people like oliver luby, derek kerr, joe lynn basically figured it out. unfortunately, the public is unaware of the obstructionist. so i would like to caution everybody, for the record, that certain city units have a vested interest to slow the process down and basically say one word, i will not run for mayor but then exactly do the opposite. i am the choice of everyone. and we saw what happened to the city when people say one thing and do the exact opposite. >> thank you. any further public comment? all right. well, we have on the floor a motion to adopt the 2017 version, and it's been sect -- seconded. all those in favor, please say aye. >> aye. >> those opposed? the measure passes three to zero. okay. we now go to item no. 5, discussion and possible action -- >> whoa. i'm sorry. commissioner kopp? >> i had spoken with the executi executive director and deputy director about page 38. and the deputy executive director suggested language to correct that. and i'm sorry. >> that's all right. that's fine. >> at the top of the page where this defines unlawful

derek kerr, a whistle blower. why do organizations retaliate against whistle blowers? it's because whistle blowers have inside information about wrong doing and there by represent a threat. whistle blowers are viewed as insider threats. unfortunately the whistle blower program's quarterly report issued in december includes a bulletin warning about insider threats. we are told these are employees who "negatively affect organizational assets." that definition could qualify whistle blowers as insider threats because it depends on who defines what is a negative impact on an organization. the term insider threat is derived from national security programs that were installed after the chelsea manning and edward snowden revelations. importantly, it applies to intelligence agencies that handle classified information, not to city agencies that handle mostly public records. this bulletin targets disgruntled employees without the difference of those who want to fix a problem and those who are criminals. even speaking out is labelled as a red flag. the bulletin doesn't mention non

derek kerr. i'm a whistleblower. no time has ever been substantiated by the ethics commission. perhaps the burden of proof placed on whistleblowers is too high. in order to show retaliation by a preponderance of the evidence, whistleblowers needs access to the evidence. and to show that our whistleblowing was a substantial motivating factor for getting fired, we need access to the evidence. the trouble is that that evidence is in the possession of the retaliator, not the whistleblower. what happens with retaliation is that the retaliation is applauded and arranged by a group of people who communicate in email and meetings about how to go from excreting somebody from the organization. the only way to get that information is by discovery process and by subpoenas and depositions. i know this because my claim was rejected by the ethics commission, but when we went to court and had all the emails and deposed all these people, it all came out. ethics investigations of whistleblower retaliation do not include subpoenas and depositions. so you're imposing a legal standard of proof but