spoon in their own mouths. where we come from and where we survive now. i am here, and i would like you to know -- [unintelligible] [speaking foreign language] isan francisco

ladies and gentlemen, let me talk to you about the english language. to see how much money we can bring to this city. this is going to be another city. [bell] thank you. president chiu: thank you. next speaker. >> do not accept money from foundations.

private money is given by those that are peddling influence and vanity to those who cannot get it any other way. it always depends on lies in secrecy. it is important to realize how minuscule that private money is. i could tell you that the public budget is over $83 million. the contribution of the so- called public-private contribution is less than 1%. an enormous effort has been made to make sure it is publicly supported so that it will reflect the first amendment, freedom of information, and democracy. this is betrayed for a fraction of a penny, let alone accountability. not using the slightest bit of

honesty. the public is entitled only to be good slaves and expressed gratitude. the point of my presentation is what happens to institution when maintaining class barriers .becomes more important than the truth itself? what they have done to the library can be done to what you care about. it makes sense to do this to the library first because the library involves the public right to know. without that right, democracy has no power, and if the people do not have the power, and we are all just slaves to those who control what we know, that is why i always say the allies cost more than the money. president -- belies -- th lies

cost more than the money. [bell] president chiu: winning is everything, and ♪ when your bridge is weary when feeling small when it is in your eyes it burns, and it is dry i wish you luck that you will fix the talks and the bridge and friends just cannot be frowned -- found like a bridge over troubled

toxic water i would like to make it better soon when it is really sad when you cannot believeb -- reathbreathe i want it better soon and i won it now on the bayview fix it up because like a bridge over troubled water fixing upf -- ix it up when you're bridge is sinking, and it needs to be fixed and it is all around you

please pick it up -- fix it up ♪ [bell] president chiu: thank you. next speaker, please. >> talking 4120 seconds, and i hope you listen to me. there was a profit in israel by the name of elijah, and he was told by god to when i did character -- who did -- and he was told by god to anoint a character. over syria. when the problem elijah came to him and started crying, and he was asked, "why are you weeping ?" he said he was weeping

because he knew what they would do to the city israel. you will kill people and take the children. and i thought, why did they not kill this man? because god had told them to anoint him to be king. god is all powerful. there was dick cheney this morning on youtube. we learned about david rockefeller's business, where he said he was basically pro of being charged with destroying the united states of america. god is sovereign, and he is using these people to destroy the united states because we

have forsaken god. we have. we have forsaken god. this city is a sanctuary city. i ran for city council. [bell] president chiu: amen. any other public speakers? seeing none, public comment is closed. madam clerk, can you read the next items? madam clerk: these items will be acted upon by a single roll call vote, unless someone has discussion, at which time it will be acted on separately. president chiu: if we can take a roll-call vote on the balance of the agenda? madam clerk: [reading roll]

excuse me, mr. president, we need to take off items 63. president chiu: my apologies. colleagues, should have mentioned that i would like for us -- >> we can continue it later. president chiu: if i can also pull item 63 for separate consideration. roll-call vote. president -- note madam clerk: [reading roll]

vierra a 11yes. -- there are 11 ayes. president chiu: those are passed. someone has been waiting to comment on this item, and i would like to ask him to come today. i would like to ask if you have anything to say. >> thank you. i was drawn to this meeting because this was on the agenda.

the board of supervisors, total support of this resolution that seeks to advance governor schwarzenegger, the proposition that would include a pardon for eddy zheng. i am spent nearly 40 years in the profession of probation. civic redemption. in my 5 plus years here in san francisco, come across and had the pleasure -- i have come across and had the pleasure to work with eddy zheng on behalf of you, so my support on this resolution comes based on my belief of the value of second chance and the example but eddy zheng sets for youth in san

francisco, by him korean a pathway for his own redemption, and he service for the young in san francisco, and it would be a loss -- by him setting a pathway for his own redemption. so i am just lend my support for this resolution and hope that it is advance. thank you. president chiu: thank you, and 84 being here. supervisor -- and thank you for being here. supervisor alioto-pier? supervisor alioto-pier: this would be a full pardon, nonetheless, and i wanted to do

due diligence, and i would be happy to support this. president chiu: supervisor mirkarimi? supervisor mirkarimi: i have participated and watched eddy, as well as many others, part of the city family in non-profit family, etc. his contribution is invaluable, and i am really pleased to see the way we are rallying around. i think it is an important message for governor schwarzenegger in the state to understand just how important this case is. -- and the state. president chiu: i think all of the co-sponsors for supporting that. particularly a chance that he does not get deported.

actually, if we could take a roll-call vote? madam clerk: [reading roll] there are 11 ayes. president chiu: this item is adopted. next item. madam clerk: the draft environmental impact report for a minimum of 90 days. president chiu: supervisor

campos? supervisor campos: thank you. i introduced this because we have a very controversial plan. they have actually agreed with our proposal with respect to the additional time, so i am willing to have a motion. president chiu: colleagues, any objection? without objection. please call item 63. maddon: clerk -- madam clerk: item 63 is four arguments for submitted for the 2010 election. president chiu: the dust has

settled on the items we would move forward, so i will ask that we can continue this next week so we can figure out who wants to write to various components and argument. it is my intent that the main proponents -- what i intend to do in working with the clerk's office is to have a version for us to consider next week, at which time we still have time for that to happen. so unless there is any discussion, if i can have a motion to continue, by supervisor avalos, seconded by supervisor mar, so this will be continued. item 64. madam clerk: item 64, a motion

directing the budget and legislative analyst to on this in the fiscal office of public defender. >> this board, the public defender's office, and the budget analyst, the budget, how it relates to the superior court budget, and i think that i mistakenly -- as a budget chaired deferred out of respect for the public defender. we do have openings in our budget analyst schedule this year, and i know that supervisor alioto-pier is moving forward to look at children's programs in

san francisco, and it seems that it may be a good use of our schedule to perhaps once and for all end the debate, the dance of what happens with the public defender's budget every year. there was a response this morning which talks about a review, and i would like to thank our budget analyst for staying around press to and to questions -- around perhaps to answer questions. how the budget analyst would differ from the reviews with the fiscal audits that the comptroller's office has done.

>> mr. chairman, mr. president, and members of the board of supervisors, a comprehensive performance of the defender would consist of reviewing the complete operation of the public defender's -- whether or not they were operating in an efficient manner. there is a difference. i would be glad to respond to any other questions. president chiu: supervisor elsbernd.

supervisors elsbernd: i do not think anyone has raised more issues than i have on this. tw reasons why i think this should be rejected. -- two reasons. truth is, there's been significant review. we have very limited resources. i think if we are going to use those resources, we should use those to focus on those departments that have not had any review. secondly, and perhaps maybe it should not be raised, but i think it needs be raised, there have been things quoted by members of the board that retribution needed to be exacted against the public defender's office.

i do not want to be a party to that. whether you agree or disagree with what the public defender has done, we should not disagree -- should not in any way exact retribution. we all know that is what this is. let's not disabuse our power for a sort of a political retribution. president chiu: supervisor campos? supervisor campos: one of the interesting things about being on the board of supervisors is you never know what is going to happen. chloé against this item in reference to the public defender, so anything is possible in san francisco. we simply say that i like audits.

but that said, i am not sure exactly why it is that this case we're focusing on the public defender. i think that it makes sense for us to look at the number of issues not only with the public defender but among the other law offices, perhaps. but i just do not see the reason to focus on it, so i would respectfully disagree with the author of this. i understand the spirit in which it is done. thank you. president chiu: supervisor daly? supervisor daly: let me respond to both with the same answer, which is that for eight years,

almost every other instance, i have sided with a budget analyst and his recommendations. when it came to the public defender, i come out of deference to the elected official, sided with the public defender over the budget analyst, 98 times up of 100. in terms of retribution, i think where this comes from is that is when you are politically aligned with someone, and supervisor elsberd, the administration, you oftentimes are deferential to them. there are party-line votes, and you see it in the chambers of the time. who is where, but, typically, on

the important stuff, you have a difference, and i am saying that i think i was wrong. and i am not totally sure that i was wrong in budget cycle of the budget cycle, but i think that a management audit would give some clarity as to who is telling the truth. you have an 80-page document from the public defender telling one thing, and you have a 20- page report saying something different. which one is right? they are both not right. i have never called it retribution. it is not to exact revenge on the public defender. i think we should have more honesty in budgeting. making a mistake and siding with the budget analyst.

i have had a relationship with him personal and political over the years. now u.s. realignment -- now you have realignment. we are seeing right now the opposite in terms of revenge being practiced by supervisor elsbernd. i made a mistake, and i think this board made a mistake in minicycles -- in many cycles. kaat disagreed with the head of the public defender's office. -- disagreed. president chiu: colleagues, the item is before us. madam clerk, an roll call vote. madam clerk: [reading roll]

there are two ays and nine noes. president chiu: that is not passed. do we have any in memoriams today? madam clerk: yes, these people. president chiu: madam clerk,

could there be any more business today? madam clerk: know. president to:chiu: we are adjourned.

>> let me make one announcement, item 5 a is removed from the consent calendar and will be heard on the general calendar. the ringing and use of all cell phones, pagers, and similar devices are prohibited at this meeting. the chair may order the removal of any persons responsible for the ringing of these devices. in order to facilitate an orderly meeting, we ask that you fill out a blue card if you wish to speak on an item.

the commission may ask questions of staff after the items have been disclosed. we are on item number two, which is the president's report. >> i did want to bring up a topic and as my fellow commissioners to give their opinion. the rules committee has held hearings about a proposed charter amendment to realign the way that commissioners are reported, to split that authority between the board of supervisors and the mayor's office. i would like to make an observation that many of the people that we heard speak seemed dissatisfied with the amount of transparency and the amount of precipitate -- participation that