to find a punishment for our mistakes that allows us to stay in business and keep serving the community and the nonprofit entities we support. that does not affect our players to play soccer in public parks. we want to put some solutions ford -- typically in probation for a year. we will pay a fine for the violations. we will also develop a procurement process that complies with all rules and regulations. at the start of every season, we want to make sure our games cattle we shared it apart from a

staff and make sure all games are covered by permits. we also want to revise our record retention practices so all relevant records are kept in an -- kept and easily accessible to park department staffs. we also want to change our board of directors. we want to set up a soccer program for underprivileged children and use it free of charge. how to hand over the presentation. >> thank you. i've played soccer in nor colleagues for years and i think they provide good service. mayor to support the one that perspective. i'm also an attorney representing north tel throughout this process. when i first got involved, i hope we could sit down with

department staff and find a fair solution that would make amends for past mistakes and set in place new safeguards to make sure mistakes would not happen in the future. the staff declined our offer to meet with them and their subsequent exchanges, nor cal offered to take numerous steps like paying a fine, revamping the permit process, replacing the board of directors and other things. but no agreement could be reached, which is why we're here today appealing to the commission. i would like to make a few comments that will highlight instances in the staff memo directed to the commission and dated april 10 that make statements that i think are misleading. i have known paul for four years and i think he is a decent guy. he treats all the teams fairly and all the individuals that play on the teams with respect. he has made mistakes and has owned up to them. the first place i would like to

direct your attention is to the staff memo at the bottom of page 3 and adding subsequent development. is the last full paragraph. it reads it nor cow has not taken the action we requested in our letters including reimbursing permit fees and notifying the teams we're fully committed to insuring they would continue to have access. the first point is that paul has always acknowledge the need to pay a difference in permit price and a penalty for each violation. he has simply been waiting for the end of this process as it gets resolved to make that payment. as to not notifying the teams of the city's credit to them, this is misleading because the staff memo note to instances where the staff directed paul to refer his teams to the city once a new league had been formed that would take the place of north out. nothing in the letters states that the city is committed to have a leak to play in and i

will direct you to those points in the memo. the first is on page 2, no. 4 which occurs about a third of the way down the page and reads we hope you will work with us to make this a seamless transition by communicating to your teams how and when they can sign that and concludes with please work with the to staff up -- to staff members as they develop this. maybe three-quarters of the way down the page -- the third sentence begins in addition, you must fully cooperate with the department at communicate where and when teams can sign up. you will be provided with that information by mid april as we finalize the decision as to who will run the program. there is nothing in either of these statements for letters that indicates paul meets to tell his team's the city is committed to ensuring they would have access. i think it is unfair to paul and

misleading to criticize him for not doing that. as far as i know, no league has been set up and there is no place for teams to sign up. i don't think that has been communicated to paul yet. the second place i would like to direct your attention to is under the heading of subsequent violations. this is about squeezing more games into the available time slot. two very quick points -- as someone whose team rarely shows up more than 30 seconds before the start of the game, this makes sense. listing start times early is not a permit violation. finally, as someone who has played in three soccer leagues in san francisco and organize teams in two of them, nor callus the most consistent in its policies and from a player's standpoint, provides the best

range of competition levels. >> thank you. questions, commissioners? >> i have a couple of questions. does ignore cow operate outside of san francisco? >> yes. we also operate in that east bay. >> how many employees do have. >> currently one. >> one, but we work with a lot of outside contractors. >> thank you. >> on the director of operations. our presentation here, initially the staff memo we provided you with that of time -- the incident that precipitated this entire sequence of events was

on february 14 of this year, we learned it nor cal athletics obtained things against violation and they have agreed. the department offers two types of permits for sale. one is the advanced permit -- but by leagues like north cow which are called lead permits. most of our fields are allocated as league permits, however, we reserve a small percentage for residents to a book on an occasional and the casual basis called the walkout window permits. these are not intended for use by leagues, as explained on the web site and league permits are burke -- booked at $68 an hour. the walk of window permits for residents to use is only $26 per hour. our permit policies prohibit the transfer of permits once issued and in paragraph 8 on each

permit we issue states the following -- no assignment. this may not be assigned or transferred, violations of any of the conditions will result in depriving the licensee of further use of the facilities. once we found the violation, we noticed all permit fees, violations will occur in this type of consequence. our investigation of the notice we found did show on numerous occasions in february, they arranged for agents to purchase walkup permits and use them for their league games. examples include sunday february 5, february 12, february 19 and crawford feels on february 14, 16th, 21st, and 23rd. as a result of that investigation, i issued the

initial decision whereby we stated in our very first line to them on our decision that we are committed to ensuring the public is not adversely impacted by this violation and we would allow them to use our fields this spring since the season was already in play and they already have the permits. we would suspend their ability to attain a future permits for a minimum of one year starting with the 2012 summer season. in order to ensure the public is not inconvenient, that is where we came up with the provision that we or another organization would pick up their players and create a leak in which they would be able to continue their play. the actual players would not be penalized. this would be in place for one year, after which time, they could apply to be reinstated and

we would start over again. i will say no. how did not contact us to say they had increases in demand and could we help some. but they did appeal to us and say can't we work out something else? i amended the initial decision on this where they were appealing the out right and -- ban on their business. i issued the following modification that we're going to continue the suspension of their weak day permits, but we would allow them to receive permits for sunday play. this would reimburse us the correct fees and so there was a monetary value of getting 26 or permits rather than $68 permits.

we would determine who would take over the league play. it is it true they have not taken the actions we requested, including a fee reimbursement and in communicating to their members that their play would not be impacted, that did not occur but they communicated their ability to play was in jeopardy. the automatic e-mail's you received, that was the message you have already run. regarding the subsequent violations, we are concerned about this. on march 20 s, we found a scheduling violations continue to occur as a squeeze more gains into the permit time than the permit allows for. we allowed a 30 minute time for assembly and the permit starts at 7:00.

we have a time when you can get off which would be jeopardized and players because they don't have to access the field in darkness. they were squeezing in more games than the permit time allowed. when we confronted them with that and it was not a scheduling error, at that point, the schedule was revised and it was a deliberate effort in violation which would change once challenged. last night, we found they are advertising a new pickup soccer program with no permits. they advertise a time to assemble and a field, they can play. this creates a mutual conflict problem for us in that if you are going to get onto the field, you should have a permit rather than to interfere with

people on the field as issued by s. in summary, that's the main reason we took the action that we did. i would like to briefly summarize the three most important issues. we make no value judgment on the support of nonprofit partners or other value they may add to the community. it is it true they have leagues in oakland and the east bay. we are not taking away their livelihood. we have reinstated the sunday permits, but the main issue for us is we need to work with permit these that we can trust. i do not have the staff for resources to watch star organizations we may or may not trust or were worried they are

not complying with our processes. we have appeared before the commission many times over the last five years. we have revised our policies and procedures and this was a fully fetid community process and that it here. we have done what we think is a lot of due diligence in communicating with the rules are and we received an enormous by in by another organization who we can trust to play by the rules and doesn't require us to watch dog them to make sure they are in compliance. second, this is their third violation. in 2007, they were running of the league using free pay time and pay nothing at silver terrorists. we encountered that, confronted, and stopped it.

in 2011, one of our first field, they have permits but were cutting in half and putting twice the games on the field by playing half field game is rather than full field games again without paying required fees. then we have this incident here, so we believe this is strike three at this point. as i said, the violations have continued even after this incident with squeezing in they game times and the new pickup game at campbell without having security permits. at this point, i'm going to release the three minutes i have left. if you have any questions, i would be happy to address those. >> can you speak -- you just mentioned a moment ago that you

had reinstated sunday games -- >> yes. >> it is that just for the spring? >> that was for summer 2012 on going. it is a total of 12 on prohibition. the current decision they are of appealing is we have suspended their ability to obtain a weekday and weeknight permits. sunday's permits we are continuing to issue. >> so we will be doing business with them in the coming year? >> that's right. >> the other question i have is , in past history, have we had the similar situations and when we have experienced in terms of the violation, when we have had these, have we needed out the

same justice or do we have a protocol that says this is what we do when these violations -- >> we have impose the same penalty on les portes who is running league play after permit and time and they receive the same suspension. although more broadly, with our permits and reservations policy area, we have an organization there regularly applied for and was granted permits for rallies at union square. we did business with them for quite awhile. one of the permits, they did not stage a rally but rather staged a daughter's wedding. they used union square for the daughter's wedding rather than the rally and once we found

that, we suspended that organization for your as well. >> so we are even-steven here. >> how big of the percentage are sunday games? >> do you want to answer that? >> in terms of using our field, sundaes are relatively small. they also use the of five school districts field on sundays and we have the field sharing arrangement and we actually permit that and it's one of the reasons we picked sunday's was because we did not want to interfere with the rentals of their spaces. i would say sunday's are 20%. i could run the numbers and give you that answer. of with clarify that leigh sports was only suspended for one season. it was a single violation.

i do want to be clear on that. >> the team is currently playing, you have expressed the ability they could get individual permits to continue playing games? >> we have to other organizations who are interested in taking over running those leagues so they will be able to play. there are also committed to using the employees or contractors they have used and they are ready to step forward. we really have been waiting for this meeting to move for on that. >> thank you. >> to follow-up on that, it opens up a whole other can of worms. we are suspending them for a year but at the same time, we are looking at doing a lease?

>> just a permit. one of our biggest concerns was what happens to the players. that is who we care about. initially, we were thinking we would run at ourselves and there was a lot of noise in the community that we are stealing their business so we moved away from that idea. we have an organization that would be a new player, the referee association expressed an interest in picking up piece and another existing organization, sports for good have said they would help out and take over. that new arrangement you are putting together right now to operate these leagues, will that be coming back to us? will we have to be looking at what that arrangement is and will that be fee based? >> they would pay the same fees.

we would look at if the pricing is comparable. the one piece that worries me most is they are good at being competitors. i don't want to knock out a competitor to the pricing for the community actually goes up. that is a peace we have whereabout. in a year, if anything is in good standing, they can reapply. >> one last question -- do you mind? during this year, given they will still have the sunday games, it's the intent of the department to continue working with them to help them get their

house in order to have this opportunity to come back. i just want to know. when you do something you are not suppose to do, you are suppose to be given an opportunity to get it right and i'm just wondering what are, >> i would say two things -- the fact we already agreed to continue the sunday permits is al performance to continue. secondly, to my point that we do not have the staff resources into watchdog, we have many, many legal organizations for our

athletic fields. this goes all the way back to four or five years ago. all of those other organizations have fallen in line. it is doable and not to sound too harsh, but i believe it is it doable. >> thank you. >> assuming the staff recommendation goes forward, and the teams go to other organizations, at the end of the suspension, how do they get those teams back? >> >> i was not going to phrase it that way. it is a competitive environment. that literally would not be in my wheel house.

>> thank you. i don't see any further questions. we will get the rebuttal in three minutes. >> i this wanted to clarify a couple of things. we currently have six teams playing on sunday. a full field link. that's a very small percentage and they will still put us out of business because and 90% of our teams appear on monday, tuesday and thursday nights. the other thing, in 2007, we ran a flag football program with one of the park director's and it was free of charge to the players. i don't see how that was a

violation because the park director at that time approached us and asked if we could help set up a flag football program for the neighborhood and we did that. the other thing i wanted to touch on is we give our teams away to another organization, they are not going to come back. we will be out of business. we are really in a bind here because we want to make good on our mistakes but we don't want to go out of business. we feel there has to be some kind of common ground about doing that. the biggest issue for us is to hand over the team's -- that was the corporation i co-founded in 2000. we broke up after four years and

i started my own program because i did not believe in the philosophy of that other organization. now that 90% of our businesses being offered to them, -- that is a deal breaker for us. we cannot work with them. that is all i have to say. thank you. >> in rabaul, i think i have covered most of this but i will summarize by saying transferring the clients to another league put some out of business. i cannot account for what their operation will be, but they do have sundays. this is one area where this is

truly a market economy. the teams and leagues will go to those who have the fields. when you participate in our league permit process and the fields are doled out, those who have the fields will get teams and leagues. regarding the harsh punishment, i think i have addressed that one. 2000 athletes losing their ability to play, we have tried and are going through this entire process, none of which you want to take, was about we have other organizations who will take bit teams and continue their ability to play. they will not be playing with more cow for the next 12 months if the suspension is upheld. but they have unfettered rights to be able to continue field

play. employee contractors losing their livelihood, we have already reached out and said we are willing to hire of your referees. everybody is looking to pick up that work, so i believe that has been addressed. just to summarize, we need to work with permits these that we can trust and did not have to constantly look over our shoulder to make sure there's not another violation coming. we have a record of three violations that we know of. the 2007 -- i cannot account for the director but we had a new policy in place and there was a right way and wrong way to get this and this was the wrong way. as i said, we have seen

violations continue after this. those are our three issues. >> thank you. i think that ends the testimony of both sides. any questions? >> it is there any public comment on this item? -- is there any public comment on this item? >> hello. i am a capt. for both a monday and thursday team. i've been playing for about four years and every step of the way it has been extremely professional and play has been fun. i don't want to talk negatively about the other organization that was mentioned but a lot of my team members have come to ignore cal because they want to play with north cal. it's important c