eir ri e cosihould be auor toire ditionalenior al psiti stto cmenti owwe nevereceived a rese froheor's office ecmeation five two, the currentpositi e civiseice etne staff, oneaid for uc d e fory e mea. incheirport's terise nehere's noreashe aiornot fi this ne siti at is ror ifyeaquestioi wille ytower peoryo veucfoe report ere y beecific questio ut nt toget a clarificatiorom e ci attornetesof the process. erstdi ist wi reect to thireport, civil grd he board ofuperviso to resp toecmeatio5ofi er recmeation 5, d at the we les oat wcoitte a wouave to reo ecific ite llesantifo cil jury? 's doit this way,iere's somee fr thearo would like tresenthe dertment's pepecte,a e wec followuwi tis. >> tt woulee, t you. peorcpos:ou veuc ood mog,pervisors. i am from the mayor's office. i wanted to actually correct one thing that the grand jury mentioned. we actually did respond to recommendation 5. unfortunately, it was mislabeled in our response. so if you do look at the mayor's response, we did address that particular recommendation. supervisor campos: supervisor farrell. supervisor farrell: committee may be read into the record so people are aware? -- can you may be read into the records of people