to determine what if any rules may need to be supplemented and to create a process to appoint a successor mayor. i have done so under the excellent guidance of the santa clara county council. i came in developing this draft process was to provide a simple and clear set of integrated parliamentary and legal processes based upon our board rules, and when silent, robert's rules of order pursuant to the restrictions contained in state and local laws. as you will see in the annotated version, there are various controlling authority is at play, and i believe it is in order to bring them together so each member can review them and ask questions to ensure there are protections against ambiguity and a firm basis for resolving questions of procedure that may arise. if you will, please turn your attention to exhibit a in your packet. for the board to appoint a successor meier, the board has to provide for five actions and at least two other considerations. the first is to introduce a

motion for action before the board. walls are clear and contained in the previously adopted board rules, and the preferred approach is that the board said as a committee as a whole, which requires six votes. this requires greater flexibility for the board, affording the same functions, including the ability to hear public, and to enquire and recommended action to the board. the second is to determine the meeting organization and how and when public, it will take place. the recommended process includes a public hearing and has public, and built into the process at the beginning of the hearing. under the ralph m. brown act, the public must be given the opportunity to, before or during a legislative body's consideration of an item, so public, and may take place prior to the nomination process, after nominations have been made and

clothes, or both. the proposed process meets the requirement, suggesting public comment occur at the beginning, but the board can choose to open public comment at any time during the process or to shift public comment from prior to the nomination process to after the nominations have been made and close. the third action is illustrated in section c. it is to receive and consider nominations. since the board rules do not address the nomination of a successor meier, the proposed process describes a method of making nominations adhering to making nominations based on robert's rules of order. the main difference from the board president process is that a board member may not nominate him or herself and once nominated may not participate in the process. both the campaign and governmental conduct code and california political conduct act prohibit public officials from

making, for dissipating in, were seeking to influence government decisions in which they have a financial interest. according to roberts rules, when it is not prescribed by our rules, a member may make a motion to determine the method of nominations. the writ -- the method i recommend is governed by the following principles set forth in exhibit a. during the hearing, four members shall only nominate seven cisco directors. a board member may not nominate him or herself. a board member may nominate only one person. there may not be of more than 11 nominations on the floor at any time. if nominations are reopened, board members who have not yet made a nomination may do so. board members who previously had made a nomination may withdraw the nomination and make another nomination in its place. a nominee does not have to except a nomination and can withdraw his or her name while

nominations are still open or reopen after a vote. if a board member withdraw his or her nomination, then the nominators may nominate another. a board member who has been nominated may not participate in the discussion or vote on competitor nominees. if the nomination of a board member nominee has been withdrawn, the board member may not have a conflict and could return to the room to participate. once he or she participates in the process, he or she could no longer be considered for the position of successor mayor. as you will hear the outside counsel discuss in a moment, these principles result in the nomination procedures outlined on page two of exhibit 8, which i will not go into, as i would like to remain as brief as i can -- can --a -- of the exhibit -- of exhibit a. discussion shall be limited to only those members who do not have a financial interest of the

appointment. the board will are clear on the limitations on speaking, and while the appointment is pending, reopening nominations can be down with a majority of six votes. for clarification sake, the proposed process states that votes will be taken in order in which nominations are made on made3d1. upon further reflection, i recommend striking this language and instead relying on the language at the end of that paragraph, which is that a board member eligible to vote shall cast his or her vote simply by stating the name of their nominee rather than the regular roll call vote where a board member states yes or no on an item. the fifth and final action is the appointment of the successor mayor. this area is clearly defined in the charter, which dictates the appointment is not defined until a vacancy occurs.

additionally, the custom of the board will set for the process for the oath of office and presentations by the board by the new mayor at the appropriate time. the final topic is labeled "other considerations," which there are at least two. the president presides over the hearing unless and until he or she is nominated. if nominated, the president shall appoint a president pro tem and withdraw from the meeting. pursuant to restrictions imposed by the political reform act, discussion and voting shall be limited to board members who have not been nominated for consideration for appointment. if a quorum cannot be sustained due to the number of board members recused from for dissipation, the following procedure is suggested -- the clerk will administer a drawing by law selecting a sufficient number of board members to sit -- to restore quorum. those members randomly selected

will be permitted to participate in the discussion and voting process and the motion to appoint a successor. finally, last week, there was some discussion about amending the board rules of order with a super majority vote to recognize this special process. this is a discretionary action for the board to make. however, for this process, pursuant to board rule 5.22, the committee as a whole could, by a majority vote of all of its members, adopt additional rules not in conflict with the board rules, as it may consider necessary for the conduct of consideration of any business before you today. the board could approve a process with six boats and subsequently conclude the board rules. that concludes my presentation. in legal counsel are available to answer your questions. supervisor chiu: thank you. is there any initial discussion before we proceed to public comment? supervisor daly: find you, mr.

president. first, let me thank our clerk for the work she has done over the last weeks. with that said, let me say that the process that is laid out in front of us, colleagues, i find a bit cumbersome. it is interesting. if you look at two very recent posts on the "the san francisco bay guardian," "the san francisco weekly," it seems they agree on this point. one author writes that it makes it difficult for one of the progressives to wind up winning the job. over at the "san francisco weekly," they say david chiu,

ross mirkarimi, and david campos, none of them and the voting in the final go around, meaning eight supervisors will have to come up with six votes for one candidate, and since that is not going to happen, you can bet that no one is going to descend from the board -- going to us and -- going to ascend from tehe board. the process before us is flawed. not because of the work of our clerk but just because sometimes when you put together existing board rules and existing charter rules and the california political reform act and it tends to be protective of your members here at the board of supervisors, you can create something that really would work

-- really would not work in terms of practical applications. for me, the idea of sequestering multiple members of this board -- it may be the correct thing to do with that process in terms of conflict law, but for me, it is the incorrect thing to do to make sure that the maximum number of san franciscans have representation in this most important of deliberations. we have five members of this board of supervisors sequestered when we are voting on the appointment of a successor meier, we have 5/11 of san francisco not represented in the decisionmaking -- if we have five members of this board of

supervisors sequestered when we are voting on the appointment of a successor mayor. obviously, if a member of the board is being considered, there is a conflict, and that member needs to be reduced, but in that case, at least 10/11 out san francisco and 10/11 of the districts have representation in the room when this vote is being made, so from a practical standpoint of hopefully getting to and outpoint -- get out, and from the standpoint of having the maximum percentage of san franciscans represented by this representative -- represented by their representative, i think those are important matters. putting on more of a partisan hat, a majority of members of this body to come from what we call the progressive political camp in san francisco. i think it is probably not a

surprise that a majority of the names that are out there, given that political alignment, are from the progressive camp of san francisco, but a unique problem to this process is even though a majority of san francisco voters that way in i district supervisor contests elected to this board a majority of progress of representatives, we have a possible situation -- actually, some more likely -- where if two or three or four members of this body and probably all from the same political camp, are sequestered in this process, then we have a flip-flopped in terms of the majority remaining on the floor of the board.

obviously, the threshold to vote on a substantive motion is 6, a majority of the seats. not a majority of the members present. procedural motions pursuant to our rules of order only require a majority of our members who are present. let me name some procedural motions for you -- a motion to continue is a procedural motion. a motion to file or table and item is a procedural motion. a motion to adjourn is not debatable, and it is a procedural motion that can be approved by a simple majority of the members present on the floor of the board of supervisors, so this is, you know, chris daly's worst case scenario, but i think not to and lightly.

jim lazarus is smart and talking to our colleague sean elsbernd. last time this happened, jim was sitting in that seat over there, so he knows what is going on. if you have ross mirkarimi, david chiu, david campos, john avalos in the back watching tv, you have seven members left here, and four of these members could vote to adjourn the meeting. i mean, that is it possible outcome of the mechanism we have in front of us. not everybody thinks in worst- case scenarios, but if you have been around in politics long enough, you start to think like

that. colleagues, i have passed out two pieces of paper. one is a clean version. another is a version with strike throws and underlines. it is an amendment as a whole for the proposed process that was just laid out. the fundamental difference -- there is lots of little differences, but the fundamental difference between the amendment as a whole that i will move is in lieu of opening nominations, of taking many different names, including possibly from this board, who would then have to recuse themselves and then be sequestered in the back, this process would take one motion at a time. so we have our little system here.

you hit the button just like you do on any other item. your recognized by the president of the board of supervisors. you make a motion under this process. it would require a second if it is going to be a singular motion. you make a motion for a name. if it is one of the members here at the board of supervisors and they do not decline the motion, the state their conflict, they leave the room, are sequestered, and then there is discussion on that motion and a vote on that motion -- if that nominee and that motion fails to get the six votes necessary to get the appointment, then basically, the nomination is withdrawn automatically. the call for nominations is

automatically reopened. the next person on the roster gets to go ahead and forward a name. that name may or may not be a person in these chambers, and the process continues until one of two things happens -- either a san offices collector receives the support of six members of this body or six members of this board -- an affirmative 6 and not some smaller number in terms of the procedural motion, can either continue and/or file /table the items that are in front of us. so basically, the process that i'm proposing is one which would, one, maximize participation of members of the

board of supervisors. it would enfranchise many of our individual electors as possible in this decision making. i think it reduces confusion in the sequestration process. there is no lots. all that goes away because likely only one member is sequestered. i think there would be the possibility for more than one member if the member chose not to rejoin. most importantly, i think that it is a process where an outcome, an appointment of a successor mayor is more likely. i think what we have in front of us is proposed in the file that the court has provided is one which is -- you know, unless

there is significant work done outside of these chambers to get an individual san francisco electorate to six boats in this room, it is not likely to produce a result. i think the process of taking it one at that time is more likely. i'm not sure if it is likely, but i think it is more likely to produce a result, so for those reasons, i would either now make a motion to adopt the amendment as a whole -- i'm fine with putting off the vote until we hear from public comment, but i would go ahead and indicate my inclination to move this as an amendment as a whole. supervisor chiu: supervisor daly has made an amendment to the proposed process. we will take this up after public comment. it is now 3:35.

i suggest we go to our special commendations and come back to this public hearing, starting first with our colleague, supervisor carmen chu. supervisor chu: thank you. can i invite the keeper cutters to come on up? last week, supervisor alioto- pier was able to bring to our room a bunch of cute little ballerinas and dancers. today, we have our own district four q dancers coming as well. it is my privilege to honor an institution in the sunset district. they are celebrating their 60- year anniversary. was formed in october of 1950, has been practicing every monday since then at st. paul's presbyterian church. many know that square dancing is an american art form with a very deep history, but many of us did not know exactly how complicated

this form of exercise really is. complete physical exercises with actually having to memorize 68 different movement calls to keep you mentally bit. we wanted to say to you, congratulations. you have been dancing together for many decades, and they always welcome new members. with us, we have the president, the vice-president, the event's chairman. [applause] would you like to say a few words? >> really not prepared for a speech, but thank you very much. thank you. did any of our members want to

say a word? >> i should just mention, you were mentioning that we were going on for many times. we just started a new class because we build, and we had -- i think it was almost 40 that came in. some decided they could not state. we have an active class right now of 20. [applause] supervisor chiu: -- supervisor chu: we were going to have a

demonstration here but could not find the room. so thank you very much. supervisor chiu: our next accommodation will be provided by supervisor avalos. supervisor avalos: thank you, supervisor. earlier today, i've been dissipated in the sixth annual but dissipation and ritual on the steps of san francisco city hall to bring together healing ceremonies, dance performances and workshops that seek to eliminate violence towards women in our families, our communities, and throughout the world. this would not have been possible without artivism, the term describing the blending of art and activism. she practices social justice is to heal the amazon and river gods of the border bolivia, brazil, peru, communities

affected along mexico's highways at the corner of mission and 16th street. several years ago, she began raising awareness for the violence against girls, and she has been driving together officials, poets, billings and artists. in a couple days when we sit down on our thanksgiving dinners, we should all take the time to remember that it is also international day for the elimination of violence towards women and girls in san for cisco and also throughout the world. december 17, 1999, the united nations general assembly designated november 25 as the international day for the elimination of violence against women and invited international

organizations and non- governmental organizations to launch activities, raise public awareness of the problem on that date. starting on november 25, there will be 16 days of business, media events in the greater bay area. these events conclude on friday december 10, which also coincides with international human rights day and will be celebrated with an evening of truth telling and exploring the state of our human rights through art at the mission cultural center for latino whites. today, we are not only honoring the work that she does every day by highlighting the importance of the work that still needs to be done globally and right here in san francisco to eliminate violence against women and girls. >> thank you, supervisor, for supporting us and helping us in this space. we need to begin discussing what is important for women.

i read the paper, and i tried to figure out what the government is up to. never do i read in those headlines the issues that are important for women and girls. i'm a mother and i live in the mission district, and to me, this is vital, so we question -- what is the assumption we are failing to examine from a culture that supports violence against women and girls? i thank you for helping us bring the awareness into the greater community because we need to dismantle this concept from all of our ways of living in san francisco and in the world. also, millions of women around the world are organizing this very day, so i thank you because we're breaking barriers, breaking borders, cultural, political, and human rights borders. muchas gracias. [applause]

supervisor chiu: colleagues, if we could reconvene. i understand supervisor maxwell has asked for a quick referral back to item 19.

supervisor maxwell: colleagues, i ask the we rescind a vote on item 19. i have a minor amendment i neglected to put forward. supervisor chiu: colleagues, without objection, our previous vote will be rescinded. supervisor maxwell. supervisor maxwell: thank you. it adds a new finding to the ordinance that adds a general plan amendment related to the better streets work. it clarifies that our action will take effect next year. you all have been provided with the wordage. thank you. supervisor chiu: colleagues, any objection to the motion to amend? without objection, the motion passes. >> on item 19 as amended avalosamended aye. campos aye.

chiu aye. chu aye. daly aye. dufty aye. elsbernd aye. mar aye maxwell aye aye -- mar aye. maxwell aye. mirkarimi aye. alioto-pier aye. there are 11 ayes supervisor chiu:chiu -- there are 11 ayes. supervisor chiu: that motion passes on first reading as amended. colleagues, any additional initial comments at -- before we hear from public comment? ok, at this time, if there are members of the public that wish to make public comments with regard to public motion, i