mr. caballero has seen repairs to get done in his unit which includes stairs, ceilings and electrical violation. he had been living in his unit since 2001 and there was a lengthy list of repairs the landlord refused to take care of. i informed the landlord the steps to take to resolve this case. after he failed to respond to these repairs. we followed a complaint with dbi. i helped the tenant file a complaint and a notice of violation was issued. after the initial reluctance to the repair letter. the landlord finally hired a contract or and obtained the proper permits. during this process there was constant communication between myself, tenant and inspector to ensure all were completed in the units. this case was abated in mid-january of 2014. this is a great example of triumph and one of many successes we have witnessed and for ability of all residents of san francisco. >>supervisor scott weiner: thank you very much for your patience today. next speaker. >> my name is jerry. drat ler. i was a member of 2012-2013 civil grand jury that wrote the report that found that 11 percent of 2008-2009, 20

mr. coble there'll -- may please the court, thomas caballero. i just want to quickly start with speech and debate clause and make a few clarifying point. the first is it is certainly -- the vice president is covered when he is presiding over the senate. in addition as -- [inaudible] >> because the vice president in presiding over the senate conducting legislative duty, the supreme court held in another context the county commission i believe that when executive officers to legislative duty are protected by executive privilege. i would also like to point out the court correctly noted that a case held and sent officers employers are covered by speech and debate clause when acting in the legislative steer. they talked about the case and explain why speech and debate clause did not apply was because the person failing today representative powell was failing to do a knowledge sort of act, pay somebody. that wouldn't be covered by speech and debate clause but when the officer asked within the legislative steer and the court also noted is nothing more