This file contains archived live captions of the open meeting of the Federal Election Commission held on June 24, 2021. This file is not a transcript of the meeting, and it has not been reviewed for accuracy or approved by the Federal Election Commission.

Thank you. Good morning, the open meeting on the Federal  election commission for June 24th  2021 will come to water. We have  some late some of the documents  this morning.  

Madam chair, thank you . I moved to spend  the rules on the timely submission  of agenda documents in order that  the commission may consider the  late submission of agenda documents  number 21  30  A. And 21  30   B.  

Thank you, Commissioner Trainor.  So moved. Any discussion on  the motion. Hearing none, all in  favor say Aye .  

Aye.  

 Thank you. The motion has been adopted by  a vote of five. Five zero but I will note for  the record today vice chair unable  to attend the meeting and will be  submitting votes by the close of  evening pursuant to the directive  10. So the motion has passed. The  next item -- the first item  is advisory opinion bequest  2021 06 submitted on behalf of  representative Robin Kelly and the  Democrat party of Illinois  but we are joined today by Charles  E. Borden, Esq.,  Samuel C. Brown,  Esq. that will respond to questions.  So I say welcome today. For particularly one of you  it is a welcome back but I am sure we will have this highlighted for  you we also have Heather Filemyr,  and the  OGC here to discuss the matter.  And I turn to OGC .  >> Thank you, Madam chair, good morning  commissioners. Before the agenda  documents 21  30  A and 21   30 B alternative draft advisory  opinions for the respondent request  from the U. S. Congresswoman Robin  Kelly and the Democratic  party  of Illinois. Recently elected to  service chair at  the Democratic State Central committee  which governs the state party asking  whether adopting one of the proposed  government structures during the  Congresswoman tenure as chair permitting  the state party to raise and spend  funds who nonfederal account the  amounts and sources permitted by  the act but permitted under  the Illinois law. Further ask whether  the Congresswoman's name and title  as chair may be included on the  letterhead of solicitations for  the nonfederal account. Draft A state party prohibited from raising  and spending funds  in amounts and sources prohibited  by the act, under any of the proposed  government structures because Congresswoman  Kelly would retain indirect  control of the nonfederal account  but given that conclusion the letterhead  question draft cap be state party may raise  funds in amounts and sources prohibited  by the act, permitted under Illinois  law nonfederal account if both the  nonfederal account is administered  by special committee without the  review of approval of Congresswoman  Kelly and the majority of the special  community members automatically  appointed to the special committee  by virtual office and not appointed  by the chair draft be concludes  that Congresswoman Kelly's name  and title must not be included on  the letterhead with any solicitation  that solicit funds and amounts prohibited by the act because  using her name and title in that  manner but identify the solicitation  as being sent on Congresswoman Kelly's  behalf in violation of the act.  We do not receive any comments on  the request. We received one comment  on the draft. Thank you, I am happy  to address any questions you may  have.  

Thank you. Any discussion  or questions for the Council?  >> Madam chair.  >> As I usually want to do  given that we have representatives  for the requester, I would like  to hear their views on both drafts  and initial comments they might  have before questions.  

 Thank you very much Commissioner. We would like to start by thanking  all the commissioners for your time  and consideration of the request . And also thanking  the staff for your assistance with  the entire process. I  just want to say on the onset the  goal in seeking this advisory opinion  is not to weaken. Or to create an  exception to it or to facilitate  the ability of the federal officer  to solicit nonfederal funds.  Instead we are doing seeking  to address a situation that has  come up a number  of times. Since it was adopted.  But never a subject of formal  commission guidance. And that is  the fact pattern of having a city federal officeholder  as the chair of the state party . And so what we  are seeking to do is have the commission  apply its long-standing presidents  and regulations to this fact pattern.  Considering the structural proposals  that we put forth in the advisory  board request. And I think  today we will focus on the first  of those proposals, the special  committee. Which would be a committee or majority composed of individuals  who hold a seat on the committee by virtually holding  another office but individuals who  are fully insulated from  Congresswoman Kelly's control for  home she cannot select or terminate it I think our view is that with  this type of structure in place,  and the special committee would  have complete and total responsibility  for the management direction  fundraising and all other aspects  of the nonfederal account. Our view was that  the Congresswoman would not be deemed  to control the nonfederal account. We do support for those reasons  draft B. We urge the committee to adopt that draft . We are ready to get into specifics  of any individual regulations  or address questions that they may  have.  >> Thank you, counsel. Any additional  questions for counsel?  >> I  see none. Is there a motion? 

Madam chair, 
     I do have a few questions with regard to the Council  for the Illinois party. You said that  you prefer draft B . What is your view of  the legal analysis with regard to  draft A? And why  it is not correct?  

 Thank you, Commissioner. I think to address that it is most  useful to go through the 4 criteria  that draft A.  And discuss why we think the  conclusions are ultimately unfounded . On the onset I  would like to note when analyzing  this fact pattern, we are proposing  to significantly revise  the committee's bylaws. While we  did include the requested staff  the existing bylaws for reference  of the commission, we are proposing  a totally new structure. Along with  the structure proposing a number  metric trainings and  annual certifications. To ensure  the structure is adhered. And  just to run through them. Again  I will focus on the special committee option since that is the focus  of the draft. There are really for principal criteria that draft A goes through, concluding that the  special committee structure nonetheless  would result in the Congresswoman  controlling the nonfederal account the first of these is the  governance. At the  onset we note that the special committee,  which again is composed of individuals  that would hold a seat on the committee  by virtual of holding another  office but in knots subject to the control of the chair. We are talking  about the speaker of the Illinois  House. Holding that office for other  reasons and not at all someone who  can be dismissed from the rule by  Congresswoman Kelly. The special  committee would have total authority  over the governance of the nonfederal  account. Just to underscore but  as the chair role would not have  any governance authority with respect  to the nonfederal account. Draft  A refers to the central committee numbers at potentially  providing an avenue for the chair  to exert control over the nonfederal  account, but once the bylaws have  been revise those members will not  have a rule. In connection with  the nonfederal account. Just to  reiterate. It is the special committee exclusive authority. It is also  the case that all of the employees of the party  who work on nonfederal matters ultimately  would and exclusively be subject  to oversight and direction of potential termination for the  nonfederal account work. To the  special committee. So in other words  none of those employees are the  chair would not have the ability  to fire, review, direct, none of  those things. With respect to employees  working on nonfederal account matters. So we think given that,  if you apply the regulations of  the committee that address governance,  this is the special committee and  not the chair that has governance  authority of a non-federal account. The second of the four criteria  is personnel. And here again it  is clear that because all  of the personnel of the party who  are working on nonfederal account  matters subject to the supervision  oversight of the special committee  and that the chair. She does not  have the ability to influence the  nonfederal account through her oversight over personnel. The commission  has  recognized the context that it is  possible for some of the supervisor employee with one set  of activities, but not with respect  to another set of activities. That  is absolutely cord to the commission's  approach to foreign national involvement  in elections. We are asking  for the same type of analysis and  we would have it done here to apply  the special committee to exert that  direction over employees. Dealing  with personnel and the nonfederal account but  the other two criteria in the commission , draft A  finds with respect to funding information  we would agree that those criteria weigh against control. 
     So we have governance personnel  funding information but if we look  at all for we think all of them  weighed against the plan control,  given the special committee structure  that we are proposing to set up.  This is a matter of background.  But if we think about the policy  that animates and the fact pattern , we are thinking about a  situation where a federal officeholder  is able to solicit nonfederal funds  from an individual. And enable to be involved  in directing the spending of  those funds. And finally they might  feel some sense of obligation or  duty to the individual  who provided those nonfederal funds  but the concern that presents risk  of corruption. Involving the federal. The chair is  not going to be involved in any  of those activities, nor having  anything to do with soliciting the  nonfederal funds. She will not be  involved in interacting with donors who are given nonfederal  funds. She will not be involved  in spending nonfederal funds. So  all of the decisions regarding making  contributions relating to spending,  and state races , advertising regarding terminating someone  who does a bad job on that nonfederal  spending. All of those things are  the sole inclusive provenance of  the special committee. And the chair  is both insulated  from those activities, and subject  to a detailed governance regime  to make sure she abides by the restriction. Given  that we think it is clear that if  you apply those regulations, that  there is no control for purposes  of bankrupt.  

How long are the current filers that you have submitted  in place?  

I would have to get back to  you on that. I think they  were amended somewhat recently. They have been around for  a significant period of time. But  we can --.  >> Do you find it problematic at all  that we find ourselves in a situation  where it is dictating to a private  association, on how they have to  organize bylaws in order to  be able to run their operations?  

Commissioner, we  are comfortable as  representatives of the party with  the situation in which the chair  is separated from those activities. I think  that type of question is beyond  the scope. 

So, that gets to my question of do you really think  we have jurisdiction to be able  to dictate what the bylaw structure of private association, like the  Illinois party?  

Commissioner, I take your  point. I think in this specific  request, your jurisdiction  is founded on the fact that we have  voluntarily presented a specific fact pattern . And we are asking for the commission  to confirm if we abide by the fact  pattern, we will not be found by  the commission to violate. And so  just for that, or within the context  of request, we think there is  a jurisdiction. And certainly, as  a practical matter, 
     if the Commissioner was unable to  render an opinion as a result of  concerns about jurisdiction, that  would make things quite challenging  for the party going forward. And  introduce a level of complexity  really for any state party that  has an equivalent situation. And  so while I certainly recognize the  points you are raising, and find  those to be very interesting, I  think for purposes of this practical  advisory opinion request, our concern  is to have our specific fact  pattern addressed in the sense that  it gives us some assurance as to  the state of the law.  >> Congresswoman  Kelly is currently serving as chair?  Or incoming? Then she has  already been elected as chair, yes.  >> Is the party currently engaged? 
     Is it engaged in fundraising activity  or suspended?  

Suspending pending the resolution  decision.  

Okay. If the commission  is unable to render an opinion, 
     with regard to this, with the party  just continue to not raise funds? What would the next  step be?  

Commissioner, I think we have  to evaluate these specific context  of the failure to render an opinion. We want to take a look  at the particular events that  occurred, and try to assess them  in the light of regulations . Again let me be clear, we have a very strong interest  in having this issue resolved. Having  it resolved on an expedited basis,  so that the party can return to  its core party activities of working  to elect Democrats.  >> Tell me the day  to day activities for Congresswoman  Kelly if she's going to be excluded  from what I see is a  core function of the state party, which is the raising of funds to  support the candidates of  the particular party? What is her day to day rule within  the party, what would it become if she  does not have the ability to make  decisions of the specific group  of people? Yet they have such an  extreme influence over the activities  of what the party engages in.  

Yes, that's an excellent question,  Commissioner.  Obviously she would still have authority  over the federal account and essentially  the hard money aspects of the party . She would also serve as the big your head and the leader of  the party. The opinion would not affect her ability  to campaign and to advocate for  the party, and for Democrats up  and down the ticket . And I think there is a  real value here but I suppose this  gets to why this is relevant to  party operations beyond. But we think there is  a value and reflected in the congressional  offices comment that they issued. On having  members of Congress and other federal offices having the ability  to play an important role. And in party operations and to  be closely working with people on  the state level. Congresswoman Kelly's vision for  the Illinois Democrat party is inclusive , opened,  collaborative structure. That is  what she is hoping to achieve it is her belief that she can achieve  it by being the head of the party , by campaigning and getting to  know and work with people all throughout  the state. Also by directing the  federal activities.  >> If we were to adopt  draft A, do you  think state parties would be less  likely to look at the federal law  office to serve as chairs  of a particular party?  

Yes, I do so, Commissioner.  

 How burdensome is  it going to be on the Illinois party to maintain two different -- we are going so far as that you  have to maintain two separate sets  of letterhead. And Congresswoman Kelly cannot  appear on a particular letterhead.  How burdensome is that going to  be to the Illinois party , as far as both  internal operations, and  expenses, thrusted upon  the party?  

Commissioner, some of those burdens in our view are to structure. Having the party operate as a separate committee  and nonfederal account and federal  account, that division is already reflected  in the party structure and operations.  There would be some additional burden. 
     We would have obviously the need  to establish a special committee. We would have the need to  have the trainings. Also the certifications  and the other governance structures  both to adopt. But our view  is that those burdens are well worth  the candle of having Congresswoman Kelly be able to  serve as chair, as well is having  that structure in place. We  also feel , and I think this is clear in the  request, and another point that  is included.  I like to echo it absolutely  supporting the -- that is why we are not seeking  this advisory opinion to weaken  those rules are to carve out an  exception. We are seeking to develop an accommodation to the rule that  allows her to function in this role. While keeping those important  anticorruption protections in place. That is it.  >> And your point about creating the  carveout, do you know of any other  state party committees that have  faced a similar situation, and how  they may have dealt with it?  

There are other state parties  that have had or do have . But I would not want to  be in the position to speculate  those circumstances. We are representing  the Illinois Democratic Party and  we prefer to only address our specific.  

Do you  think we are creating a rule here , and this would be the  only way that state parties could  deal with the situation?  

Commissioner, I do not. I  think given the nature of the request  process, and also given the language of draft B  as I think it is attended to this .  All of them would be saying, that  is in this given or these given  facts, it would not prohibit the  Congressman would not control the  nonfederal account. And it would  be no restriction on the  nonfederal account raising funds  and limits. So we are saying  up to this point, you are consistent  with the law. The Commissioner would  be able in the future to  consider other requests or proposed  approaches. These are the ones  that we are offering. And  so I think your hands would not  be tied in that respect.  >> Congresswoman Kelly is a resident  of Illinois, I assume. 

That is correct, Commissioner. >> Can you roughly  guess at what percentage of nonfederal  funds the Illinois state party  receives , interstate versus what it receives  intrastate?  

I'm sorry,  Commissioner I do not have access  to those figures and  I would be hesitant to speculate.  

Congresswoman Kelly, she is elected  to her position as a function of  state law. Or is she just election  as a function of the operation of  the party?  

I believe it is the intersection of state  law and party structure but effectively  state law function, Commissioner.  

So  she is elected under state law,  and a resident of Illinois, and 
     there may be the possibility that you  have not done the analysis but a  possibility that all or some of  the nonfederal funds are coming intrastate as opposed to interstate?  

Commissioner, all those points  are correct. Certainly at least  some portion of the nonfederal  funds that the party receives come  from within the state of Illinois.  

Would it  be possible to carve out  the intrastate elements  versus the interstate elements in  this operates as a function of  state law and not as a function  of [ Indiscernible ]? Permit Commissioner,  that's an interesting proposal.  We have not given it significant  thought . Our current request is presented  but does not included.  

Okay. I appreciate . I am sorry you have so many  questions for you this morning.  Madam chair , that is all the questions I have . I did have one comment, with  regard to Congressman comments  on behalf of the Caucus.  And I want to publicly thank him , as I think it is important  that the FEC receive public comments  on things like this . And while may not see eye to eye on all  aspects of finance regulation, I  think it is delightful that in this particular  instance, that we agree that the  request is should not be prohibited from engaging  in the type of conduct that they  have an issue, even though I may  not be fully fair on draft B yet. But I do appreciate the Congressional Black Caucus  for laying in on this issue. Thank  you, very much.  

Thank you, Commissioner. I will open it  up to colleagues before I have a  few questions.  

 Thanking Congressman in the Congressional  Black Caucus for  submitting comment but I find it  quite helpful. And I appreciate  your strong statement and the support  of campaign finance laws and the fact that  they are the members of the time  where it was implemented a high  proponent of the members of the  Congressional Black Caucus for putting  in favor. So I found the comment  also very important, thank you. And I hope to have submitted comments . I have some factual questions. Draft A the issue is not just direct or indirect control. Just help me understand  that this is correct but Congressman Kelly would retain  authority in the government section  of draft A on page. Congressman 
     Kelly would retain authority of  the governance of the nonfederal  account is with the draft A says  to the appointment of central committee  members and special committee members. But the comment has been the statements that she would not appoint the  majority. Is that correct?  

Chair, that  is correct. Let me  pull apart some different strands  once the  bylaws are revised to reflect the  proposed governance structure contained  in option capital one, the central  committee offices would not have  any role related to the nonfederal  account. That is the exclusive purview  of the special committee  so the reference to the central  committee offices in our view is  misplaced. With respect to the  special committee members,  under option one the majority of  those individuals with it by virtue  of holding other office, generally  leadership offices. Congresswoman  Kelly would have the ability  to appoint the special committee  if it is [ Indiscernible ] to the  commission this. The party would also be open to  a structure under which all of the  special committee members served  by virtue of other offices and Congresswoman  Kelly appointed no member  of the special committee. So that  is something the party would be  willing to incorporate. Relevant  to the commission's decision.  >> By the fact that you are  willing to incorporate the are you  acknowledging that there is some  indirect control by the fact that  she would have the ability to appoint?  Not the majority but the minority  of individuals.  

And I reviewed the minority special  committee members and of itself, providing that she otherwise is  completely insulated but nonfederal account activities,  it is insufficient to give Congresswoman  Kelly control.  Clearly.  

Indirect control.  

Yes in that case  the special committee majority would  still be composed and -- let me restate the majority of  the special committee would hold  that position by virtue of pulling  other offices. Generally when the commission analyzes  questions of control, it looks to particularly when there  is a single governing body like  a Board of Directors, or another  type of structure. A multi-member  government body looks  at the composition of the majority  of the body. With  that being said as I mentioned earlier,  the party certainly is willing to  ensure Congresswoman Kelly  appoints Noel into the special committee  if that is the decision.  

Also the  draft A highlighting personnel. And on page 11 Congresswoman Kelly  would retain general authority granted  by the bylaws to hire, and appoint  officers who may work on the nonfederal  account and dismiss nonfederal unrelated. But it's still touching gone to  personnel which is one of the factors  outlined in the statute. Is there  some measure of resolving that as  you attempted to suggest for the  appointments of the special committee?  

I think we are not proposing any changes to that structure beyond what is  an option one. Let me address the point that you have  raised because I think it is a good  one. Under this proposal, while Congresswoman Kelly would  be able to hire staff who later  might go on at some subsequent point  in time, working on nonfederal account  activities. Because she is to have  no involvement with the nonfederal  account, she would not be hiring  individuals specifically to work  on the nonfederal account. We do  not want to make it so every time  someone works on a nonfederal account  activity you have to can that they  had not previously been hired by  the chair. But the  oversight of state party personnel  working on nonfederal account issues,  entirely is going to be in the hands  of the special committee. And  so the chair is not going to have  any role whatsoever in reviewing,  and directing, or in terminating or doing any  more performance reviews. And any  really aspect of the management  and oversight of personnel  working on those issues. In connection with the  nonfederal account as  I mentioned earlier, the commission  has long recognized  that it is possible to supervise  an employee with respect to one  set of duties, and not with respect  to another set. If we are talking  about solely nonfederal account matters, they  are not subject to any supervision  at all.  By the chair but if we are talking  about someone who has some mixture  of duties, let's take for example  if in-house counsel, and they had roles related to the nonfederal  account and related to the federal account  she's only supervising them with  respect to the federal account.  If we are thinking of addressing  the risk of corruption, or the appearance  of corruption, I think it  is extremely attenuated to say that there is a risk that someone  might give funds and  axis of federal limits. They may  go to someone working  to the party and then someone at  the party will work on those issues.  Even though the chair is trained and making annual certification,  100% not able to be involved in that persons  activity at all, still somehow that  donation from an unrelated third  party because of her oversight of  party personnel working on other  issues, presents a risk of corruption.  In our view that is to attenuated  of causation to present a meaningful . I hope that answers  your question, chair.  

Thank you. I appreciate it. Can you explain how you believe  draft a precludes candidates and/or offices  from participating in state affairs?  

I am sorry, chair. If we created that it would  completely preclude federal offices  from it that was not the  intent. The question from Commissioner Trainor about whether it would affect the ability of  federal offices to serve as chair of state parties. And  given that we attempted to present in  our view of every conservative structure,  one that includes a lot of safeguards  and protections. If the commission  nevertheless found that there was  indirect control , despite the structure, I think  it would be difficult for other  state parties to develop alternatives  that would nonetheless insulate  appropriate chair from the  nonfederal account but as a practical  matter, that would make it quite  challenging for other federal offices  to serve in significant roles, I  would stay.  

Thank you. I do not have any further questions  right now. I will open it up to  my colleagues.  >> If nobody else has any questions  I have a follow-up. 

We will go back to you, Commissioner. As a tagteam word -- feel free to join in after.  

Thank you. 

Thank you, Madam chair thank  you  as the chair eluded earlier, in  the interest  of full disclosure, a number of  years ago Mr. Brown worked for me. He always gave me excellent counsel  when he worked for me and I think  everyone can see what a terrific  lawyer he is. Having said that,  I do have concerns about this  request, although I appreciate the care and ingenuity  that went into crafting it. I am worried about what type of  president this might set, and  other activity it might open the  door to. Do you think  that a federal officer could  take on the role of chair  of a hybrid pack? That  had a hard money account,  and also at a super pack account , as long as they sit up these  kinds of special committee to supervise 
     the soft money account?  

Commissioner,  that is an excellent question.  Unfortunately, one that is slightly different fact pattern  and we have not fully thought through  all the ramifications. Typically, when someone functions as chair  of a pack, often times that is  a ceremonial role with the Board  of Directors. I am trying to think  about the equivalent state party  chair in connection with a hybrid.  But I certainly -- I did not intend and I think draft  B is consistent. And to open the  door to other types of structures  outside of the state party contacts  but intended to be very tailored  to state  party organizations, not intended  to have broader ramifications for  other types of entities. Particularly  those that are different , and may have been  developed after citizens United  in the other cases that were followed. So I think the answer is,  no. If it  is helpful in the draft  to include language to that effect  we certainly would support. I also  think a hybrid pack  in some ways, they are closer linkages between the unregulated -- I hesitate to  call his soft money because it is  a different beast. And the hard  money pack. And I  think it may pose some practically be impossible for anyone  to serve that role giving those  close linkages and the way they  are intertwined. But I prefer to  focus on the specific fact pattern  that we have here. As mentioned on the onset this is  a fact pattern that comes up chair  and state party roles. For better  or worse, we are not in a position with this  is a future hypothetical. And I  recognize the challenge it presents.  You presented with facts on the  ground that if the state parties have done  this on looking for guidance, maybe  if the commission had the opportunity to draft a set of regulations in advance and not addressing this  to the advisory process, I am not  sure when they were drafted but this type of arrangement is  at the forefront of people's thoughts.  But when we do apply those regulations, the regulations that do exist,  I think that it is clear that the  inclusion has to be that she does  not control the account. Sorry,  that was a somewhat rambling of  an answer.  

Thank you. I always appreciate  your thoughts.  >> I will not  come back with a request from a  hybrid pack.  

Do not make promises. 

 [ Laughter ]  >> Thank you, Mr. Brown. That is all I have, Madam chair.  

Thank you, Madam chair. Mr. Brown, if the  commission were to -- first of all Congresswoman Kelly is clearly  the choice of the  Democratic party in Illinois to  lead the party.  If we were to tie  the hands of the party with regard  to this fundraising, is there a  ProVision in state law that allows  for -- to resign and further to  be a new chair elected. >> That's an interesting question. I believe that she  would be able to resign, and if  she were able to resign, and  if they were to take the position  these issues would be moved. The she has a vision for the party  and for the demo -- Democratic Party to support people  from all corners of the party. I  think it would be a shame if, 
     given all the links that she is  willing to go to in terms of accommodating  the structure, if she were not able  to have a chance to deliver on that  for the people of Illinois.  

I agree with you on that point.  I think it is very important for  the members of the party to be able  to select their leaders. And not  have their hands tied. In these  types of instances. You  mentioned in your back-and-forth  with the chair, the assertion about Congresswoman Kelly being  able to supervise , in respect to employees. But not with regard to the nonfederal  funds. How is that line drawn and how  are you going to make sure it does  not get crossed?  

I think if  the commission does approve this  special committee approach, and  does recognize the vision, we will  look to the commission's long precedents  in terms of corporate oversight of a path  where some foreign  nationals are involved in the corporation . Some members of the board or other individuals involved are foreign  nationals but the commissioner has  developed a clear structure for  a lot of guidance for ensuring that supervision is limited.  So, essentially, we can get into some of the details. But if you are having an annual  review, the person only has  nonfederal account duties they will  not be submission. If they have hybrid duties only  reviewing them with respect to their  federal account activities and special  committee will review them with  respect to the nonfederal account.  So there is a division,  that division is sort of really  emphasize all parties involved. 
     By the regular trainings and by  the need that they would be very  aware to certify on an annual basis  and that they comply with the restrictions.  We will build on the existing presidents  in the space and have a set of rules  around it I think what we have found  in the corporate  context is that is a very feasible  and extremely workable approach. People generally do not have problems  implementing it.  

I appreciate it. In your submission, you had to  other alternatives to the select  committee, which we have not addressed primarily because not an answer on the first  question. Would you mind going through  the other two alternatives that you propose of  being available and how they might  work, particularly the second one?  

Sure. I believe the second  one is the vice chair. The vice  chair  similar to the special committee  model, except it has a single  individual, rather than a multimember. The  vice chair and that question would  basically be one person solely responsible  for the nonfederal account activities . And in all other respects, it is similar  to the option one . I think our goal in presenting  three options was to give the commissioner  range of potential structures to  choose between. And I think ultimately because  as you say, because the commission  in draft B addresses the  special community structure. But we think it is also feasible  to have a similar structure with  vice chair as a single individual  or point of responsibility. For  nonfederal account activity.  >> Do you think it  is important for us to answer the  vice chair question for you, so  that the party has the greatest  range of options available to wait ? In order for it to operate in  the way it wants?  

Commissioner, I think that the  parties comfortable with all three  of the options presented. And from  the perspective of the party, the  parties focus  is to have this issue resolved.  So that it can begin resuming its  normal state party activities, and focus on fighting for  and improving the lives of the people  in Illinois, which is the core function  but so to  answer the question directly, we  are comfortable if the commissioner  only addressed the special committee  structure. If the commissioner prefers  to address other options as well  we are comfortable with that approach.  Our primary interest is having a  resolution to this.  

Thank you. Thank  you, Madam chair.  

Thank you . Anymore questions were counsel? I am sorry to go back -- I am  intrigued about removing the --  if we take away Congresswoman ability to appoint to a special  committee. I wonder if  that sufficiently addresses the  governance issue. I wonder if OGC can weigh in. We need additional time to consider  that aspect. I know that  we have your deadline is July 6. We do not have an open  meeting prior to that time period. That is a point that is interesting.  I would like to get OGC feedback  and thought in regard to it. It's  a little bit short notice now. I am perfectly comfortable with  you saying that you need time to  think about it.  

I think we would like more time.  But I think with  the way the special committee is  structured with the majority already  not appointed by the chair, that  is only weighing slightly in favor. That is really not a significant  factor. Or the main factor I  think the personnel control and  overlapping personnel control is  one of the key issues and that draft.  Draft A.  

Thank you.  >> Any further questions for OGC or the  Council? I see heads  shaking, no. Thank you. All  around you have done an excellent  job presenting everything today.  Dealing with some really difficult  questions before the commission.  Let me now turn -- is there  a motion? We have two drafts in  front of us.  

Madam chair, I  would like to hold this over . I would like to take a shot at  making a couple of tweaks to draft  B but I will like to hold it  over possible.  

I assume you are requesting  an extension from the requestors ? We do not have another meeting  before the deadline date.  

Yes, I forgot about that . Mr. Brown, with the party be willing  to give the commission an extension  to be able to get  to a consensus answer to this question?  >> Commissioner, we  would be willing to give an extension.  Although we underscore from our  perspective this is an urgent and  time sensitive question. 

I understand. I  prefer draft B as you have stated, that you do as  well. I think based upon some of  the comments you have made, I would  like to take a shot at making gave  few tweaks to see if I can get a  consensus among my colleagues.  

We  welcome the approach, Commissioner.  >> I just want to highlight. I am  sorry to interrupt. We still have  a little bit of time to try to resolve  this. I will  actively work with my colleagues  to find some way forward. I  would like to say if there is an  extension maybe we do not need a  law extension because we do have  some time. I think I am being coached  into saying two weeks. I  will allow staff and  counsel to work together to find  out a time period. I would like  to see if we could resolve this  on tally. But of course if you  are considering an extension and  enough time to get to the next meeting. I apologize for interrupting  please go ahead.  

You have answered my question  would and there will be plenty of  time.  

Thank you. 

Very  briefly,. Given the deadline  of July, and the current deadline  July 6. We have an open meeting  on July 8th I met two  days not two weeks. So essentially 48 hours of the extension  on the deadline on the request. I am also happy to resolve  this on tally. But giving the opportunity  to have another open meeting if  we can get it done it  would be helpful I also think it  would be helpful, from my perspective, to have an additional time if others want to submit additional  comments. As Commissioner Trainor, documents  were submitted late. And it's always  good to give the public the greatest  opportunity pompously --  pop -- possible. I echo what was said about the  helpfulness of the comment. Hank  you, very much.  

As the  chair, in  my mind I thought I had July 13th  as the next meeting. I do not have  it in front of me. If Madam deputy  can confirm. We might need more  than two days.  

You are correct, I  am wrong.  

So close to the  day where we can ask for that. If counsel can  consider it an sufficient  time to resolve this. In my mind I  was thinking 13 and it sounds familiar. We will ask that the staff reach  out with counsel. You have already  indicated though willingness. With  that we will hold this matter over  to the next open meeting with the  intention and strong to resolve this on tally. I want to  thank counsel in the colleagues  for the very helpful questions that  we have had today. Hopefully we  can reach resolution. Thank you we will move on to the  next item on the agenda. A motion  to amend directive 68 to include  additional information and quarterly  status reports to the commission  but a memorandum from Commissioner Sean J. Cooksey from the last open  meeting.  Thank you for your willingness  to hold the item over from the last  one. If you would, I am going to turn this over to  Commissioner Sean J. Cooksey .  

Thank you, Madam chair, I appreciate  the opportunity to talk about this proposal, to make a brief  presentation summarizing the substance  of that.  As you said, the issues were fully  laid out in the memorandum, I circulated colleagues. And made a  part of the agenda. I hope people who are interested will  take the time to read it more fully.  Directive 68 is the brainchild of  our colleague Commissioner Walter  the policy that in essence tries  to keep the commission more importantly  the commissioners accountable for workload, and doing the work of  the agency. One of the  things it requires, is  quarterly status of enforcement  reports reports compiled by  capable attorneys. The  office of General Counsel and tracking,  the commission performs on workload, tracking status of enforcement matters in the building,  essentially quarterly report card. For example, the status of enforcement  reports give the commission list  of pending matters that we have,  including those that are imperiled by the statute of  limitations. Another list of matters  that have been pending before the  commissioners, for over 12 months  without a vote another list of tracking  matters moved along  further along in the enforcement  process, and where they are. They  provide a lot of useful statistics  about caseload.  How we are managing the caseload,  and how we perform relative to years  and where we are falling behind.  I think these reports are  very useful, mostly internally facing  but they are limited versions of  external facing for the public as  well. They really help the commission focus, as we monitor workload,  and help the chair and vice chair  and other commissioners to hone in on the most  pressing matters before us. There  is a problem. The problem is that as they are currently being  compiled, these reports are inaccurate or problems with how they  are put together. They list cases in the wrong place  or in the wrong categories and they  misstate what some of the case statuses  are . And as a result, they skew some  of our statistic and skew some of  the -- inaccurate for a  specific reason, which is that they  do not count  for a particular category of cases  that we have with the commission.  I call one a zombie case, others  referred in the building is split  but not closed cases. That sort of defy the existing  categories in these reports. For those who are not familiar,  these are cases where the commission  has can hundred and deliberated  on a case, executive session in  closed session. Voted on the merits  of other issues. And failed to generate the necessary votes under the statute to resolve  the case. And further we do not  have four votes to close  the file and to make the matter  public. So as a result these cases  that have been fully adjudicated,  hang around the commission like  a zombie resolved internally but  they are stock in the agency.  Not made public because other Commissioner refused to allow us to inform the  parties in public about the outcome. Over the last few years this category of cases of  split but on closed cases has grown  a lot. Since the beginning of the  year of my office calculating grown  225%. And as  that number continues to grow these  cases become harder and harder to  keep track of. And they  will make their reports more more  inaccurate and statistics the worse  and worse in a justifiable way.  So the fact of the matter, law enforcement is not  designed for this and never contemplated  that we would need to keep track  of this kind of case. As a result,  we have in there but  poor as they stand today, cases  fully adjudicated and  reports that are wrong if they do  not belong. For example, it's an  accurate to put a case that the  Commissioner fully deliberated and  voted on in a category  of cases title, cases pending without  a commission vote for 12 months.  That is what we do. We have cases  in that category that have been  voted on, yet we hold them in the  statistic of cases that have not  been voted on so the result  with inaccuracy and frankly more  difficult to track these on closed  cases with regular basis, especially  as the number grows . And so to address this,  it is very simple. It creates a  new category. To better track these cases it  brings these cases out of the incorrect  category, listing them in a new  category. It helps improve accuracy  of the report and improve the accuracy  of statistics. It helps us keep track  of these things over time, especially  as there are more of them. And that  is pretty much the amendment. I  think it is fairly uncontroversial, I will not speak  for them they can, if they like. Unlikely this  would be a helpful change and not  overly burdensome for them to track  as they compile reports for us.  A does not inculcate  -- implicate -- and  improve the usefulness of this report . I understand the office of General counsel has a  slight wording change to the amendment  regarding the nature of the votes,  and how we categorize the  cases. I will incorporate that tweak  to the language in a motion to  adopt this I appreciate help on  this. That is the presentation but I appreciate  all of my college's intention.  

Thank you, Commissioner Sean  J. Cooksey.  Any discussion regarding  the memorandum in her statements  made today  

Thank  you, Madam chair.  That was such a funny comment, Commissioner Sean J. Cooksey  when you said this is completely  uncontroversial . You know that  is not true. You know that is not  true. This is a reprise  of the policy statement that our  colleagues offered a few weeks ago  did I expect that it will meet the  same result and who knows, in a few weeks we will get a new  document. First we had a policy  statement and then a directive,  this goes to a fundamental agreement  when a case is done. You say, well you are  done with it, so therefore the cases  done. Well, maybe other commissioners  are not done with it.  I do not agree with your categorization and I am not going to repeat everything  that I said the last time this topic  came up. Your 225% scare number . I appreciate that you also acknowledge  that that is 13 cases. It is not  --  there are plenty of cases that continue  to be closed. And continue to be  close with my vote. Even this very  week. I appreciate  your justice and the  commitment to sunlight. I will  remind you of that the next  time we have a dock money case. I will be able to support the motion.  Thank you, Madam chair.  

 Thank you, Commissioner any further  comment or discussion from colleagues? 

Madam chair, 

Yes, Commissioner Walter. 

 I am interested for some  time now. Also another matter and emotion that  I have repaired on trial. I have decided to pull it because I want to consider the other motion on file as well. And then I now realize that motion  was not held. And  for consideration. In  any event, I think there is work  to be done in that area and some  others as well as pointed out in  the draft that I have prepared.  My suggestion is we see if we can get an  agreement on some of these points.  It is premature for me to  support today.  

Thank you,  Commissioner Walter. I appreciate  the way in and  feedback of colleagues. And I also  appreciate that the start of  five Commissioner Sean J. Cooksey  thanking . I was on  the staff when you created this  list. I am  going to call out your formal counsel  Anderson. We have had many hours  going through this. And I think  I think helping more  times over  as we were preparing this for you  but I see the purpose of quarterly  reports but I see --  if the intent is to help staff,  staff already have access to this  information and well aware of everything.  If this is an attempt to highlight  things for outside people, outside  the building, then I think the efforts today  or previous efforts have accomplished  that. I am concerned about the possibility of  concerned about reverse engineering there is a purpose of redacting these report to make  sure that the public is not able  to find out the confidentiality that we are  bound. And there is a level of redaction that still presents concerns  to me. It makes it passable, and I think by doing something  further or adding this category,  we are risking it even more so. So based on that  some of the comments, I am not at  a place to support the motion today  but I do understand from Commissioner  Walter, there is a desire to maybe  look at it a little further. I am  not sure how I take  it if it is a request to hold over  or if there is a willingness to  hold over I look at Commissioner  Sean J. Cooksey .  

Madam chair, 

Yes, I want to thank Commissioner Sean  J. Cooksey. And I want to thank  Commissioner Walter  for having  created directive 68. I think it is very informative  to the public about what the commission  is doing. I think  Commissioner Sean J. Cooksey  proposal does nothing more than shed  more sunshine on the activities that are going on  inside the commission. These proceedings  are already cloaked  and guarded enough as it is. Two  were even the complainant and  the respondents are not really fully  informed of the commission and what  they are doing. With the cases that  we deal with. And so I think just  given them some understanding of what the commission  is doing, it is very helpful for the public home  we work for to know that the commission  in fact is doing its job. I also  think that putting this  particular category  of cases in  our status, and the status reports, would allow us to know what cases we need to go  back and review. My understanding  is that these cases, as Commissioner said, she  does not think these cases are finished. And that there is still work to  be done on these cases. So I think  it's important for the commission  to know what those cases are, how  many there are, and if and when  any of those cases will be revisited. Because as I said on the last  time, of the cases that we have  handled since I have been on the  commission, that would fit into  this category. We have not revisited  those. And we have not had further  discussion. So if the purpose of  holding these cases in a zombie status is to continue  to work on them, I think it's important  for us to know that, and important  to look to see how many of those  cases we have. And figure out whether  or not we can resolve this. So with  that, obviously I will be supporting  Commissioner Sean J. Cooksey  amendment  to directive 68. I am prepared to make a motion to move  adoption of it at the appropriate  time. 

Thank you, Commissioner Trainor did I do have one question but  did I do have one question  where do we stop? I am  looking on the website where we  have redacted. Pages and pages of  lank. I am not sure how  to help. One of the points that  I noted that they have held over to we get to the point where we  start adding who was holding things  over? Is that worthy for the public  to know about as well?  

I would like to suggest that  we use another term beside, zombie. We do have zombie packs . It's a catchphrase for all  of us out here that are  fans of the walking dead which include  myself. That is my pop thing for  the day. It seems  like it's an effort to get someone  to -- I do not  think it is really helping the issue.  If we want to look at amending directive 68 to help the  public understand, one of the things  that I think is super helpful is there is  a holdover and we can look at some  of these cases that have held over  dates for years but and then we  can look at saying what commissioners  requesting to holdover, or what  Caucus requested a holdover.  

Madam chair. 

Yes,.  I can respond. As well it was said obviously the chair would like to submit  her own directives to 68. I love the opportunity to discuss  and have those. We  can have a discussion with OGC about  whether that additional information  would need to be redacted or not. Again the  bottom line with the most important  thing, I have not heard  any denial or explanation  that these reports are accurate. I do not know  if any of my colleagues disagree  with my statement. Cases in which  the commission has voted, should  not be in a category that  says, matters pending before the  commission for 12 months without  a vote.  I am not sure I heard anyone's day that is correct or the right category. 
     Maybe it should be in a list of  categories. I think it  is wrong. I think it's misleading. Statistics say that have  cases pending and makes them  look like we are not doing our job.  I understand 13 cases  is a small number I'm sure I can  find 13 respondents who do not think  it is a little deal that cases are still hanging around  the commission. And  that they have not been told about  the outcome. I think mostly  internally facing change. Ultimately,  yes there will be a  list, blank list with numbers and  in the left-hand column under public  SASE. Desk of facing . It's really to help  us keep track of a growing number  of cases. Some of these cases are still  out, the statute of limitations.  It is toggling to me that we cannot close these cases  but even if we desecrate about the  underlying measures, disagree. As Commissioner Trainor said, I think  there are offices that keep internal running list of these  matters. We can burden the  already burdened secretary office  to find these matters but if we can keep a running list internally, keeping track of the circumstances  of these cases. I think it would  help us work more efficiently. If  there is an alternative to try to  make these more accurate, I am certainly  opened to it. I have  not heard any denial that says as  we are currently compiling these cases, this is  a good way to do and we should not  change, this is the right presentation  of this information. I have thought  to Commissioner -- I talked about  the proposal off-line and I am interested. I would have to defer to him whether or not he  is asking to hold this over. I would  like to vote on it. I always  respect the  Commissioner's request to hold something  over. Ultimately, incremental change  to make our reports less inaccurate. Maybe affirming  Libby accurate -- to a small extent  outside the building those know  what we are actually doing.  Thank you. 

Thank you, Commissioner Sean  J. Cooksey . 

Madam chair. -- I am proud and  I think maybe less helpful than I would  have hoped. To address the one issue. The  length of time it is important to me. Is to say, all right this matter goes before the Commissioner  now voted upon and can be voted  or entities. Calling  a meeting to have a vote. That  to me is designed so there  would be shame or  -- to  actually make us do what we are  supposed to do without this information.  And accurately and quickly vote. And so we  still do not do that. Obviously,  it is not working for that reason. I  have some proposals to make. I have  one that is not included but I will  included by the time we felt on  my suggestions. Work with maybe we can. Take another look  at maybe tightening  the column.  Or maybe adopting the  proposal as presented now . I promise we will not ask you to  do anything.  

Thank you, I appreciate that. 
     Thank you for the comments, Commissioner  Walter. I think we  need some clarification, Commissioner Sean J. Cooksey  would like to  vote on this motion. I understood that you were asking to hold  this over for additional consideration.  If you could just clarify for the  commission. Are you requesting  to holdover?  

I request a  holdover. 

Okay. With that  request to holdover, Commissioner Sean J. Cooksey I am  appreciative  to holdover to  the next meeting. We will have a  next open meeting. Hopefully we  can move this forward. There has  been a significant outpour of commissioners  willing to work  together to work on  some resolution. Let's move toward  it. The next item that we have on  the open meeting agenda, also Commissioner Sean J. Cooksey  proposal statement of policy  regarding the disclosure vote certification  related to litigation. I will turn  it over the floor to  you, Commissioner Sean J. Cooksey  .  

Thank you very much madam chair  I appreciate another brief visitation and support of this proposed  policy statement. The  Federal election commission mission  is to bring transparency to the  campaign system. And as a federal  government agency, accountable to  the public, we rightly hold  ourselves to a high  standard when it comes to disclosure and accountability. For many years,  we have maintained a robust disclosure  policy when it comes to our enforcement  matters. We make an effort to give the public significant  insights 
     into the workings of the government  agency, and to make available all  sorts of documents from our horseman  cases. Including among other things,  the complaints, response materials,  correspondence. Reports from the  office of General Counsel, and vote tallies for each of the  matters that are closed showing  what the commission voted on, more  importantly, on how each Commissioner  voted. Disclosing those last item tallies is not simply a matter  of agency policy but the law. Under  the freedom of information act,  like all government agencies has  a legal obligation to make public the individual votes of commissioners, and every agency proceeding. USC section 552  stating each agency having more than one member  shall maintain and make available  for public inspection a record of  the final votes of each member and  every agency proceeding. Currently though, there is a  category of final agency actions  that is not being heard with the  public on a regular basis but votes that the commission takes  on whether to authorize the agency  to enter into litigation. Under  the Federal election campaign act  any vote to authorize the agency  to engage in  litigation whether offensive litigation  to enforce the law, civil suit, or defensive litigation to defend  the agency, in a delayed or challenged  action.  It requires the approval of for  more commissioners. The commission  votes on these authorizations all  the time. As a frequent flyer  in federal court about one dozen  or more than that cases going on  at any one time. Currently, the FEC does not  as  a matter of course  make our  litigation votes available to the  public. To be sure,  we respond to specific requests  for these votes and certifications. In the past  we  have turned things  over  to members of  Congress. Even occasionally  the commission has made specific boat tallies available to the public  on an individual basis, and in specific  cases on a motion of the Commissioner. Or sometimes included as a part  of the vote certification on the  underlying enforcement matters.  And made public to the vote on the  related litigation, often included . But in general most instances  they are left in the dark about  how the commission voted on the  authorization for agency litigation  in my view that should change but the public has a right to the information,  I think it is important, it holds  us accountable. Questions about  whether to enter into litigation,  or some of those decisions that  we may conclude decisions about  whether to file for census as I  said against individuals are political  committees that we think broke the  law. Decisions to defend the agency,  or not to defend the agency and  delay suits related to pending complaints. They even include questions about whether or not to appeal regular court decisions that  will against the agencies but holding  statutes and regulations. I do not think the  public should have to go through  the trouble of submitting a request.  Or depend on the initiative of individual  commissioners. In order to know  how the campaign finance regulatory agency is working in voting. On these very important  decisions but people have the right  and they deserve to have this information  publicly accessible  basically that is what my proposal  does spit it will make boat certifications  available for anyone to find. And in doing that  I do not think we  will have any agency litigation.  Nor do I think it will implicate  any privilege or confidentiality concerns but this allows  for reductions to these vote tallies is necessary but and  if anything, putting this information  out there will improve our standing  . And expedite matters when the agency chooses not to appear or  fails to approve agency staff to  appear. So I think we need to hold ourselves to a  higher standard we should not be  hiding decisions that we make from  public scrutiny, we are public servants . I for one  do not have anything to hide. I  am happy to make my vote  on the public. I think it  will being a greater level of transparency  but it will make us more accountable  for actions to the public that is  our responsibility as a federal  government agency. So I hope my  colleagues will join me in supporting  this and bringing our litigation  though into line and how we treat disclosure documents. Thank you very much, Madam chair.  

Thank you, Commissioner Sean J. Cooksey  any  discussion from the colleagues? 

Thank you, Madam chair. 
     I am a little bit torn on the concept.  As I am perfectly comfortable on telling the public. I have no qualms  about doing so and as  Commissioner Sean J. Cooksey knows  I have voted to do so . This policy was not  actually written with the other side of the aisle it's  written and cites  to only public statements on the  topic. So if you were really interested 
     in trying to get consensus on this,  you would have come up with a different  document. I think again, this is  just a talking point.  But as I said, the concept is one  that I am tempted by. I am  not sure that I agree with you.  And I think that there is -- I want to be careful  how I phrase this but I  am not alone in thinking that that  could be litigation ramifications  toward releasing some of these votes. So I am not prepared to support  or certainly not prepared to support  this document. I am not prepared  to support and overall policy. I  will continue to consider  releasing votes on a case-by-case basis,  as I have done in the past.  

Thank  you, Commissioner. Any further could desk of discussion?  >> I think as I have  said publicly, I think it  is an outrage that we do not tell  federal courts that the commission  has taken a position in litigation  matters. I think that  the judiciary benefits  from having two parties  in front of it to handle  litigation, and when the commission  decides not to appear that does  a disservice to the branches of  government. 
     And so the fact that we cannot get  there to appear in these cases,  I think Commissioner Sean J. Cooksey  proposal  is a nice compromise,  to at least allow for notification that a  vote in litigation is taking place  . And at least would give the courts  some information with regard to with the commissions position is, so that the courts  know what they are dealing with.  So I think this is a very fair  proposal. And one that sheds  light on the activities. Again of what the commission  is doing. And the fact that Commissioner  will not support this, I find it interesting that  in agency, which is supposed to 
     be responsible for transparency,  and disclosure in the government,  wants to hide behind  a case-by-case basis,  as opposed to a broad-based public  disclosure of what we  are doing inside the building. >> Thank you, Commissioner Trainor. I appreciate the  proposal that has been filed by  Commissioner Sean J. Cooksey but  also acknowledged a case-by-case  basis and in  some effort you are getting exactly  what they want. I am not  comfortable, and I want to say nothing  to Commissioner [  Indiscernible ] but I want to say  in a more chair like manner. I  think the draft written  was not an attempt to reach across the IL. But I do  believe what you are attempting  to do is something that does have  a cross the aisle concern. So I will not be supporting  this draft. But I would be interested  to see the next draft.  And that might include a little  more reach across the aisle.  I think absolutely everyone that  has spoken on this topic agree the responsibilities for  each and every one of us is more  transparency, and to enforce the  law. So we can move forward  with this. So that we can move on to force  the law and our close meeting, and  hopefully, we can do something about affecting the 68 chart  that we are trying to revise as  well. I will not be supporting the draft today,  as it is prepared. I appreciate  your efforts, Commissioner Sean  J. Cooksey but  thank you for continuing  to shed a light on  this and the zombie cases that exist  I have nothing further. I will turn  it over to colleagues. I am  not sure if there is a desire for  motion today. 

Madam chair. >> I would like  to make a motion.  

Feel free to take  the floor.  

Thank you very much. I have a couple of comments. With respect  to Commissioner Weintraub,  I think there is  a disagreement about whether the  public should have to rely on government  agents being willing to disclose their own actions.  I am hoping we should get to decide  when we tell the public what we  are doing. I think we owe it to  them. It's the law. And I  think as a matter of principle, here at the agency we should be  doing. I think relying on the  commissioners cases, hoping that no more than  two of them are bashful about  the votes. It is not something 
     that is consistent with our mission,  certainly not consistent with public  accountability. And even our  own statute. But the point of my colleagues that  they might be interested in this  policy, but maybe concerned about  the wording, or the paragraphs . Of  the proposed policy. I take that as an indication maybe  I could expect some particular notes  or redlines that might get them  to support. If I do not get  fat, rather than me guessing  what it is that you need to get.  Maybe you can just tell me. I  guess if I do not get it, maybe  it is not a real offer. Maybe it is to be seen are determined.  But I appreciate the opportunity to make a presentation  but I hope those watching will understand we are not really taking on  everything we could be to be as  transparent. As we might be with these very important decisions. I hope  we will continue to work toward  that goal in the future assuming  this though is the way I think  it is going to go. With that I will  say, thank you.  Otherwise I am prepared to make  a motion. 

 There are no comments, Sean  J. Cooksey . Before Commissioner Weintraub goes,  I felt like there was some shot  fired when you said you are waiting  to see some redlines but I  do not recall any outreach to me,  individually to ask to see if I  had any concerns or if I am willing  to reach out to talk to you about  this. So I would not support the  draft as it stands today. If  there were edits that come from  your office to attempt to try to  reach across to see if I would be  willing to support eight,  then this version as it stands I  will not be able to support or happy  to consider or a discussion with  you at another time. To talk about  this. We all agreed that transparency  is important but and I believe we  agree in flossing the laws equally  important. While it day -- it may not be interesting right  now, I am happy to talk to at another  time about moving that forward.  I apologize if I interrupted anyone. >> I agree with everything that you  have said, Madam chair. And I  appreciate the intervention. 
     I agree, I also did not hear  anything at all  about this proposal, until it was  made public. Absolutely no effort  out outreach on  this to see whether or not there  might be some interest in doing  something like this. As I said I  have no qualms about disclosing  my votes on these litigation matters.  And I have done so before and I  stand on my long record on transparent  the. -- I  particularly appreciate  the chairs comments about the enforcement  mission. There is one  of Commissioner Sean J. Cooksey  the other one referring to  the scandalous event.  When there are not 4  votes to defend the position of the commission and litigation  when it is driven by only three  votes. And set my only  three votes. So some  might think it is scandalous when  we cannot get 4 votes to enforce  the law. That is the real scandal  of this agency, one that the agency  has routinely criticized. I will stop there.  Smack Madam chair .  

Yes, Commissioner Trainor. 

I would ask Commissioner Sean J. Cooksey when he circulated  the document . If he has any responses  for the Democratic colleagues , saying that they thought that  it was an interesting proposal,  and that it needed some tweaks?  For me, this is a new paradigm. That you put a  proposal out, and then you reach  out to individual  commissioners saying, do you want  to work on this? The idea that Commissioner Sean J. Cooksey put this out for  commissioners to consider, if we  have converts  it is encumber upon  us to reach out to him after he  has gone to the effort of putting  this together. So when his defense,  I appreciate that he  put this out to the commission and  they have had the opportunity to  review it before it was put on this  particular agenda. And those that  have comments could have forwarded those comments to him at that time.  As opposed to announcing here at the public meeting,  that we are willing to work on this. And we find it offensive the way  you have drafted it, and attacking him in that manner.  With that being said with regard  to Commissioner Weintraub last comment that she finds offensive that  we cannot get to 4 votes. That is the way the statue is designed,  is to get to 4 votes if we cannot  get there is because we cannot get  there and that is the way Congress  wanted to be.  It is not scandalous that we follow  the law and have before votes.  

 Excuse me, Commissioner Weintraub  I appreciate commissioners trainers. He is quite able and has done a  great job for himself today. I will  also note that Commissioner Sean J. Cooksey are in discussion  with the  proposal just considered. That's an effort to reach  amongst colleagues to try to come  up with a document that could have  some successful votes. Quite frequently,  when working in the arena of  proposed policy statements, or  directives, we do have individuals  that might be the main component  reach out to individuals to see  if they can solicit some support. If anything directed to  me, I stand by what I said. Go right  ahead, Commissioner Sean J. Cooksey  . 

Thank you for bringing that up. Commissioner Walter put out his  68 amendment. I was interested in I reached out to  him. To let him know I probably was  not fully on board but I would like  to know whether you can send out  a word document and have some redlines  back and forth. I did that privately.  So we could facilitate something  before and opened meeting vote.  So to answer commissioners question, this has circulated  a week ago as it is required under  the directive. And to give  offices the time necessary to reflect on it, to think about  it, and to have discussions. It  is disappointing that, and also  hopeful that  we may not be able to approve today  but I hope we can work forward to  again, maybe having an indication  about the specific problems and  rather than eluding the offering office to guess at what it is that might satisfy offices that are interested, on  the overall topic.  But have problems with the specific  document. At any rate, I think Commissioner Trainor for his way  in. I agree with everything that  he has expressed. 

Thank you to both of you. I hope the sentiment you expressed  carries on to our future meetings. If there is a motion. >> Commissioner Sean J.  Cooksey . Stomach I  moved the adoption of the proposed  statement of policy regarding the  disclosure vote disclosure addendum -- document 21   29  a. 

Thank you very much. Is there a discussion on this  motion? None.  All those in favor say Aye .  

 Aye .  

While  those opposed say no.  

No. 

Regretfully, no.  >> We have a situation where we are  waiting for the vice chairs vote.  Before the close of today which  would be -- excuse me.  I apologize. We are awaiting  for the fall of the vice chair.  I think I am having a brain freeze  right now I will ask  to be  --  

Madam  chair. You have  not called the vote but if you have  heard of the way I did, 2 in favor  3 opposed. The vice chair vote would  not be --. 

Thank you for the math lesson, I understood what you are  saying but I have now called the  bow and I shall to votes in favor,  Commissioner Sean J. Cooksey and  Commissioner Trainor and three  votes against and myself heard  thank you again for the gentle nudge. We are awaiting the vote for the  vice chair but the motion fails. The fact  that we have one remaining item  on the agenda.  Administrative matters. Are there any management or administrative  matters that commission needs to  discuss today? 

There are none. 

Thank you. The meeting  is adjourned. >>