revisions submitted at hearings are discouraged. president olague: good for that. and that is in every one of the cases and then the other one is the staff on policy or major project informational presentation at the commission is supposed to get precipitated power points one week in advance. >> we'll bring it with us every week. >> if we don't get it, we will still hear the case? >> and it says december cession and if we want -- it says discretion and so we could say that but make it not so arbitrary. >> there is one interesting

thing that happened today at 11:25 a rather potentially important set of comments came in regarding 55 laguna and the person presented here and so when that comes in, the presentation itself does not give enough to understand. and to send it the week before, i would have time to read it and think about it. >> and the public needs to be encouraged to submit public commentary early on. and which you either agree with or not. that is not the point. and somebody wants to make a contribution, but out of respect of time we need to have it in order to be thoughtful about it. commissioner borden: i know the rules are on the website, yes? so maybe we can to have the

middle issue stuff on the website. and if they want to thoughtfully consider the comments and to give them enough time. president olague: or staff should discuss with project sponsor also. and it should be part of the routine of what they do. and the project sponsor should be up front given the list of the rules. they are? well, then there's -- >> and to submit things late is one problem or in a day or two in advance. and commissioner moore is raising is often for memberses of the public who come in very, very late, not project sponsor concerns. president olague: i know what you are saying. secretary avery: and let me just recap this. not only do members of the public, but our staff does this. and we get things today.

so they have had changes and everybody on both sides of the coin are in violation of your rules. so what do we do? president olague: just encourage and i think that -- commissioner miguel: i think we encourage because we also encourage people to talk about d.r.'s and talking about other things and to negotiate and as we know, sometimes that comes down to right outside the door. so absolutes are a problem and we're encouraging it in another sense. >> we know the language within the rules and up to you to enforce it. and i know because of the whole nature of negotiation, it is hard to enforce something when you are encouraging negotiation and that might happen just prior

to us calling the item. it is really up to you do you keep it and change it and do you want, and how do we better address making sure all sides adhere? >> that is a loaded question. and encourage that it happens but i am not sure we can ever enforce it. i don't think it will happen. i couldn't support something that would be so rigid because these things of cur. >> i think it is enough that it is in your rules and i am not sure what else you can do beyond that. >> i would like to open it up for public comment.

>> sue hester, and i submitted revision and none of them are reflected in the discussion. the issue is the current procedure is the staff ignores complicated case and don't follow it and you get staff report two weeks in advance extremely rarely and a staff report allows people that are having problems to read it and respond it to and when they get available on a thursday and become available to the public on friday afternoon and how do you think anyone is going to submit anything that you can absorb in that period? and i would ask that you shift a lot of things into complicated cases and that the staff be told that if you don't have the staff report, it is off calendar if it's due two weeks in advance. that would be a therapeutic way of getting enforcement. large projects in the eastern neighborhood should all be defined as complicated cases. all the projects with multiple

exceptions should be defined as large cases. so the original exceptions were supposed to be minor in the olden, olden days of the downtown plan and now we have projects that are like 500 units with 10 exceptions. and then they come and they are an understands case. and no one enforces the rule for two weeks in advance and there is also a planning code rule for 309 and 309.1 and that says 10 days in advance. that is not hon in order. rincon hill cases have the 10-day and i come here and be a crank saying this and i proposed ap amendment and it didn't get reflected and i got this last week and i am saying you're never going to change the practice that makes informed public comment possible.

because people cannot get the final divisions from the developer on friday afternoon and have a hearing on thursday and get you the material in advance. it doesn't function. i ask that you redefine complicated cases to be just about the project that has an e.i.r. and a negative declaration or a tiered project which is all of the eastern neighborhoods that you get that come through as categorical exemption even though they may be 100 units. like 1501 which was then taken off calendar and 2121 which was continued. and none of these cases come to you for the staff report more than seven days in advance. and that is dysfunctional. and if you really respect public input, you have to have reports

in sufficient time to allow the public to give you informed comment so that we're not all scattering around trying to read stuff at 4:00 on a friday afternoon and finally up on the website. so i ask you to redefine complicated cases and enforce the rule and staff be told if you can't get your stuff done, it's off the calendar. thank you. president olague: thank you. i see no additional members of the public in the audience, so therefore, public comment is closed. any other additional commissi commissioner comments? >> like to have everything stay with the rules. >> if i may, ms. hester keeps bringing up the issue and staff

has because the rules don't define what a complicated case is, it is basically been our determination to figure out something that is big enough to have two weeks in advance. and we do that early with the i.r. documents and other large documents of that sort, but i guess i would leave it to you to tell us if you are getting your documentation far enough in advance. commissioner moore: not always, i would say. i think it's a mix and match. it is partially because of of a push on the calendar and accelerate things without following the same identical rule each time. i am not opposed to taking some closer definition of what a large case is. but i am not quite sure it is as extensive as ms. hester is describing. i am prepared to leave that open and add it with an asterisk of what is the meaning of

complicated case and spend a little bit more time thinking about instead of just reacting. i would -- commissioner miguel: it is not defined in the rules. which is all right with me. president olague: we have a conversation about that here. commissioner moore: we might want to discuss that a little bit further. secretary avery: commissioners, i have a feeling that i am probably the only one who is here with the discussion of the creation of complicated cases standards, etc., and the commission had a discussion on what constituted the complicated case. they did not ever put that in their rules and basically it was on the size of the document that came through and the size of the project that was being proposed. and again, it was never ep caps lated in the -- it was never encapsulated in the rules and regulations and you don't have a definition. and if no one was here, it would

be hearsay if i came up with the paper from the hearings and it is hearsay from me on what they believe their definition of complicated cases were. so i think it would be timely for you to have that discussion. president olague: great. perfect. we'll calendar it. >> but we're going to go ahead and adopt these. commissioner miguel: i would move we adopt with the changes we have discussed, which i think secretary has duly noted. >> second. >> thank you. commissioners, would you like me to restate this? or are we -- go over them all? president olague: no. >> commissioners, the motion on the floor is to adopt the rules and regulations as they have been discussed and changed today. [roll call taken] >> thank you, commissioners. that motion has been approved

unanimously. commissioners, you are now at general public comment. at this time, members of the public may address you on items to the public that fall within the jurisdiction of the commission. each member of the public may address you for up to 3 minutes, keeping in mind they may not address you on any item that appears on this calendar. i have no speaker cards. olague is there any general public comment? seeing none, general -- secretary avery: before you close the public comment, i know i am a commission secretary to you and i just want to thank all of you for your kind cards and expressions during the past month. president olague: we missed you and are glad to see you back. with that being said, our meeting is adjourned. thank you.

hello, and welcome to the department of elections ranked-choice voting instructional video. this video is part of the department of elections' ranked-choice voting outreach campaign and is designed to educate san francisco voters about ranked-choice voting. today we will learn what ranked-choice voting is, and who is elected using this new voting method. we will also talk about what the ranked-choice ballot looks like and how to mark it correctly.

finally, we'll see how the ranked-choice voting process works and show you an example of an election using ranked-choice voting. so, what is ranked-choice voting? in march of 2002, san francisco voters adopted a charter amendment to implement ranked-choice voting, also known as the instant run-off voting. san francisco voters will use ranked-choice voting to elect most local officials by selecting a first-choice candidate in the first column on the ballot, and different second- and third-choice candidates in the second and third columns respectively. this makes it possible to elect local officials with a majority of votes, more than 50%, without the need for a separate run-off election. in san francisco, ranked-choice voting applies to the election of members of the board of supervisors, the mayor, sheriff, district attorney, city attorney, treasurer, assessor-recorder, and public defender.

ranked-choice voting does not apply to elections for local school board and community college board members, nor the election of state or federal officials. ranked-choice voting does not affect the adoption of ballot measures. when voters receive their ballot, either at a polling place or as an absentee ballot in the mail, it will consist of multiple cards. voters will receive cards that contain contests for federal and state offices, as well as for state propositions and local ballot measures. for ranked-choice voting contests, voters will receive a separate ranked-choice ballot card. the design of the ranked-choice ballot card and the instructions to rank three choices are new. the ranked-choice ballot is designed in a side-by-side column format that lists the names of all candidates in each of the three columns.

when marking the ranked-choice ballot, voters select their first-choice candidate in the first column by completing the arrow pointing to their choice. for their second-choice, voters select a different candidate in the second column by completing the arrow pointing to their choice. for their third-choice, voters select a different candidate in the third column by completing the arrow pointing to their choice. voters wishing to vote for a qualified write-in candidate for any of their three choices can write in a candidate's name on the line provided and they must complete the arrow pointing to their choice. keep in mind a voter should select a different candidate for each of the three columns of the ranked-choice ballot card. if a voter selects the same candidate in more than one column, his or her vote for that candidate will count only once. also, a voter's second choice will be counted only if his or

her first-choice candidate has been eliminated and a voter's third choice will be counted only if both his or her first- and second-choice candidates have been eliminated. we have talked about how to mark the ranked-choice ballot. now let's look at how ranked-choice voting works. initially every first-choice vote is counted. any candidate who receives a majority, more than 50% of the first-choice votes, is determined to be the winner. if no candidate receives more than 50% of the first-choice votes, a process of eliminating candidates and transferring votes begins. first, the candidate who received the fewest number of first-choice votes is eliminated from the race. second, voters who selected the eliminated candidate as their first choice will have their vote transferred to their second choice.

third, all the votes are recounted. fourth, if any candidate receives more than 50% of the votes, he or she is declared the winner. if no candidate receives more than 50% of the votes, the process of eliminating candidates and transferring votes is repeated until one candidate has a winning majority. in this example, we have three candidates: candidate a, candidate b and candidate c. in this example, we have three candidates: candidate a, candidate b., and candidate c. after all the first-choice votes are counted, none of the three candidates has received more than 50%, or a majority of the first-choice votes cast. candidate a has received 25% of the votes, candidate b has received 40% of the votes, and candidate c has received 35% of the votes. . because no candidate received a majority, the candidate who received the fewest number of first-choice votes, candidate

a, is eliminated from the race. voters who picked candidate a as their first-choice candidate will have their vote transferred to their second-choice candidate. of the voters who picked candidate a as their first choice candidate, 15% chose candidate b as their second-choice candidate and 10% chose candidate c as their second-choice candidate. these votes are then applied to candidates b and candidate c and the votes are recounted. we see now that candidate b has 55% of the votes and candidate c has 45% of the vote. candidate b now has more than 50% of the votes and is determined to be the winner. thank you for watching. we hope that you have learned more about ranked-choice voting and who is elected using this method. you have seen the ranked-choice ballot, learned how to correctly mark it, and learned how the ranked-choice voting process works.

if you have any further questions about ranked-choice voting, please contact us at: department of elections, city hall, room 48, 1 dr. carlton b. goodlett place, san francisco, california 94102. call us at: 415-554-4375. visit our web site at: ww