Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Forfeiture Farrell Case topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Ethics commission overrules staff waiver, moves forward with forfeiture process in matter tied to Supervisor Mark Farrell
Summary
After extended legal argument and public testimony, the San Francisco Ethics Commission voted unanimously to overrule staff's proposed waiver and allow forfeiture proceedings to move forward in a 2010 campaign-contribution matter involving Supervisor Mark Farrell and a committee alleged to have received coordinated contributions.
The commission considered a staff-drafted forfeiture/waiver letter related to an enforcement file arising from 2010 campaign activity. Commissioner Keane moved to overrule the executive director’s request for a waiver of forfeiture and to proceed with formal forfeiture action. The motion triggered a multi-hour legal exchange with counsel and commissioners over whether the statute of limitations had been tolled by fraudulent concealment, whether an agent’s admissions impute liability to the supervisor, and whether staff had been put on sufficient notice to preserve claims.
Commissioner Keane characterized the matter as severe, saying the record showed a $200,000 coordinated effort that had been used to influence the election and that staff’s prior decision to seek a waiver would send the wrong message about enforcement. "Supervisor Farrell took an illegal $200,000 campaign contribution," Commissioner Keane said during his remarks. Keane urged the commission not to waive forfeiture and to allow courts or further fact-finding bodies to resolve any disputed legal questions.
Attorneys debated the applicable tolling doctrines. Counsel for the alleged coordinating committee argued fraudulent concealment and agency principles could toll the statute of limitations; opposing counsel and staff contended the commission had been put on notice earlier in the FPPC process and had ample time within the four-year statutory window to act. Staff said FPPC investigatory materials and interviews were reviewed and that the FPPC had declined to charge the supervisor after a thorough probe.
Following public testimony both urging due process and calling for enforcement, the commission voted 3–2 to go into closed session to confer with the city attorney. Commissioners returned to public session, reported no closed-session decisions, and proceeded to the pending motion. The commission unanimously voted to overrule the executive director’s waiver request and to permit the forfeiture process to continue rather than quietly withdraw the matter. Commissioners emphasized that the vote was not a finding of guilt but an invitation for further legal or judicial resolution.
