this seems like every other time, existing rules for use in the charter is largely the same. i think maybe some of the conflict walls have been enhanced or adjudicated but that might be legal advice and not

actually new rules. this would require an additional piece to prepare which would not necessarily put us out until december 7th or something like that. noi am wondering if instead of erecting a clerk to prepare new special rules, maybe we should ask the clerk and the legal counsel to distill the actual existing rules under the current rules. it seems like this is an acceptable find of what is under the process and the question is, what happens when members here are involved. this seems like an interpretation question. >> a first, but i think today

there was a originally emotion to consider nominations and potentially boat and appoint an interim mayor. the reason why that was premature is that we need to lay out a specific process by which we do this. it is my understanding that there are four authorities said could govern the process we are talking about. most importantly, the california political reform act is the body of state law that governs how we think about a number of issues and how nominations are made, complications that occurred when in nomination is made. the california political forma

-- aligned this document is a very interactive way. i know in the draft, a number of those items are required by the california state law. others are required by the city charter as well as the board rules. i have zero perspective on what the process should be. that is a discussion that we have to have. if the board chooses to go as closely as we have, i think the challenge is that we have a process by which we can selected board president. we also have a process by which we have the rules committee. right now, the city charter is

silent on how we would select the interim mayor. this is really met to set up the conversation for us. i asked outside counsel to let us know which aspects of that process, from the various governing authorities that take us through the day. that is something that we need to consider in the coming weeks. >> i don't know if you really answered my question which is if our advise from the legal counsel is that under the current rules of order we can effectuate an appointment for the successor mayor, all be this with council, questions that may arise and if an individual has a

conflict or a state law or if there is a charter provision. just like any other discussion or debate that we have, we basically can't go and we can look at the lock. we are looking at a process by which we can amend the board rules. not only is this cumbersome that i think that this is -- i'm looking for the language in the county council's opinion that maybe you can find it.

we should be able to effectuate an appointment. i will look forward to it and can have this cited specifically. that seems to be the cleanest way forward. we heard from members of the public and we look at a debate over language or maybe terminology but it seems like we don't need a new process, what we need perhaps is a bigger -- that may be the clerk can work on with council to tell us where the pitfalls are potentially and that kind of thing. according to the original process outlined, in terms of

actual process and appointment, that is satisfactory as long as we in that process, we cannot -- i am wondering if perhaps we can go in that direction. i don't want to make a formal motion to amend promotion but perhaps if we can prepare this. we could continue the motions to continue to have this discussion. i think we have one more board meeting left.

>> is this a question to the supervisor? >> what i propose was a stripped-down process. there might be a different way for us to move this closer to what we are talking about. i am not exactly sure. this came through the rules committee or the president. >> i was talking about the process which was best displayed by the supervisor of a los's two motions.

specifically to have the committee as whole and then to have nominations and a point and mayor under that committee. this is a process that we can lead forward with. if we can have the asian which you are concerned about in terms of asking the clerk to prepare for a narrower process, we can have those issues building needed more and we can delineate them through and more open process and having the committee as a whole and the nomination. >> one lydgate the progress on which she has asked the consul just in order to get everyone on

the same page. the mind? this is a good time for you to update the body. >> i think what we have is an opportunity to marry the two processes to get there. the work we have done in anticipation, we started a process already which is what you have in your hand. what i will deal with outside counsel is to further delineate which authorities are responsible? >> i think that we can marry the two. you have a document in front of you which has the board rules and the political reform act delineated as well. >> if it is ok, i will turn back

to the roster. >> i think what i would like to have is both of them in front of me. we can then start to strip out what we want. i think it is important for us to have the full process so that everything is covered and then we can determine what is more important. it is important for us before we can stop-start stripping things off the car. >> i would not be moving anything off. this is not before the board. i will make sure that after we finalize this document that it will be made available to each of your offices and to the public. >> if i might note a couple of

things. i don't think that the motion that president shoe has introduced with the motion, the supervisor avalos has introduced, there is a way that we can find a middle ground that actually gets to this. up to the extent that we can all be on the same page, that is to the benefit of this process. the one concern that i have some, this is to counsel, is that i understand that would council was doing through some of what i've seen in terms of the proposed process seized or rules is trying to make sure that in the process of making the selection that we don't run

foul of the legal requirements that we have to comply with. it is important to be mindful. at the same time, compliance with those legal requirements this not necessarily require that the process or rules be followed but that in fact there are different ways in which compliance can happen and my main concern is making sure that the process is not so descriptive that it might lead to complaints. that is the balance of you have to strike. in a way, this makes sure that we are aware of what the law requires and making sure that that compliance actually

addresses the concerns of having a process that will lead to something. i don't know if that makes sense but this is what of the rules requires. i think that we can get there with the objectives of both motions. passing both today are whatever the actual outcome, the still allows us to get into the specifics to figure out something that allows for a balance between the two objectives. >> thank you. clearly in my comments in introducing my motion, i was looking at the motion being complementary to mine creating

an appointment process that we would do today is part of that expectation that we can work on together. >> thank you. colleagues, if there are no further speakers. >> through the chair, are we asking in this motion for the court to prepare a motion to amend the board of supervisors rules of order? >> to the president, usually the rules are silent. this is the controlling authority. unfortunately, the rules are silent on how to a point a successor mayor. these provide great latitude in how to do this. so, my recommendation is that

the sports sets up a process, received a draft, and then make modification to this and then call this a special rule to order which would be subject to the board's rules threshold. >> according to our legal with vice from the office of the county council and the county of santa clara, the current board rules can be used to effectuate disappointment. the we had four meetings in the last session. if the motion passes, then we essentially have wrangling over details and a supermajority

requirement for the adoption of new rules. 8 members of the board need to vote to adopt. even if we had agreed, the best case scenario is that we have a process that can begin on december 2nd. under this route, that would be the quickest for us to actually get to deliberations under a process that we agreed to and adopted. i would be willing to come to a special board meetings but perhaps this is premature. if the existing rules are adequate, what we need is legal

advised about how to utilize existing rules while avoiding the pitfalls of the california conflicts law. we should move forward to allow maximum flexibility and to get along this road sooner rather than later. the timeline is complicated by a scenario where we are unable to chief the threshold on a new board role for a process to appoint a mayor next week. what happens if we have an item that comes forward and the details of it but there are only seven votes to pass. four votes can stymie that

process. we have flexibility within the confines of state law. >> perhaps the council would like to opine on any of the inferred or conspicuous questions. >> this is whether or not you can use your current rules. it your current rules did not speak to the appointment of an interim mayor. they do speak to an interim process. yes, you can use that process of you're not required pentode this

is what your card has been speaking to. that adequately answers the question. >> i think the challenge with the rules committee process right now -- a number of nominations are made and the opportunity for people to raise questions and that comes before the full board. the process would create issues because nominated individuals cannot take part in aspects of that decision or have conversations with anyone else.

county council advises the court to advise us on which aspects are required by state law and which are discretionary so that we can figure out what we can get an easy consensus. >> very good. >> if i ask the question a little differently. is there a way for anything under the current rules of the board that would preclude this board from electing an interim mayor under the existing rules that we have? >> there is nothing in your roles which are precluded from selecting an interim mayor. you have to wait until there is an actual vacancy.

>> is there a way that this board not can make this election understanding that this has to occur before becomes effective? this anyway that precludes the board for making their selection without having to amend the rules? does the amendment requirement? >> we would have to look at the rules. under the current rules, all appointments to ability to go to the rules committee. -- typically go to the rules committee. you have a set of rules for which your responsible for

interpreting. the president or supervisors can send the legislation to committee. those are about the only roles that you have. everything else is by your own rules. >> for me, the point have been making is that we need to have an open and transparent process. i don't read this as requiring an amendment of the rules. i would have a problem with the motion if that is what it was interpreted to mean. i think that we can act on both without having to meet the threshold so but the process can go forward.

we can do that and still comply with the rules and we can do this and still comply with what the state law has. >> the board of supervisors is responsible for interpreting the rules and ordinarily you have relied upon the clerk to help you. the reason why this has become a question is because the political reform act will play a much more significant process. this will not be the situation if this is voted upon. this will influence the process in many ways. it is importance to that we

focus on the reform act. >> part of the reason why i believe we need to amend the board rules and create a standing rule? his face upon the charter section which they said the board shall meet and transact its business according to rules which it shall adopt, this is as adopted. however, this is a bit ambiguous on how we would proceed in this process. >> the board rules made up half a specific process for appointing a successor. we have device from our legal counsel to which i will read.

the board has an option of the committee of the board for purposes of confirming a successor mayor. the committee of the hole could be charged by emotion with conducting a public hearing and affording to the board in motion for the appointment of the successor mayor. there is considerable flexibility to the rules regarding how the board should

structure the process. we're the board rules and the rules of order allow the flexibility, we can speak by motion with in those roles and within those rules of order. the shell of the processes their turn to where the skits complicated it is on the conflict. politics, now go not like we have ever not dealt with this before. if you are nominated, all of a sudden you have a conflict. which have fallen the information about the california political reform act in writing so that we can follow

along and make sure no one violates state law. in terms of having this process, we are now two weeks after the election you're talking about where we have a meeting. five weeks after the election. we are using time that we don't have and we really don't need to do we need legal guidance about any potential pitfalls through that process and we should ask our clarke and council for that guidance and i would like to have a discussion about the quality.

i will like to have a discussion with this about the meat or the process with the public. we don't need to get caught up in the process. >> i am not detecting any conflict. >> they could use the process of going to the rules committee. you could also go to the committee as a whole. that would be a change to the process. that would require a vote to suspend or modify your rules