live your dream, live your life, >> good afternoon. i'll call role now. (role call). >> agenda item number 2, the items appearing or not appearing on the agenda, i'll call for a public comment. >> thank you, ethic commissioners and thank you ethic commission staff.

you see my name tag in here, and i'm a public server for more than ten years and a union storer for government employees. you all know we have 2,000 government employee expos emplon public relations for the san francisco chapter. i have been coming in here to be reporting to you in dates back in 2017, 2018 and 2019. i was here in october of 2019. i came before you as ethic commissioners and staff to investigate government abuse, government corruption with public officials. i have been reporting to you possible corruption with elected officials through election fraud. and no other party for 45 years.

we have green, independent, libertarian, republican, non-partisan or constitution, but in san francisco, we only have one party for 45 years and that is democrats. there's no political equity for people by super pac. 2018, san francisco taxpayers pay $4.16 million in matching funds to support democrats and refuse non-democrats to go into forums. 2019, democrats and all of you sitting in here increase more matching fund to create a more government scam. and democrats' agendas created 21,000 homeless dying on the street and 25,000 drug dealers and abuses supported by taxpayers. and that is nonstop everyday and

violence target minority people like the chinese people. 50,000 plus empty apartments available today and yet, the public officials selling more pondbonds to proposition a to ak for $6 million for only 2800 house and unions. the liberals, democrats have been operating a tyranny government for 45 years in san francisco. the united states constitution article 6, it is a violation for san francisco to operate such a government to abuse its power. you know sanctuary city and sanctuary law it's a violation for federal law and recreational cannabis is a violation and illegal drugs, it's a violation, but those are all supported by democratic agendas. needles giving free to drug

people and we have later for money. i am here to ask you, please, do your job, investigation, restore our government that is for the people supported by the people. i believe that you're personally liable for what you're doing. if you sign up for something, you have a duty to do so and for public records, this is my statement. thank you. >> thank you. any other public comment? >> i'm david lee. i'm here today because my campaign for supervisor in 2016, the treasurer, sent a request for a waiver -- a wafe waiver rt for late fees assessed on my campaign back in 2018 and we had not received an answer on that

letter. however, this week, i learned that we were asked to remit payment for the late fees spond i am asking that a response, a formal response to our letter requesting a waiver be submitted to us. that's all i have to say. thank you. >> and mr. lee and deputy attorney chen, could you guide me if i'm overstepping my responsibilities. i just wanted to understand what you just shared with us is that you ran for office in 2016? >> 2016, and shortly thereafter, we learned that my campaign manager, who was a paid campaign manager, campaign consultant, failed to file some documents,

particularly related to mailers. i believe they were the 161 mailers and working with our treasury, we submitted the filings and uploaded them to the website. and shortly thereafter, we received a letter from the commission. i believe ernestin x-rays brach's steen submittee braxtone filing and we submitted a letter, that the campaign consultant was responsible and the contract that we had with the consultant and the mitigating circumstances of that

late filing and the fact that as soon as we found out about it, our campaign found it about it, we immediately uploaded those required documents and we had not gotten a response back. >> to the waiver request. >> exactly. >> that was received in 2016 or '17? >> to 17. '17. so this week we received an email from ernestine braxton requesting the late fees be paid with no mention of the waiver. >> so you never received -- ok. thank you. and then -- >> so that's why i'm here today to ask for consideration given that our campaign committee passed audit back in 2018 without any problems, except that i think there was one -- a small amount was not accounted

for, but other than that, it did pass audit and we do have a letter from your auditor, your northeasindependent auditor. so i'm here today to see if we can have the waiver considered. >> so executive director pallen, i would like to ask you to take that. thank you. and any other public comment for agenda item number two? agenda item number 3, draft minutes for the ethic's commission october 18t october 18th regular meeting. i move the approval of the minutes. >> i'll second and public comment on this item. no public comment. all in favour of approving the minutes. and the minutes are unanimously

approved. and agenda item number 4 is a show-cause hearing in the matter of ray hearts versus president norman yi, 19042. so earlier this week, mr. hear hearts contacted commission staff to say he had a family emergency and was unable to participate in today's meeting and ask that we continue it so i will move to continue this matter, this show-cause hearing to the next regularly scheduled meeting on decembe december 20th. the motion is seconded and i'll call for a public comment on this item. no public comment and all in favour? and the motion to continue the show-cause hearing of ray hearts to president norman yi is continued. item number 5, staff

informational presentation on the commission's jurisdiction over whistleblower retaliation protection. >> i'm a senior investigator analyst on staff and here with a form we submitted in the agenda in this meeting to go over our whistleblower retaliation jurisdiction. presentation has two parts.

i'll start with a brief overview of the law we're charged with enforcing and then, i'll move on tthe law. there are local state and federal agencies who handle local retaliation claims and for the purposes of any jurisdiction, there are three elements to a claim of employment retaliation. so a person -- and this will be our complainant or the victim of the retaliation.

we call that engaging in protected activity. second, the retail iator takes an action related to the employment status of that complainant. so the retaliator has to have power over the privileges or status of the complainant's employment so this we call an adverse employment action. there has to and causal connection between the complainants engaging in the protected activity and the respondents taking that adverse employment action against the complainant. and different jurisdictions

under those different legal regimes will have different causation standards under this element. so bringing that here to san francisco, under our whistleblower protection ordinance, the ordinance prohibits an employer from taking adverse employment action against a city officer or employee or an office or employeoremployee of a country r by officer or employee engaging in protected tuft. activity. i'll briefly run through each of the elements under the ordinance. and so, protected activity. here in san francisco, under the ordinance, what qualifies someone as a whistleblower is filing a particular type of complaint with a particular city

agency. that complaint has to allege a certain type of allegation and taken together, these types of allegations relate to the general function of city government. and then the complaint has to be to a certain city agency. so this can be to the whistleblower program within the controller's office. it can be to the district attorney's office, the city attorney's office, us here at ethics or to the complainant's own department. adverse employment action, element two. some of these are fairly straightforward. someone is terminated, someone is suspended or someone is demoted and then there are

situations that are a bit less straightforward. and this can include a transfer or a reassignment in duties. but the legal test is whether that employment action would dissuade a reasonable worker from pratting i participating in whistleblower action or if that action would be likely to materially affect an employee owes job performance or that employee's opportunity for advancement. third, causation. and so, under the ordinance, commission staff has to show that the underlying protected activity is a substantial motivating factor, that whistleblowing was a factor for the adverse employment action.

so it doesn't have to be the only reason. but it has to be more than a remote or trivial reason for taking that action against the complainant. there will be situations where an officer our employee engages in protected conduct but also isn't performing their job duties to the required standard or isn't conducting themselves in the workplace to the required standard. so this standard, this burden of proof attempts to balance on the one hand the need for employees to received a qui received a r s

for business decisions. mr. mcclain, could we go back to the protected activity definition, because i just wanted to clarify for my own sake, as well as for the participants in the room, as well as watching at home, that on page 4 of the agenda item number 5, under protected activity filing or attemptin ato file a complaint that the commission's jurisdiction for whistleblower complaints cover the protected activity that is enumerated here. it's not any complaint of activity that we have jurisdiction over, but what the complainant has to allege is improper government activity, such as misusing city funds or deficiencies.

so we won't have jurisdiction over everything a whistleblower will complain about, is that correct? >> that is, commission. >> so, for example, sexual harassment would not fall within our jurisdiction. >> that is correct. >> thank you. >> part two, i will go over some of the considerations that we take into account and just some of our day-to-day dealings with the ordinance and complaints. so the first question that we're going to ask, has the complainant alleged protected activity for which the

commission has jurisdiction? and so, when we're thinking about this big picture, that underlying protected activity is the x that marks the spot for who has jurisdiction. and for our purposes, we're looking at, did someone make the right type of complaint to one of the enumerated city agencies? and now, just because we might not be the right shop for this type of complaint, it doesn't mean a city officer or city employee isn't going to go without legal recourse or remedy. because there are different local state and federal agencies that have jurisdiction over different types of that underlying protected activity. and when we determine a complainant or that a different

agency may have jurisdiction over a complainant's type of underlying protected activity, then we will try to point the complainant in the right direction. so, for example, the equal opportunity -- excuse me, equal employment opportunity division of san francisco's department of human resources, so this department has a jurisdiction over retaliation based on city and county employees reporting discrimination or participating in investigations related to discrimination within city departments. the public employment retaliation's board is a state agency that has jurisdiction over retaliation based on city

and county employees here or employees of other localities or the stay level who exercise their rights to participate in labor union activities or collective bargaining activities. so if an employee comes forward and files a complaint with the ethic's commission alleging retaliation based on those enumerated perpetuities, there is a time limit for the employee to be able to file a claim, alleging a whistleblower claim, how does that initial kind of first stop at the ethic's commission redirect them. does that impact their statute of limations in terms of their ability to pursue a claim?

so if it takes six months for them to figure out, oh, i want to file a civil claim but i went to the -- almost two years that i want to file a claim and they come to the ethic's commission but it has expired and it was the wrong agency, what happens to their claim? if it's not a complaint over which the commission has jurisdiction? >> so i can't speak to the statute of limitations for other agencies and whether they have toling regimes or not to extend those limitations but upon impact of a complaint, staff will endeavor to figure out that first question, is this the

right place for it? and try to quickly let a complainant know that this may not be the appropriate place for it and where that appropriate place could be. >> thank you. >> maybe just one point of clarification is that in distinction to most other complaints that the enforcement division receives, it's much more typical for us to receive retaliation complaints over the phone. and so, we have immediate contact with the complainant. we hear the reasonably full rehearsal of the facts and so we can make those jurisdictional determinations pretty quickly at the outset, usually while the complainant is on the phone or very soon thereafter in distinctions, say, to some of the complaints that come to us in writing, which sort of stand

in line -- the commission's staff ability to conduct preliminary reviews. so that's to say there is typically a much quicker turn-around in verifying that the commission might have jurisdiction over retaliation complaint. the chair is concerned about the complainant's deadlines with other agencies. >> when we got to that that, i t know if i could have asked that, but if the enforcement report, we have the report on the time it takes to handle preliminary review matters and that if it's in months, then if that eats up the timeframe and thank you. that's helpful that most of the complaints can be dealt with over the phone. >> i'll move on to the second part of our analysis. and so did the complainant

suffer and adverse employment action? as i touched on it a bit above, sometimes the analysis is straightforward. someone is either fired or they're not and someone is either demoted or they're not. but then there are situations that are a little less clear and require a deeper factual analysis. so in situations of maybe a transfer without a change in job classification or maybe even a little more subtle. so a reassignment of duties, but again, within that given job classification. so in these situations, we're going to combine a deeper, factual analysis and compare those facts that we gather to

the relevant legal standards. so would that employment action dissuade a reasonable employee from blowing the whistle and then would that change in their job status or the privileges of their employment materially affect the employee's job performance or that employee's opportunity for advancement? >> mr. mcclain, i have a question regarding the investigation piece. so if the department of human resources is also conducting its own investigation into the employment action that was taken or not taken with regard to a complainant, how does the ethic's commission coordinate with or work in conjunction or the intersection of our investigation, as well as an hr investigation? how does that play out or perhaps mr. pierc pearce can spk

to that? >> is the question what happens when two agencies have simultaneous jurisdiction? >> yes, and do we interview witnesses, like, twice over or look at an hr report and how does that play out? i'm sure it's fact-specific but in general terms, but if you could describe to us how the interplay is between the two agencies, that would be very helpful and given it could be a very sensitive and important topic for that and do we always conduct our own investigation? do we based our findings only on the hr investigation? if you could give us a sense that would be helpful. >> in practise, i would say it's pretty uncommon for a complaint of retaliation to belong both to the ethic's commission and to another city agency and most often, it's the case that there

is some underlying complaint that some other agency will have investigated. that's the first element of protected activity. whether the city attorney's office or the whistleblower program or the complainant's own department has conducted an investigation into the underlying complaint of the whistleblowing itself. it may sometimes happen that there would be a complaint of retaliation that would lie with two jurisdictions and it may be that a complainant faces retaliation based not only on whistleblowing but also on an underlying complaint of discrimination and it could be that the department of human resources, the eeo division, is looking at a retaliation angle based on underlying discrimination and we are looking at retaliation on underlying whistleblowerring.

but that happens very rarely and we do have a reasonably well-established relationship with the hr's deo division and linda simon. we are on the phone from time to time to verify which agency should assert jurisdiction over a complaint and if it did happen, we would decide both agencies have simultaneous jurisdiction. i anticipate that we would just coordinate that investigation and conduct it simultaneously but in the time i've been here, that has yet to happen. >> ok, thank you. >> commissioner lee. >> can i ask a followup question regarding, specifically, the reassignment aspect? what happens if under the general job description the supervisor can reassign an employee, whether et cetera a change oit's a changeof schedul?

how do you investigate if someone comes in and says, because i filed a whistleblower complaint and i got reassigned to a less desirable assignment or a schedule? so do you conduct due diligence to investigate that or do you just say, well, that's part of, you know, part of your job description and how far do you go when someone comes in and says, yes, it is within the purview of my job description that i can be reassigned, but i am reassigned to a very undesirable position and i think as a result of my filing the complaint? does that happen? >> so any claim of whistleblower

retaliation is going to include a lot of moving parts and so sometimes, some of the moving parts may be strong enough on their only to look like an employer retaliated against an employee. but then oftentimes, each part standing alone may not look like all that much when taken in isolation. and so, i think it's looking at, really, the retaliatory circumstances, doing a deep factual analysis and digging, to try to figure out whether there is something ther there. >> so the staff would not dismiss that and say, well, that's part of the supervisor's right. you will look into every

allegation? >> i'm happy to get direct enforcement but that could very well be a situation where even though it is within the job duties of that employee -- i mean, maybe the employee has been there 20 years and so for, you know, 19 and a half years, they've been at a given yard, but then all of a sudden, that employee engages in protected conduct, that the supervisor found out about and even though, you know, we go back 20 years to the original job description and different work locations could be a part of the job description. but, you know, why after 19 years and six months is that employee being moved? to a less desirable location? now, if there are no other -- or

no good other justified reasons for that. so it depends. so the third part of staff analysis, can we show the activity substantially motivated the adverse action? and this is the portion of the analysis of the complaint wheree we invest most of our investigative resources. probably nobody is going to confess to retaliate against someone who they supervise and

this is a situation where we're trying to figure out motivation. so we have to get into someone's mind and figure out why they did what they did. and almost nowhere else in our jurisdiction over campaign finance lobbying or government ethics do we have to figure out someone's motivation. this is a specific intent charge. and so we ask ourselves certain questions to try to generate circumstantial evidence to show what motivated that given action. and so did the retaliator have knowledge or suspect the activity by this complainant?

you can't be substantially motivated by something that you don't know about. if a complainant files an anonymous complaint with a different department and that department comes to complainant's department and investigates, even again, complainant is anonymous, but they interview supervisor, and that complainant is regarding is certain set of facts that only complainant could know, and that could give that supervisor pretty good reason to suspect that complainant may have been the one to blow the whistle. now, on the flip side of that knowledge, did the department

who, say, came into investigate the whistleblowing claim, did they only begin their investigation after the adverse employment action? so where the adverse employment action has to be substantially motivated by the protected activity, but if supervisor only found out about the protected activity after the adverse employment action had been taken, that adverse employment action couldn't have been motivated by the protected tuft. activity. we ask and look at what is the timing of the protected activity in relation to the adverse employment action? are they close to each other in

time, which can tend to show that it may have been motivated by the protected activity. was it a week apart? but in contrast, was it two years apart? so looking at the timing between those two events or in terms of timing, you know, did the employment action come before the protected tuft activity? so one of those has to naturally be before the other. we improv inquire into the retar and the complainant.

if, for example, the alleged adverse alleged employment action is a negative performance review, well, was this part of, possibly, a downward trend in performance by that employee? did supervisor warn employee in years prior that they needed to improve that performance? or have they been on the upward trend and what a lower performance review be unusual in the circumstances. is complainant after engaging the activity treated differently than other employees in the unit or in the given department? so looking into that relationship between the alleged retaliator and the complainant,

how do we go about answering these questions? so we review, request and review documentary evidence and so performance reviews, we'll go through personnel files and not just of, for example, the complainant, but we'll see, does the supervisor give everyone a certain type of review that year or does the supervisor treat everyone in a similar fashion. correspondence between a complainant and rober respondeno try to get into that relationship. and then primarily, these cases are matters where we have to go out and interview people, because every workplace, because of the different people and personalities, that they are

made up of, is its own little world. and at the outset and before doing these interview, we'll ask the complainant, who should we talk to? who is familiar with your supervisor and who is familiar with your relationship with your supervisor and who is familiar with your work product? and who can kind of give us that baseline that we can look to to see if this was adverse employment action and if it may have been substantially motivated by engaging in protected activity? we have been investigating whistleblower retaliation and so, including complainant, complainant at the outset to say, who should we talk to k and

theandthen ultimately, we interd coworkers of the employee in that employee's unit and the employee's prior supervisor to the alleged retaliator and interviewed the employee's supervisor subsequent to the alleged retaliator to really try to dig into at that given unit and figure out whether particular activity substantially motivated the adverse employment action. so we do all this digging and try to get all these facts in the highly affected analyses and try to pose the questions i

asked earlier and try to figure out whether something stands out and looks like it was a protected activity, whether that stands out as substantially motivating an adverse employment action. i'm happy to take any questions. >> miss smith. >> there are a lot of subjective decisions in this analysis. was there was an adverse impact and anyway, there's several of them. what protection or what appellate process of standard of review does the complainant have if the decision goes against him or her? is there one and if so, who handles that? >> there is and i'll defer it to

enforcement. >> so a complainant in the would require them to fight a writ against the city and i suppose in this case, the complainant would writ the ethic's commission to try to get a supervisor court to say that the ethic's commission failed to undertake a mandatory duty. i think that would be a pretty high burden for the plaintiff to meet effectively the duty that the ethic's commission has is to look at the complaint, investigate the complaint, make determinations and the ethic's commission does that in every instance. i don't know that a superior court could determine that the ethic's commission drew the wrong conclusion in a particular

instance. my guess is that if a complain annuacomplainant were to go to l that trouble, they would be better off suing the employer as opposed to the ethic's commission and trying to show the employment decision was based on some improper consideration and complainants can could that i do that in a n. they do that by filing a grievance and pursuing the grievance process pursuant to their collective bargaining grievance. they could file under section 1983 if they could show that some protected right of theirs had been violated. so the short answer to your question is that effectively there is not an obvious appeal's process. >> thank you. >> i don't recall in any tenure

here one of these coming to the commissions. i'm curious procedurally and given the necessity of maintaining the anonymity of the whistleblower how these are actually handled. if you are to have a hypothetical retaliation claim and find that, in fact, there was retaliation against the whistleblower, would you make a recommendation to the commission and we would have a public agenda item on that? or is this something that executive director's discretion to determine? if we were to move forward with a finding. probable cause. so remembering that the administrative process immediately after the investigation permits staff to recommend that the commission

find probable cause, staff could issue a confidential determination of problemle cause before the executive director. we can then rebut that. but the executive director would make her recommendation on probable cause which then comes, again, before the commission for your ratification. if you were to ratify, if you were find, yeah, there is probable cause in this instance, the regulations do not distinguish between administrative hearings against retaliation respondents and that would be a public hearing. i think what happens when a whistleblower comes forward with a claim of retaliation, they know a couple of things. one is that it's highly likely in the course of staff's

investigation, their employer will know that they have filed a complaint of retaliation because we have to conduct these interviews and we're very honest and open with complainants about that fact. the other is if it does go to a hearing, the public, too, will know they had been a whistleblower. but my suspicion is that when complaints believe that they have faced retaliation, they may not mind that information becomes public because they are aggrieved by the misconduct against them. >> thank you. i didn't realize that this enforcement proceeding fell within the same envelope as the other enforcement. so that explains it. i can see how it would be a very careful approach because you also have very strict rules about not exposing the identity of the whistleblower and there's

penalties for that. and then my last question is, from a remedy point of view, if there were to be a finding of improper retaliation against the employee, what is the remedy? is that something the ethic's commission describes or prescribed by the ordinance? >> the ordinance provides the ethic's commission can assess a monetary penalty against the respondent up to $5,000. my belief more often than not, the respondent would pay that out of pocket and accrue as personal liability but it's personal a respondent can show they took the action in the ordinary course of business. i'm not sure, but i have been told there may be situations in which the city and county would

pay the penalty but that would be worked out based on the facts of the particular case. the ordinanc ordinance providese ethic's commission can recommend that the department restore the complainant to the status quo, to the position they occupied before they face the adverse employment action, subject to the civil service rules, but you can only recommend. >> thank you, i appreciate that. >> commissioner lee. >> madam chair, just in knowing how the employees will know about this program and the protection, so how is the information conveyed to them?

and have you been working with, the employees to let them know how they can work with the commission to come forward if they need to? >> the whistleblower program publishes materials to alert them that it will be a protected activity and those materials direct complainants to contact the ethic's commission if they believe they have been the victim of retaliation. i'm aware that many of the complainants will call the whistleblower program directly when they believe they have faced retaliation and at that point, the whistleblower program will direct them to reach out to us, instead. it's the case that amendments to

the whistleblower, that became effective in january of this year, require that the city renew its training and promotional materials so our office has been collaborating with the whistleblower program and the controller's office, as well as department of human resources to update those materials. we have produced nearly complete drafts of new posters that will alert employees about the protections available to them should they blow the whistle. we have updated the new employee training that alerts them to the opportunity to blow the whistle is the protections available to them if they do and then,

finally, the amendments to the whistleblower protection affirm obligations on supervisors within the city and county and those obligations include to assist if they approach them. if they approach them, they can say i believe i'm being retaliated against and it requires them to refer them to us by documenting the rights and time of the referral and keeping confidential the fact that the employee has alleged retaliation and we, again, in coordination with dhr have produced both written materials and online training that supervisors will be required to review on an annual basis so that they know that those protections exist and they face affirmative obligations.

the ordinance endeavors makes those supervisors to potential liability if they fail to fulfill the obligations. so a supervisor could face the same penalties as someone who retaliates. >> when you mentioned the covered book, i think in the written materials the city subcontractors were included. >> yes. in terms of confidentiality and privacy, will th that be part of

the employee's permanent record that he or she filed a whistleblower complaint? so in case that person will be applying for future jobs within the city, is that part of that person's personnel record? no, commissioner. >> thank you. >> any other questions? call for a public comment on agenda item number 5. thank you, mr. mcclain, that was very, very helpful. >> thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners and director p ellham. i'm dr. derick kerr, a whistleblower. you have heard a thorough description of the whistleblower protections because there's a gaping omission, nothing about the effectiveness of the ethic's commission in protecting

whistleblower's against retaliation. and in fact, ethics has never sustained a single retaliation complaint since it began reviewing them in 1995. zero retaliation claims sustained over 30 areas and you've reviewed over 100. ethics makes its appear that retaliation is nonexistent and whistleblowers are diluted. they obtain compensation in court after dismissed by ethics. savvy whistleblowers, mostly lawyers, bypass ethics entirely and take their retaliation claims straight to court and the media and they know it's a dead-end. in my experience, there are several reasons why ethics has never recognised retaliation.

first, ethic's investigations are superficial and not effective. they don't use subpoena, discovery or depositions to gather evidence and that's due to inadequate resources. they're tainted by the staff's greater empathy for their siblings within the city family and those who are being accused of retaliation. and third, the staff collaborate with and are influenced by city forgottens who defend the very officials we accuse of retaliation. fourth, investigations are compromised by fears of retaliatory budget and staffing cuts by city hall. ethics is utterly dependent on the folks it supposedly keeps in check. and if staff did sustain a retaliation case, they would be treated just like

whistleblowers. you could get a handle on this failure to protect by asking for an audit that answers three questions. one, exactly why have no whistleblower retaliation cases ever been sustained by ethics? why? number two, why do retaliation claimses dismisseclaims dismissd that in court? and three, why do they bypass ethics all together? please check. thank you very much. >> thank you. >> in 2010-2015, fbi investigate

many management staff and staff in san francisco government for bribery, extortion and many other illegal staff, including human trafficking. months later somebody told me we reported to them was missing. and ethic commission is the most unethical department in san francisco. in 2014 to 2015, e wa i was on e civic grand jury, i was one to

protect their family. it was the department of human resources, eeoc and other department heads continue to make circles that violate all the people who stood up, report to whistleblowers. as you can hear, many of the people coming in here to you, ethic commissions, two of you are new, but many of you ethic commissioners left the chamber. i assume that you guys have a legal background. attorney, a law, some kind of legal background. the ethic commission staff work together with many a of the department heads and purposely get the information from the employees who have bee destroyee

evidence. you gave you five employees and i was one of the six because i was the sixth person and did a lot of investigation and support the people who have been retaliated. this is supported by the people who created the law. the staff right in front of me, i personally do not have trust with you. it's because of everything i reported to you. none of the complaints that i bought to you have been addressed. shame on you people sitting in here collecting your paycheck. thank you. >> thank you.