other discussion on just the question on who we ought to retain a research within a budget possible budget limitations of $20,000 ? or. >> or 25 i think. >> commissioner vice president andrews indicated that in the vetting process from the two of you saw some reason the $25,000 amount would be predicament given the needs of two 25. >> i don't think we need to really say 20 or nothing i go for the discretion between the two of you that commissioner vice president andrews suggests. >> keeping in mind i certainly have a fiscal head i don't want to put undue pressure on

managing his bucket year over year so that i we should stay in close contract with mr. sincroy on other identified fund up to 25 it certainly looks like we want to hear from the executive director it is while we have the budget is approved he's is managing a day to day i don't want to spend money we don't have. >> i agree with commissioner president keane if you both determine really there's another search firm we'll come back. >> what's the going rate for a search firm those days do we know? what the standard rates are for - for this?

>> the h.r. people have said that the proposal that is submit by lions is consistent with the dollar amount for the kind of work they've done for the city in the past and that there's probably negotiating room depending on the scope of the work and that some other search firms maybe higher but i don't think there is anything other than saying h.r. belief was that those numbers are consistent with what their experience is for the kinds of work their offering. >> my other question has to do with the timeline of finding candidates for the job and how long that takes and how long we

would like to take how that effects the fees involved? >> i would say that's ones ongoing question we'll have to do with the firm we select and a those proposals are based on the information that the data points and information we give them there's an x factor that's a moving target sometimes a full search and have to come back that's a conversation we'll have up front in that partnering moving forward a lot of times you need commissioner you'll know that some fees with based on a percentage of the salary of the candidate which is usually between 20 and 25 percent of the base similarly but it looks like this one is slightly different that would be part of consideration but i have a

feeling other considerations are part of this proposal to your question we will simply pose that from the first round turns up nothing or one or two what would we do moving forward and are there another fees attached? >> it is a specialized area. >> is there - i take it there's general consensus we should retain a recruited. >> i suppose this should be put in the form of a motion that the commission times to retain a recruiting. >> i would add the caveat

presuming the chair and vice chair has one proposal and you don't like them we shouldn't be committed - >> well it's the second step i want to know there is agreement before we vote on it or have public comment but there is agreement the way to preceded with a recruitment. >> right if you can find one that you like. >> public comment. >> larry bush from friends of ethics as i understand the phase not to retain a recruiting firm but that process by h.r.; is that correct. >> what. >> h.r.? finding the recruiting firm >> yes. as far as putting out the proposal. >> correct.

>> i'm sure this is the outfit you want to conduct a search for a recruiting firm they have developed a proposal that they've sent out you've gotten one response based on the salary structures from other city departments but not compared to other ethics commission los angeles has the same budget they pay $200,000 a year it makes us harder to recruit if our salaries are lower, and, secondly, the proposals takeoff put out for the firm you have in charge of soliciting the search firms is in our view the friends of ethics their inadequate it fails to deal with the function

of the ethics commission that the ethics commissions duties have changed and essential on a one page thing a continuation of the way things are now that's not the kind of search that needs to be undertaken that's our view. >> any other public comment? >> good evening. i'm robert i was on the civil grand jury 2013-2014. >> i'm going to respond to the discussion of the budget in the proposal f that you have in front of ever you basically is the play proposal just took language from the h.r. announcement they talk about a professional fee of $20,000 but they also talk of expenses that could be as much as $8,000

$5,700 and caution you in terms of bringing in candidates for interviews their assuming you're going to pay for the travel expenses that's what it says in the proposal i just suggest you take into account the costs of doing this at the same time, i think what commissioner vice president andrews says i'll use to search firms charging a good deal more from the private sector so thank you. >> david pill pal i'm reviewing the lions proposal that is available less than an hour here and i read the same information that the gentleman read which upgraded the total costs have to

$28,000 i'll ask you to have one of our officer perhaps negotiate with the firm or any other firms that might submit and discuss the scope of work their outline and proposal suggests a process to me that isn't a san francisco type of process not suggesting they've done recruitment for the city but other communities in california suggest they used technology but didn't make clear where the records about reside following the research i think it is important for the city to retain the records from the search theirs issues with their proposal and their approach and perhaps the cost and billing schedule that ought to be negotiated so you don't think i

don't object to a search firm in concept that was discussed last month but the specification are very important both to the commission and the public and making this process work so i encourage you to consider those are comments thank you. >> as to your objections they haven't done work for the city the h.r. department has advised us they did the search for the civil service and two 0 searchers for the controller's office deputies and one other do you recall. >> this afternoon human resources did 3 departmental head researchers the first the head of commission and the head for the depth of the environment and the third, the head of dbi department of building inspection. >> that would have been annoyed

to have that concluded it is new information. >> thanks. >> i'm charles for the record representing f o e in part not common cause i wanted to suggest to you that the salary struck me as low for this progression o positions given the expenses of this city especially in regards to housing housing is inflating so fast it maybe those numbers are not reasonable and i wonder if, in fact i'm not an expert within the salaries with an the department this salary level falls below some of the employees of that department so it would be awkward to have the director earn less than staff it seems to me that is a

question that needs to be explored if we- i don't see any reason the salary can't be raised given the importance of job and if it is true that the consulting firm salary is a proportion of this salary of the executive director if you decide midstream to raise that salary what impact will it have on the xhoulths contract or the recruiters it seems to me i don't want to get our hours before the cart i think you get my otherwise, it appears odd there was only one firm that step forward i'm wondering how common and thinking that you

want to have the query to that in case the member of the press asks. >> the h.r. people in response to that inquire said that the other some of the other firms have not had experience at the level that the lions did with the city maybe an answer to the question you raised mr. pill pal was asking why it is not noted on the back they're trying to make references to other cities and counties and not refer to the people that they do business with in the city that's obvious that's what they were doing. >> okay. >> good evening eileen i was

the person of the civil grand jury as i understand from the public meeting regarding all this were up to talk about the recruitment and a talk about the job description or the requirement of the position i'll note that on page 6 of wasn't you received from the alliance and only give one week that's not much time for public input i'll note if you're going to move with them make sure you talk with them. >> i agree you noticed in their proposal they talk about community meetings and meeting with the community and commissioners, i had the same objections you did that the one 4 days or something june was an unrealistic time at the other end of the table. >> i'm curious it is mentioned about the salary in the h.r.

proposal that went out to the recruiting firm i did not. no, sir any salary that was in the old description of the job had a salary but not in the proposal that went out to the recruiting firms i have been of the view that salary was something that is negotiated depending on the budget and depending upon the level of expertise of the individual who we may or may not be interviewing but i didn't see that there was any limitation on what went out to the recruiting firm asking them to make a proposal they had to think only in terms of a specific budget anyway any other public comment?

>> the i would say that one of the comments that we got both at session that commissioner vice president andrews and i had at the other one i was another was the factinadequacy of the recruiting that went out to the recruiting firm i had always viewed in my response this is a two-step process that we need the recruiting firm to be the firm that is going to help us draft the profile i don't think any of us have the time or inclination to sit down and draft the profile and h.r. is not in a position to do that or certainly didn't have i don't think the

resources or background and it was my intention and it is in the proposal from the lions was that that the first step that they were to be engaged in was to draft a job description so that i think the criticism of the proposal that went out from the h.r. that it didn't accurately describe what we're looking at for is correct but premature and once we get the professionals involved who can help us draft the profile depending upon the materials we can give them the public has suggested certain documents to give 0 to them to educated them about the responsibilitys of the

ethics commission that once we do that then we can get back a draft that the public and the commissioners are comfortable with that will then go out to potential candidates this is what i envisioned in the process i'm happy to have anything comment on that or any other way we propose to go but i think the first step is we've got to engage some professionals to do it and the fact that we got only one response means we don't have apples to apples to compare to and our choose where whether we want to accept this and try to

negotiate a satisfactory agreement and going forward or say no let's start from ground zero again and send out a new wider series of requests for proposals from other recruiting firms that are not presently vetted by the city but harry h.r. has told us if we do that we're probably extend the search process search process for recruiting 3 months before we could be in a position to make a determination because even if the commission felt a proposal that came in if it was a firm not vetted by the city it has to go through the vetting

process that's they say a months progress do you agree. >> yes. i recall their selecting through the open process to take 3 months that's the recognition of their advice so obviously something f that needs to happy are a happen before the craft and before the profile was to go out to people who are interested and so on and so forth harassed a significant in the amount of time. >> commissioner renne. >> i agree i am pleased the chair recognized that the observations that were a number of people that the job description in itself is not complete that is something by no means a great problem at this

point we do need to have this address information from professionals and that at some point the job description will most nothing like that should be i hope will be expanded to take into account some of the things that the public believes should be added i'm echoing that is premulch to deal with it but certainly dealt with in terms of whether the description is accurate or should be flushed out. >> just as a preliminary step it would seem a simple thing to be in touch with all the similar organizations other it's been commissions and n b c whoever

and found out who they've used this will certainly indicate a recruitment firm that has some experience in this particular professional area and, secondly, i don't think that the amount of time it would take to vet a recruitment firm that's not worked with the city is really that important i mean, if it takes time to find the right director so be is it in the meantime, we have competent staff and competent deputy director and business the things that need to be teacher taken care of to make sure we have someone in the future to fill the job and take us to another level in terms of what the ethics commission should be doing i'm not concerned about

the time i see no reason to be in a big rush which is not to say he want it to take forever but do the job well and have a positive result that's what we want. >> commissioner renne. >> you mentioned another firm they were not successful in meeting the deadline but maybe petition the commission to extend that deadline if we were to honor that they'll submit bus i believe that is our next step one decide who we're going to do that we'll have apples to apples rather than feeling like we are kind of backed into to corner with the proposal before us with

the benefit and any consequences i certainly understand when you put out on rfp one the strongest you know thump up or down whether or not you're going to be considered if you get yours in on time and, yes an appeal process along the way i suspect we can create an appeals process to meet that deadline we want to address this particular one because this is where we are the process. >> we're viewing a first round of an rfp or an r f q. >> did they say the second search firm say they'll submit in given the chance. >> definitely.

>> i like commissioner vice president andrewss idea if we can provide an explanations and the two proposals is better than one. >> one of the things that work we could do is to tell h.r. that we view the - he want to set a different cut off date in terms of to stand the date to june or whatever and also instruct them along the lines for them to contact the various ethics commissions in the state of california and ask them what search firms if any they've used in they're hiring of on executive director and we know the f p pc has a

trusted chair now but this is a different process then ours but the there's no reason why how far or h.r. couldn't find out other firms that we might want to send the proposal to and get them interested. >> and not take any action on alliances it seems to me we have sort of 3 chose one we can say we'll go with the alliance and get the process moving two let's set some further deadline and that give further instructions to h.r. to assist us and see who this generates more responses and then in the june meeting make the decision

because i believe that it has been my thought that it is the whole commission will make the decision to which recruiting firm to hire if you want to say no you're going to delete e delegated it to the chair and vice chair fine but right now it is my delve that it is the whole commission has a right to say this is a firm we think we ought to hire those 3 choices tell me what you want done. >> commissioner president keane. >> i don't feel my need to make that decision myself as a commissioner i'm perfectly confident that leaving it to the two of you to determine which of those two firms if any should go forward you've already done a lot of work on the search and so

you come up with the decision and recommend that decision to us sfarnd that's fine. >> i want to ask one clarifying question chair and vice chair will have an opportunity to interview those firms you're not going based on the paper and you'll have a chance to interview and negotiate. >> it will be my hope to do that. >> i ago with commissioner president keane provided you have that opportunity. >> i would support moving forward with two and three currently we will reach out to the firm that needs an extension and ask them to quickly submit an appeal letter and an interest letter to say we're interested and here's why we will review it

and decide to move forward with them in this case they'll prepare a proposal the reason i'm asking for a letter of appeal and process the very first assignment i don't want to hire an individual or organization or entity that has a problem with deadlines ma may lead to other problems along the way so if you're very first assignment you've missed i want to know a firm and reasonable and understandable why you did that and once that is satisfied and we are in agreement we're satisfied with that answer we'll move forward quickly what them submitting a proposal and do a series of one-on-one interviews and draft questions that we have

that we have learned our concerns and issues from the public and interested persons meeting and then move forward from there and then the third piece is currently give h.r. the reaching out to other ethics commissions or other municipalities who those search proposals are. >> can i add a couple off thoughts on options two and three so on option 2 my understanding and unfortunately we don't have the meeting of h.r. here but my understanding in terms of an expectation they'll offer the extension to everyone but the lions everyone in the pool that's not submitted a proposal and is interested can submit not solely would be firm to initially