the board, the department managed". this was surprising to see an official and gives the appearance of an evil mentality from ms. duke. an unwillingness to exercise the oversight required of her as a member of the board. mr. quigley, also did not appear to understand the gratitude of his responsibility. in the office of the comptroll comptroller, wanted to schedule a meeting with the bank's directors, to discuss progress and accountability, mr. quigley told other bank officials that he was in a quote, currently scheduled to be away on vacation on some island. on the states. and commented that the sense of urgency is surprising. these statements were made after several actions against wells fargo for a massive consumer abuse scandals while ms. duke and mr. cooley resided. the must be held accountable for their duties and members of wells fargo board. and announced recognize the ranking members of the committee, the gentleman from north carolina, for four minutes pretty. >> thank you for holding this hearing. i think that

>> there was a great deal of concern from the board about the speed by which people on the board were being respond, to also the risk management of the company, the quality of that work. >> so how do incomplete and late submissions. the how does it reflect on your former institution? >> doesn't reflect well. >> so wells fargo entered into a 180 million dollar settlement. can you help us understand the basis for that settlement? >> let me help you with that. the banks executives made rep misrepresentations and omissions about the banks practices. there are many questions that i was not able to get to, i have deep concern not just about the responsiveness of the board. we have the same findings of facts. severe deficiencies in management practices unique too wells fargo, and this board. that's why we're having this meeting even though you resigned. thank you for this hearing. >> thank you very much. the madame from new york miss valasquez is recognized. >> yesterday i questioned scharf about the consent order. listening to your answers to the ranking member, i just can't help but questi

so was the board concerned? and according to our report here, it indicates their concerns were dismissed by that individual. they did not believe your executive officer mr. sloan over the risk management committee's report, apparently. did it not strike you as kind of concerning that the risk committee says we need to be changing management style? and, yet, there was a conflict there? did you not -- did you take sides? apparently, you did on this. >> i'm sorry that i sort of lost the -- the track as you were moving forward. but the -- >> you have a different management sty management style than most banks your size. and there is concern about that style with regards to those risk officers you hired in 2018 who, apparently, resigned in 2019. did that not concern you at the time that there was, pointing out of this problem, and yet the executive officer seemed to say we're okay. our management style is fine. so apparently, you took sides in a situation and chose your executive officer over your risk management team

is a desire for meet and confer, we could remove that language at the full board. that would be another option. >> chairwoman: yeah. i mean, this other language is important to me, given what we're facing. and it doesn't seem like there was the urgency to reach out to d.h.r., to ex them for their conclusion. it doesn't take two weeks to determine if the legislation is subject to meet and confer. >> i think a week has gone by. i like the language. i would like to keep the language. but i think perhaps, rather than duplicating file -- or we could duplicate the file, and keep one here, and send the exact same file to the full board. and if the full board needs to remove that clause in section 6.7.1, we could to so next week. >> chairwoman: okay. i'm just expressing my disappointment to d.h.r., i don't know why it would take an entire week to decide if this is subject to meet and confer. it is a simple analysis and decision. so i don't know why that didn't happen, and i'm frustrated, so i just want to communicate that. having said that, are there any other questions or

process, and comes to the board. so just in december, we had an opportunity to review the policy, and we are operating under that policy now. >> but we can bring it back as a separate discussion. you probably need to call for public comment. >> well no, i was actually going to go back and say the same thing that she just said. we did all review this in december and we all agreed to come back with this type of recommendation. i would move that we move to adopt staff's recommendation for this r.f.p. process because it it's an item that we already discussed and approved, what staff presented a couple months ago. >> there's a motion and second made about the r.f.p. or what? >> yes. [inaudible] >> public comment? >> the only thing i'll say, commissioner, is i'm supportive of your comments on this. >> thank you. everybody understanding their ro roll -- roles is the key to decision quality. so yes, we'll issue the r.f.p. public comment? call the question. those in favor, say aye. opposed? next. >> item number 12, discussion

the board, the department managed". this was surprising to see an official and gives the appearance of an evil mentality from ms. duke. an unwillingness to exercise the oversight required of her as a member of the board. mr. quigley, also did not appear to understand the gratitude of his responsibility. in the office of the comptroll comptroller, wanted to schedule a meeting with the bank's directors, to discuss progress and accountability, mr. quigley told other bank officials that he was in a quote, currently scheduled to be away on vacation on some island. on the states. and commented that the sense of urgency is surprising. these statements were made after several actions against wells fargo for a massive consumer abuse scandals while ms. duke and mr. cooley resided. the must be held accountable for their duties and members of wells fargo board. and announced recognize the ranking members of the committee, the gentleman from north carolina, for four minutes pretty. >> thank you for holding this hearing. i think that

i'm a former member of the board. i recruited him and i am pleased that i was able to get him to say yes >> are you pleased with the fact that. thank you madam chair i yield. >> gentleman from south carolina is now recognized. thank you madam chair >> stew can you explain what the normal duties of responsibilities were for you another board members? yes >> we receive materials and connection with meetings. we schedule meetings we had meetings with the board. >> how often we're meetings? >> how many meetings did you take out of the account? >> when i resigned i removed 85 meetings for my calendar in the next 12 months. meetings or calls. >> with time commitment per week per month what would you get as a good estimate? >> there were big blocks of time last year when i was working fundamentally full-time, because i was working to recruit and a ceo. many of you and your colleagues asked charlie why would you accept such a difficult job? i would like to be the guy that was recruiting. it was time intensive haven't kept trac

so uncovered that the board was well aware of mr. sloan's poor performance and misleading comments about the progress yet able to still keep position as ceo. as a small business owner for 50 years i'm a car deal they are texas, i know how important the attitude at the top levels of leadership are to the employees. the ceo sets the tone. and if they are not taking the problems seriously it's hard to get other employees to change behaviors as with he will process ms. duke, quickly, why did you stick with tim sloan for so long? >> so if i'm going to answer your question if i could just respond. >> no, ma'am i've got time here, please. answer my question. >> okay. okay. tim -- we -- tim sloane we made him the ceo when we -- when we replaced john stom of. he stopped the sales practices, incentives, replaced the management in the community bank. he took action quickly. we had problems that needed to be addressed immediately. the time it takes to find someone in an external search and as number of you notice, the question of whether or not a

we will provide the full report to the board as part of the april 7th board packet. ou will be able to see not only these recommendations but the supporting materials. the secretarthe equity strategyf a 2014 board policy. it was then built upon by not only be staff but both social justice and affordable housing that helped us shape the program. it is neighborhood based. the reason for that is that the transit needs in chinatown are different than in the bayview, and it allows us to develop tailored solutions. it is also very targeted and incremental. if i had all of the money in the world, how would i solve transit equity. it is more using data and community feedback to make in cremental improvements and to monitor those to make sure what we expected to happen is actually happening. we are presents at this time of year because it is set up to specifically inform the budget process. as you make decisions, the need to improve transit equity are front and center in the budget process. that is reflected in the value statement jonathan shared. there is both quantitative an

press from not only members of the board of supervisors but members of the public. i do think it's important that although the comments and the suggestions and the things that you are all working on are, of course, welcomed, i want to be clear that when we make a commitment to the public, that we need to be able to deliver. it's not responsible for us to say that something is going to happen and then we realize we can't make it happen. it's why i've worked with the city attorney's office, why i've worked with our city departments to flush out what is possible for us to do on a local level. in fact many of you know i was in sacramento yesterday with the governor and other big-city mayors to talk about what government officials can do to assist us with things that we know are not just impacting our city, but our state and our entire country. so we cannot just work here in san francisco to address this. we will need help, we will need to work together, and i hope that we will be able to do that. thank you so much all for extend

that equity is prioritized across the board. i want to give a thank you to commissioner ronen for and we're making sure that the region is supporting vision zero goals. m.t.c. and aback are looking to approve the final blueprint for this plan in the fall. with that, i'll open up for any questions. >> any questions for ms. bullu? seeing none, is there any public comment on this item number 10. seeing none, public comment is closed. colleagues, do we have a motion to approve the plan, the fiscally constrained project list as described, made by commissioner ronen, and seconded by commissioner yee. > and we have a house roll call? [roll call] >> we have first approval. >> all right. next item, please. >> item 11, awarded cross-examination contract to the lowest responsible bidder, an amount not to exceed $29.6 million. and authorizing an additional construction of 10.9 million for a total construction allotment not to exceed $40.6 million. this is an action item. >> mr. cordoba. >>> >> good morning. i'm happy to present item 11. we'r

any questions from the board? and mr. holt, please extend our thanks to the members that are opting out because of their service. >> clerk: okay. next item. this is the time for public comment. i this is the time to address members of the public -- i see mr. patrick. >> i'd like to address the members of the board. this came out of the transportation authority of san francisco and has effectively delayed this project two years. out of this delay, we've studied the project, and we've said we're going to put a new management structure between this board and the operations. that matter's been structured who we composed of substantially the same people who sit on this board, or maybe one level down. this is a quid pro quo. the quid is we have to change the management structure. the quo is we'll then give you the money. i don't know about you, but i find that objectionable. we've essentially delayed the project two years. now as i look at this next thing, what will flow out of that, in my opinion, is a tremendous amount of mone

we will provide the full report to the board as part of the april 7th board packet. ou will be able to see not only these recommendations but the supporting materials. the secretarthe equity strategyf a 2014 board policy. it was then built upon by not only be staff but both social justice and affordable housing that helped us shape the program. it is neighborhood based. the reason for that is that the transit needs in chinatown are different than in the bayview, and it allows us to develop tailored solutions. it is also very targeted and incremental. if i had all of the money in the world, how would i solve transit equity. it is more using data and community feedback to make in cremental improvements and to monitor those to make sure what we expected to happen is actually happening. we are presents at this time of year because it is set up to specifically inform the budget process. as you make decisions, the need to improve transit equity are front and center in the budget process. that is reflected in the value statement jonathan shared. there is both quantitative an

any questions from the board? and mr. holt, please extend our thanks to the members that are opting out because of their service. >> clerk: okay. next item. this is the time for public comment. i this is the time to address members of the public -- i see mr. patrick. >> i'd like to address the members of the board. this came out of the transportation authority of san francisco and has effectively delayed this project two years. out of this delay, we've studied the project, and we've said we're going to put a new management structure between this board and the operations. that matter's been structured who we composed of substantially the same people who sit on this board, or maybe one level down. this is a quid pro quo. the quid is we have to change the management structure. the quo is we'll then give you the money. i don't know about you, but i find that objectionable. we've essentially delayed the project two years. now as i look at this next thing, what will flow out of that, in my opinion, is a tremendous amount of mone

press from not only members of the board of supervisors but members of the public. i do think it's important that although the comments and the suggestions and the things that you are all working on are, of course, welcomed, i want to be clear that when we make a commitment to the public, that we need to be able to deliver. it's not responsible for us to say that something is going to happen and then we realize we can't make it happen. it's why i've worked with the city attorney's office, why i've worked with our city departments to flush out what is possible for us to do on a local level. in fact many of you know i was in sacramento yesterday with the governor and other big-city mayors to talk about what government officials can do to assist us with things that we know are not just impacting our city, but our state and our entire country. so we cannot just work here in san francisco to address this. we will need help, we will need to work together, and i hope that we will be able to do that. thank you so much all for extend

we have proposed two different options for the board to consider, and y, we hope to get feedback on this. again, taking an equity lenses, we have two options, the equity monthly option, and the equity clipper option. the position of the budget, we have budgeted or assumed the equity, but the differential is not substantial. it's within a few hundred thousand dollars. the equity monthly option keeps the cash fare at $3, keeps the electronic differential where it is per policy now, at $2.75, adds free muni for youth, and that is all youth across san francisco. i will say that a lot of the feedback we got, especially from the san francisco youth commission, was around this particular program. and while there is a cost associated with it, the $2 million we reported to you during the workshop, there's also costs that we don't see, i.e., the cost of fare evasion, the costs associated with the program. so when you really think about it, we will be able to direct a lot of those resources towards actual fare paying customers and actually doing enforcement. again, from a fare paying lens, children

that the board finds that it is in our best interest of the public that the board elect not to disclose this closed session deliberations? a motion made by supervisor peskin, seconded by supervisor safai. >> for the record we will show that supervisor haney is not in the chamber >> okay. then without objection, we will not disclose our closed session deliberations. i will hand this over to you for p.u.c.'s action. >> commissioners, can i have a motion on whether to disclose. a motion by commissioner maxwell not to disclose seconded by commissioner paulson. without objection, that is the order. >> mr. president, i would like to note for the record that the p.u.c. commissioners caen and vietor are not in chamber >> okay. colleagues that brings us to the end of our joint special meeting agenda. madame clerk, is there any further business before us today? >> that concludes our business for today, mr. president >> thank you. we are adjourned. [please stand by]

that the board finds that it is in our best interest of the public that the board elect not to disclose this closed session deliberations? a motion made by supervisor peskin, seconded by supervisor safai. >> for the record we will show that supervisor haney is not in the chamber >> okay. then without objection, we will not disclose our closed session deliberations. i will hand this over to you for p.u.c.'s action. >> commissioners, can i have a

it means fair to everyone across the board. hat is proposed to you right now is, yes, there is no increase on the cash fare but what we saw there is still massive increase on the monthly passes. monthly passes are used by the working class and students. you are shifting costs to another grouping of people at the expense of another group. that is not equity. we understand s.f.m.t.a. needs to make hard decisions. should we cut services or cut down fares? this is nothing new from city departments. similar lines were told to us a few years ago that we need to make decisions between funding for housing or funding for transportation. our answer is the same. stop putting different needs against each other. we need both. this increasing fare to provide service is false. since 2005 the city of san francisco has experienced 100% inflation in muni fares and steadily increasing approximately 7% each year. transit riders have already done their share of helping muni be safe and reliable. the price on 2005 to now has doubled. we still have no

president of the board said is right. oing to tran send politics and work in the public interest, and we all understand that our number one priority is public health. part of public health is economic health. the package that the mayor and the board are announcing today is the first step. there will be many more steps to this. this is going to continue to evolve as the situation evolves. these are extraordinary sometimes. today the mayor and chief health officer took extraordinary actions. this is going to be the new normal until we reduce and then defeat the virus. wash your hands, wash your hands, 20 seconds, wash your hands. thank you, madam mayor, and thank you colleagues. >> thank you for continuing to be leaders on this issue. i really truly appreciate it. now, i would like to introduce the president of the san francisco chamber of commerce rodney fong. >> thank you very much. as the mayor alluded to san francisco has seen many challenges. these walls, this alley has senmany challenges. i want to thank mayor breed fo

we will provide the full report to the board as part of the april 7th board packet. you will be able to see not only these recommendations but the supporting materials. the secretarthe equity strategyf a 2014 board policy. it was then built upon by not only be staff but both social justice and affordable housing that helped us shape the program. it is neighborhood based. the reason for that is that the transit needs in chinatown are different than in the bayview, and it allows us to develop tailored solutions. it is also very targeted and incremental. if i had all of the money in the world, how would i solve transit equity. it is more using data and community feedback to make in cremental improvements and to monitor those to make sure what we expected to happen is actually happening. we are presents at this time of year because it is set up to specifically inform the budget process. as you make decisions, the need to improve transit equity are front and center in the budget process. that is reflected in the value statement jonathan shared. there is both quantitative a

press from not only members of the board of supervisors but members of the public. i do think it's important that although the comments and the suggestions and the things that you are all working on are, of course, welcomed, i want to be clear that when we make a commitment to the public, that we need to be able to deliver. it's not responsible for us to say that something is going to happen and then we realize we can't make it happen. it's why i've worked with the city attorney's office, why i've worked with our city departments to flush out what is possible for us to do on a local level. in fact many of you know i was in sacramento yesterday with the governor and other big-city mayors to talk about what government officials can do to assist us with things that we know are not just impacting our city, but our state and our entire country. so we cannot just work here in san francisco to address this. we will need help, we will need to work together, and i hope that we will be able to do that. thank you so much all for extend

that would come before the board. what we are going to do and typically -- we'll be flexible with -- first of all, that hasn't been proposed to my knowledge. that's the first that's being heard. i had a conversation with him and he didn't mention about continuing it to allow them to do the c.u. process. our standard direction is we won't be able to go through the legalization process or give them time to come into compliance but not indefinitely. we would say you have to address this by the end of the year, 60 days, 90 days, depending facts of the case but never such an open-ended resolution where it would be put on ice in perpetuity. >> nothing within your power to do to extend something like that? >> not something we have made a practice of. whether we have the ability to -- then we are going to be getting that request for every case that comes before us and we are never going to be resolving things. everything will be -- in this case why did we do it here for this nice family but we are not doing it. >> well, you ca

so kind of one of the last areas that we discussed at the board workshop was the use of the agency's balance -- [inaudible] >> we must replace the parking meters, so that is being maintained as a recommendation. we are shifting ongoing revenues to the operating budget as part of this process. we did need to do a one-time backfill of capital projects to make those projects whole, which is the $10 million there, and then, i constantly come to the board talking about operator rest rooms and keeping up our 100-year-old facilities, so we have continuously appropriated funding for our maintenance facilities across the city. so as the current fund budget proposal for the next two years. as i stated on slide 32 here, we started with a deficit of $66 million and $77 million. the asks over the two-year period, ongoing costs, were around $90 million, so that would have been a $167 million problem to solve. all of the departments went back and revised their asks, the public feedback and board feedback that we received at the prior workshop. you can see our previous requests. the march 2020 colum

any questions from the board? and mr. holt, please extend our thanks to the members that are opting out because of their service. >> clerk: okay. next item. this is the time for public comment. i this is the time to address members of the public -- i see mr. patrick. >> i'd like to address the members of the board. this came out of the transportation authority of san francisco and has effectively delayed this project two years. out of this delay, we've studied the project, and we've said we're going to put a new management structure between this board and the operations. that matter's been structured who we composed of substantially the same people who sit on this board, or maybe one level down. this is a quid pro quo. the quid is we have to change the management structure. the quo is we'll then give you the money. i don't know about you, but i find that objectionable. we've essentially delayed the project two years. now as i look at this next thing, what will flow out of that, in my opinion, is a tremendous amount of mone

that the board finds that it is in our best interest of the public that the board elect not to disclose this closed session deliberations? a motion made by supervisor peskin, seconded by supervisor safai. >> for the record we will show that supervisor haney is not in the chamber >> okay. then without objection, we will not disclose our closed session deliberations. i will hand this over to you for p.u.c.'s action. >> commissioners, can i have a motion on whether to disclose. a motion by commissioner maxwell not to disclose seconded by commissioner paulson. without objection, that is the order. >> mr. president, i would like to note for the record that the

are we reconvening as the board of supervisors? madam clerk, let's now go our adoption without committee reference. >> mr. president, i believe it's time for public comment, general public comment before we take those items. >> correct. >> at this time, the public may contribute live comments for up to two minutes by dialing the following telephone number and this is streaming across channel 26 is i believe on the live feed for the computer, if you're watching this meeting from your computer. (888)204-5984 and that's (888)204-5984 and when prompted, please enter the access code which is 350-1008 and that's 350-1008. and when you are connected, you will receive another prompt which is to dial 1 and then 0 to be added to the queue to speak and make sure you're calling from a quiet location. speak clearly and slowly and turn down your television or radio. if you would rather submit your written comment, we're happy to take that, as well. you can submit an email to board.of.supervisors@sfgov.org. or you can just send something in the po

in the budget, the board is doing two things. you're authorizing money and you're authorizing position authority. a certain amount of those positions are paid for in the budget. that is the number you're seeing on that page. but additionally when you're acting on the annual salary ordinance, you're authorizing the department to hire a larger number. i suspect the 1600 corresponds to approximately the authority you granted to public works to fill positions. >> supervisor peskin: just the value of all of that capital, as compared to what we're seeing here, is what? >> ms. dawson can probably speak to that better than i can. >> supervisor peskin: it's got to be in the billions. 3, 4? >> so we're showing here, supervisors, the actual for the year, the nonpersonal services, a lot of that is construction. what i was trying to get at what the question you had. when you look at us as far as operating budget, it understates the activities that are under management of public works. a large portion of which is capital. so the bulk of that bl

any questions from the board? and mr. holt, please extend our thanks to the members that are opting out because of their service. >> clerk: okay. next item. this is the time for public comment. i this is the time to address members of the public -- i see mr. patrick. >> i'd like to address the members of the board. this came out of the transportation authority of san francisco and has effectively delayed this project two years. out of this delay, we've studied the project, and we've said we're going to put a new management structure between this board and the operations. that matter's been structured who we composed of substantially the same people who sit on this board, or maybe one level down. this is a quid pro quo. the quid is we have to change the management structure. the quo is we'll then give you the money. i don't know about you, but i find that objectionable. we've essentially delayed the project two years. now as i look at this next thing, what will flow out of that, in my opinion, is a tremendous amount of mone