to start the process sooner or the city should consider whether the task force should have the opportunity to select the consultant and discuss the scope of work versus having that happen. the part of it is not a recommendation to the next task force, it is to the city. poor example, the charter says -- for example, the charter says it could be changed to provide 30 more days in total. as an example. >> just to keep it simple, i would say it's we're going to do -- if we're going to do additional time, that we do not

kid into the minutia of what that would look like. -- get into the minutia of what that would look like. >> i agree. member melara: it would provide that task force with additional time in order to possibly have some decision making or some power over the hiring of the consultant or develop the work plan with a consultant. >> excellent. any others on the process? member melara: no. that would be the big piece. if we agree with having something with the consultants and how they're going to do their work, we definitely need to suggest a charter revision of some kind. >> the second paragraph speaks

to something different. member melara: the one increasing the city department? that is different. that has to do with, i believe mr. pilpel wanted the task force to consider outreach to the city department to tell us, to give us information. some of the questions i had was that all of the departments to not have the information that we would use anywhere. what we need is a city departments that have been for mitch -- information about neighborhoods, and data, and the task at hand. not all departments have any information that is valuable to this task force. i would say, my suggestion would be to city departments maintain

specific data related to recognizing communities of interest or applicable data to the task at hand. or something like that. >> that part of it -- member mondejar: i would say they have this available to the task force. the challenge was that we did not know where to find the list of neighborhood groups. there is a list. we were sent about 500. there was a big spreadsheet sent to west. -- to us. since they have oversight of what we do, we would suggest they maintain neighborhoods or at least point just where to find it instead of us having to write letters to the department,

asking them to provide -- >> those are different things. this suggestion was that we ask other departments to make presentations to the task force to consider it making a presentation. my point was that all city departments are not necessarily valuable to this task. there are certain departments which maintain certain information. that could include the department of elections. we could include another recommendation that the department of elections maintain information that could be disseminated to the task force at the time that it is needed. that would be a separate question or recommendation. >> can we take these one at a time before we jump to other items and conclude?

>> the second one, the second part to that, i thought that one of the things we were not supposed to do is look at future demographic and population trends. we are being told to deal with what we have in front of us in terms of population and demographics and to recommend to a future task force to do that is to go beyond our scope of work. >> i agree. member pilpel: i do not have my initial language. i am not sure i used the word future. i agree that it should be struck. my intent was to include the language demographic and population trends. if the department says, based on that, the number of kids is

skyrocketing, that was not the point. it is to how we got where we were at the time, which is the time we're projecting in the future. i agree with your change to be more specific about recognizing interest or other data relevant to the task at hand rather than suggest that a part of the elections should take on more. i'm thinking that a way to do it, this city should find a way to make this happen. assuming the board of supervisors has to pass an ordinance to create the task force, they could ask all city departments to assemble data relevant to the task and provide that to whoever. the sooner that starts, we did not get into that until november.

did it -- if that happened in june or july, so much the better. you get the point. i think we're on the same page. >> any other future trends, a the next piece is the outreach of the taskforce considering specific strategies to engage public housing who are otherwise not involved. organizations the face challenges. that was an addition. if anybody has -- >> i have the understanding that i was going to submit something on this particular section. i did and i e-mailed it to you.

>> under recommendations? >> under community outreach recommendations. there it is. >> if you send it to me at the last minute, -- >> i do not now. i guess i misunderstood the instructions. i looked at this and thought it was a vague and general. >> it was sent this morning. >> i sent it in the middle of the night. >> i wanted to, on this, previously i also submitted something about, which i thought would go into the first part, about our process, what did we do? i submitted something that we

tried to reach the ethnic population, and at a previous conversation, i think we said we're going to attach some of these ads as part of the appendix. i am not seeing that. i just wanted to say that. >> i had a deadline of last week. we are just putting this together as we go along. some of it probably did not give in. i was able to, in my latest draft, i was able to include ms. tidwell's outline of how she wanted us to look at whether we should list all of the district's based on the deviation or not. that is something we still need

to talk about. >> we concluded we would do both. >> that is not a point. the point is that, this is something i mentioned earlier today, her question was whether we wanted to include, within that section, remember the sample -- the question is, i think we should concentrate on those that are a deviation larger or less than 1%. we would need to explain. >> we have not finished the outreach section. one element is or should the description of what we did rest in the report and the other is

does this document -- >> that is for recommendation. >> this was in response. i wanted to say. >> call don. you will review this and incorporate it into the recommendations. >> i also submitted last week part of the process the outreach we did. i just wanted to say it was sent last week. >> i do not remember. >> it was still about ethnic media outreach where a said i listed the publications that we selected, i indicated the

circulation to give a picture of the region. >> will you send it back to me again? >> for the purposes of this moment, let's reach agreement on to where it goes. looking on page 4, the first reference to outreach plans. page four, second paragraph. >> that is what she says she has. >> i can resend it. >> in the last paragraph, i am not sure if this -- if it is that relevant. i liked the idea that it is very general and and does not address any specific recommendations other than encourage public precipitation. and the fact that it is not a popularity contest, i do not

know who want to mention any of that. stay objective as much as possible. >> you do not want to include that. >> i tend to agree, especially without more specificity about what the issues were. there are a couple of references to specific ideas like allowing for minority opinions to be recorded but in general i think it seems to have a point behind it but it is not clear what the specific points are. in its current state, i do not think it works. >> my thought is that our process has been different than

the previous task force or even as a committee. i think it bears mentioning in the report, our decision making process. the fact that we listened to feedback, that we considered, not that three responded to every recommendation given to us for public comment but i think a reference, i think it might be a problem -- a recommendation, that listening to the community, having a redrawing in public, people felt they understood the transparency of our process. whether they got what they

wanted or not, they respected our decision. >> we do not know how people felt about other task forces. some did more than we have done. i would hate to put myself in a position that we did such a great job because everybody did it differently. everybody had different resources. technically, we have more resources today than we have never had in the history of doing this. >> i do not mean comparing. i'm talking about our experience from our decision making process. >> how would you translate what you said into what you -- what we might recommend? >> what was our decision making process, and we would recommend they would consider remodeling

the process. they might want to look into our own decision making model. that is how i would recommend. not that we are comparing ourselves. >> can i mckay -- make a suggestion that if other people have recommendations, we consider those individually, just to keep things moving. >> i feel like that is taking us backwards. >> i feel like everyone is talking generically and no one has had time to consider. i have mine comments, i think we should follow up with what david has done. >> i am not disagreeing with

you. >> i see two recommendations. under subsection a. i think we should look at them individually, say yes or no, -- >> so you want to vote. -- want a vote. i am totally fine with that. i do not agree. i thought we had done that. all right. the proposal is, the first paragraph, recommendations that will require more time. the general idea, i do not want to groupthink but the general idea is a recommendation about more time for the task force to build a work plan, house some role in the court plan or selection -- work plan or

selection. that is the first recommendation. at the end of each item, as rio is due. -- as we always do. >> i would vote no to include that. we have spent a significant amount of time. to the extent we can cut things off of our list, that is our advantage. i do not want to add to the time we have party spent. i think our time is best spent drawing a map. >> these recommendations, and the war, if that is what you're referencing, is for ms. melara. >> no. >> got it.

sorry. member lam: i agree. i think eight months was enough time. >> everybody can say what they wanted to. saarinen made some assumptions. -- sorry i made some assumptions. member schreiber: there is nothing in my experience that expect -- suggested we would have been benefited by having more time. i was satisfied with the proposed suggestion that we save the city consider those things and leave it at that. i would be happy either to eliminate the recommendations or say that the city could consider

them. but would not be my recommendation of those things are necessary. >> i'm not sure where you just said. you can live with that of someone else agrees? in or out? >> as modified by -- >> it would require additional -- >> the modification is no. member pilpel: my preference would be to include it as modified. i think we have gained experience going through this. the city and others could benefit from that experience. i would like to capture some of it. to the point of adding time, i think it would be worth starting

earlier. i am not sure i am in favor of adding more time in total. if there is a charter amendment, i think it would be good for the body to include it by march 15. move the whole thing up by a month. the same amount of time the start sooner. i think there are ways to accomplish it. i think including some language about our lessons learned is good. i would favor keeping some modified language. member mondejar: i would recommend we retain this. it seems to me that the next task force would want to find out what we've learned from our process. i vote for us to retain this with the recommendatioion --

recommended suggestions. we spend time listening to the previous task force. i would have loved to look at some things that i could learn from and think about. member lam: as i said, i would not move forward with a recommendation for this particular section. member melara: i am not necessarily in favor of extending the time that i would not mind telling the city that time was a factor in us not doing certain things. the plan fell through -- we did not have time to hire the right consultants.

the city has a process. unfortunately, time was an issue. while it may not require the task force to meet for 10 months, it may require some people to get together and put this in place before we sit down. the fact is we were not able to hire the people we wanted to hire. >> we can consider that under community outreach. >> what i am saying is that time was a factor in a variety of issues. it is a factor. it is a factor in putting together a plan, all of these is a factor. i'm not necessarily in favor of the task force meeting more time

of the possibility that some of these pieces be in place, requiring additional time. >> its sounds like -- >> we have a question on the table. you are a yes? member leigh: noting the language in the draft we have, having more to do with the redistricting, that is the specific role addressed in the draft as we see it. on that basis, would rather strike it. i do not think, speaking for myself, that was a lesson that i took away. i am glad that the selection was made before we took our rolls on. i do not think that was a bad

thing for our process. it is a lesson for me. i will moscow the other way that would be a good thing for the city to have in place before the tax -- a task force is convened. i am willing not to have a data all. >> we're talking about in or out. >> i am putting this together so it affects my thinking process. i am saying that it could be all you have to say is that timing was a factor and then bullet point how that affected the process. it does not have to say anything else.

>> are you done? member alonso: i'm going to say no. time was a factor but speed was a factor. speed on the part of the allocation of funds for us to do a proper outreach. i like ms. tiwell's idea. in regards to if it is a question of one more month, and that is irrelevant. our lessons are going to be different 10 years from now. they will have new communities that will have risen. if they want to know what i am going to say or how i feel, i will be standing on that side of the podium introducing myself.

that is how i'm going to do it. i will see all of you 10 years from now. member tidwell: everyone has voted so i will zip it. for my impression, this would be my suggestion. on process, you would delete a suggestion to amend the charter to hire a consultant. we might consider other suggestions on community outreach. you would have a bullet point, something the says an outreach consultant and ensure you speak with the city attorney about how to acquire that consultant.

>> it is not the city attorney. >> he consult on what the process is and what the restrictions are. or that there are additional, whatever the group may be. >> is a purchasing issue. >> my suggestion for a bullet point of the recommendation would be an outreach consultant asking the city attorney for purchasing guidelines regarding hiring. >> i do not have any problems. i just need to move on what this. i am very tired tonight.

>> can i say something? member melara has volunteered to do this. now we are doing all kinds of things. i want to suggest that, let them do what they volunteered for. >> we made an agreement. an agreement that we would review the recommendations. that is the one place that this subjective as opposed to objective. 90% is objective. it is easy to hand it over to them and they do it. the recommendations are subjective. we have to have agreement on what is included and what is not what is included and what is not included.