of these changes have a net effect on any increase in cost to the budget? >> you know, what it means is it will stop manufacturing some in order to produce others because we do not have additional budget to produce more. president o'brien: so it has no affect budget wise? >> i will not say it has no effect. we're always struggling to do more with less. to the extent that some cases are very complicated and take more than a year, we may have tangible resources to do everything possible to work cases faster without any additional budget, so the answer

to getting more enforcement is not only getting smarter enforcement but is budgeting for more staff, and really, that is a key limitation on enforcement is the amount of staffing that we have, and the limits that that places on us. president o'brien: this legislation will not increase staff or -- >> no. >> i would just add that your point is really well taken, and we really think in our office that they do a fantastic job with very limited resources, and we believe that the agency is incredibly understaffed, so we believe as a city family that we need to be investing more resources in this agency. supervisor campos has inquired

of the director what happened to the vacant positions that the supervisors fought hard for in the budget, and ms. levin has been unable to hire those positions because of the budget crisis -- ms. levitt. to the extent that this problem is so serious and that there are statistics that workers in chinatown, one out of two workers in chinatown restaurants are not earning minimum wage or that day laborers, 15% of day laborers that were interviewed in a national study were not paid part of their wages within the previous two months. the amount of waste left in this country is a crisis level, and it is costing workers billions of dollars per year in wages that they can then put back into the economy by paying larger rents, etc., etc., and so we

really believe that we must adequately fund them, that they are not yet found at the level they should be for such an important and crucial organization doing such magnificent work in our city and county, so any advocating for funding that you can help us with, we would greatly, greatly appreciate that. president o'brien: thank you. it is kind of confusing -- working very hard to preserve some of the positions. but the budget said that it could not be filled, which seems like someone of an oxymoron to me. they will be filled, and they will be there. >> because of the budget crisis, there has been a hiring freeze. we are particularly troubled by the fact that they have not been able to fill those positions. president o'brien: think you.

commissioner: i would like to make a motion that we support this. president o'brien: this time, it was not me. so without any further and comment from the commissioners, i would like to open it up to public comment, so three minutes. clerk: public comment will be limited to three minutes. please speak your name. [reading names] >> thank you, again. i am with the san francisco labor council. those of each of us to work under a collective bargaining agreement and make much more than minimum wages because we have fought over the years, it really hit us hard. we supported the minimum wage, which is good or bad, it is the

highest minimum wage in the united states, and some people are getting half of that, so this is just going to strengthen that, making sure that people can get what is in title for them. we are talking about the service workers who are not even getting a minimum wage, so the labor council supports this. president o'brien: thank you. next speaker. >> again, i was not going to bore you with my same face twice, but my colleague was passing out some of the information packets we have for you all about our campaign, because this legislation is just one piece of a larger campaign. several other groups are part of this, and they launched in may of this year, it is a campaign to say that we staff in this country has reached a crisis level, and at a time when we all know the recession is hurting

us. it is hurting businesses. it is hurting workers. it is hurting communities. we need to end this for the entire community. we create a certain of stimulus that no government bill can match. putting money back in the pockets of workers is what is going to get this economy going. we're here to express our support, not only to support this ordinance but to really think about how can the small business community partner with community organizations to but at this and stop those employers who are taking the low road and driving the standard down for everybody and really raise the high road here in san francisco. we had a share of workers who had gone without being paid workers -- wages for three to 10 months. kenya imagines going without your wages for three to 10 months and then being told every

week, "i will get you, i will get you," and then not being paid? some work nine or 10 hours per day and never see a dime of overtime. this is a basic law. it is being violated. it is a national crisis. we have a responsibility to model for the rest of the country how we are standing up for workers, how we are holding the bottom line, making sure we are supporting a strong economy, a strong economy being one that protects workers and businesses. around strengthening enforcement, this also includes a taskforce where we are going to bring together what is the difference in the agencies that have the power to regulate businesses to have a coherent strategy about going after bad actors and making sure that there is a level playing field for all, and then we have a component about the high road.

even going the extra mile so they can have health care. we urge your support. thank you very much. president o'brien: thank you. next speaker. >> good evening. we are representing edwin escobar, who had to leave. i will be translating. >> [speaking foreign language] >> good evening, my name is -- >> [speaking foreign language] >> so we are here to talk about your support and wage that. >> [speaking foreign language] >> -- so we need employers to be creating a healthy economy. >> [speaking foreign language] >> oh where do we want to be spending our money?

>> [speaking foreign language] >> so we were talking about responsible businesses that give respect and dignity to all workers. in different communities of san francisco. >> [speaking foreign language] >> where we went to spend our money. this is for responsible businesses that respect the minimum wage. and that respect overtime pay and paid sick leave. so one example is norma who worked at a restaurant for 11 years. costs -- her son was sick and

needed an operation so she needed two days to support him, and they did not give it to her. plus -- because she asked for it, she was actually cut wages. she was cut two hours per week. after working 11 years. >> [speaking foreign language] >> oh that is why we are here to discuss wages and wage that. we're open to any questions or in a dialogue. also, if you have suggestions for good response will businesses we have a process of interviewing workers, and we want to be supporting responsible businesses and telling our partners in the community that they should be spending their money in the community at places that are responsible.

president o'brien: thank you. next speaker. >> we had a chance to have a conversation about what their goals were, what they wanted to accomplish. we think this legislation does as was articulated by many of the commissioners year, creating a level playing field. we have spent a long time working with our members, educating them about what the law is, complying with the law, making sure they are posting the ordinances, hot region ordinances, so whether or not you have businesses doing the right thing, when you have businesses going against the law, blatantly stealing from their employees and going against the law, that is terrible for the employee, obviously, but in a broader

sense, it is terrible for our society and our economy because it does undermine the businesses that are complying with the law, so we do support this legislation. we share some of the concerns that were articulated. the burdens that are placed administratively on the city. when it does is it does force them to have to prioritize the things that they in force -- what it does. obviously, that is an issue. but in a broader sense, we think this legislation is important, and it does level the playing field. the golden gate association is supportive, and we are happy being able to work with the collaborative in their outreach efforts to make sure that in particular in the restaurant community, they are aware of this issue and are complying with the law. president o'brien: thank you. director? >> yes, i just wanted to -- how

do i want to say this proves to bring a thought you just hit if there is any additional comments you would like to make. while i think director of love it said that we could perhaps you some creative ways in dealing with -- director levitt said that, if this does add to their time, could it possibly then affect the cost of the permit in fees that the restaurant pays to the health department in terms of their increased costs and time as far as doing inspections in the department? so just to noted there is anything on record you want to make in relationship to any potential impact on fees. president o'brien: all right.

>> that may not be necessary, but i am just noting that since in our permanent committee, we are very conscious of how fees become increased, i just wanted to make a note of that. >> and i just wanted to clarify that there is nothing in this that requires them to work with the department's public health to investigate restaurants in any particular way, so to the extent that that is a concern, then we are already partnering with the department public health in order for the department to look into wage that issues when they are doing health inspections. president o'brien: commissioner clyde? commissioner clyde: i receive my and will notice of the wage increase, and it says right on it that it needs to be prominently placed. i do not know if inspector is

looking at those or not, but it is already very clear. i also know that the health department is charged now with inspecting workman's comp insurance. i think we have to provide proof if requested, and it has never been requested, but i believe that is now the case, it and it did not incur i believe any change in our feet, at least at this time. i guess that is something we can ask. >> a note for the record. president o'brien: supervisor campos: -- president o'brien: i totally get what you are saying. i think we are all going to support this legislation, and i am looking at how we will phrase it. >> you do not necessarily have to. i did not want to redirect the direction the commission was going in, and you do not

necessarily have to note of it in the motion, but it could be just an additional comment. president o'brien: right, and i think what i am hearing is a concern, which is why i asked about the budget in aspect, because i do not want the cost of government to increase and then have that translated into costs to businesses and an inflation. this is one the most expensive places, so i do not think we can phrase anything, but let's just have it on the record that we want to try to have this work more efficiently, with the emphasis on efficiency with the resources available -- that aren't available as opposed to incurring more costs is, i think, what we're saying. but region >> when we have noncompliant employers, there

are fines that good to them for their ongoing enforcement efforts, and should a business been noncompliance, there would be funding and there to offset the fee. >> the fee is going up, so it is going up to $1,000. >> the fine for retaliation specifically. >> director, would you mind clarifying that for us? >> recovered for violation of labor laws from the city general fund. ok. i stand corrected. interesting. cost -- president o'brien: is that what you're talking about?

>> yes. >> the money will revert back for use to enforce the minimum wage laws. that is one of the parts of our ordinance. president o'brien: ok, well can we get a motion? anybody object? seeing none, the motion is passed. next item. clerk: commissioners, you are on item number nine, a presentation by cost -- by zoe

polk. >> on april 14 of this year, our commission voted unanimously for a proposal to at a convention records to the nondiscrimination ordinance, and since that time, they have been working with community groups to put together a forums where we get input. in addition, we have been working with compliance.

so we looked at models in other jurisdictions, including seattle, washington, madison, and the states of massachusetts and pennsylvania. all of these have similar legislation in place. we now know that in order to best meet the needs of those of san francisco, i am here tonight to us the small business commission to co-host a forum with the purpose of getting input from small-business owners and employees of up to best craft it compliance guidelines. this is just the beginning of an outreach effort that is being done in order to get proper input. i understand that the commissioners have received in their pocket a couple of documents that outlined the action item, so i do not want to take up too much fine --

time. second, i want to go over the draft language of the proposal which i distributed to you, and then i want to talk about getting input for the compliance guidelines. so the general mandate over this issue. the human rights commission works to provide leadership and to procure, protect, and promote human rights for all people. it includes mediation, implementation and enforcement of the equal benefits ordinance, insuring compliance with the business enterprise ordinance, development and administration of the city's hate-violence. in san francisco, discrimination is provided on the basis of race, gender identity, miracle status, weight, height, among other categories.

-- marriage status. there are several reasons why we are committed to this issue, including alarming recidivism, which will in turn reduce the costs to the city, and public safety, but for our purposes tonight, i want to focus again on the conviction records and what that looks like. first, a couple of statistics i want to share with you. almost 7 million people in california have a misdemeanor arrest or conviction record. they often face blank denials for employment or housing. people with a conviction record do not need to apply. further, a disproportionate representation of african- americans and latinos in the justice system has resulted in discrimination of communities of color. according to the department of justice, one-third of felony arrests leads to a conviction.

the human rights commission has a concern boat. it is despite whether the crime is a violent are non-violent, a misdemeanor or not, that they are not fit to join the work force. this is contrary to those who have served their time and paid their debt to society. background checks. often people do not know that they have incorrect information on their background reports, and it may take significant time to correct them. in adopting this type of nondiscrimination ordinance. i will talk about this in more detail in a minute, and now i want to highlight that it is already prohibited to discriminate against people with conviction records under title 7 of the discrimination act. it already requires, federal legislation, it already requires an individual

assessment. employers will be complying with the san francisco ordinance because it requires an assessment, much like title 7, and performing the background check after the individual is already qualified. the human rights commission compliance guidelines will outline a process to help with the enforcement. we have an excellent track record of negotiating solutions. i want to emphasize that we have several community partners and government partners who are working with us on that. the office of work force development. a list of the financial incentives for small business, and i want to enumerate those now, but what i am hoping with

the action items if the commission approves it, laying out those specific incentives to the small-business owners who might come to a forum. so this ordinance would be cost savings because a background check would only be done for qualified applicants. it would create a forum for employers and help assure that they are hiring the most qualified people and are not limiting the applicant on all by saying those with a conviction do not need to apply. special programs exist for people who hire those with past convictions. it protects against employee dishonesty, which includes theft and investment. it also makes tax credits available, which reduces the employer federal tax liability per worker. they can clean this tax credit for two years, and there is no limit on how many people they

can claim. this is within one year after being released from prison. i want to emphasize that this has not been introduced. this is just a proposal. my understanding that this is language that supervisor mirkarimi and his office are reviewing. what this legislation basically says is it outlines a couple of things. i do not want to go into detail, but i did want to go over the mentality. employers would be prohibited for relying on arrest records. number two, they can inquire about a conviction once and output has been determined to be otherwise qualify. 3 come on they cannot base the employment on the conviction is that is substantially related to the job. the applicant must be provided

with a background check report. 5, this law would not apply to businesses with five or fewer employees. 6, nothing in this law would prohibit an inquiry decision which is based on local, federal, or state law. now, my purpose here tonight is to talk to you a little bit about what we are doing. our work is primarily hosting forums in the community. these are married efforts in that we are hoping that these will go to help determine these guidelines. looking at other jurisdictions i listed before, pennsylvania, wisconsin, we are looking at how do you make this assessment? how do you determine if the conviction is substantially related to the job? and then we have concrete examples, and then also kind of

laying up the process. in addition to speaking with you and other stakeholders so far, we have met with the housing authority and the office of housing contractors, and there was the san francisco chamber of commerce. i actually spoke with them this morning, and i believe we will be meeting with them by the end of the month. the small business advisor council. so i shared with the small business commission staff what we put together with the stakeholders, and they actually gave me input about the forums, so what i want to ask is if the commissioners would be willing to co-host the forum with us, to make sure that they give their input on this kind of legislative proposal, and i just

want to highlight the simple forms, sample application form, a sample letter requesting additional information if you want to obtain more information about the rehabilitation process, or letters of recommendation or anything that might give you more information or evidence of how a conviction is related to the job. we can hopefully provide those forms with in the compliance guidelines. again, we are looking for stakeholders to give us what they need in the compliance guidelines. in conclusion, i want to take any questions from the commission. this is to ask you to cohosts the forum to find out what the need is in terms of the employers and employees. thank you. president o'brien: any questions from any commissioners? ok, thank you for the presentation.