one of the greatest equalizers in the cost for give and give city is access to our parks, no matter how small or large. the recreational services that are provided to any one of these populations. that is a big asset for a city that is compact, that is dense, and that is obviously seeking to keep itself very accessible. it wants to be affordable, even though this is a challenge from year to year. we are constantly reminded of this in a huge ways. when we see decisions being made on the recreation and parks commission, the commission that this unilaterally appointed by the mayor, we do not always get the benefit of having that level of benefit in intersections in a way that many would like.

we often feel that concerns by constituents that feel a detachment for a divorce from some of the most important decision making processes of the commission. there are no subcommittees on recreation and park commission. there are no advisory groups. there is not a level beyond the primary commission contact where people then have to go to the commission meetings to be able to process the kind of decisions that are quite frankly profound and meaningful to the day to day existence and being a san francisco. there are many people who were frustrated because they were not able to engage in a way that they would buy. they do this on the back end of not being in a co-driver's seat.

many of these amendments like to refer this to some sort of power grab. this is a misstep in the notion that this is not about legislative or executive. it is not about any members of the board of supervisors or major new sum. all of this would be projected for quite practically speaking, when mayor knew some leaves office. it is very clear that there is this ongoing desire and need to bring government, the many tentacles of government like the recreation and parks department closer to the people and make sure that is institutionalized in a way that people are in the comfort zone that people -- in government is working for them in a most democratic and spirited level of engagement that is missing right now.

i am not saying that rec and park is not doing a good job. i am not saying that they are not struggling financially. i also am saying that we can fortify the greatness of an entity like rec and parks department to make sure it is fueled by citizens power. we are not see and we are looking for any kind of shift in power. we are looking for a co- governance system. this is not reviewed by the board of supervisors and then picked by the board of supervisors in order to enforce that cooperation which has not happened before in these kind of split commission appointments. in this particular construct, the person would be jointly

pecked by the board president and the mayor. i think that would work very well. it would answer some of the concerns that have been ongoing and chronic. no matter what the fate is of this particular charter amendment, no matter what the fate is of any of these charter amendments, i would have to say coming out of the budgetary discussions that i am reminded that there must be a reestablishment of a bright line that must be attached to a certain principle that the fundamental integrity of our legislative process cannot be auctioned off and cannot be traded as part of a larger negotiable strategy. being able to reconcile and rectify our budgetary process. that is a hard thing to do, especially when it is driven by those who hold purse strings.

in this particular case, it is critical that we pull back and no matter how high of an order it is in order to pursue legislative and governance reform, sometimes those are going to have to be pursued at a high cost. at this particular time, we have arrived at in level of some stability when a city is struggling like ours, when we are looking to keep the quality level of service for the vast network of recreational and parks needs, to be able to upgrade the level of participation well we also knew seek tough budgetary decisions being made or not being made to the degree that we would like and answers sometimes becoming the front burner for seeking towards privatisation or seeking toward outsourcing or seeking toward selling of property in order to pay for the restoration

of services. those are the times that i wish we have some representation on a committee. colleagues, i appreciate very much your hearing this in full chambers here. i appreciate the rules committee for facilitating this conversation. my heartfelt appreciation to the many advocates who have long in gourd with this particular question of seeing some reform before anyone of us could pick up this mantle. i do not know what the outcome will be. that does not mean that if- charter does not advance, so should our efforts to not continue to seek these reforms that would fall by the wayside. i look forward for us putting our effort in one capacity or another towards making sure the

people of san francisco are getting what they expect. your support would be appreciated. >> thank you very much, madame chair. i want to thank supervisor mirkarimi for bringing this item forward. i am proud to be a co-sponsor of this amendment. as i indicated in my prior statements about the budget, i think passing a budget as part of the equation of effective governments of the city. it is not enough to pass a budget that makes sense. you have -- you have to look at whether or not structural reforms are needed. you have to assess each individual charter amendment on its merits. i want to speak now as a member of the rules committee and a chairman of that committee and somebody that heard from all sides of this issue. i have to say that we had a lot

of testimony. we had passionate testimony on both sides. i appreciate the fact that so many people came to talk about the charter amendment. the reason that people did come to rules is that our parks and recreational areas are something that are very important to the daily life of this city. i always say that you cannot talk about public safety without talking about parks and recreation. public safety takes more than just having police officers on the street. you have to give people, especially young people, things to do after school. recreational opportunities play an important part in keeping in neighborhoods safe. i am in a position where i can say that even though a lot of good things are happening in this department, i do not

believe that the current government structure is the right structure in terms of having the level of accountability and transparency that is needed. the fact is that until you have some division of power in terms of how appointments are made, some of the problems identified throughout the hearing will continue. it does not matter who the mayor for the individual members are. it is not about individual people or targeting individuals. this is about structural reform. even though we have a strong mayor system, that is a strong mayor system, but it is not a marquee. i think the proposal that has been put forward is a pretty modest proposal. it is one that recognizes that there is something to be gained when the legislature also has the opportunity to make appointments to this body.

it makes it more representative. oftentimes people that have no connection to this building, but nonetheless have a record of involvement and achievement around the area are people that should be on the commission. as an example, without choosing an individual or picking on an individual commissioner, we have at least one member of this body that has a majority of the members of the board of supervisors that voted against this individual. because of the current structure of this body, we do not have the ability to change that fact. we as a city need to make this a priority. that is why i am supportive of this amendment. i think it is something that makes sense. so many people pointed out so many different issues that this charter amendment will go a long

way in addressing and i am proud to support. >> thank you, madam president. i want to thank the supervisor mirkarimi for his leadership on this issue. i want to thank all of the activists and advocates that have move this forward. i support the spirit of the measure. i do want to say, as it has not been surprise to anyone, i have had such -- concerns about this measure. i believe that the parks and rec commission needs to have a more open and inclusive process. they have heard that message loudly and clearly. i anticipate that there will be changes in how the department interacts with the public in a more open and inclusive way. i do not intend to support the charter amendment on its merits. i will be open to future reforms

and changes. what we are all trying to achieve is to make sure that our families and our children have the most outstanding recreation and parks service says that we could possibly have. i look forward to working with you. >> let me just say that sometimes i enjoy a pissing in the wind. let me go ahead and do some of that. thank you, supervisor mirkarimi for bringing this forward. thank you to the advocates who have been organizing around this and mobilizing. a few of you are still here. what we have in front of us is a good piece of public policy. i have watched as the parks and 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