was an indication of what was possible in times of crisis. particularly when relationships between countries are critical. violations have interests, people have friends. we were able to, for the people that participated, and we will always remember. thank you. i look forward to your questions. [applause] >> given the multinational nature of the crisis, the

graphic you never -- graphic user interface system, which one was used? >> we went to googleearth. i miss that. we were able to develop and be a bit, which went down of the revolt of 0 in the morning in the afternoon. in terms of water, we found that when we were measuring it, they were all used in japan. everyone was tied up with the crisis. to get real-time information on

water, we had to use our portable kids, which were not calibrated sufficiently to be reliable. and we have the results immediately fed back to us. in order to react responsibly, we had to be able to have reliable instrumentation and data as the basis of decisions. that is what we learned out of this. >> microphone working here. the information in california was slow. seven days. how do we address warnings without causing panic?

>> i think the to start with an understanding that, in the case of radiation, the first questions that we need to ask, number one, is the plant up and operating? or did it shut down? is there a potential release of a lethal doses that requires immediate status on the part of engineers in leaders? if the problem now, and we are talking temporal issues, is long-term exposure, then that puts this into a different category, i think. i would identify time critical issues in terms of how you manaso, if i have a problem whei am concerned about long-term

exposure, now what i need to do is talk about how i gradually start move people away from this so that i can prepare for a long term, sarcophagus type problem. or i will have to find a way to deal with the long-term exposure. i think that as far as how you manage this, separating the immediate sorts of actions and long term actions would be helpful. if people think that there is an immediate step that needs to be taken for themselves and their children, they will be very much on edge and waiting to hear what leaders are asking. i am reluctant to tell you that you can act on instinct in this case.

there is a series of questions that have to be answered. preparing for a table top that involves radiological contamination, it would be to develop crisis action and standard operating procedures where, integrated, we know who is going to do what to get to a clear, empirical understanding of the problem that we have, along with it the actions and messages that go with it. we did not feel comfortable leaving japan until we had all of that system instrumentation in place. that was our measure of success. as you think about crises in the future, i would incorporate the radiological dimension. the nature of what we are in has us in a position where we are dealing with what a climactic

situations and crises we have not anticipated or seen before. having fought through what the radiological dimension is and what the implications of our for these very important approaches. >> i know that you have to get out of here. we have about two minutes. i appreciate your coming. i have this feeling that you're giving this presentation of pride over what you end your task force did for japan. i want to thank you for what you did today and what your doing out there. i know you must have this warm feeling overhead. >> i used to look up at many of you, what i was down there. >> thank you so much for coming to talk.

i know that you have to get out of town there. ladies and gentlemen? [applause] >> thank you. >> for the rest of you, we are going to have our next program and it is going to be some elected officials and mayors. we are going to take 10 minutes. i want you to be back in your seats and ready in 10 minutes. thank you very much.

>> proposition a would authorize the san francisco unified school district to issue bonds to repair and upgrade more than 50 school facilities. property taxes could be increased if needed to pay the principal and interest on these bonds. the bond funds would be used to repair and replace major building systems including electrical, heating wat, water, security, and fire sprinklers. remove hazardous materials. improve accessibility for people

with disabilities. make necessary seismic upgrades. replace permanent structures and perform other work necessary to apply closure -- codes and regulation . they can't pay for teachers and administrative salaries or operative expenditures. >> hi, my name is melissa

griffen. and a member of the league of women voters of san francisco. >> proposition b authoress the city to authorized to hundred $48 million in bonds to improved street structures such as bridges. this would come with an increasing property tax, if needed, to pay for those improvements. the city is responsible for maintaining about 850 miles of streets. a study shows about half of the streets any major repairs. the city can only use this bond

money to pay for and repairs city streets. it will improve lighting, sidewalk extensions, trees, and landscaping. renovation programs to increase safety, and add this traffic signals to improve muni service. the mayor and the board of supervisors have to approve the final project. this measure requires the approval of two-thirds. is the right here with supervisors got leaner -- supervisor scott wiener. why should we vote for proposition b? supervisor wiener: this is a

bond that will address some of our basic and critical infrastructure needs it. we've seen this across the country for the last few decades a bank it will help with quality of life. it will help put people back to work. it addresses the infrastructure funds for our roads. to resurface our roads. basic maintenance. it also provide significant funding for work on our city bridges and overpasses and other infrastructure that is deteriorating and needs capital work, and also provides for eda acceptability. >> opponents of this measure have argued that these bonds

should not be used for what they perceive as ongoing maintenance of our streets. -- what they perceive as ongoing maintenance of our streets. how do you respond to those accusations? supervisor wiener: we should have been doing a better job the last 30 years maintaining our streets. i will not argue that. the fact is, we are where we are today. we have almost $500 million. the capitol assets like the park, like the bay bridge, muni. is appropriate to use bond funds -- it is a prepared to use bond funds to do capital infrastructure work. this is not for filling the random pothole. this is for capital work. road resurfacing, road reconstruction, not basic

operating. >> in the past years, voters have not been receptive to the idea of the streets fund or when they are proposed on the balance. the measure needs two-thirds of the voters to pass. what makes you think this is the year voters will go with that? >> a strong majority of voters do support having the capital work. our polling has been strong this year. six years ago, we got the 66% of the boat would no campaign whatsoever supporting or explaining at. this year, we're trying to really educate the voters. we think we have a chance of getting 2 2/3.

2/3 is a high threshold even though this is a popular kind of bond. we feel good we will have a shot of getting their. >> thank you very much. >> thank you. next up, we will discuss proposition b with upon the. >> i am here with judy berkowtiz, an opponent of proposition b. do you oppose this? >> san francisco neighborhoods voted to oppose prop b because we've already paid for these street repairs. payment has been in the form of property taxes and other taxes. we do not feel we should pay for them the second time. or in this case, a first time,

because the board of supervisors had already passed two ordinances at the board, the law pieces of legislation that pay for exactly the street repairs. one was $40 million. another was $42 million in the past couple of years. not only that, but this is a general obligation bond. general obligation bonds are supposed to be a one-time fix. this is not a one-time fix. this is maintenance. >> proponents argue that regardless of where the funding comes from, if we do not fix our streets now, the cost to implement these fixes will go up exponentially in the next, say, 10 years. how do you respond to that assertion? >> the streets of san francisco

are terrible. they are the worst i have ever driven on. i am sure the department transportation agrees. i do not know it because will rise -- if the costs will rise in the next 10 years. i think it is important we do fix this ries. the money that has been allocated should do so. this has been taken in the form of, as i said, our property taxes. >> if this does not pass, how do you suggest we go about finding street repairs and other kinds of repairs that are being funded by proposition b? what would you like to see cuts? >> there are less people working for city government now than there were 20 years ago. however, salaries are several times higher than they were.

we could cut out a lot of the managers. department managers. if they were released and more park and rack -- rec playground managers were hired, then we would have some money we could spread around. however, again, it the money -- if our property taxes and our rent pass-throughs are used for what they're supposed to be used for, then we would have the money. >> thank you very much. for more information about this or other ballot measures, please visit the web site of the san francisco league of women voters at sfvote.org. remember early voting is available as city hall. if you do not vote early, both

>> i am ellis said griffin, a columnist the rights of the san

francisco city politics. i am also a member of the league of women voters. i am here to have a discussion of proposition d on november's ballot. proposition d is a charter amendment that would change the way that the city, current and future employees share in funding. it will also require an elected officials to pay the same contribution rates as a city employees. it would increase retirement contribution rates for most current city employees based on city cost. for future city employees, and prohibit the city from paying any employee contributions. proposition c and d, if voters

approve of measures, only the one with the most votes will become law. >> i am here with the treasurer of the campaign and a former member -- why should voters vote for proposition d? >> it had its origin a year ago. the origin of proposition b started with a grand jury investigation of the retirement system in san francisco. i was a member and during those years, i worked with other members of the grand jury. we issued reports in 2010 and

2009 with the expectation that public officials to propose legislation. there is only one public official that approached us and was willing to work on crafting legislation. and that was a public defender. 115,000 voted yes last year. a very strong constituency. we hope they will be back. the difference between proposition c and d is basically cost savings. d will save over $400 million over the next 10 years. prop d was crafted with exempting lowest paid city workers from any increase in

contribution, at the rates that are part of proposition d are progressive. proposition d is also a disruptive force in city politics. there is a very strong special- interest group that has fought against any pension reform in san francisco. that is later. we hope that they will look at it in a positive way. >> opponents argue that it was done not in a collaborative lateway. that it was done unilaterally.

how do you address concerns? >> the origin of proposition b and d was a civil grand jury investigation, a group of 19 residents of san francisco, who had a very diversified group of people representing unions, representing retired people, representing middle-class and minority groups. the fact that this is a criticism is not valid and the collaboration of the opposition talked about who was a collaboration for special interest groups. >> opponents have alleged that even if it is passed, it will be held up in court and perhaps not even implemented. how do you respond to concerns about proposition d?

>> i read about prop c, 8225 page document that was totally incomprehensible to me. i am familiar with legal documents. the d measure is 25 pages, simple to understand. i fully expec tboth me -- expect both measures will be challenging. especially those that oppose proposition c, and there are many, it will be brought forward. >> up next, we will talk to an opponent of proposition d. i am here with the executive director of the san francisco labor council and an opponent of proposition d.

why should voters voted against proposition d? >> i was telling people why they should vote yes on measure c. d is the opposite way of the way people should be doing business. this is a scott walker wisconsin initiative. it was done with no input from the workers. it was financed by a key party republicans that have financed the this and got $5 a signature to put this on the ballot. none of the city workers were involved, it was unilaterally put on. it is the wisconsin way of doing things. it does not accomplish what is supposed to do. it is legally challengeable. i am asking everyone to