working with justin to help to promote this and you know, we are going to do all that we can to get the word out. and while there is still a website or social media. >> okay. >> thank you very much. >> thank you. >> public comment on item number three >> compliment the ethics commission, that that was a very good presentation and i am glad to see the democracy dashboard, i compliment you. and i have unfortunately used open data sf on a number of occasions and it is buggy. and so, if this is running on your servers and not theirs that would be encouraging. one of the problems that i had with the open data sf going

into the city controller's vendor file, i would search for rtz associates to find out how much they have been paid to develop a data base for the laguna hospital, and i only got from 2007 to 2014. and so, i emailed miss zumela. who was kind enough to track down the data from 2003 to 2007 and the reason that it had not shown up on the first time, was because the company had initially submitted data with spaces, between each of the letters in their acronym and later they stopped doing that and at other times they had,

inc, following the name, and remarked to me in the private e-mail that that sort of filtering was inexcusable, and the system should have been able to catchall of it. >> and report it, and right at the beginning. over the weekend, i was trying to use the budget feature on the open data sf and when i would go to the export to excel button, it dies and although i am glad to see the city moving toward getting some data sets on a control website, there are definitely technical hurtles that need to be looked for proactively. other than that i was impressed with your presentation. >> i am fwoeg to remember this

day. >> we also enjoyed what we heard here technology-wise. my only question is at the second window, i don't know if you can put it back up or if you unplugged it or what you did. yeah. i wanted to talk about the second window where you had the graph up that said undefined and you didn't know what the answers were there. and that bothered me a lot. and also where you had the graphic up where you said only 4 people voted or supposed some legislation, only four people. i am afraid that you would really try to change the minds of the voters, you know, and get into their head because they see that only four people voted for that. that that bothers me, quite a bit. but i would love to see this system put out into the

communities before voting so that they could understand the voting better, this is an educational system and but those two areas that i hit on needs to be tweaked and come forward and have full disclosure. and because, why are you having a graph, that says, undefined and it is almost as long as what the first one was? >> i would just point out that that graph is not ours. and it is the city's. and it is a list of contributions so it is not compiled by the ethics commission. >> it is just representing that... >> i see. >> i see, so when the mayor's staff presented that chart, of the contributions to the open data system, and they are talking about the countries that i see, as the number of data sets that the departments have been posting to the system. and one of their points was that there were a large number of data sets that had not been labeled. and so that was lafmly. >> why not? >> that was something that they

wanted to correct. >> and so, the departments were posting information but they were not properly describing the information. >> exactly. >> so, again, this is something that they are focused on correcting. and this was back in the spring shs when this came up, but they have been working on this. >> you are working with what they gave you, that sort of thing, right? >> well, yeah. >> i mean, basically. you are working with what they gave you. >> right. >> that was the chart that they presented. >> hopefully this commission can ask them to give them more and be more, you know, open toefrg. >> fully disclosed. >> thank you. >> next item on the agenda is discussion and possible action on the annual report. >> before the commissioners discuss this, i just want to point out one addition that i made that you don't have.

and a commissioner renne's suggestion, where we have the future initiatives i added an additional bullet point, the commission agreed with several recommendations in the recent civil grand jury report and the work to implement these measures in the near future, and the review the progress made six months after the month of adoption and that is, i put it in there the commissioner's suggestion, but technically, this report ends in june, and that action did not happen, until august. and so it is outside of the scope of this report. and so, it is up to you folks if you want to leave it in. my concern was that we had just recently. there are things that they said that we will look into them and take some action and someone

reading this annual report, will say where are those? and that was my concern, i understand what you are saying that is the report ends of june 30th, and that action was in next year's report. >> i think that there should be some reference, and i think what you have suggested is fine. >> okay. >> and that makes sense to me. >> so, commissioners, hopefully we have all had a chance to review, the report. and my thought was that we would go, and we would have and

go through the sections and if any commissioner had a comment, or a question we could address it. and then, take public comment. does that sound reasonable? >> commissioner keane? >> i have first one thing to point out in regard to the mistake on dates. and that if we could correct that. on page 19. >> and having to do with the dates of my service. where it says, 2010, to 2, 2013, and that should say to, 2, 2014. and then also, where it says, 3, 20, 13, to 2, 20, 20, it should be 3, 2014.

>> i apologize for that. >> we have review ited several times and even found a typo, >> that is all right. >> if that change could be made? >> any other changes from the commissioners or the areas that you would like to discuss? >> i had some questions in the investigations and enforcement section beginning on page 12? >> particularly, i have some questions about the paragraph, or the first full paragraph on page 13, where it begins the

ethics commission has the authority to investigate complaints? >> and my first question has to do with the volume of complaints that were under review. it seems like there was a pretty substantial drop in the number of pending or new complaints that were under review by the ethics commission? do we understand why that is. >> i think for a long time, we had a backlog of complaints, and we spent a good portion of that year, trying to catch up with them. and did that. with a lot of older things that were pending. and so, some of those 146 probably had been held on from years, or a year or two or maybe even three before that fp >> okay. >> and then it says that 78 were resolved during the fiscal year and so that is 78 of the 99 that were resolved?

>> right. >> and 63 of them were resolved because they were not within the jurisdiction of the ethics commission? >> or that they determined that this was not enough to pursue a formal complaint. >> and so we only investigated 15 then, complaints? >> new ones, yeah. >> i am sorry. we no, let's, and when you, get a complaint before it is dismissed there is still a preliminary investigation and that would involve any evidence that is presented and in a review of what potential evidence might be out there. this could happen in a day or take a few weeks and very rarely it will take longer than that. >> okay. so then, of the 78 that were 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. >> 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 en