You see my name tag in here, and im a public server for more than ten years and a union storer for Government Employees. You all know we have 2,000 Government Employee expos emplon Public Relations for the San Francisco chapter. I have been coming in here to be reporting to you in dates back in 2017, 2018 and 2019. I was here in october of 2019. I came before you as Ethic Commissioners and staff to investigate government abuse, government corruption with Public Officials. I have been reporting to you possible corruption with elected officials through election fraud. And no other party for 45 years. We have green, independent, libertarian, republican, nonpartisan or constitution, but in San Francisco, we only have one party for 45 years and that is democrats. Theres no political equity for people by super pac. 2018, San Francisco taxpayers pay 4. 16 million in matching funds to support democrats and refuse nondemocrats to go into forums. 2019, democrats and all of you sitting in here increase more matching fund to create a more government scam. And democrats agendas created 21,000 homeless dying on the street and 25,000 drug dealers and abuses supported by taxpayers. And that is nonstop everyday and violence target minority people like the chinese people. 50,000 plus empty apartments available today and yet, the Public Officials selling more pondbonds to proposition a to ak for 6 million for only 2800 house and unions. The liberals, democrats have been operating a tyranny government for 45 years in San Francisco. The United States constitution article 6, it is a violation for San Francisco to operate such a government to abuse its power. You know sanctuary city and sanctuary law its a violation for federal law and Recreational Cannabis is a violation and illegal drugs, its a violation, but those are all supported by democratic agendas. Needles giving free to drug people and we have later for money. I am here to ask you, please, do your job, investigation, restore our government that is for the people supported by the people. I believe that youre personally liable for what youre doing. If you sign up for something, you have a duty to do so and for public records, this is my statement. Thank you. Thank you. Any other Public Comment . Im david lee. Im here today because my campaign for supervisor in 2016, the treasurer, sent a request for a waiver a wafe waiver rt for late fees assessed on my campaign back in 2018 and we had not received an answer on that letter. However, this week, i learned that we were asked to remit payment for the late fees spond i am asking that a response, a formal response to our letter requesting a waiver be submitted to us. Thats all i have to say. Thank you. And mr. Lee and Deputy Attorney chen, could you guide me if im overstepping my responsibilities. I just wanted to understand what you just shared with us is that you ran for office in 2016 . 2016, and shortly thereafter, we learned that my campaign manager, who was a paid campaign manager, Campaign Consultant, failed to file some documents, particularly related to mailers. I believe they were the 161 mailers and working with our treasury, we submitted the filings and uploaded them to the website. And shortly thereafter, we received a letter from the commission. I believe ernestin xrays brachs steen submittee braxtone filing and we submitted a letter, that the Campaign Consultant was responsible and the contract that we had with the consultant and the mitigating circumstances of that late filing and the fact that as soon as we found out about it, our campaign found it about it, we immediately uploaded those required documents and we had not gotten a response back. To the waiver request. Exactly. That was received in 2016 or 17 . To 17. 17. So this week we received an email from ernestine braxton requesting the late fees be paid with no mention of the waiver. So you never received ok. Thank you. And then so thats why im here today to ask for consideration given that our Campaign Committee passed audit back in 2018 without any problems, except that i think there was one a small amount was not accounted for, but other than that, it did pass audit and we do have a letter from your auditor, your northeasindependent auditor. So im here today to see if we can have the waiver considered. So executive director pallen, i would like to ask you to take that. Thank you. And any other Public Comment for agenda item number two . Agenda item number 3, draft minutes for the Ethics Commission october 18t october 18th regular meeting. I move the approval of the minutes. Ill second and Public Comment on this item. No Public Comment. All in favour of approving the minutes. And the minutes are unanimously approved. And agenda item number 4 is a showcause hearing in the matter of ray hearts versus president norman yi, 19042. So earlier this week, mr. Hear hearts contacted Commission Staff to say he had a family emergency and was unable to participate in todays meeting and ask that we continue it so i will move to continue this matter, this showcause hearing to the next regularly scheduled meeting on decembe december 20th. The motion is seconded and ill call for a Public Comment on this item. No Public Comment and all in favour . And the motion to continue the showcause hearing of ray hearts to president norman yi is continued. Item number 5, staff informational presentation on the commissions jurisdiction over whistleblower retaliation protection. Im a senior investigator analyst on staff and here with a form we submitted in the agenda in this meeting to go over our whistleblower retaliation jurisdiction. Presentation has two parts. Ill start with a brief overview of the law were charged with enforcing and then, ill move on tthe law. There are local state and federal agencies who handle local retaliation claims and for the purposes of any jurisdiction, there are three elements to a claim of employment retaliation. So a person and this will be our complainant or the victim of the retaliation. We call that engaging in protected activity. Second, the retail iator takes an action related to the Employment Status of that complainant. So the retaliator has to have power over the privileges or status of the complainants employment so this we call an adverse employment action. There has to and causal connection between the complainants engaging in the protected activity and the respondents taking that adverse employment action against the complainant. And different jurisdictions under those different legal regimes will have different causation standards under this element. So bringing that here to San Francisco, under our whistleblower protection ordinance, the ordinance prohibits an employer from taking adverse employment action against a city officer or employee or an office or employeoremployee of a country r by officer or employee engaging in protected tuft. Activity. Ill briefly run through each of the elements under the ordinance. And so, protected activity. Here in San Francisco, under the ordinance, what qualifies someone as a whistleblower is filing a particular type of complaint with a particular city agency. That complaint has to allege a certain type of allegation and taken together, these types of allegations relate to the general function of city government. And then the complaint has to be to a certain city agency. So this can be to the Whistleblower Program within the controllers office. It can be to the district attorneys office, the City Attorneys Office, us here at ethics or to the complainants own department. Adverse employment action, element two. Some of these are fairly straightforward. Someone is terminated, someone is suspended or someone is demoted and then there are situations that are a bit less straightforward. And this can include a transfer or a reassignment in duties. But the legal test is whether that employment action would dissuade a reasonable worker from pratting i participating in whistleblower action or if that action would be likely to materially affect an employee owes Job Performance or that employees opportunity for advancement. Third, causation. And so, under the ordinance, Commission Staff has to show that the underlying protected activity is a substantial motivating factor, that whistleblowing was a factor for the adverse employment action. So it doesnt have to be the only reason. But it has to be more than a remote or trivial reason for taking that action against the complainant. There will be situations where an officer our employee engages in protected conduct but also isnt performing their job duties to the required standard or isnt conducting themselves in the workplace to the required standard. So this standard, this burden of proof attempts to balance on the one hand the need for employees to received a qui received a r s for business decisions. Mr. Mcclain, could we go back to the protected activity definition, because i just wanted to clarify for my own sake, as well as for the participants in the room, as well as watching at home, that on page 4 of the agenda item number 5, under protected activity filing or attemptin ato file a complaint that the commissions jurisdiction for whistleblower complaints cover the protected activity that is enumerated here. Its not any complaint of activity that we have jurisdiction over, but what the complainant has to allege is improper government activity, such as misusing city funds or deficiencies. So we wont have jurisdiction over everything a whistleblower will complain about, is that correct . That is, commission. So, for example, Sexual Harassment would not fall within our jurisdiction. That is correct. Thank you. Part two, i will go over some of the considerations that we take into account and just some of our daytoday dealings with the ordinance and complaints. So the first question that were going to ask, has the complainant alleged protected activity for which the commission has jurisdiction . And so, when were thinking about this big picture, that underlying protected activity is the x that marks the spot for who has jurisdiction. And for our purposes, were looking at, did someone make the right type of complaint to one of the enumerated city agencies . And now, just because we might not be the right shop for this type of complaint, it doesnt mean a city officer or City Employee isnt going to go without Legal Recourse or remedy. Because there are different local state and federal agencies that have jurisdiction over different types of that underlying protected activity. And when we determine a complainant or that a Different Agency may have jurisdiction over a complainants type of underlying protected activity, then we will try to point the complainant in the right direction. So, for example, the equal opportunity excuse me, equal Employment Opportunity division of San Franciscos department of Human Resources, so this department has a jurisdiction over retaliation based on city and county employees reporting discrimination or participating in investigations related to discrimination within city departments. The Public Employment retaliations board is a state agency that has jurisdiction over retaliation based on city and county employees here or employees of other localities or the stay level who exercise their rights to participate in Labor Union Activities or collective bargaining activities. So if an employee comes forward and files a complaint with the Ethics Commission alleging retaliation based on those enumerated perpetuities, there is a time limit for the employee to be able to file a claim, alleging a whistleblower claim, how does that initial kind of first stop at the Ethics Commission redirect them. Does that impact their statute of limations in terms of their ability to pursue a claim . So if it takes six months for them to figure out, oh, i want to file a civil claim but i went to the almost two years that i want to file a claim and they come to the Ethics Commission but it has expired and it was the wrong agency, what happens to their claim . If its not a complaint over which the commission has jurisdiction . So i cant speak to the statute of limitations for other agencies and whether they have toling regimes or not to extend those limitations but upon impact of a complaint, staff will endeavor to figure out that first question, is this the right place for it . And try to quickly let a complainant know that this may not be the appropriate place for it and where that appropriate place could be. Thank you. Maybe just one point of clarification is that in distinction to most other complaints that the Enforcement Division receives, its much more typical for us to receive retaliation complaints over the phone. And so, we have immediate contact with the complainant. We hear the reasonably full rehearsal of the facts and so we can make those jurisdictional determinations pretty quickly at the outset, usually while the complainant is on the phone or very soon thereafter in distinctions, say, to some of the complaints that come to us in writing, which sort of stand in line the commissions staff ability to conduct preliminary reviews. So thats to say there is typically a much quicker turnaround in verifying that the commission might have jurisdiction over retaliation complaint. The chair is concerned about the complainants deadlines with other agencies. When we got to that that, i t know if i could have asked that, but if the enforcement report, we have the report on the time it takes to handle preliminary review matters and that if its in months, then if that eats up the timeframe and thank you. Thats helpful that most of the complaints can be dealt with over the phone. Ill move on to the second part of our analysis. And so did the complainant suffer and adverse employment action . As i touched on it a bit above, sometimes the analysis is straightforward. Someone is either fired or theyre not and someone is either demoted or theyre not. But then there are situations that are a little less clear and require a deeper factual analysis. So in situations of maybe a transfer without a change in job classification or maybe even a little more subtle. So a reassignment of duties, but again, within that given job classification. So in these situations, were going to combine a deeper, factual analysis and compare those facts that we gather to the relevant legal standards. So would that employment action dissuade a reasonable employee from blowing the whistle and then would that change in their job status or the privileges of their employment materially affect the employees Job Performance or that employees opportunity for advancement . Mr. Mcclain, i have a question regarding the investigation piece. So if the department of Human Resources is also conducting its own investigation into the employment action that was taken or not taken with regard to a complainant, how does the Ethics Commission coordinate with or work in conjunction or the intersection of our investigation, as well as an hr investigation . How does that play out or perhaps mr. Pierc pearce can spk to that . Is the question what happens when two agencies have simultaneous jurisdiction . Yes, and do we interview witnesses, like, twice over or look at an hr report and how does that play out . Im sure its factspecific but in general terms, but if you could describe to us how the interplay is between the two agencies, that would be very helpful and given it could be a very sensitive and important topic for that and do we always conduct our own investigation . Do we based our findings only on the hr investigation . If you could give us a sense that would be helpful. In practise, i would say its pretty uncommon for a complaint of retaliation to belong both to the Ethics Commission and to another city agency and most often, its the case that there is some underlying complaint that some other agency will have investigated. Thats the first element of protected activity. Whether the City Attorneys Office or the Whistleblower Program or the complainants own department has conducted an investigation into the underlying complaint of the whistleblowing itself. It may sometimes happen that there would be a complaint of retaliation that would lie with two jurisdictions and it may be that a complainant faces retaliation based not only on whistleblowing but also on an underlying complaint of discrimination and it could be that the department of Human Resources, the eeo division, is looking at a retaliation angle based on underlying discrimination and we are looking at retaliation on underlying whistleblowerring. But that happens very rarely and we do have a reasonably wellestablished relationship with the hrs deo division and linda simon. We are on the ph