supervisor daly? supervisor daly: we are about to experience the biggest fumble in the history of san francisco, the biggest fumble. the time is running down, right before you are crossing the goal line, to take the lead, it would not do this, will justice. the ball carrier is none other than our president, david chiu. bevan dufty played the foil well. this whole scene was to draw us in -- i like ed on a personal

level, but he will work for the other side, a progressive colleagues. a progressive majority on this board of supervisors. we had an opportunity, and we made the biggest fumble of san francisco political history. the blame probably goes to many places, but it's certainly rest squarely on the shoulders of president david chiu, and i am going to be willing to point others out, as well. i will remain involved and active after this vote and after the gavel goes down on this meeting. i will haunt you. i will politically haunt you. for the biggest fumble in the history of san francisco politics. it is on, like donkey kong.

president chiu: supervisor dufty? supervisor dufty: i think this shows how far we can let this process straight. i think that for myself, as much as i appreciate sherrif

hennessey, whether we vote for him or do not vote for him, the positions he takes should be his decision. as part of our decision or the next board's decision, i fully expect mr. li to do what is the right thing for san francisco, and that is not turning this process into a character about a political gamesmanship. it is about making the best decision, and i will live with my vote, and i would just live with theirs. president chiu: supervisor alioto-pier? supervisor alioto-pier: thank you, president chiu. i want to thank a supervisor

dufty, for his decision. thank you, supervisor daly. excuse me, supervisor daly. you have been speaking all night, and i think it is quite appropriate for us to make some final remarks, and, perhaps, we should call the sheriff. [gavel] president chiu: calling the question requires two seconds. are there two seconds? it is yours, supervisor alioto- pier. supervisor alioto-pier: this decision is not supposed to be about partisan politics or about having a shot at a power grab. we are supposed to be putting

someone in office who is going to represent the city and county of san francisco and is going to do it well, and the fact that ed has been the city administrator, it has been an appropriate place. frankly, i think that the incoming board of supervisors should put a charter amendment on the ballot so they do not have to go through the process we have had to go through. it should go to the city administrator, and it should go to the city administrator wrote, and when a new one is elected, it should go back to that position. what we have seen here is not necessarily a debate and ideas on people, but this political posturing, which, quite frankly, is not to the benefit of san francisco, so i would like to applaud supervisor dufty and the president of this board for the stance that they have taken.

thank you, thank you, supervisor daly. president chiu: are there two seconds to that? seconded by supervisor mirkarimi and supervisor chu. the question has been called. madam clerk, madam clerk, madam clerk. supervisor alioto-pier: it is hard to lose a vote, supervisor daly. president chiu: madam clerk, if you could call the roll on those who have been nominated, the first one being sheriff

hennessey, unless anyone would like to withdraw any of the nominations. supervisor mirkarimi? supervisor mirkarimi: i do not like the way this is degenerating. there is a lot of intrigue that seems to be piled on by whatever is being brokered, but in this case, i think this is a proper juncture to recall the nomination based on the previous counts, and i am not sure if we want to win of the list down, as well, so a motion to do that -- i am not sure if we want to winnow the list down. president chiu: supervisor

mirkarimi has withdrawn the name of one. that is in his right to do. i know there is a question that was called. there were two seconds, and at this point, can we do that unanimously, or do we need a vote? ok, supervisor alioto-pier, would you like to finish your statement? supervisor mar. supervisor mar: think you, president -- thank you, president chiu. were you done, supervisor alioto-pier? i will be supporting ed lee. i think he cares about working- class communities, and i know that firsthand from working with

him in the asian communities. an asian mayor of a city like san francisco, i think we can similarly have a succession like ed lee that will empower not only our city but others. i think he would be a very inclusive person as our succession mayor to help move the city forward, so i will be casting my vote for ed lee for succession mayor. president chiu: supervisor mirkarimi? supervisor mirkarimi: i think i have to say that there has been sincere support in bringing sides together, and based on even the signals from mayor newsom, the lieutenant governor- elect, about who was on his so- called shortlist as to who was

acceptable, i think a due diligence was well applied by all caucuses on this board to find where the common thread may be, and why we have had our own personal preferences or primary preferences, sheriff hennessey emerged on his list and had been well, i think, referenced by some of our colleagues who have now switched their votes to somebody who has now just sort of emerged more or less or at least been simmering, so the calculation that it occurred and caused a recess for that 20 minutes, and one that occurred since it came back this adds, i think, to a real, you know, question of sincerity by the

mayor and those representing, i think, that effort, and it speaks to an unseen leanness potentially -- unseemliness potentially about who would bring our different sides together. this, i think, it looks very pre-orchestrated. president chiu: supervisor avalos? supervisor avalos: my head is really spinning right now about how this was or was not orchestrated. i would like to have a recess for about one hour. to really ponder who i can talk with in some back room to figure

something out. president chiu: supervisor campos? supervisor campos: i think out of consideration for supervisor avalos, we should honor the recess. president chiu: there is a motion for supervisor avalos for one hour. supervisor avalos: i will go until 9:45, 1/4 to 10:00. president chiu: roll call. >> it is a double standard.

it is called privileged. clerk calvillo: [reading roll] there are nine ayes and two noes. president chiu: we will recess until 9:45.

[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