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
State and the beginning of the iraq war. I want to begin with one of the rules one of your 13 rules published in parade magazine, this is the 13th and last. Perpetual optimism is a force multiplier. I find you the most optimistic person i have read in a long time. It is very important that rule had to be the summary of the 13 rules and it links to the first one that says things will get better in the morning. I start that description by saying that is not necessarily the case, but the attitude you should have. Things will get better and you should make them better. It is within your life to make them better. Force multiplier is a military term always looking for ways to enhance the power of our force, whether it is communications or supply lines or whatever it is, but we look for things that shout make the force more effective. I have found in working with human beings, and this book is about working with human beings. I have found if you convey an attitude of perpetual optimism, we ca
Peoples Services Less well attended. In the book, as well summarized gen. Powell it was very important that that rule be the first of the 13 rules. I start that description by saying its not necessarily the case, but its the attitude you should have. Things will get better. You are going to make them better. It is within your license to make things better. As you go through the rules, perpetual optimism is a force multiplier. Multiplier is a military term, ways to enhance the power of our force. Were looking for things that make the force more effective. So, i have found in working with , and this book is about working with human beings, i find if you convey an attitude of perpetual optimism, we can do it, we can do it, it becomes a force multiplier. To roberts real question, when i go across the country, i see all of the problems discussed here in the problem with overseas adventures and other crises around the world but i have also seen around the , people who are , financial leaders
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