Contributor and how much money that person or entity gave. I agree. Its a good addition to add that language there in the first sentence. Ok. Those are all the amendments that i would suggest. Im glad to answer any questions about those or anything else in the regulations that you might have questions about. Just more broadly, stepping back for a moment, with this new ordinance and the regulations that are implementing prop f, how will the Ethics Commission be in a position to enforce this ordinance. Is there a data base where all land use matters so defined can be searched to know whether or not Entity Company x and properly made a contribution improperly. These ordinances are only as effective as the enforcement ability. Is there a data base that contains all land use matters . Yes and no. Theres not one that solely contains land use matters as defined here. Theres nowhere that you can just call up a data base and it has all land use matters exactly as that terms is defined and inter
Contributor must be following the name, contribution amount of the major relevant contributor. You need to put the dollar amount after the name of the contributor and after that, you put the names of the contributors to that contributors. That is correct. What she points out here is you would not want to put the name of the contributors immediately after that because that would get in between the name of the contributor and how much money that person or entity gave. I agree. Its a good addition to add that language there in the first sentence. Ok. Those are all the amendments that i would suggest. Im glad to answer any questions about those or anything else in the regulations that you might have questions about. Just more broadly, stepping back for a moment, with this new ordinance and the regulations that are implementing prop f, how will the Ethics Commission be in a position to enforce this ordinance. Is there a data base where all land use matters so defined can be searched to know
Contributor and after that, you put the names of the contributors to that contributors. That is correct. What she points out here is you would not want to put the name of the contributors immediately after that because that would get in between the name of the contributor and how much money that person or entity gave. I agree. Its a good addition to add that language there in the first sentence. Ok. Those are all the amendments that i would suggest. Im glad to answer any questions about those or anything else in the regulations that you might have questions about. Just more broadly, stepping back for a moment, with this new ordinance and the regulations that are implementing prop f, how will the Ethics Commission be in a position to enforce this ordinance. Is there a data base where all land use matters so defined can be searched to know whether or not Entity Company x and properly made a contribution improperly. These ordinances are only as effective as the enforcement ability. Is the
Planning commission that is not set fourth in code or in the charter. So theres no citation to make right. What about dish think they have adopted regulations like outlining. Im sure they have very elaborate provisions for how you seek discretionary review on someones project. Because again, it is just seems so discretionary review is hearing when a hearing is not required. I mean, if no one else is brought it to our attention or worried about it, its a fairly hefty part of the Planning Commission calender. Theres a fair amount of discretionary review hearings that they process all the time. I mean, probably it doesnt matter because im hug there are some that involve 5 million worth of construction. Anyway, i just dont have a citation for the regs so i cant really help. If there was someway to pin it to something a little bit more than just so my initial plan and approach for all of the 1. 127 definitions was just to have references to the planning code. Ideally those dont exist. They
From now until ever, and i asked specifically, what about if a woman came in and had had one successful pregnancy through whatever means, and was now desiring pregnancy again for the same kind of circumstances of having had one pregnancy, would she be considered fertile or infertile . And given the circumstances would be considered infertile at that point, even though she had had because this is a new encounter. It is a new time. I think that this covers the situations that might arise that would be again, it is not a permanent diagnosis of infertility by any diagnostic criteria. It is a situational situational diagnosis. We would cover two episodes. But apparently not the third. But it would cover because we wouldnt know at the beginning it would be infertile. Whether it is the first pregnancy or the second. That is my understanding. I have assurances of that. And obviously if that is not the case, we would hear about that quickly and have to amend the policy as we needed to to make i