>> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >>no. >> aye. >> aye. >> those items are adopted and the ordinances are passed in the first reading. congratulations.

>> let

>> welcome back to the board of supervisors meeting of tuesday, july 27th, 2010. if we can go back to item 42, 43, regarding community policing and foot beat patrols. there might be a filibuster of our effort to resolve this issue. i have had a chance to look at the board rules and section 305 of the code to look at the rules. here is my perspective. the supervisor has engaged in dilatory motions which are

defined under robert's rules of order which are designed to forward the rules of the assembly as clearly indicated by the parliamentary decision. if a member could demand a revision on every vote even when the result was clear, this could be brought to a standstill. when a member is using a parliamentary form for obstruction forces, they should rule that such motions are out of order. any amendments to the proposed ordinance shall be noticed for an additional public hearing.

it is not my perspective that when you divide the questions that that is an amendment. under our rules, the supervisor is asking us to interpret this question to suggest that one person could filibuster on the eve of the submission of the balance to the department. i think that everyone would agree that that is not a fair outcome. it is in the supervisors' right to devise the question, i don't think that's files before the ballot. i think it is the purpose it that if we wish to proceed with a vote on the divided portions. if it turns out that there is not enough votes on this

section, that would entail an amendment. it would have to wait for a week. if it turns out that both divided portions are proved -- are approved to the ballot as they are noticed. i would like to interpret the rules which does not explicitly address what the supervisor is trying to achieve and to interpret that in a way that allows us to and the delicate business. if you wish to appeal, that could go to the majority vote to be overruled. do you want to proceed on items 42 and 43?

>> i don't think they're currently divided. i would divide on what i have been dividing all along. >> let's make sure that i motion to reattach the divided items. five >> the motion has been made without section. these items are repented. supñ

the motion passes. now, the supervisor mass made a motion to divide. i'm making a motion to move forward. if we can take a vote on the divide files, the first jble the first that the supervisor referred to that section is -- >> page two, line 12 to page three line 12 on item 432 and item 43. line 15 to page three line 15. >> so on the divide portion, the

first portion, if we could take a roll call vote. >> we're talking about both items? >> 42. this is on the first portion that the supervisor would like to divide out. well, i'm just referring to version 42 versus version 43. so on that divided portion, roll call vote. [roll call]

>> on that divided portion, the motion fails. now on the balance of the item, take a roll call vote. [roll call vote] >> on item 42. >> on the balance of item 42. >> minus the portion that the supervisor had deduced from -- >> that's correct. >> well, actually, if i can understand, i believe we took vote whether to divide out that portion that you asked to divide out. no one wants to do that except for you. >> i want to make a motion to table that remaining part. >> supervisor has made a motion to table that remaining part. >> item 42?

>> let's do that without objection. >> take a vote on item 43. >> now, if we could take a vote on item 43. two parts. first on the divided portion. >> on the divided portion -- [roll call vote] >> we're voting on whether to put that portion. >> ok. >> supervisor maxwell, you said no? >> i would like to rescind that vote. >> we are voting on two parts of

item 43. the first part is whether we vote to include the portion of that the supervisor does not want to include which is that paragraph on page two, line 15 through page three line 15. it is actually the section i do want to include. it is the next part i don't want. >> ok. >> so -- we're -- we divided the files. we're voting on the different portions of it. we are now voting on the noorgs the supervisor would like to include. >> mr. president. >> community placing on item 43. >> so the motion to vote on the portion of community policing whether we want to put that on the ballot or not? >> correct. >> ok. >> madam clerk. [roll call vote]

>> there are 11 ayes. >> the motion passed. now on the balance of the ordinance of item 43. [roll call vote]

>> there are seven ayes and four noes. >> the entire item will proceed to the ballot as is currently constituted and has been duly noted. the motion has approved. ok. why don't we mover to items 54-56. >> the board of supervisors have agreed to sit as a committee of the whole for items 54-56. there are public hearings to consider amendments to the proposed charter amendment to aend in charter and the city and county of san francisco, to provide for split appointments for the municipal transportation agency. >> we need to consider the amendments that were made at the last meeting to the two different versions of this

m.t.a. chatter amendment that is being debated. let me ask if there are any members of the public that wish to speak to the issues of the specific amendments to this proposed chart amendment. please step up. >> i'm not sure if i'm understanding it correctly but peter straws, former manager, service planning. if this goes ahead with the ballot, i want to commend the board for going ahead with this. i think it really does a number of things correctly and i want to just address two of these. first, with respect to funding. transit funding is the most important issue that is facing and that is true a lot of city services but true of muni over the next number of years. i support the version of this that is in the second draft.

sets the trigger mechanism for funding. everyone i have spoken with including some who were originally opposed funding in this supports the use of the trigger mechanism as correcting the flaws of the initial version and provireding funding that does not come out of the general fund and in fact, i think would support revenue measures such as the transfer tax going forward because what related polling has taken plays has always found that support for muni reliability has polled very well with the voters so i think this is a positive vote in terms of muni and in terms of securing the fund in general. i also want to address the allegations that have been made about this being a power grab by the board. i think that is a

mischaracterization. i think the board has been very supportive of muni and of transit funding and i think the board is going to be involved in transit funding, has been involved in transit funding and this just makes it explicit which is better government than having a circumspective than it has been over the last several years. i think it is a special agency. if i can just finish sentence. the appointments are actually appropriate for m.t.a. i had misgivings about it but because it is a special agency i think it is appropriate at this forum. >> thank you. any other members of the public? sing to us, walter. >> thank you. >> ♪ you can cause a munirumpus but don't lose the compass but don't appoint some commissioners

appoint some commissioners and get me home and drive me on the bus on time ♪ >> any other members of the public that wish to speak on this committee of a whole regarding the m.t.a. chatter amendment. seeing none, this hearing has been held in close. items 55 and 56 with r-in the hands of the board. >> thank you very much. mr. president and thank you to the members to have public who waited to speak on this item. let me again by just thanking the co-sponsors of this charter amendment. besides myself, this charter amendment has been co-authored by the supervisor, by the president as well as supervisor marr. i want to thank each one of them

as well as their respectsive offices that and all the work that has gone into this charter amendment. putting together a charter amendment, let alone a charter amendment with this complexity with the number of co-authors that have been involved is a very challenging task and it has taken months and a lot of hard work to get to this point. it is clear that any one who has been following the board for the last few months can know that the issue of what's happening with the m.t.a. is a very important issue for the city and a very important issue for all of our constituents and what this charter amendment does is that it recognizes that the m.t. sambings broken. that even though there have been some improvements that the fact remains that there is a clear need for comprehensive reform.

a few months ago this board of supervisors authorized the budget -- to conduct a -- analysts to conduct a performance audit of the m.t.a., an audit that has not been conducted for more than 14 years and in terms of a best practice, i think it says a lot about an agency that -- with a budget of close to $800 million would go for that long without a performance audit that ultimately looks at whether or not the seath complying with best practices. -- the agency is complying with best practices. rfplg muni will require a number of changes. it is not enough to simply identify one change and say that is going to get us to the result we want. the charter amendment does a number of things. it looks at the issue of the current governing structure and it recognizes that eeverpb though we're grateful for the fact that we have board members

who want to preserve the city, it does not provide the kind of independent oversight that is needed. we have a board of directors that has well-intentioned people but nonetheless have not demonstrated the kind of independent thinking that is needed to make sure that this agency is responsive to the needs to have -- and the perfect -- of the -- and the point made by the budget analysts that outlines the fact that even though mu ninch accounts for 40% of the city's overtime, not once has this m.t.a. board of directors actually discussed this issue on its agenda item. the chatter amendment tries to provide some balance to the appointment by creating a split of 3-3-1 with three members apointsed by the board of supervisors, three by the mayor and one jointly appointed by the

mayor and the president of the board of supervisors. the second thing this chatter amendment does is that it also deals with the issue of work orders and we have repeatedly heard time and time again about examples where money that should be spent on m.t.a. matters is going to things that may or may not be -- may have a connection or a nexus to public transportation. many of you have rightly identified that problem, identified that issue and we have a report from the comptroller's office that points out that even paveg things as having a written contract that the basic things that something as basic sthazz is not happening. so we have -- basic as that is

not happening. the money that is being work ordered to other departments. this charter amendment makes a couple of changes beginning with the fact that it requires that written agreements be created before a work order actually is finalized. it also requires a closer nexus between the work order and the service. there that has to be a close connection between the service and the goals and the objective of the m.t.a. and before a work order is finalized i that members of the public and the m.t.a. ridership are given an opportunity to say whether or not their money should be used as proposed. the third issue that this charter addresses is the issue of service cuts. right now, we are facing pretty severe cuts that have been implemented because of the work of this board. we have managed to reduce the

level of cutting of those services from 10% to 5%. there is a plan in place but the fact is that service -- services are still being drastically cut to this ridership and we have a situation where many of us feel that the m.t.a. board of directors have circumvented the process that is in place that requires before a line is terminated that the board of directors comes before the board. that was circumvented because instead of eliminated bus lines they sid an across the board service cut that doesn't require board oversight and we're trying to address that circumvention by changing definition of line -- so that service cuts of a certain level actually require a public process and involved the board of supervisors. there is a creation by the

inspector general position that provides an independent audit function for what other agencies and other parts of the country we believe are following. we believe that is a best practice. that is the best practice that should be implemented by this agency and what we recognize and respect the work over the comptrollers office does, we believe there is a need for an independent party that reports directly for the board of directors to provide that function. lastly, we also recognize that there has to be a sharing of the pain if you will in terms of the financial stability and well-being of this agency and we, from a public policy standpoint, recognize that salaries should be set through bargaining and we in this charter amendment propose to take out the charter the provision is that sets the current salaries. we believe that that is something that should be left to

collective bargaining and we owe it to the ridership that that change be made. in smarkse colleagues, we believe that this is -- summary, colleagues, we believe this is comprehensive reform that we need now. i talked about some of the concerns that have been raised by the federal transportation administration about the ability of the m.t.a. to actually complete and oversee that project. i think that those of us who support the completion of that project have to recognize that for that project o or project s of that nature to be finalized that we need to implement a comprehensive m.t.a. reform, and we need to do it quickly and soobling. we cannot wait. again, y -- as soon as possible. again, i want to thank my co-authors. i ask for your support of this

measure. the last thing i would say is is that a lot has been said in the last few weeks about the interrelationship between charter amendments and the very long and complicated budget process that we have gone through. i have repeatedly said that when it comes to governing the city that we need to deal with each one of those items 13r59ly. that as important it is a budget process is, it has to necessarily be disconnected from the very important analysis of whether or not we need structural research. it is for that reason that i believe we need to move aggressively to reform this agency. again, i want to thank all of the co-sponsors and the office of the city attorneys that has worked diligently on this and my office, sheila has done a tremendous job in helpings to -- helping to put this together. >> thank you.

before i ask kristin choo to speak, it is the amended motion and 56 is the amended that deletes the set aside. are we all on the same page? >> thank you. colleagues, i have been one of the advocates along with the other co-sonsor of this measure for comprehensive reform. i don't think there is anyone in this chamber who does not think that muni and the m.t.a. needs very significant reform. i was very happy to use my name as a co-sponsor of this. i am very pleased today to help announce that the mayor's office, the m.t.a. and others have reached an agreement today on a set of four reforms that to