Sufficiently addressed until now and i thought it would be useful for the public to walk be walked through to show them the consequences of their inability to meet the realities of a charge and that their interests, fundamental interests are not wellserved. I also wanted to say that, regarding the sunshine ordinance provisions, those were drafted, i believe, by commissioner herrington when she was chair. I noted in 2013. And i wanted to say that it was a very helpful exercise to try to come to grips with these ethics complaints that were coming to the commission and were basically left in an inbox and not really sufficiently handled by our regses. But it does behoove us now to go back and scrub those regs now that weve had more experience with them. So, this is our second bite of this apple. And i wanted to commend the commission for taking that review up in the context of this overall review of our enforcement regs. Thanks. Thank you. Hi. Good afternoon. Was shocked to hear that your representative spoke and said the Sunshine Ordinance Task force, the only function is that you [inaudible] party. Sunshine ordinance Sunshine Task force issued the order determination after minimum of two hearings. Most of the time three hearings. Sometimes more than three hearings to issue the violation. And the department really dont care about that. Because they know that it is a piece of paper. Theres no consequence. All they can do is ask them for more budgets and then get over time, come to the hearing and not quoting the facts and saying that i dont have to provide documents. This is my only experience. Years ago, Sunshine Task force, after hearing, refer my case to your commission. Unfortunately i dont even have a chance to present my case before you. The case was dismissed because the case was [inaudible] support the finding or the order. And then the recent case im talking about this year, august i make this sunshine disclosure request, ignore. And then i remind them, hey, you did not respond to my immediate disclosure request, ignore. And then i filed the sunshine complaint, sunshine sent them an email, tell them that you are required within five Business Days to sub miss your written responses. Ok . This is long page. And they ignore also. Before the hearing, sunshine hearing, the representative willfully [inaudible] and says once we provide her previous sunshine request for this document on different day, we dont have to provide her anymore. And after three hearings now for my august, sunshine immediate disclosure, the last hearing was december 6. Ok . And then september, of course, december. And then they finally ordered against the Department Planning department, ok . You can look at her face. She was smiling when i walked out. Because there is no consequences and we depend on you to enforce the sunshine ordinance. Thats all i want to say today. Thank you very much. Thank you. Any further Public Comment . Yeah. Go to the lower microphone if i turn that on. My name is nancy croft and my name is nancy croft and im here to express some concern, or at least question whether the commission investigates a complaint. And the definition of a complaint. Is it a verified complaint . If its not a verified complaint, its where is the probable cause for you to investigate . Why should you National Convention side process of investigating one side privately and then maybe the other side privately and deciding that there is no probable cause . You cant do that in a Court Hearing that would have any respect to it. Im caught in a situation in relation to the [inaudible] department. And it says yes, we have a wide array of way to open the doors to a shelters if a person is 18 years old and cant take care of theirselfs but it gives the shelter manager power to dismiss that person without any fair hearing. And without any fair process. The shelter director can do this just he saw this staff member no, not him. But somebody else told him that somebody in the shelter had attack one of their employees. Therefore, that person should be dismissed from the shelter. Now there is no fair hearing at all. And they have a funny little processes that says and the shelter manager can conduct where a person being evicted from the shelter simply in private teteatete. This is a place for bribery. This is how we get corruption. Having somebody with a power to do violence and putting a person on the streets. And going through this process with the person two is bringing the charge but not made any of their hearing. It is not a fair process. The rules of evidence are not provided. We needed to look at the people who are disadvantaged by our system to a subclass. Therefore youre at fault. And we can steal from you and you have no remedy from the stealing. Theres no fair process. I would like the Ethics Committee to look into how the homeless situation is is dealt with. The grand jury dealt with homelessness in 19 in 2002 and the board of supervisors suppressed the publication and never responded to and neither did the pay your or the department to that situation. The Clerks Office can tell you all about it. And i can, too, if i have more time. And i i think this is very much at the heart of what you can what you could be doing and should be doing to take care of the most hit people in our community and to protect us from what the president wants to do to manage for us. Thank you. Commissioner kopp . Do complaints have to be verified by law . No, they do not. They can be submitted. If theyre verify, then were required that our law or state law . That is our law. Thank you. Any further Public Comment . So, this room will still be your desire to have further discussion of this next at our next meeting and commissioner kopps requests relating to the City Attorney. Ok. Is there a motion mr. Chairman, before i make a motion to continue it one month, a couple more questions. Sure. There is reference to a Law Enforcement agency. Are we deemed under state law a Law Enforcement agency . That is a matter of some debate. Hmm . That is a matter of some debate. Probably not. But sometimes we try to can you give me a specific answer on that by next meeting . Sure. And then secondly, under the California Public records act, can a local jurisdictions law reduce that 10day response . Yes. We could be stricker. We do have that legal power . I believe so. Were stricker in the sunshine ordinance on a couple of occasions. Ill make a motion to continue this mare. A second to the motion . Is second. Any further discussion among the commissioners . All right. So, all those in favour of the motion say aye . Oppose nod . Motion carries unanimously and the matter is continued to further discussion to our next meeting in january. We go now to item number six, which is discussion and possible action on staff memorandum, updating the commission on proposed rules and there are attachesments of december 13, 2017 staff report and attachments. Theres mr. Ford. Thank you, chair. Good afternoon, commissioners. Pat ford, policy analyst. Ok. The memorandum and agenda item six analyzes staff analysis up to this point of certain proposals regarding online political communications. That way of background on september 22 an oped appeared in the chronicle regarding certains les that the city and county should take up to address perceived problems regarding online political communications. This oped was by former fppc and fec chair anne raffle and two law professors from u. C. Davis and abbey wood from the university of southern california. A the october Commission Meeting, members of the public and the commission expressed interest of having staff look into these proposals and analyze whether or not they could be possible action items for the commission to take. So, as a result, we followed up with anne ravel and we had a meeting in our office on november 20 that commissioners lee and chu were present at as well as a lot of our Staff Members to look at different aspects of how these proposals could possibly be implemented and this memo sets forth some of the major proposal and what staff believes would be the best way forward on these. Starting on page two, the major proposele that staff believes is worthwhile to do further analysis of is a concept of a kind of archive wherein Online Platforms think of facebook, twitter, and other websites that provide advertising space or other areas for people to spread political communications. These kind of platforms would archive certain data about these paid communications. That data would include not the identity necessarily of the person paying for it, but the amount paid, the content of the communication, the way that the communication was targeted to particular groups and this data would be available to the public on some kind of public online database, yet to be determined whether that would be one central database or individual ones maintained by each platform. But the general concept is that this would be publicly available information. Staff wants to move forward with further analysis of this. We think there is a potential that this could be worth implementing. However, we have a lot of questions that wed want to look into first. We think the best way would be to convene some sort of forum or panel where we would invite the professors as well as other experts in this arena to come and speak with staff, with members of the commission and another as to what they think are the unique changs and solutions that we need to be cognizant of. This iss a novel approach. We dont know of any jurisdiction that currently has this kind of archive. It is roughly analogous of the fe ral law for Broadcasting Networks but it is different and much more complex because it covers such a i wider aray of communication styles. Instead of just radio, television, more traditional platforms, were talking about new and very diverse sets of communications ranging from social media to more traditional websites so we think it would be best if we could get the brightest minds that are looking at this cutting edge areaing to and explore the area. At the bottom here of page two, we laid out a rough timeline to organize our ongoing analysis of this. The first thing wed like to do is carry out that forum that i described and start reaching out to people shortly and exploring when we could have that at the next meeting, wed like to come and present our findings, summarizing for you what we gathered from that. And what our conclusions are from that as to whether or not we should forward. At the following meeting we would worth with some kind of proposal, an actual set of rules that would lay out this kind of archiving approach if, in fact, the result of the form seems to indicate that this would be a good idea. There is three other proposals, other than the archiving ones that are listed here. But staff is not recommending that any three of these or fi of these three are items that the chising should take action on. This should show you that San Francisco is ahe of curve when you look at the federal system and other states laws. The proposals made by anne ravel and the two professors are not gauged specifically at San Francisco. They are looking nationally and at other jurisdictions. So, some of those proposals dont really indicate things that we need to change. One of those is the definition of electioneer for communications. At the federal level, they are exempted. But under San Francisco law, that is not the case. In fact, we get filings if our office of internet communications. So, this isnt an area where we need to be looking at to expand. This is already encompassing this mode of communication. Likewise, the electioneering Communications Window is much broader in San Francisco than it is at the federal level. At the federal level, its 30 days before a primary election and0 days before a general election. But in San Francisco, it is 90 days before any election, which is much broader. And lastly on page four, state law has an impracticalability disclaimer and talking about political ads that have to be carried for by a disclaimer. If the communication so small it is impracticalable to provide a disclaimer, they are age to just provide a link where you can click and see the disclaimer on another place. That is different, again, than federal law which basically says if its impracticalable, you dont have to do it. State law, again California Law here, going a little bit beyond what federal law does and we believe that is probably sufficient to provide people notice that something is a paid communication. So, were not recommending this as an area for action by you. So, to wrap it up, we would like to hear your thoughts on whether or not this kind of forum regarding archiving idea is something youre interested in having us pursue. If so, whether or not you agree with the rough timeline that we set out here. Thank you. Thank you. I think she pronounces her name ravel, anne ravel. Commissioners . Thank you. So i am very much in support of the proposal that you lay out here. I think this is really trit cal work that the commission can undertake on a matter of, i think, greater significance than we than we might realise because of the impact that it can have. On our elections. And my only advice or request would be is that to not just limit our inquiry to ms. Ravels proposal but to be open to other approaches as well. I think stanfords law in practicum report is worth looking at as well and i also think a forum bringing in leaders and other stakeholders who could help shed light on this very fluid and initial stages of solution to a complex problem would be a very good idea. Commissioner renne . I joined in the statement about supporting this. I question whether you realistically can do it by the next meeting. I think that its such a significant issue that is emphasis ought to be on thoroughness. Not how quickly you can do it. Put a timeline of it on january or february might be nice. But if you need 90 days to get it right, i would be strongly supportive of it. Were seeing i at the national level. The whole what media what the social media impact can be on elections. And if there is a way in which we can get out front and be helpful to at least at a transparency level, i think it would be a great step forward. Commissioner lee . Thank you, many chair. I echo my colleagues comments. I just want to have one recommendation. We spoke a little bit briefly on the true source of funding. I know that there is a very complicated issue, by think it is something that i think this commission may want to spend some resources in investigating. I dont think you can get it done if a month. But if that could be included in part of your analysis, that would be include in the future Forum Discussion that would be really helpful. In that currently there are laws that say foreign government, nonu. S. Citizens could not be engaged if political activities. But, you know, there may be ways that we can really tighten it up to make sure that the true source should be identified. Social internet communications. Further discussion by the commissioners . Wi eel take Public Comment. Larry bush. Thank you for taking up this issue. It is a critical importance to how we are being informed about interest that people have in our elections. There is some questions that i dont know the answers to that hopefully this process will bring them forward. Currently, some of our laws provide an exemption for disclosures and reporting for member organisations. That provide recommendations, including for candidates that has been interpreted by some. For example, the committee on jobs said that they could send it to all of the employees of all of their member organisations, which is like 50,000 employees and it was all except from being disclosed. So, im not sure under this provision whether Member Communications are defined in such a way as to be exempt from disclosure. The same thing happens, by the way, with the Democratic Party when they would cherry pick just one jurisdiction to put out information on an election. But because they were democrats, they did it. So, thats one thing. Secondly, i in terms of monitoring and disclosing on electronic things, when i post something on facebook, for example, for friends of ethics, i dont put if a disclosure there. I report it on my Campaign Finances that i paid for facebook to put something in. But theres nothing that tells the public that friends of ethics is as material as being paid for by larry bush or whoever it is that i managed to drill up for money. I dont see anybody else putting those disclosures on either. [please stand by] just for background and review from last month. We have set out and more formally update the commission where they amend staff policy items. Going forward, we have current section 1 sets out the ongoing policy initiatives. And section 2, planned and pending policy initiatives. In section 2, we ask that any addictions or subtractions would be formally discussed and voted on, if possible, just for staffs convenience, i guess, Going Forward, just so we understand the policy, priorities of the commission Going Forward. I will not go through every item, as some of these are unchanged from our november meeting that was only a few weeks ago. But going to page 2 of agenda item 7 under section 1, i want to give you an update on the anticorruption ordinance that you all voted and passed at your november meeting. The ordinance was passed along to the board clerk on december 5. The clerk of the board processed that legislation. And it would now carry an ducks date of january 9, 2018. That ordinance will be submitted under what is known as the 30day rule, which requires the passage of 30 days prior to the Board Holding a hearing on the ordinance. That the would elapse on february 9. Weve become aware that that 30 days, however, could be waived, by the board president , so that would in essence, if the board president was to accept that request, that the 30 days be waived, it would give them time to consider the board time to consider the legislation for a longer period. So i think i will allow you to discuss that as we go along here, but i will move on to the next couple. Skipping the form 700 nonvoting order innocence as it is pending committee action, i will move to ethics training. The ethics and censuring training was voted unanimously to go forward at your october meeting. The board of supervisors has 60 days to accept or reject the proposed regulations. The last day for the board to act is september 23. Our i. T. Compliance staff has been working to update the forms required of the ethics and se censuring training to make sure theyre in one document. And then to proposition t, as you may recall, those are two ordinances that go into operative effect on january 21, 2018. Our i. T. Staff has been working dill diligently to update the process for the forms. The proposition t would ban lobbyists giving gifts to city officials. I. T. Staff is testing an Electronic Filing database. The same is true of the payment ordinance. I. T. Staff is working to update forms and to implement a disclosure database that we hope to have ready for the january 21 date. Moving on to the whistleblower ordinance. We heard a member of the public speak on this item earlier today. We have continued to work with the City Attorneys Office and d. H. R. To make amendments and review the ordinance. And we can begined to move forward with that process. Were keeping tabs on the process as its formally scheduled with that Employee Relations director. Our executive director may have more of an update in her report. Section 2, the pending items in front of us, as it relates to item a, were now on page 4, i believe, of this agenda item. Skipping down to 170868, legislation pending from supervisor kim. Staff and the commissioners have met about supervisor kim and continuing to monitor that legislation and working with supervisor kims office to give recommendations and advice as that legislation moves forward. With the events of the last week, weve been on hold as far as this agenda item and others go, but were monitoring that legislation with supervisor kim. Moving on to the sort of to page 5, the larger items, items 2 and 3, review of Campaign Finance reform and Public Financing system. Weve heard from the commissioners, the public, and at a staff level, weve seen a need that we embark on these projects that have been delayed for several months with some immediacy. The policy decision is going to present a formalized plan getting those items moving forward just so we dont get bogged down, as we may have a bit in the anticorruption ordinance, that sets out a path for the commission and public to understand how were embarking on the processes. Well have to have a more formalized plan in january. If not, february, at the latest and update as we can. Moving to sort of section or item c, you heard from pat ford on the Election Integrity project. Well move along at the proposed schedule. We heard amendments to the schedule and we would be willing to hear changes to the recommendation here if that is the passion that the politician believes is necessary. As to the second item under the recent identified policy projects, use of cash out or prohibition, commissioner eer k asked if we worked with the Mayors Office of community and Housing Development to get a better understanding of that process and development. Theres been some recent events that has made us scheduling a meeting with the commissioners staff difficult. To get a meet ing . Any understanding is that you would like to hear and see you are working to get a meeting with a City Department . Correct. Doesnt make sense to me. You pick up the phone. I mean, this thing is going to take forever. It will go past the february deadline for june election action. As i said, some recent complications and persons being on holiday that they feel are necessary to be in attendance, weve not been able to schedule that formally. Moving on to our last item, independent City Attorney, it was asked in, i believe, september or october Commission Meeting, that the ethics staff continue to review and prepare a memorandum in legislation about having their own City Attorney and planning for research and preparation of that and will have that on their january, 2018, Commission Meeting as planned. I will take any questions or other items that you would like to discuss. Commissioner chiu . On the whistleblower ordinance, can you walk us through the process by which we can get to close our on this issue . Is it meet and confer and then what happens . I will let executive director pelham take this one. Because there is a provision in the prof oedz ordinance for training of all city supervisors who would have the requirement to respond, the bargaining units need to meet and confer over that item. So we hahn this patient that will be starting in early 2018. We would be engaged in those. I would imagine it would be a series of several meetings to hear any issues and resolve any questions, but as a civil grand jury report noted, the recommendation is that we keep the commission closely involved about that process, should the commission decide it goes back to the board, it takes time, commission may have to take a different action or approach. At this point, we dont have a date at which we can promise to bring it back, but well bring it back, our plan is to bring it back to the board of supervisors, after the closure of the meetandconfer process and ask it be reintroduced and approved. It was proposed by london breed at her request to take it to the bargaining units for review. Were hopeful that they can bring it back to the board for final action. Well know more in the next several weeks and make sure to report back to you at the january meeting. Once the meetandconfer process is concluded it, would go back to the board of supervisors for action. If they dont act, do we have the ability to take the ordinance and put it on the ballot . I believe so. Any for the areas under our jurisdiction, yes, can be placed. [inaudible] we would want to be sure to give you a formal analysis, but our initial take is, we have authority to do that, but wed confirm with research. Commissioner kopp . Through the chair, with respect to page i dont know what page it is, page 5, i guess, the Public Financing system item. Last meeting, i was informed and other commissioners were informed that it would be examined under the audit of Public Financing arising from the 2016 election. Is that correct . Im not sure i understand you will audit the Public Financing system. Yes. We need to take a look at the Public Financing system. What does take a look mean . It means assess how well the law has worked. Assess if theres been gaps in the law for candidates. When will that be done . Were proposing we begin that process this winter, january, starting our research internally. Kyle, do you have anything you want to add . I think we want to review how other localities how effective their processes have been and compare them to our own in addition to answering what it has accomplished or not. Well, this related to a specific charge by a supervisor that many was being used for purposes other than legally authorized. And we were informed that this would be part of your examination of Public Financing ordinance and system. Is that still accurate . Yeah, i want to clarify. If your question is about a specific allegation of whether there was wrongdoing, that would not be part of a policy analysis. That would be handled by he forcement staff. I would appreciate your ascertaining if its the latter and beginning such an investigation. We can certainly do that. That hasnt been part of the discussion for the policy, the policy that well bring forward. Thats a separate process, but parallel track. So were handling policy questions from the reports that kyle would be working with pat ford and others on and to the extent there are allegations about misuse of public funds from prior campaigns, thats something that our Enforcement Team would have an interest in and be focused on. Can you begin that in january . Commissioner kopp, i think you are right that every publicly financed candidate is audited and theyre undergoing an audit now. And those will be released early next year. Once the audits are released, then my team would pick up at that point if there are any material findings and pursue an investigation into those commities. Okay. Thank you for that. Then on the legislative updates. Youve got a comment in a couple of places about legislation, state legislation, held under submission. So a lawyer and a judge, that means theres some dispute and the judge is waiting to decide it after hearing arguments. What is held under submission mean, for example, with ab1234, mr. Levine . So the glossary definition is its an action taken by committee when a bill is heard and theres an indication that the author and Committee Members want to work on may i suggest or, in fact, request that you phrase that as held in committee. Whether its a policy committee or a fiscal committee. Held in committee has a separate definition under the state legislatures glossary. It means when a bill fails to get sufficient votes to pass out of committee and its held in committee. Thats what i say, but we dont say that here. You dont say that under procedural you say held under submission. To me, that could mean i dont know what it means. And i will just suggest that you say, held in blank committee. Thank you for the feedback, commissioner kopp. We can try to evolve this so the terms are simple and understandable to the layperson and well strive to do that at the next report. One more question. Lastly, what will happen with this whistleblower ordinance that mr. Monet shaw commented on and has written on a 2page analysis. Will we have that on our calendar . Were hoping to hatch the meetandconfer process in january and then it will go back to the board for them to introduce and act on. Well keep the commission informed and if it needs to come back here so we have to wait for the board of supervisors . At this point, it was sent to them and pending with them, so wed like to get it back and enacted into law. To your knowledge, has this commission taken action on a proposed ordinance that requires meeting and conferring with unions . The issue was raised as well with extending efilings technology to all designated employees. There was a request that that be consulted. I think theres disagreement if its meetandconfer requirement. We do know there are significant questions and wed like to be responsive to that as much as we can. All right. So is there a legal difference between meet and confer and meet and consult . I understand there is, but im not a lawyer i 97 heard it. Maybe mr. Chen can provide me an answer to that at your convenience. And im reminded that when the city created the statements of incompatible activity, they were subject to meet and confer and if a statement of uncompatible activity is amended it must be subject to meet and confer before the amendments can take place. My point is, were not aliens to the process of meeting and conferring. And dont have to depend on the board of supervisors for action on a proposed law thats almost two years pending come next month. Thank you. I want to follow up before i recognize commissioner chiu. I would not think that this commissions authority to put something on the ballot could in any way be trumped by any of the meetandconfer requirements that the city and county has. Thats a good question. Im not sure how that principle would work visavis ballot members placed on the ballot by this commission. I would say there is relatively recent case law saying that if the board of supervisors places it on the ballot, there could be meetandconfers. Could we have some guidance on that . This is something that was weve asked many times to follow up on this. This is something that we passed quite a while ago, sent on to the board, and it has some we were fairly emphatic about the importance of it, in regards to whistleblowi whistleblowing, to have protections in place, and i remember at the time of our vote, comments by several of us, that if the board did not go forward and put this pass this, that we would put it on the ballot. And now it just sort of hangs out there and hangs out there and hangs out there. And so in regard to us Going Forward and getting to the point where were see, no, were going to put this on the ballot, it would be nice to know whether or not there would be a further impediment to that in any kind of meetandconfer requirement. So if we could have that, we would appreciate it. Understood. I will work with staff to provide you with that commission. Great. Commissioner chiu . I was going to make the same comment, but i want to go back to Public Financing. I would like to make sure that we stay in cink with commissioner chen and think it would be the city would be bestserved if we undertook our analysis and incorporate her input into that review, as opposed to having her go off and enact an ordinance in this arena. In the version in front of us, there is no Public Financing pieces. Merely a proposal at this time. Okay, great. Well take Public Comment on this. At this pa i think the commission not the commission, but the board of supervisors would be hiring a new president , appointing a new president. They may. Or electing a new president. I dont know how that works. I assume that the new that the acting mayor would appoint their successor for that district seat . Yes. In any event, the legislative packet that she put together or had would be vacated and were in need of a sponsor, so you might put on your thinking caps and see if you can come up with another sponsor advocate for this measure that we can coordinate with and in the near term, because i do think that if your sense is that theyre going to make significant modifications and cut the ordinance or that theres a question about if it will be enacted at all given the feedback or public or private concerns, that you may as well put it on the ballot in june, which would mean you are on a timeline. So you want to look at that timeline and make sure that you are ahead of the tall ender. Friends of ethics sent in a freedom of information request to the City Attorneys Office for all whistleblower complaints related to sex harassment since 2011. And i have that information, but have not emailed you the response. Since 2011, total number of settled cases involving sex harassment is two. It suggests that this may not be the full story. In fact, there are a number of cases listed with no settlement or zero dollars, or joanne hoeppner, a case that we all know that has resulted in a judgment of 2 million against the city, but it shows 0 in the materials by the City Attorneys Office. What i know from my own experience is that there is nothing that the city unions and city agencies like to do more than talk to each other without a result. And i think that unless you put a timeline of when you expect people to come back with a report, they will not move. And certainly nobody at the board of supervisors, as you look forward to the next year, will want to take on the unions, as they run for office. So i strongly suggest that you pick up the gauntlet and run to the finish line. Thank you. Thank you. Any further Public Comment . If not, well go ahead. Im sorry. Sorry, chair. We would just ask that you take a motion to approve the recommendations in section 2 of agenda item 7. Okay. Sure. Do i hear a motion . So moved. Second. Motion has been made and seconded. All those in favor of the modes, say aye. Opposed, nay. Motion carries. I want to join in the concern about the whistleblower. I think its very, very important and i would urge that if we cant get some resolution in january, that we look at putting the version on that we sent to the board, without some of the amendments they made in committee, which weakened it. And put it to the voters. I have to do that, mr. Chairman, if i win. We can do it in february. March 2 would be the dropdead date. So it could be calendared tentatively for the february meeting. Thats something that as i look at whats happening so far, i think thats something we will do. Otherwise, its just going to be dead in the water and well have to well move it forward and put it on the ballot, along with some other matters as well. When you speak about the ballot, are you talking about june . Yes. There isnt going to be is there a 2018 november . Yes. So it could be on that ballot, and that with have a different timeline than what were talking about . Yeah. It would be august then, august 5, i believe, for that one. Any further discussion . Did we vote on that . Yes. Okay, fine. So well move on now to the item its item 8, i guess. Discussion of enforcement report, update on various program attic and highlights of enforcement programs and activities since the last monthly meeting. There are attachments of december 13 staff report and chairman, i request a closed meeting on this item. Is there a second . Im not sure we can go into closed session on an item unless its been agendaized that way. We can discuss in closed section number 10. Which item are you saying on 10 we can go into closed session. All right. Thank you. For the public part of the report, commission received five new complaints since november 17, which is the last date that we reported to you. 29 matters await either my review or director pelhams review. That is a regrettably large number of items, i confess to you. But we were very busy over the last three weeks. We went to toronto for the con consul for ethics and i had strep throat and a number of other things came our way. So i apologize for the for the high number and i will get them done by january. Otherwise, we continue the stake holder Engagement Process and also met immediately with the chair of the task force over the last couple of weeks in order to bring to you the innovations that i discussed earlier adds to the enforcement regulations. We also appeared before the Sunshine Ordinance Task force for hearing a complaint against commissioner rene. It held this commission in violation for abridging Public Comment for 7 to 8 seconds last december. The task force voted to find that it had already found commissioner rene in violation so, there was no reason to have another hearing. So we were grateful for that decision. I had a great time and learned a lot at the conference in toronto. I attended countless presentations, i guess i could count them, but didnt, one for every 1 1 2hour block and made good connections with staff around the country that do the same work we do. I especially enjoyed speaking at the roundtable. I was a moderator and presenter to other municipality and council and we learned a lot about what each of us does and the, you know, frequent problems we encounter and our investigations, and it was good to hear ideas and realize were not alone in our struggles. Update on an investigative caseload, we were only able to open one investigation. We have, again, 29 matters pending review for dismissal. So we went our staff investigators are doing a great job getting through materials and were hopeful that well be able to clear out anything older than what month are we on . Were looking at older than 18 months or so. So probably well get done within a year. I asked staff to prioritize the investigations that are older than a year, so we can get down to under a year in complaints. Regarding the bureau of revenue, looking to move our cases toward execution. I will say that in december, i attended a meeting of the creditors for lynette sweet, who owes the city 74,000 as the result of an order that this body imposed on her for misused finance funds. It looks like we have a chance of recovering as a result of that