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 ideas so we all had working together 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 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 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 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 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. 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. 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. 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 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 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 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.