and i, i don't think that an advisory opinion will be particularly helpful if we have to readjudicate it. >> i agree. >> i am not sure that this is, where they have to make determinations related to the executive directors that they hire and work with and conduct business together, that they investigate harassment complaints, whistle blower complaints they seek outside of the council to do that if they are well-organized. but they handle those because it is their job to do so. and i... so i raised it because we do want to be careful and thorough. but i think at this point it might make sense to proceed with the hearing from the attorney and mr. shaw and public comment and then decide at that point. there is no obligation for us to act tonight and see if we are prepared to do so if there is any part of this that we can't to explore further. >> i do have a question for you, commissioner studley, i think that is a fine way to proceed. and i would agree that we should move to the merits. >> mr. gibner, i have a question for you that e-mail that mr. grossman identified. mr. grossman, do yo

now, could another city, county agency, make a recommendation that we would then have to readjudicate? that sounds like something that would likely be possible and would the premature of a completely, an agency that is totally separated from ours, provide assurances to the public that it was ajudicated correctly, perhaps. fortunately or unfortunately, we would be required to make our own determination, i don't think that we could rubber stamp it whether it was one or another. i don't know how ultimately helpful it is. that said, i certainly have no objection if we could find such an entity to look at it. i mean, i don't necessarily have an objection to that. i just don't know whether it saves anybody any time and certainly, i mean flipping it around, would we the san francisco ethics commission be... >> would we do that for another agency knowing that it was really just a recommendation that the other would do whatever they wanted with? >> i don't know, maybe. >> i'm tempted to refer to the recent proceedings in which there was a step by step process, and one entity we built the recor

consensus and a very strong consensus of the task force has been we're not sending matters to you for readjudication. we're sending them for enforcement of our orders of determination. >> i agree. the point of this was to provide some deference to the task force decision and i for one am comfortable with the possibility on a 2-2 vote a task force find would be upheld, if the commission felt that -- the [tpha-ebz/] were [pr-erpbt/] felt that was propriety. if they felt like they wanted a full five-member commission to decide it, they can so find and continue the hearing. but i'm comfortable with the arrangement we have just discussed. any objections from the commissioners? so we would add a sentence perhaps to section 1 e2 that the commission or commission chair shall reschedule the hearing if at least four members cannot attend. i'm sure there is a better way to say that, but that idea be included therein? >> let me read something for you. the only concern when using the language," shall," if the fifth commissioner for some reason cannot be present, but feel that they want to participate, seems to m