it was as mr. shen just stated >> is there a motion to auto prove decision point 2 as amended. >> so moved. >> second. >> all in favor? >> aye. >> opposed? okay that passes. >> can i just suggest one minor clarification, if you don't want to do it, i can understand on line 6. where it says, "for city elective office, the committee shall continue to file." might you insert so it says, "the draft committee," so it's specific referring to the draft committee. >> i think it's clear. we used it six words previous? >> all right. >> i will make the offer for a short break once again. commissioners are we okay to go forward, do you want a few minutes? carry on. the next item on the agenda is the performance evaluation for director st. croix. public comment on matters pertaining to agenda item 5? >> i support the good work that the director is doing and i hope that you will find similarly in closed session. i do think it's work having periodic or annual performance evaluations, including setting goals and review

. >> mr. shen, first question for you, when you are out of the room, that is had your name is invoked. there was a question raised as to whether we can amend the regs given the agenda? do you have an opinion on that? >> you mean just a noticing question? yes, we can change the regs. we do change regs in ordinances and approve them out the same day. >> is the notice in the agenda sufficient to do so? i'm sorry, we want to change our regular enforcement regulations as well? >> i think we got our answer. >> decision points 5, 6 and 7. >> sorry, just a second. >> sure, take your time, please. i think the better practice would be to make the change at a later meeting. because it concerns super and complaints. okay, let's defer 5-7 unless the commission not properly noticed. the other issue that may be worth discussing is this idea that if under chapter 2, if we don't have a majority voting to find no violation, are we comfortable with two or fewer -- are we comfortable with the situation where we wouldn

he repeated that in his confidential memo to mr. shen and to mark kets of the district attorney office. because the allegation involves johnson and croy executive director of the commission, the agency cannot handle the matter. period. the commission is engaged in the discussion with the various outside agency and so forth and so on. that was in august of last year. i did a record search of your files. i just came back from sitting in the commissions office. there is absolutely records of any kind relating to discussions with any other agencies. the references to the san jose city attorney's office are dated 9 months after that. but i think what is really important is that there is a, i think, a reference in an e-mail that it was mr. st craw who spoke to the city attorney about taking these cases. so what we don't know is how this magically happened, nine months later. there are also no e-mails or other written communications of any kind internally within the staff or with any of the commissioners with one exception which i will give you