This file contains archived live captions of the open meeting of the Federal Election Commission held on September 17, 2015.  This file is not a transcript of the meeting, and it has not been reviewed for accuracy or approved by the Federal Election Commission.


>> Today's open meeting of the Federal Election Commission is scheduled to begin at 10:00 a.m. but the actual start could be delayed by several minutes or more.
The agenda for today's meeting can be found online at http://www.fec.gov/agenda/ agendas/shtml. 
>> Good morning everybody.
Welcome to those of you in the audience and whoever is on the phone.
Open meeting of the Federal Election Commission for Thursday, September 17th, 2015, will come to order.
We have an additional agenda item and some late submitted documents today.
Mr. Vice Chair.
>> I move that the commission add to the agenda consideration of a second motion to set priorities and schedule, pending enforcement matters, reason-to-believe consideration, 11 C.F.R. -- no earlier public announcement was possible.
>> Any questions, comments about that motion?
All of those in favor please indicate by saying aye.
[Chorus of Ayes]
>> All right.
Madam Secretary that motion passes unanimously.
>> I also move we waive the rules on the timely submissions of agenda documents to consider the following.
Agenda document number 15-47-C, 15-48-A, 15-38-D, and 15-47-D.
>> Any questions, comments?
All of those in favor of the motion please indicate by saying aye?
[Chorus of Ayes]
>> Madam Secretary, that passes unanimously. 
Okay.
Item number I on the agenda is correction and approval of the minutes.
>> I move approval of the minutes for the meeting held on August 11th, 2015.
As set forth in agenda document 15-46-A.
>> Seeing no questions or comments, all of those in favor please indicate by saying aye?
[Chorus of Ayes]
>> Thank you.
That motion passes unanimously.
The first -- item number II, Draft Advisory Opinion 2015-3, Democracy Rules, Inc.
I understand that Mr. -- we have Nevan and Amy Rothstein of the Office of General Counsel.
Please.
>> Thank you.
>> Let me also mention, is Mr. Cashman on the phone? 
The requester?
>> Mr. Cashman? 
He should be.
>> Okay.
>> He was earlier.
>> Yes, hello.
>> He is.
>> We've exhausted him. 
>> Good morning.
>> We're all exhausted. 
>> Mr. Cashman.
>> Yes, good morning.
>> Thank you, good morning, Mr. Cashman, welcome.
>> Welcome, thank you.
>> Thank you for being with us again.
>> My pleasure.
>> The Office of General Counsel is going to make a presentation.
Thank you.
>> Thank you, and good morning.
This Advisory Opinion request -- requester, Democracy Rules, provided new information, supplement to the request, revised plans so that members will be able to redirect pledges from candidates identified by Democracy Rules to any legislator with authorized campaign committee.
Commission released new draft D, Democracy Rules proposal per missible under the -- in addition to the supplemental information provided, commission received one comment, should the commission approve any drafts before, technical and conforming amendments.
I would be happy to address any questions that you have.
>> Any questions or comments?
Commissioner Goodman.
>> I would like to note that Mr. Cashman has gone through quite a gauntlet here at the Commission to try to respond to concerns raised in colloquy at the -- in the public discussion here at the Commission, and has most recently submitted to the Commission a revision to his technological platform that allows those who sign up for his service and pay for his service to donate to any candidate that they choose.
I don't know that this was necessary.
Individuals chose his service, chose his method of matching them with like-minded candidates that they may want to give to.
Once he matches people through an associated process, if someone still does not want to give to the candidate or the charity identified through that process, the individual does not have to give.
So, the choice to donate resides in the individual at all times, and the platform itself, although I don't think it was legally necessary, now offers people a list of names of all candidates with authorized committees to donate to, if a member so chooses and so directs.
That last submissions puts Mr. Cashman's technological platform on the same functional and legal basis as the Commission approved in the skimmer hat Advisory Opinions, 2012-22, and it is important I believe that citizens be able to employ services like this, to associate across geographical boundaries in this way.
That is what this technology does.
I don't think there is any legal need to block this technical solution and others like it.
And it is designed to serve smaller donors who want to participate with others in this type of collaborative process, and I think it is important that the Commission grant Democracy Rules the legal protection of an Advisory Opinion and I don't think it even breaks new ground.
I think Democracy Rules could rely on the skimmer hat Advisory Opinion for protection.
For that reason, I intend to support draft D before us today.
>> Thank you.
Any other comments?
Let me just respond.
I -- actually agree with you that it is really important to encourage innovation and encourage ways to have people contributing to the political process.
One of the concerns that we all have about our political process today is that it is much more difficult and there are so many people who feel alienated from the system and not able to participate, and I think it is important to encourage it, particularly in technological means.
It was not -- it's not an easy decision for me, and I applaud Mr. Cashman for going through the gauntlet, as you say.
Although I think it sort of makes it somewhat confusing as the process kept changing, and I'm still concerned that it does not meet the purposes of skimmer hat, as well as crowd PAC because those were situations where people were given information that was available about candidates and could choose and make their own determinations about who to support from any range, and this such a convoluted way of sort of isolating out some candidates and making some determinations about how can be supported and that concerns me that it does not, you know, really meet the exception of vendor exceptions.
So, for that reason, I'm not going to be able to support this.
>> Madam chair, at the last meeting, Mr. Cashman was fishing for what the concerns were of all Commissioners.
You said your concerns were expressed in draft C on the table at that time.
The only feature that was questioned of Mr. Cashman's technological platform there, was that individuals had to -- 
when it came time to give, although they could choose not to give, if they chose to give, they had to give to the candidate that was derived from his algorithm, his process of matching the donor with an interested candidate.
>> Right.
>> Or a like-kind candidate.
Mr. Cashman revised his submission to address that one concern, one distinction between his platform and others set forth in draft C.
He added a feature, added all candidates, direct contributions, for fee service to send your contribution to anyone.
Now it appears that we moved the goal line on Democracy Rules.
Now, we say well, it is a convoluted process.
Skimmer hat had an algorithm, too.
In skimmer hat, factual predicate of that service, users may search for candidates with whom they are idea logically similar, a series of yes, no-- these answers compared to the positions of all federal candidates.
List of candidates displayed on the results page, ranked from highest to lowest, based on the -- skimmer hat was going to perform that matching service.
Based on the input from the individual.
This is just a different selection process.
But the people sign up for this process.
They say -- they list their ideological preferences, agree -- they agree to go through a pledge process where people actually vote among candidates and nonprofit organizations that they may want to direct to, and if they are unhappy at the end of the day with the match that Democracy Rules prescribes for them, then they don't have to give and they can give to anybody else.
So, I -- I don't think that is very convoluted or confused at all.
What I'm more concerned about is that the goal line has been moved on Democracy Rules.
>> Yeah, well, first let me say we haven't moved the goal line because as I understand it, you probably have the votes for this and, so, we will not have moved any goal line.
So, this is just my personal concern.
Yes, skimmer hat and crowd PAC both had algorithms in this case.
It is a determination that will be made subjectively by Mr. Cashman.
That is much more of a concern that I have if it were a neutral algorithm that we're just taking into account the interests of the particular individuals.
And, secondarily, yes, admittedly he added the names, and I -- honestly this is not -- I don't mean to be like arguing this vehemently in the sense that I don't -- I don't have a huge stake in this, mainly because I do want to encourage this kind of activity, but I just am concerned that this doesn't quite meet the law in my view, and that's where my concern is because that is an additional step that -- that requires the donor to then affirmatively, within a period of time, make an alternative, you know, choice.
So, it's -- it's much more burdensome.
It's very different from the situations in Crowdpac and skimmer hat.
And that's kind of where I fall.
And, you know, I'm not trying to argue with you about your perspective.
>> I'm trying to persuade you.
>> Yes, I know you are.
>> Whether it's the wizard of OZ, or it's the little man behind the curtain, the algorithm in Crowdpac is a series of ones and zeros.
Okay.
That somebody programmed.
I don't know how they programmed it, and yet we approved it by a vote of 6-0.
Somebody draws up the algorithms for search results on Google and just because it is a fancy set of ones and zeros to identify and distinguish who we think matches with you and, by the way, I have been on Crowdpac's web site, and I put in a fair set of ambiguous criteria of mine.
And said that my -- and I identified one issue.
>> Was -- 
>> Student loans and debt, that wouldn't necessarily fall left or right necessarily.
>> Was it -- I didn't mean left or right, I mean was it right according to your views?
>> Recommending a Congressman from New Jersey for me, and I had no knowledge -- I couldn't figure out how Crowdpac's algorithm identified this one Congressman from New Jersey as being right for me on the issue -- but by the way, I could choose at that point to use Crowdpac service or not use Crowdpac service, to donate to that individual, or not donate to that individual.
>> Right, did you -- 
>> Hold on.
Let me finish.
I feel like I'm at the debate last night.
Time is limited.
>> Your time is up.
Mr. Trump.
>> And so whether you trust Mr. Cashman, as being the individual who is helping do the -- you're essentially hiring the service of Mr. Cashman to help you identify, just like people employ political consultants all of the time.
Higher political consultants and have government affairs offices that help them identify where their political contribution should go given their political interest.
Mr. Cashman is offering a service.
You may or may not want to use it.
The point is individuals choose to use this service.
>> I understand that, and that was true right at the beginning in draft number one, or whatever the first draft was of this request.
I personally still believe, and you're right, obviously, there are human beings behind the determinations that ultimately result in whatever the algorithm comes up with.
No question about it.
But in this case, it's kind of like a step too far for me.
Because it's the unilateral decision by Mr. Cashman to identify candidates that would be appropriate for the person who signs up for the service.
And, therefore, and because it is kind of opaque and not, you know, clear as to how he's making that determination, I just don't think that it comes within the exception.
>> What you're saying, consulting service doesn't come within -- the individual still chooses whether or not to make the contribution.
If you don't like Democracy Rules recommendation, you can back out of THIS -- his voting process.
This is a collaborative process, I, perhaps 100 other people around the country, a --
we enter into -- it is almost like an investment club where people combine their ideas and you have a guide for the club.
And here the guide happens to be the operator of Democracy Rules, Mr. Cashman, but at the end, because the donor has absolute choice and discretion to either make the contribution or not or choose somebody completely different, Mr. Cashman's service is almost immaterial to the choice to ultimately make the final contribution.
Up to that point, you have chosen to collaborate with other people on a technological platform from around the country who may be like-minded.
I think we should encourage that.
>> I think that you hit on the one thing that causes me the most concern about it, and that is, and, you know, I have to say, you know, this is probably coming from my perspective in my legal practice, in which I did a lot of consumer protection types of matters, and what this reminds me of is those, you know, here, buy a magazine subscription, no problem, no obligation, none whatsoever.
It is only $5.99.
And then, you know, small print or somewhere you realize, oh, at a certain point, you must opt out.
If you don't, then it is going to be a thousand dollars a year to have those magazine subscriptions.
I don't think necessarily that an opt-out provision saves it for me.
In fact, it makes it a little more difficult in my view.
I mean I -- it just doesn't help with the fact that here is one person who is making his choice, and then, you know, in order to opt out, you must do so within a certain period of time or else they are take your money.
>> Good old government -- 
doesn't initiate the commercial service here.
People come to the platform.
People choose to enter the platform.
I give the American people far much more credit than you do and I give their intelligence far much more credit than you do, that when they choose to participate in this technological platform, and they agree to pay a fee for service, and they -- and they -- for whatever reason enjoy the interactive experience, participating with other like-minded people, come to a consensus opinion, at the end of the road, a drop-down menu giving them the choice to give to any candidate that the people will be intelligent enough to make a wise choice about how they want to contribute their money.
And maybe that's the more fundamental philosophical distinction that animates many of our debates here.
I trust the American people and their intelligence to engage in democratic activity as they see fit.
>> Madam chair -- 
>> Mr. Cashman, just a minute.
You can speak, Mr. Cashman, but let me just sort of respond and that is, you know, an issue that -- and I'm reminded by one of our reporters who is sitting here today about this issue, and so it is in my -- fresh in my mind.
Yes, I believe the American people are intelligent enough to make decisions, but many of them also contribute to -- not that this is one -- sham PACs as we know, over which we have no control.
And, so, in some cases there is a necessity for protection for people to ensure that they're not -- that they're able to make thoughtful, fair decisions, and so it isn't a question just of question of government paternalism and the difference.
>> May I ask Mr. Cashman a question?
Commissioner Goodman here, you've heard this colloquy and you heard the chair's questions about the voluntariness and volition of those who choose to participate on your platform, any reaction to that?
>> I do have one thing to add.
First off, the choice of recipients in the voting process are always the legislators who are -- who have jurisdiction over a bill that is associated with that issue.
So, it is not an arbitrary -- 
you're talking about the other web sites that would give you a New Jersey Congress person to support.
Well, you don't know why that is, but with Democracy Rules, if you look at a potential recipient, it -- you will see that that person is the Chairman of the ways and means committee or the Chairman of whatever, so, it's totally dependent on jurisdiction of affecting that issue and it's not an arbitrary choice of my own.
The other thing is, there are protections against your magazine subscription analogy in the -- in the sense that before a user pledges any money to an issue or legislator, they know exactly where that money is going and why it's going to that person, and if they decide they do not want to donate any money, they know those facts before it is time to donate money, and also, further more, at the end of the cycle, if for any reason someone did not agree with where their money was voted, they can rescind their vote and not be part of that particular cycle.
So, there are at least two protections.
Actually three.
Even when you're polling the issue, there is the -- the polling options list the recipient of if you vote for --
to oppose an issue, this is where your money will go.
If you vote to support an issue, again -- you see that before you donate any money.
At the end of the trustee election, if you don't like for any reason the results of that trustee election, you can opt out of it and make it go away.
Make it like you never participated.
And I think, you know, Mr. Goodman was correct when he said that this is an opt-in practice, in other words, there is nothing that you do -- there is nothing that you do -- the donations you make that are not -- that you don't first know where they are going, and that's why, you know, I feel like it's, in reality, it is not much different than the other projects that have been approved.
>> Thank you very much, Mr. Cashman. 
>> Well, let me just say, I -- 
I believe what Mr. Cashman is providing individuals by helping them identify who is the chair, who is -- who has influence over a certain issue, is essentially the service that every major corporate PAC in America has with their government affairs office that identifies who's going to affect issues of interest to that well-funded organization.
And sophisticated wealthy donors have consultants and people who assist them in this process.
And what Mr. Cashman is offering is for people of lesser means, at the lower end of the economic scale, to have a platform to participate like that and he is going to help them make intelligent choices by helping them identify potential candidates who are worthy of their support and the individual maintains absolute control over their money before they agree to make a contribution.
So, I -- I think this is indistinguishable from Crowdpac, and skimmerhat, and a case called brooks.
For that reason, I'll rest my case, Madam Chair.
I intend to support draft B.
I think it is important that we embrace these technologies -- 
>> Thank you.
Any other comments.
Is there a motion?
>> Madam Chair -- 
>> Yes, Mr. Cashman.
>> If we're pretty much near the end of this segment, I've got about a 60 second statement I would like to enter.
>> Mr. Cashman, I think we're ready to vote.
I don't want to, you know, preclude you from saying anything that you haven't been able to communicate to us before, but honestly, I think we're pretty well informed by our discussion so far on these, low these many meetings that we have had on this matter.
Mr. Vice Chair, do you have a motion?
>> Thank you, Madam Chair.
With respect to Draft Advisory Opinion 2015-03, submitted by Democracy Rules, by Ray Cashman, the executive director, I move approval of agenda document 15-38-D, also known as draft D.
>> Okay.
Any comments about the motion?
All of those in favor please indicate by saying aye?
[Chorus of Ayes]
>> All of those opposed?
>> No.
>> No.
>> So, that motion fails by a vote of 3-3.
Commissioner Goodman, Commissioner Hunter and Vice Chair Petersen voting aye, and commissioner Weintraub, Walther, and Chair Ravel, myself, voting no.
Is there another motion? 
No.
All right.
Thank you very much, Mr. Cashman, for all of your efforts in this regard.
We really appreciate your participation with the Commission. 
Okay.
The next item item number III.
Draft Advisory Opinion 2015-6.
Representative Maxine Waters.
We have Sean wright -- I believe there is no one present on behalf of the requester.
Anybody on the telephone?
>> No.
>> Thank you.
>> Thank you, Chair Ravel, good morning Commissioners.
Before you agenda document 1547, contains four draft responses to anAdvisory Opinion request.
Whether she can -- elected office in a foreign country, leadership PAC funds or personal funds -- draft A concludes the proposed use of authorized committee leadership PAC or -- donation for candidates for OFfice in a foreign country, is consistent with the -- constitute a lawful purpose permissible -- 
prohibition applies to leadership PACs -- so long as the personal funds are neither derived from campaign contributions or donations to the requester.
Donation is permissible.
Draft B similarly concludes proposed use of authorized committee and -- again, authorized committee using committee funds would constitute a lawful purpose, permissible -- the prohibition does not apply to leadership PACs and does not apply to individuals.
Draft C reaches the same conclusions as draft B, modifies the legal analysis to reach this conclusion, and finally draft D, proposed use of authorized committee leadership PAC and -- 
harmonizing the earlier drafts, in particular, the draft concludes that the donation will be permissible from a leadership PAC but does not reach a legal basis for that.
Commission received no comments on the drafts and no comments on the request.
Additionally, if the Commission approves a response, we request the authority to make technical and conforming changes.
Thank you.
I'm happy to address any questions that you have.
>> Thank you very much for your presentation.
Any questions counsel or any other discussion?
>> Thank you.
I think we probably know which direction we're heading.
I support draft C.
The I don't -- it is not going to have as I understand it sufficient support.
I may make the motion at the appropriate time -- compromised draft, indicates that we couldn't reach an agreement.
So I thought it might be helpful for posterity to see a draft that someone did support if they wanted to try to piece together the pieces as to where the disagreement lay.
The only question that I have on draft D is with respect to footnote 3, page 4.
And the reason I do, this is the -- the end of the last sentence of answering the first question.
So, it's -- it offers the conclusion.
What struck me is a little bit, I guess, odd, about this particular footnote, our analysis up to this point is to examine whether or not this contribution can be made.
We have to look under what used to be 439-A but is now section 3114-A.
And we examined first whether or not it's lawful, whether it's for a lawful purpose or because we have the use of funds from an authorized committee and the test is whether there are a certain inNUM rated uses that are per missible and a catch-all, any lawful purpose so long as it not for personal use.
We assume for purposes of our analysis that it is for a lawful purpose and then examine whether or not it would be personal use, and our analysis concludes that it wouldn't be personal use.
But then the footnote says almost qualifies that, well, it's not personal use until it's personal use, which the way I read it kind of nullifies or at a minimum confuses the answer.
And in this case, I -- I think we have to take the request at face value.
And answer the question, I think saying it is not personal use unless it is personal use doesn't answer the question.
And, so, I would be fine otherwise with this draft.
If we could remove footnote three.
>> Let me just say, and let's talk process here.
I understand that you indicated that you want to make a motion with respect to C and I believe that there is another motion with respect to A.
And my understanding was that, and maybe we can do something else, but -- was that with regard to draft D, we were going to request that the Office of General Counsel determine whether or not we could get an extension from the requester for a little more time for us to work these things out.
I'm happy to look at footnote 3, honestly, and deal with the concerns that you raised.
But I'm not sure that it is good for us to do this at the table, if we can obtain more time. 
>> The next meeting is in October 1st.
Our understanding, our informal understanding is that the election that the candidate wants to contribute to is in October, mid-October, I believe.
So, say -- they may agree to an extension or may have some hesitation about that.
>> Go ahead, Mr. Vice Chair.
>> If I could just ask counsel, I -- a couple of things.
How quickly do you think we would be able to find that out?
Two, I know there have been some concerns expressed by requester regarding the timing on this matter up to this point.
I know that there is already kind of time, even though we have stayed well within what the statute allows, in light of the concerns that have been expressed -- 
>> We could find out right after the meeting.
>> Wondering if we should find out during -- some way we could find out quickly, we could maybe go through the motions --
we could actually do the motions that -- on behalf of --
>> Both things.
>> Yes.
>> And then maybe in the interim, someone could be looking into that while we're, you know, tackling other matters on our agenda.
>> In other words, would it be the goal to resolve this today, to at least have the conversation?
Let me give a reaction to this.
I thought this answer was pretty clear in that we had a fair consensus that the answer was going to be yes as to each of the three questions and that in draft D, there was one footnote which is more of an academic point than anything else that caused any real concern.
So, I thought we were pretty close.
Save one footnote.
And here you've got a political actor that just wants to make a contribution and yet they're being held up for weeks to make one political contribution over what I thought was an academic footnote that shouldn't hold us up.
And so, I -- I think it would be just behoove us if we could, even if we took a break today, to see if we couldn't work that one footnote out.
I don't know that that footnote should hold us up.
It really is an academic point, and it is sort of a -- it does sort of undermine the opinion -- if we could take that one footnote out, I think we could get Congresswoman waters out of here without much further ado.
>> I appreciate your concern.
We have had battles at this Commission over footnotes.
>> This is not one that I think should hold us up, especially for weeks -- 
>> Let me throw in another suggestion that we could -- we kind of have to vote at the table on the parts we are going to disagree on, but we could continue to work on this over the next several hours and take -- once we sort it out, put it on tally, on a short tally and have it done, you know, possibly even by the end of the day today.
So, I agree with you.
We ought to answer this question.
We know what the bottom line answer is, and we ought to be willing to -- we ought to make every effort to give that answer to the requester.
>> Yeah -- 
>> But I think there is another way of doing it.
>> That makes sense to me.
Is that acceptable?
>> We all are, we want to get our business done.
So, should we go through the other motions then?
Mr. Vice Chair, you get priority.
>> Okay.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Draft Advisory Opinion 2015-06, submitted by representative Maxine Waters, I move approval of agenda document 15-47-C, which is draft C. 
>> Comments?
Mr. -- Commissioner Goodman, did you have a comment?
>> No.
>> All of those in favor please indicate by saying aye?
>> Aye.
>> Aye.
Aye.
>> All of those opposed?
>> No.
>> No.
>> No.
>> Madam Secretary, that motion fails by a vote of 3-3.
Commissioner Goodman, Commissioner Hunter, Vice Chair Petersen voting yes.
Myself, commissioner Walther and Commissioner Weintraub voting no.
>> As previously indicated, draft A comes to the same conclusion on a different legal analysis, particularly with respect to the request of whether leadership PACs are governed by the personal use prohibition.
We have a disagreement on the Commission, that's, you know, matter of public record.
It has come up in previous AO's, but we do get to the same result.
I also want to note that I'm not sure how, other than through the requester, who obviously wants an answer and we should give it to her, I'm not sure how significant this particular AO is going to be for a broader audience.
The issue of whether one can donate in foreign elections, as all of the drafts I think note, and certainly the one that we are -- that I support and the one that we will, I think, ultimately adopt, make clear, it -- use of campaign funds has to be for a lawful purpose.
That would include lawful, in this case, under the law of the country that would be receiving the contribution.
Many, many countries have the same kind of prohibitions that we do on foreign donations.
So, you know, I don't -- I don't think we're going to see a sudden outpouring of contributions from the United States and foreign elections because I think most of those countries just as we do, prohibit foreign donations.
Most of those countries do too.
We are not opining on whether that is or isn't true in Haiti where this election is taking place, but we're just operating on the assumption that it is legal there and predicating that our answer on that assumption because if it is not lawful there, than it is not for a lawful purpose.
So, you know, it is an interesting question, but, as I said, I think not one that is going to have wide-ranging impact.
Having said that, with respect to Advisory Opinion request 2015-06, I move approval of draft A set forth in agenda document 15-47-A.
>> Thank you.
Any questions or comments about the motion?
All of those in favor say aye?
>> Aye.
>> Aye.
>> Opposed?
>> No.
>> No.
>> No.
>> No.
>> That motion fails by a vote of 4-2, with commissioner Goodman, Hunter, Vice Chair Petersen, and Commissioner Walther voting no and myself and Commissioner Weintraub voting yes.
With respect to the famous footnote, we will have -- 
confer today and try to resolve this matter on tally today. 
All right.
Thank you very much. 
The next item is item number IV has been resolved prior to the meeting. 
And the next item is item number V, commission documents public disclosure policies, and our Office of General Counsel is working on a memo with respect to their views about how we can make more documents available.
I'm sorry.
I was just going to say.
I thought you asked for this to be held over.
>> I did ask for this to be held over.
Office of General Counsel has given us a memo.
I had a follow-up question regarding a statement in that memo and they are working on getting that information for me.
>> I'm sorry.
I didn't understand that that is what was transpiring.
So, I think with respect to -- 
with that information, item number V will be held over to October 1st, our next meeting.
Is that date acceptable to everybody?
>> I'm sorry, which meeting?
>> October 1st.
>> Okay.
>> Thank you.
Item number VI, proposed directive 74 on the timely resolution of enforcement matters, and that directive is proposed by Commissioner Weintraub and would you like to speak to that?
>> I would.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
So, here we are four months later still debating whether we can adopt a directive that would commit us to timely resolution of enforcement matters, and whether we are even resolving this on a timely basis, I think, is somewhat open to debate.
I think this is really important.
I think this really goes to the heart of whether we're going to do our jobs or not.
Because resolving an enforcement matter three, four years on edge of the statute of limitations, after the complaint has been filed, really, I think, does a disservice to everyone involved.
No matter what the result is.
Respondents deserve to get closure, as do complainants.
People think the law has been violated.
They deserve to know the answer as to whether it has or it hasn't or whether we can't make up our minds.
We can't come to agreement on it, but one way or another, public has a right to know, respondents have a right to be able to either claim -- pay the penalty and move on with their lives.
Other people are guided by this.
Deep in the throws of the 2016 presidential election, second debate, and we have on our desk that go to conduct in the 2012 presidential election.
And we have not resolved for the public or -- whether various aspects of what happened in 2012 complied with the law or not.
And part of the problem, a big part of the problem is that cases are sitting on Commissioners' desks waiting for Commissioners to take a vote.
And they sit sometimes for quite a long time.
We have cases that have been sitting on Commissioners' desks for over three years.
And the reason is that some Commissioners are holding up the works.
We had an executive session, which I think we're going to try to continue later this afternoon, but it started on Tuesday, almost half of the items on the agenda were held, which included virtually every matter of legal significance.
The only matters that we seem to be able to resolve, simple, straightforward matters that really almost shouldn't even have to come to the table.
We ought to be able to resolve those just by talking amongst our selves and coming to a conclusion.
We -- we continue to hold matters up.
There are a couple of matters that have been held up almost 30 times now over the course of -- and I think this is unacceptable and I think we have to make a commitment to doing our job better.
People out there -- because something happened, maybe four years ago, and people know that maybe -- honestly, if you can't make your mind up over the course of three years, then you're in the wrong line of work, because this is a job that requires people to make decisions and on a more timely basis than that.
And if you can make your mind up -- all due respect, put it out there, be publicly accountable for it.
Let people if they want to challenge it, challenge it in court.
Another problem with having things drag on indefinitely, it allows people who are writing, taking positions that might otherwise be subject to challenge, you know, complainants out there might say, gee, that happened so long ago, do I want to go through the trouble of suing over that after four years?
It's just another way of trying to avoid accountability.
And we are public officials and we need to be accountable for our decisions and we ought to be willing to do them on a more timely basis.
And we've been back and forth on this a couple of times.
You know, I have -- I have a proposal that I gave to my colleagues and put on the public record four months ago.
Two months later, I got a proposal back that really didn't work for me.
So I gave a counter-proposal, that sat for two months and then at 5:00 yesterday afternoon, I finally got a counter-proposal back on that.
Which I acknowledge is a little bit closer, but the crux of the disagreement, the crux of the disagreement is whether a partisan blog of commissioners ought to have a right to hold up an enforcement matter indefinitely.
That is what we disagree about.
I think the answer to that is no.
We have rules on the books right now that we don't usually insist on on how to proceed in these matters.
By long tradition, members of the Commission have for a variety of reasons, everyone of us has done it at one time or another, chosen to ask their colleagues if they could hold over a matter for some amount of time.
Sometimes somebody just wants a couple of weeks to think it over a little bit longer or to do some edits on an analysis, and nobody ever objects, and if what we were talking about was holding matters up for a couple of weeks so people get a little extra time, we wouldn't be sitting here talking about this now.
But when a couple of weeks turns into a couple of years or longer, then I think something really needs to be done to address that.
We have almost, I think we have almost 90 matters that are sitting waiting for a decision at this point.
And, you know, we -- 
Commissioner Walther has done a helpful chart and analysis of how long some of these things have been sitting around.
We have a group that has been sitting for over a year.
A group sitting for over two years.
A group sitting for over three years.
We just have to man up here, so to speak, and take our votes and put our analysis out there, and move forward on these things.
Under directive 10, if a -- if a Commissioner wants to lay a matter over, they can make a motion, and by majority vote, it will pass or fail one way or the other, up or down.
We've never insisted that Commissioners go through that process.
It's always been a matter of accommodation.
Somebody asks for a hold, and usually all of the information that we get is an email in response to the proposed agenda from the Chair and it says one or more republican Commissioners asks that the following matters be held over, because frankly all of the long-term holds are coming from the other side of the table.
As I said, we all do it sometimes, but all of the long ones are coming from the other side of the table.
And we don't -- we don't get any further information than that.
I really do not even know what the basis for the delay is on some of these cases, but I think we have to move forward.
So, I am going to put my motion on -- to a vote.
And if -- and all this would do would say we're going to vote within six months of when a matter hits our desk.
And this does not vitiate the procedures in directive 10 that allows somebody to move to hold a matter over.
And certainly that could still be done by accommodation.
And sometimes it's done unanimously.
Sometimes the justice department asks us if we will stand down and not move forward on something while they're doing a criminal investigation, and I think almost always by unanimous vote we exceed to that request because we do not want to mess up a criminal investigation.
But if my motion doesn't pass, then I'm just putting everybody on notice that I'm going to start objecting when the emails come around saying one or more Commissioners is asking for a matter to be held.
If it has been held for more than three months already, I'm going to start objecting, and then we can go to the table and people can make their motion, and if you've got a good reason for why it needs to be held longer, you know, maybe you will get four votes for that motion.
But if there is no reason, and it is just we're not ready to go forward, or we want to wait for some other event that may or may not take place at any indefinite time, you know, we'll just have to see how it plays out and whether you are going to get the votes for it.
If you don't get the votes for your motion to delay it, then we're just going to proceed with it.
And I -- I'm sorry to have to take that step, to have to put us through that process, but I just -- you know, I have been working for four months to try to get an agreement on something that might work for people that wouldn't be -- that might give people a little bit more time, that, you know, might make people a little more comfortable, but this business of just insisting on the prerogative of holding things up indefinitely has got to stop.
It's just got to stop. 
>> Any comments?
Mr. Vice Chair.
>> Thank you, Madam Chair.
Only thing I would add -- we have talked about this the last couple of meetings and I agree that there are better efforts that we can make on our behalf to move things quicker.
I think we have been able to resolve things a little more efficiently.
Recently we have added more dates to the executive session calendar through the remainder of the year to try to take out some of the matters that have been hanging around.
I think calendared for upcoming executive sessions we have some of the matters that have been the source of consternation that I think will be resolved and several of the others I think will be shortly thereafter.
We -- not to be a complete broken record, but I do think there are circumstances where -- that we mentioned whether or not we have common respondents and it makes sense to hold matters to consider common respondents as a group, matters that may be impacted by litigation, matters that have a similar issue, in order to ensure the consistency of result makes sense to group together, and hopefully, like I said, I think that within the next few executive sessions some of the ones that have been around for a while, I think will be able to be resolved.
And maybe that will be a relief valve of some sort to get some of those out of the system.
I think even if we have -- I won't be able to support this version of the directive, but I think that the commitment to resolving cases in a more timely matter to get quicker resolution, not only to get them off of our desk but to give the respondents closure, to get complainants closure, to get the public greater guidance as to what the law is, think that is an important, essential objective, and I certainly am committed to pushing through things on a more efficient basis so that we can avoid the situation where we have matters that are up here at the Commission for lengthy periods of time.
>> Commissioner Hunter.
>> Thank you, Madam Chair.
Everybody agrees that the enforcement docket should go much more quickly.
There is no debate about that.
Everyone agrees.
We have a relatively new enforcement, head of enforcement, now our acting general counsel and he has done a nice job moving things more quickly.
Did I say that wrong?
Acting general counsel.
>> I don't think he is relatively new anymore.
I feel like Dan -- 
>> Enforcement -- 
>> I came in the beginning of March, 2012.
I was there for a little over three years.
This feels much shorter.
>> In this -- 
>> That speaks to how long we have been around.
>> Compared to a lot of people in your division, you are still a newcomer.
And he did a really nice job moving things along, as has others who have worked hard to improve the processing times.
There are some -- I think we all have hope that things move even more quickly.
With respect to the matters that Ellen refers to, that have been on the agenda for awhile, you know that there is reasons for those.
You say that there is -- you have no idea why they're still on there.
You know there is reasons for all of them.
>> That's not true.
>> We have said repeatedly.
Then you were not listening.
Petersen has said it many times in the opening meeting, and as commissioner Petersen just said, many because there are pending matters that are before federal courts that are directly relevant for the matters that are before us, and we like to hear what a federal court has to say before we make our decision.
Other matters, other cases with the same legal issue in the pipeline, and we would like to consider them together.
That makes perfect sense to us, and we have explained that many times, both in public meetings and in executive sessions and in private conversations.
To sit there and say it is just the republicans and they hold things indefinitely and it is crazy.
You have done that as well.
There was a grouping of cases that you just decided you were going to hold until then Commissioners McGann left -- 
you -- I think you said that publicly many times, and we pressed on and on and on saying we would like to resolve these cases and we just got radio silence.
Never added to the agenda.
And the difference is, we have legitimate reasons why we're waiting on a couple of matters.
And I just explained them to you.
Please don't sit there and just forget history and just, you know, go on and on about how it is just the republicans fault when it is not.
Madam Chair.
>> Yes, Commissioner Weintraub.
>> There are a couple of cases that I am aware of you are waiting for litigation to be resolved.
But just a couple.
If there is more than that one cluster concerning that same respondent -- I can't go into the details -- I really am not aware of that.
And, you know, you have made this argument before.
There were a couple of cases that I thought deserved consideration by a full Commission of six Commissioners, and we were -- 
those cases, you can't blame everything on what happened when Don McGann was here, he has been gone for two years and you have been holding up the cases for the last two years.
>> I never blamed him for anything.
I blamed you.
>> You have been holding those same cases for the last two years.
What has been going on in the last two years?
Are you mad because Don didn't get to vote on them?
>> That's ridiculous.
I just told you there are legitimate reasons for the cases that are being held over.
There is not that many of them.
I don't recall the exact number.
I don't know if is appropriate to even say it, but it is no the a lot of cases that we are talking about, and, again, each of them has a specific reason why we're holding them up.
Yes, those same issues before a federal court.
This is nothing to do with Don.
We're not waiting for him to come back.
And we're not blaming him for anything.
I'm sure he is happy doing whatever he is doing and I'm sure that he doesn't miss this place, one shred.
Not talking anything about him.
I'm talking about when you held matters over waiting for him to leave.
>> But, as I said, you have been unwilling to vote on those very same cases for the last two years.
And the latest excuse a complaint was filed, four years, four years after the original complaints and now you said we have held it up for over three years already, so now we have to wait for a resolution so that we can look at it along with another case that got filed four years later.
And I do not think that that is a legitimate excuse.
>> Madam Chair.
>> Yes.
>> Commissioner Goodman.
>> As I have said previously, I agree we should move cases faster.
I said that.
I care as much about the respondents' interest in getting a swift determination as well.
But the speech you gave could leave a misimpression to Mr. Doyle and Mr. Leventhal today and I would like to give them some dimensions of this.
Between 90 and 100 cases in our queue.
And on the agenda that we have before us this week, there are probably about eight cases that are being held out of about 100. 
Two of those cases are being held at the request of the Office of General Counsel.
They have asked for more time and they have been placed on the hold-over section.
One case is being held by that side of the table, not this side of the table.
And I believe you were gone in August when it was held over at the request of your side of the table.
>> Sorry -- 
>> Statute of limitations may run, is running in that case while it's being held.
So, this is not just a republican problem.
Okay.
And we shouldn't overstate it or leave a misimpression that the republicans aren't doing their job because when you -- 
when you boil it down, there are probably six or seven cases out of 100 that this side of the table is holding, and on three of those cases, I have put in writing and put it in the formal record of this Commission the reasons why I am holding those three cases.
Which you just alluded to.
There is sound reason to do so.
To hold those three cases because they are directly impacted by ongoing litigation.
They involve one party.
I am not holding other cases.
Those are the three I'm responsible for, and I have supported and in the response you received from Vice Chair Petersen, Vice Chair Petersen has made a proposal, a counter-proposal to yours, that would require in order to hold any matter, two or more Commissioners must place in writing their rational for taking more time with those matters.
No one should be left with a misimpression that these are being held willy-nilly, irrational, arbitrary reasons because they are not.
So, I believe Vice Chair Petersen has shared with you a very constructive proposal.
Not only does it require Commissioners to place their rationale in writing before the Commission in order to take more time on matters.
Right now, universe is about six or seven cases out of about 100.
But in addition to that, your proposed policy does not address another source of delay in this building.
And that is the Office of General Counsel.
In some cases we don't get a first general counsel report in a case for two, three years.
The range has been from one or two days from activation to as many as 1,500 days to get a first general -- and so the counter-proposal that Vice Chair Petersen has shared with you addressed that end of prompt resolution of cases as well.
Yours does not.
So, you can demagogue this issue, but when you lay it bare, we're talking six, seven matters out of 100 in the building, and delays have been caused by many Commissioners here, not just republicans, and we must address the Office of General Counsel's processing of cases, not just Commission processing of cases.
Counter-proposal that Vice Chair Petersen has shared with you, deadline on the Commission, six months of the date we receive first general counsel report, six months -- 
>> Nine months.
>> Nine?
>> I believe it is six.
>> It's six.
>> Three -- 
>> Three to be calendared, but assuming that our Chair wants to calendar it immediately.
But we left some discretion of the Chair -- I mean, if you start putting them on immediately when they come up, we will have agendas that we can't get through.
But once it is submitted to the Commission, it would be six months.
So -- and, yet, where there are important reasons that are explained by Commissioners to take more time, it addresses --
it cabins and details what those causes can be and requires every Commissioner to be accountable in writing to the Commission for those reasons to take more time.
That is a very rational way to proceed and it addresses the other half of the delay, which is the processing of matters in the Office of General Counsel.
Yours doesn't address that at all. 
>> Commissioner Weintraub.
>> Thank you, Madam Chair.
The proposal to put reasons in writing, I think is a good one.
It is one that I made in July to the vice Chairman and I appreciate that he has incorporated that into his latest proposal.
I agree that's important.
The Office of General Counsel is already operating under time lines that we have -- they are informal time lines and I believe at the last status of enforcement, they were meeting those time lines virtually 100% of the time.
There have been outliers, long-time employees of the Office of General Counsel will vouch no one on the Commission has been more vigorous in pursuing the reasons for delays in the Office of General Counsel when that has happened.
I am not letting anybody off the hook on the problem of timeliness.
One that has concerned me ever since I got here.
We have to get our own house in order.
While there are many aspects of the latest proposal that I could agree with, the crux, as I said at the beginning, the crux of the disagreement is when do you get exceptions?
And under your proposal, I'm saying your collectively, because I assume you're all behind it, under your POE pose -- proposal, partisan block of Commissioners, on their own, would have to state reasons, they could with less than a majority of the Commission hold up a matter indefinitely, and what I would -- my counter-proposal, my proposal all along has been if you have a good reason, bring it to the table, state it to your colleagues and maybe you will persuade somebody.
I'm not saying there are never good reasons for holding a matter over, but I am saying, and it is true, that I don't know what many of the reasons are, because there are more than those six cases.
I believe there is something like 14 cases that were held over just this week that were on the agenda on Tuesday, and for one reason or another, this one gets held over, that one gets held over and another one gets held over and I truly do not know the reasons for all of them.
I know about the six you're talking about, but more than those six.
>> I'm talking about the long-term holds.
Some are short-term, we're prepared to go at the next meeting.
They would fit well within your policy or our proposed policy.
I'm talking about the longer term holds.
There is not an inordinate delay on 100 cases in the building. 
Mr. Leventhal, Mr. Doyle, I hope you're hearing this.
There are about six or seven cases that have been the subject of any long-term hold and the reasons have been explained for them and they are noter -- not irrational -- 
>> Before the next executive session, I will send out an email, that categorizes -- I think we have sent out communications in the past, but they may be of -- not of recent vintage, some may be a couple of months old, but I will restate those in a comprehensive email so that -- 
so that it is clear what the reasons have been.
>> All right.
>> I will just -- one final point, and I -- you know, hats off to my colleague, Commissioner Walther, who did this detailed analysis, but I see in his analysis he has identified 15 matters that have been awaiting Commission action for at least one year.
Seven matters that have been awaiting Commission action for over two years, but less than three, and six matters that have been waiting for over three years.
And you guys are focused on those six matters, which admittedly are the longest ones, but there are others that have been sitting around for a very long time.
>> All right.
Is there any further comment?
Mr. Vice Chair.
>> Just, I mean, not to belabor the point.
Some of the matters -- document that has been -- redacted, a little misleading in some cases to say that some of these matters, offense times different MRS get combined in one matter, general counsel report, and that is the case in -- three of these are actually one matter.
Two are -- two others that are part of one matter.
So, it's -- I'm not -- larger point is still there.
There are some matters that need to be -- that have been --
that have been hanging around a long time.
I will explain the reasons why they have been hanging around to the extent that we haven't been clear up to this point, but there are some just for the education of those who are listening out there, sometimes matters do get combined.
By splitting them apart, it makes the numbers look worse than they are.
I just wanted to clarify that, there are certain matters here that are a part of one matter that are listed separately on the chart that Commissioner Walther supplied.
>> Thank you.
I believe there will be a motion, but before Commissioner Weintraub makes the motion, say that I am going to support her motion on this, but I hoping that we can continue to come back perhaps, very soon, with some kind of an agreed-upon, and I have not had an opportunity to review your proposed resolution, but I'm hoping that we can reach some sort of an accommodation soon.
>> My door will always be open if you want to discuss this further.
>> I appreciate it.
Mr. General -- acting general counsel.
You don't want that title, right?
>> No comment.
The Office of General Counsel work product has come up.
If I might just say a couple of words about my view on my goals and my view on the work product of the office.
And I don't intend to touch on some of the other issues, OGC, I agree fully that we need to do the best job we can possibly do with these sometimes very challenging matters to get to the Commission a full record and our analysis, written as well as we can write it, efficiently, punctually, in every case.
I do think that we have done a good job in the last few years meeting the internal time goals that we're -- were discussed with the Commission many years ago.
And, frankly, I think there has been some cultural change in OGC as to that issue over the last few years.
It's a commitment of mine and it's understood throughout the office that we want to try to get 100% compliance, if we can.
Occasionally a case will come through that we fail to meet it.
But it's usually, again, for a reason that is either out of our control or we're doing the best we can to move it to you.
What I want to say, and this is to all six of you, I think -- I want to make sure that OGC is doing what we can to work with each of you and address what concerns you may each have.
And I think we have also successfully done that across the aisle, at least since I have been here, and I want to continue in that.
As I see it, I've got about three, four months to work -- 
for us all to work together.
I want to make the most of it.
I invite all of you to seek me out and to work with us on individual issues, and if we can move things quickly, I want to work with you to do it.
>> Thank you, very much.
Commissioner Weintraub.
>> I also want to note and my history is a little longer here than Mr. Petalis -- when the Commission adopted the internal guidelines of when we wanted to see the general counsel reports come up, in 2003, I believe, there was an entirely different attitude than we see today.
And, as I said, you guys report to us every quarter on how -- 
on how you're doing.
We have the statistics on it and I think the statistics in the last one, as I said, you're hitting those marks virtually 100% of the time and are to be commended for doing so.
And I want to repeat what the Chair said.
I also want to continue working on this.
I think it would be good if we could come to an agreement, and as I said, latest draft which I got at 5:00 yesterday is a lot closer, but it comes down to the big difference is whether two Commissioners or even three Commissioners can still hold up the works.
Or whether it requires a majority vote in order to hold up the works beyond the guidelines that we would be adopting.
That is the heart of the disagreement.
I think that will be challenging to resolve, but I'm happy to work with you on that, and maybe my hope is that when I start objecting to things, that that might create a little more incentive to try to come up with something that we can all agree on.
Having said that, unless somebody else wants to say something, I'm prepared to move that the Commission adopt proposed Commission directive number 74, as set forth in agenda document 15-25-B.
>> Any comments, questions with respect to the motion?
Do you have the motion?
All in favor indicate by saying aye.
[Chorus of Ayes]
>> All of those opposed?
>> No.
>> No.
>> No.
>> Madam Secretary that motion fails by a vote of 3-3, Commissioner Weintraub, Walther and myself voting yes and Commissioner Goodman, Hunter, and Vice Chair Petersen voting no. 
All right.
Thank you all.
And we have one more item with respect to these issues.
Item number VII, that is -- 
yes.
>> Chair, a moment of personal privilege -- 
>> This is -- this motion to set priorities.
Let's do this one first.
You absolutely may have -- 
>> I understand -- I must be working on an old agenda.
>> It was added to the agenda.
I'm sorry.
But, absolutely, as soon as we're done, I will give you that motion of personal privilege.
>> Thank you.
So, it is Commissioner Walther's motion to set priorities on scheduling -- 
>> I will try to make it short.
Sometimes it is hard to do.
>> Since we have an executive session immediately following this to work on just those items that we have been talking about.
Thank you.
You don't have to make it short.
>> I don't.
>> No.
>> I made a motion July 16th, my goal to see if we could adopt a schedule, priority, method of dealing with these cases that come before us for consideration that have been before us for a long time, with, in most instances, to my knowledge, no reason other than our unwillingness to meet often enough to get the job done.
There have been a lot of reasons given as to certain cases, but generally they don't apply to the bulk of the cases that are subject to my motion.
But they may have to do with is us being willing to meet often enough to discharge our professional responsibility in a right way.
We have cases that have sat for -- these cases that I'm referring to are ones for which there is no matter left before us other than to make a vote to decide a case.
Some of these are for more than three years.
They have sat and were stagnant and we have still not voted on them.
Some other two years, some over one year, and category before the Commission now for a total of one year since the date that they came into the agency for consideration. 
There is a lot of reasons and some of them we can talk about, but I do think that -- I want to make just a quick -- I'm not going to support anything that gets -- that -- directive 10.
We should never be in a position where one group of this Commission can hold up any case.
Unless there is a majority vote to do so.
And that would be to me, a receding of our professional responsibility, and that's not what I'm looking for here.
I'm looking for votes to try to get us to meet.
We have done this before.
We had a backlog once before when the Commission went dark for six months back in '09, and when we considered reform, we adopted a policy and it was informal, but it was also very rigorous and we got our backlog done behind us.
All of this can be done here.
None of this is magic.
It is just a matter of not being lazy, being willing to see this as a priority, and to try to deal with it.
People are entitled to justice and if it is delayed, it's denied, and this is the kind of case that I think we should look at and sit down and say we can do this, if we want to. 
There There are a couple of things that came up in the last discussion about the statute of limitations.
Granted and so this deals with that issue.
Any time there is a statute of limitations issue, obviously it will take priority to us.
We can do that with four votes, and we can do it certainly under this, but I have seen in the past recently that the statute has run in a couple of cases -- in this particular case, rather than -- I think --
we get criticized because some of these are held up and people think that there might be a political reason behind it, or an ideological reason, if we set it up based upon an objective standard, what comes in goes out first, and unless there is four votes -- not seen as a political reason or anything along that line, I -- 
continue to take a look at these cases and see if there is some other reason why there should be some time to await decision.
Obviously, these are cases in which the Department of Justice, we're working with them.
I don't think that should be automatic either.
I think we have a direct responsibility of our own independent of the Department of Justice in our -- and our memorandum acknowledges that.
I want to thank my staff for doing the labor involved in putting this data together.
Both Tom and Shanna, work and think and try to make sure there are no mistakes on this.
I'm not sure it should be our office that has been required to do this, but I feel we have had a lot of discussion about why we can do this.
I felt that when people see the black and white here, it might shock a few of us into realizing that there is really no reason why we are in this position.
Meetings held over on October of 2012, over 2013, some of them withheld 20 times.
These are not things that I think an agency should tolerate, unless there is four votes to allow that to happen.
Anyhow, that's my motion.
It is in writing.
I can read it.
It is long, but I don't know if anybody really feels it is necessary.
>> Thank you very much, Commissioner Walther.
Any comments or questions with respect to this >> Thank you, Madam Chair.
This is continuation of the discussion from the previous agenda item and I appreciate Commissioner Walther's efforts on this issue to push forward and to keep us ever mindful of our need to resolve matters as quickly as we can.
I can't support this motion.
We had the same motion back in July and I didn't support it then.
But, again, I don't think that should be interpreted as that -- that there isn't a commitment across the board to try to resolve as many of these matters as quickly as possible.
Back in July, we supported a revised calendar for the remainder of the year to add several extra executive session dates in order for us to clear out as much of this list as possible.
I think that that is going to be helpful.
And I think that I -- I think that that will enable us to cut into this list quite substantially.
Again, I greatly appreciate the efforts and the nudge that you're providing on this.
And, again, just because I'm not going to support this motion, doesn't mean that I don't appreciate the fact that you want to make sure that we keep our feet to the fire and I think that is important, like I said, some of these matters, just to be clear from our perspective, they are not being held over for willy-nilly reasons or laziness or arbitrary reasons.
There are specific reasons.
For that list of matters, we will be happy to provide a summary before the next executive session.
>> Okay.
I would like to add, whole heartedly agree with Vice Chair Petersen that it has been very beneficial for us to see the document that your office so ably produced because it -- it does provide to us the stark reality and, you know, as you know, I did not support the motion to adopt your motion in July because I do have a lot of reservations about the effectiveness of it given that it requires an enormous amount of time for ourselves and our staff to be prepared to be able to have thoughtful discussions about matters.
And I'm not certain that continual meetings will effectuate that ability to deal with the backlog, although I am now to the point because since July we continue to have hold-overs that have already been discussed, despite all of our efforts and my efforts to put a lot of items on the agendas, and, so, I am increasingly frustrated and willing in -- today to support your motion while I have concerns about it, I still think that sort of desperate times require desperate measures, right.
So, I'm going to, you know, support it today. 
Are there any other comments?
All right.
Commissioner Weintraub.
>> I will say briefly that I am, of course, going to support the motion this time.
I supported the motion last time.
I don't think we can just throw up our hands and say well there is really a lot of complaints out there.
You know, that's why they pay us the big bucks.
We have to roll up our sleeves and work harder.
If there is more work to do, we need to work harder.
>> A motion on the table.
It is in writing.
Does anybody need it to be restated?
No.
And you have the motion, of course, Madam Secretary, correct?
All of those in favor indicate by saying aye?
[Chorus of Ayes]
>> All of those opposed?
[Chorus of nos] 
>> That motion fails, Madam Secretary, vote of 3-3 with Commissioner Walther, Commissioner Weintraub, and myself voting yes, and Commissioner Goodman, Hunter, and Vice Chair Petersen voting no. 
>> Madam Chair.
>> Yes.
>> If I could just take a moment to welcome and recognize Alley Currie.
Why don't you stand up so that people can get to know you.
Alley is an intern in my office this semester.
She is from belton, Texas.
If you are trying to locate it in central Texas, I'm told it is halfway between Austin and Waco.
I imagine that is a pretty exciting area of the country.
University of Arkansas, graduating in 2014, in her second year at George mason law school.
Welcome.
>> Commissioner Hunter also a point of personal privilege.
>> I would like to welcome Lindsey, who is sitting here behind me.
She just joined us in August, serving as counsel to the three republican Commissioners.
We are delighted to have her.
Graduated from Monmouth university in New Jersey, and Catholic university, Columbus school of law.
Served as a law clerk in the prince George's county circuit court.
FEC in August.
Thank you for being here.
I would like to welcome AllisonAllison.
Allison started here two weeks ago.
A student at William and Mary, earning academic credit for being a law clerk here.
3-L, in the election -- 
undergraduate at Georgetown university.
Thank you for joining us and I look forward to working with you.
>> Any others?
I have a point of personal privilege.
I would like to introduce our intern, fall intern, Erin -- 
Aaron Colby, to is standing.
He is someone that I met at an event related to William and Mary law school.
And he came up and expressed enormous interest in this area of the law.
He is really thoughtful and cares a lot about political law.
William and Mary seems to be producing a lot of great people who are interested in political law.
This may be more important than tax law in the future.
So, anyway, we welcome you and we're so glad that you're here.
Thank you.
And with that, we're up to item VIII.
Mr. Staff director, are there any management or administrative matters that the Commission needs to discuss today?
>> Madam Chair, there are no such matters.
>> Thank you very much.
This meeting stands adjourned. 
Just for information for everybody, we will make public the vote, the tally vote as soon as we possibly can. 
On the Waters AO.
Thank you. 
It's noon.
I would request that we take about a 15 minute break because as you all know, we have to end a little early today.
So, we will reconvene in 15 minutes for the executive session. 
Thank you.