1.

Call to Order and Roll Call – Roll call was taken and a quorum was certified.

COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENTS:

Debra Walker, President
Joe Grubb, Commissioner

Criss Romero, Commissioner
Michael Theriault, Commissioner

Frank Lee, Vice-President
Mel Murphy, Commissioner
Vahid Sattary, Commissioner  

Ann Aherne, Commission Secretary

D.B.I. REPRESENTATIVES:

Isam Hasenin, Director

Bill Strawn, Communications Manager

Sonya Harris, Secretary

CITY ATTORNEY’S OFFICE REPRESENTATIVES:
John Malamut, Deputy City Attorney

Discussion regarding the Director’s departmental reorganization as presented in the Director’s May 7, 2007 Departmental Assessment.

Director Hasenin said that he prepared a memo to distribute to all of the Commissioners and

members of the public.  Director Hasenin stated that he was addressing some of the questions that came up during a Closed Session, and one was the format of the new management positions he was proposing to add in the coming year’s budget, and how they would be organized.  Director Hasenin proceeded to read the memo which stated the following points:

• The managerial positions are for fiscal year 2007/2008.
• In the coming year there will be seven positions exempt from the Civil Service provisions of the City Charter – 3 Class 0953 Deputy Director classifications currently in the DBI budget and 4 Class 0941 Manager VI classifications to be approved July 1^st.
• The 4 Class 0941 Manager positions are created under Charter Section A10.104 (18) which permits project based at-will positions for a maximum duration of three years.
• Although the seven positions are all exempt appointments and have the same salary range, under the City’s managerial salary tables, the Director can set the salary for each individual position at any point within a 25% range (as of July 1, 2007 the range is $114K to $146K).
• In exceptional cases, subject to the recommendation of the Director, and with approval of the Controller, Human Resources Director and Municipal Executives Association Representative, a salary level up to $169K can be approved.
• In 2007/2008 DBI will have seven managers heading seven divisions or sections as follows:  Assistant Director/Deputy Building Official, Plan Review Services, One-Stop and Permit Center, Inspection Services, Code Enforcement and Housing Services, Technical Services and Special Projects, Support Services.
• The duties and processes of the various divisions may be somewhat revised as the Department’s organizational structure is finalized and the business process reengineering project progresses.  As a result, individual classifications (0953 or 0941) have not been assigned to specific divisions.

Commissioner Theriault stated that he would like to confirm that the seven positions would be exempt positions.  Deputy City Attorney, John Malamut, said that the positions are exempt for three years, and the City Attorney’s Office has been working closely with the Director on these particular positions, as to how they would be created, and their treatment.  Mr. Malamut stated that in this case the positions are exempt from the Civil Service process.  Commissioner Theriault asked what would happen after three years.  Director Hasenin stated when DBI gets through the business process reengineering over the next few months, he would see how things were going; if the Department was achieving the goals and objectives that were set the Department could try to make the positions permanent.  Director Hasenin said that he was not certain about how this would be done, and mentioned going back to the Civil Service Commission, reorganizing the Department, or possibly having to go to the voters in San Francisco with a Charter amendment. 

Commissioner Theriault asked if the Commission needed to make a motion regarding this discussion.  Deputy City Attorney, John Malamut, said that the program the Director created to reorganize the Department was something where the Commission could give direction to the Director, but was not something that the Commission approves or denies.  Mr. Malamut stated that because this was a discussion item there was no action to be taken.  President Walker stated that the Commission approved this in concept before, but questions came up during the process and said she thought it was a good idea to bring it forward periodically to clarify some of the questions that came up; however, the Commission could not really address it. 

Commissioner Murphy said that he was not sure what kind of signal the Commission was sending.  Commissioner Romero stated that the Commission was not sending any signal, but said he is familiar with how the civil service process works.  Commissioner Romero said that in three years the Director can basically do what he wants to do with the positions.  Commissioner Romero stated that the Director could extend the exempt status or make them permanent without having to go through any organization.  Commissioner Romero said that it is a system that exists for Director Hasenin to use now, whether the Commission likes it or not since that is just the way civil service works.  Commissioner Sattary asked if one of the seven positions was filled with a person who is in the Department now that has a civil service position, and at some point he or she has been let go, would they retain their civil service status or go back to the same position.  Director Hasenin said that he did not know the answer to that question, because he was not an expert on civil service.  Deputy City Attorney, John Malamut, stated that any existing employees of the City can take a leave of absence, apply for an exempt position for its term and when that term ends the person could go back and assume their prior position with the City. 

Commissioner Theriault stated that this kind of question could be addressed by each individual applying for the positions themselves.  Commissioner Theriault said that the individual could decide according to the information available from the Department of Human Resources and the Civil Service Commission, as to whether or not to accept the position, or reply to the position depending on what it would do to their civil service status.  Commissioner Murphy asked if all of the positions were going to be filled within the Department.  Director Hasenin said that he was going to be opening up all of these positions by Friday, June 1^st and the positions would be advertised widely both inside and outside of the City.  Director Hasenin stated that the Department would be advertising throughout California and beyond to attract top talent for these positions.

Commissioner Murphy said that he wanted to ask questions about these positions during the interview process, but was told it was not appropriate at that time.  Commissioner Murphy stated that the Commission should not run the day-to-day processes at the Department, since the Commission went through the process of hiring a Director to do so.  Commissioner Murphy said the Commission interviewed 8 to 10 of the best people in the country, and picked the best so the Commission should not put shackles on the Director.  Commissioner Murphy stated that he believed that the Commission had the power to dismiss the Director if the Commission was not satisfied with the Director’s performance. Deputy City Attorney, John Malamut, stated that Commissioner Murphy was correct.

Commissioner Romero stated that he did not agree with Commissioner Murphy and it did not have anything to do with the way the Commission thinks the Department should be run.  Commissioner Romero said that there are some considerations under civil service, and there should be basic human decency about the way people were released from the Department.  Commissioner Romero stated that he was very clear about the capabilities and the position of the Director, but he is also clear about what the restrictions are under civil service in terms of what a Department Director can and cannot do.  Commissioner Romero said that he did not think the BIC had the authority to give the Director extended privileges that he is not afforded under civil service with the City, or with any of the agreements that the City has made on behalf of the Department.  Commissioner Romero stated that if the Director goes beyond this that the Department could get tied up in litigation.

Commissioner Murphy said that the current Commission spent the last year-and-a-half wrestling away power from outside influences, and said he did not want the public to view this Commission as being the same as previous Commissions. 

Director Hasenin stated that in regard to clarification about the civil service rules and recent managerial changes that he could assure Commissioner Romero that he worked with the City Attorney’s Office and the Department of Human Services, at the highest levels to ensure that he followed every procedure each step of the way. 

President Walker said that the Commission was not sending any kind of message, but the Director was just updating them as to what was happening and to explain his process.  President Walker called for public comment.

Mr. Ken Cleveland of the Building Owners and Management Association (BOMA) spoke in support of Director Hasenin and said people should let the Director show everyone a better way of running the Building Department.  Mr. Cleveland said that DBI was going through “growing pains” right now, and the Director should be allowed to do his job. 

Mr. Dennis Carlin, Vice-President of the Building Inspector’s Association, spoke in support of Director Hasenin.  Inspector Carlin said that the Building Inspector’s Association was concerned about how the changes would affect them, through hiring of seniors, chiefs, etc.  Inspector Carlin stated that he was a contractor, before he was an inspector and said he agreed that the process needs to be streamlined for the customers.

Mr. Pat Buscovich of the Applied Technology Council (ATC) spoke in support of Director Hasenin and stated that he was on the Building Inspection Commission in 1995 and when the BIC had the authority to pick the Director, and ratify the Director’s selection of Assistant Director, and Deputy Directors.  Mr. Buscovich said that when someone hires a contractor to build a house they do not tell that contractor how to do it, therefore the Commission should let Director Hasenin do his job instead of giving him advice here and there because they would be co-mingling their responsibility.

Mr. Jeremy Paul spoke in support of Director Hasenin and said it was going to take a lot of confidence in a Director to turn this Department around in a way that the whole City will notice.  Mr. Paul stated that some unpleasant decisions are going to be made, and friends that staff has worked with for a lot of years are going to experience personnel shifts that will not always make everyone happy, but the Director should be supported in any way possible. 

Mr. John Kilbin spoke in support of Director Hasenin and stated that he has had the impression that DBI was inefficient, very bureaucratic, and had long delays.  Mr. Kilbin said that the Commission made a good decision in selecting the Director and that the Commission should not micromanage the Director, but let him get on with the job of reorganizing the Department.

Mr. Drake Gardner spoke in support of Director Hasenin and said that he was a member of the design and building community, and is very interested in streamlining the process since the design and building community do not feel that they are getting anything done.  Mr. Gardner stated that he met with the Director and said that the Director was willing to talk about any aspect of the process and to listen to input.  Mr. Gardner said that the design and building community supports Director Hasenin wholeheartedly and said he hoped that the process would not get politicized like it has been in the past..

Mr. Sean Keighran of the Residential Builders Association (RBA) spoke in support of Director Hasenin and said that the Director has approached this position with the right philosophy.  Mr. Keighran stated that the Director understands the civil service process, has an ongoing rapport with the union representatives, and most important respects the hard workers at DBI.

Mr. Ritchie Harte of the RBA spoke in support of Director Hasenin and stated that great cities need great leaders, and the Commission made a good choice.  Mr. Harte said that no one can keep all of the people happy all of the time, but stated that staff morale is a key element.  Mr. Harte agreed that there should be a nationwide search for the seven new employees/managers. 

Mr. John O’Connor of the RBA spoke in support of Director Hasenin and said the Commission should give the Director a vote of confidence, and not meddle with hires at DBI.  Mr. O’Connor stated that for many years there was nobody in the Building Department to make a decision, but now there is.

Mr. John Singleton spoke in support of Director Hasenin and stated that he was a retired building inspector who worked for the City for 18 years.  Mr. Singleton said that when he worked at DBI managers were afraid to make decisions, possibly because people were looking over their shoulder.  Mr. Singleton stated that the Director should have absolute power to hire his deputies and managers, and that the Commission has the absolute power to fire the Director if he does not live up to their expectations.

Ms. Kelton Finney of Santos & Urrutia said that she worked for structural engineers and stated that she was present to lend her support to Director Hasenin.  Ms. Finney said that she believed the Director is eminently qualified and should be given every chance to implement his vision.  Ms. Finney stated that it was refreshing to have a Director that had no agenda other than to run the Department efficiently.

Mr. Joel Panser of the Professional Property Management Association spoke in support of Director Hasenin and stated that in the past the system at DBI was intimidating, and people felt like they had to take shortcuts and use expediters for help.  Mr. Panser said that simplifying the system and making it more transparent by using computers more effectively would allow the public to apply for permits online, check the status, and so on.  Mr. Panser stated that the internet facilitates the customer’s access and makes customers want to use the system to apply for permits more frequently.  Mr. Panser urged the Commission to continue the Community Action Plan for Seismic Safety (CAPSS).

Mr. John Pollard introduced himself as the owner of several businesses with 167 employees that depend on his company’s ability to obtain building permits.  Mr. Pollard stated that last year he had to lay off 55 employees because of problems with obtaining those permits. Mr. Pollard spoke in support of Director Hasenin and mentioned that Director Hasenin took the time to meet and something as simple as unlocking the stairway at 1660 Mission to customers was solved.  Mr. Pollard stated that the Inspection Division at DBI is incredible and is the only division that functions: Plumbing, Electrical, and Building Inspectors all show up to do their inspections.  Mr. Pollard said that the Plan Check Division needs a lot of work.

Mr. Joe Cassidy spoke in support of Director Hasenin and stated that he has been a customer of DBI for 27 years, and said he wished the Director of City Planning had the same power as Director Hasenin has.  Mr. Cassidy said that the biggest disaster is that there is little or no construction going on in San Francisco and the Department will be severely impacted in the future.  Mr. Cassidy stated that the Department needs to be straightened out because customers want their permits on time, since it is the customers who pay the fees.

Mr. Ahmad Larizadeh spoke in support of Director Hasenin and said that he was amazed that the Director was able to come in and make changes so quickly that it made everybody nervous.  Mr. Larizadeh stated that when the Director made the changes everyone started to complain.  Mr. Larizadeh said that the Director has done a great job and said that he appreciates the Director’s open door policy. 

Mr. James Gallagher spoke in support of Director Hasenin and stated that he is a small business owner, and the most challenging thing for him each week is basically keeping people working.  Mr. Kelly said that another challenge is just getting permits and said he would support any changes to make the process more efficient.

Discussion regarding the Director’s recommendation of a process related to the search for and appointment of the Assistant Director of the Department of Building Inspection and two Deputy Director positions.

President Walker said that perhaps the Commission could get a synopsis from the City Attorney to clarify what is or is not the Commission’s job, since the Commission is faced with the Charter approval requirement for the positions of the Assistant Director and two Deputy Directors.  President Walker stated that the Commission supports Director Hasenin and said that she did not think that any of the Commissioners wanted to step on anybody’s toes about supporting the Director in doing his job.  President Walker said that Deputy City Attorney, John Malamut, would be giving the Commission his decision or interpretation of the Charter requirement, and asked Mr. Malamut to explain the new system of different positions that the Department would be having. 

Deputy City Attorney, John Malamut, stated that under the duty of the Building Inspection Commission’s Charter responsibility in Appendix D of the Charter, specifically Section D 750-2, the Commission has approval authority over three specific positions that the Director would initiate.  Mr. Malamut said that those positions are the Assistant Director slot and up to two Deputy Director slots; for those three specific decisions the Commission has to ratify those in terms of specific individuals.  Mr. Malamut stated that however the Commission decides to work it out with the Director the Commission would need to specifically approve those three positions, but said that it is entirely up to the Director to decide what the title is of these individuals would be.  Mr. Malamut said that the Director could create a different name for them and the Charter does not spell out any hierarchical set up for them, so it is up to the Director where these employees would fall into the organizational chart of the Department of Building Inspection.  Mr. Malamut stated that there is not even a requirement to hire those three positions.  

President Walker asked Mr. Malamut to clarify the seven positions that Director Hasenin was proposing as managers and asked if those had to necessarily be Deputies.  Mr. Malamut stated that this was correct, and the way the Director proposed it in his memo was that currently three Class 953 positions would be occupying the Assistant Director and two Deputy Director positions.  Commissioner Murphy said that there would be six managers and one Assistant Director, and Director Hasenin confirmed this statement.  Mr. Malamut stated that it was the Director’s decision as to how he wants to do the reorganization at the Department, and if there was a chain of command and the Director was unavailable according to the Charter it would be those individuals in the 0953 positions that would be viewed as the next in line to step in for him.  Mr. Malamut said that the Commission would need to ratify those three specific positions.

Commissioner Murphy asked Director Hasenin if the Director and the Assistant Director were out of town then who would be in charge.  Director Hasenin stated that he would typically appoint someone else to be in charge, but right now he does not have any of those positions filled so he would appoint either a Chief Building Inspector, or someone from the senior level staff.  Commissioner Sattary stated that there are two issues and the first one is the seven positions that the Director has proposed in the reorganization, which are exempt from Civil Service status.  Commissioner Sattary asked if the Charter should be amended to accommodate this proposed recommendation, and if the BIC has the power to approve this kind of change.  Commissioner Sattary stated that in this document there are provisions for three positions that are exempt, so the Director wants to expand it to seven, and should the BIC vote on that today.

Deputy City Attorney, John Malamut, stated that there was nothing on the agenda to take action on, but under the Charter the BIC only has a say over three of the positions should the Director choose to fill them.  Mr. Malamut said that Director Hasenin has been working with the City Attorney’s Office and Human Resources very closely to ensure that the structure he has set up conforms in all respects with all the applicable laws.  Mr. Malamut stated that the proposal before the Commission entirely falls within the requirements of the Charter, and the BIC should provide oversight and guidance, but said it is up to the Director to make the decisions of hiring and firing and running the Department on a day-to-day basis.  Mr. Malamut said that one of the constraints on the manager (0941) positions is that they are three year appointments, under a different section of the Charter, and are exempt from Civil Service.

Commissioner Grubb said that the position and the person could go away in three years unless some other action is taken, which is very different from the three that are outlined in the Charter amendment.  Vice-President Lee stated that there are probably many different ways to structure the Department, but there are some criteria that the Commission needs to follow.  Vice-President Lee said that the BIC ought to give the Director the flexibility to work within the system to decide what is best for DBI.  Vice-President Lee stated that he did not want to be a Commissioner that tells the Director whether to hire one or two assistants, but would rather have the Director make his own decision.  Vice-President Lee said that at an appropriate time the whole Commission could review Director Hasenin’s decision and either agree he did a good job or he did not.

Director Hasenin thanked the Commission for their support over the last few months and for their continued support in the future.  Director Hasenin said that he was not trying to circumvent the system, and would come before in the BIC as he hires for these positions. Director Hasenin stated that he has heard support for his decisions from the Commissioners as well as the public, but said that he is the person who is at will and subject to being let go at anytime since the Commission has ultimate authority.  Director Hasenin said that once he offers the positions to individuals he and the Commission could set up the Closed Session meeting to possibly bring forward the names for ratification.

Commissioner Sattary said that the Director should have the freedom to choose the team that works with him on his vision and supports him in the process.  Commissioner Sattary stated that the approval process which is only for three of the group of seven should have criteria and there is none.  Commissioner Sattary said that this is beyond the Building Inspection Commission’s resources and expertise, so he would like to propose that the BIC authorizes the Director to search for candidates and hire them.  Commissioner Sattary stated that he did not want to relinquish the power and authority of the BIC to approve, but the Commission’s approval of these selections should be part and parcel of approving the Director’s job.  Commissioner Sattary said that without having the explicit votes on individuals that the Director appoints then it does not serve any purpose to ratify the selections.

President Walker stated that it is a Charter requirement for the three positions to be ratified by the Commission.  Deputy City Attorney, John Malamut, said that he was going to address two issues: The first issue was that the Commission could hold a separate meeting, and adopt criteria that the BIC would want to look at in those instances, and this is appropriate for a Closed Session.  Mr. Malamut stated that the second issue was the Director’s evaluation, and it was discussed that this item could be put on the June calendar in terms of developing criteria for some evaluation of the Director.  Mr. Malamut said that his suggestion would be to take that opportunity and see if the BIC could integrate the Directors’ decision making in general, or the specific positions would be a factor to take into account during the evaluation.  President Walker asked if this would serve the Charter requirement of approving the appointments.  Mr. Malamut stated the answer was no and under the Charter requirement for the three positions there needs to be specific individuals that come before the Commission.

Commissioner Romero stated that he understood what the City Attorney was saying in terms of ratification, but said he was getting frustrated with the discussion because he felt this was a very simple process.  Commissioner Romero said that he understood the role of the Commissioners was to hire the Executive Director, and the Director then has the power to hire whoever he wants in these positions.  Commissioner Romero stated that the BIC gets to make comments around the evaluation process, but it would not directly affect the Director’s decisions; however it does affect the Commission’s relationship with the Director.

Commissioner Grubb said that he found the whole provision in the Charter that the Commission would be making a decision in the appointment below the Director, to be highly unusual and non-sensible, and said he did not want to be responsible for the hiring of the Deputy Directors.  Commissioner Grubb asked if the Commission could grant the Director blanket authority. Commissioner Theriault asked if the BIC could give the Director “Carte Blanche” to do what he needs to do.  Deputy City Attorney, John Malamut stated that it is the City Attorney’s view that blanket authority could not be granted to the Director.

Commissioner Theriault stated that the Commission would probably want to reserve the privilege to review the appointments of the three positions for a possible other Director down the road.  Commissioner Theriault said that he thinks the Commission has found somebody in which they have placed a great deal of trust.

Director Hasenin thanked the Commission for their support and for giving him the opportunity to run the Department without what potentially may be called interference.  Director Hasenin said that the Commission is dealing with a provision that requires individual ratification of three positions, so he would like the BIC to give him the authority to bring a final list of those names once he makes the determination.

Director Hasenin stated that he would like the Commission to ratify the list of names that he submits, rather than go through a more extensive process.  Director Hasenin said that it is up to him to hire his assistants, and it stops at him so if he is not performing then he could be dismissed.  Director Hasenin stated that he would like to have a discussion or vote on this sometime in June. 

President Walker stated that the items of ratifying the names and setting up criteria for the Director’s evaluation could be agendized for the June 20^th meeting.  Several of the Commissioners had a brief discussion about the Charter and the language in it.  President Walker said that the only way to change the Charter is to go on the ballot and 50% of the voters plus one has to pass it. The Commissioners thanked the public members who came out and supported the programs that the Department is trying to change.

President Walker called for public comment.

Mr. Henry Karnilowicz stated that the Department has an extremely competent captain at the helm of DBI, and a competent captain needs an extremely competent staff.  Mr. Karnilowicz said that someone should not get a job just because they have political connections, and this is a very serious business and those present understand the business.  Mr. Karnilowicz asked everyone who supported Director Isam Hasenin to please stand.  Everyone in the audience stood and Mr. Karnilowicz said the support was unanimous.

4.

SUMMARY OF REQUESTS BY COMMISSIONERS

Director Hasenin said that he would like to set up a Closed Session to bring forward the names of the people he would be selecting for the Assistant Director, and two Deputy Director positions. – Hasenin

Page 8

Deputy City Attorney John Malamut said that two issues the Commission could hold a separate meeting for are:  1) To adopt the criteria the BIC would want to look at to ratify the three positions.  2) Develop criteria for the Director’s evaluation.  President Walker said that these items could be agendized for the June 20^th meeting. – Malamut, Walker

Page 8, 9