>> the first few pages of the amendment, roughly pages 2 to 7, and corporate question from the ethics commission. they wanted to be able to point people to something in the ordinance that says who needs to file with the ethics commission themselves, and who needs to file with the individual filing offices. in general, only department heads and boards of the commission file with a fixed commission. with respect to those particular agency heads, they are still required to fill out a form 700, but their move to a different subsection, as not being required to file with ethics. supervisor alioto-pier: with f.x.. ok -- ethics. ok. >> i apologize, i misspoke. supervisor alioto-pier: it is the opposite, isn't it?

>> yes, i am sorry, your absolutely correct. they do file with them, others do not. supervisor alioto-pier: i do not understand why. people go to the ethics department to find out all sorts of things -- i do not understand why we would not just keep them there. >> that is section b1, those are people that need to list for 700 and two other f.x. forms. the sunshine ordinance declaration and to give it up training declaration. all those people must file all three separate things with the commission. department heads of those state entities only need to file form 700, which is why they are broken out in different sections. i'm sorry, they are listed on page 7 between lines 10 -- supervisor alioto-pier: i see

it. >> i apologize. looks like we are deleting things, but we are moving them around. hopefully, next time it will be more clear. supervisor alioto-pier: thank you. >> and i do realize it is a quite lengthy document. we do have many agencies, here in san francisco. supervisor campos: great, thank you. why don't we open it up to public comment. we have the director of the arts commission. >> thank you, supervisors for letting me speak on this item. i am here specifically to speak on behalf of the change to section 3.1-140 which addresses the arts commission. one of my responsibilities as a public servant is to bring

information to this body of unintended consequences, sometimes of action, and i'm sure sometimes this body did not intend to disenfranchise a segment of the citizenry from participating in shaping the culture of public policy of the city. yet, that is in effect, what happened last year as a consequence of moving the arts commissioners from a category 2 and in the disclosure category to a category 1. with that change, individuals of significant net worth were required to reveal all of their assets, not just assets that might deal with any possible conflict of interest directly related to their participation in the arts commission. at that level of higher reporting, these individuals of significant net worth felt that these individuals could not to

dissipate on the arts commission and immediately resigned. we lost three individuals from our commission when this change took place. i just want to say, this city really values its principles of access and equity. i am sure this body would never intend to pass any law or regulation that would create a barrier to participation of any citizenry. you would never consider, for instance, that if you wanted to be an arts commissioner, that you have to pay a significant feat. that would be a barrier for entry for parts of the population. yet, this change for the increased reporting, we have created a barrier for participation for individuals in the city. supervisor campos: thank you. any other member of the public that would like to speak? let me say, to that point, i

appreciate and understand where the commissioner is coming from, but i will respectfully and vehemently disagree with that. i think there is no barrier to participation created here. if these individuals want to participate, all i have to do is provide the information and comply with rules. to me, that is good government. the more transparency we have, the better it is. i think good government requires a level of transparency, and i think that is what this is about. i respect and understand the perspective. supervisor alioto-pier? supervisor alioto-pier: i will take the opposite view and completely agree, that the requirements that have been opposed -- imposed on arts commissioners are essentially a

barrier to participation. i would like to look at some of the changes made on what we have in front of us today and i would like to ask for a continuance. i will not be voting on this item today -- not a week-vote -- just to the call of the chair. supervisor campos: is there a timeline by which we have to act on this? >> under state law guidance, every local agency is supposed to endeavor to complete this project by the end the first one would be the first week of december, of course. it could be done as a committee report. supervisor campos: why don't we do that in an effort to address the concerns that have been raised? thank you. is there any other member of the

public who would like to speak? public comment is closed. actually, we have a motion to continue. can we do that to the call of the chair? we will put it on the next available. we can do that without objection. is there any other business? >> no. >> great. the meeting is adjourned. thank you to supervisor alioto- pier and to anyone who is watching.

>> thank you all for coming out. thank you, jeremy, and thank you to the staff for being kind of us to let us walk around and see the work you are doing here as it relates to promoting healthy eating and promoting at a very early age and awareness of the importance in terms of making

good decisions about what we eat and how we feel, and making sure we make a lifelong connection to a healthy but the. the issue of obesity is important. everyone understands the extraordinary cost, human cost in terms of lives lost because of the consequences of obesity, but also the economic costs to the taxpayers, those that have no direct connection, that are paying the price of our inability to reconcile the issue of obesity. that is why 2006, we initiated a program called shape up sf. it has been recognized all over the country as a model program for any city, large or small. the robert woods johnson foundation recognized the work that was done through our team

as the country's best practice. i am proud of it because it is a comprehensive strategy that incorporates physical activity and walking challenges. it incorporates strategy is to provide options and alternatives. the options you saw in the cafeteria were an example of that. we have put salad bars in 50 of our elementary and middle schools. we are open to provide more wars to -- more resources in the upcoming year to provide more resources to public schools. i don't know many schools that are funding salad bars. some people wanted that. they said these kids would never get excited. you saw for yourself that kids are actually eating broccoli. george bush sr., eat your heart out.

kids are truly enthusiastic about eating broccoli. they are an enthusiastic about eating something a little different than your typical burrito or pizza. we have initiated a real effort, a deliberate effort, to become sugar savvy, to think a little differently about what we drink. we have a program called "drinkwater." we have a soda-free summer program. we have done a lot of things that have marked the trend across the country, dealing with the issues of trans fats, raising the awareness are around the issues of salt and sodium. all these things are important. i am proud of it. it is comprehensive.

it has been inclusive. we have public-private partners. the school district has been a big part of it. we have closed streets in order to encourage physical activity. we are taking over corners of our city and turning them into small parks. the sunday streets program promotes hula hooping, yes, as well as roller skating, ideas encouraging physical activity. none of that was important to you as much as it is important to me because it sets up the reason you are here. that is because there are times when a city can go too far. there is a time when we get involved in making determinations in the private sector about what choices people should have. it is one thing to educate. it is one thing to promote.

it is one thing to create options. everything i said was about educating, promoting, and creating options, and dealing with the issues of race, providing a geographic framework for education. we have addressed the issue of environmental justice and poverty as it relates to these issues. it is different when we decide as politicians what we believe the private sector should do, as it relates to the item that the board of supervisors passed, that ti today officially vetoed. i think it goes too far. i think the idea of banning toys in restaurants gets into the private sector decision making and tries to insert our own values and try to replace them

with the values that should be inserted and promoted by parents and caretakers that can make better decisions. point being, politicians are not going to make the best decisions for these children. it is going to be parents. the government should be in the business of educating, promoting, and creating a framework of alternatives, not dictating and prescribing exactly how you can provide a meal and what you cannot provide if you provide that meal. i was walking down the groceries or the other day. there is tony the tiger. i thought, is this next? is captain crunch next because there's a toy inside? is jack in the box going to be banned? what is he of not a giant toy? it is a toy promoting fast food. why have we not considered the impact of that promotion in that chain? we have not done those things because most people say, that

goes a little too far. that is what we just did that the san francisco board of supervisors. we said, you have to have a certain milligram percentage of this, and then you can have a toy. i think it goes too far. i applaud eric mar for stepping up to the plate on this issue. i know a lot of good people disagree with me. health professionals think this is a great idea. i think there's a better approach. we officially have our 1-year report, our annual report, on shape up, that provides an alternative. we are not talking about the abstract. we are talking about celebrating what we have done and continuing to promote it. doing these types of toy bands is inappropriate, i don't think particularly effective, and i think it goes too far in inserting government to be the decision maker in someone's life, as opposed to parents.

i have no problem vetoing this. well i have a problem maintaining my veto? the board might override my veto. we will know that very soon. i will try to make a case to one or two members of the board who were uneasy about this. trust me. there were few. all of the world, people have talked about this ban. it has not of unfavorable. things like shape of san francisco helps our reputation. it brings people together and provides a substantive solutions. bans hinder, don't help, our effort to solve this critical issue. >> [inaudible] it is not about taking away toys.

>> that good. let's encourage them to make the meals healthier. we have been doing that. we have built some good partnerships. let's provide alternatives. this is government sighing, you cannot have this type of toy unless you provide this kind of food. we do plastic bag bands and the like. -- bans and the like. i think there are a million ways to promote alternatives. we did that with menu labelling in the state. that is education. that is information. that is a better approach than prescribing the time, manner, place, and how you provide a meal. i think it is a very truly and alarmingly slipperly -- how do

you say that? slope. >> [inaudible] >> there are all kinds of alternatives. there are venues to access. we have strong opinions about pharmacies and what pharmacies should be promoting. again, i think this goes too far. i think this hurts our substantive efforts in terms of health promotion and wellness, and the work we have been recognized for all over the country. there is a reason there is not a tv station in this country that has not been mocking us. i understand why. i am a little concerned about that. it gets in the way of the good work the city has done. eric mar has been fabulous on

this, and i just wish we did not go that far. >> [inaudible] >> one more than we have got at the moment. you never know. i am notnaive. -- not naive. there was one other veto they overrode. i cannot support this. again, i am not being figurative. why not a crackerjack band? -- ban? how can a giant jack in the box toy be able to promote fast food? that is the biggest marketing toy anywhere. it is not the little boys at mcdonald's. go down the list. when you have a child, you get this. everyone wants the cartoon.

they love the toys. the city cannot go down this path in the private sector. dangerous. educate, promote, create alternatives. do not prescribe 600 milligrams of this. who are we to judge? this is crazy. >> [inaudible] >> it is similar to the one i did with supervisor maxwell a year ago. tragedies have befallen some of the clubs and some of the incidents that are more acute than they were a year ago. i think there will be the support for this when there wasn't for a similar initiative a year ago. i think the entertainment commission and supervisor chu have done a good job. i'm inclined to support it, whatever details appear on my desk. i am not naive to think one

thing one day and the next day, think a little different. all of these are ideas. i think i have had a dozen meetings with club owners and promoters. we are just throwing out ideas. sometimes they get headlines. we just want to get a sense of people. i am worried about civil liberties. i'm concerned people could share these lists. how do we know these lists are not shared? people have a right to know the lists will not be marketed or exploited. those things have to be worked out. there's a reality. we have not been able to address this in a substantive way. we had an incident during the world series in my neighborhood. i had some folks telling me the inevitable is going to happen. boy, it happened. we have to be aggressive. i told the promoters and the club owners this.

we don't want to be too prescriptive. the majority of people do the right thing and are promoting safe venues. there are a few bad apples. we cannot let that continue. i think most of them get it. they don't want it to go too far. we have to be sensitive to those concerns. >> [inaudible] >> i am not -- i have said more than you will never hear me say about the interim mayor. she is still close. i talked to them all the time. we share the same campaign manager. i have great confidence in what she did. that means i have great hope that she actually pulls this thing out. we will only know that in a week or two. both sides are prepared. >> [inaudible]

>> i have never liked it. you know that. i cannot explain it. how do you measure it? when i ran for mayor, i said, i don't know what will happen to me. you said, it is all done. i was lucky. if i had 49% of the vote, i might of lost the election. it is strange. i cannot figure it out. it is not a knock to the winner. when you cannot explain something, and even the people who put together -- it is easy. you ask them to questions and it embarrasses them. you know it is not a positive sign. i will admit this. i did the rank choice thing. i went, same person, same person, same person, and they said i could not do that. this is the incumbent mayor person who ran himself. i had forgotten. half of them are ranked choice.

half or not. why are to the judges ranked choice? i doone, on -- can i do one, one, one? will that hurt the candidate? make it easier and more transparent. we are making it a little harder. there are people working on that right now. trust me. i am open to it. i was open to a legal challenge. that was processed unsuccessfully. you know, it is not just because of oakland. even in local supervisor races, people are wondering what is happening. it is confusing. i don't know that is a good thing. i think you should make it less confusing. >> [inaudible] >> that is another thing.

now you get into district elections. when i ran for supervisor, it took a 110,000 votes to get elected. that gave me a sense of responsibility to the city. now you can get 2000 votes for the same job. i get paid $30,000, and then i get paid $100,000. it is something i have always been concerned about. every other city has district, but no other city is the small. their districts in l.a. county bigger than the city and county of san francisco. this is a city of neighborhoods. we were all connected. we have 11 supervisors when there was a homicidal inbayview. now you have one. it has proven itself, district elections. there is a more ideological reason to support it. addirv -- you add irv, and you

have someone elected with a couple of thousand votes. i am a little uneasy about all of it. i think i told you guys this. i have drafted legislation. it is on my desk right now. i will hand it to someone if they want to carry it and go a different way. there are two options for changing. old irv we just dusted off. these questions we raised a number of years ago when we were concerned about it are now coming home to roost. this could dramatically change the mayor's race next year and dramatically change the face of politics in the east bay and here in a way that might be unintended. >> [inaudible] >> what i said -- i hate to say

it again. i promised myself not to talk about this. i said enough. the city is going to be fine matter who is in it. i think it will work itself out. it seems to be working. it is working itself out. >> [inaudible] >> no, i can't. i could, but i'm not. >> [inaudible] >> yeah. yeah. >> [inaudible] >> there is no limitation to what you can do with the money. you can hire your best friend and pay them 50 grand per month and take the public money, and it is legal. that is time and budget

deficits. it is a tough pill to swallow. i support public financing reform nationally. i understand it probably better than most. >> [inaudible] >> you know, let's see how it fleshes out. we have not seen that in the past. you saw some supervisors use it. this is all just -- i am the guy that is leaving. talk to the people coming in. they have more to say. not yet. i know. i will just get in trouble. i want friends. i don't need enemies. i hate having opinions.