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, and there is one on page 30. it limits the parking authority

limitation on acquiring or expanding parking facilities to garages. thank you. >> further comments or questions on the amendment? without objection, or do we need a roll call several without objection? so moved. supervisor chu: i would like to make a motion that would duplicate the file to create two versions, one that is currently in the charter amendment that would only be triggered if we were to see an annual revenue increase, so one version would stay as is.

the second would remove the set- aside provision. i understand there is discussion. different colleagues have different perspectives, and i would like to have those two options. >> second? president chiu: that is on page 20, and it is the last paragraph that is an important component of the originally composed amendment. >> it has been moved and seconded. >> can i have are roll-call vote? [calling votes] supervisor daly: no.

>> there are 10 ayes, one no. >> i want to thank everyone for the work that has been done on this. i do plan to continue the conversations that have been ongoing for many weeks as well as in the colleagues that wish to take part us on the immediate reform measures that reflect why we are seeing this. if these conversations are fruitful, i could be prepared to

wait to move forward. we all know we need to increase accountability. we need to make sure funding is in place, and the look forward to working on these goals over the next week. >> both of these items will be completed on july 22. motion to continue? supervisor avalos seconded by supervisor chu. this item will be continued until july 22. will you please read the adoption about committee reference? >> items 58 through item 73 are being considered without reference. there will be acted upon by a single roll call vote unless a

member call for discussion of an item. gerd >> would anybody like to separate an item? supervisor alioto-pier: 62. >> any other items? we will take care roll-call on items 58 through 72 except for item 72. [calling votes] >> there are 11 ayes.

>> the item is urging full pardon and allowing him to remain in the united states and continue serving. supervisor alioto-pier: thank you. and my main issue with this is a full pardon. if san francisco is backing of for all pardon, i would like to have an understanding -- backing of full pardon, i would like to understand what this is. in 1986, he put a lot of people through a very traumatic and violent act, so i would like to have a better understanding of what we are doing, because i do not want people to be saying his

acts should be ignored. >> to the question raised by supervisor all year to appear, he is somebody known -- to supervisor alioto-pier, he is a bunny known to the community and has set an example for young people. he -- he is now well known to the community and has set an example for young people. he served for 19 years within the department of corrections. after that time, governor schwarzenegger allowed it to stand uncontested based on the tremendous rehabilitation he exhibited during his time in

prison, and after that time, he has continued to demonstrate his commitment to the communique and has not only been appointed by the mayor to the council and has won numerous awards, but the real issue of is that it continues to have an impact on his ability to stay in the united states, and in 2006, this body moved to resolution asking the department of homeland security to ask him to stay in the united states because he did not have citizen status, and when you are convicted of certain kinds of crimes, that has immigration implications. many members would like to assist him in receiving a full pardon which would allow him to rephrase that from his record

and stay within the united states and move forward with citizenship. the cracks -- supervisor alioto- pier: i understand that. i would like more time to look at this, because the acts were violent and awful, and i understand these are the types of people we hope will turn around, so i would like more time to look into it, and i would ask for a continuance. >> i heard a motion to continue? will we take that without objection, or would we like our roll call? >> without objection is fine.

>> are there any memorials for today. >> today's meeting will be adjourned in the memory of the following individuals, for the late thomas f. eisenman, joseph walsh, and wilkinson, four media and on behalf of the full board for the late dr. jose. >> can there be any more business in front of the board? >> that concludes our business for today. >> thank you.