Chair ronen good morning, everyone. The meeting will come to order. Good morning and welcome to the february 24, 2020 meeting of the rules committee. Seated to my left is supervisor gordon mar. Seating to my left for supervisor Catherine Stefani is matt haney. Our clerk is gordon an youyoun id like to thank sfgovtv. Mr. Clerk, do we have any announcements . Clerk yes. Please silence all phones and electr electron electronic devices. Items acted upon will appear on the board of supervisors agenda. Chair rone chair ronen thank you. Can you please read item one. Clerk would you like to excuse supervisor stefani . Chair ronen thank you. Yes. [gavel]. Clerk now would you please read item 1. [agenda item read]. Chair ronen and we have supervisor peskin. Hello, supervisor peskin. Would you like to make any opening comments . Supervisor peskin thank you, chair ronen, supervisor haney, and supervisor mar. As youre aware, the board of supervisors gives the board the power of subpoena which was seldom used but was used a couple of times in the Millennium Tower to subpoena a couple of individuals. It is a lengthy and cumbersome process where the testimony doesnt happen in realtime. By the time you send the subpoena to the full board, four to six weeks have gone by. A change to the board rules requires an eightvote super majority, and we fell short by one vote. I felt at this time insofar as the board has the limited power of inquiry and inquiring minds want to know of course not to interfere or impede with ongoing civil or criminal investigations, i thought it was time to bring this board back. I know the clerk of this board has some comments or changes. I had a productive conversation with the boards attorney, miss pearson, yesterday, as it related to the administration of oaths in section 3. 1, which i would like to actually collapse into and i do not have language before you, but id like to collapse that 3. 2. 1, administration of oaths into 3. 3. 2 so that anybody thats subpoenaed would be administered the oath. It would not be done abtemporarily, it would be done for any and all individuals who are subpoenaed. And i know that chair ronen also wanted to potentially suggest an amendment, as well. Chair ronen yes. But lets first hear from the clerk of the board, angela calvillo. Clerk good morning, chair ronen, and thank you for allowing us to make a few changes. Page 6, line 2, we would like to say during a public subcommittee. Online 7, that would as supervisor peskin indicated, that the clerk of the board would sign the subpoena. On line 8, you would add that first word, subject. And after that, you would remove the s after hearings and make the final a small f instead of capital f. Supervisor peskin say that aga okay. Clerk the last request that we have is that online 13, 4. 27 is instructing or authorizing the board to have oral motions for a i guess this would be for an oath of the full board for an oral motion, there is an existing board rule i believe it is 6. 7, which is about subpoenas and we could collapse the language that you have here into 6. 7 of the board rules. So basically, just have organizational requests, nothing substantive. Chair ronen okay. Just so we dont lose track here, can i entertain a motion to approve changes articulated by the clerk of the board . Okay. Without objection, that motion passes. [gavel]. Chair ronen okay. First, i wanted to make sure i fully understood supervisor peskins amendment, which is that in order to administer the oath, the person would have to be, prior to that, subpoenaed by the board. Supervisor peskin at any point, a vote, pursuant to an oral motion, directed the issuance of a subpoena, the individual who was subpoenaed would testify under oath. As compared to the way its currently written, which is in section 3. 3. 1, it says that the members of the Government Audit Committee could decide whether or not the oath should be administered or not. And so the question that ms. Pearson raised with me yesterday is whats the standard . And in reality, the handful of subpoenas that have been issued, all of those individuals testified under oath. So, i mean, this is not going to happen very often, one would presume. Chair ronen right. Supervisor peskin and if its somebody coming thats that weight, a subpoenas been issue, i think under 3. 3. 2, they just all testify under oath. Chair ronen okay. That makes sense to me. Okay. So i was one of the three people a few years ago who voted against this almost identical law. Supervisor peskin and youre now a cosponsor. Chair ronen and now, im a cosponsor, and i wanted to explain that. Three years ago, i was brandnew to the board, and i thought that it was this is a very serious power. The ability to subpoena someone under the penalty and power of percenta perjury is quite serious and should be taken carefully, the power. And my concern is all the corruption that has been uncovered in San Francisco, you know, with all the news stories, that journalists have uncovered, with the admission by our mayor have now involved at least four City Departments. This is incredibly serious, and unfortunately, the board has a very limited capacity to do anything about it. Not only that, we dont even know what investigations are potentially taking place. We know that the city important is investigating, but we know that the City Attorney is investigating, but we dont know about the investigation. We dont know if the District Attorney is investigating, we dont know if the f. B. I. Is investigating, and we dont know if the Ethics Commission is investigating. That is because all of those parties have to do so with a degree of confidentiality, and the board of supervisors isnt any more apprised of what those investigatio investigations encompass than the members of the public. Ive had constituents ask me word of corruption has been there at city hall forever, and why havent you done anything about it . And its frustrating to us that we dont have more power to do something about it because, you know, as someone who believes in governments basic ability to take care of people who cannot take care of themselves, we cannot have the faith of people if there is low level or high level corruption happening at all times. Unfortunately, its become such a part of the culture in this city and county that we must use all the power at our disposal to root it out once and for all. That is why i have changed my mind on this piece of legislation, so much so that i am now a cosponsor of it. Having said that, it makes perfect sense to me that City Employees are exempt from this power. City employees are protected by unions, are protected by laws, and the h. R. Department, and theres various ways to deal with problems that are deeply part of our lives here in San Francisco. But i do not understand why Department Heads are not included in this. Department heads have inordinate responsibility in our city and county. They are the managers and should know whats happening in their departments, and i think that we should add them as parties to this law where the board of supervisors is able, when appropriate, to subpoena Department Heads and administer the oath of office where the government audit and Oversight Committee thinks that possible. I know there is some concern about overuse of this law, and what i would say is that lets see, lets try it out. Lets see what happens. Does the g. A. O. Overuse its power . Well, we can scale it back if we need to. But right now, it is incumbent on any city official to root out the widespread corruption in this city once and for all. We must restore the faith of every san franciscan, and our process must be above board. So id like to see what everybody thinks about it. Supervisor mar . Supervisor mar thank you, chair ronen. Actually, id like to thank supervisor peskin for bringing this motion forward. As current chair of the government audit and Oversight Committee, i agree with you and also with chair ronen about the importance of this motion and in really streamlining the boards ability to issue subpoenas and administer oaths at this point. And i you know, i wholeheartedly agree that, you know, right now, you know, with ongoing and and widening investigation into corruption in multiple departments in the city, you know, and in the investigation by multiple parties, its very important for the boards role in providing oversight and even looking at new policies to address the widespread corruption here at city hall to that these stream lined power of subpoenas and administering of oaths is very much needed right now, so thanks again for bringing this forward. I would like to be added as a cosponsor. Chair ronen supervisor haney . Supervisor haney thank you, and thank you, supervisor peskin and ronen, for bringing this forward. So i want to understand a little bit more of this piece around the City Employees. So currently in the legislation, City Employees are completely excluded or supervisor peskin so through the chair to supervisor haney. No. The board has unfettered power to subpoena any employee. When this came through previously, board local 21 was concerned about not about Department Heads, who they do not represent, but about rankandfile employees, engineers, architects, and the ability of a subset of the board, namely two of three members of the board who are members of the Government Audit Committee, having that file over rankandfile employees. So we added that to local 21, but the board has unfettered power to call City Employees. I absolutely support modifying this again to make it clear that government heads would be responsible to a government audit subpoena. Supervisor haney that makes sense, the change, and id love to be a cosponsor. Supervisor peskin so colleagues, i think we have a number of changes, and if they are acceptable to you, we can have miss pearson craft those between now and your next meeting. Chair ronen that sounds great. Miss pearson . Deputy City Attorney ann pearson. May i ask a question . There is a restriction to administer an oath to a city employee, but i dont see a restriction currently on the power to issue a subpoena. I want to clarify that to the extent that you are trying to make clear that you may issue a subpoena to a Department Head, the restriction is not currently there. Supervisor peskin good point. I think what we would like to do is make sure the subpoena is applicable to a Department Head. Chair ronen can you explain that again, supervisor peskin. Supervisor peskin thank you for that catch. Why dont we make it clear that the committee could administer the oath for a Department Head but not other City Employees. Chair ronen okay, great. Before we move on, i wanted to open this item up for Public Comment. Is there any member of the public who wishes to speak . Seeing none, Public Comment is closed oh, wait, sorry, yes, we do have. Come on up. Good morning. My name is jerry dratler, and i served on the civil grand jury twice. We do know that City Attorney herrera is not an objective investigator. I support supervisor peskins motion to expand the subpoena powers of government audit Oversight Committee. I believe the expansion needs to include all City Employees. Further, the idea that a corrupt City Government can investigate itself is illogical. San francisco needs to bring a private investigator with sterling reputation and integrity to root out corruption that currently exists. This is the only path forward for restoring the publics confidence in City Government. Thank you very much. Chair ronen thank you. Next speaker . Thank you so much, supervisor peskin, for introducing this legislation. We are facing one of the most pernicious situation in San Francisco, the homeless crisis that were facing, we do see Department Head acting improperly and irregularities are about, so we do need your legislation. However, as my colleague noted, we do need to have the power to subpoena City Employees. When youre investigating a department such as d. P. W. , we want to know who knew it, when they knew it, and what effect this knowledge had on city affairs. To echo what mr. Dratler said, we actually filed complaints regarding d. P. W. And their law splits several times and the City Attorney actually dismissed it. So in events like this, who are you going to subpoena to find out what went on . I will bring to you another situation, that only weeks after this investigation started, mayor breed appoints mr. Hillis, rich hillis was utterly unqualified, you know, for the job. The two qualifications, minimum requirements that were posted for this job was never met. This was unfair to women of color who applied for this job, and they deserve to be heard. Thats why we implore you to investigate how mr. Hillis was appointed to this job. Why is it that, you know, someone didnt have 12 years of planning experience, city and regional planning, that was cited in this job . Chair ronen thank you. Next speaker. Good morning, supervisors. Anastasia yannopolous. I support the motion. Its wise to bestow authority on the government audit and Oversight Committee to issue subpoena duces tecum and to produce documents, records, and other tangible objects that are relevant to an authorized investigation. However, unless supervision to exempt Government Employees is removed, its weak in this climate of corruption that youve all noted today. So i ask you to remove this exemption. Were still reeling from the appointment of rich hillis as the director of San Franciscos Planning Department and ask why was he appointed without the required educational background and experience while women of color were passed over . Thank you. Good morning, supervisors. Thank you for addressing this crisis, and i do not think its too strong a word. I think we do have a crisis. And also thank you for extending the proposed legislation of Department Heads. I would like to ask while we respect the independence and the rights and privileges of our bargaining unit employees, where theres a level of senior staff below Department Heads thats not represented, i dont know, but whether theres a level of senior staff that are below senior staff but not represented, as well, so we need to be reaching as department as we can in to staff when we extend this power. Thank you very much. Linda chapman. Im going to speak for the late, great nob hill homeowners. For 14 years, 15 years, when i was the principal organizer, im not aware of any situations except or for one or two. I became again after our membership director unfortunately decided to dissolve the operation because we were no longer meeting at city hall every week. We suddenly had these groups calling themselves lower polk neighbors, for example. What could be more corrupt i started by telling the supervisors good people were driven out. Sent us corrupt managers, chris schulman, and whoever his assistant was. And they tell us those are community stakeholders, you know, the most corrupt people that could possibly ever be, and people had no chance if they went to the Planning Commission. People at the Planning Commission were nodding their heads in agreement, that they were agreeing to do things that these corrupt people would go in, make a vote. I couldnt be a member. They wouldnt let me pay dues because then, i could vote. They were being paid to do this. They were making money, and in many cases, they were being paid by the city like now. These corrupt people who claim theyre stakeholders and doing things against the neighborhood, and being encouraged, also, by the innocent chair ronen thank you so much. Is there any other member of the public who wishes to speak on this item . Seeing none, Public Comment is closed. Miss pearson, youre clear about the amendments fantastic. So i will make a motion to continue this item to the next rules Committee Clerk youd like to accept the amendments first . Chair ronen well, can we do that or do you need to draft them first . If they have been sufficiently described here, you may vote on them, and i will draft a motion that states the vote. Chair ronen okay. Can we make a motion to do that . Okay. Then the motion passes. And we will hear that next on. Clerk march the 2nd. Chair ronen march the 2nd. Supervisor peskin see you next week. [gavel]. Chair ronen mr. Clerk, can you read the next item. [agenda item read]. Chair ronen thank you very much. And ill call up the applicants, and if you could keep your comments to approximately two minutes, that would be great. And im going to call you in order. Is hanley chan here . And then next, well call up jason chittivong. Good morni. Chair ronen good morning, mr. Chan. Good morning, supervisors. I want to thank you for the opportunity to reapply for the veterans commission. I spent my school here, former navy, former national guard. I want to continue my work. Im working on an ad hoc committee, working on getting a paid park. San jose, our nextdoor neighbor city, happy hall ooll park, if you show a veterans i. D. , you get in for free. Basically, thats what we should do for our veterans. I want to continue working on housing for our veterans and much, much more to do. Ill actually make it brief. Im supporting my partners, and thank you. Chair ronen thank you. Jason chittivong, an