tv [untitled] July 26, 2012 7:00am-7:30am PDT
have a motion? >> a move to approve. >> do i have a second? >> second. >> we have a motion and a second. >> commissioner hyde? commissioner hyde: aye. commissioner lee: aye. commissioner joseph: aye. >> i am announcing the arrival of commissioner tan. >> appear in item 3, report from executive director and from the sound technician. >> commissioners, but evening. i am going -- good evening. i am going to do a short report. i don't know what happened to my sound technician. i wanted to remind the commission we have been working very hard on the industry summit that is coming up on the sixth of august. the entertainment commission for
the last four years has done an annual summit, basically asking the industry to come to one place and talk to them about salient issues. this year, thankfully, it is not so much focused on all safety issues, although that will always be part of anything that we do, but we will be expanding the discussion to talk about experience, to talk about outdoor events. we have secured the auditorium and a main library from 1:00 until 4:00. i did get confirmation that we will have the mayor attending, the chief of police, was coming, even though he is on vacation, he is actually going to speak to the industry. the director of the abc -- the president of the board of supervisors, and other members will be there as well. i am hopeful command staff from
the police department will come, as well as any interested permit officers or anyone who does interact with the industry. there'll be those speakers that i just described for basically the first half an hour or so. after our esteemed president's introduction. then we are going to set up a panel discussion for the large assembly. we may have a variety of people from the industry, and then we will go into our breakout sessions, which we did not do last year, but we have done in previous years. there have been discussions about issues that we will be talking about along the panel. the large session will be recorded on as a treaty -- sfgtv. the other one shows up on channel 26 in the middle of the night. it will be recorded for
posterity and also strained live via the web. people that might be interested but cannot attend will be able to at least observed. --observe. i had some interesting meetings last week. one was with the responsible bartender's association. we have talked a lot about bringing the level of professionalism up in the industry as a whole, in particular, the security guards. we have been working with guard card and the state of california to make sure we have as much training as possible. at this point, leader training is the only thing out there for servers that is mandatory. there are other training programs. this fellow that i met last year does not live here in california, but created this national organization called the
responsible bartender's association. he is associated with training for intervention procedure. basically, i think it is a more expanded version of lead, but more so talks about how to be the most responsible server you can, how to identify people who are over-served, how to interact in a way that is not aggressive with folks who need to be cut off, and that kind of thing. i know the rba folks and tip folks will come to the summit and put their information not there for people to look at. i would like to start to talk some more here and in the office about responsible server training. i think that is the next level of how much a then you can do to make sure they experience -- their experience is safe and
responsible. i also have a really long meeting with sfcity, which is the san francisco citizens' initiative for technology and innovation. it is the outgrowth of the mayor's campaign focused on how to -- on how to leverage what they have in order to help the city. recently, they came forward with an app for iphones in the police department to start doing things out in the field without having to go back into their stations all the time to write reports. i thought,why can't we come up with something that will help us do what we do? i only have one so far, and enforcement person. we have a whole bunch of different, you know, ideas, some
of which were about what can tech do, literally come as in an application, or in a bigger picture, what does the sector need in terms of my life? what we came up with was this idea of creating a panel discussion that would take place possibly at twitter headquarters or one of these companies that are here in mid market and talk about engaging the sector, talk about the evolving concept of work and play, as those are changing dramatically right now, talk about the use of venues and how they can help create some more opportunities. commissioner tan, that is an interest of yours. talk about alcohol service. talk about the idea of local vs. state power of alcohol service. talk about night life as a whole. in this memo, you can take a look, there are more ideas
about jobs and economic impact, and the thing i've talked about before, which is personal social responsibility. how can we make patrons more responsible for their own behavior? we have not chosen a date yet. i hope it will be sometime in the fall. i think it will be a really good start to come up with, as opposed to some kind of -- at least a conversation about how these things come together. if 20,000 young people of come to which men play here, they need to understand the issues we all face. we need to understand how we can assist them and work around the things they need. that was great and i will follow up with you guys on that as we move forward. i also was in washington, d.c. after our last meeting at the response will hospitality institute. i did not put that in here because i forgot.
representing the city of san francisco at a conference with about 30 of the municipalities talking about our economic impact study, the entertainment commission, which continues to be the only one in the country, and a source of interest always across the board with any other city that deals with night life issues, so that was a great experience. i will continue to do that. so, that includes my report, unless you have questions. >> i have one question. years ago, there used to be a tips program in san francisco. do they have tipped streaming here? >> the one fellow who does it primarily for hotels, hospitality, kind of servers come and he is willing to do more classes. it is not the cheapest thing in the world, but it does something that if we put together enough people, it could be something.
>> could you find out why they stopped doing tips training? >> i can ask. >> i wanted to commend you and having these meetings. that is great. the tech sector panel sounds awesome. we are missing the boat during the summer. thank you for that. >> you are welcome. >> if there is a role i can help like, i think it is exciting to hear about these meetings because i count myself amongst those people that are working and playing. not as a program or anything, but if there's anything we can do to help, i will set that up. let me know. >> i will. >> you're ready? >> yes. good evening, commissioners. in your binder, you will see just a sheet of what some of the things we have been working on. you will see notices of
violation that have been sent to the sycamore and kokomo's. we have been getting more sound complaints recently. i went out there with the head inspector. we poke around a little bit and were able to work with and had some good conversations with the owners and management of that particular location. we are also -- i also followed up with a monday. hopefully, we're getting new soundproofing put into that building. we were able to identify a week point. hopefully, that will help stop some of the sound complaints we have been getting from neighbors in the bay area. we will be meeting with them again this week, later this week. you will see that/received a citation -- shine received a
citation. we have not had many problems with shine in the past. they brought him a security guards that were not licensed. we caught them doing that. you will see under the sfpd reports, for the summer, i will say that for what we generally see in july in past years, this is actually pretty good. we are not seeing a ton of violence. usually do during july and august. we see an upswing. we're still continuing to see a strong trend of theft or pickpockets and the clubs. it is getting better. partially in the mission, working with mission station, where they have launched a program to make patrons and then you staff aware of this problem. it is looking better in the mission. it is still continuing to be an issue citywide.
again, from a violence perspective, we're not seeing the summer upswing that we normally see. we do still have one more month, but so far, so good. pretty short, must there are any questions. -- unless there are any questions. >> you said west. do we permit them? >> we do permit them. they of one of the older permits. >> that is kind of like an upscale lounge-type place? do you know anything about that? >> i do. we received the report and i did a follow up with both the venue and central station. what we are looking at here -- no. . what we're looking at here is a situation where someone was carrying -- that then you does not do pat downs. some carried an illegal firearm into the venue.
it was spotted and pointed out to security. security notified sfpd. as they're waiting for them to respond, this particular gentleman was kind of in a corner. he was doing something. security tackled him, wrestled him to the ground and disarmed him. it was a really kind of not probably the best tactic used by security in this particular situation. it did go off well and no one was hurt. the gentleman in question was actually -- there were warrants for his arrest. he was "carrying for personal protection." this is one of those situations where security went above and beyond, in my opinion. it always makes me nervous when i hear that. i don't want those guys to get hurt. they did notify sfpd. sfpd was able to respond quickly and take him and the
firearm into custody. >> thank you. >> i have a question. club mist is showing up a couple times. is there a reason that security is not, i don't know, more proactive? >> that is a good question. the reports on june 17, that report, we just received. it had been accidentally misfiled. we just got it. that is why you're seeing the date. that particular situation, there was an altercation inside the club. security pushed the instigator into the street, who was very intoxicated. he wandered around a bit. he assaulting a police officer. he took him into custody. the incident listed as july 21, we were waiting for the report out of southern station on that
particular incident. i talked to units who responded to that not that long after they responded to -- what we are hearing their come and again, this is just here say, there was an altercation that spilled into the street. as far as the security, you are asking the important question. we're waiting for the second report before we have a meeting with club management. we need that report in hand. >> i have a question. as you were talking about it, i was wondering if we take down the names of the promoters that were there that night so we can check them against our registry? >> we will. >> that is not up and running? >> it is up and running. we were just still doing the follow up. yes. >> all right. >> the security, you have been
there a few times. have you seen any changes in the head of security? >> over the last probably your come over the last year, there have been a few changes in heads of security. i'm not quite sure who the current head of security is or is there still continuing to use an outside company or an internal group. these are questions we are looking to answer right now. >> ok. >> ok. all right. any public comment on the report from the executive director or the sound technician? all right. item number four. police department comments and questions. anybody from the police department want to discuss something that is not a specific item? all right. item five, discussion and
possible action to amend the entertainment commission bylaws to delete article 2, section 1, subsection g, changing the rules regarding commission presidency. this is an action item. discussion? >> are the bylaws in your -- they are? thank god. this was an item that was brought to a previously by the president. we would request the commission change the bylaws to allow any commissioner who is, regardless of their position, as it were, to be the president for two years. that is a limitation in the bylaws now. this is a simple amendment to change the term limits back.
>> is there a limit that it is set to? >> it is limited right now to two terms. >> if we were to change it, what with the limit be? >> that is for you to discuss amongst yourselves. there isn't a recommendation from staff. >> it is two years per sector. per constituency. entertainment -- >> correct. >> just to clarify for some of the newer commissioners who may not know that. >> contrary to rumors, i am not interested in being president for life. i think because some of us are kind of new, we are getting our grip. i think we're learning a lot from both of you right now. i don't have a problem extending it. i don't know. commissioner hyde and commissioner peres have been here longer. >> i would be comfortable
extending it to year instead of two years as far as my personal preference. i think it would be ample opportunity for the commissioners to feel comfortable with moving on. i think it is good to rotate through the chairs. it is your call. six months? a year? anything more than one year i would not be interested in. >> again, and i think you know this, but to be clear, it is not necessarily not president newlin's desire. this is a bylaws change. you can change these bylaws as you go. there is discussion to be had about the pros and cons. it is something that we would need a motion to make a change. regardless of who is the president now -- if we ended with bylaws, we say three years,
it will be that way until we change it. >> just for history, the bylaws were written in the first year of this commission. 2003-2004. at the time, it was very new. nobody really knew what to expect, being a new regulatory agency. there were reps from the neighborhood and from entertainment. in order to make sure that nobody got into a big brawl here, the bylaws were written to stop that. i think that because seats have changed on this commission so often, lots of commissioners are brand new and don't have the experience that is important to have someone sitting in the chair to set the agenda and runs the meeting that is somewhat experienced. so, i think three years is a good amount of time to do it.
should it still matter what sector it is? that is the other thing i wanted to think about. there are two commissioners that represent entertainment. two represent the neighborhoods. one law enforcement. one urban planning. one public health. i am not so sure that we should even leave the sector part in. i think my idea is to move it to three years and a strike what sector it is. >> when you say strike the sector, do you mean allowing anyone -- >> right, so if there was another -- commissioner newlin represents law enforcement. let's say there was another law- enforcement commissioner. he would not be able to run for
president because this commissioner has been president and has been law-enforcement. i think we have good commissioners no matter what their constituencies are. we shouldn't just say, every sector has to have a chance. i think a commissioner that is good at running a meeting in setting the agenda, no matter what his constituency is, should have a chance. if i were to move to change this, that could be might change. >> ok. the only other contextual comment is that i believe that this point, every commissioner has a four-year term. >> correct. >> does that make sense with respect to -- if three years makes sense to respect to someone's four-year term? it is not their entire term. >> that would be fine. >> they can step down any time. >> of course. >> we handcuff you. >> there is an annual rate --
election requirement. >> there is an annual election? we would have to reelect every year? >> yes, we do that now. >> i am inclined to go with audrey's 3 years and no sector. i think everybody here, it is -- they are capable if they want to do it. what do you think? >> i don't know. i don't agree. i would say that the reasons i don't agree is that, although i don't have some much of a problem with a three-year thing, but changing the sectors, i think it would be good to make sure we don't have two entertainment reps -- talking about reps, president and vice
president? >> no. we're only talking about president. >> in other words, if the polish representative for to step down, he would have to be replaced by someone else, other than if there were -- other than the other sector? >> right. anybody should be able to hold the position of the chair in spite of what their constituency is. it is their capability to chair this commission and not what their representation is. i have been the president of this commission three times, i think, total. i think it is the ability to run a meeting, to keep us on track, to set the agenda. i think that is what a chair does. i think that position should not
be hampered by what sector they represent. it should be based on their ability to do the job. >> i agree with that on principle. we are in political positions. i think already people feel like everyone of us probably is somehow connected to the entertainment industry, whether or not we are. there could be a scenario where you have the entertainment rep be the chair because they're the most capable, or because they're the most aggressive, or because they're the most whatever. and that is where it gets slippery. i hear you. it is based on merit. we want to be sure we are equal here, the merit of being able to run the meeting. i think that was built in to try to protect that politics. we have not seen a jens -- yet. i imagine if there were different people here -- >> you have to remember that, it
is what audrey said, it is more in line with running the meetings. in terms of what happens here, i would like to think we all work together, not dividing into -- i think there was some of that originally in the commission, as you alluded to. i saw some of that. i think it has dissipated. we all work together for a common goal. we all have one vote. it does not really matter who is the president. he cannot control something that other people don't want. >> in addition, everyone can be nominated. it is a majority vote. we all get to vote. anyone can be nominated. in the case of keeping the sectors in place, if an entertainment commissioner was someone representing entertainment was the president,
then another entertainment commissioner could not be nominated because that sector was taken. that other person might be incredibly qualified and could not run. i just think that is a bad reason to disqualify someone. >> i think if we're going to look that, i think there needs to be something -- because it is 50 plus one. >> four votes out of seven. >> i think we would have to increase it and make it harder. if that person truly is qualified, they should get five votes. if it is a person falling. if it is an entertainment representative following another entertainment representative, they have to get five instead of four votes. >> that is called a super majority. that is really interesting.
i don't agree. that is it. i think all of the little petty stuff that goes on here is gone. >> it may come back. just because it is not here now -- my biggest concern is just because it is not here now, hopefully the commission will go on being the same body that it is, working together, but we don't pick the commissioners. there could definitely be a position where, you know come in the future, then maybe is not -- >> regardless of sectors, if there's somebody you don't want to see in a position, you don't vote for them. if this doesn't work, we can revisit it and amend it. if we see it is going in a way. i don't see it going that way.
>> i agree. i don't see it going that way, either. >> we should think of ourselves as one unit and not sectors. i think that is divisive. >> i agree. it is divisive for sure. >> to that, i would like to make a motion that we amend the bylaws with a presidency election every year in july, and that the presidency is move from two years to three years, and that the sectors are dropped. that is my motion. >> i second that. >> calderon. >> can i ask a clarifying question? the term limit is three years. you basically renew every year?