we don't know. we have seen -- we have seen several governments pumped $1 trillion into the economy. it is a huge amount of money. we have seen some improvements, but not the ones they were hoping for. great. ok. thanks, everybody.

supervisor kim: welcome to the rules committee. the clerk is linda wong. we would also like to thank the staff who record our meetings and make the transcripts available online at sfgov.org. >> the items are recommended will go to the full board on tuesday, february 15 unless otherwise indicated. supervisor kim: call item 1.

>> to increase the compensation for the members of the board of education to 50,000 a year. establishing professional development requirements and require the city to appropriate an amount sufficient to pay the salaries and benefits. supervisor kim: will there be a presentation between the first draft and the second? no? should we open up for discussion? any comments? i would like to open it up for public comment. supervisor dufty: a love, former

colleagues. -- hello, former colleagues. from the time i originally introduced this measure, we got feedback from educational leaders and organizations. it would reduce the compensation to $25,000 and not look to have a qualified for pension. the purpose is that we can compensate and recognize them work of the members of the board of education. several members of the board have been compensated $6,000 a year or $5 a month since 1983. in my opinion, they spend at least half or 3/4 of their time

attending to duties and responsibilities of overseeing the public education system that will soon be serving 50,000 students. their involvement in meetings, phone calls, contact with parents, and school visits, working on policy papers and other briefing materials and elsewhere to provide educational leadership in a time of great crisis. i want to indicate that i have a couple of letters of support from current school board members that i believe have been shared with you. i am pleased that the person that leaves -- leads indicates his support.

dear supervisors, it is not unusual for a union president to comment on the pay of his members losses. but the charter amendment compels me to do so. i remember when the position you currently serve and was essentially an unpaid. -- serve in was essentially unpaid. likewise, the board of education is entrusted with the most precious of all commodities, our children and our future. they do their work for $500 a month and for the most part, without staff. now there is an opportunity to see the baseline of competition for members of the board of education. he has proposed a reasonable approach to solving the problem.

i urge you to support the measure when it goes to the voters. supervisor kim: thank you. any other public comment? for the sake of the minutes, can you say if you are in support or in opposition to the charter amendment. >> the support is 50,000? supervisor kim: it has been amended to 25,000. i thought it was amended. >> walter paulson. ♪ clock strikes upon the hour as the bell begins to ring they want to thank you for this $25,000 that you bring ♪ ♪ and in the winter, spring, and fall, they want to thank you for

awhile -- it all ♪ ♪ the field to help you give so much -- they feel the help you give so much ♪ supervisor kim: thank you. >> good afternoon, supervisors. it is hard to say whether i am for or against without seeing the second draft. what i sought in the first draft, there was language about the board of supervisors from july of 2000 being put into the san francisco retirement system. it is not clear to me what the relevance of that language is regarding compensating school board officials.

if the city is going to fund the salaries, they should take more control of the school board. finally, let me say this. if the school district is cutting 50% of the school buses this year, it will be difficult to pass this proposed charter amendment. you ought to think really seriously before putting this on the ballot, which will be an additional expense for the city. supervisor kim: is there any other public comment at this time? if you are speaking for public comment, light up now. -- line up now. >> i am in support of the amendment. i can speak firsthand just as an observer, the fact that it should really be recognized to give some money for -- i think a

lot of what i would be repeating, if she is not at a point -- i was thinking of giving a copy of the google calendar for this month. it is kind of stressful on the family. i go to sleep before her in the evening, and she is off every day if not during a school -- touring a school, trying to help some parent out. she worked over 40 hours a week and is incredibly dedicated. it should be recognized on a micro scale. she is marketable in other areas, and it is hurting us

financially that she is making this sacrifice. i said she does a great job, and this job as a luxury. we don't have that luxury all the time. from the macro standpoint, we are using 1983's numbers. what i also understand, there is not a single other an elected official that isn't paid something. quite frankly, these days, it is not even that much these days. i don't think it will necessarily impact the numbers all that much. what it really comes down to is

an acknowledgement of the hard work she is doing and venice. supervisor kim: i see no other public comment at this time. i will be closing public comment. in discussing this legislation, it was not originally conceived in our office, but i want to thank supervisor dufty's office. as someone who is a former commissioner of the board of education, i have a very personal understanding of the time commitment it takes to set on this board. it is often looked at -- at minimum, if you only attend board meetings, it is a minimum of 20 hours a week.

it doesn't include a meeting with parents, schools, students, teachers. even knowing that board members are not compensated, a lot of public doesn't even realize it is a huge sacrifice. i think a lot of our board members spend closer to 20 or 40 hours a week. the exceptions we have seen our board members that have worked in the board of education. it is often viewed as a conflict. many of the board members have to leave their positions. their votes are not viewed as a conflict of interest. i am in support of this measure. it is good that we set it against the salary of a first-

year teacher. they are intertwined very personally with how we are paying those that work directly in the classroom. we are looking at only 50%. i know that we are looking at a couple of amendments today. to summarize the amendments before, under section 8.100b, and the proposed compensation had been reduced 50% from the $50,000 a year to one half of the salary of a first-year teacher. the number has come down significantly. it addresses the city's responsibility under city funding. the obligation to pay the board member's salaries would and when the district is repaid by the state for any current and existing prop 98 reduction.

the third amendment eliminates the proposed requirement that the board of education adopt specific policies incurred by the board members. there is an amendment to eliminate the proposal of the first draft to authorize the members to participate in the retirement system. this would allow flexibility for board members to have other employment commitments. finally, i am interested in a proposal to take out a requirement that the school district provide lifetime health benefits for any current or past members of the board of education with 20 years of service or more. can i get a motion?

any discussion? supervisor elsbernd: i'm assuming the amendments you're talking about are the ones distributed to our office. i assume you are taking out subsection c? lifetime health benefits? that is gone. we are not proposing that? supervisor kim: [inaudible] supervisor elsbernd: ok. i am more than happy to adopt the amendment right now. supervisor kim: thank you. is there discussion on this item?

>> let me share some of my thoughts. thank you for addressing the health benefit issue. i think it is a bit misleading to say this is based solely on the first-year teacher. that is the first year. as i read the proposal here, beginning in 2013, regardless of what the teacher makes, there is an increase for the salary. prospectively, down the line, the salary is going to continue to escalate year over year. eventually, it will be higher than more than one half of a first-year teacher. i think we should be very careful how we sell what the salary is.

since this will be in committee next week, i imagine some folks at the school district are watching or word will get back to unhook. there are couple of questions of like them to answer. the city funding. i like that there is an attempt to said that the cost will shift to the school district, but realistically, when will proposition 98 be fully restored? really, the city is going to be covering the costs in perpetuity. i don't know if the state will fully reimburse. i wish they would, but i don't see that happening. i would like to hear from the

school district whether or not they would be able to take on the entire funding. i would like to know from mr. kelly if he is a tale of the city paying for this. i bet he is. what about the school district paying for it? right now, we have -- there is the state legislation on the ballot and presumably two items. one item is moving through the ethics commission and might not need to be on the ballot. in which case, we would have the state legislation and this item. i have a question for the department of elections. does that mean the city will have to bear the cost of a citywide election? i wonder if we want to pay the

entire cost for one item. is this -- if this is important to the school district, do they want to bear that cost? even if the cost can be segregated, i would like an answer from the school district if the costs associated with one ballot measure -- and that of lincoln segregate the costs -- which the school district hypocaust of one ballot measure? and the other question i have got, i guess there is a bit of a political push to keep it off of the november ballot. the school district will ask to raise property taxes for a general obligation. the last thing i think they want to do politically is to raise your taxes to pay for capital works.

we want to pay the elected officials more money. i wonder if we are shooting ourselves in the flood -- foot? we will hear a pin down, over and over again, we need to preserve our safety net and preserve education, and at the same time, we want to take some of our budget. we will pay an elected official's salaries. i wonder if we are shooting ourselves in the foot on both cases. the last question and potentially the most difficult one to ask, i say this respectfully which mr. norton here. people who are in office now ran

for office knowing the rules of the game. respectfully, when you ran into one, you knew you were going to get paid $500 a month. the fairest way to do this is to say, if you run again, you get it. but right now, you know what you are signing up for. to grant this in the middle of the term, i don't favthink it is just. i have a number of questions articulate it, but i can talk more about that next week. >> we will have some opportunity for comments next week. i did not get a copy of the amendment before coming to this meeting. supervisor kim: our office will definitely call the department

of elections and hopefully, someone from sfpuc about the cost of the collection if we were to have only one city measure on the ballot. and the likelihood of the stake being able to pay back the deficit. just quickly, in response, there is a time that the board of supervisors would consider part- time employment. i know that it applied to the existing supervisors. they know how many hours we worked. regardless of how much we are paid. we do it because of the census and the desire to hold public assistance accountable. that is not an excuse for her not paying compensation to the work that is done. the board of education plays a very important role. there has never been a good year to propose this charter.

there have been budget cuts to public schools, a number of bonds, and i don't think there is ever going to be a good year to present this. i do share some of the concerns about the cost of running an election, so we definitely want to get some questions answered. the school district will be putting a bond measure on the november 2011 ballot. that is very important for the district and the board members. it is about the updating of our schools. supervisor elsbernd: may be something for you, if you don't have it today, the potential middle ground here. simply taking the language of compensation out of the charter, what i like to be able

to get at is a scenario where the charter doesn't have to set the salary for the board of education. let them set their own salary with the budget. if they genuinely think they are under compensated and they want to make them a priority, that would be fine with me. if they want to put a value judgment that they should be paid $25,000 or $50,000, okay. i would be fine with a charter amendment that sets up that process. to continue to have the salary in the charter is really my problem. if you can let me know whether it is something that is possible, i would be willing to look at that. supervisor kim: this item will be continued until a special rules committee at a time to be determined. will you call item number two?

>> [unintelligible] supervisor kim: mr. kelly. if you're in the audience, please come forward and if you could introduce yourself to the rules committee. >> good afternoon, chair kim. thank you for letting me speak to you regarding my nomination and qualifications. i am in a last-minute case, so i will be mercifully brief. i am honored to be nominated for an appointment to the san francisco relocation appeals board. i believe i am well qualified to i believe i am well qualified to serve in that capacity