this was really funny, find that miss st. croix and miss st. croix -- i wasn't aware, but you might want to amend and the following line, i think that is just a wfl failure to comply with the sunshine ordinance and strike "task force" there. and finally on page 6 in bold the motion, that the ethics commission adopt the annual report as amended. >> sorry, you were on page 6 where? >> that the ethics commission adopt. is that correct? >> yes. and i wouldn't be submitting a 125-word statement. never mind. >> i think it bears noting that we have accommodated these folks after all of this time. although i'm sure they will see the minutes. >> i think mr. pilpel's changes are good, unless mr. st. croix, there is something that we need know? any other changes? to the draft minutes? did you guys catch those? is there a motion to adopt the minutes as amended? >> so moved. >> second. >> >> all in favor. aye. >> aye. >> that is a question, i was not present, should i abstain? >> pardon me? >> not an option, you have to vote. x i will vote in favor >> the ne

this was really funny, find that miss st. croix and miss st. croix -- i wasn't aware, but you might want to amend and the following line, i think that is just a wfl failure to comply with the sunshine ordinance and strike "task force" there. and finally on page 6 in bold the motion, that the ethics commission adopt the annual report

st. croix, any thoughts on this? >> everything that we do is always a work in progress and i'm sure after we conduct some of the hearings under this procedure and not after, but during, we'll get feedback on them. so we'll pay close attention to how they go and always we intend good outcomes and hope we get them. we'll see how everything constructively works and then go from there. >> comments from the commissioners on ? i think that is reasonable and maybe the commission staff can put on the list we should revisit this in a year or so and seek comment not just from the task force, but other interested entities in how this is playing out? public comments on agenda item 8? decision point 8? >> just a quick question. what you are actually voting on here is the regulations as they appear in attachment a, is that correct? >> no. >> just the decision points drafted on november 16th? >> these are the decision points that we have just been discussing? >> okay. >> just wanted to clarify that. again, i absolutely understand y

st. croix? i think mr. pillpa's point that if you read in what we defined as "support," into it and replace it, it starts to sound fairly redundant. >> well, if i might? i think where i'm having the most trouble now and we're into subsection b for a second. on line 7. that you can have a circumstance where a primarily formed committee perhaps is only filing semiannual reports and not pre-election reports, but in the instance where that primarily formed committee supports a candidate and using the language "support [o-eufpblts/] ," going to the definition here. i think you are trying to get in that instance a primarily formed committee. >> the reason leaving it in is not redundant, they are going to try to self-define, if they want to get around this provision. >> right. >> so i want them, if they say, we're not raising money to elect him or her, we're just raising money to encourage them. that is covered. we say we are not supporting their election. we are only supporting their candidacy. we might be absurd

st. croix was saying towards the end and we will do so, if possible. i second mr. st. atements about this process. it has been a long process, but i think a good one, where we have gotten a lot of people weighing in. i think the commission has heard those voices and tried to incorporate all of those points that we think make sense and that will help facilitate the process we are intending to embark upon with respect to these sunshine ordinance complaints. the first decision point is regarding the definitions in the regulations. did anybody have any comment about those? decision point 1, chapter 1 of the proposed regulations? i had one question about the use of order of determination. i probably just missed it, but where do we use that term? >> chair hur? >> yes. >> i don't believe it's used in the regs. i think it's just kind of to identify what would be a referral coming from the task force. >> okay. would it be -- i mean we do refer to "referral" quite often. i guess i'm just wondering whether we should have it, if we don't use it or if we have it, do we want to use i

st. croix, did you have something to add? >> no, i was just thinking that the circumstances are going to be limited anyway. if a vote is -- if there is four people and the vote is 3-1 against the respondent, the result is not going to change even if the other commissioner was there. and if there are three commissioners, and the vote is 3-0, the addition of two commissioners wouldn't change the outcome. >> right. it's the situation where it's 2-1 and the 1, particularly in a situation where the 1 is the vote to find the violation. and then you have basically found a violation based on one vote. >> yes, so if the situation was 2-1 or 2-2 the outcome could change. in which case that is when you would not postpone, but continue the hearing to the next session. >> i like this idea of requiring four. we require it for some things already and i think this is something where it would be helpful. >> are you saying a vote of four or four people at the meeting? >> four people in attendance is what i was thinking. >> yes, that is right.

st. croix, there is something that we need know? any other changes? to the draft minutes? did you guys catch those? is there a motion to adopt the minutes as amended? >> so moved. >> second. >> >> all in favor. aye. >> aye. >> that is a question, i was not present, should i abstain? >> pardon me? >> not an option, you have to vote. x i will vote in favor >> the next item on the agenda is the executive director's report. >> just one highlight this month. again, bringing up the report that was done by the board of supervisors budget analyst comparing the san francisco and los angeles commission procedures. in order to bring that to a commission as a discussable item, we decided not to just show you the report. but to gather some public comment on what the report actually means. so that we have some feedback to give you in advance of this. so we have scheduled two interested public meetings. interested persons meetings in december on the 4th and the 10th to do this. you are welcome to come as you are to all interested persons meeting. if you could let me know in advance and w