>> good evening this is the meeting of the san francisco commission on the environment. today is tuesday may 10th. the time is 6:21 p.m. ringing use of cell phones and paging devices are prohibited. for remote participants ringing

of cell phones and pagers and ringing devices is prohibited. please turn your devices off. due to the covid-19 health emergency and to protect commissioners, department staff and members of the public, commissioners and department staff may participate in the meeting remotely. this exception is taken pursuant to the statewide stay-at-home order and proceeding local, state and federal orders, declarations and directives. commissioners, may attend the meeting through video conference or by telephone if the video fails and participate in the meeting to the same extent as if they were physically present. public comment will be available on each item in this agenda. for comments on matters not on the agenda, there will be an opportunity for general public comment. participants who wish to comment in person will be asked to come forward one by one and speak clearly into the mic. each speaker will be allowed

three minutes to speak. members of the public who are participating remotely, may comment by calling into the meeting. opportunities to speak during the public comment period are available via phone by calling (415)655-0001. access code, 2491 434 4545 when connected dial star 3 to be added to the queue. sfgovtv.org is also streaming the number at the top of the screen. best practices are to call from a quiet location, speak clearly and slowly and silence any other devices. members of the public may submit public comment by e-mail.

i will now call the roll. [ roll call ] commissioner bermho is excused and commissioner wald is excused. we have a quorum. as president ahn will be participating virtually vice president stephenson will be presiding over the meeting. the next item is item 2, review and vote on whether to approve resolution file 2022-030coe to allow teleconference meetings under the california government code section 5495e.

this item is for discussion and action. the commission will discuss and consider adoption of a resolution making guidance by government code requires in order to allow the commission to hold meetings remotely as currently required under local law without complying certain grounds of that requirement. >> v.p. stephenson: any discussion? do i hear a motion? any changes? let's open up to public comment please. >> clerk: le with begin with public comment here in the room. we will proceed to remote public comment. are there any members of the public who are present in the room today who wish to speak. if so please come forward and speak clearly in the mic.

seeing none, we will proceed to remote public comment. members of the public who wish to make public comment should press star 3 to be added to the queue. it appears we have several callers in the queue.

your three minutes begin now. >> caller: good evening, this is david pilpel. i have no concerns about the ab361 resolution. i want note that today's meeting is not live on sfgov tv channel 2 and is not listed on the sfgov tv website under live events. i do note i'm watching this on webex if there is graphics, camera or sfgov tv, control room f. i don't know where they are casting it. if they could add that to the live events page age if someone direct me and other members of the public to where one can find this covered by sfgov tv, that will be most helpful.

thanks. >> clerk: thank you for your comment. we have received -- >> caller: i'm sarah greenwall from district two i like to urge the commission to continue working with the board to support -- >> clerk: public comment is restricted to this specific agenda item at the moment. this is the teleconference

resolution. please save your comment for general public comment which will appear on item 4 in the agenda. thank you. seeing no additional callers in the queue, public comment on this item has concluded. >> v.p. stephenson: roll call vote please. >> clerk: i will call the roll. [roll call vote]

>> v.p. stephenson: motion passes. next item. >> clerk: next item 3. president's welcome. this item is for discussion. >> president ahn: thank you. good evening everyone. the commission on the environment acknowledges that we occupy homeland of the ramaytush ohlone people who are the original inhabitants of the san francisco peninsula. ramaytush ohlone understand all things and maintained harmony. we honor ramaytush ohlone peoples for their commitment to mother earth. as the indigenous protecttors of this land, ramaytush ohlone have never ceded, nor forgotten their responsibility as caretakers of this place. whereas for all people who reside in their traditional territory. we recognize that we benefit from living and working on their traditional homeland as uninvited guests.

we affirm their sovereign rights as first people and wish to pay our respects to the ramaytush ohlone community. we recognize that we must embrace indigenous knowledge and how we care for san francisco and all its people. thank you for your attention during this important acknowledgement. thank you, kyle, thank you chair stephenson for moving along this meeting. apologies for not being able to join you tonight. i tested positive for covid and i will be joining you remotely. my symptoms are mild it's another reminder that as commissioners we do not pick and choose the challenges before us. it was always true of climate change where we seb on the commission on the pandemic, that --i'm grateful to vice president stephenson for stepping to the role to push forward a robust

agenda today. we have packed agenda with more substantive ones towarded end. thanks to acting director jue i'm looking forward to getting some work done. with that, we can move to discussion on president's welcome. >> v.p. stephenson: any discussion on the president's welcome? let's open up to public comment please. >> clerk: vice president stephenson and president ahn we'll have see if we can have commissioner wald to call in to participate. just one moment.

commissioner wald, can you hear us? >> commissioner wald: can you hear me? >> clerk: we can hear you. given the technical set up, it will be best we unmute you whenever we have a discussion on an agenda item. we'll start to count you as part of the quorum. thank you very much. >> commissioner wald: thank you for your help and charles. >> v.p. stephenson: let's move to public comment. >> clerk: we will begin with public comment here in the room. once public comment has concluded we'll proceed to remote public comment.

we will proceed to remote public comment. members of the public who wish to make public comment on this item, please press star 3. we do have pair callers in the queue. you have three minutes. >> caller: david pilpel again. i appreciate the follow-up on the last item. the meeting is still not listed on the sfgov tv website under

live events. although you claim that it is web only until the board of ed ends, which seems unlikely. seem like this meeting will likely be shorter than the board of ed meeting. it appears this meeting is only available to the public on webex and not available through sfgov tv. if you can verify that or if you can get them to listed under sfgov tv live events, that will be helpful. otherwise it is only available for the public currently on webex. thank you for listening. >> clerk: thank you for your

comment. if appears we do have a working link. i will read the address. sfgovtv.org/environment live. that is sfgovtv.org/environment live. we have another caller in the queue. your three minutes begins now. >> caller: sorry i jumped the gun before. i was urging you to continue to

work with the board to implement the climate action plan. i will remind you of your statement in the department of environment is still not financially equipped to tackle the enormity of climate change. that's the overarching job. the city budget should include the following. $1 million for a cleanpowersf incentive program, $3 million for carbonation professional services, $1 million for community outreach on the climate action plan, $2 million for a pilot program electrifying commercial kitchens and another $2 million for a pilot program electrifying affordable housing units. $4.2 million to provide services so that they have the capacity

to implement the climate action plan. $250,000 for district energy study. to determine how to connect best use of the energy systems available and the $5 million to plant street trees. you saw today that the world leader reported that the world temperature may go higher than the 1.5 degrees than we're worried about. that's a big deal. especially it might trigger tipping points we've been hearing about. we really must have no other goal here and to get off the road to survival. thank you. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. see no additional callers in the

queue. public comment on this item is closed. >> v.p. stephenson: thank you for the public comment. especially for getting the url up for everyone. appreciate that. let's move to the next item. >> clerk: item 4, approval of minutes of the march 22, 2022 commission on the environment meeting. explanatory document is the march 22, 2022 draft minute. >> v.p. stephenson: any discussion on the minutes from the last meeting? can i hear a motion? let's open up to public comment for this item. >> clerk: we will begin with public comment here in the room. once in-person comment has

concluded, we will proceed to remote public comment. are there any members of the pub who wish to speak? if so come forward one-by-one. seeing none, we'll proceed to remote public comment. members of the public who wish to make a public comment should press star 3 to be added to the queue for those already on hold in the queue, please continue to wait until it is your turn to speak.

seeing no callers. public comment on this item has closed. >> v.p. stephenson: please call the roll. [roll call vote] [ indiscernible ] >> clerk: is there a member of the public who wishes to speak? >> caller: yes, david pilpel. on the minutes minor items on page 2, there's reference -- [ indiscernible ] i believe that's the first reference and there's no title given. that's at the bottom of page 2.

i would add her title on the bottom of page 3. there's a reference to accessory as it relates to ev chargers. i believe the language should be -- along should read and installed as an accessory use on page 7, there's reference to northern california recycling association on the first line of my public comment. i would delete the word the. it would read about the reference to the director's report. on the third lime long -- line,

it should read left and did not retire. further on that page there's reference to deidre cannonburg. her title is not given. on page 8-11, i believe that the language at the end is agenda boilerplate. it's not necessary to the minutes. it might be considered confusing because of specific information for that meeting. i would end the minutes after -- just before the section labeled, a remote meeting access. i believe that agenda boilerplate at the end is not necessary to the minutes. those are my suggested changes

and corrections. thank you for listening. >> clerk: thank you for your comment. seeing no additional callers, we'll close public comment. >> v.p. stephenson: let's call the roll please. [roll call vote]

commissioner wald? we have you unmuted. commissioner wald is excused. commissioner wan. >> v.p. stephenson: motion passes. next item. >> clerk: item 5, general public comment. members of the public may address the commission on matters within the jurisdiction and not on today's agenda. we will begin with public comment here in the room. once in-person comment has concluded, we will proceed to remote public comment. are there any members of the

public who are present who wish to speak, if so please come forward one by one and speak clearly in the mic. we will proceed to remote public comment. members of the public who wish to make a public comment on this item should press star 3 to be added to the queue. for those already on hold in the queue, please continue to wait until it is your turn to speak. it appears we do have a pair of callers in the queue. caller, you're unmuted. your three minutes begins now. >> caller: david pilpel again. next item on the public integry

review raises questions about conduct and ethics but also the basic purpose of the commission. that's why i wanted to address those concerns now under general public comment. i think the role of the commission is not just with regard to policy and programs but also oversight. this commission has historically not been particularly engaged in contract and grants only on occasions, and inconsistently and level of budget detail has varied over time. i would ask you to think about what level of detail is useful for the members of the commission, staff and the public. in staff reports and presentations, the appropriate level of oversight on budget contract and grants issues, the level of detail in the director's report. bottom line here, i would

encourage the commission now to either step up and be very serious about the issues before the commission and the department. if you're not and we're not all serious about this, maybe we don't need a commission anymore and maybe there will be a charter amendment from supervisor peskin or others to abolish the commission and perhaps abolish the department. i don't want that. i hope you don't want that. i think there's some serious issues and we need to take them with the seriousness they warrant. >> clerk: thank you for your comment. caller, you're unmuted. your three minutes begins now.

>> caller: my name is elena, i'm with the san francisco emergency coalition and 350 san francisco. i'm calling to express concern about the department of the environment budget request of $3.2 million which this commission supported. we have heard indications it may not be included in the mayor's budget. i'm asking that the commission continue to express support to the mayor for this item and if it is not included in the mayor's budget, that it gets put in it add back process. we also have developed a number of other add back items mostly dealing with the building decarbonization pilot. we hope you also would support

these addback items. we must start funding the updated cap and it is not apparently within the mayor's priorities to do so. i am sincerely asking this commission to make sure that these budget requests are supported even if they are included in the mayor's budget and included in addbacks. thank you. >> clerk: thank you for your comment. seeing no further callers in the queue. public comment is closed if this item. >> v.p. stephenson: next item

please. >> clerk: item 6, presentation on public integrity review preliminary assessment and up update on the implementation of assessment recommendations. the speaker is tyrone jue. >> v.p. stephenson: commissioner s, as we go into this item, as acted director jue gets his presentation, if you have any questions or discussion that you like to take after any of the sections of his presentation, let's take them as they come up instead of waiting to the end. i'm not going to ask for questions off each section. if you have questions, please feel free the motion that you like to speak. those who are dialing in

remotely, please make sure kyle can see you. acting director jue? >> thank you commissioner stephenson. i want to acknowledge some of the public comment that we heard. this commission does play the role by setting the directions for the department. i did want to mention that your leadership here and convening this special hearing is really important that we're willing to have this open dialogue and conversation in a public setting regarding the issues that were raised in the report. i want to say a few words just to introduce myself. i truly am honored to be here in this acting capacity to serve this commission and also to follow in the footsteps of someone that i truly admired and

respected. i do want to put that up front because one of the decisions for me and stepping in this acting role was to support the direction and policy direction of this commission but also support the staff that have continued to do their work day in and day out even with this emotional roller coast they've been on over the past month. this is as much about supporting them and obviously supporting the direction of this commission. we're going to talk about this public integrity review that wassing conducted by the san francisco controller office. i think one thing to think about, i did want to mention about audits in general. you can take a half glass full approach or a half glass empty approach. what i mean by that, the way to

think about audits is really about highlighting areas of improvement. especially in public service. the ability to have controllers office that is an independent group. that's what was done here in this report. i do want to acknowledge the amazing work of our controller audit team who put lot of hours in this report. all 48 slides in total. what we're going to focus on today as part of my presentation, it may go into other discussions, are are the outcomes for the nine recommendations that really are consolidation of all the 48 slide. when you think about all the individual slides and slide at

the very end, which are common for every report are what are the areas recommendations that the department need to improve upon in order to address everything that was raised in the report. that's going to be the focus of my conversation today. next three slides go over what those nine assessment recommendations are. i'm not going to read each and every one of them as we're going to go each of them in some detail later on. i did want to note here that president ahn decided to move item 1 which results in a discussion and the policies this commission may want to consider to the end. i will start with recommend two and work down and then get to recommendation one. the other recommendations are straightforward as we'll see as well as the action that we

followed up on. starting with recommendation number two. the recommendation in the report was that policymakers should revise the refuse rate-setting process and procedures to clearly define s.f. environment's roles, responsibilities, and involvement in the refuse rate-setting process. these are covered in the recommendations proposed settled to be voted on in the june 2022 election. i want to pause here, as this enacted voter issue that's going to be appearing before them, we're prohibited from offering any sort of opinion and having a

conversation about this other than outlining what the facts that are presented within the voter pamphlet. the way it works now, the refuse rate board has three members. general manager of the san francisco public utilities commission, the city administrator and the city controller. the proposed ballot measure or the ballot measure that will be voted on by voters will change the composition of that refuse rate board. the general manager to the san francisco public utilities commission, city administrator and a rate payer representative. the city controller instead would act essentially as the rate setting process. this is the change that's going to be before the voters in june.

that rate payer representative will be a seat that would currently be appointed or offered up by the utility reform network as proposed in the ballot. that organization is currently listed as the organization that will propose the member for that seat or it can be another organization that can be selected by the board of supervisors. in addition, where this commission would come involved in the process and the rate setting process, there will be two hearings that will be scheduled as a result of this new process. one will be a public hearing before this commission and there will be another public hearing in front of our new commission sanitation of streets. which is being put together now. that gives a broad overview what the changes are. there's no specific action for us to take as part of the department. obviously the action proposed by mayor breed and supervisor

peskin are before the voters in june. >> v.p. stephenson: i have a question. what happens if that ballot measure does not pass? do we take action on this recommendation at that point in time? >> the rate setting process does require a vote to change that process that require a vote of the voters. if this measure does not pass, the existing process would remain in place. >> follow-up question on the public hearing in front of this commission. previously, i feel like this is mentioned in public comment that the lack of detail and some public hearing leads to an inability to provide constructive oversight or insight into what is actually happening. i like to hear your candid thoughts on general best

practices if this were to be adopted by the voters that you think the commission should follow? >> unfortunately, i don't know the details. the process will need to be developed by the controller's office. they will define what will be presented before each of the commission body. in terms of what i can refer to is kind of my experience over at public utilities commission. as we go through our rate setting process. we do have a rate fairness board that's made up and appointed people, representing different constituencies in the rate payer group. it goes into a commission hearing process and in this case, in accordance with proposition, it's setting of water utility rates. there are two hearings that are held within the commission that has to be publicly noticed. members of the public are able

to offer comment before commission takes action on rates that are set. >> will this commission be able to make recommendation. >> i believe similar to our current rate setting process, the department will be involved in kind of working with controller's office. we have a portion of the work related to the zero waste goals. in terms of the background work and technical work, we'll be involved in conversations with the controller.

>> as to this recommendation, the controller's report talked about an order by mr. neuro from 2016 it found was extremely vague as to the department's role in rate paying and rate process. my question about this recommendation is what is the status of that order? if that's part of the lack of clarity of the department's role, how does the ballot initiative address that? is there something else that's needed to establish some clarity? >> that may go into an area i'm not quite familiar as far as what supersedes that order. until the measure is enacted i would assume that the order is still in place. however, there's obviously

different leadership in department of public works currently. they can offer another order to provide greater detail. i don't think given where we are in terms of rate setting process and when that's coming up, i believe they'll tackle this to see whether or not that ballot initiative passes in june to decide what those next steps are. if it doesn't pass, i'm sure there will be conversations about what to do next.

>> clerk: do you have a comment commissioner wald? >> commissioner wald: i don't believe i do, can you hear me? >> clerk: yes, we can hear you. >> commissioner wald: i'm not going to comment. >> clerk: you can hear us okay? >> commissioner wald: yes. >> this is recommendation number three in the report. the recommendation is that policymakers should consider codifying the mayor's executive director 20-02 requiring departments to formalize the relationships with non-city organizations and defining key

components of the agreements. the action here is obviously as an executive director issued by the mayor, we're under that guidance to follow that directive. any new establishment of an organization, we'll talk about the disillusion of the organization later on. it would require following that directive which require us to go to city attorney's office and controller's office for review. also to have that approved at the the commission level in compliance of all local rules and regulations. one action that this commission may want to consider, this is an action by a resolution to potentially codify this within the departmental policy and passing a resolution that's adopting the measure for 20-02 strictly stating that should the department in the future want to establish a friends of

organization, here are the thing that will be required. this recommendation comes as -- every mayor passes executive directive. through the passage of time, those mayors passed directives. this would establish the requirement for any future department head to establish a friends of organization in the future. we think that the recommendations obviously in the executive directive by the mayor are definitely good recommendations to put forth. if that's something that of interest of the commission, staff will be happy to work on drafting that resolution for consideration of the commission in the future.

>> commissioner hunter: item number four, each department submitted under the administrative code. the department shaz certify all gifts received. currently we do not have a department annual report. i'm curious if you have thoughts on where. >> the gift reporting is actually done and posted on our website for the public to see in accordance with with the rules and handled by our chief of policy and his team. that is something that we currently do comply with in accordance with the rule. >> commissioner hunter: i'm wondering if it might be an alternative recommendation to include in the commission's report as opposed to the departmental report, any donations received from the

department just to increase transparency? >> that's the only recommendation that we can take if that's what the commission like. one of the items later on in terms of see how the commission like to receive updates. some of the ideas include reporting any gifts received and putting that in the director's report even as a written memo. also providing updates on any kind of major ethics updates to the commission at that time. recommendation number four is that san francisco environment and all city departments should proactively seek advice from the city attorney's office and the ethics commission when questions arise about city ethics rules and ensure full disclosure of

relevant facts to facilitate accurate advice. the three actions that we developed are that the department will review are internal ethics policies and protocol and develop written policies including seek the advice of city attorney ethics commission. the department will regularly schedule staff training on city ethics rules and the policy. second is that the department will conduct annual staff briefing and advice. the way to make the process more accessible to staff. it staff has a very clear list of actions in order to seek that advice. here's the process to do so and here's the new contact to seek advice. as part of just beginning four weeks ago, one of the new requests that we request additional city attorney

resources to ensure that the sufficient budget to account for the work we like to do with the city attorney's office in term of reviewing contracts and other items. these are the three items we're proposing here. >> v.p. stephenson: i'm pleased to see that last point. one of the things that i think is critical for the department like the department of on the environment to make sure -- with so much grant funding, nearly every single piece of revenue that comes in the department is earmarked towards something. we have to cover that through other means. we don't have general fund

dollars. therefore legal dollars don't flow into our budget. as a commission it's important for us to support especially that third piece of that where we want to make sure that we are -- we want this department to be held as a pinnacle of being ethical in the same way that we have such an international reputation being a leader in the environmental movement. we need to be equally seen as put forward in terms of how we approach other ethical decisions. commissioner hunter?

>> commissioner hunter: thank you for dealing with all the questions. the only two thoughts here on the department review of internal policy is, i think increasing the robustness of the policy is important. when we did records retention -- [ indiscernible ] on the second one for the staff briefing, the only comment that i have here is i think it might be a good suggestion to make sure it coincides with the larger fundraising period as we go into earth month and earth day. >> that's a great point. >> commissioner wald: this

commissioner wald. i want to observe that commissioner stephenson's point. i think incredibly critical. i had previously noted in my own review this document that the fact that the department has to essentially buy purchase, it's a real disincentive to having the kind of comprehensive and accessible legal advice that is critical to ensuring that we are complying with appropriate ethical obligations. it does seem to me that -- if the city is truly committed to having this and other

departments do that. there does have to be some examination within the city of the funding issue and the way the process is currently structured. not just for our department but for others. >> next slide please. this is recommendation number five. this is s.f. environment and all city departments should comply with the mayor's executive director 20-01 and ensure a timely disclosure information to the city attorney and controller's office. this is kind of the simple one. in my mind, we should fully

comply with any requests from city attorney's office and controller's office. the department suspect committed to ensuring disclosures of all information and providing training to staff, especially around records retention and also disclosures that are required under the rules and regulations for the city. this is recommendation number six. this pertains back to the organization. s.f. environment and all city departments should work with the city attorney's office to create

a memorandum of understanding. the action here in complication with city attorney's office, the friends of s.f. environment has been dissolved. in your packet today is a letter that on 4/29/22. i sent a letter to the friends of s.f. environment organization formally ending any relationship. as we discussed before, any new establishment will have to go through and follow the mayor's executive director currently. related to the funds that are remaining within the friends it of account, consistent with the city's new behested payment rule, all decisions the remaining fund are sole possession of the friends of environment. we were instruct that we are to

have or provide no direction. they are free to disperse the remaining funds as they choose. as noted in the letter, we ask they let us know once they kind of close things up. >> v.p. stephenson: can we take one step. can you talk about the friends of organization, how they work and what it means going forward and how the prior directive would change. >> i want to start by saying the friends of organization is not

unique to the department of environment. there exist other fends of organization. library has have their own friends of organization. thian these organizations are typically up is to support the mission and the work. this department because of how restricted our funding sources are important. these friends of organization allow -- you have vehicle to -- i don't want to say friends of organization is totally bad. it has supported many of the

initiatives and programs that this commission and city adopted as far as policy. because of all the restricted sources, that could not be used to fund that important work. which a dramatically changed, the passing of the behested language. which restricted the ability to be able to solicit funds from these restricted sources and interested parties. in this case othe -- friends of

s.f. environment played all important role, it's better for us to move in a different direction and advocate for funding directly from the city to fund these important and critical climate activities. hopefully that provides some context. >> you say with the disband of organizations, it's on their discretion how they will handle the fund? >> that's correct. >> what is the budget sides? >> the approximately remaining amount in the account is about

$25,000. >> this friends of organization never need to report to the commission in the past. >> this was a relationship between the department and the friends of organization. kind of how that organization supported the department's goal. that was the intersection between the work. given the behested payment legislation that passed, this is why the city attorney -- there needs to be a clear line on you can't direct them anymore. they're already a restricted source on where to put that money. this not allowed anymore based on that legislation. >> generally, this is the most concerning aspect to me. money without oversight is never

a good thing especially when we have such limited access to funds. those funds can get misappropriated. in the control's report, they recognize yes, friends of did have a board. the staff signed off and directed these funds. are any staff in a personal capacity still directing these funds? >> currently to this day, no. there's no direction of anything from staff and involvement from staff in the friends of organization. they have no input into where the funds will be directed. >> no staff currently hold position with friends of. >> that's correct.

>> commissioner wald: this may seem like overkill, i want to follow-up commissioner hunter's question and ask my fellow board members to assure me that none of us have any relationship with the friends of organization? >> v.p. stephenson: everyone i see says no. >> commissioner wald: i don't. >> commissioner sullivan: the actions indicated here are that the friends of organization has been dissolved and also that this -- my question is friends of organization being formally

dissolved. is it an organization that will go through disillusion so it no longer exist or will it sees to exist so that it doesn't exist and it can't just dispurse funds. >> that's a great point of clarification. the action that we have taken as a department is to sever our relationship with with the friends of s.f. environment. that's what we have been told. >> commissioner sullivan: thank you.

>> to build on question again. the board of friends of, are throes of those board members connected to any other city departments or any other city staff? like was somebody's husband or wife connected to this organization? >> i'm going to have mr. sheehan answer this question. >> can you repeat that question? >> commissioner hunter: i no department staff directly connected to friends of but are aware of any relationships via close friends or family that sit on this board that might be connected to the city government. >> this is charles sheehan

public affairs officer. i think it's safe to say that the external board members for friends may have connections to the city and or former employees to the city. >> commissioner hunter: beside acting director with friends of, are there any controls in place to make sure there are no back-and-forth or continuation conversation -- the point i'm trying to drive home, i want to make sure we dot our is and cross our ts. to ensure we are not connected with any shame form if possible. >> i'm not wear of any

back-and-forth other than what has been recommended by the city attorney and transported over to -- i'm not aware of back-and-forth. >> commissioner hunter: in the letter sent to them, it does clarify that prohibition that the dispercentment of funds is -- >> thank you for answering these questions. this is a very complex relationship. it has to come to a close. we are doing as much diligent follow-up as possible. help ease my anxiety. thank you.

>> we appreciate the questions. there are questions that the public may have related to this. >> this is recommendation number seven. tv environment and allzy department -- the action here is as of 2021, this actually began already. all s.f. environment staff are required to take the biannual

city ethics training. training is actually part of every new employee's on boarding process. when you become a new policy at the process, you must take this training. in item of 2022, we'll be doing another all staff training with the city attorney use office. the point here is that this anthony a one time thing. it's an ongoing process that we need to continue elevate through discussions, dialogue, meeting and training. today we had a training with managers about the best way of the payment rule. we want everyone to ask questions to the exerts.

beginning in 2023, there will be an annual requirement to complete the training to align with the filing deadline for form 700 filers. which is april 1st. basically, it's lining up with commissioner hunter's recommendation to the earth month celebration. i think it fights nicely in that timeline. the second is that in addition, this is a new request that was made to the mayor's budget office for additional support to help us budgeting ethics contracts and grant compliance.

i wanted to put that out there. we did make a request to have additional support to make sure we had another pair of eyes on all of those number of grants and contracts going through our department.

>> v.p. stephenson: there's so much conversation around getting grants and getting funds in the door to enact the amazing policies that constituent does. a part of me wants to say this is an amazing opportunity for us to say let's stop that whole process and let the city fund all the work of the department and then all of that oversight in the day-to-day way around grant making, grant writing and getting sponsorship and making sure that we're following all the rules.

my question for you is, in that training and in the behested payment rules is there clarity around gifts versus sponsorships? to me, this is one of those thing that i never understood. i see a big marquee with a bunch of logos on it. i know that people have given wine at the green business awards, i know that people done different levels of sponsorships. not people but organizations. it's unclear to me after going through the ethics training that we have to go through, where that line gets drawn. i'm hopeful as you're talking about this training, that line gets really clear. as long as we are in position or department is in position where we're having to go out and solicit these funds in order to

do day-to-day operations it's critical that every single person who has any touch point on that really understands that. i don't think that has been the case today through no -- certainly through lack of understanding there. >> this might be a good time to introduce our deputy city attorney. i will start and obviously turn to her if she has anything to add. i do think that the line is very clear when it comes to new behested payment legislation. what is allowed and not allowed in terms of sponsorship.

we have relationship with this organization, we are not allowed to ask that organization for funding for our department or funding to another behested payment. like funding to another organization to support something. you bring up a point that the reason why the funds had to be raised it's because there are no dollars in the department to host things like the breakfast. to bring up another point that the behested payment legislation -- the activities it done prior to this year.

the issue around the recology issue, that's elevated in term of public profile based on all the other activities and things i noted with recology. that takes on a different perception which is ultimately kind of what we're trying to safeguard. that integrity and what all the commissioners said the integrity of the department. those things are really important to be followed. that's why we're asking for additional support. the current resources of the department isn't enough to ensure that. to make sure we don't miss, we want to make sure we are every

-- even if this department, i hope this department is successful in getting all the funding we need to advance this important work, there will be a component just based on the work itself that will require -- that will basically benefit the public for us to seek grants. there are federal grants closely aligned with our climate goal. all of the money we need to be out there trying to get the dollars into the city so we can advance our goals. i don't think that necessarily stopped even if we get funding. we get to scale that work and make sure that the work is done appropriately in accordance with rules and regulations in the

city. >> i agree with what you said. i want to underline the point you made. there's no real distinction between sponsorships and gifts when it comes to the behested payment rules. >> can you explain the current staffing situation related to contract and contract compliance. when you adding disposition, what will be the responsibility and who will be the direct reports to? >> we're still working out the details organizationally where that would fit. any initial thought is that the current staff that deal with budgeting that deal with contracts and the consolidation of everyone that deals with

grants centralized grant function would report to this individual. that individual will provide that oversight. it allows for that oversight. also, there are some judgment calls that have been to be made. we like to think all rules and regulations are, there are circumstances and situations where you have to start put your thinking cap on and say does what applied and having someone -- [ indiscernible ] that first layer is really important to the process. we make sure other points are hit as they are needed if things are not clear.

>> i'm thinking, this is really robust department that had so many contracts and grants. it's not typical. i'm wondering if one position is that even enough or if that assessment has been done and to figure out a structure to make it as sound? >> that's a great point too. unfortunately, given the timing of kind of everything as far as this report and also myself, we're in the middle of a budget season right now. what i was proposing here we know we need additional controls to get some additional help now that can do that strategic -- to have a very robust contracting grant budgeting team that kind of meets the standard that this commission wants to hold.

>> commissioner wald: i think i may have missed something here. i apologize. i want to say thank you for moving so swiftly and so comprehensively to address the recommendation. i'm very impressed as we go through what you have done and what you proposing to do. one thing that i was wondering is whether or not you given any consideration to a position like an ethics officer for the

department? even ideally or prospectively. i agree absolutely with what you said that again and again, there are going to be questions that require a judgment call. i take these ethics courses every single year. i'm a lawyer. i'm used to thinking about these kinds of issues. they are not crystal-clear even to me after multiple years of having the training. the notion that department might have someone who's job it was to be an advisor to people when those questions come up so they

don't have to hesitate. before they can get the answer to the question while on the term of their tongue. somebody who have responsible for answering those questions and identify as such to everyone. >> thank you for your comments. i agree. that is the intent of this position that we're requesting. at an appropriate senior enough level to be able to provide that level of guidance. i think it's also important to note, it's easy to always find someone to be ethics officer if you will. lot of people have an ethics officer. it's important that we understand our role and

supporting the ethics department. each individual is a safeguard. i had conversations with staff, we to each other are sources of information. as there are questions the most important thing is to have a resource you can turn to, b, know that you don't have to -- if you're not sure ask questions. in this case it will be initially senior person but it can be anyone in the department for that matter to seek in initial level of guidance and elevate it as necessary until we get to that appropriate level of certainty. that includes going to our city attorney's office, going to the ethics department. all in that process and the culture we want to have in place. >> commissioner wald: if i can

add one follow-up question. so the person is not specifically -- the supervisor for lack of better word of the contract people, it's a brawledder -- broader role? >> that is the initial thought. i'm happy to bring back a job description for this role. it will be all of the above. obviously they would have oversight over our budget and contracting grant. i believe in my review other organizations we can find an individual with all of those skill sets. >> commissioner wald: thank you.

i'm sorry i did not understand that from the beginning. >> not a problem. we are going on to recommendation seven. this is more an agreement in the recommendation. we are looking at all the top responsibilities within the department to determine which of these positions do have contracting and purchasing responsibility. tied with that, we'll make sure the appropriate training is died to the individual and disclosures is tied to those individuals that are appropriate. the department will work with the s.f. commission to identify additional sunshine training to include annual mandatory requirements.

recommendation number eight. s.f. environment and all city departments should seek approval from the board of supervisors if the department wishes to charge fees and ensure that fee revenue is deposited and recorded in the city's financial system. the action here is a slight description also of the fee-based course. we look back when it took place. only fee-based for recology in q22014. the last fee-based presentation happened in q4 2019. this is to raise visiting delegation that were taking up staff time and pulling them from other responsibilities and have them cover the cost of those

tour. it was done on a limited basis. based on what i've been able to see as far as it was not done regularly or frequently. there's a city process before any department should decide to enact any sort tv fee or charge. as such, i want to note this happened before i began. any fee revenues is recorded in the city's financial system. this goes to there's actually a process to set fees that requires approval by the board of supervisors before you you can start charging fees to the public. we definitely will follow up any

of those rules and procedures should we ever do fees again in the future. >> commissioner hunter: just a quick question. you said they'll follow-up with the commission and board of supervisors. you mentioned there's process to follow with the board of supervisors. is there a process currently in department policies that requires the department to come to the commission or is this a recommendation to come to the commission? >> that i'm not clear about whether or not the commission has an action. i know that the controller's office is involved in the office and board of supervisors must approve the fee as part of the annual salary ordinance. i don't know if the commission has to take this action before

going forward. that's a question i'm happy to bring back that answer. we can set that policy that the commission has to approve any sort of fee-based tour in the future before going to the other steps of the city process. recommendation number nine. this was actually directed at the department of human resources. they should consider require interview panelists to confirm that they have no conflict of interest before participating in hiring panel and develop policies regarding these matters. the department already made a comprehensive list of all contracted grantees available to all staff. that's posted on our sharepoint page and updated quarterly. i plan to develop department

policy after kind of hearing feedback from the commission here that i wish to prohibit the use of contractors or grantees with a financial relationship from participating in any future hiring panel. that panelist will be required to confirm that they have no conflicts of interest. here i want to bring this back. there's no city wide policy on this. there's no prohibition that says you can't have a contractor or grantee sit on your panel. this gets to the perception issue and the public integrity and trust issue that we were discussing earlier. it's my recommendation that we just make it blanket policy and that's something i can do directly. >> v.p. stephenson: can you give me an example of a hiring panel that would have a contractor on