that welcome actually use at various stations throughout the city. that's just something that will always happen. we'll always have people who we need, you know, cant knees and spanish and that's the largest population and those stations needs those folks that have the ability to communicate with that population. that's a natural need in the city. >> we can certainly include a statement to the effect that we encourage people various language skills to apply rather than identifying particular languages which would be a concern. >> thank you. >> i'm hearing a number of things from what you're saying from your presentation. you started off by saying because of prop 209 and other cases, we're not allowed to look at race and gender, which we all know and the the fire department has done well when it comes to gender and i want to applaud

the chief and the management time. we're interested to has happen to go firefighters of color. there's a both a reality and perception of issues and i want to look at the date that we're talking about and chief officer rank, when you have 48 percent of the work force that's caucasian and you have 77 percent that are caucasian and in the paramedic, 76 caucasian. just pointing out the numbers. but let me just make a comment about perception which is i have had many conversations with firefighters of color who feels there's challenges they face within the department and i'm going to articulate this because the firefighters don't feel comfortable raising this within the command of the fire department and this is why breed and

cohand and myself feel we need to raise these issues because they don't feel comfortable in a situation where they may be promoted and discussing this more broadly. it doesn't seem as if you're saying there's much we can do and i have to say just given what i know of situations -- the issues with the promotional test, there's got to be things if we're making these great gains with our women firefighters, why is it that we can't figure out this question. i do want to thank breed for raising the language issue. that's something i'm concerned constantly. i've discussed this on a number of occasions with firefighters. in my district, in china town, there have been too many times when i have shown up at fire scenes and i'm being asked to translate and to get my staff to translate. and it's a real problem, so i to

-- so i do want to thank the firefighter, but i want to hear some acknowledgement their there's issues and what the next step might be. >> thank you, supervisor chiu. what i like to do is speak to this. the piece that we -- what we can do and should do and i think what we all agree should be done is develop a diverse pool of qualified individuals from whom the department can hire and who then can form the pool of people would promote to the successful levels within the department. what -- there is a long history, not just san francisco, across the nation. we've surveyed other departments, particularly every large urban agency has a

long history of discrimination of people of color and women. the descent decree was a good start. we can't hire based on race in any way. we striving to find testing pools that -- we're obligated to find testing tools that reduce impact. we must follow the guidelines on employee selection procedures which were developed and adopted by the employment and the department of justice. the way we do an exam, it's not hey, these are good questions. we have to survey subject matter experts which are the individuals doing the exam examine a detailed survey,

but what it takes to be successful in the job. what do they do on a day to do basis, how important is it. and then we must design an exam that test for those things that are required on the job. and that's what we do. there are debated all the time. you try to do things like, for example, multiple choice exams. we'll have higher levels of that impact. we use video based or simulations which are more like an employee would face when they're out in the field. but it's not possible to design a test that we can guarantee will not have an adversed impact on any group at all. it's not possible to design a test that every employee will think it's fair. in case of the litigation you mentioned, the 15 people who weren't promoted thought it was fair, but i guarantee you the 240 people

that was promoted did think it was fair. that was an age case and it's not on the point you're raising here. i'm not throwing up my hands at all and we work with our department. we engage national experts and my recruitment and public safety team is now surveying other departments. do you have great tool we can consider on the promotional side? i'm reexcited to continue the testing model which i'll talk about because we hire from the pool of people that are there. there's a lot of largely -- the hiring is done at the rank order in both the police and fire department. how you do on the exam is important. there's a lot of controversy, well based in what happened historically. there's

concerns that people are cheating or those who designed the test may give information to those who they favor who are in the same ethnic group or their friends so we go to great lengths to make sure that can't happen, which gets to the other point which you'll touch on now. one item in our testing program was identified by the auditors as not meeting national best practices. to me that determination is surveying several fire departments who have good reputations, that's fine. they don't have san francisco's history. the item they talked about is we develop the answers as the same time the test is administered. that's important because the people can't provide the answers to the test. it

prevents cheating. this was a process that came out the consent decree and agreed by the advocacy groups that participated and moving the city toward the consent decree and it's appropriate to reduce the likely of cheating. that's not that there can never not cheating. and we take that very seriously. i don't want to say there's nothing we can do, but we're doing a lot and it's not the case that things are in disarray as it would appear from the report or we're not following this practice by any stretch. >> i want to make two final comments. i have respect, mrs. kelly for the work you do and you're trying your best and i have respect for the chief and what she's doing.

i moved to the city 18 years ago to work for group that created the lawsuit. there's a perception and a reality in the numbers that this is still a problem. and the fact of the matter is, it doesn't allow us to have direct affirmative programs race is a protected class. we had to cough up $40 million based on a program they're recommending that needs to be revamp. i want to make sure we're doing all we can to limit our legal liability as well as make sure we do have the fire department up and down looks like san francisco. but i want to again, i know you are trying your best, so i want to say that

publicly. >> supervisor tang has something to say. >> thank you director cohen and my question will help you into your next segment. speaking to supervisor chiu original point. i believe recruitment is important and it impacts what happens in terms of promotions so is i'm excited our city is moving to this continuance testing model so in the next segment of your presentation, if you can show us how dhr is work with the fire department and how it's ongoing. because i know the budget an hift report did point out -- the budget analyst report shows the lack of who is in charge. if you can address that. >> we have -- we intend to follow the model in our

continuous testing for the fire department. we disagree with the analyst that there is a lack of clarity as to who does what. i assigned our chief of policy with the background communication to develop the materials to assist the police department. and they've been using those materials. we gave them interest groups and invited them in and says here's materials, would you like to use them. we have a video on on the website and the police website and on the dhr website. they talk about the testing method and how do you take the test and it gives examples so people can see what the testing process is like and it describes the process in great detail. we started in early november and we have no adversed impact on the passing rate of the exam which is great news and it's a

diverse pool: we have the show rate, which is the rate at which people show up to take the test is much higher than it was for the old exams and higher than the rate that was shown -- that was included in the report in 2009 particularly for protected groups. those rates were 30 and 40. we are upwards up 90 percent for the police examination so far. it's really exciting and the police department seems pleased. we'll work closely with the firefighter. we'll rely on the firefighters -- the firefighters that the chief assigns to help recruit now that we'll have a recruitment to do. and we will be providing materials in support

and certainly all these jobs are posted on the website. the beauty is it's an ongoing recruitment. the list is continuously refreshed by people who take the test. okay. this is an answer to the question that chair breed had. that the san francisco firefighter set the flier to more than 100 organizations and will submit a less. >> supervise are cohen has a question. this is where i'm struggling when listening to this. there is no acknowledge nor do i have a desire to -- a desire to change, to move from one direction into another. there is an independent audit that is saying two dhr and to the fire department, there needs to be change that needs to happen.

you also have a legal challenge that is also evidence saying, hey, there's something that's happening in your testing that needs to change. and i don't hear in the -- in your testimony and your testing, an acknowledge. we've identified two problems. there's an exam problem and evaluation and where and how we're recruiting, but i don't hear a desire to move in that direction or acknowledge, yes, we hear what saying and we're incorporating the feedback and this is a direction we're going to go in. this is an example that refer to often and i think it drives home the point. if you were looking to recruit african americans, then you're going to africans

congregate, where they socialize and you're empowering people if it is in the department or outside the department to act as an agent to search out, to find the best of the best. and it's like going to the grocery store, right. when we want eggs, we go where the eggs are. we don't go to the bread section or to the pace tree section. we're doing great in this area, but we can do better. i would like to begin to hear more conversation on what are we doing to create pathways to careers within the fire department that represents our ethnic communities that we share. examine i do want to take a moment to highlight the accomplishments of the department. 15 percent women, i think you said.

>> 16. >> that's phenomenal when you think of the total population of women that are in the industry. it's only seven percent, so you're doing something correct. we need to duplicate that in other parts of the -- i don't have the numbers in front of me. we need to duplicate that when it comes to the ethnic community. and the city does a great job of putting that out. they say, if you speak a different language, we'll pay you more and we'll look closely to your application. that's the same level of uniformity that i would like to see in the recruitment of future fire employees. also i want to talk about the report -- the report talk was the imbalance

of staffing between fire and ems or employees. >> may i defer those questions to the chief because we're not involved in the staff. >> not a problem. >> we can wait for the chief to get up. i would like to ask about one of the recommendations that was made -- this is recommendation 1.3 and it is to make sure that the recommendations has been clarified through dhr and the fire department. this talks about discrepancy within staff and your department and where that responsibility lies. your recommendation -- on this recommendation, you indicated that you disagree. and you stay that

both dhr and the fire department are clear on its recruitment responsibilities. can you talk to me about that clarity because it's not clear to me? >> sure. let me say that -- so on we have -- i have not -- we are changing if the we've adopted a testing module and we're able to host recruitments. >> what when did -- when did you adopt it? >> last month. >> this is a new thing. >> it's absolutely new. we were engaged in the conversation. we were able to go forward with police first because their eligible list was expiring sooner so we started there and we did not need a civil service rule change. it is the next big thing and we're hosting. we're able to -- people don't have to go to the testing facilities in the region, weave been hosting testing and we can invite

people from the community college and if they have people, we want them to do that. >> what are the responsibilities, who is doing what? >> what we have done -- we plan to repeat that police -- excuse me, in fire. the first thing we do is prepare materials. we have the posting and the announcements and in this case we created business cards. mrs. guard created business cards and posted videos to make it more accessible. with he provided that to the police -- we provided that to the police department and the constituent groups who were interested and we have them available. we're posting it and providing the information. examine if a group ask is us, we can host a test in the mission district on caesar chavez and thanks to the board, we're fixing up a little bit, so it has greater

capacity. that's a big change and i'm sorry if you did not hear that we want to change because in 2009 when i saw that, despite sending fliers out to 100 groups and getting a diverse pool, we weren't satisfied with what we got and it's note in the report that the group is more diverse than 2009. we're going down a different road. >> is dhr responsible for that? >> for which? >> the model? >> yes. >> dhr is under the charter and civil rule responsible for examinations. so we adopted this method of examination and brought it to -- mr. crouse identified it. we brought it to the chief and the fire department. we brought it to the fire commission. we pre-view it had with interest grouped and other membership groups in the fire department and we

achieve the rule change and it's our intention to move forward in the spring sdmrchlt dhr is responsible for examination? >> exactly. >> who is responsible for recruitment? >> we provide materials to the department. we can support them, but the department does recruitment. >> do you -- prior to last month, have you -- what materials have you provided? >> well, there has been no recruitment. it's very disheartening to go to a community and say, don't you want to be a firefighter and there's no test in the future. it's a waste. that was our concern with the report. we get kas gated for not keeping a lively recruit, it's a waste of effort and it

on be unfair for candidates. so they're going to wait around for two years. we can host groups and we totally support groups turning people out and we will host as many administrations of the exam as we want in san francisco. >> just so i'm walking away from this. dhr main responsibility is to manage the examination function? >> exactly. >> so the succession planning doesn't fall on you speaker: we have our work force development unit. and we work departments on succession efforts and we do a work force -- we give reports to the department on who is likely to retire and we work with -- they work with other units in dhr, and labor relations to provide apprentice programs, but the department is responsible under

the charter and they decide where they need to put their resources. >> again, i'm trying to process this. when you say you support them, you're giving them the data saying you're going to have five people to retire. and the department is responsible for saying, thank you dhr. do they put it in writing or is it an internal body? >> it's not a centralized function. we're supporting the efforts. we don't require reports from departments. the public health commission asked us to do a presentation on succession plan and we gave the materials and told them we would consult with them and there has been consolidation, but it's more of a support from dhr. >> my final question, what kind of feedback do you need to hear or from what entity do you need to hear from to change the testing

mechanism that you have? what is it going to change? you've heard people -- editorials from the chronicle examine the court has spoken on a desire to see a change in testing, this audit has expressed a desire to see a change in testing, so what does the department of dhr, you as the director need to hear, see, what more evidence, what else do you need for this change to happen? >> i think many people are operating under a misconception of what the findings have been. the exam about which there were a ruling by a jury was the -- it was administered in 2008 and the issue had to do with score corrections and lack of clarity in the score corrections. process that was used at the time is no longer used by dhr and we retain the scratch paper which is what the jury wanted to see. we've

made that change. the other issue, the only issue that came up in this audit is about the practice that we've adopted. it didn't come out of thin air. it came out of the consent decree to prevent cheating which is apart of the exam and the answer key. we don't want to change that. the experts say don't change that. if we change it, we're going to spend time talk beginning security violations and so and so gave the answers to mb. we don't want that. we've had that. we really don't want to change that. we have made the change years ago that led to, i think, the misunderstanding associated with that case that has been referenced in that the -- that has been reported on. but the -- >> what's the internal process to change something? any exam.

any testing. >> we just decide to change it if it has a legal implication, we would talk to the legal department. we might say, for example, in the sheriff's department, we found a new video exam that's a good way to assess integrity. >> the testing process belongs to dhr. i will say that we continue to search for improved testing mechanism. we believe we are been doing it correctly and it's natural that those who hasn't been successful is going to disagree with that. i'm sorry for that, but it's our job to look for better mechanisms and we're still doing that. >> thank you. >> i want -- one of our plans -- i'm reminded, to go back to

the succession planning question that you asks, we always are a list available. it's going to address our ability more quickly and we'll have a list that we'll move to and fill positions. the other part is -- there were no fire exam administrations, so there were acting assignments that people weren't allowed to take. they were given assignments based on sinority. they're challenging that process and that's their right and we respect that right. we feel like we've done a fair process and if someone disagrees and if we believe we haven't, we'll change it. it's

a fluid process and we're always looking for new tools and i challenge my team to do a national search and look -- we're doing -- >> how many people are on this team? >> on our public safety team? john. >> five. >> are they public safety experts. >> examination experts. that's independent of our miscellaneous examination team. >> who would be testing for things like custodian. >> got it. >> do you have anything else from your presentation. >> yes. >> we have a list for the chair of the organizations that were contacted. >> you can continue your presentation. >> thank you. i want to just discuss a couple of points that were

made. i think that the -- i want to point out that savings that were -- that the savings -- there have been no grieve answers to i don't know how you save money. >> what's the lawsuit about? >> that is in process. we have not paid money. so i think it's pretty con jekt you'll that they'll be money saves. nationally, we've done a better job than, i think, of any other fire department and our testing program, we produce job related test that conform to state and national standards which my team and i are proud

of. they feel like they've been under the gun and i want to on commend them because they're devoted. and they spent their careers putting together exams that are fair and i want to recognize them. my final point -- i have a concern that the report was released to the press before it was released publicly and released to the responding department. >> do you know who did that? >> i don't know. i raised my concern with the budget and legislative analysis but i was concerned about that. we was told that the report had been made public. >> it hasn't been received by the members of the board of supervisors and it was only received by dhr and the the fire department in draft form. >> we received it. as you can tell from my presentation, we were working hard to get changes. we did not provide