tv Government Access Programming SFGTV December 19, 2017 2:00am-3:01am PST
to the mayor's office and ever have to hear that we have to reduce our budget. also on the issue of resources, where are our resources being spent? are there outliers on our resources? the homeless in san francisco or that population is an outlier. we're going to see that in the next few quarters, i anticipate, because we're now doing a better job of trying to understand where resources should be going, but these are questions we need to be asking in the new year, so when the mayor asks us to reduce or budget, we can say well, mr. mayor, madam mayor, whoever it is, we're now doing homeless -- we're doing some type of homeless outreach or our services are now, you know, expanding in all of these different ways.
i don't know but just in the recent -- and maybe it's just this time of year, but there's been a lot of calls related to pg&e. so maybe it's annual. i'm not sure if it's just this time of year that this happens. i don't know. but what are these outliers? are we using this information and are we building the best budgets when it comes to budget time? i'd like more information on the station 49 hander and how it's reflected in our budget, and how it's reflected in their budget, as well. i appreciate the job that you do, mr. corso. i don't know how the city could possibly be in a deficit given
the place in our economy is with our unemployment at 4.1%. i can only imagine the problems we're going to have when we hit that downturn, because winter is coming. >> absolutely. thank you for your comments, and you touched on a lot of things, so if i'm missing anything, please let me know. to answer your question, i don't think we can get out of being asked for reductions up front. i think those are general instructions to all city departments. howeve however, in the past, what we have done and the commission has advocates we are in need of additional funding versus a reduction to any services. so what we have done in the past is if we have savings and revenues or something to account for a portion of our reduction, we've put those on the table, but we also say we don't feel we can absorb any
further reductions, and these are the reasons why. we've laid those out as part of our budget submission. so i think it's an ongoing conversation can the mayor's office, and they kind of emphasized this, that even department submitted what their target reduction was, that still wouldn't address the entire deficit problem that's being proposed. so it's an ongoing conversation with the mayor offi's office, we discussed those kind of things. so that's a discussion that we'll continue to have past the february deadline. with regards to station 49, i think it was trrd -- i don't have any information on the budget back then, but station 49, what that ambulance service looked like at that time is significantly different than what it looks like now, because those ambulances went into fire stations. the number of ambulances, the number of calls was dramatically less than what we
have now. especially in recent years, we've had dramatic increases in staff. so outside of the inflation, just the department and ems the department has now as compared to what it had originally was far greater than what the original amount was. and that's something we're continuing to work with, as we haven't seen call volumes slow down at all, we continue to work with the mayor office in response to that, in order to provide an adequate response time. we need to be properly resources from an ems perspective. >> and if i could mention quickly, that's an excellent point, but whether ems was a part of the department of health or the department, that growth would have been there any way. so if it was still in the department of health, that would be in the department of health budget, and i want to make sure that we have received that growth as well because we have taken on this -- and i believe that obviously, we --
it's natural. it makes sense that we would have that. but i want to make sure we get the budget that reflects that growth. >> and then, just in general, we do look at, and part of the budget committee, part of their work is to service different areas of the department. we try to get as diverse a group a possible so we have all ranks, all divisions, and we do a needs assessment and we look at some of the data providing on those specific items as far as additional funding requests to the mayor's office as part of our overall budget. did i hit on -- >> yes. >> okay. >> thank you. commissioner covington?
>> thank you, mr. president. i will yield the floor to the chief of the department. chief, did you still want to speak? >> at 11:15, i do have to part, but i'll seek to continue because i know there's another item i'm meeting with the police chief, the sheriff, and our new mayor. i just wanted to pretty much echo what mark -- what mr. corse had said. we really would alienate a lot of people if there was -- i'd love it to be that way, personally. everybody else in the public safety must reduce their operating budgets. in a field of 55, 60 departmen departments, i think that's a request that they're going to make across the board. however, it's, to your point, the ability to craft a very
good justification. we have in many cases, during many difficult years, with the assistance of the commission, to say we get it. however, this is why we feel we can't reduce or why we need more in some cases. you're absolutely right. it predated me as chief, but it was july 1st, 1997 that we took over the formerly paramedic division and entered them into our department, and there was good reason for that. along the way, there was somaics and pains people say did we inherit this huge monster, and i would say we inherit that was rightfully placed in the fire department. at best, there were eight to 12 ambulances during their peak period in the 90's, which to me
is very surprising. we struggle with having sometimes 25 and 26 at peak periods, so we've done a lot more. it would be interesting to take a look at the analysis in terms of what the budget was then, but i can tell you the budget was not that much. we're applying so many more resources, but to do that analysis, that would be very helpful. i'm a native san francisco, native neighborhoods, candlestick point will be a great addition, but an exciting point to this city's history. i think the work for us begins now, and it'll be extra challenging with some executive leadership changes over the course of the next, you know, few weeks to june to -- to july -- excuse me, january of 2020. but all the while, i think our justification will be the same no matter who is sitting in the executive seat, in that public
safety should matter, should be prioritized, and we -- we will have a justification to back up our arguments. that's all i wanted to add. thank you. >> thank you, chief. commissioner covington. >> thank you, mr. president. mr. corse, i'm sorry you have to be the messenger of this bad news. i'm feeling quite nervous about a number of, i'm sorry you hav to be the messenger of this bad news. i'm feeling quite nervous about a number o, i'm sorry you have to be the messenger of this bad news. i'm feeling quite nervous about a number of things. this proposed deficit of $709 million for the city, that is incredible, considering that we are currently in boom times. i hate to say it, but i really feel that, you know, the
economic downturn can be expected and that a recession really looms large in all of our lives. i -- we're on borrowed time, just like with earthquakes. if we don't have one today, that means we're one day closer to having one. this -- we've had quite a -- quite a good run economically, and thank goodness for the obama administration and janet yellin and everyone who worked so hard to make sure that the finances of the country were go good. but we can't -- excuse me. we can't continue this rate of growth, so there has to be some contraction in the market, and i'm concerned about there being the requisite contraction in the san francisco fire department and its budget.
so here comes my familiar drum about the general fund. we cannot, as a department, continue to depend solely upon the general fund. everybody goes to the general fund. when you have a request for a 2.5% reduction in each year, a cumulative 5% in the second year of our budget, we need to tap into outside resources. any budget that comes to us, you know, presented by you, mr. corso -- i'm not frustrated with you in any way. i'm just frustrated with this coming up year after year, and we're doing the same thing. we're handling our business the exact same way. we need to be able to go to
foundations and go to branchs of the federal government to tap into funds that are being offered. we don't have the grant writers that i keep talking about. this, to me, is a priority. this is a priority. i -- any budget that comes to me, as we sit here, as commissioners, i have to see that as a protected category. a new category but a protected category. there's home hand security funds, there are health funds. there are all kinds of funds that are available. there are foundations that have so much money related to public safety, related to all of these things, and we're still not doing our due diligence to make sure that that is something that we're at least in
competition for. we're not in the game at all. it's very frustrating for me to have to say this over and over again. i really suspect that with the downturn in the economy, it's not going to be a 5% reduction that's being requested. i think that is the starting point, knowing what little i know about finances. i think that is the starting point. i think that is a conservative number, that it could be 10%, and then, we're left flat footed. i know that you agree with me, so please don't take what i was saying as an attack on you. it's not an attack on you, but we have got to work smarter. and you know, we have brilliant people in the department.
we could -- we can do better, and we must do better. so i also had a question about the budget committee. who -- actually, this is a question for the president of the commission. which commissioners currently serve on the budget committee? >> i do, and -- i don't know. vice president nakajo? >> okay. so it's currently the president and the vice president, because i thought commissioner hardeman was on it at one point, at well. >> no. i chose not to be on it over the years. i'm very fortunate. >> okay. >> okay.
>> this is something we both feel is important, as well, commissioner covington, so we share your concerns. >> thank you. >> that we don't have a grant writer in the department. i know the police department has probably two or three. >> they have a staff of grant writers. they have three grant writers in the police department. >> so it is a priority, mr. corso. >> and i daresay they're not smarter than we are. let's get with it. >> i think mr. corso's got the message. >> and also, mr. president, to you, you have mentioned a number of times about the need for friends of the san francisco fire department, and rumor has it, sir, that you will be retired. >> wow. thank you for your suggestion. >> got more time for us. more time. >> you're more than welcome
from my suggestion. >> there's certainly a lot of money in the private sector that could be tapped to support our department. >> well, every time you have mentioned the friends of the fire department, i supported it. >> we did have one years ago, but it disbanded, but it's something that should be researched a little bit more, yeah, how we could reestablish that nonprofit entity. >> well, the nonprofit entity would have to be totally separate from the department. it would have to be a 501(c) 3, but i have always bought, since you first joined the commission, you have brought that idea up, and i have always thought that it was an excellent idea. >> well, the planning department has one, and a very successful one. it raises a lot of money each year to basically be used for training purposes for unbudgeted expenses of the
department personnel going to conferences and seminars and whatnot, so it's a good thing. >> the members of the department would love that, just love that. >> park and rec has one, as well. that's very true. all right. >> well, thank you very much, and mr. corso, i look forward to working with you on the budget. >> certainly. you too. >> write that grant writer in. thank you, commissioner covington. vice president nakajo. >> thank you very much, president cleaveland. thank you very much director corso. i appreciate this process because this process is what we've been working with since i've been here. i know that there's concerns on maybe modifying or changing the process. again, i appreciate it because you have always been able to walk us through the process,
and with these timelines and with these instructions, so when i see a deficit number and in terms of your presentation, the projected deficit that was referred to was 88 million fiscal year 18-19. excuse me? do i have this wrong? can you explain this a little bit more about projected deficit over the next two fiscal years, and we're talking about san francisco's projected deficit, correct, on page 7? >> absolutely. so as part of the joint report, the controller's office, mayor's office, and the budget office looked at projected deficits for the next five years, and assuming nothing changes, they stack on each other going outward. so in 18-19, which is the first
year, an $88 million deficit, and in the second year, it's $173 million. >> i appreciate it. with a total of 262 million. >> correct. >> you mentioned a figure of 1.5 and 3 million. is that our portion of cuts, for lack of a better semantic word? >> correct. so the rubbings of -- rubbing is 2.5% of the department's general budget. the remainor, about 50 or $60 million, which is what that's taken off of, so that's our original request for 1.5 million. >> these figures that you're bringing for the projected figures are about the same projects figures as we were
using last year. >> this year is similar to last year's request. >> all right. as an individual, in terms of the commission, but as a commissioner with the rest of our colleagues here, i can understand and digest 1.5 and three mill because that was similar to what the scenario was last year. i know we're in a quote, unquote, robust economy and have been. i know there's some talk of budget and deficit, which i don't take lightly, as well. i know that deficits will occur, but i have a tough time of reacting in terms of what that number is, because if i just kind of react or i project, those numbers can get real, real large. and as i look at numbers that are less than what i project in my mind, i have a tendency that oh, that doesn't seem to be that bad or projected.
honestly, commissioners, when i see an # 8 million rejected, fiscal 1819, and 173 million for 1920 fiscal year accumulated, i can understand that. i don't -- i'm going to use my vernacular. i don't get shook-up on it. because that 88 million, it seems like a better number than i've seen previously. i remember the years under mayor newsom, when we dealt with deficits budget year after budget year after budget year. i'm not going to say that i'm used to the process, but the budget process started with the our office and the mayor's office and instructions. so when i hear instructions of no more spending, i take that to heart. i understand the need of grant
writers, and i understand the need of other areas within the department, but i also understand, and this is just me and my expression, other areas of need within the department haven't even come close to fully funding beyond trying to get us into a full professional working fire department, and i know that these are words, and i know that we're trying to protect ourselves to be a modern, effective department or, as in some ways, a department for the 21st century. i know that. it's just a matter of how do we get to that is my particular question. i only say that again because when the newsom administration and the deficit affected us, there's a tendency, depending on who it is, for us to take one side or the other side. i know that we, as a fire department, are advocating for ourselves straight up. when someone gives an
instruction no new hires or everything rejects, i know it doesn't sit real well with us, but i'd rather be in control of our budget from this point forward, whether it's a projected deficit or other accumulated concepts. again, as the president said, i am for grant writers, as well, if we can be able to project that. it's just a matter of if we can, and i understand the advocacy that you've made, commissioner covington, for years, and i support that. it's just a matter of when we'll be able to do that. i must say that i get a little confes queasy when i look to the federal government for resources. maybe it's because of the current administration, but i
do know there are grants in certain foundations. i do know if we had the resources to seek out those funds, we would benefit from that, but i'm not sure how much dollars accumulated over years or time, because grants in my experience are usually one time or one time with two years or a presentation of justification. so if the concept is we can't get a staff budget within our city of grant writer, i.e., perhaps there's other measures in the department that we can do in terms of seeking out some kind of area of resources for that, so that's just my point on that. again, i don't know if it makes much sense to director kr orso as i express myself, because there's a lot of things, and i'm not done yet. ms-6, commissioner -- and i understand the comment where it
came from, but ems 6, to me, is our program. we're the ones that created it. i understand how the department or the department of health or the city needs to deal with the homeless issue or car booting in general, but ems 6, as i understand it, was again, a formation of our department under our services to directly look at a targeted population for given effects of our operation in terms of helping a citizen out. i think the departmental excess is a departmental pilot project, but no longer do i regard it as a pilots program. i regard it as a program that's working in conjunction with the other programs in the city, i.e., accumulated the navigation center or the alcohol dry center, but they have to work together within that. so i understand the concept of having accumulated or enough resources of dollars to do our job correctly. i understand that, and i
support that. being on the commission for a number of years, i remember when we, the fire department for -- the term was merge ambulance services from the department of health to our fire department. there was a lot of thinking and constants behind that, but we didn't have a lot of resources with that. through the cumulative years of our services with ambulance and ems services. 20 years now, chief gonzales, i think it is. >> yes, sir. >> i think we've done a pretty good job in terms of handling where we're at now, with the kind of service. i think we've learned a lot. i think we know what we're doing, and i think the directors and that expertise, within that resource, perhaps that's the justification that we might be able to make in terms of dollars. maybe not all dollars that supports the system, but dollars that are projected for the future services needs within the city and county
through ambulance services. so i know i'm rambling a little bit within that, but these are just kind of some of the points that i want to make because i know through the process of timelines, we have a deadline among ourselves. i snknow we've got a working committee. i know we've got to meet, and then, the process occurs. i do respect your comments, commissioner covington, in terms of the grant writers, and i do understand clearly, your commissioner veronese, in terms of making sure we have the adequate funds in our department. it is the process that we're talking about. so again, i just wanted to comment on that and not lessen the stress and strains of what we're going to be facing as a department and as a city. if y thank you, mr. president. >> thank you, mr. vice president.
commissioner hardeman. >> thank you, mr. president. i'll try to be brief. as we all know, you have family roots in the fire department. you chose to work in the office and not out in the field, so we know your heart's in the right place. the confusing part, and i keep going over this every year -- so this fire department is ordered to keep the stations open as full staffing all the time. that's the biggest part of our budget. so when it says 2.5%, 2.5% has co got to come from a lot of other places except where the largest portion of the budget is going. so how do you deal with that as a budget person for us -- as a financial officer, how do you address that because it's really 5% in some respects
because you're cutting so much from everything else. how do you deal with that or do you have a logical explanation? >> i mean, that's one of the difficulties, so the vast majority of our budget is dedicated to front line staffing, as you mentioned, and that's one of the issues that was brought up by a number of commissioners in the past. during the economic downturn, obviously, the cuts -- it would be much, much, more, and it was percentage wise in the past. but the problem was during the last recession, fortunately, we were able to keep open all of our station, but everything else is reduced, and we're still recovering from that, whether it's equipment, whether it's facilities, those kinds of things, and it's easy to say that, you know, we funded staffing at the stations, but to support that, there's so much more that goes into that, just -- the regular response, and that's where you get into the equipment, and that's where you get into kind of facility work and other supplies, and
that's where, unfortunately, during the last downturn, that's what we cut. fortunately, we have an equipment plan, we have some facility funding, so we're maki making stripes to catch up to where we should be, but in no way does that solve all of our problems or our needs. we're constantly struggling, even in good times, and in bad times, as well. >> well, the other question, mr. corso, is the itch will i indications of station 49, if we had to cut 2.5%, we'd have to layoff three ambulance drivers, and i don't think anybody knows how many people work in san francisco now, but if you look at the streets and the commute hours, you know it's a lot of -- a lot of people working here, and that number is questionable. who knows, and the tourists, and you have 35,000 hotel rooms
that are, like, 90% occupied, so that number -- >> 1.5 million every day. >> yeah, so the estimate would come from the expert, boma. that's part of their business is knowing that. i don't know if we've ever had this department staff to take care of 1.5 million people. but any way, that's not your problem. that's ours. so any way, that's just -- would there be a projection to layoff ambulance drivers or how would that work? >> i think the city has high day and night populations in history, and we've seen that in call volume that's continued to increase. so as we've done in the past few years, i think we would advocate for more resources on the ems side to battle that
increase. we're seeing -- there's some projection on the fire side, but longer time when we're talking about additional stations and additional resources to help kind of serve those new developments that are coming on-line, those are additional conversations we're going to be having with the mayor's office, but kind of with regards to the ems, we're, as we do every year, taking a look at call volume, demand, and what our resources are, and we'll be asking for additional resources to keep up with the demand and serve our patients. >> but the 2.5, that would be exempt, sort of like the stations are exempt. >> i think we would look at that globally and continue the discussions with the mayor's office to meet the services that are demanded of us all over the department. >> 'cause our on time performance is remarkable now compared to what it was not too long ago, so we'd hate to have a budget cut and reduce that. so that was good news. i'm glad you're thinking
positively, at least in that end of it. thank you for your report. >> thank you, commissioner hardeman. chief gonzales, you had a comment? >> i'll try to keep it short, president. thank you. this is about the budget, but i was going to try to circle back around to cd-3. you can reprimand me, miss secretary, if i go off topic, but as far as the budget goes, i agree that friends of the san francisco fire department, that should be resurrects, if possible. i know there are reasons why it did go away. i think refocus -- refocus. i think someone here -- let's use that smile. let's use that smile to refocus. she could definitely help, and i'd just like to say a couple other words regarding some of the words that were said to cd-3. we don't take it permanently against commissioner veronese. i don't take it personally.
as far as what you said, commissioner hardeman, as far as the smile and no push over, she is definitely no push over. i am going to tell you, one day, i tried to push her over, and i don't recommend for anybody to try that at all. congratulations, raemona. it was a great pleasure working with you. thank you. >> thank you. vice president nakajo had a final comment. >> yeah. in this budget discussion, in terms of where we're at now and preparing, again, i can't help but acknowledge the support that mayor lee gave this department. mayor lee gave this department a support to personnel, two classes a cleayear, what we we with the replacement list, when we went with the justification of ems 6, so when we start talking about our department, where we were and where we're at now, we're at now because of the support of mayor ed lee,
and that department and worked with everybody to -- to have us in the position that we're in now. and i think we all can acknowledge that we're in a good, serviceable point at this point, with serving san francisco, taking our job serious on all levels of our department, and so i just wanted to bring that up because it's not like we haven't been getting there. we are there, and we want to stay there, and we want to get better, so that's my point. >> absolutely. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. vice president. i have a couple of people -- okay. go good. couple of questions myself, but did you -- >> no, i don't. i don't. >> okay. dealing with the meeting dates, have you come up with a list of the meeting dates for the budget committee? >> not yet. we should have that by the end of the week. >> okay. please share that. >> absolutely. >> and then any materials that are distributed, share that with all the commissioners.
>> absolutely. >> a couple of us will attend these meetings, but i think every commissioner here is interested in the budget process and what the various recommendations are from the participants on the committee. i see that you need a january 10th capital equipment budget. you know, have you put that together already? is that something you can share or will share with the commission, our request for capital budget? >> absolutely. we have a few meeting coming up over the next couple of weeks, we will absolutely share in advance of the meetings for review. >> i know there's certainly i.t. improvements and other -- we're looking at marine unit, potential, you know, improvements there that we need to fund. a lot of stuff, so just wondered if there were additional capital expenditures that we needed to request. >> so in general -- sorry to interrupt you. in general, capital refers to facilities.
>> just facilities. >> and then i.t. is technology related projects and equipment is equipment funding. so no staffing increases, per se, that's part of our overall budget. we're on those three separate tracks. >> are we still on forward to having two classes next year as well as our equipment program. >> so last year's budget process approved two years, which is the year we're currently in, and then, the next year, which is also the first year of that process, and in that process was approved the hiring plan -- continuation of the hiring plan and the equipment plan, and those were, of course, mayor lee's initiatives and funding initiatives from the department, so they have not been continued into the second budget year yet because that budget year has never been up for discussion. >> but that would sort of be a legacy of his. >> from the mayor's office, the comment has been that, but any
changes, we'll keep you appraised of them. >> when you talk about the set asides being 30% of the city's overall budget, does that include the prop f set aside? >> so my understanding is yes, that is also included there. i'll confirm with the mayor's office on there, but that's the data that they provided, mainly the ones provided from the ballot initiatives, across those lines. >> so keeping our stations open across the city is roughly, what, a $200 million annual expense? >> i would say approximately that's the ballpark. >> thank you very much, mark. we'll look forward to continue to working with you on the budget and appreciate the work you put into it. >> thank you, commissioners. >> is there any comment on the budget presentation? seeing none, public comment is closed. madam secretary, would you call the next item. >> item 8, commission report. report on commission activities since last meeting of november
8, 2017. >> is there any public comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioners do you have anything to report? commissioner covington? >> thank you, mr. president. i saw mayor lee last wednesday. there was a small business popup at city hall for small businesses in san francisco and for citizens to get to know more about some of the -- the small businesses that they may have not previously been aware of. and he was in the hallway. i was leaving, and he said oh, i see you bought some stuff, and i said yes. yes, i definitely did. and he had his usual broad smile and chuckle, and he gave me such a warm greeting and a
hug. and he said i know commissioner covington, you're always pushing for those academies. every time i see you, you -- even if we just have a few moments together, you say, we need more academies, and i did support this department so -- so very well, and just was a delight to be around, whether you agreed with him or you didn't agree with him, when you were lobbying him. he was just a kind, wonderful person, and i will miss him tremendously, just as our civic father and as someone who held this department in such high esteem. >> thank you, commissioner
covington. commissioner hardeman? >> yeah, very briefly. you don't want to -- i mean, everybody -- hundreds of folks spoke yesterday on tv and radio about mayor lee, but the one thing i didn't hear was ferocious loyalty. when this commission had the finger pointed out it, rightfully so, by all unions, the variety of 798 and the rest of the ethnic unions, everybody was pointing the finger at us, and the chief. when mayor lee called us into his office, and there was a number of meetings -- like i said publicly, he blamed us, chief, and he blamed this commission, and he called us back. how's it going? how's the chief?
how's he doing? is there something that needs to be fixed so we brought up all these things, and so did the chief. but the one thing he did was he never publicly blamed us. privately, he chiued us oewed . there was very lengthy meeting, telling us what we needed to keep the performance, but what we needed, he just gave us, and the board of supervisors -- so that's the one thing i would say. this man was the most loyal person you could ever have as a friend. when our reappointments, commissioner -- some people were mad at us and some people were mad at the chief, he stood right by us, and there were some very good candidates that raised their hands that wanted to be fire commissioners.
the mayor stuck with loyalty, and that is extremely commendable, and i'm extremely grateful that i was able to be his friend at least since the early 90's, and we used to call each other the railroasurvivor then, he was mayor, and i couldn't believe it. on a separate note, st. michaels's day, november 21st, i became grandfather to little alexandra michelle. i became a grandfather, so that's my biggest news of last month. thank you. >> thank you, commissioner hardeman. commissioner veronese. >> briefly. when i met with the mayor back in april, it may have been march, and he asked me if i would join this commission, of course, i knew going in that this was something i really wanted to be a part of.
the fire department has been an entire part of my life, whether anybody knew it or not. my grandfather was a huge part of the fire department. he used to come down and do lunches, and they embraced him, and it touched me. when i heard that there was an opening at this commission, i absolutely jumped on it. when i met with him in his office, we went through all the separate different issues, or he advised me of the different issues that were going on here at the department. and instead of asking me to address them specifically, he asked me to just be myself. he chose me for my values, not for what i could do specifically related to problems, even though that there were specific problems related to -- in the department that may or may not still continue that are related to my training as a civil rights lawyer and as a police
commissioner and a state criminal justice commissioner. and so when he passed away two days ago, i thought to myself, this is very sad for the city to lose a leader like this, but i thought to myself, the best way to -- the defendant way to honor mayor lee is to honor him in the task that we complete in our service to this city. he was a servant to this city, and to ensure that as we do that on a day-to-day basis, that we do that consistent with our values, and those values that he wanted or that he chose us for. and so my commitment to mayor lee, although he is gone in body, he will continue to live in spirit through me and the rest of the commissioners as his choice of commissioners to serve on this commission, this
great department. and that will continue on and on and on as long as we are here. and that's the part that i'm excited about, because there's a lot that we can do as commissioners. this really is a lot that we can do as commissioners. it's not our job just to sit here and rubber stamp things that the department brings us. and i'm encouraged, and i look forward to that, and i look forward to work with every person in this room, getting to know you better, and i do that in honor and in memory of a good man, mayor lee. so that being said, i appreciate the opportunity to serve that he has given me, and i will continue to honor him in my service to this commission, to the department, and to the people of this city. >> thank you, commissioner veronese. i couldn't have said it better myself. thank you on behalf of the full commission. madam secretary, would you call the next item. >> item 9, correspondence, letter from anonymous, dated
11-15-17. >> is there any public comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. any questions by any of the commissioners on this item? commissioner veronese, i see your name here? yes, no? >> that was from the last item, but i'm wondering why this is a -- is this correspondence item just an item in our agenda and so as people send correspondence to the commission, it appears here? >> correct. you read it, right? >> i don't read anonymous letters, actually. i have made it my practice not to read anonymous letters, so if you are out there, and you want to send the commission a letter, put your name on it if you want me to read it. >> thank you, commissioner veronese. commissioner hardeman, you had a comment? >> very briefly, mr.
president. no one -- i might have missed it. did we decide not to discuss anything about the drones or just -- just draft policy was presented to us, but we didn't get into it at all. >> chief francisco is out of town. >> so we're going to hold off until chief francisco comes back next month? good. fine. that was it. thank you. >> i must have missed that. >> we're going to have to get out of here by noon, so madam secretary, would you call the next item? >> item 10, agenda for next fire commission meeting. >> drone policy. >> are there any public comment on this item first? seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioners, do you have comments on the future agenda? >> future agenda could be presented at your choice of time. i talked to chief gonzales and chief white, for lack of a
better definition, a presentation by the dive team that might include surf rescue or cliff rescue. it might include rescue one, rescue two. as i understand it, it's a collaboration when it comes to dive teams or training, it might guarantee chief gonzales the training department or support services. i'm just looking for the best kind of comprehensive presentation to this commission so that we can be educated as to the goings on and the training and equipment and functions of this unit, for lack of a better term, the dive team or rescue team, chief gonzales? >> we'll work with the rescue team to fill in whatever slot is available. >> thank you skbl and i also have the dem coming in to present on the early warning system. we had a suggestion to do an
update or a presentation on the strategic plan. we have the budget, and we also have a closed session settlement, and it's a morning meeting, so we need to be out by 12. >> thank you, madam secretary. commissioner veronese, would you like to add something on the future agenda? >> i second the motion on commissioner cascio on the dive team. i prior -- well, prior to next meeting -- i second it, but i amend the thought when that item comes before the commission, whether it's the next meeting, it should be a meeting further out so that we have the opportunity not only to learn more but also to perhaps even visit so that we can see for our eyes, but when that comes up before the commission, i would ask that that not only comes up for discussion but possible action.
second, the drone policy, i'm pleased that it was a part of -- at least it's a part of the packet, is that right? so this is a public document now. >> it is a -- yes. >> all right. so the draft of the general policy. >> it's on the web side under agenda packets. >> great. it's now a public document, and it needs a little bit of work in my opinion, but if this is an issue that's important to you, we want to hear it, so when you see it on the agenda, please let us know. if you are an agency or an entity that has a stake in this, send us a letter. put your name on it, and -- and that's it. so i look forward to making progress on that particular issue. that's it for me. >> thank you, commissioner veronese. commissioner covington. >> thank you, mr. president. i would just like to refer my fellow commissioners to page 9 of mr. corso's document that
was distributed to us this afternoon. the special meeting that may be called if necessary, again, page 9, february -- the week of february 15th to february 20th. i think it would be prudent to have the commission secretary poll the commission as to what days might work just in case we need that meeting. i schedule my travel around these meetings. i've never missed a commission meeting, so i would like to know in advance if, you know -- what days to block out in case it's needed. >> thank you, commissioner covington. >> thank you. >> we'll try to do that. i think we need to put in a future closed session our review of the chief.
that has to be on the agenda. >> we still haven't received instructions, well, from the hr and the mayor's -- >> well, put that on the list, and of course, the department physician. we have to do those two evaluations, and i think we'll have the election for commission officers probably the second meeting in january , if that works for everybody. all right. i am going to defer our closed session existing litigation issue until our next meeting. >> we might be able to get it done. >> you think we can get that done in five minutes? all right. well, we'll make an effort, then. is our attorney here? >> item 11, possible closed session regarding existing litigation. >> any public comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is closed. we're going -- >> the public comment would be
to go into closed session. >> exactly. are we going into -- >> and the litigation. >> commissioners, what's your pleasure. >> so moved. >> we are now back in open session. the time is 12:11. item 12, report on any action taken in closed session as specified? california government code section 54957.1(a) and san francisco administrative code section 12.1 b. >> well, in consultation with our city attorney, the commission has accepted the recommendation to settle on the existing litigation of duckett versus city and county of san francisco. it was a unanimous decision. >> item 13, vote to elect whether to disclose any or all
discussions held in closed session as specified in san francisco administrative code 67.12(a). >> is there any public comment on whether we disclose or not? seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioners, what's your pleasure? [ inaudible ] >> i have a motion, not to disclose, second from commissioner hardeman. all in favor? we shall not disclose. >> item 14. >> adjournment, again, in the -- >> oh, sorry. >> i would just like to, in the name of our departed mayor, ed lee, whom we all loved and all knew well, adjourn this fire commission meeting today. this meeting is adjourned. thank you.