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 in 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 signals some interest and in staying in opposition 2 in terms of the appeal letter f it maybe useful for h.r. to know whether the decision not to have a letter would automatic disqualify that but if you're at a place you need to consider them seriously it maybe helpful in opposition 3 for others ethics commissions and other similar agencies again, i wish there were people

from d h.r. but reach out to the pre-qualified pool of 6 research firms that is going out to the school district of the normal process of contractor in the city i know there could be restrictions in our ability to urge or tell firms there maybe issues about certainly firms a tap on the shoulder they should be engaged everyone can see the revenue assignment and make their own evaluation a birth way to proof that's a d h.r. discussion does that make sense does that help. >> i'm more there with 3 than two the fact as the procurement process and an rfp goes generally, the world is now on a

particular date may the 27 this goes out and people are interested and some folks may would go online and say you know by tomorrow you have to go online and show interest so we know you're interested and for those who didn't meet that it is pretty much showing organizations are not interested in that particular proposal the fact it someone has bothered to let us know they wanted to submit a proposal but didn't we need to treat them definitely than the folks that didn't apply they may have had an internal meeting and not interested but they had in such or enough imperial conversation, yes we're interested in doing it and we didn't do it i don't know what

that is i don't know whatever that is to be an institutional weakness i'm sorry we forgot to do xyz. >> i understand the president of the explanation it is like showing up to a job interview late not a good impression whichever if it's a condition they need to submit a letter to be in the mix it will be helpful for d h.r. to do that and other people in the pool so he know. >> that's my only thought. >> chair i would say i appreciate we want an explanation i don't know, you should make it disqualifying you ask ask them about it i'm fine

tool opening it up to 5 other candidates if they want to submit and you guys can vet why it didn't happen in the first time. >> and i agree i probably was not here i believe we were only going to open up to one other interested party kind of trying to date someone not interested and three or four other entities are not interested that's okay. so i was only moving forward under the belief we were moving in would someone that is showing a little bit of interest and president to find out why their late to the job interview if we widened it for all pre-qualified we shouldn't have it as a disqualifier did you but it would be nice to know why they

didn't submit. >> i'll be uncomfortable if we stebd the date it should be extended for every firm to which a proposal went and whether we extend it for a week whatever it is i mean, we clearly if a second firm that got the original proposal comes in it's a that's a fair question why didn't you file or respond by the 26 like we told you and unless they've got a good answer that maybe important and saying what they'll meet dell's from the future but if we do it for any of them that got the original proposal we should extend the time.

>> is the next question how far we'll extend our process - our proposal? >> that's the third proposal whether we extend it by asking h.r. or you or me to communicate with the various ethics and ask the commission to tells us what search firms they've used and tell the city to send a proposal you, you i thought that commissioner vice president andrews upgraded doing both currently i fully support extend the deadline for 4 weeks or whatever is reasonable and perhaps the chair or vice chair calls the other ethics

commission and does a formal questioning and decide whether or not we need to open this process up and go fufrd. >> i sent an e-mail to the new chair from the f pc and gotten no response asking some of those questions but i - >> pay a visit. >> well, you want to make that in the form of a motion. >> so i move that - we extend the deadline for submission of proposals for recruiting firms to the original identified city and county vetted firms and currently the chair and vice

chair will reach out and have some informative information interviews information interviews with other like bodies bodies. >> second. >> public comment? >> can i just. >> yeah. >> well, you don't need to take public comment again number 2 in terms of extending the deadline do you want to put a precise timeline or delegate it to the committee. >> one week. >> might want to leave it open you might get information. >> fine with the committee making that decision.

>> okay. >> take public comment? >> and should have raised this earlier larry bush why explicit the commission ask a supplemental on the board the ethics commission has not been presented by the mayor it can go through the board of supervisors it's not unusual we need another thirty or $40,000 we need a robust candidate given the fact the last executive director served for 10 considers that's an important consideration i don't know why this is not a better use then trying to integrate $20,000.

>> charles again, i wanted to say i think you can keep is simple our one week or short extension certainly should be done generally and simply so you don't get users into a legal problem i've communicated with bob, sir in europe kind enough to rely i asked about the ethics bodies in the united states and which may have hired firms for this purpose he went through the list on his overwhelm to his acknowledge no one has. >> what. >> that no one has worked with a recruitment firm for their major positions on their staff to his knowledge he'll be here

in days we'll be able to talk with him, i suggest you do our outreach that's a good idea on the hope that mr. strathern doesn't know everything none of us do. >> david pill pal speaking an ass an individual i agree with the one week detail i suggest you put-down a deadline if you make it a week from today or tomorrow put it open the june 5th special meeting to see the response and if necessary to take further action this is bottom of the hill more of an interim process to the extent you'll report back next friday and again, if further decisions are needed for the commission that's a good opportunity to do that.

>> any other comment all right. i'll call the question. >> all in favor, say i. >> i. >> > opposed? hearing none it is carried 5 0 and the 7 days puts it to the 3rd of june. >> i think we left it up other committee to decide in general, i feel the more we can streamline with the committee making those decisions. >> any reason we didn't set a date either the three or four and put agenda items on the 5th to see whether or not we want to revisit let's assume we don't get a second proposal and make our acquires report back to you we don't have anything other than an alliance maybe at that

point we'll go ahead. >> i thought we authorized you and the having to talk to any recruiting firm if you like alliance we don't have a proposal we'll go that one reason one week is not enough h.r. says there's no way you'll get another week i don't know but it is better to think about it we can ask questions but don't have to talk about it as a formal agenda item where we are in the process of getting the recruiter. >> i thought that was the reason. >> i want to be clear are you saying that you want commissioner vice president andrews and myself to just go forward with the