mr. president, if i could, a leg to introduce the people. it is always a pleasure to have young people involved in civic affairs. they got quite a lesson in the first amendment trying to produce this particular resolution with the taxis glaring outside of city hall. -- blaring outside of city hall. >> my name is chardonnay.

>> my name is semari. >> i'm kayla. >> [inaudible] it is the chant we made for summer learning day. >> what are you going to do this summer? i am going to have some fun. what you consider fun? fruits and veggies make me strong all summer long. bmi friends are going to connect while working on our summer project. [applause] >> i'm david. >> i'm deon. we are from the summer program.

[unintelligible] it is funny to me that they needed four hours to prepare for this meeting. >> the money should be saved for student education. i agree with that statement because i feel the same. >> school budgeting. [unintelligible]

and thank you for your time. [applause] >> just quickly, thank you again, supervisor mirkarimi, supervisor avalos, and supervisor mar for putting forward this resolution. over the last few years we have focused on learning projects throughout the city, learning over the summer. that is a huge impact over the long haul. just today, if anybody had the opportunity to look beyond the stairs into the front door, we had a thousand kids from all over the city out celebrating and doing things for summer. we appreciate you doing this and we look forward to many more years of celebrating learning

during the summertime. [applause] supervisor mirkarimi: mr. president, related to this particular item, it might be opportunity to take a roll call on this. president chiu: public comment on item 55 is closed, and at this moment, let's take a roll- call vote on item 55. [roll call vote] there are 11 aye's. president chiu: the resolution

is passed unanimously. colleagues, why don't we go to item 4? >> a doctor in the 2009 housing element of the san francisco general plan. president chiu: roll call vote, please. [rollc al call vote] >> there are 8 aye's and 3 no's.

president chiu: the ordinance is finally passed. >> item 5 is amending the planning code for the special use district located at 800 presidio avenue. and reflecting the boundaries of the presidio. president chiu: we need to continue the site until later in the meeting after the four- o'clocks special. without objection, it shall be the case. madam kerr, items 6 through 9. >> the salary ordnance in the annual budget and appropriations ordnance for the fiscal years ending 2013. the enterprise department. item seven is the consolidated budget and ordnance for expenditures for fiscal years

2012 and 2013 for the enterprise department. item eight, resolution approving the interim budget for fiscal year of 11 and 12. item nine is a resolution approving the enter a budget of the island's development authority for fiscal years 2011 and 2012. president chiu: roll call vote. [roll call vote] president chiu: supervisor kim? >> supervisor kim? [roll call vote continues] there are 11 aye's. president chiu: irresolutions

are adopted into the interim budget is passed on the first reading. dodge the five-year information and communication technology plan for fiscal years 2011 through 2012 through 2015. president chiu: same house, same call. this item is adopted. >> state grant funds for the department of public health for fiscal years 2011 and 2012. >> of this resolution is adopted. >> of this is from the budget and finance committee without recommendation. supervisor mirkarimi: i supported the program nearly three years ago, a number of folks here in the board did the same, who have since left of the board. sitting on the budget committee leading up to all of the

anecdotal information i have been hearing about the status program led me to believe, like some many of you that i have been hearing through city hall that this program is a failure and that it should be dropped. that makes sense based upon the anecdotal information have been hearing. the has made me take a look at another glance. the material that was submitted to us by the controller was limited in such a way that i did not think that it explained very well why it is not cost- effective or cost neutral. there is no division in the charter language or even in the city of what cost neutral means. it has been practiced, implemented in cities like san diego and los angeles.

they have a--- definition of what it means. the limits our ability to be able to measure with the kind of accuracy what one would want. we are not planning any academy class is. it is pretty much mainstream bad. it is not likely to happen this year and what is remaining in our budget process, probably even next year. the bill will affect of there being delayed opportunities in putting to work new recruits probably wouldn't even take form for almost three years in san francisco. we're looking at an attrition rate, probably 400 or 500 officers. this goes back to the original motivation of why we have given our support in the first place. without the kind of data, this

is not cost neutral or is cost 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