off on this? mr. malmed, have you signed off on this? no answer, i assume not. years ago these sort of activities were prohibited with the city attorney when rich people get special treatment. i believe that would still be the case unless the laws have changed. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. seeing none. >> is there going to be a motion, any action on this? >> there's no action required. >> okay. we're on to item number 6, discussion of possible action on the framework for the hiring of permanent director for the department. >> okay. if i may, i'd like to kind of open up to the commissioners here to pretty much have every commissioner weigh in on this. i'm sure we all would like to understand -- for me

personally, if i may fast track, i'd like to understand the past and how we did this in the past. i've been asking questions all week on how the procedure is, you know, and i've been getting good answers back. so, but if i may, if i could get john to interject. we had a quick conversation during the week. the first thing is i wanted the commissioners to understand what we talk about in public when it comes to this and what the closed sessions will consist of. and also maybe if you could talk, it would be best if you could -- remember, kind of outline to the commission what his memory was of how this proceeded the last time when we were looking for a new direct r for the department. >> john malmed from the city attorney's office. the laws regarding closed session set up pretty limited

circumstances when the commission can meet in closed session and what is appropriate to discuss during that time. there is something that's referred to as the personnel exception, which is an opportunity to go into closed session to discuss certain things regarding personnel, primarily given the building inspection commission's authority that regards the hiring and/or termination of the director of dbi and the commission secretary. so, those are authority that you've been granted under the charter. and for the most part, the personnel exception gives you the opportunity to meet in closed session to discuss certain things regarding the hiring or termination as well as the valuations of those two different staff.

but as i said initially, the ability to meet in closed session is limited. so, there's many things that you can't discuss regarding the director's position. one of them, for example, are the various qualifications that are appropriate for a director. there are salary issues. there are other things that can only be discussed by the commission in an open session. if that's something that you would like to do. so, the president felt that it would be appropriate to put on today's agenda the -- a discussion of the framework regarding the hiring process for a director because it is really much more of a open-ended discussion about the process, the search process,

how to identify qualifications, how you narrow the field, all these things are not appropriate in a closed session. it's my understanding from the last time that you hired a director -- and i think i came on midstream as the city attorney representing the bic. so, commissioner walker may have some more to add to this. but it was my understanding that the commission -- commissioner walker was the president of the commission at the time. she obtained authority from the bic. i don't know if it was formal or it was just the consensus, that she would take the helm in terms of a director search. she worked with i believe three other department heads within the city, the director of public works, the chief administrative officer, and i believe the general manager of

the puc. >> controller. >> yes, it was the same person. >> same person, different position, yes. >> so, president walker worked with those three city staff to develop the protocols, the search process. i think you hired or worked with a search firm. sent out solicitations, received qualifications and applications from candidates. and then i believe that group narrowed the field down to half a dozen potential candidates. at that point the building inspection commission met in closed session and interviewed each of the candidates from this narrowed field. the interviews were held off-site. its was properly noticed in

accordance with all the various rules. they were held at different times, so, the different candidates who you're interviewing didn't know who else was being interviewed. and after all the candidates were interviewed, i believe there was at least one or more additional closed sessions where the commission made its decision on a particular candidate. and then there was an offer process made and an acceptance of that. so, that's the way the process was conducted last time. there is nothing in your building inspection commission rules that has a set process. so, the commission is free to either continue that similar process or create -- craft its own. >> okay, commissioners. i'll open this up. thank you, city attorney, for that. that was really helpful because

as the president i want the past best practices. with that i'd like to open it and get the other commissioners and take it from there. commissioner walker. >> yes, i'd like to add to some of the process. we decided as a group on which search firm. there were a couple that we were being -- that applied to be considered, and that was a decision made by the entire commission. the description of the job and our expectations were also crafted by the commission entirely. and the search firm before doing anything, they met for long periods of time with the individual commissioners to get every individual commissioner's criteria, which was very helpful in whitling down the group of people that would be interviewed.

* whittling when this happened, i think that it was important to i think the entire commission, and certainly to me, that we actually had some other department heads who could -- who worked with the department on a regular basis and could offer advisement. they also sat in on the interviews. they were invited to sit in, though they don't have a vote. but it was an effort to try and make sure we were addressing concerns that we may not be aware of as far as dealing just with our department. so, it was a very helpful part of including those department heads that on a regular basis work with our department. but that was helpful. it was helpful to the commission at the time, i think, and i think that the process for the most part worked really well because everybody had equal input.

the process itself was one that was approved by the entire commission, so. >> commissioner mar. >> so, i want to thank president mccarthy for putting this on the agenda. my main concern is that, at least for the search, it's an open process. and as commissioner walker says, work with other departments. i think we could also work with human resources because i feel other executive positions and other departments have recently -- have actually recently gone out. we could look at which firms they used most recently. so, we could have a very open process, at least on the search, and have all the commissioners weigh in [speaker not understood]. that's my main concern.

>> wow, is there any more discussion before i get into my monologue here? i'm sure i'll probably be asking questions we'll take from there. thank you, commissioner lee. >> since you're asking for opinions. i was on that commission as well with commissioner walker. i'm just thinking about the situation now with our department versus what it was i guess six years ago or something like that. the situation may be a little different and i'm not opposed to following that process, but i seem to recall it was a long process. and there are ways where we can shorten it, i think, that may be helpful. just because our department's

situation now is not the same as it was six years ago where we were starting fresh, so to speak. so, that's my only opinion at this point. >> okay. well, thank you for that, commissioner lee. so, i concur and i think my sense is, and correct me if i'm wrong, most commissioners up here feel that this process should be done as efficiently as possible. we've had a pretty efficient empowerment, plan check is running pretty efficiently. obviously we have to go through the motions and make sure everything is done correctly. one of the big advantages i see here, and commissioner walker is kind of pointing them to me here, we have a lot of the groundwork done with respect to the language and so on which i would imagine talking to people in the past, that was the difficult part putting all that language together, getting this all agreed on. and so i do believe based on

what i'm reading, we can touch base on this as we get further into t we are in agreement with most of the language we have. we obviously with the job description, like commissioner lee is saying, probably need to give it some thought and add in there what we think is missing on that last go around, particularly with what we're looking for from our new director. with regard to the search firm, i'd like to take the model that we took -- commissioner walker took the last time, is get directive from the commission, put together a qualified firm and from that pick -- >> approved firm. >> qualified approved firm. >> they're already approved by hr for doing searches for us. >> yes. and short list that, bring it back to the commission, and process there. with my goal to do this as quickly and efficiently as possible, i like the aspect of working with the professions within the departments that are -- the different departments like you did in the past,

commissioner walker, just to make sure we've got everything done correctly before we do send out -- before we select and do send out the job application information. so, with that, i'll ask one question. do we have a list? i don't know, pam. do we actually have a current list of the type of firms that are, as commissioner walker said, approved that we can work with immediately? >> yes. city services auditor which is part of the controller's office worked with the department of resources. and they put out an rfq, which is a request for qualifications. they have 10 firms that have been approved to use as, you know, to be able to solicit whether or not they can provide the services that we're looking for. so, i've looked into what --

it's kind of what we're going to have to do, called a mini rfp, which is not going to be that much of a deal. i've done some research and talked to several people in the other departments on what exactly needs to be done. there is information that we will need to provide to human resources to start the project. we need to make a decision on the scope of work that we want, you know, the search firm to have. they have examples. when i looked at the various firms, we've got -- there's some of the websites don't have a lot of information. right now we're reviewing what the response to the request for qualifications and see which ones would be appropriate. but a list of the firms have a lot of experience with san

franci cirques -- franciscans. there are some firms that specifically have that. but we can write into the scope of work for the search firm that they must have, you know, experience with providing the kind of position, the kind of requirements that we have. i do have a copy of -- that maybe some of you have, what was a brochure that was used last time. and as i said, we have contacted the hr. we're working with them to start up. there are some questions they want us to fill out before hand. and my group is poised to help you in any way we can possibly do. >> commissioner lee. >> i have a couple questions. one real simple question is do we know what the average cost

of a search is now? i mean, i know -- i may recall what it was six years ago, but i don't know what it is now. and the second question is how does the hr fit into all this? i seem to have forgotten that. >> there is an average cost rate now, it's less than 50,000. i've done a couple of things. it's a little hard to find information directly. but i think that it definitely will be less than 50, somewhere 25, 30 max. it really depends on what we put into the scope of work. the second is in terms of the hr the way they work now, it's just i think different than before. but they assist us in kind of the negotiations with the search firm. they basically are an assistance type of thing where they have familiarity with what the firms can provide. they will look at what our scope of work and make

suggestions. they're just there to, you know, assist us. they do not run the process. they do not make -- they do not determine -- you guys determine what exactly you want in a director and what exactly you want in, you know, the scope of work. if we want to stay general like this was fairly general, we can. if we want to make it more specific, we can. it's really up to you. >> so, who actually makes the announcement? is it the hr that makes the announcement or is it the search firm that makes the announcement? -- opening? >> the search firm is the one who goes out and -- i mean, part of their responsibility is to go out and look at targeted, you know, like icc and publications and halvo, and other types of groups in order to do the announcement, and to

provide the -- you know, the brochure or whatever. they're the ones that collect the information. in some cases they've done short lists, but it's really up to how we want it done. >> so is it done how the relationship is? we can decide on how the relationship -- >> yes. >> okay. >> and, you know, if we have a choice of 10 firms, so, you know, if they -- we can choose to deal with a firm that is going to provide us what we want. >> commissioner walker first, yeah. >> the benefit of working, especially with someone who is engaged in the industry is that they are aware of people in different locales who they think might fit our criteria, who might be interested. so, it's not even just a matter of announcing it. they actually recruit.

they make calls to folks that they have relationships with that they know of in the industry, and it provides much more response to just a general notice that we might post somewhere. so, it really helps -- it helps us in the process that we went through. and also they have talked to each of the commissioners. so, if there's anything that would necessarily exclude them because of that, they would not be in our recommendation and they would say, why? i mean, it was a pretty extensive report that we got that accompanied their recommended list of people that we interview. so, they would say, you know, these are included and these aren't and why and it gives us -- because i think still we had three or four meetings where we interviewed people in closed

session to really get to the questions that we have. and it was -- i think we had i can't even remember how many candidates we had. it was over 10, i think, maybe something like 14, i can't remember. >> it was more than half a dozen. >> but we didn't interview them all because some of them were not appropriate and didn't fall -- or fell below our individual threshold. so, it was a good process that worked and i think it did help expedite, even though it took awhile, it took time to create stuff we won't have to now. so, i think it's a good start to jump off of and move forward. i mean, which i would like to do, is to really authorize us to do the request, the mini request to interest people in applying as our search firm. >> the other thing is because they have people that are

already qualified, we don't have to go through the process of going through some of the political processes trying to -- or the bureaucratic process. it's already done. not all of it's done because these are just qualified firms, but we -- there's a lot of information on how to do this. there's a lot of current experience and, you know, i think we can try to go quickly on this. >> just one final question. to kind of keep it streamlined, you have -- not to get into dollar amounts, you have authorization up to x amount of dollars, right, to pay for certain things, right? >> yeah. i mean -- >> rather than having to go for -- yeah. okay. so, we'll just keep that in our mind. we can have that conversation another time. but, so, in summary, would we -- i ask the commissioners --

would we concur that we would like to set kind of a time frame or timeline that we'd like to see certain aspects of this search being met? is that possible, or should we just, you know, agree that we're going to do it as efficiently and as fast as possible? and the other thing i'd like to ask is in the interest of streamlining, because that's a big thing for me, where do we stand about having special meetings? i think one of the big delays is getting everybody back together and getting on the calendar, you know. are we allowed to have -- set up special meetings with regard solely for this? >> yes. >> john malmed from the city attorney's office. yes, you can set up special meetings of the commission. you could create -- you can do that today because it's not

agendized, but you can create a subcommittee of the commission that takes the lead and they would meet separately as a smaller group on a more regular basis rather than trying to assemble the whole commission * . the commission could give authority like they did last time to the president or another commissioner to kind of take the lead and then report back and set up meetings with the full commission as needed. >> commissioner lee. >> i don't -- i just propose that we duplicate like last time, which is give the president the authority to take the lead. and if you need the commission to meet, we hold special meetings and just decide everything out in the open here. >> and as an addition, the goal would be to bring back the responses from the search firms

who are interested in doing the jobs. and then setting up, you know, maybe meeting with the department heads like we did before to get their input in advance. but it's -- and then to -- i mean, the interviews happen with all of us. so, i just want to be clear that that's -- >> we vote on -- we short list this and they will vote on those [inaudible]. >> i seem to recall that we also heard the presentation from the search firms. >> correct. >> and then we selected which one [inaudible]. >> [inaudible]. >> i heard there was another process where the search firm interviewed the commissioners in terms of our views on what was a priority for us in terms of -- that to me, that's an important input from the

commissioners. >> yes, those were individual meetings. >> where do we stand there with regard to sunshine and so on if the search firm wanted to call commissioner walker separately and so on or even talk to commissioners at the same time, in the interest of -- >> we could work on that as it unfolds. but maybe what we should do is in the rfp, the shorter rfp to identify the firms, it might be one the criteria that we consider is to request that there be permissible meeting or meetings with individual commissioners. so, it's set up up front and then i can work with the department and the search firm on what would be appropriate in terms of the issues concerning quorum and public meetings. >> i don't think -- they don't have a restriction because they're not a commissioner. it's just us. so, they're getting information from us for their search.

>> okay. well, we just want to be squeaky clean here so we don't have to backtrack. commissioners, what's in front of us, then, i'd like to -- can somebody second commissioner lee's motion and we can take a vote on that? because this is an action item. >> i second the motion to allow the president to set up meetings with other departments and develop criteria for doing a search. >> access, right? >> right. >> the process for finding a permanent director. >> and bringing it back for a vote to us. >> okay. could i get a second on that? >> second. [speaker not understood]. >> there is a motion on the floor. is there public comment on this?

spencer gash, once again, building inspector for 22 years. i see the search firm as little more than allowing two benefits for you. it delays the process and allows you to hire a good crony. and i have some reasons why you should try to speed things up. and it relates to what the current director has been up to. and there's a larger problem in the department other than the racism which i discussed last time, and that is the lack of written and authorized direction to staff. for the last four plus years there have been no such documents produced by management. director, how many directives have you written? no answer. director sweeney, directors? >> let me stop you right there, commissioner. what is in front of us is item -- i'm explaining why you should speed things up. >> i'm telling you now you need to -- stop the clock, please. >> not refer to staff.

confront us here about the item on the search for the director. please keep your comments to that. and i asked you that once. very good, sir. there are reasons to speed up this search. so, okay. no directives from staff. i think that's a big problem. you need a director who will direct. furthermore, how can this commission allow a department to exist with no written and authorized policies and procedures? how can you allow these persons whose actual title includes the word director to not direct? i insist a director who has not issued any directives is committing administrative malfeasance at the level of official misconduct. the lack of written direction for a lengthy period of time has resulted in complete confusion at the department from operating by word of mouth only. has the department become criminal or are they just operating in a criminal -- >> once again you're off topic. i am on topic. >> i am stopping you right there and i have every right to do that. i have asked you now to stay on topic. you have not. i would like to end public comment. thank you. you're trying to muzzle me

and i don't appreciate that. >> i've spoken, thank you, as chair. thank you. next speaker. john [speaker not understood], inspector from the department. i was here on another topic and just listening to public comment, i as a building inspector would like to disassociate myself from the previous speaker. i would hope that you will realize he speaks on his own behalf. i would doubt if the comments he's made today and at previous meetings, i doubt if any inspector in the department of building inspector department of housing would have anything in common with the comments he's making. and as regards the topic -- >> please, sir, sit down or i'm going to have to ask you to leave this room. please leave the room if you can't conduct yourself, ea