. >> caller: david pillpell hopefully for the last time tonight. i could comment on the previous speaker's comment about what to do with parks. i will choose not to right now and just say that i provided a letter to the task force this afternoon regarding voter registration and turn-out numbers as i offered to do at friday's meeting. that may not have gotten to you yet, but i'm sure it will in the fullness of time and i'm happened. >> clerk: thank you for providing your comments. >> caller: i did want to comment on some park issues. we did hear from folks from mcclaern park today and more on future district focus meetings. i would like to recommend that the task force check that whether or not there are people counted in the parks as living there. as we know, we have anywhere between, well, the numbers are controversial including many families and they are counted during the census as best as we can given the resources we had during this last census which were interesting. so do take a look at the census numbers that you've been given in the redist

. >> caller: david pillpell again. once again, i generally support this, but perhaps it should be limited to only some of the boards and commissions at this time and do a measure in the future to pick up more of them. in my few, some of the most important boards and commissions in the city are the m.t.a. board, the public utilities commission and the recreation and park commission, there may be others, but i wouldn't necessarily do the complete list at a single election. i worry that this could be too big and fail perhaps starting by deferring i generally support a staggered four-year term. so i i think heard member chan say that was part of today's amendments. i also spoke last week and i'm also thinking about the workloads in the future. i think it's doable, but i'm just thinking about what that change would mean in terms of workload of this committee. once again, i generally support this and thanks for listening. >> chairman: next speaker. >> hi, my name's julie. i wasn't planning to weigh in on this item, but i am

david pillpel. sorry to pop in and out. a lot of things going on. i have no objection to memorializing the cap for residential customers in the rules and regs. i've not read the rules. i just had one question. what was the outreach conducted prior to today. was this broad to the citizens advisory committee, for example, and described and their input sought or input of others on the impact of the program and program changes, etc., and not just memorializing it but tweaking it and describing impact, ease of application process, etc.? and further to that end, how does this compare to pg&es care and thera programs and recology and other programs in terms of low-income customer programs? and finally, i think i heard in the staff presentation an outside contractor will be used to verify that participants do, in fact, qualify, and i'm concerned about access to customer confidentiality of that data and question whether it's appropriate to have an outside entity to do that or whether that would be better done by in-house p.u.c. staff who have access to custo

david pillpel. there are some d.p.w.-specific hiring issues here, but i think some are about h.r. and projects citywide. speaking of citywide, i just looked in the a.a.o. and the a.s.o. the a.a.o. has 32,000 f.t.e., and the a.s.o. has 39,000 positions. not all are funded, and some are attrition, it is assumed. the f.t.e. number has always been inflated and does not represent the actual department need because of attrition factors. some issues involve covid, peoplesoft and f.s.p., classification issues, and the hiring process, which has been changed several times over the years and is now on-line and less paper based, for example. grants and projects fund positions -- fund those positions differently than what were a.a.a. positions in the a.s.o. and may skew the position vacancies. there are a number of grant, particularly project funded positions that appear to be vacant so the departments have flexibility in hiring, and if you look at [indiscernible] -- thanks. if you look at b.d.c. and i.d.c., i suspect they might have a different number of vacancies than might exist. i would ha

. >> caller: david pillpell hopefully for the last time tonight.i could comment on the previous speaker's comment about what to do with parks. i will choose not to right now and just say that i provided a letter to the task force this afternoon regarding voter registration and turn-out numbers as i offered to do at friday's meeting. that may not have gotten to you yet, but i'm sure it will in the fullness of time and i'm happened. >> clerk: thank you for providing your comments. >> caller: i did want to comment on some park issues. we did hear from folks from mcclaern park today and more on future district focus meetings. i would like to recommend that the task force check that whether or not there are people counted in the parks as living there. as we know, we have anywhere between, well, the numbers are controversial including many families and they are counted during the census as best as we can given the resources we had during this last census which were interesting. so do take a look at the census numbers that you've been given in the redistr

it's david pillpell.in response to a request i made i believe that the first budget meeting, i did receive the organization charts for the entire p.u.c. i didn't i'm very concerned about the number of staff they can seize and acting appointments within the staff. i did not expect that it was that high. it does appear it is extraordinarily high. i am bearing that in mind. but i am just concerned that the particular positions within the commission staff in many cases require certification. knowledge, skills, training and it's not easily replaced or transferred and given the large number of vacancies number of 1241s and 1244s it's just unbelievably challenging to sell vacancies throughout the commission staff and i suspect a number of people will be leaving over the next variety of months and i just wanted to call that issue with vacancies and that's the priority and attention that i think it properly needs. thanks for listening. >> thank you for your comments. next caller, your line is open, you have two mi

david pillpel. sorry to pop in and out. a lot of things going on. i have no objection to memorializing the cap for residential customers in the rules and regs. i've not read the rules. i just had one question. what was the outreach conducted prior to today. was this broad to the citizens advisory committee, for example, and described and their input sought or input of others on the impact of the program and program changes, etc., and not just memorializing it but tweaking it and describing impact, ease of application process, etc.? and further to that end, how does this compare to pg&es care and thera programs and recology and other programs in terms of low-income customer programs? and finally, i think i heard in the staff presentation an outside contractor will be used to verify that participants do, in fact, qualify, and i'm concerned about access to customer confidentiality of that data and question whether it's appropriate to have an outside entity to do that or whether that would be better done by in-house p.u.c. staff who have access to custo

david pillpell. interesting to follow margaret broadkin. i remember when she and i both served on the city's fiscal crisis task force about 30 years ago. happy to share stories about that another time perhaps in the budget committee. i listened to the hearing with interest just now and i learned a lot and thank you to those of you on the board and your presenters for the discussion. i just wanted to throw in one particular caution given that the recall of the school board members is pending. it's my understanding from the calendar that in the event one or more of the members are indeed recalled by the voters, they may leave office by operation of law as early as literally a month and 28 days from now friday, march 11th, and so i was just concerned about the continuity on the school board in general, but also with regard to this grant application and this program and initiative and just wanted to encourage that there be some provision for understanding at the school board level. it also seems to me that there could be a lag in time, maybe th

david pillpel. there are some d.p.w.-specific hiring issues here, but i think some are about h.r.wide. speaking of citywide, i just looked in the a.a.o. and the a.s.o. the a.a.o. has 32,000 f.t.e., and the a.s.o. has 39,000 positions. not all are funded, and some are attrition, it is assumed. the f.t.e. number has always been inflated and does not represent the actual department need because of attrition factors. some issues involve covid, peoplesoft and f.s.p., classification issues, and the hiring process, which has been changed several times over the years and is now on-line and less paper based, for example. grants and projects fund positions -- fund those positions differently than what were a.a.a. positions in the a.s.o. and may skew the position vacancies. there are a number of grant, particularly project funded positions that appear to be vacant so the departments have flexibility in hiring, and if you look at [indiscernible] -- thanks. if you look at b.d.c. and i.d.c., i suspect they might have a different number of vacancies than might exist. i would have a broader heari