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 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