ellis had reported her error to you and to the fppc. she he herself had done it. if so, that's commendable and should be taken into consideration. usually these types of wrongdoing come to you or the fppc from a tip, from a whistle blower. and the wrongdoers who are exposed by whistle blowers instinctively try to ferret out who it is and toize the threat, just a threat. if this case came about through a whistle blower, i would be concerned about am i ellis' return to her position because that would constitute a risk, a threat to the whistle blower if there was one. ~ neutralize thank you. >> no voter action on number 5. so, moving on to number 6, discussion and possible action on the minutes of the commission's meeting of february 24, 2014. ~ on the minutes. i have one change i'd like to disclose. on page 4 of 6, it states that -- i think it's suggesting that i seconded the motion relating to the closed session, and i don't think i did. i thought i recused myself for that item. okay. you have me rejoining after that so it's hard to see how i could have seconded it

recently, in january 2014 with your commission and the fppc, reached a joint settlement agreement with ms. ellis. your investigation did not present any new information or contradict any information related to the puc investigation. i cannot revisit disciplinary actions that i took nor i see any reason to do so. i believe appropriate actions were taken on all fronts and this matter is concluded. i hope that the commission, as i do, that this is simply time to move on and thank you for hearing me. [cheering and applauding] >> good afternoon, commissioners. supervisor john avalos. i am here to speak on the same matter as well. i know that the ethics commission has already made its determination on the individual who is being discussed today. it seems like that has already been settled. i was a bit concerned to see it come up all over again, especially because i know that what penalty had been applied against the person in question has actually, i think is great and it will be [speaker not understood] to the justice being carried out. i also have worked with ms. ellis for, you know, a num

neder, its was the fppc and as far as i know, there was little or no activity by the ethics commission and its staff to do a complete investigation. >> i think we did investigate. >> yeah. >> we did our own investigation. >> i mean, in other words, there was never any investigation as to how serious the offense was. i mean, we all react to the fact it's a conflict of interest. but whether or not it was -- rose to the level that somebody should be fired because they committed a conflict of interest, i didn't feel i as a commissioner was in any position to do any value judgment on that. that was up to the agency who -- to make that determination, absent some record that i had in front of me that would cause me to either think this woman should be fired or

neder, its was the fppc and as far as i know, there was little or no activity by the ethics commission and its staff to do a complete investigation. >> i think we did investigate. >> yeah. >> we did our own investigation. >> i mean, in other words, there was never any investigation as to how serious the offense was. i mean, we all react to the fact it's a conflict of interest. but whether or not it was -- rose to the level that somebody should be fired because they committed a conflict of interest, i didn't feel i as a commissioner was in any position to do any value judgment on that. that was up to the agency who -- to make that determination, absent some record that i had in front of me that would cause me to either think this woman should be fired or she shouldn't be fired. i mean, it's -- i think if we're going to make recommendations concerning what the agency should do, we've got to have a lot more information about -- and understanding of what investigation the agency made and reached its determination. boss comes in and says, i think i took appropriate action. can't tell us wha