentation of evidence and witnesses from Mr. Lotocki. Mr. Lotocki asked if the referral from the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force is already considered as part of the evidence in the case. Director of Enforcement, Bisi Matthews stated all materials submitted regarding this item on the agenda are considered evidence. Mr. Lotocki stated he would like the Order of Determination (attachment F) and the October 29^th letter from SFPD Chier Scott (attachment G) to be submitted as evidence.

Chair Flórez-Feng proceeded to Lt. Ozol’s presentation of evidence and witnesses. Lt. Ozol stated he would like to see the letters previously submitted by SFPD Chief Scott and Attorney Stephen Betts as well as the documents containing the original complaint entered in as evidence. Lt. Ozol mentioned back in April, Chief Scott was aware of the upcoming hearing and reaffirmed the department’s position on withholding the information. Lt. Ozol also emphasized concerns about websites like DeFlock, which crowdsource and publicize the locations of flock cameras nationwide, potentially exposing them to damage or vandalism.

Vice Chair Salahi confirmed the timeline with Lt. Ozol and noted that the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force issued an order on October 2, 2024, directing the police department to release certain records, with the Order of Determination later approved on December 4, 2024. There was confusion over the exact timeline and details of the task force’s staff attorney’s recommendation, which some parties claimed they had not received or reviewed.

Lt. Ozol confirmed the department was aware of the order but asserted privilege over the records in question, stating this was the only time during his tenure that the department had disagreed with the task force’s position. He added that in most cases, the department complies with such orders and attends task force hearings regularly to ensure compliance with public records laws. Vice Chair Salahi inquired about the department’s options for appeal, and Lt. Ozol stated he was not aware of the process.

Executive Director Pat Ford clarified that if the department withholds records under a claimed privilege and the task force disagrees, the requester—not the department—must seek resolution through Superior Court. He emphasized that the task force serves as an advisory body to interpret the ordinance but cannot enforce compliance or issue penalties.

Deputy City Attorney Kathleen Radez clarified that the Sunshine Ordinance itself provides the definition of willful failure can be official misconduct and it provides the enforcement mechanism about seeking review in a Superior Court, defined under 67.34 and 67.35 of the administrative code.

Commissioner Tsai expressed concern about the commission’s authority to act given the deputy city attorney’s advice, suggesting it may not be within their purview to decide the matter, particularly regarding appeals or privilege. Vice Chair Salahi clarified that under Section 10B, the commission has jurisdiction when a city agency fails to comply with a Sunshine Ordinance Task Force order, which is the allegation against the police department.

Lt. Ozol stated that the department is not willfully violating the order but is contesting it under state law and asserting legal privilege. Chair Flórez-Feng questioned whether it is proper to address the matter as a willful violation when it was not originally framed that way, and whether reframing the allegation during proceedings is appropriate.

Director of Enforcement, Bisi Matthews advised that the matter should be returned to the Sunshine Task Force for a proper referral to the Ethics Commission if it is to be treated as a willful violation. Lt. Ozol reiterated the department’s position and requested the commission not find a willful violation based on the legal privileges asserted.

Chair Flórez-Feng called Mr. Matthew Lotocki to the podium for rebuttal. Mr. Lotocki stated the police department has stated the same arguments made at the Sunshine Ordinance Task force hearing and while they may disagree with the conclusion, it does not authorize them to ignore the order of determination. Mr. Lotocki emphasized the task force is not merely advisory and compliance with its order is a ministerial duty under the plain text of the statute.

Vice Chair Salahi asked if Mr. Lotocki had a citation requiring compliance with Sunshine Task Force orders, and Mr. Lotocki cited Administrative Code Section 67.21(f), which grants the superior court jurisdiction to enforce compliance when a records custodian refuses a request or administrative order.

Commissioner Tsai inquired about possible exceptions or privileges the SFPD may assert. Mr. Lotocki responded that while the SFPD raised exemptions during the task force hearing, those arguments were considered and found unpersuasive. He clarified that exemptions are not always mandatory, and this case does not involve a legally prohibited disclosure.

After closing the presentation part of the hearing, Chair Flórez-Feng recommended referring the matter back to the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force, citing unclear regulations and limited commission authority. Vice Chair Salahi expressed concern over noncompliance with a Task Force order but questioned whether that alone constitutes a violation of the ordinance. Without clarity on whether court review involves the substance of disclosure or just compliance, and lacking legal guidance, they felt unprepared to proceed. Chair Flórez-Feng also suggested future participation by a Task Force representative to aid interpretation.

Public Comment:

David Pilpel, a longtime member of the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force, called in providing comments on the item. They noted that the underlying documents, though posted online and in public, are difficult to locate. The Task Force’s order of determination found no violation, largely due to a dispute between the petitioner—who argued the camera location list should be disclosed—and the police department, which claimed such disclosure would reveal law enforcement techniques.

Mr. Pilpel emphasized that the issue is compliance with the ordinance itself, not just the Task Force order. He stated that similar technology and installations used by other departments are generally not exempt from disclosure, though specific exemptions may apply. Mr. Pilpel opposed referring the matter back to the Task Force, as it has already reviewed the issue multiple times, and said that if the commission cannot act further, the petitioner may pursue the matter in court.

Motion 250613.03 (Flórez-Feng/Tsai): Moved, seconded, and approved unanimously (4-0) to table the item with intent to receive more information from the City Attorney’s office, providing a memo to brief the commission staff regarding scope of authority on the matter.

Item 11, Presentation and Discussion regarding Proposed Amendments to Enforcement Regulations.

This item was tabled by the Commission.

Public Comment:

David Pilpel called in and expressed appreciation to staff for their work on this item and noted they had not yet fully reviewed the proposed changes to the regulations. Mr. Pilpel stated the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force has requested that Commission staff present the proposed at a Sunshine Ordinance Task Force meeting. He acknowledged the need to further discuss the practical implications of the new process, particularly concerning Task Force referrals, and plan to follow up with staff in relation to the previous item.

Motion 250613.04 (Tsai/Salahi): Moved, seconded, and approved unanimously (3-0) to table the item.

Item 12. Items for Future Meetings (Discussion)

No items discussed for future meeting.

Public Comment:

David Pilpel called in and suggested scheduling action items and hearings early on the agenda and put policy matters later.

Item 13. Additional Opportunity for General Public Comment

No public comment on this item.

Item 14. Adjournment

The Commission adjourned at 1:00pm.