mr. petrelis believes that we violated the sunshine ordinance in a couple of ways. the to affect disagreed with him with regard to the sign -- i'm sorry, the committee did, but they referred to the full panel of the to affect. so to return for a meeting on february 1st in the evening. and then the task force committee fund we did not violate the sunshine ordinance in some ways, but did in others with regard to the meeting decorum paragraph. essentially their argument is that we did not require or provide public notice and comment on the meeting decorum paragraph and that it was a policy that should have been noticed and made available for public comment. we think they are wrong and we think it's important to continues a hearing, even though that violation is fairly easily remedying it. in terms of operational update and investigational caseload data, we provide the average complaints in the time periods, their age and when they were first brought to our attention as complaints -- sorry, i'm starting to get tired, so i'm losing it. some key takeaways, that the compla