responsibility, but it turns out we're the ones that are called to help out there. so following that incident when tory fell from the cliff out at lands end, i actually drafted a measure, a task force that requested the mayor's office to put together a multi jurisdictional task force to identify the gaps in services, the gaps in technology, what more we can do about identifying dangerous places for the public, and unfortunately, when i presented that to the mayor's office, that was the week that the mayor passed away. following up on that. i will follow up on that to see if the mayor's office is interested in, perhaps, touch a task force so that we can address the gasp in services and a bunch of other stuff. i'm happy to share that with you. i wanted to see if i could get

traction at the mayor's office, but i'm happy to share that with you. this department was one of 7 or 8 departments that touched that. >> excellent. thank you. [ stand by ]

-- a point of clarification when you were talking about trying to achieve our goal times, five minutes, four minutes, etc., you made reference to that -- sprinters? >> that was the q.r.v. and the sprinters were the small profile and we have one of those out there right now and the other is outfitted and the quick response vehicles we'll put to our members whether it's paramedic or e.m.t. or two on a bug that he has a.l.s. equipment on it and they'll go to the high density area where we have a high volume of calls and they'll replace the engine for calls and be there for ambulances and they can finish up paperwork and we can get more ambulances back in service. it went very well when we did this pilot new year's eve so we want this -- we want this to happen soon.

>> vice-president nakajo: all right. >> it will help e.m.s.6 and help to identify the high frequent users, maybe more readily than our engines would so i think that it's a win-win and hopefully the sooner we get it out, the better. >> vice-president nakajo: okay, when do you anticipate that to roll? >> i would like to see it as soon as possible. this week or next week one of the units out there. >> vice-president nakajo: keep the commission posted on that and i am assuming that part of this experimentation of the vehicle is the density within the city of traffic of trying to get our vehicles -- >> that's part of it. and it's not just -- it's a health and safety of some of our members at some of these high volume call fire stations but also of the rigs. i mean, these fire engines -- as can be attested to -- they are not to be pounded 50 or 60 times a day and that takes a toll on

the engines so hope to save it on that side too. >> vice-president nakajo: all right. i wanted to just acknowledge through the chief, through yourself, also i had the opportunity -- i arranged to do it along with e.m.s. 6 that is on march 5th and i wanted to report back on that as well but also to thank the chief and yourself, but particularly the e.m.s. 6 and the command staff over there, chief zanos, and chief malloy, and i wanted to narrate a bit that it was an all-day excursion that was able to do -- basically myself -- i wanted to do an e.m.s. 6 to be able to refocus in terms of whether our target goals were -- which is trying to talk about the frequent flyers and how much effect that has with our e.m.s. 6 personnel, trying to release or to deal with those clients that frequently use our

ambulance services. it was all about time savings, coordination of staff. i was privileged because simon pang was able to pick me up and i was able to go on the streets with him and to do his calls. it's amazing because that right along allowed me to hit it from streets of san francisco and in front of mission and in front of target to a client in a wheelchair -- it's amazing to me that simon pang approached this person and name recognition and face familiarity ensued immediately. as a social worker for myself one of the key elements of working with clients is repoire, familiarity, trust, the mission that we're here to help you. i saw that instantaneously in the sense that everybody responded, well, in that particular case on a first-name

basis, and the situation was trying to get this gentleman off because he had an opportunity for a bed at the sobering center, left it beyond the requirements and the dialogue was to move back to it rather than to be on the streets. it's still the concepts that go on with myself as well, even as a social worker. it's not that easy just to see somebody on the street and stop your vehicle and get out and start to talk to that person. most people may not want to do that. so while we're on the street and having a dialogue with this gentleman that had no legs and almost no hands, a young man about 40 years old, i watched the repoire of the public that walked by us -- i'm going to just say observation -- a lot of people didn't pay any attention, some people did, but i'm venturing to say that categorical of homeless has a large range and it's not to just say homeless, there's children

out there and women out there and, again, as a practicing social worker those categorical differences were important. i was able to go to the sobering center and it's amazing to me, colleagues, how dedicated the staff of san francisco are. and they were in predicaments with situations and they were able to go on and i was able to go in with simon in terms of the sobering center, to the betds and to talk to the clients. it's amazing how much one can engage, compared to someone sober as compared to alcohol. it made me feel good that our staff, simon, and their staff, was able then to go through another frequent flyer at the general hospital. colleagues, if you go into the emergency ward and i know because i drive by there but it's amazing what that hospital is in the sense of the condition

of the professional atmosphere of that so that the doctors and the nurses -- and, again, as soon as we walk in all of the nurses know you as the patient that we are looking for and that is located and there's a bunch of numbers utilized that day but the prognosis is that this gentleman had dementia. so if there's someone that fall or in a condition, whatever, there are some individuals out there who really don't know what they're doing -- my interpretation -- dementia might be one facet of it. so there's a gamut of situations that occur. and we were able to go back to the station and have a dialogue with simon and angela bassett and it's amazing to me professionally how much within that dialogue of a lunchroom that the dialogue and the identification of clients are knowledgeable. so for us if we're talking about resources and what we're trying to do with the connection of -- and i was interested because we recently approved a budget to have the personnel to cover the

shifts of how that all works and, again, for me it was the reinforcement of this program works in terms of the intention. the last phase of it was that i was able to attend a case management meeting and because hipa there's no identification but the members at that meeting were two officers from the police department -- i believe that you call it the crisis squad, a d.a., a social worker from the jail, and a social worker attached from the human services, two command staff and we were all there dialoguing, again, of a client that is a frequent flyer that they were knowledgeable about and the care and the professionalism in the system to take care of this individual to the point of rights and privileges is amazing. i had to dialogue with dr. yay to give him what i saw as an observation, but also to reinforce back to me are the truths that we have in e.m.s. 6

in terms of dealing with clients on the street and in various states of mental capacity and health capacity, is there enough for us to work with or a mechimism? well, quite frankly, chief, i was reinforced with that by attending that case meeting and seeing the kind of adequate response. of course we could use more tools in our toolbox but what i wanted to see is impact and whether we were doing our mission and what that staff looks like and, again, we could always do more but i walked away with a sense of the high esteem and respect for the staff that's there and the command staff. and i just wanted to do that -- and for that matter the members of station 49. we're very fortunate, commissioners, to have those kind of dedicated out there in 49, so i just wanted to report that out to you and to the commission and i appreciate the time to be able to do that. and i think that it's important and, again, i wanted to acknowledge dr. yay and chief

zanof and chief malloy is here but pass on my appreciation for the staff. >> thank you, the members will appreciate it. >> president cleaveland: just one quick item on my agenda here and when you talk about these second -- second alarm and greater fires that you report on could you in future reports give us a cause? because much of the time, you know, when you initially -- the cause is undetermined but maybe in the subsequent month you could just go back and say that the fires were reported at x, y, z addresses the cause was... i think that it would be a good public service to put that information out so they understand how the second and third alarm fires begin. >> i can work with the fire marshall on that and what format to provide that. >> president cleaveland: that would be great without creating any kind of public controversy or, you know, confidentiality

issues. >> and the fire marshall can correct me if i'm wrong but i believe that there will be a number of cases where, unfortunately, due to different variables that we will sort of close it out as undetermined. because there was nothing definitive that led us to one particular factor for cause and origins, is that correct? >> okay. good enough. >> president cleaveland: thank you, chief. >> okay, pres, thank you. >> there's one item on the agenda that i think that you were going to cover? >> president cleaveland: i would like to go over the e.k.g. portion of the office report. >> thank you. chief zanof, welcome. >> thank you, commissioner. e.m.s. chief.

you had some questions about the communication -- >> president cleaveland: we had some communications that dealt with the responsiveness of our e.m.s. for youth. anyone under 18 years of age. so i think that a clarification on the city's responsibilities would be good. >> so what i'd like to address is one of the things -- what i can see as the primary concern in the email communication that you had received is that the monitor defibrillators that we currently carry cannot give a valid reading on anyone under 18 years old. and that is not correct. our monitor defibrillators are basically are designed to detect and show the electrical activity that goes through a patient's heart. from the largest patient to the smallest patient, from the youngest to the oldest, we use

them multiple times a day on every patient that we pick up. the e.k.g. tracings that come across the screen are accurate and they display what the patient's heart is doing from the electrical standpoint. there is a difference between the electrical component and the mechanical component of the heart. what that means is that what you see on the screen is not always indicative of what is going on with the patient. there is a condition where you can see a perfectly normal heart rate -- textbook on your monitor -- and the crew is down on the floor doing c.p.r. on the patient. because the electrical induction and the mechanical induction of the heart are two separate things. our monitors can detect and display appropriate readings in a 3 and 4 and 12 e.k.g. and we can treat all of our patients equally and accurately with the equipment that we have. >> president cleaveland: thank you very much, commissioners. do we have any questions on this all right. thank you so much, chief, for

that response. i appreciate it. commissioner covington did have one question -- for the chief. >> supervisor covington: yes, my recollection was related to -- thank you. my question is that i thought that the letter was related to something else other than the defibrillators? it was just defibrillators? okay. i don't remember the lady's name who wrote the letter but could you explain why the size of the person doesn't matter in this case? >> because the monitor -- >> her concern was for pediatric

care, i believe. >> that's what is reflected in this email and we have not had any communication from the writer of this email so, you know, there's very little context to put this in except for what is in this email. the concern is as i read it is that the devices that we carry will not accurately reflect the electrical activity of the heart. it will not accurately reflect an e.k.g. tracing and that is not correct. the machines will pick up pediatric or adult, large or small, young or old. and properly reflect what's going on with the patient's electrical activity in their heart. our paramedics are trained to read those and they're trained to read them regardless of the age and we're currently going through our pediatric advanced life report recertification cycle and our paramedics are trained to interrupt these e.k.g.s and to properly treat the patient based on what they see and what they see in the patient. one of the things that i

constantly talk about is that we get very wrapped up in all of our technology, in all of our machines and all of our equipment and cellphones and everything else. our paramedics and our firefighters treat the patient. we look at the patient, we assess the patient, we are grilled constantly in our training, in paramedic school and e.m.t. school to assess the patient and rely on our equipment secondary. for example, like i was citing the condition where the e.k.g. looks perfectly normal and we're all down there doing c.p.r. on the patient. we treat the patient, we don't treat the monitors. the equipment that we have works accurately and appropriately to help us in treating every one of our patients. >> supervisor covington: do you think that this is an isolated misconception or does this come up frequently? >> this is the first time that i have seen an email like this from a member of the public.

>> supervisor covington: okay, thank you. >> president cleaveland: thank you, commissioner covington and thank you for the explanation, chief, i appreciate it. madam secretary, would you call the next item. >> clerk: yp 7, presentation on exposure study of firefighters who responded to the northern california wildfires. firefighter adam wood to present on the current status of the study being conducted on members who were responding to the northbay wildfires. >> president cleaveland: welcome. >> thanks, i'm adam wood on the board of local 798, the firefighters union, and also on the board of the san francisco firefighter cancer prevention foundation. this was kind of a joint effort, this study, so i'll be kind of reporting in both capacities. before i start i wanted to add my congratulations to soon-to-be sto, my classmate and i know

that all of his classmates are proud of him and his family too, so i wanted to jump on that bandwagon. first of all, commissioners, thanks for inviting me to present and sorry for the delay in getting this report. i think that you received some information and i apologize in advance if i repeat some of the things they have already conveyed to you. but just to briefly start at the beginning and to get you to where we are now. in the midst of the northern california wildfires last october tony stefani, a retired captain and a president of the san francisco firefighters cancer prevention foundation, conceived of this study and it was the -- the idea was generated by the concerns he about this fire. on the one hand you had firefighters who for the most part were equipped with wildland personal protective equipment which does not provide a high level of dermal or respiratory

protection and it's more designed for ease of movement over the course of these long deployments. on the other hand, they're operating in a fire ground that ended up consuming almost 8,000 structures from top to the foundation and almost 700 cars. it turned out to be the most -- the largest amount of structures consumed in a single wildland event in the united states' wildfire history. so you've got firefighters potentially exposed to the contaminants that we typically associate with urban structural firefighting but without the protections that we generally provide to those firefighters. so what he wanted to find out was, did these people get exposed to toxins for the individual firefighter's knowledge and benefit but also if we identify a problem that this data could inform the way that we go forward and protecting these firefighters in the future with similar fires. so tony brought this idea simultaneously to the board of

the cancer prevention foundation and also to the researchers who the foundation has been working with over the last few years on the women firefighters biomonitorring study. and there was unanimous enthusiasm for the idea of doing this study but we quickly identified a number of obstacles that would have to be overcome to make it actually happen. one was funding. we needed money to make it happen to get the lab space and to do the sampling. so we solved that problem by the cancer prevention foundation's board voting to approve $100,000 immediately to do the study. and we budgeted that that would cover sampling of 200 firefighters. and the researchers felt that was a significant enough number of firefighters to get meaningful results. the next thing that we had to do -- anytime that you do a study like this, in order for it to be treated as valid data it's got to be vetted, approved, both the goals and the techniques of the study by an accredited

institutions review board. this is a process that can take months typically would have completely stopped the whole project, but thankfully, one of our researchers, dr. rachel from u.c. berkeley was able to get the u.c. berkeley review board to approve this study as a sub-study undergoing the women's biomonitorring study. that sped up the process and knocked down a bunch of the barriers andee used the similar sampling techniques and they said, yes, you can continue to use those methods but apply it to these firefighters and these conditions. so that gave us the official ability to go forward. and the next obstacle was quickly doing outreach to as many firefighters as possible. by the time we had gotten to this point of getting the funding and getting the approval we're already into november. and the longer that we're moving away from the fires and the actual exposure the fewer contaminants will remain within the system of the firefighters so we're not getting a full picture what they might have got

exposed to at the fire. so we had to get that done as quickly as possible. and also we're approaching thanksgiving and approaching the holiday season and we figured if we got past that point that it's going to be really hard to get ahold of people and get them to a sampling center. so we had about two weeks to work with to make this happen once we got the green light to go ahead. so locally what we did in san francisco is that local 798 provided its new building at 325 new hollis, the sampling center. we got the rosters from the strike teams from the department, the department sent out emails to all of the stations that this samp link was going on and they used social media to make the same announcement and using the contact from local 798, the members of the cancer prevention board took the names on the rosters and divided them up and called each of those people individually. so each person, including chief nicholson who was one of the person who did that and took

about 10, 15 names and scheduled their appointment during the days that we had the sampling center open in san francisco. regionally, the president of santa rosa firefighters local 1401 secured the santa rosa training center as a northbay sampling location and two battalion chiefs from santa ana clara fire, and they were able to secure their training center. so we had a south bay and a north bay and a san francisco training center and then we sent out through both firefighter labor and department contacts that we had the information that this was happening, got the outreach done, and in the end we were able to get sampling from 179 firefighters. so not quite to the 200 that we had budgeted but a significant number. that included roughly 20 people who did not respond to the fires to be used as a comparison group and that was done intentionally.

we wanted a comparison to measure the results of those people who were exposed and weren't. and san francisco participation was 64 firefighters sampled. so the sampling was successfully completed. all of those 179 samples are going to be tested for heavy metals and a couple of chemicals, i'll read off cade yum, lead, manganese and mercury and uranium and p.c.b.s, and p.b.b.d.e.s, if that is helpful. all of the samplings will get that level of testing done. what we were hoping to do -- but it was a question whether we would be able to get the additional funding and the lab space was to take a subset from the 179 and triaged out on the basis of how the firefighters filled out their questionnaires prior to taking the sampling which -- and the idea was to find the firefighters who were

the most exposed in the most -- for the longest period of time. and to separate out those 75 and to do additional testing for persistent organic pollutants, p.o.p.s, and pfsas, and they're carcinogenic items in fabrics and in furniture and for exterior awnings and patio furniture and they're also found in the older forms of firefighting a triple f foam and in older fabrics used in firefighter turnout gear. in our department chief nicholson and predecessors moved us away from foams that use these chemicals and kept us away from them and they're taking the extra step with the next round of turnout purchases to make sure that we get turnout clothing that does not contain these chemicals. but other departments are not as forward thinking as us and so

their firefighters, especially at this fire ground with a large amount of foam was used, especially on buildings and vehicles, may have been exposed to the older foams and our firefighters since we're working alongside with them as a mutual aid deployment may also have been exposed to those chemicals. so we really wanted to get this test done and we actually just got word two days ago that the california department of toxic substance control has come up with funding and the lab time so that we are going to be able to do that further study for those 75 cases. so we're really looking forward to getting those results. where we are now is -- the preliminary testing for heavy metals is almost complete. we haven't got it completely done yet but it's almost done. we are just starting the extra testing on the 75 samples for the most exposed people. we're going to have our first preliminary public report from the researchers next month,

wednesday april 11th in oakland at the offices of oakland firefighters union local 55 at a meeting of the bay area firefighter network. so we'll, of course, relay that information back to you as soon as we get it. and there were some -- we identified some weaknesses in this study that will help us to improve going forward. most of them were due to the rushed nature of the study of trying to get it done in that brief window that we had open to us. you know, outreach could have been better and there were thousands of firefighters involved in this firefighting campaign just in northern california and it was subsequently fired by firestorm in southern california. outreach could have been better if we had more time. i believe that there was an e.m.s. strike team that supplemented the firefighting strike team that may have been reached throughout the shotgun approach of the department email and the union's email and social media but we didn't have those rosters to do the one-on-one

recruiting that we were able to do with the suppression strike team and that's something that we'd like to improve on in the future. we're looking for more funding. the researchers that we work with are pursuing grant funding from academic and government institutions. also the international association of firefighters health and safety department, the head of that department, pat morrison, contacted our researchers directly and said they want to get on board both with funding and any other support that they can provide from washington. and the reason that they're interested -- as we found out was that in discussions with mike lópez, the outgoing president of the union that represents all cal firefighters and also in discussions with rick swan who is the head of wildland firefighting for the international association of firefighters, there's never been a study like this. all of the health and safety studies prior to this related to wildland firefighting had been more to establish safe staffing levels to make sure they have the proper number of foreign deal with the workload they get

in one of these deployments but there's not been, say, that looks at the individual health of these firefighters. so this is really groundbreaking work that we hope leads to a more extensive stand-alone study that we could set up in advance of the next major deployment so that we could even conceptually have pl phlebotomists as the firefighters are working in the environment and that's the goal that we're working towards and, again, as the grant funding starts to come in and as the researchers start to design the program we'll report that back to you. another thing that could have been better was our questionnaire. the questionnaire was largely designed by the researchers with not so much input from the firefighting side so some of the questions ended up being a little overly broad or confusing. i think we can help them to tailor those down so that the information they're working with lets them to target things more specifically. that's a concern that the researchers brought to us and we got that same feedback from some of our members that did the

sampling that they felt that the questions were a little confusing so that's another thing that we can improve in the future. so that's where we're at right now. >> thank you, firefighter wood, very excellent report. is there any public comment on this report? seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioner covington. >> supervisor covington: thank you, mr. president. thank you so much for the presentation. this is as you said this is groundbreaking work. it is really fantastic that, you know, sharp minds got together and said let's do this, you know, time is of the essence and that you were able to, you know, working collaboratively with the academics and all of the firefighters to really come up with 179 people. it's really fantastic. so i just want to say that i'm

hoping that at our meeting -- our meeting that takes place after april 11th that you or someone else can come back and give us, you know, some of the findings. >> yeah, we will certainly do that. >> supervisor covington: okay, thank you. >> president cleaveland: thank you, commissioner covington. commissioner veronese -- >> supervisor covington: he's in a sidebar with the chief. >> president cleaveland: he'll come back with his questions. >> supervisor veronese: thank you, firefighter wood, i was one of the commissioners who was concerned about this and it would be great if -- i love the idea of having a phlebotomist or some sort of department response at the time, maybe at a debriefing or -- i love fact that you -- i mean, i know that you have learned a lot from this fire drill to essentially get this done and i really appreciate it and i think that

only -- i think that would have been really been hard to do that at the government level but i appreciate the fact that you guys jumped on it and got as much accomplished as you possibly could but i'm sure that you have learned a lot from it. so i'm hoping that the department can also learn from what you have -- your experiences and in trying to gather this information and put together this study and all of this other stuff. i'm wondering if it makes sense that the department would consider some sort of policy such that if a fire rose to a certain level or was triggered by a certain thing such as if a wildfire became a fire like this one did if certain protocols were triggered -- such as a debriefing that has the firefighters answering questions or voluntarily giving blood or urine samples or stuff like that so we could actually get ahead of this health issue so we're not doing a fire drill in a very expensive fire drill and we can get ahead of it in the sense that we can identify funding and stuff like that. so i really do appreciate what

you guys have done and i'm actually in awe of your ability to put that together in such short order. i would suggest, however, that there is a number of organizations -- and i can put you in touch with them because i have been in touch with them myself for my foundation -- that have raised a lot of money for the north bay fires. and they are still in the process of distributing those funds and i have those contacts. so i would love to share those with you because i know that there is money there that they are giving out to individuals, but i think that in my opinion there should be more money given to firefighters that actually fought in those fires. so we can discuss that further offline and i'm happy to help you along with that. >> yeah, i'd love to have that discussion. you know, another piece of information that i got -- we're just at such the beginning of accumulating this data and speaking to rick swan he informed me that nfpa has had ss

for a wild land respiratory for 12 years but there's no prototype or moving towards developing it and part is because the data hasn't been there to generate the concern that this might be necessary fur our wildland firefighters. so it's one step at a time. first you get the data and then you're able to sort of make the case that we do need some added protections and that these firefighters' health has to be considered as seriously as we consider the health of our urban firefighters. >> president cleaveland: thank you commissioner veronese and commissioner hardeman. >> supervisor hardeman: thank you for having the capacity to take this on and to design it so quickly and those minor criticismcriticisms that you haf yourself show how serious you are taking this. yesterday pgn and e had an ad

with the 279 million trees that are dead which gives us, obviously, the pattern that we are looking for. it's going to be more of these things incredibly, so getting set up at this point -- california is looking pretty bad for having heard that it's possibly becoming available and to hear that you could contribute to this was maybe some of what you will find in these research -- these different metals, you really deserve a pat on the back and you're doing the job that you should be doing so i appreciate it. good job. >> this truly was a team effort of all of the board members of the cancer prevention foundation and the union and the department, the researchers. it wouldn't have happened if everybody wasn't carrying their weight and also to your point,

commissioner, this whole wildland interface that is discussed, it's the norm, not the exception. as our population is expanding into what used to be considered wildland, structures are just becoming a real key part of these fires and all of the contaminants that they contain. >> president cleaveland: thank you, commissioner hardeman and thank you for the important study. we look forward to having you come back in perhaps a month or so once you have the final numbers on the study and give us an update on that. >> we'll do that. >> president cleaveland: so thank you very much. madam secretary, call the next item. >> clerk: item 8, commission report, report on commission activities since last meeting on february 28, 2018. >> president cleaveland: any public comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioners, anything to

report? seeing none. we'll move on. >> clerk: item 9, the agenda for future meetings for the future and fire commission meetings. >> president cleaveland: any public comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioners? commissioner veronese. >> supervisor veronese: i just wanted to follow-up on what commissioner nakajo had testified to or explained to us earlier the experience with the m.s.6. i don't know if the other commissioners have done what commissioner nakajo has and i have, and it's an experience and it's eye-opening and i encourage every one of the commissioners to go and spend a day with the e.m.s. 6. on that note as i have mentioned to the commission president i would like to have a hearing wherein more information in regards to what the

department -- the city resources and the department resources are relating to mental health, not for the members of the department, but for people like e.m.s. 6 or other units. and so i can discuss that further as we go on. i know that there's been some requests from the department to -- in that vein. so that's just it. >> president cleaveland: thank you, commissioner veronese. any of the other commissioner have any items? okay. madam secretary, call the next item. >> clerk: item 10, the discussion is possible action to approve form and criteria for completing performance evaluation of the department physician, dr. ramon terrazas. >> president cleaveland: any public comment on this item? seeing none. public comment is closed. do i have a motion on this from the commission?

>> so moved. >> what's the motion? >> president cleaveland: the motion is that we go into closed session on this personal matter. >> no, we have to discuss what kind of form we'll use in open session. >> president cleaveland: okay. >> so whether we're going to use the d.h.r. form or your own form. >> president cleaveland: let me give clarification here. there is a d.h.r. form for evaluating employees. we evaluated the physician, the department of physician, which is the responsibility of this commission. we created a summary of our evaluation which is not in the format that d.h.r. normally puts out, but it's a much more succinct in my personal opinion since i wrote it. so i'm hoping that our commission will approve the format of the evaluation of dr. terrazas. so may i have a motion --

>> i will change my vote to so move. >> president cleaveland: thank you very much, commissioner hardeman. vice president nakajo. >> vice-president nakajo: would you second... >> i have a question or a point of order on this particular issue. i have expressed concerns that -- not specifically related to the doctor -- but in this process in that the commissioners themselves don't really know -- or don't have day-to-day experience which is typically a supervisor or a person who manages that person is one who can give an appropriate evaluation of that person, right? i think that is just stating the obvious. that being said, if we are it is my opinion that -- that we need information from those people that work with the doctor on a daily basis.

judging by the limited information that we have we can come out and say, well, what we heard from the doctor himself, you know, we can believe that -- i don't know that that is sufficient. if the motion is currently to approve the format which is what i'm hearing which is instead of doing the d.h.r. we're going to approve sending a letter that -- if that's what the motion is -- i'm understanding it correctl correctly -- i'm okay with that. the contents of what's in that i think is what concerns me more -- not specifically -- talking about the doctor or his performance -- but our ability to actually put information into that document that is relevant to a person's performance if we're not directly supervisorring him. if i understand this correctly i will second it.

>> president cleaveland: thank you, commissioner veronese. commissioner covington i see. >> supervisor covington: thank you again, mr. president. i understand what commissioner veronese is saying, and if this is just to form then i think that certainly i will vote on it. my question is do we then have another closed session meeting or not? >> yes. >> supervisor covington: so at another time we'll have a closed session meeting today, okay, great. then that sounds wonderful. we will be able to conclude this today. all right, thank you. >> president cleaveland: thank you, commissioner covington. vice president nakajo. >> vice-president nakajo: you all got me confused, commissioners. a point of clarification, we are

approving the format of our evaluation that president cleaveland has submitted. >> president cleaveland: right. >> format, not content. >> vice-president nakajo: as i understand it we're having a closed session to complete that charge of content and approval? all right. so i see one commissioner acknowledging that. all right. so i will -- >> yes, that's the next item on the agenda. >> vice-president nakajo: after this session so we'll try to conclude this? yes, i affirm that, thank you. i call for the question. >> president cleaveland: thank you very much. all in favor of approving the format of the evaluation for dr. terrazas. >> aye. >> president cleaveland: it's unanimous. thank you. >> clerk: item 11, public comment on item 12, on all matters pertaining to item 12 below including public comment

on whether to hold item 12-b in closed session. >> president cleaveland: is there any public comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioners, do you have -- >> will they vote on whether to do item 12-b in closed session? >> president cleaveland: so moved from commissioner veronese. a second? second commissioner covington to go into closed session on this personal >> clerk: we're back in open session. >> president cleaveland: thank you, madam secretary. item 13, we did decide and approve an evaluation of dr. terrazas, the department's physician. and i would entertain a motion to disclose or not to disclose the conversations that we had

regarding this performance evaluation. vice president nakajo voted not to -- or made a motion not to disclose. do i have a second? >> second. >> president cleaveland: commissioner covington seconded. all in favor of not disclosing the conversations we had. say aye. thank you. it's unanimous. >> clerk: item 15, adjournment. >> president cleaveland: i would like to adjourn this fire commission meeting in honor of acting lieutenant michael rice who passed away this past month. thank you. this meeting is adjourned. .

. >> good morning and welcome to the san francisco transportation authority meeting for today, tuesda