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 move forward.

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 way. the suggestion i have for this discussion to me there's no reason - this is the one person that's going to be the lead person with we higher as a group and we're not cleaver as to what commissioner chihuahuas saying in terms of what the purpose of the role of the personnel committee would be playing in the selection process. i'd like to make a incision. this is such an important position that this full body of the commission should be involved in the interview of the

top two or three whatever number of people we think are necessary to interview. 11 people might sound unmanagementable but i don't think it is. we want the questions to tell you and we want to hear all the answers. let the selection firm do their job and screen them out. i personally feel better if i actually sat in the interview process and you would do this by then if this is an agreement then you have a closed session thoughtful body. i believe you don't have to change anything then. and whosoever applying for this

job can't handle 11 people shouldn't be applying for the job. in my last position we had 7 people and that was fine. so that's my suggestion let's go droiblg the meeting of the issue where everybody on this commission has a part of the interview process and we don't have to change anything >> i think the fact that the body the full body needs to make a decision together in the end on the vote we want to have some be flexibility. we want to have the staff propose several names that could

be determined at the end. i would be much more comfortable if everyone could be involved this way >> no, thank you. >> commissioner mar. >> yeah, just commenting on commissioner yee. this is an 11 member body not a 7 member body on the school board. i think with 3 people commissioner cohen and myself and the other commissioner there needs to be that level of trust. i'm supportive of a 5 person committee. one of the things we're missing is our staff who worked their

butts off. we drag this out and it will jeopardy the ability to get the funds. it does have a negative impact and i see the strain it has on the staff as well. i say we move forward. i'm supportive of a 5 member committee. as we discuss this as an 11 member body months ago i thought it would be a larger body too. one of the things we don't want to do is drag this out and stress the staff. i'm supportive of the amendments

that have been made. >> thank you commissioner mar. >> i realize we actually have not had public comment apparently we're going to open this open up for public comments. >> mr. mr. chairperson if you have paid attention nobody has read the admin code thoroughly. some of the people who have made comments have not consulted the city attorney's. this is san francisco with a large budget. this is not the unified school district that comes begging for

fund. and now i would like on behalf of the public that anyone who's on the 5 member committee should have 5 years experience. what we're having here is some foul play 75 thousand dollars have been set aside. there is an admin code that permits a 3 member committee or 3 member board to make the right kind of decisions were mr. chair can you force the resume of the

portfolio? >> anyone on the public who would like to comment? good afternoon commissioners i'm jackie. i'm a member of the transportation authority. as you know i was one of the individuals that wrote prop b and got it passes back in 1989. i'm responsible for you who are sitting where you're sitting now. so far as choosing the executive direct

director. i was appointed to the advisory committee back in 97 after attending all meetings. from what i understand when the executive director or anyone of the transportation authority steps down they don't - they go with what they've got. they work from within. they appoint their own individuals because their people they know they know transportation. they know the transportation problems in the city. they know what has to be done and the sales package he everything. i've known maria for many years and she's done a great job.

i strongly urge you to have her move in as the executive director. thank you very much. >> thank you any other member of the public? and i see none come forward. commissioner campos can i ask you to restate your motion and my motion would be to add the following language and be of further revolve for purposes of this process the committee should be expanded to include 5 members. >> just a clarify for the chairs comments the recommendation for the chairs committee would be more than one candidate. thank you