president vietor: commissioners? women make a comment. the greatest concern is that we do not create white elephants that we will have to worry about down the line. i do not think we do. one of the things i know that commissioner caen is interested in is getting the work on the digesters going. that has been a long time in the works. it is good that in the first couple of years, we do that. that is enabled by this. i think the recognition that we're going to have to be taking a look, not only the approach, that is the important business of this commission over probably the next several years.

any public comment? commissioners? commissioner caen: i would like to move this. secretary housh: next item, and ms 13. the proposed budgets for the bureau's 42011-2012 and 2012- 2013. >> we have met, and i see that they are here today. we are still recommending that we go ahead with what our plan was and move forward. if the commission has questions, we will be happy to answer

those. commissioner: commissioners.? : commissioner what has been the response? you did meet with the union, right? >> yes. this group has been municipal executive association with members of local 21. commissioner: any progress? >> we exchanged ideas, but in the process of the way the budget works, this is a preliminary phase, and those discussions get more intense as you move to the other phases of the discussion. >> so the last time we met, we talked about our role. my primary concern with local 21

was the was not certain we were engaging in conduct which i thought we may have been required to engage in. i had a chance to meet with the mayor. i had a chance to meet with local 21. this is the first by it had heard there was an seiu member involved. i have been persuaded that while we move down this road in good faith, i do not think anyone wants to take this with confidence, but i am pretty confident that for me, personally, we can move along in this direction and have every opportunity, as does the union, to exchange ideas in an effort to reach an agreement, so i am prepared to move the item four, especially after speaking with the city attorney about what our obligations are and now being convinced that we have met our

obligations with respect to this. commissioner: do we have any public comment? secretary housh: we have two speaker cards. >> i am a representative organizer. good afternoon, commissioners. yes, since the last commission hearing, we did have the opportunity to meet with mr. carlin and mr. harrington, and we did get a chance to submit a report on the findings given to you, a letter from february 3. hopefully, you have a copy of that. so in our meeting which was last tuesday, all five of our members from the real-estate services department along with

friends from local 21 in did meet with mr. harrington, and we were surprised by the frankness and the angry tone that he used when addressing our members. suggesting the elimination of some classifications. there were performance decisions within the departments, and when i say that, he pointed out problems, and we consider this to be kind of divergent that had been presented a previous hearings. he talked mostly about development at the previous commission hearings, but in this meeting, he was clearly focusing on performance problems, and we believe this is not an issue

that should be addressed in this forum as targets of the moved through the budget process. this clearly is a personnel matter that he has with the department. our concern about but is that there is no accountability in the proposal. as far as we're concerned, there have been no attempt made to hold management accountable. correcting existing problems that he has pointed out, a pretty extreme approached. wanting to replace experienced real-estate professionals with a general classification, no background in real estate, and we believe that is pretty extreme without having gone through other steps to hold management accountable. the employees did performance in the other missions every year. while they do have lots of years

of experience and are very professional, they do have to follow the directives of their upper managers and directors that are given the department, so, again, we do not see this rather interesting approach as a solution, and we have suggested to mr. harrington into mr. carlin that they add a classification in any support they can give staff. we have attached a chart that we gave you with the proposed reorganization, what it would look like, appear which would not make any difference in terms of the budget cost, so we are

asking you to do it. commissioner: this is yours? the one added new position? >> yes. commissioner: tell us about the senior administrative analyst. >> that person would add a skill set to the office. having the support of an analyst. i am not quite sure how to answer your question any more specifically. they do a lot of work with charts and numbers. i think with this position, they would have to get some with some special skills in contracts or leases or something of that

nature. commissioner: would you consider this to be sort of your first counterproposal to the unions? yes or no? >> yes. commissioner: earlier, you were making references to management. were you making that with the entire pc or within the bureau or department? >> both. commissioner: just so you know, it is a concern of mine but the workers understand what the procedures are that we are following here. and so, i have talked to a lot of people. i have spent time. i have talked to rebecca. i have talked to a number of people. my primary concern is probably high lighted on page 3 of your memorandum of february 16 to us.

it is specifically related to the procedural concerns that i had our last meeting and whether or not everything was out in the open. the puc is trying to circumvent the process. specifically, with respect to that line, that may be the case once you get the layoff notices, but as i sit here, et for you, i know that because this is being proposed and will go to the mayor's office, because i think ed lee is someone who understands the collective bargaining process, due process, i am trying to explain to you why i am prepared to move this forward, because on an advisory

board, i think i have no choice but to move this forward, because now, i am not only fairly convinced you'll get face time with management, but you will get face time with the mayor's office, and i do not think we are done with it yet, because it is certainly a proposal, but we will hear what you have to say. >> well, it is my understanding that the commission does not make with the decisions -- make the decisions but deals with the personnel issues. is that correct? ok. that is why i say we were rather surprised in the meeting to listen to mr. harrington, because clearly, i mean, at one point, he asked the staff if he thought -- they thought things were working well, and he asked us. .he said he could replace the existing scope of the department, or he could simply write everybody up for poor performance in institute plans,

which we would prefer. to answer that question, we would prefer that they do engage in some sort of process of discipline. we would look at the elimination of these positions as some sort of discharge, based on our conversation with mr. harrington, so we feel as though in the meetings, in the previous meetings, in addressing the reorganization plan to the commissioners, he was not forthright with the reasoning behind doing this reorganization, so we consider it that they will be making a decision on a personal matter. any other questions? commissioner: can we make

decisions on personnel matters? >> not on these. commissioner: i think i yearwood you are saying, but i hope you hear what i am saying, with my singular hope that insuring that the union, the workers represented by the union have an opportunity to knowingly entered into good-faith negotiations, and i see that you did present in writing, rather than simply giving us a response to the audits, you actually presented a proposal in writing, so i have to be comfortable as i sit here, and i would do the same if it was my only organization, that you're going to continue to engage in that way. even if things that are said that are not like, because that is part of the business, and we tended to do that, as well. i am just trying to telegraph

where i am going with this, because i am confident you will continue to meet with management, whether that be the mayor's office, ed harrington, or whomever it is. it may mean some more light would be shed on the situation that could assist your efforts. commissioner caen: : -- commissioner: thank you. there are several things that are wrapped up in this. there is a movement of the organization from the public information section into the general manager's office, and i think that is a move that is important. it makes a great deal of sense. it is something definitely within our purview to approve , so that is an important thing to accomplish.

we are at the beginning of a process in terms of dealing with all of the classification issue is. there are others that have greater say and expertise, and it is certainly a process that protect people's rights, so i say that will be to focus on what the decision is we're being asked to make at the moment. it is to approve the budget, and a key part of the budget is where the real estate is. as far as classification goes, a process that extends from here, and i think we have to trust the process. " thank you. commissioner: thank you, ms. jacobs. any other public comment? >> thank you. i am with local 21. commissioner, we appreciate very much more concern and remarks.

what i hear both from mr. harrington and the commission is that there will be an opportunity to continue to confer on this issue. i would hope that the commission would instruct its staff to move forward with those meetings. often, we have to wait. of course, the budget process is a speedy one, relatively speaking, and we would hope that we will be able to continue to meet on this issue within the next few weeks, rather than pushing it out. we hope to get your help in making sure that does happen. with respect, we disagree, that the process for meet and confer or disciplinary procedures -- in

fact, we're dealing with, which we have not been given a clear explanation of, that has been met. pretty clearly, i have seen the notes of the so-called meetings. there was no such a bang. as far as any kind of disciplinary action is, if that was, in fact, what was intended by mr. harrington, the commission has not even begun the process, so you are behind the eightball in terms of procedures here. nonetheless, we are here, and we are willing to continue to meet and confer with this if that is, in fact, done in an expedient manner. i think, just to finish, and i will be brief, what you're hearing here with the union is the union is very consistent, in endowment margin multi-year

effort -- in a multi-year effort. this is a situation where there is a plan to develop the real estate situation in a different direction, and has gone forward, we think, precipitously, a and has put forward a structural change without meeting and conferring with the union, but also, if fully considered and thought out plan as to how the existing staff can be used in an optimal fashion to fill any strategic objectives, and that is what we're asking for. i hope that mr. harrington would be prepared to sit down in further discussion with us next week. thank you. secretary housh: we have no other speaker cards. >> my name is -- and i do not

pretend to understand all of the issues that are a problem in the real-estate department, but i do feel inclined to mention that i personally have had a very big problem with the disposition of the property at 17th and folsom, which was, i guess, decided by the mayor's office, and affordable housing project, a partner in exactly the wrong place. it is designated as an industrial zone, and all kinds of shenanigans -- a park in exactly the wrong place. i do not know this has anything to do with your issues with the real-estate department, but i would be very concerned about what is going on. thank you. commissioner: thank you. any additional further comment? hearing none, it is in the hands of the commissioners. and did you make a motion?

you indicated that you were inclined in that direction. ok. do i have a motion? i suppose i can, and i suppose i will make a motion. it is an interesting situation calm where this is a budget approval, and it has many aspects to it, this being one. i think this particular aspect of the budget has received a great deal of caring and attention -- of airing and attention, and i see no reason to hold it up. so why will move the item. is there a second?

commission caen: i have a motion and in seconds. any comments or questions? >> there was a reference on behalf of local 21 that they would be able to initiate these conversations sooner than later, so i just wanted the record to reflect that. commissioner: we have a motion and a second. all of those in favor? thank you, the motion passes. secretary housh: the last item, involving the 1995 agreement with a church, increasing the lump-sum payment account by

$26,000 plus, not to exceed $36,000 plus to provide an alternative water supply to the church. president: commissioners, we have a staff presentation on this, or would you like to move the item? commissioner caen: i would like to move the item. president: a second? any discussion? any public comment? ok, thank you. all of those in favor? secretary housh: mr. president, i do not believe we have any closed session items, so if you want, we can take them off of the calendar and move directly

to item 20. president: we will take that off of the calendar and move to any new business. is there any? commissionercaen: i have none. president: then do what you're a motion to adjourn? this motion -- this meeting is adjourned -- do i have a motion to adjourn? this meeting is adjourned.