said i would apply for it and i would and i would take myself out of that and not fair to being on it obviously and it's actually a lengthily process at least the impression i got from the clerk's office and lengthy process creating the position. the way you would do it and get it through the dhr process and eliminating my position. you're eliminating the other position that we have, the community position, and that's how you get your cost savings in order to have executive officer position so there is -- there is some length of time between all this occurring and putting it out for people to submit their application and all that. >> is there a process -- with respect to option two, option two would simply work by -- how would option two work? >> option two is basically lifting the restrictions on my

position. when the board of supervisors created the position they put restrictions on what i could work on and do. if the board of supervisors would simply lift the restrictions i could do all of the items that the executive officer currently does. once again the clerk's office did check into this and they determined my base position can do all work that an executive officer of this body would be working on. not necessarily of any commission but the work that this commission does and do all of that work. you wouldn't have to go through dhr at all and as far as they're concerned by position is covered. >> could there be a selection process under option two along what the members talked about? >> i guess if i resign my position and apply again you could potentially do that. >> i see. ms. miller. >> well, i think -- we're in

the process right now of in our budget with sf puc allocating sf puc resources because we do have sf puc money for cca, so there is some latitude to you from a budget standpoint about the position, so in terms of flexibility with option two. i don't think you need to say there is only one position available and we have two positions authorized and we're going to cut the one, and then maybe what you would be saying you want to authorize the other, but with cost effectiveness if you go out figure out in the interview that you could do the two with one you would do that if that makes

sense to you. >> okay. commissioner avalos, did you want to add anything? i think -- >> i would have a preference that we don't -- we have a search process that doesn't go through the rigga mo rol that jason discussed right now with the ideal and we could have a flexible process for option two, but i just thought jason was shaking his head. i wasn't counting on the process so involved with the process and the mayor process -- the mayor be part of that process. that to me doesn't seem like a real easy process to go through. i know it doesn't seem like one that has the best interest of the lafco members, commissioners in the driver's seat. >> okay. do we have a response?

>> my response is from what my understanding of it is that in order to have a search process you either -- we would create that new position, have to go through the city process to do that or i would have to resign from my position. i am asking our clerk to call over and see if we could get somebody from the hr folks over here. >> i have a suggestion on this, but commissioner schmeltzer i want to hear from you before. >> thank you. just following up on commissioner avalos' point and what mr. fried is saying i guess i find it hard to believe that somebody can't be acting in a position and be considered for it. that seems to happen regularly and there is a search process but someone is the acting or interim during that time and fore does it seem possible he would have to resign to be considered so i think we

need to get clarification on that. maybe we don't need to do that today. >> exactly. my suggestion is this and we want to make sure we hear from the public on this and unless i hear objection and obviously want to hear from the public on this and clearly we will proceed to make sure that that there is an expansion of duty so staff can focus on these other things, but besides that that we actually figure out what the most expeditious way for us to have a process for a formal selection of an executive officer would be, and that if it is possible the preference would be that we pursue option two and still allow for a selection process, and maybe it is as mr. fried is saying that's not possible, but one possibility might be there is an acting

appointment that happens. i don't know that we know enough to know for sure that that is not a possibility. i think that between now and the time that we have our next meeting that we can come back to the commission with a more detailed recommendation that says this is the most expeditious way to have a process. i think that would be the way they would approach it. my preference is that we find -- i do think that there are -- you know, i can go different ways, but i think one of the benefits for having a process whoever is selected if it's somebody already there it adds a level of credibility and mandate to that individual. if we go down that route it's my

hope that mr. fried would apply for that and given his experience and what he has done i think it makes a great deal of sense. we can figure out the most expeditious way to do a process and we can come back to the commission with that and if it is the case there is no expeditious way to do that and the only way is to actually go through the more formal process of requesting the consolidation of positions and a new position is created at least we will know that. mr. fried, ms. miller do you want to add anything to that? okay. why don't we open it up to public comment. >> good afternoon again commissioners. eric brook representing san francisco green party and the local organization our city. first a technical point on all of this. i was under the impression and check

with dhr on this that the executive position still exists but filled on an interim basis. maybe i am wrong on that but good to make sure you're correct on that from the staff's perspective. i agree bringing it back in house because the next year is going to be really big for clean power sf and some other things and we need somebody that can be available five days a week, 50 weeks a year. i mean that's really going to be important, but the main thing i want to focus on is that the advocates for clean power sf have had some concerns with the way that lafco -- when we originally set set up lafco to work on clean power sf and especially get at the

beginning of 2007 and what we needed from lafco and i believe the intention we needed somebody on task for clean power sf itself that could approach the sf puc on many occasions the sf puc wasn't thinking outside of the box on this to put it politely, and we need someone, and i think we will need someone well versed in local distributive generation, the dynamics of financing clean energy and clean energy over the next year so we can take the build out work that is looking promising and realizing for reasons for saving the planet and economics that we must do this local build out. it's not really something that we can debate. we need -- so whatever you do with these positions we would hope that you still end

up with two positions and one position could be carefully dedicated to somebody with a lot of expertise on local distributive renewable and generation and efficiency so they can help us dive in with sf puc and make sure we're getting the sf puc hour enterprise to push the envelope on this issue and crucial to the planet, crucial to jobs. you have heard us say that many times and i would concur with freeing up the executive officer. i think we saw when mr. fried was doing good and important work on rank choice voting he had one hand tied behind his back and nice for more flexibility to be there so those are my comments. >> thank you. is there any other public comment? >> hi commissioners. i am paul

kingus that those that created cca which is a policy that inevitably will fail because it creates no jobs in san francisco. it gives money to shell who import solar energy from nevada. correct me if i am wrong and there are numerous books written about how this policy will fail. what you need in that position is someone with new blood and global warming is real and emergency and a crisis. san francisco is the kind of city of the tail that wags the dog. we can create a policy that matches the german policy of creating jobs, cash flow in this town. the only state that has done it so far is verment and gainsville florida you need somebody here who is a critic

of cca, not somebody in house and along with the shell game because it inevitably going to fail. if you don't have somebody speaking that understands the policy how it inevitably will fail, must fail. it's designed to fail. if you don't have somebody that understands that concept in the position then you're just going to be walking down the road to inevitably throwing money at a policy that will fail, so would urge when looking for somebody ask them questions about what policy they understand because most people in this town, and the media do not know that germany is approaching 100% renewable energy and there is already a nation that is 100% solar and the cca plan is just failure. designed to fail, so if you're not aware of that, if you never heard that before you

should talk to somebody who knows and there's people who have written books on this how this policy must fail. it's just scientifically designed upside down and backwards. it can't possibly succeed but san francisco needs because we're a leadership town we need a policy that will win. the mayor talked to the mayor of freeberg germany who has a policy and we think we should talk to them over there. thank you. >> thank you. is there any other member of the public that would like to speak? seeing none public comment is closed. colleagues i think i have a sense how we should proceed and we will move forward and introduce a resolution expanding the ability of staff to focus on other issues besides cca and we will work with our staff to figure out the most ix pidishes

way to bring the position in house, and one of the things they will consider when we look at that to the extent that option two allows for itself for a process of selection whether or not that would mean the creation of any additional position as well because i think that maybe needed as we move forward, and again i want to thank ms. miller and mr. fried in helping us navigate through this. i actually think it's a sign of the growth, if you will, that we're making as an organization, the fact that we are at this juncture. i think it's something that we need to do expeditiously but also do it right because for the local agency formation commission to

see -- to come -- to see the maximizing of its role in city government i think that this has to be done and that's one of the reasons i wanted to have it on the agenda, so i appreciate the comments, and again mr. fried. >> yeah. i want to make sure there are no other am whys we wanted to look at. >> >> on next year's agenda and spent so much time on that one. >> in terms of goals and objectives colleagues? we heard from commissioner olague about -- i think a very, very good issue which is the issue of committee appointments and the structure where you have split appointments as opposed to simply mayoral appointments and how that works. i think that is one possibility. commissioner

avalos. >> just a vague idea that i want to put out there that could be looked at by lafco maybe. one is we talk about san francisco's growing economy, and it's especially growing in the tech sector. there was a report in the paper today from the bay area council study and uc berkeley study there is a great multiplying effect happening right now with jobs created but i'm wondering if the city having greater or in the water to make sure that we are building a pipeline between long-term local residents especially comments of color with jobs in the tech center would be something that we look at possibly, but that's an interest i have. there is an example in our packet that talks

about looking at trees and the issue of relinquishment right now in san francisco and tip -- stipically before a progress issue and it's a burden to be responsible to take care of trees. is there a way to reestablishing foresteration program and tree maintenance program in san francisco and part of work force development. that to me is an interesting idea and cuts across the politics in the city. that was an example provided in our packet. i am also interested in the municipal bank idea that is also an example in the packet. i believe if we have greater control over our public dollars to do community investments,

and to help develop our communities we are actually taking a greater stake in our destiny as a city and we had those discussions and long-term work to do it and like the long work for the establishment of clean power sf. i look at it in the same vain and same idea and around the municipal bank we could create our separate authority, body from the city and county of san francisco to make municipal bank possible and worth exploring in the coming year. >> thank you commissioner. commissioner mar. >> i agree with the suggestions of supervisor olague and avalos, and i know mr. fried in your

report you mentioned understanding how government can operate better studies that look at our funding of schools and preschools and i think that would be good because we are going to be in the process of considering reauthorization of prop h or the enrichment fund, but also preschool for all which is a program that flows through our first five commission so i think a broader analysis of that proposition would be helpful. i know our city participates in a state wide schools collaborative and model for other cities and counties as well, but some analysis of the effectiveness would be useful as we consider reauthorizing prop h but that is just a suggestion. >> and by the way i will give more opportunity for anyone in the public that would like to

add their 2 cents on this, but i think the way we should approach it and they're great ideas and i would be interested in pursuing any one of them or all of them i think we do have to at some point take formal ookz that provides guidance to staff as to what priorities are and to the extent that there maybe additional ideas that come up. maybe the thing is to ask staff at the next meeting that there be a resolution or something that we can be voting on that that provides a list of priorities but also organizes them in terms of importance, so there is a road map for staff where to begin. i mean that would be my suggestion.

ms. miller, mr. fried any thoughts on that. >> i think that's exactly correct chair campos. some of these i could work on and in house and the tree stuff maybe outside consult aptds to help us and having an understanding from you what you think are the priorities and help us how we prioritize the work that gets done on them. >>i think one thing that might be helpful and for instance you take each of the items that was presented. maybe between now and the time that we come back on those items you can explain to us sort of what the work would look like. for instance if it's an issue that lends itself to internal staff work that is one thing. if it's an issue that we need to hire an outside consultant to do a study then just to give that idea

because we be able to pursue more than one thing at the same time depending on what that work looks like. any member of the public that would like to add their 2-cents to this? >> yeah. eric brooks again. san francisco green party. thanks for the opportunity chair camp chair campos. just two things and how important the municipal bank is. i think that needs to be in the top three priorities list and i mentioned this many times and i wanted as an individual grass-roots organizer and coalesce a team and show you there are leverage with this and we're getting to the point in the next year i would be surprised if we don't have to deal with the broad

band network and i don't know what you have experienced but a month ago comcox raised my rate 15 bucks a month and just like we need public power, we need public communications. we need to be competing with a public infrastructure with compast, comcast and at&t and you name it and i urge that we do something in the next year and do a new study around broad band and 110 years ago now. we need. >> >> update it and lay the ground for a communication system in san francisco and if you look at what happens with the public access channel it's obvious that we need it and comcast isn't going to give us the access

content and opportunities for the community that we really need so please do. i know you have a long list but please add that to the list. thanks. >> thank you. anyone else? okay. seeing none public comment is closed, so what i would say -- i would direct staff to work with me and drafting a res diewgz that we would bring to the commission at our next meeting that outlines all of these issues and makes some suggestion for how to proceed with respect to them. commissioner avalos. >> yes. i would like to just kind of tap into that process as well. i mean you can take the lead but i want -- >> and in fact i'm -- i know that my staff would appreciate this. i am happy if you want to take the lead commissioner. >> let's do that, so germ me

pollack in my office will be staffing on that and we will work together in putting a resolution together. i do want to look at what was done in the past around fiber and communications and so i think that would be important to have as part of -- at least for consideration, what has been done in the past and what we have done as a lafco towards that end. i know that we probably have something in your office that might be there and i see hope is ready to weigh in on this. >> commissioner schmeltzer. >> it was a lot more recent than 10 years ago and when it happened it was in the context of the google proposal to provide free wi-fi so that's when laugh. >> i remember it around 2006 or seven, yeah.

>> >> yes. >> it's on the lafco website and you will see there is a report in there but i'm happy to get you a print out if you need one. >> thanks. >> one thing i would ask as we are putting this together is one thing that we know happens in city government is issues come up unexpectantedly and there are some other thing that comes up, so whatever we adopt of course hopefully is subject to some modification and i would simply encourage all of the commissioners to make sure that if there is anything else that you would like to include in this that you let our staff know and that you let vice chair avalos' staff know and we don't want to leave any of that out. so again i appreciate the discussion and we will be working on this and come back

to these two items at the next commission meeting. madam clerk if you could please call item number seven. >> item number seven executive's officer's report. >> miss miller. >> we have election of officers in january -- i really don't have a report unless you want to talk about the joint hearing that we had with the sf puc. we are looking for dates in february for the next one but other than that that concludes my reports. >> commissioners, any comments or questions? >> any member of the public what would like to speak? seeing none public comment is closed and i'm not sure when to make this throat, but as i. >> >> understand it this is our last lafco meeting of calendar year and because of that it

probably is the last meeting that we will have commissioner olague sitting in as a member of lafco for at least for the time being, and so i just -- on a very personal note i want to take this opportunity to thank commissioner olague for her service on the local agency formation commission. it really has been an honor and you have provided a tremendous contribution. i think it's definitely the case that community choice aggregation would not be where it is today without your support and involvement, and it's really -- it's been an honor and a pleasure and you know it is my

hope that you continue to be involved in lafco, and i just want to say i'm very grateful to you. it really has been an honor for me to serve with you so i wanted to take the opportunity to note that. commissioner avalos. >> commissioner schmeltzer. >> actually commissioner schmeltzer, did you want to say anything? >> i wanted to concur and thank commissioner olague for her work on lafco and other matters. we have one more board meeting together as well, and it's been great. i am actually really proud of the work of passing clean power sf. i think it's one of the hallmark legislation that came out in recent years and just want to thank you for being part of it.