enhance participation in our election system. eight states and the district of columbia over the last eight -- eight years have adopted same-day voter registration and all have demonstrated that there is real added value and benefit, no debt riments, no negatives for increasing and encouraging, motivating soter interest and registration. 3% to 7% is the average voter turnout. that's important to san francisco because we have a lot of participation but in the last 10 elections 37% has been the average. that's pretty low considering the expense we often afford in administering these elections. so with the proof of the other states that have shown all the positives, we went to the secretary of state's office and our own director of elections to make sure would this work well for san francisco and the answer is thumbs up.

so i'm happy we'll pursuing this. i believe california will follow suit but good for san francisco for being the first to actually make -- come this close to make it happen. >> how do you think it will impact the citizens? >> we want to make sure there are no unintended consequences or hidden costs. the department of the controller and the elections director see really in extra costs and the costs you would see are those that would be associated with any enhanced voter participation in any election and that's a good thing. we also want to make sure we're protected against fraud. in learning from the other eight states and the district of columbia in how they have enacted this we believe we're well poised technologically and administratively to make sure there will be no added costs and fraud.

>> thank you. if for -- more information, please visit the league of women volters web state at sfvotes.org and remem >> there are seven members of the health service board which oversees the city's health service system. the health service system offers medical and dental benefits to officers, employees, and retirees of the city, the school district, and the community college district. currently four of the seven members of the health service board are elected by beneficiaries of the health service system. the remaining members are appointed. all aboard members serve a five-year term and elections of the four elected members occur

once a year in four years out of five so that the terms of these members are staggered. these elections are conducted by mail. proposition f would amend the city charter to reduce the number of health service board elections to two elections every five years instead of four elections every five years. a yes vote would make this change. a no vote would not. please visit the league of women voters website at sfvotes.org to get all of your voting information. early voting is available weekdays at city hall from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. if you don't vote early, make sure to votete >> hello, my name is katie with the league of women voters of san francisco. i'm here today to discuss proposition g, a measure that san francisco citizens will be voting on on november 2.

>> proposition g is a measure that would eliminate the current method of determining union operator measures by a set formula and instead use collective bargaining agreement and binding arbitration and make additional changes to the rules for m.t.a. employees. >> i'm here with san francisco supervisor dufty: -- san francisco sean else bernd. can you tell me why you support this pop -- proposition? >> sure. right newspaper they are the only group of city employees who have their pay set by charter. by taking the guarantee out of the charter we will ensure a fair and even playing ground when we negotiate contracts and that is to the beven the riders. it is not fair in a climate like this. we raise fares, cut service,

yet our drivers because of the charter received a 5.5% pay raise. it's just not equitable and we need the change. >> ok. if proposition g were to pass how would it impact san francisco citizens? >> it will impact san francisco citizens by improving the efficiency and just overall improving muni service, by removing that guarantee and pressing the reset button on all the work rules, like our inability to hire a single part-time driver. san francisco is the only city in the country without a single part time driving the inability to require overtime, that will free up dollars that can be plowed back into service and that will benefit all drivers and even if you don't ride muni, having an improved muni certainly benefits the san francisco economy and infrastructure.

>> up next, we'll speak with an opponent of proposition g. now i'm here with mr. irwin lum of the transport workers local 250 a and an opponent of proposition g. why do you oppose proposition g? >> i think first of all there is no question that muni is not functioning properly and needs major improvements but i think proposition g does nothing to improve service or fix immuney. the prop ontse -- fix muni. the prop ontse say it will but it does nothing to make the service more efficient or even make management more coonlt -- accountable. within the agency we have a bloated, top-heavy layer of management who is ineffective, not accountable and basically we feel is one of the main on

stackals to real form. -- on stkles to real form. proposition g. all it does is blame drivers tore the problems. last year we had a top manager who makes $220,000 a year while service was decreased, fares increased and we even eliminated service on one line. one of the big issues is we want accountability and proposition g doesn't even address that issue and one of the biggest issues is that drivers are part of the solution, not the problem. we have one of the hardest jobs in the city, driving one much the -- in terrain that is difficult to maneuver but you know, we do it in a manner that is efficient taking into consideration we carry over 700,000 people a day and we deal with disabled and senior passengers all in an efficient way as much as possible. so bottom line is that again, proposition g does nothing to improve muni.

on the other hand, we have a situation where if they talk about this as true collective bargaining and similar to all other city employee unions but what is -- it does is puts us in a separate category and bocks the arbitrators and negotiators in, a situation that no other public employee faces today. so we're asking the voters to join with us for real reform by voting no on proposition g. >> great. thank you. if passed, how would proposition g impact san francisco citizens? >> i think that's the biggest question and problem because proposition g will not improve service one bit. it will not add resources in terms of money for the system, won't put more buses out there. basically all it does is put the drivers as the main cause of the problem. there's nothing about management accountability, finances or the resources to make it run. >> thank you. i hope this is informational.

for more voting information go to sfvotes.org and don't forget to vote on november 2. >> state political parties often have local chapters that are run by county central committees. these committees may engage in political activity such as registering voters or endorsing candidates and ballot measures. currently an elected city official may also serve on a political party county central committee. proposition h would amend the city's campaign and governmental conduct code to prohibit elected city officials from serving on a political party county central committee.

proposition h defines this term to mean any county central committee of a political party recognized by the california elections code that performs political activities for the benefit of the party and on behalf of the party candidates. persons violating this provision would be subject to criminal, civil, and administrative penalties including possible suspension and removal from elective office. a yes vote would prohibit elected city officials from serving on san francisco political party county central committees. a no vote would not make this change. please visit the league of women voters website at sfvotes.org to get all of your voting information. early voting is available weekdays at city hall from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. if you don't vote early, make sure to vo

>> hello. my name is maxine anderson and i'm with the league of women voters of san francisco. we're here today to discuss proposition i, a ballot measure you will be voting on on november 2. >> proposition i is a measure that would open all polling places twice during the november 2011 municipal elections, both tuesday, november and the saturday primplete the saturday polling would be paid for by the saturday voting fund which individuals and organizations would donate to. >> we me here today is mr. alex turk from y tuesday. a prop ownent of proposition i. could you tell me why you support this measure? >> first, thank you, maxine,

it's an honor to be here. i support proposition i because it's basically the right thing to do. we have an election system in place that's this coalition believes is ant i can kuwaited. when you ask people why do we hold elections on tuesday a majority don't know the answer and -- or they think it's in the constitution. the reality is congress passed you alaw saying they didn't want to firfere with religion and we lived in an agrarian society so people packed up the horse and buggy and it took them time to get into the main squares for poet -- voting. the majority of countries around the world vote on weekends to make it more accessible to working families. the united states ranks almost dead last in the developed world in percentage of eligible voter turnout.

in the aftermath of the 2008 election when we had the highest turnout in 50 years, only 61% of eligible voters participated in the election. here in san francisco we pride ourselves on being engaged, active and politically savvy yet we've averaged a 47.2% turnout over the past 10 elections and it's shameful, not acceptable and i think we can do better. so the idea of pushing an agenda where we should host elections on a weekend to make it that more accessible for people on a day when the majority of people don't work is what we're trying to achieve. >> if this measure passes, how do you feel it will impact future elections? >> what we're trying to do is inspire people, make people understand that things can be done a different way. that countries like spain, japan, france, brazil and australia, they all vote on the weekends and have a much higher

turnout. to show the importance of participating in the democratic process, i'm trying to kind of wake up a sleeping giant, the electorate of san francisco and then hopefully all americans to say we need to be a part of our government. as a father of a-year-old i want to encourage my son to be a more active participant and instead of rushing him to school and making his breakfast and lunch on a tuesday i would love to have him wake up on a weekend and take our time and walk him through why is daddy voting for this or that on the bat -- ballot, let him ask me some questions about why i am supporting or op essing a a certain measure and then walk him down the street so he can participate in the process. while we are so connected globally through the internet we're still disconnected locally. many people don't know their neighbors and my hope is promoting voting op a weekend will bring out commubtse and

people will come together around voting. that's what we're trying to achieve. >> thank you mr. -- very much. i'm with alice of the san francisco young republicans. her organization opposes proposition i. would you explain why your organization opposes this measure? >> absolutely. so we oppose proposition i baud -- because of the hidden cost associated with the measure and also because we feel it's simply unnecessary. in terms of the cost, in any election we need to find polling places to have them and the cost of each polling place is something like $400. if you have 590 polling places in the city that's about a quarter million dollars that we're spending on that one -- for one election day alone. to add another one would double that. so we also feel that it's a bit deceptive that the proponents

are saying that this is going to not cost the city money because this election is privately funded because for all those future welcomes, the city would be on the line for coming up with that money should the board of supervisors decide that the saturday voting should continue. in terms of thismaker being unnecessary there are still right now plenty of opportunities for people to vote on saturday if they so desire. in the two weekends leading up to the election people can vote from 10:00 to 4:00 at city hall if they would like to vote on the weekends, if they like to vote early they can vote at city hall monday through friday. so there are plenty of opportunities to vote in person and you may vote absentee if you would like to do so and there are already about 40% of the voters in the city who are permanent absentee oat voters

so we think it's a bit unrealistic to talk about this community building aspect of saturday voting when so many of the people already not -- are p going to the polls and don't have a desire to go to the polling place in person. >> i see. if this measure passes how does your organization feel it will affect future elections? >> it will increase costs dramatically and also the amount of work that the department of elections is going to have to put into each election going forward so i mentioned the quarter million dollar figure of additional cost for adding an additional day of voting. that's a significant number given the fact that the stip already has a $481 million budget deficit. there's no reason to add to that deficit. also in terms of work the city has a hard enough time finding enough people willing to open up their homes to have say

polling place for one election day as it is. so this would increase the work for the department of elections too. >> ok. thank you very much. and that pretty much sums up proposition i. please peel free to go to the league of women voters web site at sfvotes.org for more physician on the -- information on the upcoming fiction -- >> currently the discharges a 14% tax on the rental of hotel rooms and related charges and the money goes to the general fund. in addition, a fee of 1% to 1.5% for improving the convention center and promoting san francisco is assessed. the hotel tax applies to the

amount a guest pays to occupy a room and related charges and the hotel operator must collect the tax when it collects the payment. proposition j. would increase the hotel tax rate from 14% to 16%. this increase would be in effect from january 1, 2011 until january 1, 2014. money collected from the increase would go to the general fund and the city could use it for any public purpose. a yes vote would increase the hotel tax rate from 14% to 16% for the next three years. a no vote would not make this change. please visit the league of women voters website at sfvotes.org to get all of your voting information. early voting is available weekdays at city hall from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. if you don't vote early, make sure to vote on

>> currently the city charges a 14% tax on the rental of hotel rooms and related charges and the money goes to the general fund. in addition, a fee of 1% to 1.5% for improving the conception center and promoting san francisco is assessed. the hotel tax applies to the amount the guest pays to occupy a room and related charges and the hotel operator must collect the tax when it collects the payment. proposition k would keep the hotel tax rate at 14%. proposition k would combine different definitions of operate in the tax code to one definition. a yes vote would keep the hotel tax rate at 14%. if the voters adopt both proposition k and proposition j, the hotel tax rate would be

generated by the proposition reaching the most votes. please assist the league of women voters at sfvotes.org to get all of the related information. if you don't vote early, make sure to vote on >> hello, this is steve mcdonald with the league of women voters of san francisco, here to discuss proposition l, a ballot measure which is going to be voted on bit citizen of san francisco on november 2. -- biting citizens of san francisco on november 2. >> proposition l is a measure that prohibits sitting or ligue on a public sidewalk in san francisco between 7m and 8 a.m.

with certain exemptions such as authorized medical visits, festivals and parades. >> i'm here with paul bowden in opposition to proposition l. paul, what is it that you find in opposition to proposition l? >> just about everything. it's a very broad, draconian, very scrim national orie piece of legislation being put before the voters at a point in time when it's really more about dividing people up to get conservative candidates elected as part of the newsome campaign than it is about the pup safety of the people that live here. that's dishonest and it's the kind of politics we're all sick of and would like to see go away. >> if passed, how do you see it

impacting the citizen of san francisco? >> if it's passed we can just assume it will get tied up in the court. as with other laws similar to this, such as the one in seattle where they said it's the example of how to do it right, it was found unconstitutional in the court. it's about ant -- aren't up all civic homeless people, aren't up intimidated by the poverty you see? which don't have enough loss -- laws to make home ms people disappear and this is the kind of scamegoting -- scapegoating poverty we've seen since the feinstein administration. until we start attacking the roots of poverty, they use police and private security guards to try to make homeless people disappear. enough is enough. you can't tell us it's illegal

to sit on the sidewalk. that's not going to be enforced against everybody of the it's p going to create a safer environment. it's going to mean another law that penalizes poor people because the cops don't want to see them around, the business groups don't want to see them around and that's why this didn't pass the board of supervisors, that's why so many clubs in this town have come out against it. it's classist, mean, racist and mean-spirited and we just need to make sure this is not what san francisco stands for. >> thank you, paul. in a moment, we'll hear from supporters of proposition l. now i'm with a small business owner who is going to speak in support of proposition l. the reasons you support proposition l had >> as a small business owner on haight street over the years i've experienced first hand a

lot of episodes of hostility and incivility from people that choose to hang out throughout the day or night on the sidewalks. initial lynn i thought it was just confined to the haight but i found with investigations that's -- that it's a neighborhood by neighborhood citywide issue that a slot -- lot of afterans are fed up with and d san franciscans are fed up with and frustrated. the reason it's on the ballot now is the board of supervisors decided that public safety wasn't enough of an important issue to deal with directly and tried to squash it so now the mayor has put it on the ballot for the people to speak about what's best for san francisco. >> if passed what do you think are the impacts to san francisco? >> the intention is that we'll see an improvement throughout the city from block po -- to block. for one, less people

congregating on the sidewalk and more importantly a return of civility throughout san francisco. san francisco obviously is a very caring, compassionate city and the city invests tens of millions of dollars into the homeless and obviously other nonprofit issues, but there needs to be a balance and i think that's where somehow it seems that certain people in san francisco have become more entitled, at least the feeling of entitlement, i guess you would in turn say this causes these actions they do on the streets and what have you. so yes, we hope it haze very positive effect on the city, otherwise we wouldn't be putting this much effort into it. proposition l say coalition of san franciscans. people that basically care about the how the city is. it's represented obviously by merchants and residents throughout the city but as well as that we have the elderly,

the disabled. anyone that basically wants to have a return to more of a public safety kind of inspired environment in san francisco. >> thanks, ken. >> you're welcome. >> so i hope this has been interesting. if there is any other need for information go to the league of women voters web site and don't forget to vote november 2. >> hello, my name is katie with the san francisco leave women voters. i'm here today to discuss proposition m, a bat -- ballot measure san francisco citizens will be voting on november 2. >> proposition m is a measure that would require the police commission to adopt a written community policing policy and require the chief of police to

establish a comprehensive foot beat patrol program. this measure would not allow the police code to prohibit sitting or lying on sidewalks. >> i'm here with david wagoner, co-president of the harvey milk lgbt cluck and proponent of proposition m. >> i support m because m would require the police commissioner to make community policing and foot patrols the official policy of san francisco. everyone agrees community policing and foot patrols are essential to building a trust between police and the communities they serve. what prop m will do is require the chief and the commission to develop a comprehensive program of community policing and foot patrols. what it won't do is micromanage the police. it's not going to tell the

chief what to do in terms of how many officers to assign to which districts. it leaves all of that discretion up to the commission and the chief of police. i support prop m because this city needs community policing and foot patrols as the solutions, the best solution for increasing public safety and building trust between police and the communities they serve. seattle, new york city, new york -- chicago and boston already have community policing. our city deserves nothing less. we need to have the very best policing models enslinde in our laws. it simply asks the police to develop comprehensive policies around community policing and foot