Transcripts For SFGTV 20111107 : vimarsana.com

not very well developed on this issue, there have been a couple of cases, but we have not been given enough guidance yet, but it is possible that that could be subject to disclosure. i want to make sure you are all aware of that. ok, so now we know what a meeting is. we can go on to public notice. of course, all of your public meetings have to be noticed, and your secretary is an expert in that in making sure that is done properly, and that notice includes your agenda, and you cannot act on any matter or discuss any matter that is not on your agenda. i think you all are well aware of this issue, and just a reminder, it includes discussion. an item that is not on your agenda. director: can i ask for a clarification of the process? sure. director: for an item to be on the agenda. the way that that works is that your agendas are sent by the director of transportation and the president or the chairman of your board, who sets the agenda and decides when items will come before the board, so an individual board member does not have the authority to command that a certain item appeared on the agenda at a certain time. that is how the process works. president nolan: but as often happens, and during comments, as director brinkman did, that is that is ok, because you are hearing from the board, know what items the individual members went on, and you are discussing it with the director, especially if it requires some kind of staff action or staff report. you are making sure. you are doing that in your function as a chair as administrative matter to make sure that everything can come before the board in due course. and there is no problem with individual board members stating what they would like to have on the agenda, telling the executive director, that they would like to have something on the agenda, asking the chair to place it on the agenda. that is perfectly fine. that is what you do. there are some exceptions to the rule about not discussing items on the agenda. they are extremely rare, but there are some in emergencies. you sometimes will be able to discuss matters that are not on the agenda. of course, our office would be giving you advice about this. i have been in this office for 22 years, and i think the only time i have ever seen this happen was after loma prieta. and this goes back to your question, about not discussing items on the agenda. it does not prevent people from asking to put something on a future agenda, from a board member following up on public comment, for asking for clarification about what their concern is, a public common with the reference to staff or other resources or asking staff to report back on something that a member of the public is commenting about. so one of the other tenants for public meetings is that the public has a right to comment at all public meetings. they have the right to comment anonymously. your secretary asks for people to provide a speaker card, and that is fine, but if the speaker does not want to fill a speaker card, they have a right to address you. they have the right to criticize the policy body, criticize members of the policy body, to criticize staff. again, they need to keep on topic. and they do not have the right to discriminate against members of staff, make discriminatory comments. that, again, is a matter that the deputy who is present would be advising about if you got into a situation like that. speakers have a right to equal time. you must give speakers equal time on the particular item, and speakers have the right to translation. the members of the public that do not speak english have a right to have their comments translated, and one more point of clarification because we have had that come up a bit, our understanding is, for example, if we are giving three minutes of public comment, and the person needs translation, it is three minutes for their comments and three minutes from the transmitter, but if they are translating their own comments, it is a total of three minutes. i think that is right, click. madam chair, three minutes for the speaker, and then i do not time and all the translator. the limits on public comment, speakers have up to three minutes on an item. i know you are all familiar with this. sometimes you get less for everybody. they do not have the right to speak off topic or to discuss other meetings. they do not have the right to a response from the board or staff members. that is absolutely discretionary. and they do not have the right to discriminate against city staff. can i? so the no right to speak off topic, sometimes in a meeting we have some guy talking about steve jobs, just going off, and there was another person who came up and sang a song in the past, and i am wondering i understand that they do not have the right to do that so to speak, but i am just curious as to how we should be handling those things in the future because i also want to encourage a sense of discipline from within this room, and i am wondering president nolan: the singer, i understand that he addresses the board, and it is topical. i had someone injected it from the room by sheriff s because he just would not stop. it was a very tense situation. in the event that it was kind of widespread and people would not respect that, we have the ability as in the chair to ask for a recess and actually clear the room, but you have to allow them back in, is my understanding, there may be only a few at a time. yes, and i have definitely seen that happen. it can be quite effective. it can be really effective to recess the room, to allow people to calm down, to tell people that you want to go on to the meeting and that you want to hear from them and that you do not want them to shots of the people can be heard. i have seen that on more than a few occasions. i have never seen a chair just let a few people back in at a time, but our office has advised that you can do that if it is absolutely necessary. president nolan: there is something that takes their 2 billion minutes, and they are speaking about something that is fairly jermaine, it is sometimes easier to let them finish. director: maybe some directors do not like that so much. that is what i have seen cheers do, interrupt the speaker and say this is the topic, or we are on this item. you can comment on this item, or we are in general public comment. do you have something to say about things that are under our jurisdiction, and generally that leads to it. you do have a situation sometimes where people for whatever reason, maybe because of a mental disability, really cannot stay on topic, and i think years handle it in different ways. director: i have been thinking that you have done a good job so far , so the thank you. president nolan: we had a meeting before the was almost seven hours long. the policy body has to meet in public, and you are allowed to meet in closed sessions in very limited circumstances. personnel matters, pending litigation, labor negotiations, realistic negotiations. there are a few others that occur from time to time. in terms of closed session, one of the most important things to know is that although some actions that you have taken must be disclosed when you return to open session, and, of course, the board votes after every closed session about whether it wants to disclose the closed session. in general, the closed session is confidential, and if the board has voted to not disclose, then the material, what was said, is confidential, and it is a violation of state law for individual board members to disclose the closed session discussion. president nolan: have you ever seen in 22 years someone disclose it? no, i had never seen the city go after someone. director: what is it that allows us to all go to something like the recent streetcar presentation? if it is open to the public, maybe a public meeting, but it is not your public meeting. it is the meeting of a state board or a federal board, it is a ceremonial gathering or other gatherings, or even a social gathering that is not put on by you, that is not, for example, a christmas party. it happened to be in your circle, and more than a majority showed up. the important thing to remember there is not using that gathering as an opportunity without thinking about it to talk about things that are under your jurisdiction. thank you. president nolan: not coming to my house for christmas. secretary boomer: some members of the public that when it to discuss with you, but seeing we have no closed session. president nolan: do we need a motion to adjourn? so moved. we are adjourned. supervisor kim: good afternoon and welcome to rules committee. i will be chairing today s committee. we want to enologist at acknowledge the staff at sfgov tv. madame clerk, are there any announcements? the items recommended will go to the full board on tuesday, november 15 unless otherwise indicated. item number one, hearing to consider appointing to members for january 31, 2013 s january 31, 2014. supervisor kim: unhook all the applicants are here today. we will be asking the same for the four of you to talk about your background briefly and your interest in serving on this commission. afternoon. thank you for your time and consideration. i am a san francisco native, my birthday is november 11, this friday. i have lived in annapolis, maryland. i was on staff at the u.s. naval academy where i attended school years ago. i enlisted in the navy after high school and have the opportunity to go to the naval academy. my military service and to my staff has been very useful to me throughout my career. now i will be 52. my wife and i returned to san francisco this last year and are excited to be back in the community. we made the decision that we wanted to get more active in our community and do things that we thought were, leverage the benefits and experiences we have had in our life to the benefit of those that have not necessarily been so privileged. i have seen that with the veterans that i know. others have struggled for various reasons with the simulation but with assimilation back to the world. health care and substance abuse issues, lots of things like that. i learned of this commission and immediately turned in my application. i am excited about the opportunity, i think this is an interesting group. i appreciate that the board of supervisors and the mayor take this kind of council from folks that come from different perspectives. supervisor kim: think you for your interest and also in getting real engaged with the san francisco community. what are some of your interests? have you attended any of the meetings? i have not. as i looked through their web page, i have primary interests. i am a development officer at st. mary s college. we have 31 veterans, and many did check on that today. one is career services. i have seen a lot of my friends come out and have trouble leveraging their experiences and communicating the value of their experiences to the civilian world. and the second is education. i had the benefit of the gi bill that allowed me to get my master s degree, but i have seen others struggle with that. it is not as simple as having those benefits available. how do you take advantage of that, how do you deal with family life and work life and to stay committed to that cause? there were hot to specific areas where i have not been helped. you said you applied a year ago? as soon as i came back. there was an open seat a year ago, but this is the first contact have had with the city. supervisor kim: jordan towers. good afternoon, a supervisor. i am in the iraq war veteran. i served in the united states marine corps in the infantry. i returned home and moved to the bay area, started a veterans group at the city college of san francisco and became the most successful program in the country. the only school the offers a program just for veterans. it was the first school in the country to bring in on campus to serve veterans. we also built a state of the arctic veteran center specifically for the needs of returning veterans. i have always been a part of veterans activities within the city. i am also the founder of returning veterans in san francisco, a couple months ago the board of supervisors unanimously passed support of a job fair, that is strong. i was contacted to get this started and i contacted the other vets that i know, high net worked with veterans from all of the campuses in the bay area. and we were able to make that happen. i am also a veteran advocate of the organization that has been helping out veterans since 1974. i work on the institute for veteran policy and under the resources and development, there i have been for the ring emission and helping out veterans. i hope to do that here. one question, have you attended any previous meetings? i have been active in the community and i have attended meetings and lent a helping hand wherever possible. >supervisor kim: what are your interests have your wanting to pursue as commissioner? one way that my generation communicates is on line. i would like to establish whether three. shows that we can establish about reached of veterans. second is jobs, jobs, jobs. veterans are desperately struggling and i believe in setting up a data base within the city to give veterans employed. supervisor kim: thank you. next is dorothy guy. jou tseng cannot make it today. i move in to sentences go for and i moved to san francisco in june of 2007. in 2003, i went to iraq as military police to serve in baghdad. i would love to be part of this commission, because i feel with the amount of debt coming back vets coming back, there are no issues that are unique, like unemployment and women s care. we have a good understanding of how to treat these issues. supervisor kim: same question that i asked to the other applicants, did you attend meetings and you already mentioned that you want to outreach to the current generation of veterans. are there specific goals he would like to accomplish as commissioner? i have not attended the meetings as of yet, but i am very interested. my goal, this war was the first time that women was owere ont the front lines. i want them not only to survive but overcome everything we have gone through. supervisor kim: i am seeing no further questions, thank you for your time. at this time, i will be opening up for public comment. good afternoon, supervisors. i have a commissioner on the veterans affairs commission serving as secretary. i am here today to advocate for two of the candidates. jordan tower who has come to several of our commission meetings and advocated strongly in support of some of the issues that we have advocated to the city government. particularly, i am speaking about the issue of veterans courts, which are successful in some parts of the state, and we wrote a resolution and passed it on to the mayor and the board of supervisors in support of legislation currently before the state legislature to establish some veterans courts. i believe the governor vetoed that on the basis of fiscal problems, but we would like to see it pushed and reestablished. jordan has been familiar with the plight of some of the veterans in san francisco, and some of them have gotten in trouble and have been working with the sheriff s department to try to even in formally established some set aside understanding for the special problems that some of the veterans younger veterans, particularly are going through. not a free ticket for them, but a hand up. he has led his experience and expertise, even as a guest, before the commission and in several previous meetings. i know he will be a jewel in addition to the commission if he is seated. thank you. i look forward to working with him. supervisor kim: did i miss here? i thought you said you would be speaking on behalf of two? if i could take another moment. the other one would be the young lady that just spoke. we have had a lot of trouble and gone to a lot of work recruiting female veterans for this commission. we absolutely agree with the push that was made by the board of supervisors about two years ago to add specific seats to the commission designated for female veterans and also at the same time, while it was not written into the mandate, it was completely understood that what we were looking for was more representation what you were looking for was more representation by the post-9/11 veterans, the younger veterans because those are the ones whose problems we will be dealing with in great numbers in san francisco over the next few years. i just got an e-mail a little while ago yesterday from someone who essentially withdrew her name from nomination supervisor kim: she has not withdrawn. she just got a job. it was her first day. right. she just got a job, but she did say she would advocate in favor of