close as it is in front of us, i think the alternative that supervisor elsbernd has moved, but i am not sure that would not prefer nothing. to that. and that is where i am on this question, colleagues. president chiu: supervisor campos? supervisor campos: what language specifically are they referring to? >> with regard to the six-vote threshold? supervisor campos: what page? what line? >> page two, a nominee receives at least six votes until the underlying items are continued tabled or filed by at least six votes of the board.

those would generally be procedural motions that would normally require a majority vote for those present rather than six. that is on page two under nomination procedures, item three. the last sentence under item 3 refers to the continuing or tabling of an item by six votes rather than a majority vote of those present. supervisor daly: so that would be my motion, a motion to amend supervisor elsbernd's motion. president chiu: so it is my

understanding that supervisor daly wants to keep intact those that do not require that. i think there are four, that nominations be made one at a time -- supervisor daly: point of order, could you go line by line? supervisor elsbernd: -- president chiu: and the clerk has a better one. madam clerk: the third line down, the president will then open the floor for a nomination. once the board received a nomination, the board shall only consider one nomination at a time, and robert's rules, if

denomination does not receive six votes, that nomination is automatically withdrawn. supervisor daly: you are saying we will revert to your language? madam clerk: that is correct. supervisor daly: could you read what that would be? madam clerk: there will be a nomination from each board member. they will bring this back to the board members for nomination. supervisor daly, is that correct? president chiu: madam clerk, do

you want to go to the next item? madam clerk: supervisor daly on page one has scratched out item three, which allows for it on the floor in any time. scrunching up the language then will allow for -- president chuiuiu: you are sayig it is fine? supervisor daly: i deleted it. if it is in robert's rules, it will speak. president chiu: i think that makes sense. it can remain. madam clerk: through the chair, page two, nomination procedures,

nominations require a second. number one, supervisor elsbernd, the nominations do not require a second. president chiu: so we will revert back to the original language? madam clerk: where a second is not necessary. president chiu: next? : madam clerk: if a motion is made and there is a second. supervisor daly has added language, until the underlying items are continued or tabled. the original language indicates the nomination process will

continue until board members stop making nominations. president chiu: ok, for that, we will revert back to the original language and klerk's proposed process. continuing on. -- and the clerk's proposed process. madam clerk: page 3, supervisor daly has added a part about it being automatically withdrawn and the floor is open for another nomination. robert's rules of orders does not state that nominations are automatically withdrawn. a member can decide if they chose to to withdraw their nomination. so the original language states

-- supervisor avalos: no. 3? madam clerk: page two, three. -- line 3. president chiu: section d. madam clerk: i am so sorry. page three, item d3. supervisor: this is absurd. we are doing this on the fly, not knowing what we are voting on? i am not feeling good about this process at this point. president chiu: one thing that i

can propose, colleagues, is that we take a quick 10 to 15 minute break that incorporates supervisor daly's amendments that do not involve changing robert's rules, unless anyone has some other suggestions? supervisor daly: this may be the first time today the i agree with supervisor -- that i agree with supervisor elsbernd. i do not think any of us thought through what type of swiss cheese process we were making, and i would ask through the chair that the board of supervisors who are holding up this process for two of you to reconsider. i think we have a process which

i think is clean. it is far superior to this other process, which is, honestly, exercising almost a never used board rule, 5.22, to come up with something that speaks to the committee as a whole, which is not even a standing committee of the board of supervisors, i think that we have a real process problems anyway, unless eight members of this board want to cooperate, but if eight members of this board do not want to cooperate, if a minority of the board wanted to hold it up and make a swiss cheese process or no process or bad process, you are going to be able to do that, but the decision to be made or not made is not going to be the best decision for san francisco. it may work for you and your political camp, but it is not

going to be good for the city. president chiu: colleagues, any further discussion? supervisor alioto-pier? supervisor alioto-pier: i think at some time, we have to take a step back. the new board will vote on this, not us, so i do think we have to bear all of that in consideration. i think we have something that is clear in front of us. supervisor elsbernd, a point he made earlier, and i think if we move forward, we will ultimately end up doing what is best for san francisco, but we need to start making tough decisions, and we need to start moving on, and the parliamentary tricks and games are not going to get us anywhere. supervisor chiu: supervisor maxwell? supervisor maxwell: i think this

is a swiss cheese, but i would rather go with robert's rules of order and the board rules rather than doing things on the fly, so i hope we would consider doing this, and let's move on, and let's move forward. supervisor chiu: supervisor daly? supervisor daly: i think this supervisor maxwell is talking about when i mentioned one week ago, so i am good that -- glad that the education has gotten to her. i do not think she will vote that way, but i am glad. president chiu: supervisor avalos? supervisor avalos: i know there is a camp that is worried about having too many choices, but i

also think it is important that we let the votes decide, and we have the ability to do i do not have a course in this race. i do not think there is anyone at this point -- i do not have a horse in this race. i do not think that there is anyone at this point who has six votes to get elected. i would like to think that we would have the most ample choices that could be possible. i do not know whether we will actually have a member of this board who will be in that office. it is not a concern of mine. i can think of scenarios where that will happen, but i can also think of other scenarios that i could support, which is that we get to a vote that can get the six that, again, jimmy would prevent a situation where we have the president of the board serving as acting mayor. to me, that is not the best choice to move forward with, and

we need to find a choice that works. we need to have ample choices for 11 people to come to six votes, and i think that limiting that is not in the spirit of working together for us to find a resolution. suppan -- president chiu: supervisor maxwell? supervisor maxwell: i just want to make it clear. it is what the clerks supported. -- clerk supported. i take upon myself. -- i take that upon myself. president chiu: supervisor daly? supervisor daly: this is not the only way to put together a process that relies on the board

rules and robert's rules. one way is to not read a new process, which is what i thought we should have done last week, because i said as soon as we have gone down this path, we will get into this debate, and we are going to disagree on the issues, and people who know procedure are going to be able to hold up the ideas, and we are going to get to the point where we get into the evening, and we are still not going to have had the discussion of the mayor's qualities and attributes the real looking for in a success of mayer, and through the chair, supervisor note -- looking for another major -- mayaor, and through the chair, a supervisor -- through the chair, supervisosr alitoto-pier, we

are not going to have a successive -- successor mayor, and the next board will be stuck with it, and i think it will be a disaster. if we want to make an appointment, i would strongly encourage supervisor alioto-pier for you to reconsider. it is not like you can change the outcome, but if you have fewer members voting, you are less likely to get to six than if you have a greater number of members voting, in the process that is currently in front of us, which we cannot get a devotes four, allows for a greater number of members to

vote -- which we can not get caught -- 8 votes for. president chiu: colleagues, there is obviously not consensus for the eighth vote threshold, but there may be consensus for the sixth vote threshold, excuse me, for the six -- to take out the provisions that do not do that. why do why not propose that we recess? the clerk thinks it would take at least half an hour or perhaps longer to come up with a draft to have in front of us before we vote, so why do we not propose to recess for a least half an hour, and we will contact all of our offices as soon as we have a draft that is ready to be reviewed? with the debt and without objection, we will recess temporarily until that happens.

welcome back. we're discussing the financial process for nominating a interim mayor. i want to thank the clerk for preparing a motion which captures what supervisor daly had discussed, which had what he proposed minus those element that is would have required a change to robert's rule of order. we have that in front of us. why don't i ask madam clerk if you could summarize again the

amendment that we have right now. >> thank you. this item before you is called amended exhibit a we handed copies to the public so they could follow along. on page one of three under section b. the language reverted back to the president will open the hearing to receive comments from board members and then public comment. once public comment is heard, the the president will have nominations and september up to one from each board member. we clair fired that that it -- that it would be received up to one from each board member. once it is receiversed the president will bring it back to vote on the nomination which is will be voted upon agains in -- in the process as written above. in the order received, i ask it

be struck from this document. once a nominee is select the president will adjourn and recon vene as the full board to consider the motion to appoint success err mayor. this section c we have clarified number three a nominee does not have to accept a nomination and can withdraw his or her name for consideration without a second if a nominee withdraws the nomination, the nominations may be opened. we add bid motions seconded and majority as written in roberts rules. also on page one -- page two that reverted back as follows,

items one, two, three and nominations shall be made from the floor and could be made up until the time the board members are ready to vote such as the custom a roster will facilitate the nomination. item two, second for a nomination is not necessary. item three, the process continues until the board members stop making nominations. he or she must be sequestered until their nomination is completed. the rest of the paragraph has to do with the sequestering of the p.r.a. it should not be in this dock canment. are you -- are you fine if we remove that from this paragraph as that was your request to move all of the pmplet r.a. items from here. all of the p.r.a. items from

here. >> i'm not sure what your question is. >> on page two item three -- >> under principles or procedures? >> under principles. >> which paragraph? >> item three. pending nomination procedures, supervisor daly. toward the end during the period the communication between the sequestered board members and the chamber may not take place. you requested we remove all of the items that require an eight-vote threshold as well as those that apply to the political reform act. >> that's not what i requested at all. you were working off your document, not mine.

all i requested was the file in front of us could be stripped of anything that would require the threshold and you're coming at it from the document that has already been amended and saying that i asked to remove something from that, which i don't believe to be accurate. just because we're coming at it from different directions. we took your document, vfer daly and reviewed the items that -- that were outside of roberts rules, that your document had it and put those roberts rules back inside of the document. as well as removing items that pertained to the political reform. >> i don't think that's what my motion was. we have an item in front of us

which is -- my amendment as a whole which -- has six votes and still be eight. 0, -- so my question is, can we strip the specific things out that are what is requiring as the threshold so we can pass the -- you know the document of the process of six votes. supervisor campos. >> if may i'm confused about the document. my understanding of what the request was to take the amendment ads whole and strip it of anything that requires an eight-vote threshold and move forward with that. that was my understanding of what we were doing. >> the chair, supervisor campos. supervisor daly's redline version, the amendment of the whole was stripped of the roberts of rules of order items.

once it was stripped of the roberts rules of order, outside of the outside of the roberts rules of order items, then roberts rules of order were back in. >> did you put additional things in based on roberts rules or were you removed from supervisor daley's amendments that would have required roberts rules. >> would you repeat. >> we're confused whether you added something. i think what supervisor daly requested is we start with the underline amendment yao take out amendment that is would have -- that would have required any vote threshold by the roberts rules. >> mr. president, that's what we did. that's the document. >> of any sort of incomplete document. so supervisor daly, are there things you believe in the document that the clerk provideded us that -- that we should -- >> well, i mean -- i -- i think the cloak yulism would be, we

have a situation here that is a cluster mess, but with eight votes we make a good process, we don't have eight votes because we're stymied by a minority of the board that doesn't want to amend the board rules. we're left with attempting to fashion -- to fashion something that -- that works, marry two -- two proposals which i think has -- very fundamental differences between them and i think what mystical hun is trying to do is put things that may be helpful given all of the pitfalls everywhere else in the document. i appreciate her efforts to do that. >> it is still collective. >> given the version we have in

front of this is this something you're prepared to offer as an amendment? >> i think if -- if it is a process pursuant to board rule five 22, yes. if it is amendment of the board rule, i think i would oppose it. one thing i've been advised by council i understand that the motion that -- that includes this as an amendmented exhibit a refers to the possible amendments of the rules of order. i think we need to strip out of our motion any reference to the fact that these are amendments to the rules of order to be more clear about it under item 24. item, file currently states that this is about creating a process for appointment for mayor and possibly amending rules of order. i think we need to strike that language because we're not amending the rules of order. we need to strike the title of amending the rules of order and

waive rule 4.3, et cetera because again we're not amending that. i would -- again, i understand from the council's office we should strip those references because again we're not -- we're not changing the board rules here. >> that's right. the reference in the motion should be stricken because as i understand, the board has no intent to amend the board rules as stated, correct? >> right. >> supervisor campos. >> thank you, mr. president. well, first of all thank you u to everyone that tried to come up with something that we could all live with. i still believe that that the prior ruling that -- that the proposal by supervisor daly required a vote -- a vote was mistaken. i don't think that's consistent -- with the rules of the board and i don't think that is consistent with -- with not only the letter of what the rules provide but also the spirit of what we're trying to do. th