reviewed, 15 were went further than that initial review of evidence. >> that is right. >> and on average, how long does it take to address those 15 complaints that go past the initial, evaluation? >> i would say 3 to 6 months and some of them have taken years. >> on average, they take 3 to 6 months. >> i think so. katherine do you have anything to add to that? >> i think that, i think that the average is being a little bit higher than that and i think that it will be closer to nine. >> and so then, of the 21

actions that were not resolved, those were not ones that could be determined not to be within the jurisdiction of the ethics commission, or warrant further action? or were those ones that the commission just was not able to get to at all even to determine which bucket they fell into? >> i am sorry, which one are you referring to? >> just doing the simple math here. >> it looks like there were 99 that could have been worked on. 78 were worked on. right? >> and either by determining that they weren't within the jurisdiction of the ethics commission and they were not warrant further action and they were more significant complaints that were ultimately resolved. >> right. >> so i want to know what

happens to those 21 remaining? >> they are still pending. >> do they get rolled over into the coming year? >> correct. >> so when we are looking at this for next year, it is, is that number, going to include the ones that were left over from the year. >> correct. >> any other questions on that section for the commissioners? >> i also had some questions on page 14. in particular, i had some questions about section 4.130, number four. and number four refers to the number of investigations the

ethics commission conducted. and the answer is 0. why is that? >> this section refers specifically to the complaints that are filed under chapter four with just the privatization and protection and we may have received the complaints that alleged certain violations of sections within that chapter. but, none needed the full investigation. >> so, what does that mean if they were not within the jurisdiction of the ethics commission. >> well it could be that there was no evidence or reason to believe that a violation of that particular section alleged

occurred? >> when this refers to the number of investigations, the ethics commission conducted that does not include the investigations that were conducted but did not lead to a what a formal complaint being prepared? >> and it, and it did not, and it did not lead it a formal investigation. so, it may have been in the preliminary review phase. >> and what example, a lot of the whistle blower retaliation complaints that come from the people who have never been city employees, and so that would automatically render it outside of our jurisdiction, and so i understand those, and do we know how many we received? >> yeah, within the... sorry. and i can see that.

21, were received. and so we determined that... >> i see, so 18 were outside of the jurisdiction, and three were referred to the civil service commission. >> or either departments. >> what does i see, okay. i was confused by what number two was referring to. but i think that i am now following it. are the number of whistle blower complaints have they changed segly over the course of the last few years?

>> i don't know. i don't, i don't... >> it looks like there was 19 the year before. >> from my memory it seems about the same. >> okay. thank you. >> any other questions from the commissioners on that section? >> i had one more under the advice and the opinions section. so this says that the commission is charged with interpreting and applying the campaign lobbying and governmental laws, under the

jurisdiction and requiring requests for waivers and that it does and issues formal and informal advice on matters requiring interpretation. and then, we said that the commission staff is available, each workday to answer the public inquiries about the city campaign and lobbying and governmental ethics laws, during the year the numbers run into the 100s. >> why don't we put together the formal or unwritten advice for getting that many calls? >> that may refer to the individual requests. and we had no requests for formal written advice, this, the year of this, report, and formal advice, somebody asked for a specific case that they were involved in. and we give them advice if they asked for it and in that case, the commission has to vote on whether or not to endorse, that advice, and it gives them, a measure of legal immunity in case there is a subject of the

complaint this is what wi think that your individual situation warrant $or are should do this or you should not do this, and that does not provide the them any kind of protection, other than saying that i did check with the ethics commission ask so they have a record of it, in terms of the leg inquiries we get e-mails and a lot of phone calls on basic stuff and even though all of the man aules and everything, cover everything and people sit down to at their computers to do the campaign filings and a question about a gift, they don't to a manual they call us, and the staff is involved in a great deal of that. we cannot give the written advice unless it is written?

>> they want people to talk to and that is understandable. >> thank you, that is helpful. >> >> and if there are no other comments or questions, i will

open it up to the public comment. >> >> good evening commissioners, i am derek, a whistle blower, i would like to thank mr. st. croix and the staff to include the data about the whistle and blower and retaliation complaints in the annual report that is two years worth of data there and sharing the details with the bond and oversight committee that over sees the whistle blower program and that includes the letter of 9, 12, 14, but there is a short coming in this data. the city code requires reporting, the number of disciplinary actions taken by the city, as a result of complaints made to the ethics

commission, your annual reports site them as unknown, from the viewpoint of the whistle blower, unknown is buried. >> mr. st. croix, gave golbach two reasons for not knowing the out comes of nine retaliation complaints that were referred to the civil service commission and other agencies. why they are not required to report the result to ethics. >> second one, he suspects that the reporting will not occur in the future as it will be a personnel matter. and well, you should ask these

other agencies before claiming that the result is unknown, just ask and all that they have to tell you is whether it is substantiated yes or no. and nothing else. >> and when we see the numbers instead of unknown, and then we will know, that whistle blowers are taken seriously by the ethics commission. and the fact that ethics has never reported a sustained retaliation complaint, since 1993, >> i would like to talk about the complaints to the ethics commission and i would assume that it is within your authority that if you received a complaint that was made

directly to the ethics commission and you farm it out to another to the department and when you submit it to them, it should be within your jurisdiction, to ask them to report to you, the out come of it. >> and the doctor suggested. and it could be a minimal, out come, and sustained and dismissed, and disciplinary action, and taken, or not taken, and but, unless you asked those departments for that information, and you know, i can walk over to your front door, and so i would recommend that you would implement a policy if you don't already have one, and to start asking them. >> to report back to you, and i don't think that it will be a violation of any one's personnel law rights and it is

certainly within your jurisdiction and your responsibility to the board of supervisors. to educate you on the data that they are asking you to provide them and ask you to expand that work on that area. thank you. >> good afternoon, again, dr. jackson, and i want to thank you, young man for that report and it was beautiful and i want to make a note so that i can get into it and because that is information i want, and i also like to find out if you are going to take an action on what i presented to you tonight this evening, and i am saying tonight, concerning the mazola and so that the reason why i stayed to see if the action is going to be taken, are you going to vote on anything this evening, thank you so very much.

>> i will just know that it is not on the agenda and it is not something that we can take any action on tonight and the regulations regarding complaints come have the a certain procedure and say that you cannot file a complaint at ethics commission, and so, if you wish to file a formal complaint, our website will walk you through what you need to do to actually do that. >> and i mean, could we... >> could we help her. >> of course. >> if you called up the office of the staff will be happy to walk you through it. >> is there a motion to adopt the report, to adjust the dates

and to add the amendment proposed by vice chair renne. >> so moved. >> second. >> all in favor? >> aye. >> opposed? hearing none, that passes three to 0. >> and the next item on the agenda is discussion and possible action regarding a complaint received or initiated by the ethics commission. and possible closed session. >> public comment on item number five? is there a motion... >> sorry. >> i am sorry. >> is there a motion to go into closed session per the charter the brown act and the sunshine ordinance to discuss the matter

as anticipated plaintiff and litigation? >> i will so move. >> second. >> on the matter reporting to the litigation. >> yes. >> i second it. >> the matter relating to the litigation. >> all if favor? >> aye. >> aye. >> opposed hearing none. >> passes. we will move into the closed session to discuss the matter of the potential litigation of the plaintiff. [closed session] >>