mr. st. croix was referred to the same violations. they violated my rights and the rights of other citizens of san francisco for a period of more than two years by advogating and censuring our public comments and preventing them to show up in the minutes, and yet you guys did not have any problem knowing that you had a case against your own executive director finding mr. herrara not in violation without looking at the facts and without reviewing the law, you did neither and i pointed that out in my case, because your investigators only looked at what they wanted to look at to let mr. st. croix off of the hook and give you an out. who will watch the watch man? >> any further public comment? on matters appearing on the agenda or not appearing on the agenda? >> the first order of business will be discussion. and possible action on a request for a waiver from the campaign and governmental conduct code section 3.222. and he is an architect that on occupies two of the architect seats on the commission and has requested the waiver, >> the de

mr. st. croix, a caseload, do you have an optimum kind of caseload that you would be going for i suspect for this moment that it is higher that you prefer it to be. >> i don't have an actual number because we don't have any control over that. the number of cases divided by the number of staff, tempered with the with the case. and three is well and probably five or six, you move forward and you have to wait to move forward and several of our investigations are pending audits and they move at a different pace and at any given time we have 30 to 50 cases and the number of cases come in at a rate and a lot of them are dismissals and you are going to see many of those. for various reasons, mostly of non-jurisdiction and so i could not ideally what it is because it we do not fit if an ideal mold. >> okay. >> and am i glad to hear that. >> and any items for future meetings? >> public comment on the ada report? >> public comment on the executive director's report? >> hearing none, we will move on to any pr

mr. st. croix? reaction to those comments? >> well, i think that we could probably also give on the turn around time. and i would not and i don't see, an issue with extending the amount of time to the 14 or 15 days, there. but beyond that i think that the rest of it is straight forward and so i am not, confused that we need to delay this to get additional impact. this is pretty basic stuff. >> am i correct in understanding that the forfeiture is provision and it is not something that the staff came up with, if somebody accepts a contribution in excess, it is forfeited. >> correct. >> so that the due process question that was raised has been resolved in the statute and if there is litigation, it has been resolved in litigation. but i mean we are not creating the automatic forfeiture that is just enforcing the statute. >> again, would i venture to say that this is an administrative and bureaucratic process and not really policy issue. i assume that there have been opportunities for the public to it comment on this. and to provid