commissioners and mr. st. croix and other members of his staff. >> um-hm. so, i feel that the commissioners should be a little more authoritative in their role. >> okay, thank you. i have no further questions. but i would like to speak to mr. brett. mr. brett andrews. thank you, sir. sorry, you're not going to get away -- yes. >> i'm warmed up now. i see that. >> okay. so, you know, i think a lot of my questions are very similar to what i was asking the previous speaker. i would like you to describe to me your methodical approach to, to ethics complaints. how do you begin -- how would you approach to begin to resolve these ethical

complaints? well, first, there is a procedure in place. so, it's important to make sure that the procedure for filing that complaint was filed properly. a lot like in managing an organization, there is a procedure for filing a complaint and that would be in written form. we would make sure that, again, it was filed properly. and then engage the, the complainant to find out exactly what it was all about, to get a full understanding of the particular complaint. i think after having a full understanding of the complaint, caucusing and meeting with the commission to have a better understanding if it has merit, full merit and if indeed it does, then engaging the proper parties individually, collectively, in order to gain other sides of the story. i suspect there's probably more than even two sides of the story. so they have a full understanding of it. and then pursuing it to its

end. and if it means engaging other bodies and other authoritative bodies, we would seek to do that as well. >> okay. and i think also you mentioned in your comments that you don't have a legal background either. >> i don't have a legal background. >> okay. a lot of times a lot of the discussion ~ around ethics really is centered around an interpretation of the law. so, and for full disclosure i don't have a law background either. so, i would like to know how you would approach answering some legal questions without necessarily that training. well, i think i would do what any good manager does or any good executive director does, or any good commissioner or supervisor. you lean on the folks who do have a legal background. so, i would be using my colleagues for their expertise. i would daresay that i don't have a legal background, but i do have a strong organizational psychology background and a stroonacround.

so, equal to that, i would expect that they would see that as an invitation to engage me in those kinds of conversations where they don't have expertise as well. >> so, also what i'm looking for is someone to have the ability to have strong critical thinking skills and maybe you can point to an example in your past where you were able to think critically and analytically. and i'm also interested in hearing an experience of where you went against the grain. sometimes it's very difficult to take an up popular position. sure. >> so if you could speak to both of those, i'd appreciate it. >> and i would say both of them involve the organization i'm with now, positive resource center. when i came in 2003, we were on sixth and market. and i'm taking the challenging one first so i can end on a high note. [laughter] we were challenged with space occupancy and we needed to move in a very -- in eight months and it wasn't an easy task, but i was tasked by the board of directors to do that. and one of the challenges that a lot of the staff had was

location, where were we going to be geographically. it's important for our clients to be close to mass transit. and we were looking closer to downtown and there were more spaces that were available. met with the board, met with the staff, got a full understanding of what their concerns were. i think in the beginning they were not excited about moving to fourth and market because a lot of our clients, frankly, have outstanding warrants and there is a larger police presence down on union square. and after meeting with the staff more and getting a clear understanding of what the police are looking for and what they're interested in engaging in on union square, we made the decision to move to fourth and market. and i daresay that my staff is overjoyed that we're there because it's the powell street stop, it's easily accessible to our clients. again, it wasn't a popular decision at the time, but we've been there for the last nine years and we've come to love the space that we're in. the staff and the clients.

so, that was a difficult decision to make as a new executive director, but one that had to be made for the agency's sake financially, fiscally, and geographically. an example of critical thought, the second year that we moved in to this space, we moved into a strategic planning process to have an understanding about what we're going to look like over the next three to five years and we've been known as an hiv organization for the past 18 years or 17 years. we knew that there was opportunity for the mental health clients, but we also didn't want to look like we were turning our back on hiv positive clients so we engaged in a full strategic planning process to engage stakeholders, our many stakeholders over the many years to get a clear understanding of what their thoughts were as we sought to expand our mission, wanted to expand our mission. and with the good information that we did gain from them, we did make that decision to expand our mission to the

mental health clients. that decision allowed the organization to, one, increase its population that it was serving, but it also helped to grow that organization. it's tripled in size over the last 10 years. >> thank you very much. i think i have no further questions. thank you. >> thank you. thank you. >> is there any public comment for this item? speakers, you have two minutes. please indicate your support and appointment. so, i have -- besides people standing up, eileen hanson. charles mar stellar. and [speaker not understood] bush. so come on up. and anybody else after that can come on up. thank you. excuse me. thank you, my name is eileen hanson. i am a former ethics

commissioner. i served one term, as you may know, ethics commission terms are for six years and then you cannot be reappointed. dorothy lu replaced me at the end of my term. there's a reason that ethics commission terms are six years and that you can't be reappointed, and that is because there was i think good thinking on those who drafted the initial ordinance that it takes a very long time to understand the many rules, regulations, laws governing ethics in this city. and we wanted people to serve those terms who were committed to ethics reform, who were committed to moving the city forward in terms of ethics, and not worried about being reappointed. i will say that dorothy lu was appointed to -- at the end of my term in spite of having no ethics experience. she resigned a year later.

she worked very hard during that year, but it wasn't enough really to leave a legacy. and what is important, i think, about appointing someone to this term is to find someone who already has a leg up on the understanding of our ethics commission and our ethics laws. i support hulda garfolo because, as you heard, she has significant experience in terms of her work on ethics through the civil grand jury. neither candidate has many, many, many years of experience. i have never seen mr. andrews at an ethics commission meeting. i don't believe ethics commission has really anything to do with nonprofits. i work with nonprofits. it's not something the ethics commission takes on. but certainly ms. garfolo has since 2010 dug in deep to ethics and what needs to be done in this city and has

proven herself as really the only experienced and committed candidate to ethics. so, i would just say my preference would be that you forward ms. garfolo solely, but if you can't do that, then i would ask that you forward both candidates to the full board. thank you. good afternoon, supervisors. i'm charles mar stellar. i'm former head of common cause, but i'm in san francisco, but i'm representing myself today. and i do want to say that starting in about '97 i attended most ethics commission meetings up until about 2011. so, that would be scores, if not hundreds of meetings. so, i've seen a good many of the plays in that body and most of it's quite compatible. i do think, though, that many of the commissioners that are

appointed walk in as -- and have as their first meeting with that body or being in the chambers for the first time, that very first meeting. most of them do not have an ethics background, so, i'm please today see that candidates before you today do. but i will say that i know most of the people that come into the chambers, and i certainly have been following the civil grand jury, but i'm not aware of mr. andrews as much, but i think maybe he's been there recently. and i haven't been since 2011. there is a problem with leadership. it's not so much money at ethics as it is leadership. most commissions, as you know, are staff driven. i don't think that should be the case at ethics. and i hope your appointee does, in fact, take a leadership

position and not a sit-back position. i will say that. i think the cause of much of ethics' problem. ~ so, i hope you'll consider. i think the best candidate is the person who is from the civil grand jury, ms. garfolo. thank you very much. >> thank you. hi, i'm larry bush. back in 1993 i first proposed the creation of the ethics commission and i worked with supervisor shelly in drafting what became the charter amendment that was approved by the voters. in 1996 when mayor brown was elected at hiss first press conference he announced he was appointing me to the ethics commission. i wasn't able to accept because of conflict of interest at the time. i was with hud and hud provides funding to a number of city departments.

so obviously there was a conflict with that. in the 10 years that i've been watching this more intently what's going on with the ethics commission, what i've seen is a commission that's not familiar with how san francisco politics operates so it has relied heavily on the staff. that issue has come with several other speakers. let me give you some examples you may know. the ethics commission forwarded to the board of supervisors a proposal to allow contractors at redevelopment agency and the housing authority and other agencies to make contributions directly to the officials who decide on their contracts. and they did so saying that the mayor and members of the board did not know who the contracts were at redevelopment, at treasure island, at hunters point which i think common sense will tell you someone should have said, how can you tell us that they don't know who those contractors are. they were going to open the door. fortunately the board of supervisors did not accept that. at the same time, they asked

that the lobbyist law be streamlined and as a result they dropp last june the rules committee had a hearing about the rove report which was an excellent review of what's happening in los angeles and san francisco. the rules committee asked for a number of steps to be taken including provide information and language other than english, providing a contributor guide. none of those steps have been taken and the ethics commission at this point 11 months later has yet to hold a hearing on it. that's the kind of delay tactics that keeps the public in the dark. thank you for your time. >> thank you. ♪ ethics by golly wow [speaker not understood] we've been waiting for forever and ever will our ethics dreams keep coming true thank you

ethics be ethics be ethics be there will be a good appointment ethics be ethics be ethics be ethics be let ethics be pick a good appointment let it be ethics be thanks, rules committee ♪ >> any other public comments? [laughter] >> seeing none, public comment is closed. [gavel] >> colleagues, any thoughts? supervisor breed. >> thank you. i actually think we have two really great candidates here and i would like to actually make a recommendation that we forward brett andrews to the full board of supervisors for consideration. i like the idea of a fresh face

getting involved in ethics issues. and as a former nonprofit director, i understand the challenges of many of the things that he tends to face as a director in ethics is involved in that as well as involved in what happens. i know in the civil grand jury and i think from his overview, from his answering of questions, many of the things that i was looking forward to hearing came out of what he said in terms of how he will approach issues that matter most to us around ethics in san francisco. it is one of those -- well, let me back up a little bit. one of the comments that really struck me from hulda was how the commission is pretty much led by the staff.

and i am not certain how that type of information determines whether or not someone should or shouldn't be on an ethics board in making decisions. if you don't have a level of trust or support for the kinds of people that are actually managing the department, i think the partnership -- i think it's about people working together and being open minded and not necessarily just pointing the finger and saying what's wrong with something, but more importantly what is the process, what are the solutions, how do we work together to resolve those issues, how do we bring ethical issues to the forefront actually using a real process and not necessarily our personal opinions interfering with the overall process and what's appropriate to do with regards to ethics in san francisco. so, i'd like to move his name forward and that's all i have to say about that. thank you. >> thank you. supervisor cohen? >> thank you very much.

i think what we do have two very strong candidates here. and i think that the committee structure of our government should be the work horse doing the work, doing the vetting and making the hard decisions. however, i would like to entertain a motion that we have no recommendation and that we move them, both names forward to the full board for a discussion there. i think that this is particularly challenging. i actually also agree that -- i like -- i'm attracted to the fact that these two candidates are smart. they are leaders in their own respective fields, and they interestingly enough don't necessarily come to the table with a legal background, but possess what i think is more important, strong critical, analytical thinking skills. now, i don't necessarily agree with ms. garfolo's assessment

that the staff is leading the commission. i disagree with that. and when i asked her some questions about it, i think i interpreted her answer to be more based on assumptions or interpretations of interactions that she had. but i still think that we should bring this to the full board. both names. >> thank you. so, we are in agreement that we have two strong candidates today. i feel both of them are fairly qualified to sit as commissioner on the ethics commission. and it's one of these things where we have been through this in many meetings where we have

more qualified candidates than positions. and i would say that my edge here i will be giving to mr. andrews mainly because both of you seem to have critical thinking skills and have a passion to do this work. and one advantage for me was mr. andrews' willingness to reach out early on to express his interest in this and that i was able to then sit down and ask many more questions of him and get to understand him a little better. so, if supervisor breed would still like to make that motion, i'll second that. >> so moved. >> i'll second that. the motion to move the nomination of brett andrews for ethics commission to the full

board. and is there any objections? >> no objection, so, the motion is passed. >> thank you. [gavel] >> thank you. >> can you please call item number 3? >> item number 3, hearing to consider appointing two members, terms ending november 18, 2014, to the urban forestry council. there are two seats and two applicants. >> so, we will be hearing from candidates in the order that they appear. i believe andrew sullivan was here, but he's not here and somebody is going to speak for him. okay. actually, both had to leave. >> both had to leave, okay. my name is dan flanagan. i'm the chair of the urban forest council and i am now speaking for andrew sullivan.

andrew sullivan has been on the council for the past two years and he has written up a quick comment, a statement. he's a landscape architect and member of the american society of landscape architects. as a landscape architect and the preservation enhancement of open space in urban forest is the ongoing focus of his work and his personal passion. both professionally and privately, he pursues multiple activities in support of urban forest, green infrastructure and landscapes to enhance public experience. exact like the previous candidate who could not make it here because he was biking, andrew had to go off to the opening of a park in portland that he designed. so, he actually just had to leave. for nearly 20 years he has had experience as a landscape architect much of his professional work life has been focused upon improving the public ground and the interface of nature and urban forest. he also believes that his

background in landscape architecture brings a good and solid perspective to the council. he is a resident of noe valley and has lived in san francisco since 1999. he is committed to san francisco and the enhancement of the city environment by assisting the -- and advancing the ufc's colors. he's been a very active member. i don't think he's missed a meeting. and he's currently the head of the planning and funding committee. i strongly support his nomination and hopefully his move forward. >> any comments or questions? ~ at this point? i have one question. i know that there was a question, just confirm this. london breed, when you continued last time, dan kida -- kida. >> was a resident of san francisco. since our last meeting on this,

he showed proof that he is a resident of san francisco. is that true? yes, he has worked with the mayor's office on that and it turns out he is registered to vote. he had been living here, had not moved his registration. he is currently a registered voter in san francisco. >> okay, thank you. thank you very much. do you want me to comment for dan kida? >> go ahead. while i'm here? >> yes. i thought you stopped. i am now dan kida. dan kida works for pg&e. he is also a certified arborist. he brings a great deal of experience to the council. we're very excited to have him there. essentially his job is to supervise the folks that have to inspect every inch of the electrical lines in san francisco once every year. therefore, he has probably more impact and contact with the urban forest than anyone else currently sitting on the urban

forest council. his experience will be greatly appreciated on the board, on the council and we really look forward to his being on the council. >> thank you very much. thank you. >> is there any other pocks -- i mean, are there any public comments at this point? yes. two minutes for your song. thank you. because... ♪ i live among the city creatures of the night and i know you can't appoint [speaker not understood] right and we're going to hit the city highest tree tree urban highses and we, we live among the forest of our dreams and i know that it's gonna be the best in a city forest dream and i know that you could pick a good city team i, i live among the forest of

our dreams and i know it's gonna be a great city team and i know you're gonna pick a good one in our forest dreams ♪ >> any other public comments? seeing none, public comment is now closed. [gavel] >> colleagues, any thoughts? supervisor breed. >> i'd like to make a motion to move forward andrew sullivan for seat 2 and dan kida for seat 3. >> second. >> and this is for the urban forestry council, and there's a second. >> yes. >> seeing no objection, then, the motion is passed. [gavel] >> can you please call item number 4. >> item number 4, hearing to consider appointing two members, terms ending march 28, 2015, to the pedestrian safety

advisory committee. there are two seats and three applicants. >> okay, we will be hearing from the candidates in the order they appear on our agenda. if pi ra is here, please approach the microphone. good afternoon, supervisors, and it's pi ra, just like the greek letter. but we won't calculate it any further than that. basically, i'm here -- [speaker not understood]. okay, just don't call me ray because that's the egyptian sun god, we're fine. so, i'm here and i thank you for hearing -- for, this is what, my fifth consecutive reappointment. i'm one of the original members

from the 2003 group. in that period of time i've been chair, vice-chair for six years, and also during that time i have been part of various organizations representing pedestrian safety, san francisco rock and roll which is under california walks. walk san francisco, senior action network, which is now senior and disability action, hank, haight ashbury neighborhood council. and i had been for about a couple years board of the bike cut. during that time those organizations were involved in things like many department of public health safety grants, pedestrian safety grants, the federal [speaker not understood] safety grant that was for soma. other things like our organization has been part of senior and disability action which used to be sand, has been

part of supervisor kim, pedestrian safety task force. and other things like the better street plan when that was going on, and epac which was the continuation of proposition b. and my role also at senior and disability action, besides being the pedestrian safety coordinator there, that i also had the computer class for seniors and the senior and disability university which is basically training seniors and people with disabilities to be troublemakers -- i mean community organizers. sorry about that. and the reason i'm with that organization for many years is because we know how to combine housing, health care, transportation, it's all relative and ali equal together because that's -- you can't separate them really. and, so, basically i'm glad i'm here. i've been doing this for years because i really enjoy it. i like to cause troublesome

times. as supervisor cohen remembers, two years ago we had a press conference on there regarding the safety, 3rd street and yosemite regarding seniors crossing. you had a couple of your staff people down there. that conference was called death race 2011, can the seniors cross safely? so, it's something i really enjoy and i'm glad i'm here and i'm still continuing on. do you have any questions? no? >> seeing none, thank you. thank you. >> kimberly jones. good afternoon, supervisor breed and supervisor yee and supervisor cohen, and clerk linda wong. thank you so much. i'm humbled to be here.

i've lived in san francisco for 16 years and three years ago this month my life took a sudden change when on a lovely afternoon on second and market, i was on union platform when a car cast me 10, 12 feet. my life, repercussions and long journey of recovery allows me to want to prevent that for any other fellow citizen here in san francisco. i've practiced architecture for 25 years from the time i was a teenager so i have a lot of knowledge of -- sophisticated knowledge of streets and how they work and design issues which equip me to understand the proceedings. i've attended many psac meetings with my passion to advocate for pedestrian safety and not have, you know, one more precious soul injured. my second career is in the young arts. so, i workday to day