neutral. the fact that it is not be reasonable policy of justice that either help support it or doesn't, i think it only speaks to the need, and gives us a better opportunity, the way it was scripted almost does a disservice onto itself because of how tightly wrapped that language was. itit was evident that when i wod ask questions, they could not extend the study because that was the interpretation of what was in the charter. in other cities like los angeles and san diego and houston, when we talk with them, they measure the efficacy much differently than we are today. so when i take a look at the

numbers of what the l.a. cost is -- what the outlay cost is for us to not put a recruit through the academy, not be able to subsidize somebody on probation once they leave the academy to the field training program, there is really no other mechanism to bring in new offices unless it is lateral hiring, which they will have to commit a significant amount of resources for background investigations, and they need to do that anyway. civilianization, which has been painfully slow, and which is probably a good move, but civilianization in the years that i have been on the board has been moving not at a very good pace at all in the police department or academy glasses. to me, we arrive at one juncture, which is that we extend the program that gives us better information and that we instruct conditions here

today to the controller that gives us what that yardstick should look like in measuring much more effectively. by us not doing that, we have the conversation about extending it, but to me, it seems premature that we would drop this or kill it now without answering some hard questions. i see a very senior member of the police department right there. supervisorpresident chiu: if yoo step up to the microphone? supervisor mirkarimi: your here just as the captain, correct?

how long have you been with the police department? 40 years? how can you put the microphone a little closer to you. i think it is important, because except for the union representation that we heard here, the limited conversation of data that we got, from the comptroller and various actuaries on both sides, coming what you think since you have been there 40 years, a long time. you must have joined as a child. what you think about where the program is right now. and what do you think will be the appropriate step to moving forward >> i have been through the cycles of the police department, and this is not unlike the cycle of the late 1970's early 1980's.

it is basically a kind of a cycle that we get into where this kind of band if you do, damned if you don't. we created this, i would not have written the program, but i'd think we have put ourselves , we are extended to get through this cycle that is occurring. the next thing we need to do is make sure that when we get through it, we will the engine of the city by hiring class is on a regular basis so that we don't get into this mass hiring, a mass exit cycle that keeps recurring. and during my career, it has occurred at four times. i can tell you that, that is my feeling.

again, i just say that we find ourselves in a box and my thing would be to extend it not the full amount of time, but enough so that we get through the time of the economic slump. >> i know you know a little bit about this, which is why i am taking it vantage of this. they actually have a different rule based on age in level of service that would be dissimilar from san francisco. if there was an opportunity to tweak this program, with the issue be cost-effective or cost neutral? will that make a difference? >> it is the secret that the asia should of been 30 years of service and age 55. of think there would have been any issue there.

>> that hasn't been studied? >> i don't think so. >> i understand how easy this might be for a number of people, including myself and the discovery that i think it was bad information, incomplete information. not bad. incomplete. my colleague was against this and i expect him to be consistent. i know that when that was the case, back then, the proof would have to be in the pudding in the burden, in my opinion, has not been established yet. continuing this on for 18 months, i think it is not correct. a year that gives us a proper reading like with what the other cities are doing would be to correct courts.

it has been the desire to just tried to kill this. but based on the information, i think there is reason to put that on pause. president chiu: any additional discussion? >> hall was going to give an opportunity to speak, but i would motion that there would be a one-year extension of this program and that is part of the findings. the information has been provided to us and is incomplete or vague. president chiu: he is making an amendment to the motion that this program be continued for a year out to june 21, 2012.

is there a second to that motion? supervisor campos? ok, he has seconded the motion. supervisor elsbernd: i was hoping not to stand up, i did not think there was going to be a second for a motion that is so irresponsible. the documentation is not there. i sit on the retirement board with the president, and every three meetings we get the exact documentation presented to us. how many people have applied, what age group they are in, how much for the they could have gone. the comptroller has tabulated all that information for us. it is in that report.

respectfully, all of the information you need is right there. the notion that cost neutral isn't a fine, i don't need a definition to tell me what cost neutral means. money comes in, money comes out, if it is neutral, it is neutral. i don't need a definition to tell me what caused neutral is. this program is not cost neutral. it cost us more money. it is not cost neutral. it will cost at least five or $6 million a year more. our employer contribution will go up by at least a quarter of a percent. there is no debate here, it is not cost control. to say that we extend it for nine months or whatever it may be, we need more information to demonstrate that is not cost neutral.

respectfully, supervisor, this is not the way to go. and i think he really hit the nail on the head in budget committee which he appropriately set all the work that the city has come together to do on the notion of pension reform and benefit reform, the massive liabilities to take us in this direction would be the exact opposite way to go. this is not a smart program and it needs to go away. extending it any longer and spending any more money on this would be a waste. if you want to spend fiver $6 million, put them in the lateral class's or let's put them into some of the health clinics we are closing. that put them in some of the park that will not have gardners. there are a lot of ways to spend those dollars a ban on a program that is proven not to work.

>> let me explain my second. i second did it out of respect to supervisor mirkarimi. i disagree with his position on this. i did support the program when it started, but i don't believe that this is the right way to go. i think that the issue of staffing is something that we have to look very carefully at. but i think this program is probably the last alterative i would support in terms of the kinds of strategies and i would support the maintain the level of staffing that is needed. i would be more supportive of going down the route of funding, supporting a proper program. there are requirements that have not been met. i think if you speak to the controller's office, and the efforts around yet, it is one of

the areas where a lot more can be done. and the extent to get to this right level of staffing, those areas are the way to go. in terms of the program in the context of what is happening here, i'll believe it is heading in the wrong direction. we are rightly looking at pension reform and making a number of employees make a lot of sacrifices and i don't think with all the respect, there are great intentions and i don't think this is the right policy for the san francisco police department and it is not the right policy for the city and county of san francisco. of the motion being made that it does deserve a vote, i strongly disagree with the need for this program.

>> not surprised by any of the information. this had been conventional wisdom that had been living around and i was part of that. but when we skull that data that has come before us, i completely disagree with the comment that unless there is some of substantiation by the comptroller that they have not substantiated based on the information of what we perceive or what we are firm is being cost neutral, that has not happened? when the data was presented to us about whether the cost is, we are comparing what a participant is and what the cost is compared to what it takes to go through the police academy and for a field training program. it is not well tabulated. i was able to point that out.

they did not bundle because of what a recruit goes through and what a probationary police officer goes through. it is not the six-month experience compared against the cost of class. it is actually about the fact that they have a significant drop out rates. and they actually go through a significant drop out time. if we are comparing because of what it takes to be in the program compared to academy recruitment costs, the payments for seven months, and another field training program, without many academy class is, i like to see the effort being instigated. there is none that i have a

hearing about. we're going to do on the staffing budget side. as much as i appreciate the voice of authority from the retirement board, and the retirement board has not taken the official position on this. if the retirement board hasn't taken an official position, it still comes back to us that allows us to interpret it. you look at the data, and what has motivated me is that it is incomplete. and when i called to talk to other jurisdictions like san diego or los angeles, they went through similar motions that we are going through right now. right at that same precedents, they decided to go ahead and reinstate it is based on the ways to count how the things

should work better. that should also speak to us since we are not alone in this experience. the programs are not apples to apples here, we don't know what to compare it to. that is why we should extend it. i appreciate what people are saying. i don't inclusion be at this point without a thorough conversation. supervisor chu: i want to take a moment to appreciate the comments that supervisor campos made, and given the choice to spend on police whether it is to continue the program or at academy class as, my preference would be to look the other options and out lateral passes. last week when we have the hearing, i made a few points about my reservations.

that continues today. he spoke a lot about the issue of neutrality and how to define that. i don't want to repeat any of those comments. even if other jurisdictions extended it, there is not a way to compare them. the conditions under which are not things that you can compare to. it was just about the specific proposal extending for one year. i don't believe extending one year will give us additional data to make the argument more compelling one way or the other. when you think about what will be required, we would have to take it back to the voters anyway. will not get better data to give as the decision. we still have to make changes to the program anyhow. i don't think it is a good idea for us to have a one-year

extension. >> any additional discussion? what of we take a roll-call vote? the roll-call vote to amend the motion. [roll call vote] >> there is one aye and 10 no's. supervisor cohechiu: can we do s same house, same call?

the motion is not approved. colleagues, if we can go to the next item. items 13 through 37, except items 15 and 21 with regard to which there are a couple of colleagues that need to recuse themselves. except items 15 and 21? >> except items 15 and 21 are ordnances adopting and implementing various amendments to the memorandum of understanding. item 37 is an ordinance fixing compensation for unrepresented employees and establishing a working schedules for methods of payment effective july 1, 2011.

president chiu: roll-call vote? [roll call vote] there are 11 aye's. item 15 is adopting and implementing amendment no. 4 to the 20072013 memorandum of understanding between the city and fire fighters local unit 1. >> could we have a motion to that effect?

without objection, she shall be excused. [roll call vote] there 10 aye's. item 21 is a daunting and implementing amendment no. 5 to the 20062012 memorandum of understanding between the city in the executives' association. president chiu: supervisor elsbernd needs to be excused. roll call vote, please.

[rollc al call vote] there are 10 aye's. president chiu: it is passed on the first reading. >> 38 is an ordinance amending the planning cut making various technical amendments. on item 30 a. -- 38. [roll call vote]

there are 11 aye's. president chiu: why don't we skip over the 3:30 special order and the 4:00 special order and go to the committee report. >> considered by the land use and economic development committee at a regular meeting on monday, june 20. item 47 is an ordnance amending the planning cut by amending the zoning map sheet. to change the classification of 2451 sacramento st. from residential next a low density to the upper fell more commercial district. >> same house, same call? this is passed on the first reading. item 48.

>> approving a memorandum of understanding between the city and county regarding the application of the local hiring policy for construction projects located in the county. >> you may have heard a little bet between the san francisco and san the tail county about local higher. this memorandum of understanding that will be approving today is basically a combination of negotiations between the city and the supervisors in the county. i had anticipated this memorandum of understanding happening much later but because there was concern raise about the local higher ordnance, will quickly to resolve concerns raised by the supervisors. and when we crafted the local higher ordnance and anticipated

the concerns that come from the region about how we build the publicly funded construction projects, last april, we have a hearing. and we heard about the water systems improvement program, we realized that we need to have a local hire ordinance that would take into account the workers in the region that would like to have access to the jobs created when we build. those workers come from areas that are impacted by that development in those regions are contributing to funding the developments in that area. this memorandum of understanding while anticipated, i urge you to vote in favor of a. >> same house, same call?

>> in this resolution is adopted. >> resolution approving an agreement between the city in the county. president chiu: this resolution is also adopted. how to move to roll call. >> roll call for introductions. >> i have an item for the imperative agenda, it is a resolution declaring june 23, 2011 to be the fire marshal recognition day. he began working for the san francisco fire department back in 1993. firefighters were rare to the department. she honed her skills working in many different firehouses. she became a valued and beloved member of the fire department's family and was praised for her culinary experience. she was promoted to inspector

in 1997 where she excelled, developing a well-earned reputation for being consistent, fair, and having encyclopedic knowledge of the fire code. she was promoted to lieutenant in 2003 and proceeded to set new standards in the bureau of fire prevention for training and professionalism. as fire marshal, she developed a new fire code standards for firefighter, safety, and high- rise innovations that have been studied and copied it nationwide. she has transformed the office into a modern, efficient, progressive and transparent operation. resolved, who like to declare june 23 this year in honor of her retirement and without

contribution to the city and county of san francisco. supervisor mar: thank you, madam clerk. these are problems faced by san francisco seniors. the deal with the declining health and mobility and can be difficult for many people. for those that have a few resources, they can be overwhelming. the mission and collaborative, it will be they provide services or interacting with seniors. the rest of will submit.

president chiu: additional to having a very successful career, it is someone well-known in my district as a beloved trusty. he passed away recently at the community service event. he was a vibrant member of the congregation, a remarkably good person who greeted many of the visitors had the doors of the cathedral and as someone extremely dedicated to community. he will be very much messed by the community as well as by his family and friends. i have a second for shirley. recently passed away after a battle with leukemia. she was a great chinese cook that began her career on a public channel television show.