play on it. just for it to be part of the neighborhood. that is my hope. >> is such a beautiful addition to our public art in san francisco. thank you for joining us. it was nice to meet you. and thank you for telling us about your beautiful mural. thanks for watching "culturewire."

supervisor kim: good morning and welcome to the special rules committee mindy and for thursday, june 23. i will be chairing today's meeting their i am joined by supervisor elsbernd and supervisor farrell. we're also joined by supervisor scott wiener. the clerk today is linda wong. we would like to acknowledge the staff at sfgtv, which record the meetings and make the transcript's available to the public on line. we have a big meeting today. we have a lot of folks that will be presenting to us. i want to quickly let folks know that i will be giving a maximum of three minutes to your actual presentation.

we may have a followup with questions. so be prepared to give a statement that is three minutes or less. the committee would greatly appreciate it. madam clerk, are there any announcements? >> the items on the agenda today that are recommended will go to the full board on tuesday, june 12, unless otherwise indicated. >> number one, supervisors mirkarimi, john avalos, and more to the association of bay area governments. supervisor kim: thank you. is there any public comments on this item? simenon, public comment is now closed. >> make a motion approving supervisor mar john avalos, mirkarimi, and mar. >> thank you. we can do that without opposition. we will move forward with positive recommendation to the

full board. thank you. please call item number two. >> hearing to consider appointed two members for and if it turns to the bay area regional interoperable communications system authority. there are two seats and two applicants. supervisor kim: thank you. my understanding is that and -- they are here today. there no questions. if you like to see something briefly -- >thank you so much for being here. >> good morning. i would very much appreciate being appointed to the board. i think interoperability is critical to the region, especially as it applies to public safety. i would leave it at that. supervisor kim: thank you so much. at this time, we will open it up

for public comment for item number two. if there is any public comment, please step up to the microphone. seeing none, public comment is now closed. supervisor farrell. >> motion to appoint to seat one and to seat two. supervisor kim: we have a motion to move forward with these appointments with positive recommendation to the full board. also, a motion for a residency waiver for seat number two. >> committee reports. supervisor kim: and a motion to move this forward as the committee report. i think we can do that without opposition. thank you. colleagues, as a courtesy to our colleague, supervisor wiener, we both sit on the budget committee, which actually starts at 10:00 a.m.. the committee unfortunately will not have quorum until at least one of us goes into chamber.

so i have been asked to move item number four. is there any opposition to moving up this item? simenon, call item number four. >> treader amendments to amend the charter of the city to allow amendments or repeals of initiative ordinances and declarations of policy. supervisor kim: thank you. i believe supervisor wiener may have some comments about the charter amendment. supervisor wiener: thank you, madam chair. this is the fourth time we are in committee for this, so i will not repeat what i have said in the past. this is a very modest first step in beginning to reform our ballot measure process. i want to thank members of the committee and members of the public for the very valuable feedback that we have received, and the amended version submitted last week limits this prospectively. it does not impact any ballot

measures passed before 2012. it is a purely perspective reform, and it is limited to ballot measures place on the ballot by the mayor or by the board of supervisors and has no impact on initiatives. in other words, measures placed in the ballot by signature. it is a modest government reform, and ask the committee's support. supervisor kim: thank you. any call it -- comments? supervisor elsbernd. supervisor elsbernd: i have been relatively quiet on this. it is likely to move out of committee, so i wanted to share my thoughts. i think what happened tuesday afternoon is exactly what this charter amendment is necessary. three ballot measures were placed on the ballot at the very last minute, but four members of the board of supervisors. and i think in the last 48 hours, we have seen that those

ballot measures were written rather hastily. there is all kinds of unintended consequences. this charter amendment fixes that problem. it frankly gives a bit of a lifeline to those four supervisors into a major, if they ever do something like this again. so i think what has happened in the last week is perfect evidence for the necessity of this charter amendment, and i would like to congratulate supervisor wiener with moving forward with this good government reform. supervisor kim: thank you. at this time, i would like to open it up for public comment. >> sue hester. i did not speak at the last meeting because i wanted to read the language. i think this is an amendment that is in search of a reason. with the four supervisor rule allows is it allows a minority, or even a majority of the board

of supervisors, to get something enacted but-48 votes to override a mural of veto, and it may not be enacted. i was involved with two board of supervisors sponsored measures involved in the 1980's. one was dealing with open space. we had massively contentious hearings. but losing chinatown, open space sighed. we had massive contentious hearings about shadows on union square. these never got resolved. four supervisors put it on the ballot and resolved it. that. prop k in 1984 -- that was prop k in 1984. it enabled supervisors to avoid something were either the economic forces are so powerful or the mayor may threaten a veto. that was 1984. in 1986, prop m was put on the ballot.

the issue for prop m was rationing the amount of office space. we head office boom and bust cycles in the 1970's and 1980's. we would approve $6 million in the market would be going, and it would take. when we even that out, based on a study done by the planning department by economic consultants, and they said 1 million square feet. we said, ok, you can have 1 million square feet, but do not bring it up to 6 million in any one year, because it is making the market to crazy. we passed that limit, by the voters. and guess what -- when the market tanked in the late 1980's and 1990's on the office market and boston, a vancouver, new york, houston had massive economic weapons san francisco had gone ahead of the curve and hit dead son think reasonable. if you go back and read the

print -- and had done something reasonable. if you go back and read the print from the time, it said it saved our cookies, financially, the city. if you are perfectly happy with allowing the board to have no power to put something on it to the voters that the voters agree with but you might not have eight votes, you're cutting off your own power, and you're cutting off the people's power. if you want to solve the problem of initiatives going on to the ballot without a lot of thought, require a hearing on the them. that is a simple solution. require a hearing before it gets put on the ballot. i would support that. but do not do something that you have not thought through. i know prop k and prop m would have been dead. thank you. supervisor kim: thank you. is there any other public comment on this item? supervisor elsbernd.

>> just a response, you know, there are a number of ballot measures that are not introduced legislatively and subject to a mayoral veto. the mayor can put measures on. it does not even have to go to the legislative process. there is a much bigger problem here, and i appreciate that we can point to a ballot measure that was approved 25 years ago, but i think i can point to three ballot measures that were introduced 48 hours ago that necessitate the need for this charter amendment. i appreciate that there can be a couple kernels in the history of ballot measures over the last many decades, but i think if we look collectively at all the ballot measures that have been introduced by four supervisors or a mayor in the last 25 years, a vast majority have been those that have been written without a lot of input and i could absolutely benefit. let me throw out some that perhaps some votes in the progress of world would agree to. i think there would be a lot of members of the board of supervisors to like the opportunity to address some of

the mistakes in this particular ordinance that as a talking about. this cuts both ways. there's a lot of good government in this charter amendment, and it should absolutely go forward. supervisor kim: thank you. any other comments? i just wanted to say that i really appreciate supervisor wiener coming back to the rules committee several times on this item and also listening to members of the public and his colleagues on some potential ways to make this charter amendment more palatable as we move forward. i do think that as a charter amendment that is perspective, not impacting any past initiatives that voters had an impression when they were voting on would be permanent, unless overturned by going back to the ballot, but i think that makes this initiative stronger. i would have preferred if we had more conversations on ways that we can perform the system overall, so whether we talk about requiring additional signatures or requiring a

hearing prior to going onto the ballot or requiring the mayor to have supervised signatures -- all of that discussion, it would have been nice to have more extended time. however, i do not see a reason to not put this forward to voters. i would support moving this out with no recommendation to the full board. i did want to and knowledge that there probably members of the public that expected this to come later on the agenda. so, madam clerk, is there a way to keep public comment open on this item? >> yes, i do not see any action. >> ok, i just do not want folks to feel that they did not have an opportunity to speak on this item. but we will call you when we open up if there are folks who want to speak about it. supervisor wiener: that is fine. i will be in the budget committee. just let me know and i can walk over. supervisor kim: thank you. any other comment? ok, we will continue this item for public comment.

madam clerk, can you please call item number 3? >> item number 3, hearing to consider appointing three members, terms to be determined, to the redistricting task force. their three seats and 23 applicants. supervisor kim: i believe most of the 23 applicants are here today. i mentioned earlier that because we have 23 candidates, that we will be asking everyone to limit their presentation to 3 minutes or less. and we may be following up with questions from my colleagues here on the committee. i will be calling your name in the order that you are listed on the agenda. if for any reason there is something pressing about your time, please let our clerk know. i do know that anna yee was not able to make it here today. we did receive an e-mail from her, explaining she has a prior

conduct of the first person to date is brigette leblanc. after brigette leblanc, this is carolyn squeri. >> good morning, supervisor kim and supervisor elsbernd and to the listening audience. my name is brigette leblanc and i am in native of san francisco and a resident of district 10, and also a product of public schools. as a graduate of lowell high school leadership san francisco and also a small business community owner, a member of the city college of san francisco community, democratic and committed the clubs, i think that with my different involvement in a lot of different communities, that i actually bring in a lot to the redistricting task force. mainly as an educator, it has been a goal of my to inform the communities and encourage them

to get engaged in any process that concerns them and to remain active. for years i have been involved in community meetings and forums, and through that process, i am strong enough to push back and temper what is anticipated to be more political objectives. i am knowledgeable of a broad swath of neighborhoods and communities. as you know, it is important that the appointments at the same profiles, but as a whole, they embody the diversity and the spirit that reflects the city and county of san francisco. for these reasons, i feel that i am is strong enough to push back when necessary, and it is important to involve all of our communities in this process. i hope that you consider my recommendation from the letters of support i have received from all of the different committees in sentences go to be appointed to the redistricting task force. thank you. supervisor kim: are there any questions for the applicant? thank you so much. >> thank you. supervisor kim: next, we have

carolyn squeri. are you here today? ok. then i am going to call up christopher elmendorf. after him, we have eric mcdonnell. >> thank you for hearing for me today. my name is christopher elmendorf. as a a professor of law at uc davis school of law where i teach election law, and i am resident of san francisco, where i have lived in the mission district since 2005. i wanted to say a few words this morning about why i want to serve on this task force and the values i would bring to the task of the task force. i see this as a public service opportunity, no more and no yes. i am is a tenured professor. i teach and have relevant knowledge in this area that i think i could bring to the project. but i owe no debt to any

candidate, to any interest group, and i have no interest in being into debt or having indebted to me any candidate or interest group that has a stake in this process. the u.s. stands alone among all industrialized democracies the use single member district elections in that we have a largely political process for redrawing legislative districts. virtually all of the country's the use single member district electrics -- elections have some non-partisan democratic process. it is that non-partisan perspective that i would bring to this task. that said, i want to put all my cards on the table and tell you a little bit about the values that i would bring to the process. first of all, at the most important thing is the task force complies with state and federal law, which require population equality roughly a month legislative districts and also to the california voting rights act and the federal

voting rights act disallowed the dilution of minority voting strength. second, of equal importance, giving effect to the values that are stated, the objectives stated in the san francisco charter. in some respects, it restate -- restates values already in state and federal law, but it adds to that. it adds specifically the protection of communities of interest in the respect for existing neighborhood boundaries. now, insofar as there is remaining discretion in the task force, if the application of these legal criteria do not lead to a determinant result, what value should be considered? i would list 3. one, opportunities for historically disadvantaged in politically and incorporated communities. second, respect for what i would call informational committees, that is drawing district boundaries in such a way that they correspond to local media markets so that people have good information about what their

representatives are up to. third, fairness and responsiveness, vis-a-vis the principal political coalition or cleavage giant san francisco that is a division between the progressives and moderates. fairness, meaning the plant cannot be biased in one direction or the other. responsiveness, meaning there should be a critical mass of the swing districts since the public opinion is reflected in representation. thank you very much. supervisor kim: thank you. >> i have a question to you have a pretty serious election law resume. did you apply to the california redistricting commission? >> i did not. >> any reason why not? >> no. that is a good question. partly, the sense that that project might be unmanageable in its scope and level of commitment. i am a resident of san francisco and have two small children. to me, this felt like a more manageable project, and i feel like i know more. i have a better feel for san

francisco policies than california's statewide policies. >> just to get a sense of your analysis, have you a good draft one of the state maps? any thoughts on how they have achieved communities of interest, legal standards? >> general observation about the process -- >> maybe that. instead of looking at the results, what do you think of their process so far? >> i think it has been reasonable. they have tried to follow the guidelines that have been established for them. i think the way the process is set up, which was to denied any access to political information and to relegate to happenstance, you might say, the objectives of partisan fairness and competitiveness. that is not how i would have designed the process, but that is the process that they were given. and i think they have tried to

follow the criteria set out for the. from what i can see, they have done a serviceable job of that. there are some questions, i think, about the division of latino communities. there are also some things to try to do to create new opportunities for asian americans that have sport -- that historically have been relatively and incorporated in the california political process. i respect the work that they have done. supervisor kim: any other questions? just a quick question. how long have you lived in san francisco? >> since 2005. supervisor kim: since 2005. ok. no other questions. >> thank you. supervisor kim: thank you. next, we have eroc/after eric, we have gia daniller-katz. >> i am eric mcdonnell, native

from san francisco, born and raised in the western addition. i spent some citi lakeside and ingleside. i spent my entire professional life working in community, working on behalf of low-income families, working on behalf of those marginalized and often those outside our legislative and political process. my interest in bridge is a fitting in this process is two- fold. one, it is a critical process that will determine how folks have a voice and will determine how folks can experience the distribution allocation of resources, and it is critical to communities across our city. what is important to me is that this process resulted in a fair and equitable and transparent process where, again, everyone has a voice, and then there is opportunity for the distribution of resources. the opportunity, i believe, is to continue to address what continues to be challenges in our city with regard to access to resources. when i grew up in the western addition, i experienced firsthand the challenges of limited resources, limited

access to resources, and so then experiencing the what in not understanding the why, an ally of the understand the why. i respectfully ask for your support. supervisor kim: thank you. any questions? supervisor elsbernd. supervisor elsbernd: i notice you're on the board of leadership san francisco. what brought you to that? what was your interest? >> sure, so i was -- i guess i had been at united way -- i currently served as chief operating officer at united way and the bay area. we engage in the communities across seven counties. diane easton approached me to be a part of their class in 2002. following that class, she asked if i would join the board. my interest was two-fold. one, my commitment to san francisco and the committee. two, the opportunity that has

afforded folks to go through lsf, which is about leadership development and growing committee trusties, folks who not only live and work in this city but also take ownership and pride and ensuring that we have a great place to live, work, and drive. i have been on the board since 2003. supervisor kim: supervisor farrell capito supervisor farrell: -- supervisor farrell. supervisor farrell: have to apply for any of the commission's report? >> i have not. supervisor farrell: any particular reason in this besides interest in san francisco? >> that is correct. 10 years ago, it was not a big deal to me at the time. supervisor elsbernd: one question -- sorry, you get to be the first person to be asked this. some others may be asked this. you have but a very good resume. it sells well in the public would like it. are you going to run for office in the next 10 years? [laughter]

and the me be very blunt, i do not want to see people on this committee who are going to draw lines for their own benefit. >> that is a very fair and appropriate question. i have not and do not have any political aspirations, no. that is not my intent at all, certainly not why i would want to get into this kind of process. supervisor kim: thank you. you do have a very impressive resume. as my colleague pointed out. i just want to see about your ability to commit to the task force. as you know, it will be an incredible amount of time. do you believe you'll be able to balance this with the work you're doing? >> sure. one of the other reasons this is an important process to me both personally and professionally, in my role at united way, part of my role is to represent us in the committee in ensuring that we're speaking to the needs that we know are important across the community. i am here today trying to represent our organization in

this process. i have colleagues that are doing likewise in other communities. this is poor to our work. so, yes, i will have time, because frankly, it is part of our role. >supervisor kim: thank you. you also talked about making sure this task force is transparent. what would you do to ensure that the public is engaged with the task force and had to ensure that the process continues to be transparent? >> no specific idea other than ensuring that i come individually, and as a member of the task force, if that should take place, that we would ensure that there is a process that will regularly pushing out update on where we are with regard to process and deliberations and key questions. and then in fighting an encouraging committee participation on how we should be responding to these kinds of challenges. i do not think it should be just a task force that should inform. it should be the community's thoughts that should inform the altar and results of the task

force. supervisor kim: thank you. seeing no other questions, i am willing to call our next applicant. >> i asked him a question that i did not ask brigette leblanc. supervisor kim: both brigette leblanc and christopher elmendorf -- >> no, no. it is not a question for chris. i want you to share with me your thoughts on what attracted you to leadership san francisco, why did you participate? >> first and foremost, because i am a resident of san francisco, and i feel that i am is the color in the city that i was born and raised in. i was recommended to apply for leadership san francisco. i did my homework, and i thought that it was a great opportunity to really understand how the city works. and it was a great opportunity to me. we had like 70 people in our class from all different walks of life, and it was just a wonderful experience.

i actually became more engaged in my community, and i really knew who to call and how to get help in different areas that we actually covered. that is it. supervisor kim: thank you. gia daniller-katz. next, we have james tracy. after james, we have jason porth. >> good morning, supervisors. my name is james tracy. usually when we come in front of each other like this, it is usually run partisan politics, different issues that we're debating of the day. i believe that the number one thing that any commissioner can do is to put aside these things and just basically obey the law. there is the city charter.