experience myself, there are issues of medical privacy that can be violated when an employee has to go to a chart and has to try and argue about what they need and how often they need it. for anyone who has ever worked as an at-will employee, giving any impression to your employer that you may not be healthy for some reason is uncomfortable. it can be scary. i think it is important, and our union stands behind it, and our community stands behind closing this loophole and closing and now. thank you for your leadership. supervisor campos: thank you. speaker. >> good afternoon. i'm director of the office of small business. i am here this afternoon, want to thank supervisor campos for continuing to identify the need

that we need to close the loophole. just wanted to note, the commission has not heard of the new piece of legislation and will be doing so on monday, along with supervisor chiu. the new draft still has some of the issues of concern for the commission, which is the potential millions of dollars out of the economy, and the immediate job loss. i will not reiterate much of what is said in a relationship to what has already been stated. a couple of things need to be taken a look at better economic analysis report did not address. types of jobs in the income of the jobs that will be lost with this. with the current health care security ordinance, there are many businesses i have spoken to that have sort of stunted their

growth and chosen not to grow past 19 jobs because they cannot afford the bump up into the 20 or over employees with the ordinance. i think what i want to request is that our small businesses need to be part of the discussion to address the need of what we want to accomplish in san francisco around health care and be able to keep businesses and jobs in the city. at the small business commission, the commission was interested and did state it wanted to see exact numbers of the businesses using the hra accounts that are not allowing the accounts to be used for health care or severely restricting the use.

we will be interested to see what the mayor comes up with in relationship to that. just wanted to state that we want to continue this discussion with all three proposals together. supervisor campos: thank you very much. is there any other member of the public who would like to speak on this item? public comment is closed. ok. no more speakers. thank you to everyone who took the time to speak on this item. i know there are very strong opinions. we appreciate you taking the time. colleagues, i want to make a couple of points. for the benefit of all the people who have been working on this matter, i wanted to read the list of organizations from threat san francisco that have come out in support of this

legislation before you. i want to make sure their voices are heard. many of them could not be your today. there are dozens of organizations. these are those organizations. adolescents help working group, alliance of california for community empowerment,asset building strategies, vernal heights center, california nurses association, california women's agenda, policy for analysis on trade and health, central american resource network, chinese progressive association, city college board of trustees, the clergy in lady united for economic justice, the coalition on homelessness, community housing partnership, san francisco de labor program and women's collective, the employment law center. the health access, health care for american now, homeless prenatal, jobs for justice,

latina breast cancer agency, league of young voters, mission economic development agency commission house and devoted corp., national employment law project, national physician alliance, people organized to win and get -- when employment rights, people organizing for environmental rights, private work, a progressive workers alliance, san francisco building, trades council, the medical society, the labor council, sci you tend to one, as sciu, unite your local to come a women's community clinic, young workers united, and the building construction

trades council. that tells you the broad coalition that is behind this effort. i want to make two points in response to a couple of the things that have been said. it is easy to say this is going to cost thousands of jobs. it is the same parade of horrible things we heard when the ordinance was first introduced. facts have to speak for themselves. the one independent study on the health care security ordinance that was done not by anyone here in the city made it clear that the impact on jobs was not what was expected. there was no job loss because of the ordinance. those people have looked at that amendment and reached the same conclusion. our economist has made it clear the impact on job growth is minimal and in fact, once this law is implemented, you will

continue to have thousands of jobs created in san francisco in the next few years. the last thing i would say is that i do believe, and i do hope that whoever is out there who has the very important task of protecting the consumers of the city and county of san francisco takes a careful look at "the wall street journal" and some of the practices identified. if it is the case that there are companies that are marketing themselves by telling businesses that they can essentially exploit this loophole as a way of making money off of consumers, irrespective of whether or not they meet the technical requirements of the ordinance, there are a number of consumer protection laws that are still applicable. it is my hope that whoever is charged with protecting consumers in the city and county of san francisco takes a careful look at this. it is not just about workers.

it is about consumers being protected. is my hope that that happens. -- it is my hope that that happens. this is an egregious issue. if the facts that are reported in that article are true, that needs to have careful consideration. with that, president chiu, the floor is yours. president chiu: thank you. i want to thank all of the members of the public who have participated in this conversation about an important issue we need to address. i don't think it will be a surprise that i do not support my colleague's legislation in its current form. that being said, at least with regard to this meeting, i am ok with supporting the motion that we move forward without recommendation. let me explain why. there are a majority of college that have expressed support.

we would engage in several weeks of parliamentary procedures that i don't feel we need to do. i would prefer we move forward with an up or down vote on this and call the question. that being said, i also -- i do have an alternative piece of legislation i would like to be considered by the board at some time. i will request that our chair hopefully schedule that legislation in the coming weeks. i understand that will be the case. i do hope that as we have this discussion, it is pretty easy to have both sides going to their corners in thinking about how this issue is described. i don't think it is as clear as thinking that this is a debate about health care verses no health care. everyone in this room, whether you are from one community or another, believes in the right of all workers to have adequate health care. for me, the issue is, how do we

ensure that we provide health care but also minimize job loss? supervisor campos has quoted are city economist on the topic. apparently, we have lost 30,000 jobs over the past two years. 30,000 jobs. i understand some might think his analysis that this piece of legislation will result in the loss of only hundreds of jobs, that is somehow trivial. i don't agree with that. i think every person who loses a job, we have to figure out how to take care of them. i am trying to craft a solution that balance is those needs, make sure we provide the health care that we have to, but make sure that money is put to use to either hire folks come up with them to work, or provide health care. that is my goal. i appreciate this debate and look forward to continuing discussions on it. thank you. supervisor campos: thank you.

supervisor farrell: thank you to chair compos and president chiu. like everyone here, i recognize there's a problem. there's a huge problem. we need to solve it. the question is, how do we deal with it? i like -- i do not support this legislation in its current form. i'm committed to finding a solution. my only biggest disappointment in this debate right now is that we are not doing it here in committee and we are shoving it on to the full board. that being said, we will play parliamentary games if we don't do it. at this point, i will support the motion to send it to the full board on tuesday and have the up or down vote. i will say that i appreciate president chiu's amendment and i like what i heard from the

representative from mayor li's office today. i look forward to considering those together and begin having that debate here in committee so we can vote on it as a full board when we are fully informed. the solution here is not to propose something that will cost jobs in the near term. that is not what we should be doing in economic times. i appreciate the debate. to be clear, i will not support this in its current form. i'm happy to support the motion to move it forward without recommendation. supervisor campos: thank you. i do want to thank the president and supervisor for their patience in listening to a lot of the testimony. i know it has the long process. with that said, can we entertain a motion to move forward to the full board as a committee for the october 4 meeting?

president chiu: i support that motion. supervisor campos: we can take that without objection. the matter is forwarded to the full board. is there any other business before the committee? >> there is no other business. supervisor campos: thank you. meeting is adjourned. impossible. announcer: when you open a book,

you can explore new lands... [bird screeches] meet new friends, and discover new adventures. there are amazing possibilities when you open your mind to reading. [roar] you can log onto he library of congress website and let the journey begin.

>> proposition a would authorize the san francisco unified school district to issue bonds to repair and upgrade more than 50 school facilities. property taxes could be increased if needed to pay the principal and interest on these bonds. the bond funds would be used to repair and replace major building systems including electrical, heating wat, water, security, and fire sprinklers. remove hazardous materials. improve accessibility for people with disabilities. make necessary seismic upgrades. replace permanent structures and perform other work necessary to apply closure -- codes and regulation . they can't pay for teachers and administrative salaries or

operative expenditures. >> hi, my name is melissa griffen. and a member of the league of women voters of san francisco. >> proposition b authoress the city to authorized to hundred

$48 million in bonds to improved street structures such as bridges. this would come with an increasing property tax, if needed, to pay for those improvements. the city is responsible for maintaining about 850 miles of streets. a study shows about half of the streets any major repairs. the city can only use this bond money to pay for and repairs city streets. it will improve lighting, sidewalk extensions, trees, and landscaping. renovation programs to increase safety, and add this traffic signals to improve muni service.

the mayor and the board of supervisors have to approve the final project. this measure requires the approval of two-thirds. is the right here with supervisors got leaner -- supervisor scott wiener. why should we vote for proposition b? supervisor wiener: this is a bond that will address some of our basic and critical infrastructure needs it. we've seen this across the country for the last few decades a bank it will help with quality of life. it will help put people back to work. it addresses the infrastructure funds for our roads.

to resurface our roads. basic maintenance. it also provide significant funding for work on our city bridges and overpasses and other infrastructure that is deteriorating and needs capital work, and also provides for eda acceptability. >> opponents of this measure have argued that these bonds should not be used for what they perceive as ongoing maintenance of our streets. -- what they perceive as ongoing maintenance of our streets. how do you respond to those accusations? supervisor wiener: we should have been doing a better job the last 30 years maintaining our streets. i will not argue that.

the fact is, we are where we are today. we have almost $500 million. the capitol assets like the park, like the bay bridge, muni. is appropriate to use bond funds -- it is a prepared to use bond funds to do capital infrastructure work. this is not for filling the random pothole. this is for capital work. road resurfacing, road reconstruction, not basic operating. >> in the past years, voters have not been receptive to the idea of the streets fund or when they are proposed on the balance. the measure needs two-thirds of the voters to pass. what makes you think this is the year voters will go with that? >> a strong majority of voters

do support having the capital work. our polling has been strong this year. six years ago, we got the 66% of the boat would no campaign whatsoever supporting or explaining at. this year, we're trying to really educate the voters. we think we have a chance of getting 2 2/3. 2/3 is a high threshold even though this is a popular kind of bond. we feel good we will have a shot of getting their. >> thank you very much. >> thank you. next up, we will discuss proposition b with upon the. >> i am here with judy

berkowtiz, an opponent of proposition b. do you oppose this? >> san francisco neighborhoods voted to oppose prop b because we've already paid for these street repairs. payment has been in the form of property taxes and other taxes. we do not feel we should pay for them the second time. or in this case, a first time, because the board of supervisors had already passed two ordinances at the board, the law pieces of legislation that pay for exactly the street repairs. one was $40 million. another was $42 million in the

past couple of years. not only that, but this is a general obligation bond. general obligation bonds are supposed to be a one-time fix. this is not a one-time fix. this is maintenance. >> proponents argue that regardless of where the funding comes from, if we do not fix our streets now, the cost to implement these fixes will go up exponentially in the next, say, 10 years. how do you respond to that assertion? >> the streets of san francisco are terrible. they are the worst i have ever driven on. i am sure the department transportation agrees. i do not know it because will rise -- if the costs will rise in the next 10 years. i think it is important we do fix this ries. the money that has been allocated should do so.

this has been taken in the form of, as i said, our property taxes. >> if this does not pass, how do you suggest we go about finding street repairs and other kinds of repairs that are being funded by proposition b? what would you like to see cuts? >> there are less people working for city government now than there were 20 years ago. however, salaries are several times higher than they were. we could cut out a lot of the managers. department managers. if they were released and more park and rack -- rec playground managers were hired, then we would have some money we could spread around. however, again, it the money --

if our property taxes and our rent pass-throughs are used for what they're supposed to be used for, then we would have the money. >> thank you very much. for more information about this or other ballot measures, please visit the web site of the san francisco league of women voters at sfvote.org. remember early voting is available as city hall. if you do not vote early, both

>> i am a lawless said griffin. i cover san francisco city politics and the league of women voters. i am here to discuss a proposition c, a ballot that will be before the voters this november. proposition c will change the way that the city, current and future employees share their pension and health-care benefits. it will adjust employee contributions to the retirement system based on the city's costs. reducing benefits for future employees. adjust cost of living adjustments. decrease the city contribution to retiree health care costs for certain former employees. require -- changed voting

requirement of the health service board and require election officials to make the same contributions. there are two charter amendments regarding pensions. if voters approve both measures, only the one with the most votes will become law. i am here with the executive director at the san francisco labor counsel, and a proponent of proposition c. thank you for being here. why do you support the proposition c? >> the public-sector unions have been working probably most of this year to sit down and find a way in order to save city services and jobs during these economic times. this involves sitting down with the mayor's office and coming down with a comprehensive chart

-- coming up with a comprehensive chart on how to save billions of dollars in san francisco. it stops pension spikes, it adjusts the rates that people will be paying during good times and bad times. it really does save money. it is the consensus way of moving forward, it is supported by the board of supervisors, the mayor's office, and virtually every public official. i am proud of the public-sector unions for putting the measure on the ballot. it is really going to save the city money. this has been done in ways that i have not seen anywhere else. people are just attacking public workers, and in san francisco, i take my hat off to the unions that are going to be sacrificing and going to be paying more into the city funds in order to save these jobs.