Me no doubt that if given discretiona discretionary power, you would [ indiscernible ] from anything the commission intended. I think for the investigation unit, the two driving principles have always been the public trust and transparency. So as long as it is guided by those two, whatever actions you take are then the public will understand. And at the same time, when you look at the enforcement efforts, its largely serving to deter future ill activities. Sometimes when people look at these cases that have gone on for five, six, ten years and with nothing happening, it doesnt give the public much trust. So i think that it is really important to look at the cases you take. And the second thing is there are other cases that come to you that may not fit into the clearly defined areas that we would like to support. Maybe those are innocent cases that may expose some deficiencies that we should look at so that we can look at policies to close the loopholes. So they may not fit into the rea
Me no doubt that if given discretiona discretionary power, you would [ indiscernible ] from anything the commission intended. I think for the investigation unit, the two driving principles have always been the public trust and transparency. So as long as it is guided by those two, whatever actions you take are then the public will understand. And at the same time, when you look at the enforcement efforts, its largely serving to deter future ill activities. Sometimes when people look at these cases that have gone on for five, six, ten years and with nothing happening, it doesnt give the public much trust. So i think that it is really important to look at the cases you take. And the second thing is there are other cases that come to you that may not fit into the clearly defined areas that we would like to support. Maybe those are innocent cases that may expose some deficiencies that we should look at so that we can look at policies to close the loopholes. So they may not fit into the rea
Certain matters beyond the limits of that policy, but we would like to see that more explicit in a revision. Thank you. I agree with what my fellow commissioners have said. I think that during the time im here the staffs work has given me no doubt that if given discretiona discretionary power, you would [ indiscernible ] from anything the commission intended. I think for the investigation unit, the two driving principles have always been the public trust and transparency. So as long as it is guided by those two, whatever actions you take are then the public will understand. And at the same time, when you look at the enforcement efforts, its largely serving to deter future ill activities. Sometimes when people look at these cases that have gone on for five, six, ten years and with nothing happening, it doesnt give the public much trust. So i think that it is really important to look at the cases you take. And the second thing is there are other cases that come to you that may not fit in
About whether either of those options make sense or i can continue with other remarks. It seems to me that there i mean, maybe theres a crossing of the two. For example, i think your idea about getting rid of lack of jurisdiction cases immediately makes great sense. Theres no point in dwelling on something lack of jurisdiction it seems to me is fairly bright line. You either have it or you dont. It really doesnt call for a great deal of discretion. So getting rid of those, it seems to me, highly efficient is a way of clearing out cases. Your numbers are showing that. And then perhaps after you do that, then you take whats left and i dont know if theres a diminimus amount that provides response to the request of justice to say that given youve got three investigators and youve got this many complaints, is it in the interest of justice to spend to take one of your investigators and spend time on a matter that might result in a 100 fine . And maybe it doesnt. I dont know if thats an appro
Be worth revisiting at least . Yeah, were certainly willing to. An open amount. Were certainly willing to revisit it. I think one think about their regulations is they provide certain circumstances by which their Enforcement Division can decide that a particular respondent is ineligible for that schedule, ineligible for the streamlined process. So they dont get the benefit of the 1 modifier. They instead get pumped through the ordinary settlement process, where the penalties might be larger. If we were to undertake a revision of the existing fixed penalty policy, we would ask that the commission approve our ability to do that because the existing policy says that staff is down by that policy until changed by the commission. I mean, our own view has been that there are situations in which we could exclude someone from that policy because we think the policy envisions scenarios that dont require investigation. So we have, in fact, taken certain matters beyond the limits of that policy, b