appointment, but there is an individual like that could be over that body like in san francisco, there is a mayor and probably don't have any other counties, like say philadelphia has a city and county. what do they do to replace that? >> i can pull it up in the excel spreadsheet. looks like page five. they have two different bodies there. in the city council members situation it's what's referred to as method three. it's a special election. so those automatically go to the special election. in county 3, it's the body below council position where an office shall be

appointed by the mayor with approval of the council. the mayor gets to nominate and says this is who i would like but the council gets the final say in we approve or don't approve. >> it's not like a choice where the mayor, the individual nominates two or three people and the body chooses between them? >> the charter doesn't get to that depth or level. if you wanted to, i can definitely do research into that. but i don't see that in the charter. looks like they just nominate and it's not in the charter itself. at least what we looked up. >> okay. >> any other questions on the point by individual? and appointed by body would be how the mayor's office gets

appointed. the board of supervisors meets together and have a discussion and they put together a proposal and vote on the winner and the places are for rules where how that works and there is 26 different offices in 23 different jurisdictions and you can see what those are. a lot of them tend to be very popular for mayor as well as city councils will do that as well. when we get to special elections, this is not quite as popular as others. there is 20 offices in different jurisdictions and in all these cases there is mayor's and city council and those are the bodies that send to different elections agencies. the final one which is a really hard one to define

has ninety six different offices and maybe if they don't do appointment by a certain time then it automatically goes to a special election. there was an instance where if the body doesn't make the decision, the president of the group gets to make the final determination if they don't do it within the window, i forget what the timeframe is. it's really a lot of variance. and there are some cases where this gets done. it's like at the statewide offices in california i put in this category where you actually have the governor has an succession order. the other way the body and state senate can say no and there is a

window or it automatically happens. there is a lot in this category. that is the basis of the presentation. i'm happy to answer any questions at this time. >> thank you for your presentation. just if the city were to make, want to propose any changes to how we make appointments, that would have to go to the voters, right? >> yes. i believe there would be a charter change and would require the voter approval on that. >> okay. commissioner campos. single thank you for all your work. is it fair to say that on the process for the appointment is made by the mayor, it's more the exception rather than the

rule that most jurisdictions use some other form? >> i would say absolutely. if you eliminate san francisco from the discussion of what's being done here, you actually see that there are 30 jurisdictions, you only have three offices out of 184 that actually do that process that the mayor has which is appointment. no one else has any jurisdiction to say anything about it. it's just the mayor making the decision. even after this process there is a time frame and if you don't do it, it goes to something else. >> thank you. >> okay. thank you for your work on this and your patience with us. this item is open for public comment. anyone like to comment, please come forward. is there any additional public comment? seeing none, public

>> eric brooks, local grass roots organization of our city. it's encouraging to see these results especially to the extent that supervisor campos just pointed out that we are unique in letting a strong mayor set up an awful a lot of decisions and that clearly must go and i think a lot of us especially in the progressive community would argue that there is no need. mayor's have emergency powers, mayor's are there to deal with things like earthquakes and major disasters and make quick decisions. that's the point of an executive. i think the whole idea of a strong mayor in this city is way over blown and we need to start chipping on that. even when the board of

supervisors makes these decisions that is not ideal either because we saw the board of supervisors vote on the mayor. we as grass roots were not able to vote on this as a special election. what that points to that even though what we had to do as organizers is work behind-the-scenes with a bunch of political action going on behind closed doors and try figure out on that mess and try get ourselves on the same page to promote somebody and that was really a hairy things with all these behind closed doors meetings and that was behind closed doors meetings on the same day of the decision. san francisco should lead the way on this and we should -- i would hope that lafco can put forward a clear recommendation for replacing the mayor, supervisors or any other

elected official in the city that we do quick special elections so the grass roots community can ge involved and help determine who is the next person to fill any given seat. thanks. >> thank you. any other member of the public would like to comment? is there any additional public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. >> and this is a petition action item but i'm not clear if there is any action? >> if you wanted to you can accept the report and if you want to do anything else with that you can pass the report to other bodies. it's up to you to accept it. >> we can accept it and we can redesign it later? >> yes. >> i want to move to accept the report. >> i haven't had a chance to review the report in front of me today. i have had a chance to look at the excel

spreadsheet in front of me. i was of the understanding of the previous excel sheet was a draft and we would be able to receive a final report to review and i haven't had a chance to review that and was hoping to have that opportunity before the board accepts it. >> is it necessary to accept the report? >> no, you can just receive and file it. >> okay. then we can decide later if we want to put it on the agenda to accept it, but at this point we'll just receive it. okay? >> yeah. i'm really excited about this because i think this is really interesting to know exactly what other counties are doing and this could potentially lead to changes in this particular county as it

relates to appointments. there is a clear number of appointments in recent year, some good and bad, but ultimately i don't know necessarily believe that everyone will ever be satisfied with any appointment that's made. at the end of the day i want to make sure that the policy of san francisco reflects the ability of the voters to be more actively engaged in making the decisions when an opening occurs during the time when a term is not completely filled. so i'm really excited about this and thank you for asking for this report. >> thank you, commissioner breed. mr. fried? >> i had one small report. this report would not have been able to get done without spencer young. >> a great thanks to mr. young

for his work and your work on this as well. thank you. we've had public comments and we can file this item and go onto the next item. >> were you taking action on this item? >> we are not. >> no action taken? >> okay. item no. 6 executive officers report. >> i don't really have a report, but i do want to know whether, i think the rate fairness -- the sfpuc will hear this rate issue on may 14th, i'm not sure they are acting on that date but i believe it's set for an action item. i don't know if you wanted to provide any input to them before that or -- i'm just not sure. we had a joint meeting set for may 9th and that was canceled because

they had quorum problem and they moved it to the 19th and i don't think that can be made. they moved the action item that was on our 9th agenda was something we were going to be hearing jointly. they moved that to the 14th as i heard today. >> i'm not clear? >> the puc normally meets the second and fourth tuesday of the month. may 14 is the second tuesday and on their agenda is not to exceed rate. president torres is on that body and gave indication whether they may or may not approve that. unfortunately because they meet at 1:30 the board of supervisors meets at 2:00 and we are never able to meet at that time and it happens when

transit authorities an subcommittee and committee meets and it's hard to get with them on tuesday. >> okay. to approve, lafco has a shot at an approving the not to exceed rates? >> the matter will come to your full board after, right? a board of supervisors. >> yeah. i would say, if we are not having a joint meeting we let puc meet on the 14th and hopefully we do everything we can to encourage that decision on that day and wait for a full board meeting. >> right, we are still waiting for a meeting some time in may. >> i believe some of us are out of town during that time? >> we may have a problem with may 16th day. we are talking early june. i just want to make sure everybody is aware of the

scheduling problem here. i think we are okay with them going forward on the 14th coming to the full board. i just want to give you an opportunity to come and talk about that. >> my view is getting on the joint meeting is to have a n follow up to all the questions and some is being discussed today in terms of rates and different mixes to have a sense of what is available for build out and that was provided today and we asked for financial analysis and that was presented and the advocate study and there were a couple other items as well. that still needs to happen. i would like to see if it doesn't happen in a joint meeting that if it does not happen. it happens separately and i would be happy to do it that way if we can't seem to

get a joint meeting together. >> okay. thank you. >> commissioner campos? >> thank you, mr. chairman, a quick question. what was the likelihood that a rate or not to exceed rate will be voted -- on in early may? >> jason, lafco staff, based on my gut reaction and comments made at tuesday's meeting, i'm not convinced they will set rates on may 14th. there is a possibility it will happen but there is an equal available possibility that it will get pushed back to the 28th of may. >> okay. this item is open for public comment.

>> rick brooks for san francisco grass roots. since this came up, i know i through this idea off the cuff. this is the idea, i think we can get them to vote right away on a node -- not to exceed if we go with the low 11.14 and with also the stipulation that if any of pg & e either it's brown rate or green power rate goes above that, then the staff would have the flexibility for a floating not to exceed rate and that's where we can go with the overflow and get the not to exceed done and then we can start marketing against pg & e immediately saying we have a cost competitive green program.

i would strongly recommend kicking around that idea and making a proposal to puc staff on that and vote on this and maybe push for that if people think it's a good idea so we don't have to wait anymore on the not to exceed. >> thank you. is there any additional public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. next item, please. >> item no. 7. public comment. >> we are now open for public general comment. >> i'm concerned about microwave radiation emission from cellphone wifi towers. i recently spoke to a telecom lawyer who is also a telecom engineer and he told me

actually for the telecoms anyway they could dramatically reduce the harmful microwave emission while dramatically improving service and it would be a very cheap, easy, technical fix for them and he doesn't understand why they don't do it and neither do i. is this something that san francisco can compel them to do? no? is it something you can coax them to do or open a discussion with them about it? >> this is general public comment and we are actually not required to respond here to your questions. it's not a give and take necessarily. but we don't have that ability to compel them to do that. >> at least a discussion with

then perhaps and another comment which is the smart meters which you have heard a lot about already how they are harmful and how there are thousands of jobs loss and how the fire in san bruno wouldn't have happened. if there were readers coming they would have smelled the gas emissions and contractors are slapping them onto houses in a sloppy way. they are not doing the job properly so they are causing ignitions to the natural gas that's leaking. so we've been bullied and steam rolled over with the smart meters roll out in the city. it's nonsense and you ought to have more opportunity for the public to have opportunity to speak about

their experiences. a lot of people's rates have doubled once the meters were attached to their building and people are having problems with the security systems as well. the radio frequency waves are affecting that, thank you. >> thank you for being here and your patients to come to public comment. >> sorry, one more little thing. i can't resist now that that has come up because i want to tell a little story about my apartment building. if you walk into my apartment building and you go down to the basement where the meters are you will see about 49 meters that are wireless meters and there is one that is none which is my apartment. i agree that it is harmful and pg & e shoved these meters down our throats without our permission and people like

me don't want the meters because we are afraid of paying higher rates, we are forced to pay pg & e this ridiculous fee to not have one of their smart meters. so i just wanted to add that to the previous comments that it would be nice to have that lafco pry this sardine can open and complain about this. >> thank you. any other members of the public. you only have one time to speak for public comment. thank you. we will close public comment. go on to our next item? >> item no. 8, future agenda items. >> colleagues, any future agenda items you would like to see this body take on? commissioner breed? >> yes, thank you. the

information that we received about appointments and how other jurisdictions do elections and elected officials really got me to thinking about another area that i would like us to consider exploring. with the san francisco police and fire departments and the selection process there, ultimately, shall there is usually thousands of people who apply, there is a process, there is testing, there is testing. the testing results for example are good for a certain amount of years and the ability for the chiefs of those departments to pick who should be selected for the slots that barely open in the city is somewhat what i believe an

unfair process to provide that much power in the hands of the chief of police and the chief of the fire departments to be able to single-handedly select individuals for these particular slots and i will tell you that the first place, i think it was last year or the year before that was chosen after ten years had not one african american male in that class for the san francisco fire department. i do understand that proposition 209 has passed and we are not necessarily supposed to make decisions based on race, however, san francisco is like no other place and i believe the police and fire department is like no other and would like to know how they make selections for their police and fire departments based on what

their process is on the whole and what things they take into consideration when selecting those folks and the other issue is i know there might be issue around residency requirement. there has been challenges in court and i'm curious to what other jurisdictions do in that regard. so i'm hoping to maybe begin the process of exploring that because i would be interested in no egg what that data reveals. >> thank you. i think it's a really great thing to look at. this report that we did for replacement or appointments of vacancies of elected officials is different from the norm that we do in lafco and i think the

resources and budget legislative analyst were extended, but i think it makes sense that our body look at that rather than here. unless there is a consensus that we do it from here. it seems like it's a good analysis for the board of supervisors arena versus lafco arena. i think if we are looking at what you say is true about the last class, that's i think really disturbing and we should have someway of remedying that so it doesn't happen again. >> i'm hope to -- open to whatever is cost-effective in terms of doing this because i want to, i mean, i think this body and it's ability to find out information. the work that goes into researching is very time consuming and i want if

proposing any legislation in any capacity to have something that i can use as a basis for doing so. so i would be open to what you think is the best route in order to make that kind of question. >> okay. thank you. commissioner campos. >> thank you, mr. avalos. i would be open to see how that works. there is an argument to the legislative budget analyst but there is something about lafco as a separate entity looking at practices around those issues. so i think there is some flexion -- flexibility and i would agree with supervisor breed and the chair on how they want to proceed. >> how about lafco staff? thoughts on that idea? >> i think it's at the direction of the commission. we might be able to pull quickly

some best practices act. i know there is a national organization that deals with hiring and the issue of diversity of community policing and community policing and policies and goals. i think there might be some information we can find for you rather quickly. it's the technical detail you are looking at. i don't know who is better equipped to do that. >> i'm happy to put together something where things are a lot more clear and introduce at the next lafco meeting or request to the budget analyst. so happy to do that. >> thank you for that offer. i think it's a good way to proceed. okay. we can open up public comment on this item. is there any additional public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. madam clerk.

our last item? >> item no. 9, adjournment. >> we are adjourned. thank you. good morning san franciscans. >> good morning. >> we will not be deterred in memory of sandy hook and boston. we are making chicken salad out of chicken bleep. so we are going to start with a

great flourish from our san franciscans. [ applause ] >> nicely done. how about a nice hand? >> now because it is 5:11. it's time to remember 1906. we need a moment of silence. a minute of silence begins now. moment of silence. there is our minute of

silence. [sirens] >>