>> just a clarifying question. this is not a change to the board rules and it doesn't preclude any member from availing themselves from whatever the board rules or -- the roberts rules of order allow. is that correct? >> to check -- >> that's correct. >> roll call vote on the -- on the underlying motion as amended. >> avalos aye campos aye chiu aye chu aye daly aye dufty aye e elsbernd aye mar aye. maxwell aye. mirkarimi aye supervisor al yotey pier aye. there are 11 eyes.

>> this motion is approved as amended. now if we could go back to item 34. madam clerk, could you read that item? >> item 34 is a motion that the board of supervisors convene a committee of the whole on november 23rd, 2010 at 3 p.m. to i think to take nominations for a mayor. >> supervisor daly. >> thank you -- $$thank you, mr. president. 10 years of this i think i developed a seamingly unlimited tolerance level for pain. so it is with that introduction that -- you know, i -- i ask you , colleagues, can we please at least spend a moment talking about what we would like to see

in the next mayor of san francisco. i know that we spent the better part of the last two meetings here talking about the process that we have finally adopted. i think that probably there is not a really strong interest, probably from any member of the board of supervisors right now to go through and -- make nominations and to -- to test this process out that we have just adopted. i think that if we are going to do that, at our next meeting which is on december 7th, i think that -- we owe it to ourselves and to the city to have it -- a conversation or discussion before we get right

into names and sequestration and you know what could be some pretty wild deliberations. even for us here in this board chamber. last week i talked a little bit about some of the attributes or some of the basic threshold that i was looking for in tells of finding a -- a next mayor of san francisco, it is going to be a high quality solid next mayor of san francisco. for me it -- it transcends the political discussion although obviously the political divide is real. but i think if you want to talk about qualities and attributes, i bet you even shaun elsbernd and i agree that the next mayor of san francisco needs to know

the inner workings of local government if san francisco. we probably wouldn't get a debate on that pony. but for me, in terms of thinking about this now for -- for the better part of this month, i think that -- in the city and county of st. francis, we also need to do better than just someone who knows the inner workings of g. i know there's been a call for -- a call for a caretaker mayor. i think i know what that means. i think i know what is behind it. and i think i know it is -- as tim rightly pointed out, in the history of -- of the last time when there was a call, ironically from probably for more my side of the politician for potentially a caretaker

mayor, why the hearst school examiner immediately dismissed that call for caretaker mayor because you would be basically putting in the most important office in the city and this is the hearst examiner from 1978. you would be putting in the most important office in local government someone who is necessarily weak and ham -hamstrung and lame duck when the which will evening, certainly coming from the crisis and the tragic events here in city hall, with the assassinations of the mayor and the supervisor, certainly those were times that called if strong

leadership. while we're not coming out of that kind of tragedy, i think that -- that the crisis -- of our time that supervisor avalos has -- has brought up and injested in the discussion and brings up in most of our discussions here in terms of the budget crisis, in terms of a very -- i think -- i think potentially of a mill crisis, not just in terms of this here in san francisco but in terms of what is happening across the country, which we -- we saw reflected in the mid term elections. what happened at the state level with the election of jerry brown and what potentially is happening. i think if you look at proposition 26's passage and what its implications are, i

think supervisor elsbernd talked about -- talked about the -- the -- post employment benefits situation. if you take a look from any angle, we are in a crisis situation. i think to just appoint a caretaker mayor, like the san francisco examiner owned by the hearst in 1978, said about the same subject, it would be a colossal mistake. i notice the supervisors over the last 10 years has done significant work to talk aboutualancing the power between a very strong mayor in terms of the coffman charter and this board of supervisors. for me, i think -- when i think of a strong mayor, i'm not thinking of strong and -- in comparison to the board of supervisors, because i would really like to see a mayor that that does more with the board

and shares more decision making with the board of supervisors. i don't think that's necessarily what make a mayor strong. is putting another branch of government in a electorate position from where they are. i think a strong mayor can work with this board and the resources of the city to address these challenges. for me and the city of san francisco, i want to see the challenge addressed in the most compassionate way possible, not in the most progressive or the most conservative way, the most cam passionate way possible. even in my movement on the progressive side, there is not necessarily union nimity on this question.

i think for those that are struggling, we heard it in public comment last week, as someone said they're on unemployment and looks like the benefits aren't going to get extended. i think that's real. that's real stuff. the foreclosure crisis. that's real stuff. i want to see these kinds of things, high -- high up on the next mayor's agenda. i don't know that we need to to have multiple hearings right now. i want to have at least one. i would like the opportunity to hear from my colleagues about what they want to see in the next mayor of san francisco. i think it is -- we're all not going to agree. the previous conversations -- makes that -- that -- that very clear if folks watching didn't already know.

we're not going to all agree. we're not all going to agree on a fame, we're for the all going to agree on the values or what reasonable doubt basis of the decision that we're about to make. we might not agree on any of it. i think we owe it to the public and we owe it to this city to discuss it and have it in the open. so they know where the decision comes from and what the motivations are. thank you supervisor daly and president chiu. >> i want to start off by saying, i actually agree with supervisor daly that today is probably not that time to have that public hearing. i do think it makes sense for us to hold a hearing and hear from the public on criteria that the

public believes ought to be considered in our decision as well as if colleagues want to discuss that happening. we have a motion whether we should convene as a city as a whole to discuss taking nominations and appointing a successor mayor, i think the fact it is given the tuesday before thanksgiving and we don't have consensus and there are concerns about -- about whether we can make a binding sdegs before january 4th, it probably doesn't make sense for us to move forward as a committee as a whole, i support supervisor daly's point about needing to have that conversation out of the spirit of engaging the public in a traps parent way for guest input. with that, back to the chair. >> thank you. mr. had president, supervisor daly. no. okay.

colleagues, we have a motion in front of us that we set as a committee as a whole. any discussion on the motion or vote? we'll vote on the motion. roll call vote. >> on item 34, supervisor avalos. >> before i vote on it, could i make a statement? i'm actually >> under the board rules we don't interrupt roll call as i've been advised. >> well -- >> unless we want to vote and then you want to make a statement afterward, i think that would be appropriate. unless we want to suspend. why don't we move to suspend? the roll call vote. no objection, back to the debate. supervisor avalos? >> to continue with my shakespeare theme, it is called

on sick of heart and -- i would like to continue there discussion to next time we meet. i'm really in the in the mood to continue at this -- at this time right now. i have an interest in coming to a decision but i don't think we're going to come to it today. is it possible to amend the motion to have a -- it brought back on december 7th? >> you're making a motion to amend the motion? >> amend, continue -- >> can i move to continue these items until the next meeting on december 7th? supervisor daly made a motion to continue this item to december 7th and any additional discussion, supervisor elsbernd? >> i move to table the item. >> excuse me?

supervisor campos? >> motion to table it undebatable. >> any roll call vote on the motion to table? >> supervisor elsbernd who was the second? elliot. on the motion to table, avalos? no campos no. chiu no supervisor chu aye daly no dufty aye elsbernd aye. commissioner mar: no maxwell no mirkarimi no el al yote toe pier

eye. four eyes and seven nos. motion to table failed. now to take the motion. >> the motion to continue this item to the 7th. any discussion? any discussion. supervisor campos. commissioner campos: i voted no against the motion to table but i believe we need to come back to the item later. i know that most of us feel exaste i do -- exhausted about -- i mean, give it everything -- given everything that happened today i don't think it makes sense for us to go down the road today of taking nominations. . yeah. so i think that. that makes sense to do that. >> supervisorance bernd. >> okay. the motion to continue this item, supervisor alioto pier. >> can we continue this item, it does have a date on it.

about >> it was amended to. >> i don't remember it being amended. >> supervisor daly would you like to restate your motion to amend motion? >> then i will move to amend the item for december 7th date and continue to that date. >> i'll restate my second. >> motion has been -- manages to continue. okay. the clerk is reminding me we haven't called item 34. why don't we call item 34. >> we haven't called 26 and 27. >> excuse me, 25 -- >> we can't call them until we decide what to do on this motion. so first thing, you call item 34. okay. and sprf daly first made a

motion to aamend the motion and sit as a committee as a whole on december 7th potentially. colleagues with can he take that without observe objection. without objection that is amended. to continue to december 7th, why don't we take a roll call vote? >> avalos aye campos aye chiu aye chu aye daly aye dufty aye elsbernd aye mar aye maxwell aye mirkarimi aye pier aye. there are 11 eyes. this will be continued until december 7th. madam clerk -- any items for today? >> we have three memories. the meeting will be adjourned on

behalf of supervisor dufty, francis coleman, and jerome and fred bowlharper. >> any business in front of the board. sn >> that concludes our business. >> at this time we're adjourned, happy thanksgiving, everyone.

commissioner mirkarimi: good morning and welcome to the transportation authority. i am the commission in the chair. i would like to thank sfgtv for their excellent an ongoing work. >> commissioner david chu.

commissioner dufty. commissioner maxwell absent. >> thank you. please read item two. >> approval of minutes. >> public comment? public comment is closed. without objection, so moved. please read items 3 and 4. item three, chairs report. item four, directors' report. >> vercommissioner mirkarimi: very good. my comments are a breeze. there's never a dull moment in transportation. especially here in san francisco. the main focus of activity this month was the sustainable communities process, which is being led by the metropolitan

transportation commission. this is essentially the local implementation of the legislative mandate. it is very important to demonstrate that local jurisdictions working in concert with regional agencies can turn that into real actions on the ground. there are many dimensions to this challenge, such as land use policy, transportation, and other infrastructure policy, and other key policies related to schools. these work together to determine where people are located. we are moving in the direction more closely integrating all those areas. it is a daunting task that is only the first go round. we can expect they will be far from perfect, but it's a great opportunity to look at things from a multi varied

perspectives. the congestion management agencies around the region have taken the lead in coordinating county level meetings to ensure people are aware of the process. the authority has been very involved in actively fulfilling the role of these last several months. we have already had several meetings with the department meetings of mtc. i attended one of those meetings last week to emphasize that san francisco department heads, the importance of this process of having san francisco taking a leading role in the region in this regard. i expect the process to intensify. it will have to. as the region debates

alternative visions of how we move forward. finally, serious discussions about the funding plan for the central subway. interesting coverage lately in the press, and, of course, with in committee hearings. i'm delighted we've worked out what i believe will be with a feasible funding plan to close the $137 million funding gap before us in the mta. the way to get there is through a collaborative process. what we have is exactly that. i want to thank staff for taking the initiative, and thank you to the mta for coming to the table. it will be a huge benefit for san francisco and almost $1 billion in federal funds secured, which she to happen in short time. i know that the solution we have at hand will have creative funding swaps including proposition k money. i hope the director will help us

navigate through the steps. this is not the first time we're doing something like this with state and federal dollars. i'm looking forward to making a great case to securing the funds. with that, i will conclude my remarks. mr. executive director. >> good morning, mr. chairman and commissioners. i have a report on your desk that will highlight a few things. i think that the price this week goes to the high-speed rail picture, where we have now had official guidance from washington to the fact that california must spend its high- speed rail allocation of over $3.2 billion. related investments totaling

$4.3 billion. this is in one of two central valley sections. it will either be fresno or fresno to bakersfield. we're having trouble getting excited about the prospect of high-speed rail that is that far away from us. that has been the guidance so far to we are forced committed to working to continue to coordinate the segment that we have the most significant interest in. it has of course had its share of challenges, particularly the mid peninsula section. it requires continued partnership. at the local level, the authority of staff continue to

coordinate the city families and put into the high-speed process. we have been successful so far in getting the high-speed rail authority to accept a set of three alternatives that are the result of a consensus building process among the agencies. you're sure that will be included in the report. given the news that i'm sure you have all seen in the last 24 hours -- the incoming republican leadership in the house looking at high speed rail and california's allocation of money as a target of deficit reduction. we have at least a reason to be

worried. come the beginning of the year, we will most likely be involved in a vigorous advocacy process to help the state retained the funds that are already at the state level to keep moving this project forward. of course, there are implications for projects within san francisco that we need to be worried about. it seems as though this topic will require continued education and continued attention. we will continue to do that. i'm sure there will be some demands for your time as the advocacy in d.c. demands that we all be there in demonstrating support for these local projects. we had a mixed bag in terms of transportation as it regards to the november election. we have proposition 22, which

went long way toward securing transportation funds. i hesitate to say dedicated transportation funds, because they turned out to not be dedicated in years past when the legislature has seen fit to borrow those funds to balance the budget. now we have a proposition that says the transportation funds can only be used for transportation and cannot be used to balance the budget. that is good news. unfortunately, the election coupled that good news with proposition 26, which has now turned every user fee into potentially a tax, and raised the bar to a supermajority for getting those things passed. without boring you with the details, i think there are some implications you need to be aware of, especially in regards to the funding deal that was approved as part of the initial

budget approval, the one that happened 100 days after the deadline. that budget included a swap where the sales tax oreplaced an excise tax. that was on a simple majority vote for the simple reason that there was a net no change in the amount of revenue generated, but there is a reid already that prop. 26 might change that. it is retroactive for certain measures back to january 1, 2010. it may be necessary for the legislature to reopen that deal and do it on a super majority basis. if it is not able to achieve that, that would mean a significant reduction in transportation money available around the state. and of course, we areal