Good afternoon and welcome to the Monday, September 16, 2024, 1 o'clock PM meeting of the civil service board.

Meeting is now called to order. Will the clerk please call the roll call the roll to establish quorum.

Thank you, Vice Chair. Member of the man for here. Member bird here. Members Stein. Here.

Chair Miola is absence and Vice Chair Gonzalez Kabatik. President. Thank you. We have quorum.

Would like to remind members of the public and chambers that if you would like to speak on an agenda item, please turn in a speaker slip when the item begins.

You will have two minutes to speak once you're called on. After the first speaker, we will no longer accept speaker slips.

We will now proceed with today's agenda. Please rise for the opening knowledge and honor of Sacramento's indigenous people and tribal lands.

Through the original people of this land, the Nisi non people, the southern Maidu, Valley and Plains Me walk, putt win, win-tune peoples, and the people of the Wilton Rancheria, Sacramento's only federally recognized tribe.

May we acknowledge and honor the native people who came before us and still walk beside us today on these ancestral lands by choosing to gather together today in the active practice of acknowledgement and appreciation for Sacramento's indigenous peoples' history, contributions and lives.

Thank you. Please remain standing for the Pledge of Allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands one nation under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all.

Okay, our first business today is approval of the consent calendar. Clerk, are there any members of the public who wish to speak on the consent calendar?

Thank you, Vice Chair. I have no speaker slips.

Are there any members who wish to speak on this item?

Is there a motion and a second for the consent calendar?

I have a motion by member of Manfor and second by member Bird. Will the clerk please call roll call call the roll for the vote?

Thank you, Vice Chair. Member of Manfor.

Aye. Member Bird.

Aye. Member Stein.

Aye. Chair Milla is absence and Vice Chair Gonzales Kabotic.

Aye. Thank you, the motion passes.

We'll now proceed to the discussion calendar. Item number two is the appeal of the disqualification of Arsh Menta from the Assistant Civil Engineer Building Recruitment.

And board, do we want to wave the presentation, staff presentation for this?

I moved to wave staff presentation.

We need to make a motion. We just need to make agree if we're good with it.

Right? Okay. Are there any members of the public who wish to speak on this item?

Thank you, Vice Chair. I have no speaker slips on this item.

Is the appellant here to do a presentation?

And are there any commissioners who wish to speak on this item?

Is there a motion and a second for this item?

Motion to adopt to wave former rules for conducting the hearing and adopting the directest finding.

And the decision of the disqualification of Arsh Menta.

Do I say the name?

Motion to adopt the staff's recommendation.

Second.

I have a motion by Member of Manfor and a second by Member Stein.

Will the clerk please call the roll for the vote?

Thank you, Vice Chair. Member of Manfor?

Aye.

Member Stein? Aye.

Chair Milla's absence. And Vice Chair Gonzalez Kabatik?

Aye.

Thank you. The motion passes.

Item number three on the discussion calendar is the appeal of disqualification of Alyssa Rontelli from the Animal Care Technician recruitment.

Would we like to wave staff presentation for this as well?

Yes.

And is the appeal here to do a presentation?

Are there members of the public who would like to speak on this item?

Thank you, Vice Chair. I have no speaker slips.

And are there any commissioners who wish to speak on this item?

Is there a motion and a second?

Motion to adopt staff's recommendation.

I have a motion by Member of Manfor and a second by Member of Bird.

Will the clerk please call the roll for the vote?

Thank you, Vice Chair. Member of Manfor?

Aye. Member of Bird? Aye.

Member Stein? Aye.

Chair Milla's absence. And Vice Chair Gonzalez Kabatik?

Aye.

Thank you. The motion passes.

We're an item number four.

The appeal of disqualification of Richard Wong from the Integrated Ways Supervisor recruitment.

Would we like to wave staff presentation as well for this?

And my understand. Well, do we need to do public comments before staff, a pepment presentation?

I'd like to hear a step.

We have no speaker slips for public comments on this item.

I believe the appellant is present today.

I'm sorry.

No, it's okay.

Absolutely.

Mr. Wong.

I'm a serious appeal in my case because I just want to have a interview at least.

When they called me, told me that I ranked one at first.

Call me a week and a half later to say that I didn't require a myth because I had no equipment experience.

Can you just speak a little closer?

I'm a supervisor right now.

I've been supervisor for eight years for the City of Sacramento.

I've been working with the staff for about 10 years.

I deal with equipment every day.

We eat the same equipment they do and also more than them.

So I've been putting on my job duties.

If you look on my application.

On number two, I put on there this may involve task providing guidance and ensuring compliance with safety regulations and construction standards,

such as base repairs, alley cleaning and maintenance with claw, with the claw, bot tails, and backhoe.

I put in the supplemental part of the information that I work with bot tails, 10 willers, the claw, real loader, paving machine,

bobcat, backhoe, and real or also deal with three and one residential complaints.

I work with forensic city police.

So I'm saying this is what I do every day and I just want to see if I at least have an opportunity to get an interview.

Do we have any of our commissioners who would like to speak on this?

Yes.

Or remember, Berk?

So for all of the things that you say that you are qualified to do that directly apply to this job position,

were they specifically laid out in your application?

I know sometimes people know that they are but then they assume that the city knows that as well.

So I just wanted to make sure that you were explicit and kind of matching what you actually do to the job requirements as expressed.

Yes, I did actually put on a job duties part of it also on a number two item.

I see I put more computer skills because that's what I mostly do as supervisor, but I have sent to employees and they run my equipment every day for me.

So that's the reason why I put more computer.

I thought more behind a desk when you're supervisor so I put more of that but it is on there on the job duties part of it too.

It was in your original application.

Yes.

Okay, thank you.

I have it here too.

Do we have any other questions or comments from our board members?

I would like to hear from staff and response after we finish questions with the panel.

Do we have any other additional questions?

And then do we have staff that could respond to Mr. Wong's comments about the application?

Yes.

Mr. Wong, do you want to have a seat?

Okay, starting at point two, the issue at hand is a panel at Wong's experience that they listed in their work experience section of their application did not demonstrate the required years of experience, performing duties comparable to an integrated waste equipment operator or senior integrated waste equipment operator.

Those are the minimum requirements that are listed on the job announcement for the integrated waste supervisor.

The minimum qualifications for meeting the essential duties of, let's see.

Looking at attachment number two, the job announcement.

The second, the screening of Richard Palant Wong's application.

The city screened the application submitted by the demonstration of the equivalent years of experience, comparable to the job duties performed by an integrated waste equipment operator.

Precisely not, especially for some inferior units, in preferable communities.

operating mechanisms for dumping and compacting waste efficiently,

driving various vehicles including a half-ton pickups, dump trucks, front end

loaders, water trucks, and refuse packers to transport and manage waste at

assigned locations.

Also listed in the minimum qualifications are comparable duties to the senior

integrated waste equipment operator and those comparable duties include but

are not limited to collecting and loading refuse, yard waste, recycling, and

bulky items into trucks, operating mechanisms for dumping and

compacting waste efficiently, operation of specialized equipment, and vehicles

including front end loaders, street sweepers, and complex refuse machinery

requiring a Class B California driver's license, maneuvering collection

bins, inspecting, and servicing equipment for optimal performance and leading a

collection crew. Based on those essential duties the applicant did not demonstrate

that they had experience in the essential functions of the job. The as I

stated on attachment to which is the job announcement, looking at the minimum

qualifications.

The education and experience is where you will find the minimum qualifications,

possession of a high school diploma or GED, and then the experience that's

listed there is the three years of experience comparable to an integrated

waste equipment operator and or the two years of experience comparable to the

senior integrated waste operator, both of which I just listed the essential duties

that are comparable as the city finds. And the classifications both the

integrated waste equipment operator and the senior integrated waste equipment

operator. Those class specs are publicly available and can be located on the

city's website.

Speaking to Appalent Wong's point of them currently being a supervisor, this

integrated waste supervisor classification requires knowledge of the

classification based on the comparable specification requirements and the

level of equipment operation that is specified in the minimum qualifications.

Additionally, the application that was submitted by Appalent Wong did not

indicate in the work experience section of their application that they had

experience in comparable functions of either classification, the integrated

waste equipment operator or the senior integrated waste equipment operator.

Good afternoon board, Ebony, Heaven, Human Resources Manager. If I may also add that part

of the issue at hand here is while Appalent Wong may have some of those skills, the

city's consistently screens applications based on the duties that are listed in the

experience and education portion of the application. While Appalent Wong provided

some information related to that, it was not in the appropriate place on the

application for us to have considered it. He listed it in the additional duty section

of the application, whereas there are supplemental questions that are included on

the application that explains to Appalents that they are required to list the

essential duties in the experience and education portion for consistency.

And the reason that that's important is because applicants will provide copies

of resumes, they'll provide all of this additional information but we have to

provide a consistent means of being able to screen for minimum qualifications.

So the same information is related to all applicants who apply for city at

employment and we provide those same level of standards to all applications. So

because Appalent Wong did not include that in the appropriate place on the

application it could not be considered when determining minimum qualifications.

All right, thank you.

Do you remember a bird? A board member sign? Yeah, from additional questions.

Yeah, I do. We seem to keep coming to a lot of the same things like somebody

didn't understand exactly how stuff was there and I'm not saying anybody on

either side did anything wrong but I feel like the city is missing out on some

qualified applicants and so when would he have the opportunity to take this

exam again? The candidate can reapply for this classification once it's

recruited for again and that's out the discretion of the hiring department.

When there's a vacancy to be filled. So it's only when there's a vacancy to be filled.

Correct. Thanks. And I guess I have a question. The information that was listed in

the additional duties would that have been enough information to qualify him

for the position?

Whether it was enough information or not to qualify the city cannot consider it

because it's not consistent amongst all applications. So we didn't even read it

in terms of determining minimum qualifications because we have to apply the same

standards to all applications. Does that answer your question? Not really. No, it doesn't.

Is this an application? Yeah, I'll show you.

Oh, I'll show you on my own.

This is the wrong way.

So based on the information I have currently looking at the additional section of the application,

there are comparable duties to that of the integrated waste equipment operator and senior integrated

waste equipment operator in terms of the machinery that might be necessary to be able

to perform the functions. However, they are not consistent with the actual

essential duties of those classifications. They can be consider comparable in terms of

the machines that are being used. But in order to be determined comparable, the city considers

that at least 50% of the classification is being compared to they are able to relay those

duties in their application. Based on the information that's included in the additional

section or the additional information section, while they only indicated the machinery that's

used, they did not identify that they are comparable duties to that of the integrated waste

equipment operator and that they are essentially trash collectors and they do a variety of different

functions related to that. There's nothing in the essential duties, I'm sorry, the additional

duty section that indicates that level of work. So I would say no, that even with the additional

information provided, they would not have minimum qualifications.

Thank you. Do we have any other questions or comments from the board?

Yes.

Oh, I apologize. Remember, man 4?

Yes, just for understanding. Prior to you coming up, you stated that they did meet certain

requirements, but it just happened to be that they placed it in the wrong section of the

application. But now that you just reviewed it, you just stated that they didn't meet

that. So I just want to be clear as far as where you said that.

I didn't say that they met qualifications. I said that they had some duties that are

comparable to that of other class of the other classifications. But in order to have met

that standard, they needed to have been truly comparable, meaning that they would have

had to perform duties that are similar to that of an integrated waste equipment operator

or senior integrated waste equipment operator, which why need it includes in her report in

section two of how the city determines comparable duties.

For reference, section two of their report specifically states, demonstration of three

years of experience comparable to the job duties performed by an integrated waste equipment

operator with the city of Sacramento. Examples of comparable duties include they're

not limited to collecting and loading refuse, yard waste, recycling, bulky items into

truck, operating mechanisms for dumping and compacting waste efficiently.

Driving various vehicles, including halftime pickups, dump trucks, front loader front end

loaders, water trucks, our refuse packers, two transport and manage waste at assigned

locations or demonstration of two years of experience comparable to the job duties performed

by a senior integrated waste equipment operator with the city of Sacramento. Examples of comparable

duties include but are not limited to collecting and loading refuse, yard waste, recycling

and bulky items into truck, trucks operating mechanism for dumping and compacting waste

efficiently. Operation of specialized equipment and vehicles, including front end loaders,

street sweepers and complex refuse machinery requiring class B, California driver's license.

Providing collection bins, inspecting and servicing equipment for optimal performance.

The information that was included in the additional section by the appellant includes, during

my current employment with the city of Sacramento, I have been supervisor for the last eight

years and worked out of class previously and the supervisor capacity for three years.

I work with Bobcats, tin wheelers, the claw, rear loader machine paving, Bobcat back

home roller. I also deal with 311 residential complaints, I work with for isn't clean city

police work on call, create new work orders, performant, create performance evaluations,

I put in all time and approved for employees through eCAPs and seven I programs. I use Excel

outlook and Microsoft programs to work every day. So I still have the supervisor experience

to take on this new position. When individuals say on an application, I deal with I may be responsible

for things of said nature, the city cannot interpret what that actually means and how that

is applied. Because we are assuming they do those duties versus it being the onus of

the applicant to demonstrate that in the application. The duties that were listed in the additional

section are not comparable to what the city considers comparable, which is why we included

in a report. So you have an understanding of the type of duties of the integrated waste

equipment operator and the senior integrated waste equipment operator.

So besides looking at the job posts and they actually have to also look at the classification

for the position.

Based on the way the specification is written, yes. That is not something that we have a

lot of control over because that is negotiated between the city and the union. That is what

the union and the city determined to have been minimum qualifications. The last time the

specification was reviewed or approved upon. So we have to go based off and by we, I mean

human resources in the city of Sacramento has to screen minimum qualifications based

on the way the specification is written. We consistently apply that to me. Approximately

50% of the essential duties of the classification is being compared to should be demonstrated

in the application by the applicant.

And this is listed in a job post and regards to reviewing the classification for the position.

It says that the comparable duties to the integrated waste equipment operator are senior integrated

waste equipment operator, yes.

It's explicitly.

Yes. In the minimum qualification section. So you have to have a high school diploma

in three years of experience as it says three years of experience comparable to an integrated

waste equipment operator or two years of experience comparable to a senior integrated waste

equipment operator.

But that does not say that within the classification. It's given, you're given the title but it's

not stating that please review the classification in order for you to determine those duties and

those expectations.

No, it is not because that is part of that is not part of the classification specification.

No.

It says comparable duties to that classification. So it is the applicant's responsibility

to understand or know what that means or contact the city if they need assistance interpreting

or understanding what those means. We provide our contact information to every single applicant

on the city's website. It's on every job posting.

We also explain explicitly in the selection procedures if you have any questions, please

contact human resources. We provide our email address as well as our direct phone number.

That's understood.

That's great.

I was going to say we have applicants who contact us all the time to help with understanding

and interpreting minimum qualifications.

I think that's understandable when it comes to internal processes. You understand that

you would have to look at the classification but if it's someone from the outside or anybody

else, I mean, it's almost like an assumption to think that they would have to reach out

to confirm whether or not the duties will resemble or replicate that. What you guys will be reviewing

in regards to the classification. So it's just something that I think that you know, it's

possibly the crux of what the issue is because I would assume that they're just doing

a base off of, you know, what's listed in the post and not necessarily on that additional

research in regards to comparison to the other classifications that you'd be utilizing.

Which is understandable. I also would like to argue that we explicitly list the classification

title and all of our job postings. I'm sorry, all of our classifications are accessible

on the city's website. So anyone can access them at any time. So if we are explicitly

stating in the job posting that you have to meet those duties that are comparable, anyone

can pull up those comparable classifications by visiting the city's website and looking

at the classification specification.

Board Member Stein? My question is more global. So I'm going to let Board Member Bird

go first. I decided if I have, yeah, please go. So mine is, it does apply to this, but

it's more global. And something I see on Java occasions all the time is you've got to

set space. So what if that person trying to demonstrate their comparison to meeting

those minimum qualifications doesn't fit in that set space? Where does that go? And will

that be considered? Or is it like, no, it's not fitting in there. We're not considering

it. Great question. We actually did a test because we noticed that the appellate had

included that they ran out of space and their appeal. And there is an unlimited character

limit in the space. We did a test application which we included as attachment six. And the

packet that indicates everything that they included in their essential duty section

and all the additional information that was included in the additional information section

would have fit in the duty section. Okay, so that's the global question. And then the other

question it's also more global too. And that is, and this isn't anything that anybody

is saying anybody in HR is doing wrong. And we know you are constrained by staffing,

by the technology and quite by the fact that the union negotiates what the minimum qualifications

are. But there appears to be a pattern that we keep seeing similar things come to us that

we had that, you know, the person didn't understand how to do the application or anything. And

so what can be done to start preventing more instances of the same thing?

I think from an applicant standpoint, and I've been with the city for six years and I've

gone through a ton of civil service appeal processes and the city has had the opportunity

to take feedback from the board, apply it, make changes, wear applicable. I think that

it is unreasonable to expect that any agency can combat every single complaint or issue

that's presented in front of them by appellates or by applicants. If we had, for example,

20 people who applied and didn't meet minimum qualifications and all moved forward and said,

hey, I didn't understand the application. To me, that's indicative that we need to look

at our internal processes. But if we have 55 or 100 applicants and only one person didn't

meet, or didn't understand the qualifications standards, then to me, that's not really

an issue with our processes. It may be their lack of understanding of how to understand

or navigate the city application or the city's processes. But we put a ton of information

on the city's applicant resources page for applicants to be able to understand those

expectations, how to navigate. We make ourselves very accessible to those applicants.

So while I understand your concern and I understand it every single month almost, we're

up here just kind of arguing our points when it comes to the different applicants that

are presenting appeals to you all, I do think that the city does a really good job in putting

out applicant resources to be able to help them understand how to navigate minimum qualifications,

how to understand them, what is required for proof of education, where resources are

available, how we interpret those things, so that they are having an understanding of

what the expectation is and the onus of the applicant versus what the city is expected

to do. To answer your question, I don't know that

it's realistic or feasible for us to be able to, every single time we post a job posting,

ensure that there is a way for every single applicant who looks at that job or applies for

that job to understand the qualifications standards, if it's already written in plain

black and white, and we provide those additional resources to help aid in those understanding

and their understanding and also let them know that if they have questions to reach out

to us.

So if I understand correctly what you're saying is that your process is there's no way

to improve them so that we're not saying the same thing every week.

I'm not saying that there's no way to improve them, I'm saying that the city does a good

job of putting out resources to help in understanding and navigating the application process.

We absolutely every time that you present an opportunity for us to review our process,

we'll look at our processes, we'll determine what needs to be changed and we'll apply those

to whatever the situation is.

And we've done that in the past.

You all have said, hey, I think it might be a good opportunity for you to review this.

We've done it, we've applied it, we've provided resources and presentations and all these

different things that we are putting out for applicants.

But while I understand that you're seeing a similar pattern of people not meeting

qualifications standards, I don't think it's realistic for us to be able to come back

that in every single job posting that the city puts out.

I would like to also just put out there that the city is undergoing a citywide classification

and compensation study right now.

The entire point of that is to really look at our processes, our specifications and remove

any barriers to the employment process that might exist.

Is it really necessary for someone to have a driver's license?

Does this classification absolutely require a degree?

Does is there any outdated language in the job posting that we are the classification

specification that we need to remove?

Trying to streamline and make the minimum qualifications more easily understandable.

Those are things that we are currently doing.

I do not have an ETR timeline of when that will be completed, but the city recognizes

that we do need to do those things and we're in the process of doing them.

Before the time being, and today's what we're doing, dealing with what's today, we have

to go off with what the job posting says.

And we are doing our best and our due diligence to be able to make sure that the applicant's

understand, put out the resources that are necessary, so they do have an understanding

of the city's existing processes.

I have one comment and one question.

There still appears to be an opportunity for improvement to help people who, for whatever

reason, whether they don't interpret things well simply by reading or they're just not

processing the information the way it's presented or English isn't their first language

or they're unfamiliar with government processes.

I still think there's opportunity.

So who is in charge of the city classification?

Because I can't speak for my other board members, but nobody's inquired with me and we see

the appeal.

So I think we would be, you know, somebody that would be asked something about it.

So who's in charge of this classification?

This, the Human Resources Department oversees the city's classifications.

And so will somebody be reaching out to us and the other authorities that deal?

No, because those decisions on how the specifications are laid out are specifically between human

resources as we represent the city and the unions that are associated with those classifications.

Thank you.

Board member Berg.

I think you've been very thorough in helping in being responsive to our questions.

And I will say that as the veteran member of this board, it is true that when we have

more global concerns and ask you to look at something, I know there's been a lot of confusion

in the past about being vague around education and experience, education or experience and

or, you know, all those things.

And so I do respect that you've absolutely been responsive when we have raised those

more global issues.

And I understand that you have to have some sort of a uniform process by which you evaluate

all candidates.

Because what we're seeing is a small slice of who has applied.

And so when we only see the people who have had some appealable issue, we don't see

the other 99 of the 100 who have applied or whatever who made it to the process successfully

or navigated it successfully, I should say.

So I do, I definitely see that we need to maintain perspective around who is it that we're

seeing in front of us in terms of it not being.

And I'm pleased to hear that, you know, if you noticed a pattern where you had 50 applicants

and 40 of them all were flailing, you would notice.

So we need to do something about that.

So I do appreciate that.

It is, I'm feeling a little bit uncomfortable around having candidates who maybe just

included information, but in the wrong place.

And I understand why you're saying that we have to be consistent because you're going

to only look at question two as a means of screening because you can't keep looking

through the whole thing.

So I'm just sharing my discomfort a little bit when I hear people say, well, okay, they

should have put it in another place.

You know, nonetheless, I'm respecting the fact that you've appropriately answered the

question around the specifics of this job classification because I don't know it.

When I hear or similar or as comparable or as an example, and you know, we lawyers say

these phrases all the time, you know, as included or we give qualifiers, that gives me pause

a little bit because how do people know if they don't list specific things that you have

specifically listed as examples, how do their examples know if they're actually comparable?

You know, so there's some of that vagueness, but I'm not sure we can correct for that.

So I'm just, I'm basically speaking out loud around the conflict that I see here between

your need for uniformity and consistency and us being as open-minded and inclusive as

possible with respect to the applicants that can be for us.

So it's really just a long-winded comment, I guess.

If I may, really quickly, I appreciate that.

Thank you very much.

I just thought of an idea that might be able to combat the comparable language that I'll

take back to my team.

We are always open to suggestions and feedback on ways to improve.

I did misspeak in terms of who goes over the classifications and who has authority.

Just for an understanding of what takes place when the city is presented with an opportunity

to change classifications, the city and the departments essentially agree on language

and what we like to make changes to in the classification specification.

We go to the union for review and approval for union concurrence.

If it is a civil service classification, it does come to the board.

You are the final say, so on whether or not that classification moves forward.

It's usually on the consent calendar versus the discussion calendar, but it does come to

civil service if it is a civil service classification.

I think we have a comment from, or remember a man for it.

My last comment is just, you know, piggybacking what Member Bird said.

I understand what you said.

Thank you for so much for providing those details.

I understand, you know, I was trying to put out as many fires as possible.

And this is a case by case scenario.

In regards to what our recommendation would be, my personal recommendation is in regards

to the comparable duties or comparable classification.

If there's a link that can be included or embedded so that applicants can actually click

down and be able to see those comparable.

So if you're going to compare it to that specific position or that specific classification,

I think it'd be on the onus of the whoever's developing the duty statements or posting

it up to ensure that the link matches the direct classification so that candidate can

actually click on the link, see those and be able to see those comparable positions and

those duties in order for them to really ensure that they really meet those requirements.

As far as what you were asking, what recommendation we can make, I think that's something that

I think it would be helpful.

I will absolutely take that back and consider it.

Thank you.

And I guess my comment is just to echo what Board Member Bird said in our appreciation

for your very thorough explanation, being a civil servant myself.

For the state, I understand the process and the challenges and the confinements in which

we can finish our work or do our work so understand that.

And I was going to make the same exact suggestion that Board Member Manfor was suggested in terms

of linking to the classification so that our applicants can just click on it and easily

navigate to that classification and see whether or not their experience is comparable to

that.

But I'm sure there's going to be some great suggestions as you go through the compensation

study and some great processes to be more efficient.

So we really appreciate that.

So with that, I don't have any other comments from the Board.

Is there a motion and a second for this item?

I think I'm going to move the directors' suggestion.

The directors' recommendation on this item.

Do we have a second?

No.

We're looking.

There's no second so far.

I think given the current process, can I second as a share?

Given the current process and just how I was explained, the confinements and how this

hiring process works and just some of the limitations I'm going to second the directors' recommendation.

And so can we please have the clerk call the roll for the vote?

Thank you, Vice Chair.

Member a man for?

If staying.

Member Bird?

Aye.

Member Stein?

Jane.

Chair Miola is absent and Vice Chair Gonzalez Kabatik.

The motion does not pass.

What do we do at this point?

Maybe the clerk's office can apply in the situation in the past for the Board.

I assume it could come back again at an additional meeting.

The motion doesn't pass.

The next item we move on to next item.

Next item is member comments, ideas, questions and meeting conference report.

Are there any commissioners who wish to speak?

The last item is public comments.

There's not on the agenda.

Clerk are there any members of the public who wish to speak on public comments?

Thank you, Vice Chair.

I have no speaker slips.

This concludes today's agenda.

Thank you everyone for your participation and the meeting is adjourned.