maintaining our water supply. the recent activities is where we are now so first as i pointed out at the last commission meeting in order to preserve our options to complete the negotiations, we joined the lawsuit january 10th with other members of the san joaquin challenging authority for the bay delta plan. we've continued to meet with state representatives to cabinet secretaries, other water agencies and ngos to further develop details fought voluntary agreement. the meetings are happening frequently now. you won't see much of michael in the next three weeks. he is spending a lot of time in sacramento in meetings and conference calls with other parties in the negotiations. we've been presented with high level results from the california department of fish and wildlife of the voluntary agreement which shows positive but really was just giving us

some results. it didn't show what they analyzed and how they analyzed it and we fled to get that information to satisfy ourselves that there are analysis does show what they say it does. we made the river proposed voluntary agreement available to the public february 7. before that date it had been covered bay non-disclosure griement and we and several other parties in the voluntary agreement process agree more transparency is needed so that we presented the terms of the voluntary agreement and the results of the cdfw analysis to our wholesale customers and ngos on that day as well to make sure people have information out there. there are two additional items of note that have literally just occurred. the first is that the draft eis for the licensing project is now available. looks like it will be published in the federal register a week

from friday but they've put it up on their website so if you're interested in the 800-page draft eis it is available for you to review on their website. secondly, the governor just announced this morning that he have is appointings could vel as ka chair of the state water resources control board so we have worked with him on many issues to date and look forward to working with him in the future on these issues. so what we're about now is preparing a resolution for the commission's consideration at the next meeting on february 26th. we have discussed this, the commissioner has made suggestions and looking to have the commission go on the record with policy level recommendation and clear direction regarding the commission's recognition of its

responsibilities for water supply and environmental stewardship both. the slides i put together working with other staff and in conversations with different folks in the community as to what should be potential elements of such a resolution. so these are high level bullet points and in draft form and i look forward to any commission feedback that you might want to give on this. so there are two pages of bullets. first providing overall support for the voluntary agreement process while being transparent. secondly maintaining consistency with our water supply and environmental stewardship levels of service. thirdly develop water supply options offsetting environmental obligations and meeting customer needs and obligations. fourthly, expeditiously pursue early implementation of experimental flow and non-flow measures in the voluntary agreement. forgot to advance the slides.

thank you. early implementation of experimental flow and non-flow measures with the irrigation districts. those are the first four suggested elements. moving ot to the next page work with the district on development of an adaptive management -- related to the function of the non-flow and flow elements of the voluntary agreement. next review and report back on the state's flow west modeling results and assumptions for the voluntary agreements. this is particularly important because we saw high level results from their model but we couldn't tell what those were actually based on. there is analysis behind that and we need to get that so we know. that would provide useful information. we develop the program from one direction. they analyzed it from another and do these conclusions basically come together is what we really want to make sure

that we have the best information on. we want to continue to assess the state of the fishery. that will be ongoing issue for a long time. insure our releases represent our fair share of contributions to the bay delta system. continue to coordinate on the voluntary agreement process because they are significant contributors to the flow and money to support this program and lastly work with the ngos and other stakeholders on the voluntary agreement process. so those are -- we're putting forward as suggested elements of a resolution for the commission consideration. we've been working with the city attorney's office on drafting that and they've been working hard to make sure the bases are covered while we're working on the elements of what we can present to this commission for your consideration in the meeting two weeks from today. i can answer any questions.

>> commissioners? >> yes, thank you for the presentation. i have a couple of questions and one of them has to do with the sort of resolution points that i had made in december and the other has to do with sort of subsequent conversations that i think that we had and i'll start with the second one first which were these questions around specific outcomes and how to really be able to try and get on the same page with the state and the districts and the pfc on what we're really driving towards. especially with regards to, you know, number of fish necessarily but what would a healthy ecosystem look like and could it provide the high-level framework for the agreement and the resolution. so we have a say in that. i don't know if that's impossible to get to but seems like some out come-driven language would be helpful. >> that's a very good idea. i just noticed the state board

put forward flow objectives, not many biological objectives. they were trying to produce an outcome. the unimpaired flow relationship. they're scheduling a workshop i believe for later this week or next week. i believe it's early march on development of biological objectives and we definitely want to participate in that because yes, we do need biological objectives. ones that show up in the flow west model basically are in terms of what's called escapement or returning salmon to the river and that's one that we can control things on the way out and some extent participating in the bay delta but coming back in after having survived the ocean, that's a hard one for us to say let's have an objective. maybe a goal there but the objectives have to be something more quantifiable and things we can directly effect. so i think that's the fine needle to thread there that we

need to get but we do need those. i totally agree with you. >> i would love to get to even some generalities if not fact specific for the resolution. i think it would be helpful. i don't know if those conversations will get us there in time. that's one piece. just to keep us posted on. the other is still this lingering question of peer review and how that will be hand -- handled. is that through the eri process with not only the review of the models and any other scientific data, whether it's functional flow and flow regime or whether there will be peer review opportunity. we've been late to the game in being able to see what that language is even though there are terms that are being negotiated. it is all feels 11th hour. is there a plan for broad stakeholder peer review and what are the tools to be able to provide input?

>> broad stakeholder review in the sense of the -- many of the elements in the voluntary agreement for the river are actually in the relicensing program. it has extensive review in it by furq of a lot of those conditions with input by different state and federal agencies and the public. that will be out for at least a 60-day comment period. i suspect people will ask for more time because it's such a big document but there will be a lot of review going on in that process. that will be one piece of it because we always feel awkward because we're in the two parallel processes and they overlap a lot. that process of that review is starting right now. for the voluntary agreements that come together, i think we're talking about reviews in two senses. one is what was requested by

the state board was to put this into a package that could go through environmental review basically for the entire program. and that is what the state board staff and others would be doing when something is put together there. that would then be subject to a public document that has further commentary and review on that. within that, there is the matter in the question of independent technical peer review. we've been talking to the irrigation districts about that for the model that they use, not for the whole package, just for the model. and we're making some headway there but it takes work to bring the districts along and why i emphasize the flow west model work. that isn't exactly a peer review but it gives us a different viewpoint on the voluntary agreement. and i think should provide a lot of insights as to what the

state is looking for in the department of fish and wildlife in terms of positive results. i think that will be another thing. that's why it's important to get that in a public setting because they have done that modeling and as i said they gave us the high-level results but they didn't give us anything behind it. we need the stuff behind it so we can see that and satisfy ourselves that it's looking at the same picture and painting whatever conclusions they come to. it's a lot of different things that are going to go on. >> i think it is connected to the outcomes where if we can really be -- get as specific as possible about the outcomes it might determine the level of review that needs to happen along the way to get us there, i would think. >> yes. >> may have i ask you a question because i'm ignorant. who do you see involved in the peer review?

>> well, part of the issue, i think, is that it's a model. there are -- my understanding and steve, please correct me if i'm wrong. there is the model of the functional flow model which is not really scientifically based per se. and then there is the science reviews that the state has said that they have done. and then there is some hybrid that the pc has provided where they've studied over a number of years the fish, right? >> i would say that those studies, those are science. those are good science. frankly, i've sat here and heard members of other communities saying things like junk science and things like that. i strongly disagree with that because i think there is very valid science in that. but that's what peer review is for. there is always the story there is good science and bad science and my science is the good

science and yours is the bad science. real science is people doing work, other people reviewing the work and advancing the state of the knowledge. it is an ongoing process we're all in over time. all reviews are critical with whoever it comes from and that you maybe make changes in response to that, maybe you don't because it's just a model. it is to aid in decision making. it is not to make decisions for you. and that's where then people can take that information and make the policy decision on how we'll move forward and then you get to the next stage of science which is you do the things you said you were going to do and you find out how well they work or don't work and then you make changes in those. that's what adaptive management is, a science process literally. >> i have a question about that. meeting after meeting i hear from various members to speak -- that are speaking to us that

our science is flawed. it is wrong, and why hasn't that been resolved? why is our science wrong and their science, wife -- which i guess is the state. is that what you mentioned? why are they right and we're wrong? i don't quite understand. >> people advocate for different things. and i think we've invested in what we think is the right work to get the best information. and the state water board went down a particular process. they got certain results and went a particular way. the model that we're talking about that department of fish and wildlife used is a different model entirely that looks at a different picture. truth is in the middle of all these things over time but when one advocates, one tends to knock pretty hard at the other side. i try to make sure that we stay

in an even keel in the middle that we're doing the best we can. we do stand behind it. science doesn't get resolved. it gets resolved when the science is used to make policy decision and we move on in life. >> or it gets resolved with history looking backwards. seems to me that this is a huge bone of contention, that if we could get that worked through a little bit better, perhaps the solutions would be more evident. maybe that's impossible. >> i think we're at a point in time that we're wanting to sit down and negotiate, you know. because trying to determine what science is the best science is, you know, we will continue to argue that. so i think we are really wanting to move forward and

start actually doing something and then measuring the results. so that's where we would like to go to. but i do understand that folks are saying well, our science or the state science, we have some concerns about it. they have concerns about ours because, you know, they feel that they haven't peer reviewed it. so there are challenges on both sides but at the end of the day we just want to sit down and really talk about somewhere in the middle like steve ritchie mentioned. that's where we are now. >> i think one of the key things that we mentioned there at the beginning the voluntary agreements are for a 15-year period. knowing how long it takes to do things, how long it takes to actually gather information and analyze it, 15 years is a good run of work but we'll be able to do a lot in that 15 years that we wouldn't otherwise be able to do. so i think that's a key thing

that we are trying to keep in mind in this as well is we're looking at this can we make advancements in the next decade and a half? i think we can. can we make them overnight, no way we can make them overnight but when we think in the longer-term time frame. >> does that conclude? >> not quite. i want to hear what he has to say. >> a couple comments. as to the modeling first, quoting some that all models are wrong, some are useful. >> that's right. >> which i think is true. i think the difficulty with them and where scientific based models can come to different conclusions in part depends on what the question is that was asked and what it is trying to solve, what the constraints are. are you trying to achieve a result with minimum impact or

are you trying to create maximum result? those are very different models that come up with very different results. so from my perspective, what's most important is transparency on the models. that you know what this assumptions are that are baked into them so that you can use that knowledge to understand the answers that you are getting. so i was glad that some of that has come out and i guess in the furq draft eri. there is more information coming out. i think that transparency of the models is really terribly important. the other -- then given that you -- that all models are wrong, you never know exactly what is going to happen. you are taking your best shot at it. part of how you get comfort on that is you can have in the

peer review process multiple scientists look at it and say it's reasonable and you can have a transparent process and you can say well it's reasonable given what it was trying to accomplish and we know the limitations of that. and the other is that if you have several models that all conclude the same thing from different ways, then that gives you some degree of comfort that the differences between them are less important than the major driving factors which drive you to a common place. which then brings you to the second thing, what is really important is that the only way of really testing this stuff is field testing it and seeing what happens in the real world. we have talked about the commitment to improve the conditions for the fishery on the river and to take measures that deal with that and this we have had some conversations that the commitment is not just to a set of specific regulations but to making sure

that the right thing happens over time. it makes it very important to define what the right thing is. and i think the states adopted plan has the same problem. they were not able to come to grips with what those objectives ought to look like and they're working on it. our draft voluntary settlement agreement does not really deal with what adaptive management looks like and what the objectives are and we need to come to grips with that. so i would support commissioner's emphasis on the setting of realistic objectives and an ongoing process to assess progress and to take corrective action where that information is indicating it.

a question would be how far along in that process do you think we are going to be by march 1st? >> in terms of all of the details necessary to have a completely robust adaptive management process, not far. i have the experience of working on the salt pond restoration project and getting the adaptive management program articulated took at least the better part of a year just in and of itself. because really, i think we had made these points over and over. you identify an action you are going to take and specific mechanisms you'll see occur and you need to have a monitoring program to verify that those actions -- those mechanisms worked or didn't work. and then you take those results and say okay, if they worked, great. did they produce the result we

want? if they didn't work, did we get the result anyway or they didn't work and we didn't get the result we wanted. and then you change to some new action to move yourself forward. that actually takes a fair amount of detail work to actually get all those details pinned down. it does take time. >> which i take it by march 1st we won't have the details. >> no that level of detail. >> anything in there that commits to the process of establishing them? >> i would like to think that we can have more detail there that will give you more comfort on that. i think we can do that. >> okay. >> that would be great and make me more comfortable, too. to be without necessarily all the specific details but there is a commitment to establishing adaptive management protocol and what kind of voluntary review process that will entail. even that much would be helpful. >> adaptive management, i hear a lot of people say that a lot

and they say adaptive management means we have a plan b. it doesn't mean having a plan b. you have predetermined if this doesn't work this is what you'll do. you need to understand first why whatever you did didn't work if it doesn't work. if it worked, great. if it doesn't work, why not and then you actually do that as opposed to doing something entirely different? that's the art of the science.

science get resolved through peer review. we know global warming is here and science makes conclusions that have been tested and ground truth by their peers. that's how you separate the junk science from the real science. we've asked for a peer review of your model. the state board process requires peer review. they can't use results not peer reviewed. we've asked five months ago for progress on peer review. we have made no progress. so we're really hoping you'll provide direction to your staff to tell them to cooperate with the agencies in the valley, with the irrigation districts and make peer review happen. if they aren't interested in

making progress expeditiously we're happy to move forward with you. there is an independent peer review process. it needs to happen. we haven't made any progress for five months and we need to move forward. the issue i really wanted to flag for you today is -- is not on the river. you know we have concerns about your proposal on the river but not what i'm here to talk about. the voluntary settlement agreement is an interconnected package of six different river basins plus a piece for the delta. whatever you do on the river that is directly impacted by what is proposed on the delta. your staff didn't negotiate that delta package but trust me you have deep interest in that delta package. that delta package included in the package that your name was on in december, appears and it is a confusing document. it appears to assume that

existing legal protections in the delta pumping straits in the delta, those go away for the endangered species act. we've seen the federal modeling which assumes those protections go away. that modeling was done as part of the federal effort to make those actions go away. this is what the trump administration is working on eliminating these in the delta. what it means potentially is that additional water that the pfc would release in the river goes to the delta. it doesn't become delta outflow. the city and county of san francisco would not improve conditions in the delta. the modeling the bureau has completed suggests that because of this delta vsa it's quite possible that conditions in the

future -- no audio coming through from the speaker. (no audio coming through from the speaker) mr. nelson. your time is up. one last sentence to conclude. (no audio coming through from

seeing none, the next item, please. item 10 is the consent calender. all matters listed here under constitute of concept cal ler are routine by the san francisco public utilities commission and a vote of the commission. there will be no separate discussion of these items unless a member of the commission or

the public still requests in which event the matter will be removed from the calender and considered as a separate item. >> i'll move approval. >> second. >> are there any other items you'd like to remove from the calender? are there any items you would like to remove from the calender? seeing none. all those in favor of the motion. >> aye. >> opposed? the motion carries. next item, please. >> item 11 is discussion of proposed amendments rule number 6 of the san francisco public utilities commission rules of order. >> yes, i asked to have this put on the agenda because the resignation of vince courtney and being vice president, it's customary that i move into the role of president. i would like to request that we

change rule 6 to read that on the second regular meeting of the commission, after the first day of february, each year, the members of the commission shall elect, blah, blah, blah. the number of president and voice president. and the reason i am requesting this is simply because, if i should be in the role of president to go through mr. courtney's service, that would be october. so that's eight months. and then in october, i am, according to not the rules of order but tradition, i would be the candidate for president for the following year. therefore, i would be serving 20 months as president and truthfully, i really would like to just serve one year as stated

in our rules. so this is for discussion only. we're not voting on this. that's what i would like to submit. >> i have some thoughts o on th. i remember when we voted this on 2012 to establish october because it is shortly after the terms. it's the beginning the terms for all commissioners or three of the five commissioners. it gave a month for the nominated commissioners to be approved and appointed. when there's a full compliment, there's a vote of the election of offices. that would then mean that the officers would serve almost an entire year, until at least august, until they might cycle off. if we changed it to february, in

perpetuity, if we still maintain the august date for commissioners coming on, in perpetuity there would be an officer who would only have a five-month term. for example, so, if you became president at the end of february, we changed the term. and then you would continue on. if i got reappointed, since i would be vice president, i assume, if i gott got appointeds vice president in february, if i was president the following february in 2020, i would only have five months as president and i would cycle off. the same thing would happen if i served 21 to 22 and re-elected,

reappointed, andy would only get five months from february to august before he cycled off. >> that's presuming that you would not be reappointed. >> that's presuming i wouldn't be reappointed. if i was, i would be president until february 2022 and you would only get -- the next person would only get five months. >> i don't follow that. >> what you are saying, if you don't get reappointed -- >> i don't get reappointed. >> if you get reappointed you continue. >> you serve out as president but the vice president would only get five months. if they cycled off. >> is it an option for a past president to finish out vince

courtney's term. is that an option for the commission? >> that's waves goin what i waso propose. an amendment could be that there's an election as to who completes the term. >> yes. >> because then you are at least keeping your election of officers next to the same time as the ow appointment of commissioner. >> i would prefer that. >> i mean, l -- it's a peculiar business. october date, one of the effects of it could have been this last summer. you were serving as president and were up for reappointment and if you would not have been

reappointed, you would have had a short term. that's kind of the way it is. frankly, what happens if you are not reappointed doesn't bother me very much because it's like saying how good looking were you when you died. it just doesn't matter. if you are not or not the commission anymore -- >> but if you are elected president in february and you are expiring, your term is expiring in august, you would only have five months to serve as president. >> why would it expire in august? if i'm not reappointed it would expire. >> right. >> if i'm not reappointed i don't care. >> i don't understand why we would change the by-laws just to complete this term of five months if it doesn't matter. we at least stay on the. >> we're only talking about four months. the difference between october and february is four months. we used to have the elections in

august. before that, i believe we had -- i didn't check this with you, madam secretary, but i believe it was in february or march before we changed to the august. do you recall that? >> i think that's right. >> it used to be february or march. >> how do we change it? i mean, i don't know. >> well, you know, it's why we're asking the discussions. >> that's the thing. i think it's a slippery slope because there's a pragmatic component keeping it near the terms -- the terms of the commissioners and if i go off the commission next year on 2020 and i'm president for five months, it feels like -- a lot of people do it intentionally. i might say 2020 is the end of

my term so i would rather not serve as president, it's not really right and it would be better if someone can step in and do a full year as president. it starts to get the cycle off by change it to february. >> if someone fills in the rest of vince court know' courtney, t change later on? >> nothing in the rules say that. >> that seems like the easiest solution. pick a temporary and hold the schedule. >> if i can throw some stuff in. i like rules. part of what i like about rules is that when something happens, we have rules to guide you. so that it's not just a blind peacpiece of paper you are workg on. my inclination is that when the moment arrives and i guess this is the moment, do you follow

whatever rules you have? >> or you change the rules. >> rather than change the rules. >> that's my inclination. the fact is the rules also don't deal with the absence of someone leaving office. it approaches it in a couple ways. it says you can't serve two full terms, you can serve one full and one partial. that implies a lapse term and the vice president acting for the president. if we were to entertain changes, i don't know what makes sense. one would be, i mean, the only date that really matters in this thing is when terms are up. >> can we change when terms are

up? >> no. >> i would be more comfortable. >> then it would make to do it january and february. >> it could make sense to put it back to august, which happens to be kind of halfway but it's a split on the current dilemma. the other is you could have where you serve one year after you were elected. there's no reason you have to have a fixed time every year. both of those probably have -- >> well, a little bit of history here. when victor macris went to the police commission, i stepped in and served as president and then i was elected for another year to be president. exactly what the situation is here. and i am just saying that i think it should be, as it reads, you serve for one year as president. that is what my recommendation

is. that is following rule 6. >> i just want to understand. you are saying when victor left for the police commission, you served the remaining time that he had as president and then after that term expired, you then rolled from vice president to president. >> because i was vice president. >> you are saying that the first option you can serve the remaining of the president and since you are vice president you would be president for 20 months and that is to continue with tradition but what you are offering is that you don't want to do 20 months, that you want to do 12. that's what you are putting on the table. one option is that you do 20 months, the second option is that you do one year and i guess

what they're saying is well, can someone do the seven months other than the vice president which is not something that has not been done before. >> first of all, everyone on this commission is very qualified to be president. i don't think we have one person that is a rising star. >> everyone has been president. >> everyone has been president. it's not as though, if someone should go off the board and a new person come in that they wouldn't be become an officer right away. it's the way it's always been. this is a bad way of doing things and we should iron it out today. so, any other comments? >> i mean, the to commission kwan's point, there could be another a endment that say amena

vacancy there's a election held to fulfill the term. >> well that is not wait it's been done over the years. it's always been the success and the rotation. i do think the rotation is very good. i think all commissioners should have a rotation, not have one president for year after year after year. >> it would just be what to do in a situation that a vacancy happens on the commission. that's the situation we find ourselves in. rather than change the rules, we can have an election to fulfill the term and then it will be an election held at regular time. >> if that's the feeling of everybody -- >> is there any reason that we need to do anything today?

>> this is just discussion. >> this is a discussion item, not an action item. >> correct. >> your rules do provide you have to provide two weeks advance notice before you vote on an amendment. if you wanted to vote -- if you want an action item february 26th to amend your rules, we would need to post the notice of that. >> in the meantime, is there -- if we continue without a president, is that a problem? >> without a president? >> yeah. >> i'm acting president. >> we have a vice president in the absence of a president, the vice president. >> our rules say that. >> they will convene the meeting but they have all of with a vice president have the ability to sign declarations of emergency is an example. >> they're acting, i would believe so. so we have time to figure this

out is my only point. >> yeah, but i think anne wanted to start the discussion. >> well, i don't know what to say. >> it's an episode of designated survivor. >> you have two week's notice before we nominate and vote. >> no. you could have an election at the next meeting. it's if you want to amend your rules. your rules of order. >> if i'm hearing this, the reason you prefer not to change it is that your concerned that you would only serve as president for five months? >> the not about me. i'm worried about the perpetuity

of the commission and commissioners. everybody -- if there's an outgoing commissioner, they would only get five months to serve as president. if their term was up. >> but the point is, february is in the middle. it's problem a better time than -- >> if they were elected in october they had october to august. the august term date is set. so, they're always going to cycle off or be reappointed in august. so they would only get five months. if they were an outgoing commission and they were on for 10 years, like my situation. i don't care about me for the next round. like i'd be fine for you serving for the next year and going off without -- i'm concerned about someone who is going to care about being president for a year and want to fulfill that term and have a longer period to serve than five months. >> you know what, that's never happened. i have never seen a commission being president and going off as president. >> i'm hesitant to change the

rules because i feel i have the same sense of like, you know, what would happen then if someone else, if you resigned in two months and then i would step forward and say well we just changed the rule the rules to fy could we change them to april so i could be president. >> either too long or too short. 18 months versus a five-month stint. >> the way i take it, and i don't really care because i'm not a commissioner, i'll just throw it out there, that anne could just say, well i'll do the same thing we did with victor and i have 20 months. i just want to acknowledge the point that she's saying, why really want to do 20 minutes, i just want to do a year and i'm willing to give it to the vice president earlier. i think that's what she's saying. i do understand your point. about you want the cycle so that

you know -- to me it's hurrying your cycle up sooner because the vice president could be president faster and then whoever is not can be vice president faster. you just need to think about it. she could just say ok, we're just going to do what we did in the past and i have 20 months. which could be great to have anne caen as president or maybe not, right. i just thought that was something that when she talked to me about it. >> i agree. there's something to be said about keeping the calender as it exists. not altering the schedule as it stands. i would have no objection if you were president for 20 months straight. i think that i guess the question is, for the remaining of us who are not on the vice president or president schedule

would we be willing to step in and a stop-gap measure in the first place and also does that require a formel amendment? >> does what require -- >> if someone is to step in temporarily to finish out convincvincecourtney's term? >> the by-laws are silent about what happens when a president resigns. it just says in the absence of the president the vice president. you could just do nothing and commissioner cane could act as vice press for however months until october. that's one option. the alternate option is you hold an election in the next meeting and you could elect either commissioner caen or someone else to serve out the remainder until october and hold a new election in october. i don't think either one of those rules rules changes. >> can i ask you one other option, could it be possible -- could commissioner caen serve, if we elected her next meeting

and again in october, could she make a decision in february that she would like to step out of the president's role and it still creates things off cycle a bit. that's an option too, right. and if you are enjoying it and you want to continue on for the 20 months. is that an option? >> the rules don't speak to it. one thing you want to consider is maybe the rules should speak to this question of what happens when there's an unexpected vacancy of the presidency. you could have a rule that says the vice president automatically becomes president and there's no election. but right now the rules don't make that clear. >> what happens if a vice president resigns? is there an election? >> well, it's in the process that the next person in the rotation would come to vice

president. i mean, it's the way it's always been. it's a good way to do it with the retation an rotation and evs the opportunity to serve as an officer and it's expected and, you know, you are prime to do it when your time is going to be. >> i think there were some exceptions to that. typically, you know, it's a cycle. >> i think that cycling is important. i think it creates a commission where everybody understands the operation of the commission the same way. i think that's a powerful thing. it's not just that you have someone that can get the position and hold on to be it foon to for along time. it avoids unpleasant discussion about whose turn it should be. i think the practice has been

very wise. in the current -- i think it might make some sense to take a look at the rules. i would be comfortable doing either one of the two things. this isn't helpful. i mean, there's the issue of the structure that makes the most sense in the long-term. that's one discussion. and the next discussion is ok, here we are, in february. we have a resignation of a member who was president. what do we do about that? those are two very different discussions potentially. for the second one, i would be very comfortable with what commissioner caen suggests, that we're basically responding to the issue that we have in front

of us and let's take it for a year. and, i suppose during that year we wanted to rethink how we do the process, we could -- i would be comfortable with that. i'm also very comfortable keeping the rules exactly as they are. if i don't have a strong opinion either way. that's why i say it's not very helpful. i am not a real advocate on that. if there were to be a motion to change the rules, i would probably not second it. if it were seconded i would probably vote for it. >> a wishy washy group. >> we need more power-hungry people on the commission. >> i hope no one is watching this. >> what about what francesca mentioned that we go through the process of electing the next

meeting a person, the vice president becomes the president and then you select the vice president but you can go on -- how would that work? >> it would have to happen again in october. >> would you be president and vice president? >> no. >> i'd be vice president. >> she's acting. there's no acting vice president right now, right? >> she is vice president. >> she's vice president. >> we haven't held an election or anything. >> i'm saying anne is vice president and she's acting president. there's no acting vice president because she's vice president acting as president, right? >> she's just vice president. >> but she's acting as president, right. >> the rules don't speak to it. there's no concept of an acting president. the vice president presides in the outcome of the president. >> it sounds like we can have -- i mean we don't have to do an

election, right. you would just be presiding as vice president to president. that's one option. >> i don't think i would like to be it for eight months a temporary president. >> eight months until when? >> i would prefer being elected as president, not serving as a substitute. >> ok. we're talking for five months, is that correct? five months. >> i think it's eight months. >> there's march -- it would be eight months. but the terms, so no one is termed out this year as commissioners? >> that's correct. there's three of us being termed out in 2020. >> i think of termed out as you can't be reappointed. >> expired term. >> my presumption is you will be

reappointed. >> correct. that's right. vince would have been. >> his replacement would term out the same time you would anyway. >> right. >> so you are right. >> so, fine. why don't we just stick with the way it is and we'll have an election next meeting for finishing out his term. here again, it's only a matter of four month's difference between october and february. i'm sorry that i don't have the support of the commission to do so. we'll just leave it the way it is. >> we look forward to 20 months. >> just to be clear, you either can serve eight months or 20 months. >> correct.

>> ok. >> there's no change of rule for election for president and vice president. >> correct. >> do you need to add something in the rules that addresses the vacancy that says if there's an vacancy there will be an election at the next meeting to fulfill the term? >> well, that negates tradition the way we have it. tradition is we have a rotation and everybody knows about it. >> rotation doesn't work if someone resigns. that's the problem. >> what they're saying is that if someone leave unexpectedly, you just elect a person to fulfill that term. >> which is the -- that's what i'm saying, just for the term. even if a vice president

resigned, we would have an election and theoretically it would be the next person in the rotation. >> that's what you are proposing to do is hold an election to fillel vacancy. fill the vacancy. if you wanted to say when there's an unexpect vacancy, the vice president automatically succeeds the president and you don't have to have an election. >> can i ask a question, anne and donna, when victor went to the police commission, you were elected president, right? >> i don't remember. >> the question i had is was someone, you know, elected vice president? >> yes. it was a succession. i do remember that i was elected

twice. >> so you were elected twice. >> i was elected twice. >> so the vice president was vice president for the same length of time. >> correct. >> ok. >> can i clarify something. the options on the table for vice president cane are not 8 and 20 but 12 and 20. >> eight to finish and then there's another election. >> well, yeah. here is my question, if in our next meeting that we vote for a president to finish out vince courtney's term, in this case, they will be voting in as an official president, right. it's not a temporary thing. >> yeah. >> and vice president caen, you would rather fill just a limited 12 months as president and you would prefer not to be a temporary, a vice president with presidential