report. >> can you call in #5? >> this is the campaign in government conduct code, to modify the reporting requirements for this issue, receiving gifts for travel. ord supervisor kim: thank you.. ord we have john st. croix, director of ethics commission is here to speak about this order nance. thank you for being here. >> thank you. these are small but important reforms closing a couple of loopholes in current law. currently city employees and officers are predicted from receiving gifts on restricted sourcings. this would extend that

prohibition to loans as well as gifts. also, there are times when government employees and officers are allowed to accept travel from nongovernmental entities. this will make shoe the -- sure the law includes individuals as well as organizations. finally, state law has been modified so that municipalties can no longer travel as a gift to have city and assign that to someone else. we are changing regulation regarding that. supervisor kim: thank you. just a quick question. i saw that -- sorry. i'm looking. do you have the file, the travel gift prior to going on the trip or prior to accepting the trip? >> local law requires that officials report travel in advance. supervisor kim: in advance. thank you. those are the clarifying questions.

any other questions or comments? thank you very much for being here. at this time we will open up for public comment. is there any public comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is now closed. to we have a motion to move this forward? >> motion to move forward with recommendation. supervisor kim: without objection. madam clerk, please call item number six. >> charter amendment to amend the chart every of the city and county of san francisco by amending sex 14 .101. supervisor kim: and thank you. and supervisor wiener the -- wiener the here to speak on this item. supervisor wiener: thank you. today the rules academy committee is considering an overdue good government measure. a charter amendment that will

create greater flexibility for our a democratically elected government and enhance our ability to govern while expecting our voters to participate in the process. it will do so by allowing, after a certain number of years, the board of supervisors to amend or repeal ordinances that have been adopted by the ordinances instead of requiring any and all chances to the -- changes to the ordinances no matter how minor, no matter how yours -- universally supported or no matter how many years have past have to go back to the voters. one of the scront -- constant complaints i hear from voters is why can't the board do its job and pass legislation without asking us? as we know there are charter amendments, taxes and bonds that

state law requires us to submit to voters. awe -- but other ballot matters are required only because of our specific charters. this charter amendment would allow the board of supervisors to amend and in some circumstances repeal ordinances adopted by the voters that have been on the books for a significant period of time. there were currently 21 states in the united states that allow their elek or rates to -- elek rates to adopt statue chutes there the electoral process. 12 place no limitation whatsoever on the slur's authority to repeal or -- legislature's authority to repeal or amend. each state allows amendment or appeal after a period of time passes, allowing changes only with a assumer majority vote or some combination of the two.

only one state, california, doesn't allow the state legislature to make changes to voter adopted statutes. here we're not dealing with the state legislature but our own local charlotter and we have the ability to allow our local government to amend or repeal voter adopted ballot measures. this is modest step. most ballot measures such as charter amendments, bonds, and taxes would be unaffected by this measure. this would only impact ordinances and policy statements. specifically, our charter currently provides that unless otherwise provided in the ordinance, any ordinance that the voters adopt, whether placed on the ballot by signature, the board of supervisors or the mayor, cannot be amended except by the voters. the rationale is to prevent the board from undermining the will

of the voters. i respect that ration nail. the problem is that it is eternal, no matter how much time has passed, no matter how minor the change, any change to a voter-adopted ordinance, however large or small, must go back to the voters, must add to what the voters have to work their way through in voting and has to go through that process. for example, i recently introduced a ballot measure at the request of the ethics commission to make technical changes to the political consultant reporting requirements to enhance and harmonize then with the lobbyist reporting around nance -- ordinance. it's ridiculous that the voters have to vote on these technical amendments but because it was originally adopted by the voters, that's what we have to do. i know i will get phone calls from constituents asking why are you making me vote on this?

the charter amendment would put in place a standard formula for when a voter amendment can be repealed or amended. for the first three years, the board would be prohibitted from amending or repealing. for the next four years, the board would be allowed to amend or repeal with a 2/3 super majority. after seven years, the board would be allowed to amend or repeal the ordinance. for ballots placed on the ballot by signature, the board would only be able to amend the ordinances and never be allowed to repeal them. as soon as i entrusted this measure, people began to ask what ordinances i would wants to repeal or aend? some people assumed i must have a secret agenda. the honest answer is i don't other than an agenda of good government.

i don't have any legislation in mind they want to change that would be impacted by this. some people have said this is anti-democratic. two responses to that. first of all, the voters of san francisco, if we let them, will get an opportunity to vote up or down on this. that's highly democratic, and the board of supervisors and the mayor are the democrat lick -- democratically elected representatives of the people so i think this is a very democratic proposal. in addition, this proposal cuts across the san francisco political stect rum. voter adopted ordinances in san francisco range in the extreme moderate to the extreme progressive. this is not a progressive-moderate issue. it is quite equal opportunity. this charter amendment will allow this board to do its job and legislation -- slate, including fixing legislation that needs to be fixed and

repealing legislation after a period of time has passed when that legislation has outlived its usefulness. i ask for your support. supervisor kim: thank you, supervisor. i was wondering how you came up with the number of years, the three, the seven-year cycle, if there's any kind of rationale behind that? >> i wanted to come up with a number of years that was significant but not over the top and so there's nothing sacred about those number of years. if others have views about that i'm definitely open to that. supervisor kim: also, has thereby any conversation about always keeping it a super majority in terms of amending or repealing ordinances? >> that would be a possibility as well. i'm definitely open to various

ideas about how to structure this. supervisor kim: thank you. anyo questions or comments? titcht we'll open it up for public comment. please step up to the mike. two minutes, please. >> thank you. supervisors, my name is ray. i'm director of san francisco open government and i have a real objection to this because there are only two ways that the citizens of this city have control over the board of supervisors. one is the ballot box, the second is the initiative. this takes the initiative process and guts it. because after three years, you can pass by a simple majority, changes to any initiative the citizens pass which will effectively make it unimplementable. a perfect example is the sunshine ordinance. it's been in effect for 12 years. it has been supported by nobody. not the board of supervisors, not the ethics commission and certainly not the city attorney. this is a blatant attempt to

take any legislation with which the board of supervisors has a problem and after three years allow it to simply take out whatever little pieces will make it unworkable. and basically i have watched how the implementation of these things go on. if people don't like them, you delay implementation for two ore three years. at that point this would allow you to change two or three sections, such as enforcement capabilities or whatever, which would make the law meaningless. i know it's been portrayed as little changes to take -- make it technically more first quarter but it's going to allow city government to maintain control over the board of supervisors and take control of the initiative process from citizens. it takes a lot. it takes thousands if not tens of thousands of citizens to get an initiative on the ballot and once it's on the ballot, it

should remain there until the citizens decide they've had enough. otherwise, basically there's really no way for a citizen group to get together, band together about issues over which they have concern. supervisor kim: thank you. any other public comment then item? >> san francisco information clearinghouse. a couple of points. first of all, this seems to be a solution to -- in search of a problem. the concern of supervisor wiener is that voters are so tired of voting on these aren't simply carried out by the facts. between 1961 and 2010, there were a total of 940 ballot measures placesed before the voters in san francisco. less than 20% or those that supervisor wiener's would

address and of those 20% of those roughly 198 initiative ordinances, voters, who i assume you all three would believe are the most discerning voters in the united states since they elected all three of you -- san francisco voters rejected over 50% of those initiative ordinances. leaving about 96 in place. or passing 9 of them. this is hardly a burden. 190 votes over 50 years of -- this is quite simply a repeal of one of the corner stonse of progressive politics in california from the 1890's to the present. the initiative is a curiously important document.

let me just complete by saying -- let me make some assumptions about what will not be reviewed. domestic partners, which was an initiative ordinance. will not be reviewed by in or any other supervisors. care not cash will not. sit-lie will not be. neighborhood firehouses, golden gate park garages. what will be is shadows and parks, proposition m, proposition h, the water front plan. formula retail use and evection controls. this is not the way to govern a stiff. this is a way to create another fight over settled issues. thank you. supervisor kim: i do have a follow-up question. thank you very much for being here. over the last 50 years you've calculated 940 ballot measures, including charter amendments, bonds, and 20% you're saying

would be addressed by this legislation. >> correct. well, not even 20%. about 10%, because 98 of those initiatives were denied by the voters. so only 96 passed. so it would be only 96 ordinances would be subject to this measure. supervisor kim: ok. so there are 940 ballot measures. >> right. 194 were initiative ordinances. 96 passed. 9 were rejected. supervisor kim: ok. 98 rejected. great. so roughly 200 ordinances that go to the voters, half of which are rejected. so there are currently 96 that are in place over the last 50 years. great. thank you so much for that. >> certainly. supervisor kim: is there any other public comment? please do line up. thank you. >> madam chair, i am here to urge you to reject this proposal

. it would erode the crucial citizen right to pass an initiative measure to address an abusive power by government. there is usually a compelling reason for citizens to take the time to mount a campaign to circulate petitions to place a item on the ballot. this -- limiting the effect of duration of a vormente responded initiative to three years would erode this power and reduce the citizen right to a temporary fix. the legislative digest fails to present any specific justification for the broad amendment proposed, which would apply to all voter response initiatives. today supervisor wiener mentioned only one which does not warrant such a broad amendment so.

in no event should the initiatives placed on the blopt by voter petition be included in this amendment and we urge you to remove those provisions which is all of subdivision b from the measure and if you must pass it to the board, merely limit it to the initiative measures sponsored by the members of the board and the mayor. there's already a provision, a procedure by which any necessary correction can be made to a voter initiative and that is the board can place a proposal on the ballot and the voters can decide whether it is warranted. please do not take any action which would erode the cherished right of voter initiative. we need this check on the power of government. we don't know what kind of board we'll have in the future. thank you very much. supervisor kim: thank you. next? thank you.

>> thank you. good afternoon committee members. i'm the policy director of professional and technical engineers local 21. and i'm here to tell you that we have very serious concerns about the charter amendment being proposed. in essence it allows the board to amend or repeal measures in a number of cases and while we recognize that the intent of the measure is to give the board the authority to make technical changes, correct inadvertent errors and general lean-up, which we are certainly sympathetic to, we believe the measure opens the door to much more than that. there's very little that would preclude a future board from amending or repealing measures that may have been popular -- that may be popular with the

voters but not with the board. we believe the measure could result in significant litigation over the interpretation of whether amended language furthers the goal of the ballot measure. or worse, we could see controversial measures being modified one way by one group of board members and another way by another group of board members when they come in. we think this undermines the right of voters to enact legislation without fear it could be changed or repealed. we are very willing to work with the author, but we request that you not bring this to the full board at this time. thank you. supervisor kim: thank you. >> good afternoon. i urge you not to bring this amendment to the full board. it does seem to violate the rights of the voter. i know the board of supervisors is -- and the mayor are unduly

burdened by many initiatives that are passed by voters, but this is not the way to correct that. i can't believe that if this did go forward that it would not be overturned by a court at some near future daytime. thank you. supervisor kim: thank you. >> good afternoon, supervisors. chair kim. judy berkowitz. supervisors, where's the beef? show me the money. there's no -- on this. this as is, as mr. welch said, a solution in search of a problem. there is no ordinances or declarations passed in the past 25, 350 years. mr. welch came up with numbers

but where's column a with the exact ledge. column b where has it gone to the voters to change in any way and column c, what the outcome was in that? there's no evidence anywhere that there's a need for this. it is reported to be good government, but it's taking away all -- including the signature initiated initiatives, it's taking away any of -- authority from the people. until such time as evidence has been brought forward in the form of columns a, b, and c, i urge you to keep this in committee, table it. do not pass it on to the full board, and if anything has to happen, take section b out.

thank you. supervisor kim: thank you. >> hi, i'm david. i'm a 15-year member of the city and i've voted on many initiatives and i'm appalled to see that there's an attempt here to gut some of the initiatives that we voted on. what i see is the new board has shifted to the right. pro business, pro developer. those initiatives you all don't like that protect the voters and our interests, you want to do what you can to take away our rights and i'm not ok with that. i'm concerned with things by proposition m and formula retail and the concern about evictions. all these things are threatened by this paragraph you're trying to institute by undermining initiatives. it would also discourage people from submitting new initiatives. we should be encouraging, not discouraging that. we want democracy, grassroots.

not power from the top. autocracy. there's a mention this isn't going to affect things put on the ballot by petitioning and collecting petition signatures, but the pros by which the board submits charters to be voted on, there's nothing wrong with that. that's a good way to say to the voters, we have a proposal. let's look at and it vote on it. you have no right to take those voted on in the past to -- away from us. i found this letter from an attorney at law. she said that the california constitution states all inherent powers are in the people. government have the right to alter when the public good may require. arm two, section one. she goes on to say that the

california elections code expressly provides that no measure can be repealed except by a vote of the people unless provision is otherwise made in the original ordinance. it has its roots in the constitutional right, ensuring that successful initiatives will not be undone by supervisors. supervisor kim: thank you. do you think you can turn that into the committee? thank you. any other public comment smith seeing none, public comment is now closed. first of all, i just want to thank supervisor wiener. regardless of whether you agree or disagree with this charter amendment, i think it is an important discussion to always continue to have in terms of what good policymaking means and it's for the city. i think there are probably many

instances in which we do have to come to voters for a very small technical amendment. but, of course, i completely understand concerns about changing the spirit of initiatives that voters have spent a great deal of time putting forward to the city. you know, just speaking personally, i always had concerns about state's ballot initiatives. i don't view it as a democratic pros. i think it is a process that has been taken over by money and the winner is always the person with the most dollars and it's not necessarily a democratic process by which we slate. -- legislate. i think on a local level there's a lot stronger grassroots organizing that happens here in the city of san francisco and we're very fortunate to have such an engaged con stitch yens si. in many ways i think we have a much more informed voting

community. i think money does get involved in a lot of these races and many times it's based on messaging. and oftentimes voters don't have a larger sense of the larger policies that take place. i will bring up the fire department brownout measure that voters overwhelming supported without necessarily an understanding of our city's budget and the needs that we may have. so i do this those concerns often come up and i don't like legislating through the ballot box. that being said, i know that this is a significant piece of legislation. i think that there should be a lot of dialogue around this. i don't know if there are any other comments or you want to respond supervisor wine summer supervisor wiener: absolutely. -- just a couple of things i want to say. what i've consistently said about this is that this is a modest step and i think mr.

welch's comments, actually, it's a double edged sword for the argument he's making. if this affected 800 out of 1,000 ballot measures the argument would be you're trying to take a wrecking ball to every ballot measure. this is intended to be a modest step and the fact that it affects in the big scheme of things a small number of ballot measures i think was actually my intent. it was not to have an overly brood measure. in addition, the charter amendments, they have to go to the voters. we can't change our charter to impact that. we only have this kind of control over ordinances. in addition, and i think -- i'm glad that mr. wall much went through some of the various ordinances that have been passed by the voters and they do go all the way across the political spectrum and i just want to reiterate that this is not about

having a list of what we want to change. it's about if we want to structure our government in the most effective way possible. i think this is step in that direction. and in the end this would be up to the voters when whether they want to give us the power. this could go on the blopt and pass overwhelming or be defeated overwhelming. i think we should allow the voters to make that choice. with that said, before yesterday, there was a remarkable radio silence about this measure, despite the fact they introduced it i think about six weeks ago. so i hadn't really gotten much feedback until i started getting some emails at about 4:00 ow 5:00 yesterday. and i definitely want to thank everyone who came out to provide their feedback and i also appreciate those who not just said no, no, but said there

might be ways to change this. and supervisor kim also made some comments at the beginning to that effect. i would request that the committee continue this two weeks and in the interim i would be happy to engage with anyone who would like to speak with me, including local 21 or anyone else who hasn't communicated with me before, and also my colleagues to see if there's a way we can strengthen this and make it a more broadly supported measure. supervisor kim: supervisor fairly? >> -- ferrell?regardless and ifr disagree, this is a great conversation taft. let's bring this forward. i not know