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. i think that the process of -- that's currently written is a process that -- that ultimately is not an ideal process. along the hines of what council indicated, i don't think it is the only way that we could actually meet our legal requirements and -- and provide an expedited resolution of these issues. i think that we have missed an

opportunity to do that. irrespective of what the outcome is. i think that having something that is simple and that gets to a result of -- that reflects the choices of this board is something that would make -- make more sense. i don't think this process is that. that said, i would be open to supporting this process if we are talking about a process that adoptsed through the committee as a whole and not amendment to the board rules. quite frankly by i have would be supportive of that process in the spirit of making sure that we have unity as a board in terms of how we proceed with the process. i actually think there's a strong argument to be made that we bite be better off if the passing this process and simply sticking to the existing rulings of the board and to roberts rules of order. that said, if -- if this is

indeed something that is adopted as simply -- simply as a process through the committee as as a whole and not amendment to the board rules, i would be open to it in -- and perfect as it may be. >> additional discussion? >> so again, supervisor daly, my understanding is that -- that the version that we have in front of us that was an amendment on top of your amendment to the proposed process is to be construed as a process underneath the committee as a whole and is not a set of amendments to -- to our rules of order. >> right. one more thing. in terms of what is written and when -- that the clerk asked that -- that it have strike which is in section b about -- the sixth line down which will be voted on in the order rfed i think we should retain -- in the

order received i think we should retain that language. this is the proposal, there's multiple nominations whether we vote like we do with the board president with a fame and multiple rounds of voting or whether we are actually taking names one at a time in voting yea or nay. >> the chair? >> i could explain that part of it. rockets rules of order state this is board members have more freedom when they're voting for an vid crull rather than against an individual. that being said, the custom is this i take the rule. a supervisor then states who they're supporting rather than who they're voting against. i prefer the other way to the president, to -- to call -- to

colleagues because i think that if you have multiple nominees it is a yes of "there's nothing that prohibits us from taking voting on same nominee, correct? if they fail -- if we're still in the rounds of voting, we could try again and see if this is six. my concern about -- about multiple names is -- you could see it in the history of elections for board president, you could get stuck on a lot of four three, three two votes. you know that sort of thing. i think that -- you know, that's a process by which you have to have people involved. the difference here on this vote rather than a board president vote is if you have members sequestered, you don't have the ability to -- to figure it out.

ultimately i think with the sequestration that i don't like but we have to live with it, i guess, it would be better to vote names up and down and not have votes where you could choose between three and -- and eight different candidates and you got to get the sixth with 11 votes. or 10 votes or nine votes or eight votes. >> the chair, supervisor defwrale either in order -- daly either is in order you could vote either way. >> i would say we should keep the language. >> you're proposing to keep the original language? >> to keep the language that is currently written in this that -- that she said we should strike. i'm saying don't strike it. >> okay. could you explain what that is? >> section b, six lines.

"which will be voted upon in the order sfed." if you could strike anything else -- >> no. >> and right now it reads the sentence reads once nominations are received, the president will bring them back to vote on the nominations which we voted on in the order received. you want to keep that language. madam clerk you're proposing we strike that? >> i'm proposing the original language number one because that's how roberts rules of order states it can be done, as with the way supervisor daly suggesting they could both be done pursuant to roberts rules but i chose the other because we had pred dense for it in our board president election where it allows supervisors more freedom to state -- to state the name of the individual they're supporting rather than the -- the voting joran or any one individual.

any further discussion on that point? i don't think that was something that we -- that we focused on in the private discussion. supervisor campos. >> i think -- i think i see supervisor daly's point. i don't see the need to strike that language. i think that -- you know, having it there makes that -- that -- >> other perspectives? okay. so supervisor daly i think keeping it as as currently drafted will be part of the motion unless there's other discussion. supervisor maxwell? >> i would prefer the language as -- as -- or clerk has -- has advised us. so what does that mean? that means that when we vote on this, we would -- are we going to take this out?

how we going to deal with that? >> supervisor daly, i like the flexibility. >> i like the flexibility, supervisor daly's motion, if it is seconded and approved, then the rule would be taken on each name in the order that they're received and when i came to a supervisor, they would vote joran on -- yes or no on the individual. the difference in the language i proposed -- >> i understand that but if we want the language that you proposed, do we then -- do you understand what i'm asking. how do we go ahead with this, i agree with this part, we don't? how do you we deal with that? >> supervisor daly? >> through the president. first before i say that, let me say i believe i made a motion at a second for the item in front of us as it is written. the -- the -- since the item that is in front of us technically which is -- the

draft that i -- came away with earlier today does contemplate individual motions. well in this case nominations taken one at a time. i think the quotes are a version to that, which is acceptable under roberts rules is to take the motion one at a time. i think that is the motion i made before we -- we recessed. who the president, to -- to supervisor maxwell, you have the option to oppose the amendment, this is now an amendment of -- of an amendment. or a motion that amends a motion to amend. you could vote against that. or you ask -- you can ask for that vote to be divided in to parts and vote on a specific part or perhaps you could just take direction from supervisor

else berns -- elsbernd. >> thank you, mr. president. again, i agree with what the clerk suggested. so -- let's see the motion on the floor currently is supervisor daly's motion to -- to amend the amendment i made which -- really would be adopting verbatim this new document that is in front of us. >> that's correct, supervisor elsbernd, with the change he is recommending on the voting process. >> except the document that is in front of us, when i said verbatim actually allows for the process he wants. the document you gave us madam clerk, did you -- you're asking us to make an additional amendment here that -- that isn't here. supervisor daly is asking us to adopt document you distributed

without any change. that will achieve the end of election yes or nos. if we want to achieve the end -- instead of yes or nos, saying names, we need to adopt the document you've given with us a tweak, which is to take out this clause that will be voted on in the order received correct? >> that's correct. the reason i advocate that, is supervisor daly is saying go yes, no on the people of the order received because then as people are potentially eliminated, they'll be able to come back in the room and vote and wohl have more people, if i understand supervisor daly's argument correctly. that alone doesn't achieve the ends that supervisor daly is trying to get to. in order for those people to

come back in the room and vote and participate, they're going to have to come back in and say, unquiveably they'll not -- unquiveably they won't accept the nominations. even if their nominations are still on the table and they have not specifically renounced their desire to be interim mayor they can't participate. if the end game is to add people, that doesn't do it. and that's why i think we should follow the precedent we have always followed with the board presidency. so why don't we just vote on supervisor daly' motion. i urge a no vote on that. should that motion fail, we could adopt the amendment which supervisor -- with clerk -- with clerk change. >> i like to have the question of supervisor daly, because i believe the process we have makes sense because we're force when we vote to look at choices in front of us, as opposed for example if we had three supervisors or three individuals

and we were voting a, b, c, you're suggesting closing not only nages and have three separate votes on a, b, c, and a doesn't succeed, then the vode could change to cre c and that's instead of having each of us to decide between those and then another vote after that. >> let me say this. first of all, through the president to supervisor elsbernd, i'll not sure why you would expect a member that has been nominated would be unable to renounce that nomination in their -- in their -- in any potential -- to gain the appointment. >> folks, on by side of politician, it has a higher call. they would make an excellent mayor for san francisco and may be more interested in the general qualities that the next

mayor of san francisco has. so they may actually take a nomination, not achieve six votes, and be comfortable with yielding any potential to be a successful may of san francisco and come back and make a vote. not only do i think that could happen. i'm guessing that may very well happen in the next month. to president chiu's point, there may be more than one nominee that a member of the board supporters. i think that -- i think i could envision a situation of having multiple nominations and -- voting yes on every one of them. i think that is a very different kind of math than only being able to choose one of three, four, five, or 11 different people. if there's potential for there

to be 11 nominations, if you have to say a name, then you're -- your average vote total for each nomination will be one. i mean, i think that the average vote total would be higher if the question was yes or no. that's why i prefer it. >> i admit, supervisor daly, i didn't completely -- could you give an exam bell of -- an example of vote abc. >> assuming there's electorate nominated and then under the procedure of naming a name like we do the board president, there would be an average of one vote per candidate. however, if you had the ability to vote yes or no sequentially on the order that they were made then there's going -- no set

average number of votes that -- that one of those candidates ko receive. you may want to vote no if you prefer someone later on, and then i think that you could get around to vote again -- i don't think that subsequent round of voting is barred or banned. i think that at average -- i think the average would be higher than one. >> i think you could use the argument it would work the other way if someone chose to vote no for all of those candidates, then, the vote total would be less than one. >> well -- more -- i -- technically that's true, but the lowest it could be is zero and highest would be 11, based on simple math, odds are it is greater than one.

any additional discussion on this? >> so as i understand, supervisor daly has his amendment, it hasn't been seconded yet. it was -- it was seconded by supervisor mirkarimi. so the question is whether we vote on this and decide whether to move on to another vote. why don't we take a roll call vote on supervisor daly' motion. just to clarify, a motion to add back the language? >> no. >> it is in this already, so accept as is. >> yes. >> avalos aye campos aye chiu aye chu no defwrale aye dufty no elsbernd no martin -- mar aye maxwell no mirkarimi aye al

yotey peer six ayes and five nos. the motion to amend passes. are there additional motions? >> supervisor defwrale? >> i want to know if we took your amendments to the underlying item. >> i don't believe so. if somebody could put in that we're not changing the board rules. and the motion, and second. colleagues any objection to that motion to strike out references to changes in the board rules? without objection, motion to amend passes. a roll call vote on the item as amended.

supervisor chu 1234 >> i know -- i know we went through a long time of work through this. i want to thank the clerk and others about this. i know it was a close vote on watt process should be. what i like to ask all of us is to the extent which you could consider this to support underlying motion because this is the process of how we select our interim mayor. it would be great if we had more than the 6-5 vote on this. i think for the -- for the -- for the process -- for again letting the public know that this is something that we considered seriously and all agree on, i think this would be a -- a good show of unity to the public on this important issue. i ask for your support on this motion. s