when he wrote or before then, to endorse his legislation as you would normally do in the legislative process so the public will know that tonight you would have a unified bill which has two components. mr. peskin's concepts and your concepts before you again when you meet with the board of supervisors as soon as possible. i assume this would go to the budget committee. maybe this is a question for the council. i assume the budget committee would be meeting on this matter since it is before them, but there may be something extraordinary, too, that could be done. i don't know. they have dual options, something extraordinary in the budget committee. sorry.

well, it is before the budget committee now, anything you input back goes to the clerk and back to the budget committee. that is where it is at now. what they want to do with this proposal to meet with you, i don't know. i will say one thing, and that is that i have attended joint commission meetings like planning and other meetings on common interest issues such as seismic. this is done not routinely but has been done with some degree of frequency. >> thank you. >> commissioners open government. again, i understand your comments, however, for the public, i would like to point out what we end up having is going from a year and a half, two years whatever the length of

time commissioner keen said the staff worked on this and put out to the public what was considered for adoption for the ballot measure and furthermore sent to the board of supervisorses now we are going with some sort of thing, yes, in the package as proposal from supervisor peskin. now we have this amalgamation that we are creating where the public doesn't understand completely what supervisor peskin is proposing and out it is going to affect what you did. we sat here four hours. you did all of the changes now you are going to arbitrarily accept all of the input from the supervisor peskin. just throw

it in there. how is it going to affect legislation overall, the meeting with the board of supervisors? nobody has shot about that. we are saying supervisor hepner says we ought to do this and the commissioner said top taking advice from supervisor peskin's office and sort of adopt the changes that he is proposing willy-nilly. i mean if you couldn't get it right in two years and we got here tonight with all of the discussions where it was very clear to me and i think the public if they were paying attention it was clear to them that you all didn't really agree on what was being put forward. i would think after two years the stuff put before you buy the staff would have been something you pretty well understood with slight modifications. yet it appeared to me the entire

night you were having these arguments about nitpicky points of every single point. okay. this is what you are presenting to the public after two years of your working on it, and now it seems like what you are going to do is say, well, take stuff from supervisor peskin and put it in and throw that to the public and hope they will pass it. hope their dogs will confer red meat. i mean that would be the most unacceptable and most arbitrary action i could think of. that is bizarre. >> thank you. >> madam chair, may i ask a question of mr. hepner? >> yes. >> mr. hepner, why does

supervisor peskin want us to incorporate in these two proposals of his rather than letting the board do it at this joint session? >> thank you for that question. i think procedurally we cannot act on anything that this commission has not approved. the idea is to have the commission make the statement today it is ready to move forward this measure donor disclosure piece so the board can approve it at the joints session. that is the importance today is moving forward to send that message. >> when you say that it can't be approved at this joint session without our first tonight approving it? >> i guess the question i would

have through the chair is whether the commission would be able to take action in approving this measure donor discan disclosure piece without continuing to the next session of the ethics commission for time approval. the board of supervisors cannot approve anything this body has not approved by a four fifth's vote. >> couple things. it is hard to say whatever could be heard at this joint meeting. i am not sure what comes out of the meeting would require another meeting that hasn't happened yet. you can't speak to that. if the commission wants to amend this, that is find. it does not mean this commission formally approved the concept put forward by supervisor

peskin's office. it is in draft form. it has moved very quickly, and there needs to be time for my office and the other staff to analyze and consider the consequences of that measure. i understand your goal to move this as quickly as possible. we can move it on an expedited basis. it will take time. >> respectfully if that comes before the board takes final action, that auto suffice. >> let me make myself clear. i am not going to -- i am going to change my vote on the ordinance as amended. i am going to vote no. the question, mr. shin, is can i move for approval and

transmission forthwith to the board of supervisors sections 1.158, 1.161, 1.62, 1 point -- that is 1.162. 1.168 and section 3.231, 3.640, 3.650 as mr. peskin has proposed in his letter of february 13, 2018? all of the provisions except the provision on recusal. can this commission adopt and remember all of those to the board of supervisors tonight?

>> let me see if i understand. you want to recind it? >> no, that is through. >> it may be revived. don't get in the weeds with that. forget that. forget what happened. it is dead for tonight. i am asking you about this. can i move approval and transmittal to the board of supervisors. >> no as i explained. the ethics commission cannot improve 1.158 tonight. >> why not. >> this moved quickly. i understand supervisor peskin wanting to move forward quickly. as of today there is no version that is signed, it has moved quickly. we have not had the benefit of

analysis from the city attorney's office and the ethics commission staff. the answer is no. >> could this be moved at this theoretical joint meeting? >> yes. >> when can the joint meeting be held, mr. hepner? bearing in mind you have to be at the registered voters by march 2 and. can it be held on the 28th? >> that is so far above my pay grade to set that meeting. >> i am not asking for a binding answer. do you think that is possible. the 28th is a wednesday. i am available in th in the aft. >> commissioner will not be here. >> well, i am available on the 22nd in the afternoon. >> also, as the city attorney

informed me earlier although the chair keen resigned he will need to submit something in writing. that has not happened yet. we may prevail upon him to reconsider. >> with all due respect, i think the concept of putting this on the june ballot failed. so that the march 2nd date is irrelevant. i think the motion i made and it was seconded was that we deliver to the board a copy of the amended ordinance that we ruled on tonight and request immediately a joint meeting with the board of supervisors to consider finalizing the ordinance for approval by the

ethics commission and the board of supervisors. >> question. how can you do that if it failed? >> no, there is a current motion that, as i understand, is to take this. the motion that failed was to put it on the ballot. the ordinance as amended was approved. that would be transmitted to the board of supervisorses with the request to schedule a joint meeting as soon as possible. >> continuing to a joint meeting? >> yes. >> when request that joint meeting occur? >> you spent more time on the board of supervisorses than i did. you know it how long it may take to get 11 to agree. >> this is all academic unless it can happen by the 22nd and what do you need 48 hours of the

public of the special meeting? >> commissioner, i am not certain on this. what i will say with absolute certainty if the measure donor disclosure is here. you have a majority co-sponsoring that and wanting to move on that quickly. there will be a desire to hold that meeting as soon as possible. >> i heard from the deputy city attorney we can't include that tonight. >> what we can do is amend that and continue it. they cannot approve it but they can continue to the next meeting which by the commissioner's motion would be a joint meeting between the ethics commission and board of supervisors for final action on that. >> mr. hepner, what is the support at the board of supervisors for this proposal. why are you rushing to have the

commission approve it? >> the support for the account ability other dan nance. >> no, why are you coming here before the board? >> we were told to come before the ethics commission before we can approve it. if that is incorrect that is profoundly different advice than i received from the city attorney three days ago. >> i hear there is a motion on the floor proposed by the commissioner to again not make any further changes, no further amendments to what was approved tonight and forward to the board for consideration, right? the chair for the time being has the ability to call meetings, call special meetings and i believe can cooperate with the ethics commission staff and try to find a date for the joint meeting. the joint meeting may not occur. we are not going to figure out

that date tonight. i don't have to coordinate all of the schedules. we have to get a meeting room andits. with the understanding the chair can pursue that option to figure out if it can occur. that is within our discretion to call the meetings and set agenda items. >> how many hours notice? 48? >> i believe it is 72. >> 72-hours' notice generally for any meeting. >> is there any additional public comment? i believe the motion then is to take the ordinance and forward to the board of supervisors and to request as quickly as possible a joint meeting of the full board as well as the commission. >> just clarification on the

motion. does that include as .158 and 1.161 and 1.162. >> do you want to take the recusal section out? >> i don't have any comment. >> i am not going to move it. >> i would support 1.161 and 1.161 included in the ordinance for the joint meeting. >> i thought he has said we can't do it. >> no, deputy city attorney if you can clarify what you can do to continue by consideration for the ethics commission at the next meeting that is what your motion proposed. >> it does not constitute approval tonight. >> i will move it to be included in the rest of them without

section 3.209. >> i know there is a lot of amendments. >> it is to take the aao ordinance amended tonight and also as approved send it to the board of supervisors. you are amending and continuing for discussion with the full board and commission the proposal of supervisor peskin the major do donor proposal. >> may i ask if commissioner reny is open for two separate motions your stand alone and another one to include the section 1158? it seems we only have one option

to vote right now. >> you want to buy fur indicate. first on chair reny to send over the amended ordinance to ask for the meeting asap. the second motion would be to amend in sections 1.158 as proposed by supervisor peskin with the exception of 3.209. >> correct. >> that is fine with me. >> other than it could convey your support for that. >> this will conrare support for

this -- convey support for this. that is what you are conveying support for. we don't fully understand it. >> you don't understand what? >> how this measure donor proposal would work or whether it is constitutional. we have a number of questions about it. >> raise them at the meeting. >> i am trying to say that voting to amend it to the file conveys your support for it. >> well, i do support it. >> i want everyone to understand that. >> i think we can go ahead and call the vote. commissioner reny's first motion to send the amended ordinance to the board of supervisors and schedule the joint meeting. >> this should take precise

dense on -- o precedence to be voted on first to be included. >> as chair you can call the motions as you see fit. >> what. >> she is the chair for the time being. she called the motions. >> all in favor. a. >> no. >> the motion fails. is motion passes 3-1. on the motion to amend in supervisor peskin's measure donor disclosure and incorporate to be sent over to the board of supervisors to be included in the joint discussion, all in favor. aye. >> i want to separate the vote.

no on this amendment. >> so the motion passes 3-1. >> can i clarify the last motion for the record. so i am not doing it back. i believe the motion was to amend in 1.158. the amendments to 1.161 and 1.161. what commissioner cop moved was not the deletion of recusal section. >> you have got 1.168. >> this is why i want to clarify it. >> i will clarify all except 3.209. which you prepared with your own hands.

>> we have the rest of our agenda to get to. unless there is anything else on agenda item four. we move to . >> i'm sorry you voted to take out recusal part. that was not my understanding. >> peskin had eliminated the the recue sal. >> we proposed deletion. the commission did not want that. >> can i have one more clarification. it is a long night. assuming the joint session will be coming up soon, but if it doesn't, can we have the city attorney's office as well as the staff to give us a more detailed

analysis of supervisor peskin's proposal? >> i don't want to speak for staff. that is in advance of the meeting. >> that is when i want it. >> thank you. >> the next agenda item number 5. discussion and possible action on whistleblower action government code 1.100. >> commissioners, this is our staff memo on the status of the whistleblower ordinance. we provided a copy of the version in three more mats. a protection in a ballot measure format as attachment one to item

five. we have a red line version of that. then we also have a version of that revised whistleblower protection ordinance were it to go to the board of supervisors for action. since the last meeting two notable events occurred. the meet and confer process included a minor change that appear this is the document it removed a requirement that a specific form be used for supervisors to handle and refer the complaints regarding retaliation, and this does reflect the same changes that you saw last month and embraced last month as part of your adoption of the 2017 version of the whistleblower protection ordinance. we are providing at this meeting to derm whether or not you wanted to place it on the ballot or take steps to send it to the

board of supervisors for its action requesting it be re-introduced with the new language. we have received word from supervisor breed's office who was the sponsor of the 2016 legislation she was interested. that is a point of information so you can consider that in the next steps. with that i just want to open it up for questions or public comment. >> commissioners any questions? >> i make a motion we adopt the ordinance identified as 2017 wpo ballot measure, attachment one, and have it placed on the june ballot. >> i have a clarifying question for staff.

i understand that the ballot measure and the ordinance as drafted there are slight differences as between the two. could you give a summary of that to make sure i understand what is -- what would be miss from the version that would go on the ballot? >> due to the jurisdiction of the authority we had to slightly scale back and narrow what would be in the full legislative proposal. it is 4.105 to govern the overall scope of complaints whichca raise other -- can raise other concerns. those were removed. the other big category were the proposed edits to 4.107. that would have addressed the whistleblower program outsides of the ethics commission as

well. the bulk and i will let the staff speak to the policy impact. the bulk of the amendments are still there in the ballot measure version. >> for those provisions excluded from the ballot measure provision, what could the board act to incorporate those or do they just disappear forever? >> i think if the ethics commission were to move forward i am not sure supervisor breed would want to introduce the remainder that is a different decision point for her. >> comments or questions? >> let me express myself. one of the problems voters face is too many ballot measures to figure out. that is why i would just prefer an ordinance especially when

apparently ms. breed is committed to this and president of the board. she ought to be able to get enough votes to get it passed. the other matter is a question. why is the controller involved in whistleblower complaints? anybody give me the rationale? >> the charter designates the controller office with the authority to run the whistleblower hot line that is how it is set up. >> what is the rationale? >> i can't speak to that. it is versus 311 or the ethics commission. >> or the ethics commission. or the city attorney. >> my understanding from the whistleblower director because of the controller expertise in

financial matters. most complaints allege fraud and waste of city resources in contracts or different financial capacities. their auditors have a special expertise. thathat is the rationale i have been given. >> that is a weak rationale why can't the city attorney do that or the ethics commission do that? >> but does the ethics commission have jurisdiction on those items that the control lawyer is deemed -- controller is deemed to be most knowledgeable, misuse of city funds? >> our jurisdiction is over conflict of interest, campaign finance, government ethics rules in 4107. if anyone is retaliating against it does not matter the complaint. >> if the complaint is somebody

misused city funds they come to the ethics commission staff they are directed to go somewhere else? >> unless it was misused to personal financial interest we would direct them to the controller's office. any public comment? >> commissioners open government. whistleblowers in the city and county of san francisco are courage weilgus sometimes it is the -- courageous. they come forward trying to right a wrong knowing they will receive nothing for their trouble but abuse. to my knowledge this ethics commission has never protected a single whistleblower. they keep rewriting the law hoping the public doesn't notice the complete lack of law enforcement. commissioner keen earlier this evening talked about going to the ballot and the will of the

public. the sunshine ordinance passed with a 67% margin. you won't enforce that. what is it you enforce one law because the public votes for it and ignore another law because the public voted for it? i don't understand any sense of logic there. you keep rewriting the law. why would you in the name of those holy enforce this law? this law with the sunshine ordinary are approved to control city government particularly elected officials. the very people who appoint the members of this commission. from studying the his for cal record no reasonable person would expect these appointees with side with the whistleblower against the political masters. how many times will the public allow them to repeat this farce. when will the public demand

results? achievement, not simply activity. you pass a law and enforce it. if you pass the law and don't enforce it there was no point in peacing it in the first place. the city of san francisco passed the sunshine ordinance. i have 36 orders of determination myself as one individual, all of whom you have refused to enforce. basically why should the public accept this oxymoron logic where you say this was passed by the public as a ballot measure, we will enforce it. we have another law we are responsible foreign forcing that was passed by the public and we won't enforce it. you don't like my comments. i know that. sometimes as i said earlier this evening. sometimes it is a matter getting it in the public record so three or four years in the road when

we are in the same discussion i can say i told you so or the possibility maybe you will actually do something and i will come back and say i was wrong, in the official record i made a statement. i will admit now, i am wrong. i hope that i prove to be wrong. >> thank you. >> i am one of the last men standing out here. we have lost mr. bush, we lost doctorker who submitted a letter with his comments. i would urge you to take his carefully considered comments in hand and make sure that you give them due consideration. i am not an expert in this area, certainly mr. bush was because he is a member of the controllers advisory committee

which is called general obligation bond committee. i think the reason it is true that i think controller ended up with this because it is a historical artifact in early charter, however, i think also with prop c moneys coming into the controller's office to do audit this boosted resourcing at the controller's office and that is probably why ethics is quick to refer certain types of complaints right over to the controller. it is probably a dollar and cents and resource issue, that is less now that the commission staff has grown with the support of the board and the mayor, including mr. lee, who we want to appreciate for his support of the ethics budget. that is all i really wanted to

say on this. i hope you will put it on the ballot. i don't know if supervisor breed has the time for it until certainly after january -- sorry june. it is likely if these elected. of course, she will not have time for it at all. it might be something you might want to do if you have your votes. >> thank you. any other public comment? so on the motion commissioner renney to take the whistleblower protection ordinance and place it on the june 20, 2018 ballot all in favor. >> wait, wait, wait. i want to comment from staff on the first point doctorker makes. the second point i am not

concerned with. he refers to state legislation that sounds like it is pending. do you know ab403? was it enacted and he is using the bill number. do you know? >> i followed it in the news, but it did pass. >> then get to the substance of using the words interference with and retaliation for making protected disclosures. is that preferable language? >> we have not undertaken an analysis of any of doctorker's public comment we received yesterday. >> you don't have an answer? >> no. >> do you have any feeling?

i kind of like the phrase interference with, but all right. no answer. >> are you okay? >> well, all right. i would like staff quick analysis at your convenience. >> on analysis on ab403 outlined in section one? >> this one. >> you would like the analysis? >> of that language from a bill which was just passed by what was it signed by the governor? >> right. >> so it is law. i would like an analysis of the use of that phrase in that legislation with what is in our

proposed ballot measure. >> in view of mr. cop's comments, i will withdraw my motion and have this put on the march agenda. >> okay. >> withdrawing your motion, putting it on the march agenda precludes putting it on the june ballot? >> that's right. >> that means november then? >> correct. >> are you satisfied with that? >> that is fine. >> okay. >> it has less impact on the elections as opposed to our anti-corruption ordinance. >> i have a procedural question

for the city attorney. with the withdrawal of commissioner renney's motion for the june ballot, does the commission need to take action or hold this over to the march meeting? continue it pending staff's analysis of the language? >> i understand the motion to be withdrawn so no proposed action on this item. this goes back to the ethics commission docket and what they want to reconsider they can reconsider it. >> we will take this up at the march meeting then. >> item number 6. discussion of staff update on research about online paid political commissions. >> thank you. quickly as you all know in november of 2017, commissioners met with the staff and former

fec chair. the professors. that was related to a proposal those three had worked on together that highlighted some analysis that requested that some localities review online political communications. from that the most significant provision was a provision highlighting a political filing or archive system. from the january meeting of this body from december and january of this meeting you requested we continue to sort every view the legal and policy implications of these documentations. we worked through our leann, jessica and i's visit through the government ethics and lobbying to provide a legal

analysis. i want to recognize professor abbey wood and her two research as assistants from the gold school of law. they prepared an analysis of the legal concern regarding federal and state preemption as creating the political filing system. the research concluded there would not be a preemption issue at the federal or state level. you know, i will let you all consider that attachment if you have not had the chance to review their legal work. in addition to that effort by professor wood and her research assistants. staff has been monitoring a number of white papers, law reviews in the area. in particular we have been focusing on two other localities

on this issue. the first and most important system we are monitoring is the city of seattle and state of washington. both of those entities, i guess i will call them for lack of better term, have had on their books for roughly three decade esto the 1970s a provision to require a professor wood and former chair are proposing that would require each commercial advertiser who has provided advertising to maintain for public inspection a political archive of the items. although the provision had been on the books for about three decades, that law really wasn't used before until recently. the seattle ethics and elections

commissions recently instituted a procedure that they were going to enforce that provision. they asked that facebook provide comment to them regarding whether they were going to comply with this provision in the political file. facebook did comply. the director of the seattle ethics commission determined that what they provided was insufficient. we are continuing to monitor what if any sort of administrative or legal action they are working with their local attorney to deter min how they can force facebook to comply. we haven't seen updates since a couple weeks ago. we are monitoring york and the governor has relayed an interest in a similar proposal more directly related to the honest

ad's act. there are slight differences it is not important to get into those today. what is more important for our purposes is section c on page 5 of item 6. although we have gotten nice legal analysis from professor wood and her research assistants. there are a number of open policy questions that we have ascertained from documents stanford directed by former senator russ fine gold and others that raised a number of questions regarding the public file or archiving system. in section c we laid out the questions for exploration as we go along and identified concerns in each of those categories. we want to continue to explore and work with other partners we

identified those are what we continue to research. on on page 6 of item 6 is a schedule going forward. this might have to be slightly modified because of the action on agenda item 4 pushing back the dates we proposed. this is a tentative schedule of dealing with the items with the next two months being continued research working with the professors to continue to research this item to see whether we can put forward a rationale piece of legislation. [please stand by]

any other comments? >> chair kopp, i would just like to say please extend my thanks to professor wood and to law students who did stellar work on the analysis because i think that the preemption question was a large one and a significant one that needed answering and for them to be able to prepare such a detailed and thorough analysis in the time frame that they were working under is -- was -- is greatly appreciated so -- and please keep up the great work, and look forward to continuing this dialogue and engaging with the stakeholders. and i don't know if you saw, but there was an article a couple days ago that the fbi was warning that there will be more russian meddling in the 2018 elections.

>> there were 13 indictments yesterday. >> yeah, so this is very much of the moment. any other public comment? okay. moving on, then, to agenda item 7, discussion on staff report including updates to the annual policy plan. >> thank you. i think i will run through this quickly fairly quickly. i think we've addressed a number of these items. the only thing i really want to specifically point out, 'cause i think we've addressed everything else is on agenda item 7, page 2, the form 700 nonvoting ordinance, that was taken up by a committee -- the rules committee this week, and that was voted on unanimously. it was voted onto go to the entire board, so it will be

approved perhaps at the next full meeting of the board of supervisors there, given the positive recommendation of the rules committee. i really don't have any other updates on this, but if anyone has any questions or any of the commissioners have questions based on this, i'd be happy to answer them. >> i have a question on supervisor tang's legislation. we tried to meet with her and it never happened. >> yeah. so we passed along a letter to them sort of outlining our scope and questions and potential concerns that we had for them, and that was january 17th of 2018 that we sent that letter across, so the policy division had concurred, and we will reach back out to them after this meeting to see sort of if they've had a chance to

review and sort of where that progress is, but we've not heard any subsequent item -- >> well, she is running for mayor. >> correct. >> but i heard from her last year that she wanted to enact something or have it put before the full board before the mayor's race -- down the road, but not in june. i don't know if these events have overtaken her and it's behind in her timetable. >> yeah. thank you. >> thank you. any public comments? >> yes. i can update you on supervisor kim. she's had numerous interested stakeholder parties, meetings. foe has been attending every one, and she has commissioned a study by the legislative and budget analyst to look at all the budgeting finance systems or at least six or eight of them, major, in the united

states. that study is in phase two development. it's very impressive. i send bob stern a copy at their request. they expect to have a third draft, which will be the final draft. it's very robust, and at that point, they'll release it, and i'm sure they'll be happy to share it with the staff, but now that it's a moving target, there's very few people that have seen it. they have a general policy preference, but they're open-minded, and they have asked everybody they're talking to to get prepared to make comments to them after june election. she doesn't want to appear that this is done for campaign purposes, and she's busy, any way, so after june, she'll -- this summer, maybe next fall,

she'll be working on it, depending if she's elected. >> thank you. any other comments? hearing none, we'll move onto agenda items 8, discussion of staff monthly enforcement report, including an update on various programatic and various issues since the last meeting. >> thank you, chair chiu. the staff has been busy. we're busy every day. i barely see a couple of them. they're doing great work. we just received nine complaints since our last meeting. we decided five merited dismissal and opened two new investigations based on audit findings. we continue to work toward resolution of complaints. we have scheduled our first probable cause hearing since the new investigative staff came on board for march, and have a meeting with that respondent in an attempt to

reach a negotiated settlement in advance of the meeting but plan ongoing full steam ahead if that doesn't pan out. i've updated the number of open complaints, open investigations. the bureau of delinquent revenue chart, the payment plan chart, and everyone's up to date so far, and then, the caseload data for -- visual caseload data for your review, and i'll take questions. >> any questions or comments from the commissioners? >> yeah. get me an answer from the -- what's it? bureau of delinquent revenue as to whether an order of examination has been conducted in the first four cases you've got there. the last one is bankruptcy, but i see nothing about oex

having -- >> okay. any public comment? okay. then moving onto agenda item nine, discussion of executive director's report. >> thanks, chair chiu. the ed report is a little bit long this month. we started -- included some information about the public financing program since the june election is underway in earnest, we have two candidates today that we have certified to receive public funds for their campaign. we will continue to update our webpages live with information about candidates who qualified as well as disbursements they've received, so that's contained in this information. we've outreached to departments, we've had our first information session for filing officers to help them understand what to expect this year, including some new regulations about the sunshine

and ethics certification and training that the commission has adopted recently. we also have good news in terms of our campaign audits. we have completed four of the five nonpublicly financed candidate committees through our in-house staff. we are also very probably in the next week or so expected to post on-line, in addition to those, a slew of publicly financed candidates audits that were conducted through the city services auditor contract audit team that did those, so we've made some good progress. our audit team has pulled off daily dealing with the public financing qualification program, so that is putting in abeyance some of the continued audit work, but on that front, i am pleased to let you know we have a new auditor joining our staff in two weeks. rob hodge couldn't be here tonight, but he is going to be

joini joining our staff. he's very familiar with the requirements of the city law and lobbying laws, as well, so we're looking forward to having him join the staff. i think you also earlier in the evening met thomas mclane who will be joining our office next month as our fourth senior investigator to round out that team working with jessica, and both individuals have terrific on spot experience. we're delighted that they're able to bring their experience to the staff joining us in the coming weeks. we have instituted a department work order with the department of human resources to continue to be as aggressive as possible to fill our outstanding positions by the end of the fiscal year. and then, lastly, but very importantly, we have, as you know, all budgets are due to the mayor's office next

wednesday, the 21st, and i've attached to this an overview of the budget that -- the budget package that we plan to submit. there's no action report on your part. this year, the mayor's office again has -- as mayor lee, the late mayor lee asked in december, mayor farrell is continuing his direction to mayoral departments to continue to submit budgets with a 2% cut each fiscal year and to not increase budgets with any full-ti full-ti full-ti full-time equivalencies. we will not be seeking new fte's in this next year's budget. we are not however in a position to offer any cuts. we are trying to continue the

trajectory of making the improvements and innovations and changes that i think you've seen on a monthly basis. we know that we have a ways to go in terms of continuing to improve our program across program area to continue to deliver audits in a most thorough and timely way, continue to make strides with jessica and her team, and bringing the significance of cases we review up. we are at a period where we need to continue those gains and that we need to invest in the staff who will be in the chairs doing those jobs, so our budget request provides three particular things. one is a retention of all the staff that we currently have, 24 authorized positions. we are also asking that we have a full funding for those positions because as you recall that when we have new positions authorized, they are authorized only for a partial year, and so in the normal course of things, this next year, we would have

positions at a full-time 100% full year capacity, and we want to make sure we have funding for that recognize that any structural salary account shortfall is dealt with. we also are asking that the atrition savings amount be returned to our operating budget. this is a formula that often in the budget process this essentially takes off from the top and makes department that have a lot more staff and turnover than we do, manage to a lower target than a full salary savings account. that doesn't work when we're a small organization, and it particularly doesn't work when we've recently justify been staffing up, so we are asking to not be held to an atrition savings target in the coming year, so we can have seats filled, bodies in those seats, and the work being done. and then we are recognizing that we want to expand not only our policy outreach, but education, outreach and public engagement in communities that are not fully served. we have not had a line item for

communication other than english. we're not communicating well with them, so we've asked for a budget increase of $15,000 to make sure we can both in on-line and offline materials, help provide information to people when they're at a time, as you heard tonight, significant political change in this city. it's important to make sure that we reach out as fully as we can, and lasthen lastly to develop staff and support retention. we've added additional $37,000 for training to invest in employees' knowledge, skills, and abilities continue work order with the department of human resources to provide expanded human resource and personnel services administratively, because we don't have them now, and our