>> good afternoon, welcome to the san francisco board of supervisors meeting for october 5th, 2010. >> ladies and gentlemen, can you

please join me in the pledge of allegiance? i understand that supervisor dufty which is -- wishes to recognize a couple of guests in the audience. >> i would like to ask the representatives from the ladies and denture-seeking society. they have joined us here at city hall. [applause] they have carefully read and digested our agenda and i have a special place in my heart because -- is one the last members. thank you. >> thank you.

madame clerk, are there any to indications? >> i have no communications. >> would anyone like to sever any of the items on the consent agenda? >> aye. >>ay aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >>aye. >> aye. >> aye.

>> item 10 is consideration of the overriding of an vetoed by the mayor which is imposing a fear on the call beverage wholesalers and certain other person to distributors sell alcoholic beverages. >> we have previously excused supervisor alioto-pier for this item. >> thank you, president. before i start, bob dylan said "there's no success like failure and a failure is no success at all." i will overwrite -- we will have the override vote. this has been foretold by the mayor. this is probably the quickest to veto i have ever seen at the board of supervisors and at my time here.

this sends a clear message to people that the mayor cares about most in this city, the people are concerned about the alcohol industry who i feel would not give hit to too heavily by this ordinance. i would like to clear up a major myth that was hammered at me over and over again in e-mail and certainly at the committee hearings that we had that we were cobbling -- cobbling -- coddling chronic alcoholics. this measure is about recovering costs that are inevitable, costs and services that we

inevitably have to render here in the city and county of san francisco due to the consumption of the alcohol. we have an economy that means that in san francisco, we drink more than other places in california and in the nation and this has an impact on our streets and in the city. this measure issue is trying to recover the costs that we have, that we will have no matter what happens because of our hospitality industry. we have this incredible industry but there are cost and impact. another myth was that this was going to kill jobs, the restaurant industry and the bar industry in san francisco.

we had a report and the economic impact and the impact that it would be related to the chimes in san francisco. this would create a fee that would create 5 cents a drink. this is a small potato, minimal impact, this is to every day san franciscans. this is geared towards charging the fees and not at all levels of the bars and restaurants of the city. the fact of our system works and the people look at how we to our fees, people say this is targeting directly consumers and farmers. really, they should be upset with the wholesalers and

distributors who are passing the cost down to them. they are eager to pass the fee over to restaurants and bars to assert their profits. we're just trying to recover costs to the city that we will inevitably be expanding. that is all this is about. the mayor has vetoed this legislation. we know that the mayor has investments in the alcohol industry. there is a conflict of interest. we have a report from the city attorney the killing one of the mirror is able to veto the legislation despite his conflict of interests. i would like to have the deputy city attorney report on the findings from the city attorney's office. >> mr. president. supervisor avalos asked us last week to do some analysis on what is called a rule of necessity

and that provides that where an official may have a conflict of interest, where there participation is legally required in a decision, they might vote and not stand in the conflict of interest we have a case some point that interprets the san francisco charter when dianne feinstein was the mayor and she vetoed a mere -- and measure where it was undisputed that she had a conflict of interest. the court found that the mayor's participation was legally required and she was glad to be. notwithstanding the existence of a conflict. whether the mayor has a conflict or not, we find that based on the ruling from the california court of appeals that the mayor's participation and busy til process is legally required

and under the rule of necessity, you may do so. >> thank you. i will defer to supervisor campos. >> thank you, mr. president. thank you for that explanation. i'm trying to understand what the implication of the ruling as because it seems that what you are saying and i imagine that that is intent of the memo and sent the nature of the interest does that matter and come direct or close to the interest is in terms of any economic benefit that they may or may not get from a decision that under the rule of necessity the mayor has the authority to veto legislation.

>> supervisor campos, the court said that and if the mayor was required to recused him or herself every time they had a conflict of interest, this would obliterate ability for them to exercise his veto power. >> he attached to a 1986 court of appeals case. has the supreme court decided this? >> the supreme court has not. our charter has changed since then but this it -- be asked of our charter are identical and the provisions of the reform act are all the same. there has been no change in the underlying structure. >> with respect to the political reform act, is there any

language or legislative history that talks about the intent of that act with respect to the exercise of vat tell when a conflict of interest exists. >> i am not familiar with the history silicon not answer that question. >> mr. anyone that would know that? i know that you work with the political reform act on a number of cases. is any light and is provided that is underlying the decision of the court. >> i would be happy to have someone looking to that in the meeting and get back to you later on if that is feasible. >> since this was a case decided in 1986, has the city attorney's office given any consideration as to whether or not the facts involved here would be of such a nature so that there could be a different

conclusion to the court should the matter go before the court? >> as i think all members of the board no, it is our longstanding practice that we did not disclose discussions that we have with various officials about whether they have a conflict for a variety of reasons including that we want to foster those kinds of communications because we want people to be candid. i am authorized to tell you that we have spoken with the mayor's staff about this and we did get information and i think that it will be confirmed that i can share some of that information with you >> the concern that i have is from a public policy standpoint that you have a situation because of a conflict of interest you have a supervisor that is not being allowed to vote on an item and

yet notwithstanding the existence of a conflict of interest, the mayor is provided the ability to exercise the power of the veto. this seems to the strange because we were talking about a conflict in each case and won collective official that is able to vote and not the other. >> i can see why he would think this. the way the executive branch functions is that there are a legend -- 11 legislators making that decision. there is only one executive member of the executive branch you can exercise the veto. that is the distinction. >> is there any of limitations in terms of the conflict? it is there any point in terms of the political reform act where a conflict become so

severe that the exercise of his veto would be prohibited? >> this is not a question that has come up for us in the feinstein case. the fact involved in rent control ordinance and in that case, the mayor had an interest in some of the properties. where the mayor owns five properties and a conflict that is such that they are voting that this can be passed. we know what the point of view is on the operation of the will of necessity notwithstanding their being a conflict. that is what we look to for guidance and that is not something that comes up on a daily or a yearly basis. >> what i'm trying to understand is that if it interpretation is

such that no matter how severe the conflict is that there will of necessity allows the exercise of the veto without consideration. is that what you're saying? >> based on the backs in this case, we are satisfied. >> there might be a situation where different facts and conflict would lead to a mayor in not being able to exercise that? >> i read this case to spleen with the rule of necessity cents and the facts that outlines. i cannot it impact what the court might be faced with and how they might do this and whether this might be in the format. >> thank you.

>> thank you, mr. president. based on the questions that supervisor campos was asking, there is an intensified interest affiliated on form 700. , would that not disqualified if this is on the municipal level? wouldn't there be a question about having them be reduced? >> are you speaking about the mayor or are you speaking about a different elected official? >> we are talking about the mayor. >> what i can tell you is that

we can have any business the cells are called and sent to cisco and the mayor has an interest in them. we conducted an interview with his staff and associates to discover the information. based on what we there -- what we have there, we would not impact those differences. this requires us to look at the customers of those businesses and determine whether the feed what impact those customers. we simply don't have the ability to determine whether we would have the impact of the customers of those businesses in such a way as this would have a material economic interest.

what we suggested that the mayor do in an abundance of caution is to file a memo with the ethics commission and explaining what the economic interests are so it is clear what the role of necessity will being vote. is any question about the role of necessity or declared interest by this mayor on state related business? >> the way the rule works is that it applies where there is only one person who made legally participate in the decision. another person who can veto the measure is the mayor.

that is how the analysis work. -- that is how the analysis would work. in your memo to me and the board, the mayor has a conflict of interest. they have been into a staff that this is not the case. never mind, excuse me. let's take a rollcall vote. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye.

>> no. >> aye. >> no. >> aye. >> aye. >> this is not approved over the mayor's veto. >> this is appropriating $2.2 million to provide indigent defense expenses before the superior court. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye.

>> aye. >> aye. >> there are 11 ayes. >> the site and is passed on the first reading. -- this item is passed on the first reading. next item. >> 12. this is to modify the modification of a lease with japan air lines. >> same house, col. >> next item. >> item 13, this is a resolution received in approving the 25 credit log a message read business improvement report. >> same house, col. >> item 14. exempting certain on profits from guide permit. >> in house, same call. this item passes. >> item 15, item requiring that

health code to amend the help code by requiring the help or to declare one month out of the your restaurant appreciation month. >> thank you, president chiu. according to the local tourism europe, restaurants are with the main reasons people come here. they contributed local cottage by providing jobs for thousands of people and in recent years, they employed nearly 10% of all direct jobs in san francisco. i would like to thank the department of public health for offering to establish this

selection process and i like to think a small business commission has recommended this ordinance for approval. i would also like to think supervisor campos who has a friendly amendment of that he would like to make that only strengthened this. i urge your support. >> thank you very much, mr. president. thank you supervisor, alioto- pier -- thank you supervisor of alioto-pier. i support to this. i think this is a great idea. the amendment to them would like to make and all of you should have a copy of this is to have a statement on page two, line 16. let me say about the purpose of the amendment. on supervisor mar along with my

office had been working on an issue that is very important to many communities around san francisco. working with many groups in the progressive worker alliance. we have been trying to figure out ways to promote responsible business practices in san francisco. we would like to make sure that the restaurants to treat their employees with respect and abide by all applicable inclement lunch. but many restaurants do that, unfortunately there has been abuse that has been documented. the chinese progressive association released a report that among many things found that 50% of the workers interviewed for that particular study were not paid a minimum wage and.

this is happening around the city. they found that 46% of the workers had been injured on the job and talking about half and 90% were not receiving health insurance. that is the purpose of the amendment. and the process of selecting these restaurants that as part of the criteria we look at the way in which employees are being treated. that is something that is consistent with the work of these community groups and young workers united,