companies said the raids. unfortunately, some insurance companies donate a ton of money to other city programs. we have an incident where there is an interference from the mayor's office to our director who was trying to negotiate rates down from one of the insurance companies, and he was asked to keep the insurance company in, because of, in short, -- ia am sure, because of the benefits. i do not think there will be checks and balances. the rates will raises, and the employees will pay the increase of those, not the city. thank you. supervisor elsbernd: thank you. next speaker, please.

>> i have worked for 27 years as a gardener in rec and park. and i completely vote with the -- i completely agree with the last speaker. >> supervisor elsbernd, supervisor farrell, my name is richard rothman. i retired six years ago. weller was working, i helped draft -- while i was working, i helped draft prop b in 2008. we had a lot issues. one is on page 8. changing the formula for the cola. everything that i have read -- and i did send your offices a

citation, which was put out earlier this year, reinforcing these rights. basically, it said -- or my interpretation, i am not a lawyer -- the those rights could not be changed unless they were given equally in return, and i do not see anything being given in return. it is a dangerous principle. if they can take away the best investing right come up -- if they can take away this investing right, why can they take away others? i have always said retirees and current employees cannot have rights taken away. this very much concerns me. also, the language that ms. callahan did not mention in the second drop that said it was the voters intention in 2008 that's -- that supplement the --

supplemental cola should only be paid out when the fund was fully funded. as someone who was in the negotiating room most of the time, there was no mention -- [chime] it only said if the fund was over the actuarial value. thank you. supervisor elsbernd: thank you. and >> i heard earlier by the need it -- about the need for transparency. this proposed charter amendment seems to be very opaque, open to different interpretations. 264 pages long, we expect them to make important decisions about this. it covers some much territory

with city workers, there should be three or four different charter amendments. the retirement system was in crisis in 2008 and 2009. it went from 11.5 -- $14 billion to $11 billion. in effect, the board of supervisors are yelling fire about the retirement system when the fire was 2008 and 2009. the fire is over, but we're being told that we have an emergency. there is no longer a fire in the retirement system. we heard that the cost savings will take place in maybe 30 years. it is not exactly an urgent issue.

we have heard that there is a consensus about this proposal, but the members have not been told about the so-called consensus and the members have not voted. many of us will oppose this proposal. all one big family. though we are not. >> i have been an active officer since 1972. i have a retired city employee and i am also a member and have worked with plb as well. i agree with almost everything that has been said. one thing that i want to stress, during the supposedly

fair agreement, retirees were locked out of this completely. we were not allowed to go to the meetings or expressed our concerns or viewpoints. many of us are very anxious. some things to do with the trust fund. even on the two-tiered system. i want to read something about the supplemental that is in the language that did not hear coming from mickey callahan. the safety of the of the system being in poor shape, it is the second best funded in the united states. and, of course, we want to keep it that way.

the city now has to contribute more. and at one point, they were contributing anything because of the investments. our investments are bad, and i want to say this thing about the supplemental. this change for current employees, people that are hired in terms of the actuarial value related to the supplement is going to impact much more on people that are receiving between 20 and 27,000 a year. i cannot get the figures from the retirement system. but there are thousands of people that won't get the supplemental right now. they're not getting 46,000. they are getting below 27.

without the supplemental, they will be in the toilet. supervisor campos: next speaker. >> i am the executive secretary of the police officers association and the chair protector of benefits. i do want to address the proposed changes. the health service system board, their main duty is to the board. it is their duty to watchdog the budget. i don't believe changing the makeup of the health services system board and changing the voting majority is the way to do that. this thing has no debt meant -- direct financial benefit to the city.

so why is it here? it is only to change the political perception while allowing the city to take full charge. it is buried in a slam dunk pension reform proposition that affects active employees. it is extremely important to retirees. if we are going to propose this change, it should stand alone so that it could receive the full attention of the public. nobody is going bill looked at the health system part of this. health service system isn't going to get the full debate that we believe it should. we are also extremely worried about the unintended consequences. the health service system trust fund was depleted in prior acts of the city.

if you give the control back to the city and the mayor's office , or it will not be influenced by the mayor's office, when and how it will be a 4-3 majority and retirees will have to pay for it. please don't allow this to happen. [applause] >> i am a retired lieutenant of san francisco police, a 20-year veteran. i am one of those natives, too. i support everything larry said. a request you don't change this part of the health service board.

gosh i am president of the san francisco veteran who police officers association hyperion i asked this board to change the makeup of the health service system as proposed in the new charter proposal. when we retired, and we were guaranteed and told him that we would have affordable health care for the rest of our lives. with this proposal, we have no voice. i ask you to turn down this proposal. >> had the city's pension obligations are set to explode in the next four years. a hundred and $29 million. it demands a serious solution.

i am leading a citizen led effort for the reform act of the november ballot. we've collected 47,000 signatures of voters. the reform act delivers reform that is fiscally sound, sustainable, and fair to all. by securing our fiscal future and protecting vital services. we need real pension reform now. in the not kick the can down the road any further. soon, the can is going to pull off a cliff. i want to thank the mayor and the many others that have worked on this issue. unfortunately, respectfully, it falls short of the savings that our city needs. the mayor goes the cost sharing proposal will save $750 million

over the next 10 years. the pension reform act will save the city 1.2 $5 billion over the next 10 years. simply put, it will save the city $500 million more over the next decade. think about what the hell by. we have cut summer school for kids, 10,000 students. we're talking many other drastic cuts. the pension contributions have to be fair. the mayor's plan treats employees that earned $100,000 the same as employees that earn $50,000. >> the numbers you are siding, a lot of those are not complete.

your measure does not included in the other employees. your measure does not include that. as the comptroller does the full analysis rather than focus on the full contribution, there is a comprehensive nature to this proposal. i believe your measure is silent on health care. we're still waiting for the full analysis so i think it would be a better idea before we start throwing numbers out, let's wait until we get complete numbers. >> but it is based on actual savings that the city will realize in the next four years. >> the report does not include the savings associated with that contribution. that report does not include the changes in retirement.

those are dollars that we will save immediately. before we start throwing out numbers, let's get the complete report. what your siding is not the complete report. it is merely the report analyzing the floating contribution. there are more numbers to come. >> there are many reforms that aren't in the consensus proposal. those have to be cost-effective, too. >> i am representing protect our benefits and the retired teachers. i want to talk about the service for a moment. a lot to remind you about the

situation as it existed. it was passed by the voters and gave us a change it was essentially a mass. it was not functioning well. one of the main problems had to do decode can we shut the door? your time is being pause. thank you. >> of the changes that occurred after the proposition passed have been remarkable. they have been remarkable in large part because the board has been able to appoint its own

director, and the directors of been appointed, they have done wonderful work. the health service system is among the best anywhere. i would certainly hate to see a change made in the composition of the board that has made this happen. i can see no financial gain for the city in changing the composition of the board. i urge you to keep the board as if this had to take away the changes you are proposing. >> he had to leave. my name is kevin. in 34 years of service, i

really enjoyed in and of the city. i urge you not to change the composition of the board. it opens the door where those that are retired can end up getting the short end of the stick. that is all i have to say. >> and these are the last three cards i have. anyone else that would like to speak can line up on the side. >> my name is james johnson. i would ask the board not to change the composition of the board. in law enforcement, sometimes your career is cut short. that was my case.

when is, you rely on the board as far as what benefits we were going to be entitled to. if the board has changed and the benefits are changed, we are denied it basically what we were told, that we would receive for the rest of our life. it seems not fair or just. >> my name is louis scott, and the immediate past president. i come here as an individual, not as an officer.

a mark of humanity of an individual is care for the vulnerable. i think the market of humanity of our city is also care for the vulnerable. as put together, this 260 page measure has snakes army of the most vulnerable and modest income retirees. these are people like teachers, accountants, professionals, technical engineers, many of the miscellaneous retired employees. these are the same kind of clause that shot down the measure last year.

another snake is that we don't have a transparent and open government process. who could even understand the 21 amendments that were outlined to you. how can the voters understand this measure in the pamphlet? it needs a simplification and modification separating out issues so that voters can let them intelligently. you consider doing something that this board of supervisors can be proud of. >> if anybody else would like to speak, line up on the side. >> i am here to speak to you about the fact that i have a problem with the proposition

that has to do with the changing of the composition of the board. and the new voting majority situation. as one of the previous speakers said, i think there is a possibility for this curious of voting on this board. i am very suspicious of it and i wish that it had been something that perhaps could of been put out to retirees. just to give you a picture of who i am, i am trying to stay here and it is a very expensive town. i looked as a san francisco police officer. i would still be doing that, but my body gave out on me.

i've volunteered at the animal shelter. i have started working as a volunteer in a nonprofit after- school and summer program where i spent the last 17 years in my time in the police department. you see where i am coming from and i hope you take my opinion into account. >> everybody gets one chance. you're not, i'm sorry. and >> good afternoon, supervisors. i retired after 27 years with the city. i want to reiterate what everyone has said. given that no one from the city has given us a reason or described any sort of problem

with the health service board, there is absolutely no reason to include this in the package that you want to move forward. if there is no problem, there is no need to change it. unless there is an ulterior motive. that is my concern. i am here because i got an e- mail. i sat and listened. the thing that appalled me was that there are problems with money, i understand that. that part of the package i don't have a problem with. we all have a problem with changing something that is not broken. why change it? we feel this is only the solution.

with that note, my wife and i also a retiree. we would like you to please delete this portion from the amendment. i just want to clarify on the contribution rate the when the employer pays less, the employees will also be paying less. i did not hear that, as one to make sure that that was included. thank you. >> any other members of the public that would like to comment, please come forward. otherwise this will be the last

speaker. >> i am a retired employee. i would like to make the audience aware of a vote in georgia today, the city of atlanta being proposed by the mayor and basically they want to have a large change in their pension plan. i have only studied it a little bit and it seems to me that it is fairly reasonable. i suggest that everyone here look into the plan being sponsored and being voted on today. in regard to making changes, i like to make my usual statement on voodoo economics. they ran an editorial page cartoon that a few days ago. i'm not the only one that talks

about it along with my colleagues in the eastern part of the united states. any changes being proposed should be carefully examined. please consider the negative aspects. they are easily overlooked and i would urge everyone to look into that situation. hopefully the reform measure passes. >> any other members of the public, please let out. >> i don't think i know you, my name is nancy. i am a retired city employee. i was chair of the committee when we passed the amendment in

2004 which is exactly -- the reason we did it, was to cure the problem that supervisor elsbernd is trying to put back into place. the biggest problem that we saw was the fact that the appointed members of the board were not fiduciary irresponsible. they were only voting in favor of the city in the city costs. what has to happen, and having sat on that board for quite awhile does this. that we are the beneficiaries. the city is not the beneficiary. we are. and the reason the city is having to come up with big

numbers under the retirement system is because for years the board of supervisors just did their own pet projects and did not contribute to the retirement system. they were in dereliction of duty. they should have put in every year, a minimum amount to cover. the we had a half hour special projects. and did not really think i would stand up here and talk about this today. if you do not understand fiduciary responsibilities, you have no business being on that board. that is the reason that we change it.