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. >> good >> evening we are back in open session is there a motion to keep confidential about the session that we had the possible litigation of the plaintiffs. >> so moved. >> second. >> public comment. >> i didn't hear the motion. >> the motion to keep confidential the discussion that we had in closed session about the potential litigation of the plaintiff. >> to keep it confidential.

>> all in favor? >> aye. >> opposed? >> hearing none, the motion passes. >> and the next item in the agenda, and discussion and possible action, regarding the minutes of the commission from july and august. >> any comments or questions from the commissioners? >> i just have one. in the august, 18th, 2014 minutes, on page 5, the, there is a paragraph, describing what i was saying near the bottom, and in the last sentence says that the chair person hur suggested revisiting the issue in 2015, i think that i said

early, 2015, or february, i remember it being near the beginning of 2015. >> i can look into the paper again and i actually have memory of that as well. >> thank you. >> public comment on the minutes? >> on the july 28th, minutes? >> yes. >> i want to remind you >> august. >> i am sorry what? >> or august, either one. >> and so i want to remind you, that it was at the july 28th meeting at which mr. pilpel inappropriately addressed you. and that was my second complaint that he had violated the sia. and i filed the initial complaint on june 22nd, and it has been four months.

commissioner hur i would really request that you calendar, as soon as you can, hearing both of my complaints, or at least the one that has not been dismissed, and while you were in closed session, it occurred to me that i neglected to messing one small point on your annual report. and i believe and i did not... (inaudible) when i came back in here and i think that there was a reference in there, something about part of the delay on rolling out the, or part of the trouble from the counter to roll out the form, 700s. and that went live. and this year? and it was in part due to the departmental officers and i would like you to review that clause, and because my understanding is that the department filing officers, are not allowed to assist, submitting them on-line. that, it was only the form 700

filer themselves, who could get a password and create the account, and if the departmental filing officers were not allowed to help protect part, i don't think that they have any business being in your annual report, suggesting that part of the problem encountered would be due to the departmental filing officers, thank you. >> and... (inaudible). >> no other public? >> is there a motion to adopt

the july and august minutes as amended? >> so moved. >> second. >> all in favor? >> aye. >> aye. >> opposed in hearing none, that motion passes 3-0. >> and the next item is the executive director's report. >> and i just quick point out, i am sure that you noticed the plan on the budget and i mostly saying that this is not going to happen if we have to absorb this, we will, and it will not be particularly pleasant but we can work it out. and a budget cut that size. as has been suggested we started including enforcement summaries, in this report. and which are already available on the website, and one other place to put them out there. for the public and then i just

note that the presentation that steven made with jessy at the code for america these folks are interested in what answer doing, and one of the great things about this kind of interaction is that they are helping to get the word out, and so, it is a great boost for our average efforts. >> how was it jessy? >> it was, it was great, and unfortunately ied to bring my 2-year-old daughter and so i had to leave a little early, but steven was just, was just great and i mean, that there were 40 or 50 people there all working very, very hard, on our data, and steven, and steven feels that probably at least an hour of questions, and i say it all of the time and he kind of gets mad at me and it is just, very very impressive as everybody saw today. it was really interesting because it reinforced in my mind how much this is the way

that campaign finance and lobbying disclosure is going, where the people are expecting to be able to access the data on-line and manipulate the data and yet the role that steven plays at this point in sort of that development, is really important, because we have all of these really really smart tech folks there that are trying to manipulate the data who couldn't figure out the numbers and all of that sort of stuff and getting it on the computer that you can understand and what it meant and what the form 460 reported and all of that stuff is really difficult for them to understand. and so, it was, it was steven was really great, and sort of translating that, and that is why sort of what he did earlier today is important because it can help with that translation, because it was fun and i felt, you know, a part of the tech world for, you know, a saturday afternoon. >> and thank you. >> and could i just ask in

regard to mr. st. croix, and when you indicated that you were fairly... (inaudible) being able to absorb a budget cut, and the, are any of the staffing positions like they are... and there is an investigative position that is unfilled, do you have staffing positions now, that are unfilled because of the salary savings and attempts to meet your budget. >> now, could i clarify something? >> sure. >> what i am saying about, is fairly singling about is that the cuts will not be implemented. >> all right. >> no i am not saying. >> and it will be cut out and no, no, i am not saying that at all. >> and okay. >> that is if we have to do it we will. the investigator position is open and we simply don't have the money, we have the money to

cover the rest of them. they expect the department to come up with what is called attrition savings and it is a target in the budget, $140,000 out of our over all budget and this comes from when someone leaves and there is a gap between when those people leave and when the replacement comes, and if somebody takes unpaid leave or anything like that, and so those targets are built in, and i have not had any problems with those tripping us up, because, what happens is every single position in the budget is topped at the highest level that that possible classification can make. and not all of our people are at the top level. and so that is where a lot of those savings will come from and the budget exaggerates the salary account just a little bit. >> i understand what attrition savings is. >> okay. >> and that is not my concern. >> we just have the one position open. >> and is that one position,

unfilled because of you not having the money to fill that. >> correct. >> absolutely correct. >> okay. >> and we have not had it for... last year, i am sorry. >> go ahead. >> last year attempted us to allow us to fill that position. but, because we are doing two year budget cycling the lastier's budget had the money and this year's budget didn't and i did not want to hire someone for a position that would terminate at the end of the fiscal year in which they were hired and had the budget process yielded that funding again this year, i would have been, and let me use the word of filling the position but the money did not materialize so, it was there for much of it was there for the fiscal year that is over but it is not there in this fiscal year. >> as we go through many of these meetings, often times we

talk about, we talk about the fact that certain actions are not taken because of we don't have enough staff. because we don't hear from you and every department says that. >> sure. >> and that is true. >> and so, here we have a situation where we have a staffing need for an investigator and it is in the budget, but there is no money that is being aportioned by the city to pay for it. what are we doing to get the money. >> well when we go to the appropriation's process every year, the budget process, i should not call it appropriations i worked on capitol hill for too long. and we always request like this year, we are request included that position. and but the mayor's budget office parcels out who gets the money based on their priorities and not ours.

although they don't like it, they go to the board and try to get an ad back for additional funds that things that they think that they need. but the board's discretionary money is limited and each individual member of the board has neighborhood priority and so actually we did get the money in an ad back for the board this year but it was targeted and helping us implement the new lobbyist regulations. >> whatever success that we had in regard to getting money for the positions that were unfilled, and the success always, came from harvey rose's office in terms of lobbying them, and getting it with the budget analyst, office, before we get to the board because by the time that you get to the board for the most part they are going to go along with the

budget analyst. sucking up, or working in the analyst office and in regard to getting these and taking care of your budget problems if >> yeah, forgive me, because my experience, holly rose has never recommended an increase in anybody's budget. >> and i got it. often. >> and well, that is news to me, actually, and we do interact. >> and i know that many other departments and maybe things have changed in the 15 years that i was out of the city government and harvey rose was always the guy to the back door and work on, and the budget analyst, is assigned to you was always a person to work on if

you wanted to get something done, and that was not just the percent of any kind of particular adeptness that i had in the public defenders office and the stories were legend about other departments as well and so you are expressing to me a certain amount of ignorance in that process. >> yeah. >> it is concerning to me, because the point is, that the reality of san francisco, city government, is that there is a lot of things that are done in the back door. and there is nothing wrong with it in terms of this is not an ethical process or anything like that, in terms of lobbying the budget analyst. and so when i see it, when i see the department or when i see a line item, that is not filled, because the money is not there, my immediate instincts based upon the 20 years that i was in that situation of doing budgets is what did you do with the budget

analyst office and for you to tell me no one gets anything from the budget analyst, and you are wrong. and i would suggest, and i would really advise you to and work on the aspect of that. >> and i would have to say that i spend my year, defending the budget to the budget analyst so that they don't recommend the cuts in it and that is the process in my experience. and i don't want to use the term back door to scribe anything that the ethic commission does and i will see what and it shows, because if you look at our budget today as opposed to when i started here,

it is significantly different. >> okay. >> but, there is nothing wrong with back dooring the budget analyst, because that is the name of the game, and not just to send in the budget and argue in front of the finance committee because by that time, everything is pretty much a done deal. >> i appreciate that and i have sat through the budget hearings every year that i have been here and i have never seen the budget analyst recommend an increase. so i will have to go back and look at how that works. >> it works. >> okay. >> and i would also point out that the board of supervisors when we were talking about the civil grand jury report, and

the government oversight committee did discuss that it possibly during next year's budget season, they should because of the civil grand jury recommendations they should seriously look at, giving us additional resources, and >> i saw that and, i think that is you see that is the kind of ammunition that you use, in my, or in trying to get a, and you are not asking for an increase and all that you are doing is asking for a position that has been authorized. >> yeah. >> to be funded and so we are not talking about an increase in the budget, we are talking about the funding something that is already there. and now, that you have got something, like the civil grand jury's civil grand jury's statement that this should be put in there, i would use that to whatever extend that you could and use it very powerfully in regard to your

discussions with the budget analyst in the budget process, before you get to the actual finance committee matters. and i, i don't want to lecture you like, and like i am a school master. >> actually you be a school master. >> i am just a humble schoolteacher actually. >> but i think that there are things that can be done that and i would recommend it that you think about it. >> public comment? >> items for future meetings? >> anything for the commissioners? >> is there a motion to adjourn the meeting? >> so moved. >> second. >> all in favor? >> aye. >> aye. >> opposed? hearing none, meeting is adjourned.

>> i think we've all recognized it is an absolutely exhaustible goal everyone of the 34 death was predictable and we're committed to come together as a city family