as noted above, the board may create a process for the selection of the successor mayor. i would like to clarify our memo and up to the board of supervisors for you to interpret and apply your own rules. >> in the prior times that the board of supervisors appointed to the chair and the inter- american, did that require a change of rules of the board of supervisors at the time? >> we did attempt to find a

prior process for this was done and unfortunately we were unable to locate the process. the last time that happened there was a vacancy. >> here is anything in the current rules, charter, or state law that requires and 8 vote threshold to making nomination? if the interpretation that we are getting is that you can only go to this process by changing the rules, then this would require a vote is that needed to make a nomination? >> that will be your process and your rules. i cannot really give a legal opinion.

that is a parliamentarian shoulissue. there is nothing in provide advr question. it does not seem satisfactory, but that is all we have to go by. supervisor campos: i think this is complicating things in a way that i do not think the state law. i do not think the charter or board rules require. i would respectfully submit that. there are ways we can comply with a lot of the applicable rules and statutes. i will just stand by that. supervisor mirkarimi: i want to

remind you we have to take a vote on 54 and on 55 with comment. president chiu: and after that, item 55. i agree with supervisor campos that my motion does not require us to change our process if we do not have to change our process. obviously, there are lots of complicated issues that are buried under what we are talking about right now, and i do think this is exactly why we need to allow counsel and the court to propose something to us. again, i think they have heard the message loud and clear. what we are looking for is a simplicity a process that abides by the laws of governance, whether they be city charter, our own board rules, or robert's rules. hopefully by next week we will have something we can move forward with and work with.

using the rules committee, a three-person rules committee with three individuals, whether it be the current or others, would not seem to be a proper way to do this. we ought to properly set as a body of 11 to consider this. if that is the one thing we have to agree on, i have a feeling we would all be able to get there. if there are details beyond that we need to work out, i will let the county clerk know what those are and we can hashed through them one at a time. just to move them forward i would like for us to vocally vote on setting a process. if we do not have a process, it creates all the issues we're talking about now. then we move forward with supervisor avalos's movement that we sit as a committee as a whole to consider what the public thinks. in the ensuing days, we will work through these issues.

to make sure the process is transparent and we have thought through what we need to before we make a decision. supervisor mirkarimi: there is nobody on the roster. there is no further comment. would you please will call on item 54? supervisor maxwell: aye. supervisor mirkarimi: aye. supervisor alioto-pier: aye. supervisor campos: aye. president chiu: aye. supervisor chu: aye. supervisor daly: aye. supervisor dufty: aye. superviser elsbernd: aye.

>> supervisor mar is absent. on item 55 as amended -- supervisor maxwell: aye. supervisor mirkarimi: aye. supervisor avalos: aye. president chiu: aye. supervisor chu: aye. supvervisor daly: aye. supervisor dufty: aye. president chiu: that motion as amended is approved. if we can go back to item 45, which is a public hitting -- a public hearing, given supervisor avalos's motion, we will convene to take public

input and to discuss the process by which the board of supervisors may exercise its exclusive jurisdiction under the charter as it appoints a mayor for the city and county of san francisco. >> mr. president, i think you have covered it. president chiu: we will sit as a committee for the public to weigh in on this matter. if you could please step up to the microphone, and each member of the public shall have up to two minutes for public comment to this committee as a whole. >> you can use the microphone to your right. >> you are a representative of district 3. i want to thank you for all your support.

i don't care who individually is mayor. avalos, campos, ross. [laughter] these guys have a record. i am happy to be in city hall. frankly, i know i am not that sharp with politics. i will take this guy over here who is laughing on the right. anyway, i will give up my time and thank you for all your work. >> julien davis. it seemed like some of the principles that were spoken of today were transparency and deliberation, and also fairness in the process. but as wanted to say to the extent that that is a goal you are all seeking to achieve as

well, it makes sense for you to consent on a process that is the proper way to go forward. the political reform act was passed in 1974 potentially because of the tragic nature of the events. at the time, mayor feinstein got the votes by unanimous vote. perhaps that did not come up at the time. but we have now situation that is quite different. there are issues at the state law and local rules, etc.. it seems like it makes perfect sense to figure out a process that works. i hope this process can go forward with public input. thank you. >> and gabriel holland. i want to thank you for moving forward what is probably the most important issue in my years

in san francisco around politics. i think there is a tension and i think you are all trying to figure out of how to move forward with a good, clean process that also recognizes the need for a mayor, and for someone to take the helm, start a transition team, and begin the process of governing our city. to the extent that you can weigh those out in a way that makes sense and is logistically functional, we appreciate it. the cities of san francisco will appreciate it. we wish you the best on one of the toughest decisions will probably make. thank you. >> my name is jeff henty. i want to talk about legitimacy. i am old enough to remember gerald ford becoming president of the united states without ever attaining elected office. he was not reelected. he was defeated by jimmy carter.

i think you have a lot of challenges in that area. let me bring up some of the things i have read that concern me. i am going to name the person who said this even though the message should go to all of you. it was supervisor campos who said we have to do what is right for the progressive movement. i think your job is for the people of san francisco, not to facilitate your own political faction. supervisor daly said there was a once in a generation opportunity. what is the opportunity? but we are selecting a mirror without a citywide vote for the chief executive officer?

president chiu: please keep your comments to the general, to the full board. >> i am trying. president chiu: i appreciate that. >> in terms of legitimacy, and no lot of people have differences with mayor newsom. he was reelected with 64% of the vote, and last week's 72% asked the -- ask him to become lieutenant governor. we should find someone with similar policies. we are trying to find someone on the other end of the political spectrum. i think there would have serious implications for legitimacy. the current mayor was an apple. you cannot replace him with an orange. president chiu: thank you. next speaker. >> in 1989, our first date may

are right in candidate, i got eight votes. they have a stanchion with my name on it. i think where we are now is that you all are going to have to bring forth candidates and put forth someone in term for a year who can work with you all, the people, the business. i always felt that san francisco should have three committees. you need the people's committee. you need the board of supervisors. you need the mayor, you know, and his committee. this would have -- we would already have this ironed out. it is really important that you know the next mayor. just take time and relax. there is no set in law for anyone. he will be sitting as lieutenant governor. you must go back and do the

things that have been done. it seems he has been the wrong politician for the people. you have the chance to weigh in on this. i have been telling people we are going to have two chinese mayors in oakland and san francisco. one thing i like about asian government -- the execute and put politicians away when they do that. i was thinking maybe some of this is a joy to come to us here in the bay area. so i am looking forward to embrace all of my culture. [speaking multiple languages] president chiu: thank you. next speaker. >> i am a person who firmly believes that we should have america for the people, by the

people. and i feel that we need to bring spirituality to san francisco, the values of america that have been lost. we have this law and order that can kidnap a person like me and take us off to -- gestapo, you know? where does this police syndicate, which i have asked you to shut down the hall houses -- where does this end? we have this chaos about to maybe take off. it is an important feature and factor that we bring in and put some iq on the problem, that we expand the envelope, as the dollar llamas said. maybe the answer to happiness is outside the box -- as the dalai lama said. the proof is in the pudding and

people are being treated like garbage. and they are not garbage. they have not had education. they have not had education in lifestyles, education in power and health. i cannot stand the monopolies that are here. we deserve rights to our jobs. in fact, they have been annihilating me on a regular basis, and i cannot get the information out. i want cameras under, you know, elected for the people who have to go as paramedics, who gets seizures, or not to go at all and have an acupuncturist come out. the acupuncturists are the ones that he'll me after these e.r.s and paramedics and police destroy me. why? because of my political opinions, or because -- president chiu: thank you very

much. >> the last word i was quick to say. president chiu: thank you. thank you. next speaker. >> my name is benjamin. i have concern -- i am concerned that having a majority would basically and upper putting it to the next board. i would like to see the board have this have a regular majority. that way, the solution comes much quicker or much easier. people might not like the decision of the simple majority, but with a simple majority i know a mayor is going to come faster. or i know that somebody will be picked sooner. that is my comment. thank you. president chiu: thank you. are there any other members of the public who wish to speak in this committee as a whole? if you want to speak, please step up. >> bradley weidmeyer.

you are going to be criticized no matter what you do. we have seen four years and beyond of people trying to delegitimize the vote of the people for this board of supervisors. it is terrible. you need to make sure that people know this process is going to happen next week. i am a little confused as to how the two measures are resolved. the clerk was instructed to come up with the process. it has not happened. is it also going to not happen next week? and will we go on? there is not a lot of time. 99 years ago this week, the supervisors select and the ppie board met because they had big things to do. and the accomplished them. in seven months, they had the architect chosen for this building and the civic center

under way. that was two months before there were sworn in in january. that is the magnificence of the proposal here is that we get going. that the three supervisors -- we are ready to have this scheduled and to move forward and not to allow -- is there a guarantee we are going to go forward next week? it is very confusing. i do not see how the two measures are resolved. i think a testimony insisted that we go forward and that the legitimacy of your decision is here, because the people have seeded you and you can make this decision. it is necessary. we have huge things to do. i urge you to go ahead, not to wait for whatever delays will take this down the road to the next board.

>> i am gladys otto. let us move on. i have been here since 1:30. why don't we get the basic rules to get this process moving and start the process as is, with all due respect? sometimes we are so afraid of what is going to happen. i came because i am worried about who is going to get it, how am i going to be supported for the next two years or whenever. so i want to see the process moving with the basic rules required by the law. let the public have the input. i think it is kind of late. i know sometimes used a light, but the process is one that is going to be so hard that i do not think we need to spend the energy tonight. anyway, thank you. president chiu: are there any other members of the public who wish to speak?

have you spoken yet? step up, please. >> hello. i just wanted to say a little something, and it is something that i have learned. i just, like -- i am not sure it is supposed to be done by voting, but pick the person who is right for the job, that will show enthusiasm for what they want. to be a lawyer for good schools, public schools, catholic, everyone. for someone who will do the right job, and not someone who just wants all this power or popularity or something. [applause] president chiu: thank you for

those comments. is there anyone else who wishes to speak in this session as we sit in the committee as a whole? seeing none at this time, this public hearing is closed. i want to thank all the members of the public who came out today. obviously, this will be the first of a number of sessions where we will receive a lot of very good public input on this very important question. it looks like supervisor daly -- the you have any further comments? supervisor daly: this has been a little technical, i think, in terms of starting this discussion. i would have loved to have had a discussion at least of some of the characteristics or values or attributes in a next mayor. again, i was having trouble writing my thoughts down, but i came up with three for me. i am certainly an unabashed progressive.

some more conservative members of the board might disagree or prefer i had a different take on one of these. but the first, which hopefully we all can agree on, which we heard from the last speaker in the public hearing, is we really need someone who is familiar with the workings of san francisco government, who knows a great deal about the mayor's office and is ready for the actual challenges of managing the city and dealing with the legislative calendar. you can take a look at the charter and the powers and responsibilities of the office of mayor, and certainly a need someone who is ready there. you could probably find several members of this board as potential next mayor's, because if you have done a certain amount of time on this board, just by the nature of the job, you're going to meet the first qualification. for me, the second important

attribute is i really think that we need a compassionate mayor. and when i say that, what i mean is someone who will stand up for vulnerable san franciscans. i think in the city of st. francis, we need to defend it like that in the office of mayor. for me, the third attribute is not really an attribute, but really a political qualification. it has to be someone who can get six votes out of this room. people ask me why my name is not in consideration. i think i do one and to find. i think three i have a problem. a bit of realpolitik there. in terms of the process moving forward, i got caught up on our board rule that our legal counsel referenced, this -- as

two-year chair of the rules committee, you would think i would get that the rules committee should repair appointments. but we have a rule earlier in our calendar. it is the adoption of a committee agenda. in part, adoption without committee reference agenda -- rule 3.11 says the board may consider motions for immediate option without -- for immediate adoption without reference to committee. the requires six votes. if no one else wants to do it, i am happy with preparing a motion for next week's adoption calendar we can start to talk about the meat of this item. i think something as big as appointing a successor mayor, something this important, should have a special item on the agenda and a special time and this that and the other. but according to our board rules, it appears as if it can be effected just on the

adoption without committee reference. it is emotion internal to the board. the board does have rules capable of doing this. i did support supervisor chu's motion directing the clerk to develop the process. let me make a friendly suggestion. how about we put the appointment of mayor on the calendar, encourage members of the public to testify at general public comment at any calendar where we have an item on the adoption calendar, and obviously we can pull the item off the adoption calendar and move forward with it there. that is my 2 cents. i think that is the simplest way to move forward. i think we can hopefully have a more substantive discussion of what we feel are qualities of the next mayor of san francisco and what that should be. president chiu: any other final comments? we do still have other business

in front of the board. supervisor avalos: i want to go on to the business of the board, but i want to continue this item to next week's calendar, next week's agenda, item number 45. that is the amended sitting as a committee of the whole. president chiu: supervisor avalos has made a motion to continue item 45. sitting as the committee as a whole. supervisor avalos has made a motion to continue this until next week. is there a second to this motion? it is seconded by supervisor campos. supervisor alioto-pier: i would just like to -- supervisor daily is talking about doing what he is quick to do. it is than redundant to continue this item. we have essentially the same thing on the agenda for next week. am i missing something?

it seems like we are duplicating this. and if we go with what supervisor daly suggested, which seems to be the simplest -- supervisor avalos: i will withdraw. supervisor alioto-pier: it can be done during the public comment. so we are not duplicating that either. president chiu: anybody else on the roster? supervisor daly: the only reason why i would support supervisor avalos's motion is because the substance is slightly different. it perhaps should be amended and stuck in a place where we are not continuing to talk about the process next week. we have had a discussion of process already and will get that opportunity when the cork comes forward. but the nice thing about supervisor avalos's movement is there is a time certain aspect. but would not be nice is

multiple parts of the meeting with public comment. we do not have time certain for general public comment. president chiu: so is there a motion for -- it has been withdrawn. i realize item 46 -- my understanding is because we did not vote today on the motion to take a nomination for the successor mayor, according to the deputy city attorney that has been tabled by an operation of law. with that, why don't we go to roll call for introduction stacs? >> supervisor maxwell, you are first on roll-call for introductions. supervisor maxwell: i would like to adjourn today's meeting in