tv [untitled] September 8, 2013 10:30pm-11:01pm PDT
outside of the area prohibit, the senior management from approving the application as if they were staff and have the contract staff verify the signature and permit applications with that professional's application for license renewal with the state. have applicants submit a page of photographs signed by a licensed professional that show the existing condition. finally based on my experience, you must hire a new director from outside of your own department. by selecting no senior managers at the root of the 15 percent problem. thank you. >> thank you. >> next speaker, please?
page 2, there is a comment responding to the 2007 business process reengineering study that was done as you know, six years, there were over 180 specific recommendations. saying that 25 of them were fully implemented six years later, is indicative of the problem. and i would like to make another comment. and this is the one that is particularly upsetting to me. on page 9. the department partially disagrees. it would be helpful if the specific area of disagreement was enumber rated with the grand jury finding 6 as it does not believe that the existing code policy and practices have resulted in the backlog of unresolved violations.
in fact, historical data, indicates that the department has successfully abaited 95.5 percent of complaints and notices of violation against 2000. that is 13 years ago. and we have a current problem. and specifically, in our report, and i worked on this, we reviewed all notices of violation, for the years 2008, 2009, 2010, we did not do a sample. we reviewed all 8,875 notices of violation. 766 of those in those two years went to a director's hearing, and only 62 percent were abaited. that means that the process is 38 percent ineffective. and the report that we mentioned that 11 percent of the nlvs this is all of them,
we reviewed were never closed out. and the rate for the building electrical and plumbing code division is 18 percent. 18 percent issued by the division in 2008, 9, and 209/10 remain open this indicates that there is a problem. these three divisions refer five percent of the open nlvs to a director's hearing, and this is half of the weight of the housing inspection division. and the housing inspection issues twice as many novs as the three other division and collects 8 times, the penalty assessments. >> finish your comments. >> in the fire meeting which i was unable to attend, the
community out reach people, commented on how well the housing inspection division inspectors worked with them and the housing seems to be doing much better than the dbi as a whole. and there appears to be serious process or procedure problems in the area of building code enforcement, and a root causes analysis needs to be conducted to determine where problems exist, and solutions need to be proposed by dbi to address the problems. >> thank you. >> thank you for your service on the grand jury. >> any more public comment? >> seeing none, >> we need to vote on this item. >> yes. >> call the question.
>> this discussion of possible action to approve the response of the civil grand jury report? >> would you like to add and include the comments that were made today? >> or made, or maybe we can continue it until next meeting one more time? >> no. >> i mean we are meeting on the tenth? would another draft be ready by then? >> commissioner walker? >> i am not as support it the way that it is and i would like to, if we all to be on the same page i think that we need to listen to the input and have more discussions about this. i think that the goal of this is to try and help us with our two-year plan. and i think that this business for engineering blueprint that we came up so long ago is good, and appropriate.
and if we implement it, i think that it will do a lot to address some of the remaining issues that we have all been listening to for the last year. i mean we have had folks coming from the public talking about the lack of code enforcement and we have seen the numbers, and it does not really jive with what is in here. and as far as code enforcement and the number of cases that we resolve. and you can always take a slice out of any kind of history and get the numbers that you want, but i think that over all, we are all trying to achieve the same goal, and i think that as a commission, trying to emphasize our priorities and implementing the business reengineering plan, and resolving some of these lingering issues, and so, i don't think that we need to take a defensive stand on this and i think that we can itterate this in a way to acknowledge to move forward and the necessary steps left and i
don't know, i think that we are getting there, but i think that there are some issues remaining that have been addressed. and certainly i have. so i would suggest that we continue this, and hopefully take the unput and we have and sort of hone it a little more. >> i would just support that. >> yeah. >> basically i think that everything has been said that has to be said from where i am sitting obviously commissioners feel differently. and we seem to be going around and focusing on the same issues that have been in the novs and so on and i believe that the report has addressed those and i don't think that we will have full con census, walker you will never be happy with the report and you are clear about that and i respect that position, but as a format and
as it is written i don't think that we could have proven it better. if you want to continue it, we have to be mindful of the fact that we have to decide on this before the 16th. do you want to continue to the next hearing? i don't see where we are going to change way much more. or add more that has not already been addressed in the report. it is not 100 percent for everybody, obviously, but as it is written, right now and as it is in front of us right now, i believe that it holds up for me and i would be my position today would be to vote for this and approve this so that they can follow this to the next level where we are trying to get the time frames are running short here and so i don't see any time delay here is going to change any out come of that. >> and hi, could i ask something of the city attorney just to walk us through what happens after this process because i think that i understand it but, i would love a refresher, so if we have a majority vote today, what is
the next step? >> john, from the city attorney's office, what is before you today is a response to the grand jury. if the commission by majority votes to submit that report, it would stand as the dbic statement or formal response with any amendments that might be suggested. if you do not pass it today, the item could be continued. and president mccarthy has pointed out that we have, there is a deadline that we are operating under, that we might would meet. in order to submit the response, it the dibc cannot reach an agreement by a quorum and then there will be no
formal statement from them and i assume as a document would submit a letter just on someone's behalf without including the part of that. >> isn't there a process that happens at the board of supervisors? that involves to be able to follow up on the recommendations of the civil grand jury that were not addressed in the reports if it is not continual and regardless of whether or not, we all agree on this? >> i have actually not formally, reviewed what the following steps would be after submission, of the response, i could get back to you on that at another hearing and we could march through whatever the subsequent steps might be. >> okay, thank you. >> when we do submit the
response to the judge, it will note how we all voted on the response, would that be clear? >> you could include what the vote is, that could be included certainly. >> and so, what i would like to call is i would like to call the vote on it today and pass this on up. and so we can go to the next level. and that could get a second on that. >> second. >> on that motion? >> i second it. >> yeah. >> there is a motion and a second. >> to approve the response. and a roll call vote? >> excuse me, would that include the comments that were made by the commissioners today? or the letter as it has been submitted and is before you?
>> my position is as the letter has been submitted and it is before us. unless, the other commissioners want to weigh in on that. >> i would like to add that the results of the vote and the comments before it as well. one more time? >> i would like to add that the results of the vote and the comments of today's meeting be forwarded as well. >> i have no objection to that. >> i am sorry, are you amending the motion then? >> yes. >> okay. >> and he had no objection. >> i have no objection. >> the results of the vote, so, by commissioner, and as a result of the votes and the comments of today's meeting, be forwarded to the judge as well. >> okay. >> and before our vote, i want to look at page 9. and ask through the chair to
commissioner walker, that does this red section, at the bottom of page 9 point towards where you believe the department should move? >> absolutely and it is inconsistent with the headline of not agreeing and so that is my point is if the text of all of this we agree with, the recommendations. and then we proceed to defend ourselves and i don't think that we need to do that. >> okay. >> that is my point about the whole thing and it is not like you know, nana na we do bad, it is that we have ways to go to achieve our own goals. and i think that the civil grand jury took our plans from 6 years ago, and said, you are
now living up to it and we are trying to defend the fact that we are not living up to it. and this is not a punishment kind of thing and i think that we agree with what the grand jury has said and so my problem is the inconsistentcies within the report and i know that everybody has been tried to be included in it. but we say that we disagree and then we go along to say how we are going to do what they say, which is agreeing that what they are saying is factual or that we agree with it. >> so, i think that if i read this report, it basically supports what the grand jury has said and then, at several points along the way it throws in these we disagree with it but then we are going to, but yeah, it is in our plan, and in our mission, but so, i can't, i agree and to answer your
question, yes, i do agree with that. >> based on commissioner mar's amended, does the staff have time to do some of this editorial work? to bring about that kind of consistency that we have lifted up here today? >> commissioner lee, why don't you ask your question? >> there is not so much a question, but a comment that i want to make. after the last meeting, i submitted my comments to them to give to mr. shrine and i have a conversation with him about my comments because i had a little trouble of saying either we disagree or we agree. and it is sort of like black or white and it is really not that, it is more like this is what our department wants to do and what they want to do to
move towards a certain goal. and so i left it up to him and i say, why don't you put my words into either i agree or disagree, because i can't do it myself. so from what i read here, it is consistent with what the department and what the bic wants to do but if we are hung up on whether we disagree or agree with the grand jury report, i would suggest that we not take it as black and white and just say yes, the content of this reply is consistent and let's vote on it that is what i am thinking. i have if we can revise it one more time if it needs to if we are going to be vote on this and it is tabulated and we agree to this reply or not, i think that i am okay with that because this report incorporated my comments from last time. >> and thank you commissioner lee you helped me out in
response to yours, commissioner? >> okay. i am looking for the spirit of this and i believe that we captured the spirit of what we are trying to do here. we will agree to disagree on certain aspects but this is the closest from where i am sitting to get. kicking it down the road to next week so that we can add on comments and i don't see what we are going to achieve there, what is in front of us captures as best as i can see what we are all feeling. and in the spirit of this, this is the position that we are taking. and so, commissioner melgar. >> i am someone that actually likes consensus and getting the discussion and on the same page. i unfortunately do think that we are in a position dictated by the process to agree or disagree. i think that it is not something that where we can just sort of rely on the nuances and so, because if we agree with the findings, you
know, essentially an audit of the process and if we agree with the finding and then we are committing to adjusting them in a certain way, if we disagree, then we don't have that responsibility and we can still say, yes, all of these things are true, but, we don't commit, you know, to the auditers, you know, findings, of where a processes are, in the two things where i think that we are vulnerable is and i am sorry that you did not get to the meeting and didn't hear commissioner mar's comments and the two areas are about the notices of violations and about the system, you know, where our public, and comes in and gets routed and so, you know, to not acknowledge that there is a public perception, whether or not it is based on fact, and we need to close the door to a lot of folks who are out there looking at us and as commissioners to represent the
public, and so since i am the person in the public seat i have a responsibility to acknowledge that people are thinking this and so was it based on fact. but where it is not, where there is, you know, a factual basis in which we acknowledge in our comments ethose two areas i think are problematic in the wording that we do not agree with the findings because i think that we should say that we partially agree or we agree and these are the areas where we commit to doing some work. >> commissioner walker >> thank you very much for pulling it together like that. and i totally agree with your input and i mean to the point of, you know, when we talk about code enforcement, and you know, what we do in this is take a slice, that proves our
disagreement, or something, and i think that it is counter productive to this, or to what isintended. >> and when i compared this grand jury report to the one that was done, a while back, we have made huge strides and everybody in our department should be proud of that. because we have. and there are things remaining that we need to do and that is what the focus is on and i think that i have been in these meetings a long time with all of you and we have all talked about all of this and it is not a surprise, and that is why i totally agree is how we lead this off and how we enter into this response is really important to bring together how to do things even better. i mean, i think that it is important enough the spirit of it, is important enough, that i would not support it with those issues not addressed.
i will support it if we do address it and the issues that we have laid out and commissioner melgar has put. >> okay. >> after my question, does the staff have time to make edits on the base of what has been said today. >> i think that for one thing, i can't see, where... because i, and as my fellow commissioners will put, and i have kind of feel differently and i believe that we are in the process and i believe that the report is doing, its job in report that it is going to address our concerns and the problem that we have here and i think that we are a mixed here of the department being kind of as a (inaudible) where it is being, it is changing and it is trying to get things, in line, and it takes time, and i think that what the commissioners are asking for, is something that we can't deliver by next week on the 10th, and what i am trying to convey is, when we know that we have consensus on
every issue and we agree to disagree and we do understand the concerns but i believe that the report as is, right now is as close as we are going to guess out of the commission, so, rather than try to transform and i don't think that we are going to change it by next week, i want to be real about this and say that i think that it is important at this stage that we move this forward, in its condition and dually noted with the comments of the commissioners who disagree on the issues, and at that, i think that answers, everybody's concerns, and nobody is going to say that they are voting on this blankly and say that we approve this and you do disagree with the aspects of it as a commissioner and that is just the best that he can do at this point. >> commissioner mar. >> one of the time constraints but i feel that we could resolve it easily with two amendments. which i am going to make now, one is that we change 0.4 to
disagree to partially agree and the same thing with the novs which allows us to do exactly what commissioner melgar and mccray were talking about and we still have work to do. and we don't agree with everything that the grand jury said we we want to address the systems and the favoritisms and address the novs and not just from housing and from the other departments as well. and so, if we could do those two things, i would vote for it. >> me too. >> me too. >> and mr., strong, please? >> is there commissioners we are under a time constraint. >> we are always under a time constraint. >> and we love this is what we do to ourselves. >> and this is a good conversation and so it is
healthy for us and i would like to see this as true. and how do you feel about those words in there, would you think that the department, and obviously, the acting director is not here now, but it is important that we have the universal consensus here. >> i think that the director will agree and i am certainly not going to oppose the will of the commission here. >> so with that, commissioner mar it looks like we have consensus and it if we could, would you one more time state for the secretary the wording and with that friendly amendment which mr. strong will add in before sending it up, and we will vote on that. and yeah. >> okay. item number 4, the department partially agrees with the civil grand jury finding, and i will leave the other wording to you,
and code enforcement, where, that would be finding number six. that the department partially agrees. >> got it. >> it is good stuff, very good. >> all right. >> with that, could you call the question? >> there is a motion and a second to approve a response with the amendments that commissioner mar mentioned. >> in may i just point out that in number four there are two paragraphs that we would disagree, and so we just need to... >> just take everything that said disagree and partial. >> and change the grammatical structure to support. >> okay. >> the change. >> okay. >> yeah. >> okay. all right. so, with that, can we call... are you madam secretary? are you okay with everything? >> could i... >> i am fine with it. whatever you guys would like.
>> on 5, 1, about the board of supervisors needing to follow up and stuff. >> i mean that i don't know that we need to disagree with that, because we don't have the authority to do it, but, i don't know that we should disagree, it does not really point to us, so, you can take it or leave it if it is in there. >> well, yeah. >> it is kind of how can we disagree with that? >> would you do me a favor and when you are putting it together and you know, kind of look over there and maybe you could give the call to commissioner? >> and father. >> and say it is no our. >> i don't think that the commissioners have a weigh on that. >> call the question. >> i am just going to ask for clarification. >> yes. >> so the motion which has been amended a number of times, and
in summation is to approve the letter as it has been prepared, and with the editorial comments that the commissioners offered earlier in the hearing. before we start to discuss the vote. and in addition it will be the amendments that commissioner mar has just offered to two of the provisions. yes. >> >> okay, now we will take a roll call vote on that motion with the amendments. >> president mccarthy? >> yes. >> vice president mar? >> yes. >> commissioner clinch. >> yes. >> commissioner lee? >> yes. >> commissioner mccray. >> yes. >> commissioner melgar. >> yes. >> walker. >> yes. >> and the motion carries unanimously. and to item number 3, public and employee appointment. the director of the department of building inspection, discussion and possible action
to interview candidates for the position of the director of the department of building inspection. just like to make a brief announcement regarding this item. the bic will start its closed session here at city hall and the closed session of the meeting will be moved to an undisclosed off site location and when the position of the meeting is complete the bic will reconvene in public at ddi offices 1660 mission street and on whether to disclose any or all of the discussions held in closed session, this public portion of the meeting at dbi offices at 1660 mission will not be televised. >> and item 3a, public comment on all matters pertaining to the closed session. >> is there any public comment? >> seeing none, item 3 b. possible action to convene a closed session, is there a motion. >> i move that we move to the closed session. >> second. >> okay. >> and our commissioners in
name is michael sweet. chair of the san francisco human rights commission. it's my honor and privilege to welcome you all to tonight's special meeting of the san francisco human rights commission which we have called to coincide with the 50th anniversary of the march on washington and martin luther king jr.'s i have a dream speech. no