mr. grossman. i don't speak for mr. grossman, but if the defenses had been offered to the appellant court had been offered to him, he might have made a different decision, but more important than that is that everybody is entitled to a reason. levee doesn't call it anti- democracy. he calls it anti- humanity because we're all entitled to reason. it's a field of reason that we all cross which creates the bond of humanity. and that's what's really at stake here. look at this case again. speaker: i'm peter ward field. i'm not a party to this case. but certainly recognized as the previous speaker has mentioned, the significance of -- as to many people the reason for open government and the good functioning

mr. grossman and the appeal was taken by mr. sancrow. speaker: let's go back to the original litigation itself. to answer into that litigation and to actually defend against mr. grossman's assertion that the materials didn't have to be turned over. can the staff independently make that kind of determination, go forward, litigate without at least informing the board or two, at least -- or getting the permission of the board? aren't there policy matters involved in that? speaker: there's no obligation that i'm aware of to seek the commissions approval before descending itself in litigation. the decision here - speaker: defending itself in litigation. speaker: sorry, the commission -- speaker: does the staff some sort of independent body aside from the ethics commission that it would have standing to do things as a person in litigation? speaker: well here, mr. sancrow was named as the respondent. when the task force referred the matter to the ethics commission, it was mr. sancrow who was named as a respondent and that's because of the decis

mr. grossman and that is, whenever someone files a complaint with the ethics, they are supposed to receive under the charter notification back that the command had been received. then it gets turned over to the pa or city attorney, they are to be notified if it's been returned and it is been returned is the commissioner going to take up and what are the reasons. our investigation showed those notifications are not taking place. i think they're important part of not only transparency but also public confidence in the work of the commission. >> thank you thank you. >> the next item on the agenda -- oh, sorry. is there a motion to approve the budget request? all in favor say aye. opposed? the motion passes. next item on the agenda is a discussion on possible action regarding a complaint received or initiated by the ethics commission. cost possible close assessment of the comments on item number six is there a -- on-site >> can you identify whether the complaint involves campaign funding or lobbying or conflict of interest this is in general terms what category does the complaint come under? w

mr. grossman and that is, whenever someone files a complaint with the ethics, they are supposed to receive under the charter notification back that the command had been received. then it gets turned over to the pa or city attorney, they are to be notified if it's been returned and it is been returned is the commissioner going to take up and what are the reasons. our investigation showed those notifications are not taking place. i think they're important part of not only transparency but also public confidence in the work of the commission. >> thank you thank you. >> the next item on the agenda -- oh, sorry. is there a motion to approve the budget request?