Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    July 19, 2011 3:30pm-4:00pm PDT

3:30 pm
to do something we think is fair to everybody that will be impacted by this ballot measure. it is balance between what the city will pay and what city employees will pay and what new employees who have not come to work will pay and what actives and retirees will pay. anyone can be critical of any single piece but it is a comprehensive package we feel is very well done and fair given the circumstances. we appreciate the hard work of the legal staff, the mayor's office, the board of supervisors and everyone who worked on this measure. thank you very much. >> i'm the head -- of the vice chair of protect our benefits. i am also the head of their
3:31 pm
retired and a teacher at the san francisco unified school district for 39 and half years. i just heard the previous speaker mentioned this was fair and perhaps is a fair charter amendment. as far as pensions go, it is fair for everyone working for the city who is in the system. what i do not see is any inclusion with the health service part of any of the people involved from the school district, from the community college district and from the court system. there are almost 20% of the people in the health service system who have simply been left out of this picture. that's something i think should be considered and i certainly think governments is just as important to the rest of us in the system and that should be a very important part of the
3:32 pm
reason you should act to remove the governance section only from the current amendment. thank you very much. >> i am a retired san francisco school teacher. i am part of -- i am respectfully requesting a withdrawal of the health care benefits section of the proposed budget. it will not benefit teachers who are retiring nor those in the future. i think it has been poorly conceived and written. thank you very much. his>> a good afternoon, ladies d gentleman. i'm a former member of the
3:33 pm
health service system board, retired city employee and public servant for as far back as i can remember. i would like to ask that all people here in support of the removal of the government's cost from the charter amended to please stand. many people are not comfortable speaking, but i would like you to see our representation that is present here today. thank you. i don't have anything further to say about the points that have been brought up over and over again about the elected members and the voting rights. the super majority, but i do want to borrow a phrase. when the supervisor winner talked about creating the commission for the sake of balance, that is what proposition c was all about, to bring balance back to the table so we could represent the
3:34 pm
members on their rates and benefits for their health system care. i ask you to omit this clause from the pension reform. we are interested in pension reform, but this does not belong in that charter amendment as it stands. it was passed as its own separate entity and deserve the same awfulness. >> i am the executive director of the san francisco labor council. we're presented public and private sector and i just want to echo what the chair of our public employee committee said. there has been some very intense negotiations and hard decisions made over the last half year. this was not easy work to craft all of this. a lot of money and probably cause a few marriages to break up because of the amount of time going on.
3:35 pm
but i want to applaud the public it committee for all of the negotiating they have done. i hear from people all around the country. no matter what, how did you in san francisco be able to get something on the ballot that had consensus and work with community groups and almost every single -- i would say every single union whether they are a member of the labour council or not. it was a tremendous effort and all eyes are on san francisco. i want to applaud the negotiators who were showing us how to get it done. thank you. >> good afternoon. i'm a retired city employee. i worked for the city for over 20 years. i retired from the planning department.
3:36 pm
i was chair of protect our benefits when we passed proposition c in 2004. the reason we had to was $17 million was missing out of our trust fund under dhr. we decided let's have our own independent agency. we did and it established an independent agency. we passed proposition c by 56%. not bad for a small group of retirees trying to make the best out of a very bad situation.
3:37 pm
as a result, our customer service was increased. now we have a good approach to taking care of the beneficiaries. the city is not a beneficiary of the trust. it has no business saying anything about how that money is spent. all trusties on the health services trust fund our fiduciary. that means they are devoted to seeing our money is spent well. not for the purpose of a slush fund. [tone] president chiu: thank you very much. everyone has the same amount of
3:38 pm
time. thank you very much. you are not allowed to address questions to individual members of the board of supervisors. thank you very much for your question. next speaker. >> good afternoon. i'm a retired city employee. i would like to start out by adding some information to what the labor representatives have said. they were never allowed to be at the table at which the pension reform was negotiated. we are a key element as far as the city is concerned. and the city's success as a city over the last 50 or 60 years, for retirees not to be allowed
3:39 pm
representation on negotiating committees, it would directly affect retirees well-being and is totally outrageous and unacceptable. i would like to focus on what's you may not be seeing in these proposals. they are an infringement on a representative democracy on the health service's board. these proposals by supervisor elsbernd will result in less representation as far as health plan decisions are concerned. i would like to draw your attention to a parallel to the board of supervisors. these proposals are as if there
3:40 pm
was a charter after the required six board members to be appointed by the mayor and only five to be elected by the city of san francisco. i'm sure nobody on the side of the railing would support such a proposal but that is exactly the kind of rollback of representative democracy that supervisor elsbernd is asking you to approve. [tone] president chiu: thank you very much. thank you very much. next speaker. i ask all members of the audience if you could abide by the equal time we provide all speakers. >> good afternoon. i am a retired city employee, 32 years, the department of social
3:41 pm
services and san francisco general hospital. i have been retired since 1986. quite a long time. during the time worked, i was a single mother most of the time. i had quite a bit of help from my parents because they tick 8% out of my checked every single payday for 32 years. leaf along with social security and health insurance premiums and disability as i recall, at the present time, my pension is about $32,000 a year, so it is about the same as the highest salary i made. it sounds shocking when you put it that way, but i wonder how many of you could live on $32,000 a year. fortunately, i also have social security and some investment income. what i know is not everybody at
3:42 pm
the present time has 8% deducted from their checks. the charter amendment looks as though it has been amended a few times. i did not come to speak about it. i am not very well informed. if your vote affects the amount of money being deducted for pensions, i hope you do something to ensure other employes have that same deduction. i am happy to have the pension but i read the other day that others get the same health insurance benefits i get. i don't know who is paying big premiums. i hope is being deducted from any and all of you that may benefit from that. thank you. i also picked up this charter amendment will affect the number of elected officials that are going to make decisions about pensions and i think electing is better than appointing. thank you. [tone]
3:43 pm
president chiu: thank you. are there any other members of the public who wish to speak at this public hearing? the public hearing is close. supervisor mar: there is always a challenge when there is not enough time for real dialogue. i appreciate the mayors efforts to put a pension reform package before us. i did want to allow someone from department of human resources to respond because i think many of the retirees -- it's great seeing many of the familiar faces from teachers to longtime public employees coming to speak before us with compelling arguments for why the pullout and this restructuring of the health system board. they make a good argument that it is anti-democratic -- anti- democratic and against the protect our benefits coalition
3:44 pm
and what they did to create stronger process. they make an argument that it is a power grab that will shift the balance and one that is more dominated by appointees. they also say has no financial impact as well but i just wanted to ask if they could give us a rationale for why this should be part of the broad, comprehensive package. i have many of the same concerns that many of the retirees brought up. supervisor elsbernd: perhaps you will give me a shot to respond to this. it was what i was going to open my comments with with respect to the folks who showed up today. first and foremost, proposition c was not just changing the composition of the health service board of far more a point to me, and what of a key reason that supported it was that it used to be an entity within the department of human
3:45 pm
resources. the department of human resources staff did manage it and there was no independent whatsoever to the health service boreholes service system. it ticket out from under dhr and made it into an independent agency. there is nothing in the proposal in front of you that change that. health service system and the health service board will continue to remain an independent department. nothing changes there. in respect to the real composition of the health service board, a couple of things. i had the opportunity to serve on that board for five years. what you are hearing today is very similar to some of the back and forth i heard that that health service board in my time there. a constant give-and-take, employer-employee-employer- employee and there is an element that is missing. the taxpayer. there was no discussion of the
3:46 pm
taxpayer. it was employer-employee. but what about the entity that pays for all this? that is the fundamental reason we need this one change to the health service board. what will happen is the comptroller will appoint somebody to be that seventh seat. keep in mind that the controller doesn't appoint that person then that is it. in fact, a majority of the six others need to confirm that person. if the three electives to not like who is appointed, that person does not sit. at least one of the three, if not more, who knows of all the city representatives will agree, but if the elected members to not like the appointee and stand firm, the appointee does not sit. this will have to be someone who can bridge the divide. i think that is a key fundamental piece in this.
3:47 pm
we hear that it is a power grab and a takeover. not true. my former colleagues on the health service board, sharon johnson, talked about the need for balance. respectfully, i do not think 4-3 is balance. three-three is balanced with the seventh being someone the remaining six agreed to. those are the fundamental reasons this change was made. it was not the initial proposal. what we were looking for initially was a flip-flop, 4-3. but labour consistently made the point that it was not balanced. i believe we have struck a balance, 3-3, with one being someone both sides agreed to. i have other comments i want to make, but i want to make sure we fully that this issue because it's the heart of the public comment.
3:48 pm
>> i do see the director of public resources here. if you could explain why this the to be part of the comprehensive package, that would be helpful to me. >> supervisors, as we began to identify over the last year the significant increases in secos cola you have seen and we have seen it includes both pension -- you have seen and we have seen that it includes a pension costs and also on the hillside. we would be failing in our duty to the public and as we serve if we failed -- if there was a method to address those costs as well. as was noted, we believe there was a gap in the existing health service in the sense there is not a taxpayer representative to look at the decisions that
3:49 pm
determine the benefits of the employees receive. we know that in their retirement system, the voters decide what benefits are received and the elected body determines what benefits are received. this is an introduction of the voters' voice to determine what those benefits are. the other elements which we have not heard a lot about what is very significant cut is the -- is significant, the retiree trust fund. unlike pension, we have not contributed except those hired since 2009 to the retiree health-care trust fund and we do not have money saved up to pay for our obligations which we are obligated to pay. those are some of the thoughts i had.
3:50 pm
supervisor elsbernd: thank you. let's step back and look at the big picture here. what you have in front of you, as has been discussed in public comment, a fully vetted, fully discussed piece of legislation that is brought to you through a collaborative process. six months of very intense work that at times got a bit heated, but it is something i am proud of and i think every member sponsored it is proud of and our partners in labor are proud of it. it is comprehensive in scope and is not just focus on the pension issue. it also focuses on the health care issue and it is not a proposal that ignores a thousand + of our employees.
3:51 pm
it gets savings as a result. it is not a proposal that unintentionally increases the retirement benefit of thousands of employees to happen to take a desman and our retirement. this is a well thought out and well lighted measure. the comptroller's office has finally put together some numbers that demonstrate what this ballot measure saves and what the public defender's ballot measure would save. i want to put those numbers in perspective because i fear in a campaign you're not going to get that opportunity in a five second sound bite and he may not get it in a 10 word mailer. this is important to consider what this campaign could be all about. over the next 10 years, the city is expected to spend $4.5 billion on retirement.
3:52 pm
$4.5 billion. the difference between the two measures is less than 5% of that. we will be having a campaign over to under $50 million. what we are talking and scope of $4 billion. what i would say to the public defender who is hopefully watching this is declare victory. you have one. you have pushed the envelope. we are in a great place. let's not have a campaign over 5%. particularly when the numbers that are here from the comptroller are extremely dubious when it comes to the legal footing the public defender has. the comptroller does not apply double legal merits but we know from the memo we receive from the city attorney that they were pushing the envelope. the public defender is blowing up that envelope. we cannot take that risk.
3:53 pm
regardless of the amendment we made last week, as both measures were to pass and his measure were to get more votes, we are not risking the delta of that extra 5%. you risk the entire amount. he is going to take a gamble for the entire billion dollars savings over the next 10 years at the mayor's proposal delivers. that is a gamble that is completely irresponsible to take with the taxpayers' money. i want to thank everyone who has worked on this, especially our partners in labor. they have stepped forward with the billion dollars in savings over the next 10 years. that should absolutely be commended. there's a great deal of gratitude on my part but, over the next few months, we will see the city's part of their efforts for stepping forward and i thank them for that. i thank the mayor for his leadership and it is going to be
3:54 pm
a difficult campaign, but it's one i am glad to be a part of because i think it is unequivocally the right step forward and will allow us to move forward together and i look forward to your support today. supervisor campos: thank you mr. president and thank you, supervisor, for your comments. i would like to thank everyone who has come out and spoken on this item and i appreciate all the comments and understand the importance of these issues for the folks have come out and testified. i do not take any of the things that were set lightly. we are talking about very serious issues here. that said, i have always believed that when it comes to something as complicated and important as issues like retirement, pension, health care, you are not going to come up with a solution unilaterally.
3:55 pm
you are not going to address those issues and truly solve the overarching concerns if you do not bring all of the stakeholders to the table. if you do not thunder's -- if you cannot find a middle ground or a position everyone can live with, i think balance is the word that was used. to me, that is the key word here. how do we strike the right balance so all of the concerns of the different stakeholders are taken into account? striking the right balance often means you have things not everyone is happy with. striking the right balance is what we need to do with something as important as this. i appreciate the comments of workers, but i can get is quite telling that the leadership of the council and the leadership of our various labor partners
3:56 pm
are here today to show their support for this measure. it is a testament to their work and a testament to the work of the mayor who has worked vehemently to bring folks together. supervisor elsbernd has been talking about these issues since i got on the board. i agree the public defender should declare victory because all lot of the things that are here today we are about to vote on the and what has been put forward is something that reflects all lot of the points he has made. by ho is that as we move forward to the november ballot, to the extent possible we have the united front as an elected family. that is something that will be in the best interest of the taxpayers and i look forward to the campaign. but because of the hard work
3:57 pm
everyone has done, including the work from our labour partners, i will be supporting this today and i want to thank everyone for their good work. president chiu: colleagues, any additional discussion? if we could take a roll-call vote on item number 45. >> [roll-call] there are 11 ayes. president chiu: this charter amendment is submitted. could you please call items 46
3:58 pm
through 48. >> for the city commissioners as a whole allowing amendments to ordeals of ordnances or declarations of policy approved by the voters on or after november 1st, 2011. item 48 is a charter amendment, a third draft, allowing a mammoth two or appeals of an initial -- initiative ordinance or declarations of policy. supervisor wiener: i am going to move to table items 46 and 47 so that we may proceed directly to item number 48. i have been advised by the city attorney that is appropriate. president chiu: it is my understanding if we're not going to consider item 47 we do not have to have the public hearing for item 46. is there a second to the motion? without objection -- supervisor elsbernd: i know it
3:59 pm
is a lost cause when the sponsor was to table it, but i speak against the motion to table. if any of you have the opportunity to view the rules committee hearing on thursday, i think you would see it is absolutely imperative if these three measures stay on the ballot, there is going to be significant cleanup legislation needed on all three. we heard over and over again the phrase that the legislation as drafted is not the intent. that is not what we intended. that was not the impact we were intending. it is not what we meant to say. if we are going to have a question of legislative intent as opposed to what the language it says, we could clarify it if we had the opportunity to amend it. the demolition legislation is my favorite. throughout it, it says 50, sometimes as 20 units. i