That the chair person hur suggested revisiting the issue in 2015, i think that i said early, 2015, or february, i remember it being near the beginning of 2015. I can look into the paper again and i actually have memory of that as well. Thank you. Public comment on the minutes . On the july 28th, minutes . Yes. I want to remind you august. I am sorry what . Or august, either one. And so i want to remind you, that it was at the july 28th meeting at which mr. Pilpel inappropriately addressed you. And that was my second complaint that he had violated the sia. And i filed the initial complaint on june 22nd, and it has been four months. Commissioner hur i would really request that you calendar, as soon as you can, hearing both of my complaints, or at least the one that has not been dismissed, and while you were in closed session, it occurred to me that i neglected to messing one small point on your annual report. And i believe and i did not. inaudible when i came back in here and i think tha
Investigation. So, what does that mean if they were not within the jurisdiction of the Ethics Commission. Well it could be that there was no evidence or reason to believe that a violation of that particular section alleged occurred . When this refers to the number of investigations, the Ethics Commission conducted that does not include the investigations that were conducted but did not lead to a what a formal complaint being prepared . And it, and it did not, and it did not lead it a formal investigation. So, it may have been in the preliminary review phase. And what example, a lot of the whistle blower retaliation complaints that come from the people who have never been city employees, and so that would automatically render it outside of our jurisdiction, and so i understand those, and do we know how many we received . Yeah, within the. Sorry. And i can see that. 21, were received. And so we determined that. I see, so 18 were outside of the jurisdiction, and three were referred to the
Actions that were not resolved, those were not ones that could be determined not to be within the jurisdiction of the Ethics Commission, or warrant further action . Or were those ones that the Commission Just was not able to get to at all even to determine which bucket they fell into . I am sorry, which one are you referring to . Just doing the simple math here. It looks like there were 99 that could have been worked on. 78 were worked on. Right . And either by determining that they werent within the jurisdiction of the Ethics Commission and they were not warrant further action and they were more significant complaints that were ultimately resolved. Right. So i want to know what happens to those 21 remaining . They are still pending. Do they get rolled over into the coming year . Correct. So when we are looking at this for next year, it is, is that number, going to include the ones that were left over from the year. Correct. Any other questions on that section for the commissioners . I
They go to the board and try to get an ad back for additional funds that things that they think that they need. But the boards discretionary money is limited and each individual member of the board has neighborhood priority and so actually we did get the money in an ad back for the board this year but it was targeted and helping us implement the new lobbyist regulations. Whatever success that we had in regard to getting money for the positions that were unfilled, and the success always, came from harvey roses office in terms of lobbying them, and getting it with the budget analyst, office, before we get to the board because by the time that you get to the board for the most part they are going to go along with the budget analyst. Sucking up, or working in the Analyst Office and in regard to getting these and taking care of your budget problems if yeah, forgive me, because my experience, holly rose has never recommended an increase in anybodys budget. And i got it. Often. And well, that