I know. I'm getting 13 to your question. 14 Did we in fact do that when we 15 found out he was retiring and asking him? 16 No, we did not. 17
I can only speak for 19 me. I thought his credentials and his 20 background, I thought it would be -- he 21 was irreplaceable. 22
No, I haven't heard of Gregory Harvey. 77 3/9/10 - WHOLE - RES. 100021, and 2
Well, I would say he knows as much or more about campaign finance laws in the City and State and federal than Mr. Meyer does, with respect to Mr. Meyer.
Well, that's 10 right, but unless you do a search for 11 somebody, how can you say that you have 12 the most qualified person? 13
What I can tell you 14 is that there was a search done when 15 Mr. Meyer was hired, and that was before 16 I got on. 17
The 22 Chair recognizes Councilman Goode for a 23 point of information.
Thank you, Madam President. 78 3/9/10 - WHOLE - RES. 100021, and I'm sorry, Councilman Green. Were you aware that the City's campaign finance reform law was challenged?
Were you 12 aware that it was challenged and went up 13 to the Supreme Court? 14
I mean, I know that 15 there's some case law. I wouldn't 16 pretend to know the name and the year or 17 anything like that. 18
Greg Harvey 19 was the one who challenged the campaign 20 finance law. 21
Okay. So with respect to Councilwoman Quinones-Sanchez where she sort of asked you to use your experience on the Board to say three things or to say anything that you think either was a mistake you made or the Board made or even, to put it in softer terms, things the Board should improve on in the future based on your experience, your answer to the question always was how other people should improve. In other words, more people need to come to the Board, more people need to seek our advice and advisory opinions. You didn't actually answer the question, so I'd like you to be specific and take as much time as you need. What three things would you improve about the Board, given your experience on the Board over the last year and a half, and what do you think its biggest mistake was last year, if any?
One of the things that I would like to do again as being a 80 3/9/10 - WHOLE - RES. 100021, and Board member is, when I got on the Board, the Chair, Richard Glazer, suggested that we send a letter out to City Council and that we ask them if they wanted to meet with the Board and the staff. We couldn't all meet together because of the Sunshine Law. We sent out those letters, and some Councilpeople responded. We had discussions with them about that. I think that's one of the things we can do again to maybe foster a better relationship. I can't think of -- when you say what our biggest mistake was --
No. I asked 17 for the top three things you would 18 improve. So what you're suggesting is to 19 do something you did last year? 20
I think maybe we 21 need to reach out more, if that will make 22 the relationships better. I think we can 23 also request that people ask advice more. I think --
That's not 81 3/9/10 - WHOLE - RES. 100021, and something the Board improves. That's --
You're suggesting 8 that my saying that is putting the onus 9 on the other person, but it's sort of a 10 gesture that I think will help not just 11 the Board but other people, because if 12 people -- 13
Okay. So 14 I'll give you that one, engage in a more 15 effective communication strategy to make 16 sure people avail themselves of the 17 opportunity to ask advice of the Board. 18 That's what you're saying? 19
That's not exactly 20 what I said, but that's close to it, 21 Councilman. 22
So the Board 23 could communicate better. Just really sort of one and two were the same thing, but I'll let it count as two. What's 82 3/9/10 - WHOLE - RES. 100021, and your third?
Express more that -- 4 give the appearance more -- and I am not 5 sure how we do this, because appearances 6 are hard to dispel when they're out 7 there, and I don't know what the Board 8 needs to do -- 9
Let me finish. I 12 don't know what the Board needs to do to 13 say to this city that if you have a 14 problem with the way boards are doing 15 this -- doing things; for example, and 16 I'll go to Regulation 2. We had made 17 some amendments to them. We had 18 publicized them. We were working hard to 19 try to be open, and we had a court 20 reporter there to take down any public 21 questions they had. When we heard from 22 City Council that they had concerns, 23 suggestions, it was very helpful. It was very refreshing. And you know what? When City Council came to the meeting and 83 3/9/10 - WHOLE - RES. 100021, and left, I personally felt like, you know what? This is a way for us to start working together, because your suggestions were well taken. We looked at them and said, We can live with this. This is something we all can live with, and it makes better for everyone. So I don't know -- I guess I'm putting back the question on you. I don't know how else we -- short of going out again and talking to people, I don't know how else to do that.
So really in 15 all three things you can do better are 16 communications, communications, 17 communications. 18 I think it is telling, 19 honestly, that you can't come up with 20 sort of one real substantive thing in 21 your own mind that the Board should 22 improve on other than communications. 23
It's all the 84 3/9/10 - WHOLE - RES. 100021, and same.
I beg to differ with 4 you. Because I think most of the 5 problems that I'm hearing from 6 Councilpeople -- 7
What I hear 8 you're saying is you don't think the 9 Board has much to improve on other than 10 communications. 11
I'm not saying the 12 Board is perfect. I certainly don't sit 13 here and say that. What I'm saying is in 14 terms of the concerns that I've heard 15 from this Council -- 16
Well, this 17 is not a city -- we represent all of the 18 City workers. We're not here concerned 19 about ourselves or our own interest. 20
Thank you. Colleague, thank you for 85 3/9/10 - WHOLE - RES. 100021, and allowing the point of information. Would not continuing education on ethics laws to staff people that have to deal with them every day be a suggestion that might be instead of having "gotcha" moments, we could "get it" moments and do those kind of things? Wouldn't that be an improvement upon waiting until someone -- we self-disclose every time we file. I mean, self-disclosure is what we do based on the law. So it just seems to me that if we were really earnestly trying to find common ground, there are so many things that we could do. My staff would know what they're doing. Your staff would know how it impacts what they do. It's just some things that are just common sense that we could do so that the public gets a fair product and we get a better understanding of how to comply.
But let me, in response to that, the training -- 86 3/9/10 - WHOLE - RES. 100021, and 2
I have to 7 weigh in on this. It's becoming a 8 debate. 9 You keep talking about the 10 training. The training, we are all 11 required to go to training. It's 12 mandatory. 13
It isn't 16 adequate, and we said this to you 17 privately. So what we get we don't get, 18 and after talking to you the other day, I 19 think we see this thing differently. You 20 see the Board as making a decision after 21 an inquiry or charge is brought before 22 you. Those of us who are in the public 23 want to know -- and I said this to you before -- what are the rules so that we can comply to the rules. And what you're 87 3/9/10 - WHOLE - RES. 100021, and hearing here is the frustration of many who had to participate in the "gotcha" moment because they were ditty-bopping along doing things that have been institutionalized and following the state law, and your staff -- because I told you we weren't mad at the Board. It's basically the staff. I'm just going to put it where it is -- interpreted the rule the way they wanted it and when it was challenged, we were told we couldn't get to the Board, and what you ought to be saying -- and you're saying better communication. And I have some other questions. I think that's what you're hearing.
Let me say this. If 19 you believe that the training is 20 inadequate -- 21
-- then certainly that's something that should be made known to the Board. Until I sat in your 88 3/9/10 - WHOLE - RES. 100021, and Council, I was unaware that you were unhappy with the training. So that's -- I'm not putting the onus on other people to do something. I don't know if something is wrong until -- I sensed that people felt like the Board was somewhere off somewhere else. That I did sense. I did not know you were unhappy with the training until you told me. So that's what I mean. If there's something wrong, tell us.
Our 14 impression was that we could not talk to 15 the Board, that it would be ex parte, 16 that you all were off on another island 17 and the only people we could deal with 18 were the staff people on your staff, and 19 then they determined what the law would 20 be and said this is it and you comply or 21 we're going to haul you off to court. 22
And I've explained 23 to you that that's -- you are not supposed to contact an individual Board member. What I have said is that you can 89 3/9/10 - WHOLE - RES. 100021, and come to the Board meeting, just like you did with Regulation 2, and either compliment us or tell us we got it wrong. But with respect to the ethics training, I welcome your suggestions on how you think it can be made better. Really Councilman Green disagrees with me, but most of this is a communication issue, the fact that people feel like they can't communicate with the Board. And, two, you tell me that the ethics training is inadequate or unacceptable or not helpful, those are things that need to be communicated. If you don't get satisfaction from the staff, they need to be communicated to the Board.
I got a 23 point of information on the point of information.
Soon we'll 90 3/9/10 - WHOLE - RES. 100021, and get back to your questioning.
Since 12 you've heard so much about the training 13 and there are problems with the training, 14 as a Board member, what can you do to 15 correct that, improve that? Have any of 16 the Board members ever been to the 17 training sessions? 18 And as I told you last week, I 19 take issue to come to a training and you 20 have a PowerPoint -- and we rely on you 21 guys to train us, okay -- and you have a 22 PowerPoint and we can't even get a copy 23 of it. And then I further questioned my staff as to why we couldn't, and they said because you didn't own the cartoons. 91 3/9/10 - WHOLE - RES. 100021, and We're not worried about the cartoons. We want -- we don't need the cartoons. We want a copy of that PowerPoint on campaign finance training.
Let me address the 7 first issue of what I will do about the 8 ethics training. 9 Absolutely, I have sat through 10 the training. I'm required to sit 11 through it, and I do. I mean, I have to 12 sign in just like everyone else. So I 13 have sat through it. You see the 14 training as different from us. 15
Both 16 trainings or just -- because there's two 17 trainings. 18
I've sat through, I 19 believe, both of them. I believe both of 20 them. I don't know if I've done my re-up 21 for this year, but I did -- 22
I'm 23 talking about there's two different types of training. One is the ethics training and one is the campaign finance training. 92 3/9/10 - WHOLE - RES. 100021, and 2
I'm almost sure I've been through both of them, yes. And with respect to getting a PowerPoint copy, I looked into that. The understanding I have is that the PowerPoint was not in the level of detail of -- when people do PowerPoints, the PowerPoints are just hitting some points. But what I will say to you and what I've said to the staff members is that if people want to leave with a PowerPoint, maybe we should think about putting something together so that they can take with them. The cautioned response that I got is that that PowerPoint is not going to answer all your questions. Because I did look into that when you raised that issue to me. I said, Why can't people get that? I didn't take your concern and just walk away with it. I asked. People wanted to know why they couldn't get a copy of the PowerPoint. They said it's not all inclusive of everything that's on there and that we don't want them to walk 93 3/9/10 - WHOLE - RES. 100021, and 2 away and think this is all I need to 3 answer all my questions. 4
But you have my 6 commitment, Councilwoman Miller, that I 7 will work to try to find a way to get 8 something for people to walk out with if 9 that's what they want. 10
Well, 11 that's absolutely what we need, because 12 right now we walk away with nothing but 13 our memory, and even a PowerPoint that 14 doesn't have every absolute detail, we do 15 have the ability to look at it when it's 16 being presented and take notes, and we 17 just aren't given that kind of an 18 opportunity. 19
What I will say to 20 you is, I will make a commitment to make 21 that recommendation to the Board. I'm 22 only one Board member, so I'm not sure I 23 can deliver on it, but I already have relayed to members of staff and one Board member and I will continue to make that 94 3/9/10 - WHOLE - RES. 100021, and and try to accommodate Council on those issue.
Okay. I 5 have a few more questions, but I'll go 6 back to Councilman Green. 7
Thank you, 8 Madam Chair. 9 I actually raised the issue 10 about PowerPoints last year during budget 11 testimony when Shane Creamer came before, 12 and he said during that budget testimony 13 that they would make PowerPoints 14 available in the future. So I'm very 15 surprised to learn that that's happening, 16 and it seems sort of silly since, of 17 course, anybody, if they wanted to, could 18 file a Freedom of Information Act request 19 and get the PowerPoint. If somebody 20 wants to take it at their own risk, 21 that's really not something the Board 22 should be spending time on at Board 23 meetings or anything else. It seems a little bit silly to have this discussion.
You were sort of 95 3/9/10 - WHOLE - RES. 100021, and critical of me in saying communication, but there's --
Well, let me say 7 this. Well, you raised some concerns 8 about it. Up until I sat with 9 Councilwoman Miller last week, I was 10 unaware that she had the concern about 11 the PowerPoint. 12
I believe 13 you were sitting in Council Chambers when 14 Shane Creamer and I had the discussion on 15 that point last year. 16
Mr. Glazer 23 was here, okay. Well, Board members are aware of it, because it's been --
Other Board members 96 3/9/10 - WHOLE - RES. 100021, and may be aware of it. I was unaware.
That's fine. 4 And I want to say that I do not -- you 5 characterized me disagreeing with you 6 with respect to communications. I 7 absolutely agree that that is one area 8 for improvement of the Board. I was just 9 looking for a few more substantive areas 10 where you thought there might be room for 11 improvement. 12 You also in response to, I 13 think, Councilwoman Tasco's or Miller's 14 questioning said that it's great for 15 people to come to the Board, and my staff 16 members come to the Board and if we have 17 an issue, we can come to the Board, but 18 we shouldn't come to an individual Board 19 member. The problem with that, of 20 course, is if the issue is still 21 confidential and a City employee has a 22 problem with the way the staff is 23 handling it, they can't come to an open public Board meeting and discuss it. So perhaps there ought to be a regulation 97 3/9/10 - WHOLE - RES. 100021, and that addresses the way somebody should address that when they think there's an abuse of discretion or power at the staff level that makes it clear that contacting the Chairman or another person for purposes of addressing that one issue is appropriate.
And if the issue 10 is -- and that's why I want some 11 clarification. If the issue is your 12 problem with a staff member, not an issue 13 with -- 14
Well, no 15 matter what the issue is, there should be 16 no reason why somebody can't be contacted 17 if we have a problem, other than in a 18 public forum. 19
Here's something 20 else that has happened, Councilman Green, 21 that people have sent Board members, all 22 of the Board members, the same letter. 23 That's another way that I proposed --
Yeah. And that's a very helpful way. All the Board members are getting the same information. If you have a complaint about a staff member or a process, just like when Regulation 2, that went to all the Board members.
Could I 11 just ask a question about that? 12 Would that be considered ex 13 parte communication? 14
I don't believe it 15 would, because you're sending it to all 16 the Board members. 17
Thank you. 20 With respect to Mr. Meyer, to 21 get back on that point briefly, as a 22 Board member, will you commit to 23 undertake a search for another qualified person prior to the date he would leave to determine whether or not there's 99 3/9/10 - WHOLE - RES. 100021, and anybody interested with relevant qualifications? I'm not asking what the rest of the Board will do. I'm asking what you will do.
What I will commit 7 to do? I have my -- you heard I feel 8 very strongly about Mr. Meyers and his 9 background. 10
If you're asking me 13 that I will reverse my vote on 14 Mr. Meyers, I won't do that. I'm not 15 going to tell you I'm going to do that. 16
That's not 17 what I asked you. If you'd like me to 18 repeat again what I asked you, I will. 19 Will you as a Board member commit to 20 urging the Board to conduct a search for 21 someone to replace Mr. Meyer to determine 22 whether or not there actually is someone 23 as qualified or nearly as qualified as Mr. Meyer such that you're not engaging in hiring Mr. Meyer? 100 3/9/10 - WHOLE - RES. 100021, and 2
I have to think about that. I'm not going to -- I don't want to tell you something that I cannot commit to doing, and I think it's important that I keep my word. So I will not -- my inclination is no, but I have to think about that, because --
So this 10 really concerns me, because -- and I'm 11 going to tie it back to a statement you 12 made earlier in response to a question 13 from Councilman Goode, which is what you 14 do in terms of making a determination of 15 whether or not someone has violated a 16 rule or a law or a charter, et cetera, is 17 you apply the facts to the law or rule or 18 charter, and what you're saying is that 19 facts be damned, you're going to hire 20 Mr. Meyer. 21
No, that's not what 22 I'm saying. That's not what I'm saying. 23
Actually, I said to you I can't commit to what I'll do. I 101 3/9/10 - WHOLE - RES. 100021, and have not been posed with that. I know when we looked at it, we had determined that he had not -- for him for DROP would not be illegal.
Is that the 11 standard we should all hold ourselves to? 12
No, that's not the 13 standard. I mean, that's not how I live 14 my life, but in asking me whether I will 15 commit to a search and open that up, I 16 don't want to sit here and tell you that 17 if that's not something I will do. I 18 don't think it's fair for me to say that 19 just because I'm sitting here. 20
You don't 21 think it's appropriate to get all of the 22 facts about whether or not he is the only 23 person qualified to do the job before making the decision? You've already said you don't have all the facts. You didn't 102 3/9/10 - WHOLE - RES. 100021, and know Mr. Harvey. I don't know if he's interested in the job or not. Probably not. But there are other people like him around, but you're not interested in exploring what all the facts may be before you -- how did that hiring decision get made without that fact, without getting the facts --
And I think I was 17 very clear on where I thought his 18 credentials stood. 19
I told you sitting 22 here today I cannot say that I will do 23 that. I may, but I don't know -- I have to think about it.
Well, at 103 3/9/10 - WHOLE - RES. 100021, and this point, I can't say that I can support you.
Because you 6 don't seem very interested in getting the 7 facts. And with respect to applying the 8 facts to the law, where do you get those 9 facts? 10
No, no, no, 13 not that law. In general, back to the 14 question Councilman Goode was asking, 15 when you apply the facts to the law, 16 where do you get those facts? 17
We look at 18 investigative matters. Sometimes we look 19 at documents. 20
Sometimes we get 23 them from staff members. We ask questions for them to get us more documents to look at. They can come from 104 3/9/10 - WHOLE - RES. 100021, and any number of places, from transcripts of depositions that are taken by people. It's a plethora of information, but let me say this to you: I do believe that my reconfirmation or votes should not be determined based solely on DROP, and if that's --
And I'm not 14 saying -- I just am undecided at this 15 point. 16 Thank you, Madam Chair. 17
19 You're welcome. 20 Councilwoman Miller, do you 21 have any further questions? 22
Yes, just 23 a couple. Thank you. What is your method of notification for your hearings? 105 3/9/10 - WHOLE - RES. 100021, and 2
We actually post them on the website and -- I don't want to say we publish them, but I do think we might. They're posted on the website definitely, because we used to just -- I think we do publicize them, because I remember Councilman Green's staff member asking us to post them on the website. So they may have already been published and now we put them on the website as well. And we meet every month. Depending on what happens in August, we may not meet in August, but we are open to meetings every month, and we've had them, with the exceptions of last August, we did not have a Board meeting.
How many 19 people from the public come or attend 20 generally? 21
You know, sometimes 22 there's people there I don't know who 23 they are. I mean, it's not just --
Board members. 106 3/9/10 - WHOLE - RES. 100021, and 2
-- Board members. There's sometimes people sitting in the back room and I never learn who they are. So I can't tell you how many outside City people that come. I know there are often people sitting in the Board meetings, but I don't know who they are.
When you 10 and Councilman Green were having a 11 discussion, it sounds like too in some of 12 the ways that you're answering the 13 questions that you really -- you as an 14 individual feel that communications need 15 to be improved. Generally, Council 16 thinks -- and this is just a general 17 feeling of many Councilmembers -- that 18 the Board operates from an "I got you" 19 attitude, and you've heard that from 20 several people here today, and that you 21 serve as the judge and the jury. 22 That has to change if you think 23 that we're going to be comfortable enough to pick up the phone or send you a letter and come over. I mean, it's almost like 107 3/9/10 - WHOLE - RES. 100021, and it's a secret society over there, it's untouchable. So a whole lot has to change for people to feel comfortable enough to give you a call or -- well, we can always send you letters, but there is something that needs to change. It is a really, really, really serious problem between -- and that's how Council feels. I don't know how other City departments feel, but that's how we feel here.
And I've said this 17 to you. I don't sit in a Board meeting, 18 executive session or otherwise and look 19 to "I got you." After many years of 20 being in public service, I more than -- I 21 think more than many people understand 22 the public perception when allegations 23 are made. So I am very careful and methodical about my votes and what I do as a Board member. So I probably pay 108 3/9/10 - WHOLE - RES. 100021, and particular attention to not subscribe to that "got you" moment. And with respect to your saying that you can speak for yourself, you're not comfortable calling the Board or contacting the Board, I think that was one of the things the Board was trying to do last year when we sent letters out to City Council and say, Sit down with us informally, tell us what you think, what are your thoughts, do you have any questions. I met with Councilwoman Krajewski, I met with Councilman Rizzo, and we sat down for half an hour, 45 minutes and they told us, Here's my concern, I'm not sure whether this or I'm not sure whether that, or I like what the Board is doing here, I don't like -- and I'd like to do that and see, again, Councilpersons take advantage of that, because maybe that will take away the stilt that's there in the communication. It's a start.
Maybe it 109 3/9/10 - WHOLE - RES. 100021, and will, but it has to start somewhere, and I don't think City Council -- I think we were pretty shocked when that whole attitude that we felt communications coming out of the Board there was, I got you. And some people feel stronger about that than others, but, you know, we're not going to create anything that's going to hurt us, and I think that most people generally want to follow the law, but they have to know what the law is. Don't rely so much on just the website for posting information around changes, amendments, et cetera. I mean, it's good to have it there, but if there's -- one of the ways, you can always send an e-mail out just to say, Hey, I think this month there's something on our website you should be looking at. Because we're not sitting there -- at least I don't sit around and look at the Ethics Board website every month.
And I certainly can appreciate that, but I think one of the 110 3/9/10 - WHOLE - RES. 100021, and ways -- and maybe the Board did take too long in amending Regulation 2. Maybe that was one of the things that we could have done better, because Regulation 2 will now give you the kind of access, I think, you're now looking for with the Board, which I think to some degree you had the access, but now you weighed in on the access and you can come to the Board. So, you know, the communication thing I can't express more, but I also actually can say take advantage, if you have an opportunity, to talk to the Board members. You'll get a sense of who they are. They're not all lawyers anymore, which I think is certainly a good thing, and I am a lawyer. But understanding the laws is something that we want people to grasp, and if the training is not good, we want to make it better.
Well, we 23 do, and even though you did say that you're only one member, the Board has to realize that that is a very important 111 3/9/10 - WHOLE - RES. 100021, and component of the responsibilities of the Ethics Board as a whole. And whenever you're going to bring that topic up at your Board meeting on the agenda, can you let me know, so maybe some of us could come over and explain it more to the Board why we think it needs to improve?
Thank 14 you. 15 The Chair recognizes 16 Councilwoman Blackwell. 17
Thank 18 you. I have a general question, a legal 19 question. With regard to the Supreme 20 Court decision on corporate 21 contributions, and they talked about 22 advertising and we wonder how that 23 affects us, does it mean -- I'm not so sure whether it means that corporations can advertise for issues, advertise for 112 3/9/10 - WHOLE - RES. 100021, and people or candidates and how that affects us.
I would have to look 5 a little into that issue. I don't want 6 to give you an answer, but I will -- how 7 does corporate advertising on campaigns 8 affect City Council; is that your 9 question? 10
Yeah. 11 There was a recent Supreme Court decision 12 that got a lot of press. 13
And we 15 were concerned of how it affected us. 16
I will either myself 17 or have someone else call you and get you 18 that. 19
Thank 20 you. If you let the President know, 21 she'll let us all know. 22
Thank you. 113 3/9/10 - WHOLE - RES. 100021, and The Chair again recognizes Councilman Goode.
Thank you, 5 Madam President. 6 Good afternoon. Related to my 7 other questions regarding legislative 8 intent, what is your opinion, your 9 personal opinion, of the purpose of a 10 campaign finance reform ordinance? Why 11 did City Council do a campaign finance 12 reform ordinance? 13
What's the 16 purpose of a campaign finance reform 17 ordinance? 18
I mean, I guess City 19 Council has to determine why they need 20 the ordinance. I can't answer that. 21
No. We did 22 a campaign finance reform ordinance, 23 which the Board of Ethics has oversight over. My question is, just very generally, what was the purpose behind 114 3/9/10 - WHOLE - RES. 100021, and campaign finance reform?
No; the one 6 that was done in 2003 and then amended 7 several times, including an amendment in 8 2006. 9
On what the 16 purpose was. And that has never come up 17 in any decision you've made in terms of 18 what the actual purpose of that ordinance 19 was? 20
None that I can 21 think of. When we get requests for 22 opinions, advice -- 23
My question is about the law itself and what was the purpose for the law. 115 3/9/10 - WHOLE - RES. 100021, and 2
You don't 5 have any opinion on what the purpose of 6 the law was? 7
What was the 9 purpose of assigning campaign finance 10 oversight to the Board of Ethics? 11
As I stated to you 12 earlier, I believe when I got on the 13 Board, it was already on there. I don't 14 know the purpose behind that. 15
Why assign 16 campaign finance oversight to the Board 17 of Ethics rather than the City 18 Commissioner's Office? 19
Well, one thing -- 20 and this is my opinion. This is the 21 thing that jumps out at me -- is because 22 we cover ethics and citizens feel like 23 they have some right to know what's going on with campaigns and things of that nature. That's probably why it's part of 116 3/9/10 - WHOLE - RES. 100021, and the Ethics Board.
Well, the 4 City Commissioner's Office already covers 5 campaign finance, so why not assign 6 campaign finance oversight to the City 7 Commissioner's Office? 8
Like I said, I 9 wasn't -- when I got on the Board, it was 10 already a part of the Board. It was 11 already part of their oversight. 12
So you have 13 no opinion on, one, why there is a law 14 or, two, why oversight was assigned to 15 the Board of Ethics? You have no opinion 16 on that? 17
I have no opinion on 18 why it was assigned to the Ethics Board. 19 It was already there when I got there. I 20 think -- 21
-- campaign 23 finance -- let me try to answer some of your question. Campaign finance --
Let me be 117 3/9/10 - WHOLE - RES. 100021, and real clear. Do you have an opinion on why there is a campaign finance law?
Because I think 8 citizens feel like they want to know what 9 candidates are doing, where -- 10
And I think it's for 17 transparency issues. There's many -- 18 there's at least some laws I can think of 19 where there are rules for candidates and 20 how they should deal with their campaign. 21 All that I think is related to 22 transparency. Perhaps that's why they 23 put it under the Ethics Board. I'm only speculating, but that's my --
Well, to end 118 3/9/10 - WHOLE - RES. 100021, and the speculation, there is a campaign finance law because I introduced a bill 4 in the fall of 2003 co-sponsored by Councilwoman Reynolds Brown. It was initiated by City Council. So the answer to your question about whether there is a campaign finance law strictly because the public wants to know and for the issue of transparency, that is not its legislative intent. The issue of why it is assigned to the Board of Ethics versus the City Commissioner's Office also is not an issue strictly of transparency or openness, because if it were assigned to the City Commissioner's Office, that would be the case, too. And that was also my bill that assigned that responsibility to the Board of Ethics. Therefore, I can speak fully about its legislative intent. So one of my last questions is --
Wait. Let me -- you 119 3/9/10 - WHOLE - RES. 100021, and asked me the legislative -- you didn't ask me the legislative intent. You asked me what I thought why there was campaign finance laws. You didn't ask me the legislative intent.
I have a 8 better question for you. You can answer 9 it directly. 10 Do you think that -- because I 11 wanted to first establish the fact that 12 the legislative intent of the law I know 13 because I introduced it. The legislative 14 intent of the ordinance which assigned 15 oversight to the Board of Ethics I know 16 because I introduced it. 17 Lastly, in your experience, was 18 the purpose to limit people's influence 19 on elected officials or was it to limit 20 elected officials from being influenced? 21 And there's a big distinction. 22
I think there's 23 probably a little bit of both. That's my personal opinion.
But that's 120 3/9/10 - WHOLE - RES. 100021, and not the legislative intent.
No. I didn't say -- 4 you didn't ask me the legislative intent. 5
If the 6 legislative intent -- I'm making a 7 statement. 8 If the legislative intent was 9 to limit people's influence on elected 10 officials, would that change any 11 decisions that you've made or that staff 12 has made in terms of having to pursue 13 enforcement of the law? 14
I'm not going to 15 comment on any decisions I've made or any 16 future decisions. So I can't answer 17 that. 18
Is it news 19 to you that the legislative intent of the 20 campaign finance law was to limit 21 influence on elected officials? 22