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. we had competing proposals but we all agreed to combine with the understanding that the objective between that point and today was to figure out a way of, you know, combining the two, against underline the objections and intents of each motion to come up with something that we all could agree with. to my mind, that is what is happening here with supervisor daly' s proposal, that it takes the very good work that the clerk of the board has done and providing something as simple and transparent process as possible, so, you know, that is how i see that. just a final question of counsel, because it is something that has been out there, whether formally or informally, and i have indicated before that your

respective up with a person is, -- that your respective of who a person is -- irrespective of who a person is, to the extent that the law allows in engaging in transition planning, and i am wondering if someone is elected, is there anything that precludes that person from engaging in purely transitional efforts? whether it is meeting with the budget director were with staff to talk abut some of the things facing the city? does it include work that is solely of a transitional nature?

it transition -- if transition planning is limited to working with the mayor's office and working with the staff, but avoiding the board of supervisors, it would be very difficult to see that as violating the political report. supervisor campos: thank you. i appreciate the information. president chiu: supervisor mirkarimi. supervisor mirkarimi: thank you. just a quick question. regarding the question that supervisor campos just ask, the capacity for the person selected in a transitional setting, does that then also compel the

mayor's office to cooperate with that person? >> i do not believe so, no. supervisor mirkarimi: so the question on access, however it is to be facilitated, does not mean that the koran administration necessarily has to collaborate note -- does not mean that the current administration necessarily has to collaborate. >> the administrative staff and elected officials, other than to say that someone was nominated should not be attempting to influence a decision on an appointment. it would be made by members of the board, so any contact with boards would be problematic, but if the mayor's office does not want to cooperate -- supervisor mirkarimi: thank you. president chiu: colleagues, any further discussion?

colleagues, why do we not take a vote on what was it. amendment by supervisor daly on what was presented by the clerk? madam clerk: [roll call] there are six ayes. president chiu: it passes. colleagues, any discussion on this as amended? a roll call vote on the underlying proposed process of amendment. madam clerk: supervisor avalos?

president chiu: it is an eight-vote situation because we need to change it. madam clerk: [roll call] there are sixayes. -- there are six ayes. president chiu: seeing that it requires eight votes, and there were not, it does not pass. supervisor elsbernd: i'd like to move that go back. president chiu: supervisor elsbernd as a motion to move it

back. supervisor daly: perhaps counsel can help me? >> i believe that would be called before the clerk. a parliamentary question. president chiu: it has been claimed to be parliamentary, so now it is referred to the clerk. madam clerk: throw the president to supervisor -- through the president to supervisor daly, the board should only consider one at a time, because robert's

rules of order states that when it is considered to be open, then every member gets the opportunity to declare their nomination who wishes to nominate, and then once of the nominations are made and the president closes nominations, -- president chiu: again, just to recap, i think the language in supervisor daly's is the language which required the a to-vote threshold. -- the 80-vote threshold. madam clerk -- the eight vote threshold. madam clerk: there are other issues. there is one issue that has been redacted, indicating that they're ready obviously more nominations be allowed on the

floor at one time. in the clerk's process, there is a roberts rules of order which indicates that upon a time when there be any more nominations made than positions are available, so in my process, i am indicating that -- supervisor daly: if roberts rules states that it is silent, that would apply, right? madam clerk: pres., forgive me. i have not had the opportunity to read this, and i am looking at it now for the first time. supervisor daly: as the clerk goes through this, if i may, through the president for the members who support it, if we go

through this process and take a look at what we can do with six votes and leave out what we cannot do because we do not have the required eight votes to amend the board rules, then we have basically a verbal agreement, although not an amendment to the rules of order, and that in this process, we will do our best while we have our ability to handle procedural motions to adhere to the spirit of what the six of us agree to. so in the case of this one nomination at a time or multiple nominations, obviously we would

not be able to prevent other members of the board from making nominations. but i would think that we would not try to make a second nomination if we had made a second one, and we would not accept ourselves as nominees, and in that way, we can move forward. we have members to what to see the work to get done, and we have members who want to do subterfuge. that is fine. that is part of the politics. but with six votes, and six members, we can do this, and i think it responds to supervisor campos' question about six members of the board affecting an appointment for the office of

mayor in san francisco when it becomes vacant, and we can do that. we do not do the kind of violation things they seem to do in 1978. we are left with discussing it. i think that is a better way of doing it, and we can do it, but we do not want to fall into a trap and the subterfuge to hamper the ability to make a decision. is that filibuster long enough? president chiu: she is almost done. madam clerk: supervisor daly, through the chair, the next item

is on page two. nominations do not require a second, according to roberts rules of order. supervisor daly: ok. madam clerk: and on item 3, if a nomination does not have three votes, that nomination is automatically withdrawn. supervisor daly: ok. madam clerk: and if i could just ask the outside counsel if there is anything that i might have missed that you might have in your review? the intention is that we would hold true with all of the roberts rules of order

recommendations. >> parliamentary matters generally require a majority vote, not six votes. this would require the committee as a whole. it looks like a journey and reconvening -- and turning -- adjourneing and reconvening. supervisor daly: that is the big one. i would prefer, the item as close as it is in front of us, i