mr. david pilpel. as you well-know complainants start out filing a complaint. they spend endless hours waiting for their items to be scheduled and calendared and they go through a rigorous process of evaluating alleged complaints, but when the sunshine task force finishes their determination they do not title and forward to you an alleged order of determination. they send you an order of determination. don't put the word "alleged" in your title of the new proceedings. because the point the sunshine case ends up in a referral for enforcement, at ethics, it's no longer an allegation. thank you. >> on the -- with respect to the title of the ordinance, or our response to the ordinance and our handling of the ordinances, i think the titles are fine. i don't know if any other commissioners have thoughts. my view is that we do handle some sunshine complaints directly. we handle some that the task force would have made a determination on, but ultimately i think the regulations are clear and the title accurately reflects more or less what we're trying to do with them. t

mr. menat shaw for being so fastidious and so faithful in his commendable pursuit of this issue. thank you very much. >> david pilpel speaking as an individual. several points i was not on the task force at the time this matter was heard. so i'm continuing to speak on the matter having not heard it when it was before the task force. also i believe i raised at the october meeting this particular nuance about emailed communications that might have gone between the commission staff and the controller's staff that were not part of either investigative file, which is what led to this. for that either thank you or i apologize or just working through this. i think it is pretty clear that all of these records are public records. i think the question is whether these are records subject to disclosure and to that end whether they are subject to disclosure in a redacted fashion going to commissioner studley's question. based on the memo that i have seen in the public file from miss herrick, i agree that those records that are part of the investigation, study, audit or other report from the controller's office are confidential

>> david pilpel, i think there are four points on the minutes somehow could indicate that mr. miss hari participated by phone and i didn't find that. on page 5, in bold i the motion moved, seconded and passed, second line. 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 mo

. >> david pilpel on page 3 of the draft minutes under "public comment," is someone following with me sorry. bottom of page 3. under "public comment." mr. ng stated that he needed clarification, i believe needed would be better. on page 4, "public comment," towards the top, my comments stated that the term "qualification" should be included perhaps in the definition, not into. on the bottom of page 4, item 5, the closed session evaluation of director st. croix i believe that should also reference the brown act and sunshine ordinance provisions that permit such closed sessions. and there was one other -- one moment. well there was one another thing and darned if i can find it now. i will try to find it and communicate it to staff, but just minor typographical things. i did try to read the minutes. thank you. >> is there a motion to adopt the minutes as amended by mr. pilpel? >> so moved. >> second. >> all in favor? >> aye. >> opposed? hearing none, next item on the agenda is the executive director's report. >> i just want to throw one thing on top of the report. during public comment earlier a number of people mentioned again the jewell

david pilpel again. i think we're working through this issue and i appreciate your time. we have heard at least a couple of times from mr. menat shaw and we have not heard from mr. st. croix and as i suggested earlier and under the regulations that were adopted two months ago and took effect, if this matter were coming brand new know we would have had a report and recommendation from the staff and a chance for the complainant and respendent to speak. we have heard from the complainant and we have not heard from the respondent and it would help me to hear from mr. so st. croix the rationale for disclosure. so i would encourage you to ask him that. >> other questions from the commissioners? commissioner studley, you wanted to wait until there was public comment. is there anything else that you want to share is in ? >> no, i agree with you and commissioner liu. i don't find this to be willful. since the understanding -- that this was part of the investigative file and the degree to which it could have well been made with good faith and that we have teased apart this particular category of communication within the ethics st