there were three negotiating parties and the respondent and the two enforcement agency and because the fppc has heard and accepted the settlement agreement in a public session, we are in an unusual situation, because our regulations require that this is things be debated in closed session and however since it has been debated publicly, the city attorney has advised us to do the same. and so the staff and the city attorney will represent any questions that you have about the document in the settlement. and anything that is in this department, and if we go. off of the document, and into some details about the investigation, we may have to pull back from there. the bottom line in the settlement is that altogether there are several findings of violation of state and local law. for the purposes of simplification they have settled with the respondent for $3500 for a violation of section 8986 of the government code and the ethics commission has four counts of finding a violation in here. the first two counts reflect that the same section of the code that has been adopted for the local code and so

with it and obviously underlying it, our staff must have done a fine job of working on it with the fppc. and in bringing about this stimulation. but, why is it that something like this comes to us, and without telling the public and i think that the education of the public, and on this, a high level public utilities officials lobbying her own agency for $200,000 for lobbying for a company that she works for and that is fairly significant in terms of conflict of interest and we should be delving into it and the staff must have to come up with this and we should be talking about it and discussing it more and analyzing it and we should be telling the members of the public about it, and educating the public about it, and if nothing else, just to blow our own horn, i mean that we have people who are coming here, and saying, that, the three meetings that i have been at saying and that you guys don't do your job and this is an indication to me that the staff did do their job. and terms of the findings and the woman is admitting that she committed these offense and she is going to have to pay a

so, this case was brought to both of us, and the fppc has already decided and ruled on it and now, we are about to do that. >> right. >> and the fppc is part of the settlement, and has to do the violation of the state law, and our part of the settlement and has to do with the violations of the local law. >> okay. >> commissioner andrews you had a comment? >> well, we are hearing from, commissioner keane. and i guess that i was a little, struck by when mr. st. croix said that we were going to find ourselves in a unique situation, by discussing this publicly. i was not clear about that and it feels like, it feels like we should have some amount of participation on the front end that does not have us here. and i don't know what that is and i don't know, at what point that happens, but because it was a public hearing, at the fppc, is that right? >> yes. >> it was..., >> yes. >> it just feels like we are being backed into the corner of having to have a discussion that is either nice to have new, or late to the game, i don't understand the full process themselves and so would they be having

and after this stipulation is in effect, voted on by us, and the fppc. and it is a

was a public hearing, at the fppc, is that right? >> yes. >> it was..., >> yes. >> it just feels like we are being backed into the corner of having to have a discussion that is either nice to have new, or late to the game, i don't understand the full process themselves and so would they be having this discussion, in public? or in private? they are hearing and we said that we will discuss this and typically in closed session. and somehow, they did. what if they discussed it in the closed session >> they discussed it in public session. >> i guess what i am struggling with, the moment that they do that, they immediately set some balls in motion for us that then, in some kind of a way have us talking about it tonight, just like this, which makes it feel like i want or not necessarily the staff did not do the good work because i know that they did but it feels like the commission did not get an opportunity to indulge in some kind of a way and i don't know what that is. it feels like there has to be a front end that we would have been able

so, this case was brought to both of us, and the fppc has already decided and ruled on it and now, we are about to do that. >> right. >> and the fppc is part of the settlement, and has to do the violation of the state law, and our part of the settlement and has to do with the violations of the local law. >> okay. >> commissioner andrews you had a comment? >> well, we are hearing from, commissioner keane. and i guess that i was a little, struck by when mr. st. croix said that we were going to find ourselves in a unique situation, by discussing this publicly. i was not clear about that and it feels like, it feels like we should have some amount of participation on the front end that does not

and after this stipulation is in effect, voted on by us, and the fppc. and it is a finding of guilt in my opinion, that disgraces this woman and puts her in a position where any further employment, we are not recommending it, but, just, talk and just speaking hypothetically and for anything to continue employing something like this i think would be very strange if nothing else and so here, i'm not troubled by the penalty, as is my colleague commissioner hur, i mean, the fine, and the 5,000, and to me that is, negligible compared with the findings of guilt official misconduct and disgrace, we are saying that you did a lot of bad things here, ma'am. and i don't know how you, and we had members of the public saying that she is just going to tap dance away from this, and nothing is going to come as a result of it. there is no way, after we make findings like this in conjunction with the fppc, that, a governmental agency, is just going to say, well, we could get a problem, but it is over. >> we will go back to work and by the way you are due for a raise. that

there is no way, after we make findings like this in conjunction with the fppc, that, a governmental agency, is just going to say, well, we could get a problem, but it is over. >> we will go back to work and by the way you are due for a raise. that not going to happen and if that does happen, i would be the first one to complaint about it. and so in that regard, here, i see we as an agency, our staff has done a good job and in terms of it, i would defer to their findings related to things like credibility, and whether or not they are saw intent and deliberations and stuff like that, they were there, and they interviewed the witnesses and they interviewed her and i didn't, none of us did. and i think that we should defer to them, on those matters, unless it is clearly erronious what they are doing, and i don't think that it is. and we should go ahead, and the fppc which is an agency that has considerable repaout and clout and they are saying that they find the same thing and we are joining together in an alliance with a sister agency and saying, that this bad stuff was done. i think t

there were three negotiating parties and the respondent and the two enforcement agency and because the fppc has heard and accepted the settlement agreement in a public session, we are in an unusual situation, because our regulations require that this is things be debated in closed session and however since it has been debated publicly, the city attorney has advised us to do the same. and so the staff and the city attorney will represent any questions that you have about the document