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 if this is a request for the city attorney. over the last 50 years, this is a good number, we have the voter signatures and the board of supervisors. we want to get a sense of how many of these are put forward with signature gathering. and not to that information today. this continues to thursday june 3. i would actually -- i was actually surprised i heard anything back on this.

>> we have the initiatives that were put on by the members of the board, it is so very much in agreement. we did try to address that here, with appealing to voters initiation measure. this is something i will continue to take a look at. >> we have a simple downloads in the website, we were trying to see with this number look like. there were a few things -- we had a tax issue and things like that.

there is no cost for the comptroller for those issues. i will send the analysis around your office and this will be posted where this is generally available. >> thank you for being here. i have one more question. if there is any way to distinguish minor technical amendments, there may be more significant amendments. >> hello, deputy city attorney. i understand your desire and this may be very difficult. we will see what we can do. >> thank you. >> as one of the amendments,

this is hard to draw the enforceable lines. thank you for everyone who came to the rules committee. we have a motion to continue this item until thursday, on the second. without objection. is there anything else on the agenda? >> no, madam chair. >> meeting is adjourned.

>> of the united states of america, one nation under god, indivisible. secretary falvey: thank you. and i will be taking a roll call of the commissioners. commission president, thomas mazzucco, commission vice president dr. marshall. commissioner carol kinsley. commissioner slaughter is an excuse. we have a deputy chief with us. it president mazzucco: thank you very much, ladies and gentlemen. welcome to the wednesday, may 25, 2 cells 11, meeting of the police commission. could you please call item no. 1? secretary falvey: this is the

approval of minutes for the following meetings, january 19, 26, february 2, 9, 16, and 23, and march 2, 16, 23, and 30, and april 6, 2011. president mazzucco: now that we have had a chance to review them, are there any changes the commissioners would like to make? commissioner: only a thank you to tom for putting all of these together. president mazzucco: and i agree with the thank you. we have have a lot going on with the police commission. we have. i share my appreciation for these minutes, and i know it takes a lot of minutes -- time. i know you are watching the meetings to make sure you get your nose accurate, so may i have a motion? commissioner: i move. president mazzucco: all in

favor? any public comment in regard to the minutes? let's move on to the consent calendar, line item number two. secretary falvey: i number two is a request to accept a gift of $150 from ms. leslie martin of wells fargo bank to be placed into the mounted unit floral fund in memory of charles t. ellis, #1748, and the fourth quarter 2010 document protocol report. president mazzucco: does someone want to move this? to what have a second? and we will a public comment before go into the next line item. the protocol report, commissioners, that is in your packet. have you had a chance to review that?

any questions or concerns? commissioner: no. commissioner: kazakhstan two or both? president mazzucco: -- is this on two or both? president mazzucco: we will have public comment. secretary falvey: on item two. president mazzucco: line item two. >> really quickly, last year, i requested an account of a donation that was made anonymously to the mounted patrol approximately 15 years ago of over $1 million. i requested an audit of where that money went at the sfpd. i never got a copy of what happened. with the mounted police, in terms of a report of $10,000 apiece, but they do not have 17

new suttles at the mounted police at golden gate park -- they do not have 17 new saddles. coming back, i think when you come down to assignments of money, i think there should be an audit trail of the sfpuc, regardless of how immediate the funds are or how huge the funds are, so even related to this $150 gift, it should be able to be accounted for 10 years, 15 years from now about where it went, just like the $1.50 million at golden gate park that was given by an anonymous donor that as far as i know has never been accounted for in terms of what happened to the money. that is all i will say. thank you for your time on that, and are we going to a public comment on either number one or not? president mazzucco: -- on item number one, or not?

president mazzucco: the approval of the minutes? go ahead. >> there was absolutely no way here to make it public comment, and -- -- there was absolutely no one here to make a public comment. president mazzucco: any other public comment? hey, how are you? >> i see some new faces, in my name is as, and i am on the case, and i do not normally -- and my name is a.c. -- ace. president mazzucco: can you say this for line item number three, general public comment? >> oh, this is not line item public comment? president mazzucco: thank you, ace.

will someone move? may i have a second? now we move onto line item number 3. come on up. secretary falvey: line item number three is a general public comment. >> my name is ace washington, and i have been here over 20 years basically as an advocate and reporter. right now, i am here, working in a capacity of problems with the police department which i experienced, in which the racial disparity has raised its ugly head. now, some of you may know, two years ago, i came to this commission because i was arrested at the jazz festival, and this officer right here, in my opinion, i think he went way beyond his duty as a police officer and was used as a security person for the festival

that comes down in the fillmore. now, i was charged with five charges, all felony charges. i was charged with extortion, battery, stalking, and all of that, which were serious charges, which were all dropped, because it was false, but the officer had the attitude to go to the judge overnight, and they kept me in jail. they kept me overnight because of these charges, and he went and filed for an order. now, i in here to show you a parallel, because the next person who is going to get up and speak is going to show you something on the flip side. five charges, all drugs, and then there was an order to keep me out of my own the community. now, vote -- five charges, all dropped. there was no justice for him, just like there was no justice for me.

i did not come back last year to complete because my family came for a reunion, but i am going to be here this year to see if i can get this order dropped because it is frivolous. this guy here use the no. station to say that i taunted him. -- this guy a year said i used the no. station to say i taunted him -- this guy here. i had to go through the indignity of saying that i am restricted from my own community, so i'm going to have this gentleman came up, and i will have him start off and tell about what happened. i want to show him that he does have a way. the next process. thank you very much. president mazzucco: thank you, ace.

good evening. how are you doing? >> good evening. i felt there was an injustice done towards me, and i feel that when i called the officers, when i called 911 and the police came, they minimize the situation, and the situation to me was not minimized. i was in a situation where a lady spit in my face, and this it got in my mouth, and i proceeded to think that that was like a battery or assault, you know, and what happened is that nothing truly happened to the lady, even though the officers came, about five or six of them. i had about 10 witnesses who told the officer what happened, that someone came and spit in my face. i am a single parent. i have a son. i would just say this. i am a son, and me and him, if i drink a soda, and he asks for me