Might have. Otherwise excuse me, theres a general item for an upcoming meeting, perhaps in august. I think it would be timely with the onboarding of commissioner gray and commissioner smith joining us that we can have a deeper policy dive in terms of exploring not just the one of the items that are here before us today, but also other things that we had previously considered as a commission and can go through what we have been calling the policy prioritization station plan. I think we have done this on a quarterly basis, but looking at the overall portfolio of potential projects, it has been some time. I think it would be a good time to do grounding in terms of all that has come forward and matters before is now, and have a robust discussion of the full commission on where to go in the future both on the short medium and longterm. I think the timing would be good, because as you can see, a lot of these projects are in the later stages right now. The regulations that you approved hopefully, in 60 days will pass and nothing will happen, meaning they will go into effect and i can work with other staff to implement those and get those integrated in terms of materials. Likewise for the ordinance, it will move along, and by that time in august have a better sense and hopefully there will be much i have to do in terms of staff work. Likewise for the hunters project, i hope i august we will make more progress with the bargaining unit meetings. We will have a better sense of how that will look in the future. It could be a really good time to know what the bandwidth will be on the policy front. We would see that up for august then. Just to go back to the Public Financing ordinance, once the full board hears it, in the event they dont adopt what we send over and make changes, it would come back to us and we would need to consider it again and vote by supermajority to either approve any changes that they make . Correct. Once that happens, if that happens, would it then go back to the same committee and hearing process of the board . Andrew is nodding. Because, yes. Unavoidable. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions for mr. Ford . Thank you. Public comment on agenda item number seven . Agenda item number eight. [reading items] thank you. Briefly in the enforcement arena this month, i had occasion to visit the citywide consultants, the department of Human Resources citywide consultant in their quarterly meeting which took place in june. Dhr had assigned proof for that month eating consideration of secondary employment within the city and county. Secondary employment being when an employee of the city and county receives compensation from some outside activity. I do think in the evolving economy that our local tech has partially provided that we have some occasion to reconsider what it means to receive compensation and some outside activity. In general, the conversation turned on instances in which employees have say, a second job, or they are engaged in some income driving project, outside of the city. I attended that meeting with counterparts from the Controllers Office. And the head of the City Attorneys Public Integrity unit. The three of us had occasion to describe for those consultant the kinds of obligations that arise for City Employees who are seeking income in these external ways. Under the Civil Service rules they have to disclose the existence of that secondary employment. They have to seek permission from their department to engage in that activity and theories that form by which they seek that permission. Then it has to get forwarded on, not to their internal hr but to the department of Human Resources which likewise must sign off on that. At every stage those entities have to satisfy themselves that the secondary employment is not incompatible with the responsibilities as a City Employee. So, we talked a little bit with these consultants about the kinds of ethics situations that might arise when City Employees have secondary employment. One is not just that they have to file this form, but that it may create other disclosure obligations on form 700 if the affected City Employee or city officer is required to file a form 700 statement of economic interest. They would have to disclose to the city that there is this outside financial interests because that would enable us to evaluate potential conflicts that may arise and of course that officer or employee, ordinary functioning. And then we talked a little bit about whether investigations may arise for individuals who have outside employment. Both the Whistleblower Program and the Public Integrity unit in our office could investigate whether somebody is outside employment materially impairs their ability to satisfy their obligations to the city and county. There are a variety of ways that might happen, it could be that the second job entails excessive time demands. It could be that they are using city resources to advance their second job. They are absentee in themselves and from work, while claiming to have been at work so that they can operate the secondary employment. We talked about the role that the departments might play, the role that Human Resources might play and the possibility that even in a phase of discipline showed a department wish to impose discipline on an employee, the Ethics Commission could seek financial penalties, irrespective of whatever determinations the department itself might make. I think it was a pretty robust conversation. I think all parties, where a doubt of secondary employment within the city. I think historically it has not been something the departments have either adequately understood or adequately addressed. As i say in the report, i think this signals a renewed commitment trying to bring the citys workforce into compliance with that variety of obligations. Overall i think it was a successful outreach effort by virtue of invitation through the Controllers Office program. An extension of the ongoing collaboration that we have without office, and with the Public Integrity units at these weekly meetings i think are bearing fruit in terms of the Ethics Commission and these other accountability departments work collaboratively to change the overall culture and landscape ethically within the city and countys workforce. I would note that the investigators again have fewer matters and preliminary review, they are down now to 45 from where we were a month ago at 57. The amount of time on average that it takes us as a division to get through this, has bumped up some. We did not discuss today item 6. Item 6 noted one distinction, in these numbers, is that it takes, on average, three months to open an investigation. The number that we see here, roughly 9 month suggests that it takes us longer to dismiss complaint than it does to convert them into open investigations. It is possible that the preliminary investigation for dismissal might be monitored longer than it is when we determined to open a matter, because we always want to make sure that we have checked all theories to ensure that we are not unduly dismissing something where there may have been some liability that we ought to have caught. We have a handful more matters under investigation. We are up to 93, twice as many matters under investigation then waiting for our triage. The amount of time that it takes investigators to get through those has either leveled off or begun to decline coming in now at 14. 5 months. Excuse me, mr. Pierce. On the preliminary review matters there was some Public Comment that came in on agenda item number six. I would just note for our discussion next month, and also for your consideration as you think about this, the comment had suggested adopting the practice of using warning letters. I would like to make sure that we include that as part of our discussion Going Forward where it would be i think its in between so you are not doing outright just so. It does not lead to a fullblown investigation either. Is it a good middle ground that i think is worth discussing and employing explain the benefit of adopting get thank you for flagging that. I am familiar with that Public Comment. We can speak about it in greater depth at the next meeting. I would just note at least one, and i think more of the ordinances under our jurisdiction indicate our ability to use running letters as a tool of enforcement. I think the ability of the division to use warning letters is certainly implied in the charter, if we can seek penalties. I dont see any reason why we cannot issue a warning letter in any instance. I am not sure that we need a regulation. It would define our capacity to do so. I would add that we do in fact issue warning letters. I issued one just two weeks ago. The public would not be aware of those, because we do not publicize them in the same way we do stipulations. We can talk and maybe get advice from the City Attorneys Office about whether publicizing a warning letter would violate the confidentiality provision in the charter which state that all investigative documents prior to funding of probable cause are to remain confidential. Issuing a warning letter on the heels of a dismissal would be prior to a determination of probable cause. It would reveal, for example, the existence of complaint where the investigation it may be under the law of this jurisdiction were not able to publicize those warning letters. It doesnt prevent us from using that tool and potentially from using it more often than we do currently. Could you please work with mr. Pierce, and be able to provide clarity for us next month . That would be great. Lets see. The commission science collection officer continues to advance her sweep of on late unpaid late fees. She is conducting a wholesale audit late fee program. She is finalizing another set of warning letters to delinquent filers. I note that since the beginning of her effort, to collect unpaid fees she has collected Something Like 7000 in previously unpaid fees. That is separate from fees that continue to come in as a result of an initial selection letter. That is in response to warning letters that she has sent out to filers who prefer to not be referred to the bureau of delinquent. Turning to the bureau, fortunately there are not up dates as to mr. Jackson, or ms. Norman. One update on isabel or bono is that he or she resides or works in new york. The bureau has decided we do not have jurisdiction to sue somebody who resides in new york area admittedly it has been a while since i have taken civil procedure. I cant recall whether tag jurisdiction would allow us to bring a suit in california. Effectively they sought our provision to refer that matter, too. We gave them permission. That is the next best step. From that point, i noticed that it has now been assigned to an outside collections agency. I think we have been trying to locate mr. Jackson, at his place of residence, employment for at least three years now. I have been on the commission. This is been an item that has not regressed in any way, shape or form. I will take it up with the bureau. My most recent communications with my contact there, or that mr. Jackson and ms. Norman, as he put it, live off the grid. I think that might be the thing. If they were to refer to an outside collections agency, it is possible that the agency would not be able to locate them either. It may have less to do with who is trying to collect and whether it is possible to collect. It is a fair question and i will follow up with them about that. I am assuming when you refer to an outside Collection Agency that they take a cut . I noticed this position that we have of assigned collection officer, which is great, because obviously somebody doesnt have the responsibility of chasing all of those bits and pieces, and it is hard to, you know, make that a priority. Do you also look at how much it costs to go after the money. A lot of times, you can end up spending more money on staff time, and collection agencies than the actual money that you are potentially going to recover. If you have been looking for 6000 for three years longer since it was 2013. You might have already wasted more than that. I know it is the bureau of delinquent revenue. They are a separate entity that you probably have to work order money too. Anyway, just something to think about. We are happy to look at a rationale, like every other debt collector, in america, you know, the cost benefit analysis. I know that we did get a judgment in the second Chris Jackson matter. It looks like you have a judgment in both. Oh, i see. Okay. I defer to you on that. The last one though, if i can ask about. I got your note clarifying that the petitioners request for bankruptcy was rejected and its out of bankruptcy court. The civil suit that the city and county filed originally now is no longer stayed. That will no longer be calendared and that is what the case conference the reference in before. When you say negotiations with debtor are ongoing, is that the City Attorneys Office negotiating that . Under the charter, do you have authority to negotiate settlement of litigation outside of the City Attorneys or board of supervisors process. I would be surprised to learn that, if we do. I have had conversations with tax attorneys in the bureaus office. It may be that those tax attorneys are embedded within the bureau, but that they otherwise belong to the City Attorneys Office that they are vested with full authority to seek settlements in the suits that they have filed. I dont know the particular civil suit. The tax attorneys handle tax assessor matters, a lot of times there is a mixed bag of property tax payment and a water bill. Out of whatever, inner Agency Cooperation because the tax assessment and the attorneys are separate. But, in this instant, this lawsuit was filed by the city and county of San Francisco was it only filed to collect a debt . Anyway. Anyway, the bureau fired it. The bureaus own attorneys filed a. It. It is effectively a suit that the bureau itself has brought. My understanding is that the suit is to reduce the commissions order to a judgment. Once it is a judgment then it can be enforced against the debtor. Okay. Again, you are saying it is the bureau of delinquent revenue that is handling the settlement negotiations . We are the client effectively. They are seeking our input into what that settlement might look like. Okay. Im curious, because ive always thought of a settlement as requiring board approval and City Attorney approval, and Government Audit Committee approval etc. Etc. Does possible and using the wrong word that it is not a settlement per se but some kind of mediated outcome. It is not the kind of settlement that goes before the board of supervisors. This is my own personal education. Thank you. I will seek additional clarification. I think, with that, if there are other questions im happy to feel them. Any other questions . I have a question regarding the secondary employment training. We have various levels, various rate of employment in the city Civil Service system. For the training, and the review process, review and approval process, is there a different level of review based on the employees responsibility. For instance if youre in the Management Level, the scrutiny and the review ought to be much higher than someone at entrylevel, is that correct . There is no onesizefitsall. I think that is true on and off i have worked with the department of Human Resources in reviewing the secondary employment authorization so what you say is the general approach. The department of Human Resources is much more circumspect, much more higher level, Management Level kinds of folks. In terms of, does the additional appointments actually prevent a conflict of interest . Does it take up so much of their time to the actually cant carry out their city duties . Those inquiries are much more demanding as you would expect of higherlevel folks. As to those who may be our sort of more, you know, outfront who are doing different kinds of things for the city. I would expect them to provide a little more leeway. It is a process that does apply across the board. All throughout the organizational chart. Yeah, i think, they do take the situation into account. Is there a dollar figure that triggers disclosure, or anything at all . Even if it is a one time consultation during the year. Or anything that could be called additional compensation . It is established in the Civil Service rule. It does not provide for any dollar thresholds. It is my understanding, i dont want to speak to botsford dhr. It is my understanding dhr, for example, would review someone who is a freelance consultant who may not have an ongoing gig but have occasional clients and would still need to get this authorization. Thank you. Sorry, dont meet to drag this deeper into the rabbit hole. Would this be for any work that City Employee does whether or not its during city business hours, or on the weekends. As long as they are compensated but not volunteer work . That is correct. It applies to any, whether there is actual interference in the regular workday. Of course they would look to see if the employment would interfere with a 95 and duties of the person. It really does apply across the board. There is other issues that could be triggered by this kind of process. It could be a genuine conflict of interest issue. It could be a confidentiality issue. It is a process to allow them to vet those parts concerns. In 20 thank you. Is it by a committee, decision by committee, or the immediate supervisor of the individual applying for secondary appointment. On the schedule, gover