question. >> i just wonder from four regular scheduled meeting, changing to three regular scheduled meeting. that's my purpose. that's my -- let me make a motion that from four regular scheduled commission meetings, instead of four, substitute three. >> you'd have to get a second. is there somebody want to second your motion? otherwise the change is already listed as four. do we have a second? hearing none, your motion dies. so it stays at four. there's no second to your motion. so it stays as it is. your motion dies because you don't have a second. okay? so i'm going to call for the question. all in favor of leaving it as

the four regular scheduled meetings say aye. opposes? the ayes have it and so the motion is carried. that one is passed. now we are moving forward to page 3. page 3 we had an added paragraph which is something, could i have a motion to discuss this? because this was not, this was, how shall i say it, there was an on-going appointment and we wanted to add to to make it legal to add it to the bylaws. this is something that was being done but we wanted to make it legal in terms of putting it in our format. so that's why it's added.

>> so moved. i make the motion. >> okay, we have a motion to have a second to discuss. >> seconded. >> you wanted to discuss it? >> i just think it's appropriate to read the motion. >> okay, we will read t the president will appoint one member of the commission to the public authority in home support services governing body subject to confirmation by the san francisco board of supervisors. so that's the way it's read. as of now, commissioner seriina is serving in that position and we just wanted to, there was not in our bylaws and we're adding it to the bylaws. any other commissioner? >> is that for one term of four years or annually? >> it's subject to every four years, i think, approval by the board of supervisors subject to the appointment by the president. but as

president james has pointed out, it has been an on-going practice that has not been institutionalized in the bylaws. >> currently or in the past i think we require con firmed by the board of supervisors or just appoint by the president of this commission is good enough. >> the appointment must be confirmed by the board of supervisors. the applicant will go to the rules committee and then the rules committee will make a recommendation to the full board. >> thank you for your information. >> there was a question about whether we should add the term every four years. is that -- because we were not -- is that every 4 year term? so that probably i would, could we, do you want to make a motion to amend it to say every four years? >> so moved. >> i think a term of four -- a

four year term is sufficient without the word every. you know, four year term is clear enough. >> okay. would you state your amendment, commissioner seriina. >> i would amend to say the appointment subject to the approval and confirmation by the san francisco board of supervisors will be renewed every four years as it comes due. >> will be renewed every four years. could i, you had a second? would the second --. >> second. >> it has been moved and seconded that we amend this. the president will appoint one member of the commission to the public authority's in home support services governing body subject to confirmation by the san francisco board

of supervisors will be renewed every four years. okay, all in favor? opposes? ayes have it and so the motion is carried. thank you. so we move that one. next on the subject to approval remove to page, i hope i have it right, page 6. okay, these are the added paragraphs, under standing committees. we have, one of the things i really explained why we have it here because we have no orientation. so the bylaws will serve as an orientation as to what we

are doing and why we are doing it so this is why we adding this to the, this making it very clear about what our role is to the public. so added paragraphs under the commission, the commission has four standing committees: finance, joint legislative, bylaws and nominating. under committees we have b, each committee shall have three commission members except legislative, which would be a joint that includes advisory council members. the joint committee shall have three commission members and four advisory council members. now, before it read that we shall have from i think it was three to

not more than five and so what we lacked at that and that is an even number so we have three commission members and 5 advisory council and that is not an even number. that's an even number. we needed an odd number like we have commissioners in case there was a vote so we made it four. they still have more members represented than commissioners but we did make it before and so we have come out with 7 members on the joint legislative committee and joint legislative committee of the legislative committee, members from the advisory council and members from the

commission. so, with that, i'd like to have a motion to approve items a and b under that and then would you want me to move on? i think maybe we'll just move that part a and b are there any questions? yes, okay. commissioner seriina. >> in the past if any member of the commission could attend a committee meeting and if the committee members were not present, all present, another commissioner could sit in on the meeting and vote on any issues to be recommended to the full commission. is that still an option based on the revision of the bylaws or will all committee action require a quorum from the official committee members?

>> i guess i would answer that saying now there were times when some commissioners were not able to serve on a committee and the president appointed somebody else to serve on that committee. and so in that circumstances i think the president should notify the legislative committee that somebody else is serving. but i know what you're saying. >> i think the question i perhaps did not articulate as clearly as i should have is that let us say that commissioners jones, smith and wilson are members of the finance committee, but commissioners jones and wilson are not present when the finance committee meets. but two other

commissioners are. will they be allowed to vote and constitute a quorum for that committee as it makes recommendations to the full board, or would that committee fail to meet because it does not have a quorum of official representatives? >> okay, let's take this committee. with this committee, what we're saying is that --. >> lets a take the finance committee. >> finance committee, okay. if you have three members on a committee, two is a quorum. >> i agree. what if two of the committee members fail to attend the meeting but two other commissioners come? >> no. >> then that committee would not be able to meet because it would not have a quorum. >> right. >> that's a change from past practice. >> exactly. because what you are doing, you are substituting regular members who would know what is

going on for new people who are coming on and would not know what had been going on on that committee. >> i have no problem with the changes, i think it should be articulated in the bylaws amendment that non-committee members of the commission cannot vote during committee meetings and would not be able to constitute a quorum. >> well, if non-committee members came to a meeting then you would have a commission meeting. and so --. >> again, and i don't wish to belabor the point because it happened frequently during the finance committee meetings when some members of the finance committee were unable to attend a regularly scheduled meeting, but other commissioners came. and as a result we had sufficient members of the committee -- sufficient members of the commission to constitute a committee and take action and propose

matters to the full commission. as i understand now that option would not be available. so if the finance committee was meeting to make recommendations to the full commission on specific budgetary issues but because some committee members fail to attend the meeting it did not have a quorum, yet other commission members were present, they would not be able to substitute for the missing commissioners, there would be no finance committee and therefore no recommendation to the full commission. either way it's okay, i just want to make sure we understand that. >> well, as i understand that, what i'm saying is that if you have three committee members and one member is absent , then you still have a quorum. two, well, you are in trouble. i mean then you would -- that would be up to that committee chair at that time to call those two committee members if you feel comfortable enough because it has

to come back to the whole commission to discuss anyway to approve that. >> i agree. >> so if that committee chair feels comfortable in appointing those two people temporarily to serve so that he can move the business on, it still has to come back to the full commission to discuss it, to approve of it, so they would have more information at that time than anybody else. so i would approve of that, going forward. >> so if i understand correctly there is no change regarding the practice that has been in place. >> no, there has been no change. >> the language is not clear. >> madam chair, what happened is you have appointed three committee member into the finance committee. and in defense at certain dates they going to meet, but in advance two members of

this committee inform the chairman that they will be absent, i think that this, let this bylaws change then the president of our commission can appoint two commissioners to put in the place of two absentee commissioners so that the finance committee will function. in the absence of two more commissioners for that meeting, i think the chairman of the finance committee is able to appoint two

substitutes but this two appointment must be a member of this commission. i hope i make clear. it's a possibility you know there's an absence in advance to a person in the finance committee informing the chairman at certain day, at certain meeting, two members will be absent. in that case the president of the board can appoint two commissioner to fulfill this meeting. now, on the meeting day, you know, during the meeting, it determined if this committee of three persons can appoint if the two commissioners were present fulfilling their duties. >> well, i want to make this clear, that the chairperson, the

president of the commission has an opportunity to appoint anybody to a committee and if i know people, the committee is not meeting because of absences then i need to know from the chair why that committee is not meeting. and if those people cannot serve then it's up to the chair to appoint other people who will serve on those committees. anne, did you have a question? >> just a comment. thank you, commissioner seriina, for reminding me of that tip situation and commission ow for clarifying because what has happened and as far as i know it's only been the finance committee, my recollection is that it's only been with finance, because secretly the finance agenda was enormously interesting many commissioners would come to the meeting. so there would be in fact more commissioners attending than the three that were on the

committee. but there were times at the very last minute, and the chair was not a member of the committee necessarily, so at the very last minute we'd get to the finance committee meeting and two wouldn't be there. and then the chair of the committee could then in fact ask, as commissioner ow was saying, if the ones that were there wanted to serve for that purpose. as i said, i think finance is the only one that i've seen this happen on. it may have happened with other committees and i'm not aware of it. typically we would not schedule a meeting if we knew two or three people could not be there. that would just be unwise. but there have been last-minute emergencies that have come up for commissioners that have prevented us from doing a cancellation ahead of time. >> i think i did serve on finance in

an emergency one time. i remember serving on that. in that circumstances i would approve of that chair finding the two commissioners who wanted to serve. is that --. >> in other words, two persons can appoint someone for that meeting only, one is the chairman of the commission, the chairperson of the commission, or the committee chairman. two person can appoint. >> yes. >> if there's two commissioner present. >> right, right. and if it continues and the chair says tes a problem then we would discuss it and we would replace that person off that committee. okay? >> so we reword the --. >> i don't think we need to

reword this because it's in the bylaws that the committee, that the president can appoint people to committees as necessary. and i don't know whether that means -- go ahead. >> the issue may be that, as director honton pointed out, the absences occur at the last minute and the president isn't present at the meeting and therefore the committee chair if there are other commissioners present, the committee chair should have the flexibility to invite other commissioners to serve on that committee for that specific meeting. i don't know that this language excludes that option but it certainly doesn't make it clear and i just raise the issue to be sure we still have that flexibility. >> oh, good. i'm looking under, go aheading ahead, joint duties, the

committee chair, maybe put it under there on page 7. when we get to page 7, joint duties of the committee chair, we can insert it there if wording is not correct. that's where i see a place for it. so after we go over those duties, i didn't think about that but as i look at this i think if we look at the duties of the committee chair we can insert the word in there, okay? would you go along with that? in the meantime i think we can move on this. we are moving on a and b committees, the four standing committees and the joint legislative committee shall have three commission memorandum bers. so can i have a motion to approve added paragraphs under a and b >> so moved. >> okay, it's been moved and seconded

that we approve under committees added paragraphs a and b all in favor? opposes, the ayes have it so the motion is carried. okay, now let's look at finance, i don't know, maybe we can take, unless it's a lot of wording, let's take one at a time with the finance committee because that came up. this committee will coordinate policies regarding the dos and all fiscal and beneficiary meetings. it shall hold no more than one meeting at a time that is reasonable for public comment. could i have a motion to discuss? >> so moved. >> okay, any questions on this? >> you indicate at least one time i think it should be every other

month. >> well, we discussed that with director anne hinton. it can be more but at least once a year. i think commissioner neal and director itani and commissioner hinton came to the meeting. it can be more but we said at least one meeting, okay? i think that was the consensus of the committee and we did have the input of director anne in to discuss the budget process and how it goes. so, with that, any commissioner --. >> you are talking about the public allow to attend the budget committee meeting.

>> yes, yes. we said at least once per year. and we just said if they wanted to meet more often, they could, but at least have it in the bylaws. it wouldn't restrict them to one but they could have more if it was necessary but we wanted to have one public meeting and we had an open discussion here about the finances and i think it was the consensus that they could meet once a year. >> i have a question. who determines or what process determines more than one meeting? >> that would be up to the committee, the three members of the committee. if there was enough voice and the chair meet with anne hinton and they decided it was necessary then they would make that, the committee would make that --. >> additional meeting will be determined by the committee, three

members. >> right, with the director's input. >> and can we have that, if we have four commissioner ask the committee to hold a public meeting it can be done. if four commissioners in writing ask the committee to hold a public meeting at a specific question and it shall be --. >> there would, if that was to be the case, which it certainly could be because commissioners can ask for things from the department, you would just need to include the reason for having the meeting. what's the content that the meeting would need to be reviewing? >> and with four members in writing. >> you all would have to accept that. i'm just saying, though, if there was -- at the other meetings we need to know what the content would be for that meeting because we're very

clear what the hearing is for. we know for sure that we would use that as one of our second budget discussions with the public. >> perhaps a little history will help. when i first joined the commission and it was a member of the finance committee, we were going through the merger of the department of aging and adult services with the department of human services. that added a certain level of complexity to the budget issues. secondly the budget process itself was considerably more onerous. consequently the entire budgeting process was much more complicated and required far more public attendance and comment so that we were able to make intelligent recommendations to the full commission.

finally, thanks to the extraordinary work of the department, the budget process and the information that we now get, the data that used to overwhelm us, is now information. we are able to make decisions much more clearly and quickly. the process itself is less stressful, the need for six meetings a year has not for the last couple of years been appropriate. and so by stating it the way the committee's recommended, a minimum of one meeting a year, it gives us the flexibility should things become more complicated, should we suddenly get $300 million that we never had anticipated, we can have a meeting to discuss that. we have a great deal of flexibility this way. i don't really think it needs to be changed. >> okay. any other comments? >> yes, i do have one. >> i want to move that we have

a proposal to appropriate so much money to a certain nonprofit organization and this nonprofit organization be doing almost the same program for a number of years and most of the time just the department person, you know, who arranged the contract give us a report. i really urge whoever get the money from the city that the department, the nonprofit organization, should come up and tell us how they are going to use the money, how effective is the money used and what benefit the recipient gets for all this money that the city put out. >> so i would just remind the commissioners that if the memos

that we provide to you are not clear enough then you need to let us know. because that information should be in that memo because the process for contracting and again we can have dave kurdo come in and talk about it, but when we put out the rfp to begin with we have measures, markers, outcomes, however you want to refer to them, in that rfp or whatever it might be and people are responding specifically to what we've asked. there is an outside evaluation of those responses. actually first they are looked at to make sure they meet minimum qualifications, then an outside review panel reviews them in the context of that rfp or nofa and once we

have an understanding of the rankings we can begin to move forward. so if that isn't clear in those memos we need to hear that so that we can make it clear because by the time it's coming to commission that work should have all taken place and we need to make sure that you, along with the rest of the public, really understands what's in those documents. because that's a legal, those have gone through the city attorney as well so we just want to make sure everybody knows. >> commissioner ow. >> can i respond? >> commissioner seriina and then you can respond. >> thank you, anne, for reminding us that the department puts together a very, very thorough documentation for each and every request that comes before us. secondly, it's important to remember that this commission is free to reject a contract that comes before it if it does not feel is appropriate

and it has done so. and so that if a commissioner feels that the information is inadequate or that the purpose of the contract is inappropriate, that can be mentioned at the time that the item is scheduled for discussion on the agenda and if other commissioners agree that contract can be rejected. and it has happened. >> you know --. >> commissioner ow. >> by legislation they created a department of commission on aging and at the same time they created the commission, you know this, and then we supposed to follow all the policy enunciated by the supervisors and the mayor. and then we know that, you know, reports