Happen . I understand that it requires a majority vote of the body to make a substantive action. Im not questioning matters that are seeking to do anything different, but just to clarify what would happen in other sorts of events . I have no quarrel with not including the findings in a public announcement. I do agree to the extent that they exist as a written document they should be referred to or linked. And again, the public announcement section 2f is not exactly the same as 3d at the end. So just trying to create some parallelism there. I am also a little unclear and perhaps, we could have some discussion on the item that is left in the order a to cease and de desist and or produce the record. Im still struggling in my head to find where the commission would actually have the power under the charter or the ordinance to so order. I get you that make a finding and post it on the website and send it to whoever you want, send warning letters and all of that. Its just the power to order
The regular meeting of the San Francisco Ethics Commission and well begin by taking roll. Commissioner studley . Here. Commissioner liu . Commissioner renee . Present. All members of the commission being present, lets start with the agenda. Public comment on matters appearing or not appearing on the agenda that are within the jurisdiction of the Ethics Commission. good evening dale pillpa, just wanted to comment and perhaps inquire on the election season that has just concluded. I assume that the staff will be analyzing the effectiveness of the matching the Public Finance program and perhaps compiling a report and im just wondering what the thinking is on the timing for that . Its usually a few months down the road, but given the various things that happened this cycle, i believe it will be interesting to look at the numbers after the fact and maybe we can have some discussion at that time about the program and how it works given what we anticipated about a yearago going into this cycl
Different standards voting whether its three commissioners vote and that there is no violation or vote there is a fining of a violation, that has to do with the burden of proof, because in a showcause hearing that the respondent bears the burden of finding that there is no violation, we, the commission, will be voting on whether he has met that burden of showing that there is no violation. And that is what requires the threevote majority. On the flipside, when were handling something pursuant to chapter 3, we are voting to determine if there was a violation and therefore we need a majority vote for that. So that is why my understanding that we have those two different standards in terms of whether its three commissions voting for or three commissioners voting against. Were there any comments from the public that caused the commissioners to have additional questions or comments about how things should be addressed . Is there a motion to adopt Decision Point 2 subject to the following am