mr. st. croix said, the matter would otherwise have been heard in closed session, but for the fact that the fppc had already issued a determination, and so, these are typically not, even when discussed among the commissioners, done so in, or with the public present and now if we want to discuss a change to that prior, whereby they are automatically calendar and we discuss one at every meeting we can do that. but, i think that that, that decision is for a separate time. and i think that today, we should focus on adjudicating the actual matter. >> madam chair? >> we will indeed, focus on adjudicating it and in fact, as i said, i intend to vote for the stimulation. but, i think that in regard to the procedures themselves, where we have a matter of such public significance, that shows a conflict of interest to this extent, that it should be something that routinely this commission will take up and that it will be calendared for discussion and that we do discuss it and we have the staff talk about it an

mr. st. croix? >> thank you very much. and i think any items that commissioners would like to bring up for future meetings for discussion? for consideration, mr. kean e. >> yes, madam chair, i am going to make a motion for our next meeting in regards to one of the matters that we did the last time, the matter having to do with juliet ellis. i have informed that the puc, gave miss ellis something like a five-day suspension. and we have accepted a stipulation in which she admitted to some fairly important and agregious corrupt conduct in my opinion, influencing a government decision in which the official has a financial interest, so my motion for next time for discussion is going to be that we recommend to the puc, in light of her admissions, contained in the stipulation, that she did indeed commit these violations of influencing a government decision in which the official has a financial interest, that we recommend to the puc that she be terminated. >> is that something that we need to vote on? >> you can't, this is a discus

mr. st. croix, relating to this matter, and when i first got it. and in the final paragraph, he says, due to the fppc public deliberation adecember macing of the attached exhibit they have advised the staff that the ethic's commission should be conducted in open session, not in private. okay. >> you said that it has to be done in a private session, that is not what mr. st. croix is saying here, that is not what the city attorney is saying. >> but we do it in open session and, that is what we are doing now. because it was requested that we put it on the calendar. >> and i am sorry, could i just quickly interject? i think that the discussion is getting too far afield from the agenda item. and so, i think for purposes of public notice, i think that this is a discussion that if it is going to be had, should be had once this issue is ago ahead agendaized. >> right. but, just one thing, if i may say this, my understanding is that what makes it possible for us to discuss this here today, is that we do alr

mr. st. croix, so you are the 100,000 dollars projections you think that you could capture a quarter of tha. >> we are projecting 73 and change. >> and that 73 and change, is of the $100,000 that was to balance your budget, right? >> we are not a revenue, department, and so, the, anticipated revenue does not impact our budget, like i am forgetting the words, the departments that are... >> okay. >> revenue, and the departments which are revenue producers, we are not. >> and so that does not impact our budget, and just as a point of information, too, when we do our budget, revenue projections for next year, we will probably turn them down to that 77, 75 change. >> what is the reason why those things are not being paid? we have it with the enforcement? >> under the city law, once a revenue is more than 70 days old, we refer it to the department of the revenue and they pursue this in court and what i will do is for example chris jackson was making payments for a while and then stopped and so that was r

mr. st. croix, where are we with the budget? >> you have a blessed evening. >> you too. >> so, for years particularly because the city financially was doing poorly, as was the statement, contrary, the directions from the mayor's budget office has always been all departments to find a certain percentage of cuts in the budget proposals. and the ethics commission, is a little bit unique in that we are an independent agency from the rest of the city, and we don't quite function in the same structure. and so, although we are politely acknowledged the budget instructions and we usually have declined to follow them in just submit a static budget of the same budget that we had the prior year. last year the commission decided that things have improved sufficiently enough that we should ask for a little bit more because we have the vacant positions that were vacant for a while. and so we did ask for a modest increase and that is what the commission adopted. following that, line, for this year, we did get a m

mr. st. croix. >> okay, so, we have an issue before us, regarding existing and potential litigation, and it is and it has and it appears on the agenda and we will need to discuss how we want to move forward on this. i believe that the commissioner hur, that you want to say something? >> yes. before we begin this agenda item i would like to move to recuse myself because one of my law partners represented mr. haki and so i don't think that i should be involved in that. >> i move. >> and i second that. >> discussion, commissioners? >> any public comment on commissioner hur's request to be recused from this discussion? >> hearing none. i will ask for the vote. all in favor of allowing commissioner hur to be recould youseded from this discussion say aye. >> aye. >> it is unanimous and we will allow you to be recused. >> thank you. >> thank you, madam chair. >> so, essentially, mr. st. croix and perhaps our representative from the city attorney's office, do you want to explain what we will be looking at?

mr. st. croix said that we were going to find ourselves in a unique situation, by discussing this publicly. i was not clear about that and it feels like, it feels like we should have some amount of participation on the front end that does not have us here. and i don't know what that is and i don't know, at what point that happens, but because it was a public hearing, at the fppc, is that right? >> yes. >> it was..., >> yes. >> it just feels like we are being backed into the corner of having to have a discussion that is either nice to have new, or late to the game, i don't understand the full process themselves and so would they be having this discussion, in public? or in private? they are hearing and we said that we will discuss this and typically in closed session. and somehow, they did. what if they discussed it in the closed session >> they discussed it in public session. >> i guess what i am struggling with, the moment that they do that, they immediately set some balls in motion for us that the

mr. st. croix, i had asked you this at one time, but if you could refresh my memory, does this commission have the authority to recommend that a person be in a case like this be removed from their position? >> that is not one of ours. >> there is nothing spelled out in the statute or in the charter, that gives us the authority over that kind of thing for this level. i am not being an elected official or a board member or a department head. it is beyond the scope of ours. ultimately, if the commission determines that they want to communicate to superiors that, you know, their deep concern about something like this and what, a remedy that they feel is more appropriate, you could probably do something like that. as a separate action. but, that would be outside of the scope of the settlement. >> but, if we were to do something like that, you are saying, we could write a letter to the fpuc, or, whatever, the case would be. recommending that? or you are just saying or doing something informally. >> yeah,

mr. st. croix, you mentioned at the outset that there could be questions that would delve into things that would not be public and i want to be cosmic that i don't step into that. >> okay >> but i am curious as to the basis of that determination, what did she say that made it apparent that there was no intent to conceal. because it is a little bit difficult to understand how someone like her does not understand what she is doing when she is accepting $17,000 from an entity that is engaging in a $200,000 contract with puc. >> that is a very legitimate question to ask and so it is a combination of, you know, the staff interviews with the respondent and the superiors, and you know, and in making a judgment call based on those and it is also, a determination that there isn't and we don't have any way to believe that there is any credible evidence otherwise. >> and there is not that we know of, and to find evidence that there was not intent to deceive. and i guess that you are making credibility and det

mr. st. croix. >> okay, so, we have an issue before us, regarding existing and potential litigation, and it is and it has and it appears on the agenda and we will need to discuss how we want to move forward on this. i believe that the commissioner hur, that you want to say something? >> yes. before we begin this agenda item i would like

mr. st. croix will make a note of that correction. >> yes. >> all right. >> and on the report i want to point first two typos on page 2, under section revenue report, where it says 0.65 percent, and it should just be 65 percent. in that paragraph before the xhart and where it says 0.62 percent it should be 62.5 percent. and i apologize for those typos. and last month, commissioner keane asked about the bdo referrals. and i just want to give you an update on those first one and two have already been litigated. and in favor of the city. and the bdr is conducting collection efforts at this point and the third one, will be, is set for the litigation but has not come to court yet. >> okay. >> and then, i just wanted to make sure that the commission knows because of the comments that have been made, statements of economic interest and the section seven and i don't have a comment on that but under the state law, we are allowed to assess late fines for people who violate, but we have no enforcement authori