[gavel]

president chiu: ladies and gentlemen, we are back at the border supervisors. i know there are members of the public who have been waiting for hours for the result of the elections, so i would like to propose that we go back to item 27 and 28, please. those items have already been read, so given that they have been read, i would like to ask arclight to announce the results. clerk calvillo: there are two, and the one is for the community benefits district based on the district plan that included the residential parcels at van ness ave. 86.50%. the ballots voting against the plan included the van ness parcel indicates that there is

no majority protest in the second elections report. the return ballots for the amended district plan, the return waited ballots were 89%, and those against were 10.11%, and this was from december 2010, not including van ness avenue. therefore, there was no majority. president vjoiz' -- chiu: ok,

colleagues, there is no majority protest before i begin, i will ask if there is anything else. >> good afternoon, supervisors. i am lisa with the office of work force development. the second shows a result based on the amended plans. these results, it does show that there is significantly weighted. on the back of the report, it also talks about the number of parcels voting, and the number of parcels voting in favor is 58, and the number of parcels voting against is 29, so there is also a significant numerical proportion more in favor than against.

and if you have any questions, i am here to answer. president chiu: any questions? seeing none, i would like to close the public hearing, and item 28 is in the hands of the board. supervisor mirkarimi? ok, i am just going to clear the roster. is there any discussion? the underlying resolution? clerk calvillo: [reading roll]

there are y a -- six ayes. president chiu: this item is adopted. madam clerk, if we can now go back to item 26. so the item has already been called. the roster. supervisor avalos? supervisor avalos: well, president chiu and colleagues, i had a chance to meet with all of the potential nominees for interim mayor and talked with

others. i have not had a chance to talk with ed lee any more than him coming in my office and telling me he was not interested in doing it, and that was my last conversation with ed lee. he is currently in china, hong kong. i guess hong kong is still china. i would like to see if i could have a conversation with him before we make a determination. how can we select someone for such a high position, the highest position in our city government, when they are not even here in the country. to me, that does not seem like the way we should be doing business. we have not even had a chance -- i have not even had a chance to have a conversation about this pripet i do not even know if he wants to do it. that has not been confirmed to me personally. i have said nothing but positive

experiences with him. i could support him. but i want to be able to make sure that i feel that he has a lot of positions on issues that i care about before i want to cast my vote behind him. i would ask colleagues a courtesy if we can continue this to be able to have that conversation. i do not think it makes a lot of sense for us to make such an important decision blindly, and i feel like many of us are doing it blindly without actually having a conversation with the person who could be assuming the office of mayor of san francisco. president chiu: supervisor compost -- campos? supervisor campos: thank you, president. it has been an interesting day, for sure. when i nominated sheriff hennessey, it was in the spirit

in having this board take action, and it was one side of the political spectrum saying to the other side that we want to come together as a city, as a city government, to do what is right for san francisco, and in sheriff hennessey, we focus on something that the mayor himself had indicated he was willing to live with, someone that members of this board had indicated that they were willing to live with, and yet, we find ourselves in this predicament, and i do not really know what happened, but i respect the right of every individual to make whatever decision they think is right. i know that is what people are doing. i am trying to make the right decision here. at the outset of this process, of this proceeding, i indicated

that i have a lot of respect for ed lee, and indicated that i have been open and remains -- remain open to supporting ed lee, and one of the things that happens in this kind of proceeding is that different sides perhaps form, and i think that the dichotomy is such that it creates an impression that the people we are talking about maybe something that they are not. i actually think that those of us on the progressive movement have a lot in common with ed lee, who, in fact, has been a part of that movement for some time, but the difference between ed lee, mike hennessey, and others that have been mentioned here, for those of us who thought above ed lee, and i was one of them, the thought about

him as an interim mayor, we have not had the opportunity to speak with him. i think i know where ed lee is on a number of issues, and god knows that he is dedicated his life for fighting for a lot of the things that i have been fighting for, but i would like to get the chance to ask him, to looking in the eye, and do that. i think that i owe that to the people who elected me in district 9. and i think that we have an opportunity tonight to make sure that we go down a road where we follow a process that allows whoever that person who is selected, and i think it looks like we are going to go with ed lee, but to give that person as much of an opportunity to be successful, and i think that for that person to be successful that there has to be as much

support from this board as possible, and you do have the possibility that if it is ed lee that you have some members of this board like myself who might be very open to supporting him if we are simply given that chance. i would like to have that chance. supervisor dufty, i have a great deal of respect for you, and i know that in everything you do, you try to do the right thing, but as you noted, there are conversations in those that it has been him telling us that he was not interested. i have not had that conversation. and to the extent that you have, i hope you give me and other supervisors the opportunity to do that. we started this meeting by talking about some of the legal issues that are implicated here.

and while there is disagreement about the legality of what mayor newsom is doing, the reality is is that if you assume that he is the mayor of san francisco, if you take that assumption as the truth, whether we vote for ed lee or anyone for that matter tonight, there has to be another vote taken, when mayor newsom takes the oath of office to become lieutenant governor, and in light of that, given that even if a vote happens tonight, that is not going to be the final vote, that this board is going to have to vote again, why not in this spirit of having as much unity as possible give us that opportunity, give us that time? mr. lee is not in the country right now, but i know that he cares a lot about san francisco,

and i know that given the urgency of this issue but that he will find a way to get to san francisco as soon as possible, and maybe we can have this meeting recessed, come back on friday, so that we have as much support for mr. lww -- lee as we possibly can. i think that we owe the city that much, so, listen. i think i have made it clear where i wanted this decision to go tonight, but i want to be a part of a broad coalition that tries to get city government united, so i hope, and i asked and a plea to my colleagues to please give us the opportunity. thank you. president chiu: supervisor mirkarimi? supervisor mirkarimi: thank you,

president chiu. i agree with you, supervisor campos, supervisor mar. i have never spoke about him being interim mayor, which has really rocketed in the last 24 to 48 hours. we were considering him with others before, but, really, what this does buy him being inserted in this process is that it almost belies the gestures and overtures by the administration that they are looking for a common denominator candidates, and i think great effort was made here today, as has been said earlier, that one of those candidates was sheriff mike

hennessey, based on comments made in the press by mayor newsom, and if there are people, supervisors who are representing ed lee, via what the newsom administration is saying, that belies the very sentiment of looking for some unified approach. it has not happened, so i think it is only prudent that you do your best to shop before you buy. we know ed lee. he has been extremely effective as a public servant and as a leader in the department, but no conversations have taken place whatsoever, and you're completely absent without any context or narrative except through hearsay that is now being inserted by people here on behalf of the administration or

ed lee from china, india, we do not have information. at least give we are to rally around a central person, then i would ask those who are trying to solidify this point -- pick mr. lee today to give us the same courtesy that we were trying to do for the consensus candidate but he administration. if not, then something else is amiss here, it is something else is amiss, but i think what that does is it spoils the very process that i think we are now engaged in. it bespeaks of unknowns that people are going to be absolutely insisted in determining how these ships of alliances occurred before our very eyes, -- how these ships --

shifts have occurred. there is partisanship and the last several hours. i think that was not the case when other candidates were put forward, with, i think, immersed -- most earnestness. president chiu: supervisor alioto-pier? supervisor alioto-pier: this is the first time that we as a body have had a conversation about in mr. mayor and the prospects of interim mayor, so the idea that there were alliances that were in place that have now shifted is a little misconstrued, considering this is the fact that this is the first time we have had this public dialogue. what i would like to remind all of us is what we're doing here tonight is somewhat symbolic and note we have a mayor of san francisco. that mayor of san francisco has

not left the position. he is now claiming to do so until the board is in place, so ultimately, it looks like, and from the advice we have gotten from counsel, really what this board does is more of a statement to the next board what we would like. it does not mean that this is what the next board will do, and so let's not forget that when supervisor campos says that he has not had conversations with mr.. lee, that opportunity will be available for you until the new board is put in place, so what we're doing tonight is we're saying as the current board of the city and county of san francisco what we are looking for and what we would like to see, but what the new board actually puts forward is going to be what actually has standing and what actually takes place, so let's consider that in

the rest of our deliberations and in our final vote, and i do think that with the four of us that is leading that there is a statement to be made in the type of person we would like to see set forward and the type of person that we believe would be the best candidate for this particular job, but to koran because all of us up and sitting here for at least two years, and those of a suit are leaving have been here for at least six years, some 14 years. supervisors maxwell aned -- and daly have been here for 10 years, and regardless, and what they have to say is important. supervisor mirkarimi: thank you, supervisor alioto-pier. supervisor campos. supervisor campos: because you

had mentioned to me, i know the boat has to be ratified, but i do believe that before we act on a substantive motion, which is the nomination of someone, that we should have the information that we need to make an informed decision, and it is not, again, but i question mr. lee, on the contrary, i have always been very open to him, but i think he deserves that, and i do think it is a disservice like him. that is what i am asking for. supervisor mirkarimi: thank you. supervisor david chiu.

president chiu: this is what is called the pre-ratification vote. this is not the permanent decision. under the procedure that we had decided a number of weeks ago, an appointment is not considered final until there is a vacancy, and there is no vacancy, as the deputy city attorney told us, and the board must ratify any prospective appointment when a vacancy arises, so, again, next tuesday, we are going to have to go through this again, and it turns out that the full board of supervisors, three of them are folks who have voted for mr. lee, so there will be a real vetting process over the next week, but i would say the we have all work more closely with ed lee than any of the other people who have been nominated tonight, given the breadth of his experience.

everyone fundamentally trusts his integrity. everyone fundamentally trusts his competence. everyone fundamentally trusts the breadth and depth of his knowledge of city government, whether it is car sharing issues or contract issues -- we can run the gamut of the hundreds of issues that he has worked on for the city over the past few decades. i do hope that by the next revocation votes that we're all together united, because we need to stand to get the united. colleagues, we have too many challenges in the city to deal with, and we need to move beyond this false sense of partisanship here. we need to address and attack the serious issues that are facing us right now. and, colleagues, that is what i

hope we can all do by next week. supervisor mirkarimi: thank you. supervisor avalos. i believe you intimated a motion, but i did not hear a second on the motion. supervisor avalos: right, and i want to continue on the conversation a little more. supervisor mirkarimi: right. supervisor avalos: i do not feel right making such a big vote, even if we have to ratify it next week. i do not think that making such a big decision about who our interim mayor is going to be without having all the time we need to really vet the candidate the way we would like to is the appropriate way to go, and, colleagues, i would really like to have the courtesy of the time to meet with ed lee to have that

conversation. i do not think it is asking too much to have that continuance to do it. we can find a consensus that we do not have right now. i do not know if we will of a full consensus, but i would like that courtesy from you guys. i do not think it is asking very much, and i think it is the right way to make a decision on something that is so momentous as to who is going to be the mayor, in the mayor's office in the next year. so i would like to continue this. i am not sure when ed lee is coming back. that is a very difficult thing to predict. i have heard that it will be sunday. asking him to come back early from hong kong, we could meet by friday late afternoon. we can see if we can continue the meeting at that time in recess this item until 3:00 on friday afternoon. supervisor mirkarimi: supervisor

avalos, you have a date certain? a time? supervisor avalos: 3:00. supervisor mirkarimi: simply following the loss of etiquette. supervisor avalos: with all due respect, colleagues, i could have a conversation on the phone with him by friday. i do not think it is unfair for me to ask of my colleagues on the board so i could have a conversation. i would give the same courtesy, as well. supervisor mirkarimi: thank you, supervisor avalos. supervisor campos: i think because we're talking about a symbolic vote, i think somebody referred to that. i think there is something about

symbolism. i think symbolism matters, and i think there is symbolism in trying to get as much support for this individual as we possibly can. i actually think that the symbolism of having as many members of this board behind mr. lee is something that is worth waiting for, and i do think that symbolism matters, and i do think that we have an obligation to make sure that whoever is elected is as successful as possible. supervisor mirkarimi: madam clerk? supervisor avalos. supervisor avalos: i would also give me the courtesy of not making an outburst when someone else is speaking. supervisor mirkarimi: madam

clerk, since there appears to be no other speakers, then roll call, please. clerk calvillo: of the motion to continue item 26 until friday at 3:00 p.m., [reading roll] there are six ayes and five noes. [applause] president chiu: soca colleagues, this item has been continued until january 7, this friday, a special meeting at the board,

3:00 p.m. [gavel] colleagues, we still have two in paris of items, and i believe that one was offered by boat supervisor alioto-pier -- by supervisor alioto-pier. clerk calvillo: yes, on behalf of supervisor alioto-pier, to have someone named. president chiu: we have a motion and a second. any public comment? can we take this item without objection? without objection, this appeared to biden is passed. supervisor dufty has, if i can ask individuals to please leave

the chamber is why we are still conducting business? the second imperative item. clerk calvillo: family service agency day, to recognize the 121st year of reform, innovation, and concern for the most vulnerable of san franciscans. president chiu: is there a second? second by supervisor alioto- pier. is there any public comment? colleagues, can we take this important item without objection? without objection, as indicated. ladies and gentlemen, can you please take your conversations out in the hallway?