>> just before staff might answer that i've had previous conversations with commissioner weiner about looking for a committee to review candidates for the executive director. it gives the authority to actually do the work we're recommending to the full transportation board to a committee that consists -- in order to create a five member committee to make a formal recommendation we would need to change administrative code i talked to the transportation authority about that i thought it would be a process that would seem comeumbersome -- but i also thought it was possible that we can consult together to move

forward on you know on recommendations. if there's a process that can happen that's separate from the committee meetings that are officially on kaeshl camera that can engage a five member committee to review candidates, i'm open to that but frp much of that -- probably a question for the ta to answer. >> i would say the challenge of doing it -- i'd imagine that there would be i don't know but for the committee that's doing this public discussions there could be sometimes for personnel matters goes into closed session and issues about having i don't know and so i had i don't think it would be that cumbersome -- if the only way we could do it is to change

administration code -- i'd look for guidance from staff and counsel what we will require or not require to change the admin code. >> the formation of the ad hoc xhi committee is something we could do. my understanding is that when the personnel committee is discussing particular candidates which ones they want to interview that it is closed session and only the members of the committee maybe present and around. and i would note for the benefit of those watching too that the current proposal does include having as soon as the recruit er is on board to

offer to interview the board members what they are looking for in terms of an executive director. >> of course i would expect the recruit ers to do that but that's different than what i think some of the conversations were about the five members doing the search and vetting the candidates so is it the view of staff and counsel that the only way we could do that would be to change the add min code to create a committee or is that something we could do without a formal change to the code? >> i think the question of maintaining the confidentiality of communications in closed session is an issue we'd have to look at wpt with with that

respect to the ad hoc committee. we could look at once it's been agenda ized so take a look at the issue more closely and bring it back next month with a recommendation. >> what i would suggest then i'm not comfortable adopting this today. and so i would suggest continuing this one month and i don't think we have to wait a month to receive advice on what we need to do i think as soon as that advice is ready hopefully within a day or two if that's conceivable -- if that's the only way we can do that then we can do that as quickly as we can. this is a once in a blue moon opportunity and i think it's very critical

that we have the best process possible and that is precisely why there were conversations about having a five person committee to do this exhaustive work. >> so before we actually look at delaying a month which i think would set us back i lot i want to ask if there's any other way we can make a more robust process of reviewing candidates whether -- i'm not sure if we can do it possibly in closed session we can't do it but if there's another way it can be conducted. >> i'm sure there's a way we can do that the problem with doing it today is we haven't agenda ized it. we need to agenda ize a meeting where we can adopt an action. i'm

certain there's a process for expanding participation in the process subject to resolving the closed session and confidentiality issue i'm not sure about at this point. >> commissioner weiner. >> so if there's a way that there's two members that would effectively be members of the community and participate in the entire process and have that five person committee i think that's the goal i think there's a distinction between members exhaust ive ly, versus a consultation process which is not the same thing so i do make a motion to continue this one month. >> motion from commissioner weiner is there a second? >> second by commissioner chew.

>> do that take precedence to vote on that immediately? >> thank you mr. chair. trying to figure out if there's a way that we can move forward and still address the concerns that have been raised. i do have a question for counsel -- from my understanding there's nothing in the code or in the rules that actually prohibits another member of this body that wants to sit on a committee that they are not a part of that happens all the time is there something that actually precludes that from happening? >> for purposes of closed sessions there's a problem if you go into closed session generally ly attendance is

limited to committee members in open session it's common for other members of a legislative body who are not on the committee to attend the meetings. the general rule i don't know what the rule is for the san francisco board of supervisors because you are a charter city and you have your own rules but we advise our clients if the members of a larger legislative body is at the committee meeting is that they don't participate directly in the discussion but they can participate as citizens -- >> for purposes of the brown act i'd imagine if you notice in such a way you let the public know that a member of the body that is not on that specific committee could be participating in closed session that that might actually

satisfy the notice requirement wouldn't it? >> i'm happy to take a look at that issue and get back to you. i'm happy to look at it. >> i would hope that we look at that. i think we're probably complicating things too much i think there's enough discretion under the rules for us to move forward and to allow the chair to add you know 2 people who can sit in on this process i actually think that it's important to move forward because of the fact that you know we need to come up with someone sooner rather than later but i also understand the points that commissioner weiner is raising. seems that there's narrow interpretation of the rules i think that's very unfortunately i think there's a way to accomplish the objective

that's been outlined. >> clearly there's ways to move forward. to temporarily expand the committee we can see if there's other ways to accomplish the same thing you are asking for. >> i welcome you know more members to be part of that it's not like i'm posed to that i -- i i was going to be soliciting support and comment and participation on the effort to look at candidates i'm not sure if this is actually the best timing because i think what we need to be doing is moving forward on executive recruitment form and i think we can move that forward and the

process for reviewing candidates separately. >> if we were to move forward exclusive ly i'm fine with that the sooner the better and continuing the portion of the resolution dealing with the actual committee and then we can resolve that hopefully next month i have no problem if we just limit the action today to initiate the search firm retention process. >> i think that's a great solution to this impasse. >> it seems all the personnel committee would be doing in the month of march would be to sit down in the initial recruitment approach with the consult ant is going to review all the

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 move forward. the personnel committee should be meeting and i welcome other people to take part in this. maybe later we could be