This file contains archived live captions of the open meeting of the Federal Election Commission held on December 13, 2018. This file is not a transcript of the meeting, and it has not been reviewed for accuracy or approved by the Federal Election Commission.

Welcome to the last meeting of the year of the Federal Election Commission for Thursday, December 13, 2018. Madame Vice Chair, is there a motion for the correction and approval of the minutes? 

There is cotta --, Madam Chair. I move approval for the minutes for the meeting of Thursday, December 6, 2018 as set forth in Agenda Document 18-52-A. 

All those in favor? Aye. >> My understanding is there support for Draft B. 

We have some late submitted documents. I moved to suspend the rules on agenda item 18-54-A, and --I didn't know we had that many a giant items on the agenda. 

All those in favor? 

Aye. 

The motion passes unanimously. 

There are two agenda documents on the record today and my understanding is there is support for draft be --B. Any comments or questions? 

I think we have unanimous support . I hereby moved we adopt draft B. 

Thank you. All those in favor? 

Aye. 

That motion passes unanimously as well. The next manner Draft Advisory Opinion has been held over once again to a future meeting. The requester has asked for more time to respond to the drafts that were placed in the public record prior to last public meeting. I assume they've given us of an extension of time and it we will take that up in January? 

Similarly, the next matter on the agenda , Draft Advisory Opinion Osianetwork LLC has been held over to another meeting in the requester also gave us an extension of time in order for us to consider some comments they recently filed regarding this Advisory Opinion request. So that will also likely be discussed in January. The next matter on the agenda is regulation REG 2014-02 for remote --reporting multistate and electioneering communications. Are you on top for that, Robert Knop? And also if you would please join us in case we have any questions or comments. Thank you very much. 

Thank you, Chair Hunter and commissioners. Agenda Document 18 --55 -- 18- 55 -A. It is a draft final rule concerning how and when to report independent expenditures that are made in connection with the presidential primary election but that do not reference or target a specific states primary. Draft final rule adopts alternative B from the notice of proposed rules and requires that those making multistate independent expenditures in six or more states that do not refer to any particular state basis reporting on the first of those states holding a presidential primary. The draft also provides guidance to those making independent expenditures in less than six states regarding how to report those expenditures . If approved the draft final rule would take effect 30 days after publication in the Federal Register. I'm happy to answer any questions you may have. 

Thank you. And thank you to OGC, Mr. Kona and all of the commissioners. This is been something we've been talking about for quite a long period of time. It's a reporting issue that's dogged us to try to figure out what the best way to do this is and I think we come up with something that hopefully will work much better for the public in our last attempt. Would you like to add anything? >> Yes, I'd like to think the Commission for reaching an agreement on this rulemaking. We've heard from numerous filers over the years --over many many years. I was looking at emails back to 2010. It's been a while. They've expressed frustration about the inaccuracy of the reports that they are filing under the method outlined in the 2011 -28. Were that required filers by the number of states with remaining primaries. This role will provide filers with clear guidance, clear definition of what a multistate nationwide IE is as well as specific guidance on how to disclose it so we are happy about this and I want to think the Commission again for making this a priority. 

Thank you again for your help in coming up with a good way to address this and I'd like to thank Jack Walther who is an intern in my office last summer. I wish he could be here with us today for the about, but we will call him afterward assuming it passes and let them know his good work is paying off today. Thanks to him as well. Madame Vice Chair? 

Thank you, Madam Chair. This is an issue that has been bedeviling us for a long time. We thought we came up with the right answer with the Western AO and it was a unanimous decision, and everybody hated it, so I don't know that there's a perfect answer but I am hopeful that this is a better answer, a clearer answer. I also want to give credit where credit is due. I want to applaud the chair for her leadership on this issue. She was determined to get this done this year and obviously a lot of staff worked very hard and I want to thank them as well but I don't think we would be here voting on this document today if not for the chair and her persistence and determination to get that done. So thank you for that, Madam Chair. 

Is there emotion? 

Madame Vice Chair? 

Thank you. I move approval of the draft final rule in explanation and justification for reporting multistate independent expenditures and electioneering communications. REG 2014-02. As set forth in Agenda Document 18-55-A and direct the staff to get it published and get it over to Congress and do what we need to do to put it into effect. In time for the next cycle. 

Great, thank you. All those in favor? 

Aye. The motion passes unanimously. The next item is Jeff --draft recommendations. Mr. Pugh from the office of intergovernmental affairs will be joining us. Thank you Mr. Pugh for putting this list together for us and it's one that we are able to garner four votes for because we've got a lot of different people's ideas in here. Would you like to discuss the recommendation? 

Yes, thank you, Madam Chair. The draft legislative recommendations for 2018 before the Commission today are the 12 recommendations included in the Agenda Document. One you will notice his new. It is prohibit aiding and abetting contributions in the name of another in this came from a suggestion from the litigation division in the Office of General Counsel. And one very familiar legislative recommendation is missing for Senate electronic filing and we don't need to make that recommendation anymore because that has been accomplished and enacted. 

I think that happened because of our recommendation? To I'm sure that it did. 

Our many recommendations. 

I'm sure that played an important part actually. And we also have other progress to report. Last night the Senate passed HR 7120 which would extend the administrative fine program from its current expiration through the year-end reports for 2023. So in the past when that bill had art he passed the house so it's headed to the president for signature. In the past when Congress had just recently extended the administrative fine program the Commission has not pursued a recommendation to make the program permanent in the year after that. Not that the Commission is distancing itself from the program but just felt like because Congress had just acted on a very similar request and given us at least partial relief , the Commission chose to let that one rest for a year or two. So I did --and the text before you was written before the Senate acted last night, so if we go with the text we need to update it to show it has passed the Senate. I did want to flag that issue and see where the commissioners are on it. 

Okay. Mr. Peterson? 

Would your recommendation be to excise this from the list of recommendations for this year since there was Senate action and then if necessary include this in the future legislative recommendations as it gets closer to expiration? 

Exactly, yes. That's what the Commission has done in the past and I think that's the best course. 

Perhaps at the time of making motion we can include that, Mr. Peterson? Thank you. 

Any other comments? Madame Vice Chair? 

Thank you. I guess we will have 11, which number are we going to excise? 

Number seven. 

Okay. That still leaves us with 11 solid recommendations . Some of them are not very exciting . Updating citations to reflect the re-codification of FICA but it would be useful. I want to put in a special plug for authority to create SES positions at the FEC. This is something --it would be really important and helpful to us internally to have that authority to retain , attract and retain good people. Many other agencies have that authority and I note that sounds --doesn't sound very sexy or exciting for folks inside -- outside the building but inside that would make a difference to us and then we have what I think are really important recommendations on preventing fraud and Personal Use of Campaign Funds. There's a lot of money going into campaign accounts these days and obviously a lot of money going into super PACs in particular and we have seen an uptick in embezzlement, fraud --over the years and there's a recurrent problem of personal use. We have a good law on the books that prevents personal use of principal campaign funds, but we do not have complete agreement on what that means about leadership PAC . I think it should include leadership PACs and it's not a universally held view but even I can't come up with an argument under current law for preventing personal use of Super PAC funds and there really is no good reason not to have that on the books. I think it would be a great protection for the folks who give money to those entities to know it's going to be used for the political purpose that it's intended. So I hope this has been a good year for us and we've gotten a couple of our long-standing recommendations adopted so I'm hopeful that maybe next year we can see some similar progress on some other important areas. 

Thank you. Any other comments? Is there emotion? 

Madame Vice Chair? 

Thank you. I move approval of the congressional draft legislative recommendations for 2018 as set forth in Agenda Document 18-54- A with the exception of recommendation 7 which should be deleted -- tabled for a later recommendation. 

Thank you. All those in favor? 

Aye. >> The motion passes unanimously. Mr. Pugh? 

If you could stay up here again please for the next item which is FY2020 budget amendment request and there's a document that accompanies this. I believe the Vice Chair -- this was part of your motion to make it --it's a late submitted document and its public by now. It's a memo from me to the Commission with an attached letter to Mr. McClelland the Director of OMB letting OMB know that since the electronic filing bill was passed as we just discussed in the previous conversation, that was part of our budget submission for the 2012 fiscal year. After our submission , Congress passed the electronic filing issue and therefore we freed up some money that we didn't otherwise know about. Our estimation is approximately $600,000. Because we now don't need that money for the process of the paper filing that many of the senators did in the past, they are now required to file their reports electronically. We know we are saving $600,000 from our budget request. OMB initially asked the agency to submit a request that was 5% less than the previous year's budget . We did that but then we asked for what we call an ad back and we had various add backs that were requested by different parts of the agency including some for cybersecurity from Mr. Palmer and other issues that people anticipated needing in a presidential election year. So we accounted for all of that in the final number that we sent and it was only a 1% decrease. Many of the agencies across the government did not get that increase beyond the 5% so they are going to be dealing with a 5% cut from the previous year. As a part of that the $600,000 --it turns out to be approximately 3% to 5% how does depending on how you calculate the money of the discretionary part of our budget . We take away personal costs and rent and those sort of fixed costs, this amount is 3% to 5% of that pot. It's not a huge amount but it's also my view not insignificant and something I believe we should let the Office of Management and Budget know about . One of my colleagues suggested I could send a letter on my own. I potentially could be able to do that legally but I don't think that would be appropriate. I think the budget process is something that the Commission has voted on. We voted on the budget submission that we sent to OMB a few months ago and so I think this --a letter notifying OMB of a request for reduction or increase or whatever it may be should have the support of the Commission and so I'm not willing to send that letter on my own. I put it on the agenda because of budget issues --they are open meeting and there's no exemption for talking about this in executive session so I put it on the open meeting to discuss and I'd like to have a vote on it. My understanding is it may not pass but it was important to me to notify the government of a savings we did not know about at the time we submitted our budget. Mr. Pugh, do you have any thing else to add? No? Okay. Any other comments? Questions? Madame Vice Chair? 

Thank you, Madam Chair. Yes, thanks to Congress we are all very grateful that they have passed electronic filing and there will be savings as a result of that. The question is so what should we do with the savings? The chair has suggested we should ask that the budget be reduced . I believe we should use those funds for the benefit of the agency in the public and in service of the important mission of our agency and I particularly think we ought to use it and support of beefing up our enforcement division. It's been a long-standing concern I know of all the commissioners that cases take too long from the time they come in the door until the time we are able to resolve them and I think there are a variety of reasons for that. We have to on some of that up here on the 12th floor. I'm still getting used to saying 12th instead of the ninth floor. I think commissioners take too long to make decisions on cases and that has ripple effects on not only it delays it for that period of time but I also think it sends a message to the staff that we don't care about timeliness. I think that is a problem but I also think there's only so much you can expect people to do at the staff level and our numbers in the enforcement division have been declining over the years and yet our caseload keeps increasing . I prepared a simple graphic on this and we will see whether our brand-new, spiffy --it seems to come with a noise. We've got the statistics. This is just really simple . In 2010 we had 59 full-time equivalents . That is the government term for staff positions. And now we have 41 . In 2010 we had 100 cases that those 59 people were working on and now we have 329. It has over tripled . Not all of them are complicated but some of them are very complicated. In addition to that, that doesn't even capture that there are half a dozen OGC attorneys who are on long-term loan to commissioners offices. I think that is actually a great thing for the staff to be able to have the experience of working in Commission offices and see how it works from this perspective. I think everyone who's done it has enjoyed that experience and found it highly educational and helped them do their job better. But that is six fewer lowers who are downstairs doing the work of the agency. So the numbers are even a little bit misrepresentative and I think we should --I have suggested in the past that maybe we could let them fill those positions on a 2-for-1 basis if we are not willing to let them fill all six positions that we have using upstairs. Maybe we could let them fill three of those less. In any event the money we would save on electronic filing and not having to process the paper reports would not even cover the cost of replacing those six attorneys. Certainly it wouldn't cover the cost of going from 41 to 59 people but it would be a start. It would be a good place to start. So that is why I was unable to support the chairs request that we ask for budget reduction because I think we could use that money in a productive way that would benefit the American people and serve the mission of our agency. 

Thank you. As noted earlier there is a process whereby the Commission submits a budget request in the process requires a vote of the Commission to send the document over and if somebody wanted this information to be included in that document, that was the appropriate time to do so. My guesses that may not of garnered four votes in so doing it this way is sort of in my mind an end run around the process because you are now saying if we have this money left over we will just use it in a way --a portion of the Commission wants to do and that's not the way that it works. If every government agency was able to do that there would be a lot of money that was appropriated by Congress in Congress wouldn't know the reason. They rely on the documents that are drafted by agencies and it's a wish list. It's telling them , telling OMB in Congress what we need in this information was not in their so it's a little late now. Another point I'd like to make which I was going to bring up earlier in a different context, but part of what we've done this year is we've done a few things to reduce the number of cases that end up in the enforcement docket. One of them is the multistate IE rulemaking that we just passed. There's a lot of cases that ended up in that docket where people had a [ Indiscernible ] that ended up getting referred to OGC because they were not reporting it properly under some people's view of the law. Now that we have a rule on that I anticipate those cases won't end up in the enforcement docket. There's also some that we moved from the Office of General Counsel to ADR for low dollar amounts that don't deal with complicated legal issues. That's another chunk of cases that will be removed from the enforcement docket. There's also a program that we started recently that I think is an excellent addition to the agency that allows committees who are having a problem complying with the incredibly complex law to avail themselves of what we call colloquially the FEC campaign school run by Mr. Kona, Greg Scott and others in the agency. They have an opportunity to learn about the laws so they don't mess up again. And that will also reduce the number of enforcement cases because I think the enforcement lawyers should spend their time doing cases that are weighty legal decisions and they should do it more quickly and I agree with you that we bear some responsibility for some of the delays as well, but those are my ideas on how to reduce the docket on the enforcement cases and now we want to talk about other ways to spend it isn't the way the government process is run. Thank you. >> Other comments? 

Commissioner Walther. First of all I think there is sense in calling out the fact that we do have a nefarious $600,000 --my concern is we know when we adopt or budget -- I'm not a fan of this procedure but we have in our budget usually number of people and places which are not necessarily filled at the time which based upon our budget we will fill. Since I've been here we've never done that . We never actually filled up the vacancies that we say we have when we apply for our budget. There's usually half $1 million- $2 million at the very end and where it goes is really amorphous of a process and I don't think that is good budget either. I think we should tighten up about where the money is going to go and where it's not going to go. We have to say they are not going to spend this kind of money because we don't hire like we should. So we have 5% reduction in what we want to ask for in that area or maybe 10%? So we are really not --I like having the extra money but I don't think it's the best way to get it. Unless we tighten up our procedures. This may be a one off, but I think the approach is concerning to me because just because we have something midyear that's going to save money, we don't just automatically --we've not done it before so I have mixed views about that. I see true draft letters and I see one that was done by Commissioner Petersen this morning. Maybe we can talk about it later on? I do think -- even if the chair were able to accomplish all these changes, which basically eliminate work from the enforcement system and some of that sounds great, but if you look at the numbers going from 41 to 329, that is so dramatic that none of those improvements would make that much sense at all. What we are --where we do see it is our caseload has grown in the amount of time it takes to move those through the system has been I think way too long. I would be glad to say a good part of our delay is the commissioners. We take too long . Some things don't really want to get to a case or find reasons not to move it along and I think we can do more to improve. On the other hand we just don't sometimes have enough people I think to get the work done and put it through the system and I know I have asked every time we have a discussion on this, do we need more help? And I'm told internally no. But my view is we must --there must be some reason why we can't move these cases faster. Even if we were being diligent, which is a big if also in a number of respects. I just wanted to --this is an opportunity to speak on the issue. I'm not opposed to giving some notice of the fact that this is happened, but I'm not sure I want to suggest that we couldn't find a good place for it and modify the letter and say we are still looking to see if the areas --we might find it to be something we could justify in terms of retaining it for a period. We haven't had a chest -- chance to discuss this so it's out there for consideration. 

Thank you , Commissioner Walther. At this time I think it might be prudent to vote on the letter I submitted and in January if you would like to make some minutes to the version Mr. --Commissioner Petersen sent around, I'd be happy to consider them it that time. 

Madame Vice Chair? 

One short comment on what my colleague was just saying. If we don't spend all the money in our budget it reverts to the treasury. When we have had large salary lapses in the last couple of years. Part of that is not our fault. There are some positions that we are not in a position to fill. There are some empty Chair's at the table and those empty Chair's come with their own staff and it's not an insignificant amount of money that we have to keep sitting in our budget in hopes that we will get new colleagues and the Commission will once again be fully staffed. Some of that salary is out of our control . We have what I consider to be a rather odd practice where anytime somebody leaves and takes a new job, there's a requirement that commissioners actually approve every single backfill . If it's a GS-five secretary or head of a division , it is still requiring sign off from the personnel Committee which is commissioners and I think as a management matter we would do better to allow our managers to make those kinds of decisions on which positions need to be backfilled. But that is also part of the reason why we end up with additional FTEs that don't get filled. >> I'm glad you brought up that sometimes money is sent back to the U.S. Treasury. When we don't need the funds, I think that's a good thing. I'm happy when we are able to send it back and not just use the money for something we may not need with respect to commissioners approving personal hires, I think it's a great idea and it's because it's a budget --it has major budget implications when you hire somebody in the federal government . For the most part after the first year people have an ability to stay and it has a significant budget implication and at something we should take seriously and there are times when the agency changes because of changes in the law or because of changes in practice and we might want to move resources from one part of the agency to another and that gives commissioners an opportunity to look at those issues. I think getting approval come --from commissioners is a sound policy. Commissioner Petersen? 

Thank you, Madam Chair. I will move the letter even though I don't think we have the support yet. Maybe we will work on it again early next year but I move approval of the letter set forth in agenda document 18-46- A. 

No, with the qualification I will work with you. 

Appreciated. For now the motion fails by a vote of 2-2. Commissioner Petersen and I voting in favor and Commissioner Walther and Madame Vice Chair voting no. The next is the meeting dates for the first half of 2019. Madame Vice Chair, do you have any comments on the meeting dates? 

Just that I'm looking forward to the meetings. 

All right. Is there emotion? 

There is. I move approval of the setting of meeting dates for the first half of 2019 as set forth in Agenda Document 18-53- A. All those in favor? 

Motion passes unanimously. Thank you. In advance of the election of the officers I'm going to read off a list of people who are of --have provided many years of service here to the agency . 40 years of service, 35 years of service in 30 years of service. It's an amazing accomplishment and we appreciate it very much and I will have a few short remarks and we will move on to the election of officers. I would like to show you the award certificate we will be handing out after the meeting to all of the people I'm going to read. It's a nice certificate. What is that called? Embossed . It's very nice. Thank you very much to everybody that I will read the recipients of the years of service award. For over 40 years of service, Teresa Mallory, Robin Kelly, Ida Revis, Marty Sabin, Jim Allen, Jackie Crawford, Cynthia Myers, Garland Coleman, Carol where the. Thank you very much to all of you. 40 years. Hasn't the agency been here for 40 years? [ Applause ] 

I think now it is 43. The next years of services award is for people who have served here for 35 years. Jim Jones, Pat done, Cheryl Williams , Mary Moss, Judy Fox, uncle Pearson, Wanda O'Neill and Robert [ name unknown ]. Thank you all very much. [ Applause ] The last list for today is over 30 years of service. Kevin Sally, Candace Sally --[ laughter ] Donna Smith, Kimberly Hart, Sam Stewart , Michael Moody Gwendolyn Holmes, Tony Buckley, Marie Dixon , Larry Calvert , Stephanie Watson , Donnie Harris, Patrick Donahue , Dorothy Yeager, [ name unknown ] , Gilbert Ford, Sylvia Windham and Dominic Dylan Sager. [ Applause ] 

We appreciate it. This is my last meeting as chair of the FEC. My second tour of duty and I enjoyed it very much. I enjoyed working with all of the staff in my Philly colleagues --fellow colleagues. I'm looking forward to passing the gavel over to Ellen. I wanted to make a few short comments . As frequently happens in the area of campaign finance law, the law is being challenged again through a variety of different lawsuits into key areas. One is with regard to donor disclosure and we had a decision over the summer about that in the agency put out some guidance in October to help the public know how to comply for now on that issue and another one is the question of how political Committee status is determined . There is litigation on that issue throughout the country . Just showing that in those two areas of the law even though they've been a fixture of the law since the very beginning there is still large amount of uncertainty and so hopefully one of these days we will be able to have some clear guidance on both of those areas and we look forward to getting future decisions in that regard. There's a lot of other issues in the news over the past year on campaign finance law . When I go out and speak to groups I get a lot of questions about news of the day as it relates to our jurisdiction and as you know there's a lot of things we are not able to talk about because of the confidentiality provisions that attach the enforcement process but it's definitely something that I for one look forward to talking to at the appropriate time once those provisions are no longer attached to the issues. With regard to enforcement this year, we've had a modest increase in the number of enforcement cases that we closed this year. We worked hard to try to whittle down the docket and all of my colleagues joined in that effort . We were reasonably successful as I said in increasing the number of cases closed this year. We have moved --as I referred to earlier --a lot of cases to ADR where many of us believe that that's an appropriate place to deal with certain cases that are here at the agency and thank you to [ name unknown ] here today. She is now the permanent ADR Director and she's done an excellent job. We also started educational programs to encourage voluntary compliance and that is part of our statutory mandate to help encourage voluntary compliance. Thank you to Alec Palmer, Pat Orrick, Deb each Kona and Greg Scott for all of your efforts and all the people that work with you. I think that's an excellent program and I think it will help people comply with the law. We talked about the electronic filer for Senate filers in that regard. That's a really good story for every part of the agency participating in that transition from OGC to computer services , IT . At the RNC we call it computer services. Everybody else really helped out a lot in the transition . I heard from a lot of people in the public saying the FEC was ready, willing and able to answer any and all questions in the filings all came in very quickly after the law was changed and it was a very successful transition. So thank you to the whole agency on that . With regard to rulemakings we finally accomplished the multistate rulemaking. It's a small one but hopefully it will help those people who are exercising their constitutional right to run independent expenditures in the upcoming presidential election. We also started the internet disclaimer rulemaking. We had a two day hearing over the summer. We had a lot of very useful comments and discussions among commissioners . I think one of the issues speaking for myself as I'm still examining the underlying reason for whether or not to do this rulemaking and how to go forward . Thinking about whether or not it's a rulemaking that is necessary . Our law requires we only do a rulemaking if it's necessary for the public to inform them on something that there's been an issue on and one of the pillars that many of the comments used was the foreign interference. As it turns out, there really weren't very many ads that were run by Russians. I think the estimate now is approximately $100,000 of ads paid for by groups affiliated with the Russian government and we know that the and RSC spent $2.3 million running internet ads for a relatively small Senate race in the last cycle. $100,000 is not a lot of money and we are not even sure out of that how many would've even required a disclaimer under our current rules. The other issue that has come up is some of the comments have noted that some people aren't even following the rules as they exist now and I'm still pouring through some of the documents to find evidence of that and I will send a letter today to one of the professors that sent in comments. I think her studies are very important because she testified here , it is Professor Kim from the University of Wisconsin. She testified here over the summer and provided follow-up comments which were helpful but many other commenters and even United States Senators are relying on her studies so I have follow-up questions for her and I want to make sure I fully understand the basis of her study. And her conclusions. With respect to the federal employee viewpoint survey, that's a survey that is done throughout the federal government . We made a modest improvement in the morale of the agency this year and we even got an award for it if you can believe that. Thank you, Mr. Palmer for accepting that award on the agency's behalf yesterday. I think we got a plaque. I just wanted to show you the plaque that --did you make this? [ laughter ] He didn't make it. He got it yesterday. The best places to work. Congratulations to the FEC for the most improved small federal agency. I think a lot of that is because --[ Applause ] -- Because of in the moved to the new building led by the capable India and her staff and many others we recognized earlier in the year , they made sure the staff was involved in a lot of the decisions. That everybody got exactly what they wanted but they were able to weigh in on what they wanted with respect to the new building and thank you to everybody who made the move so successful . Also because of our excellent managers who have really stepped up and made a strong effort to engage the staff and listen to their comments and concerns. We appreciate all of the managers and the agency for doing that . Thank you to all of you and I want to thank my staff, Eric Brown , [ name unknown ] , Chris Curran , and Katy Reynolds who's behind me and Lindsay Melody who left earlier in the year . Thank you for your support this year in putting together the agendas in helping me run the meetings. I really appreciate it. As to all of my father commissioners --fellow commissioners and to all the staff. With that we will move on to the election of the officers for next year. Commissioner Petersen? 

I may be out of turn and I made need to defer to Steve on the nomination but I wanted to quickly thank you for the service that you've extended over this past year . To be chair is to require a thick skin, a deep reservoir of patience and it have --helps to have a well-rounded sense of humor. You have all three in spades and we've been colleagues for 10 years now. Friends for much longer than that and I know being a chair is oftentimes thankless responsibility. You done it with a great deal of energy and concern about the interest of the people who work here and of the mission of the agency and you've done an excellent job and I just want to thank you for all of your efforts over the past year. 

I appreciate it. Thank you. 

Any motions for the new officers? >> I'd like to say to our outgoing chair how much it's been a pleasure working with you this year. This lady has always got something to say and add to the chemistry of our communications and it's always an enjoyable to have you --enjoyable to have you lead us in those areas. I did remember saying some time ago that I would reminded you of Colombo. You get things done in this way for the next thing you know you've agreed to it. The funny part was after I said that, of course, she was too young so she asked her dad what is Colombo? He knew what Colombo was. I think he went out and bought a bunch of those. 

I never watched them. They are in my house somewhere. I'll give them to you. 

Would you do that? I'll take you up on that. Congratulations for a real nice year. 

Thank you. 

It's also my pleasure right now to nominate Matt for the Vice Chair position for this gang and hopefully the number will change but it's really an honor to do that . For some of those that don't know Matt and myself --I always like to point out that it's always nice when you have something in common outside of the agency. When Matt and I both grew up with her grandparents basically running cattle and livestock along this mountain range on the border of Utah and Nevada. Over the many decades at that time --our families were probably meeting each other at the top of the hill top and also it gave us the ability to really appreciate in our own way the great place from which we came which was these great mountain ranges, open and no roads , no life other than natural life, big deserts below us. We talk about that and it's an opportunity to reminisce because we have said that if we ever had a tough issue we could sit up there around a campfire and get it all figured out in our own Western way. More than that, he graduated from Brigham Young University with a degree in philosophy and studied Latin Magnum who logged -- and he went on to law school at the University of division and made law review. He then went to work with [ Indiscernible ] and then the counsel of administration for another three years in the Senate Committee of rules and administration for another three and that is where I met Matt before I got on the Commission and I think you were at the door and here we are. One of the things I wanted to say about Matt. We all say he is a gentleman's gentleman. He is obviously always ready to talk about any tough subject but it's always with a great amount of care and respect for the other persons point of view and makes communication on difficult subjects much easier and I know whether you are a Vice Chair , we always take the benefit of that. It's my honor to nominate you for Vice Chair and I know you'll do great in this new position for the upcoming calendar year. 

Thank you. I second the nomination. Do you third at? 

Sure. 

All those in favor? Aye. Congratulations. Should I call you Mr. Vice Chair? Almost Vice Chair? 

I will be happy to just enjoy these last few weeks of not having that mantle above my head and I will assume that in the early part of 2019. Ever further motion. I would like to moved to nominate the Vice Chair, Ellen Weintraub , to serve as Commission chair in the year 2019. Serving as FEC chair is nothing new for the Vice Chair. Within days of being confirmed when she was originally confirmed by the Senate she didn't have the opportunity to just ease and and slowly learn the ways of the FEC, she was nominated and confirmed to be the chair of the FEC. So right from the outset of her tenure here she had to dive into the deep end of the pool and she has served capably since that time and she no doubt will provide excellent leadership during the upcoming year. Vice Chair Weintraub has a very long and distinguished legal career that involves stints at the law firm of Perkins [ Indiscernible ] where she was a member of the political law group and prior to that she was counsel to the ethics Committee for the U.S. health --House of Representatives. Sheet received her bachelor's from Yale in her law degree from Harvard and more than anything she has three children and they are the subjects of many discussions we have and I'm always interested and excited to hear about the latest adventures but they are undertaking. I've been a colleague of the vice chair for quite some time now however this will be the first time we've ever been paired up any leadership capacity and I'm very much looking forward to working with you in the upcoming year to make it as productive a year as possible and like I said I always appreciated her friendship. We've had an opportunity to teach together at many FEC educational conferences . That's always been a highlight for me and I've always enjoyed not only teaching but also the opportunities we have to get together as staff to have dinners and interact socially with one another and I look forward to more that in the upcoming year. So I'm honored to make the motion to nominate Vice Chair Weintraub to be the chair and 2019 and at the appropriate time I will be happy to extend my vote in support. 

Thank you Commissioner Petersen. All those in favor ? 

Aye . 

I think you have to vote. It's not very modest but okay. 

Congratulations. Madam Vice Chair and chair designee would you like to say a few words? 

I want to thank my colleagues for their confidence in me [ laughter ]. Being chair is really more of an administrative function. You get the joy of trying to find meeting dates which is always a bit of a challenge and running the meetings and trying to keep the trains running on time and I want to thank the current chair for her steady hand on the gavel . She does run a good meeting. My father always told me that if you want to get something done in life the key trait you needed was persistence and that is certainly something our current chair has . There are many times where I thought I told her no and nevertheless she persisted in coming back at me again . Actually I learned more in the last 15 minutes than in the last month about your evolving views on the internet disclaimer rulemaking but I'm not letting that one go so I'm looking for their -- forward to further discussions and I'm very much looking forward to working with Commissioner Petersen, soon to be vice chair Peterson. It's interesting. It's a small group and we keep swapping roles, but it's funny the way the two of us have never been paired up together so I'm looking forward to that. I very much like Commissioner Petersen and his staff and I'm looking forward to that and I also want to thank Chair Hunter's staff for all of their efforts this year . I hope my staff will do as well next year. And am looking forward --I want to wish everybody a very happy holidays. I hope you all get some time off to spend with your families and your loved ones and I'm really looking forward to seeing you all back here in January. 

I agree. Happy holidays and Merry Christmas and all the rest of it and thank you again to everybody. Commissioner Petersen? 

Thank you Madam Chair. I just wanted to make hopefully one small request of the soon- to-be chair Weintraub. One thing she is always very good about is when you travel you always bring back great sweets. Especially the chocolate and I'm hoping that trend will continue in 2019 especially at our meetings. 

If you stop by my meeting -- office leader there is chocolate. 

Mr. Palmer is there any administrative matters we should discuss? 

There are no such matters. 

Thank you, this meeting is adjourned.