Are provided they are investing. We would apply the same principle to somebody who was running an airbnb or renting a house as far as the additional employment provisions. If theyve given it to a property manager to run the airbnb and they have no daytoday activities involved in it, the property manager is meeting the tenants coming into the house, providing access, providing cleaning services, if the owner of the business is not conducting the work involved in it, it would not fall under this this is something we have worked extensively with the City Attorneys Office on in terms of getting an interpretation when the supplies and when it doesnt apply. This is how we got to where we were at with the gig economy. Lyft and uber are actively conducting work. It is a little grayer there is a black situation with Something Like airbnb. If you are actively participating in the business, and conducting the business then you would be required to complete this process. Thank you. I just wanted to ask about the statement of incompatible activity. Every department in the city required to reflect upon the work that they do, their employees, and what they think is appropriate . My understanding, i think is that the department has a lot of discretion and can also include with the statement of incompatible activities of the prohibition of activities that would give an appearance of a conflict even if not a conflict. I was reflecting on the example that you gave, someone who works for the Planning Department while they might be an administrative and clerical and not in a decisionmaking role with respect to permits, i dont know if they do or not, but am i correct in assuming if the planning director wanted to there could be a statement of incompatible activities, that anyone who is employed by the Planning Department cannot work for a permit expediter . Or, does this set of criteria that you identified here conflict time interference, et cetera, the only governing protocol is for whether you can or you cant . I think youre point is well taken. The statement of incompatible activities is one way that they determine whether there is a conflict. Like you said it could be appearance, i will give an example. We could have somebody at a high level decisionmaking position in a department and they have knowledge and expertise and they want to help design, lets say a Testing Process for another municipality, or even for the city and county of francisco the Department Head would not want that highlevel deputy, or maybe anyone in that department, because it would give the appearance of potential favoritism or even if it wasnt favoritism, somebody could claim , i know this manager worked on this process, and or its consulting or providing information. I did not work with them, and i did not play favor with him. Therefore, that is why i did not get the position or the promotion. We have seen instances where a Department Head, or appointing authority has made decisions not to allow outside employment. One way is the statement of incompatible activities. It could be the appearance, it could be time off between shifts. Theres a lot of things that the statement of incompatible activities will not speak to that we would give broad latitude to an appointing officer. One important caveat, our labor partners actually have language in there mou, that work the other way around, which explicitly gives a right to an employee to have additional employment unless the city finds there is a conflict or a potential issue. As far as i know the only union that has a provision. Interesting. One last question, is there an appeal. If mickey callahan, and or the Department Head gave a thumbs down, is there any step beyond that . Every decision, almost every decision of the Human Resource director can be appealed to the Civil Service commission. There is a provision in the rules that says any decision of the Human Resource director can be appealed to the commission. We have not seen that. I havent actually experienced an appeal in this process. In most instances when there are questions or concerns that we are able to work backwards through the department and adequately provide the employee would notice and reason for why we cannot support this. We have not seen circumstances for a decision of either the department, or the director has been appealed. When you give someone notice they have been denied, what form of notice is it . Is it an email or letter . We go back through the appointing officer, at the department, usually through their Human Resources team. Most departments will have their own h. R. Team and we will advise them. Maybe this is something you did not consider, maybe you can remedy that. If you cannot, the example i highlighted earlier, a highlevel deputy or Department Head participating in consultation to help potential candidates for a job, that was never going to be compatible. That department and issued a notice in some cases with advice from the City Attorneys Office and the department of Human Resources, in the form of a letter saying, here is the reasons why we will not be approving your additional employment request. If they are not doing it would be subject to the charter of potential discipline. How long do they have to appeal . I know you havent seen it, but im hearing, from the audience, five days. I believe that to be true. From the point they receive the email, or the notice, or a carrier pigeon dropping it off, whatever that to appeal to the Civil Service commission. Business days . Five business days. Otherwise, i would issue it right before three day weekend. [laughter] there are Different Levels of employees im sorry can you speak into the microphone . There are various levels of employment. There are ones that have responsibilities whether it is finance, programs, or what have you. When the supervisor or the approving officer reviewed these requests, do they look at the actual level of responsibilities of these employees when they look at the conflict of interest rules, and other rules . Because, you know, the folks are at lower pay grades, their request for outside employment may be very different from people at the senior level, of employment. You mentioned about the flexibility, but it seems like there needs to be different ways of looking at the activities as well as a conflict issue. I think i have an answer that will massage some of those concerns. We look at all requests and work backwards through departments to make sure they are thoroughly vetted. When it comes to managers, supervisors, we apply the same standard that we are seeing for the folks that are required to fill out form seven hundreds when we make a policymaking decision. Every manager request i review with director callahan, to make sure that we are aware of what a department is approving. There are times when she calls her Department Head colleague and has a discussion with them about their employees outside requests. It might involve, as we were discussing earlier, simply the appearance of potential conflict are you aware, Department Head, if you approve this it may not be in conflict with their job, but it could give the appearance area i do work with her on all management level. This is midlevel management all the way up to make sure that those requests are consistently reviewed across that spectrum. Thank you. Thank you very much, sean. Call for Public Comment. There is none. Jeff . Thank you, sean, thank you hannah. This is very, very helpful and informative. Would like to add my thanks to sean and hannah as well. I do hope that Going Forward your office, and our office, can collaborate on both some of the heart of questions identified in terms of really honing in on where there may be some incompatibility, and looking for ways to improve enforcement opportunities where we do discover some of those instances in which somebody had unapproved outside employment, or maybe even engaged in conduct for which they had sought approval and that approval had been denied. I actually have another question for sean, if i may. With the recent passage of the new law that is going into effect the employees of lyft and uber in the gig economy it would now be required to be classified as employees. What impact do you see that having on this process if any . It shouldnt have any change, we would already require them to complete this process. If anything else, it might bring more light to this program that it becomes clearer to employees that they are employed by two different companies. Right. If you become an employee, would dictating schedules and hours. That might change how employees are doing that now, if they are working for lyft or uber. They can set their own hours. So the hours would not conflict with their current city employment. If an employer was setting hours that would conflict. That would be difficult. Thank you. I would like to make a correction to a statement that i whisper to sean earlier. The appeal timeframe for other matters, because i just realized additional employment is not specific in the Civil Service rules with regard to appeals. The Civil Service rule 105. 12. 4, allows someone to appeal the Human Resources directors decision on other matters for 30 days. Okay. Not just five business days, but 30 calendar days. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, commissioners. I will keep the remainder of my presents present item on agenda item number for quite brief. A reminder for current docket adding together all of the matters, those in preliminary review, and those that are under investigation, you will have seen only about one third of them are under preliminary review, about two thirds are under investigation. Our aim, of course, is to devote more resources to investigations, and triage so that we stem prosecutorial resources in the most effective way possible. We certainly have more work to do on that front. We still have 47 matters that require a decision, about our jurisdiction, or about our extending those resources. We have more work to do bringing down the amount of time that it takes for us to make a decision. If you look at attachment one, at the top of page 4, you will see among those matters still in preliminary review, about half of them, the commission received within the timeframe between today, and three months ago. And then scattering of matters across the next 15 months for which we still have a determination to make. It could be a matter that is older in preliminary review, it is again being held through the policies. That follows a strange process where it sort of it remains limbo of preliminary review, until it is fully resolved. It never actually gets in the usual sense off of their preliminary review docket. I know its agenda item five that that is something the Enforcement Division is reconsidering. It may be that other matters, still under preliminary review that are older have entailed more complex preliminary investigation, or they require additional layers of review among staff to resolve. The last thing that i will note. As to the 91 matters, under investigation, which is a number that is remaining roughly constant. We have been up around 90 for quite some time. The division intends to take a mini staff retreat, late next week to begin to apply the discretionary factors that we discussed with you, a month ago, during the august meeting. The question arose at that time, whether they could be applying those factors, not only prospectively to complaints that come in, but complaints that are already on the investigative docket. Commission expressed an opinion that we should close out by applying discretionary factors. Any matters for which we think the expenditure of Additional Resources doesnt make sense. We will spend time, as a team reviewing the incident existing investigative docket with that purpose in mind and we will of course work through the process that the regulations require which is to write to closure reports and obtain the approval of the executive director. And then provide for your review, a summary of each of those matters, so you can exercise your oversight of the divisions enforcement efforts and provide to us any feedback about whether you think we are applying those factors in the way you helped. The way you had hoped. Any questions from commissioners . Okay. Call for Public Comment on agenda item number four . No Public Comment. Agenda item number five, discussion of possible action on preliminary outline for revisions of commissions fixed penalty policy. Thank you. Item five, again is in response to request from the commission at our last meeting, commissioners requested that we come back to you, at subsequent meetings with a proposal about how we would implement one subset of efforts that the Enforcement Division is undertaking in this period of review as we examine whether the practices of the division are truly as efficient and is effective as they might be. So, just mentioned the staff retreat that the Enforcement Division will take next week to apply the discretionary factors to that is one subset. The main project at the division will undertake, in the coming months with the blessing of the commission is to extend the fixed penalty policy that the Commission Adopted in a Public Meeting in july of 2013. The request that you made was that we think about what that process might look like. What we brought to you on agenda item number five, is some background on the existing policy for the benefit of any commissioners who are less familiar with it, but also for the benefit of the public. So, we have detailed in some degree how that policy operates. We have noted that one goal of the policy is to handle in an accelerated fashion fashion those matters that require little to no investigation and that might be suitable to resolve through at a schedule of penalties. The drafters of the policy believed would bring to the regulated community increased transparency and increase predictability. Our view, and i believe the Commission View is that we have an opportunity, at this. Because to review that policy in both its substantive and procedural aspects. Of course what we envision undertaking is a process to contemplate what additional kinds of violations the Enforcement Division can handle in a streamlined way. Procedurally we intend to reevaluate the factors, mitigating and aggravating factors that apply in a given instance, including whether there are factors of aggravation that would prevent a respondent from participating in the streamlined process and benefiting from the schedule of penalties. We would, of course, want to make the policy more explicitly clear that the division has the power to exercise its discretion to do that. There are a number of other issues that we would consider procedural in nature that would be part of the scope of this review process, including whether the division should use warning letters, more frequently than it currently does brady will remember jesse minardi, submitted Public Comment requesting that the division do explicitly that. At the bottom of page four we have set out the policy, or rather the process that we intend to pursue here. Staff have already begun to evaluate what other jurisdictions are doing in terms of a streamlined process. We are also initiating internal conversations, consulting with members of a compliance staff who have ideas about how their own programs are, or are not functioning well and which of the provisions of the programs that they oversee might be suitable for streamline resolutions. Weve envisioned that we would have a first round of interested persons meetings, which is much more open ended. In which we would solicit from participants what they believe the scope of this revision process to include. We have some ideas of what the scope might be, from the regulated community and others. What aspects they think are ripe for reevaluation. Having done that, and having completed the analysis, the internal analysis and consolation with other jurisdictions we would then intend to draft a proposed revision. We would bring that draft to subsequent interested persons meetings, and at that second stage, the second stage what we would solicit would be specific responses to the proposal that we put in front of them. We would merit those contributions from persons, and make any additional amendments to our proposal, and then bring that draft before the commission for possible action. At that time, we would solicit your feedback, having the benefit of all of these prior layers of process. We would iterate that process and come back to you with something that you can act on again. Thank you. I have a few questions, and would also invite my fellow commissioners to ask questions as well. This is maybe a stupid question, is the penalty policy a part of the enforcement rights it is not. It is not a stupid question. Im struggling to remember whether the current enforcement regulations explicitly referred to the six penalty policy, or incorporated by reference . I dont believe the current regulations do. The policy exists independently, outside of the regulations. I am sure there was a reason for that, at the time the policy was adopted. As you go through this process, i would be interested to hear if it is something that you would like to continue to have them be separate, or if they should be incorporated into the race. I dont know if the attorney has a view on this, i would like to get your input as well. I think penalties have to be adopted by ordinance. You are assessing a fine. Is that why it is in the c. F. R. O. Ordinance . I dont know, im not to ask our new assigned Deputy Attorney to tell us about our foundational Constitutional Authority to jump past the board