so with all of us being together and making it feel very safe is challenging, but we are working on it and we are getting there. >> good morning. welcome to november 18, 2022 regular meeting of the san francisco ethics commission. minutes reflect this is a hybrid meeting being held pursuant to 44 supplement to mayoral

proclamation declaring existence of local emergency dated february 25, 2020 and being held of the conditions of the proclamation. today's meeting is live cable cast and live on line on -members may attend in person or participate by the phone or webex plat forms as explained in the ajunda documents. may you please explain how public comment will be handled today? >> mublic comment will be available on each item on the agenda. each member of the public will be allowed 3 minutes to speak. for those attending in person opportunities to speak during public comment will be made available in 408 city hall. those attending remotely public comment can be

provided by calling 415-655-0001. the phone number is 1-415-655-0001. access code is 24889848978. again, the access code is 24889848978. fallowed by the pound sign and press pound again. (inaudible) you will be muted and listening mode only. when your item of interest comes up dial star 3 to raise your hand and added to the public comment line. you will hear, you have raised your hand to ask a question. wait until the host calls on you. the line will be silent as you wait your turn to speak. insure your are in a quite location. before you speak mute the sond of any equipment around you including television radio or computer. it is especially

important you mute your computer to prevent feedback and echo when you speak. when the system message says your line has been unmuted this is your turn to speak. you will hear staff say welcome caller. we encourage you to state your name clearly. as soon as you begin speaking you have 3 minutes to provide public comment 6 minutes if online with a interpreter. you hear a bell with 30 seconds remaining. if you change your mind and wish to withdraw from the public comment again press star 3 again. once the 3 minutes expired staff will thank you and mute you. you will hear, your line has been muted. those who wish to speak during other public comment may stay on the line and raise their hand to enter the public comment line by pressing star 3 when the next item of interest comes up. public comment may be

submitted in writing and and will be shared with the commission after the meeting concluded. will be included as part of the official meeting bio. written comments sent to ethics.commission@sfgov .org. thank you chair. >> thank you moderator. i call the meeting to order. please call item number 1, which is roll call, please. >> commissioners please indicate your presence by saying aye after your name is called. [roll call] >> four members present and accounted you have a quorum. >> thank you.

commissioner, those participating remotely and commissioner romano is excused from this meeting. now, let's call agenda item number 2, which is public comment on matters not appearing on the agenda. moderator, can you see if there is any speakers waiting in queue? >> thank you. for remote participants if you join the meeting earlier to listen now is the time to get in line to speak. members of the public who are already online and wish to provide public comment on matters not on the agenda should dial star 3 or raise your hand in webex, sp you have not done so to be added to the public comment line. once you are in the queue the system will prompt when it is your turn to speak. ask please disease your comment to the commission as a whole and not individual members. we are checking to see if there are callers in the queue. please

stand by. madam chair, we have caller in the queue. wrel welcome caller, your 3 minutes begins now. >> commissioners, my name is francisco decosta. we san franciscans fath very hard to establish the sunshine task force and ethics commission, and we also fought hard for the controllers office. in recent years the sunshine task force and the ethics commission has let us

down. you may make excuses you are under-staffed or the issues that you all were dealing with are too convoluted, but wherever leads the sunshine task force or ethics commission because they go hand in hand, they failed us. right before the ballot measures we got all sorts of very very complicated issues. we got a supervisor trying to muddy the waters, and we the people had to suffer . during the pandemic

and even now too many people have the time nor the patience to listen to the long drawn ethic commission meetings (inaudible) again and again. i am requesting you commissioners if we do not do the right thing quickly we will lose it. we will lose our standards a we lost it on the national level. we will lose it in san francisco. in fact, we are losing it-recently the fbi had to non profit and in the newspaper and every time it is in it newspaper i get many calls. i can't say too much. people trust me because they

know they can call me and i can say something about the issue, but we are all working very hard to maintain standards but we are losing it. thank you very much. >> thank you. >> please stand by. checking to see if there are callers in the queue. madam chair, no further callers in the queue. >> public comment is closed for item 2. i now call for consent calendar. noted in the agenda it will be no separate des discussion unless request is made by commissioner member or member of the public in attendance. (inaudible) should be removed from consent calendar and considered as a separate item. if any

commissioner has to discuss the item that item will be taken up following action on the consent calendar items on the regular calendar for discussion and action. any commissioners want to discuss any items? okay. commissioner bush. >> no, thank you. >> thank you. thank you. since no one wish to take any items out-i want to make one correction. under item 4 for the proposed calendar, the proposed time starting time should be 10 a.m. not 9:30. it is a typo. mr. moderator, can you check to see if there is public comment? >> thank you madam chair. we are checking to see if

there are callers in the queue who wish to discuss any consent calendar item. if there are callers-please stand by. we have one caller in the queue. please stand by. thank you caller. your 3 minutes begins now. >> i do not want to speak on this issue. >> okay. >> thank you. >> if you can hit star 3 to lower your hand. madam chair, no further callers in the queue. >> thank you, public comment is closed. commissioners do i have a motion to adopt the consent calendar items 3 resolution continuation of remote hybrid commission meetings. item 4, ethic commission regular meeting schedule for calendar

year 2023, 5, director of enforcement report highlighting enforcement division operations. 6 executive director report highlighting various departmental programs and operations. item 7, ethics commission annual report draft for the fiscal year ending june 30, 2022. i see a motion? >> i move to adopt the item on consent calendar and think just for clarty, item 5 isn't a action item. that is just information. i move to adopt consent calendar including the items that have individual action items apatched tch apatched to them. >> second. >> motion and second. roll call, please. [roll call]

>> four votes the motion approved unanimously. >> thank you commissioners. i now call item number 8. which is discussion and possible action on executive director recruitment process. just want to open with a brief report to my fellow commissioners. after our discussion at the october meeting, it was agreed that we would form a cert committee. chaired by me with vice chair bush. also with alternate members who would be participating at future committee activities. the committee will be

noticed-public noticeable and it would involve working with the city and any other activities to get the word out, which would include looking for executive search firm, conducting listening sessions with stakeholders and community members, help recruitment, help spread the word to bring it back to the commission. the commission as a whole will decide on the next process of reviewing candidates, selecting finalist and interviewing candidates and selecting the ultimate candidate. i also

want to report after our meeting i had a meeting with deputy director howard from dhr to follow up on the commission recommendation to start the executive search firm. her team had told me that they will be publishing the notice and we were to have some type of update today, however that line was pushed to november 28 instead of today so we need to wait until the 28 to see if there's any search firm who submitted the bid, but i understand the rfq was sent out so we are

hoping that there will be some search firms interested in working with us on this important task. vice chair bush and i also separately began to test our listening session starting out with the staff because as we all know, a successful and great leader surrounds herself with very talented and committed staff members, so we have met with the commission staff is and i want to thank the members of the team for their

frankness, for their commitment, for the honesty and from the very well thought out recommendations sharing their perspectives and insight in how we can all work together to move the commission forward and build upon the strong foundation that the director pelham has built upon. with that, there is really not much else we can share unless vice chair bush you want to have anything to add before--other commissioners want to share their perspective? commissioner bush, doia have anything to say? >> yes, i do. i like to say that the senior staff that i met with was very forthcoming

and had good ideas how to advance the agenda of the commission, and those proposals were very specific and provided a route for us to use with their cooperation. so, i'm grateful to them for having given their time and their brains to this effort. i think that one of the things that was apparent to me is that we need people to tell us what the commission is not doing now. it not enough to just tell us where we can improve, but we need to know what do they see that is not being

done. for example, we don't spend a lot of time at the ethics commission on issues involving the complaints of-i'm trying to think of the words. the complaints involving ignoring the public when it comes to public comment, which sometimes does happen. i wanted to know do they think this is problem? a series of things like that. i'll try to memorialize them in a e-mail to my fellow

commissioners. thank you. >> thank you vice chair bush. before i ask my fellow commissioners to add i want to write down the current schedule and process. we have more information from last month meeting, because we operating in a very very tight schedule. the executive director is due to leave us on january 23, so we have less then 3 months to hire the next ed and we are doing everything we can. now that we look at the cut-off for the search firm, on november 28 i am assuming we can select

that firm--the successful bid on that day. it was strongly recommended by the (inaudible) that the search firm would have everything ready to go to roll out, which would include what the commission would want them to get the work done, spread the word, put out the notices, all the necessary paperwork and everything else. the two things that we want from this commission on the search firm to do that they-that is why they are basing on that submitted proposal would be we want this to be a national search. it will be a very extensive search, which would be very inclusive. that would

reflect the population of the city that this commission serve. the second thing is, we want to make sure that the community engagement component is very expensive, so those are the two additional requirement to the typical san francisco rfq process in looking for executive search firm. now that we know the earliest date that we have on the search firm will be the 28, which is in a week and a half, it would be-we would need to decide how this commission as a body can select a firm right away instead of waiting for the december meeting which is about 2 weeks

from there. there are a couple options. we can delegate the search committee to make the selection if they are (inaudible) and highly qualified, or we can wait until december 9 meeting or call a special meeting just to select the firm on the 28. just to cut down on the time so that they can really hit the ground on the day on the 28. that is number one option we have. the second option as i said is leave it to the committee. that is publicly noticed to select a firm so that we would have that out of the way instead of waiting until the

december full commission meeting. the other aspects of getting the firm is, the firm would need from us--i should rephrase that. we would want the firm to have from us number one, organizations and groups we want them to outreach to, because the ethics commission is a very unique body and it is not just a executive firm. we are not just looking for executive director, we are looking for a lot of-basically looking for (inaudible) so, we would want to have a list of organizations that we personally know professional groups and other organizations and professional groups that we want them to

help spread the word. reach out for potential candidates. so, that is number one. the second thing is, there are job descriptions that the city uses that we would want to shape that job description to what we want in addition to the typical executive qualifications that we want to see in the executive director. we would want to provide to the executive firm the kind of ed, the characters, the qualifications and the experience that we want them to have, so those are the information that we can provide it to the executive firm right

when they are selected then they will know how they can proceed. one more thing is, we would also want to provide to them a list of community stakeholder groups that we want them to reach out to facilitate these listening sessions for us. those are the three things that it would be good if we can have them all ready by the time they are selected so we would not need to miss any precious time. so, those are the updates that i have and love to hear my colleagues recommendations and insights. >> i think that the job description we already is a great starting point. there are a few things we recommend that i was thinking about. i don't know if this is the appropriate space

to bring them up but there is a section also about what the vision for the commission is or i think that is on the third page and so i think that is something we need to think deeply about where we are going so that then we can properly present the job description and what we expect the executive director help with moving forward, so i think it is something we can do concurrently but i do think we need to think where we are going as we pick up a executive director. >> madam chair. may i? thaupg thank you for the work you and commissioner bush are doing on this. i appreciate the associations with the staff and folks and public. i had a couple questions about the timeline. is your idea that firms provide proposals on november 28 and that the subcommittee will pick one on the same day? my thought is dhr review the

proposals, hopefully recommend who they think is best and that will probably take more then the same day the proposals come in, so that's one question i have for you. >> my understanding from dhr is they would not recommend any firm. they would just provide us with any bidders who meet the qualifications. it is not likely that we would have a lot of firms to choose from, so it is still up to us to select-if there is only one firm if they meet the guidelines then it makes it much easier. should there be more then one, then it would be up to us to decide. my recommendation is since this is just a firm, they are basically doing the administrative work for us, so it is not-for me i would not

want us to have to wait until december to get this firm going, and if the committee can just look at the firm and say okay, you know, we are going to be working with dhr to get them started right on the 28 or maybe a day later so we don't miss the couple of weeks. my concern is we wait till december just to select a firm that is doing administrative work for us, they are not doing anything that we would not be overseeing anyway, so my recommendation is let's just get the firm selected and they will definitely be at the december meeting that we could ask other questions but at least they would have two week headstart to get things going, to get the public the notices out and everything else because we are hitting

holiday season and january is coming up really fast. >> right. i appreciate the urgency. i think we all want to do this quickly. i don't think we will hire a new ed before director pelham retires or departs unfortunately. if there is more then one search firm that responds i'm not sure it makes sense to target you picking one the same day they come in. i think there should be more time to reevaluate responses. maybe staff can weigh in. you also mention the subcommittee and said publicly noticed. do you mean the subcommittee notice a meeting where it discuss the search committee and pick one? >> my understanding of the committee is we have to notice everything that the committee does. let's say if there are more then one firm we would need to notice it and two of us would be

discussing the proposals and from there hope fully we'll select one. but if the commission as a whole decides to wait until the december meeting, we can discuss that too. everything that the committee does as a committee is noticeable. >> i'm not suggesting we wait to december, just trying to understand the process. is your idea the subcommittee would notice a meeting for november 28 and pick someone that same day? >> on the 29. we will be checking with dhr to see how solid the 28 was, because 18 was supposed to be the date. so, if they think that they will be able to get us the bids on the 28, then

we will have a schedule meeting because the schedule meeting can also be canceled. i dont want us to wait till the 28 and schedule the meeting and misscouple days and everything. again, the search firm searched as our-i call it-they are doing the leg work only. >> right . that makes a lot of sense and cant imagine i have strong feelings about which search firm. >> i have no idea who they are. >> it sounds at the subcommittee meeting if inclined i can call and say i like this firm or don't like that firm, is that right? >> deputy city attorney. >> yes, if you attend the meeting is is a meeting of the commission because there is a quorum present and need to be noticed as a meeting

of full commission. that could be done. it is not- >> i see. my thinking is i can't imagine i feel strongly about which firm but sounds if we commit to it this way then commissioner (inaudible) are basically not able to weigh in on it which strikes me-something i'm thinking about and maybe i need to process how much that matters to me. another thought that ypt to put out is you mention the search firm would i think organized listening sessions. i think we need listening sessions. not sure that is something a search firm would do because i think a (inaudible) what the job descriptions look like and who we want to hire. i think a search firm spreads that description. maybe dhr can tell us. i don't see the search firm would be organizing listening tours. maybe they would but that strikes me as something that

the commission does, not the search firm. i don't know if anyone here can speak to that. >> maybe i can clarify. when i say to assist us with these listening tours, listening sessions because under the city ed or whatever search firm, there is always a community engagement component. so it is up to the commission, the department, that decide how extensive that community engagement is. our recommendation based on last commission meeting is we need to really engage with our stakeholders. and let's just say that there are 10 groups that we want to meet with between now and the selection of the finalists to the search. it would not

be fair to ask the staff to help us organize these meetings, and if the search firm is paid, it is supposed to carry out community engagement component. my sense is-they will help organize, which means they can organize the meeting sites or technical things, again just administrative work. we are attending whether as a commission with alternate always two people to meet with these groups whether they are non profits, city family, whatever it and that's why we need to give them the list because they will know. when i say community engagement they are not going to listen, we are listening. they are organizing the meeting to make sure they are noticeable. they meet all the notice

requirements. basically acting as our staff instead of us asking staff to do all these additional work, they will be doing the work. we are doing the listening. just making sure that people get the time, get the place, (inaudible) that is it. they are not-we are in charge of hearing from the community dialogue with our stakeholders, selecting the candidates and recruitment, because i am reminded over and over again, director pelham did not (inaudible) she came from friends and supporters ofectics commission who knew we have a excellent person who could really guide you and

when she came the rest is history. i don't think the executive firm will be doing the type of executive search that we traditionally think about, because this is a very unique commission and we are dealing with a very unique universe of potential candidates. >> okay. i assume what you laid out will be part of the job request for proposal submitted. so we will see when the firms respond to the extent that is something they can do so think that makes a lot of sense. what i would be able to-one more question. would i be able to see proposals as they come in? is that public? >> yeah. in fact, i think don't they-the committee can share

with the commissioners once we receive--i don't know who these firms are, and i don't know how the city operates in terms of executive firms and i think we all dealt with firms and everything else, so definitely you can look at the proposals. i think the only thing that dhr is make sure they meet the city minimum requirements. >> right. i understand. i have my own personal requirements. that all makes sense to me and given that i'm fine with the subcommittee publicly noticing and meeting for whatever date you think makes sense to select a firm. speaking for me personally. i want to thank you and

commissioner bush for all the work you are doing on this. >>eme also in favor of that. just want to make that comment. i differ to you and commissioner bush. i was done, just wanted to piggy back off that so we can close the item see you know i'm not opposed and thank you for you and commissioner bush for your efforts to this point which we know were time consuming i'm sure. >> i want to remind the reason we have a alternate member is there may be issues that you really really want to work on and please let us know. let me know, because one of us can get off and one of you can step in to share your areas of expertise in that particular area. again, this is team efforts. we just are want to make sure that we are doing everything right, but

it at the same time moving on the very accelerated schedule. >> great. there are two things i think the whole commission should be involved in and that's receiving reviewing all the initial resumes once we selected a firm, once we get applications, so i guess doing the order backward. the job description the search firm sends out, i think we should be involved in one way or the other. understand the search firms got preliminary description in order for them to create their proposals to us. that makes sense. but whatever we give them we should all weigh in on. and then once we start getting applications from candidates hopefully there are so many resumes we have to triage. i don't envision a world where only the subcommittee look to resumes. i would like to look at every resume that comes in so that is something i want to put out. chair you mentioned the concept

of the subcommittee kind of (inaudible) sharing the finalist with the rest of the commission. that's not how i would like it to proceed. i think we should look at all the resumes. unless it ends up there are so many it isn't realistic but i don't think we'll get that many-so many resumes it is impossible to look at them all or have the opportunity to look at them all. that's it. >> i like to hear the other commissioners thought, because again, any time when involves 3 members of any activities, it is a public meeting. the public meeting means that we would be in the room looking at tons of resumes.

>> madam chair-- >> if i can finish. my recommendation is usually because we just went through this-i just went through it with another executive search. the firms job is not to say this is a good person you need to look at this person, the firm job at the level 1 is to make sure of the hopefully hundreds of resumes the folks will actually do not meet the qualification don't need to get to our desk. for instance, if we are looking for someone who has minimum of 1 year of experience of working and this person has never worked a day in his life, that resume is not going to make it. if someone doesn't have the whatever the minimum qualification that we set because

our minimum qualification is very low. we don't want to exclude anybody. now, if you want to sit through and review all these resumes and you know, there are people who sent in 20 pages of how wonderful they are without working a day in their life. if the desire of the commission to have all us look at the preliminary applications we can talk about that, but my strong recommendation is the way the search firms and the way i envision their job is to screen out those who are absolutely not qualified. they are folks who use opportunity to talk about how wonderful they are. if you want to read that, fine, but maybe we can do it in the committee level that you can

(inaudible) but, the second level is the one that all of us need to be engaged. that is the level that the search firm had put together from round 1, they weed out the absolutely not qualified applications. the second batch could be 10, it could be a hundred. the second batch are the ones who meet the qualifications, they make no judgment, they meet the qualifications that we set forth. now, that level would be up from there on is all involvement. that is when we look at all these things and we have to schedule special meetings because when we did that with the police department, we set out like many many hours to look over that

batch from that batch, the commission will decide if there are finalists we want to personally meet from reading the resumes we want to personally meet them virtual because we do a national search, or in person. in the proposal for the executive firm it was included that there need to be budget set aside for a national candidate or candidates. so, my inclination is, there are 3 or 4 levels. first level weed out round 1. round 2, round 3 and then round 4, the final interview. my recommendation is let us all as a commission get engaged as a full

body from round 2 on. if you want to get involved with round 1, my recommendation is let's continue to do that as a committee matter and then you can use my spot to do that. >> thank you. that's not what i'm suggesting. my understanding is we dont need a committee meet ing to review resumes. from the last meeting my understanding is that we can all be mailed every resume individually and look at them at home as long as we want. am i right, that isn't a issue? >> deputy city attorney, yes, you could receive the resumes as long as you can don't communicate among yourselves among the content and wait for a meet toog do so that would be fine. >> that is all i meant madam chair. i was envisioning-a situation where the subcommittee would weed the qualified candidates and only the commission as a whole only look at

what the subcommittee considered the finalists. >> no. no. no. >> so, i think all the commissioners should be given every single resume and they can ignore if they want and look if they want, not in a meeting but just to have and then we have i guess a close committee meeting to discuss who we like and i think you and i may be saying same thing. i there is no reason not to provide every commissioner every resume. >> the only reason why i suggested the committee to be involved from round 1 on is to make sure that only the completely unqualified will be weeded out. that's it. again, from round 2 on everything involves the commission. the

committee does not decide who makes to the final list. the entire commission decides who make it to the finalist and we as a whole decide how many people should be in that semi-final list. i want to make it completely clear. the only thing that the commission as a whole does not get involved with in my opinion is the round 1 when they have to weed out all kinds of applications. but, even at that level my recommendation is the committee would work with the search firm to make sure completely sure that they do not weed out anyone who should not be weed out. just my accident. i want to make it really really clear. the committee does not select a

final list. the commission selects reviews the applications and are selects the slate of finalists to interview and the commission will vote to hire the executive director as a whole. >> that all makes sense. but i still think all the commissioners can be provided all the resumes. ignore if they want but no reason not to provide it to them. >> how does that deal with the privacy issue? >> the commissioners are all entitled to see the applications. they would be considered of course-you have to hold them in confidence. you're going to guarantee the applicant confidence-maintain documents in a secure location but you can all see them. that is no problem. >> one last point. you mentioned providing the search firms with list of organizations that reach out-that is

wonderful. i think that makes a lot of sense and i think i don't think we need commission action for that. i assume commissioners can just provide that to the search firm i would think. maybe i'm being glib about that but don't see why that requires commission action. i am looking at deputy city attorney. >> was the question if after reviewing resumes you can provide the search firm comments? >> before that. i think madam chair was envisioning the commission of the subcommittee would give the search firms guidance as certain organizations to reach out to advertise the vacancy. i think it is a great idea. i don't think that needs to be a commission activity. i think we can give the search firm you should reach out to (inaudible) the government ethics group. >> i just meant that it would be easier if we can all collect our from a rolidex different groups we

want them to search. instead of coming from 5 of us separately, it should just come from us--(inaudible) if we can streamline to make the work easier for everybody involved. that's all i meant. instead of-all of us have no groups and organizations but let's streamline it so that the committee working on behalf of the commission in directing on the administrative side of the search firm work to make sure that they have the list of organizations that we want them to specifically target. they have the group of folks we want them to specifically organize

and facilitate community listening sessions on. that's it. that's- >> okay. that sounds great. >> commissioner bush, you have any other comments? anything to add? >> can you hear me? >> yes. >> i'm sorry, i'm sort of (inaudible) the computer. i just want to underscore the fact our ethics executive and commission have responsibilities that don't exist in other city departments. for example, we are required when we receive a complaint to refer to the district attorney and the city attorney and that they intern are to return any finding they make or action they have chosen to make or not

make and let us know what's going on. that's the relationship between our agency and two other agencies that unique to my knowledge compared to other city departments. the same thing goes when it comes to freedom of expression and so that is a third area. in addition to all of those, we are the only agency that can take things directly to the voters and put it on the ballot. anyone else would have to go through a variety of steps for that to happen. when we look at people who might serve as executive director, it would be good to know if they have any experience in

drafting laws or in proposing measures to go before the voters. so, those are not exactly caveats, but (inaudible) of the job that would not normally be seen by dhr as they are drafting a requirement. when we hired (inaudible) i was involved as a member of the community and there were a number of very good candidates in addition to leeann, including one of the people who helped draft the creation of the ethics commission, including a acting director of the ethics commission

and of course leeann herself. >> commissioner bush, we need to respect people's privacy so if you have any comments, make sure that it isn't -it doesn't imply on any particular individual. >> thank you. that's a good thing to keep in mind. the one i was thinking of about sadly died. the fact is, we are likely to get inquiries from people who have very strong credentials but perhaps not in areas that we are expecting. i would not limit ourselves in what we can consider as we see

these and i would vote we would also keep in mind the unique role of the ethics commission as we move forward this process. thank you. >> thank you. any other comments? >> have a question. given what commissioner bush just said about us being very specific and really curating this description and our requests, by which would we like to have a revised job description? i know you will notice the meet frg ing the 29 where you proceed-you and commissioner bush will proceed in selecting a agency but do we want to have the job description prepared by that day?

>> it would be great if each of us if interested to put together a job description that you would like to see in this person and why that it is separated into different categories. requirement that you want in this person. the preferred or suggested qualification so it doesn't weed out anybody. as one of us said, if michelle obama applies for this job she may not meet the other legal requirements, but she definitely would be a great candidate that we dopt don't want to miss out so those are things we can put into three buckets. the one that is absolutely the essential qualification that we require in this

person, the integrity, certain level of professional experience, but i would say because we as commissioner bush said, we are very unique commission and that universe is very very small. i i think the previous commission was very very lucky to find and ultimately recommend and then the commission appointed the director, but it is best for us to cast a wider net. if anyone who meets the kind of person that we want in the ed not in the quantitative measure,

but the essence of who we want as a director. that's why it would be great if the job description would be-i mean the job description would be in 2 or 3 buckets. what we must have, and what we want prefer to have. i would think that you know, background in ethics would be a preferred not a requirement. >> if you want that by the 29? >> deputy city attorney, can we have all these recommendations from the fellow commissioners and then put that together in a job description without a public notice discussion? can we do that? >> it would more transparent if you had a meeting where you took input from the public and the

commissioners and provided that guidance on what the job profile would be. i don't know-i got the impression from commissioner finlev he was interested in having the commission take action to approve the final job description, so i don't think there is a problem with you all submitting your proposals to one commissioner and have that commissioner try to integrate into one document for approval at a meeting if that's what you are proposing to do. >> so we would need to have a special meeting on the 29 to approve the job description? so we can share it with the executive search firm so they could publish it? >> if the commission wishes to take action as a body to approve the final job announcement you have to have a meeting to do that. i would just-this isn't legal

advice but going to tell you from my experience with these search firms, they are likely going to come to the meeting in december and have a lot of question s for you all they need direction, you can provide the job announcement then, give the direction they need. it is unlikely they will be able to turn something around in a week basically, but that is my experience having worked on a-with the library commission on the librarian recruitment. it was a process. you are going to have to push them if you want them to move quickly basically. >> if everything falls in place can we ask them to start putting together the organizations we want them to outreach to without the job description? but maybe with one paragraph. looking for dynamic leader who

can meet competing challenges? something really simple to let them know we are looking for a very high caliber executive and when they come to december commission meeting we would have the job description discuss and approved then they can take that and then publish it the second time. >> i don't see a problem with that. once you have the firm selected if the commissioners want to send the firm the organizations they wish to be noticed of the position there is no problem with that. >> may i add one quick point? i understood from the last meeting we were not opposed to using the last job description at least as a starting point and i don't know if for drafting purposes and given the timeline if it would be productive or more efficient maybe to start there and then maybe remove or revise things. update things that need to be

updated instead of starting new. i think we could work off that document even in the buckets that you recommended chair lee where i think a lot of the essentials are already there and i imagine that the previous commission went through the same process for you and presenting the job description so it is something the public has seen. i think that maybe if we work off that job description and then contribute other essentials or other desires that might also help us move things along quickly. >> i think there is specific language they have to use too for the job description. i think for us the only contribution from this commission will be the specifics, because for that job description it wasn't very specific and 6 years passed and we know what a visionary leader can do, so we

can really build on the specifics and that's why the different buckets to add on to what they have and of course they can update it to be more relevant would be great. if we can come back on december 9 to have those recommendations that we want to see-not recommendations, the qualifications we want to add to the job description so that we can share it with the search firm at the december meeting. meanwhile we should have a general-i think the committee can do that. we dont need the commission to approve. we can just say we are looking for you know, dynamic leader. do we need approval of the commission to- >> no. assuming the commission is okay with the subcommittee

taking action i don't think there is a problem with that. >> madam chair to make that happen can staff work with madam chair to present to the commission a job description for the december regular meeting we can actually vote on it and move forward? >> we already have one from the director. she already sent it to us couple months ago when she announced her resignation. we are going to be working together- >> i mean incorporating the changes that you would like that the commissioners want to put on the existing job description. i want to make sure at the next commission meeting we are prepared to vote on a job description to close that item. >> if anyone have any suggestions please let me know. >> that makes sense. >> i understood we needed to make recommend aigdss on the record but happy to snd them individually if i have any. thank you. >> chair lee. >> yes vice chair. >> i want to recommend

that we also reach out to former ethics commissioners since they have working knowledge of the work of the commission as well as past senior staff, because there are a number of senior staff who have been excellent but who moved on to other fields of endeavor and who might want to consider coming back to take the helm of the ethics commission. when we are talking about outreach, i am not thinking only in groups, but also a targeted outreach based on former ethic commissioners and former ethics staff. thank you. >> there is nothing to

preclude any of us to reaching out to anybody to spread the word to encourage people to take a look at this position. i do want to caution us. if you know of any good candidates specific potential applicants, i think we need to be very very careful to make this a very transparent and fair process so no one would feel that they have a certain advantage or disadvantage because they know anyone on the commission so i do think that if you know of anyone who is interested, let them apply through the process. if they have any questions go through the executive search firm. that is what they are there for. just want to be mindful of that. >> chair lee. on that note, i had a question

about whether anybody would need to be recused. not sure if this is something we discussed. it seems counter intuitive if i recommend my friend do i need to be recused from the vote? >> you would need to disclose the relationship on the record and assuming you have no financial ties to this person you could vote assuming you can be fair. >> great. of course. thank you. >> okay. anything else that we should discuss? otherwise let's open up for public comment, please. >> thank you madam chair. we are checking to see if there are callers in the queue who wish to comment on item 8. discussion possible action on executive director recruitment process. please stand by. we have a caller in the queue. please

stand by. welcome caller, your 3 minutes begins now. >> the commissioners -fancisco decosta again. what i want to state is our san francisco ethic commission unique. and this commission has not done its job well when it came to certain things. you all have taken-you all have chosen to listen to (inaudible) you should not have to listen to. you all know who i'm referring to. i don't want to make it very clear. you all have chosen to bring in people from

some other areas part of the city to muddy the waters of the commission. we are very fortunate that we have people living who are on the ethics commission who are the original members who established this ethic commission, and we should reach out to them initially. generally. we have to stop taking orders from the mayor's office . we have-the ethics commission has failed by having former attorney, city attorney become a general manager and yet have the audacity to meet in closed session. you'll all made very poor

judgment. very very poor judgments. we the people appointed to have an ethic commission. we the people can go and have a ballot measure. we the people must fot be left out, but we have been left out because many of you commissioners have not been listening to the people. i'm not talking any people. you can guess who calls in. today i'm the only one. it is a joke. you all have people who are on the fair political practice commission. you know how that works. you have others who are attorneys. this is a 4 or 5 attorney

we-(inaudible) when it comes to a attorney. what is going on? >> three minutes expired. madam chair, please stand by as we check for other callers in the queue. there is no further callers in the queue. >> thank you public comment on item 8 is now closed. item 9 presentation and discussion behested payments and reg ulations. >> thank you commissioners. this item is follow up to last month's discussion on behest payment regulations. the changes to the payment rules the commission proved in august have since been approved by the board of supervisors and signed by the mayor and went into effect earlier this month.

part of those changes call on the commission to dopt rules regulations and guidelines to implement the behested payment rules. the item before you has draft regulation in attachment 1 and summarized in attachment 2. the regulation seeks to meet the requirements spelled out in the code as well as clarify other aspects of the rules particularly those that the commission received questions about from city departments and others of the course of the year since the rules initially went into effect in january. the regulations are agendized for discussion. assuming no issues are identified the plan is to bring them back in december where the commission could potentially act and then they need to go before the bord of supervisors for 60 days before becoming effective assuming the board does not take

any action. i'm available to answer any questions or comments about regulations or the process as a whole. thank you. >> comments? >> i like to start by saying i really appreciate the overviews and just the summaries that have been provided e-mailed this week. i found them to be very helpful. that is one-i have a few questions and just a few comments about language that i think could help streamline these that maybe just need more clarity from you all. for regulations 3.60-4, i just wanted to make a comment about the last line. this is language i may have missed in the past but

i think that the word pleased, the payment being made would please the officer, i find that to be very vague. i think we can maybe-i rather say benefit and then remove the last part of that line so it would end-being made would benefit the officer designated employee. that's because i also find any party at the end very vague. not sure if there are any comments on that. but i will also add just to piggy back off that. we can maybe -when we talk about benefiting an officer or designated employee yfs thinking we can add related parties like families or agents. that is my first comment. >> i think agree on the please language. that could be tightened up. i think

the benefit of talking about any party is that behested payment could be for the benefited party so adicated to i like you to make the payment because it benefit the organization that receives the payment. it is worth having a broad party there. >> got it. okay. i have a few. commissioner finlev i don't know if you want to go back and forth. >> just go ahead. >> okay. for regulation 3.620-8, the exceptions, i wanted to talk about exception b or just the language about bearing the burden of proving. i think that's great. i just think it would be helpful to outline what would be sufficient proof for who has the burden of proving whether e-mail text, documents if it

is discussion and need affidavit. i are think that might be helpful because i imagine different city departments have different ways of proving or might not have thought to save the e-mail or outlook deletes things. that is one comment there. i also actually going backwards to regulation 3.620-7, i was wondering if we should add a timing factor, so that-because i imagine that here with the way it is phrased, it is the value of the payment solicited is not less then a thousand. like at what time? is it-should it be at the time requested or the time the final payment is due because i can imagine somebody doesn't know how much they need. i think it

might benefit having a timing factor. something i was thinking about. and then for exception d going back to 3.620-8, i think that 4d, the second to last sentence says on the page 7 of 18, any payment accepted using the exception cannot confirm personal benefit on any city officials. wanted to add families or delegated agents. for regulation 3.620-10, i had a question that i might need refresher on. but in the illustration and also in the behested

payment overview illustration, this is relevant to dylan was an example. i think about how a person is notified if the department head for example is the one that engages in this exchange and everybody in the department becomes a interested or that interested party becomes a interested party for everybody in that department. how would somebody like dylan who was trying to fundraise for their kids event know that this person was a interested party for them if there wasn't announcement in the office or some sort of list or data base? i know we have saw some having databases and how practical that is, but- >> i don't have the example. for dylan city official trying to solicit the payment. >> i think (inaudible) give me one second.

example a, under-do you want me to read it? >> the city official that is making the solicitation. >> exactly. and he can't ask-he was asking a group. he is designated employee and fundraising for his child's school but can't ask a consultant for contribution at the school fundraiser. >> yeah, so-we are looking into that permit consultant example because we are talking about interested parties involved in administrative proceedings. the idea is that if it is something that will high level item for a officer like department head that that would be the responsibility of the other officers or

designated employees to find out if the person they solicit is interested party and that a reason to make them a interested party. i think there is things that department head could notify folks within the department of that communication or if it was going before a commission meeting, all of the employees have access to those commission documents to be aware of that relationship. >> i think that tricky i think practically as many attorneys on the commission may know, at a firm you get e-mails and everybody gets them so maybe this is something that city departments could do where they can sent out a e-mail interesting party e-mail because i feel bad for dylan. dylan is just trying to fundraise for his kids and reaching out to interested parties unknowingly. thinking how we can do that without getting anybody in trouble.

those are a few questions and with that--just one last thing before i hand it off. for regulation 3.620-23 on public appeals, i was wondering if-the last two paragraphs are what happens if the person who is receiving payment doesn't fit a certain category-i wonder if we can just avoid that by specifying who is supposed to receive the payment? (inaudible) public appeals if a interesting party initiates contact about potentially making the-let me see here exactly-the last sentence says, the level of engagement the officer or

designated employee may have before the conduct rises to the level of soliciting behested payment partially depends on the recipient of the payment and says if the recipient of the payment is not the city or city department this happens. if the city-recipient is the city or city department, this is what happens. i feel like there is gray there, but we can-it is fine to have either or but if we can specify who is supposed to receive it because why would somebody who is not part of the city or city department be receiving payment that was initiated on behalf of the city? >> the public appeals exception covers payments where the recipient is either could be a city or could be (inaudible) >> okay. got it. perfect. thank you. >> thank you.

>> thank you commissioner. those are all really good points and thrilled to see that level of engagement with the language. the issue about the (inaudible) is a good one. talking about where the entire department becomes a restricted source or interested party. sorry, getting my--i wonder- i think in the restricted source scheme, someone talked about if appeal is made to public we are not targeting anyone particular it doesn't trigger prohibitions and maybe the different scheme. maybe it is about fundraising or campaign literature. >> that is in regard to behested payment and interested party. the regulation we were just talking about is adding to public appeals exception which is for solicitation of behested payment. if you make a solicitation to a group of more then 20 or people or writing i

believe 200 or more or making televised remark that is exempt from solicitation. what the regulation we were talking about are try toog clarify what happens following the public appeal if someone calls and said i heard the mayor give the radio address i want to follow up and give money now. the last regulation trying to add clarity how much of the conversation can happen subsequent to public appeal before it (inaudible) >> that makes sense. thank you for that. i wonder whether (inaudible) dylan is soliciting a group of folks. if that is more then 25 people or some threshold then it doesn't trigger the bar that might be in place? >> correct. if the situation was dylan is doing fundraising for a child school program if that was made in

public to a group of more then 20 people that would fall under the public appeal section. >> that may address part of the commissioner concerns. >> (inaudible) >> i agree the word benefit is much better then please. imagine lawyers trying to argue what that means down the road in a lawsuit. i don't have specific comments. one thing that is helpful going forward is to extent there were modifications made to get to this point the response to concerns by city partners or other offices we don't need back and forth. it is helpful to know what the changes were to address what concerns because that gives me comfort to know that the point is make it workable for the city to work with partners and do things that benefit the city and i would feel-i think it would help me know we

have done that by understanding the concerns addressed. that's it. you did a ton of work and really really grateful for that. >> moderators, please check to see if there is any public comment on this item. >> thank you madam chair. we are checking to see if there callers in the queue who wish to comment on item 9, presentation and discussion of process to develop behested payment regulations. please stand by. madam chair, we have two callers in the queue. please stand by. welcome caller, your 3 minutes begins now rchlt >> francisco decosta.

it is sickening somebody from the mayors office is muddying the ethics commission. much like you accommodated the (inaudible) public utility commission in closed session. this must stop. if you read the proposition a that language is very clear. response to the ballot measure. (inaudible) we do not need the mayor's office or anybody from the board of supervisors to come muddy things in the ethic commission. if you don't clearly see this, you will not see anything. let me tell you very clearly, you took the fbi after 15

years to zero in on some culprits. and only the fbi can follow the money. not the ethics commission, not the sunshine, not the controllers office, not the city attorney. only the fbi. this letter has to be (inaudible) by the fbi, because we want to know why this behested thing is connected to the contractors. why? why are the contractors forced to do some outreach and provide public benefits, why? the contractors must (inaudible) vertical or horizontal. why get them involved in the benefits? (inaudible) you allowed a gentleman to speak twice. you

won't allow me to speak twice. i'm watching y'all. don't act like a bunch of buffoons. stop muddying the waters of the ethics commission. stay in your own place. you have the legislative branch, we have executive branch and we used to have the city administrator, it was in (inaudible) that was brought under the executive branch, so we have no checks and balances. and then we have our (inaudible) some of the commissioners who (inaudible) whatever the mayor says. nobody from the mayors office should be at the ethics commission muddying the water. let me make that very very clear. you don't need to be a rocket scientist. you all have a conscious. you all have a conscious. >> 3 minutes expired.

please stand by as we go to caller number 2. welcome caller, your 3 minutes begins now. >> good morning commissioners. this is debbie lurman san francisco human service network. the proposed regulations need some more thought and clarity around their impact on the ability of non profit representatives who sever on city commissions to raise funds for their organizations. san francisco benefits from the expertise of community based non profits who participate in policy development and oversight and many commissions require expertise. for example the homelessness oversight commission that just passed has seats for persons who provide services related to homelessness, work with homeless families or youth and have

expertise in mental health or substance abuse service delivery and these same commissioners often have a responsibility to assist in raising funds for their non profits and may even be the executive director who leads the organization fundraising efforts. the recent amendments to the legislation have been helpful in mitigating some of those concerns, but if the regulations are unnecessarily presciptive they can create a chilling effect on non profit staff desire and ability to serve the city in those capacities. in the regulations specifically there is impacts on the issue from the rules on solicited behested payments and direct solicitations and public appeals. for example, the proposed regulation that bars solicited behested payment under the

control of the officer, define control where the payment to the officers has (inaudible) administer the payment, even if the officer plays no role in soliciting the payment or has knowledge of it. the donor might be a prior long time supporter of the non profit, and so therefore this regulation would create challenges to the non profit raising funds for their work and barriers between staff and potential donors. it should be possible to create an ethical wall between the non profit staff person who serves on a commission and the work of their development staff in raising funds for the organization. just raw firms have to create ethical walls sometimes when one attorney has a conflict of interest. the direct solicitation regulation refers to

barring commissioners from directing staff to solicit from a group of parties that maintain interested party. that language is broad and vague. for example, the commissioner could not tell their staff at the non profit to seek donations from tech companies or real estate developers if just one of those- >> your 3 minutes has expired. >> please stand by as i check to see if there are further callers in the queue. no callers in the queue. >> thank you public comment for item 9 is now closed. item 10 which is proposed closed session item is continued to the december meeting. let's call on item 11,

which is discussion and possible action on items for future meetings. suggestions, comments from colleagues? >> no, thank you madam chair. >> vice chair bush? none. public comment please. >> thank you madam chair. we are checking to see if there are-taking public comment on item 11. please stand by as we check for callers in the queue. madam chair, there are no callers in the queue. >> thank you. public comment is closed. item 11-now item 12.

additional opportunities for public comment on matters not appearing on the agenda persurnt to ethic commission bylaw article 7 section 2. moderator, do we have anyone else on- >> thank you madam chair. please stand by as we check to see if there is caller er in the queue. members online i wish to provide comment on item 12 dial star 3 or raise your hand. if you have not already done so to be added to the public comment line. please stand by. madam chair, there are no callers in the queue. >> thank you. next item 13, which is

adjournment. thank you all. thank you to members of the public and have a wonderful weekday. [meeting adjourned]tele

>> in 1948 swensen's ice cream used to make ice cream in the navy and decided to open up an ice cream shop it it takes time for the parent to put money down and diane one of the managers at zen citizen in arena hills open

and serve old-fashioned ice cream. >> over 20 years. >> yeah. >> had my own business i was a firefighter and came in- in 1969 her dad had ice cream and left here still the owner but shortly after um, in here became the inc. maker the manager and lead and branded the store from day to day and in the late 90s- was obvious choice he sold it to him and he called us up one night and said i'm going to sell the ice cream store what you you talking about diane came and

looked at the store and something we want to do and had a history of her dad here and growing up here at the ice cream store we decided to take that business on. >> and have it in the family i didn't want to sell it. >> to keep it here in san francisco. >> and (unintelligible). >> share worked there and worked with all the people and a lot of customers come in. >> a round hill in the adjoining areas loved neither ice cream shop in this area and support russia hills and have clean up day and give them free ice cream because that is those are the people that keep us the opportunity to stick around here

four so many years next generations have been coming her 20 er thirty or 40 years and we have the ingredients something it sold and, you know, her dad said to treat the customers right and people will keep on coming back and 75 or 74 years, you know, that is quite an accomplishment i think of it as our first 75 years and like to see that, you know, going into the future um, that ice cream shop will be around used to be 4 hundred in the united states and all gone equipment for that one that is the first and last we're proud of that we're still standing and people people are you tell people it's been around

in 50 years and don't plan on .

>> shop and dine the 49 challenges residents to do they're shopping with the 49ers of san francisco by supporting the services within the feigned we help san francisco remain unique and successful and rib rant where will you shop the shop and dine the 49 i'm e jonl i provide sweets square feet potpie and peach cobbler and i started my business this is my baby i started out of high home and he would back for friends and coworkers they'll tell you hoa you need to open up a shop at

the time he move forward book to the bayview and i thinks the t line was up i need have a shop on third street i live in bayview and i wanted to have my shop here in bayview a quality dessert shot shop in my neighborhood in any business is different everybody is in small banishes there are homemade recess pesz and ingredients from scratch we shop local because we have someone that is here in your city or your neighborhood that is provide you with is service with quality ingredients and quality products and need to be know that person the person behind the products it is not like okay. who

good afternoon everyone this meeting will come to order welcome to the regular meeting of the lands use and transportation committee of the san francisco board of supervisors i'm supervisor melgar chair joined by supervisor dean preston and aaron peskin. the committee clerk is erika major. i would like to also acknowledge james at sfgovtv for staffing us. >> the board of supervisors and committees are convening hybrid meetingace,llow in person and public comment and providing remote access and comment via phone. board recognizing equitable access is essential and take comment as follows:fi