The penalty would be under what we call "the pay-to-play contract law." Potentially to the extent that they were a City vendor for a no-bid contract or were seeking a no-bid contract or if they were receiving certain financial assistance from the City or were seeking financial assistance from the City they would become ineligible to receive those contracts or to receive that financial assistance under 17-1400.
Okay. And they would be notified; is that true? Would the company be notified if they 359 4/7/08 - Whole - 080022, 157, 160, 164, 165 were not going to have the opportunity to obtain contracts with the City?
I don't believe so. The way the process works is, when you apply for a no-bid contract or for financial assistance, there are a series of disclosures. There are five disclosures that you have to make, and one of the disclosures are the political contributions that you've made throughout the State actually in the past two years and all your affiliated companies --
But you're telling me that they wouldn't be given any notice of the fact that they wouldn't be eligible for City contracts?
That's up to the Finance Director to determine eligibility. And it's my understanding that a vendor who is requesting a no-bid contract submits a bid, makes the disclosures -- 360 4/7/08 - Whole - 080022, 157, 160, 164, 165
Well, are you the one that recommends that the person not be eligible for a City contract?
No, it's the Finance Director that makes the determination of whether someone is eligible or not.
Well, how would the Finance Director know? In other words, isn't that your responsibility to notify the Finance Director?
I think that that could be something that we can do, and we can do that. We have a database that has the contributions information --
Well, I find it peculiar that the company wouldn't be notified. If the City was going to say, We're not going to accept any of your bids or anything else, these people are getting to be wasting their 361 4/7/08 - Whole - 080022, 157, 160, 164, 165 time; is that true? I mean, that's the way I look at it.
I guess the other way of looking at it is that everyone is supposed to know --
If I could maybe say something else. In the pay-to-play contract law, you could give -- a company could give legal contributions. And let's say it's a law firm. Let's say a hundred partners at a law firm each made a maximum $2500 contribution to a City Council candidate. I don't know how much money that is; it's a lot of money.
Each of the contributions was lawful and within the limit; and yet, that law firm will be ineligible to receive any no-bid 362 4/7/08 - Whole - 080022, 157, 160, 164, 165 contracts because all of those contributions get added together. And if they're over the limit collectively, when they're aggregated, that firm becomes ineligible to receive any no-bid contracts. So it is lawful for a firm or business to --
But would the firm know about that? Would the firm be apprised of that of situation?
No, they wouldn't, unless they were tracking it themselves, and I think all law firms are tracking their --
Is that public knowledge that companies, you know, individuals cannot give -- if there's more than, say, 40 or 50 individuals giving up to 2500, it would exceed the limits for that firm; is that right? Then you'd have to go above 10,600.
Right, right. 363 4/7/08 - Whole - 080022, 157, 160, 164, 165
Well, let me ask you something, and I'm going to be very blunt about this. What if someone gives a contribution and it's a legal contribution and it's up to the maximum, it's $10,600 or $10,000 at the time; would they be penalized from accepting no-bid contracts or doing business with the city?
Well, let me say it another way. How about if they were -- if this was one of the multiple partnerships and they gave over $10,000, would they be penalized?
Potentially. If 364 4/7/08 - Whole - 080022, 157, 160, 164, 165 the multiple partnerships were used as straw donors to exceed the contribution limits, then yes, we would pursue that case.
Well, investigations are confidential, but we would gather facts, seek more information, and make a determination. I'd make a recommendation to the Board on -- (Timer bell rings.)
Well, if you're going to -- if -- for instance, if you're going to probably discourage them or actually not permit them the 365 4/7/08 - Whole - 080022, 157, 160, 164, 165 opportunity to gain contracts, whether they be no-bid or whatever, with the City, then it seems to me that you would have to almost -- you'd have to notify them, number one, and you would have to fine them if it was illegal, what they did.
Councilman, let me make sure that there's clarity on this issue. Eligibility under 17-1400 is not the responsibility of the Ethics Board. Our only responsibility --
Our only responsibility is in misrepresentation that would appear when --
Yeah, but you're the outfit that's supposed to be doing the investigating. And when you do the investigating, do you get back to the Finance Department and tell them that these people are fined? That's what I'm trying to get at. 366 4/7/08 - Whole - 080022, 157, 160, 164, 165
We haven't reached that point yet, but we have notified the Finance Department in one instance where certain firms would be ineligible if they sought -- we first -- we checked to see if they had any no-bid contracts or had any financial assistance from the City; they did not. And then we notified the Finance Department that if they were to seek any --
That would be up to the Finance Department; it's not require in the law, to my knowledge.
In other words, they just go along, not knowing that they have been -- they have been 367 4/7/08 - Whole - 080022, 157, 160, 164, 165 probably -- well, never mind, I won't get into that. All right. I'm sorry, Madam President. I know I ran over my time.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm a bit confused by that colloquy just because I thought you were saying that the Finance Department was responsible for no-bid contracts, or that people, when they apply, are required to disclose the contributions they've given. And I also thought I heard you say that, you know, we have to do an investigation. If somebody's violated the rule, you know, there's some due process or that it has to be applied before that person is not eligible for a City contract. And then I also thought I heard you say that you alerted the 368 4/7/08 - Whole - 080022, 157, 160, 164, 165 Finance Department to people who are not eligible for City contracts. What due process occurred prior to you notifying the Finance Department?
You're right. You heard all three things. And I think the problem is, we're talking -- we're jumping back and forth between different topics. One is eligibility for no-bid contracts under 17-1400.
But I have a resource -- or the Ethics Board has a resource that the Finance Director does not, a database of all contributions to City candidates over the past a couple of years.
I'm not -- I'm not questioning -- 369 4/7/08 - Whole - 080022, 157, 160, 164, 165
And I think if you see something that's, you know, possibly improper or maybe you view as improper, certainly you should alert whatever departments that might not have the information you have so that everybody's aware of it. I wasn't suggesting you shouldn't do that, so --
Right. And I just provided information to the Finance Director in that one case that, although --
They may not. It's up to the Finance Department. That they possibly may not be eligible, but that determination would be made by the Finance Director, not us. We have limted jurisdiction to the disclosure process. If there's a material mistake or an omission, let's say these related companies didn't report the other 370 4/7/08 - Whole - 080022, 157, 160, 164, 165 contributions from their related firm, affiliated firms or, let's say, a law firm, it doesn't --
On that small point, I just wanted a clarification. I don't want to use up more of my time on that. I just, you know, I had a -- we had some good training from you guys. It included a PowerPoint presentation running thirty pages as well as commentary from you guys. We asked for a copy of the PowerPoint, which included a great deal of information and, I understand, is not available on your website or other places for people to flip through. You know, if people want to remember something they heard at the session, they can't find it. 371 4/7/08 - Whole - 080022, 157, 160, 164, 165
And, I guess, to put it generously, you were extremely dismissive -- some would say rude -- in your response to my staff person that asked for it. I just would like to understand why.
I'm not sure I understand what you're referring to in terms of my conduct, but --
I'll read to you the e-mail my staffer sent: Dear Mr. Creamer, I am writing to thank you for the ethics training on Monday afternoon, which was informative and helpful and to ask if we could get a copy of the PowerPoint presentation that you and Mr. Meyer used. Your response: "What do you think?"
Oh. I made a mistake; I meant to send that to Evan. Evan drafted the PowerPoint and that's 372 4/7/08 - Whole - 080022, 157, 160, 164, 165 why I never got a response from Evan. (Laughter.)
I consider it his work product. We've had a lot of requests. I apologize. I meant to forward that message to Evan to ask him, What do you think? do you want do share it with them?
We called about it and we were told it was the policy of the Ethics Board not to share the PowerPoint.
We have not in the past. We've had a PowerPoint -- different iterations of it the past few years, and we typically have not shared it, but I thought I was forwarding the question to Evan. And now I know why he never respond to me. I was asking him whether he wanted to make an exception in this case. I apologize, Lauren.
It was Sophie, but that's okay. I accept that 373 4/7/08 - Whole - 080022, 157, 160, 164, 165 explanation. Thank you very much. And I'm sorry for the characterization of your e-mail.
I understand under the circumstances. Thank you for restraining yourself. (Laughter.)
So I guess -- well, when my time ended, we were talking about inquiries investigation and enforcement. And it sounds to me like your role in that regard is going to be limited to based on budget and staffing. And I guess what you're defining as your mission --
-- is going to be limited to complaints referred to you or that you just happened to pick up; is that correct? (Timer bell rings.)
Well, we do get complaints, but also, we see things, 374 4/7/08 - Whole - 080022, 157, 160, 164, 165 you know, that we -- that I can initiate an investigation on my own initiative as well. So we have some investigations that are underway that were initiated by a complaint and others that I've started on my own initiative. And oftentimes you start looking at something and you think it's X and it really is Y, and investigations sort of shift their focus from one committee perhaps in the area of campaign finance to another committee.
And then there may be other issues that arise too so that the issues can sort of change and add and decrease. You may look into something -- I've taken depositions off people who I thought were violating the law, and they provided explanations to me, and I've accepted that, and we have 375 4/7/08 - Whole - 080022, 157, 160, 164, 165 terminated the investigations. So, again, the most critical thing is to get the facts, get the information, and that's why I think it's important to conduct these investigations confidently, and that's why it's required by the law.
I'm not questioning that. Madam Chair, I don't know if there's other people --
Mm-hmm. Thank you, Councilman. The Chair recognizes Councilman Rizzo.
Thank you. Could you explain to me the interaction that you have with these new folks that just got hired from the federal government? Could you explain the relationship? What are their titles? Ethics...?
Amy Kerlin is the new inspector general, and Joan Markman 376 4/7/08 - Whole - 080022, 157, 160, 164, 165 is the chief integrity officer.
I'll first start with the inspector general. The Ethics Board, as you know, has jurisdiction over the City's public integrity laws, which include the Ethics Code. The campaign-finance law, and certain provisions of the Home Rule Charter, including the restrictions on political activities; and finally, the disclosures in the pay-to-play contract lawsuit. The inspector general was created by a series of executive orders in the 1980s. And to summarize those orders, I think that the way I describe the inspector general's jurisdiction is this: The inspector general has jurisdiction to enforce fraud committed against the City, whether it be by a City employee or by someone 377 4/7/08 - Whole - 080022, 157, 160, 164, 165 outside City government; a vendor perhaps, who's stealing City property or things like that; an employee who's lying about where they live or stealing City property or lying about the time that they're working for the City. Those are all within the jurisdiction of the inspector general, but they are not necessarily the jurisdiction of the Ethics Board. Joan Markman -- I can't speak for the Administration but my understanding is that she is really looking at the contracting process and trying to improve that system and is sort of an internal advisor within the Administration on matters of ethics and integrity. I can tell that you we do work closely with Joan Markman. We also have a good relationship with Amy Kerlin; we have had many meetings with her. We are providing training to the 378 4/7/08 - Whole - 080022, 157, 160, 164, 165 integrity officers that report to her currently; we had one session last week, we have another one tomorrow. And that's --
The third federal employee that you may have been mentioning was Kenya Mann who was appointed, and Kenya was appointed to the Board. She's a member now of the Ethics Board.
It would have been nice to meet these folks so we know who we were looking for. It would be nice to meet those folks some day in this environment. There was a Solicitor's opinion that I think would interest you if you haven't caught up to it yet. It was a question about a law firm that would -- a partner of a law firm that would serve on a host committee. What -- if they put their name on a fundraising host committee, 379 4/7/08 - Whole - 080022, 157, 160, 164, 165 what effect would that have on that law firm's ability to do business with the City? Are you familiar with that opinion?
I'm not familiar with the Solicitor's opinion, but we issued an advisory alert last fall on point. In other words, under 17-1400, the pay-to-play contract law, there are broad-reaching attribution rules that would include if any shareholder or partner of a firm or business was a co-host of a fundraiser -- let's say there were five cohosts and they raise a $100,000, that 100,000 raised at that fundraiser gets attributed to each of the five cohosts and, in turn, to their firms and businesses. So you could have -- one fundraiser could make five law firms ineligible, for example, and yet, it's the same money. And it's because the 380 4/7/08 - Whole - 080022, 157, 160, 164, 165 pay-to-play contract law, again, has these aggregation and attribution rules. You collate all of the direct contributions by members of the firm, by shareholders and certain members of the firm,k and then any affiliated firms or businesses get added to that. And then on top of that, all of the money at any fundraisers that any partners or shareholders were hosts of, you know, if you were a fundraiser or a bundler, all of that money gets captured and added into determination of whether your firm is eligible or not to receive a no-bid contract or financial assistance from the City.
In a nutshell, you're saying that the dollars raised at that fundraiser would be attributed to the -- I think that's in conflict -- I think that doesn't -- it's not consistent with the City Solicitor's opinion, I think, and I'm 381 4/7/08 - Whole - 080022, 157, 160, 164, 165 doing this from memory. I think --
'Cause, as a matter of fact, the Law Department just asked permission to release that opinion for that bound book that they do. So I think that you really need to know about that. And I'll try get you a copy of that as soon as possible, 'cause I think that con -- I'm betting that that's not consistent with what you just reported.
Would you be bound to be consistent with that Solicitor's opinion?
That's a good question. I'd like to see it. And we -- let's talk about it after we produce it. 382 4/7/08 - Whole - 080022, 157, 160, 164, 165
Okay. You know, I want to be right on the money here and make sure that I'm on the same page as you are.
Oh, I think it is. And that's why we issued the advisory alert last fall. It was because we became aware of fundraising events where there were hosts of major law firms, architectural firms, all sorts of folks who regularly do business with the City, and we didn't believe that they were aware of the potential consequences of that potential fundraising activity, and that's why we (indiscernible).
Thank you, 383 4/7/08 - Whole - 080022, 157, 160, 164, 165 Madam Chair.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman Kelly.
Thank you. Thank you, Madam President. I just want to be clear about this; that's all I want to be. Is that if a law firm, for instance, has six or more members of their firm who contributed to a candidate and they contributed to the maximum, which would have been $2500, it would have been over -- that firm would be --
-- in violation -- it would be a violation to the bill, right?
Well, it's not a violation of the law. Again, firms can choose to not bid for City contracts and --
Oh, yeah. 384 4/7/08 - Whole - 080022, 157, 160, 164, 165 Well, I --
-- contributions, and that's -- (Indiscernible; parties talking over each other.)
No. Again, if you had a hundred partners at that law firm each give a $2500 contribution, nobody's violated the law; that firm just can't get a no-bid contract. And that's perfectly legal. That's not a violation.
Okay. So 385 4/7/08 - Whole - 080022, 157, 160, 164, 165 that wouldn't be a violation.
Okay, yeah. I think we were talking -- we were switching back between two different issues.
Yeah. And I was just wondering if the person, say, used their own check, for instance, rather than a firm, it would be an individual; would that count?
In other words, if he was more or less a friend of yours and he just happened to belong 386 4/7/08 - Whole - 080022, 157, 160, 164, 165 to that firm --
It would still be attributed to the firm for purposes of 17-1400, the pay-to-play contract law.
For purposes of the campaign finance law, it's just an individual contribution, and there is nothing wrong with it.
Okay. But as far as you're concerned, since he belongs to the firm, it goes under that.
If he were a partner, if he were an associate, it would not be aggregated.
That's what 387 4/7/08 - Whole - 080022, 157, 160, 164, 165 I didn't understand.
-- individuals within the firm of business. The law firm could be a big group, but --
Thank you, Madam Chair. Councilman Rizzo mentioned something that I want to talk about, which is (indiscernible) effect of former Solicitor's opinion, but just to follow up on the attribution rules, to what extent do you look at whether or not the -- prior to enforcing something, to what extent do you look at whether or not it complies with federal constitutional law, our local laws, or our local Charter provisions? In other words, the right to assembly, the right to free speech, those things 388 4/7/08 - Whole - 080022, 157, 160, 164, 165 that would probably apply to aggregation of contributions, et cetera.
Well, let me first say we have not looked into any aggregation issues yet, nor would we be asked to. The way I think it would possibly come up -- I mean, the way it would work, that law firm would have to disclose --
Yeah, I don't want to get into hypotheticals so -- but do you look at outside the four corners of the Charter and the Code, whether or not you can -- something is, in fact, enforceable under federal constitutional law with respect to campaign contributions?
That's a broad question. I think, you know, hypothetically, we certainly, you know, consider issues outside of the four corners of the Code and the Charter. 389 4/7/08 - Whole - 080022, 157, 160, 164, 165 And I think the Board has exercised its jurisdiction with discretion, you know, with its enforcement power, with its discretion under a range of circumstances, not just in consideration of federal law or constitutional law. But in the totality of the circumstances, I'd like to think that we try to treat every situation fairly within the law in considering matters outside the Code.
Right. Well, I mean, I'd like to work with the Board to try and clarify some of these things. And one of the things that I'd maybe ask you if you can -- you probably can't get to it this year, but I think you're going to shortly -- or if you already have, maybe I haven't had a chance to look at it -- give us recommendations for changes to the laws.
One of those things next year might include whether or not you can actually enforce a current law, because, in my view, some of what is there is not enforceable under federal constitutional standards. And rather than waste time and effort trying to enforce it, let's fix it so that we can have it applied properly.
I appreciate that. I want to be careful how I recommend or suggest that my laws aren't enforceable.
The Chair recognizes Councilman Rizzo for a point of information.
Don't you think, Mr. Creamer, that it would be -- 391 4/7/08 - Whole - 080022, 157, 160, 164, 165 you know, we live and pretty much die by the Solicitor's opinion. Before you put out that, don't you think it would have been helpful to check to see if the Law Department had a legal opinion that you might not be consistent with? Now, what happens if we did, based on the Solicitor's opinion -- and I can't recollect it; it's on its way down here -- and we did allow someone to be on a host committee based on the Solicitor's opinion? I mean, you have to be on the same here.
I agree. I'd like to see the City Solicitor's opinion. Again, the advisory alert was just that. It was not an advisory opinion; it was just warning people, cautioning them that there may be consequences. We weren't saying there were consequences in any particular case.
The 392 4/7/08 - Whole - 080022, 157, 160, 164, 165 consequences that a person will go on a political candidate's political action -- or their host committee, that's a ramification when you scare people away from the process if it's not illegal, or it's not going to have the impact that you suggested.
Well, I think a plain reading of 17-1400, there is a separate section on attribution, there is a separate section on aggregation, I believe. And I think these specific things are captured in that law, and I think it really isn't up for debate.
I cannot recollect -- (Indiscernible; parties talking over each other.)
But my point is, there is one, and you're not aware of it. And, you know, that's no 23 disrespect that you're not aware of it; you can't be aware of everything. But, I mean, this just 393 4/7/08 - Whole - 080022, 157, 160, 164, 165 identified there's a potential that we're doing something based on Solicitor's opinion that you're not aware of.
But going forward, I'm sure that that will be kind of an automatic, but I assume Solicitor's opinions are confidential to the person asking for it. And the -- that you might not be in the loop and get those opinions until there's permission for it to be released. So I'm a little concerned that there's two potentially different opinions here over.
Councilman Rizzo, excuse me. I think we're really going around in circles here. If you have a copy of that opinion --
It's coming down right now. 394 4/7/08 - Whole - 080022, 157, 160, 164, 165
-- I suggest that you share it with the gentleman at the table and if you consider it confidential, and then you could discuss it. And then, sir, Mr. Creamer or whoever wants to answer it can answer it. Councilman Rizzo, are you complete with your questioning?
Thank you, Madam President. Could you just for the record -- I'm not aware that this has been done in Council before -- briefly describe your view of your requirement as any other board or commission is to adhere to opinions of the Solicitor issued, you know, prior to the date of your existence? 395 4/7/08 - Whole - 080022, 157, 160, 164, 165
Okay. As you know, under Section 4-1100 of the City Charter, the Ethics Board has jurisdiction to administer and enforce the public integrity laws of the City, which include the Ethics Code, the campaign-finance law, the political activity restrictions, and such our laws as City Council may time to time provide us with jurisdiction. It goes on to say that -- and I don't have it in front of me right now, but it basically says that we do not have to rely upon the advice of the Law Department for enforcement purposes.
Excuse me. And would you not supersede the Law Department's opinion?
I believe currently, Madam President, the new Ethics Board has jurisdiction to -- actually, under 4-1100 also, to render 396 4/7/08 - Whole - 080022, 157, 160, 164, 165 opinions on the laws that we have jurisdiction over: the Ethics Code, the campaign-finance law, et cetera. And so we -- the Solicitor is without jurisdiction to interpret or advise on the laws that we now have jurisdiction over.
I have a book down here that doesn't have 4-1100 in it, so --
I have 4-1100 here. I could read this. It's a long paragraph; I could read it if you want.
Okay. The first sentence: "The Board of Ethics shall administer and enforce all provisions of this Charter and ordinances pertaining to ethical matters, which, for purposes of this chapter, shall include conflicts of interest, 397 4/7/08 - Whole - 080022, 157, 160, 164, 165 financial disclosure, standards of governmental conduct, campaign-finance matters, prohibited political activities, and such additional related matters as the Council may from time to time assign to the Board. The Board shall handle ail inquiries and complaints surrounding ethical matters and notwithstanding the provisions of Section 4-400(a) and Section 8-410 of this Charter, the Board shall render advisory opinions provided that, with respect to opinions regarding State law, the Law Department, at the option of an employee requesting advice, shall have concurrent authority to render advisory opinions." And then the rest is about enforcement.
Right. So with respect to inquiries and complaints -- I don't want to get into a debate about what modifies what in that paragraph. I just -- what I want 398 4/7/08 - Whole - 080022, 157, 160, 164, 165 toad is state for the record that many members of City Council do not believe that they took away authority from the City Solicitor to issue them advisory opinions on ethical matters or any other matter; and that, in fact, under the City Charter, the only opinion we can rely on for a complete indemnification of our actions is an opinion of the City Solicitor and not opinion of the Ethics Board. And I look forward to working with you to try to resolve this one way or the other. Hopefully, we can get indemnification for opinions from you also.
Actually, if I could address that first. Actually, as 4-1100 of the Charter states, the Law Department has concurrent jurisdiction with the Ethics Board to render advisory opinions under the State Ethics Act, 399 4/7/08 - Whole - 080022, 157, 160, 164, 165 and that is because there's a provision in the State Ethics Act that gives safe harbor to individuals who follow the advice of a solicitor in good faith; it doesn't say anything about ethics boards. And, therefore, that's why I believe City Council included that exception. However, under the Ethics Code, you have to -- you only get a safe harbor from prosecution if you follow the advice of the Ethics Board in an advisory opinion, not the Law Department.
Well, the Charter supersedes the Code, and the only protection we have under the Charter is for opinions from the City Solicitor.
You only have protection from prosecution by the State Ethics Act for violations under the State --
We can't 400 4/7/08 - Whole - 080022, 157, 160, 164, 165 take away powers of the Solicitor implicitly; we would have to do it explicitly. And nowhere in the City Charter did these changes do that. And I don't want to -- we can go back and forth all day. I accept what you're saying as your honest interpretation; you can accept what I'm saying as my honest interpretation. My only point is that I -- I think we need to work to resolve this to everyone's satisfaction.
I agree with that. And, actually, frankly, I believe it's the authority and jurisdiction of the Solicitor to interpret this kind of a question of the Charter.
It's not for us to interpret; I think it's up to the Solicitor.
That's what I was 401 4/7/08 - Whole - 080022, 157, 160, 164, 165 going to say: I believe that the Solicitor has an opinion on this.
But we should certainly include the Solicitor in any discussions about resolving this issue.
I agree. So with respect to the process, then, of your issuing advisory opinions, I'd like to discuss that briefly. I had a -- (Timer bell rings.)
Thank you. I had a person at your -- Lauren was at your last Ethics Board meeting and she made two suggestions. 402 4/7/08 - Whole - 080022, 157, 160, 164, 165 One was that all regulations be posted up on the website; is that something that you're going to be able to do so that people know --
We were actually talking about that this morning, and we haven't reached a decision yet; we're still talking about that. But I think we may choose to hold hearings on all regulations regardless that was a part of our discussion today.
Well, I'm glad you mentioned that, because the other suggestion was that you publicly post your agenda, or certainly publicly advertise your agenda, prior to each meeting. And the reaction was that you couldn't do that.
Well, the 403 4/7/08 - Whole - 080022, 157, 160, 164, 165 reaction was we'd love to do that, but we have two limitations: Number one, frequently we don't have the agenda until a day or two before the meeting; we're still putting it together. And secondly, once we have the agenda -- once we want to post anything on the website, we have to go to MOIS, and sometimes they're very responsive, but other times, it may take a few days.
Perhaps you ought to have a meeting where you don't really cover anything so that you can be a month in advance. (Laughter.)
And let me -- that's a serious comment because in the discussion on the boards and commissions decisions that we've had privately and in other places, the reaction has that, Well, we had meetings on that, even though we didn't issue regulations that would give people a chance to comment on a new 404 4/7/08 - Whole - 080022, 157, 160, 164, 165 rule, which I think is the appropriate way to change -- to essentially overall solicitors' opinions. We had hearings on it in our open meetings. But if you don't publish an agenda ahead of time, nobody knows to go to discuss the issues that are up for debate at that hearing, at that meeting.