1 BEFORE THE CALIFORNIA STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION 2 450 N STREET 3 SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 4 5 6 REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT 7 MARCH 27, 2019 8 9 10 11 ITEM L1 12 OVERVIEW OF THE FORMER 13 BOE COMMITTEE STRUCTURE 14 AND PROPOSED COMMITTEE STRUCTURE 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 REPORTED BY: Jillian M. Sumner 28 CSR NO. 13619 1 1 P R E S E N T 2 3 For the Board of Honorable Malia S. Cohen Equalization: Chair 4 Honorable Antonio Vazquez 5 Vice Chair 6 Honorable Ted Gaines First District 7 Honorable Mike Schaefer 8 Fourth District 9 Yvette Stowers Appearing for Betty T. 10 Yee, State Controller (per Government Code 11 Section 7.9) 12 For the Board of Henry Nanjo 13 Equalization Staff: Chief Counsel Board Proceedings 14 Brenda Flemings 15 Executive Director 16 Toya Davis Clerk 17 Board Proceedings 18 ---oOo--- 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 1 450 N STREET 2 SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA 3 MARCH 27, 2019 4 ---oOo--- 5 MS. DAVIS: We'll now have Item L, Board 6 Members Requested Matters. Chair Cohen will provide 7 an overview of the former BOE committee structure, 8 and proposed committee structure. 9 Chair Cohen. 10 MS. COHEN: All right. Thank you very much. 11 So, colleagues, we've had a couple 12 discussions about a proposed committee structure. 13 And I wanted to begin to just thank our Executive 14 Director and her staff for the work that they've done 15 examining the prior Board committee structures and 16 for thinking about ways to really help us move 17 forward, and move forward in establishing a new 18 committee structure for this body. 19 At the end of my remarks, we could -- I'm 20 happy to take a motion on some of the proposals that 21 we could discuss today and start to put our words 22 into action. 23 I do want to acknowledge that Ms. Fleming is 24 going to be present for our discussion today to 25 answer any questions from Board Members about ways to 26 best implement a new Board committee structure. 27 I was -- I was selected to Chair of this 28 body, and I publicly pledged to revive Board 3 1 committees to address the ongoing policy, to address 2 the ongoing administrative needs facing taxpayers, 3 stakeholders, and the overall agency. 4 And I just wanted to highlight that the 5 authority of the Chair to establish Board committees 6 is found under Government Code Section 15606. And 7 the parliamentary rules governing our Board is that 8 the Board -- it's the Board's Chair prerogative to 9 establish new standing advisory committees, 10 subcommittees, and/or special advisory committees. 11 In acting upon this authority and 12 acknowledging the extensive work done by the 13 Executive Director and her staff in working to bring 14 auctions for the new Board committee structure, I 15 want to respectfully bring before my colleagues the 16 following proposed committee structure for your 17 consideration. 18 I propose a committee structure so that 19 taxpayers and tax practitioners and our stakeholders 20 have a direct link to the Board, to the work that 21 we're doing, to the discussions that we're having 22 with the issues that many of them are addressing on a 23 daily basis. 24 So here's my proposal: 25 First, I would propose a Legislation 26 Committee. And this committee is to review proposed 27 legislation affecting California's property tax 28 system, or the property tax administrative structure. 4 1 This committee can review legislation and 2 make a recommendation to the Board to consider 3 adopting -- to consider supporting or opposing 4 positions regarding property tax or property tax 5 administration legislation. 6 The second committee that I'm proposing is a 7 Property Tax Committee. This committee would review 8 proposed changes in property tax rules, review 9 proposed changes in the regulations, as well as 10 update the BOE property tax law guide, which, 11 ironically, we heard earlier today that is in need of 12 refresh. 13 Also, under this committee, we would take up 14 the issue of property tax law administrative 15 practices. This committee would be, I believe, an 16 excellent venue to hear -- to review any changes to 17 assessment surveys, to hear changes to assessment 18 surveys in sampling, and changes to the BOE property 19 tax policies. 20 Again, this would allow sunshine into this 21 process so that all could participate. 22 Third committee for consideration is a 23 Strategic Planning Committee. Now this is something 24 that I'm definitely open into. The Strategic 25 Planning Committee is a committee that examined the 26 long-term opportunities of the Board to continue to 27 provide the best state of the art services for 28 taxpayers, for tax practitioners, county assessors, 5 1 and stakeholders. 2 Now there's an opportunity for this 3 committee to begin a -- to -- to begin a transparent, 4 open discussion about the future of the BOE as a 5 modern agency. 6 Any reviews or reports from this committee 7 would be constructed to preserve the Executive 8 Director's independent discretion over all 9 administrative matters. 10 The fourth committee for consideration is a 11 Customer Service Committee. And this committee would 12 provide a venue to consider ways to improve the BOE's 13 outreach and services for property taxpayers, 14 including considering proposals for ensuring 15 comprehensive notice to taxpayers about the pending 16 changes to property tax rules, pending changes to 17 regulations, as well as improvements in ways that the 18 BOE can provide technical services to taxpayers. 19 The Customer Service Committee would be, I 20 think, an excellent venue for us to discuss and 21 examine changes, specifically to eForms. 22 The implementation of the new committees can 23 be viewed as initiating an initial twelve-month 24 working operation, which would be reviewed at the end 25 of each year. 26 Now, the scheduling of these committees 27 would allow us to work collaboratively. We would 28 schedule Board committees to best accommodate the 6 1 interest of the taxpayer, as well as the need of the 2 BOE staff. It would allow issues to be carefully and 3 thoroughly discussed. 4 And my view is that these committees should 5 be conducted on a date other than the Board Hearing 6 date. But I'm flexible and open to discussion on 7 that. 8 I think it's important to note that having 9 committee hearings on a date other than the Board 10 Hearing date would allow us more time for careful and 11 thoughtful analysis, and allow us an opportunity to 12 make sure that critical work of the Board is not 13 being impaired by a fixed -- by a fixed committee 14 schedule. 15 I wanted to talk about Bagley-Keene Open 16 Meeting Act. I think it's important that we speak 17 this on the record. I've taken careful 18 consideration. 19 These committees will most certainly conduct 20 their meetings in accordance with the Bagley-Keene 21 Open Meeting Act. That's Government Code Section 22 1125.1. 23 It will -- the committees will actively 24 encourage public comment and participation by 25 taxpayers as well as, again, stakeholders. 26 The committee structure is being proposed 27 for our discussion today. It's important work for 28 the BOE to proceed in an orderly fashion with public 7 1 support and guidance throughout -- through publicly 2 noticed and interested party meetings. 3 The commitment of Board Members to these 4 committees and working with the assistance of the 5 Board staff is important. The committee structure or 6 any committee structure will only work if there are 7 two guiding principles -- if their two guiding 8 principles are followed. 9 First, we must look over -- we must look to 10 our excellent staff for their expertise. We must pay 11 attention and assist the committees with appropriate 12 subject matter experts, that the support staff -- and 13 the support staff to ensure that the -- that notice 14 to stakeholders and interested parties proceed in an 15 efficient matter. 16 I think it's also important to note my 17 second point, which is that we, as Board Members, and 18 our staffs, must be committed to doing the difficult, 19 rigorous work required to make the Board committee 20 structure work. 21 This work would require commitment of time; 22 it would require commitment of effort. And I'm sure 23 that's something we're all bringing with us to this 24 body. 25 I want to welcome the recommendations from 26 the Executive Director, as well as the possible staff 27 assistance in making this new committee structure 28 work. 8 1 Our goal is creating a collaborative and 2 open working environment. And, again, I really want 3 to emphasize that in the spirit of the new openness 4 of the Board, our goal as Board Members is to create 5 a collaborative working environment that advances the 6 work of the committee. 7 We will engage, but we will not direct. We 8 will engage, but we will not direct staff in any way. 9 This is important for us to note, because we are 10 behold into AB 102, and we are looking for 11 recommendations from the Executive Director on how to 12 best and expeditiously implement this new 13 committee -- committees for the Board, once we've 14 considered the following -- once we've considered the 15 following motion. And I'll just state my motion out 16 there so that we can begin the debate. 17 And although the Chair retains the right to 18 establish committees out of the spirit of 19 cooperation, and of course collegiality, I'd like to 20 offer the following motion: 21 I'd like to move that the Board, through the 22 Chair, establish four committees; again, the 23 Legislation Committee, Property Tax Committee, 24 Strategic Planning Committee, and a Customer Service 25 Committee. 26 And if this actually passes after a period 27 of reflection, I would like to make appointments to 28 these committees to be chaired by each and every one 9 1 of us. And I would work with the Executive Director 2 as well as her staff on the best scheduling and 3 operational implementation for these committees. 4 I would like to invite discussion both from 5 the Executive Director as well as my colleagues to 6 hear their thoughts. 7 Ms. Stowers, you are probably one of the 8 long-standing Members on this body. And the 9 Controller gave some very good, sage advice to me 10 back in January encouraging the committee structure. 11 So I would appreciate if you had some thoughts that 12 you could share with us, that you would do so today. 13 Colleagues, I'll start with you to see if 14 there are any questions or comments or statements. 15 I've put a lot out there. But I just wanted to move 16 this conversation forward with as much detail as 17 possible. 18 Thank you for the consideration. 19 Are there any -- 20 MR. SCHAEFER: Want to start with me? 21 MS. COHEN: I'll start with you, Member 22 Schaefer. 23 MR. SCHAEFER: Thank you, Madam Chairman. 24 You mentioned Bagley-Keene. And I think we 25 ought to get into discussion on rottening the 26 exemptions of Bagley-Keene. 27 If I want to ask more than two of my 28 colleagues to talk about the weather, I may be 10 1 violating it. Especially if I should talk to the 2 other colleagues Chief of Staff. 3 I think we need to have a little more 4 liberality of the people that started Bagley-Keene 5 and started the Brown Act. And the moving papers 6 there said the people of California do not delegate 7 to the Legislature to determine what they ought to 8 know and ought not to know. And I think we've gone 9 far beyond that. 10 I think it's being interpreted by some is 11 that we're not even allowed to talk to them. So I 12 think we have to be careful that we don't allow 13 Bagley-Keene to tie our hands. 14 Beyond the original intent is things that we 15 should talk about here should not be talked about 16 over lunch. 17 Secondly, if you're going to have four 18 committees, and it happened to be four of us, that 19 means we each get one committee. I would like to be 20 able to name my own committee. I'd like to call it 21 the Committee for Economy and Efficiency and 22 Government. 23 And our first meeting, I'd like to talk 24 about my frustration and, for three months now, 25 having been unable to get out of the lease on my 26 office in Irvine, which is 90 miles from my home. 27 You certainly don't expect me to drive 90 miles to 28 work. Some people do. But this -- this guy is not 11 1 going to do that. I'd fly if I had a plane. 2 So I think it should be much easier for us 3 to get out of leases that we're not using. In my 4 case, we should be able to hand it over to the 5 taxation people next door to us. There's a common 6 door. They could take that over tomorrow. 7 Or I should be able to work a deal, sell it 8 at half price to somebody who wants to open a 9 cannabis shop. I mean, that's the new rave. And 10 they bring all the tax money just upstairs to be 11 counted. It would be convenient. But at least we'd 12 get out of paying $4,100 a month's rent for an office 13 we're not using. 14 So, yes, I do support the committees. I 15 would like to have some say in naming my committee, 16 which would be the Committee for Efficiency, Economy 17 and Government. And I would look at the operations 18 of the five counties where I am the Board Member. 19 And while I couldn't direct my staff to do 20 anything, I could send some advice to the five 21 counties as to what this Member of the Board thinks. 22 And I, of course, would send it 23 professionally out, because I'd want to have the 24 Orange County Register, the Riverside Press 25 Enterprise, the Sangley Union Trib, maybe the LA 26 Times is sold in those counties, and talk about what 27 Member Schaefer is trying to do to save some money 28 for the people of California and improve the services 12 1 for the people of California. 2 So I applaud our Chairman for her vision 3 being an activist. That's one reason I supported 4 her. She did a tremendous job for the city and 5 county of San Francisco. And I see that she's doing 6 that for us. 7 Thank you. 8 MS. COHEN: Thank you. Thank you. 9 MR. GAINES: Yes. Great. Thank you. 10 I appreciate Member Schaefer's comments, 11 because I would like to -- it would be nice to have a 12 little time to kind of figure out our priorities 13 among Members. 14 I especially appreciate the comment on 15 office space, because I've got the same dilemma. And 16 I want to get out of my space, and I want to get into 17 something that is more efficient and saving taxpayer 18 dollars. It's just a frustration that I have to 19 express. Again, anything that we can do to move that 20 quickly so we're doing right by the taxpayer, I'd 21 appreciate. 22 In terms of the committee concept, I like 23 the idea. I want to make sure that we're clear in 24 our mission, and that we're abiding by AB 102. And 25 so maybe you can provide more clarity -- 26 MS. COHEN: Sure. 27 MR. GAINES: -- to me over the course of 28 this debate. And maybe further discussion beyond 13 1 that. 2 But I -- my thinking is that we can also 3 look at an educational aspect. Here we are, all four 4 of us are brand new, just been elected, and we have 5 tremendous responsibilities on valuation of billions, 6 trillions of dollars of property here in the state. 7 And it would be nice to have meetings, in my 8 opinion, more frequently that would educate us on key 9 issues that we ought to know as Board Members. 10 And I feel the acceleration is necessary 11 given that we're a completely new Board. But I like 12 the idea of taking a look at key issues about 13 planning for the future, about having a vision for 14 the future. And as long as those concerns that I'm 15 thinking about can be addressed. 16 We have this push-pull where we want to act, 17 and we want to act quickly. We want to get educated 18 quickly. And, yet, we have demands on getting proper 19 staffing. 20 And so I know we're going to have to push in 21 order to try to pull this all off. But I'm open to 22 it and further discussion. 23 MS. COHEN: Okay. How about down on this 24 end? 25 Member Vazquez. 26 MR. VAZQUEZ: Yes. I actually -- I think 27 this -- in concept, I agree with, you know, the move, 28 the structure. I guess my issue is more with the 14 1 process. 2 And I know we had this conversation at one 3 of our earlier meetings about calling for a retreat. 4 And I'm wondering if it isn't better for us to call 5 for this retreat, and calendar, whether it's in May 6 or June. The sooner the better. And then from that, 7 reintroduce, basically, your structure, which I think 8 makes sense. 9 But I feel a little, I guess, taken back by 10 moving on a structure without us actually having a 11 dialogue. Which I know we can't. That's one of the 12 frustrations I'm hearing from some of the Members 13 that, unless we call for a retreat, we really can't 14 have this discussion to hear where people's 15 priorities are or the consensus, at least of the new 16 Board. 17 Because all four of us being new, I'm 18 wondering if that wouldn't be the appropriate move to 19 move forward with setting a retreat, bring this back 20 up, and let's look at it. And it may be that we use 21 this exact structure, or maybe we tweak it, or we add 22 something to it. But I like to throw that out there. 23 And then in light of hearing from all the 24 departments. And I know Brenda will -- is constantly 25 telling us that we're understaffed, right? And I 26 just don't know if it's appropriate to put, now, this 27 whole task and structure in front of them until they 28 actually hire or fill their vacancies, right? 15 1 I'm thinking the Legal Department and the 2 other departments that we have within our current 3 structure, I just feel that we're kind of crippling 4 these folks at a time where I think we need to 5 embrace them and figure out a way to help them. 6 And I -- I'm hoping that would come out in 7 our debate and our retreat where we start getting 8 into it. And then hearing from staff telling us, 9 Well, look, you know, we're at capacity at this 10 level. But we could possibly support given whatever 11 priorities we come up with. 12 Let's say there's a consensus on three or 13 four things we need to tackle this year, and then 14 have the staff give us an assessment on staffing if, 15 in fact, those are actually doable. 16 And then given our staff that we currently 17 have -- I know not everybody is fully staffed yet. 18 But given our resources that we have independently in 19 our -- in our own offices, what we contribute to 20 partner with your staff to make sure that we hit the 21 mark, whatever benchmarks we set moving forward. 22 MS. STOWERS: Well, so, yes, the prior 23 Board -- all boards have had committees. And we had 24 each committee that you named except for Strategic 25 Planning. Instead of Strategic Planning, they had 26 Business Taxes. 27 MS. COHEN: Okay. 28 MS. STOWERS: The prior Board of September 16 1 2017 voted to stop the committee function. And the 2 reason why they voted to stop was obviously AB 102 3 and the firewalls. 4 So that's between the electives, and the 5 elective staff, and the BOE staff. They were 6 concerned that through that committee process, 7 although you're right, you want to engage. But they 8 were still concerned that it would at least have the 9 appearance of directing staff. Which is something 10 that you guys cannot do. 11 And this is really true, like, you named the 12 Leg. Committee. Let's say there was some bill out 13 there that the Board -- the Members wanted to 14 sponsor. Our current leg. director cannot go out 15 there and lobby for BOE for us. That's a step that 16 he can -- our leg. director cannot do. It would have 17 to be someone from your office going out. 18 MS. COHEN: Mm-hm. 19 MS. STOWERS: Basically what -- what 20 Treasure Ma did is she did an excellent job of it. 21 Her staff would go and find bills that she felt there 22 was interest to the BOE and the BOE program. 23 Even when we became just property tax, do 24 all the research, put it on the agenda as a Member 25 item, have all the bill analysis there, and then ask 26 the Board if we want to support or sponsor that bill. 27 And if the Board said yes to sponsoring the 28 bill, then her person would go out there and work the 17 1 halls. Because that was in her -- her exempt 2 capacity. 3 So I'm a little concerned, definitely, on 4 the Leg. Committee to pick up a Leg. Committee and 5 using BOE staff to go out there. I think that might 6 send some red signals. 7 As far as the proposed Property Tax 8 Committee, that's a lot on their plate. I mean, 9 they're currently looking at all these items as it 10 is. 11 MS. COHEN: When you say they -- 12 MS. STOWERS: Property Tax Committee. You 13 know, we're looking at rule changes and regulations 14 and law guides. That's what Mr. Yeung and his team 15 does on a regular basis. 16 So I'm concerned that if we did go with that 17 committee, and now are we adding on more work to 18 their plate when we know that they're short-staffed? 19 That's a concern. 20 Customer Service, they had that before. I 21 know that, again, you need to have some eForms out 22 there. And it needs to be updated. I'm not sure if 23 it's best to do it through a committee function or 24 just keep it with our regular process when we're 25 updating forms. 26 If we open it to the public, the public has 27 an opportunity to speak on it. The assessors speak 28 on it. So I'm not really sure if we need to put that 18 1 into a committee. 2 What I think is important -- is very 3 important is the outreach services. Which I believe 4 that's what you all should be doing in your district. 5 And I'm not sure you are doing it in your district. 6 So I don't know if we need a committee for 7 that, or you guys are allowing -- you guys are doing 8 what you want to do. 9 And let's say disasters. We all have 10 disasters. So take that disaster information, and 11 working that in your district and making sure you're 12 out there and explaining it to your constituents. 13 Let's see. And I'm assuming if you guys 14 want committees, it's going to be each District 15 Member will have a committee. The Controller was 16 never part of the committee function. 17 And I know I brought up the committee maybe 18 in January or February. And my reasons were 19 completely different. I wanted to have a standing 20 committee of some sort, so that when they do have IP 21 meetings, that all of your staff can go. 22 Right now, because we don't have a standing 23 committee, because of Bagley-Keene, only two can go. 24 And I'm generally the first one to hit the e-mail, 25 because I know the rules, that I want to be there. 26 I don't -- we don't participate. But we're 27 there listening. And it's very important to hear 28 what the parties are saying firsthand. That's no 19 1 disrespect to staff, but you want to be able to hear 2 it. 3 So I go. And last year it was kind of 4 always default to the Chair. So someone from 5 Mr. Runner's office was always there. And that was 6 kind of like the way that we followed suit, because 7 we didn't have standing committees. So I was pushing 8 for standing committees in January. 9 But I've gotten some feedback that -- from 10 your Director saying that I could be adding on more 11 work that the staff can't handle right now. So I'm 12 really concerned. 13 This may be -- maybe we need to slow down a 14 little bit, and want to make sure that we don't 15 violate AB 102. 16 And, two, see what we can do about filling 17 some of the vacancies first before we go into this 18 committee structure. 19 And then -- although it's totally your right 20 to establish the committees. But perhaps your 21 colleagues would like to have a different type of 22 committee. But I'm neutral. 23 MS. COHEN: Thank you. 24 MR. SCHAEFER: Chair Cohen, if she's the 25 first to go to this committee, and this guy, but just 26 to listen and not speak, we can all go and listen and 27 not speak. I don't think that violates -- 28 MS. STOWERS: No. 20 1 MS. COHEN: No. 2 MS. STOWERS: No. 3 MS. COHEN: That's in violation of 4 Bagley-Keene. We cannot all go and listen and speak. 5 We cannot. 6 MS. STOWERS: No. 7 MS. COHEN: No. 8 MS. STOWERS: And they were really clear in 9 that Chief Counsel memo that they -- I know it's kind 10 of crazy. I go. But I'm not -- I'm going as staff. 11 They ask that Members do not go. So Members 12 never -- even prior to AB 102, Members did not go to 13 the IP meeting. It was always their staff there. 14 And we always took notes and listened. But we didn't 15 direct during those meetings. 16 MR. SCHAEFER: And if it's telecast, we 17 can't watch. 18 MS. COHEN: No, I think if it's telecast, 19 you can watch. 20 MS. STOWERS: But in the past, IP meetings 21 have not been -- 22 MS. COHEN: Telecast. 23 MS. STOWERS: -- telecast. They've been in 24 there [inaudible]. We're just -- it's a working 25 meeting. Especially when it comes to property tax 26 items. They can go eight hours. 27 MS. COHEN: All right. I just want to -- we 28 heard everyone give statements. I want to give the 21 1 Executive Director an opportunity to -- to also weigh 2 in on the discussion. 3 MS. FLEMING: Thank you, Madam Chair and 4 Members, for all your comments and the consideration. 5 It's a thoughtful topic. It's deep, and it 6 has a lot of different dimensions to it certainly. I 7 think to the degree -- and everything is valid from 8 every lane. There's validity in everything. So I 9 guess where I'm pondering is how to look for an 10 opportunity to support what you'd like to accomplish. 11 So obviously be in compliance with the law, 12 and equally be protective of staff who have a 13 boatload of work, as you've heard consistently. And 14 so trying to integrate that into some sort of a 15 win/win for everyone I think is -- would be my 16 objective. 17 So I think to the degree -- what I'm open to 18 is -- to the degree that we need to find, as you've 19 stated, with four new Members, District Members, it 20 is important that we give you a form and an 21 opportunity to get more exposure and get engaged in 22 these topics. 23 I support that. I agree with it. I think 24 it's good for the agency; I think it's good for the 25 state. So looking for and creating some sort of form 26 that allows that, I think the committee structure can 27 help with that. 28 Because, again, to your point, this is the 22 1 only structure that we can have you all together. 2 And it has to be in the form of a general Board 3 Meeting or a committee meeting. 4 MR. SCHAEFER: But we could all go to a 5 retreat and be in the same room? 6 MS. FLEMING: So that's a separate issue. 7 MS. COHEN: No, we cannot. 8 MS. FLEMING: So -- yeah. So retreat is not 9 something that we would be able to do. Ours would 10 be, in whatever form, has got to be a public 11 meeting. 12 MS. COHEN: So -- 13 MS. STOWERS: Could we -- 14 MS. COHEN: Hold on just very quickly. 15 So just so we have some -- the purpose 16 that -- the reason that I gave a framework is so that 17 we can start this conversation. So that's why -- 18 that's why we're here. Retreats cost time, money and 19 resources. And we, legally, cannot do it. It has to 20 be transparent. 21 MS. FLEMING: Public -- 22 MS. COHEN: One thing we have -- that we -- 23 that we have that satisfies everything is that we 24 come together as a meeting. 25 So that is why -- that's -- that's what 26 makes it so difficult to implement your retreat idea, 27 Mr. Vazquez. 28 MR. VAZQUEZ: Well, and let me ask our Legal 23 1 counsel here. 2 Is that true, we're not able to call for a 3 retreat? 4 MS. FLEMING: So the retreat -- I'll, you 5 know, let Henry jump in on this. 6 But any time a quorum of the Board is 7 together, three or more, and what's challenging for 8 us as a smaller Board, when you get three or more 9 Members, that's a quorum. You have to notice that as 10 a public meeting. 11 MR. VAZQUEZ: Which -- which we -- I don't 12 mind. That's not a problem in a retreat. It is a 13 public meeting. 14 MS. FLEMING: So perhaps it's an issue of 15 semantics. You may be referring to it as a retreat, 16 but that's typically not the language we use. We 17 would just declare it as a public meeting. And more 18 importantly, probably in our history, more a special 19 meeting -- 20 MR. VAZQUEZ: Call it what you want. 21 MS. FLEMING: -- of the Board. 22 Exactly. It's the semantics. 23 MR. VAZQUEZ: But, basically, I mean, I've 24 been involved in retreats through city councils where 25 you're obviously, because of the Brown Act, you have 26 to publicly notice -- 27 MS. FLEMING: Sure. 28 MR. VAZQUEZ: -- and everybody is welcome to 24 1 come. And that's what I'm referring to. 2 MS. FLEMING: Okay. 3 MR. VAZQUEZ: If you want to call it another 4 meeting, a special meeting, call it what you want. 5 MS. FLEMING: Special meeting of the Board, 6 you know, on a specific topic. 7 MR. VAZQUEZ: But basically an opportunity 8 for us, when we haven't had a chance to dialogue 9 among each other. Because we have an agenda that's 10 posted, which means we can't talk about -- 11 MS. FLEMING: Mm-hm. 12 MR. VAZQUEZ: -- our goals, our -- you know, 13 what is the priority of each Member of what they 14 would like us -- to see us do. That's where I'm 15 heading. 16 MS. FLEMING: Mm-hm. 17 MS. COHEN: But, Mr. -- 18 MR. VAZQUEZ: Let me just finish up. 19 What I'd like to see us do is call it a 20 public meeting, call it whatever you have to call it 21 legally, but allow us to have a conversation among 22 ourselves in front of public, so everybody's here. 23 You know, the public can put in chips. They can 24 participate if they choose to. And give us an 25 opportunity to start setting some direction. 26 As we're hearing from you all, you obviously 27 are understaffed. You need some support. What can 28 we do collectively to support that? 25 1 Also, whether moving forward, you know, 2 we're talking about ACA 2. We're talking about all 3 these bills that are out there floating. And there's 4 other legislative members out there that are pushing 5 other bills that impact the BOE. We should be 6 discussing that -- 7 MS. FLEMING: Mm-hm. 8 MR. VAZQUEZ: -- in this public meeting 9 where we can say, "Is this a priority? Is this 10 something you want to take on?" 11 Or maybe we don't. I don't know. If 12 there's not a consensus, maybe we don't move in some 13 of those directions that some of the members at the 14 Capitol are pushing. 15 But we should at least have this dialogue. 16 And then we can kind of set the road map for 17 ourselves strategically. 18 MS. FLEMING: Mm-hm. 19 MR. VAZQUEZ: What is it that we want to do, 20 and be realistic about it. Because in a perfect 21 world, you know, we don't have -- we're not fully 22 staffed. 23 MS. FLEMING: Mm-hm. 24 MR. VAZQUEZ: So some of the things we may 25 want to do that might be the top priority, you're 26 going to tell us and say, You know what, given our 27 capacity right now with our staffing levels, you 28 know, we don't have the capacity to do that right 26 1 now. 2 MR. SCHAEFER: Yeah. 3 I agree that we should have a meeting 4 without a formal agenda just so we could have a 5 retreat. I agree it should be posted. I agree we 6 should invite the public. Even some crackpots who 7 want to come in and give us an opinion, you know. We 8 don't have to listen to it. 9 And we should have it at a more exciting 10 forum. I mean, we get additional turnout. I mean, 11 we have quality but not quantity. I'd like to have 12 the retreat in Tony's District, and have it at Avalon 13 Catalina Island at the ballroom. 14 And I'd like to have it in the summer. And 15 maybe we can get some of the -- is it -- 16 three-and-a-half million people in your county to 17 come over and talk to us. 18 MS. COHEN: I can appreciate that goal. 19 I think that we need to be mindful of the 20 resources that we would be spending to go down to 21 Catalina Island or wherever you suggested to have 22 this. I mean, we need to be very mindful about how 23 we're spending taxpayer dollars. 24 So I actually would be against something 25 like that. And I think that we need to be as frugal 26 as possible. 27 I also want to remind people that we have an 28 opportunity to put whatever we want on the agenda. 27 1 If you want something specifically put on it, you -- 2 today, make the request; tomorrow -- next month, we 3 start -- we start -- we start the discussion. 4 I mean, there's a whole section. I think 5 it's K. 6 MS. FLEMING: The L item. 7 MS. COHEN: The L item. 8 But to this point, nobody has ever put 9 anything on the agenda for us to discuss. 10 So you want to talk about -- I don't really 11 know what you want to talk about. But this is the 12 venue, this is where we spend our time, this is where 13 we spend our resources. 14 I'm uncomfortable billing taxpayers to go 15 down to Southern California to go down to retreat, 16 when we come here on monthly basis and can talk about 17 whatever retreat items you want to talk about. 18 I want to make sure we give Mr. Nanjo an 19 opportunity to address your previous statement in 20 question about Bagley-Keene and about public notice 21 and notification. 22 MS. FLEMING: Right. So before -- I'm 23 sorry. Just before Henry comments, I just want to 24 confirm something. 25 So in terms of a current agenda, we do have 26 public meetings that -- that has the capacity to 27 create the forum to do the things that you want to 28 achieve. 28 1 The L item -- to the Chair's point. The 2 L item was created specifically. There's a couple of 3 items on our agenda in that template that are created 4 to give you just this opportunity. 5 So the L item from the previous Board was 6 created to say, "We need an opportunity to have an 7 exchange of information on whichever topic." 8 The proclamation or policy or practice on 9 the L item has been -- it's peer-to-peer discussion 10 on whatever you choose to discuss. 11 Staff are here, just like we are doing 12 today. As for the technical advisors, Legal is 13 always available to provide technical guidance. 14 If you decide as a collective Board there's 15 a -- there's an assignment that came out of it, then 16 you're obviously, you know, authorized to give me 17 direction to work those items through with staff. 18 But I just wanted to clarify that you 19 actually have a form that allows that. That can 20 include any public commenters, you can invite guests, 21 including other Legislators. 22 We've had that, historically, where other 23 Legislators, active sitting Legislators, have come 24 down and presented to the Board. So that's the 25 intent. 26 So to the extent that you want to revisit 27 the structure, it could be something that there's 28 more content in that area. 29 1 If you have a day where maybe on some of the 2 other items, there's not as much staff reporting. 3 Which we appreciate the opportunity to educate. But 4 that could be something where it could be -- that's 5 the most robust and more significant portion of the 6 agenda. 7 So you do -- I just wanted to clarify that 8 before you jump in that you have a form for that. 9 MR. SCHAEFER: I have a -- 10 MS. COHEN: Mr. Schaefer, we want to get 11 Mr. Nanjo -- 12 MR. SCHAEFER: Yes. Well, I just wanted to 13 say, with a view to the taxpayers, I used to be in 14 the hotel business in Catalina Island. Not now. But 15 I would comp an overnight room for every Member of 16 the Board so the state wouldn't have to pay for it. 17 And we can all drive down there. And the 18 only fuss maybe the state might worry about is 19 hopping on a boat to get over there. And that's not 20 that expensive. And we can all pay for that. 21 MS. COHEN: Thank you. I appreciate that. 22 But living in one of the most expensive counties in 23 the entire state of California, I'm counting every 24 penny that comes in and out of my own personal 25 household. 26 But a comp would mean that we would have 27 to -- it would be a gift. We'd have to put it on 28 Form 70. I mean, it's not so simple. 30 1 MR. SCHAEFER: I don't think I can give you 2 a room, can I? 3 MS. COHEN: I don't think you can either. 4 Nor would I accept it. 5 But, Mr. Nanjo, could you -- 6 MR. NANJO: Sure. 7 So thank you, Chair Cohen, Board Members. 8 Mr. Vazquez, basically under Bagley-Keene, 9 you can have something like a retreat. 10 All -- all a retreat -- if I understand, 11 what you're suggesting is, is a special meeting under 12 Bagley-Keene. It would be called a special meeting. 13 And under the agenda, the topic would be, 14 essentially, whatever you choose. 15 You know, future of BOE, what our priorities 16 should be. You know, you can describe that in the 17 agenda. 18 And just as our Executive Director has 19 pointed out, that could also be done at a regular 20 Board Meeting. 21 I'm going to flip my hat around and put on 22 my acting Chief Board Proceedings' hat. 23 One of the things I've neglected to mention 24 that I wanted to make sure the Board is aware of, is 25 you have, essentially, except for one Member, the 26 Board Proceedings' staff in this room. We only have 27 three people. 28 We have Michelle over there; Jillian, our 31 1 half-time reporter; Toya Davis, who is acting as your 2 clerk. And then I have one other person who, for 3 reasonable accommodation purposes, works out of her 4 home. That's Rose Smith. 5 But this is another area where I have three 6 people in Board Proceedings, where we used to have 7 probably -- okay, BOE 1.0, not fair comparison. But 8 probably somewhere in the neighborhood of 18. 9 Michelle, is that about right, total? 10 MS. BAETGE: There was about 22. 11 MR. NANJO: Twenty-two. Sorry. Yeah. 12 And even though we don't have all those 13 other programs, the fact of the matter is, these 14 women are very, very busy trying to do the work that 15 needs to be done just to get the agendas out, get the 16 public notices out, get all the paperwork together, 17 yada, yada, yada. 18 And, obviously, Jillian recording every word 19 solo. We used to have two people so Jillian could 20 switch off with people. But we don't have that 21 luxury anymore. 22 So I think one of the challenges would be 23 for us to have another meeting other than the ones 24 that are already scheduled -- 25 MS. FLEMING: Until the staff are filled. 26 MR. NANJO: Until the staff is built up is 27 not only a resource issue, but it's a practical time 28 issue. We don't have the time to do that. As, you 32 1 know, we go -- right afterwards, I think my first 2 meeting to work on April's agenda starts this 3 Friday -- 4 MS. FLEMING: Yes. 5 MR. NANJO: -- at Board Proceedings. 6 MR. VAZQUEZ: Well, I'm wondering, could 7 we -- you know, to me, it doesn't have to be out -- 8 it could be right here. 9 MR. NANJO: Yeah. 10 MR. VAZQUEZ: What if we did it right here. 11 Whether we did it before the meeting or after this 12 meeting, you know, our regular meeting that we have 13 coming up. 14 Like, for example, our next scheduled 15 meeting is in April. April might be too soon. I 16 don't know. What if we did it, like, in May. So we 17 would be right here. 18 And if we want to go into another conference 19 room to give it a different setting, I'm fine with 20 that. Or it could be right sitting where we're at so 21 we're not asking people to travel or spend money on 22 hotels or anything like that. 23 And just have a special meeting that would 24 give us the opportunity for us to dialogue in public 25 to see if there's a consensus on any priorities 26 moving forward. And have that -- and we can discuss 27 the structure. 28 MR. NANJO: Yeah. 33 1 MR. VAZQUEZ: That I think you did a good 2 job in presenting here. And see if it fits into our 3 priorities. 4 MR. NANJO: And from a Board Proceedings 5 standpoint, clearly, if it's at the same time as the 6 regular meeting, that would help us. Because we 7 would just make a bigger notice, for lack of a better 8 term. 9 MR. VAZQUEZ: I'm good with that. 10 MS. COHEN: Mr. Nanjo, could you refresh us 11 about, on the record, so that we're all of the same 12 understanding, and we can appreciate the nuance -- 13 nuances of Bagley-Keene. 14 MR. NANJO: Sure. 15 Oh, Bagley-Keene versus Brown Act, or just 16 Bagley-Keene, generally? 17 MS. COHEN: Bagley-Keene generally. 18 MR. NANJO: Okay. So under Bagley-Keene, 19 basically, you're representing -- you have powers 20 that are given to you under the constitution. 21 But as a public Board, you -- one of the 22 parties, a seat that isn't up there, is the public. 23 So the public has to be able to participate 24 in all deliberations, discussions. Any time you're 25 conducting business, the public has to have a seat at 26 the table. That's why there's a need for public 27 notice, and for public agenda. That's why -- 28 sorry -- the public is invited. That there are, you 34 1 know, requirements that, on agenda items, they have 2 to have an opportunity to speak. 3 And the other thing that makes it 4 challenging to be in another location, even in 5 another room, Member Vazquez, is the public is used 6 to us live-casting these proceedings. So we want to 7 make sure, you know, as much as possible, that the 8 public -- even those who are maybe shut in their 9 house and not able to come, can participate through 10 video. 11 MR. VAZQUEZ: Let's do it here. 12 MR. NANJO: Yeah. 13 MR. VAZQUEZ: So I'd like to move, if 14 there's a second here, to call for a special meeting. 15 And let's say in May it would be attached to our 16 regular meeting, whether it's before the meeting or 17 after the meeting, right in this area. 18 And we can have this discussion among 19 ourselves in the public, and see if there's a 20 consensus on some of our priorities. 21 MR. SCHAEFER: I would second that. 22 MS. STOWERS: Madam Chair. 23 MS. COHEN: Yes. 24 MS. STOWERS: A question. 25 MS. COHEN: Ms. Stowers. 26 MS. STOWERS: Don't we have -- can I get 27 some warm water first? 28 May seems kind of soon. I know it's 35 1 important. It's extremely important. But I'm just 2 thinking about some of the deadlines we have coming 3 up. We have value setting in May. You're open to a 4 date. I think May is a busy month. 5 MS. FLEMING: So if I may, I would, you 6 know -- 7 MS. COHEN: If -- if I may just remind 8 people that I've made a motion on the -- 9 MS. FLEMING: I was going to say -- 10 MS. COHEN: There's a motion already open. 11 So before we take -- can take up any other motion, we 12 need to -- 13 MR. VAZQUEZ: Was there a second? I don't 14 think it had a second. 15 MS. COHEN: It doesn't have a second, but 16 it's still on the floor. I didn't call for a 17 second. 18 MS. FLEMING: So we can't move to the next 19 motion, because you've got an open motion at this 20 point. 21 MS. COHEN: Right. So we can -- what -- we 22 can take up your motion as soon as we take up mine. 23 But I think mine still deserves some more 24 conversation around it, and making sure that we're 25 all clear on what we can and cannot do. 26 And we did not have an opportunity to hear 27 from you, as the Executive Director, on your thoughts 28 on the committee structure. I believe that -- 36 1 MR. SCHAEFER: Chair Cohen, I withdraw my 2 second. I didn't mean to seize what -- 3 MS. COHEN: Oh, okay. That's fine. 4 So for the ladies keeping record, that 5 motion for his second has been withdrawn. So we will 6 revisit it at the end. 7 You know something is wrong when everyone 8 from the Legal team comes over shaking their head no. 9 But I wanted to make sure that you heard -- 10 you heard my proposal; you heard everyone else's 11 thoughts about the committee. And you, yourself, 12 have -- have -- have some discussion around it. So 13 maybe you can talk to us about it. 14 Particularly, I want you to talk about the 15 proposed staffing structure to make sure we're all on 16 the same page. Okay. There seems to be a 17 misconception that the Board Members will be 18 providing direction. Maybe you can talk to us about 19 what the compilation of a committee would look like, 20 staff person versus Board Member. 21 MS. FLEMING: Correct. 22 MS. COHEN: Thank you. 23 MS. FLEMING: Thank you for that 24 opportunity. 25 So to the Chair's point, we've had some 26 discussions internally when the whole concept of 27 reestablishing the committees was presented to us. 28 And hierarchically, in our concept of that's 37 1 something that we could support and sustain, would be 2 -- and I apologize, we had earlier discussion about 3 diagrams, etc., to show you this. I'm going to do my 4 best to illustrate this, describe it in a way that 5 illustrates it. 6 So each Equalization District Member would 7 have, if this is the proposal, four committees. 8 Therefore, four Equalization District Members, one 9 chair for each committee. 10 The committee -- our concept is the 11 committee chair would have a person from their 12 office. So it would be a committee chair staffer 13 that we've -- for lack of a better way to describe 14 it -- would refer to that as a committee lead. 15 That committee lead would be, for lack of a 16 better way of describing it, a liaison, if you will. 17 And provide more of a liaison role than a leadership 18 role, specifically, that allows and facilitates 19 communications between the chair of that committee. 20 And the second -- the third tier of it would be a 21 working group. 22 So, again, just to reiterate, it would be a 23 three-tier potential structure, not hierarchically, 24 but three-tier structure with a committee chair, a 25 committee lead. Which is a representative of the 26 Board Member's office. And then the third tier would 27 be a working group, for lack of a better way of 28 describing it. 38 1 The working group would have -- consist of 2 the committee lead from that committee chair's 3 office. It would consist of a technical adviser. 4 And that could be a program from Legal, a legal 5 representative, along with maybe some property tax 6 item. For example, if it's a leg. one, a 7 representative from that area. 8 That role -- that person and that role on 9 that committee would be a technical adviser to ensure 10 that as newer Members -- to ensure that the content 11 that you're focused on in producing your work 12 products are technically sound. Especially in the 13 property tax area. That would be very important to 14 have that role. 15 The committee lead -- and you could even 16 have, at that point, without violating Bagley-Keene, 17 you could have a second employee on the working group 18 that would be a staff person from another Member's 19 office. So there would be no more than two Members 20 represented in the working group. 21 The dialogue and the conversations at the 22 working group level would be more like you're 23 running a -- if you've ever been exposed to running 24 projects where it's just a work team. It's actually 25 a working group. And so it's a collaborative working 26 exchange of information. 27 So for the spirit -- for the purpose of 28 educating the Member's office staff and giving the 39 1 content provided. 2 But, again, the majority of the work to make 3 sure that we're not, you know -- we're not taxing the 4 program staff, the majority of the work would be the 5 representatives from the Member's office. 6 The working group, then, based upon a 7 context or umbrella over that whole structure, would 8 be -- so let's say it's the Property Tax Committee. 9 That Property Tax Committee would establish a work 10 plan for a calendar year that would identify priority 11 topics that do two things. It contains us to, this 12 is the agreed upon work. It -- it gets endorsement 13 from the program staff as something that is -- 14 that's -- that's feasible, and that's reasonable and 15 can be sustained. And really is going to be 16 meaningful in substantive work product to produce for 17 property tax programs. 18 But it also allows us all, then, to look at 19 it from a workforce allocation perspective. So the 20 conversations from the working group, then, would 21 report out to the lead. Which, again, would be a 22 member of the Chair's office. 23 Then the lead would be, instead of, you 24 know, when you shift into the committee meeting, 25 let's say it happens at, you know, one of these Board 26 Meetings, the committee lead would actually be 27 presenting the information, working on, you know, 28 agendas and the additional work. 40 1 Now, if you were to hold those meetings 2 within existing Board Meeting days, and so, 3 historically, we would have committee meetings that 4 would convene at the beginning of the general 5 meeting. So we would open the general Board Meeting, 6 then we would recess the general meeting and go into 7 a committee meeting. 8 And so those would be held with different 9 rotations, different committees at different times. 10 It would be rotated, but it would be scheduled within 11 the same timeframe as a general Board Meeting. 12 That allowed us to do, at that time, 13 leverage a lot of the existing staff. It would just 14 be another segment of another meeting. The general 15 meeting would, again, recess. The committee would 16 open, and then the chair of the committee would then 17 share that portion of the -- of the conversation. 18 When you convene or recess the committee, 19 you would go back, then, to reconvene the general 20 meeting. And then the Board's Chair would resume. 21 The key of that structure is it is a 22 collaborative structure. There would not be 23 direction from the Chair or from the Board to the 24 BOE's program staff. It would be direction to the 25 lead. 26 And then the lead will come back and 27 collaboratively have discussions with -- amongst the 28 working group to determine what's feasible and what 41 1 could be done. But it will be more collaboratively. 2 We would make sure, with that structure, 3 that Legal would be a part of that -- of that 4 collaborative discussion to just make sure that we're 5 doing things decent and in order, and we're in 6 compliance with the law, and all of the rules around 7 that. 8 The caution that we have -- if I may just 9 add a footnote. The caution had been, prior to AB 10 102, the issue of -- to the extent that you have 11 managers or higher level staff classifications in a 12 Member's office working with rank and file staff, 13 which is the working level, non-management staff. 14 Typically what happens is the rank and file of the 15 employees themselves feel compelled sometimes, or 16 just uncomfortable with working with classifications 17 or managers in the Member's office above their pay 18 grade. 19 So the balance that we were trying to strike 20 there is to have more peer-to-peer collaboration. So 21 there really would be true collaboration. And the 22 law allows us to have that collaborative discussion. 23 And it allows us to help, you know -- to help in some 24 ways. 25 It's just the issue of directing us and 26 directing staff, and then redirecting and 27 reprioritizing the tax program staff. We can't 28 reprioritize their work. They are there by budget 42 1 and by provision to make sure that they're focused on 2 their -- on their -- on their property tax management 3 responsibilities. 4 So that was the general discussion. I'm 5 looking at the staff to make sure I didn't misspeak. 6 I've got my committee police officer back there. 7 We're just looking for a way that -- because 8 we want to support you, we want you to be able to 9 have an opportunity to have these discussions and 10 make sense of it. We're just looking for ways that 11 we can -- we can do it in a way that we can sustain, 12 and it's respectful and fair to the law. 13 MR. GAINES: Question, if I could. 14 MS. COHEN: Yes. 15 Mr. Gaines has a question. 16 MR. GAINES: And both of you, because I'm 17 looking at the legal perspective here. I want to 18 make sure, as far as AB 102 is concerned, that we're 19 not creating an issue. 20 And so it sounds like it's delicate based on 21 the way it's being described to me. Would we be 22 better off with just special meetings on particular 23 subject matter that we can determine priorities of 24 Board Members? 25 We talked about efficiency. We talked about 26 vision planning. We've talked about bringing 27 Legislators over. Maybe talking about particular 28 legislation moving through. And then we've talked 43 1 about disasters. And it seems to me that could work 2 in a special meeting environment. 3 And if it wasn't a -- if it was too much to 4 try to handle on a particular day, could we have a 5 second-day meeting? And I'd like to know what the 6 impacts of that would be from a staffing perspective. 7 We've got a pretty full agenda today. If I 8 was going to plan, or think about, let's say, the 9 disaster issue or future planning, I want a lot more 10 time. I don't want an hour or two hours. I like 11 this idea of we -- I guess it's not a retreat, but I 12 like the idea of grilling deep on an issue and doing 13 that in a special meeting format. 14 So what would that look like if we did that 15 over a two-day timeframe? 16 MR. NANJO: Under Bagley-Keene, your -- you 17 are -- you have the capabilities of making your 18 meetings multiday. They don't have to end on a 19 particular day. 20 I would be remiss if I didn't point out one 21 major difference between this Board and, like, for 22 example, typically, Board of Supervisors or what have 23 you. 24 Just by way of illustration, most Board of 25 Supervisors, as I understand it, the Clerk's Office 26 does a lot of the back-of-the-shop work that our 27 Board Proceedings staff does. 28 In most counties, those Board of Supervisors 44 1 or city council staff are exempt if individuals. So 2 there isn't a problem with them working beyond 5:00 3 o'clock, or not taking lunch breaks, or working 4 through lunch. 5 Unfortunately, in our case, all of my staff 6 at -- Board Proceedings' hat. Sorry. 7 All of my Board Proceedings staff is -- are 8 regular civil service employees. They're not exempt. 9 So we're not supposed to work them past lunch. We're 10 supposed to give them breaks every so many hours, 11 that sort of stuff. 12 MR. GAINES: Right. 13 MR. NANJO: So that ends up being a lot of 14 your limiters on how long you can go on a given 15 day. 16 MR. GAINES: What does that look like for a 17 day? Let's go through a typical day in terms of the 18 hours that could be allocated towards a meeting. 19 MS. FLEMING: Well, fundamentally, it's an 20 eight-hour day. 21 MR. NANJO: Yeah. 22 MS. FLEMING: And then anything in excess of 23 that, we would be recording that as overtime. 24 MR. NANJO: So typically -- 25 MS. FLEMING: So just as a footnote -- I'm 26 sorry, Henry. 27 So just as a footnote -- and then it's not 28 just Board Proceedings staff. It also includes the 45 1 CDTFA staff. And I think we've had discussion about 2 it before. And CDTFA staff also -- who are behind 3 the scenes quietly. They are streaming, etc. And 4 including CHP, which is also staffed with us. 5 So you do start to extend them differently. 6 But if I may -- and I don't want to jump in your 7 lane. 8 MR. NANJO: No problem. 9 MS. FLEMING: But if I may, you know, there 10 is -- there is absolutely nothing wrong with, from 11 Board Proceedings' perspective, or from a 12 Bagley-Keene perspective, as Henry said, to go to two 13 days. 14 And so it's easier for us to schedule two 15 days ongoing, and then just have that as a part of 16 our calendar. And then you can -- you're allowed, 17 then, under the rules to cancel the second day. 18 MR. NANJO: If you don't need it. 19 MS. FLEMING: So one thing you could 20 consider in terms of timeframe from the committee 21 structure or special, you know -- special meetings, 22 etc., is to perhaps either have that as a second day 23 in and of itself, or to use the L item for some of 24 these other items. And just schedule the L item for 25 the second day that allows you, you know, a full day. 26 What that allows us to do, just from my 27 perspective, and I haven't talked to the staff about 28 this. But from my perspective, to the extent that 46 1 you roll it over to the second day, well, we'd still 2 have to have the Board Proceedings team members. We 3 can allow the property tax program staff -- if it's 4 really just your planning strategy discussions, it 5 allows some of the other staff to go back. Like 6 right now, for the state-assessed staff, who are in 7 their busy seasons, we could release them. 8 And so we wouldn't need to engage in all 9 levels of the staff. At least if it's the discussion 10 level in terms of, you know, the information sharing. 11 So a lot of it would, you know, of course, 12 depend on the content. So if it were, for example, a 13 Property Tax Committee, then, yeah, absolutely, we'd 14 probably have one or two people there. So we'd also 15 have to balance that, especially when we're hitting 16 their milestone peak periods. We just would want to 17 consider their ability to stay focused on their 18 priority work. 19 But the second day is something that we can 20 absolutely do. And then you can agendize that, you 21 know, as a general meeting, let's -- you know, with 22 additional existing agenda template items, or call it 23 a special meeting. 24 MR. GAINES: Does that work logistically 25 from a staffing perspective? 26 MS. FLEMING: If we went to the second day, 27 then we could run -- basically, it's still an 8:00 to 28 5:00 schedule. Even though you're starting at 10:00, 47 1 for staff, it would still be an 8:00 to 5:00 2 schedule. So we would not have an overtime scenario. 3 And we would -- again, some of the other costs that 4 are attached to that could be contained. 5 MR. NANJO: And in fairness to Board 6 Proceedings staff, it's actually easier for us to 7 just extend the general, you know -- the L item under 8 the general agenda could be huge. It could be a full 9 day. 10 MS. FLEMING: It could be a full day. 11 MR. NANJO: Yeah. But that's easier for us 12 than having to generate a general meeting agenda and 13 a special meeting agenda. 14 MR. GAINES: Okay. So I would just ask my 15 colleagues to consider that. We've got a couple 16 motions on the floor. 17 MS. COHEN: Well, we only have one motion on 18 the floor. 19 MR. GAINES: Did you withdraw your motion? 20 MS. FLEMING: Yes, he did. 21 MR. GAINES: The second was. Not the first. 22 MS. COHEN: Excuse me. Just hold on just 23 for -- I'm hearing some -- there's some consensus in 24 the desire to move from a one-day to a two-day 25 meeting. I wanted just to check in with Mr. 26 Schaefer to see if that is something he is also 27 amenable too. 28 MR. SCHAEFER: I would love it. 48 1 MS. COHEN: Okay. 2 MR. SCHAEFER: Come to my office 90 miles 3 away, I would love to come over here for two days. 4 MS. COHEN: Sure. 5 So question to the staff, what do we -- do 6 we need to take a motion? Do we need to have a vote 7 to -- to -- to move from a one day to a two day? Or 8 how do we direct you? 9 MR. NANJO: We can -- it could be a 10 direction. 11 MS. FLEMING: Yeah. That's just a 12 scheduling issue. So if the Board collectively 13 agrees that they want to add a second day to the 14 agenda, that's just an agenda item. So that's not a 15 problem. 16 MR. NANJO: Right. 17 MS. COHEN: Okay. 18 So we're -- I just want to add a little bit 19 more structure around the conversation. 20 So the conversation originally started 21 with -- with the committee -- with the committee 22 structure. And I want to pivot back to that, and 23 first acknowledge that I would love to work for two 24 days. So I would be in favor of extending our day 25 from -- Board days from one day to two days. And I 26 believe we can start next month. 27 MR. NANJO: So if I may make a suggestion, 28 Chair Cohen, I would suggest -- because what I'm 49 1 hearing from a consensus is that we just move forward 2 with planning the rest of the meetings for this year 3 to be two-day meetings. 4 And, again, as Executive Director Fleming 5 mentioned, if we don't need that second day, we can 6 always cancel it. But that way we can start booking 7 the room, and your offices can make arrangements to 8 make sure you're free those days. 9 MS. COHEN: That is correct. 10 MR. NANJO: Okay. Thank you. 11 MS. COHEN: The other thing that I want to 12 emphasize is that establishing a committee structure 13 now makes the process of stakeholder participation 14 very real. 15 I want to also highlight that it allows us 16 to continue to -- to move forward and handle 17 business. It does not lock us in to any specific 18 name of committee, duty of committee, or function. 19 It's just -- we're talking about a structure. 20 And if you will, I'm happy to work with you 21 in our next month's Board Meeting in changing the 22 topics or the scope of -- of -- of the committee. 23 I'm just trying to get a framework that's in place. 24 And I also want to, again, highlight -- 25 because I think the Executive Director, Ms. Fleming, 26 did a good job of reiterating what that structure was 27 going to look like. Because, I too, am incredibly 28 sensitive to the fact that we're not in violation of 50 1 any -- any rules or regulations that govern this 2 body. ` 3 MS. FLEMING: Right. 4 MS. COHEN: And what she's proposing is that 5 we, not as Board Members sit on as chair of the 6 committees, but we designate a -- what she called a 7 Board lead, which would be a member of our staff. 8 Ms. Fleming. 9 MS. FLEMING: I'm sorry. 10 You're correct in the committee lead role. 11 Which would be an employee of the -- your staff. 12 MS. COHEN: Right. 13 MS. FLEMING: Committee staff. But we would 14 still, for the committee, would be chaired by a Board 15 Member. 16 MS. COHEN: Yes. I'm sorry if I wasn't -- 17 if I didn't make that clear. Chaired by a Board 18 Member. Staff person, our staff person -- 19 MS. FLEMING: Staff -- 20 MS. COHEN: -- would be the lead doing the 21 work. 22 MS. FLEMING: Right. 23 MS. COHEN: So the sensitivity of us 24 directing BOE staff is nonexistent. That staff 25 responsibility would come on our staff member. But 26 we are not operating in a vacuum. We need the 27 expertise of the BOE staff member. So it is a 28 collaborative working environment. 51 1 Where as in the beginning -- last year and 2 prior committee structure, you had a Board Member 3 telling BOE staff what to do. That's not what we're 4 talking about. 5 You have a Board Member directing their own 6 staff person on what -- on what to do. So there is a 7 clean distinction there. And I want to make sure 8 that we are highlighting that clearly. 9 And also incredibly sensitive to the fact 10 that we don't want to give the impression that we've 11 got -- although you're the chair and you have a Board 12 lead, that we're directing staff in any way. That is 13 not what I'm proposing here, and that is not what I'm 14 attempting to establish. 15 MR. GAINES: Can I clarify? 16 MS. COHEN: Yes, absolutely. 17 MR. GAINES: Because I just want to -- 18 because we have two exempt employees. 19 MS. FLEMING: Mm-hm. 20 MR. GAINES: So we have the authority to 21 direct the exempts, but we don't have the authority 22 to -- 23 MS. FLEMING: You have the -- 24 MR. GAINES: -- direct the civil service, is 25 my understanding. So if we're going to have a staff 26 member from our office, it has to be one of the two 27 exempts? 28 Is that correct or not? I'm looking for 52 1 clarification. 2 MS. FLEMING: No, actually -- and thank you. 3 That's a good question. Because we've had some 4 historic conversation on this also. There was some 5 confusion in the statute about, you know, who Board 6 Members can direct. 7 Members, you have the authority to direct 8 all six positions/employees in your office. Where 9 the firewall is, is when you're coming into the 10 operational portion of the program. 11 MR. GAINES: Okay. 12 MS. FLEMING: So just our concept in 13 discussion would be to the extent that that committee 14 lead from your office could be one of the exempts, 15 our recommendation would be that it would be more at 16 the rank and file level to support the peer-to-peer 17 relationships. 18 MR. GAINES: Oh, okay. All right. Good. 19 MS. FLEMING: So -- because, again, what 20 we -- and this is protection for all of us. Because 21 what happened previously, the historic boards were 22 staffed by program staff with a Board Member chairing 23 it. And it was as if it was an extension of the 24 Board staff. 25 Where we get in trouble is the statute -- 26 there's another part of the statute that limits you 27 to six positions. And those are the positions that 28 you can direct. So to the extent that we start to 53 1 extend that beyond that is where it gets to be 2 problematic. 3 The second portion that was problematic is 4 that the senior staff, management staff, is really -- 5 it's more of a rank and file staff felt more 6 uncomfortable, you feel obligated to respect that -- 7 that authority. That hierarchal authority. 8 MR. GAINES: Okay. 9 MS. FLEMING: And so to the extent that we 10 have peer to peers is the recommendation that -- 11 MR. GAINES: Right. 12 MS. FLEMING: -- we thought would be 13 helpful. 14 MR. NANJO: And one -- 15 MS. STOWERS: Madam Chair -- 16 MR. NANJO: And one of the things just -- 17 MS. COHEN: Just a minute. 18 MR. NANJO: Real quickly to put a point on 19 it is the idea is it's a collaborative process. 20 There is no -- we want to make sure that it's clear 21 to anybody who is listening -- 22 MS. FLEMING: Right. 23 MR. NANJO: -- that it is not the situation 24 where the Board Member staff can direct staff, you 25 know. In other words, an indirect direction of staff 26 by the Board Member. This is a purely peer-to-peer 27 collaborative process. 28 MS. FLEMING: And there's no -- there's no 54 1 conflict with the law with us being able to -- 2 MR. NANJO: Correct. 3 MS. FLEMING: -- assist in that run. So 4 that was what we look for to make sure that that 5 collaborative discussion -- again, you'd have minutes 6 taken at those meetings, etc., to make sure that 7 things are on record. And someone from Legal would 8 be participating. 9 MS. COHEN: Also present. 10 MR. NANJO: Yes. 11 MS. COHEN: Ms. Stowers. 12 MS. STOWERS: Yes. Thank you, Madam 13 Chair. 14 Two things I want to comment about. I'm 15 going to back up and go to the second day meeting. 16 Just housekeeping. All for the second day. But can 17 we start earlier on the second day? 18 Traditionally, when we have two or three-day 19 meetings, the second day would start at 8:30/9:00 20 o'clock. Because we start late the first day, 21 because -- yeah. So that's the first thing I want to 22 bring up. 23 MS. COHEN: Okay. 24 MS. STOWERS: Second thing, as far as this 25 committee structure, it sounds like you guys have 26 done a lot of work on this. Legal is shaking their 27 head. You seem to be in agreement. 28 Madam Chair, you seem to have conversations 55 1 with them. 2 I know there's staff, so I know there's 3 something in writing. I imagine you guy have put 4 something in writing. 5 MS. FLEMING: A lot of brainstorming. 6 MS. STOWERS: Is it possible to get some 7 type of a memorandum that we could look at -- 8 MS. FLEMING: Mm-hm. 9 MS. STOWERS: -- and have a clear 10 understanding of what you're talking about? 11 MS. FLEMING: Sure. 12 MS. STOWERS: I like to -- I don't need to 13 have a paper form. I can read it online. But -- 14 MS. FLEMING: Well, we'll consolidate a 15 tree. 16 MS. COHEN: Well, let me -- let me ask a 17 question. I don't have a problem putting anything in 18 writing. But in terms of, I would like to call a 19 vote today. Would that -- would you be participating 20 in this vote? 21 MS. STOWERS: I -- I would urge -- I would 22 urge you not to call a vote today. Just to be in the 23 spirit of transparency, and get that committee 24 structure that you're describing in writing and on 25 the PAN for the next meeting so the whole world can 26 see what you're talking about, and there won't be any 27 questions. 28 MS. COHEN: Mm-hm. 56 1 MS. STOWERS: That would be my suggestion. 2 MS. COHEN: Mm-hm. 3 MS. STOWERS: But if you want to call a 4 vote, I would probably just abstain. 5 MS. COHEN: Mm-hm. Okay. I appreciate 6 that. 7 MR. SCHAEFER: Chairman Cohen, rather than 8 sentence us to going from one day to two days, maybe 9 we could have the second day idea be a quarterly 10 event. 11 And since we are sounding Board for 12 assessors, maybe the Association of Assessors can 13 pick one of their 58 people and have them come to the 14 day two. Since it wouldn't be on a Tuesday, Board of 15 Supervisors problem that we have. And so we know 16 that whenever we have a second meeting, we'll get to 17 meet one of our assessors. Over four or five years, 18 we'll get to meet them all. 19 MS. COHEN: I'm sure -- I'm sure we can 20 probably stack them up. I like that idea of inviting 21 the assessors to come down. I think that's an 22 excellent idea. 23 I just want to point out that I think we 24 should notice two-day Board Meetings with the -- with 25 the -- 26 MR. NANJO: The option of canceling. 27 MS. COHEN: -- with the option to cancel. 28 So that that option is there. If there's nothing to 57 1 discuss, by all means, we do not have to meet. 2 And I actually certainly agree with starting 3 earlier on a second day. Early for me means 9:00 4 o'clock. 5 MS. STOWERS: That's fine. 6 MS. COHEN: Okay. All right. 7 MS. STOWERS: 9:00 o'clock is early for me, 8 too. 9 MS. COHEN: Okay. 10 If you don't mind, I just want to check in 11 with Board Proceedings. 12 Would you like a break? 13 MS. SUMNER: I would. 14 MS. COHEN: Okay. So it is 2:57. Let's 15 just take a quick five-minute break, water and 16 bathroom break. 17 MS. FLEMING: Thank you, Madam Chair. 18 MS. COHEN: And then we will -- we can 19 reconvene our conversation. 20 MS. FLEMING: Thank you very much. 21 MS. COHEN: We're in recess. 22 Thank you. 23 (Whereupon a recess was taken.) 24 MS. COHEN: All right. Good afternoon, 25 everyone. It's three minutes -- eleven minutes after 26 3:00 o'clock. 27 I want to get back into session and wrap 28 this day of work as quickly as possible. 58 1 I want to acknowledge I'm going to be losing 2 my colleague in a few minutes because he's got a 3 plane to catch. 4 I just want to circle back. This is an L 5 item. Again, we were discussing establishing a 6 committee structure. And, again, this is just 7 establishing a structure. It's not wetting us to 8 anything. 9 I would appreciate -- I made a motion to 10 establish four committees. And if there -- is there 11 a second on this motion? I'll take it at this time. 12 Is there a second on the motion to establish the 13 committees? 14 MR. SCHAEFER: I will so move -- so second 15 rather. 16 MS. COHEN: I thank you. I appreciate that. 17 Can we take this unanimously with the -- are 18 you -- 19 MS. STOWERS: I'm abstaining. 20 MS. COHEN: -- with the abstention from 21 Ms. Stowers. Or this is -- 22 MR. GAINES: I still have -- 23 MR. VAZQUEZ: I have a question. 24 MS. COHEN: Sure. Please. 25 MR. GAINES: I still have concerns. I'm 26 concerned about AB 102. I'm concerned about 27 potential violation that would create a cloud over 28 this agency just as we're trying to get a fresh 59 1 start. 2 I would prefer going down a similar path 3 that, in my opinion, doesn't have the same level of 4 risk. And that would be through special meetings, 5 through two-day sessions. And we could, I think, 6 still delegate two Members what their priorities are. 7 MS. COHEN: Okay. 8 MR. GAINES: And move forward in that 9 fashion. But I -- I think the last thing we need 10 is -- and it certainly would not be intentional. But 11 I think there's a higher level of legal risk moving 12 forward with the committee idea than there is of 13 having a two-day meeting, or even a special meeting 14 in even a different location. So that is my 15 concern. 16 MS. COHEN: All right. Thank you. We'll 17 take that concern under advisement. 18 Yes. 19 MR. VAZQUEZ: I have no problem with the 20 structure of it. But I think now it looks like 21 there's a consensus to move forward with these two 22 days at the next meeting. Whether it's in our April 23 or May meeting, on our second day let's resurface 24 this and have that discussion and see if it fits in 25 with -- hopefully address some issues that some of 26 the folks are worried about on the legal side, right? 27 Whether this gives us this perception that we're 28 violating AB 102. 60 1 So I would ask that you might want to table 2 it until we gather up. 3 MS. COHEN: Table the motion? 4 MR. VAZQUEZ: Yes. 5 MS. COHEN: Okay. Is there any other 6 discussion? 7 All right. It looks like I don't have 8 consensus, so I'm going to have to withdraw my motion 9 at this time. And we will reuse it at the next 10 month. 11 And, Ms. Davis, what's next? 12 ---o0o--- 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 61 1 REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE 2 3 State of California ) 4 ) ss 5 County of Sacramento ) 6 7 I, Jillian Sumner, Hearing Reporter for 8 the California State Board of Equalization, certify 9 that on March 27, 2019 I recorded verbatim, in 10 shorthand, to the best of my ability, the 11 proceedings in the above-entitled hearing; that I 12 transcribed the shorthand writing into typewriting; 13 and that the preceding pages 1 through 62 14 constitute a complete and accurate transcription of 15 the shorthand writing. 16 17 Dated: April 22, 2019 18 19 20 ____________________________ 21 JILLIAN SUMNER, CSR #13619 22 Hearing Reporter 23 24 25 26 27 28 62