campaigns. i thinktj proven. thank you. president buchiu: are there any other members of the public? great, we have at least one more. >> good afternoon, supervisors. my name is jose morales, and you know me because i have been complaining all of the time. there is a new idea to first question that those who will be

a candidate for mayor do see if they will work with, a new supervisors notice very well supervisor avalos, campos, and supervisor daly. he was going to become the first supervisor. there was the process of public hearing. i still cannot get them pop.

what i am asking is about san jose avenue. may i say one more minute? president chiu: unfortunately, sir, your time is up. a key for your comments. next speaker, please. >> i am here to raise a

question. we have people who have no experience and are appointed for various reasons and are not expert trained. i'm speaking, for instance, of the historic preservation commission. paul and this does not pleased the developers or the landlords for their malfeasance.

they have eagerly, disgracefully, and one-sided late done this, recognizing a commission, like the library commission, and would not be great to have a librarian on the library commission? that would really be a wonderful thing to have. a commission that is honest and professional to have a vote on the backward commission. i do not believe they belong in the seat of maicer or other seats. [bell] president chiu: thank you.

next speaker. >> i do not care much about the process and how you people elect the mayor. president chiu: thank you. next speaker. >> i did not care about how we appoint the mayor. president chiu: think you. next? >> i did not have an opinion on this until hearing this. but each supervisor take one month to keep the power of the

mayor in the board of supervisors and the public functions and that sort of thing. president chiu: next speaker. >> i am from the tender morning -- tenderloin. i normally do not talk too much. i tried to let you live by your own counsel. i think i have been going to these meetings for 10, 11, 12 years now, in this is the first time i've heard these comments, and it is powered me to get up here. there is something that is far more important.

hovel -- it is very difficult. there were a number of candidates that got $40,000, several of them. this is like $100,000 per vote. this seems a little excessive. president chiu: are there any more members of the public who

wish to speak? >> one more thing -- president chiu: are there any more members of the public knew what to make public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. why do not go back to supervisor daly? supervisor avalos? >> this seems to be the crux of the proposal. once the nomination is made, nominations are closed. we refer to roberts roles. they talk about them being closed. this is a proposal to change that.

president chiu: ok, if i get asked a clerk to comment on that? -- if i could ask the clerk to comment on that? >> 3 the supervisor, -- through the supervisor, as it may consider necessary for the

conduct or consideration for any business. the committee as a whole is a committee, so i believe that will applies to -- that rule applies to it. i think the question you're asking is because roberts will specifically states that you're going to force close nominations, it is not in order. therefore, the parliamentary for the board is the board rules, and in my opinion, mr. president and members of the board, that would be external to the board roles -- rules and roberts rules of order, and you may consider that. president chiu: further discussion on this item? supervisor daly? supervisor daly: there are some

board rules that they are not silent about. the proposal is laid out in front of us. would that not also require the supermajority threshold? sean and i, colleagues, we have been around awhile, and we can go back and forth on procedural points. i win some of them, and he wins some of them, but the question here is not a detail of the board rules or robert's rules. it is about moving forward to hopefully have a discussion.

we can either have sean and i go back and forth and pick apart proposals, or we can try to come up, the eight of us, with rules that make the most sense to come up with the best possible results. president chiu: further discussion? supervisor elsbernd: i would very much like to discuss this, but i think it is important that we understand. president chiu: i think based on

the presentation, i would move that this would be an 8-vote time. we are, as the clerk suggested, as supervisor daly suggested, with 80 votes. -- 8 votes. >> it would require six votes. president chiu: it would require six votes -- in a >> no, no, the motion to amend. the amended version. six votes. >> this would require the eight votes. if we could get to a procedural

hijinks, i would encourage several of my colleagues to vote against. i could do a procedural hijinks, but i would encourage this body to not vote with that. and develop a process that makes sense, not a process that is swiss cheese, because we love a swiss cheese process that takes some of it but not all of it -- we will have a swiss cheese process. robert's rules of order and existing legal and vice, fresh legal advisor, and just go ahead and make the appointment through motion. >> to answer your question, supervisor daly, it would be six votes. it is the approval of the item after it is amended, it those

but are different -- if those are different. supervisor daly: point of information. you believe that your proposal does not require a devotes? >> it would be in the board rules. if you adopt the process today, it is six votes, because it outlines the existing board rules and the roberts rules of order. supervisor daly: what about the other? >> there is an opportunity for the board as a committee as a whole -- supervisor daly: which is 11 members. >> 11 members.

president chiu: it will require six votes, but after that, as supervisor elsbernd noted, we would be changing the roberts rules of order. for discussion? supervisor campuos? supervisor campos: i guess my two cents is i do not know if there is consistent application of the rules going on.

the whole point of 5.2 to is that the committee can adopt processes and procedures -- the whole point of 5.22, and i do not understand how in the spirit and intent of the rule that is being decided that notwithstanding the six-vote threshold of 5.22 that there is still an eight-vote threshold. i do not really think that is consistent with the spirit of the rule. i would respectfully state that that is a misreading. president chiu: again, just to restate, it says that they may adopt rules that are not in conflict with the board rules, and what the board clerk have proposed or an understanding of our board rules in california in

a process document that does not conflict with those rules, and what i understand is that supervisor daly's amendment would change robert's rules, and we can amend them, but, again, to adopt them, that is part of the threshold. for the conversation, supervisor -- further conversation, supervisor elsbernd? supervisor elsbernd: let's play it out. it really is a question of the value to be placed on the conflict of interest. what your priorities are, because here is the scenario.

let's say in the first round, supervisor chiu is nominated and then leaves the room. there may be some members sitting here thinking that they could be nominated or they could win. they vote no. they have a financial interest in voting no, because if he loses, increases the chance that they might win, and that is the beauty of what the clerk did. it absolutely assures the complete impartiality and the complete integrity of the vote, and as many of you have said over the last two weeks, this vote is without question the most important vote we will ever cast as members of the board of supervisors, and it is a vote that every san franciscan is watching, and i think it is incumbent on each and every one of us that we tell every member of the public that when we cast the votes, we did so free and

clear of every possible conflict, and we did it with the utmost integrity, and that is why i believe the klerk's proposal absolutely ensures that, -- the clerk's proposal. if it is about hurting the ability of a board member to get elected or a progressive member to get elected, in other words, they will start taking priority over the issue of conflict i think that needs to be a priority. adopting this amendment puts common-sense subsidiary to everything else and tarnishes the entire process. i appreciate the point that supervisor daly is making that we may have a bunch of people out of the room. he is the solution -- here is the solution. count the votes in your head.

you stand up and say, "i do not accept the nomination." that is have you do it. you put ego aside, and you say, "i do not accept the nomination ." that is how you do that. i would urge a no vote on this. president chiu: supervisor daly? supervisor daly: i think supervisor elsbernd's proposal falls on its face if you look at what is before us. let's say supervisor chiu does get nominated. supervisor avalos gets nominated, and then it comes around to supervisor mar, who

does what supervisor elsbernd says, that he sees that it is in his interest to decline the nomination. nominees go off. there is not six votes in the room for anyone nominated. there is a motion to reopen nominations. supervisor mar can make that motion. if that motion passes, there is nothing at that point from prohibiting somebody to try it again with the nomination of supervisor mar, and this time, he takes it and exits and is elected mayor of san francisco. but the way, the process as proposed by the clerk, supervisor elsbernd says to put

conflict of interest first. i do not think it does that and invites more. especially when i think there are interested parties wanting to get out without a decision made. i think that we have a very dangerous situation. in terms of the issue of conflict of interest. taking that one at a time means that it is a simpler process with an end result as opposed to no result. i think it insures maximum participation, and i think it deals with the issue of conflict as the original proposal. it might even be better, because i think when you get multiple frustrations and all of this uncertainty, i think is for

gaming. this is around the order. it may be about who wants to go first, who does not want to go first, but other than that, i do not see gaming at all, particularly with members sequestered, with service by lot, with 25 names in a hat. this could get real wild, and then, colleagues, jim lazarus, who was here during the proceedings in 1978, dianne feinstein, from the newspaper

articles of the week, between the assassinations and the appointment of dianne feinstein as the interim mayor. lazarus nos. -- knows. elsbernd knows. colleagues, let's give ourselves a chance. president chiu: supervisor campos? supervisor campos: i actually wanted to get away from this and ask counsel, again, along the lines, it has been indicated the clerk of the board was given a very difficult task, and she has worked very hard to put together as good a proposal i think she possibly could. with the advice of counsel and everyone involved. i think we have to respect and appreciate that work, so i want

to thank the clerk for doing that. a general question i have is whether the proposal, the process that the clerk has put forward, is the only way in which we can proceed with a nomination or a selection that is still consistent with the requirements that govern the conduct of this board. in other words, note is this the only way that we can do this? are there other ways in the procedure? >> supervisor, a primary concern was ensuring that members do not have a financial conflict of interest. as we have said previously, there are different ways of configuring this nomination process, and we are not going to weigh in on the parliamentary aspects of that. it is certainly possible to accommodate the requirements. >> i think that is important --

supervisor campos: i think that is important, having sat in a similar chair. with respect to supervisor daly's suggestion or proposal to take one nomination at a time, is there anything that would preclude the board from doing that? >> leave become there is no prohibition against taking single nominations at a time -- legally, there is no prohibition. then there is what is subsequent to the vote. supervisor campos: i understand, and with respect to what the clerk of the board proposes, i understand that there are some elements that try to be prescriptive to guide the conduct of the border around the issue of what the political format provides. my reading of it, though, is the process that has been outlined

by the clerk of the board does not outline all of the different things that could happen in this type of proceeding that could involve the political format, that, in fact, there are a lot of different scenarios that are not necessarily accounted for in this process. is that a fair characterization? >> it has to be a fair characterization given the parliamentary skills of this board and the number of scenarios " that you could come up with. supervisor campos: in light of that, in one of the things i was wondering in part of the proposal that deals with what happens in the event that members of the board are nominated to the point that you do not have a quorum mom, is that description of what should happen, is that something that procedurally or legally is required? is that simply the way we would

do some of the other scenarios that we would proceed with respect to that kind of scenario, simply with the guidance of counsel? >> legally, the only way that the board could proceed when you have some that are not conflicted out is to follow the regulations and address the conflict of whatever number of conflicted members are necessary in order to establish or reestablish the quorum. that is a regulatory process. supervisor campos: but that is something that is not required to be in the process. we could inquire of council should arrive? >> there is nothing that requires it should be in your process. it is if the scenario occurs. supervisor campos: that is sort of how i see supervisor daly's proposal.