Minutes - September 24, 2012
Minutes of the Regular Meeting of
The San Francisco Ethics Commission
September 24, 2012
Room 400, City Hall
1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place
San Francisco, CA 94102
I. Call to order and roll call.
Chairperson Hur called the meeting to order at 5:34 PM.
COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Benedict Y. Hur, Chairperson; Jamienne Studley, Vice-Chairperson; Beverly Hayon, Commissioner; and Paul A. Renne, Commissioner [excused at 9:33 PM]. Commissioner Liu was excused.
STAFF PRESENT: John St. Croix, Executive Director; Mabel Ng, Deputy Executive Director; Garrett Chatfield, Investigator/Legal Analyst; Catherine Argumedo, Investigator/Legal Analyst.
OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY: Andrew Shen, Deputy City Attorney (DCA) [excused at 9:50 PM]; Jon Givner, DCA [arrived at 9:51 PM].
OTHERS PRESENT: Larry Bush; Patrick Monette-Shaw; Allen Grossman; Bruce Wolfe; Hope Johnson; Peter Warfield; D. Bowler; David Pilpel; Allyson Washburn; Richard Knee; Dr. Derek Kerr; Paul Currier; and other unidentified members of the public.
- Staff Memorandum re: Regulations Regarding Enforcement of Sunshine Ordinance Complaints, dated September 14, 2012.
- Draft Ethics Commission Regulations for Complaints Alleging Violations of the Sunshine Ordinance.
- Draft Ethics Commission Regulations for Investigations and Enforcement Proceedings.
- Draft follow-up letter from the Commission to the Mayor regarding Jewelle Gomez, President of the San Francisco Library Commission, dated September 24, 2012.
- Memorandum from Sr. Deputy City Attorney of the City of San Jose, regarding the Referral from Sunshine Ordinance Task Force re Ethics Complaint No. 08-110816, dated September 6, 2012.
- Memorandum from Sr. Deputy City Attorney of the City of San Jose, regarding the Referral from Sunshine Ordinance Task Force re Ethics Complaint No. 09-110816, dated September 6, 2012.
- Draft Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the San Francisco Ethics Commission on July 23, 2012.
- Draft Minutes of the Special Meeting of the San Francisco Ethics Commission on September 11, 2012.
- Executive Director’s Report to the Ethics Commission for the Meeting of September 24, 2012.
II. Public comment on matters appearing or not appearing on the agenda that are within the jurisdiction of the Ethics Commission.
Larry Bush referenced a list of about 30 officials who had not filed Statements of Economic Interests (SEIs) by the end of August 2012. He stated that there had been no fine letters this year or last year and that similar people had failed to file last year. He stated that this issue had not been mentioned in the Executive Director’s Report and that it should be the Commission’s policy to enforce.
Patrick Monette-Shaw stated that it was unethical for the Commission to decide a case involving its own Executive Director. He stated that staff had noted that the Commission could not adjudicate these matters and stated that the Commission had a conflict of interest. He asked that the Commission take these matters off the calendar and transfer them to another jurisdiction.
Allen Grossman stated that the Commission and staff must set the standard of ethical behavior. He stated that the draft amendments, part of the third agenda item, were not submitted to the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force. He stated that the Commission is by-passing a non-functional Task Force. He stated that the Monette-Shaw cases cannot be considered by the Commission, as the Executive Director is a named Respondent.
Bruce Wolfe stated that agenda items VI and VII were posted incorrectly and referred to the Brown Act. He stated that the Commission must disclose the item or items to be discussed in closed session.
Hope Johnson stated that the draft minutes were not available online. She agreed with Mr. Grossman about the Task Force’s inability to participate in the drafting of the regulations. She disagreed with the proposed statute of limitations.
Peter Warfield stated that the members of the public have given wonderful comments and notes. He agreed with previous speakers and requested that the Commission postpone action on the draft amendments until the Task Force is able to meet. He stated that the agenda must show what explanatory documents have been distributed to the Commission and which are available. He stated that the amendments should be considered seriously.
A member of the public stated that there was no court reporter during the final Commission meeting regarding the Sheriff. He stated that none of the minutes were available online. He stated that the Commission was in violation of the Brown Act and it is all a misdemeanor. He referred to the May 24, 2011 violations of Supervisor Weiner.
D. Bowler stated that the Commission should postpone the matter since Task Force members were dismissed because they criticized the members of the Board who were in violation of the Sunshine Ordinance. She stated that Cathy Lintz spoke out of order and unjustifiably and forcibly removed. She stated that Ms. Lintz was handcuffed. She stated that the Commission needs the Task Force’s advice.
David Pilpel stated that the public’s statements during the Sheriff’s meetings should have been included in the materials submitted to the Board.
III. Consideration of draft amendments to the Commission’s regulations governing the handling of complaints alleging violations of the Sunshine Ordinance and referrals of such complaints from the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force ("SOTF").
Executive Director St. Croix stated that the proposed regulations attempt to expedite the process for handling Sunshine complaints. He stated that it is unclear when the Task Force will meet again and suggested that the Commission move forward on the regulations. He stated that the proposal has six sets of decision points.
Chairperson Hur stated that the draft is a result of a productive meeting held with the Task Force in April 2012. He stated that the document reflects what was discussed during that meeting as the Task Force was an equal participant in putting this together.
Vice-Chairperson Studley asked what would happen if an elected official or department head were named as Respondents, as well as another type of City official or employee in the same matter. Chairperson Hur stated that there would be two different proceedings. Vice-Chairperson Studley then suggested that the Commission would be able to amend the regulations if the Task Force meets and has suggestions. She suggested acting and then accepting comments in the future.
DECISION POINTS 1-1 and 1-2
Chairperson Hur suggested changing the language in the definition of “exculpatory information” from “is not guilty” to “has not committed.”
Richard Knee stated that the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force is dormant right now. He suggested using the definition of “public records” that is contained in Sunshine Ordinance section 67.24.
David Pilpel stated that he agreed with Mr. Knee, but that section 67.24 was not the correct reference. He suggested the definition in Sunshine Ordinance section 67.20(b) or (c). He also suggested changing the definition of “referral.”
Allen Grossman stated that the draft omits orders from the Supervisor of Records. He stated that the various members on the Task Force have had no experience on the Task Force and have never heard a complaint. He stated that the regulations will reflect Mr. St. Croix’s hostility to the Task Force and its work.
Peter Warfield stated that the agenda does not indicate whether there were any available documents accompanying this agenda item. He was unclear to what the Commission was referring.
A member of the public stated that Sunshine Ordinance section 67.24 is clearer than the proposed definition of “public records.” He also stated that section 67.36 supersedes all local laws. He stated that “public records” should include audio and video recordings.
Hope Johnson urged the Commission to wait on this item so that the Task Force could have one meeting. She stated that it is a mischaracterization to call a Task Force referral a complaint, as in the proposed definition of “complaint.” She also stated that the language for “mitigating information” appears to excuse or reduce the culpability of Respondent’s conduct.
Patrick Monette-Shaw opposed the inclusion of the definitions of “exculpatory information” and “mitigating information.” He stated that when there is a referral, the Commission is not supposed to do a new investigation. He suggested removing those two definitions. He stated that the Task Force already conducts an investigation.
Bruce Wolfe stated that the Supervisor of Records may refer to the Attorney General or District Attorney, according to Sunshine Ordinance section 67.21(d).
Allyson Washburn stated that the characterizations of the Task Force’s referrals should be changed. She stated that the regulations should be clear in ensuring that the public records are produced, regardless of the reason what it was not.
The Commission discussed adding “supervisor of records” to the definition of “complaint.” Chairperson Hur stated that he was wary of adding something without fully vetting it. He stated that the Commission would be legislating something that has never occurred. Vice-Chairperson Studley suggested creating a list of issues to discuss with the Task Force when they are able to meet again.
The Commission discussed the proposed definition of “public records.” Chairperson Hur stated that section 67.20(b) appears narrower than the proposed definition. He stated that the Commission could use section 67.20(b) or the suggested definition. Commissioner Renne asked whether it was not better to have the definition be as broad as possible. He suggested adding the provisions of section 67.24 to the proposed definition with an “and/or.”
Motion 12-09-24-1 (Studley/Hayon): Moved, seconded, and passed (4-0; Liu excused) that the Ethics Commission adopt decision points 1-1 and 1-2, as amended.
DECISION POINTS 2-1(A) – 2-1(G):
Decision Point 2-1(A)
Chairperson Hur suggested clarifying Chapter Two, Section I.A.2(a)-(c). The Commissioners discussed possible language and agreed to the following language: “(a) willful violations by City officials and employees (other than elected officials or department heads), or (b) non-willful violations by elected officials, department heads, City officials, or City employees.” Commissioner Renne also suggested striking “made from the header on page 4 of the draft regulations.
Decision Point 2-1(B)
Chairperson Hur suggested the possibility of setting the matter to a special meeting. Vice-Chairperson Studley suggested allowing the option of having the hearing at the next scheduled meeting. Commissioner Renne suggested that the language suggests a two-step procedure. He suggested the following language: “Scheduling a Show Cause Hearing After Receipt of a Task Force referral. The Commission shall place the matter on the calendar for the next regular Ethics Commission meeting, provided that such could be scheduled pursuant to the agenda and notice requirements as set forth in Sunshine Ordinance section 67.7 and the Brown Act. At that meeting, the matter will be set for the show cause hearing as provided in section II below.”
Decision Point 2-2(C)
Commissioner Renne questioned the inclusion of this section. The Commissioners agreed to strike it.
Decision Point 2-2(D)
Chairperson Hur expressed concern of the use of a non-lawyer representative. He stated that it seemed odd for the representative to be a member of the Task Force. He stated that having a Task Force member represent one of the parties that in a matter that the Task Force adjudicated seemed unusual. He stated that the Commission would be able to take statements from an attorney as the party’s word, but any non-attorney representative would not have the same obligation. Vice-Chairperson Studley expressed interest in hearing from the public regarding this issue. Commissioner Hayon asked why the complainant and respondent would not appear. Commissioner Renne suggested requirement a representative present a written authorization from the party s/he represents.
Decision Point 2-2(E)
Vice-Chairperson Studley stated that this section is unbalanced as it is written. Chairperson Hur suggested striking subsections (a)-(d) and Commissioner Studley agreed. Commissioner Renne asked whether the subsections are intended as affirmative defenses. The Commissioners agreed that the subsections were not necessary and removing them would not limit the affirmative defenses.
Commissioner Renne asked about the hearing officer’s findings. Investigator/Legal Analyst Garrett Chatfield stated that the suggestion for a hearing office would be that one Commission would ask questions and handle procedural matters, but that it would not involve having a separate hearing with only one Commissioner present. He stated that the full Commission would deliberate. The Commission agreed to remove language referencing a hearing officer from the draft proposal.
Decision Point 2-1(F)
Commissioner Renne asked whether the monetary penalty from the general fund would be moved from one agency to another. He asked whether it would be appropriate for the individual to pay a fine for a willful violation. He stated that the Commission should order the Respondent to produce the documents.
Chairperson Hur stated that he doubted whether the Commission would be able to impose penalties in these cases. DCA Shen stated that, in terms of penalties against individuals, the Commission would have to meet and confer obligations with any affected employees’ unions. He stated that, regarding moving money between departments in the general fund, the City Attorney’s recommendation would be to implement that small piece of the proposal via ordinance rather than these regulations. He stated that moving money occurs through the budget process and is legislative. He stated that the Commission would need the authorization of an ordinance rather than a regulation. The Controller’s Office also suggested an ordinance, as it would entail deappropriating money from one department to another. Commissioner Studley stated that, if the Commission is able to impose penalties on an individual, rather than a department, then that could be a tool to use. She stated that she would prefer increasing the amount of money taken from a department. Commissioner Renne suggested taking action against the supervisors of violators who are City employees or officials. The Commissioners agreed to strike section F.1(b).
Chairperson Hur presented a hypothetical where the Respondent presented a defense that s/he acted on the advice of counsel and the Commission finds that the defense lacks merit. He asked staff how the Commission would resolve that matter. Mr. Chatfield stated that the Ordinance allows the individual to go to court, as the Commission would not be able to initiate a court action on his or her behalf.
Bruce Wolfe stated that most of the members of the public are eager to help and not trying to be adversarial. He stated that the Commission cannot readjudicate matters already considered by the Task Force. He stated that the Task Force has its own legal counsel and a full hearing process. He stated that the Task Force is asking for enforcement, not to repeat everything.
Chairperson Hur stated that, during the joint meeting in April 2012, this was the compromise position reached. He stated that the Commission would not do everything again, but the Commission would not merely enforce what came from the Task Force.
Patrick Monette-Shaw stated that the draft does not reference City managers. He stated that if a Respondent is wrong, then s/he should be found in violation without exceptions.
Peter Warfield stated that none of the documents referenced during the discussion were mentioned in the agenda. He stated that there was no copy of the Sunshine Ordinance in the room, which he stated was quite stunning and shocking. He stated that readjudication is not the best approach. He asked the Commission to define a show cause hearing. He also suggested adding removal from office as a penalty.
Richard Knee suggested adding some time limitations in the hearing procedure for both types of hearings, so the parties may prepare accordingly. He asked whether the differences in the number of votes required (in Decision Points 2-2E and 3-3B) were intentional. He also asked what would happen if the Respondent failed to comply with the Commission’s order.
Dr. Derek Kerr stated that the term “complaint” runs throughout the document and is fundamentally different from an order and referral from the Task Force. He stated that equating a complaint with an Order of Determination is the same as treating a citizen complaint the same way as the careful deliberations of the Task Force. He stated that members of the Task Force should not represent parties in these matters.
Paul Currier stated that the Commission should hear from the Task Force. He stated that the Civil Grand Jury suggested a monetary penalty. He stated that Supervisors committed official misconduct and the case was referred to the District Attorney for criminal prosecution.
Hope Johnson agreed with the decision to delete the hearing officers. He stated that the Executive Director should not be readjudicating behind the scenes. She stated that the parties sometimes do not send knowledgeable representatives to the Task Force. She also agreed with eliminating section E. She suggested allowing the Commission to take a further action, as in the Jewelle Gomez matter, as opposed to the drafted language at the end of F.1. She stated that she does not support readjudication. She stated that the Commission has no authority to overturn Task Force findings.
David Pilpel suggested making the language in section B consistent with the other language and reference the Brown Act and Public Records Act. He stated that the hearing should be before the entire Commission. He stated that this issue here is a section 67.30(c) referral and he is unsure whether the Commission is authorized to order production of documents. He also stated that if the Commission determines that the act or omission was willful, then official misconduct attaches to that and that is omitted from subsection F.
Allen Grossman stated that the hearing cannot be a readjudication of what was heard at the Task Force. He stated that the Respondent is given the opportunity to provide an exemption. He stated that the full Commission should hear these cases and a hearing officer would be contrary to the spirit of the Sunshine Ordinance.
D. Bowler stated that it is impossible for her to understand what the Commission is doing. She stated that she cannot make sense of the intended changes.
A member of the public stated that there has been no enforcement for 17 years. He stated that the regulations do not track section 67.34, which includes other managerial employees. He stated that the citizen has does his or her part when filing the complaint. He stated that, after that, it is up to the Task Force to advise departments of enforcement of the law.
Chairperson Hur stated that the Commission has been attempting to draft regulations that work and comport with its view and take into account what the Task Force feels is necessary. He stated that it has been a complicated process. He stated that the Commission should move through the rest of the draft to identify issues and concerns, but that the Commission should revise the draft before taking action.
DECISION POINTS 3-1(A) – 3-3(D)
Commissioner Renne stated that there is no language when the public hearing should be heard and suggested removing references to a hearing officer.
Vice-Chairperson Studley suggested amending Chapter III.C on page 14, with respect to elected officials. The Commission agreed to add language to inform the Mayor.
Commissioner Renne also suggested striking the subparagraphs referring to monetary penalties.
Chairperson Hur asked about the declaration contemplated in the report and recommendation referenced in Chapter III, Section 3.C (under Public Hearing). Mr. Chatfield stated that an elected official may submit a statement that way. He also stated that staff could use a declaration from a witness.
DECISION POINTS 4-1(A) – 4-2:
Regarding the conclusion of a hearing, Chairperson Hur suggested allowing the Commission to deliberate on the matter on a different day and to add language stating the Commission would announce the “date of decision,” if there is an oral decision.
Chairperson Hur also suggested striking subsection L, which referred to proceedings under Charter section 15.105. He stated that the Mayor would have the burden to prove official misconduct in a separate proceeding. DCA Shen stated that there is a disconnect between the Sunshine Ordinance and the Charter on the subject of members of boards and commissions.
David Pilpel suggested adding “section I.B.3, if applicable” on page 12 of the memo, after “section I.B.2.” He asked how the designation, referred to in Chapter Four, Section I, D, would be made known to the public. He asked whether the Commission had the authority to add the statute of limitations.
Hope Johnson stated that the Commission did not have the authority to create the statute of limitations. She stated that the Commission should reconsider that item.
Peter Warfield referenced a letter Hope Johnson wrote and stated that he hoped that she had forwarded it to the Commission. He stated that a member of the public may not be aware that a Commission had not comply with the requirements in the Brown Act, for example, until long after the proposed statute of limitations. He disagreed with the proposed limit.
Patrick Monette-Shaw stated that the volume of records requested should not be a mitigating factor. He stated that the Civil Grand Jury had recommended a monetary penalty. He stated that the statute of limitations clause should be removed.
Paul Currier stated that there is no statute of limitations in the Sunshine Ordinance and there is a freedom to access. He stated that misdemeanors are going on and meetings are not properly agendized.
Allen Grossman stated that there are two provisions of Sunshine Ordinance section 67.34 – one defines official misconduct and the other discusses willful violations. He opposed the proposed provision which stated that “internal notes taken…shall not be disclosed until the Commission has issued its final decision.” He stated that there is no basis for keeping any of those records confidential.
IV. Consideration of a draft follow-up letter to the Mayor regarding Jewelle Gomez, President of the San Francisco Library Commission.
Executive Director St. Croix stated that the Commissioners had expressed interest in discussing a follow-up letter to the Mayor. Commissioner Studley stated that the Commission should send a letter and Commissioner Renne agreed. Commissioner Renne added the following language to the final paragraph of the draft letter: “Alternatively, I ask you to advise the Commission of the reasons why you decline to take any action with respect to Ms. Gomez’s conduct.” Commissioner Hur suggested striking the first sentence of the third paragraph and adding Commissioner Renne’s suggested language.
Patrick Monette-Shaw agreed with Commissioner Renne’s suggestion. He suggested two other additions: 1) asking for an explanation from Ms. Gomez why she thought her behavior after the July 11, 2011 Ethics Commission meeting was befitting an appointed official; and 2) asking the Mayor why he has not taken any action on Ms. Gomez when two ethical bodies found a violation, which is in stark contrast to what he did to Sheriff Mirkarimi.
A member of the public stated that there have been questions about the pending charges against the Sheriff and whether it was related to his office and whether he acted in his official capacity. He stated that Ms. Gomez’s conduct occurred while she was in the office to which she was appointed. He played an audio recording from a device and stated that Ms. Gomez had filed a fraudulent police report.
Peter Warfield supported the Commission in sending the letter to the Mayor, although he expressed that it should have come sooner. He also agreed with the language suggested by Commissioner Renne. He stated that Ms. Gomez’s behavior was so shocking that others stated they were intimidated and did not make public comment because of it. He also mentioned Ms. Gomez’s attempt to hit Mr. Monette-Shaw.
Motion 12-09-24-2 (Hayon/Studley): Moved, seconded, and passed (4-0; Liu excused) that the Ethics Commission send a follow-up letter to the Mayor regarding Ms. Gomez, as amended.
The Commission took a break from 9:19 PM and resumed the meeting at 9:30 PM.
IV. Consideration of Ethics Complaint Nos. 08110816 and 09110816, alleging that Executive Director John St. Croix and Tonia Lediju of the Controller’s Office willfully violated the Sunshine Ordinance.
Before the Commission began discussion or consideration of this item, Commissioner Renne requested to be excused from any of the proceedings with agenda items 5, 6, or 7. He stated that his wife, both as City Attorney and in private capacity, had been closely related to Laguna Honda Hospital. He stated that he was unaware of the contents or subject matter of the complaints. He stated that he had not spoken with any member of the staff and not looked at any documents regarding the complaints. He offered to leave the meeting room or be excused from the balance of the meeting. Chairperson Hur had no objection to his request.
Motion 12-09-24-3 (Studley/Hayon): Moved, seconded, and passed (3-0; Liu and Renne excused) that the Ethics Commission grant Commissioner Renne’s request to be excused from the remainder of the meeting.
David Pilpel stated that if Commissioner Renne may act without bias, then he would appreciate Commissioner Renne’s participation on this item. He stated that, in general, he would prefer that Commissioners participate in meetings.
Patrick Monette-Shaw thanked Commissioner Renne.
[Commissioner Renne was excused from the meeting at 9:34 PM.]
Chairperson Hur stated that he had received a memorandum from Mr. Monette-Shaw and had not had an opportunity to review it. DCA Shen stated that a complaint was filed against Commission staff and Oakland made a recommendation to the Commission and the full Ethics Commission then deliberated that matter. Chairperson Hur apologized to the parties, including Ms. Lediju, and suggested continuing the matter.
Dr. Derek Kerr stated that DCA Jerry Threet erred in his memo because there were two whistleblower complaints. He stated that this complaint relates to documents and not misappropriations.
Peter Warfield noted the time and that the public is only now learning something that was known at the beginning of the meeting. He expressed his disappointment that this could not have been announced at the beginning of the meeting.
Patrick Monette-Shaw stated that Supervisor Weiner will be perturbed that employees’ time was wasted. He asked whether the San Jose DCA was going to attend. He stated that these matters should not be considered by the Commission, so that there is no perception of a conflict of interest. He requested that the cases be transferred to another jurisdiction.
Allen Grossman stated that the City Attorney provided a precedent and he hopes that information is available to the public as well.
Hope Johnson asked the Commission to send these matters to a different Ethics Commission. She stated that there could be a conflict of interest.
David Pilpel stated that these two items are properly before the Commission. He stated that, until there are separate regulations for complaints alleging violations of the Sunshine Ordinance, the Commission has to use the current regulations.
Chairperson Hur clarified that he only realized that he would need more time to review Mr. Monette-Shaw’s memorandum when the Commission took its break during this meeting.
VI. Discussion and vote regarding closed session action and deliberations.
Motion 12-09-24-4 (Studley/Hayon): Moved, seconded, and passed (3-0; Liu and Renne excused) that the Ethics Commission move into closed session.
The Ethics Commission entered into closed session at 9:51 PM.
[Chairperson Hur, Vice-Chairperson Studley, Commissioner Hayon, DCA Givner, Executive Director St. Croix, Deputy Executive Director Ng, and Ms. Argumedo were in attendance during the closed session.]
The Ethics Commission returned to open session at 10:14 PM.
VII. Discussion and vote regarding closed session action and deliberations. (Discussion and possible action.)
Motion 12-09-24-5 (Studley/Hayon): Moved, seconded, and passed (3-0; Liu and Renne excused) that it is in the best interests of the public not to disclose its closed session deliberations re: anticipated litigation.
Chairperson Hur announced that the Commission entered into a settlement in the matter of Alex Tourk, of Ground Floor Public Affairs, in the amount of $6,000. He stated that the Order would be posted on the Commission’s website the following day. He also announced that the Commission decided that a separate matter will be referred to another agency that will handle it.
David Pilpel asked whether the letter of referral will be released. DCA Givner stated that the matter is confidential under the Charter. He stated that the Commission’s referral is confidential and will continue to be so unless and until the Commission issues a determination of probable cause.
VIII. Minutes of the Commission’s regular meeting of July 23, 2012 and special meetings of September 11, 2012.
Chairperson Hur stated that the Commission would take no action on the minutes during this meeting.
IX. Executive Director’s Report.
Executive Director St. Croix stated that improvements have been made on the Commission’s website. He stated that there are new ways to access information on the website and that searches will now compose reports that are better for the users.
Vice-Chairperson Studley asked about the issue raised earlier about the SEI filers. She stated that whether there could be more follow-up for people who fail to file, as there are hundreds of other people who are able to file on time. Mr. St. Croix stated that non-filers had been referred to the FPPC. He stated that this was not being done and he had failed to follow up. He stated that the letters to late filers should have been mailed in August, but they had not been sent. He took responsibility for not ensuring that the letters had been mailed.
Chairperson Hur thanked Commission staff for doing an excellent job in posting the documents relating to the Sheriff proceedings quickly.
David Pilpel stated that Steven Massey should be congratulated as he does many things for the Commission. He stated that information on non-filers should be provided monthly or quarterly. He suggested providing this information for those not paying fines or fees, as well as those who have not filed SEIs, campaign consultant or lobbyist filings. He also noted that an incumbent on the College Board who is running for re-election remains on the BDR list. He suggested changing the law so that candidates would not be able to be re-elected if s/he owes the City money.
X. Items for future meetings.
XI. Public comment on matters appearing or not appearing on the agenda that are within the jurisdiction of the Ethics Commission.
The meeting was adjourned at 10:29 PM.