test. >> welcome to the may meeting of

city and county of san francisco commissioner president keane commissioner hur commissioner renne all are present and accounted for and again, i apologize for the delay and call item number 2 public comment on items noted appearing or not appearing on the agenda within jurisdiction ethics commission do we have any public comments? >> can you hear me, you, hear me thank you joe kelly junior is my name i wanted to see if any discussion i don't see anything in the

agenda regarding the possible action regarding for that it is your letter sent to supervisor farrell. >> that was continued to the june 5th meeting at the request felt complainants attorney who's brother died and had to go to a funeral that was occurring today so we continued it to that date ever june 5th. >> correct me if i am wrong but the action that would have per penalty the issue i misunderstood was something staff was going to be working on rather than i could be wrong i thought staff was going to return with some revised document. >> and that's on the agenda for the june 5th meeting. >> okay. thank you.

>> larry bush from friends ever mists ethics i'm going to ask the discussion include who the statute of limitations apply that's the issue that was raised in the last ethics commission meeting if urge to have an opinion from the city attorney as to whether the statute of limitations continues to toll or if not for example the city's position with the police department they dismissed the charges against the officers because - but the city agreed it couldn't be dismissed because once something is in progress the toll can't be stent. >> any other public comment

returning to item 3 discussion on a possible action under the chapter three regulations for violation of the sunshine ordinance memo and staff report attachment sponsor complainants respondent to city attorney and from david that all peel and the complaint as you recall the commission this matter was before the commission at the april meeting the april the commission dealt with one aspect it was continued until the second aspect of it was continued for this meeting and i guess

mr. chair. >> yes. >> commissioner president keane the chair remembers i asked to be recused so i will go ahead and leave i wanted to make one point put something on the record and i don't mean to influence anything that is occurred but i think since the last meeting on my voicemail at the law school i've had 8 phone messages from many stash i don't know what they were as soon as i recognized her voice i deleted it i don't have any idea not to perjury her but a matter of record i'm recused from that it is proper to do and perhaps the

chair might indicate that is not a good idea with that, i'll take a seat. >> i believe commissioner hur you asked in a sense to have this matter whether or not we could look at the amending that was in question whether or not it was properly withheld and whether or not the conduct of respondent was such it waived whatever privilege might have existed the complainant is not here tonight but she has agreed we can go ahead with it; is that

correct? >> yes. >> and i believe that the respondent is here is she not? yes >> do you- have you - has the looked at the looked at e-mail. >> i have the city attorney said why the commission was not able to look at the e-mail in camera there was not a violation of the section equivalent code 1040 and 41 this e-mail was properly withheld and not described as to how we found a violation of a failure to provide the - i recommend we

find in violation of the code. >> any second to that recommendation. >> second. >> public comment? >> good evening david pill paul as an individual two points under page 8 of the commissions regulation for handing the allegations of excuse me. regulations for the sunshine ordinance page 8 chapter eight matters heard under this chapter that are 3 circumstances under which you hear the chapter three allegations one is an allegation of violation by an elected official or department head and two from the district attorney take no action for 40 days following an order of the task

force and 3 staffer initiates a complaint none of 3 conditions were satisfied i've spent time looking at and section of the ordinance i think the closest thing is one a two no evidence before the commission the complainant saw it in order for the supervisor of records or the task force and that the substantially the district attorney or attorney general took no action you may take the action proposed but again, the complainant if satisfy the conditions necessary to bring this before you and if you're suggesting that was a close call and your choosing to hear this this is a a bad precedent when when we don't have the authority to hear and complaint we're

going to do that anyway, that's a bad idea i concur if you're not going to find a further violation to the extent that was a memo from the city attorney it was referenced by the report and commissioner hur i'll ask you to waive privilege and make that memo available or ask if it be redpraftd in a way to go to the public the way this commission has an in camera of review this hat not happened it's interesting to see when logic and the city attorney sees i'll be interested i ask you waive privilege or the document be redrafted for public comment thank you other public comment?

hearing none i'll call the motion >> all in favor, say i. >> i. >> opposed? hearing none the motion is carried before commissioner president keane you can reassume your seat. >> item number 40 deduction and possible action on the director recruit process and dispatched was a recruitment proposal sent out by h.r. and i believe also is a you received a copy of the one response which h.r. referred to that proposal they sent it out to 6 of vendors who previously been vested by the city and previously been

provided the recruitment service and received and gave them a return date of 26th and the one response from alliance resources consulting, llc was the only one received and no indication of as of the 26th that the other any of the other 5 intended to respond although it maybe possible that there was one who would consider it if we extended the time i think first, we should deal with the question before we get to a recruitment process itself in the recruitment proposal

where we stand mr. sinclair on the budget question. >> excuse me. mr. chair i'm going to step away from this matter thank you. >> so we have identified and it began $18,000 plus for this expense i noticed the proposal is $20,000 the 16 hundred necessary is out of budget in the fiscal year that starts in july so nearly all is in the process of being enxhurmd. >> at least as of today, the firm has affirming $18,000. >> $18,000 4 hundred. >> i'm sorry that can be dedicated to paying for recruitment services.

>> correct. >> okay. is there any discussion on the budget question as to whether or not we ought to consider spend that announcement of money or not spend it. >> i would submit we this is informative it is nice to see we have the money to spend on it but that's where we will land even that proposal will move forward with the set of negotiations that could bring that number down i want to take a slower step by step are we comfortable are moving forward in this progress we agree we're moving forward in this process

to have a recruiter and we're comfortable with identifying no more than $20,000 or discussion around capping it at $20,000 if we entertain the other proposal and it comes in at 25 we will provide for robust services again so i think we want to have a bit of a separate discussion how much it will allow us to taylor a set ever services we can compare apples to apples to either one certainly with one but possible 23 $20,000. >> commissioner hur. >> so i do think we talked about last time it will be probably beneficial to have a research i agree with commissioner vice president

andrews you guys chair and the vice chair should vet them if this is the right firm to use i have no problem with the expenditure and like if another proposal comes in and you all recommend that with only we should revisit at the time but on the macro if we find one that is suitable we should. >> so is there any 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