good morning. the meeting will come to order. this is the july 1st, 2024 rules committee meeting. i'm supervisor hillary ronen, chair of the committee. i'm joined by vice chair, supervisor sherman walton. we should be joined shortly by supervisor ahsha safaí and our colleague myrna melgar is joining us this morning. mr. our clerk is victor young and i'd like to thank eugene levadia at sfgovtv for broadcasting this meeting. mr. clerk, do you have any announcements? yes. public comment will be taken on each item on the agenda. when your item of interest comes up and public comment is called, please line up to speak on on your right. alternatively, you may submit public comment in writing

either the following ways. email them to myself. the rules committee clerk at victor young at sfgov. org if you submit public comment via email, it will be forwarded to the supervisors and also include as part of the file. may also submit your written comments via us mail to our office in city hall. when doctor carlton goodlett place, room 244, san francisco, california, 94102. please make sure to silence all cell phones and electronic devices documents to be included as part of the file should be submitted to the clerk. items acted upon today are expected to appear on the board of supervisors agenda on july 9th, 2024, unless otherwise stated. that completes my initial announcements. thank you. can you please read item number one? item number one is the charter amendment first draft to amend the charter of the city and county of san francisco to require our children, our families council, to use an outcomes framework to evaluate the budget and spending of each

city department with expenditures that are eligible, and to include in the children's and youth fund baseline, or the public education enrichment fund to require the mayor and the board of supervisors to consider the council's findings during their consideration of the city's budget. each year, including by the board of supervisors holding public hearings and adopting findings about the expenditures by resolution require the san francisco unified school district to submit proposed proposals once every five years, and annual reports describing how it will expend city general funds contribution to the p e f consistent with the outcome framework, prohibit the city from providing p f funding to the school district and to the board of supervisors and the mayor have approved the school district's proposal. prohibit the city from providing discretionary funds to the school district unless it has entered into a data sharing agreement with the city. create our city. excuse me. create our children, our families initiative to coordinate the city departments and school

district, and establish a size and membership of the council and an election to be held on november 5th, 2024. thank you. and i'd like to pass this over to the author of this legislation, supervisor melgar, thank you so much, chair ronen, and thank you for your cosponsorship on this issue as well as well as your leadership on all things having to do with kids in our city, colleagues, the purpose of this charter amendment is to tighten up existing systems within the city to better serve children, youth and families. a few years ago, we talked to many of the service providers and department staff to discuss how we can improve our existing structure. what we heard is that we need a centralized, coordinated system without losing public transparency. the department of children, youth and families has a very robust five year budget and services planning process as dictated by our charter on how to expand the children and youth

fund, starting with a community needs assessment with a lot of public outreach service providers who are awarded are subject to review and benchmarks in regular reporting. however, we do not hold our own agencies and departments accountable, and not under the same level of scrutiny or budgetary discipline. the city also spends funding, sends funding to the school district through the public education enrichment fund and other discretionary funds. again, we don't closely track these dollars to make sure they're resulting in the impacts and the outcomes framework. despite our many investments, we unfortunately are failing children when it comes to social emotional health and educational milestones like literacy and math. this charter amendment before you today revamps the our children are families by making it a citywide initiative that ensures that the department and sfusd are aligned with the

existing five year planning cycle that we have through dcyf. this means that we would have stronger coordination alignment in the centralized way of measuring outcomes for our city's departments. both sfusd and city departments. once we have a citywide plan and outcomes framework in place on an annual basis, the initiative staff would evaluate budgets and provide recommendations to the mayor and the board of supervisors on whether the funding is moving. the needle on outcomes for our children and youth. this aims to get us more information during the budget process. enforces discipline and decisions. the board will have to hold a dedicated hearing during the budget process and pass a resolution attesting that the dollars attributed to this baseline are in fact aligned with the citywide plan and outcomes framework. i am grateful to city attorneys henry lipton and john givner for their support. greg wagner and his team in the department of

children and youth and their families, and the many service providers and advocates who helped inform this charter amendment in discussions with advocates and our partners at sfusd, we have been working on amendments to clarify timelines and procedures and to make sure that they align with the sfusd own budget timelines. this charter amendment would have also amended the existing our children and our families council, but we're working on further amendments to omit language pertaining to this body. given the many discussions underway, regarding commissions and advisory body reform, this change will not alter the essence of this charter amendment, because the crux of the work is really through having a stronger budget accountability protocol, and the ultimate decision makers is still a board of supervisors. i think the charter amendment is timely given our current budgetary constraints and i have to say that this year has been one of the hardest, given the

level of cuts to children and youth services. given that chair, ronen, i would like for this committee to consider continuing this item, to next week or to the call of the chair, whichever you prefer, when we also, you know, consider the changes to the student success fund that you are carrying. before we take that motion, i'll open this item up for public comment. yes, members of the public who wish to speak on this item should line up to speak at this time, each speaker will be allowed two minutes. there will be a soft chime when you have 30s left and a louder chime when your time has expired. you may begin. thank you victor, with all respect, supervisors who are, sponsoring this and seems to be most of them, you're all lost in red tape. this does nothing but add red tape. i taught i started teaching in coaching in 1965 before anybody in this room was probably born. you know, the

last thing teachers need is more red tape. the last thing any department needs is more red tape. the fact of the matter is that every single department in this building has something called the an outcome. you have to be able to measure something. it has to be observable. you have, you have. and that's every department has it. and this just adds more layers, more layers, more layers. read this thing again. every whoever gets any money from dcf, i mean anybody has anything to do with kids. that's the cops. that's a health department. that's that's education. you're adding layers and layers and you want to elect a whole new council to overlook the council to overlook the council. this city does not rede of the things that makes us a laughingstock of this country, because we have so much red tape to go through. what's item three today? trying to eliminate some commissions in red tape. gee, there's an irony. thank you. are

there any additional speakers who would like to make public comment on this item? there are no additional speakers. public comment is now closed. can we take a roll call motion, or actually, can i make actually, can i turn it over to supervisor walton? i was just going to make a motion. go ahead. okay, i will make a motion to continue this item to the call of the chair. we can have a roll call. yes. on the motion to continue the matter to the call of the chair. vice chair walton, a walton i supervisor safaí. it's on the motion to continue. item one to the call of the chair. safaí. i chair ronen, i ronen i the motion to continue the matter to the call of chair is passed. without objection. motion passes unanimously. thank you, supervisor melgar, mr. clerk, can you please read item number two? item number two is a

charter amendment, first draft to amend the charter of the city and county of san francisco to require the board of supervisors set aside specific, specified funds in the city's budget each year beginning in fiscal year 2006, 2027, to fund project based rental subsidies for extremely low income households consisting of seniors, families and children, and persons with disabilities. at an election to be held on november 5th, 2024. thank you and we are joined by president peskin, who will present on this item. good morning, chair ronen. members of the rules committee, thank you for scheduling this item, which is still the subject of some negotiations. and i would respectfully request that it be continued to the next meeting of the rules committee. okay. can we open this item up for public

comment? yes. members of the public who wish to speak on this item should line up to speak. at this time. each speaker will be allowed two minutes. this is for item number two. are there any members of the public who like to make public comment on item number two? there are no speakers for public comment on item two. item two is or public comment is closed. and i'd like to make a motion to continue this item to the call of the chair. second, yes, one moment on the motion to continue. item number two to the call of the chair. vice chair walton walton. i supervisor safaí safaí. i chair. ronen i ronen i that motion passes without objection. motion passes unanimously. mr. clerk, can you please read item number three? item number three is a charter amendment. first draft to amend the charter of

the city and county of san francisco to establish the commission streamlining task force, charged with making recommendations to the mayor and the board of supervisors about ways to modify, eliminate, or combine city appointed boards and commissions to improve the administration of city government. require the city attorney to prepare charter amendments to implement the task force's recommendations related to charter commissions for consideration by the board of supervisors, and authorize the task force to introduce an ordinance to effectuate its recommendations relating to appointive boards and commissions. codified in the municipal code, which ordinances shall go into effect within 90 days unless rejected by two thirds vote of the board of supervisors at an election to be held on november 5th, 2024. thank you, president peskin. thank you. chair. ronen. thank you for scheduling this item today. there has been a ongoing conversation, arguably since 1932, when what is today,

basically the city's constitution was passed by the voters, after years of open and transparent work. under the leadership of then mayor sunny jim rolph. and in the intervening now getting on to almost a century, there have been numerous amendments to our constitution and our charter, and there has been in recent years, an ongoing conversation about how to reform our charter, make the various workings of government more efficientd today, colleagues, i commend this charter amendment to you as a good government tool to improve our commission process without stripping critical oversight of city functions, without stripping transparency, which i think we need now, more than ever, commissions provide oversight and accountability and transparency to the people of

san francisco, as well as they provide a space for public input and participation, i've been having these conversations with members of the board. our previous controller, ben rosenfield, for the last year. thank you very much, billy. and along the way, a private organization, funded by, extremely, wealthy individuals has and i believe today will be submitting their own charter amendment, that has not been the subject of any public input or public discussion. which arbitrarily takes a hatchet to our city commissions by bluntly eliminating vital commissions like the arts commission, the library commission, the public health commission. and instead, i think that this measure that is before us is commission

reform done right. we are laying the groundwork for an expert task force that includes input from our city attorneys, government team, our city comptroller and other experts as to how to reform the structure, number and functions of our city commissions to improve their efficacy and productivity. i want to thank supervisor rafael mandelman for attempting this work earlier this year and say that unlike the together sf charter amendment and their dark money attempt at replacing oversight in city hall with their own behind closed doors operations, the voters deserve a real conversation and input into these reforms, i would also like to additionally offer the following amendments to the findings. i'd like to add at subsection f, a sentence that says at the end of that sentence, recommendations could include changes to the structure, staffing, and meeting requirements of individual commissions, with the goal of improving the commission's efficacy and add a subsection g that says this measures creation

of an expert task force to analyze and make recommendations, optimizing the number functions and structure of city commissions is consistent with recommendations from the 2023 2024 civil grand jury report. commission impossible, as well as the rose institute of state and local governments reassessing san francisco government design, which found it is not possible to determine the optimal number of city commissions without an exhaustive review, and encourages the city to consider a system wide evaluation of the city's commission system as its main recommendation. and then finally, i have a technical, amendment, which is at page five, line six through 13. and i'll pass this out to you colleagues, to, so that it reads by no later than february 1st, 2025, a commission streamlining task force shall be convened for the purpose of advising the mayor and the board of supervisors on ways to

eliminate, consolidate, or limit the powers and duties of a point of boards and commissions from the more effective, efficient, economical administration of city and county government, and introducing one or more ordinances to effectuate its recommendations. the streamlining task force shall have the powers and duties as set forth herein, and shall expire by operation of law 24 months after its first meeting, and then at page eight, lines 3 to 4 confirm that that subsection f expiration, this section four point 100.1 shall expire by operation of law on december 31st, 2026, and the city attorney shall cause it to be removed from the charter thereafter, the point of all of this is all of this work is done in public and then ultimately the voters will decide and it will not be done by anonymous, unaccountable body. it will be done in the light of day. and those recommendations from the task force will be voted on by the people of the city and county of san francisco and

colleagues, i will hand you, the proposed amendments. thank you, colleagues, any comments or questions right now? not seeing any. let's open this item up for public comment. yes. members of the public who wish to speak on this item should line up to speak at this time. each speaker will be allowed two minutes. there will be a soft chime when you have 30s left and allow the chime when your time has expired. good work aaron. you're going to need all the help you can get. i passed through the guard up here and got half naked and outside. they were unloading a huge truck that said full of cartons that said bureaucracy. and you know what it was? it was farrell's guys out there, fighting, peskin's got a great a great amendment here. this this will do a lot. and we need this, farrell is trying to make points off it. safaí. you're not paying any attention, but this includes you. you know why? because i asked farrell's boys. i said you're. who would you vote for

on ranked choice voting? and you know what they said? safaí. they said we would vote for ourselves, and then we would vote for lurie. and then we would vote for breed. so the message from, safaí, from farrell did not get down to safire's voice. they think that he's not supporting you at all. and aaron, this is a good move. the, and as always for 24 years, you're above board these guys sneaking out and back. i'm surprised that farrell is a small businessman. can afford that many people with all those props. how many babies is it? it's eight. nine. honorable supervisors, this is an unworthy, to even be considered by supervisor peskin's proposal. we are in a currently in a

deficit. we cannot afford a, approximately the, funding for each super, commissioner is about $80,000. there's about seven commissioners per, per commission. so that's about 50 560,000. that is a lot of money that we cannot afford. the a proposal will, give the supreme commissioner, excessive power. they are unelected officials. they are, political. buddies of the of the city. but, because, elected officials, the apologize, they, they have the over power. they have the power to, elect to have oversee and

have the power to stop, make choices to overcome. right. but then you need a majority vote. would that lessens your power? and it gives the power. whoever voted for the, commission. okay, sorry. basically, i lost my notes, but anyway, money labor of, of, of bureaucracy. do you does you cituent more bureaucracy? i don't think so. they'll be looking closely at you guys with, our the coalition, the coalition, the coalition. because time has elapsed. thank you. anyway, i want to thank you very much for listening to my comments. good

morning. i'm donna hurwitz, a long term san franciscan. i'm here to oppose supervisor peskin's sudden proposed amendment. i am a supporter of together san francisco. i am aware of the seed money and where it comes from for this group. i have studied our proposal carefully. the threat that some basic commissions like policing and health and so forth, are threatened is false. some commissions will be exempt. our proposal is based on a defined problem solving methodology by a respected local

think tank. at 130, we know the number of san francisco's commissions is excessive. for comparison, try any of our other major cities in the state who have 30, 40, maybe 50 commissions. our amendment suggests 65. a task force is set up to review all of our commissions and try to pare down the excessive. number 265. please support the amendment. the proposed amendment on the, we hope on the ballot. please oppose supervisor peskin's amendment. good morning. glad you're here to hear this.

supervisor peskin is clouding the issue. that is the only reason he's got it up here. our issue is clear. there are now 58 boards and commissions whose members are required to file statements of economic interest with the ethics commission. there are another, by the way, 73 commissions that don't. they are not required to do that. peskin did nothing in the last 20 years to curtail this excess. why now? all of a sudden, by the way, his his statement was totally incorrect. we have huge public support with 50,000 signatures. there is great support for this. the number of commissions is excessive, duplicative and inefficient. judging by was not improved in san francisco in recent years. the city needs commissions and advisory to work with not

against the mayor to improve the economic and operational well-being of this city. the commissions can be reduced by half. 65 was our recommendation, which is still more than many cities with parameters determined by required result deadlines. this is also a major difference in what peskin is putting forth required result deadlines, as proposed by together sf supervisor peskin, charter amendment is flawed and leads to more commissions into further city chaos and demonstrated inefficiency. good morning. supervisors alan braddell those were great comments, i second each of those comments and, supervisor peskin

is lying. supervisor peskin is lying about the together sf proposal. excuse me for one moment. if you could pause his time again, please. i don't i don't think it's appropriate. is that right, mr. clerk? yes. all public comment should be addressed to the committee as a whole and not address individual supervisors. i yeah, i didn't address. i used his name. yeah yeah. so we're going to enforce that rule which is a board rule if you can continue this time. thank you. please proceed. yeah. his commission on commissions charter amendments are deeply flawed. they don't actually reform our government. here's why. peskin's measures don't actually limit the number of commissions they can have. this means that there is no guarantee his measure will reduce the number of commissions. peskin's commission on commissions task force can make laws about commission. they can actually

make laws about commissions. this is insane. we should not be giving unelected bodies the power to make laws that can affect residents. peskin's measures do nothing to address the problem of unelected commissioners being virtually unaccountable. it would be extremely difficult to remove a rogue commissioners that are acting against the will of the people. peskin's commission on commissions charter amendments are nothing more than a cynical ploy from this career politician who's trying to confuse voters and tank a real government reform measure. that's what this committee, that's what this supervisor is trying to do, confuse voters with this amendment. an amendment or a charter amendment that's been signed on by 50,000 san franciscans. supervisor peskin has done nothing. supervisor peskin has done more than maybe any other elected official in san francisco's government. he can't be the one to fix problems

that he's solved. say no to peskin's commission on commissions. thank you. before we have the next speaker, if i can ask, the city attorney, we have a brought a board rule that public speakers need to address the entire board and not single out a single member of the board. can you can you when president peskin is an author of a measure. but there's a lot of allegations and insults being lobbed, is that appropriate or can we cut that off? deputy city attorney ann pierson, that rule prohibits a member of the public from speaking directly to an individual supervisor, from addressing them, as opposed to the body. it doesn't prohibit them from speaking about one of them. okay. and about the legislation they've authored. okay. i appreciate that clarification. that clarification. thank you. thank you for that clarification, if

we can begin with the next speaker. okay, good morning. members of the board of supervisors, my name is barbara pletz. i've been living here in san francisco for over 45 years. and i love this city, two months ago, as a sf together volunteer, i collected signatures for our proposed charter amendment. before doing so, i read the text over carefully. it was very lengthy, i should add. i read the text over very carefully so that i would be familiar with it and be able to answer questions from the public. should they ask me questions. as i was getting their signature, so i did that, recently i attended the mayor's debate at city arts and lectures, and i was shocked by supervisor peskin's description of the sf together ballot measure. he said, and i quote the sf together charter

amendment is bankrolled by conservative millionaires who want to get rid of public oversight, accountability so that they can control the government themselves. and it goes way too far. it takes a meat ax to the commissions. we rely on by eliminating the arts commission, library commission and the health commission. it removes all civilian oversight from police misconduct, including officer involved shootings, unquote. i believe this is a very, very misleading statement and meant to confuse the public. i brought with me a copy of the full text of sf together's charter amendment, i'm going to leave it here while the amendment requires a number of commissions to be decreased, it absolutely does not identify any specific commissions to be eliminated. so i'm leaving it here. perhaps you'd like to take a look at it. i will yourself, i will pick it up momentarily.

thank you. thank you. hello. my name is sydney chaney thomas, and i am here to oppose president peskin's commission. charter reform amendment. i am not a political person, but i had to join, together sf in some way to help the city that i love. so, i resent the fact that, together sf is funded by dark money when it's mostly a lot of elderly. elderly property owners, business owners, and people that are just we just do not know what to do. i live on fifth and mission and i recommend anyone here in this room that's in decision making power to go take a walk. i wanted to take the 14 are down here to the city hall and i couldn't because there were so

many homeless people in the bus stop and around the bus stop and very erratic behaviors. so i decided to walk to the corner of market and powell. while walking, i saw that westfield plaza. they'd had some sort of shooting and their windows were broken and boarded up. and then i crossed the street and i decided just to walk here. so i walked here down market and up o'farrell. i saw an open air drug use. i heard gunshot wounds, a gunshot, gunshot sounds, i guess i don't know, there are people trying to go to school. there's people trying to go to work. i'm trying to get here in a city with public transportation that i can't even use, the other day, i walked past bloomingdale's and there was a naked man. he was about 25 years old. he was about 225 pounds, six one lying on the

street, naked while women and children walked by. so all i can say is this isn't about dark money. that's very misleading. this is about people who need change and reform. time has elapsed. yeah. oh, am i done? okay, that's all i have to say. and, i don't support this. thank you. hi, my name is jennifer, and i'm here today to oppose president peskin's commission on commissions charter amendment. our city is currently grappling with an insane amount of issues like fentanyl crisis, severe staffing shortages in our public safety departments, and rising homelessness. the existing commission system is a major cause of government inefficiency , creating confusion about who is responsible for our city outcomes and opening doors for more corruption. there is no regular view of the commission's usefulness. the legislation, the legislation, this legislation does not reduce or consolidate commissions and could

potentially increase the number of them. this. there is an urgent need for a genuine reform of this commission system. thank you. hello, my name is toby and i'm here to oppose the commission on commission. charter amendment. our city is facing many issues, and the current commission system is a major cause of government dysfunction. it create confusion for residents and opens it up for corruption. this system needs reform. this proposed legislation fails to address our bloated government, increase transparency or fix our government's. instead, it added another commission with the power to create laws of a commission. further, this distancing decision making from the public. moreover, there is no regulations regular reevaluations of commissions, utilities. this amendment does

not commit to reducing or considering our commissions and could potentially increase the numbers. san francisco's are tired of politicians posturing and that holds our city back. they want good government and real results. thank you. hello, my name is lucy junius and i live in the mission and also under, hillary ronen district. and i am very tired. and to see the worst condition in the mission. that's why i'm supporting together sf to oppose president peskin commission on commission. charter amendment. our city is facing a number of unprecedented challenges for fentanyl crisis. severe staffing storm surge staff shortage in

our public safety department, rising homelessness. the current commission system is a major cause of the government dysfunction the system creates confusion for residents on who is responsible for the outcome. for the for the city, as well as opportunities for corruption. the commission system needs to have real reform instead. this legislation will do nothing to address our bloated bureaucracy, increased transparency in our city government, or address the lack of public accountability for our city officials and commissioners. it will empower unelected bureaucrats by creating a commission on commission that has the power to create laws about commission, with virtually no input from the public. in addition, there is no regular reevaluation of commissions utility. it doesn't

commit to reducing or consolidating commission, and this body could potentially increase the number of commissions we, san francisco, are sick of the political posturing and that continue to hold our city back in another cynical ploy by president peskin , who has 20 years of history supporting corrupt city officials, wasting city resources by creating redundant government bodies and trying to prevent residents from her time has elapsed, holding elected officials accountable. thank you. can we have our next speaker? no. you're only allowed one chance to speak. thank you. hi, my name is xiao yan. i'm here to oppose president peskin's commission on commission. charter amendment,

what happens now is up to see how the giga shanghai keeps. zheng fu. come, come. josé union high. you get what you uyghur come home. only uyghur title moderna more joy, making, shamann. you don't hide your joy . omega one. omega king high. come to him. ahoy, kim fan ye fancy. thank you. hi, hi, wendy. more. hi. more. hi. shamann c g hi. mission. hi, lin. time is up. lin. some fancy hi ho. ju

ming yellow. yao ming yao zi yao ju mingalar yao kingdom talaga mo loyola. so montenegro. why you are so subtle? how you got you got you got, you got you got why you josé. you got you got some fancy tie for, you know, hong kong gi. pong boxing. see? junko. typhoon ho yee chin. tiger. tiger. god. hoi. something on mogambo. god, god and god. high. go, go! low low low. the tiger. go go go go! the mountain. these are there for hong like in the mountain. okay, i think i'm eating my gum. gum yoshihide, go go go go go see god. high san fancy. okay, so all the high giovannetti go ho

ho. hong kong, hong kong and take out your gum. d.o.j. the monkey jaw. lewis and go high. gum. got him. why in uyghur. and you got. you got your high, low, delgado. high. the guangdong team. chow chow. why do i find him? yihao kong xiong, yamato hong, my hold on. long horn mountain high. why? zheng fu yin yang kong chung yong. go shopping city hall. go. why you so you go gang. you have one more hong kong venmo zheng fu tongo tormento like guy. zheng fu di gong dong young man. so you. thank you. hello. how are

you? sandra, come. legal pussy. come legal san uyghur. come i need a sandwich or some something. eating. go go, on china. hello? danny lee. hold on. layla. layla. chow follow a monkey. i gotta, yeah. go de la longhorn. i'm watching. oh, come on. oh my god, come on, nadim. guy how you. some fancy guy. mega column follow. yeah. come on, little, toady, your son

fame. hi. hey, man. hey, man. now, toto venmo de simone. josé j&j bin yoon jong shin. mo mo longhorn. let me come! come on. yeah, i come d.o.j. hi, my name is aj kennedy. i live in russian hill, and i'm a resident of district four, which happens to be president peskin's district. i oppose supervisor peskin's initiative because it omits two key features which are important to me, and which are included in together sf's initiative. first, supervisor peskin's proposal does not cap or limit the total number of commissions, whereas together sfs reduces the total down to 65 from 130. commissions are expensive in san francisco. shouldn't be wasting money on unnecessary red tape. second,

supervisor peskin's proposal does not include any mechanism which would hold unelected commissions accountable. whereas together, sfs initiative does. we need less red tape and unnecessary spending, not more. thank you for your time. neoma maugham. hi john kane mochi mikoyan, so i'll speak in english, but i did find it interesting and germane to the topic that you guys were looking at your phones or having side conversations while constituents from your district were speaking in another language that was being perfectly translated in front of you on a screen. i saw some pretty good smile emojis come out of you. miss ronen, my name is mark roth. i'm an unhoused voter in san francisco, registered to vote at the corner of debow's and market. i think that i've had too little time to look at this because i've been busy working 12 to 16 hours a day, seven days a week. what i

do know is what the last person said. too much red tape is san francisco's achilles heel. making a commission on commissions is saying, we want to add more red tape to a process. i wish you the best of luck in your mayoral campaign. however, creating more process to subvert the voters from having a chance to say yes, a city with one tenth the population of los angeles would like to have less commissioners than that city has, giving the voters a chance to hear what they have their say on the ballot, and taking the time to meet with your constitue and cr. because the last thing that this city needs is one more fight. come together. stop dividing each other. i'm sure that you guys have all appointed a lot of people in title and power, because you didn't have enough money to share with them, and some of them are going to lose their positions as commissioners. but as constituents and voters in the city of san francisco, they can

continue to fight the good fight and do the work. without that title, it's time to come together, trim the fat and get rid of the red tape. thank you. hi, i'm john monson and i'm here with my colleague niall murphy. we are the coauthors of the commission and possible report, and we're here mostly just to learn about this ■conversation, but also we're sort of generally supportive of supervisor peskin's amendment. we see it as kind of a first step in the process of commission reform that we need in san francisco. you can learn a lot more about what we think about it by reading our report. we also appreciate supervisor peskin making reference to our report and the revised language, which we think is helpful. so yeah, we are the biggest difference between our recommendations and what's being proposed in the ballot initiatives is that we're recommending an ongoing commission, we think that just

getting the streamlining the structure today is not enough, that it needs ongoing management. the biggest one of the big issues we uncovered in our investigation is just the lack of management of commissions. we make numerous recommendations about how to improve that. no thank you. as my colleague john explained there, yeah. one of the key differences does have to do with the fact that we're recommending that the body we establish be permanent, one of our we did. you know, if anyone's read the report, it was really an exhaustive bottoms up review of the commission system within san francisco. and we do think it's critical that, that this body be permanent, such that, you know, 5 or 10 years from now, we don't have commission creep where, again, the number of commission starts to increase again. so i think that having a permanent body is critical. other than that, though, we are broadly or generally supportive of, of supervisors peskin's approach on this. thank you. thank you.

hello i'm larry bardolph, san francisco resident. and though i have great affection for its author, supervisor peskin actually helped us apprehend a plant thief. i do oppose, the measure that he's he's initiated here. i believe our bureaucracy is legendary. we've got a report by the civil grand jury titled commission impossible. kudos to whoever came up with that title, clearly, less is more. in this case, we have an overwhelming number of commissions far in excess of other cities. we need fewer commissions, fewer initiatives. please don't obfuscate this issue. one initiative only. thank you very much. thank you. are there any

additional speakers for this matter? there being no additional speakers, i believe we can close public comment. public comment is now closed. supervisor walton, thank you so much. chair ronen and thank you for everyone who came in for public comment. i also want to thank supervisor peskin for bringing something forward that addresses a lot of the concerns that we did hear from public comment. i do have to say, though, when we talk about signature gathering and the signature gathering process, it is a it's a major myth that because you come up with signatures, there's broad support for something. i went to the safeway and castro, one of my legislative aides, and was approached by someone, who actually had a petition for what is being proposed by together sf , and asked them what the

measure was about. ask them to explain the details of the measure, and they couldn't. and when i told him that one, i don'sign petitions. because then it could be deemed as i'm an endorser. but secondly, they were upset because they told me they were being paid to get signatures. and if they don't get signatures, then they won't be able to pay bills, etc. so they had no knowledge of what they were asking people to sign. they were really just trying to get signatures because of the monetary attachment. and even one of them went as far as to really almost try to threaten me and my aide. and they were very aggressive about the signature gathering process. so i just don't want the public or anyone to think that folks who are out there asking for signatures are actually people who want to understand what they're asking for signatures for. they most certainly 100% definitely are being paid to, to garner

signatures. so this is not about support, this is about doing everything they can to get people to sign a petition, whether they have information about what they're signing. so i wouldn't take that as, having major support. and most certainly that's why we put things on the ballot, but i did hear a lot of things from public comment that i do agree with. most certainly we have other things that we should be prioritizing as a city. so definitely have my agreement in that aspect. but at the end of the day, there are some things that we need to change and move forward on, but we have to make change responsibly and do it in a manner that does allow the people to make the decision on how we make and affect change. thank you. supervisor safaí, thank you. thank you chair, appreciate the folks that came out today to participate in this process. i have i've just gotten together a proposal as it was

submitted today. so have an opportunity to l had an opportuo look at that. but i haven't really. you know, one of the things i noticed is that we're cut in there in the proposal that was submitted today, it cuts the number of commissions in half. and i just i want to understand that a little bit more where that came from. and i also want to understand a little bit more what the commissions were, that were left out. like, for instance, i've done a lot of work with the immigrant community over the years, that's not one of the commissions that's retained in a time when immigrants are consistently under attack in this country, in this city, and so without a place to go, to have that voice and have that advocacy, it it creates a lot of stress and anxiety. but i don't want to talk about a proposal that i don't have, not had an opportunity to really look at. i want to spend a little more

time, have a few questions for supervisor peskin. on page four, supervisor peskin, there's a line added that talks about the legislative due legislative duties of the board of supervisors. the mayor and others, all on on line 12. i'm just going to read into the record and try to understand this a little better. all legislative acts by be by ordinance, which seems like bad english, but whatever an ordinance or resolution may be introduced before the board of supervisors by a member of the board, a committee of the board, the mayor, and then you've added the line or the commission streamlining task force subject to the limitations set forth in this section. so i want to understand a little bit more the thinking behind that, as i understand that we have task force, we have people that make recommendations, and then we're creating a new function, an ability for a task force, then to submit legislation, rather

than it coming back to the board and having the board perform its duty, which is our main duty, as you've written about here, in the in line eight and nine, i just want to give you an opportunity to speak about that a little bit more. i understand at the end of the ordinance on page eight, then their powers expire, so you've given them power, then it expires. i think that was one of the comments that was made. but i feel like the introduction in the body of what you've laid out is that the task of this commission streamlining task force is to make recommendations about ways to modify, eliminate or combine. and then you're doing that task force then is going there's going to be a member that's appointed by the mayor, a member appointed by the board of, and then the controller, the city attorney. and who who else am i leaving out? there's one more person, but they're all independently elected, right. and so that body in and of

itself is already independent. want to understand why we're giving them the authority to legislate this act in the end, rather than come back to the board of supervisors. so and i have a couple more questions, but i'll just start with that through the chair to the sponsor. sure. thank you for that question. through the chair, supervisor safaí, and the , composition of the streamlining task force is set forth in section four point 100.1, subsection b, on page five and six, and you will see there, that seat number one shall be held by the city administrator, which is or their designee, which is, i think, the one that you were missing, as to the words in section 2.105 on page four with the provision that the streamlining task force could go directly to the voters, the thought there was acknowledging that government

works best when people cooperate and collaborate together was that if there were a instance where the streamlining task force occupied by these constitutional officers made a recommendation that was anathema to a majority of the board of supervisors, and the board did not want to put that on the ballot. there was the ability of the streamlining task force to go directly to the court of last resort, the voters, and that the board of supervisors, whatever the composition of the board of supervisors may be at that time, would not be able to have, in essence, a pocket veto. so it was a way for the streamlining task force to go directly to the voters. one would hope that they would come to the board. it would be done collaboratively, and that the mayor and the board would all embrace these things and recommend them to the voters. but if that were not the case, this was kind of a pressure release valve that they could go directly to the voters,

let me also address the issue. you brought up about the temporary nature of the task force that was also mentioned by the members of the civil grand jury, who i appreciate, their comments in general, support of this measure as opposed to the together sf measure, as to the limited duration of the task force. and i would say this, which is number one, actually part of i think the effort here is to have a concerted, concentrated reform effort, that does not prevent the board of supervisors or the government or the electorate, for that matter, from continuing reforms going forward, and indeed, in my experience at city hall, i've seen that happen as a matter of fact, we saw that happen with a proposition that i put on the ballot that modified a

proposition that, supervisor haney put on the ballot relative to the powers of the streets. and sanitation commission, i've seen that at the board of supervisors under then supervisor mark leno, who went through the administrative code and eliminated any number of, task forces that were created by ordinance that were no longer needed or effective. so that mechanism exists. it could be i mean, i'm not in any way married to that. it could be an ongoing function that, is, you know, that has oversight continually around reform. but i felt like we've reached a crescendo. now is the time to clean it up. and it doesn't prevent, more reform in the future. and then finally, let me just say as to some of the public speakers that it is interesting insofar as these two charter amendments are not vastly different. and to the good people who are here on behalf of the together sf charter amendment, the together sf charter amendment creates a

commission on commissions that eliminates a bunch of commissions and then, in essence, asks the task force to reinstate them, which seems respectfully ass backwards to me. how about we actually come up with a set of recommendations in the public, and then go and ask the voters to second guess that work and to approve that work after the public has had a chance to participate in it. that seems to be a much more democratic way of going about amending our constitution. and then finally, a lot of this stuff, deserves reform. and some of it isn't broken and doesn't need to be fixed. i mean, our library commission and our library system is the envy of cities around this country, our arts commission is held in high esteem. our department of public health is overseen. it used to be referred to before it had a public health commission as the kremlin, and was unaccountable

and was not transparent. and now is a commission that is populated by some of the most respected, brilliant doctors in america. so, i mean, this is really taking a meat ax. as i said, i appreciated the individual who quoted me very correctly, and, taking a meat ax to the commission system when a scalpel would do so, through the chair, i just maybe we can have further conversation. since you're not on this body, i can i can communicate with you. but, that that is something that gives me a little bit of pause of transferring that power over, because i would imagine if the mayor is appointed somebody and the board is appointed somebody through the board president, then there would be the whole driving force would be consensus , not to say that we don't often have disagreements, but in the end, this seems to be the

purpose is to reach consensus around consolidation. and i and the other the other thing, i just want to be clear, supervisor, i hate to interrupt you, but i've just gotten a nice clarification from deputy city attorney pearson, which is the provision in section 2.105 does not allow them to go directly to the ballot. it allows them to introduce a ordinance for consideration by this body. okay. all right. okay that's why i asked my clarification. so they so they would be recommending to us. and then ultimately we would have the final say. it looks like the city attorney. okay. so then that that makes me feel better, but then, but then again. so then why why that language. then why the language of giving them. i mean, it almost looks like you're giving them legislative power. so maybe through the chair of the city attorney, you can kind of like the mayor can introduce an ordinance to the board. they would have the ability to introduce an ordinance to the board. chair

the city deputy city attorney, ann pearson. that's right. the task force will be doing a couple of things, one of which is to make recommendations relating to charter bodies, which can only be amended by the voters. but it can also make recommendations with respect to bodies that are created by ordinance. and that language that you highlighted would also allow them to introduce an ordinance to change, consolidate, eliminate some bodies, but that is subject to approval by the board of supervisors. so i guess okay, so now that you've said this, now that you've clarified it, it very reminiscent to what the ethics commission is able to do. they're able to produce things on their own. and yeah, okay. i guess we can have further conversations about that. i'm not i'm not necessarily, sold on that part. i like the idea of them making the recommendations. i like the idea of them coming forward. but in terms of them

this body being the one to introduce a legislative package, let's let's continue further conversations. the only other thing that i was going to say is, and, and i just want to be clear about this, i think there's a lot of misinformation out there in terms of the power of the mayor and the power of the mayor has in this particular charter and their ability to do and i think that some of the underlying conversation is about the ability to appoint the mayor, having the ability to have to go through body this body for confirmation. i fundamentally believe that's the right way to do, the process, because it's a vetting process. it's allowing, the public to weigh in and people to have their consideration and voice heard. so i just understand that that's also an underlying theme in this debate. and i don't necessarily subscribe to that. i believe that our city charter puts a vast amount of power in into the mayor's office, the

ability to appoint, the ability to make final decision making on department heads, and then ultimately, the most powerful piece is the power of the purse and the ability to make this final decision making on fundamentally on how money is spent in this city, as we just saw recently, last week, so anyway. but i'll have further conversations with you. supervisor peskin, thank you for, clarifying those few things . thank you, and i too, wanted to thank everyone for coming out and speaking on this issue. i also want to say there's one thing we're all in agreement about, and that is there are too many commissions and task force and bodies, and that we are not, making the best use of our resources, because of that. so i'm excited that the that there will be an effort to reform this on the ballot. i, i really like

the simplicity of supervisor peskin's legislation. i really liked, the suggestion of the authors of the report that kind of called out some of these issues of perhaps having this body do this review on a regular basis, not not just once. i can't tell you how many times i've, i've been now at the board for 15 years, either as a legislative aide and a, and a supervisor, and i have during that time created or been the staffer that's created several task force or commissions and have gone through the entire process several times. and, you know, report i even staffed a commission once and wrote the final report. and we put it on a shelf and nobody ever looked at it. and nothing ever happened. and i just think about how many resources were wasted. i also

think about how many, you know, different commissions, for example, the director of behavioral health and in d.p.h that they have to go to and how much time it takes to staff and prepare for those commission meetings. and nothing necessarily useful results out of them. so i it is high time that we do this review that we make sure we're not wasting anyone's time or money on it. i don't think we can put a random number on it. that's that doesn't make any sense to me. that's that's not good public policy. we need to do a thorough review and get rid of, those task force and commissions and bodies that are no longer serving a useful purpose, and keep the ones that are and are doing a job that's really % really appreciate your work on this. supervisor peskin. i would actually like to be added as a co-sponsor to this measure. and

i am happy to make a motion to introduce the amendments right off by president peskin. i believe that means that this measure needs to, be continued. just because of the nightmare scheduling situation we've got on got going on in this committee, i'll, i'll make a motion to introduce the amendments and then continue the item to the call of the chair, before we have a roll call, vote on that motion, president peskin, do you have any final words? i do not thank you for your co-sponsorship. and thank you, colleagues, for listening to this item today and for the questions that were raised. wonderful. can we now have a roll call vote on the motion? yes. on the motion to amend the matter as proposed by president peskin and to continue the matter, as amended to the call of the chair, vice chair walton

a walton, i supervisor safaí i safaí i chair. ronen i ronen i the motion passes the matter is amended and continued as amended to the call of the chair. wonderful. mr. clerk, do we have any items additional items before us today that completes the agenda for today. the meeting is adjourned. >> hi, my .

in this episode, we are featuring the romantic park locations in your very own backyard. this is your chance to find your heart in san francisco with someone special. our first look out is here at buena vista park, a favorite with couples and dog lovers. it is as old as its neighbor and both have a significant forest,

a refreshing retreat from urban life. the pass that meander we do under a canopy of 0, redwood, pine, and eucalyptus. chill out and this environment and you might see butterflies and dandelions. blue jays fly between the eucalyptus. it is ada accessible. public transit is plentiful. six, 24, or 71 bus. we have conquered the steps, we walked the dogs, and we have enjoyed a beautiful view the park has to offer. this is the place to take someone special and enjoyed a beautiful look out. " come to corona heights, located in the heart of this

district. it offers a spectacular view of the downtown skyline, the bay bridge, and the east bay. the park is one of the best kept secrets. unlike twin peaks, it is hardly ever crowded. on any given day, you will run into a few locals. hop on a 37 bus to get there with that any parking worries. locals can bring their dogs to run with other dogs. there is also grass for small dogs. >> it is a great place. it is a wonderful place for the city to provide these kind of parks. the dog owners appreciate it. >> take time to notice the wildflowers on the grassland. and keep your head on the lookout for hawks and other bird life. take your camera and be prepared to review the city in a way you will not forget. it is prominent with beautiful formations that are perfect to

watch the sunrise from the east over the bay. this is another one of our great look out. we are at mount davidson. it has the highest point of elevation in san francisco, 928 feet. this is the place for you to bring someone special. enjoy all of the pathways, trails, and greenery that it provides a peaceful oasis of public open space and great hiking trails. the spectacular view offers a perfect place to watch the sunrise, or, sunset, with someone you love. >> it is a good place to get away from the hectic life of the city. get some fresh air. the view is fantastic.

>> wear sturdy shoes to conquer the trail, you have the feeling of being in a rain forest. mount davidson is also a great place to escape the noise and the apostle of the city with your partner. -- bustle of the city with your partner. it is quite a hike to the top at mount davidson but the view is worth every step.