>> commissioner lee: i thought you had extra support. i would love to see data to show if there's any correlation between one choice and one voting versus the opposition funding. that will be policy discussion to have. that will be policy discussio >> chair chiu: i have a question, the 2018 election was unusual. we mayoral election in june and november. sorry in june. the amount of public funds spent in the mayoral was was almost $3 million. the board of supervisors was someone else $.2 million. i have to look at my numbers again.

the overall fund is about $7 million. is that right for public financing? >> the fund has an annual appropriation that's on a resident basis. it comes out to about $2.3 million per year. it's $2.50 per resident. on top of that, there are certain mechanisms in the balance is not enough, it can be brought up to that level. i think $7 million is in the ballpark when you have a special mayoral election, there needs to be that much in the fund thinking being that's how much it takes to assure sufficient balance to provide enough candidates enough support to run viable campaigns. it's not necessarily the case that there's $7 million at all times. >> chair chiu: i would u would be curious to know what the trend has been in terms of the amount of f thds were used

to support public financing. in the corporate world, if you didn't use it, you would lose it. i would hate for that to happen here in the ethics commission context. what can we do in order to make people more aware of the public financing program and to encourage greater or broad participation to allow candidates to make use of these funds. i know this is getting into policy discussions and another agenda item. that will be at a focus of an interest of mine. >> great. >> commissioner lee: [indisc erni ble] >> i don't know specifically how they get that number. that's something that we have to rely on them for.

they are the ones that -- they handle the appropriation. >> chair chiu: was this report submitted to the mayor and board of supervisors? >> no, we'll submit it on monday. >> chair chiu: any other questions for mr. ford or mr. cox. >> commissioner lee: if i can follow up on the census number. if the calculations based on the census number is the next cens census, we'll lose actual number of residents because of certain questions being asked and citizenship question, that may scare off some of the san francisco residents from participating. that would drop off the public finance funding. the number of san francisco residents based on the census, would have been reduced.

right? if the federal government were able to ask the citizenship question, scaring off -- not scaring off but discouraging a sizeable number of san francisco residents from participating in that the census, then the public financing pot would have been reduced based on the new census numbers. >> if it is the case but the

comptroller relies on census information, then any drop would have that impact on fundings of the program. i'm not certain that's what they do. i don't know. they may relying on city data. they may have other sources of data that other city departments keep about how many people live in the city. i'm glad to do that as part of the phase 2. >> commissioner lee: i would like to know. >> we'll look in greater depth, election campaign fund and how it's funded to get it exactly who you were talking about. what is the capacity of this fund? what can it fund and what happen arwhat are wecurrently using ans ram for growth without greater appropriation. i think that's part of that discussion. we can talk with the comptroller office to learn how they determine that residency number when they make the appropriations, how they do the

math. it's definitely a great interest to us. >> chair chiu: a point of information for this most recent years estimate -- >> comptroller used most recent census bureau population estimate that was available as of july 1, 2016. they did have some information. ly to pat pointing we can do that research. >> chair chiu: thank you. any other questions from the commissioners? any public comment? no public comment. general item 5, discussion of the monthly staff policy report. >> thanks commissioners.

item 5 is the monthly policy report. i think the main item i wanted to highlight for you as you mentioned was that, we've been working on the second phase of the review, public financing program. we had two interested persons meetings at 25 van ness. first one was on monday last week and second was on friday last week. we heard from folks who have been active in the first phase of the review and it was great to hear their thoughts on more of the second phase things. what do they think about candidate qualification requirements, what do they think about the funding the candidates able to get. is it enough? what are the features of the program they like to see the commission look at? it's very helpful to hear them talk about that. it's helping us to scope this phase and look at specifically we want to dig into and get data

about and following those meetings, we've been working with the electronic disclosure data analysis team, especially in the data analysis side to dig into that data and see what kind of experiments we can run. what does that mean for viable campaign. what do successful candidates have to do. at this point, we're shooting to bring our findings and preliminary relate recommendatio you at the next meeting. this will be kind of similar process to in phase one, in october of last year, we brought a report that detailed our process of how we reviewed those more procedural or

administrative aspects of the program and gave you staff's recommendations about how to change those in order to boost participation and increase the impact that the program has for those candidates. likewide, next month, we like to bring similar scope to you that would detail our review process, how we look to the data and how we talk to candidates what the stakeholders communicated to us and basedden that, give you a list of recommendations. those may bear on things like the matching ratio or the amount of funds candidates can receive or the maximum amount of a contribution that can be matched. right now the full $500 can be matched. things like that is what we

would recommend. it would go through and fix

places where the regs are not in line with the code. we wanted to rectify those places. also just respond to areas where we've been getting lot of questions that need some clarification in the law. it's kind of omnibus overall improvement project that i've been wanting to bring to you for quite some time and had not had the capacity to get if before you. now we have mr. cox on staff, he's really doing lot of already on the public financing review project. i think that will free me up more to bring you these regulations. that's my goal to bring those to action items to you next month. then thirdly, i wanted to point out with the online political communications i'm trying to have our deliverable on that

done which is -- i would like to provide a better way for people to see political ads on the internet to find information from us. one was panels was about political ads on the internet. ethics commission need to have really good, forward or public of facing interphases for folks to access who don't understand ethics laws who don't understand campaign finance when they see something on twitter feed or facebook. they can navigate to our website and they can find information. what is this? what does this disclaimer mean?

we're seeking to have -- if our current communications aren't achieving this to improve that, people can come to our website, they can basically get an idea whether or not to have a disclaimer, if it does have a disclaimer, how do they use that information to find out who paid for that ad. those the two main things people ask us about. seeking to give people, easier access information about that. it would do a lot to make some progress in this arena. >> chair chiu: if we can go back to the public financing fees. is there an update on whether or not supervisor mar introduced the ordinance that the commission approved last month? you said you were going to introduce it at the

march 12th? >> he did. it was introduced. >> chair chiu: to the full board? >> yes. at this point it has to go through the process going through committee. usually at it point it comes to commission. but the commission already approved it. andrew can comment on the city hall side mechanics. it's just kind of going through the board side process. it will go to committee and then hopefully with positive recommendation it will go to the full board. >> chair chiu: it will be great to give us update on that next meeting. >> you i'll be glad to. other than the commissions identified policy projects i included updates here about other things that we're tracking. one of the initiative also responserresponsored by supervi.

it's dark money initiative. it provided quick break down what's contained in nap those are things that will impact our operation if they become law. some of these things already approved by the commission. some of the thingsing that have never been before the commission before. i wanted to make sure you saw that and knew what was in this initiative ordinance. >> commissioner lee: i'm interested in that initiative. i know you said that the staff is reviewing the implications of the changes to city law, etcetera. it you will be submitting written comment for the hearing, the board's hearing. would the commission have an

opportunity to submit -- [indiscernible] prior to that to be included in the staff? >> yes, more than happy to work with you or any of the commissioners to make sure that your concerns and questions are incorporated into that. what's challenging about this process, we don't know when it will happen. it's kind of hard. it's something i will move expeditiously on. i can be in touch with you to talk about this. >> commissioner lee: thank you. >> because this is a ballot measure, there were restriction option the role of the commission can take and

commenting. i'm sure the staff is aware. i'm presuming that you work with the city attorney's office to make sure they are specific and not policy oriented. >> you wanted top respond judge smith question. there will be at least one required hearing before the november election. you don't have to wait for the hearing to be scheduled or agendized before you prepare your comments. i don't see any reason why we go ahead sooner than that. that could be sent to the sponsors at any point. subject to the rules that commissioner ambrose just mentioned. >> chair chiu: i like to discuss some of my concerns that i have and questions that i have on this.

>> assure, i'l -- sure, i'll reh out and we can figure it out. another thing i wanted to highlight here is that the statute that was enacted last year that created disclosure requirements for certain trustee election is now in effect. this is something that our office is now working to implement. this creates disclosure requirements now for individuals running for the retirement board, health service board and the retiree healthcare trust fund board. previously those candidaters were outside the scope of the political pac. they didn't have to form committees, not file disclosures. that is now different. if you spend money to influence the outcome of such an election, you have to disclose that

expenditure. this is done or was done outside of the scope of our code. these are not candidates within cfro. light of the requirements are similar. we work with the sponsors, supervisor cohen to get these requirements to align as much as possible so the candidates wouldn't have to learn a different set of rules and be subject to different laws. there are still some differences. we will be creating materials and conducting training that are specific to these candidates. that's something that our office is actively working on now. another project is kind of in the pipeline that will hopefully be before you some time soon, within this year, is a move towards efiling for all filers. right now only elected,

appointed, officials and department heads file their forms 700 electronically. meaning actually through an online interphase. lot people file them electronically meaning on a pdf. that's not true electronic filing. you're using a hard copy. we're moving out to have all filers file electronically. i look forward to sharing those with you. you wanted to know, this is something we're working on. kind of scoping out what that project would look like. >> for the efiling for all, would that require meet and confirm with bargaining units? >> it will require meet age discuss. -- and discuss. >> great. >> i think those are the main highlights i wanted to share

with you today. i'll be glad to answer any question us might have. >> you have your final item here on the acao implementation. i'm assuming that the forms that you've been working on up and ready to go for the november election? >> yes. those will be ready to go. we're also working on getting these provisions into the candidate guides and any other written materials so that it's all out there >> chair chiu: any other questions for mr. ford? public comment? agenda item 6 discussion of

monthly staff enforcement report including an update on various programmatic and operational highlights of the enforcement program activities. >> i like to highlight the training that we held last thursday the public library in the court auditorium. we had 40 city officers and employees from various departments. mostly from the larger agencies across the city attend training that we hosted in which our counterparts from the state labor commissioner's office came to present on legal issues and investigative methods in the context of whistleblower protection. we had a legal counsel and an investigator who call deputy labor commissioner. state labor commissioner office entity within the california

department than receives and investigate complaints of retaliation from across the employment context within the state of california both public sector and private sector. they enforce various provisions of the labor code. some of which overlap with the whistleblower protection that city office and city employees enjoy here in san francisco. that training gave the enforcement division an opportunity to highlight four h.r. professionals across the city. some of the amendments that you sent to the board of supervisors a year ago in which became law on january 20th of this year, the bulk of that training consisted of our counterparts from the state describing to participants the statutory framework for their retaliation. some of the legal issueses that

affect that work like what whaa prima fascia case looks like. what protected activities constitutes the state level. they described in some detail how they make a showing of causation between protected activity and the employment action. they also present on best practices how to go about investigating retaliation. we folks from the whistleblower program from the city attorney public integrity unit, like i mentioned h.r. staff and

department of public health, public works, port, rec and park. our staff, the enforcement division will seek opportunities to implement in our own retaliation context. some insight includes looking for opportunities where it might be possible for city of san francisco to assert more expansive view of jurisdiction over whistleblower retaliation. what we saw was that, at the state level in the osha context, the state entertained claims of what is called anticipatory retaliation. where employer takes adverse employment action against an employee who has not yet engaged in protected activity and historically the city reviewed

protected activity as a jurisdictional prerequisite. if the retaliation happens before the protective activity, the state entertained claims of that nature, federal government has entertained claims of associational retaliation such that the adverse employment action is taken not against the individual who engaged in protected activity but in a family member of that individual or a close associate of that individual. i would point you also in our report to the monthly review of the matter before the bureau delinquent revenue.

there's not much movement. in the case of gwinnett suite, city of san francisco is eagerly waiting in line as these bankruptcy proceedings unfold. like i mentioned at the february meeting, the commission is preparing a number of potential referrals of additional delinquent filers to the bureau of delinquent revenue. currently working directly with filers who have outstanding late fees. if the threat of referral is not enough, sub convenien subsequeng you're likely to see longer list. i'll turn to the enforcement statistics that we report to you

every month. you'll see that the number of complaints in the preliminary review has come down in march of this year. we have now 82 whereas a month ago we had 9. that occurs despite having received 70 new complaints in the last month. because investigators managed to dismiss 15. we had fewer matters under investigation from 90 down to 84. while it's true that the amount of time that it takes us to conduct that preliminary review has gone up by a notch in the last month what you see is that hopefully, the amount of time that take us to get through investigations is leveling off around 15 months and with added diligence and some reforms to

process, we'll see those numbers come back down. >> i'm curious, if you have any insight into the increase from march? lyme i'increase from march 20185 to year later to 91. was that increase of 46 due to increase number of matters that come in after the election? >> that would be my guess. we did see -- i don't have the statistics. these statistics reflect specifically the number of complaints for which staff has yet to conduct preliminary review as opposed to the number of complaints that walk through the door in a given month. it's true that in 2018, we had elections in both june and november in 2017 there were no elections. the number that you see in march

of 2018, 45 complaints not yet reviewed is a reflection of potentially complaints that the commission had received going back to 2017. we had in overall, in 2016, the commission received fewer than 10100 complaints. in 2017 commission received just over 100 complaints. in 2018 the commission received 160 complaints. so 60% increase that we stacoming throug-- wesaw coming. >> are you currently fully staffed in the enforcement division? >> we were lucky enough to make a hire to our investigative team. we hired a senior investigator.

we were lucky in the sense that we made an internal promotion. our strongest candidate was already with us on staff. we have enjoyed the opportunity to elevate him and to welcome him to a level befitting of the quality of his work. the result of that is we went through lengthy hiring process, we now have an additional vacancy, which is opening that is promotion has made. >> increase in work as well as shortage of resources? >> yes. the director will provide additional context during her agenda item.

there has been amount of conversation in judge kopp's resignation, those were conversations that we were already having. one reason is intrinsic. these cases can be complex both factually and legally. if the commission wants to approach them with a thorough, fair and accurate effort, frankly that takes lot of time. another reason you suggested chair chiu has to do the impact of elections on the size of the workload that the division faces. you highlighted the size of the

division staff. there maybe procedural reasons why tha it takes us a long time. our division as control over the amount of time it take us to work on these things. we will be putting forth effort in evaluating what those processes look like. we have had some conversation between us and commissioners there whether the commissioners might like to adopt a set of priorities by which you as commissioners would direct the enforcement division to emphasize certain kinds of complaints. another example, if the division were to exercise more

prosecutorial discretion, matters may diminish. the approach of the division is to take complaint seriously and investigate thoroughly every matter that we open. we could in theory, emphasize some matters above others. variety of ways, we can bring those numbers down. if the commissioners believe that it would be important for us to do so. we do recognize that complaints have interest amount of time that it takes. we recognize respondents have an interest and that the public does also. we will seek to balance the interest of complaintantts

response and the thorough and accurate work. we look forward to having those conversations both internally and with the commission. >> following your internal review of your processes and if you have recommendations for the commission, i welcome that discussion. we could have in terms of priority setting. for my own part on if you look on page 5 and there's the chart at the very top of the age of the matters by month and we have 11 greater than 24, i think it my own view, it's critical both from a public trust standpoint as well as from standpoint of the freshness of recollection, availability of documents that we get through this backlog of cases. i know that historically, there was a large backlog of cases and

we went to staffing level of zero. there was cases coming in and inability through circumstance to be able to get through it. we would be well served to focus the attention on those cases and to move through the process such as it is now in order to reach the resolution, particularly the ones cases from 2015. which is coming up four years ago. that would be my suggestion to you. i don't know if my fellow commissioners have additional thoughts on this. i do want to say, for the record, i have full faith and confidence in this investigative team that you have put together. i think it's a a terrific statement that we make internal promotions. it's not just one a culture of growth for the organization. it's really critical. it speaks highly of the

leadership of the director. i look forward to working with jeff and all of you on the enforcement team to tackle these really important matters with respect. i look forward to your recommendations. any other questions? i like to invite public comment. >> good afternoon. i like to speak to the whistleblower protection training. i actually gone through the process from beginning to end. i think experience enough to speak about it.

in my opinion, most people, especially the people that are unable to figure it out for themselves, the process is basically waste of time. in my opinion, there are far more people discouraged than they actually go through the process. i would like to pose that question to a certain person but unfortunately, he's no longer here to defend himself. in my opinion, his time in the whistleblower program is not notable. the longer we go through the ethics commission, the more parent that the early days of the system is basically a failure. you know you're doing the best you trying to do. realistically under the previous

executive director and his number one assistant. everybody knows the record of what happened and what didn't happen. if he wasn't in physical pain, i'm sure there would have been a lot more people critical of his so-called action and lack of action. i think he got off lightly because of this physical condition. realistically when we talk about the enforcement action of the ethics commission as far as i understand it, the highlight of the whole history of the ethics commission was -- -- that is the highlight of the ethics commission. obviously, we have a long way to go. i think in the future if you want to encourage people to file

complaints and go through the system, you really have to encourage people to have faith in the system and realistically, in my opinion, they do not have faith in the system. begin this hearing lady that spoke basically said that. unfortunately, she feels that there isn't going to be any improvement. i will reassure her and people and will view this and listen to this that public corruption unit is alive and well in san francisco. thank you. >> chair chiu: any other public comment? item 7, discussion of exec director's report.

than >> thank you. i have a report that was included in the packet. i also have a brief overview of presentation i wanted to walk through to give context to our budget request. i will just make a quick plug on behalf of compliance team and city officials throughout the county and city of san francisco. it is coming close to april 2nd. which is the deadline for filing statements and ethics certification. it is april 2nd because of the cesar chavez holiday observance at the state level. we are still working with departments to get that message out to officials. we are standing up and ready to assist with any filing questions that the department or individual filers may have. we look forward to providing that assistance and supporting a

strong compliance of our disclosure requirements as public officials for the next couple of weeks. i also wanted to before get into the general budget background, take a few moments to do something i've been waiting quite a long time to do. that is to introduce our newest staff members who joined our office this past week and last couple of weeks. i wanted to note they are here in the audience with us. some of you may have met them. brian cox, you met earlier. who is our newest policy analyst. he's working with pat ford. we're delighted on he's on. he came to office from san francisco public defenders's office he has great background in policy work as well as in the state louisiana. he is a graduate of yale with a

b.a. in history and grad of tulane law school. we're delighted he's bringing his insights and energy and enthusiasm public policy to our work here at the commission. i wanted to welcome him. also, i wanted to introduce rachael gauge who is our new principal program manager. rachael is going to be working with them and another person i'll introduce you to shortly and she's going to be leading a number of efforts to really strengthen our outreach and compliance work across program areas. she most recently served as senior administrative analyst if the human resources division. she's got a number of terrific skills and excitement that she brings to the table and we are

delighted to have her with us. she has been with the city for five years previously did lot of work of company she founded and worked with. we're delighted she's joining us as well. john kim who is our new senior program administrator. john started on the 25th. he was with the fair political practices commission. he was a political reform consultant and since june 2014 where he was familiar with political reform act and worked on lobbyist program, helped state agency develop conflict interest code. he's jumping in and hit the ground running. we're delighted to have him

experience as well. i think you know that jeff zumwalt is our new senior investigative analyst. he's been with the commission for about year and a half i believe. he has been doing lots of work in a number of complex issue areas for investigation and enforce amount program. jeff also assumed responsibility senior investigative analyst on february 25th. he was a detective with the police department at virginia tech. he also had worked on major public embezzlement investigations. amy lee, she couldn't be here. she had a parent teacher concentrate today.

you know her as auditor with the commission. she went through the hiring process and is more new principle program manager for audits. we're excited having her help us develop that program to the next level. we have lot of work to do. lobbying audits as well as campaign audits. you'll be seeing more of amy as months progress. we're delighted that we have our new team members. there's so much to do. there's so much energy in the ram welcoming them. >> chair chiu: welcome. congratulations. hard earned and well deserved promotions amy lee and mr. zumwalt. terrific. >> with that, the work doesn't stop as you know, february was

the month we needed to submit our budget request to the mayor office. which we did. the letter we sent to mayor breed is in your packet. i wanted to highlight by way of brief background. some of the guiding principles that have been governing how we approach the budget and how we continue to approach thinking about the resources and the work we need to prioritize. when we think about the guiding principles, it's really as you heard from pat ford and brian report from the policy group earlier, lot of our focus is on evaluating proposing laws that will be strong, workable and practice and enforceable. this is something that is such a foundational piece of work for us. affects all areas. we want to make sure laws are and understandable and people

can comply and they are enforced. we continue to think about investing in the effectiveness of our program. this goes to the work ability issue. we also look to how we can leverage our resources as best possible. we know that dollars are tight in the city and there are lot of needs. very focused on aligning our resources with the changing nature of our work. there's so much more that is not paper-based systems.

we're focused on trying it make sure that we are efficient as we can with the resources that we have. that means aligning our staffing position to keep pace the work that's needed. one of the budget request you'll see addresses that topic to make sure that we have the level of the promote positions to support the knowledge skills and the ability that are increasingly needed from the jobs we're doing and to support staff development and staff retention. finally, the notion of adapting. we know that in order to be relevant and to make sure the laws work well and our programs have the reach and the impact that they need to, we have to be thoughtful about leading practices. we have to be thoughtful about how we enhance transparency and accountability for our own work. jeff's report does that every

month. just taking a quick overview of the budget request that we made for this past year. there are two possessions that you wanted tyou-- pieces that io highlight. one is the general fund request. that is request fund from the general fund. it total the roughly 8% of our current operating budget. it incorporated several items. position related changes that reclassify three existing positions that speak to enforcement, audits and compliance assistance. to align them and the responsibilities and skills and knowledge with the duties of those jobs are seen.

we're looking to reclassify those three positions to a higher level than they currently are. we detailed some material and supplies. in looks like a rounding error. it is something that's significant to us. we lot of our work invested in technology. we're looking at new software coming online for us. it helps us to do better compliance, guidance and maintain our work maintain our system. there are costs associated with that. we reflect that in our budget. we're asking for technical support from companies who's firms we're using to make sure we have technical support we need to adapt our tools we're usininguse as we implement them. we are also relying on department human resources to

provide us with violence services with our staff on boarding and other issues that we have not had the level of resources to address. we are working human resources department to retain those client services for coming here. that total request in our budget is about $350,000. i would say that same like a modest amount. it is something that reflects we believe we need to do in the work year ahead. it billeit buildings on knowingt filled critical seats. this is request we made for this year. we're looking forward to engaging with the mayor's budget team and the board discussions moving forward. separately, it's really also important to highlight another project which is also part of request we've made. it is to the committee on information technology. it's a separate funding.

it's not a general fund item. it is something that we're in process of responding to request for information that the committee made of us in response to the bid that we submitted. this would propose three-year limited term project that builds on the back of our pross we started three years ago. this is a project that we are really excited about and committed to make sure that the data that the is disclosed with our office o of all kinds, that all of the programs that we have can be converted broadly to digital filing. so that information can then be much more accessible to the public. it builds on existing technology. there's a hunger in the city we found in conversations with other departments to establish improved filing process for

things that help support the contributor band. there's a hunger for doing things in a much smarter, more efficient way. different departments and offices around the city all starting to use this technology. with the team that we have, we've been able to be helpful at the forefront. our technology folks have been visionary about how to do that work. that's a request we're going through the process that would be about 225 a year for three-year limited term. >> chair chiu: is the too manies common across the city? is this a stand alone unique solution that will be developed by the ethics commission? >> it is something that would have applications throughout the city. for example when we're using

dusign technology it eliminates lot of the paper filing. it gets to a database where public can access it. it becomes searchable. it eliminates unnecessary hand and time and inaccuracy. it frees up those people resources. certainly in our office. it frees up resources we used on much more value-added work to assist the public on meaningful questions. it will have a significant impact for us. we are selfishly pushing and requesting it. we know it's critical. >> chair chiu: there's no city effort to solve this problem. this is our attempt to solve a

common problem? >> yes. our processes rely on partners to implement. >> chair chiu: thank you. >> you earlier asked about some of the commissioner ambrose, about the anti-corruption and accountability ordinance and whether we were getting up to speed. this image, this slide status update on technology projects, shows a number of items that can be completed and a number of other ones other way. this is just to give you a sense and quick snapshot of lot of work that goes often unseen that make these laws work.

going back to the question, what process are coit would request would result in. this slide, it's an example of the way in which we're trying to streamline paper processing, make sure that the data gets to data s.f. where people can download and search. it's a process, a coit project that would help provide training to users to filers as well as staff around the city to understand and how to use the information and the process in a much better way. there will be an educational role that this project would provide to enhance public access and understanding using this data. as tyler field said, when he and pat ford went out to meet with

various organizations around the city, there's a real hunger for this kind of information. we want it learn from that. we want to learn more and really partner with organizations and places that use information like this so we can help expand the reach and breath and understanding of the role of money and politics. i provided abetted of highlightf highlights. there's major benefits to this project and impacts if the projects around funded. we're looking forward continuing conversation with the coit assessment team. >> chair chiu: it's $225,000 per year f we're approved, i hope we will be. is that a guarantee for funding for the all three years?

is this an annual submission? >> coit funding is a project term. it will be for a 3-year period. i wanted to highlight this because it wasn't something that was in the budget general fund side of the request. clearly that is critical to the work that we're doing which does have a reach, increase our efficiency to a large stint and focus on some of the things we haven't been able to. >> chair chiu: we can't under estimate impact providing public impact of this information. if someone is looking for aggregated data it will be very painstaking and impossible task.

the more work that we can do to make the information accessible is a top priority for the commission. >> the last couple of slides reason indication how we think about asking ourselves questions the jeff talked about. which is when we are improving our processes and thinking about where to apply our resources, where do we know to do that? how do we know where our places that -- we have pinch points. this slide is one that we have tracked since the commission started reporting. this is our slide about the ethics commission enforcement case code. just as we've reported over the years about our case load each month, publicly, since april of 2016. we started that because we know it's really important to the public and to you all to be ab