mr. pilpel. >> we're watching, mr. pilpel. >> that is right. in connection with the november, 2012 election, i would anticipate we're going to get a report from staff about the effectiveness of the public financing program. i assume, although i didn't see a survey that there was a survey after the november election, maybe? so i'm looking forward to hearing more about that. there was reference somewhere in here about -- or maybe it was discussed earlier about the number of audits. there is no discussion in the executive director's report about the status of audits, where we are, since we're halfway through the year? are we halfway through the audits that were scheduled? kind of the audit status? i continue to note that although i guess we got past the instant issue with chris jackson that we still have an outstanding balance that mr. jackson owes the city. i continue to believe that we should publish a list of all the bad actors that have outstanding fees, fines, forms out. and i wanted to note on page 4 the technology upgrades. i would like to

mr. pilpel you may continue. mr. shaw, please give mr. pilpel a chance to speak. thank you. >> so to conclude, i believe that those three pages should be provided. neither memo discusses what the staff's rationale for non-disclosure at the time of the original request was. that may be something that is worth discussing. so i think it goes to the question of whether there was a willful violation or a different sort of matter? i believe mr. menat shaw is free to make a request at any time, particularly now that he believes that the matter is concluded and to the extent that there are records available post a concluded investigation. there may be additional records that are now subject to disclosure. it really turns on what was available at the time a request was made? so just my final point, i am particularly troubled by the fact that apparently the commission has received either all 24 pages or at least the three pages and is able to review and consider those, which the public obviously hasn't seen, because that is the subject of the matter before us. i don't find

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 moved. >> second.

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 moved. >> second. >> >> all in favor. aye. >> aye. >> that is a question, i was not present, should i abstain? >> pardon me? >> not an option, you have to vote. x i will vote in favor >> the next item on the agenda is the executive director's report. >> just one highlight this month. again, bringing up the report that was done by the board of supervisors budget analyst comparing the san francisco and los angeles commission procedures. in order to bring that to a commission as a discussable item, we decided not to just show you the report. but to gather some public comment on what the report actually means. so that we have some feedback to give you in advance of this. so we have scheduled two interested public meetings. interested persons meetings in december on the 4th and the 10th to do this. you are welcome to come as you are to all interested persons meeting.

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

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