which i ran for 10 years. when i was elected to the board of supervisors on my first day, i turned on the computer and realized that we are on the lotus notes platform for e-mail. i found out san francisco has seven different e-mail platforms, when we should have one integrated platform. we are a city that operates with three dozen data centers, when best practices ~ we should have just two. most of our workers think hackathons are what you want to do it if you want to go to jail. finally, we are engaging in a community that has been engaged all along, but a community that has been innovating in a sector that has been doing extremely well, but one that we want to bring your best ideas and talent also to help us with city government. we have a new generation of leaders at the border supervisors, a generation that really gets it. 10 days after jane kim was

elected to the border supervisors, i called her as she was heading off on vacation. we talked about the fact that there was a company called twitter that we needed to figure out how to keep in the city. weeks later, we were standing together to figure out how to do that. a couple months after that, mark farrell and i were talking about a tech crunch article that talked about the ludicrous stupidity of a city that enjoyed taxing the stock options of technology start-ups. that has changed. christine olague has worked with low-income communities for years, and i know she is very committed to figuring out how we make sure that latino immigrant who maybe eight years old who lives in her district may someday work at a company like yours. we are committed to being partners with all of you, with our mayer, chief innovation officer, and we have a lot of work to do. we have schools that needs to be

fixed, taxis that need to be cut, muni systems the need to be recalled, and i hope ideas on how to changes are here in this room. we look forward to working with you. thank you. [applause] >> ok, we are open it up for q&a from the media. before we do that, i forgot one thing. that is the color of the golden gate bridge. that was a suggestion from jack dorsey. co-founder of twitter, and the seventh anniversary of the bridge celebrated memorial day weekend, we have mc hammer, a friend of tech in the back. with that, questions from the media, please. >> i wonder if you could explain what these investments do? >> this organization is going to

represent the tech community in a unified fashion. the first agenda, which we are taking the lead from ed lee on is job creation. if we can create 500 to 1000 new jobs this year, we can have a significant impact on the economy of san francisco. ouster -- our support for code for america, another nonprofit, to go into the city of san francisco, fined projects like david chiu just talked about, projects that volunteer hackers from the tech community can go in and solve problems for the city of san francisco, to eradicate bureaucracy. applying for a business license in san francisco is not a pleasant experience. we need to apply technology to

problems like that. >> [inaudible] >> initially, it is about the economy and jobs. many of us in s.f. citi are very active already philanthropic way. the mayor keeps talking about the philanthropic efforts. funny enough, i am tied to ask him what is in his mind. we have not discussed that yet because we are focused on jobs. thank you. >> [inaudible] >> sopa is a bill in the

congress. there is a bill called pipa in the senate. the moniker for the bill in the house is sopa. these bills are tantamount to censorship on the internet. i was with ari emanuel, probably the most famous agent in the country, mark andriessen, in southern california, and we talked about this. mark had the most concise description. do you want to turn the united states into china, where all content is censored? these bills are not good for technology. we can name some of the leading companies of san francisco who, if this bill was passed 10 years ago, would not be allowed to even exist. it would have a horrible impact on these companies today. we are working with senators and

congressmen to make sure this bill stops. it was squeaking through congress fairly rapidly because of the big media companies, they do not advertise the bill. thank god for lobbyists like technet. i am sorry to go on a ranch, but this is a serious issue for our community. our member companies will be hearing more about this because we can help. >> [inaudible] >> if you know ari emanuel well -- mark andriessen and i were very open with him about our -- he immediately reacted emotionally in our favor. i said, understand this the 0's of the media company's you do business with are the ones that we are trying to sneak this through. he said, i know that, and i will help you.

>> i tried to think about this room as the dream room, where we dream and bring some of those dreams to life. i feel very blessed that i have been able to spend the last 31 years of my life doing it my way, thinking about things better interesting to me, and then pursuing them. there are a lot of different artists that come here to work, mostly doing aerial work. kindred spirits, so to speak. there is a circus company that i have been fortunate enough to work with the last couple of years. i use elements of dance and

choreography and combine that with theater techniques. a lot of the work is content- based, has a strong narrative. the dancers have more of a theatrical feel. i think we are best known for our specific work. in the last 15 years, spending a lot of time focusing on issues that affect us and are related to the african-american experience, here in the united states. i had heard of marcus shelby and had been in join his work but never had the opportunity to meet him. we were brought together by the equal justice society specifically for this project. we were charged with beginning work. marquez and i spent a lot of

time addressing our own position on the death penalty, our experiences with people who had been incarcerated, family members, friends of friends. pulling our information. beyond that, we did our own research. to create a picture that resonated with humanity. it is the shape of a house. in this context, it is also small and acts like a cell. i thought that was an interesting play on how these people make these adjustments, half to create home. what is home for these people? the home is their cell. people talk a lot about noise --

very noisy in prisons. that is interesting to me. looking at the communication level, the rise of frustration of being caged, wondering, where does redemption fit into the equation here? [singing] i think both of us really believe the death penalty is wrong, and is flawed for many reasons. the list is as long as my arm -- about several others. we feel this is important for both of us, personally, to

participate in the debate of this issue in a way that we can help people frame it for a conversation. conversation.

oh, my! haa ha ha! ha hha ha! [snortg] >> and good evening. welcome to the meeting of the commonwealth club of california. i'm bob, a member of the commonwealth program community and a chair for of tonight's

program. i'm also a member of the house of delegates of the american bar association, where it first met steve. this is a series of programs underwritten by the charles gesky family, which examines the constitution in the 21st century. this examines the balance between safety, security, and public order, and the protection of civil liberties and the integrity of the constitution on the other. tonight program will focus on threats to our american justice system caused by under-funding and indecisiveness. i would like to mention that the question answer portion of the program will be moderated by a professor geoffrey hazard, a distinguished professor of law at uc hastings. the professor is a leading expert in the field of civil procedure of legal ethics and is good at asking questions. it is my pleasure to introduce our very special guest, stephen zack, president of the american

bar association. with nearly 400,000 members, it is the largest volunteer professional membership organization in the world. mr. zack is the first hispanic american to serve as the president and the second to be born abroad. he was only 14 when his family emigrated from cuba under harrowing circumstances, including last minute detention by the secret police. he made it here. in two lines -- and two lines come to mind when i think of him. "this is my country, land of my choice. this is my country, here i found voice." what a voice it is. he earned his aba at the university of florida and he is now in their hall of fame. he is a partner in the miami office of the national law firm. his clients range from former

vice president al gore to philip morris, to the national geographic society, and he is listed in the 2011 edition of the best lawyers in america. his cross-examination of an expert witness in bush vs. gore made the front page of "the new york times." he has a framed in his office. he was the youngest attorney and first hispanic to serve as president of the florida bar. he was chair of the ethics commission and served on the orange board committee. in the aba, he has been a florida state delegate, chair of the house of delegates, our policy-making body, served on the board of governors, and is a fellow of the american bar foundation. as the aba president, he has led national effort to protect state courts, improve civics education, and fight cuts to legal aid funding. it is his mission to make equal

justice under law a vibrant living reality for everyone, not just four words carved on the facade of the supreme court building in washington. mr. zack is a passionate and tireless advocate for liberty and justice for all. as he wrote in a letter in today's "daily journal," "that is what our profession does. we get in the way of wrong. we get in the way of attempts to separate and divide our society. we get in the way of those who would let our constitutional democracy whether away from ignorance. we get in the way of those who would further widen the justice happen in our country." please welcome a great lawyer, my friend, and our speaker, steve zack, president of the american bar association. [applause] >> that is a wonderful

introduction, bob. thank you for those kind words and for all the good work you do at the aba and have done for many years. thank you for this invitation. it is the world's largest public affairs forum. i love your model. "find truth and set it free." what could be better than that? i have heard many mottoes under -- over the years. in many ways, it is what we are all about here today in finding some truth and hopefully setting a free. we need to explain why the preservation of the justice system is so important. it should be obvious, right? it should be a very simple discussion. unfortunately, it is not. in my lifetime, the loss of liberty is not a theoretical exercise. i actually experienced that in

cuba. and, part of the passion that i feel about this issue comes from the fact that, in 1961, the cuban constitution was identical to that of the united states. those words in that constitution did not protect us. words do not protect you. understanding and be leaving in the words do. -- and believing in the words do. we today have a serious problem in that regard. the "new york times" three weeks ago -- "time" magazine three weeks ago reported as a cover story how the constitution is under siege, and "newsweek" about two months ago had a cover story about the failure of americans to understand our government.

some very scary statistics. two out of every three graduating high-school students today believe that the three branches of government are republican, democrat, and independent. that is an actual poll. 75% of all americans don't know that religious freedom is protected by the first amendment. 75%. more americans can name the judges on "american idol" than on the supreme court of the united states. what does this mean to us? how did we get here? well, first of all, unless the next generation understands the obligations imposed by the constitution, we are going to have a serious, serious problem. my children can always tell me about their rights, but very

rarely tell me about their responsibilities. those responsibilities are critical to our future as a country. the fact of the matter is, if we do not understand the constitution, if our children do not understand the constitution, and appreciate the separation of powers, and appreciate the different roles that are branches of government are meant to play, how are our elected officials opposed to understand? what has happened today in washington? what is happening to our country? what is happening to a saying that we all have heard? i will ask people to raise their hands. do you remember going to school when we all heard the statement, "i don't agree with what to say, but i will defend to the death

your right to say it." to do you remember that? how many of you recall saying that? every single person in this room raised their hand. today, the statement is, "i don't agree with what to say, and if you say it, you are a bum, and you should not say it, and i don't like to." where did we lose our way? what happened to us as a country? we cannot have a civil discord and discussion amongst ourselves and still respect the other point of view. is it 24-hour-day cable? is it a society that says "i won't listen to fox," or "i will listen to fox, and only fox," or "i listen to msnbc"? why can we not listen to the marketplace of ideas and understand that people have a right under our constitution to

have different points of view? that is why you are here today. to listen to different points of view. the fact of the matter is, today, we are in a society that does not even respect the concept of having a right to a lawyer. as president of the american bar association, i have an opportunity to choose the theme for our law day, and i chose the legacy of john adams from concord to guantanamo, because every high-school student had to think about why it is our obligation to defend those who have ideas different than our own. why we live in a constitutional democracy.

a constitutional democracy is the difference of two words, each of which are two letters. that is the rule "of" law, and the rule "by" law. the rule by law as when a majority get together and get -- and decide what rights, if any, the minority has. nazi germany was one of the most lawful and unjust society is in the history of the world. the nuremberg laws were rules by law. what exists around most of the world and in cuba today come in my own experience, is that the most powerful, the most privileged, get together and decide what rights, if any, the minority have. the united states constitution is the rule by law. the rule by law is to protect the minority from the tyranny of

the majority. it is the classic definition of law. now, the rule of law is what justice kennedy and justice roberts recently spoke about. in their opinions, one was involving the flag-burning case. texas vs. johnson. the other one was by justice kennedy. the other one was by justice roberts very recently in the demonstrations of military fit -- demonstrations at military funerals. they both said the same thing. they said, we don't like what these people did. as a matter of fact, what they did and their beliefs are abhorrent to most americans, and to us personally, but unless we protect their rights, all our

rights are in jeopardy. and that is why the concept of a constitutional democracy is so important and must be preserved, but is not understood today. it is not understood by many americans. why? it is not that hard to understand. we live in a democracy. a democracy is supposed to be governed by a majority opinion. so, why isn't the court just governed by whatever the majority of people think? the answer is that that is what is also called mob rule. a constitutional democracy is one that protect everyone's rights, even those who are the minority. that is a concept that was discussed in the federalist papers, which i know we all read when we have trouble going to sleep, and is the basis for our government, but what will

happen, what will happen if there are no courts to protect the rule of law? that is really the fundamental message that i wish to talk to you about here today. we have a court system under attack. 11 states provide less than 1% of their entire state budget to funding the judicial system. california and florida tend to lead the pack. in this case, unfortunately. florida, 0.7% of the entire budget goes to funding judiciary. the superior court in san francisco recently said that it will have to reduce its staff by 42% compared to where it was two years ago, and that it will have to close 25 court firms -- courtrooms. we have established a commission for the preservation of the

justice system that is chaired by ted olson and david boyce, speakers at this great forum in the past, and 24 of the most prominent lawyers in the country, both women and men, all ethnicities, both sides of the aisle, to look at this issue. let me tell you what we found. in hearings around the country, we found the supreme court of georgia telling us that there court is so under-funded that she has to ask nexus' lexus for pencils for her law clerks. in ohio, you cannot finally pleading unless you bring your own paper. in new hampshire, the court closed the courts to all civil jury trials for a year, a year. alabama supreme court justice said she is going to have to reduce civil trials by 50% and criminal cases by 1/3.

well, we have spent $1.30 trillion in bringing the rule of law to parts of the rest of the world. the rule of law begins with one word. "access." access. if there is no access, there is no rule of law. today we have a just a step in this country where 80% of poor people do not have access to the port. -- court. we have a legal services corporation that is so under- funded, one out of every two phone calls go unanswered. we have not only the traditional minority poor, we have the newly poor. the foreclosure crisis has caused a vast new number of people to cannot support to go into court. even if they could afford it, if the courts are closed, there is no access. there is no access. around the country, the courts

are closing down. the head of the civil division in los angeles told me that had the original budget gone through, they would of had to close 150 courtrooms. close them. who cares? is this really important? aren't these just a bunch of troublemakers going to court, clogging up the court system? does it make any difference to the business community or to average americans who don't need the court system? well, we are all going to be a minority some day in some way. we are all going to need the court system. the fact is this is as important to the business community as any other community. that is something that has not been written about and that we learned during the course of these commission hearings, that we had colorado's of fortune 50 companies and general counsel --