is something that he demonstrated throughout his life and especially in the last few months of his life. the fact is that even as eric was going through what he was going through, i would still get the calls, what are the issue was. we as elected officials, we need that perspective, we need that voice of someone who can shed light on the very important issues that come our way. because it is easy sometimes for those issues to get lost here in city hall. i could always trust that there could tell me -- eric could tell me in a simple way what was right and what was wrong. that is something i am going to mess and that is something that i feel very honored that i had the opportunity to get to know him that way. i also know that the kind of person he was, that kind of person he remains in our hearts,

it is not something that happened because of who eric was, it is also the people around him and you can see the amazing people in this room, each one of them has accomplished amazing things and i want to single out his mom who is here. there is nothing more formative then the example that your parents give you. i know that eric was an amazing person who was because of the example of his parents. as supervisor for district 9, it has been such an honor for me to get thito know this family. he will live in our hearts forever. and i think that i hope you understand how much he was loved, not only by his neighbor neighbors and community, i am also very proud of his -- the fact he was proud of his culture, his heritage.

i cannot say enough about an amazing human being. i am very proud that we as an institution took the time to acknowledge what eric has meant to our community. president chiu: supervisor kim. supervisor kim: i am a co- sponsor and i want to thank the family for being here. we actually more the loss of several activists and leaders. as we mourn their absence, is it -- it is important we celebrate their work and their accomplishments. eric has been a tremendously important voice in a movement that has pushed neighborhoods and low-income communities directly central in our land use and planning process, processes that had eluded our average citizens for so long.

we continue in our discussion about the use of our land and who are city is for. eric has been one of the central voices in all that. i am proud to be in a movement in which deryk calls his family. i wanted to speak on behalf of my office. there has been entered -- eric has mentored several. i celebrate his life and his work, and we have to honor that by continuing this year. i think we can all say that his impact is felt and we see it everyday in our city. thank you. president chiu: supervisor avalos. supervisor avalos: i have a

voicemail message from eric from february of this year. to the very end, even in the amount of pain he was living in, he had such a coat and such drive -- had such hope and such drive. there was a community of powerful women, powerful man, people committed to social justice. that belief in a better world i think is what drove him and made him just incredible person he was. i cannot think of a more fitting partner for eric than lorena. what an amazing woman she is.

i met her at the janitor's union in 2004. what a spirit that he has. what -- she has. what an amazing woman who is carrying on his family and legacy. we all have that wonderful relationship and we will be with her and have her back in years to come. i do not think i have had the ability to come to terms with his passing just that. it is going to hit all of us, it will be like a ton of bricks as the days go on. i am looking forward to being with community on sunday. eric has been so much to me. he has met so much to me, i have learned so much from him. i agree with supervisor campos's earmark. he had the ability to cut

through all this static and get to the core of what was going on. if i was ever in a room where we are all confused, having eric in the room was always something i welcome to get our thoughts and thinking in a more clear direction. there is amazing things i have done with eric over the years. the thing i am most proud of is the creation of the immigrant legalization network. that has done amazing work in bringing a lot of different communities from all over the city together and organizing for the rights of young people, the rights of families, the rights of workers. that is something i am so proud of and has left a lasting mark on the work he has brought. i wanted to congratulate all of us on the wonderful relationship

we have had with eric and lorena. good to see you. my heart is broken, but my will is strong. president chiu: supervisor mar. supervisor mar: i want to say so much has already been said and so much will be set over the years. we all know that his spirit will live on with all of us. there are so many corners he has touched, so many people, so many communities. he will always be a part of us for as long as we are doing activist work we need to do. i want to thank his family, not just his direct family, but his family of supporters for all that you have done. we all continue together.

supervisor mirkarimi: i look forward to sunday. he had a common touch and he was a great teacher. >> thank you for being here, lorena and wendy, and so many family and friends. if you like to make some brief remarks. -- would like to make some brief remarks. >> i wanted to thank you both as eric's wife and partner in crime. also, thank you as an organizer because i am also an organizer and he makes me proud to live in the city, that our city will give recognition to an organizer, that does not happen very often, especially an organizer that gave this city

hell. so, it is a real honor, not only for eric but all the people that came before him and also that mentored him. the people that worked alongside him for all these years, and for all of us who continue to do the work. i wanted to say thank you. i look forward to seeing you on sunday. also, i look forward to seeing you in the continued fight to make sure our city continues to be for families and we do the right thing so thank you. i am proud to be a san franciscan. i live here. so, thank you very much. >> i wanted to also thank you. wendy and some of the others who worked with him. thank you. [applause]

president chiu: madame clerk. >> today's memory -- meeting will be adjourned on behalf of mr. arthur evans and shawn wilson. and mr. anthony [unintelligible] and mr. eric quesada. president chiu: is there any more business in front of the board? >> that includes business. president chiu: ladies and gentlemen, we are adjourned.

supervisor kim: good morning and welcome to the special rules supervisor committee. we have just one event today. today i am joined by supervisor johsean elsbernd.

are klerk today is linour clerk. could you please call item no. 1. >> item number one, ordinance amending the students go campaign and government section. it is capping the amount of public matching funds. i believe we have the department head for the ethics commission here to speak to us today. >> good morning, supervisors. on june 27 the supreme court issued a decision, which struck down arizona's public finance law, in particular because having reached certain thresholds public candidates get additional public funds in response to independent expenditures.

the supreme court did not actually issue a ruling on whether public financing is and of itself constitutional. in san francisco -- san francisco's program is not identical to arizona. there is a similarity where independent expenditures or other canid expenditures exceed the caps that are placed on public finance candidates, those individual candidates will have their caps raised. they can raise individual private funds for which there are then public matching. our concern is that this particular similarity is hon. to challenge in courts, so the ethics commission has acted forestall -- to forestall what could be an expensive exercise by trying to alter the program so that maintains the fundamental elements of public

financing, which is to get candidates more time with the voters, and perhaps have le officeholders' less subjected to candidates. in eliminating the program we do not believe is the option leaving the status quo leads as vulnerable to an expensive exercise of the courts. completely leaving the caps in tact would be a disincentive to participate in the program, and we certainly believe it would be unfair to the current round of candidates who have unfortunately joined the campaign under one set of rules, and because of this ruling will likely have to finish it under another set. of more alternative was to leave the rights of the candidates in place to raise private funds, but to limit the amount of public money distributed all

level of the original cut. -- at the level of the original cap. there has been some talk of finding an alternative method, but in all honesty i have not seen an alternative proposal to the states. left with that, we believe this is our most promising and effective alternative. supervisor kim: think you for being here. just a quick question, of the candidates that have declared for the mayor's race, how many are publicly financed candidates? >> eight. supervisor kim: thank you. we also have the sponsor of the legislation here today. supervisor elsbernd would you like to say a few words? supervisor elsbernd: we also have the oakland city attorney here. i would like to thank you for stepping forward in helping us with this to help recused

issues with this year's election. the oakland city attorney has release stepped up. thank you for the memo. i believe it has been laid out appropriately, but i would remind my colleagues and public i think it was just before recess in june or july where we at this committee had to settle a lawsuit that cost the city $300,000 because our campaign laws were not legal, and quite frankly i am not interested in forking over more taxpayer dollars to defend something that is quite clearly again out of whack. i think this ordinance and a very limited way addresses it maintains the public financing system and allows it to go forward. they're just here for questions. supervisor kim: any questions from colleagues? if you do not mind the answer and a few questions.

-- mind answering a few questions. >> i will do my best comic given that there are party sitter itching to sue the city of this particular matter. supervisor kim: could you speak a little bit about the similarities and differences between san francisco's system and arizona? you are ready outplayed it, but -- >> right. the similarity is that in arizona increased infusions of public financing would come in based on independent expenditures and campaigning by outside parties. the supreme court said that because of that connection the public financing burdened the independent expenditures. and our situation in san francisco there is a similar connection between outside expenditures in public financing. the difference is that in order

for a canada in san francisco to obtain public financing, it is a match, so the canada has to raise money before the match happens. is that a distinction without a difference in the eyes of the court? i can answer that right now. if it goes to litigation, that would be one of the matters litigated. but there is a connection between outside expenditures and public financing that can be made or argue, and that is the rest here in san francisco. >supervisor kim: thank you, and if none of the candidates this year are able to hit the trigger, with this legislation -- would we be right for litigation? >> that is an excellent point. if there is no increase in the expenditure limit and public financing is not coming in,

then, yes, the argument is it is not right. you will have to speak with your ethics commission director as to how likely that will be in this current election, and one can argue it will happen sometime in the future. for example, in the board of supervisors race. supervisor kim: is there any legal issue with changing the rules halfway through the election after canada's have an expectation of how this will be structured? >> well, i guess an argument can be made, but the countervailing argument is something is unconstitutional, you cannot say we agree to this. it is unconstitutional. supervisor kim: thank you very much. if there are no further questions, at this time we will open up for public comment. two minutes. >> supervisors, my name is erkks

washington. i am here to make an announcement. i am rededicating myself in city hall to bring out what i call and have been sitting for over 20 years. right now is to speak here i just got in here and heard something about the city was sued $300,000 for doing so thinmething "illegal." my question is to the city legislature's, who is in control right here in san francisco? i mean, over the 20 years i have been here i have never seen city hall in the position that it is in now. there is no reflection on a new supervisor that is here, but i am appalled of city government

down here at city hall. it is city, silly, ya'all. i am telling, ya'all. i have suffered indignities, racism at its highest. as you see here, i am an african american citizens here, which our population is going down, which some would say is insignificant. i am here to tell you we may have a dysfunction of there in our communities, but if they knew what goes on here in city hall -- this corruption, disruption, and a lot of other things. i will do a story on city hall. i am just appalled. the mayor's race and all of these campaign issues. i hope you put things together.

supervisor kim: thank you. next speaker, please. >> good morning, supervisors. i have lived in san francisco for 59 years. on the issue of public matching funds, according to my research it is debatable whether it is affected. there are arguments pro and con on the subjects i. i think you can argue it all day. one of the items i did notice on today's agenda was that there is only one item on the agenda. given that the city has so many problems, i have a feeling we should have more than one item on the agenda. i am sure our hard-working supervisors will be able to find something to work on. in regard to the ethics commission and being involved on this subject matter, i would like to make a suggestion to the

rules committee in regards to the ethics commission that maybe we could save a few dollars and give the money to the poor and needy by eliminating the ethics commission. the reason why i feel that way is before the passing of mr. joe when he was verlyng,nn, he was o spend time with me, and one of the things he mentioned was the ethics commission was very skilled at passing practices. if they're going to arbitrarily make decisions to refuse to answer questions in writing, then maybe we do not need an ethics commission and give the money to the poor and needy. thank you. supervisor kim: thank you. any other public comment at this time? cnn, public comment is now closed. quickly in response to why there is only one item on this agenda,

it is because we had to call a special rules committee. the request came in after notification for the regular meeting last thursday. recalled an additional rules committee for this item that did not make it in time. -- we called an additional rules committee for this item that did not make it in time. any discussion, colleagues? supervisor elsbernd: i believe they made it pretty clear. i would ask them to send this forward to tomorrow's board meeting. supervisor kim: thank you. i do feel comfortable moving this forward. i know we are under particular time line if we do want to support the legislation moving forward, so i supported moving forward. public financing is something that is an important tenet of many of our community advocates in terms of leveling the playing field for our candidates and limiting -- eliminating the need for candidates to go out to the

more generous voters who are referred -- were able to contribute more, and i think is an important part of leveling here in san francisco. and actually of candidates being able to rise to many of our special interests who are able to spend additional dollars opposing or supporting candidates. i can support this without recommendation, but we can also take a roll call. supervisor elsbernd: in response to your comments, tomorrow i really think a no vote is writing a blank check to joe sutton. what is more foreign to those communities, having dollars available for services or standing on principle but has been deemed unconstitutional? i hope you and others on the board will consider that. in fact, you will be handling taxpayer money to jim sutton,

the so many of you have said you do not like. supervisor kim: i think it is unfortunate that public financing have to fight for the same dollars, and i think it is something we would all like to see as prioritizing our services. i do think having a fair playing ground is important for many of our candidates and our elected officials as well. i think this is afford litigation for many of us to see forward in terms of what the ruling means for the future of public financing, and i think there is some question as to whether litigation would be successful in this circumstance, given the key differences between arizona and san francisco. supervisor elsbernd: buwhat are the differences that are key?

the court's decision is simply on the matter of once the limit is met. there is nothing in the decision whatsoever that has anything to do what increment. respectfully i think you are cropping up -- grasping at straws callles. supervisor kim: the city of the past has taken a stance on issues to other issues that we've philosophically believed in and felt was more of our time in challenging in the courts. i know colleagues on the boards have taken positions that have put as and risk of litigation in the past couple of months, and i do think there are some differences.

supervisor elsbernd: ok. supervisor kim: supervisor chiu. supervisor chiu: thank you. i do think the advice from the attorney has been helpful to me to work through this issue. one of the things i think by the director is important that this amendment is something that would still by and large maintain the integrity of the public financing campaign, the big basic component of it and really helps to protect the city from further litigation, given what we know in terms of lawsuits that have come before the courts, and so i think the difference in the city taking risks on other issues versus this issue is that we do actually have a court ruling that is very indicative of where we might see the risks going. we might see the risks going. for me, i will be supporting