mr. bueller from heritage made several specific comments in epa each of the three presentations. i would request his comments be incorporated. i know they are under public comment. and objective 9, this is just a nuance, but in the last sentence of 9.1, it talks about important historic structures that will is survive future disasters. this is a delicate approach to restoring and seismically improving buildings so that they is survive, however, because they are historic structures they are allowed a lot of latitude to provide the safety of the occupants, the building would sustain more damage that any upgrade at this time would cause more daniel -- damage that what would be able to be repaired. somehow we need to make sure that this doesn't ge miss construed that we are asking the building to get retro fitted to a higher stad standard that in the event it doesn't is survive. that in that thought ensure that historic resources are protected and restored in the aftermath of a disaster. our approach is to allow some daniel so we don't to have disturb historic materials in a retrofit

mr. sugaya. >> good afternoon commissioners, mike bueller with heritage. i would like to briefly note we strongly support staff's recommendation regarding policies in objective seven and in terms of commissioner matsuda's comments, there are numerous case studies in the report that relate to this section of the elements that we think are particularly effective and could perhaps be included in implementation measures such as youth led walking tours and heritage and cultural trails. i did no. see cultural heritage and tour programs, we have cultural and tourism provided the community is interested. it is perhaps the largest industry in san francisco and certainly our neighborhood could benefit and cultural her the animal -- heritage benefits reach the efforts to promote cultural tourism in san francisco. >> thank you. any other members wish to speak on this item? we'll close this for now and go to item 8. >> shelley, that brings us to objective eight which is to promote historic preservation as a key strategy and add hear egg adhering to the principals of th

mr. elkin. ms. bueller. >> i agree with my esteem colleague. from our perspective, we've had an agency issue opinions or issue policies and procedures specifically stating that we can't have access to something, so it's very difficult for me to understand how it's not a problem. and i think the fact that 47 other i.g.s have at one time or another, maybe not all the time, but one time or another had problems should be an indicator that there is a problem. >> well, thank you. again, i appreciate the great work that we do and look forward to hearing from you further. yield back.

mr. elkin. ms. bueller. >> i agree with my esteem colleague. from our perspective, we've had an agency issue opinions or issue policies and procedures specifically stating that we can't have access to something, so it's very difficult for me to understand how it's not a problem. and i think the fact that 47 other i.g.s have at one time or another, maybe not all the time, but one time or another had problems should be an indicator that there is a problem. >> well, thank you. again, i appreciate the great work that we do and look forward to hearing from you further. yield back. >> thanks, gentleman. i recognize the gentleman from pennsylvania, mr. cartwright. >> thank you, mr. their man. thank you for the inspectors appearing today. as the committee has previously highlighted, the offices of inspectors general are essential to the efficiency of our federal government. they help hold agencies accountable identifying misconduct in programs and by personnel. they can highlight the whole amount of waste, fraud and abuse guaranteeing that american tax

mr. elkins, how long have you been at this is the with the inspector general's office? >> just a little over four years. >> ms. bueller. >> the question is this is obviously an old law. this is not new. this is requiring the administration, every administration, any administration to say american tax dollars are at use here. >> what have you seen in the individuals that you have talked to and the other folks that are around, some who have worked in the inspector general's office, some for decades, what are they experiencing now that has changed and has it changed? is this normal protocol for every administration or is something changing? i'm not asking this in a political way. i'm trying to figure out is this normal protocol from every administration, every agency? >> i can speak to my situation. i've talked to my predecessors. i think the answer is quite clearly no in our circumstances. we did fbi oversight after the attacks of 9/11, after the robert hansen scandal. we were given complete access to the materials we needed. we didn't face these issues. frankly, we didn't face these issues until 2010 or 2011. >> are yo