>> we were wanting to contact you a couple of times to ask if you had attended any of these meetings. >> i did speak with the gentleman on the phone. and i just got this the other day. i certainly plan to spend time with someone like him and others. >> i only ask because we were hoping he would do that before the rules committee today and i would feel more comfortable continuing -- we would love to support you for a position and we appreciate your commitment to wanting to serve the city but we want the applicants to meet with them prior to confirming the appointment. of course, this would be one of

my thoughts. >> this is not a specific requirement. were you notified that he would be accepted before hand? in all fairness -- >> we may have had a bad number for you. >> the notion is fine. if this was a requirement i would have taken care of this. i think that the discussion that i did have with the person who called -- i did get a callback from someone and they were on the board of supervisors. i do not quite know exactly what this meant. they spoke to me about my background and my interests. at this time, we left that, we had to have rules committee. the messages came to me

yesterday or the day before. and there was really not time for me to get in touch with him, most likely on the phone. but this is up to you in terms of your preference. i think i am a quick learner and a quick study, and we will get up to speed very quickly. they seem quite anxious to fill the seat and get on with the work. there are a lot of things happening, and i think that they have had someone on a carryover basis for some time. i am flexible. >> they would like to me before confirming the appointment. i would prefer to continue this and we can bring this back immediately on june 3. this is june 2. others have requested this and i will defer to them but i think

that this is just a formality to get a sense of your interest. >> is there a particular person or should i just go through the cfo? >> lun -- the legislative aide will put you in touch with them. >> i have all intentions of putting forward, but with this requirement, if there is a bad number, there is a bad number. i would be hard-pressed to ask somebody to do something that is not know that there will have to do. you can meet with him in a couple of weeks. >> and which allow me to come back on the second? >> i'll be happy to do that. i will be in touch with them and schedule some time with them and we will go from there.

>> and other any other questions? i will open this up for public comment on the second item. please step up to the microphone. and the public, is closed. >> i would like to make a motion to continue until the floor meeting two weeks from today. and can you call in number three? >> this is the building regulation code, for central market street in the tenderloin area. >> my apologies. >> this is a continuance of the ordnance amending the business and tax regulation code by adding the citizen's advisory committee, if we take into

account several of the comments and feedback given to us and we agreed to amend the legislation so that the appointment would come to the rules committee. are there any comments or questions? we will open up for public comment. >> good afternoon.

my name is lorenzo, a resident of the tenderloin. i am member of the filipino community organization. i would like to thank the supervisor for introducing this legislation. this is very important for us. we support the creation of the citizen's advisory committee because we feel that this would make certain that the residents are part of the revitalization efforts. would like to see a revitalization and also supports the residence. and the amendment that is there too. thank you, supervisor.

>> that afternoon. it also with the tenderloin organization. we would like to support this legislation and i appreciate the citizen's advisory council. thank you. >> good afternoon, supervisors. i am of resident -- please support this for the community for displacement and high rent. we need help. thank you. >> that afternoon. i have four children and i am and low-income family.

please help us and protect us by supporting this is an advisory -- -- citizen advisory committee. >> sessa representing the tenderloin development, supporting this legislation. we support the amendment and we hope that the legislation will move out of committee, for this to continue. at this time this should be moved forward. we understand this as an advisory committee, this has no real enforceability, and the goal is to create recommendations and to generally give the community a method of input, so as far as i am concerned, the amendment is fine and we can move forward with this legislation.

>> good afternoon. >> many families in our neighborhood, we live in and it -- overcrowded housing. i support this because we want to protect the tenderloin residence from displacement and help create affordable living. thank you very much. >> good afternoon. i am manuel and i live in the south market. i believe that they can protect and help the community, so please support cac. thank you.

>> good afternoon. i am with -- and i want to say, i want to thank supervisor kim for supporting this to help the tenderloin residents for this cac. thank you. >> good afternoon, supervisor. i hope that you support this. thank you. >> and is there any other public comment? public comment is closed. i want to take a moment to thank any of the organizers and advocates and residents in the

south market for being so engaged. this has helped the office to have such engage community with the policies that we developed in this district, practicing legislation. thank you very much. do we have a motion to adopt this amendment? what's the first motion to adopt the amendment? >> i want to thank you for doing those amendments, and also looking for to the full boards recommendation. >> the motion to move forward without objection. will you please call in #4. >> item #4 -- the campaign in government with the conduct code, with the conflict of interest code. >> said we have someone from the supervisor's office to talk about this ordinance.

>> thank you. >> i am sorry that you were waiting. >> this ordinance, i believe it is very clear. this is the redistricting task force. after the census from 2010 and the announcement of this showed that the population in these districts had changed, we decided to have the task force convened. this ordinance was introduced at the first meeting available after the director of the department of elections reported this to the memo that i referred to. we have the full board of the committee report. this is one step in the process for this committee. the committee will, in june -- they will have appointments for the task force, and i am certain that they are aware that they will post the vacancy notice for

the redistricting task force and this can be found on the web site. and they have more information on the seats that will be appointed, and if you have more questions, call us -- >> can you repeat this more slowly? >> 415-554-7719, sfvos.org. and i believe that later on in may or june, you'll have a schedule for when we will consider this appointment. >> we will schedule the consideration of this appointment. >> my request would be for a committee report to the full board, just to get this done as quickly as possible. >> are there any questions or comments? at this time it will open for

public comment on this item. and if there's any public comment, please step up on the ordinance for the redistricting taskforce. public, is now closed. just to reiterate what he had mentioned at the time, applications are open with the clerk's office some members of the public who wish to apply for the redistricting task force, this is a very important task force that we do every 10 years. the district i represent is a huge contributor to the need to redistrict in the city of san francisco. the department of elections as open -- has opened enclosed applications and -- do you know how the mayor's office is going about collecting their applicants? >> i do not. >> so, we entertain a motion on

this item? >> this is as a committee 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