don't really indicate things that we need to change. one of those is the definition of electioneer for communications. at the federal level, they are exempted. but under san francisco law, that is not the case. in fact, we get filings if our office of internet communications. so, this isn't an area where we need to be looking at to expand. this is already encompassing this mode of communication. likewise, the electioneering communications window is much broader in san francisco than it is at the federal level. at the federal level, it's 30 days before a primary election and0 days before a general election. but in san francisco, it is 90 days before any election, which is much broader. and lastly on page four, state law has an impracticalability disclaimer and talking about political ads that have to be

carried for by a disclaimer. if the communication so small it is impracticalable to provide a disclaimer, they are age to just provide a link where you can click and see the disclaimer on another place. that is different, again, than federal law which basically says if it's impracticalable, you don't have to do it. state law, again california law here, going a little bit beyond what federal law does and we believe that is probably sufficient to provide people notice that something is a paid communication. so, we're not recommending this as an area for action by you. so, to wrap it up, we would like to hear your thoughts on whether or not this kind of forum regarding archiving idea is something you're interested in having us pursue. if so, whether or not you agree with the rough timeline that we set out here. thank you. >> thank you. i think she pronounces her name

ra-vel, anne ra-vel. commissioners? >> thank you. so i am very much in support of the proposal that you lay out here. i think this is really trit cal work that the commission can undertake on a matter of, i think, greater significance than we -- than we might realise because of the impact that it can have. on our elections. and my only advice or request would be is that to not just limit our inquiry to ms. ravel's proposal but to be open to other approaches as well. i think stanford's law in practicum report is worth looking at as well and i also think a forum bringing in leaders and other stakeholders who could help shed light on

this very fluid and initial stages of solution to a complex problem would be a very good idea. >> commissioner renne? >> i joined in the statement about supporting this. i question whether you realistically can do it by the next meeting. i think that it's such a significant issue that is emphasis ought to be on thoroughness. not how quickly you can do it. put a timeline of it on january or february might be nice. but if you need 90 days to get it right, i would be strongly supportive of it. we're seeing i at the national level. the whole what media -- what the social media impact can be

on elections. and if there is a way in which we can get out front and be helpful to at least at a transparency level, i think it would be a great step forward. >> commissioner lee? >> thank you, many chair. i echo my colleague's comments. i just want to have one recommendation. we spoke a little bit briefly on the true source of funding. i know that there is a very complicated issue, by think it is something that i think this commission may want to spend some resources in investigating. i don't think you can get it done if a month. but if that could be included in part of your analysis, that would be include in the future forum discussion that would be really helpful. in that currently there are

laws that say foreign government, non-u.s. citizens could not be engaged if political activities. but, you know, there may be ways that we can really tighten it up to make sure that the true source should be identified. social internet communications. >> further discussion by the commissioners? wi eel take public comment. >> larry bush. thank you for taking up this issue. it is a critical importance to how we are being informed about interest that people have in our elections. there is some questions that i don't know the answers to that hopefully this process will bring them forward. currently, some of our laws

provide an exemption for disclosures and reporting for member organisations. that provide recommendations, including for candidates that has been interpreted by some. for example, the committee on jobs said that they could send it to all of the employees of all of their member organisations, which is like 50,000 employees and it was all except from being disclosed. so, i'm not sure under this provision whether member communications are defined in such a way as to be exempt from disclosure. the same thing happens, by the way, with the democratic party when they would cherry pick just one jurisdiction to put out information on an election. but because they were democrats, they did it. so, that's one thing. secondly, i -- in terms of monitoring and disclosing on electronic things, when i post

something on facebook, for example, for friends of ethics, i don't put if a disclosure there. i report it on my campaign finances that i paid for facebook to put something in. but there's nothing that tells the public that friends of ethics is as material as being paid for by larry bush or whoever it is that i managed to drill up for money. i don't see anybody else putting those disclosures on either. [please stand by]

just for background and review from last month. we have set out and more formally update the commission where they amend staff policy items. going forward, we have current -- section 1 sets out the ongoing policy initiatives. and section 2, planned and

pending policy initiatives. in section 2, we ask that any addictions or subtractions would be formally discussed and voted on, if possible, just for staff's convenience, i guess, going forward, just so we understand the policy, priorities of the commission going forward. i will not go through every item, as some of these are unchanged from our november meeting that was only a few weeks ago. but going to page 2 of agenda item 7 under section 1, i want to give you an update on the anti-corruption ordinance that you all voted and passed at your november meeting. the ordinance was passed along to the board clerk on december 5. the clerk of the board processed that legislation.

and it would now carry an ducks date of january 9, 2018. that ordinance will be submitted under what is known as the 30-day rule, which requires the passage of 30 days prior to the board holding a hearing on the ordinance. that the would elapse on february 9. we've become aware that that 30 days, however, could be waived, by the board president, so that would in essence, if the board president was to accept that request, that the 30 days be waived, it would give them time to consider -- the board time to consider the legislation for a longer period. so i think i will allow you to discuss that as we go along here, but i will move on to the next couple. skipping the form 700 nonvoting

order innocence as it is pending committee action, i will move to ethics training. the ethics and censuring training was voted unanimously to go forward at your october meeting. the board of supervisors has 60 days to accept or reject the proposed regulations. the last day for the board to act is september 23. our i.t. compliance staff has been working to update the forms required of the ethics and se censuring training to make sure they're in one document. and then to proposition t, as you may recall, those are two ordinances that go into

operative effect on january 21, 2018. our i.t. staff has been working dill -- diligently to update the process for the forms. the proposition t would ban lobbyists giving gifts to city officials. i.t. staff is testing an electronic filing database. the same is true of the payment ordinance. i.t. staff is working to update forms and to implement a disclosure database that we hope to have ready for the january 21 date. moving on to the whistle-blower ordinance. we heard a member of the public speak on this item earlier today. we have continued to work with

the city attorney's office and d.h.r. to make amendments and review the ordinance. and we can begined to move forward with that process. we're keeping tabs on the process as it's formally scheduled with that employee relations director. our executive director may have more of an update in her report. section 2, the pending items in front of us, as it relates to item a, we're now on page 4, i believe, of this agenda item. skipping down to 1708-68, legislation pending from

supervisor kim. staff and the commissioners have met about supervisor kim and continuing to monitor that legislation and working with supervisor kim's office to give recommendations and advice as that legislation moves forward. with the events of the last week, we've been on hold as far as this agenda item and others go, but we're monitoring that legislation with supervisor kim. moving on to the sort of -- to page 5, the larger items, items 2 and 3, review of campaign finance reform and public financing system. we've heard from the commissioners, the public, and at a staff level, we've seen a need that we embark on these projects that have been delayed for several months with some

immediacy. the policy decision is going to present a formalized plan getting those items moving forward just so we don't get bogged down, as we may have a bit in the anti-corruption ordinance, that sets out a path for the commission and public to understand how we're embarking on the processes. we'll have to have a more formalized plan in january. if not, february, at the latest and update as we can. moving to sort of section or item c, you heard from pat ford on the election integrity project. we'll move along at the proposed schedule. we heard amendments to the schedule and we would be willing

to hear changes to the recommendation here if that is the passion that the politician believes is necessary. as to the second item under the recent identified policy projects, use of cash out or prohibition, commissioner eer k asked if we worked with the mayor's office of community and housing development to get a better understanding of that process and development. there's been some recent events that has made us scheduling a meeting with the commissioner's staff difficult. >> to get a meet ing? >> any understanding is that you would like to hear and see -- >> you are working to get a meeting with a city department? >> correct. >> doesn't make sense to me. you pick up the phone.

i mean, this thing is going to take forever. it will go past the february deadline for june election action. as i said, some recent complications and persons being on holiday that they feel are necessary to be in attendance, we've not been able to schedule that formally. moving on to our last item, independent city attorney, it was asked in, i believe, september or october commission meeting, that the ethics staff continue to review and prepare a memorandum in legislation about having their own city attorney and planning for research and preparation of that and will have that on their january, 2018, commission meeting as planned. i will take any questions or other items that you would like

to discuss. >> commissioner chiu? >> on the whistle-blower ordinance, can you walk us through the process by which we can get to close our on this issue? is it meet and confer and then what happens? >> i will let executive director pelham take this one. >> because there is a provision in the prof oedz ordinance for training of all city supervisors who would have the requirement to respond, the bargaining units need to meet and confer over that item. so we hahn this patient that will be starting in early 2018. we would be engaged in those.

i would imagine it would be a series of several meetings to hear any issues and resolve any questions, but as a civil grand jury report noted, the recommendation is that we keep the commission closely involved about that process, should the commission decide it goes back to the board, it takes time, commission may have to take a different action or approach. at this point, we don't have a date at which we can promise to bring it back, but we'll bring it back, our plan is to bring it back to the board of supervisors, after the closure of the meet-and-confer process and ask it be reintroduced and approved. it was proposed by london breed at her request to take it to the bargaining units for review. we're hopeful that they can bring it back to the board for final action.

we'll know more in the next several weeks and make sure to report back to you at the january meeting. >> once the meet-and-confer process is concluded it, would go back to the board of supervisors for action. if they don't act, do we have the ability to take the ordinance and put it on the ballot? >> i believe so. any for the areas under our jurisdiction, yes, can be placed. [inaudible] >> we would want to be sure to give you a formal analysis, but our initial take is, we have authority to do that, but we'd confirm with research. >> commissioner kopp? >> through the chair, with respect to page -- i don't know what page it is, page 5, i

guess, the public financing system item. last meeting, i was informed and other commissioners were informed that it would be examined under the audit of public financing arising from the 2016 election. is that correct? >> i'm not sure i understand -- >> you will audit the public financing system. >> yes. we need to take a look at the public financing system. >> what does take a look mean? >> it means assess how well the law has worked. assess if there's been gaps in the law for candidates. >> when will that be done? >> we're proposing we begin that process this winter, january, starting our research internally. kyle, do you have anything you

want to add? >> i think we want to review how other localities -- how effective their processes have been and compare them to our own in addition to answering what it has accomplished or not. >> well, this related to a specific charge by a supervisor that many was being used for purposes other than legally authorized. and we were informed that this would be part of your examination of public financing ordinance and system. is that still accurate? >> yeah, i want to clarify. if your question is about a specific allegation of whether there was wrongdoing, that would not be part of a policy analysis. that would be handled by he forcement staff.

>> i would appreciate your ascertaining if it's the latter and beginning such an investigation. >> we can certainly do that. that hasn't been part of the discussion for the policy, the policy that we'll bring forward. that's a separate process, but parallel track. so we're handling policy questions from the reports that kyle would be working with pat ford and others on and to the extent there are allegations about misuse of public funds from prior campaigns, that's something that our enforcement team would have an interest in and be focused on. >> can you begin that in january? >> commissioner kopp, i think you are right that every publicly financed candidate is audited and they're undergoing an audit now. and those will be released early

next year. once the audits are released, then my team would pick up at that point if there are any material findings and pursue an investigation into those commities. >> okay. thank you for that. then on the legislative updates. you've got a comment in a couple of places about legislation, state legislation, held under submission. so a lawyer and a judge, that means there's some dispute and the judge is waiting to decide it after hearing arguments. what is held under submission mean, for example, with ab1234, mr. levine? >> so the glossary definition is

it's an action taken by committee when a bill is heard and there's an indication that the author and committee members want to work on -- >> may i suggest or, in fact, request that you phrase that as "held in committee." whether it's a policy committee or a fiscal committee. >> "held in committee" has a separate definition under the state legislature's glossary. it means when a bill fails to get sufficient votes to pass out of committee and it's held in committee. >> that's what i say, but we don't say that here. you don't say that under procedural -- you say held under submission. to me, that could mean -- i don't know what it means. and i will just suggest that you

say, held in blank committee. >> thank you for the feedback, commissioner kopp. we can try to evolve this so the terms are simple and understandable to the layperson and we'll strive to do that at the next report. >> one more question. lastly, what will happen with this whistle-blower ordinance that mr. monet shaw commented on and has written on a 2-page analysis. will we have that on our calendar? >> we're hoping to hatch the meet-and-confer process in january and then it will go back to the board for them to introduce and act on. we'll keep the commission informed and if it needs to come back here -- >> so we have to wait for the board of supervisors? >> at this point, it was sent to

them and pending with them, so we'd like to get it back and enacted into law. >> to your knowledge, has this commission taken action on a proposed ordinance that requires meeting and conferring with unions? >> the issue was raised as well with extending e-filings technology to all designated employees. there was a request that that be consulted. i think there's disagreement if it's meet-and-confer requirement. we do know there are significant questions and we'd like to be responsive to that as much as we can. >> all right. so is there a legal difference between meet and confer and meet and consult?

>> i understand there is, but i'm not a lawyer -- >> i 97 heard it. maybe mr. chen can provide me an answer to that at your convenience. >> and i'm reminded that when the city created the statements of incompatible activity, they were subject to meet and confer and if a statement of uncompatible activity is amended it must be subject to meet and confer before the amendments can take place. >> my point is, we're not aliens to the process of meeting and conferring. and don't have to depend on the board of supervisors for action on a proposed law that's almost two years pending come next month. thank you. >> i want to follow up before i recognize commissioner chiu. i would not think that this

commission's authority to put something on the ballot could in any way be trumped by any of the meet-and-confer requirements that the city and county has. >> that's a good question. i'm not sure how that principle would work vis-a-vis ballot members placed on the ballot by this commission. i would say there is relatively recent case law saying that if the board of supervisors places it on the ballot, there could be meet-and-confers. >> could we have some guidance on that? this is something that was --

we've asked many times to follow up on this. this is something that we passed quite a while ago, sent on to the board, and it has some -- we were fairly emphatic about the importance of it, in regards to whistle-blowi whistle-blowing, to have protections in place, and i remember at the time of our vote, comments by several of us, that if the board did not go forward and put this -- pass this, that we would put it on the ballot. and now it just sort of hangs out there and hangs out there and hangs out there. and so in regard to us going forward and getting to the point where we're see, no, we're going to put this on the ballot, it would be nice to know whether or not there would be a further impediment to that in any kind of meet-and-confer requirement. so if we could have that, we would appreciate it. >> understood. i will work with staff to

provide you with that commission. >> great. commissioner chiu? >> i was going to make the same comment, but i want to go back to public financing. . i would like to make sure that we stay in cink with commissioner chen and think it would be -- the city would be best-served if we undertook our analysis and incorporate her input into that review, as opposed to having her go off and enact an ordinance in this arena. >> in the version in front of us, there is no public financing pieces. merely a proposal at this time. >> okay, great.

>> we'll take public comment on this. >> at this>> pa: i think the commission -- not the commission, but the board of supervisors would be hiring a new president, appointing a new president. >> they may. >> or electing a new president. i don't know how that works. i assume that the new -- that the acting mayor would appoint their successor for that district seat? >> yes. >> in any event, the legislative packet that she put together or had would be vacated and we're in need of a sponsor, so you might put on your thinking caps and see if you can come up with another sponsor advocate for

this measure that we can coordinate with and in the near term, because i do think that -- if your sense is that they're going to make significant modifications and cut the ordinance or that there's a question about if it will be enacted at all given the feedback or public or private concerns, that you may as well put it on the ballot in june, which would mean you are on a timeline. so you want to look at that timeline and make sure that you are ahead of the tall ender. >> friends of ethics sent in a freedom of information request to the city attorney's office for all whistle-blower complaints related to sex harassment since 2011.

and i have that information, but have not emailed you the response. since 2011, total number of settled cases involving sex harassment is two. it suggests that this may not be the full story. in fact, there are a number of cases listed with no settlement or zero dollars, or joanne hoeppner, a case that we all know that has resulted in a judgment of $2 million against the city, but it shows 0 in the materials by the city attorney's office. what i know from my own experience is that there is nothing that the city unions and city agencies like to do more than talk to each other without a result.

and i think that unless you put a timeline of when you expect people to come back with a report, they will not move. and certainly nobody at the board of supervisors, as you look forward to the next year, will want to take on the unions, as they run for office. so i strongly suggest that you pick up the gauntlet and run to the finish line. thank you. >> thank you. any further public comment? if not, we'll -- go ahead. i'm sorry. >> sorry, chair. we would just ask that you take a motion to approve the recommendations in section 2 of agenda item 7. >> okay. sure. do i hear a motion? >> so moved. >> second. >> motion has been made and

seconded. >> all those in favor of the modes, say aye. opposed, nay. motion carries. >> i want to join in the concern about the whistle-blower. i think it's very, very important and i would urge that if we can't get some resolution in january, that we look at putting the version on that we sent to the board, without some of the amendments they made in committee, which weakened it. and put it to the voters. >> i have to do that, mr. chairman, if i win. >> we can do it in february. >> march 2 would be the drop-dead date. >> so it could be calendared tentatively for the february meeting. >> that's something that -- as i look at what's happening so far, i think that's something we will

do. otherwise, it's just going to be dead in the water and we'll have to -- we'll move it forward and put it on the ballot, along with some other matters as well. >> when you speak about the ballot, are you talking about june? >> yes. >> there isn't going to be -- is there a 2018 november? >> yes. >> so it could be on that ballot, and that with have a different timeline than what we're talking about? >> yeah. >> it would be august then, august 5, i believe, for that one. >> any further discussion? did we vote on that? >> yes. >> okay, fine. so we'll move on now to the item

-- it's item 8, i guess. discussion of enforcement report, update on various program attic and highlights of enforcement programs and activities since the last monthly meeting. there are attachments of december 13 staff report and -- >> chairman, i request a closed meeting on this item. >> is there a second? >> i'm not sure we can go into closed session on an item unless it's been agendaized that way. we can discuss in closed section number 10. >> which item are you saying -- >> on 10 we can go into closed

session. >> all right. >> thank you. for the public part of the report, commission received five new complaints since november 17, which is the last date that we reported to you. 29 matters await either my review or director pelham's review. that is a regrettably large number of items, i confess to you. but we were very busy over the last three weeks. we went to toronto for the con consul for ethics and i had strep throat and a number of other things came our way. so i apologize for the -- for the high number and i will get them done by january. otherwise, we continue the stake holder engagement process and

also met immediately with the chair of the task force over the last couple of weeks in order to bring to you the innovations that i discussed earlier adds to the enforcement regulations. we also appeared before the sunshine ordinance task force for hearing a complaint against commissioner rene. it held this commission in violation for abridging public comment for 7 to 8 seconds last december. the task force voted to find that it had already found commissioner rene in violation so, there was no reason to have another hearing. so we were grateful for that decision. i had a great time and learned a lot at the conference in toronto. i attended countless

presentations, i guess i could count them, but didn't, one for every 1 1/2-hour block and made good connections with staff around the country that do the same work we do. i especially enjoyed speaking at the roundtable. i was a moderator and presenter to other municipality and council and we learned a lot about what each of us does and the, you know, frequent problems we encounter and our investigations, and it was good to hear ideas and realize we're not alone in our struggles. update on an investigative caseload, we were only able to open one investigation. we have, again, 29 matters pending review for dismissal. so we went -- our staff investigators are doing a great job getting through materials

and we're hopeful that we'll be able to clear out anything older than -- what month are we on? we're looking at older than 18 months or so. so probably we'll get done within a year. i asked staff to prioritize the investigations that are older than a year, so we can get down to under a year in complaints. regarding the bureau of revenue, looking to move our cases toward execution. i will say that in december, i attended a meeting of the creditors for lynette sweet, who owes the city $74,000 as the result of an order that this body imposed on her for misused finance funds. it looks like we have a chance of recovering as a result of that proceeding, but we learned

that a lot of other debtors are owed money including the i.r.s., which has priority. so we're not higher priority than the i.r.s., unfortunately. so we'll monitor that and appear at hearings for the city. pay-it plans are up to date. and on pages 5 and 6, you can see our customary charts that list the caseload statistics in graphic form. i will take any questions. >> commissioners? >> commissioner chiu? >> yes. in your write up, the new york city campaign finance board, the director talked about using data to investigate and uncover wrongdoing. is that something that we could do here? >> i think so, yes. we track and require disclosure

of a lot of the same information and we dump it into a portal called s.f. open data, where we can put in criteria and search. to some extent, my investigators are doing that already, but i did get ideas from that speaker of what to look for and the data and she gave a couple of examples to get at dark-money usage and coordination among campaigns. i was excited about that presentation. >> great. i hope we can also take advantage of those red flags and their experience and hopefully there won't be, but to use that to our advantage. >> yep. >> we'll take public comment on this matter. >> sorry to be so talkative

today. i wanted to thank staff for moving so forcefully on the lynette sweet matter. this was a 2010 public financing report that we extended to ms. sweet for the board of supervisors. it's been in away -- abeyance far too long. obviously now the matter is in bankruptcy court. i had a question -- since these were public funds that were absconded in part with, have we submitted to the court that fact and that as a result, has it put us closer to the i.r.s. than

not? because otherwise, public funds may have been lost? [inaudible] >> secured creditor of highest priority. and we're not. the municipalities are not in the bankruptcy code specifically. we're a general creditor, the same way as anyone else. >> this is a u.s. court. >> u.s. federal court for bankruptcy. >> at least we'll get due process, one way to view it. thank you very much. >> any further public comment? okay. if not, we'll move on to item 9. discussion of the executive director's report. >> thank you, chair keane. i have a brief report summarizing some of what you heard from director bloom about our attendance at the

conference. it was exciting to have a strong measure of staff that were not just passive participates, but shaping ideas. so we look fehr ward to the idea to send additional staff to additional sessions in the years ahead. i did want to highlight one note of a report that we were asked to submit to the acting mayor's office after the executive director's report was complete, because it speaks to some victims under discussion today. i will be happy to make that available to those on the commission, but we were asked on wednesday to provide to chief of staff's office for the acting mayor's briefing a continuity of work report. and this specifically asked for three things. one, what were the items where there were key deadlines or mile stoepz that were -- stones that

were a priority in the next 30 days, next 6 months and then also 12 months. just to highlight what we provided. in the next 30 days, we cited the focus on successfully implementing our new laws that are operational on january 1. this includes implementation of prop t, lobbyist measure that campaigns campaign contributions from lobbyisting bundling and giving gifts. and also super peskin's payments reporting by board and commission members. both of these are significant because they were requiring us to complete the technological innovations to enable the disclosure requirements to be in place. steven massie and team have been working to make that happen in a digital format. we also know we need to provide those who are affected by these

laws with information so they are aware of and know how to comply. for the next six months, we cited our core initiatives for enactment. in addition to providing election-related compliance guidance to those to the upcoming, under the legislative initiatives we cited two. one was anti-corruption and accountability that the commission referred, and, secondly, whistle-blower ordinance, that when were helping to move those along. those were the two priority items we noted. and thirdly, election 2018 work, under the leadership of our new programs officer and her team. and for the coming year, we did cite -- they asked for issues or items that were going to require

-- that they called potential threats and they other top priorities. and the election of the campaign fund, so it speaks to commissioner kopp's point. we need to assess the fund and make sure that it has adequate funds to sustain levels for june, 2018, as well as 2019 mayoral election, as well as 2018, november election. we'll be working with the city attorney's office and control r controller's office to make sure that we have the bases covered. and also the i.t. development, the technologies in place, and moving along to help convert our paper files to an electronic

environment. so we had that in the briefing of the new, acting mayor. and, lastly -- well, two other items. we've made very good progress on the hiring-related work. i will have some very good news to share with you and others about one of our technology positions and tomorrow and this week we have -- we're focusing on moving the senior auditor and senior investigative position further along through the exam assessment and interview process. so we'll proceed on that front. steven massie, who has been acting as our key on all things technology, was moved into our -- the principal position for that division. it had been reclassified as part

of the budget, investigating the expanded technology work that we need to do that's fundamental it all of our work. and we had a competitive position-based or exam-based process for that. as a result of that, steven was the successful candidate and is today moved to an expanded position that recognizes the work and increased responsibility for supervising a broader number of people. the position he was in will be posted. but there is progress. we want to thank doris laura, who has been working with us under the work order for the past year. she's been very much a good and strong and steady ally in moving the process as far as its come. we'll rely on the department of human resources in the coming months to get them past the posts and get people in seats so we can do the job we know we

have to do. >> commissioner chiu? >> director pelham, since we're losing the services of ms ms. lorio, will it negatively impact the ability to fill the seven positions? since there's salary savings from the oppositioen positions, we engage her for another quarter? >> that's a good suggestion. and we have a meeting to make sure that we identify the needs so we can identify how we need to fill them. we know we need to put resources on them, because when there are exam-based positions, it requires a significant amount of work to accomplish that. our goal is to not let it slip up in any way in terms of priority emphasis.

one other note on the budget for the january meeting and now on to february, we would be preparing to submit at the end of february, the mayor's office in early december gave us two targets, asking all departments to cut 2.5% in fy, '19 and fy, '20. because we're 90% salaries, we have very little overhead it. would require us to lose positions, in my view, we're ramping up. we need to make sure that the people are in their seats, doing the work, paid to do the work and have the tools to do the work. that will be our budget request that we bring forward to you in

january. i'm hopeful with the continued support with the leadership from the board that has embraced this, we'll show that we're a good investment for the work and resources that the city has been given us. as we approach the end of the calendar year, i want to convey deep thanks to our staff, who have been working hard to try to support your process and public information. we have some folks here around this table in the room with us, but i wanted to take a note to say how much we have a terrific team and we're very, very pleased to see the work that's being done. we have a lot of work ahead in 2018. i'm hopeful that you share the enthusiasm. and, lastly, obviously, with the mayor's passing this week, the staff and i spent some time reflecting on publicer is vits

and significant lifetime service and we share condolences with his family and staff and we want to make note what he give to the city and continue to be inspired by those that give a lifetime to public service. wanted to end on that note. >> thank you. commissioners? we'll take public comment. >> i'm bob plantold. some of us on this side of the podium are concerned about the possibility of reduction in budget when, as your director said, trying to ramp up. i think it's still possible to pass the budget at the february

meeting if you seek an extension and that's been done a couple of times before by ethics. a meeting on the 16th is close enough to the deadline that's been granted before. and i bring that up because i suggested it may be worth looking at how much progress there's been in the last 1 1/2 years towards reducing some of the backlog of complaints, reducing some of the analysis on pending legislation and enforcement proceedings and, therefore, saying we still have staff we need to hire to bring all these backlogs to zero to keep us current and timely, to put out a case that 2.5% per year is inappropriate. it would put you going backwards. it would not keep you where you are. it would push you backwards, if you have a statistical report showing what you have gained and what you need to reduce and,

therefore, find a way to impress the supervisors to not cut you by 2.5% to 5%. thank you. >> thank you. there being no further -- oh, i'm sorry. mr. bush. pardon me. >> we also want to know on behalf of friends of ethics that we posted on facebook our work we had done with mayor lee going back many years. that he had supported all the ballot members or didn't oppose the ethics ballot measures. my first time of coming to ethics was about 1992, when he was the chief administrative officer to give a tutorial to the ethics staff about how to

monitor city contracts in coordination with the ethics commission. he is a man that did understand and support the work we were doing. in terms of the budget, and looking ahead, as i recall, budgets are ordinances and you would have the ability to put full funding for next year on the ballot in june to take effect on july 1. and so, might want to have that as a fallback position in the event that it appears that you would reduce the staff or ability to get things done. i certainly support and i think the public will support full funding for ethics. thank you. >> good observation, mr. bush. any further public comment? if not, we'll then move to item 10, discussion possible action regarding status of complaints

received or initiated by the ethics commission. commissioner kopp? >> i request a closed session. >> is there a second for that request? >> i will second it. >> motion has been made and seconded. we don't need public comment on that, do we? >> i don't think so. >> all those in favor of the motion? we'll get it anyway. >> f.o.e. wants to wish you a happy holiday season. thank you for your amazing work this year and how as a unit you have come together so well. and i think the public is aware of what it is you're doing for the city and i think by in large seeing us on tv is sometimes hard, but they appreciate what it is we're doing. o