for $1,000. from cost to you, -- from us to you, thank you so much. [applause] we would also like to present to san francisco city coalition at $5,000 tool donation. [applause]

now, lowe's would like to have the mayor and district supervisor do our board cutting ceremony. [applause] mayor newsom: congrats, everybody. worked out.

worked out for the neighborhood as well.

supervisor campos: good morning, everyone. welcome to the january 3, 2011 meeting of the board of supervisors to rules committee. my name is david composts, the chair of the committee. to my left is the committee vice chair, michaele alioto-pier.

to my right is committee members supervisor eric mar. the clerk of the committee is linda wong. we want to thank the sfgtv staff for covering this today. thank you all for being here and those of you watching. happy new year. best wishes for all of you for 2011. madam clerk, do we have any announcements? >> the items on the agenda today are intended to be sent to the full body unless otherwise indicated. supervisor campos: we have a number of items on the agenda today. before we begin, i know john avalos wanted to sit dowin on te meeting. i understand he will be here

shortly. i think supervisor dufty may be coming in as well. before we begin, i thought we would give the supervisor an opportunity. ok, supervisor avalos is here. we have been joined by supervisor avalos, the chair of the budget committee, representing district 11. good morning. >> good morning. thank you for having me here, chair campos, colleagues. what i am about to do today is perhaps unpopular, perhaps not welcome by pierre -- people who are here today but i have a concern about the board of supervisors being asked to make appointments to concur with mayor appointments for commission while the mayor has

delayed his swearing in in sacramento so as to avoid this current board making appointments for the interim mayor position. to me, the mayor cannot have it both ways. i would ask that we delay -- there are people in the audience here who want to be appointed who i support. but i feel we are making a strong statement if we except the mayor delaying him being sworn in in sacramento so that he candlelight the business -- he can delay the business as usual politics here. the board has a responsibility to make an appointment. the mayor ran for lieutenant governor and one. he should be sworn in with all of the current statewide representatives, governor, secretary of state, attorney general, who are being sworn in

today. that is consistent, what the people of california voted for. that is why the democratic party supported mayor gavin newsom. we should have a new lieutenant governor today sitting in sacramento in office. we should not have a republican lt. gov. waiting in the wings for gavin newsom to replace him one week from now, two weeks from now. that is not how she would be -- how we should be doing politics in sacramento. frankly, i am alarmed that we are at this state right now in san francisco. supervisor campos: supervisor alioto-pier? supervisor alioto-pier: i just want to make sure with our city attorney that this is in a corporate conversation to be having. it is not on the agenda -- supervisor campos: my understanding is these are items

on the agenda. in the context of discussing these items, we can take into consideration the political reality we are facing in san francisco, which is exactly what supervisor avalos was referring -- >> not that we reject the people before us but that we continue the items until we have some sense of what is going to happen with the chaos being created here in california and san francisco. supervisor campos: if i may, let me first of all began by thanking you for coming to the committee. anyone who has watched the way you do your job and those that you are very careful about any statement that you make. i think the statement you made about the reality of these appointments is something that comes from a realization, that we have a unique situation happening here, one that

requires a lot of thought and consideration. the reality is, what we have done, as a committee, so that the public knows, is from the beginning trying to be very accommodating to mayor newsom. the bulk of these appointments were made very late in the administration. in fact, the bulk of them were made on december 1, way past the time that we had already scheduled the last committee meeting of this body. nonetheless, out of respect for the office of the mayor, we went ahead and scheduled a special meeting because we wanted to work with the mayor and accommodate him because we have consistently tried to demonstrate this board is willing to work with mayor newsom. but what he is doing is essentially questioning the legitimacy of this board. he is essentially saying these

boards of supervisors, as much as he may dislike some of the policies of members of the board, is essentially saying that they do not have the legitimacy to decide on the question of nature. he said that he will essentially stay in office so that the next board can make that decision. at the same time he is doing that, he is also asking the sport, whose legitimacy he has questions, to turn around and confirm these appointments. it is inconsistent, to say the least, to take that position. i agree with supervisor avalos that it is unfortunate that many of these nominees find themselves in this situation because many of them i would be supportive of. the reason we have such a large turnout for so many of them is because there is a lot of

community support for them, but i think this issue goes beyond this specific appointment. it goes to the legitimacy of this board and the power and authority of the board. i see vince courtney, other people that we have a lot of respect for, but i think you raise an important question about whether or not we should move forward with these appointments. i have to say, at this point, as much as i would like to support some of these individuals, i do not think it makes sense for us to do that. i believe the authority, the legitimacy of this board is at issue, and it is unfortunate that mayor newsom, a former member of this board, has chosen to question the legitimacy. supervisor mar? supervisor mar: i just wanted to

share my colleague's concerns for mayor newsom delaying his swearing in ceremony, after making comments that he was sure he would not do so. as supervisor campos said, it throws into question the legitimacy of the board to make decisions on our own. i also the knowledge that every effort has been made to look at and an ally different candidates, nominees, and that these last minute nominees put us in a crunch. there are a number of people on the agenda today and i was prepared to support many of them, but also, with respect to the a number of the candidates who have so much experience in their field, but i wanted to ask cheryl adams, if we continue this item, our the could this

come back to the rules committee? >> there are a number of different types of appointments on the agenda today, so i will walk through the different consequences that would occur, if you were to continue. the appointments to the historical preservation commission, items one through six, those are appointments where the appointment is subject to board approval. if the board fails to act within 60 days of transmission, then the appointment is deemed approved. i notice from the agenda the transmittal date was december 1. so you have 60 days from december 1 to act before the appointment would go into effect. so you would not lose the ability to confirm or not if you continued those. a plug into the public utilities

commission -- appointment to the public is utilities commission is subject to public approval. there is no consequence of failing to act, other than the appointment does not become effective. you do not lose the ability to make or confirm after the expiration of any certain amount of time. the same is the case for numbers 12 and 13, the appointments to the port commission. for items nine, 10, 11, i think those are appointments at the mayor may make pursuant to 3100 of the charter. that goes into effect when the mayor exercises them. that is the default when there is no specified process for an appointment, which is the case for all of these others. the relocation appeals board,

city hall preservation advisory, and mta. supervisor campos: what is the deadline by which we would have to act on those three? >> they were received december 1 , so the clerk is showing me mta is subject to confirmation by the board. so there would be no consequence to not acting today. supervisor campos: what about nine and 10? >> they are subject to board approval without any date or dead line to rejection. in a sense, they all have slightly different moving parts,

but for all of them, if the committee wanted to continue action on items, you would not lose the ability to take action on them on another time. supervisor campos: so far none of them we would not be approving them defacto if we did not approve them today. >> correct. on the historic preservation committee, you would have a 60- day time line. supervisor campos: since you are up there, there is a legal question whether or not, when the mayor ceases to be mayor and becomes lieutenant governor, the california constitution makes clear that the person assuming the office of lieutenant governor does so on january 3. in light of that, you have a situation, notwithstanding what mayor newsom has indicated, that

the board could choose an interim mayor prior to his being sworn in as a lieutenant governor. what happens in that situation if a new mayor chooses to go in a different direction with respect to these appointments? >> if a new mayor decided to withdraw the appointments and make new ones? supervisor campos: yes. >> we have done some legal opinions on that. i want to go back and confirm what we have said in the past. supervisor campos: to your knowledge, if there is a new mayor coming in this week, a person decides to withdraw these appointments, that that is something that the individual would have authority to do? >> where subjects to the board approval and the appointment has not been made effective.

yes, i think the mayor could pull those appointments. supervisor campos: does the city attorney's office have an opinion on when mayor newsom becomes lieutenant governor? >> we have retained separate counsel for you on the mayoral questions because the city attorney has indicated there may be an appearance of a conflict to advise the board on succession and appointment of interim mayor. supervisor campos: i think that is something we are going to have to ask. if the constitution -- if what the constitution says is what governs, then as of noon on january 3, mayor newsom is the lieutenant governor of california. it would be good to know exactly, under the law, who would be the mayor for the city and county.

supervisor alioto-pier? supervisor alioto-pier: i am going to admit, i am a little taken aback. i was not expecting this. the main questions i have in front of me stem around the people we are looking at and the appointment being made. quite frankly, the quality of the nominations, which are extremely high -- as you have all mentioned already. andrew wolfram for historic preservation, has been extremely helpful to me with ada-related issues. richard johns comes highly respected. karl hasz has done a fantastic job. vince courtney, as mentioned

earlier, would be a great addition to the puc. henry kamm, herb cohn, relocation. leona bridges, resonate and the call that we have got and show that she is a truly exceptional candidate. leslie katz for the port. these are great appointments and i find it difficult to sit and claimed that the mayor is not properly doing his job by letting us vote for interim mayor -- i understand that point. bear in mind, of the four of us, i am the only one who will not

be able to participate in the interim mayor vote if it takes place in the new board. i will also be the only one nonparticipating in this particular committee. the decision that are made here. so there is a bit of hypocrisy with the argument big as we could then place that argument back on ourselves and the rules committee not doing the job presented before them. of course, also, we did schedule a hearing. [applause] i think it is something that probably should be said. obviously, i will not be in support of not moving forward. i would like us to move forward because the nominations are good ones. i think they are a benefit to the city. at the end of the day, we need

to look of what is best for san francisco and move these apartments forward is what is best for the city, regardless of the politics that the city is going through. [applause] supervisor campos: supervisor avalos? >> i just want to be clear that i am in no way questioning the qualifications of the nominees today. there are many people on today's agenda that i intend to support and i will wholeheartedly supports, and it is not an argument about the current border supervisors. it is an argument about the mayor. -- current board of supervisors. if anyone is taken aback, i am taken aback that we are asked to approve these appointments but we are not allowed to make an interim mayoral appointment. the mayor is deliberately delaying his swearing in. the constitution seems pretty clear and the spirit is

absolutely clear that january 3 is the day to be sworn in as lieutenant governor. to think that we are going to question the constitution to have a vote smacks of hypocrisy at best. and shame on the "chronicle" editorial board for suggesting that the mayor should delay his swearing in. this is about the constitution of the united states. there would be an incredible precedents if we were to delay swearing in the lieutenant governor-elect. people all across the state would then be able to question when they should and should not serve office. that is a crisis of the constitution and we should not be aiding that in san francisco. i would encourage this committee not to reject anyone here -- that is not my intention -- but to continue the item to the next rules committee meeting to send

a message. supervisor campos: supervisor dufty? we have been joined by supervisor dufty. >> happy new year, everybody. i am not a member of this committee but i came to see several of the nominees. for two of us, it is our last week. i have loved doing this job, serving with my colleagues. i would just offer that i do not think we are fully certain as to the mayor's intentions. there is a process of dialogue and discussion that will take place in the next day or so. i am fairly agnostic as to whether i need to a vote on the next mayor, but i feel it should be an orderly process. i agree, there should be a bit more information. i think some of the people that have been grateful, and judging individuals on the content of their character, what they can

contribute, and that is the purpose of this committee. to consider the individuals that come before us. the role of the commission is to be citizen overseers. they are not specified under the charter to bring unique qualities to the job, other than they are san francisco citizens who can contribute to ensuring that our government is responsive and reflects the concerns of our citizens. i came today because i am interested in some of the people coming before the committee this morning. given the strong attendance here, we would do the people's business and consider their apartment based on their merits. as a non-voting supervisor, i would trust your decisions as to whether or not to forward these decisions, but i would hope that we could do so this morning. [applause] supervisor campos: supervisor alioto-pier? supervisor alioto-pier: thank

you, colleagues. one other thing that is important to note, mayor newsom is the elected mayor of san francisco. he was elected by the citizens of san francisco, by a pretty heavy percentage. the next interim mayor will not be someone who has been elected by the city, by the city and county. i think there is a distinction there. also, we do not know who the interim mayor is. we do not know then that person will come in and change these appointments. these are people we would like to vote for, but there is no guarantee the people before us today will be here at a couple weeks beforlater. i do believe the mayor is tying

up his loose ends before he leaves, and one of them is ensuring the commissioners are appointed by someone who has been elected by the people. i think that is a distinction we should be making here, that the interim mayor will not be elected by the people, and that they will be an interim period quite frankly, in this particular context, mayor newsom is finishing up his job before he moves on to another one. i do not think there is anything inappropriate about it. frankly, it does put the concerns of the city and county of san francisco once ahead ahead of politics, and that is an important thing we're doing here today. truthfully, i think these appointments should go forward and we should continue doing the job we were elected to do as well. [applause]

supervisor campos: i do not want to belabor the point, but since we are talking about the people, yes, mayor newsom was collected by the people of san francisco, but he was also elected by the people of california to be the lieutenant governor, who is meant to take office january 3. it is about the people, let's not lose sight of the people of california as well. let us remind ourselves that this whole situation happening in city hall the past few weeks was not something that we on the board of supervisors created. mayor newsom created this problem when he decided to run for lieutenant governor, when he decided to leave the job he was elected to perform to move on to another job. that is when this situation was created. we are simply trying to make the

most of a situation, and the underlying problem here, as someone who has chaired the committee, but the items on the agenda, following the agenda, has been questioning the legitimacy of this board. that is what i have a question over. the mayor is questioning the legitimacy of this board, and at the same time, asking the board to take action. so with that, let's call item one. >>motion approving the mayor's nomination for reappointment of andrew wolfram to the historical preservation commission, seat no. 2, for a four-year term ending december 31, 2014. would you like me to read item to as well? -- two as well? supervisor campos: this is a redeployment to the