>> i apologize. >> sure. >> under the regulations the next step in the process is for the commission to instruct staff to prepare a written order reflecting the commission's findings so you're free to do that if you like. >> all right. so i would ask that the staff prepare an appropriate order reflecting the findings and the determinations of the commission on agenda item number three. item number four. discussion and possible action on request for two waivers from campaign and governmental contact code section 3.222 section leo chow who occupies one of two seats on the arts commission has requested two waivers from section 3.222 which bars members of boards and commissions from entering into contracts with the city where

the amount exceeds $10,000. the attachments were waiver request from mr. chow. letter from tom decaigny and jd beltran, 2023, 2014 and text memo and draft resolution and i believe also added to that was an email from the mayor's office in support of the requested waivers. is mr. chow here? come forward. >> good evening. >> good evening commissioners. >>i am wondering if you could state the reasons why you believe we should grant this waiver of the section 3.222? >> certainly. let me begin by

saying that i fully am supportive and appreciative of the reason for the ordinance in the first place, the importance of creating separation and preventing favoritism is extremely important to all of us as citizens of san francisco, so my understanding as i discuss this with the city attorney's office was that the provision that allows for a waiver in this case really is i think specific to exactly the kind of situation that i have here which is that as a architect i -- my firm specialize in large scale, complex projects. for example we were the designers of the international terminal at san francisco so that's the scale we work at. it's a specialized area of the profession and so i

also believe that san francisco should have the best -- have the opportunity to have the best in design for all of its civic projects, and so i really try to -- i see it as an opportunity to try and help out the city in terms of achieving that great design in public life as well as my private practice so in the public arena i see that the arts commission is an opportunity for me to bring some of the experience and some of the knowledge i gained through my years to bear on reviewing projects, and i take that very seriously, and i really am passionate about that. at the same time i think that the city really should benefit from some of the expertise that we have as a firm, and so i think that my goal would be to try to allow for that design excellence to be brought to the firm in both

arenas and in order to do that i believe that the separation of what i do for the commission, from what we do at the firm needs to be completely separated so that does involve recusing myself in all review of these projects or discussions about these projects at the commission level, and then at our firm because we're a large firm. we have about 250 people here in san francisco and the way we would do that there are separate individuals from myself, design partners and managing partners who are responsible for review and oversight of the project. i would be completely separate from any involvement within the projects. in fact the project -- one of the projects that is a current project moscone center is performed in an office space in a separate building so i don't see what is going on in a

daily to day basis so the goal is to make sure that i get to continue to serve the city and also have the city benefit from the professional services that my firm could provide. >> commissioner andrews. >> mr. chow. thank you. i wanted to talk a little bit about timeline. you have been a commissioner since 2009. is that right? >> that's correct. >> yeah. and i was just looking here on the footnote that it said commissioner chow indicates he was initially unaware of the firm's agreement and i wanted to find out -- one, is there an internal process inside of your firm that would have either a policy or practice in place where you kind of check out for conflicts of interest? and we find ourselves here so

we might have well state there is a perceived conflict of interest. how long had you known about this or your firm know about this. >> sure. so a couple of i think points of clarification. first is i have been commissioner since 2009 although i've been a partner at the firm since october of 2013, so relatively new. as far as the conflict originally my understanding was that there wasn't a conflict because our contract in fact is with a nonprofit so there is a provision that states that nonprofit contracts are exempt, so that's the way i understood it. when the project for -- almost at the same time we signed the contract we began pursuing or considering pursuing the work at san francisco international and at that time i

contacted the be director i think this would be a potential issue here and at which time he put me in contact with the city attorney's office to discussion it and during that discussion i found out it was a potential conflict so in that timeline was the contract was signed in april. i think probably middle of may when this conversation started. >> any other questions? >> no. i think i have enough. >> i guess the thing that concerns me mr. chow is and i appreciate your willingness to serve on a public commission which doesn't pay you money for the time and effort that you spend and you bring your expertise to it. on the other hand, the purpose of the statute

is to avoid not only a real conflict but the public perceiving that there may be a conflict and i guess when i think about som and how big they are, how much work they do and so much of it i mean we're talking millions of dollars, with the san francisco government, and for us to grant you a waiver and say well you know we will rely on the fact you won't have anything to do with it, but you're still out there to the public's eye you're an som architect who is sitting on the arts commission, and i guess it strikes me there's got to be some very, very special circumstances before we should

make a waiver of this statutory provision which is clearly intended to not only deal with real conflicts but to give comfort to the citizens of san francisco that there isn't sort of an old boys network that contracts are going out to companies and partners in those companies are sitting on public commissions and whatever res teej may accrue from it it's -- i have to say i for one start with a position that only in exceptional circumstances -- nothing personal about you at all, and i mean and it's a difficult decision because i appreciate citizens being willing to serve on these commissions. on the other hand,

the voters have said they want to keep a separation, so my initial reaction is to look very skeptically about our granting a waiver. >> may i respond? >> yeah, sure. >> maybe two points. first is that the selection process for these projects is a public open call for proposals, so there are many firms i having for the projects. they go through a publicly. >> >> open selection process all of which can be sunshine ordinance and all of the records how the project designers are chosen is open to the public. and then i think secondly the fact that the -- i apologize if i over step here. i'm not an

attorney but my interpretation as to the reason why the waiver concept is introduced within the legislation specifically is for individuals or where there's specialized knowledge and specifically says "trades and professions" and my seat that i sit in for the arts commission is specifically appointed for architects so i think that there's a desire for specialized knowledge so those are the two things i consider as being integrated into the concerns that you're raising. >> chair, this may be a question for the commissioners. i wanted to see if there was some distinguishing feature with what is before us as compared to the same conversation we had a

few months ago, and it was another architect i believe that was in front of us seeking a waiver, and what is different -- what is similar, and is what commissioner chow put forward just as architect that represents a firm that represents large projects warrant the distinction between what we ruled on a few months ago and what is in front of us today? >> mr. chair, responding i wasn't part of the board at that time so i don't have anything that i could add relating to that discussion, but i would agree with commissioner renne

and again this isn't personal at all. you're clearly an exceptional individual in your profession and by not having you the arts commission is going to lose some real talent, but i can't help but think just like there are other lawyers out there in terms of my protection there are others out there that have talents and would like to be part of the arts commission, and could be quite helpful just as you are, and the defining thing with me as with commissioner renne is the appearance to it. when we're talking about these projects in regard to a company like yours, a huge company like yours, the projects worked on and what is going on in san francisco now. we're talking about hundreds of millions of dollars of big

projects and everything under scrutiny, under criticism, sort of a presumption that somebody out there is stacking the deck for someone, and that's not -- i know that's not the case in your situation, but that would be the perception by some members of the public, and it's something that the citizens of san francisco i think would not be well served by having that perception, so i think that regrettably i'm going -- i would vote that the waiver should not be granted. i would commend you for your service just as commissioner renne did. i am sure you added quite a bit to architecture and art in san francisco, and i hope you're not a stranger to it in the future as a result of this, but i think it's just too important in

regard to having this kind of non appearance of any kind of conflict. >> well, my view is a little bit different because i do think with some of these regulations the city kind of cuts off its nose to spite its face, and there are any number of extremely large architectural firms in this city, and all of these firms have contracts of one kind or another with the city. i think that is pretty inevitable with the many projects under way, and so in a way we're punishing every single employee of any of these architectural firms if they want to serve or do some kind of public service within the city and county of san francisco

simply because they're employed by som or -- i don't know the names of all of the other architectural firms but heller madis, et cetera, et cetera, so unless you are actually involved in some of these projects that are currently under way, and i would like you to clarify that for me, i see no reason why you shouldn't continue on the arts commission. i think the issue is whether or not you are directly involved either in the bidding process or even in the architectural process of these existing projects that skid more you [inaudible] and has currently so if you could respond to that i would preecial it, but -- appreciate it, but otherwise if you're not involved and able to recuse yourself from anything with a decision on design review for those

projects i would be satisfied with that. >> okay. so my request is for two specific projects so it's not a blanket request. the first is moscone center which is a project we currently have and went through a open request for proposal. the second one is a project for san francisco airport which we understand is about to continue its renovation program and we think there are projects there that we might be able to lend our expertise to. so we don't have those projects. in fact rfps are not out right now but i want to be proactive and we have a potential conflict there and would have and come to you with a request specifically for that one project as well so i could assure mechanical engineering and other firms we're putting together as a

team to pursue these projects that we would initiate be able to pursue them. >> you're talking about moscone project. >> that we have but also the airport. >> and with moscone aren't they involved with the design review of the project? >> as part of the design review project there is a committee of five and two architects and we would be normally involved with that and i would recuse myself. typically at the arts commission for a recusal the commissioner steps out of the room completely so they're not present during the discussion. >> does another architect stand in for an architect that recuses themselves? >> no. >> does that put the arts commission at a disadvantage because of the recusal of that

architect? >> well, i think part of the reason why we have five is that should a recusal is necessary we have sufficient judgment there, but yes. >> and in terms of the sfo project what role if any would you have in that? >> again because of the situation i would have recuse myself at the commission and within our firm i would have no involvement at all. >> is that under normal circumstances but simply because you're on the arts commission? >> it's actually because of normality circumstances. there are three of us -- actually four of us responsible for the design projects at the firm. we divide the work up among ourselves and each of us functions independently. we're not aware of -- frankly we're busy and not paying attention to what the other ones are doing. other than at operations and policy

and governance level so day-to-day operations are left to the individuals. >> and one more question. why are you on the arts commission to begin with? you have been on it since when? 2009. >> 2009. it's something that i am -- i found myself to be extremely passionate about. i really feel that the quality of design in the projects of civic buildings really needs to be brought to the highest level possible. these buildings are the public face as institutions for the city, and i think it's very important that the city as great as san francisco that we have truly excellent design so it's an opportunity for me to contribute my thoughts and critique and work with the projected teams that come before us to try to make sure that we are providing the city with the

best level of design possible. >> who . >> >> appointed you to the commission? >>i was appointed under mayor newum and reappointed by mayor lee. >> is there a term on the commission? >> i believe it's two year terms. >> your answer to the questions sort of highlights the concerns about the conflict because when plans for som come before the arts commission for review even though you may recuse yourself the other four members know that's your company and you know you don't like to pick on your friends, and that's really what

the problem is is that perception. it may be the other four can be totally independent and disregard whether relationship they have with you, but to the public particularly somebody who is skeptical of the way in which projects are parceled out and done in san francisco it's that perception that i find is what's -- why we have the need to make sure that everybody on the commission is independent of any possible prejudice or influence that shouldn't be in the process. anyway -- any other comments?

>> i just wanted to remind myself and remind the commission when we reviewed this back -- this same general issue i guess in may with the commissioner smith we took a position on the fact that there wasn't -- there was just intention to move forward with the bidding process, any future bids that were out. i remember a line of questions that we asked. are you currently seeking an rfp? no. i am interested in rfps that may be coming to the city and we want our firm to be able to be competitive with those, and our decision on that even on that point of view where there wasn't an existing relationship we had a ruling on it, so i want us to be mindful of that and i

know we have -- i'm not sure if we're taking this in pieces or two different ones, but i think it's important for us to at least revisit what positions we have taken in the past. >> does anybody want to make a motion as to how we should deal with these two requests? i think we can deal with them as a package because they relate to the same sort of subject matter. >> yes, again reluctantly and i realize the talent lost to the arts commission here but i move that we not approve the waivers. >> i second. >> seconded by commissioner andrews. public comment? thank you mr. chow. >> commissioners, [inaudible]

open government. usually these cases are issues that a city employee wants a waive waiver to work for a company in the division they have been working for. >> >> and usually they identify a clear need for this person to take that position or why there would be a detriment to the organization to not be able to hire them and so forth. in this particular case i don't see anything in the documentation to show that mr. chow -- i'm sorry. yes mr. chow is irreplaceable. he has been on the arts commission for six years. that's a pretty good run. 2009 to 2014. i did not hear anything from him saying if i were to leave the arts commission would suffer. you

all mentioned there are architect firms and hundreds of architects so it's not like we only have five architects and five positions so if we take them out they're going to be left without that expertise, and going back to what several of you mentioned it is the appearance of conflict, and i worked for -- i taught the university hawaii for years and involved with consulting at office of hawaiian affairs and so forth and one of the things that you realize with that work you become privy to information that is in conflict of the rules, and the simple fact that we rely sometimes on people just being honest is a nice thing to

do in a purely theoretical sense. am i saying he's not an honest person? no. i'm absolutely not saying that but i'm saying that a person in a position where they get information which is beneficial to themselves or to their company or whatever has a real temptation and we know that temptation has violated consistently in all forms of government, non government, so forth, that unless there is a clear reason why he is the only person who can be on this commission i think -- i agree with you that this waiver should be denied. also the fact that when he took the position i would assume being a very intelligent person he sat down and thought about all of the conflict and i am surprised after that many years this is

the very first time any potential conflict has been brought up. >> good evening. nicole weeten from the mayor's office and the liaison and responsible for appointing commissioners to the mayoral appointed seats and i want to speak to what was just said and out lined in my email to the commissioner it is actually difficult to find the most qualified, competent commissioners that reside within the city and county of san francisco and they have a mandate attached to it and something that commissioner hayon pointed out a good point and two architects on the commission and both have come before you for a waiver which is something that shouldn't be dismissed. with those ark

seats -- architect seats and commissioner hayon made a good point many work with the city and county and to dismiss anyone because of that not taking into consideration commissioner chow's ability to wall himself off from the conflicts deprives a large portion of citizens from serving on the commission in this instance and does a disservice to the people of the city and county to do that so we're chrj charged in the mayor's office to appoint diverse appointees and this is part of that and i ask you to approve this and it's difficult for the mayor to fill the seat in a manner that would not be present a conflict for

that commissioner. and i am happy to answer any questions. >> [inaudible] >> are we taking questions? yeah ms. wheaton. so are you aware of commissioner comight's waiver? >> his waiver request? yeah. i was made aware of it. >> i think you're in support of commissioner chow. >>i am. >> i am wondering what your position for commissioner smith, if you had a thought? >> yeah. i think with commissioner smith it was a different type of waiver, a blanket waiver and not a case by case basis. i think commissioner smith -- he served as director of the firm and he has the ability to decide on behalf of the firm what projects he can take and not take and the financial implications of that.