things for our veterans of san francisco. thank you. supervisor campos: thank you commissioner. thank you for your great work. next speaker, please. >> good morning. supervisors of the rules committee. i'm steve, i was appointed to this commission about eight months ago. i have attended all eight meetings of the commission since that time and i believe six out of those eight meetings we have had a wonderful guest who has spoken out when first of all when asked to, but other times when it's been important. and that's major alfidi. i met him only during these meetings. i didn't know him before that. but i have been fortunate to have numerous conversations with him outside the conference room of the v.a.c. and i have learned quite a bit about major alfidi and i support his appointment completely to this commission. he'll be a great asset.

i think the commission is on its way to dealing with relevant issues of importance to the veterans of this city. some of which have been mentioned before. one of which is employment of course, and the high unemployment rate amongst returning veterans. major alfidi probably won't be thrilled that i'm bringing this up, but in our private conversations he told me that he, too, faced some discrimination when he returned from iraq to look for a job, which he was well qualified in in the field of finance and investment opportunity. and he was turned down by a number of corporations in the city of san francisco and in the bay area and with all his qualifications and all we talk about support the veteran and

thank you for your service and all that, and yet even in this high collar -- white collar, high level job he was discriminated against basically on the fear of this posttraumatic stress syndrome. and this happens over and over again. it's an area that the veterans affairs commission should start to look into about why it is on one side of the issue we already know that people with ptsd have to be helped and deserve all the help they can get. on the other side of the coin there are employers all over this city who are fearful of hiring veterans from iraq, afghanistan. especially ones that have had numerous tours there because of their unfounded for the most part and uneducated fear of this posttraumatic stress syndrome and someone may quote-unquote go postal in their office or whatever. this is an important thing.

i'm glad to report that major alfidi didn't take this as a defeat and started his own corporation and is doing his own investment counseling and financial advising and doing very well in doing so. great asset to the commission. i appreciate it. supervisor campos: thank you, commissioner. next speaker, please. >> thank you. my name is ray, i'm a veteran from the vietnam war, 1962 to 1966. probably served my con-- proudly served my country. from then until now i have been working in the community. there are many veterans came out of the vietnam war came directly to the community because regular jobs they could not hold down. and ptsd in my opinion, i'm being treated for ptsd. it has to be part of the orientation in the army, in combat troops even before they

are deployed because you will get ptsd in combat because it's trauma. and trauma is happening when you are deployed. it's not like a big, big question. there's no question about it. you are going to be traumatized. start it at orientation, through deployment, through combat, and back as one seamless task. instead of you have to come and figure out five years later when you don't have no wife, no kids, you destroyed your job, that there might be something wrong. see what i'm trying to say? half the stuff in the beginning, middle, and bring the troops ready to go into treatment. not after. there's that whole big gap afterwards. we have to do outreach. we know this. no. you start as soon as you walk into the thing and raise your hand, you know you are going to be traumatized on the battlefield. right then and there guarantee you right there, service from the day you raise your hand and

say i do to the day you come back and get married. thank you. supervisor campos: thank you very much. thank you. is there any other member of the public who would like to speak? seeing none, public comment is closed. colleagues, i have to say that i'm very supportive of this appointment. and i want to thank the major for coming forward. and i also appreciate all the comments from the commissioners and i think that we are very lucky to have people of the caliber of these commissioners serving in this capacity. and whatever we can do as a board to assist in that endeavor look forward to doing that. if we can take a motion to come forward. >> so moved. supervisor campos: as a committee report f we can take that without objection. supervisor alioto-pier: i don't believe this is going as a committee report. supervisor campos: just as a regular. take a motion then without objection. thank you very much. congratulations. madam clerk, please call item

number 5. >> item number 5, ordnance amending the building cold to require an agenda of and packet of materials for each matter to be decided by the access appeals commission shall be sent to the mayor's office of disability at the same time and in the same manner as they are sent to the commission members. supervisor campos: for a brief description of what the item does the order ordnance would simply provide -- ordinance would simply provide the appeals which among other things reviews accessibility issues in building projects that those materials be referred to the mayor's office of disability. supervisor alioto-pier indicates that she introduced this item because most people interested in issues relating to disability access rely on the mayor's office of disability to get information rather than relying on the department of building inspection.

of course this does not change the fact that the appeals commission would still have the final say on building appeals. this is something to me makes sense. why don't we open it up to public comment. if there is any member of the public who would like to speak on this item? seeing none. public comment is closed. madam clerk, do we have to accepted this to committee report? if we have a motion. motion by supervisor mar. take that without objection. thank you very much. next we have a number of items that would require us to go into closed session. before we do that i would like to provide an opportunity to members of the public to speak on any of the items that are listed for the closed session and that would be items 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13 and 14. i have to you speaker cards. i have several speaker cards of individuals here to speak on

item 8. if i may, let me read the names. if there is any other member of the public who would like to speak on any of these items, please come forward. steven lead, peter, sam gold, sunny francis, ken lead, sorry if i mispronounce the name, steve, general -- jen, nick, howard, ken, joshua, ray, and then any other member of the public who would like to speak simply come forward. if you can please come up. >> hello. my name is john rhodes, and i have run an overnight poetry show on public access tv for

almost three years now and through public access i have been able to syndicate my tv show on about 20 different channels across the u.s.. it shows regularly in cambridge, and philadelphia, and i have had a lot of good luck in working with the people at public access. i have had 2340 problems -- no problems. i think they deserve respect for taking on the new people. taking on the new public access, and providing money to run public access. if i understand correctly, they haven't actually received the money. they have actually started running it with their own money. i could be wrong, but from what i understand they are running it with their own money in hopes that they will get the money from comcast.

through litigation with you people. i recommend they get the money. i hope i'm understanding this correctly. and i think there are some people who complain about public access, but they are only allowed two workers and one part-time person to run the whole public access because the rule said, i think comcast has laid down. and there's lots of things that needs fixing with what's been written and i think the bottom line is we have to be practical about this and work with what we have. and if we have a system working, we shouldn't just throw it out and say we don't like this. destroy all the steps we have taken to fix the problem that we have. and i guess that's about it. thank you very much supervisor campos: great. thank you very much. >> i would like to thank you for allowing me to speak.

my name is sam gold. public access producer. for decades public access programming on cable tv was provided a virtual free forum for community activists, aspiring entertainers, star wannabes, as well as serious minded political activists. it was paid for out of money provided by the cable companies in exchange for wiring up our cities and towns. money well spent. a few years ago at&t and verizon and some other phone companies wanted to get into the lucrative cable market but they didn't want to have to support what they felt were certain money draining contractual obligations. public access television was one of these. they pumped millions of dollars into a complain to negotiate cable franchises on the state level rather than the sit by -- city by city basis. the money talked and the legislators in 20 other states were hoodwinked into passing similar laws despite the importance of this very sacred first amendment right. the right of free speech by our citizens. the mantra of the phone

companies was cheaper rate. the digital infrastructure and video competition act passes and once again our legislators were grossly misinformed and suckered into passing this legislation whose true goal was only saving the phone companies money, period. let's fast forward to today. we are here because the act was promised additional funds from the cable company to support san francisco comments. our new public access provider. the money is necessary simply to keep the doors opened. no one can rub a -- run a public access channel on $170,000 a year. it barely pays the rent on market street for access san francisco. our communities have a very diverse makeup with people from many different countries settling down and putting down roots. sacramento, a bed of high technology companies, for example, has a large hindu, punjabi, and arab speaking population. access sacramento, their access channel, make sure there are plenty of programs to serve their community in native

languages. san francisco proudly has one of the largest lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender communities in the nation. public access television serves them well. no one else will. it's not cost-effective for channels, 2, 3, 4, 5, or 7 to serve as a niche market. if i made add, several public access television programs have had the highest honor in the industry bestowed upon them by being awarded emmy awards for their outstanding programs. our own access newsroom was nominated for one years ago. full disclosure network from marina dell ray was awarded one for their outstanding investigative reporting. mainstream media won't touch the story about superior court judges who violate the laws with impunity. it's up to those brave public access reporters to make us aware of the real news that we need to know about. because of this, los angeles lost 12 public access channels and many more are struggling. just a few days ago -- reason

know, nevada lost theirs. supervisor campos: thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> my name is peter. i'm a producer at san francisco public access station. i run a show twice a month. supervisor campos: speak into the mike, please. >> i run a show twice a month. 22-minute show in the flash studio live. i came down just to speak about my experiences. i would like to see the public access station receive the funds in question so that they can continue to develop the service that is they provide. i have heard different matters of controversy come up and i'm not an administrator or in position to comment on the overall rating of the services. i think i certainly am in favor of accountability and if people feel that more effort is needed

to check the accountability of the organization, i'm all in favor of that. but my personal experience is that i came to the public access station a year ago when it was suffering from lack ever funds and was told that most of the service has been shut down. the added suites had been shut down. -- edit suites had been shut down. the production studio had been shut down. the classes had been shut down because of the lack of funding. it was taken over and was able to keep the station going. i made the transition from the old studio to the new one. i'm a low-income person. i' taking classes at city college. i applied for the low-income membership and i am a member at a cost of $10 a year which i think is very reasonable. i have been able to produce my show twice a week without interruption from the time i began under the old public access tv administration through the transition and now for almost a year.

there is certainly a loss of personnel with the new budget and the new structure and that sometimes causes some disappointment i think in terms of the ability to respond quickly to all the people who are involved. but overall i think it's been very helpful to see the public access station continue and to see it develop. we have the larger studio than before. they are trying to integrate the public access station into different kinds of web services. i feel that it offers me a great opportunity to learn more about entering the broadcast field and presenting programming to a wider audience. programming that wouldn't be available on any kind of commercial or regular cable channel. thank you. supervisor campos: thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> steve. i would like to use the internet if i could. is that possible?

>> i don't believe you can access the internet from here. >> ok. well, i'll refer to it, then. supervisors, the project has had a program on san francisco community access since 1994. we have fought for transparency and public accountability at the community access station. when you rejected, the rules committee rejected the additional money, $375,000 previously, to previous meeting on this issue, you said you were concerned about transparency and accountability. of vaback. that's a legitimate concern. others have spoke to that. it turns out that in fact this issue has not been resolved. a complaint was filed with the sunshine commission over the violation of the sunshine ordinance. because they were not providing documents to members of the public and users of community access. the commission after listening to the report voted that, in

fact, vaback violated the ordinance, had not provided documentation. i don't think that bodes well for giving them another $375,000. one of the things about the studio, the big studio, they spent $695,000, including capital money, to shut down the station which was built at a cost of $1 millionle to move to vaback. they did this under the city saying they would only provide $170,000 in operating expenses. however that station could have stayed open since capital money was used to pay the rent there. in our view first of all if you look for san francisco comments on the internet, go to google and look for it, you can't find it. what you find is vaback. so this operation, they say they are highly skilled in video and internet cannot even have a side out you can find on google. san francisco comments after them being in charge of the

operation for many months. i find that questionable. since they have many experts on use of video and telecommunications, why can't you find san francisco comments? it's my view in fact they are not interested in making the shows accessible and aware, making people aware of those shows. for example, if you go to find our show or upcoming show will be august 13, if you go to the site, go -- search through their site, you look for it, you go to august 13, it's not there. it says no programming available. this is for an operation that's said, it's required in their franchise agreement, they were going to make it accessible to the public to find out about the shows. yet they haven't done that basic thing to help publicize the shows. in our view i think it would be wrong to give them the additional money without further compliance and oversight. the other question is -- supervisor campos: thank you very much. >> they don't have public board meetings.

i think that's a problem as well. supervisor campos: next speaker, please. thank you. >> good morning, supervisors. my name is nick. i'm a public access cable tv producer. with about eight years experience at another station. not the san francisco station. i urge you to not allow vaback to get additional money from the comcast account. on the basis that they have very similar to what steve has said, not exhibited the amount of trp -- transparency and accountability that the expenditure of public funds requires. i filed the complaint with the sunshine ordinance task force that ruled that they had violated the sunshine law on may 25 of this year.

vaback has been very difficult to communicate with. and to give you one example when i submitted programs way back in november, initially it was easy to do and then i submitted a second set in december and i was told, mind you after already having been through their application process, i was told that this time i had to let them scan my driver's license into their computer system. i wrote the executive director a letter on december 20 which now eight or nine months later i still don't have a reply from. that was why i went to sunshine. i was getting nothing but stonewalled there. i have later found out that my driver's license without my knowledge or consent, they scanned my picture with my i.d.

on it was outsourced to a -- one. largest web-based companies -- one of the largest web-based companies in the world, sales force.com. that's without my permission. i am trying to get a copy of the contract between them and sales force that explicitly states that they have a contractual relationship. they are even being rather round about in answering that. i'm very concerned with identity theft. i'm very concerned with my privacy. i believe they have violated my first and fourth amendment rights by being so obscure, obtuse and not being -- they should be open about this. whenever they ask for such confidential information. as you may know even d.m.v. law places severe restrictions on the use of a copy of a driver's license. i think vaback has been -- has ignored those. i see i have 10 seconds left

here. i intend to keep trying to get information about the money they have already spent. i think they waste the tremendous amounts of money -- supervisor campos: thank you very much. another speaker. tracy and any other member of the public please line up. follow the same order. >> good morning. my name is ken i'm the executive director of the coalition. thank you in particular. -- i really wanted to in anticipation -- in response to comments already made and comments that may follow go on the record in terms of framing the intention and history of service. we are not an organization. we were founded in 1976 and we are grounded in history of innovation. it's been built around several principle that is have held fast through time. first we want to honor the experience, diverse experience of san francisco residents. that's extnded beyond san francisco since then.

because we believe that stories in particular are transformative. they are a vehicle for understanding, for communication, for social change. and that is really at the heart of it one of the principle reasons we are very interested in becoming the public access office. the s.s.t. part operator when it was developing was housed at vaback. we entered this agreement without any conflict. it's been a steep learning curve. we have been in pun lick -- public service for many years. i think one of the difficulty challenges that we have had is changing this model. we have been forced with the operating support to not only maintain the level of service that was there prior to that, with over $1 million a year for us at ctc, but also meet and exceed those. again our focus has been on sustain ability. we have had to --

sustainability. we have had to make difficult decisions. in that the documentation will follow an my colleagues and producers here simple one is reducing the rent on a monthly bay friss $17,000 down to about $4,800 in terms of the cost now at our facility. so for us in the spirit of this, we have embraced open communication, but we have really been forced to really speak to the truth that we know. and to present the information directly to department of technology and requested to individuals. but not to engage in a point by point rebuttal for everything that's been raised. so we hope we can ask your support. this is to maintain the operations of public access. and we will be accountable. we are accountable how public dollars are spent. thank you. supervisor campos: thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> my name is steven, i am the host of one of the weekly shows here at san francisco commons which is the program, the program is the first show to

have come out of the facility at 2727 marea posea street and we went on the air in february. the transition has been difficult. vaback is not without its faults, but in my own experience i think they have been incredible to work with. my show has expanded from basically being a live operation to one that is a much broader based program in the sense that it actually takes you out of the studio and into the community and we have focused on things that are of interest to san francisco and the greater world. most specifically when i first went on the air we did a bike to work show which actually we filmed outside at city hall. we also focused on closing off of -- closing of an incubator,

and i wouldn't have had this opportunity if it wasn't for public access television and the people at bayback. i think the points and good points have been raised by other people but i think it's dirty laundry. these are things that we producers need to talk to them about. i think they are listening. they are excellent educators. as ken said they have been in the business for a long time. running two television channels is new to them. and i think they are learning. they are still learning. i think it's our responsibility as producers to actually hold their feet to the fire and make them deliver the public access television channels which i think san francisco deserves. and in my view that they are the ones best capable of doing it. so please release the money and thank you very much for listening. supervisor campos: thank you. next speaker. >> my name is ray. i'm the president of media crew

which is a youth program in san francisco. i offer you something for your files about -- basically i'll just read the programs description. mission purpose, media crew is a youth based digital media art studio dedicated to production, consciousness, creative, and quality media sharing, diversity, and -- sharing diverse and rarely heard youth perspectives or stories to audiences around the world. we promote lifelong learning, leadership among the youth in san francisco inner city communities. through our unique youth training program in media arts and digital video, youth

participants develop education voice around community issues. gain technology skills and raise employibility while being involved in the community as being productive and new leaders. this is what i have been working on for the last maybe five or six years. this is our answer to community media. video, the video people here, i was there also in 1975. you guys may not remember me, but i was there when this nonprofit was being developed. but i dropped away from it. what i'm saying is for youth media to be put on the air and produce, it has to be produced with trainers from the community. from the community. bayback from mpe