member and i hope you can support me in supporting glendon hyde for the commission. >> i do not always agree on every issue. but knowing his commitment to the community and the city. i want to think of a commissioner for his service. we have two superb people before us today. this is not about one person being more committed than another.

there was a perception ash and a minimum that there was too much influence by the entertainment commission, the commission was not being aggressive enough

regulating the industry and holding the industry accountable. for those of us passionate about having a great guy like and entertainment in this city, we understand is that entertainment commission does not have the credibility it needs in terms of having that balance, that is not a benefit to the entertainment industry and undermines the industry. gil brings undoubted neighborhood credentials to this commission. he has been involved in traffic coming efforts along roosevelt street, he is a co-founder of the friends of corona heights park group to help take care of the park and has been involved in castro community on patrol. he has been deeply involved in his neighborhood. he is not a political person, he is a neighborhood person.

i think there are some seed thomas commissions -- on this commission for which i could be gladly support anaconda, but gil de best at filling the neighborhood seat and help keeping the strong balance this commission needs. so i will be voting against the motion to amend. president chiu: colleagues, we have a decision in front of us that's is an embarrassment of talent and i also want to join supervisor wiener in congratulating -- we have two outstanding candidates in front of us and i've spent quite a bit of time speaking with both of them. they could both serve our city and this commission extremely well. i do come to a slightly different perspective and i will be supporting the plan for a couple of reasons, but i want to

start with the same premise supervisor wiener started with. the entertainment commission has gone through significant transition in recent years. it was not long ago that there were suggestions of conflicts of interest where it did appear the entertainment commission was not doing what we needed it to do to ensure we didn't have public safety concerns, that we were ensuring a peaceful coexistence between our entertainment venues and our neighborhoods. that is a principle that is important to me and this is something i have discussed at great length. from a number of perspectives, i think he not only understands community, but the issues confronting our neighborhoods. if we do not figure out how to clean up of violence that happens around some of our troubled night clubs, if we do not figure out how our neighborhoods can peacefully coexist, this will affect the

perspective others have a around our entertainment industry in san francisco and how we have fun in san francisco. we need to deal with this issue and this is something he completely understands. as far as the perception of conflicts, he informed me that it has been several years since she received any payment from the industry and will not accept payment from any representative or venue within that industry as service occurs on the commission. with that, i am comfortable supporting clinton, but i think we can find a future place for a deal to help participate in ensuring we have one of the best night lives in the united states. >> thank you. supervisor kim: just agreeing

with my colleague, we had three great applicants. i would like to thank him for creating what that commission is today. he has been an important advocate for our neighborhood and will continue to be an advocate along with the up many things in the city and i look forward to working with them. i will also be supporting the london. as i mentioned earlier, he chaired our budget town hall meeting for district 6. something i noted would be immense respect our district has and i have a varying gauged district and i have the honor of serving a district that is very involved and participates in many of our process these. london -- i have heard arguments

that because he's a performer and organizes events in our venues, there may be a perception in the community that he is more favorite -- more favored toward entertainment, but i am confident he will prove to residents that he is an advocate for the neighborhoods and is someone residents can go to and he will listen. that is something i have come to appreciate and respect. his incredible capacity and tireless capacity to our region and all listen to everyone and bring people together. his calm demeanor and a willingness to take politics out of discussion has been incredible. i am proud to support him. if this motion fails, i will support gill.

i think he would do an excellent job, but today i am supporting this motion. >> supervisor campos: i do not want to repeat what has been said. i want to thank the commissioner for his service. i know he spent a lot of time and energy in the last few years working with the community on these issues and we would like to thank him for serving the city and county of san francisco. with respect to the individuals names we discussed, either would do a great job and i am proud to be supporting glendon. but i also want to recognize that gill brings a lot to the table and hopefully there'll be an opportunity to serve the city and county in the future. there is a motion and can we

take a roll-call vote? >> [roll-call] there are a 6ayes 5os. >> the motion to amend passes and now the underlying motion which would include appointing glendon to the entertainment commission. supervisor wiener: i will be supporting anaconda's appointment. we had to exceptional candidates and the canada i was supporting in the final vote is not on the final blow but i will be

supporting anaconda. -- the final vote. >> [b roll-call] there are 11 ayes. president chiu: the motion as amended is approved. why we moved to our 3:00 special order. >> items 44 and 45 constitute the board of supervisors sitting as a committee as a whole or for a charter amendment fourth draft regarding city retirement benefits and health-care benefits. president chiu: ladies and

gentlemen, we are holding an amendment which regards are pension benefits and health-care benefits. there was an amendment made to ensure distinctions between this ballot measure and the one proceeding with signatures and i want to see if there are members of the public who wish to speak with regard to this amendment. if you could please step up to the microphone, each member of the public will have up to two minutes to make your comments. if you please line up in the center aisle. whoever comes up to the center aisle gets to speak first. walter, you are first. >> ♪ they worked hard for their money ♪. they work hard for the city. ♪ they worked hard for the city, so retire them right.

president chiu: thank you. if the folks would line up, you can come up a little closer. >> good afternoon, supervisors. i'm the immediate past president of local 21, retired after 29 years of service with the planning department. please make this measure fair to the voters and to the 105,000 members of the health services system who are past and present union members. remove the structural changes to the health services system that governs a well-run, multi- employer trust fund from the pension issues in this charter amendment. federal labor law requires a balance of governance of private

sector health trust funds. why should our city, a labor town, advocate public sector employees have a less balanced board? the 105,000 members are getting good services with increasing emphasis on wellness. if the health service's board is not broke, and fixing it does not result in cost savings, you don't need to change it. please sever the few pages on health services system. don't do tricks on the voters and the public workers and retirees. thank you. president chiu: thank you. next speaker. >> i'm a retired city worker. unfortunately, i cannot sing. however, i think there is a major concern in these

amendments. basically attacking current city workers. this is the cost of living in one of the most expensive cities in the united states. for instance, i brought my paycheck here. it is -- it amounts to about $25,000 a year. it is not much money. there are thousands of retirees who earn much less than i do. this is so -- attacking this would drive people into poverty. the crisis that initiated this problem was a loss of $4 billion and the retirement fund. not 4 million, 4 billion. they result was somehow city workers will have to pay for one

way or the other for that loss, even though it was the fiduciary duty of this city to protect those funds, which we paid every month from our paycheck into that fund. so it was really our money that was lost. of course in wall street. we believe there was a political motivation in all of this, just as there is a political motivation in attacking social security, currently because it is now in style to attack retirees. there is apparently no lack of funds to provide for a tunnel that would cost $1.6 billion. apparently no lack of funds to provide -- [tone] >president chiu: next speaker.

>> i am here to represent the 10 to one of retirees. our chapter has taken a position against both amendments. we are opposing this amendment today based on the governance, the new proposed governance of the health service system. you are going to hear a lot about that. it goes in favor of what the city wants and we have seen this over and over at health system meetings. we know this will cause costs to go up for beneficiaries and we'd do not have as much representation when the board is composed of a set of 4-3 in our favor, perhaps the opposite. i hate to call it a wild card, but it would most likely be voting along with the city.

this system is for the beneficiaries. it is not to keep the city's costs down. that is not why it exists. i agree that there are many people that receive under $25,000 a year. i am one of those folks. people receiving under 20,000 a year. i got those statistics from the retirement board. it is probably the same or more for people making 25,000 or under, which is maybe one-third to half of the people who get the retirement. we are not in good shape. it may not amount to much for people who are getting more and that amount may be $500 a year, but to somebody at that bracket, it means having a cell phone or

going to dr. when you need to. [tone] president chiu: thank you. next speaker. >> i worked 33 years for the city and retired in the adult probation department. please remove the provisions in the city retirement and health- care benefits charter amendment. that would change the composition of the health service board and reduce the supermajority vote of 5 to a simple majority of 4 to approve yours and my health care plan rate benefits and other major decisions. if the city administration is allowed to appoint four members, they would have the majority on the board. all majority decisions would be made by this majority of four. it would eliminate the voice of the employees, you, and the

retirees, us. it would take us back to willie brown's administration when they could not even find the funds to pay the doctors that submitted bills. patients would call in for assistance and they would not have an answer on the other end because there was not enough staffing. doctors did not want to have patience with this plan because they did not know if they would get paid. i hope we do not return to 2004. thank you. >> i worked -- i worked for the city for 34 years. i'm also the vice president of the retired employees of the city of san francisco. i am speaking against the motion related to the health service board changes. i feel the current system works. i have been very impressed. i attended most of the meetings

for the health service board and i feel the composition is working now. we fought very hard to get another active employee involved and i think has worked out very well and we should continue as it is. i have concerns -- i am unclear what financial benefits it would have in any shape or form. thank you very much. president chiu: thank you. next speaker. >> i am longtime city residents and former -- i am a retired employee. references to the health care section of this amendment -- what is its purpose really? to save money? that has not been established. eliminating an employee elected representative and substituting

a controller's representative? what does that do? frankly, we see this as a power grab, an attempt to reduce the health care benefits for active and retired city and county employees, quite simply. we remind you, ladies and gentleman that the proposition failed last year because voters believed it was an attack on active and retired health-care. also color recent polls show voters do not want retiree benefits taken away from them. thank you. >> good afternoon, supervisors. i am representing the united educators of san francisco, the 6000 people to keep the schools running day and, day out, in our city. i want to briefly state but

strongly stated the educators of san francisco are opposed to the changes in the health system board. this is a small taste of the foul winds that have been blowing in from wisconsin. it is a slap in the face to the people who do the work. it is a diminishing of our voice. it is one small attack on collective bargaining rights that unfortunately are sweeping away is so much of the social safety net and benefit workers have won across the country. we urge you to maintain the current four-three makeup of the board and stand with the people to do the work. >> and good afternoon. i retired after 43 years of service for the city and county of san francisco. i speak on one. only -- there is an attempt to

undo what the voters in their wisdom in 2004 finally did, which the city had failed to do. that is set up a trust fund. be advised that when you promise benefits to prospective employees, you have a moral and legal obligation to put together these apparatus which will provide the benefits. the voters, as usual showed you the way in 2004 with proposition c. you now have a very prudent supermajority and an unbiased, unpolluted system of trustees. do not tamper with the proper mechanism. we have had to exceedingly competent executive directors. if it ain't broke, don't fix it. >> i'm a retired social worker

who worked for the city and county of san francisco. this legislation is too important to be buried in a sea of legislation regarding pension reform. the issue of restructuring the composition of the board is very important because this board has operated very efficiently in the interest of people who are served by the health service system and also the people of san francisco. the health service system has successfully passed every internal audit. its financial performance and fiscal responsibility is impeccable. its present composition is necessary because deliberation is necessary when you determine benefits and when you determine the cost. because of the above, i am

recommending the proposed charter revisions be removed from the pension reform legislation proposed by the mayor. my concern is i do not want to see the clock turned back. this is too darned important to be buried in a sea of legislation regarding pension reform. thank you. >> my name is james elliott. i worked for 37 and half years for the city and i'm retired auto mechanic. i recommended the board take this health service system out of this measure because as the supervisor said, it is not a money saver. the way it is now, we have four members elected and three appointed. we have established that five will be a quorum to vote on

anything. the way this is written up now, there'll be three elected and four appointed and only four are required to pass anything. the way it is now, we have to talk to the other side to get a vote. the way it is going to be, they do not have to talk to us. they will have the votes and they will do anything they want. i respectfully request you pull this health service apart out of this charter amendment. thank you. >> hello. i make current city and county of the san francisco employee. i have never done this before, so i am somewhat nervous. i hope you bear with me. i worked really closely with the unions that crafted this

amendment during last year's proposition be. the position i'm going to take is a particularly hard one because i respect those people lot. i am going to offer a the point i don't think has been publicly spoken. this is something i hoped to resolve behind closed doors, but i've spoken to a lot of members of my union. where the lower middle income earners every union and every politician in this city stood behind last year during proposition b because we could not afford the cost proposition b would cost last year. i was not at the table, but during the crafting of the

charter amendment, those same people that stood this -- did so strongly got knocked out. the measure does allow people to make under $50,000, but the people to make $60,000, $65,000, leaders in appearance and families. this will cost them more than proposition b would have cost. i don't know how we could stand up -- i am a single parent in that price range. i am not going to be able to afford this. i would request -- [tone] >> thank you. good afternoon, members of the

board and supervisors. let me start by saying it was not fair that after 2008, after the downturn, the attention turned from wall street to government and government spending. all of us had to face up to the reality of declining revenues and increasing pensions. however fair it was, it was important for city employes to step up and face the reality and work with leaders in san francisco to find the right response to the reality of that situation. that is what we believe we have done. we have spent six months trying to develop this ballot measure. as you now know, the ballot measure is over to hundred 50 pages of very, very hard work, representing the very best