board members for that anyway way and by april when we start to actually consider the recruitment materials and all of that we'll be able to settle a five person committee by that i don't want to delay that process i think it's important to interview candidates in the month of may but june is the budget season and i've participated in this selection process in the past and it's incredibly time consuming to do all of these interviews even if it's a 3 person committee by the month of march and by april a five member committee that was my suggestion but it seems like it might be a simimilar

com promise.

>> i think we should definitely move forward on this issue and kim thank you for highlighting this. we will be in the midst of budget cycle. so i want to ask staff to come back to us with a proposal and tell you how this change of from a that 3 person committee to 4

person committee. i'm thinking about march 18th. we might have to agree to a special meeting. i don't know if we want to comment on my suggestion on asking staff to come back to us with this new meeting with the possible timeline >> it's an extremely save schedule. one of the it's not was not only to get somebody on board the n gining of the fiscal year. but the staff can actually go head and seem like the deal with a recruiter. one of the things we want to do

is direct staff to come forward with a special board meeting before especially, if we want this 5 board committee to meet. however, we don't anticipate this meeting to be closed sessions. >> okay. so you're saying in order to look at expanding for you to provided input we have to have a special meeting on that? why can't we have a regular board meeting >> if it's okay that the two

board members sit in on the committee even though their not members of the committee then we could ask the committee to have this expanded. >> that's a better way. >> thank you. >> i imagine your withdraw your first amendment. >> first of all, i mean clearly we all want to get an executive director on board. as with any good search you're going to consider external and internal candidates and i agree with commissioner campos we have some talented people who are sharing the ship on staff who i know we all have a lot of

confidence. beyond why there would be such a rush with having whether a person starts july 1st or august 1st or september 1st why that matters. the goal s to a have a process and i don't think it matters if it starts thirty days after it's penciled out. this strikes me as a tail wagging a dog. so therefore the process has to be keyed to this date i think the date has to be keyed to the process whether it's july or august 1st. my motion is i'm going to

substitute motion as follows that we adopt the portion of the proposal in terms of retaining a consultant and we direct staff to have a 5 person research committee and that the reminded of the proposal is the call of the chair whether at a special meeting or whether. so the only portion of the current proposal that would move forward would be the rfp everything else would be for the staff to prepare whether or not t is necessary

>> thank you commissioner wiener any second? we have a second >> can i clarify? so does that mean that the commission can't meet on march 18th. why can't we amended this proposal whether it's special or regular then by april there will be a meeting of the minds >> commissioner weiner's amendment i thought we were going to continue with the meeting. >> the only proposal we move forward is to initiate our team to hire a consultant.

there's nothing magic about having a march meeting before we have established that 5 person committee. and again no one has said anything at all attempting to make the case for why this has to be a fire during this trial >> if i can respond commissioner. i don't think there's any difference that two members have just joined us. my main certain for this board is i don't think there's any realistic difference between us moving forward with this complete resolution and just

amendeding. >> i don't see why we have to have a fire drill and meet in march. we're going to do a 5 person committee that 5 person committee should be sitting from the begining. i've heard in argument >> i don't think anyone else's attempted to make a statement as to why. but i think we work at this body and the board of supervisors and if we were kwiven a timeline we would know that we stick to a timeline. we move processes along as quickly if we can. >> the only timeline i'm seeing

is the draft proposal. today there is no timeline that would preestablish a timeline. we're seth the timeline. i don't think there is anything magical about the timeline >> thank you just a question for staff or legal counsel. is the march. is there anything in the rules of authority that would preclude any member of this commission from sitting in on the

march 18th meeting? we're ultimate the ones who control what the timeline should be. i do believe there is an interest in moving this forward and i think we can get to the creation of a 5 member committee. because anyone could be present i don't understand why we can't move forward with the march 18th meeting since anyone can sit in on that and thanks i would just is in the inform discussions we've been talking about 5 person committee. perhaps this should have been - this should have been caught

earlier. as we all acknowledge this is an important role. as we come up with budget and finance right now we should determine what as the search committee i'm sitting the stage in having a vote and it's very, very important i really don't care if it's july or august or september 1st, i want the right person in there. commissioner >> i'm going to be brief. supervisors farrell said what i wanted to say. i thought around a 5 person

committee that's the right thing but i think it make sense for us to sit those folks. i think we should do this as quickly as possible. >> colleagues i think the term commitment is a bit strong. we've had conversations about a 5 person committee and when it was determined we had a 3 person economy that's now i believe we need to moveforward. the personnel committee should be meeting and i welcome other people to take part in this. maybe later we could be concerned with the 5 person

committee. i heard commissioner kim state that maybe we could have a formal motion and we could move this forward. the recruitment process and have a personnel committee meet as a 3 person body and later have the transportation economy came down with a 5 person committee. i welcome the participation of other people tanking part. there's a no formal way we have to have a 5 person committee start at the get go. >> commissioner yee. >> i'm just curious in this

process whether or not prior to having an official opinion about how to do this 5 member committee with the chair can make the your intentions known who would be the 2 other members known if it were to expand to 5 so they would be charged to be more involved in the process. >> i haven't decided formally, of course. the people i've talked to are commissioner wiener and commissioner campos >> i want to know if we can do this before the march meeting

you'll make your intentions known. >> thank you. >> just a question for the t a staff. it sounds like i have a draft already to be posted. generally how long does it take? >> this particular rsc is posted and responses are already up . we may not be able to select the first name until the process has been done >> how long for the interviews? how quickly would you begin that

process for interviewing? >> the schedule is on page 179. it's supposed to be very fast. very quick process >> and would that require an action? >> it's done administratively. we all sort of want to get started on the process of having a consultant on board. it so i would say the t a can start the action without having to come here for the board approval nor to the personnel committee. i wouldn't be costly moving forward with the legislation as it is now because there's two

outstanding issues one is how many people are on the committee and what is the expectation of the committee. it was never the intent that we would be able to vote up and down. one name for consideration for the full border or is they're going to be considered only a few people for the top position. those areas are not clear. given the t a staff can move forward the process i really think we maybe ought to just continue this item and not vote today. should it will be a time when the committee chair can set a new time there could be a special meeting.

but i'm not going to support the resolution as it stands now. so frankly if we took no action today, the staff would be able to select a vendor to do that and maybe that's the best thing to do. commissioner cohen >> thank you speaking to the r f pfshgs process i'm curious can you share the information about the recruitment process to select the director. >> we'll be looking at various factors during the procurement or selection. we'll be looking experience and

internally with what other experience they have and the cost. whether or not they have any t a experience. >> thank you very much. so i guess i'm - i appreciate the broad overview i'm looking for more details. >> yes there is a suggested points would you like me to go into the points? we're looking at 10 points for s pe and we're looking at 5 points for the cost of the vendor. we are looking at - maria if you

could let me know if i'm exceeding over a hundred. another thirty points for the management approach and another 25 points - 20 percent for the experience. >> thank you, no further questions. and commissioner campos >> thank you. i guess my suggestion would be we move forward. i haven't heard any open ship from a 5 person committee. i move to amend the process the resolution to say that it will be the responsibility of an expanded 5 person committee to oversee this process.

that means for that committee to meet prior to the 18 that there has to be a special action by this board we'll have to have a special meeting by this committee. that would be my motion. >> so the only - the committee would be a 5 person committee and nothing would happen until there's 5 members. >> and that staff would have to come back to us and we'll have to have a special meeting. >> in terms of we still dpo don't know if we need to redo the code. >> i would imagine that staff would advise us to make a 5 person committee possible.

if that's an amendment of any rule if negates the discretion of the body. we can proceeded to do that but if there's a need to amend any rule. i would adopt the process for a 5 person committee >> and this gives the t a the ability to create the committee. >> i'd be okay with that. >> commissioner chu. >> we could schedule a special meeting. this meeti

this meeting reflects the certain we all have >> i have a question for staff about the process for retaining the first name. i understand the staff can do this without the approval - my question is if you do the rp and the responses you score them. under your procurement rules does it mean that anyone who gets the highest mark gets it or do you have the discretion. i want to understand the rules a little bit better. >> commissioner wiener it is based on the number of points so whoever receives the most points gets the contract.

>> so we need to be kept up to date. >> of course. i would also note the way this is laid out the proposal is very high. the tint is to go back to the committee and get the details on how i want the process to go forward >> so commissioner wiener i withdraw your motion. >> i withdraw my motion and support the other commissioners. after listening to the discussion i should weigh in a little bit more. i want to wait and see because i thought some of the discussions we've had in the past i didn't want to get in the