recreation has moved away from a vision that i had and a majority of us at the board of supervisors had. it has systematically and categorically, maybe not that a huge pace, but it has moved to privatize recreation and park resources. for community members or my

office or me individually to engage the commission through the department on this issue. i think community pressure works to a certain extent, but it only rarely works if there are those in power that have some interest in being responsive or in listening. i do not think we have that with the current setup with the appointments to the commission in terms of femme implementing their vision, which i do not feel goes with the community vision or for my district. i think it is just what the doctor ordered. i am proud to co-sponsor. i will apologize to the advocates for being victims of your own success tonight. supervisor avalos: i will be

voting in favor of this charter amendment, but i think it is important to a knowledge that our rec and parks department has not served well in our process. they have been hamstrung by the amount of money available, and the context are believed they are operating under where they make critical decisions about staffing, and i think trying to find revenue and a lot of places, that is very difficult i think it is important to acknowledge that. i do feel we have of band-aids

in place. services are still good services. my children are involved throughout the city, and i am really excited about the services that have been provided, and the experience and my kids are having many children are experiencing in untold numbers because of the cuts to or the lack of summer school. they have now replaced this summer school as a place of recreation. i think it is important to understand these things that are happening. for me it is about ensuring we are able to have an independent commission that has shared accountability, not just among the mayor's office but across san francisco, including the

board of supervisors. goowe have a commission form of government. we are not just legislators. people in our district expect us to have an accountability roll over the department. they also see us as the executive branch, although we are not part of the executive branch. it makes sense we have the ability to have appointments on these commissions. i feel it is important to support this charter amendment, and i will be doing so. >> any further comments? seeing none, roll-call on this item. >> on item 22 -- supervisor chu: no. president chiu: no.

supervisor dufty: no. supervisor elsbernd: no supervisor maxwell: no. supervisor alioto-pier: no. there are five ayes and six nos. >> the item fails. we move to item 51. >> you have read it before, but would you read it again to refresh us? >> item 51 is the resolution determining and declaring retrofitting for earthquakes in an estimated amount of 46.2 million, and item 50 is an ordinance providing for submitting to the voters of

general obligation bonds a deferred grant program. >> colleagues, item 51 requires a vote. any comments? seeing none? roll call. >> on item 51 -- [calling votes] there are a lesson ayes. >> the item passes. item -- there are 11 ayes. item 50.

without objection. >> would you like me to read item into? we have already called that. item 53. supervisor campos: thank you, madame chair. this is an item i introduced, and i want to thank all the co- sponsors. i just want to say a little bit about what happened during rules committee hearing on this item. i think it is interesting that many of the landlords and property a owners who have come out of -- out against this item go out of the way to say that the current structure works and how there is really no need to make any changes, and to some

extent, i think they are correct, and i think it works, because it is working for one side of city creation. -- one side of the equations. we have heard from numerous tenants and senate advocates who explain why the current structure -- and tenant advocates to explain why the current structure does not make sense. you have 2/3 of the citizenry that our attendance, and that is not reflected in the rent board. you also have a situation where one branch of government -- in this case the executive is the one that makes the appointment. reform of this body is something that must happen. the measure is a very modest

attempt to do that, because there are many examples where you have elected boards, which we were to do that in san francisco, we would most certainly have a different makeup of this body. the measure is to strike a balance between the concerns of tenants and landlords, and the measure was amended along the lines suggested by one of the representatives of people that were opposed to the measure. if anything is clear during the proceedings, it is that the folks who have been against this have been speaking out of both sides of their mouths. they have on one hand said they were against the original measure.

much has been said about discussing charterers and the concept of the budget. the motion i am about to make is a motion i am prepared to do today. this is simply about trying to figure out what our priorities for november are, and i do believe said reforming the board is something that has to be a top priority, but one thing that became clear during the discussions is that if we go forward with this measure for this november, it is going to create difficulties in terms of the larger objectives we have on the table, including what i believe and what many indicated should be our top priority, which is to put revenue measures on the ballot and successfully pass.

i believe that should be the focus of all of our energy. i am going to make the motion to table this item with the understanding that we as a board need to make a commitment to revisit this issue so we can have a board that actively reflects not only the values but the makeup of our city, so i will make a motion to table. >> the item has been moved to table and seconded. >> i would like to speak against the motion. a motion to table is non- debatable. >> we will call the roll please. >> of the motion to table.

[calling votes] supervisor daly: no. >> there are tens ayes, one no. >> the motion passes. item number 57. >> 5 item has already been called. -- the item has already been called. >> will you read that again? >> certainly. item 57, the charter amendment second draft to authorize split appointment to the municipal

transportation agency board of directors by the mayor and the board of supervisors. supervisor campos: thank you very much. this is an item i am proud to be co offering -- code-offering -- coauthoring with a number of my colleagues. we held extensive hearings of the rules committee and heard a lot of testimony from a number of people, but let me say this. if one thing is clear about the testimony, it is that there are many people who ride muni on a daily basis who are not happy with the service of the system as it currently is three dead -- currently is.

the fact is reform of our system is something that has to happen, and those who might be opposed to this item in my view of our people who have to be satisfied with the state of affairs, but if you believe it needs to be reformed, i would respectfully ask you support this item. our transportation system is in need of repair. our transit services instead of reforming to the maximum extent possible. we heard the presentation earlier this year. they indicated even though it accounts for more than 40% of

overtime in the last two years, not once could we verify they had a discussion as an agenda item on that specific issue. transit riders are outraged that key decisions are being overlooked and their concerns are not being addressed during good -- not being addressed. this is put it forward what we believe is comprehensive reform that recognizes that to address the issues that need to be addressed, it is not enough to focus on one aspect of what has happened. that is why this item is comprehensive. it includes a change of government by making the board of directors accountable so that instead of having one of 13 various split appointments that recognize the legislative body should also have a say on the

board of directors. that should create more accountability. it creates office of inspector general, which provides transparent analogies of a number of items. we believe the kind of function we are asking for pursuant to the report that indicated basic budget questions are not being asked. questions that were not being asked by other agencies is not something they have. a third item included in the charter amendment would change the way salaries are determined to buy the mta -- mpa. it is something that takes the

matter out of the city charter and we did to collective bargaining, but one thing it does not do is it imposes its will in terms of how collective bargaining should take place. it also addresses the issue of work orders. it addresses the need for best practices to be followed. there should be written agreements that outlines that there should be a public process the express their views about whether or not the work order is something justified. it also generates funds for better service to writers -- riders.

it outlines more clearly what happens if the board of supervisors rejected. it follows the trend that is happening throughout the state by having majority rule. i want to thank my colleagues who have worked on this item. i also want to thank my staff and the staff of all the advocates and a number of community members and a number who have been engaged in this process. it is something that can make or break families.

there are many families that on a daily basis depend. their needs are not being met. reform is needed, and we need to make sure this item gets on the ballot. i would respectfully for your support during the -- for your support. supervisor daly: thank you, madame president. let me thank supervisor combos -- campos for his work on it. if your reliance on the bus or happen to be a progressive member of the board of supervisors, that is apple pie, and i think in this sense it was created to deal with a couple of rounds of reforms in an attempt

to create an independent agency. what we have succeeded in doing is transferring power in terms of decision making on budget, on service, on fares, etc., to the mayor, because of how the government works with the appointments, and i think with a high-profile removal after the mayor's reelection, it is clear that politics can be played in commissions, and when riders go to there additional supervisors, it is frustrating to refer them

to the mta where there is little to no responsiveness in terms of the commission, so i think this makes a lot of sense. the only question i have is which one of you are going to throw in your sword to kill it. i believe supervisor avalos and either the only ones who are not listed as co-sponsors, -- supervisor avalos and high are the only ones not listed as co- sponsors, -- and i are the only ones not listed as co-sponsors, and i support it. >> i am very grateful for the collaboration between our staff and the advocates who have been working to reform. what i would like to do at this time is make a motion to

duplicate the file, and there has been an issue with regards to the provision i included in this, and i understand supervisor campos may have some initial amendments to make before i duplicate the file, so why do i save the motion and refer back to the chair. supervisor campos: i do have some technical amendments i would like to make, and i think it would be important to make this prior to the motion. i have copies for the rest of my colleagues, so i would make a motion to make the technical amendments that were outlined in the revised copy you half, -- you have, and i want to take the time to thank julie, let's put a

lot of time in this amendment. colleagues, i would make a motion to make the amendments outlined in the document. >> i would like to second it. >> all right, moved and seconded. any comments or questions on the amendments? >> what are they? >> supervisor campos. >> if you can turn to your copy, let me give you a brief summary. on pages 20 through 21, changes were referenced in the introduction. if changes the language so it

actually ties said two additional revenue that comes in, -- ties it to additional revenue that comes in. on page 22, it replaces the current parking allocation with one based on the percentage increase or decrease in revenue from parking meters or off street parking facilities. on page 24 it clarified the should the board of supervisors rejected the budget, that it should be made first on any of violence made from the transportation fund, and on page 30 its limits the ability to acquire or construct new parking facilities, so that is the

summary. >> we need to continue to next week? >> that is correct. >> supervisor chu and sylvester elsbernd. >> i am prepared to do for my comments. >> i think potentially characterizing these amendments is a bit of a stretch. i would like to understand a little bit more. on page 22, all of a sudden, throwing a hard figure into the charter. it is kind of a unique thing.

what does this mean? $52 million, which will be adjusted each year based on calculations year to year. what does this mean? what are we changing? what does the effect? -- is the effect? i would like to understand, and i would imagine since this is the public's first review of this, maybe those who are still watching would like to understand as well. >> supervisor elsbernd >> with respect to your question, on the parking and traffic baseline,

that represents the dollar amount that appears to parking and traffic, that is now on considered to general funds that had been in the past for parking, and the item you are referring to allows the controller to adjust the amount of or down depending on the parking revenue. >> right now it is set, and you do not have the ability based on revenue. it is a hard number, and this allows it to go up or down. what is the effect of this? how does it change from this year? >> it would change according to the change in parking revenue. this particular number is based

on the baseline formula that had been in the previous charter, and now that particular amount of money would be adjusted according to increases or decreases in future parking revenue. >> at least 80%. is that right? supervisor maxwell: it is equivalent to 80%. >> if it is a percent today and revenues go up, the total amount would go up. if revenues go down, it remains until the amount goes down during get -- goes down. what is the purpose of this? >> my understanding is that this is a legal cleanup that reflex

what the mta would get from parking tax. that is my understanding of why the change needs to be made. >> supervisor elsbernd. supervisor elsbernd: i would ask supervisor campos. as you were going to your amendments, what are the others after this one? >> there is one on page 23 page 21. >> there is one on page 22 and one on page 24. it clarified what happens should the board to reject the budget once the fiscal year begins