give credit to in the mayor's office deserves credit for making that happen. at the end of the day, what will make this a community will be people that -- people are network hubs for making this happen and qb3 is one. katherine has proven to be one of the important network hubs, and she deserves our thanks for that. so congratulations. >> i think with that, that concludes the scheduled speakers. but now i'm going to open this up to any questions that we might have from the press. ok. with that, i would invite you to either stay out here and special outside or join us inside. i believe we do have some treats

in there. and fairly shortly after a few minutes, we are going to take the mayor on a tour of a couple of the labs and give him an idea of what this really looks like. thank you all for coming. [applause]

>> that afternoon, i would like to call the november 8 public utility commissions and to order. commissioner moran commission. >> here. >> the vice president is out of the country. commissioner caen. >> here. >> president vietor:. >> here. >> commissioner courtney:. >> here. >> we have the minutes of the october 25 meeting before us. any additions or corrections to those minutes? >> so moved. >> second. >> we have one speaker card. >> ok, public comment. >> good afternoon. commissioners, general manager,

i sat in front of you two weeks ago at the last meeting. i rode up some issues regarding what i called a scam. a scam is when you scam people of money. i wrote in the documents, this is not something that i manufactured or something that i brought up or something that i created. this is regarding a change order. this is the way the puc works. >> excuse me. we're considering the minutes. >> it is in the minutes, sir. the minutes said i suggested it. i did not suggest. i said there is a problem. what i said two weeks ago, said the puc needed to investigate it. i came in with a good heart, telling the puc this is what i found. the first thing that i find out is that the puc told then that i complained about the abbottabad is not acceptable. >> as far as the minutes are concerned, is there an issue

with what they say? my impression is that they were a transcription from the reporting of the meeting. >> with all due respect, the word that has been used in the minutes -- let me read it. he further suggested that he believes that there were inappropriate billing on some of the wsip regional projects. this is on page 3. i did not suggest. i confirmed that there is. i further confirmed -- let me put it to you this way, sir. no one can get documents like this. >> if i may interject, mr. president. we discussed this at length last meeting. it was agreed that you talk to the general manager about your grievances.

for you to bring it up again i do not think is appropriate. have you talked with the general manager? >> i have not received a phone call from the general manager, no. i am speaking in front of you because the minutes said that i suggested something. i want to go on record saying that i did not suggest. commissioner moran: would a more appropriate word be that you stated? >> yes, sir. commissioner moran: would there be objection to amending the minutes to say that he stated? >> well, i question what the transcript says. >> commissioners, the minutes are just a summary. because the meetings are video recorded, you have a 100% minutes, a recording of what occurred in the meeting. so the commentary under the requirement of the sunshine ordinance are that they

summarize the comments of public speakers, which is what i intended to do. i did not mean to imply anything by the use of that, only looking for phrasing that was a little bit less tilted. commissioner vietor: it does seem that the most neutral phrasing of that would be to reflect a statement that was made that then gives no particular judgment, either pro or con to the validity of that statement. >> i think stated works as long as there's not a quote after that. commissioner vietor: if that would be acceptable, commission, could i get a motion to amend the minutes do that? >> so moved. >> second. commissioner vietor: on the amendment, all those in favor? opposed. it carries. on the minutes themselves, all those in favor? and that passes as well. thank you.

>> the next item is general public comment. i only have maybe one speaker card. >> yes, and i will try to be even less than three minutes but i am with the committee to save lake merced. i understand is the agenda item is for matters that are not under this agenda but are within the jurisdiction of the agency. it is within your jurisdiction to compliant with both the brown act and the u.s. such an ordinance. i would simply like to make a hypothetical case order. and given the agency in the city and county of san francisco has an agenda item which includes four things. one of which is approving a very controversial agreement. the second one is accepting a very controversial report that to four years to fair and over half a million dollars. the next item is to hear a report about a close to $1 million expenditure being made that is also very controversial.

the fourth item is levels in some lakes, what have you. yet, the public only allowed three minutes per speaker to speak on that. i am not going to ask for more. i am going to point out that when i saw the agenda, the first word that came to my mind was bundling. bundling. not in the context of political contributions. but i think that the issue in question deserves more than three minutes from speakers, one of whom came from sen has say -- san jose, one kid from sonora. that is my comment peter i am not asking for favors. i hope it does not happen again. >> the rules of the commission states that the speakers will be allowed three minutes, the provision of law is that speakers be treated equally. so we applied that three-minute rotation into everybody that speaks before us. there is no limit on questions

or on the response to questions, so if there are issues raised during the limited comments that require additional information and discussion, that can certainly happen. thank you for your comments. i do understand that we will be hearing from you and others later in the meeting today. is there any other public comment e the commission today? ok, then we will move on. on communications, i would like to point out one thing. there was a response to the mayor's office on attendance by commissioners. this is something that is being requested of all commissions. the good news is that our attendance record is pretty good. frankly, i think it is appropriate that the mayor be making those kind of inquiries and that that be tracked on an ongoing basis. i say that with full knowledge that my first meeting -- a

meeting as a share, a was not here. not the strongest way to talk about it, but i do welcome that, and i am pleased that our record is as good as it is. anything else on the ledger summary, commissioners? advanced calendar. i have a couple questions. on the the cca business, i just want to confirm what the schedule is for that coming back to us. i think there is a board hearing on november 10. is that right? >> tomorrow, thursday of this week, there is a board hearing on cca. if you recall, the commission in the last joint meeting with lafco past a tentative term sheet. the board chose to, instead of actually having the board tried to vote on the term sheet, they

chose to have a hearing instead. there is a hearing in government audits committee on thursday about the concept of cca, and the items on the term sheet will be on that. there is a related hearing on december 7 of the budget committee on raising their rates for hetch hetchy power. on december 6, there is a joint hearing, again, of the puc and lafco. and the expectation would be that we would be bringing you the actual contracts at that meeting. on december 13, you had your regular meeting of the puc, and we would expect, among other things, you have an official rate discussion of municipal rates for the commission on december 13. commissioner vietor: the expectation is the contract itself will be on the joint meeting on december 6. >> and that will be for the

board of supervisors and the budget analyst in city economist. then it would be heard in voted on by the board in january. then it would come back here. that is one of the contingent items you have before we actually would find something. commissioner vietor: ok. the other thing on advanced calendar, we're not having second meetings in either november or december, which means that the first meeting, or the only meeting in those two months, is likely to be very pact. a couple things with respect to that, first, we need to expect that those will be long meetings unscheduled ourselves accordingly. general manager and i spoke about what has been sort of an informal rule that we will be working to adhere to more rigorously, and that is basically the staff presentations for action items where there is an issue that is

ripe for action and is well- developed. those presentations should be no more than five minutes. if we're dealing with a non action item from those presentations should be no more than 10 minutes. i think that hopefully will keep the discussion a little more crispy. there is again no limitation on the number of public comments that with been made. there's no limitation on the commissioner's ability to ask questions and getting answers. it is just a matter of having the discipline to organize our thoughts. >> and commissioner, we do intend to do that. the third thing was also the workshop of grouping, which is for logger items. i think today i anticipate a new rule we're trying to enforce. i think the presentation on the bourse said may be more than five minutes. but i also expect the workshop on item 12 will be less than 30. >> excuse me, and you say the

states again where we do not have the meetings and the ones that are anticipated to be longer? commissioner vietor: well, there's not going to be a second meeting this month. >> on november 22? >> correct. >> and there's also not one -- >> december 27. >> so the other one in december will be the long one. >> december 13. we are trying to not make it too long, but it may be a little longer. commissioner vietor: and for that matter, the first one in january is liable to get long. on a similar note, it would help the commission if staff reports can be clear within the first page, at most two, as to the take away messages.

if things get tight in commissioners do not have time to read a 20-page document, at the end of the first or second page, they should know at least the three or five things that you really want them to know. i think with those three points, hopefully we can deal with the present business. that is before us primarily in december. anything else on advanced calendar, commissioners? ok. staff report, we have three. and in the sense of getting the take away messages out there, the first one was the audit report, and i continue to be impressed by the robustness of that audit program. i think you take away on and that is that we continue to have some more that has already been identified, that we continue

summer and the real-estate arena, and that the city-wide hrc of it is one issue we need to pay attention to. but it is impressive for its completeness and the progress we are making there. there was also a report on the approach to contaminants of emerging concern. i think you take away message that i had on that was that we have committed to a monitoring and reporting process that is more stringent and more protective and more informative than what state law requires us to do, and that is a good thing. and we have completed our first round of identifying things we need to pay attention to, and that process is underway. i think it is very positive as well. then i have to give the concise staff report award to steve

ritchie, who managed in the first page to get the three take away messages for his item. thank you for doing that you are an example to all of us. commissioner caen: r.c. going to have that as a public meeting at some point to review that? commissioner vietor: the intent is and know, that if it is a written report, it stands on its own, but we had the opportunity to ask any questions. but it is not an option item. the intent is to take items and have complete report so that we can review it and not take up a commission time. if there is something in it there that you have questions about, you should ask them and we should spend time on it. it really requires our time, then we should schedule a calendar item for that. commissioner caen: i do not have questions on this particular document, but as it progresses, it might be of interest for the public to know what we're doing. commissioner vietor: and those

reports are part of the public record. their posted, so that if anybody sees on the agenda that that is something they're interested in, they certainly have access to the report and can raise public comment about those as well. >> in this instance, the ground water storage and recovery project, as that moves forward, that will be back before this commission on awarding contracts. commissioner vietor: commissioners, any questions or comments about the staff reports? is there any public comment on the staff reports? >> there is an additional comment that he wanted to make. commissioner vietor: on the staff reports? >> it relates to general public comment. he had left the podium when the item was called, so i did not realize he wanted to be called again. >> my apologies for the

confusion. commissioner moran, i have been working here in the puc for almost 10 years. every time, i tell myself that i have known it, i have seen it, and i am is a prized with more things. two weeks ago i came nt with the scam on the change orders i got a letter from the puc in stated the following -- basically what it says is that the staff and guests -- investigated it in the issue i raised up. the puc admitted it. it was flye field by the field staff. when i came here to the puc on september 23 and talked with staff, they showed me a printout that was just printed from the puc computer system for change order number 81. it had five signatures on it. meaning it had been approved, went through the ranks.

this is what i saw. if you approve a change order, you cannot go back and say the staff flag did in the field. that means that has been processed. furthermore, the reason why we are facing all these issues is because of corruption in some of the staff. harvey l. wynn, the bureau manager for construction submitted either an e-mail or a letter requesting the private contractors in the private consultants to bid on his services. while he is in charge of selecting those consultants. that is more than a conflict of interest. this is why some companies are getting work, some companies are not getting work. there are serious issues, mr. president. commissioner vietor: i appreciate your comment. let me suggest this, the commission is a really horrible

place to try to deal with the kind of issues that you raised, especially on an extemporaneous basis. if you come to us in public comment and make statements like that, we have no way of getting testimony from other people who no different fax and coming to a conclusion ourselves at the spur of the moment. you also say some very serious things, and i am a reluctant to have the record present just one side of these sets of accusations that the accused party has no ability to counter. that is not to say that you should not raise your issues. what i encourage you to do is to communicate your issues formally and in writing. that you do that to the commission and its staff. and we can review them. and we will deal with that. but it is really -- and this is not a forum that is designed to deal with the kind of issue that you raised. and i think that we can deal

with that much more effectively if we did it in a formal and written process. >> i will do that. budgets for the record, i have been communicating these issues with the puc for a couple years now. every time i bring it up, they seem to find a way to either cover it up or find a way to say it never took place. commissioner vietor: when i say the puc, i also mean it the commission. you can communicate with staff. you can copy us. you can communicate with us directly as well. we do have, and one of the things we have spent a good deal of time on in the past several years is we recognize that with the amount of money that we're spending and the rate we're spending it, we have huge obligation to make sure that is being done properly. we have an honor program in place second-to-none, and i have never seen anything as comprehensive as that. and we have resources, not just departmental resources, but in the governor's office and elsewhere that are paying a

great deal of attention. i can guarantee you that serious allegations will be treated seriously, and we just need to do it in a proper and orderly way. >> i will follow your request. if my eyes out -- i would like to say that i am asking officially for an independent body to investigate this. i came with a clean heart to the puc. all i was asking at that moment was for them to stop it. but they went to the company that those documents implicate, and they told then that i came to them. that is not acceptable. and i do not trust your staff, sir. >> just to be very clear, our audits group is looking at that. we're having it at a larger view to make sure we understand what is going on with the issues. the last comment that was repeated several times -- at the last commission meeting, you

raised a number of issues, but you named them. if they are aware of that, it may or may not be because our staffs said anything to the. you raised here. it was on the record here that you will be in critical about that. so to think you can come and have a conversation about that and not think others will hear what you say may not be the best way to raise these issues. >> mr. general manager, what i am telling you here is what i have experienced. the issue was raised on or about september 23. within three days -- that was a friday, within friday, they were notified. it had nothing to do with my public comment here two weeks ago. commissioner vietor: ok, well, we are on staff reports. >> i am afraid that i have not learned to hear your voice a very well, because i was sitting in the back. so i apologize if i am unnecessarily questioning, but did you say you are no longer

having staff come up and give the report, that you're just accepting them? commissioner vietor: no, and i apologize if you cannot hear me. >> no, i am sure it is my aging years. commissioner vietor: i have a similar challenge and often cannot hear people standing at the podium. i will try to do better. some time ago, we miss several items to the report section. if it was just information that needed to be presented the public and commissions, we could do that without taking up calendar time. that has been going on for some time been a there's nothing new there. my only request was that in the presentations, and those reports, the first couple pages, the reader knows what is aiming for, what the basic takeaway messages are. beyond that, as items to come to the commission, i have requested staff and talked to the general manager about setting time limits on the length of staff

presentations. for a couple different kinds of items. we have three basic items. the first is an action item. the presumption is that the issue is fully baked and ready for action. asian not take a lot of discussion beyond what is in writing. with it -- we would ask the staff to limit the presentation to 5 minutes. that should be adequate. if not, the commission can ask for additional -- >> i am sorry. i do not mean to make you repeat everything but i just wanted to comment on the cac report was -- which was very interesting and comprehensive, particularly the inclusion of nanoparticles. however, i did want to have some kind of understanding of when that was going to be expanded to discharge water quality. because, of course we're all concerned about what we are drinking, but what we are throwing away is where we are more likely to find contaminants of emerging concern. thank you. commissioner vietor: ok, thank

you. do we have an answer on it that? or should we report back to the commission on that? >> i think it might be better to report back to the commission that the next meeting. commissioner vietor: ok, let's do that. any other comments? >> we have no other speaker cards. commissioner vietor: ok, moving on to other commission business. i just have one item. as part of taking the chair, i went back and read the rules of order for the commission, and i found a few things i had forgotten about, which leads me to two things. one is i have asked mike to discredit -- to distribute a copy of their rules so we can remind ourselves what is in there. there's also some housekeeping that needs to take place to the order of business is an example, and it does not follow the order of business that we use, so we need to corrected that. while we're doing that, if there

are any substantive matters you like addressed in the release, please communicate that to the secretary, and we will work to address those. that is not a call for that, but if you see the need, this is an opportunity to do that. is there any other commission business? ok, hearing none, we're on to the report of the general manager. >> before we start the items listed, a short update. representative devin nuneez from the central value has related issues from the puc. he has written letters to the super committee into the house appropriations committee. he has made a variety of allegations and discussions. one is talking about the annual amount that the puc pays for the use of the hetch hetchy

reservoir area in use at the national park, and that the money raised should be increased considerably. he made a variety of statements about the endangered species act. and should there be anything going wrong with the endangered species act related to the tuolumne river, the puc is responsible for all of that and should take care of it and pay for it. one of his quotes in the letter was that all of this has been exploited by wealthy subsidized corporate delta farmers and the social elite in san francisco. in the last couple of days, he has started to take out tv ads against senator feinstein in the central valley. we had been working with people within congress and others. it does nothing like this will have much traction. the way he is raising issues this outside the normal bounds and the normal regulations. but i wanted to make sure you are aware of this and that we're working on it.