so, your level of criticism is helpful in continuing to help us better our best. but in order for us to also get better, this is a team effort. if you see something or you find a person that you think is good and solid, you should be making these recommendations. and when you find a problem it's most helpful also when you have a solution to go with it or a suggested course of action to help us bridge that gap. i think i'll say that i do have -- i do have ideas and solutions and philosophies regarding how to make the shelter systems better. but one, i just feel like this might be the first body that i've stood in front of that might have the political will or desire to implement some type of change in the system.

so, i mean, i do have ideas regarding solutions. some of my solutions are i think we really need to get towards maybe a psychological evaluation of the people that they hire so that they don't get traumatized when they come into the shelter system. another thing is i think we need to look at the san francisco hot team and consider some of the programs that they've done and then try to implement them into the shelter systems because -- and i think some of it just goes to the philosophy of what we're doing. i think we need to really share [speaker not understood] of the philosophy we're going to warehouse somebody until they die or stuff them in an s-r-o. i feel like then do we empower the homeless to own houses or start their own businesses? >> okay, thank you. thank you for your public comment.

[speaker not understood]. your last meeting of the rules committee you did appoint [speaker not understood] freeman to seat 6 who was african-american. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> was there a reason why -- didn't we get a call from tony? ~ whether or not he was interested in this or why he isn't here today? >> mr. chair, applicant tony faataui was contacted but we never received a response from him whether or not he would be able to attend today's meeting. >> thank you very much. i have another question. both amanda and liz indicated seat 4. would they qualify for seat 5? i think the difference is one of them is for advocacy organization.

nominating, another one is -- >> if i may. the qualifications for seat 5 are the person must be select from candidates nominated by nonprofit and provides advocacy in organizing services to homeless people and also must be homeless or formerly homeless. >> okay. so, i assume, then, both of them don't qualify for seat 5. >> mr. chair? >> yes. >> may i make a suggestion? ask the applicants whether or not they qualify for seat 5? >> that's why i was looking out there. applicants? no, okay. okay, so, we're going to have to consider two people for seat 4 and i guess we're going to have to continue 5. we don't have an applicant for seat 5. okay, any thoughts?

you had to make it real hard on us. both of you are great. i personally think both of you are great. that's why i was looking for a way to maybe see if one of you would qualify for the other -- on seat 5. >> [inaudible]. >> this is terrible. >> maybe we should bring them up and do a rochambeau. >> you can come on up to the mic and go ahead. keith [speaker not understood] again, vice-chair [speaker not understood] shelter monitoring committee. we were just speaking back there. the local homeless coordinating board seat 3 is available. ms. pocock has said she would be willing to go to that and

try to get on in that area and then you're free -- does that make your decision any easier? >> it does. [laughter] i'm glad i could help. >> that will be for next time. it wouldn't be for this time. >> so, seat 3 will be vacant? seat 3 local homeless coordinating board is vacant. she resigned last week so we have an empty seat there. so, ms. pocock can go down there and apply and -- >> when we bring it up for our agenda -- [speaker not understood]. >> next time, some other time. it wouldn't be through this body. local homeless coordinating board. >> okay, got it. then we have seat 5 available. >> okay, i'm clear. so, thank you very much for being so accommodating. >> so, with that i'm -- thank you for that because it is

really hard to make a decision when you really truly are equally supportive of both candidates and i think they both would bring something excellent to the table. so, i am happy to recommend amanda for seat 4 and continue seat 5 for now. >> okay. >> i'll second that motion, please. >> good. can we take that -- consensus, the motion is moved. [gavel] >> thank you very much. this brings us to item number 8, madam clerk. >> item number 8, resolution amending the terms of existing local agency formation commission (lafco) positions by expanding the scope of services for the senior program officer, extending the term of employment for an additional three years, and utilizing the existing lafco budget to continue funding this position.

>> okay. [speaker not understood] legislative aid for [speaker not understood] to speak on this matter [speaker not understood]. >> good afternoon, supervisors. a long day. [speaker not understood] with supervisor john avalos' office. what we have before you today is a resolution that was introduced at the request of the local agency formation commission, lafco, and which supervisor avalos is the chair of. also what you are getting right now is an amended version of the resolution. it's just to correct some sort of grammatical and formatting errors we have. so, minor changes, but they should be highlighted for you. in essence, this resolution, something the lafco requested of the board of supervisors to make some changes to the staffing structure, lafco currently has three positions. executive officer position, a senior community development specialist, and a community development assistant position. this resolution seeks to consolidate two of those

positions. and the reason for that is over the past few years lafco has been primarily focused on implementation of the community choice aggregation, or cta program. but now as we're kind of moving, sort of moving forward with that, with cleanpowersf, it's required a lot less staff time to monitor and to implement, you know, to attend to. so, as a result, lafco through its own processes determined that it will be a little more cost-effective to consolidate the executive officer position with the senior community development specialist position because, you know, it's substantively very similar work and the position can accommodate for that work. and not only that, but the executive officer position currently is being filled on an interim basis anyway by the legal council. so, it kind of makes sense to just have the senior officer

kind of take over those duties. and this consolidation wouldn't change the fact that she's still the legal counsel for [speaker not understood] it will bring those two upper level positions together. so, what we're hoping today is for -- it was unanimously supported for this urging resolution to come to the board. we're hoping that not only will you accept the amendments, but also recommend this resolution. i'm happy to answer any questions you have and we also have clerk staff here to answer any technical questions you may have. >> i have a question. >> supervisor cohen. >> thank you very much. good to see you, frances. you said we're consolidating two positions into one, right? this is a senior community development executive number 2 with interim executive officer. do we currently have two people filling these separate positions? >> we do, we have one full-time staff person who is fielding

the senior community development specialist and we have an interim officer which is basically lafco's legal counsel. >> and that person is in sacramento? >> no, she comes down here for -- i'm not sure where she's based, but she has her meetings -- >> maybe deborah can speak to that [speaker not understood]. i'm just trying to better understand. so, is there a loss of job? >> no, she'll be the legal counsel. >> she is to be the legal counsel. >> right. it's duplicativework right now because, you know, the senior development specialist sits in on subtantively all the same meetings. it just used to be that with the cca program, when it was -- earlier it required a lot more staff monitoring, staff dedicated attention which is why that senior community development specialist position was created. but now a lot of that cleanpowersf has moved over to the puc and really we're just

doing monitoring, you know, staff time has freed up a great deal and they would be able to accommodate the tasks [speaker not understood]. >> what were they doing if the puc is taking over the lion's share of the function? >> they will be staffing lafco and lafco has, you know, a whole slate of work that they can determine on how they want to operate. lafco doesn't do cca. they've done special studies for us. [multiple voices] >> so, we've got a person who is the interim executive director who is also serving as general counsel; is that correct? >> yes. >> and then we have someone who is the senior community development specialist, is that correct? >> correct. >> we're looking to merge the executive officer and the senior community development specialist? >> in essence what we're really doing is expanding the scope of what the senior community development specialist position can do. because when it was created by

the board, that position was only allowed to work on cca related projects. >> does this expansion have a cost to it? >> no, it will be a cost savings. >> a cost savings. >> right. would you like me to explain why? >> yes, please explain why this is [speaker not understood]. >> [speaker not understood] from the clerk's office. the costs will come in with the lower billable hours from the counsel that is currently serving as the executive officer. >> i see. have you cost out what that savings is, a dollar figure? >> we spend about $70,000 a year for her services currently, and i can create a breakdown of what services are [speaker not understood] legal counsel versus the executive officer duties by going through the invoices if you'd like. >> all right, thank you.

thank you, those are all the questions i have. >> supervisor cohen, that is a good question, the cost savings. do you know if this particular resolution is going through the budget committee? [speaker not understood] to ask that question, or is it coming here? >> it's just coming here because the change to the scope of the position. it doesn't go through the -- their budget doesn't go through budget, lafco's budget. >> okay. >> so, we're changing the scope. it's changing from what to what? that's just unclear to me. ~ in the resolution language. >> so, what it does in the resolution is refers to the previous resolutions that created this senior community development position. and in that, there is actual language saying that that position can only work on cca or, you know, cleanpowersf projects.

that position is restricted solely to that. so, what we would be doing is expanding that to allow them to do everything that that classification would like to do. city-wide, for example, that classification can take on a number of duties. but when we created it here at the board, we restricted of those many, many duties what that position could do. so what we're doing is just kind of removing those restrictions to allow them to do the full scope of work. among that full scope of work is duties that an executive officer would do. >> and with the evaluation process that currently exists for the lafco employee -- do you understand? what i'm saying is you work, you have a job, you have -- some people have a 360 evaluation as to whether or not they're meeting their mark. as an employee i'm curious to know is there an evaluation process for this position?

i mean, the person goes to work every single day. i evaluate my staff, you know. you possibly go through an evaluation. it's pretty standard. lafco is an interesting agency and it has an interesting structure -- [multiple voices] >> exactly. that's my question. i'll trying to better understand, we're expanding scope change and i want to know if there are built-in mechanism to evaluate the performance [speaker not understood]. you sit on lafco, right? [laughter] >> this position actually also serves at the pleasure of the lafco commissioners. >> right. >> because it's a limited scope. it's not a civil service position. it's extended by contract. so, even this is included, federal contract extension -- >> even in the contract it tells you -- in terms of the contract, this is how you will perform your duty, this is how you were evaluated. i don't know.

commissioner breed? >> well, i don't know. [laughter] >> i know there's a contract, but isn't the person in the position of city employee? or is he a contract employee? >> he is a union member, but he is on contract by lafco. so, in essence, lafco could set those up. so, as a commission, if you want to determine your scope of work includes this and that you want to set those standards, that's what the [speaker not understood]. >> so, would there be a problem with postponing this item to the next full committee in order to provide sometime for clear communication as to what this really means? because there is definitely seems to be a number of questions ~ and in in that particular casey wasn't completely clear how that works

in terms of the evaluation process and what happens. i'm new to lafco. >> lafco would set that up. >> it's currently not set up, right? not that i'm aware of, because it's not on the -- >> ultimately, even so, lafco would have -- you would have your own, you know, ability to set that up. you could request that in the next agenda on the lafco agenda and you could set that up. >> i wish to support this, the motion supervisor breed made about continuing this item, mr. chair. >> so, here's my thought. there is confusion with how this is written. and my interpretation of this and it is right or wrong, it needs to be reworded. my interpretation is that there currently are three positions defined, correct? >> um-hm. >> and what we're trying to do

-- and they're not full-time positions, are they? >> they are. >> they are. so, what we're trying to do is create a new definition of an existing position so that we end up with how many positions? >> we would -- it's not exactly accurate. what we're actually doing is removing the restriction that the board placed on the commutev development specialist position. so, when the board created that position, they said, you can only work on lafco. so, technically the current person who fills that position is operating outside of his scope because he has been doing special studies that the lafco commission has requested of him, which was on split banking, on [speaker not understood] voting -- >> can i clarify special that were outside of scope. he is not doing the work directly. he is finding people to do the work, that we're paying to do

the work of these studies. >> yes and no. these are not necessarily studies that are contracted out. but you are directing -- >> i was told that they were all studies that were contracted out, that he basically helps with the process and finds the appropriate entity do the studies and he just basically oversees the process. >> sure, sure. however he chooses to carry those out. still technically, if you look at the resolution which is referenced here that created that position, he's not supposed to do that. >> okay. >> he is only supposed to work on cca related item. so, even asking him to find a contractor to look at a different kind of study is technically outside of his scope of work that the board created for him. if the lafco commission is interested in having him do

this other work -- >> okay, i understand what the resolution says. but i'm confused and in some ways surprised because of information that i received directly from the person in the position about lafco and initially when i joined the board and how we've been able to communicate, it was my understanding, of course, that the position had never been filled. he's done work of those positions and this consolidation would basically help to continue things, make things more efficient in terms of the way they are. but at no point was i ever i think aware that he could not work on specific things because those were the things that were provide today me as his list of responsibilities and were

actually encouraged -- i was encouraged to request these particular items that are not necessarily relevant to cca. >> so, this has been an ongoing discussion that actually precedes supervisor avalos. >> okay. >> the chair of lafco, these discussions were actually started when supervisor campos was originally the chair. and this is information that has kind of come out over that time, realizing as we looked more into it in his position, what would be required to address sort of some of the staffing concerns that were brought up back when supervisor campos was the chair. >> we're going around in circles on this one. there is a motion. it's been seconded to continue this item. >> okay. >> so maybe we'll have better language -- >> i'm happy to come and talk further about it or get the information you need. >> i think probably part of it might need to be with you and

jason just so that there is the same messaging around what this really means because i'm one of the co-sponsors and i agreed to support it for a particular reason. i could understand the language and what's being done, but i think there might be some contradiction with, you know, my understanding versus what we have here today. ~ i do under >> [speaker not understood]. >> and also, i just want to make sure my colleagues, of course, understand and we're all on the same page to support this item. >> and for myself personally, i'd like to see clearer language in terms of what we're trying to do here. so, have somebody reword it, really appreciate it. okay. so, with no objection, let's move this out -- the item will be continued. >> take public comment. >> okay. is there any public comments on this?

seeing none, public comment is closed. [gavel] >> now i can move it -- consensus is to continue this item to some further meeting. >> call of the chair. >> at the call of the chair. [gavel] >> okay. item number -- where are we? can he please call item number 9 through 19? >> mr. chair, items number 9 through 19 are item regarding existing litigation. would you like to open up for public comment before we close -- move into closed session? >> okay. i see no public comment. public comment is closed. [gavel] >> colleagues, is there a motion to convene in closed session? >> yes, second. >> okay. with no objection, moved. [gavel] >>please stand by -

>> deputy city attorney jon givner. the committee during the closed session voted to forward items 10 through 19 to the full board with recommendation and to continue item 9 to the call of the chair. >> thank you. colleagues, can i have a motion to not disclose what happened in closed session? >> second. >> owekay. without any objection, motion passes. [gavel] >> madam chair, is there anything else on the agenda? >> no, mr. chair. >> okay. if there's nothing further,

this meeting is adjourned. [gavel] >> thank you very much, colleagues. c transit take ston 88. we are at mount davidson and it has the highest point of elevation in san francisco hitting a whopping 928 feet. mt. davidson provides a peaceful 30-acre owe ace and great hiking trails. the spectacular views offers a perfect place to watch the sunrise or suffer sun set

with someone you louvre, wear sturdy shows to conquer the stone trails and denly inventory advantage gives you hikers the sensation of being in a rain forest it's quite a hike to the top here at mount davidson but the view

>> the city of san francisco sfgtv meeting of the san francisco ethics commission occurring september 23, 2013, will begin shortly.