>> ladies and gentlemen and welcome to the monday, january 27, 2014, meeting of the small business commission of the city and county of san francisco the meeting is called to order at the 2:08 p.m. roll call commissioner president adams. commissioner dooley. we have a quorum with 5 commissioners. general public comment. any public comment? for this period during the meeting is limited to 3 minutes unless established. the speakers are not required to

state your name for the record. this will help to have the speaker cards that are to the right of the electorate turn at your early opportunity. >> any members of the public that want to bring up my items not on the public agenda seeing none, public comment is closed. this is for the minutes this is an action item >> move to approve. all in favor, say i. any notices. item 4 presentation of a small business commission recognizing one of the members of the committee. commissioner o'brien is not here so i want to defer item 4 until he arrives if everyone is okay

with. item 5 discussion and possible action to make the recognize for the board of supervisors file 13192 police and the administrative codes for the housing code this is an ax item. >> welcome andrea. good afternoon and at the commissioners for hearing this today, i know that councilmember marcason gave a presentation so i'll try not to duplicate that. supervisor kim and supervisor cowen began working on this location a year ago today. and they approached it from the districts 6 and 10 actually of the highest portion of

population in the city with people who have a conviction hearing. and both the rebefore a data tells the biggest carts of recidivism they saw this as a piece of legislation. we take a look at other models that have coward throughout the country where san francisco is not the first to look at criminal history and a employment positions. we take a look at the cities like seattle and beautifully and philadelphia and the state legislation that passed something for their hiring practices and the city and county of san francisco went through a process of resint their process.

their has been clearly federal guidelines on the hiring decisions largely protecting user against the discrepancy claims. we had the robust lengthen i didn't documents. if you have questions about the housing or cathy portions they're very similar so most of the mechanisms are pretty consistent throughout the entire dochlt. so the key sort of objective this ordinance does it - the goal is to get individuals with a criminal record through the process. we've seen unconscious bias if

people have a prior conviction they'll have the weed out tools for the providers in the city. it's a goal to get the person through the goal process and get the employers to meet the person and then conduct a background criminal check. we've heard from the councilmember brooks that the vast majority don't do a background check it's comprehensive and i'll do it later on in the process when you that this is someone who wants to hire them with a cash function. so this ordinance requires employers to do a number of things remove the disclosure so they'll no longer be a check box of whether or not you have a

criminal history on the materials your attorneys for. it also asks employer to delay a background check after a conditional offer of employment or a live interview. this was discussed because theirs distresses that hire quickly. after you've thank you for the opportunity to get a person through a process the employers conduct a background check with state law to the employee and i believe in the legislation that you saw in your packets and i think ivory may have mentioned this that's a lengthen i didn't process of a question in her in her if you decide not to hire

someone it becomes a cumbersome process. similar to the housing provisions we've eliminated the questionnaire with the employer to specific early on in the process the conviction if anyone has bought a piece of property you get a background check and you indicate a that's completely inaccurate it's on the background you checks some incategorize and that's an you want to be to provide some evidence of rehabilitation or mediation so we've asked the employers when they've provided a background check to specifically what the issue is whether that's evenly kirng the

background the case scheck check or your dui is a problem because i run a trucking business. the employers provide them with the information and the employee can show a record of inaccuracy or other mitigating factors. the employers have the opportunity to decide not to hire someone but we do ask they do a direct related analysis that's spelled out in the ordinance to take a look at the conviction and the type you have job their applying for if you have a commercial trucking company you may not want someone who's been convict of a dui because of the job and the type of conviction but some other

convictions may not be a problem. we spent a great amount of time on the provisions of the ordinance with the small business community and with the chamber of commerce. you'll see that the l s c is the enforcing agency. so if there's a box on your application you ask someone to disclose their background and after a significant amount of conversation one of the things an additional requirement that looks at whether or not the directly relate heness what applied at all. we may miss a blanket of employers that maybe

misinformation. so they'll have the opportunity to see if whether or not our conclusion was correct and whether or not the steps were committed with. we have a one year provision to give people ample time to flush utility the aspects of it really educate employers the goal is to bring people into compliance there's a one year compilation so there's $50 for the first violation. there's no private right of action which is another pretty detailed conversation that we had in both our qualifications the small business community so

i sent a menu for the conformity changes throughout the document. it includes the change specifying of what the conviction was and a couple of the things in the incredible section which in the original ordinance there were conflicting things related to the other seconds for the contracting section that were a suggestion of legal council that's for the city the way they do counteracting that is. it's been a long process. we'll have had a number of meetings with the small business commissioners and so that gave

us an opportunity for feedback early on and bring us to a point to have the support of the public community and the business community >> commissioner white. >> can the job application document states whether the employer will conduct a criminal baugsd. >> yeah, we left it a little bit there should be some fester active discolor for people who have a conviction we left it broad because the city for example, has a 3 page disclosure how they will and consider it and a test and that's unreasonable for most people applications. so it's broad in terms of what the requirement is and we want

to provide flexibility for how people want to deal with the issue and that will be something we'll have a series of recommendations for the informed language everyone can use >> commissioner dooley. >> you mentioned other cities have already conducted this type of location what's the report back and how its working. >> it's pretty new second amendment hadn't started implementing it they're in the implementation phase. it's been implemented i want to say in buffalo and newark. they're trying to get the changes we've adding a tracking provision so we'll have, you know, at the end of every year the sense of types of complaint

and the resolution so the reality is we'll probably not knows what tweaks we need to make a whether or not it's the type of complaint or a specific industry so it tracking of complainant will really, really help >> commissioner white. >> hi. one other question did i hear that the forward mragsdz need to removal the question. - and so small businesses don't normally have the resources to run criminal checks are they i guess could they be liable for, you know, if they didn't do a criminal check and is for example, if someone was a sex offered who was hired or the

employer - what kind of protection if something happens in the workplace >> if you're not using background checks this didn't apply to you. this is really looking at people who are using the commercial background check or some type of formal questionnaire. it didn't make a difference whether or not i choose to do a background check it up to you if you're not doing it it doesn't increase our liability >> commissioner dwight. >> so as a vice president brandon who doesn't do background checks and they're only experience is from someone an employee stealing from the

company i don't find anything objectionable about this legislation. are there any particular objections that have been expressed from small businesses. >> we had a small business r0u7bd table a number of months ago and the concerns are larger on the large employer side rather than the small business side because the small business owners are not engaging in background checks. the complaints are issues after private right of action and feeling uncomfortable with the liability and as an enforcing agency for the hiring decision of an employer which is why it's not the case. the employer questionnaire it

seems cumbersome why they specific the problems early on. most of the concerns we've largely and the through the process. i know have presented it to the executive director of the association and the vast majority who do background checks have complied with a process similar to this. i think that larger companies are taking the guidance seriously >> thank you. any other commissioner comments. okay open this up for public comment is there anybody from the any public comment? >> i have one speaker card from the do you solemnly swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? i chamber of commerce. >> good afternoon. i'm dee dee

workingman pr the board of directors voted for having this ordinance we're the only chamber of commerce that has taken this position we want to thank supervisor cowen for helping us with this and help draft the ordinance. we were able to get input both on larger companies. we're comfortable with the language and the intent of the ordinance. our interests primary were were to get qualified applicants into the jobs and enable the position to be filled. we didn't want this to be cumbersome that you set people up to fail all along the process

to be hired and there is something that makes them unsuitable weighing we've advocated this early so it will happen after the first interview and we're graltd about that. everybody we worked with all the companies and biz businesses were clear they were comfortable. many don't have this provision on their applicaion but this was a given the box would come off. we didn't want o l s c to be second guessing the decisions that the employers make whether or not the civil action was an issue. it was the timing that the employer can you couldn't ask or inquire into the job history.

we really want to thank the supervisors and their staff for working with us. it was a unsatisfactory process and we're happy about the outcome and the chamber of commerce >> thank you. any other members of the public? >> welcome. thank you. my name is roxanne and i - >> excuse me. cue speak into the microphone. >> my name is recognizing an and i work for the treasure island homeless initiative. we're very pleased as well that the supervisors and the entire city and employers have begun along with the ban of the box. our population that we serve is

persons that are disadvantaged economically but they're the person who have the barriers to employment. our constituents are the people who have a criminal record from the 80's or 90s that have to do with marijuana but we have a lot of people who have a criminal background and we want to let you know we're gravity we really are hopeful this will help a lot of our clients that have a difficult time getting a job because of the box and early criminal records. when they do why get a job the majority of them don't go back into criminal problems some have

horrifies of alcohol abuse or wla whatever. it is they stay clean and sober when they have a job. this legislation will help them get a job and help them to stay taxpayers. we're grateful your heard us. great any public comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioner sugaya. i'm supportive of the intent of the legislation and it's been thoroughly vetted and the community has been involved and any major concerns are addressed i move we support this amendment >> second. >>