commissioner shmeltzer: have they been submitting invoices? >> i have not seen an invoice for awhile. i would have to double check the precise numbers. i think about $180,000 has been spent. commissioner shmeltzer: $180,000 has been spent and we have not seen it work product in three months. >> that is correct. commissioner shmeltzer: must be nice. supervisor campos: i appreciate the questions. i think we want to make sure that we get as good a work product as a possibly can. i also do want to acknowledge, though, that my understanding that the puc has been working closely with the consultants and they are monitoring the work. i am confident they will ensure they meet the obligations that are required of them under the contract. absolutely, it is important for us to monitor this. and that we request that the work product be surprised -- provided as soon as possible, so i appreciate the questions. >> mr. campbell touched on most of the items i was going to bring not. beyond the budget hearing, there'll also be an informational hearing in front

commissioner shmeltzer: are the reports on the web somewhere? >> some of them are. thank you for the work you have been doing. supervisor campos: next speaker. >> thank you commissioners. i would like to thank the commissioners and staff on working to produce the reports. it will inform future discussions on how san francisco conducts its elections. i want to highlight three areas. for voter participation, the metric the report uses is not what most people understand asit also largely ignores the effects of low turnout elections inevitable with any runoff system. as a result the historical comparisons failed to fully reflect the voter turnout. for over vote rates, the so- called multi candidate rate is calculated in a way that is not camp broke -- comparable. those contests have high rates of under the votes which are being used to inflate the denominator and reduce the rate reported. a comparable calculation would double the rate and should be included in the report as an alternative to what is there already. finally, the report provides a brief discussion of exhau

commissioner shmeltzer: i would second that. it is an informational item and it is useful. all of this, i think, is useful for the public to get to understand better the more discussion and more information there is, the more people start to see different pieces of it. i think it is hard for people to understand all the implications. supervisor olague: i think it lends objectivity to the discussion. i think this is a good place to start. supervisor campos: in terms of clarifying what happens. once we accept this, this would be presented to the various agencies that would have some interest in this, whether the elections commission, what else? cut that would be up to you to decide -- >> that would be up to you to decide. i do not know if there is anyone else. supervisor campos: as part of accpeting, lafco staff can work with the chair? is that ok? one of the things we should also notes, there may be additional work that is done and additional information provided. , as we have any other comments or thoughts, can we take that motion without objection? i want to thank mr. frie