people that have been displaced from station 49 and 9 for the construction, and the patience that they've shown at station 49 in particular over the years for a very rundown facility. and most of all, to the taxpayers of san francisco that love their fire department and have shown it, and will have a better-run ambulance system in san francisco because of this, and their brill in voting to support the fire department, like they usually do. so thank you, and this is a fun time, so thank you. >> president cleaveland: thank you for your presentation, and we look forward to the ground breaking on the 28. thank you. madam secretary, call the next item. >> item six, review, the department of human resources timeline and plan for department

and recruit candidates of chief for department. discussion and possible action to authorize d.h.r. to authorize the process or to take other action regarding the recruitment. >> president cleaveland: is there any public comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. welcome. >> thank you, president cleaveland. good morning, commissioners, vice president nakajo, chief hayes-white. mickey callahan, i'm the city's department of human resources director. i'm here with scott wolf who will assist me in facilitating the selection process. our goal is to ensure that the commission has a group of well qualified candidates from whom to select either up to three candidates to send to the mayor

for consideration and appointment in light of the announced retirement of chief hayes-white. we have prepared, and i believe you have in your packets, a date and recommended hiring steps, so i'd like to maybe run through the highlights of that for you and talk a little bit about what we will be doing and how we will be supporting the commission, if that's helpful. >> president cleaveland: we do. please proceed. >> we have prepared a -- first, i will note that the charter provides that the obligation of the require commission is to -- fire commission is to under the charter submit at least three qualified applicants. this is the standard that exists for most of the department head selection processes in the city. there are a few that are different, but should the mayor decide that none of the candidates that the commission has sent are acceptable, the mayor may send it back, and of

course, the commission would meet again and determine whether they wanted to expand the process or send three different candidates who had already gone through the process. so if any of those things happens, it will, in fact, delay. additionally -- i don't expect this to happen, but if it should come about that the commission did not feel there were a sufficient number of qualified candidate, we might repost, we could consider hiring a recruiter, etc. i know there is a strong belief, i know the mayor shares this, that there is good local talent, and the familiarity of the region and the challenges we face is going to be a positive for who ultimately becomes the fire chief. with that in mind, we have prepared a draft brochure, and i hope that you've had an opportunity to review it. it is drawn from a number of sources, including the last time we publicly posted a recruitment which is 2001. my team also reviewed other fire

chief announcements from other agencies, and other department announcements that we have done here in san francisco to prepare this one. i will note that there's a list of characteristics under the ideal candidate, challenges that they may face, and we ask them to complete a supplemental questionnaire, and we ask them questions about how they would be able to meet the characteristics of the ideal candidate, which are listed in the brochure. as soon as the brochure is approved, we would move to post that brochure, including the supplemental questionnaire, and mr. de-wolf would be collecting that and begin the review as soon as the applications come in

to determine which have the minimum qualifications. we have planned on a three-week period for posting. people would certainly be able to apply electronically. we will be able to -- will be working with the commission staff to print some glossy versions of the brochure, but these days, everybody does this sort of thing on-line, so our prime year approach will be to move on-line. we will post the announcement on the d.h.r. website. the commission can have a link on its website, or the fire department can, and also, the fire department will issue a general order advising people of it. we will do some reach out to various associations, for example, the fire association, and regional bodies, and certainly, the commission members are encouraged to forward the announcement to individuals who may want to

apply or who may know people who should apply. we have -- if the commission approves the hiring brochure in this hiring process today, including a delegation of the authority to approve the supplemental questionnaire to president cleaveland, we expect to post-it within the next day or so and start the three-week filing period. many people wait until the day before the period close to see apply for jobs. that may well happen. we will be holding the information about the applicants in the strict confidentiality because we don't want to disadvantage any individual who may ultimately not be successful and be considered as a lame duck in their own current position. so that's a very important element, and i know that the commission is aware of that. we will -- in the period after it closes to december 13, we will be sorting, identifying

which meet the minimum qualifications and sorting them as what i think of good, better, best. it's only our judgment, and the commission, when we bring them to the commission, which would be in a closed session on the 19, then, we would anticipate the commission making a decision as to how many individuals you would like to interview. do you want to interview everybody in the best group, downtown to move some people into that group from any of the other qualified candidates? that is entirely up to the commission. we will -- it's our job simply to facilitate that, and so we will be there to answer questions in your closed session. after that, we will be scheduling those whom you'd like to interview. we'd be scheduling those in the second week of january , and the thinking is those would be

identified at the close of the period of two days, and the commission would then deliberate and determine whose names you would like to send to the mayor. in terms of vetting the candidates, once we find out whom you would like to interview, we're not going to do reference checks on people who you are not interesting in interviewing, obviously, so once you tell us who you'd like to interview, we're going to do some work on background of the individuals to ensure that you have the full information you would need to know. and then, ultimately, those candidates would be moved forward to the mayor. we recommend that you have the interviews at our location, department of human resources, in order to enhance the confidentiality of the process for those candidates,

particularly who may be known locally as opposed to the fire department headquarters, and we have done this for a number of department head fire processes. it involves a few secretary processes. so with that, i am happy to answer any questions about the brochure, the process. >> president cleaveland: thank you. do we have any questions? commissioner hardeman, i see one. >> >> commissioner hardeman: thank you, thank you for the presentation. it answered a lot of my questions, except i do have one. mayor's communication to the commission prior to us submitting three names. there's a history in san francisco of the mayor's choice

not being very contested by a commission. so just curiosity, any recommendations we have talking to 798 or mayors -- are we allowed to communicate with whoever we choose? in that case, there would be a lot of names on the list that will be -- you know, somebody comes up, wants to discuss somebody they think is the best candidate, then, we -- and we're supposed to be keeping the list maybe confidential, just -- how do you want us to deal with that? >> thank you for the question, commissioner hardeman. just in your role, people play reach out to you in public comment, and they're free to share your views with you, what

are their opinions of the perfect candidate, whether those would be the best people. i would not make any commitments to them, and i would not disclose whether those individuals have applied. i would simply receive that information. the mayor, as you can imagine, is very interested in this project. she has seen the brochure and these qualifications, and characteristics of an ideal candidate, she's very comfortable with. i think if the mayor becomes very sure that there's a particular individual she would like to see forward, i would expect that she would notify president cleaveland of that, and she would share that information. but my request, again, because there are many individuals, only one person will be ultimately selected chief, and so we want to are fair to those who may not

be successful. and so i'm going to ask that you not disclose who -- who's in the binders or who you're going to be interviewing when they reach out to you. is that acceptable? >> commissioner hardeman: okay. >> president cleaveland: thank you, commissioner hardeman. commissioner covington? >> commissioner covington: thank you miss callahan. it's good to see you. >> thank you. >> commissioner covington: i had just a few questions and comments. i think the brochure looks really, really good, and i like the way it's laid out, and i think it's very clear. i would like to add, if it's permissible, under the minimum qualifications, it says ten years work experience as a uniformed member of a fire department at the sworn rank of captain or higher.

and then, someplace else that you should have been batallion chief. >> there is -- well, the minimum is the -- what it takes to get qualified. in the desirable, we say batallion chief. it leaves the door open. you could be qualified but not have the desirable characteristics. we would be looking -- the desirable characteristics would elevate an individual in our presentation to you likely, but it doesn't exclude somebody who may not have been a about tallian chief. >> commissioner covington: certainly. well, i was alluding to something i wanted to add, and you can make those distinctions,

and you can decide where to add it if it's appropriate. there isn't any mention on the minimum qualifications of having surpris surprise -- supervised the medical end of the fire department. i don't see that mentioned anywhere under the qualifications. >> we can certainly make that as an addition, although i don't know whether everyone whom you would consider to be qualified has specifically supervised. i guess in a medical house there is that medical over sight when you're a first responder. are you referring to supervision of an ambulance like at station 49. >> commissioner covington: no, not at that level, at a higher level. it would be really helpful for someone to come in with the

nomenclature and vocabulary of how to interact with the people who are on the medical side. >> well, we do have -- i think there's an assumption, and we can clarify it, that everybody who has been a captain or higher has had the appropriate interactions with the medical. we do have that in the ideal candidate that we talk about medical. if you would like a more explicit reference in the minimum qualifications or the desirable, we can do that. >> commissioner covington: i think that would be great if you could, because i did see the ideal candidate, and i saw the paramedic and transport services is listed at number three. but i would like to have the medical side highlights as much as possible to give that, you know, a robust presence in the qualifications that are needed. >> okay. if i can just clarify, reference

within the desirable or do you want it in the minimum? >> commissioner covington: no, as i said at the beginning, i will leave that up to you, but i just want it to be -- want it to have more emphasis. >> okay. we will note that as an addition. >> commissioner covington: okay. thank you. and let's see...how to apply. that section, at the bottom, under the selection process, talks about the management test battery, the m.t.b. can you tell us if this has been taken by a previous chief in the department or is this the first time that a candidate would be taking this test. >> i believe it would be the first time because you have had your chief for a very long time. the management test battery was adopted in the city i would say around the year 2009 or 2010.

it is our practice to administer it on an informational basis or to offer it on an informational basis when we're going to processes at a high level or deputy directors or department heads. just a little bit of background on it. sometimes we find that the best technical person is not the best supervisor or manager. for example, the best engineer is not the chief of engineers, best department head of engineers, and there are skills that we assess for a supervisor or manager that we assess across leadership positions. it's what we require for all silvservice kwms for managers in approximate the city. if there is a posted position, we provide it sort of informationally to the hiring authority. so it's our intention. we do recommend it. i know the mayor has been interested in ensuring that people have the appropriate

manageme management skills for this position. our prior director of selection -- recruitment and selection for the city, mr. krauss, had run all the recruitments for the city of new jersey. we did the work to validate it for san francisco. in fact sometimes we lease it to san mateo county, but it's been a very valuable tool for ensuring not just the technical skills and knowledge, but sometimes people's heard it under the soft skills, but the ability to prioritize those management skills are also assessed, so it's our intention to provide you with that information on the candidates whom you will be interviewing. >> commissioner covington: thank you. thank you for the background on that. i just wanted to know how -- you know, how long the city has

employed this as one of the things to be ranked. also under desirable qualifications, previous management is listed. that's curious to me. >> undesirable -- >> commissioner covington: yes, desirable. >> oh, i think it's a broad description -- it's considered to be business related, but these are people who are involved in businesses that are dealing with facilities and budgets. if you'd like, we can strike that one. >> commissioner covington: i just wondered why it was there. i didn't know if it was there because there are a number of terms of art listed. >> so in deciding on related degrees, it's often -- i'm sorry. good morning, commissioners, as

well. it's -- we try to look at it as broad a scope as we can for degree types, so these are things that i had researched, you know, universities and colleges around the country that had these sorts of degrees and they range everything else from finance to hospitality which would be sort of the whole breadth, with the center focus on sort of that -- sort of your typical m.b.a. or something like that. so it's within that scope. in light of expanding it more, we definitely would be willing to take suggestions on other degrees you could think of we could put in there. >> commissioner covington: all right. this -- thank you. this says a master's degree in fire science is listed. since you did the research, about how many colleges do have a master's degree in fire science available? >> to my knowledge, the fire science degree is fairly limited

in scope, but it is out there. >> commissioner covington: at the master's level. >> at the master's level, it would be more something in, like, fire protection, engineering-type things, so again, we're trying to look at the whole universe of someone who was in the fire service, so -- >> commissioner covington: all right. thank you. miss callahan, i'm wondering if you think there might be value in adding the organizational chart for the department as part of your on-line posting? so that people have a much better idea of all of the different branchs? you know, we've got an airport division and all of these different divisions that other departments may not have. i think it might be helpful to candidates. >> that's a great suggestion. my designer is going to be angry with me if he has to fit it on

there. >> commissioner covington: no, i did san on-line. i said on-line. >> okay. i think what we'll do is have a link, and we'll get it from the fire department, so that would be a great suggestion in helping to visualize what the role would entail. >> commissioner covington: thank you, and i think you're right. we have a deep bench in the department. it will just be a reminder for those members of the department. i would like to see an opportunity for the rank and file of the department to come and talk to the commissioners about what they would like to see in the next chief of the department, not names of potential candidates, but the kind of person that they would like to see. we're on such an accelerated schedule, i'm wondering if you

have any suggestions as to how to go about that. i think we would really miss an opportunity to hear from the members of the department about what they would like. >> yes. i think one suggestion would be that when you have a sexupecial meeting, you always start in open session, and there's the vote, as you know, to go into closed session. i think it's certainly possible to calendar some public comment on that, to accept public comment at the special meeting prior to going into closed session. that might be a good way of doing it. >> commissioner covington: okay. great. well. thank you very much. this is exciting. >> you're welcome. thank you for your excellent suggestions. >> president cleaveland: thank you. thank you, commissioner covington. commissioner veronese?

>> commissioner veronese: i had some questions for the chief around some minimum questions that you could answer offline because it's going to require a little bit of research, but i'm wondering of the people in the department that you pull up to batallion chief or above level or rather captain or above level, i'm wondering how long is typical for someone to stay in that position such that they would be in there for at least ten years? i guess my question is more simple. how deep is the list of people in the san francisco fire department that would qualify under the current list of qualifications? does this captain or higher restrict this to a shorter list because i may be hiring somebody from, you know, a lieutenant level up to the deputy or

assistant chief level? i'm wondering maybe some information from the chief as to how deep -- without naming some specific names, how deep that minimum qualification pool would be within the san francisco fire department? >> we can certainly take a look at this, commissioner. i think just guesstimating, there are a number of talented members in the fire department that have risen through the ranks quickly. for example, there are members in our department -- and i have served for nearly 15 years that i've hired and promoted to lieutenant, captain, and batallion chief all within 15 years. so to your point, there are some people that may not have had a full ten years at captain or hire that you would be excluding. i don't know if it's a huge number, but those are, i believe, three people. i believe one of them's in the audience today that has risen pretty quickly, but i can get those numbers for you to be exact. >> commissioner veronese: i just don't want to exclude those people just because they come up

in the ranks quicker, we're shrewding them. that doesn't necessarily speak to their abilities to be the chief of this department, in my opinion. >> absolutely. great question. i will note there is a substitution, so if the person has a degree, if you look immediately below that, then, they need eight years only. so there may be individuals that i think may be rapidly rising may have a degree, and then, they would be rapidly qualified under the substitution. and certainly, we would broaden it if you want to do that today. >> commissioner veronese: i just would like more information. are we voting on this item today? >> president cleaveland: we will be. >> commissioner hardeman: we will be. >> commissioner veronese: okay. i think that's all i have -- well, miss callahan, i do want

to say something about you personally. i have worked with you in random ways since i was on the police commission more than a decade ago, and you have done some of the most hectic negotiations with the police department and i'm sure many of those since that time, and so your will is absolutely extraordinary. the fact that you're still here, doing this, is a testament of your dedication to the city. >> president cleaveland: vice president nakajo. >> commissioner nakajo: thank you very much, mr. president. thank you very much, director callahan. may i have -- is it john? >> this is scott de-wolf. >> commissioner nakajo: thank you, scott. i feel we'll see a lot of you.

i have some questions that i just wanted to get clear. it might be repetitious in some ways, director callahan, but in terms of this recruitment pamphlet, flier, is it called? this is what's on-line and this is what we're adopting today in concept or close to it, right? >> correct. >> with -- with whatever amendments you make today. >> commissioner nakajo: with whatever amendments, and i want that duly noted with the commissioners because a lot of comments came out. you made some comments in terms of recruitment for this position, and there's been some discussion that our department has sub-stantiveness ak can'ts, and i conkwur with that quote, but departmentally --

[inaudible] >> commissioner nakajo: -- with requirements on of years? is that what i'm hearing? >> with this, i believe the recruitment itself would be went out in a general order to the entire department. >> commissioner nakajo: okay. i guess that's what answers my question, is that a general order will go out so that all the members of the department see this, can peruse the requirements and such, and then, if they meet the minimum requirements, can apply, all right? and you answered my questions in some ways and it's reinforced that. the minimum requirements is a number of years and it's a captain rank. what was it again? >> it's ten years of captain or above. you can go to eight if you have a bachelor's degree. >> commissioner nakajo: okay. and just for my classification,

did you make some reference that the mayor is sufficient with the regard that the recruitment will come intentionally rather than externally or nationally? >> let me try to say this perfectly correctly, which is the mayor believes there is a lot of local talent, which includes the members of the san francisco fire department. it is an open recruitment. we'll be notifying the fire chief's organization, and there'll be national organizations. we may draw amazing candidates from across the city, but our focus is not going to florida or new york or anywhere else. if we were going to do that, with he would probably have hired a recruiter and start beating the bushes. we agree and the mayor concurred that there's a lot of talent in the region, and that a lot of

qualified candidates will be interested in the position and apply. >> commissioner nakajo: okay. i just wanted to be clear that that doesn't say that a person nationally can't apply for this. >> they certainly can, bay area, as well. >> commissioner nakajo: i notice on this, the back page has desirable qualifications. i'm glad that you went through the differentiation of that, because i had a hard time with that, trying to differentiate that, again, on the bottom -- on the main page, the minimum qualifications jumps out at you. you turn the page, and then, there's desirable qualifications. i think i heard you say, director callahan that there's some desirables that you were looking for.

>> well, when people apply, they will not just fill a job application out, but they will answer questions, designed to elicit their experience in the items which will actually listed in the judgedial candidate. describe your experience in fire prevention and investigation, and then the candidates will expound on that, so that's going to provide you more information on their kfgss in the various areas. >> and all of this is with a due date of december 13? >> i believe it's the 7th. >> commissioner nakajo: the due date is december 7? >> yes. >> commissioner nakajo: that's a pretty quick turnaround time. >> i believe they'll apply, and scott will start looking at them as soon as they come in. he's not going to look at them

on the 8th. [please stand by]. >> strictly on the minimum qualification to see if they've met that requirement of the level of hire for ten years. >> commissioner nakajo: okay. so those who don't qualify, you'll eliminate them. those who qualify, you'll accept them, but you're going to put them in a categorical? could you describe the callical. >> based on the questions, and the answers they provided, we'll be putting them into the

categories as director callahan mentioned, good, better, best. you'll see all the candidates that we'll screen through the minimum qualification. i just want to make that distinction. >> commissioner nakajo: okay. so say 300 200 -- 200 applicants, and we would see all 200? >> if a person says, not applicable on the supplement al questions, that person's not going to rise to the best group.

you may disagree with our characterization, with our assessment. you may pull people up, i want this one in the pool, etc. >> commissioner nakajo: okay. again, i wanted clarification on that because i have no expectation that we'll be looking at 200 applications. but in that question of who's doing the paper screening, who's doing the categoricals? what is your categorization? >> we described it as good, better, best. you can do it as one, two, and three. as an example, we can give you better and best. we can notify president cleaveland of the number of candidates whom we have qualified, and we can make an assessment at that time that you may not want to even get the materials for, you know, if there are that many. [please stand by].

>> and support -- i think san francisco fire department is one of the diverse in the nation, and that's a proud history that

we hope will continue. our process is intended to ensure that people who are qualified, you know, get in the door. >> commissioner nakajo: might be an elementary question, but indeed, can you walk us through who interviews thcandidate from the commission? is it up to the president or all of us or can you give us some insight on that? >> what we've contemplated is the whole commission in closed session will be doing the interviewing. when we have a meeting -- let's see, when you select -- i think it's the december 19 meeting, we're going to give you some draft interview questions, and you'll edit them, change them, decide what you want to ask. at that point, you'll decide do you want one person to ask all the questions, or do you want to take turns. we'll provide staff examples to you, provide examples of how you might want to do the ranking. we'll give you advice on how you

might want to do the closed session, and our director of recruitment would be in the closed session with you, providing advice. it's up to you. i think ultimately since the commission as a whole is going to advance the names with the mayor, i would imagine that the whole commission would want to do the question. >> commissioner nakajo: in terms of the role, we submit to the mayor top three qualified candidates. how is that defined? >> it's up to you. the charter is pretty broad there. you can decide to rank them, or you can say here are the top three, or you can say here are the top two that we feel. you have flexibility there.

>> commissioner nakajo: the mayor can accept, reject, tell us to go back. >> absolutely. the mayor can decide -- i've certainly provided the draft brochure, and she's comfortable with it, so we're confident -- i have confidence that whoever the commission selects, the pool that you'll send to the mayor will provide her a good choice. >> commissioner nakajo: all right. so in the finale of that, as we recommend the mayor charter hires the fire chief? >> exactly, the fire chief serves at the will of the mayor. >> commissioner nakajo: no ratification; our job is done by the time we recommend the three candidates. >> correct. your job is done by the name you submit the names to the mayor. >> commissioner nakajo: all right. thank you, director callahan.

>> president cleaveland: all right. thank you, commissioner nakajo. commissioner hardeman? >> commissioner hardeman: oh, i hate to belabor this point. i know a couple of members that didn't have the rank, and here it is, many years later, and i ran into them, and they still have not taken the test to become the lieutenant. they have this tremendous leadership, they've dedicated their side to the labor organizations, the ethnic group, and 798, however -- that's how they stay active and contribute on their -- in the way they think. and then, also learning the effort it takes to move up the ranks, especially to batallion chief, which i just thought was

more of a move up, and the chief decides that. it's not that simple. it's a very complicated process. you have to put out, you have to earn the stripes, so i'm very much in support of having rank -- having earned rank and maintained rank, not as a compulsory, but as an advantage. you've shown that you've put out -- you have put out to get that. it wasn't a gift, and so i like that. and then, you've showed leadership qualities to move up, and then, maybe deputy chief, whatever you happen to become. i like that. i think that is extremely important at least part of the criteria, when i know, my opinion, when we sit down to talk, i will put an emphasis on the leadership qualities that person has shown because i know that education and the time and effort is how much more knowledgeable they'll be in

doing their job, so i do, for one, like that. and again, the brochure, i think, is terrific. i really think you did a very good job, and thank you again for that. >> thank you. our staff designer, karl harris, i will tell him that you appreciated his work. >> president cleaveland: thank you, commissioner hardeman. commissioner veronese, you had some additional questions? >> commissioner veronese: sure. thank you. chief, what was the last time your department had a captain's test? >> commissioner hayes-white: i believe the first test after a ten-year absence, we administered. i can get it from staff, 2010, we tested for the h-30. i'd have to -- i'll get back to you momentarily. it's been -- we have an active captain's list now, so it's about two years -- yeah. so it's -- there's a current

captain's list, either '15 or '16, it was administered. i'll get back to you in a minute. >> commissioner veronese: my concern is we could be pulling from a pool of a half a dozen to a dozen people if the captain's list is more than a decade old that we've actually been hired from. >> commissioner hayes-white: so we've had three captain's exams since i've been chief. >> commissioner veronese: you've been chief for a very long time. >> commissioner hayes-white: correct. i've been chief for 15 years. >> commissioner veronese: so my question is how big is this pool that we're limiting ourselves to? >> commissioner hayes-white: so i could take a moment and text staff and say how many people at the role of captain and above in the last ten years, and i could

get that information quickly if he's near his phone. >> commissioner veronese: i think that's important information. if we are talking about a smaller pool, is it possible for the commission to pick somebody that does not have these minimum qualifications or are we tieing our hands here? >> okay. the commission can pick whoever the commission wants, including someone who is not qualified. i think the minimum qualifies are set as a level which we believe is reflective of the likelihood of being successful. however there are people who meet the minimum qualifications who aren't successful, and there are people that don't meet the minimum qualifications that could be successful. it's a barrier to leap over, but if you'll allow me, i'll quickly send a text message.

>> we did have a test in '06, so theoretically, anyone that was hired off the '06 list would be eligible. 11, which puts people on the bubble, unless they have a degree. and then, we have an active list from '16. but any of those captains appointed in '16 would not be eligible. >> commissioner veronese: so unless you took that test in '06, which was 18 years ago, you wouldn't be eligible. >> i believe if you took it then and was appointed around that time, that's close. i'm not involved in this process, but i think you have a good point is all i'm saying. >> commissioner veronese: if you just the list -- -- if you took the list -- just for the commission's clarification, if you took that list, and you sat

on the list and then hired, all of the people that we're going to be considering is from the 2006 because it's the only one that's more than ten years old. so that could be a very small amount of people. i just don't want to tie the commission's hands to that but i guess we're going to get that message from miss callahan, because i see her fingers busy. >> commissioner veronese: and then, while that's being considered, i have a strong preference and i'm a little bit biased because i'm a born and raised san franciscan, but i would have a strong preference to have at least one of the requirements to be that the chief, once appointed, resides in the county of san francisco.

is that a possibility? we do have a chief's residence. >> i think that the problem, and we've encountered this before, is that the california constitution does not allow us to have a residency requirement for public employees. you can have a -- >> commissioner veronese: i'm a public employee and i have a resident requirement to sit on this commission. >> we don't consider commissioners to be employees of the city. >> commissioner veronese: i will challenge you there. i get a w-2 from the city. >> for one thing, your hourly rate is below the minimum wage. >> commissioner veronese: don't remind me, miss callahan, there's a lawsuit there, i'm sure. >> but there's ways that the commission and the mayor can ensure. i think there are ways to do that.

certainly, if i came hoefr and looked at the fire chief residence, that could be a benefit to an individual that didn't live in the city, that could be a benefit. but as a requirement specifically, we're not able to do that. >> commissioner veronese: not. okay. >> okay. my staff is on it. >> president cleaveland: colleagues, i think we have a decision. miss khancallahan, what date is supplemental question? >> we have a draft that we want to do when we post the application, so within the next day or so, we would say this is fine. >> president cleaveland: if any of my commissioners have any

additional questions they would like to add through the brochure -- or not the brochure itself, but as supplemental questions, they should submit them to me, and i'll submit them to you. >> that would be great. i think just to make a distinction between the brochure and supplemental questionnaire. supplemental questionnaire is just demonstrating their knowledge and experience in the areas listed. the interview questions are more likely to be things about whether you have policy questions or, you know, ideas, leadership. those are the things that you want to elicit in the face-to-face interviews. >> president cleaveland: so colleagues, you understand if you have any supplemental questions that you wish to add, get those to me, and i'll get them to miss callahan to be made part of the initial application package when candidates are

applying. we need to adopt the schedule that was presented in the package, and we need to approve the brochure. let's go with the brochure first. do i have a motion to approve the brochure as presented today for the recruitment of the chief of the department. you have additional questions? go ahead. >> commissioner covington: thank you. thank you, mr. president. i would like a quick summary of the changes that were proposed because this document does not reflect our discussion we had this afternoon, so if miss callahan can give us -- >> president cleaveland: all right. miss callahan, can you

regurgitate -- >> i believe that was the three. i just wanted to confirm with the education requirements, if we were leaving those degree types as is or was there any other comment on that? okay. >> president cleaveland: commissioner veronese, did you have a question? >> commissioner veronese: well, point of order. i don't think we have the information necessary to approve this if it is not going to contain the initial information of ten years. >> i do expect i'll have it within a few minutes. point of order, you might -- or approve the hiring plan, for example, or hold it in bans, that approach. >> president cleaveland: do you feel more comfortable with that,

commissioner veronese? >> commissioner veronese: ness. >> president cleaveland: okay. thank you. commissioner covington? >> commissioner covington: yes. i just wanted to say in response to commissioner veronese's push for someone to live in san francisco, just as a recruitment effort, it might be hohoove the department to add that there is a residence for the chief of the department. >> so maybe we could include a reference that says something like residence in -- we originally had a reference to it, but it might it look like it was a requirement to be a

resident of san francisco. you know, we'll provide a mention of it as potentially available. i know that my team has done a field trip to look at it and believe it is livable. >> president cleaveland: usable. good. >> so we'll add a reference to it in the salary and benefits action. >> president cleaveland: we'll have to approve the budget request to upgrade it in the next budget cycle. i think we have some obstructions there at the door, so anybody that's standing at the door needs to move so the exit is not blocked. so they just need to move over it a little bit, so we'll be in good order. >> president cleaveland, there are some seats vablg, so i think it would be best if anyone is standing dickly by -- available, so i think it would be best if anyone is standing strictly by

the door, it would be best if they take a seat. i think the prevalent safety is for everyone to take their seats. >> president cleaveland: while we're waiting to approve the brochure, let's talk about the process or timeline. a couple of my commissioners will not be available apparently for the january 7 meeting, which will be a special meeting in closed session, so we need to decide -- i mean, our meeting -- our first meeting in january will be january the 9, which is a morning meeting, so we're going to have to back that to january t5, a friday. are you available for that, commissioner hardeman? again, this is voluntary, i'm requesting all the commissioners to be available for these interviews. it's not a requirement. we only have to have four. so are you good for january 5? that's a saturday -- excuse me, january -- whatever that friday

is. the 4. excuse me. january the 4. are you available? are you available? >> commissioner covington: i will make myself available. >> president cleaveland: all right. good deal. then, we will change that date and make it january 4. >> commissioner hardeman: so we're changing the 7. >> president cleaveland: we're cancelling out the 7 and making it january 4, the friday, and january the 8, which is a tuesday. okay. for our special meeting in closed session, which will be held at d.h.r. so with that change, do we need to add a meeting on the november 28 which would be a meeting to invite members of the did he want to come and talk about what they believe would be qualifications they believe the next fire chief should possess?

colleagues, what's your opinion on that? november 28 meeting for the purpose of inviting members of the department as commissioner covington brought up to discuss qualifications that they believe our next fire chief should possess. >> the 28? >> president cleaveland: that's correct. that's a wednesday. >> commissioner covington: that's fine. >> president cleaveland: mr. vice president? >> commissioner nakajo: mr. president, i think that director callahan made a recommendation that perhaps on the special meeting of december 19, did you not, director callahan, suggest that perhaps at open session in the beginning of the meeting, we could therefore take some comments in terms of the questions that's being asked, and then, we can go into closed? >> yes. >> president cleaveland: we could do that. however if the time for people to apply has closed out. that's the reason i'm putting it

before the deadline for applying, so there are people that -- i mean, they can come and talk about what kind of -- you know, attributes of -- a fire chief should have, but if the deadline to apply has passed, is it moot at that point? it doesn't have at much value, so the question, again, remains, do we want to have that special meeting on 28 november for the purpose of inviting members of the department to talk about what they believe should be the kfg qualifications and requirements of the next fire chief. i'm asking you. if you don't want to have the meeting, we don't want to have the meeting. >> commissioner hardeman: so this would be rank and file, unions and members of the fire department, and if the public wants to come, they can come.

>> president cleaveland: right. >> commissioner hardeman: it's good we have that date blocked out. >> president cleaveland: so do i have a motion -- yes, commissioner veronese? >> commissioner veronese: i would so move for that motion. i think that's a good idea to consider those important opinions, but i think it would be counter intuitive to adopt minimum standards before we hear those. >> president cleaveland: before what? >> commissioner veronese: minimum standards before we hear the opinions of the people that we're considering. >> president cleaveland: we're only talking about minimum standards here, commissioner veronese, we're talking about minimum. we have to start somewhere. >> commissioner veronese: i agree, i agree, so we'll be considering -- the purpose of the considering the public and the members is to consider not the minimum standards but the optimum standards in. >> president cleaveland: correct. >> commissioner veronese: okay. i have a motion on the floor to add a november 28 meeting at 5:00 p.m. and to change the date

to january 4 and january 8 for our special closed session and to adopt this calendar for the purposes of recruiting, interviewing, and selecting and recommending to the mayor our next fire chief. i have a motion on the floor by commissioner hardeman. do i have a second? >> commissioner veronese: second. >> president cleaveland: second by commissioner veronese. all in favor? [votin [voting] >> president cleaveland: it's unanimous. >> mr. president, i'm working that day, but that evening, i'm not available. >> president cleaveland: it's not a problem. not a problem. miss callahan, did you have some information on the numbers that could apply? >> i'm -- they gave me how many captains there are with ten or more years of service, which is ten. what i don't know yet is how

many above that, you know, for example, batallion chief, deputy chief, etc., so i'm asking that right now, but you do have ten captains with at the point years. and then, you'll have presumably most of the people above that. >> president cleaveland: okay. commissioner veronese, does that satisfy you? >> commissioner veronese: no, i -- i mean, i don't mean -- this is important, right? whi we're deciding to limit our pool of applicants to so far, i'm hearing the number is ten on the lowest. from what i understand, there are not many more people that are actually eligible. so our question -- the question to us is are we comfortable with a pool of just ten people? >> president cleaveland: are you wishing to change the minimum qualifications, commissioner veronese? if so, to what? >> commissioner veronese: well, it's a good quest