madam chair. this is the fourth time we are in committee for this, so i will not repeat what i have said in the past. this is a very modest first step in beginning to reform our ballot measure process. i want to thank members of the committee and members of the public for the very valuable

feedback that we have received, and the amended version submitted last week limits this prospectively. it does not impact any ballot measures passed before 2012. it is a purely perspective reform, and it is limited to ballot measures place on the ballot by the mayor or by the board of supervisors and has no impact on initiatives. in other words, measures placed in the ballot by signature. it is a modest government reform, and ask the committee's support. supervisor kim: thank you. any call it -- comments? supervisor elsbernd. supervisor elsbernd: i have been relatively quiet on this. it is likely to move out of committee, so i wanted to share my thoughts. i think what happened tuesday afternoon is exactly what this

charter amendment is necessary. three ballot measures were placed on the ballot at the very last minute, but four members of the board of supervisors. and i think in the last 48 hours, we have seen that those ballot measures were written rather hastily. there is all kinds of unintended consequences. this charter amendment fixes that problem. it frankly gives a bit of a lifeline to those four supervisors into a major, if they ever do something like this again. so i think what has happened in the last week is perfect evidence for the necessity of this charter amendment, and i would like to congratulate supervisor wiener with moving forward with this good government reform. supervisor kim: thank you. at this time, i would like to open it up for public comment. >> sue hester. i did not speak at the last meeting because i wanted to read

the language. i think this is an amendment that is in search of a reason. with the four supervisor rule allows is it allows a minority, or even a majority of get sometg enacted but-48 votes to override a mural of veto, and it may not be enacted. i was involved with two board of supervisors sponsored measures involved in the 1980's. one was dealing with open space. we had massively contentious hearings. but losing chinatown, open space sighed. we had massive contentious hearings about shadows on union square. these never got resolved. four supervisors put it on the ballot and resolved it. that. prop k in 1984 -- that was prop k in 1984. it enabled supervisors to avoid

something were either the economic forces are so powerful or the mayor may threaten a veto. that was 1984. in 1986, prop m was put on the ballot. the issue for prop m was rationing the amount of office space. we head office boom and bust cycles in the 1970's and 1980's. we would approve $6 million in the market would be going, and it would take. when we even that out, based on a study done by the planning department by economic consultants, and they said 1 million square feet. we said, ok, you can have 1 million square feet, but do not bring it up to 6 million in any one year, because it is making the market to crazy. we passed that limit, by the voters. and guess what -- when the market tanked in the late 1980's and 1990's on the office market and boston, a vancouver, new

york, houston had massive economic weapons san francisco had gone ahead of the curve and hit dead son think reasonable. if you go back and read the print -- and had done something reasonable. if you go back and read the print from the time, it said it saved our cookies, financially, the city. if you are perfectly happy with allowing the board to have no power to put something on it to the voters that the voters agree with but you might not have eight votes, you're cutting off your own power, and you're cutting off the people's power. if you want to solve the problem of initiatives going on to the ballot without a lot of thought, require a hearing on the them. that is a simple solution. require a hearing before it gets put on the ballot. i would support that. but do not do something that you have not thought through. i know prop k and prop m would

have been dead. thank you. supervisor kim: thank you. is there any other public comment on this item? supervisor elsbernd. >> just a response, you know, there are a number of ballot measures that are not introduced legislatively and subject to a mayoral veto. the mayor can put measures on. it does not even have to go to the legislative process. there is a much bigger problem here, and i appreciate that we can point to a ballot measure that was approved 25 years ago, but i think i can point to three ballot measures that were introduced 48 hours ago that necessitate the need for this charter amendment. i appreciate that there can be a couple kernels in the history of ballot measures over the last many decades, but i think if we look collectively at all the ballot measures that have been introduced by four supervisors or a mayor in the last 25 years, a vast majority have been those that have been written without a lot of input and i could

absolutely benefit. let me throw out some that perhaps some votes in the progress of world would agree to. i think there would be a lot of members of the board of supervisors to like the opportunity to address some of the mistakes in this particular ordinance that as a talking about. this cuts both ways. there's a lot of good government in this charter amendment, and it should absolutely go forward. supervisor kim: thank you. any other comments? i just wanted to say that i really appreciate supervisor wiener coming back to the rules committee several times on this item and also listening to members of the public and his colleagues on some potential ways to make this charter amendment more palatable as we move forward. i do think that as a charter amendment that is perspective, not impacting any past initiatives that voters had an impression when they were voting on would be permanent, unless overturned by going back to the ballot, but i think that makes

this initiative stronger. i would have preferred if we had more conversations on ways that we can perform the system overall, so whether we talk about requiring additional signatures or requiring a hearing prior to going onto the ballot or requiring the mayor to have supervised signatures -- all of that discussion, it would have been nice to have more extended time. however, i do not see a reason to not put this forward to voters. i would support moving this out with no recommendation to the full board. i did want to and knowledge that there probably members of the public that expected this to come later on the agenda. so, madam clerk, is there a way to keep public comment open on this item? >> yes, i do not see any action. >> ok, i just do not want folks to feel that they did not have an opportunity to speak on this item. but we will call you when we open up if there are folks who want to speak about it.

supervisor wiener: that is fine. i will be in the budget committee. just let me know and i can walk over. supervisor kim: thank you. any other comment? ok, we will continue this item for public comment. madam clerk, can you please call item number 3? >> item number 3, hearing to consider appointing three members, terms to be determined, to the redistricting task force. their three seats and 23 applicants. supervisor kim: i believe most of the 23 applicants are here today. i mentioned earlier that because we have 23 candidates, that we will be asking everyone to limit their presentation to 3 minutes or less. and we may be following up with questions from my colleagues here on the committee. i will be calling your name in the order that you are listed on the agenda. if for any reason there is something pressing about your

time, please let our clerk know. i do know that anna yee was not able to make it here today. we did receive an e-mail from her, explaining she has a prior conduct of the first person to date is brigette leblanc. after brigette leblanc, this is carolyn squeri. >> good morning, supervisor kim and supervisor elsbernd and to the listening audience. my name is brigette leblanc and i am in native of san francisco and a resident of district 10, and also a product of public schools. as a graduate of lowell high school leadership san francisco and also a small business community owner, a member of the city college of san francisco community, democratic and committed the clubs, i think that with my different

involvement in a lot of different communities, that i actually bring in a lot to the redistricting task force. mainly as an educator, it has been a goal of my to inform the communities and encourage them to get engaged in any process that concerns them and to remain active. for years i have been involved in community meetings and forums, and through that process, i am strong enough to push back and temper what is anticipated to be more political objectives. i am knowledgeable of a broad swath of neighborhoods and communities. as you know, it is important that the appointments at the same profiles, but as a whole, they embody the diversity and the spirit that reflects the city and county of san francisco. for these reasons, i feel that i am is strong enough to push back when necessary, and it is important to involve all of our communities in this process. i hope that you consider my recommendation from the letters of support i have received from all of the different committees

in sentences go to be appointed to the redistricting task force. thank you. supervisor kim: are there any questions for the applicant? thank you so much. >> thank you. supervisor kim: next, we have carolyn squeri. are you here today? ok. then i am going to call up christopher elmendorf. after him, we have eric mcdonnell. >> thank you for hearing for me today. my name is christopher elmendorf. as a a professor of law at uc davis school of law where i teach election law, and i am resident of san francisco, where i have lived in the mission district since 2005. i wanted to say a few words this morning about why i want to serve on this task force and the values i would bring to the task of the task force. i see this as a public service

opportunity, no more and no yes. i am is a tenured professor. i teach and have relevant knowledge in this area that i think i could bring to the project. but i owe no debt to any candidate, to any interest group, and i have no interest in being into debt or having indebted to me any candidate or interest group that has a stake in this process. the u.s. stands alone among all industrialized democracies the use single member district elections in that we have a largely political process for redrawing legislative districts. virtually all of the country's the use single member district electrics -- elections have some non-partisan democratic process. it is that non-partisan perspective that i would bring to this task. that said, i want to put all my cards on the table and tell you a little bit about the values that i would bring to the process. first of all, at the most important thing is the task force complies with state and

federal law, which require population equality roughly a month legislative districts and also to the california voting rights act and the federal voting rights act disallowed the dilution of minority voting strength. second, of equal importance, giving effect to the values that are stated, the objectives stated in the san francisco charter. in some respects, it restate -- restates values already in state and federal law, but it adds to that. it adds specifically the protection of communities of interest in the respect for existing neighborhood boundaries. now, insofar as there is remaining discretion in the task force, if the application of these legal criteria do not lead to a determinant result, what value should be considered? i would list 3. one, opportunities for historically disadvantaged in politically and incorporated communities. second, respect for what i would

call informational committees, that is drawing district boundaries in such a way that they correspond to local media markets so that people have good information about what their representatives are up to. third, fairness and responsiveness, vis-a-vis the principal political coalition or cleavage giant san francisco that is a division between the progressives and moderates. fairness, meaning the plant cannot be biased in one direction or the other. responsiveness, meaning there should be a critical mass of the swing districts since the public opinion is reflected in representation. thank you very much. supervisor kim: thank you. >> i have a question to you have a pretty serious election law resume. did you apply to the california redistricting commission? >> i did not. >> any reason why not? >> no. that is a good question. partly, the sense