near lot of it was because the water wasn't shut off for many hours and that's why there was 700 thousand,000 gallons. so i was wondering if you could address that. yeah. if there are steps that can be taken to -- hopefully it is not the case. but if these happen in the future, that the water could be shut off sooner. >> i do not know the very specific response of that, but i do know that these large transmission mains, they're not something that you can turn off instantly. and it does take some time and we're well aware of that. for example, living with earth quaix, we're well aware that this is something that we'll need to address to get these pipelines back in service within 24 hours with the understanding that you don't just turn off a pipe like this in a very short

amount of time. it really does take depressurizing and stoping the water that is coming up the line. it's going to have some place to go so it really means backing off to the treatment plant and also looking at customers that would be impacted along the line to assure that our wholesale customers, in addition to the other pipelines that this pipe serves, that we are aware of where those shutoffs are going to occur and we can manage that opt mali. -- optimally. so unfortunately it is not something that happens quickly but we have something that is called a shutdown outage request anschutzdown plan and aless lesson learned from this is it takes a harder look at how we mitigate when there is a failure so that we're -- we have thaougt through ahead of time. so that will go back into the lessons learned process. >> mm-hmm. great. thank you.

and just glad to hear that there is -- yeah, a process in place to learn from this catastrophic disaster and to prevent it. i had a question around the actual emergency declaration and the contracts with the two vendors. so i know it looks like there is a waiver of quite a few of our provisions of our contracting, important provisions in our contracting guidelines and, for example, provision that requires if there is found to be collusion between the contractor and city officials that, you know,, that the contract be suspend and, you know, there is a provision that's being waived that

provides a more detailed cost estimate. as part of the contract. and also the provisions around local hire and prevailing wage requirements so i was wondering if you could explain why these important contracting policies are being waived. >> i can give it a go. i do want to verify that our resolution doesn't ask for additionals, but just goes with chapter 6.60 which then waives those. so, maybe the city attorney can chime in. when we file the declaration, we just file it under 6.60. 6.60 is what waives all of those kinds of things above and beyond a 6.60. do i want to point out maybe before the city attorney can chime in on all the various co-sections of 6.60, that the

two contractors that the p.u.c. contracted with, they're union labor shops so we're not waving any prevailing wages or anything like that. we have gone with the two contractors that already have those. so, we're not asking for them not pay their folks but maybe the city attorney can chime in on all the various waiving of 6.60. we weren't asking for in additional about that. >> greg lyman is here as well from our contracts group. >> this is deputy city attorney. would somebody at sfcuc-1 address that first? i heard the name greg. >> good morning, supervisors. greg lieyman, construction contract manager for the san

francisco public utilities economy.sing as john has indicated, both are union shops so we're not asking for that specific waive easier and we are just asking for the standard waivers to enter into the contract as quickly as possible so we can get work done as quickly as possible. >> thank you so the section 6.60, the emergency public works contracting includes a waiver of the waiver of all of those contracting provisions. is that correct? [background noise] >> this is the deputy city attorney. i'm happy to jump in to be helpful and you are correct that section 6.60 is a

prostlaition authorizes emergency contracts. and because they are entered into in an emergency, there is a recognition through the passage of that at leasting certain things need to be waived to expedite them. that section specifically waives the requirements of chapters 6, 12-a, 12-b and 14-b. >> section 8.1 of the administrative code is regarding when the contractor is found to have covid with city officials, then the board can nullify the contract so this is being waived and why -- i'm trying to understand why, for example, that one would be waived because this is an emergency contract. it doesn't seem like that

would somehow impact the ability to implement the contract quickly. >> i can't speak to the policy choice that was made in section 6.60 which authorizes a broad waiver. and i don't know the terms of this specific contact and whether a choice was made to include that provision not with standing the authorizations to waive it. i would defer to mr. lyman to represent whether that particular provision is convenient. >> we'll be using our standard contract languages so that provision will be in the contract. >> ok. thank you. yeah. it just see that the proposed ordinance waives its requirements but you're saying that it will --

section 6.81 will be in the contract. >> yes. >> ok. >> i don't know, and maybe we can work with anne off-line next time this comes down. but like about a lot of these emergency declarations over the years and it's just like a sort of template resolution, you know what i mean? and then use this to move forward. so maybe in the future we can be more specific in referencing what parts really and this is just for expediting and getting the contracts as quick will i as possible. >> thank you. nick from the b.l.a.'s office, do you have anything to add to this? >> yeah, thank you. the contract is not final yet

so we did not -- there was no contract for us to review. it is not required for us to be final by the time it comes to the board in this kind of emergency authorization. i just want to make clear that there is no contract here for us to review. thank you. >> great. well, thank you for all of your work on this. john and. the p.u.c. this is really important for my district and for the west side so i would love to be added as a sponsor to this item. thank you, chair. >> thank you. >> thank you. is there a b.l.a. report on this item? >> yes, chair haney, i'm having camera difficulties. nick menards.

this proposed resolution would approve the public utilities commission declaration of emergency and related emergency work to repair stern grove for a total not to exceed amount of $4 million. as stated by the department earlier in the hearing that the department expects to use two contractors to resort to stern grove which was flooded by a burst pipeline. the contract of the main contractor and builders still being finalized. we showed the budget for our emergency work on page 11 of our report and based on the information that was available to us, we do recommend approval of this resolution. >> great. supervisor safai, anything to add there?

could we open this to public comment, please? >> thank you, chair haney. operations checking to see if there are any callers in the queue. members of the public who wish to comment on this item, please press star 3 now to be added. for those who are already on hold, please continue to wait until the system indicates you have been unmuted and that is your cue to begin your comments. do we have any callers? >> caller: i appreciate michael, steve, katie, john and others at p.u.c. and unnamed people at rec park for their work on this. i do note, i'm not sure if it was in the b.l.a. report that it's not just the water enterprise that will pay but ultimately it is the rate payers of the city that will pay, unfortunately. these things happen and, yes, it's somewhere in the budget. but we're all paying for this.

i do smourts the proposed resolution to get the repair work as quickly as possible. it does waive various contracting provisions, that was a good discussion on that point. i would just respectfully suggest, i don't know that you need to add it to the legislation, but i would suggest that you ask p.u.c. and rec park to jointly send a report to the board of supervisors upon completion of the work in the spring, perhaps with photos and a little description about how the work being done, how many trees got replaced, the tennis court -- you know, that everything is good and that there is some final report that can go on the pages and be included in this file. ultimately. to close that out. i think that makes sense. to close the loop on this kind of emergency declaration.

those are my thoughts on this item. thanks. >> thank you, david, for your comments. do we have anymore callers? >> there are no further callers in the queue. >> thank you bunch. mr. chair? >> great, thank you. public comment is closed. appreciate that. questions and comments from colleagues? >> yeah, chair haney. i just wanted to actually -- i like the suggestion from david of adding in amending the resolution, just requiring p.u.c. to provide a report when the project completed, just so we -- yeah. we have that. and if the report can also include the lessons learned and preventive measures that are being taken to -- yeah, will be taken to prevent these in the future, that would be good. i would like the move that we

amend the resolution to add that and then i would also move that we recommend the resolution as amended to the full board with positive recommendation. >> ok. great. first, on the amendment, for city attorney, is that clear? we're asking for there? >> i think that is clear. unless anybody thinks it's not. [laughter] >> ok. all right. we'll add that and add that to the resolution. could we have a roll call on the amendment, please. >> on the -- to accept the amendments offered by supervisor as stated. [roll call]

>> we have three ayes. >> thank you. can we now take that motion to move this to the full board with a positive recommendation as amended? >> on that motion i believe also offered by member mark to forward the item to the full board with a positive recommendation. [roll call] >> we have three ayes. >> all right. this will go to the full board a positive recommendation as amended. i want to take an item out of order, mr. clerk. can you please call item 6. >> yes, chair haney. item number 6 is a resolution authorizing the office of contract administration to enter into a second amendment

to the agreement between the city and the county of san francisco and sunset scavenger company, d.b.a. recolding sunset scavenger, golden gate

sunset scavenger, golden gate disposal and recycling company, d.b.a. reckology golden gate and reckology san francisco at city services facilities, increasing the contract amount by $7 million for a total not to exceed amount of approximately $16.9 million and extending the term by seven months from december 1, 2021 for a total contract duration of one year and seven months of december 1, 2020 through june 30, 2022. members of the public who wish to provide public comment, call the number on your screen. the system will prompt that you have raised your hand. please indicate until the system has indicated that you are unmuted and may begin your comments. mr. chair? >> thank you. welcome. the presentation on this item. >> thank you very much. and i believe that city administrator chiu is here to introduce this item. city administrator? >> great. thank you. thank you to chair haney and supervisor safai and marr. woe are putting this item

before you today as a seven-month contract extension for waste services, for municipal facilities. just to note that this does not include residential or commercial accounts. this is strictly for city facilities. our offices -- our office buildings, etc. i would note that the budget analysts recommend approval of this contract with modifications to the contingency which we do agree with. i want to make sure that i'm here to answer questions and wanted to let the committee know that i'll be in transit in a car so we'll be getting on to this meeting by phone in just a little bit. but our acting purchaser for the city and county of san francisco is actually just steped into this role relatively recently and i want to take a moment to thank her for filling in in this important role and her six months of deployment to the covid command center where she was pretty critical in terms of the logistics response there. with that, i'll turn it over to her to provide a quick overview and presentation to you and i'll reconnect by phone. >> thank you very much, city administrator chiu and thank you for the introduction. good morning. i am here today to request

your approval to amend the city's contract with reckology for city-wide refuse collection services. forgive me. i'm having trouble forwarding my presentation. ok. so, justs a brief history of our city contracts with -- for refuse collection services. since 2004, we have collected our refuse collection services through city-wide contracts. mostly issued by office of contract administration. these contracts have been with reckology. the last full-source contract was approved in 2014. this was for six years and was the final not to exceed contract value of $48 million. in november of 2020, o.c.a. brought a new negotiated refuse collection contract to the board. however, no action was taken at that time.

so, to ensure continuety of refuse collection services, o.c.a. did enter into an interim contract covering december 2020 to november of 2021. the contract is now at $9.9 million and it is expiring on november 30 of this year. as such, we're seeking your review and approval for an extension of this contract. with an increase of the not-to-exceed value commensurate with expected usage. so the major provisions of this amendment, we will -- we are requesting an increase of the contract value to essentially to $15.62 million. it is an increase of 5.72 million and to extend the contract by seven months to the end of the current fiscal year. the contract includes

favorable terms for the city. including a 20% compost credit, which is a discount off the monthly buildings to account for materials, the city reuses on site. this discount is essentially a clear and transparent discount, often the base rate charged to the city and does align the contract with the city's environmental goals as it incentivizes greater diversion of the city waste facilities. additionally, the city is not charged for new accounts as we were with the past contract. s so this amendment essentially allows the continuety of the trash collection services for every departments across the city while we coordinate with the department of environment to development an issue for a new contract. i do want to make clear that seven months will not be enough time to complete the process. of a solicitation and entering into a new agreements and i will cover this timeline later in the presentation.

but the shorter extension makes sense at this time essentially so we can come back to the board to you to update you on our progress. it also recognizes that there are a couple of other parallel efforts that the board may want some more information on, including the work of the refuse working group and any continued work from the controller's audits. so, this is heavily used contract by our city departments. we see generally a monthly spend of anywhere between $750,000 to nearly $900,000. the expected spend for the seven-month extension is about $6 million and so with contingency of the final m.t.e. for this country, if extended, will be $15.62 million. we are in alignment with the budget legislative analyst on this amount. i do want to point out the

calculations do include an increase to the monthly spend as we're expecting increased usage with the return to the office of city employees as of november 1. and the contingency essentially accounts for any new locations that are added and any other potential charge such as the addition of the green boxes at certain sites, contamination charges and other ancillary services that are allowed under the contract. so here i'm just providing an example of the monthly charges to the city by department. essentially, again, as note they are roughly -- the use of how this contract can reach about $900,000 per month as you see here. there are roughly 30 departments that utilize this contract, about 300 city sites, the i'm not mistaken. so, again, just reiterating that this is a very heavily utilized contract and it is essential for all of our city

departments. so in terms of next steps, we are coming to you now for this contract extension that takes the contract out to june 30, 2022, end of this fiscal year. but we are expecting to come to you for an additional contract extension in roughly may or june in 2022. that said during this time of the extension, we will be initiating a concurrent competitive solicitation process. i've outlined some of the steps here. first we rel will be working closely with the department of the environment to develop the scope of work and minimum qualification requirements. we are planning to issue the solicitation subsequent to that and that will take, we expect, roughly four to six months contract. there is always contract

negotiation and contract execution that could take a few months and there are additional variables here that will impact the timeline, which is somewhat unusual, i think, in terms of the o.c.a. or city contracts. the contracts that o.c.a. issues and vendor compliance is generally -- generally always happens with every city contract that you see here and there are additional items that will be required, including b.p.h. permitting, the potential for a ceqa analysis and then finally there may be some implementation that are involved. that could take some time. and i indicated t.b.d. here and i'm happy to discuss a little bit further what this might involve. that's the end of my presentation. thank you very much for your consideration and i'm happy to take any questions. >> thank you.

do you want to jump in? >> no, that's fine. b.l.a. >> let's hear the b.l.a. report first. >> thank you, chair. this proposed resolution would approve the second amendment to the city's contract with reckology, including the not to exceed amount by $7 million to $16.9 million and extending the term through the rest of the fiscal year through june 2022. as we show on page 19 of our report, o. c. a.'s projecting $8.7 million five many total expenditures through that extension period. and the -- but the proposed not to exceed amount currently includes a 15% contingency for unexpected needs. however, that amount is calculated on the total spending of the contract, rather than the expenditures and the extension term. so we believe a contingency for new expenditures

appropriate and, therefore, recommended a amendment to reduce the not-to-exceed amount to $15.6 million. in may of this year t board of supervisors approved a settlement agreement that required recology to repay $7 million related to refuse rate increases and in 2017 that were based oin inaccurate information provided by reckology during the rate-setting process and also related to unlawful gift of city officials. the settlement required a reduction in residential and commercial rates as well going forward. so this proposed contract extension provides refuse collection services for city facilities while options for alternative providers for refuse collection are identified through that

solicitation process that was just discussed and changes to the refuse service mod are evaluated by the working group. we therefore recommend approval of this proposed resolution as amended. >> thank you, appreciate it. supervisor safai? >> thank you, chair haney. just a couple of questions on the presentation. i understand that this work has been done as a soul source contract for a really long time. i'm trying to understand why it takes five months to put together a scope of work when you all are pretty familiar with the work that is being performed. so can you explain that to me? >> certainly. solicitation development generally does take some time for contracts. you know, we generally work with city departments when o.c. is issuing contracts.

this contract in particular is fairly complex. while we do know what the general scope of services is, we are undertaking essentially a very significant assessment to determine what the minimum qualification might be for any vendor. that might be for facilities, any equipment they need, financial capacity. >> i'm sorry. i guess what i'm asking is don't you have an existing contract with them? >> we do and we do have an existing skoem of services. that is correct. as i'm mentioning. we do need to assess what requirements we might need to put in place for any new potential vendors that we might see working with this contract including a financial capacity to do the work, facilities and equipment. i think those requirements have not been well-defined in the past. and doi have my colleague here from the departments of

the environment who might be able to respond additionally to that question. >> good afternoon. i'm with the department of the environmental waste team. and as the acting director has mentioned, this is the first time we've gone out for solicitation. so, we with -- this gives us an opportunity to get a better understanding of the other jurisdictions and other companies that might have equipment and facilities. we haven't had the opportunity to do that before so this might let us look at it and see what they provide for city and being in alignment with our goal of zero waste. >> if i can actually add to that, supervisor safai.

the contract currently, essentially, wrather than to raise structure that's been in place generally since we start these contracts and the rates are built upon the commercial rates that are charged by reckology with some additional contract terms and charges that we allow additional discount as i mentioned. if we are potentially to work with any new vendor, we would need to also consider if there are other types of fee structures or fee models that we might instead want to consider and sole thats assessment will take a little bit of time. so, we're take our time to do our due diligence, to put together the best solicitation, the most thoughtful solicitation that will provide the most detailed information requirements to any potential vendor that might propose so they can put together a very thoughtful proposal for us.

>> if i may add, supervisor safai, thank yous for the question. i wanted to just add to it that the tentative timeline that we laid out, which includes the five-month period of time to develop a skoem of work is just that. it is an estimated timeframe based on our conversation and discussions with the department of environment. they are part of the benefit of going forward with this proposal at a seven-month exsentencing that we know that it is not enough time to complete fully a solicitation but gives us the opportunity to share with you how things are going and if we find that we did not need the five-month period of time and we're able to do in its a quicker fashion, we advance the schedule and we would be able to share that information with you. we don't haves to wait until the end of the seven-months extension to provide those updates with you. we're happy to share along the way our progress on that and just so folks know, our

intention is to already have initiated the conversation so we'ves already been in conversation with the department of the environment on how to begin that work and will be doing that throughout this period of time. >> thank you for the clarification. that was my concern. if this were something that we're starting from scratch, if there were not an existing contract, i would probably make more sense. i also know that there is not many vendors in the bay area that can actually meet our zero waste requirements and what we require in terms of how we deal with waste, recycling, composting in general waste and so i know that it's not that many different facilities and companies to look at. so it just seems as though, since we're dealing with something that you identified

as being sole-sourced, given the environment that we're working under, it seems as though that was an extensive amount of time. one of the criticisms we hear that the pace at which government moves too slow so that is what i'm responding to. i appreciate you telling us that that is an estimate, that you have the ability to come back sooner and it is why you asked for the seven-month extension and hopefully we'll see a quicker progress than what was laid out in the tentative timeline. thank you, mr. chair. >> thank you, vice chair. >> i just had a few questions around the rate structure. and also for this new contract amendment and the

relationship that this has with the legal settlement with recology that is not around the rates for residential -- well, for commercial service. and actually just starting with that, so obviously that -- you know, the issue of -- or the scandal, i guess, of reckology, overcharging our residential and commercial customers ands the collusion and pay-to-play practices, that helps support that. it is a very important part of the context for this item. even though, you know, that is -- that was really -- those issues were around the residential and commercial rates. i understand that with the

city contract with recology, it is based on the commercial rates s. that correct? >> that's right. >> so, when the city reached the settlement agreement with recology where they repaid customers, including commercial customers, $94 million and then civil penalties back in april and the commercial rates were reduced by 6.8%. as a result of that, was there any similar kind of compensation made by recology to the city for the city contract with recology given that the rate structure was based on the commercial rate? >> thank you, supervisor mar for the question.

we will defer to the controller's office to speak to whether there is any remission of payment to the city. i think the controller's office has more information potentially on that information. i think on the settlement, though, just one thing to note, i think there are two questions or two issues embedded in the question that you raised. the first is how the rate structure is proposed and to qualify, this would assume basically the commercial rates that are negotiated through the regular contracts for general, uniform commercial accounts. on top of that, there is a 20% discount that is provided to the city through negotiation. my understanding is that from the previous settlement that you referred to, supervisor, is that the settlement really did not include any kind of funding or payment and basically did not account for any negotiated contracts which this contract would be.

i wanted to clarify that. i don't believe that the settlement related to any negotiated contracts, which is what we had before us as a city contract and the controller's office can speak to any other financial considerations from that settlement. >> good afternoon.

penalties back in april and the commercial rates were reduced by 6.8%. as a result of that, was there any similar kind of compensation made by recology to the city for the city contract with recology given that the rate structure was based on the commercial rate? >> thank you, supervisor mar for the question. we will defer to the controller's office to speak to whether there is any remission of payment to the city. i think the controller's office has more information potentially on that information. i think on the settlement, though, just one thing to note, i think there are two questions or two issues embedded in the question that you raised. the first is how the rate structure is proposed and to qualify, this would assume basically the commercial rates that are negotiated through the regular contracts for general, uniform commercial accounts. on top of that, there is a 20% discount that is provided to the city through negotiation. my understanding is that from the previous settlement that you referred to, supervisor, is that the settlement really did not include any kind of funding or payment and basically did not account for any negotiated contracts which this contract would be. i wanted to clarify that. i don't believe that the settlement related to any negotiated contracts, which is what we had before us as a city contract and the controller's office can speak to any other financial considerations from that settlement. >> good afternoon. my unctioning is that it considered only the rates that were charged to residential and commercial customers and not to the city so i'm not aware that there is a [inaudible] of that settlement that requires repayment to the city. if the controller has additional information, i would absolutely welcome them to weigh in. >> good afternoon. i do not and i'm happy to confirm that and i can get back to the committee. >> ok. thank you for just confirming. that was comparable to the settlement agreement that was reached back in april. even though our -- the rate structure for our city contract with recology is based on the commercial rates. so i don't know if that is something that we hadn't

looked into, whether how much we would -- the city was being overcharged. given that the commercial rates were, you know, recology was overcharging commercial customers. any idea how much that might be worth? >> we're happy to work with any overages on this contract. >> i was going to say that we would work with o.c.a. >> ok. great. thank you. would appreciate that work and would love to see what you come up with. thank you. thank you, chair haney. >> thank you for the question. let's go to public comment, please. >> that, chair haney. operations checking to see if we have callers in the queue. for those already -- for those already in line, please press star 3 to be added. for those already on hold, please continue to hold until the system indicates that you have been unmuted. do we have any callers? >> good afternoon. dave pillpel again. several points here. the controller's refuse working group has only met once in may of this year. i've been eagerly awaiting more meetings so i seriously doubt they will issue a report this month. they've only met one. -- once. i'm still not clear why this proposes a seven-month extension when staff says that 20 months are needed. why not package this as a 20-month extension at this time. i don't understand that. the 2020 proposal that's in board of supervisors file 21213 had a new and different cost structure. i'm not sure that that different rate structure is in this particular proposal. i believe that an r.f.p. will

likely result in one responsive bidder and that would be recology. i note that there is a letter in the file from services but i'm not sure they would have the facilities and equipment and wherewithal to perform the work so i don't understand why not just negotiate a soul source agreement as with recology as has occurred in the past. i believe the effort on the new r.f.p., ceqa review may be more costly than any time savings here. i'm sorry to say, this is only a million dollars a month. it is not and even if the cost savings are 10%, that's only 100,000 a month. it could cost a lot more than that to go through all of that effort. i don't understand. why postser?

and there is no guarantee that there will be cost savings with the proposed r.f.p. process. in the end, i still have serious questions about the recommended path forward. i would recommend updates and the next extension from seven months to 20, long before june so the board has omtions. >> thank you for your comments. anymore callers? >> there are no further callers in the queue. >> thank you very much, mrs. chair. >> thank you. i think that the points that my colleagues make are ones that i agree with. we want to make sure that this happens and doesn't get dragged out. too lodge. and that we actually do the due diligence and how we do

it in an expeditiously as possible. i know there was a question from supervisor marr. i don't know if you wanted to give an answer on that today before we move forward. or was that something that we wanted to wait for? >> i think we can wait. it sounds like the controller's office and o.c.a. are going to look into how much we were overcharged for contract. since it was based on the commercial rate structure and commercial rate payers were overcharged and do you get a refund? and we don't need that today. but i look forward to their work on this and their updates. >> great. supervisor safai? >> yes. i appreciate the -- oops. hold on.

sorry. i appreciated the public from the comment. that is part of what my point was about. i think it's pretty apparent what the result will be, given the size and scope and need of the city in terms of our requirements and so that was what my hope was, that this could be expedited in terms of the analysis and the response. i'm absolutely fine with it going out for a competitive process. even if the city might know and predicts what the result of that might be. because i think that is in the realm of good government. and i don't necessarily believe that we should be soul sourcing contracts of this size, scale and nature. given the bad history of some of the things that have happened with regard to soul-source contracting and, in particular, with this company. i do want to say that the

amount of time it should take should be condensed dramatically. given the fact that there is an existing contract, given the fact that we know what we need on the sides of our diversion, both requirements and needs. so, i don't think that the analysis will take that long and i appreciate city administrator chiu saying that she intends and believes that it will be done in a much more expedited fashion. and the result will be good government and more scaout knit for these types of contracts and that is also important given what was said, the recent year of corruption and overcharging and rate payers impacked by the behavior. so i appreciate that. thank you, mr. chair. >> great. thank you. agreed. i always think this is an

unusual dlat we have in relationship and unique relationship that we have with recology and on many things they have done a great job for us without a doubt. and i know that we all here have tremendous respect for their workers and a lot of appreciation for the structure of their company and the way that it shares their revenue with their workers, there's also, as you said, supervisor safai, also no doubt that recology management at the top, or particularly over the last year or so did some things that were unethical and in some cases were criminal. at least allegations of criminal behavior. so we have to be very intentional about how we move forward and ensthaur we have

a process that are contracting that reachs the highest levels of integrity and accountability and our rate payers, our residences, our small businesses gate fair deal and there is nothing that takes advantage of them at the same time. we have tremendous represent for workers themselves and we have to deliver for our folks. so for our residents. and there were some things that need to happen and picking up the trash is one of them. i know we set big goal around doing it, zero waste and the requirements of our contract are special as well when it relates to recycling and trash and waste. so, with that i think we expressed our views on this here.

i am going to, unless there are any further questions or comments here, i want to make a motion foister accept the b.l.a.'s recommendation to amend this item. could we have a roll call vote on that, plea. >> on the motion to amend the resolution to accept the b.l.a.'s recommendations -- [roll call] we have three ayes. >> could we please want to make a motion to move item 6 to the full board for the positive recommendation as amended. >> to the full board as amended with positive recommendation. [roll call]

we have three ayes. >> great. thank you so much, everyone, for your work on this and we will undoubtedly see you all soon to continue this conversation and the next steps. thank you. >> thank you. >> mr. clerk, can you please call item 4? >> yes. item number 4 is a resolution authorizing the human services agency to apply for and accept a county child welfare agency allocation for an amount of approximately $459,000 from the california department of housing and community development under the transitional housing program to help young adults secure and maintain housing. members of the public who wish to provide public comments on this item should call 415-655-0001.

meeting i.d. 249963166172 and then press pound twice. if you have not already done so, please press star 3 to line up to speak. the prompt will indicate that you have raised your hand. mr. chair? >> thank you. welcome suzy smith from h.s.a. >> thank you, thank you. my name is suzy smith. i'm deply director for policy and planning from the san francisco human services agency. i'll note that agenda item four and agenda item five are closely related around the same source of funds so i don't know if you want to call and get with them together or separately. >> can you call item 5 as well with this item? >> yes. item 5 is a resolution authorizing the human services agency to apply for and accept a county child

welfare agency allocation for an amount up to $147,000 from the california departments of housing and community development under the housing navigator program to help young adults secure and maintain housing. and members of the public who wish to speak on item number five can also call 415-655-0001 and meeting i.d. 24963166172 and then press pound twice and dial star 3 to line up to speak. mr. chair? >> thank you. ms. smith? >> thank you. as mentioned, the state of california departments of housing and community development recently issued two related funding opportunitis to help young adults in the child welfare system secure and maintain housing. the first grant opportunity is an $8 million statewide

allocation to support the transitional housing program and that provides direct subsidies for current or former foster youth agency teen to 25. the second is a $5 million statewide allocation to fund housing navigation services to help young adults aged 18 to 21 to apply for suitable housing. in other words for san francisco to access these two related housing funds, the board of supervisors required to approve resolutions which gives health and human services toosing apply for and accept the funding. upon the receipt of our application, they will determine how much money san francisco will be awarded based on the number of youth in our child welfare system as well as the number of other countis that applied for this funding.

the maximum we could be awarded for transitional housing program is up to $573,950 and the maximum we could be awarded for the housing navigation program is up to $183, 775. you'll note there is an -- there are two amendments to these resolutions to increase the amounts that we originally requested. and this simply gives us flexibility to accept a greater amount of the state funding in the event that other counties fail to draw down their allocated funds. so t the state initially issued one form with one amount and then they requested greater flexibility for us to accept additional funding should other counties underspend. so the goal overall of this program is to reduce homelessness for foster youth.

servicess will include applying for housing, prehousing drex services, housing subsidies and stabilization and [inaudible] services. we have until at least the end of the school year '23 to spend these funds should we be awarded them. and briefly on the issue in terms of homelessness at the inner child welfare system and why this is so important for your young adults, young adults currently were formerly in child welfare faced challenges with homelessness and housing stability in our high-cost market, data from the latest noinlts time. 29% of youth respondents in the survey reported history of foster care involvement. over one-third of youth reported a history of foster care.

living in foster care, sorry, immediately before becoming homeless. and 17% reported aging out of foster care is the primary cause of the homelessness. that is really what these grants time address. how do we help people who provide housing support as they exit our system. so these two resolutions would authorize to accept the allocation for both of these programs and help them secure and maintain housing and avoid homelessness. i'm happy to answer any questions that you or others may have. >> thank you. much appreciated and thank you for noting to call these together. obviously both connected and appreciated. is there a b.l.a. report on these items?

>> chair haney, we do not report on these items. >> great. thank you. not seeing anythinging from colleagues. can we open this up to public comment, please? >> yes, chair haney. operations is checking to see if there are any caller in the queue. members of the publics who wish to provide comment on items 4 and 5, please press star 3 to be added. for those already on hold, please continue to wait until the system indicates you have been unmuted and that is your cue to begin your comments. mr. adkins? >> mr. clerk, there are no callers in the queue. >> thank you much.

mr. chair? >> great. public comment is now closed. i know there are amendments that are being made. did you want to offer those ms. smith? >> yes. the amendments are around the flexibility to receive additional funding, should the state want to add to our allocation. so, originally we had applied for and accept up to $459 *shs 200 for transitional housing program. we have amended that to allow us to apply for and accept up to $573,950 for the transitional housing program. so we can see on the red lines the second page under further resolve, it allows the san francisco human services agency, it says that if the departments of housing and community development advises sfhsa that they are available for the remaining funds, they hereby authorized and directed to accept this additional allocation of funds. that is what these two amendments are just giving the state flexibility to say if other counties underspend, we can add to the grant

without having to come back for another resolution to the board. and there is the resolution for the second program, the housing navigator program we originally had an allocation amount up to $147,020 and we amended that to receive up to $183,000 on page two of the amendment. >> got it. are these substantive amendments to our city attorney? >> yes, i believe these are substantive amendments and, therefore, i'll threat city attorney weigh in. >> good afternoon.

this is deputy city attorney. we're actually not subsidizing. >> oh, great. [laughter] >> all right. well first of all i want to make a motion to move these amendments. could we have a role call vote? >> on the notion accept the amendment on both items, number four and five as stated -- [roll call] >> i am sorry. let's see. sorry.

oh, wait. we did take public comment. there were no speakers. ok. i am -- ok. so safai, aye. so sorry. we have three ayes, mr. chair. >> great. and now i want to make a motion to move this item as amended to the full board with a positive recommendation. sorry. i want to make a notion move items 4 and 5 to the full board as amended with a positive recommendation. >> thank you, chair haney. on the motion to recommend both items 4 and 5 to the full board as amended. [roll call] >> we have three ayes. >> thank you. thank you again for your work. much appreciated. mr. clerk, can you please call item 7.

>> yes. item number 7 is an ordinance, retroactively authorizing the office of the mayor to accept and expend a grant in the amount of approximately $3.4 million from bloomberg philanthrophies, ordinance number 109-21. the annual salary ordinance for fiscal years 2021 to 2022 and 2022 to 2023. to provide for addition of one grant funded class. 0904, mayoral staff. 16 position. at the office of the mayor and two grant-funded class 1043 engineer positions at the office of the city administrator and two grant funded class 253 senior business analyst positions. the office of the city administrator for the period of october 1, 2020 through

august 21, 2024. members of the public who want to speak about this item, should call the number on your screen and meeting i.d. 2496-316-6172. and then press pound twice. if you have not already done so, please press star 3 to line up to speak. please wait until the system indicates you haves been unmuted and that is your cue to begin your comments. mr. chair? >> thank you. and welcome the mayor's office. >> thank you, chair haney. thank you members of the committee. i will share a brief less than three-minute presentation, hopefully. is that working? >> confirming it's visible. >> wonderful. thank you. so this is the -- the item

before you is an expension worth $3.4 million over three years so that is approximately 12k4rr million a year, not $3 million per year. the majority of which will be spent on salaries and this ordinance creates a new position of authority for five positions, one in fact mayor's office and four at the city administrator's office which will be the basis of a new team coordinated through the mayor's office, but with a number of people across the city and you'll see that the majority of these positions are technical in nature so i'll get to the overall structure of this grant and then how he intends to use this office. so, first, this is a competitive grant program so apply for this grant and was awarded along with five other cities in this cohort is part of a general group of about 40 cities that received the innovation grant over the

last several years and bloomberg really looks for a few key things in their innovation offices. the sf*irs that they look for direct axe sayses to either the mayor ors city manager and that is really so that they can have assurances that there is a certain amount of political clout that is really focusing on the key issues that the city is facing and not kind of like working around the edges, so to speak. they want -- they look for somebody who can -- who is willing to use data, human-centered design and digital technology to address those big media issues that are facing the city. and they operate in a strike team model where you are able to take on a single project for six to nine months and then move on to another item. for san francisco and our only case ining particular, we have some really great infrastructure already that i will get into between digittal services, data s.f., our office of civic innovation and city

performance team at the controller's office. so, we were really not trying to reinvent the wheel here, but leverage all of that really great expertise, uplift the work that has already been done and direct those resources such as they are where fobl more strategic issues. and beyond the digital innovation, building of websites and making things more technologically savvy and really creating a culture of innovation and pulling up what i think we call the sensible solutions that frequently exist at a staff level but have trouble breaking through up to, you know, a higher level. things that don't always make it to the mayor's office but there is a lot of really great, you know, information and talent and creative solutions that happen as a line staff level and we're trying to infuse a culture of being able to bring those ideas up and give them more direct access to leadership in the city.

and is this came up earlier with item number two. we are hopeful that this office will be able to allow us to use a better define and measure success across a number of our priorities and then where we have those indicators then not just have that data and exist in open data s.f. as it currently is, but have that drive policy decision through the mayor and board of supervisors. so this is really an existing structure and has digittal services that work at a.d.m. and are work-order funded and intend to be hired by the departments to work on a specific project. there is not a lot of opportunities for them to identify a new program. data s.f. helps departments dig through and understand what data they they have and what they might be missing. the office of civic innovation a partnership-focused program as it intends to work

primarily on a program called civic bridge which brings in pro bono help from for profit companies to work on projects that are pitched by individual departments and then city performance in the controller's office is, you know, they go through and adit our services and make sure that the public has access to information about whether we're doing things well. what we sfienld that all of these intend to work a little bit in silo. there is not a great opportunity to take the learning and the needs across these individual groups and elevate issues up to say, you know what? really we have a citywide permitting problem. it is not d.b.i. permitting problem a fire permitting problem. it is a general cross departmentstal issue and needs to be dealt with in a cross departmentstal way. we're proposing an office of innovation that would be eight people, five of which are the positions created here funded by this grant and then drawing in the office of civic innovation.

they would still be d.t.e. employees and pulling their expertise in to create a policy-focused office that can look across all of these different groups, particularly digital services, data s.f. and o.c.i., understand what needs to happen and more of a policy level and create that strike team that is not based on work order dollars, that is generally grant funded. and then have that reinforced by the city performance team. we are going to work very closely with them as we pull out what would n theory, be a successful [inaudible]. and that is the end of my presentation. i'm happy to take any questions. i hope i got through that quickly. >> i think somebody has me on

repeat there. you're really speaking my language here in this presentation. i don't know if you're aware of this, but i held a hearing in this committee a few months ago on this very topic and had all of those offices come and present. and we spent hours on this. my rel daysing to them was essentially what you proposed here, which is coordinated across the whole city and that their respective roles are that are built for collaboration and that they actually address their own kind of challenges around a collaboration before we are in position to fix those for the rest of the city.

and looks like that is what you're building here, which is really great. this is something that we did when i was at the school -- the school district, actually. something to look at and not many examples to look at with the school district. unfortunately. but that is something that we [inaudible] there and they have an office innovation that co-ordinates the professional developments and has potentially strike teams on individual challenges across the district. a ever that structure works well. is this part of the mayor's budget proposal or basically announced right now entirely anew? >> it was not part of the budget proposal and that is why we had to come to you with this ordinance.

we had, in mid june, late june, we received word that we would be receiving this. but we had to go through the details of what the grant agreement would look like and a lot of those negotiations. so, you know, at the time of introduction on june 1, we had not been awarded this yet and decided not tot go through an amendment process in june. we would rather goat our ducks in a row. >> has it already started in what is the timeline for in -- for this? >> no, it is technically retroactive. because the draft agreement that they sent us starts october 1. that said, we have not yet received or accepted any dollars. we have not posted any positions. it is technically retroactive, but awaiting your approval before moving forward. >> great. and the eight positions will be additive and then they

will help to coordinate the work of -- >> five of them are added in. it is the director, the four positions which are -- i can bring them back up -- a project manager, a technical promise manager a data analyst, a u.s. or systems designer. we'll try to figure out based on what our first project looks like, which is more appropriate and then a software evening naoer who can focus on websites and the like. and then the three other positions are the people who already work in the office of civic innovation and we'll pull that partnership team in and see how we can lift that work up and make them a little bit -- they are very siloed right now and i think, you know, we're really wasting their talents so we'll pull them in and have a universal eight-person team. but it is mostly technically

focused and the current innovation director being like the -- i don't know. the strategic vision, if you will. >> i think it is very exciting and i'm sure there will be a lot more conversation about where their focus will be and how they're going to measure the impacts and, you know, just -- there are so many challenges that they can focus on and ways that they can have an exponential impacts on creative and human-centered responses to the challenges we're facing here in government. great job and very exciting especially in light of the long hearing that we had where basically the outcome of that was we need something like this. i'm happy to see this happening. colleagues, any questions or comments? i'm guessing there is no b.l.a. report on this item,

is there? >> actually, there is a b.l.a. report. this ordinance retroactively authorizes the mayor to accept and expend the $3.4 million grant from bloomberg philanthrophies for three years. the legislation also amends the salary ordinance to create five new permanent positions shown on page 23 of our report. which expand the existing teams for innovation, digital service and data policy. this grant does not fully fund those positions. it requires a $1.1 million match. the mayor's office reported to us that they intend to do fund raising to meet that match. but the positions are permanent and need to be funded through new revenues at the end of the grant term and will likely require general fund moneys to be funded at the end of the grant term.

because this grant could result in new general fund costs, if the fund raising is insufficient and at tend of the grant term, we consider approval to be a policy matter for the board of supervisors. >> great. >> thank you, chair and thank you for the presentation on this really exciting kind of new opportunity for the city and, yeah, i think this sounds -- yeah. really positive. and i appreciated the digittal innovation that we had. that really opened my eyes and started my thinking about how technology -- how we could better use technology to improve our city functioning. city government functioning. so this opportunity to access

the bloomberg foundation funding sounds like it is connected to a cohort of other cities so that is exciting, too. it sounds really positive. i think my only concern is that this is sort of really new. you know, it's sort of moving -- it's really trying to -- it's like new tools and strategies for the city government to improve how we function so that is all positive. but it is a business fuzzy. in the b.l.a. report, i mentioned three potential priority projects. that this new team would focus on. small business navigation, mental and behavioral treatment coordination and government accountability for city-funded programming. is that -- is that pretty set? >> no, our original application went in of

november of 2020 and they asked for some sample projects that the mayor might prioritize. at that time, that is kind of what we came up with. i think we have since done a little bit of delving. certainly at least for the first project. and it is a media problem and a priority for the mayor and i know for you all is probably not the best project for a brand-new team. so we're going to kind of, like, hold off on that. i think certain examples of things that we were thinking about, nothing is set yet. you know, after this is approved, we're supposed to send in our priorities letter and, again, those are high policy levels. i think that the mayor is interested in focus in on that last item looking at how we can look at a lot of our contracts and existing programming and services

across the city and understand better what we're doing and what we're doing well. communicating that. but what we are doing well in communicating that to the public and making sure that everyone has access to it and we're not doing well holding ourselves accountability. supervisor peskin has been interested in the office of small business and how those grants work. workforce development would be a big priority. you know, obviously homeless >>s always top of mind. again, would be a big chunk of something to chew on for a first project.

better use technology to improve our city functioning. city government functioning. so this opportunity to access the bloomberg foundation funding sounds like it is connected to a cohort of other cities so that is exciting, too. it sounds really positive. i think my only concern is that this is sort of really new. you know, it's sort of moving -- it's really trying to -- it's like new tools and strategies for the city government to improve how we function so that is all positive. but it is a business fuzzy. in the b.l.a. report, i mentioned three potential priority projects. that this new team would focus on. small business navigation, mental and behavioral treatment coordination and government accountability for city-funded programming. is that -- is that pretty set? >> no, our original application went in of november of 2020 and they asked for some sample projects that the mayor might prioritize. at that time, that is kind of what we came up with. i think we have since done a little bit of delving. certainly at least for the first project. and it is a media problem and a priority for the mayor and

i know for you all is probably not the best project for a brand-new team. so we're going to kind of, like, hold off on that. i think certain examples of things that we were thinking about, nothing is set yet. you know, after this is approved, we're supposed to send in our priorities letter and, again, those are high policy levels. i think that the mayor is interested in focus in on that last item looking at how we can look at a lot of our contracts and existing programming and services across the city and understand better what we're doing and what we're doing well. communicating that. but what we are doing well in communicating that to the public and making sure that everyone has access to it and we're not doing well holding ourselves accountability. supervisor peskin has been interested in the office of small business and how those grants work. workforce development would be a big priority. you know, obviously homeless >>s always top of mind. again, would be a big chunk of something to chew on for a first project. but, you know, theres a lot of just within that individual item there is a lot to work on but nothing is set in stone yet. and that will drive a lot of our hiring, i think. >> thanks. it makes sense to have the mayor's office and city administrator being the lead on this and -- but i'm just thinking for the board and our role in terms of oversight and policies, it would be good to have some reporting and sharing of what the plans are with the board and throughout to the public. i don't know if that is an ordinance or amendment. >> and we would be happy to both do individual readings or hearing about what we're working on and what we're finding. i imagine there is a first phase of what this primary project will be and that, you know, think would probably be better done however you like and then certainly in six to nine months when we have our first deliverable, we would lom to come back and tell you about it. >> great. thank you. >> thank you. this is exciting. that is a similar question to what i was going to ask. since this money is going to come in and you will have staff dedicated to doing research. it would make sense to have a

well-defined target and project as quickly as possible. i'm sure you intend to do that. i don't know. i'm not as excited about the contract part but it is not my call. i think something more exciting for the work and for the money. i know that this will carry, as i understand it, this will carry funding for three years and then the hope is that additional funding will be sought after, grant based and that will be part of the job as a director of this office. and the grant funding will be driven by the work that is being done. obviously even going back to item number one today with our needle exchange, our addiction problem and fentanyl overdose. there is a lot of different things that this office could take on and the strike team fashion to really kind of delve into and then really inform on a policy basis that would be exciting for all of us. given the speed that this office can work and interface with all the different departments. excited and very support *ift of this. would love to add my name as a sponsor to this. >> thank you, mr. chair. >> when one person does it, i don't want to be left out. so i should be added as well. we didn't call public comment yet. can we call it, please? >> yes. operations is checking to see if there are any callers in the queue. members of public that wish to provide comment, please press star 3. mr. adkins, can you confirm if we have any speakers? operator: mr. clerk, there are no callers in the queue. >> thank you very much. >> public comment is closed. i want to make a motion to move item seven to the full board with a positive recommendation. could we have a role call vote, please?

>> on the notion move the item to the full board with a positive recommendation -- [roll call] >> we have three ayes. >> thank you so much. appreciate it. >> mr. clerk, will you call item 8? >> yes. item 18 an ordinance appropriating approximately 71,000 previously appropriated to the departments of public works. and approximately 69.2 of previously appropriated to the city planning department. and reappropriating approximately $140,000 to the departments of public works for a safety needs assessment with k through 8 community school in fiscal year 2021 to 2022.

members of the public who wish to provide public comment should call 415-655-0001, meeting i.d. 2496-316-6172 and then press pound twice. if you have not already done so, please dial star three to line up to speak. a system prompt will indicate that you have raised your hand. mr. chair? >> great. thank you. and we have jennifer lee from supervisor ronie's office. welcome. >> hello. good afternoon. thank you for allowing me to speak today. unfortunately supervisor ronen is at a meeting and could not leave. chair haneys and community members, thank you for hearing this item today to

reappropriate $140574 for infrastructure spending last month, supervisor ronen held a hearing on the dangerous conditions of the [inaudible] facility. for years, faculties and parents have logged countless complaints about exposed radiators and temperatures reaching 90° in december, falling ceiling tiles, faulty wiring and more. last year in 2020n two separate reports, the san francisco unified school district rated facilities as in good repair status and clean, safe and functional. yet three major life-threatening incidents took place this year alone, including a dangerous gas leak that went unchecked for a week and a half [inaudible] and dismissed it as the smell of dead birds. it was only caution after pg&e was called and the company evacuated the

premises. one of the demands is to have the school facilities assessed by an inspector. therefore, supervisor ronen has asked to do a third party assessment of the school. this will have unspent money from 2019 to 2020 city-wide with spending plan that was originally slated for the planning and outreach for land use and transportation of business. that went on pause in the pandemic and with the larger p.u.c., some water projects and those funs will not be needed. public works has submitted the cost of facilities in the range of $145574. the original ordinance that was introduced last month would appropriate $121365 but our office has worked with the controller and planning departments to unem cumber the remaining $18210 and

substituted the legislation to reflect reappropriatation of the full $145574 to public works. since that hearing they have unanimously passed board member [inaudible] to allocate $40 million in 2016 bond money [inaudible]. however, because of the design process is much longer and could take months if not years, we would have public work dos an immediate assessment of urgent work that knees to be done. [slightly muffled] i want to thank you for being early co-sponsors to this legislation and look forward to occurring this resource for our beloved community schools. on behalf of supervisor ronen, i would like the ask for approval. thank you for hearing this item today.

>> thank you so much and supervisor ronen for their leadership. as a former school board member, i'm definitely familiar with this school and the shameful condition that it is in and i'm greatful for the leadership of supervisor ronen and supervisor safai and alexander and others who have stepped in and provided support for the city on this. it is unacceptable for these conditions for our kids to be learning in so i'm glad we're steping in and doing this and would love to have my name added as a co-sponsor as well. do we have a b.l.a. report on this item? >> we do not report on this item. >> great. could i open this to public comments, please? >> thank you, mr. chair. operations is checking to see if there are any callers in the queue. members of the public who wish to provide public comment on this item, please press star 3. for those already on hold,

please continue to wait until the system indicates you have been unmuted. can you confirm we have no callers? operator: mr. clerk, there are no callers in the queue. >> thank you very much. mr. chair? >> public comment is closed. colleagues, any questions or comments? i'm sure there is nothing but support for this. [laughter] with that, i want to make a motion to move this to the full board with a positive recommendation. >> on the motion to forward this item to the full board with a positive recommendation, vice chair safai? >> [roll call] >> please add me as a co-sponsor as well. thank you. >> noted. >> we have three ayes. >> great. thank you so much. this will go to the full board with a positive recommendation. thank you, ms. lee. >> thank you.

mr. clerk, are there any other items in front of us today? >> mr. chair, that concludes your business. >> great. thank you, closing arguments. see you soon. meeting is adjourned. >> testing, testing. there we go. good afternoon, everyone, and welcome to the newly renovated maxine hall.

[cheers and applause]. i'm san francisco mayor london breed, and i am so glad to be here. and it has been a long time coming. and it has been a trusted location that so many people in this neighborhood would come to time and time again. and there are various challenges with the vaccine, and issues around trust, there's no doubt that when we in this community need maxine hall, maxine hall is there for us. and this is a trusted place for people of this community. [applause] a friend of mine many years ago -- her mom was struggling. her mom was only in her late 50s.

and she went from being a vibrant person and she started losing weight and looking a lot different and looking unhealthy she was a woman almost 60 years old and never went into a hospital. never felt comfortable going into a hospital. and what's interesting is that her daughter was very, very much worried about what might happen to her mom. it was a very scary time for them. and eventually she convinced her to come to maxine hall. and the people here and how she was treated -- she was open to doing the kinds of tests with needles and blood and things of that nature because there were people here who others had worked with within the community that basically reassured her that she could trust them. and eventually they discovered some things about her health and were able to get her on the right medications to get her back into the way that she did

things before. and i see her on a regular basis out and about in the community as if nothing ever happened. she loves maxine hall. she loved coming here when she needs to get her flu shot, or other things. and we know that this location was temporarily moved to elio hutch community center. and i want to start by thanking james -- i'm not sure that he's here, but the eliose hutch community center, because we were concerned that during this project that broke ground in 2019 that this service wouldn't be available to the community, and we were able to open up a temporary location with a number of trailers and elio hutch community center. want to thank the staff because it was a big thing to work in a way that you have not worked before, and we really preeshed appreciatethat. [applause]

this project -- $15 million. new elevator -- elevators are expensive, by the way. i know -- when i was at the african-american culture comflex, that elevator cost us like $300,000, and that was years ago. elevators, accessibility, because a lot of people that get served here are elderly. and they need a different level of support. they can't walk up those stairs and they need this clinic. they need this location. and so accessible -- i know that sometimes food and fruit and other things are given out and counseling sections, having the privacy in a room to have those discussions. this place means so much to so many people. and i'm so glad that this was prioritized in the 2016 health and safety bond when i served as a member of the board of supervisors and there's no way that i wouldn't make sure that organizations like this that

serve the community in such a way would not receive the support that they need. so here with so many folks who are part of this community and here with i think carmen shu, the city administrator -- did she take off? oh, she's on the phone? [laughter] so carmen shu, she is the city administrator and the department of public works and carla short -- i don't think that she is here -- oh, you are? these masks are just throwing me off. so carla short, her department, the department of public works, they managed this project to get it done on time and under budget. almost. [laughter] you guys sure know how to spend some money, don't you? and i want to thank dr. colfax for being here as well from the department of public health and the work that you do to work with the folks here in order to ensure that there's health in

this community and i want to say that it's been a very, very difficult time where the city had to shut down. and we have relied so heavily on our public health folks, our nurses and our folks and our clinicians and our people out there on the field, because of the challenges that existed. and so i know that many of the people who were working at maxine hall, at elio hutch community center, they were the folks who answered all of the questions about covid and dealing with a lot of the concern and the fear from the community. and i want to thank you for continuing to be on the front lines, even when we didn't understand the impacts of covid and what it would do. and then when we provided the vaccine, that has been a destination. and i sent everybody to maxine hall. i said get your shot at maxine hall. everyone knows what this means -- i can trust this place and i can trust the people who are part of this place, and it has made a world of difference.

and now we have this world-class facility that is state-of-the-art and that should be exactly what it should be for the western edition community. and here to talk a little bit about the bond and what it means and all of the specifics who was supposed to be at the beginning of this -- this presentation, groundbreaking or whatever it ir carmen chu. [applause] >> thank you, mayor. you never want to be on the end of the mayor knowing that you're not punctual, right. but i wanted to just come and to welcome everybody and to say a big congratulations. i know that this facility in particular has a very special place in this mayor's heart. not only because of the community that it serves, but because this is her center, right. this is the place where she grew up, and where the people in the community were served. the a place where people trusts

the services here and the people who are here to take care of the community and to make sure that we continue to provide the public help that is necessary for all of our community members. so we do have a number of folks that we want to be recognizing today. and i have to apologize to the mayor, i was actually in the middle of a board meeting, hence, i could not kick off right away. but, again, i just wanted to say thank you. we have carla short here with the department of public works who has helped to deliver this, the department of public health, grant colfax who is here as well and can speak to this. and our district supervisor right now who is dean preston who has joined us here today as well. without further adieu i would like to invite supervisor preston to come up and to say a few words of greeting and comments. thank you. [applause] >> supervisor preston: thank you, carmen, and it is really wonderful to be here with you all, thanks to the mayor, dr. colfax, director short.

and to carmen chu as well. let me just say that the -- what the mayor has said is so true around not only the importance of this center to the community, but also looking back to how the funds come about, and i just want to remind everyone that when those bond measures come on to the balance, and it looks like a bunch of numbers, what we are celebrating today is when the voters of san francisco give us the green light to do big things to serve our community. and this is all made possible because of that vote in 2016. i want to really thank all of our health care heroes. the folks who work here. the folks who had to operate. everyone knew that it would be a challenge to operate in a temporary location. like, that's tough enough. and then try doing that in the

middle of a global pandemic. everyone knew that this would be a big project for d.p.w. to do. think about doing that project in the midst of a global pandemic. think about all of the work for everyone involved with the department of public health and everything that they -- all of the challenges that they have helped this city to overcome over the last year. i remember my late sister ran a behavioral health clinic in the east bay, in oakland. and i remember the incredible stress in the years before she passed when they were operating in a trailer, in a temporary location. how difficult it was -- not just for the patients and clients, but for all of the staff to come to work in cramped quarters and for people in the community to not even really know where to go to find them. and i remember when they moved

back in with the pride and the excitement that i know that folks feel about this amazing facility. and how much it meant to all of the folks who had worked so hard in these temporary locations to actually be in a permanent office to have the city invest in such a meaningful way financially in making sure that there is a home, not just now, but in the years to come, for decades and forever, for all of you to continue serving the community. and i want to especially thank dr. james who is recently retired for her incredible work [cheers and applause]. during the pandemic. there you are. and lucia, who i know that is around. [cheers and applause]. thank you for your partnership during the pandemic and thank you for all that you do and the team here. i can't imagine who is going to

fill your shoes, dr. james, but i know that some folks will try so we will look forward to continuing to partner with you and i want to introduce next the department of public works, director carla short, with thanks from my office for all of your incredible work since you have assumed the directorship of the department. welcome. [applause] >> thank you. thank you, supervisor preston. thank you, mayor breed. and administrator chu, and dr. colfax for your outstanding leadership. it is really an honor to be here with you today. i'm carla short, the interim director of san francisco public works. and our team -- project managed this and designed this and delivered this project. the very exciting to be here at the re-opening of maxine hall. as the mayor noted, the building was originally built in 1968, and it was our job to bring this building into the 21st century.

so with a very expensive elevator as well as seismic improvements and state-of-the-art facility, new patient rooms, larger exam rooms, we really hope that this facility will continue to provide for the community as it has done. i also really want to acknowledge what we just heard. you know, the staff worked throughout this pandemic. our team worked throughout this pandemic. they came every day to, you know, to carry out their essential duties to get the job done. so i do want to recognize a few folks on our team, led by ron alameda, who is the city architect. and joe chin and charles king of public works. [applause] and especially our colleague at the department of public health it is partnerships like this that we come together that we can really deliver something magical for community. so i too want to thank the voters who approved the public health and safety bond. when you support those bonds, you support these very important

projects that really then goes on to support everyone in the community. so we are very grateful for that. and i think -- we just want to recognize the important role that these types of centers -- as the mayor noted -- play when we have a global pandemic. who knew that was coming? but thank goodness that we had a facility like this to provide for folks a trusted facility. so public works is so proud to have been part of this project and the grand reopening today. and thank you all for your support. and with that i would like to introduce dr. grant colfax. [applause] >> well, good afternoon, everybody. thank you. it's so great to be here on this beautiful day. i want to thank mayor breed, supervisor preston, city administrator chu and dr. short, and the voters, for bringing this project to fruition. it has been a while. most of all i want to thank the

dph team, the incredible dph team, who worked on this both here at the clinic and across dph for your resiliency and strength and for getting this work done. this is so amazing. thank you so much. [applause] i also wanted to just say that i have connections with this clinic that goes back some ways i actually trained here as a resident. and i will say that it needed a bit of refurbishing, shall we say, at that point. and i remember talking about the elevators and was recalling getting stuck in an elevator here at one point and that was a while ago. and really excited to be here. and these renovations are really about ensuring that we provide a caring environment for people to get the care they need, to serve the whole patient. and serving the whole patient means providing an environment that is welcoming for people to get check-ups, for people to get primary care, and women's health

care and medical testing and doing that all in one location. you know, in the medical jargon we call this low-barrier access, but that's really just a way of saying that we're flexible, that people can drop in, that we support people and caring for themselves. and it really takes a team in many cases to ensure that people realize their full ability towards health and wellness. it is has been over a year and a half. we've had the pandemic fight and, again, it is amazing what this clinic have done and what the staff have done and most importantly i think what the community has done to ensure that their health and wellness is maintained as well as possible. i also want to call out james and thank him for his partnership, including elio hutch, especially with the implementation of covid testing and the vaccinations, that took some work and it took partnership. it wasn't always easy. and there were some difficult conversations. but we built those partnerships, and look where we are now. since the start of the panhandle, maxine hall has

administered over 17,000 covid tests and almost 10,000 vaccines. [applause] yes, amazing, over 10,000 vaccines. and i just have to say it -- there are some kid over there and i wonder if they're vaccinated yet and they look like they're between 5 and 11, right, and if you are eligible for your booster, get your booster. i also really want to acknowledge westside community services and executive director marianne jones for their important ongoing work. [applause] right. we know how important behavioral health is and this clinic stayed open during construction and during the pandemic to provide those all-important substance treatments to the community. so we have done well here. part of this is work allows the western edition to have one of the highest rates of vaccination in the city, with 78% of people fully vaccinated. [applause] that's great work. and that is in partnership with the community leaders and people

who received their cure here at maxine hall. and in that regard it is my great honor to welcome roslyn fraser with a long-time member of maxine hall advisory committee and has lived in the western addition for a period of time i believe. over 30 plus years. so thank you so much for being here and i appreciate your wisdom and your guidance as we do our work and serve the community. welcome. [applause] >> welcome, mayor london breed, mr. grant colfax and supervisor dean preston and all of the representatives and the city leaders and also the patient advisors that are here today. thank you, everyone, for coming out to see our new renovated

maxine hall clinic. you could have been anywhere else, but you chose to be here with us on this special day to celebrate with us. i know -- i know that mrs. maxine hall is smiling down on us on this special day. she was a big advocate in the western edition and she would have been proud. my name is roslyn fraser and i have been coming to maxine hall health center for more than 13 years. and i have served on patient advisory committees for about five years. and it have been a pleasure to serve on different projects. such as the hypertension equity group. the city-wide pack. and the subcommittee for the covid vaccine outreach. i thank god for my health and strength for allowing me to serve on these different committees. now that the clinic is

remodeled, what i like most about the clinic is that it is very up-to-date, and thank god that we have an elevator. [laughter]. [applause] for the seniors and the disabled. and we have large exam rooms. something we have needed for years. i know all of our patients will really appreciate this. i want -- i personally want to thank the entire staff of maxine hall and the porters and for all of the hard work and dedication that y'all have done -- have shown during this pandemic. i know that it wasn't easy, but god gave y'all -- each and every one of y'all -- the strength. i know that it was stressful, but you did it. thank you for all that you do. god bless each and every one of you.

and thank you. [applause] >> thank you. thank you, roslyn, for your comments and for joining us today. of course i want to say again a big thank you to all of the city departments who helped to deliver this project. i have mentioned the department of public works, the health department, and also the mayor's office of disability with regard to that elevator. so we definitely want to make sure to remember them. but we have been throughout all of this project really it has been the community effort and how people came together to continue serving the community. again, i want to thank all of you for doing that. and james, i think that the mayor had mentioned our thanks to you to make sure that we continue to have temporary sites and services.

of course, we want to thank mary ann and all of the folks here at maxine hall. so without further adieu we are here to cut a beautiful ribbon. so mayor, come on up. and supervisor preston and roslyn, we would love to have you join us. >> thank you. (♪♪) [♪♪♪] ♪ homelessness in san francisco is considered the number 1 issue by most people who live here, and it doesn't just affect neighbors without a home, it affects all of us. is real way to combat that is to

work together. it will take city departments and nonprofit providers and volunteers and companies and community members all coming together. [♪♪♪] >> the product homeless connect community day of service began about 15 years ago, and we have had 73 of them. what we do is we host and expo-style event, and we were the very force organization to do this but it worked so well that 250 other cities across the globe host their own. there's over 120 service providers at the event today, and they range anywhere from hygiene kits provided by the basics, 5% -- to prescription glasses and reading glasses, hearing tests, pet sitting, showers, medical services, flu shots, dental care, groceries, so many phenomenal service providers, and what makes it so

unique is we ask that they provide that service today here it is an actual, tangible service people can leave with it. >> i am with the hearing and speech center of northern california, and we provide a variety of services including audiology, counselling, outreach, education, today we actually just do screening to see if someone has hearing loss. to follow updates when they come into the speech center and we do a full diagnostic hearing test, and we start the process of taking an impression of their year, deciding on which hearing aid will work best for them. if they have a smart phone, we make sure we get a smart phone that can connect to it, so they can stream phone calls, or use it for any other services that they need. >> san francisco has phenomenal social services to support people at risk of becoming homeless, are already experience and homelessness, but it is confusing, and there is a lot of waste. bringing everyone into the same space not only saves an average of 20 hours a week in navigating the system and waiting in line for different areas, it helps

them talk, so if you need to sign up for medi-cal, what you need identification, you don't have to go to sacramento or wait in line at a d.m.v., you go across the hall to the d.m.v. to get your i.d. ♪ today we will probably see around 30 people, and averaging about 20 of this people coming to cs for follow-up service. >> for a participant to qualify for services, all they need to do is come to the event. we have a lot of people who are at risk of homelessness but not yet experiencing it, that today's event can ensure they stay house. many people coming to the event are here to receive one specific need such as signing up for medi-cal or learning about d.m.v. services, and then of course, most of the people who are tender people experiencing homelessness today. >> i am the representative for the volunteer central. we are the group that checks and all the volunteers that comment participate each day. on a typical day of service, we have anywhere between 40500

volunteers that we, back in, they get t-shirts, nametags, maps, and all the information they need to have a successful event. our participant escorts are a core part of our group, and they are the ones who help participants flow from the different service areas and help them find the different services that they needs. >> one of the ways we work closely with the department of homelessness and supportive housing is by working with homeless outreach teams. they come here, and these are the people that help you get into navigation centers, help you get into short-term shelter, and talk about housing-1st policies. we also work very closely with the department of public health to provide a lot of our services. >> we have all types of things that volunteers deal do on a day of service. we have folks that help give out lunches in the café, we have folks who help with the check in, getting people when they arrive, making sure that they find the services that they need to, we have folks who help in the check out process, to make

sure they get their food bag, bag of groceries, together hygiene kit, and whatever they need to. volunteers, i think of them as the secret sauce that just makes the whole process works smoothly. >> participants are encouraged and welcomed to come with their pets. we do have a pet daycare, so if they want to have their pets stay in the daycare area while they navigate the event, they are welcome to do that, will we also understand some people are more comfortable having their pets with them. they can bring them into the event as well. we also typically offer veterinary services, and it can be a real detriment to coming into an event like this. we also have a bag check. you don't have to worry about your belongings getting lost, especially when that is all that you have with you. >> we get connected with people who knew they had hearing loss, but they didn't know they could get services to help them with their hearing loss picks and we are getting connected with each other to make sure they are getting supported. >> our next event will be in march, we don't yet have a date set. we typically sap set it six

weeks out. the way to volunteer is to follow our newsletter, follow us on social media, or just visit our website. we always announce it right away, and you can register very easily online. >> a lot of people see folks experience a homelessness in the city, and they don't know how they can help, and defence like this gives a whole bunch of people a lot of good opportunities to give back and be supported. [♪♪♪]

. >> -- meeting of the san francisco ethics commission. this meeting is being held by teleconference pursuant to the governor's executive order n-29-20 and the 12 supplement to the mayoral proclamation declaring the existence of a local emergency dated february 26, 2020. first, i'd like to ask the staff member, mr. ronald contreras, who will be today's moderator, to go over today's procedures. >> clerk: thank you, madam clerk.

to protect commission members, city staff, and the public, this meeting will be held remotely. this is pursuant to state and local orders, regulations, and directives. commissioners will be present at the meeting and participate in the meeting to the same extent as if they were physically present. please note that today's meeting is being live cable cast on sfgovtv.org/ethicslive. public comment will be available on each item of this agenda. each member of the public will be allowed three minutes to speak. public comment is available by calling 415-655-0001.

again, the phone number is 415-655-0001. access code is 2485-473-3501. again, access code is 2485-473-3501, followed by the pound sign. then press pound again to join as an attendee. you will hear a beep when you are connected to the meeting. you will be automatically muted and in listening mode only. when your item of interest comes up, dial star, three to raise your hand and to be added to the public comment line. you will then hear, you have raised your hand to ask a question. please wait until the host calls on you. the line will be silent as you wait your turn to speak. ensure you are in a quiet location and before you speak,

mute your speakers or volume. when your line indicates, this is your turn to speak, your line will be unmuted. as soon as you begin speaking, you will have three minutes to provide your comment, six minutes if you're on-line with an interpreter. you will hear a bell when you have 30 seconds remaining. if you wish to remove yourself from the queue or lower your hand, press star, three. attendees who wish to speak during other items should stay on the line and press star, three when their item of interest comes up.

written comments should be sent to ethics.commission@sfgov.org. thank you, madam chair. you're muted, commissioner lee. >> president lee: thank you. now, let's proceed to agenda item number 1, which is roll call. >> clerk: commissioners, please unmute your microphones and state your presence at today's meeting after your name is called. [roll call]

. >> clerk: madam chair, with three members present and accounted for, you have a quorum. >> president lee: okay. let's proceed to agenda item number 2, which is public comment on matters appearing or not appearing on the agenda. >> clerk: thank you, madam chair. the ethics commission is now receiving public comment on agenda item number 2 remotely in this meeting. each member of the public will have three minutes to provide public comment. if you have joined the proceedings, now is the time to get in line to speak. if you have not done so already, press star, three to lineup to speak. it is important that you press star, three only once as doing so more than once will move you out of the cue.

please address your comments to the commission as a whole and not to individual members. madam chair, we are checking to see if there are any callers in the queue. if you have just joined this meeting, we are on item number 2, public comment on matters appearing or not appearing on the agenda. you will have three minutes to enter your comment. if you have not already done so, press star, three to enter the queue, and if you have already done so, please wait until the system indicates you have been unmuted. please stand by. madam chair, there are no callers in the queue. >> president lee: okay. thank you, moderator. let us proceed to agenda item

number 3, which is the approval of the draft minutes of the august 13, 2021 meeting. this item was continued from last month, and do we have any comments from the commissioners? commissioner bush? unmute, please. >> commissioner bush: there we go. sorry. i'm fine with the version that we have up now. thank you. >> president lee: okay. shall we open it up for public comment, please. >> clerk: thank you, madam chair. the ethics commission is now receiving public comment on consent calendar item number 3 remotely in this meeting. each member of the public will have up to three minutes to provide public comment. you will hear a bell go off if

you have 30 seconds remaining. if you have not already done so, please press star, three. it is important that you press star, three only once to enter the queue as pressing it again will move you out of the queue and back into listening mode. once again, it's important that you call from a quiet location. please address your comments to the commission as a whole and not to individual members. madam chair, we are checking to see if there are any callers in the queue. please stand by. if you have just joined this meeting, we are currently taking public comment on consend calendar item 3, draft minutes of the commission's august 13, 2021 regular meeting. if you have not already done so, please press star, three to be added to the comment queue. please stand by.

madam chair, we have no callers in the queue. >> president lee: okay. public comment is closed. can i have a motion to approve the minutes for august 13? >> commissioner bush: i move that we approve them. >> president lee: okay. i'll second. >> clerk: a motion has been made and seconded. i will now call the roll. [roll call] >> clerk: with three votes in the affirmative and zero opposed, the motion is approved unanimously. >> president lee: thank you. now to the agenda item number 4 of the consent calendar, which is the approval of the minutes october 8, 2021. comments?

>> commissioner bush: approve. >> president lee: okay. no comments? let's open it up for public comment, please, mr. moderator. >> clerk: thank you, madam chair. the ethics commission is now receiving public comment on consent calendar item 4 remotely in this meeting. each member of the public will have up to three minutes to provide public comment. you'll hear a bell go off when you have 30 seconds remaining. if you joined the meeting earlier to join the proceedings, you can now lineup to speak. press star, three to enter the queue. it is important that you only press star, three once as pressing it more than once will move you out of the queue and back into listening mode. please stand by. if you have just joined this meeting, we are currently taking public comment on consent calendar item 4, draft minutes of the commission's

october 8, 2021 regular meeting. if you have not already done so, please press star, three to be added to the public comment queue. please stand by. madam chair, there are no callers in the queue. >> president lee: okay. thank you. public comment is closed for this agenda item. we have commissioner bush who made the motion to approve the minutes. do we have a second? >> commissioner bell: second. >> president lee: thank you, commissioner bell. roll call, please. >> clerk: yes. a motion has been made and seconded. i will now call the roll. [roll call] >> clerk: with three votes in the affirmative and no opposed, the motion passes unanimously.

>> president lee: thank you, mr. moderator. i also want to suggest to the director, the person who's been preparing the minutes, that because this is a government document that, in the future, if he or she could identify the speakers with their proper title, i think that that would reflect the consistency as well as respect to the office and the individual. >> thank you for that feedback. >> president lee: now move to regular calendar. agenda item number 5, which is discussion and possible action on the continuation of remote commission meetings. this is the resolution making findings to allow teleconference meetings under call government code section

54953-e. colleagues, this is a similar resolution that we had reviewed and approved from the last meeting. we have any comments? >> commissioner bell: this is commissioner bell, chair lee. i was just wondering, so are these going to be done in 30-day increments, depending upon the health situation in san francisco that is, you know, looked at every 30-days to determine if we're going to meet in public? if somebody from the staff -- i'm not directing you, chair lee, to know what the health care situation is in san francisco, but i was just

wondering if that was the case. [indiscernible]. >> and if i might, chair lee, i also have a city attorney here who can provide some context. >> thank you. chair lee, currently, it is a little bit of an open question about how long this commission and other commissions will be allowed to meet remotely. the latest information that i have is that we will be meeting remotely at least through the end of the calendar year, so this meeting and next month's meeting on december 10. i think after january 1, 2022

[indiscernible]. >> commissioner bush: at the moment, even with the assistance of therapists, i'm unable to get out of my house. >> we have started to plan for that next year, and we'll certainly keep you posted. >> commissioner bush: thank you. i know when we do the survey of

commissioners, we need to take that into consideration. >> president lee: i hope that in addition to the regular a.d.a. requirement, that you take into consideration the pandemic has caused to all the

participants. >> clerk: if you've just joined this meeting, we are currently on the agenda item 5, resolution on continuation of remote commission meetings.

>> president lee: okay. do we have a motion? >> commissioner bell: so moved. >> president lee: and i will second. >> commissioner bell: we have been joined by commissioner chiu. >> clerk: i will now call the roll. >> president lee: commissioner chiu, we are on agenda item number 5, which is the resolution to continue remote meetings. >> commissioner chiu: thank you. >> president lee: it's wonderful to see your face. >> commissioner chiu: i have to let you know, i'm on my phone. i apologize for the technical delay and all of these

challenges but i'm prepared to cast my vote. >> clerk: okay. a motion has been made and seconded. [roll call] >> clerk: with a vote of four votes in the affirmative and zero opposed, the motion passes unanimously. >> president lee: thank you. next is agenda item 6, presentation and discussion of draft ordinance and regulation

amendments to enact recommendations contained in report on gift laws part a: gifts to individuals, dated august 2, 2021 and report on gift laws part b: gifts to city departments, dated september 29, 2021. commissioner bush? >> commissioner bush: thank you. i just wanted to say that it's clear from reading it that the staff has done a very good job of outlining the circumstances. i would recommend that this be augmented by inclusion of scenarios that are very case

specific. in the rules, for instance, if larry is selling his house, then the [indiscernible] would be x or y or so forth. so i think in this case, we have so many examples that it would be good to show those in our records as we move forward. i'm not entirely clear of the circumstances of a gift that's made to a sister city committee

or a city that we're going to travel, and sister cities pay for the commission's travel. so far, i see there's no indication for an acceptable level of travel. for instance, can we stay in a $500 a night or do you use the yardstick for reimbursement for different parts of the world that you're traveling in?

it's not clear that we have contributions for things like putting together a bid for a super bowl or cities' all celebrations. so if we're not going to spell it out in the law, or even if we do, that we show the scenarios so both the city and city officials are aware of how it applies. thank you. >> president lee: thank you. commissioner chiu, did you have your hand up? >> commissioner chiu: commissioner lee, i also want to associate myself with commissioner bush's comments and thank everyone for this report. i think the level of work

that's been put into this extremely helpful chart of the amendments is very, very clear. and i don't -- and as i look at it, and i [indiscernible] and so how do we think about.

>> -- what is the consequences

of failing to disclose? i think there is an extremely limited ability to monitor. how do we have the ability to check what is the full extent of the disclosure? i think we'd have to just rely on whistleblowers or something, so what are the teeth to enforce these provisions and to make there be consequences for failure to disclose, you know, for failure to file a form 700 is $100 a day, but only for ten days. so it's real money, but it's on going, and is it enough of a deterrent to make sure that people do comply? so there's both the carrot and

the stick, so i'm asking about the stick. when you submit the disclosure, is it an attestation under penalty of perjury and certification is that this is true and complete, not to the best of someone's knowledge. and then if it's not, if it comes out later, there could be some consequences for that. >> president lee: thank you, commissioner. commissioner bush? you want to add something? >> commissioner bush: i'm sorry. i'm back with you. thank you, and thank commissioner chiu because those points are well taken, and i have the same concern about enforcements of violations or a

violation. if i understand it correctly, and mr. ford and mr. shin can correct me, but the ability to make the disclosure rests with the person who made the appointment. if the appointment is made by the mayor, and they're faulted for not having filed, the commission doesn't have the authority to remove them or take significant action. that falls back with the mayor, and this has come up in the past with commissioners in the

past. i think, to commissioner chiu's point about where is the stick on this, is well taken. the most that we've been able to do that i'm aware of, if someone doesn't file their form 700, we could say that they should not be voting until they file, but i'm not sure what the penalty is if they did vote? what do we have if they just ignore it because we don't have the authority to remove them for that. and also, if you get into the question of line staff, the director of the department would be the one who had the authority. and as you know, when you have the whistleblower case, if

someone is blowing the whistle on something in the department, and it's given to a director to resolve, that's not on the whistleblower, it's how do we hold people accountable? >> president lee: thank you, commissioner bush. i have a couple of comments. i want to echo everything said by my colleagues. in terms of the loopholes and penalty area, i think that people always going to find ways to skirt around the rules, and i think it's really

important for us to take a really deep dive into how we can close as many loopholes as possible to prevent future skirting the laws. when commissioner bush talked about this travel situation, people can meet the requirement of legally accepting gifts, but i think that we really need to have stronger language to increase, besides the basic trouble, what about the upgrades? that's the area that people can easily skirt. if you are legally allowed to accept a coach seat, then all of a sudden, you get a first-class seat upgrade, that is reportable and should be

unacceptable gift, so i think that if the staff can look at, particularly in the department area, to look at those things at what is legally allowed -- you know, whether it's an upgrade to a car, whether it's an upgrade to a room, that should be required to be reported, and right now, it isn't. other than a whistleblower and honesty, how can we keep track of that? so those are the things that i think we need to take a deeper

dive in. the second thing is i know the staff has been working really hard to get our stakeholder communities engaged in this process, but one thing i've always wanted to see is a broader stakeholder community's voice be included during the pandemic. it's been a challenge for a lot of folks who could otherwise participate, and as i said, there are many new community stakeholders who are now getting into all the -- all the activities that we are now talking about, and it would be

really important for them to have early buy-in, and more importantly, to build communication between this commission and the broader community so that they understand what these are, and they can add to, you know, their experience, what would work, what would be better, and how can we make this proposal workable and achieve the purpose? so i would ask mr. ford to go back -- not to go back, but to put together another stakeholder meeting, and this time, bring in new partners, new stakeholders, so they can

hear from staff what the history of this is, but more importantly, to get from them how this would impact them as a -- as a partner in this whole endeavor. so that's my number one request. the second thing is [indiscernible] i remember when we discussed the cash gift proposal, we talked about -- and in this report, you did mention that it's okay, you know -- you know, if they're providing water, cookies, or whatever, but i do remember we suggested that if those same offer were made to the other people, so it's not just you. so if water is available to all the attendees, sure. but if the water is only

available to you, that should not be counted as an acceptable gift. i thought we had the discussion on that before, but i think we should add into that just as long as those offers are available to the public, then it should be acceptable. i think those are -- and the final thing is, mr. ford can give us a timeline on how this is proceeding so that we can an idea of how fast we should, you know, move this? is there any deadlines that we should be aware of? >> yes, and i've been taking notes, so i want to provide some information about everything that was just talked about because i think these are all super important points. all right.

so i won't go necessarily in the order that we talked about, but i think i've got it all here. >> commissioner bush: can i ask something to your list? commissioner lee brought up some is very good points. when she mentioned upgrades, our state charter, i believe it's in the constitution, it says that city officials, state officials may not accept the gift of free travel on railroad, and that was because in the early part of the century, the railroads were incredibly powerful and influential in the state government. they put it into the

constitution, that you couldn't accept a free train ride. i don't see why we can't deal with it the same way, the same kind of contributions. it wouldn't result in dismissal from your position, any upgrades from one of those airlines would have to be disclosed and would have to fall within the -- the limits. so that's one point. the second is that in addition to disclosing a gift, for example, overseas, i think it would be important to also

report what your purpose was. if you would be representing the city, did you give a speed, who did you meet with, and what was the general topic of your meeting as a result of having that provided to you? so i think those are things that i would tag onto what chair lee has said, that they were examples of what i have seen. and the third thing of that is chair lee mentioned upgrades, but it should include how a seat on an airline is valued if it is a charter flight. so we have seen cases where city officials who, even to

europe are on a provide -- private plane on a coach flight, and i think it's fair that they should have to disclose being on a private flight rather than just putting down a coach seat. so if you can explore that and that's within our mandate, i would recommend that we also address that. >> president lee: i think that the charter flight is a good example. i think that there needs to be

extremely close monitoring and written into this ordinance. the federal government does not allow, at least political appointees, to accept upgrades. even if you might have earned the airline miles yourself, it's just uptakes. that's why you see legal secretaries in the middle part of the plane. that's part of building the public trust in our government, so if mr. ford can look at other things in the next draft,

that would be great. commissioner bell? >> commissioner bell: yes. my comments are on a different tact.

>> commissioner bell: i think that this is a very good start for laying the ground rules with the caveats that my colleagues have brought up, and that we continue to make sure that the overwhelming majority of people that want to comply, that this is disseminated and given out and trained throughout the government to make sure that folk know what it is they're supposed to do and that we continue to tighten it up for those who are a little more aggressive and determined to break those. so i think it's a good start, and as chair lee mentioned, we will probably have to do it

again, but i want to congratulate staff on this work as a great floor that we can improve on. i think that we should tighten up the rules and this

regulation. [indiscernible]. >> commissioner bush: i'm not getting a clear sound. >> clerk: yeah. vice chair, chair lee, i think we might have to have you call back in. might be a bandwidth thing. >> commissioner chiu: i see her little triangle and no visual. >> clerk: yeah. usually, that little triangle

with the exclamation point means it's trouble. so commissioner lee, this is ronald. you might have to hang up and call in with the number that was provided to you, and then, we can move you over from the attendee to the participant list. >> commissioner bell: i think with the commissioners who were trying to find to my comments, you might want to go with that until she gets back. >> i think that's a good idea, and i will wait to talk about the things that commissioner lee raised until she gets back.

i'll start with your comments, commissioner chiu. you talked that the rules should be flexible enough to talk about present issues as well as past ones. we agree, but we don't want to construe these narrowly to talk about specific situations that we know of, although that's why we're doing it. because there's such a need to do that, we don't want to identify one specific fact pattern. we want to identify one specific issue that could pop up in many different manifestations and apply rules to whatever form these issues may take. that's what we try to do, and there's always going to be creative folks out there that try to work around the rules,

and that's why we have a policy division. we'll keep refining these things, but we hope that what we want to put in front of you is flexible. >> commissioner chiu: is there something that we could include either in the ordinance or in the regulations that would, you know, require this training? and i know there's the whole meet-and-confer process, but a corruption scandal is a terrible thing to waste. in this moment and in this time where we are, i think that

there would be a lot of support for additional clarity around what is allowed. i think a lot of people want to do the right thing, but they have to know what the right thing is and where to go to find answers. and for those who are intent on skirting the rules, that there would be consequences for that, as well, but the training is super critical. so i would ask you to take advantage of this registration

and, like, legislative processes and requirement. it's going to depend on who the leader is to make sure that this gets done. >> i think we're agendized on this item but not on the next phase, but i think for the next phase, it's going to be a training requirement, that when we bring you the phase three, it's going to be a requirement. we've brought on additional staff and we think it's important to have a statutory obligation there to bring in that program, it's something that requires folks to participate in that program. it's not, like, you said, voluntary and discretionary and

up to the department head at that time. yeah, and to your comments, commissioner bell, that's definitely how we think about these things, too, that we really need to have a two-pronged approach at all times, that we need to have education, engagement, compliance, resources to help people because i think our experience confirms the way that you see things, that the vast majority of people that we deal with really do want to comply, and they really want to, so we put rules in practice that people can comply with, but we also want rules that are strong and enforceable so when we see people not complying,

that there's a strong tendency to adhere to those principles. and penalties is going to be another component of the phase three report, and you touched on this, too, commissioner bush, about penalties for or lack of penalties for voting if you failed to file the form 700 or complete your ethics training. and to answer your question, currently in the code, there are no penalties associated with voting even if you are disqualified from voting, so that is something we'll bring to the recommendation to fix that short coming and that rule. and just to the larger point about penalties for failing to

disclose, that's another thing we'll bring more broadly, is ensuring there's consistent penalty provisions throughout the code. right now, if you look at the campaign contributions and governmental conduct code, you'll see various penalties discussed in each section or, rather, in each chapter of the code. we don't think there's a good basis for that. we think there should be a very good uniform authority throughout the code, so wherever it appears, anyplace a disclosure is required, there will be a penalty associated with any failure to comply with that disclosure requirement, so you'll see that before you even though it's not in this item today. okay. i want to go to chair lee's comments, so gifts of travel,

this is one of the things that we focused on in the gift phase of this project. we -- in the draft ordinance, the language that says that gifts of travel and wedding gifts would not be subject to the restricts source rule, that language would be stricken, so gifts of travel would become subject to the restricted source rule. the questions of valuation that you raised are still important, but they're not determinative

if they're subject to the restricted rule. the same would be if an intermediary was paying for or accepting that gift, they would not be allowed to do that. they do have a reg specifically about charter flights and how someone could enjoy a complimentary or discounted charter flight, so we'll take a look to see if it's working the way you envision it. >> chair lee, if i may, i have a question for mr. ford.

in his one comment, he considered adopting regulation 1845-c or something similar or acceptance of gift at nonprofit fundraisers where the nonprofit is hosting the fundraiser is not a restricted source, but one of the sponsors is. and then, according to mr. [indiscernible], such a sponsor might have to pull its finding if they learned that an elected official would attend the fundraiser for free and they're going to make a speech. where the link between the

official and the public sponsor is attenuated, like the public sponsor paid for the official's admission -- i know this is very much in the weeds on that -- but under our current proposal, how would we treat that scenario? >> yeah, so the reason why we did not incorporate all of that regulation is because there's a different subsection of that regulation that is not in line with the know or have reason to know language that underlies the restricted source rule specifically in subsection d, which is a different subsection that what mr. minardi's talking about. it talks about presuming the source of the gift is the actual source of the gift.

i'd want to take a closer look at it, but that's probably at the level of granularity once we're at that level, so i think if and when these ordinance changes do become operative, we definitely would need to have another round of regulation at that point, so i think that's something we can do at that point. >> yeah, that ties into your comment that commissioner bush

made. these are just changing the existing exceptions that live in san francisco regulations. we don't get into changing the regulations to account for changes to the code that would be caused by the ordinance. we think it's best to wait until those changes actually happen and then go back and make those changes, so i think that would be a great time to go and add those kinds of examples. so i was working through chair lee's comments. i think, you know, we're really

at an inflection point. i think we're already seeing a huge uptick in the cases and we'll be taking new approaches to enforcement that we have not done in the past. we'll move beyond just working through the caseload and start thinking productively about what we could do differently, and that could involve thinking about new ways to detect regulations that we don't know about right now. sometimes you don't know what you don't know, and like you

said, you do rely on folks to bring complaints to you, to bring regulations to you, and we don't have control over that, but i think this new watershed moment could be a moment to start thinking about those things. chair lee talked about stakeholder engagement. we do have a couple of i.p. meetings noticed for next week, tuesday at 12:00, and thursday, i believe, at 4:00 p.m., and we've had a good number of rsvps for those, but i do really agree with your comment about finding new folks to engage with. that's something we really, really, really want to do, and frankly, it's difficult. we do a good job of engaging with the folks that we know. we keep in really good touch with the stakeholders that

engage with the commission. i think we generally keep them in the loop, we listen to them, and we get good, very useful feedback from them, and again, i think that's something that we may have an expanded capacity to do with the ethics at work program. we can't use that to solve any and all problems, but i do think an outward facing communications approach hopefully will be a part of that, and we can think about new ways, whether it's through soap media or something of finding new people, of telling folks who might not know us and what we do, about seeing us, creating more visibility, wherever people find their news, i think that's something we want to do and do better, as well.

specifically with office courtesy, we could add some language, something that's accepted generally and not because this person's an official, so i think i'll go back and add that clarification, so thank you for that. and commissioner bush talked about a common carrier rule. i think it's in the california

constitution that officials cannot accept free rides on railroads, and my understanding is the history of why it's there. i would say that, under san francisco law, insofar as any airline, railroad, bus company is a restricted source, meaning does business with the department of the official or is a restricted business, so an airline that's doing business with a business that's in the airport, that's a restricted source, so that would apply. this is agendized for discussion purposes only. that's because we have not completed the meet-and-confer process that has to conclude before the commission takes action. i can tell you that d.h.r.

noticed both of these items and the phase three -- tentative phase three proposals for meet-and-confer. they invited employee bargaining units to meet-and-confer on these wednesday of next week, and it's our goal to conclude that process before the commission december 10 regular meeting, and we would also properly notice it, which has to occur ten days before the meeting happens. assuming both of those things are complete, if you wanted to, the commission would be able to take action on the ordinance that's before you today, the draft regulations before you today, and a draft ordinance for the face three recommendations that deal with things like training and penalties, and also we discussed the statement of incompatible activities in that, so that's the goal, to

give you that ability if you'd like to vote. that's our target right now. i don't know if i missed anything, but please feel free to ask anymore questions that you might have. >> president lee: i don't know if you guys can hear me? >> commissioner chiu: yes. we can hear you, we can see you. >> president lee: thank you. commissioner chiu? >> commissioner chiu: yes. from a process standpoint, if we were to take this up again in december and it was in a position to be approved, is this something -- because we actually do have two elections coming next spring, one in february or march and another in june, and because the -- these are not just regulations but also changes to the code --

is this something that we could put on the ballot? >> yes, these are things that could go on the ballot, the ordinance language could. and also, we would likely have recommendations as part of the phase three report that could pertain to things that would only be done through the ballot, so we'll talk about that in the report. in particular, any changes to the campaign chapter has to be done through the ballot process. there's nothing that permits the board of supervisors acting together with the ethics commission to change that. we'll break that down in the report, but yes, the ballot measure would be an option for this. >> commissioner chiu: okay. i don't know if this is okay to talk about, but i think from a process standpoint that if we are in a position to be able to vote in december on the -- and assuming that meet-and-confer has concluded and all of the procedural hurdles have been

cleared, then i would suggest that it be put on the ballot, either the february or march ballot or the june ballot? >> that would be the june ballot. i think the deadline for the february 15 election already passed. i think it was already passed before they even put the election up, so it was kind of unique. it would be the june one, the next possible one. >> commissioner chiu: yeah, to tee that up more for june, timply because it will -- simply because it will be with the other, not simply the ordinance changes that have

stalled. >> yes. and on that item, i want to bring you an update on another item. i can't bring it up because it was not discussed, but at the december meeting, i may have a suggestion to get to that. >> commissioner chiu: when we get to discussion and possible action, can we talk about that there? >> yes. >> commissioner chiu: deputy city attorney, is that appropriate to talk about on item number 9? >> future agenda items? yeah, i think we can talk about that then. if i can just sort of follow up on commissioner chiu's points. one thing that was perhaps not

clear and the staff covered is that the city attorney calf office has not had a chance to review these ordinances and has not approved them as to form. i've certainly been in the loop in some other parts of what's been proposed today, but the phase three proposal, i've only seen a very early draft of that, and that also has not been reviewed by my office, as well. so i want to be clear that through the procedural process, we may have other items to go through concerning the drafting process. and it's also clear that the next election that the commission could put a ballot measure on would be june.

next year's statewide primary would be the next ballot we could put on election measures. you have the ability to put that on the june election. >> president lee: hi? can you hear me? >> we can hear you, commissioner levi-strauss okay.

-- commissioner lee. >> president lee: okay. i'm trying to log back in, but i can't see you guys. can we take a ten-minute break to see if we can get this taken care of? >> commissioner bush: that seems suitable to me. >> president lee: okay. thank you for your patience. ron, do you mind staying on the line to make sure that i'm logged in? >> clerk: oh, yes, definitely, definitely. just to let folks now, it is 10:49. we will reconvene at 11:00. is that all right?

>> president lee: yes.

>> president lee: i do apologize for the additional challenge that i'm facing in my area. just in case i lose connection again, may i ask commissioner chiu, who is the senior member of this commission as well as a former chair to take over while i resolve the situation? >> commissioner chiu: yes. happy to do so, but hopefully

the technology will cooperate. >> president lee: thank you, commissioner chiu. i think when we left, we were going to open up for public comment. >> clerk: okay. please stand by. >> commissioner bush: excuse me. i think i have a few additional comments. >> president lee: oh, commissioner bush. if any interested parties want to dial in, please dial in now. commissioner bush? >> commissioner bush: thank you. i had three quick questions. you talked about airlines cannot offer upgrades to airport officials, but shouldn't that include any city

official because it's not just airline officials who approve ultimately arrangements that the airport has? so i'm glad to see that we've considered the entire universe of people. the second is i recommend an outreach to departments as soon as you can who have contractors. for example, the p.u.c., the d.p.w., rec park, because they're the ones who are going to have sort of institutionalized their arrangements, and they want to know whatever arrangements they've institutionalized may have to be revised because of

this on going effort. so if you want more input, i would suggest that we reach out to those. and the third thing is that, it sort of rose with the whistleblower, but the whistleblower has aspects that are important to this. i think we should have a safe see something, say something rule that says that if you are aware of violations, like maybe you're an administrative assistant who makes the reservations for an official who's going to stay at a $1,000 a night hotel, you might want to have that person tell the official, this falls outside the rule, and if they don't change it, then make that known to officials at ethics that

this is an apparent violation that's now taking place. >> clerk: commissioner bush, just be aware that you're also off camera, you have your camera off. >> i'll go in reverse order, so to address your last point, i see this as one of the biggest, perhaps the biggest outcome that we can get from training, is exactly what you just said. that if city officials, not just elected commissioners and department heads who currently have to do training, but anybody who's participating in government decision making, if all of those folks, which we're talking in the thousands instead of hundreds, are trained in ethics rules, it's much more likely to happen. if people know the rules and they've had contact with people in the ethics commission through personal outreach,

they're much more likely to understand that a behavior is problematic, so to me, that's the huge first step we can take, get in touch with each of them about the rules, and we'll get something happening, folks will say something when they see something. in terms of individual departments, that point's well taken, and i think we can do that. and to the point you made about the restricted source rule, we've addressed that issue in the draft coordinates. we added an additional rule that even if a contractor is not doing business with a

department, if a -- i think it might be well, i'll tell you what the context is in a moment, but if the professional approved the contract, if a contractor is doing business with the department, then approval is required, that the contractor would be a restricted source per them, as well, so that is something that is built into the rule in this proposed ordinance. >> commissioner bush: thank you. >> president lee: okay. let's go to public comment,

please. >> i'm unmuted. sorry. i just unmuted myself. i do see commissioner chiu's hand is raised up. do you -- >> commissioner chiu: i'm sorry. that's from before. >> ronald, before you go to public comment, i just wanted to clarify one thing for commissioner bush. it's not b-2. it's part b of the definition of restricted source. members of boards or commission, including the board of supervisors, a person doing business with any city department under a contract that requires approval is a

restricted source. >> commissioner bush: but are they a restricted source for somebody on the planning commission? >> no, not if -- i guess we're talking about that airline carrier. that air line -- no, the way the ordinance is drafted, they would not be a restricted source for them. >> commissioner bush: i'm not sure that that gets to the issue. it's going to be a problem in terms of how the public views it. if you look back at what

happened with d.p.w. soliciting contributions, for a nonprofit, they didn't appear to be covered by any rules because he wasn't an appointed department head and he wasn't covered that way, and the fact that the money was going to a nonprofit meant that he wasn't covered. so, for example, we have an exemption for providing information to a city, but in the past, we've seen that that could include creating an entire data system that was unique to a situation and giving it to one supervisor who then models it for making legislation.

and i'm not sure what you have here would fall outside the exemption or within it. >> so go to the idea of d.p.w., when you're talking about mohamed nuru asking recology executives to make payments into a nonprofit that he controlled, that fact pattern would absolutely be covered both by this ordinance and the phase one ordinance about the payment, so they would be forbidden from soliciting anyone who has an interest in something like that.

this definitely would address that fact pattern. >> president lee: okay. mr. moderator, can we go to public comment? >> clerk: madam chair, we are checking to see if there are any callers in the queue. for those who already joined us, please press star, three to enter the queue. for those of you who have just joined us, we are on agenda item 6, presentation and

discussion of draft ordinance and regulation amendments to enact recommendations contained in report on gift laws part a: gifts to individuals, dates august 2, 2021, and report on gift laws part b: gifts to city departments, dated september 29, 2021. please stand by. madam chair, there are no callers in the queue. >> president lee: okay. since this agenda item requires no action, and also, mr. ford, we look forward to your update

next month. now it's agenda item number 7, discussion and possible action on fiscal year 22 first quarter status report on implementation of recommendations of the august 2020 budget and legislative analyst's performance report of the ethics commission. >> thank you, chair lee. our budget and legislative analyst representative is unable to be here today, but we provided a summary of the audit that was issued in august 2020 for our office. the report provided to you, you'll see, has three components. the first, a very brief overview, a snapshot of where we are in terms of recommendations that are in the

planning phase, making way and progress, and those that have been completed. the report then links to the actual table that we've shared quarter after quarter of each of the 16 recommendations and more detailed notes about the status of that work. and also then links to the 13 summaries or documents referenced in the chart here. so i'm happy to answer any questions that you have for us. the point of the report is that we want to make sure that we are being accountable to the progress that we're making and that we continue to improve our operations as recommended by the b.l.a. it's a short summary, and i hope that what you would be able to take away from this is

we're making progress, and we only have one recommendation that remains in the planning phase in contrast to the last report that we provided to you. so i'm happy to answer any questions, and we look forward to, again, having a fuller report as we go through what are the recommendations to the whistleblower report that we report annually, so we'll provide that information the next report that we provide to you. we're happy to answering any questions and happy to update you on the progress in the coming months. >> president lee: okay. director pelham, can you refresh my memory specifically on the 6% plan status items, and also the 38% in progress

items? >> of course. the one item that remains in the planning stage is to establish a formal training for our audits program, our audits division. that is something that we've prioritized as part of this fiscal year's work plan, but as you see from other documents on the agenda that we'll get to in a bit, we've just been able to fill our audit position. so with that vacancy filled, the team is complete, and we'll be looking forward to having a more formalized training program developed and it speaks to sort of audit functionality and audit program work more richly. that's the one that's in the

planning stage. the other work that i think that you asked about that are in progress, and approving procedures for the lobbyist audit program, that has been pushed back to december 30 as our target date because of the hiring process that we've been in process office wide. also, the audit manual, that's something that's in process. continuing to work with the team on that is something that's very much been a focus of the audit team so far. and then, continuing to work on our enhanced case tracking and performance management. you may recall that we have received funding for this fiscal year for the development of the case management system, so we have been working our

enforcement team along with our electronic disclosure and data analysis teams to actually meet with support staff from outside of the office who are enabling us to build a system, so we have been having conversations and identifying the components and then lastly, formalizing and documenting a training program for the investigators. as you also know, we have -- i'm happy to introduce you shortly to our two new investigators. we have two new positions that we'll be filling and we've also had transition with the leadership of the division, so those items have affected our symline, but we we want to make sure that the training that we provide -- have affected our timeline, but we want to make sure that the training that we provide is as robust as

possible. does that answer your question? >> president lee: yes. i see commissioner chiu and then commissioner bush. >> commissioner chiu: thank you, chair lee. director pelham, i believe that the b.l.a. audit report has recommendations around staffing, the finding that the ethics commission was understaffed. do you know offhand how our current staffing compares to what their recommendations were? >> yes. our staffing compares to the

recommendations. an audit manager position has been filled, and we hired the new staff to assist with the form 700 program, positions that were identified in the audit budget. in addition to that, as you know, this year, we have eight new positions that we're filling, and so that's the ethics at work team in terms of posting job descriptions, and two additional enforcement staff, and one program performance analyst to work directly with our deputy director and me on making sure that we have our fullest reporting and our most transparent reporting regularly to you all and to the public. so there are a number of positions being filled, but that's what we're focused on with the b.l.a. report. >> commissioner chiu: okay. that's good to know because i know that we've had on going turnovers, so i know there'll

be vacancies, and we have the additional positions approved in this year's budget. i just want to make sure that those additional positions that were vacant will get us to what they recommended, and it does. >> yes. >> commissioner chiu: thank you for this report and for the staff continued progress on the basic blocking tackling going from one plan to a course of plans in a few months. really tremendous work on the part of you and the whole team, so thank you for putting that effort in and continuing to make this a priority. >> thank you. >> president lee: commissioner bush? >> commissioner bush: thank you. i'm unmuted, right? >> president lee: yes. >> commissioner chiu: you need to turn on your camera,

commissioner. >> commissioner bush: oh, actually, my face. it's good to know the position that you're filing, the title, but the others, we don't know exactly what the duties will be. can you provide some additional information on that? >> yeah, i'd be happy to give you the short version next month and be happy to give you a more thorough version next month. the positions that we're currently hiring for is our director of enforcement and two senior operators, and we also have a temporary administrative services clerk that will be helping with our front facing public facing services in our office in the coming months on a temporary basis, but the

positions that i was talking about in answer to commissioner chiu's question, we need to be in front of city staff, working with them to understand what the goals that we're trying to achieve. so we'll be prioritizing because it'll be a three year program, and we can't do all departments all at once, but we want to make sure that we're providing information regularly that will help people understand how to navigate ethics in practical settings and the pressures that we all face as public servants in city governments. so we will be developing case

studies, we will be developing smaller trainings, and happy to flush that out a bit more in a briefing that's useful to the commission. separately, we have a program performance and reporting analyst, that one of the things that the b.l.a. report discussed was that we had tried year offer year in our budget request to provide some context in the work that we're doing, the progress that we're making, and the impediments and the barriers and problems that we're facing in this work, so that's what the operations assistant will be doing to help me and the deputy director, so it's easy to see where we've started on a process or a project and where we've gone on

the way to make progress and impact through that work, so that's a position that is also in development. we haven't posted it yet, but that was a new position that we were authorized for this year's funding, and those were all priorities in the fiscal year hiring plan. >> commissioner bush: thank you. a couple of questions come to mind. you'll have to do the ethics department work in three-year increments. you can't do all the work. will you be starting with the departments that are most visible as failing to meet the requirements of disclosure and conflict of interest? like, for example, d.p.w. and p.u.c.? >> i don't have an answer on that for you, commissioner bush. the program is still in the

developmental stage. i am reaching out to the department heads and will be reaching out to the department heads about what is most prevalent, and we will have a conversation with them, so again, happy to have a fuller response for you next month if that would be acceptable to the commission. >> commissioner bush: i would like to suggest, in addition to asking department heads and city officials, that you take into account what we have seen from the u.s. attorney and the city attorney and from the public, the problems of conflict of interest in san francisco. i think that a part of what our job is is to build public trust, and if we sort of lay those issues to the side in

order to meet a different kind of scheme for pursuing the training, that we will pay a price in terms of public trust on that, so that's the first point that i want to raise for your consideration as this moves forward. secondly, i wonder to what extend the investigators or auditors -- i'm not sure how to refer to between them -- take a look at filings for form 700? do you guys do an actual check on what's been filed or are you just checking off that they have been filed? [please stand by]

just to be clear, it was proposed to us as a priority 14

or 15 months ago and we're not ready to move on any of that, yet? >> it was proposed in one of the public integrity reports. i don't have the dates. it was probably likely 14 months ago now. and it was something that now that we have an audit staff, it was a priority for us in this fiscal year, yes. >> all right. i think it's important for the public to understand that we didn't ask because we were short-staffed. i think that otherwise, the public is going to look at this as we didn't act because we were playing favorites with people at city government. but there's a system of that anyway and i think we need to disabuse the public of that to the extent that the record does allow us that. so that's a point that i'd like to elevate in our consideration of this as we move forward.

you said that you still put off looking at lobbyists audits and investigations. what is your timetable for that? >> december of this year. as the chart indicates, we've had to push that back by three months because the audit manager was tasked with helping with the hiring process for the audit division as well as the investigative division. >> so that's next month, you're talking about. >> yes. that's next month. >> and so what is the fiscal year priority for us this year as well. >> so the process will be by december 30th, but when will you actually start implementing that process? >> we are expecting to implement it in january 2022 with a goal of completion by june 30th, 2022. >> during that period of time,

we'll see two elections, a february election and a june election in which lobbyists will be laying a role one way or the other. are you going to fit that into your timetable as you're looking at it? i mean, because you can go through all kinds of lobbyists, lobbyists who spend very little. lobbyists who don't spend a great deal. lobbyists who don't report that they're being paid anything at all even though they're making contacts. what will you be looking for with all that? >> we're looking to complete the lobbying audit program by june 30th along with the audits we have to complete along with the establishment of the form of the filing review process and so our audit manager and three members of our audit team will be working closely to try and accomplish all those goals. all of those will be juggled in addition to prepping the public

financing administration and review process that the audit team also handles around february through june when candidates start indicating that they're interested in public financing for the november election and the board of supervisors races. so there's a number of agenda items that the priority for the audit division to attempt to make progress on this year and we're going to be focused on trying to do that. as you know, we'll have these reports to make sure we can be transparent about any progress that's being impeded for any reason and hopefully we'll have fewer impediments, but we've got a full team. >> there's no question that all of us are aware of the heavy load that's been placed on the ethics staff at least because of the scrutiny of how city hall is operating or not operating in the public

interest. so that -- when you hear my questions coming, it's out of a keen awareness of how the public views us as you know. there are efforts of the board to split off some of the things that the ethics commission does because of beliefs that ethics is not getting things done that it needs to get done and those actors concern me because i think that ethics should not be split off, but i understand the sentiment that says that people have more expectations than what ethics has been able to deliver. so