a lawsuit that we'll move. we have a duty to do that, in my view. i have not heard any argument about why we should not do that. i would like to take this opportunity to make another change that might be appropriate, but it does not even give any leverage. it is not likely had a chance -- maybe someone disagrees -- of doing well in a lawsuit. we have good representation and would do as well as we could do. but i do not see why we would not pass this ordinance, eliminate the litigation risk, and then move forward with any other appropriate changes to public financing. supervisor farrell: first of all, if the legislation is as

advertised, to piggyback a little bit on what supervisor elsbernd is saying -- if we are only raising taxes for the supervisor races, that is the most self interested cap we could have. what about the mayoral race, or the sheriff's race? look at it as a whole. otherwise, we will degrade the reputation of this board, if we pass what i agree is very self interested legislation about next year's supervisor races, which will affect many on this board. one thing that drives me crazy about this debate -- this has been from the get go about complying with the lot and the supreme court. we are bound as the board of supervisors by the u.s. supreme court. it is not about protecting the advocates and making sure their

voices continue to be heard. that, to me, is interesting and part of the dialogue, but it is not what we are doing here, and i do not know why we are passing legislation that is to protect the advocates. supervisor avalos: along the lines of protecting the advocates, i will say, actually, the effort to create the public financing program came out of the process i feel is important. last week, i was supporting supervisor farrel's amendment because there was an absence of thought for the community that came together to create a program about what to do about the supreme court decision. i supported the amendment coming forward. since that time, there has been a lot of discussion. i wanted to harken to that discussion and find a way to bring up a new amendment.

what i believe supervisor kim is proposing -- i am not sure it is the answer. but i do think it needs to be vetted with a lot of the designers of our public financing program, with whom i worked to find an amendment to harmonize with the board of supervisors was going to do with the mayor's program back in 2007. there has been a process i feel comfortable with. i do appreciate your bringing this forward, supervisor farrell, to answer the challenges from the supreme court decision, but i will be voting against the amendment, looking for a new version. supervisor kim's is probably a start, and we will be able to assess a new path for the future. supervisor kim: i want to

respond to some of the new comments that were made. this was a novel part of the law, put forward in june. many of us were unprepared to answer to the supreme court ruling. i wish we had taken time earlier to get more feedback to this issue. i just want to acknowledge that. the reason we did not address the mayoral race was not because we did not want to, but because we wanted to introduce something today. in the next 30 days, ethics may make a recommendation related to the mayoral race. we wanted something quickly, today. this allowed us to move forward with at least next year's race. this is not about protecting the advocates. i think it is more about style. for my office, when we write legislation, we do a lot of outreach to our communities, and too many folks who care about the issues we work about.

we want to make sure we have support for anything we bring forward to the board. we spent expensive time speaking to folks and coming up with a -- expensive time speaking to folks and coming up with a policy proposal people felt comfortable with. we want to honor process. people really wanted a public backing. they want to come to the board to speak in public comment about this. for me, it is about valuing community input, and honoring the designers and authors of this. if you want to say it is not about whether we support public financing -- i do not know whether the author's support public financing at all. i do not know whether this is just about the supreme court ruling. i think this is a larger dialogue about the future of public financing. for me, i think it has been an important government reform,

bringing more integrity to the electoral process. for me, protecting that is of the utmost importance. more than helping anyone in this room today, i am looking for future candidates that will come out of neighborhoods and running grass-roots campaigns, which this really benefits. it makes sure we have a wider variety of folks who feel they can run for office and represent the communities here in city hall. supervisor cohen: thank you, colleagues, for your comments. i would like to speak to the many members of the public that are here today, to explain what is happening. the united states supreme court issued a ruling that brought our public finance law out of compliance. the debate you're hearing right now is should we follow the supreme court ruling. if we should not follow the

supreme court ruling, what does that mean for san francisco? let me tell you what it means. it exposes us for a lawsuit. do you know who foots the bill for a lawsuit? the people in this room, the taxpayers. i find it frustrating and disingenuous that we have members on the board who do not mind spending taxpayer money to make a point. i understand public financing is important and critical. i worked hard last year. i was a publicly financed candidate. i agree it should be there. but there is a comingling of issues here. the issue we need to vote on, which we need a vote for, which supervisors elsbernd and farrell put forth, brings us into compliance, so we are following the law.

we are not above the law here. there are members using this as a wedge issue to continue to carry the torch and move forward some kind of agenda. it is wrong. the supreme court -- the supreme court has issued a statement that forces us -- our council -- counsil has advised us on what would be right and cost- effective. april through june, we heard debate on the budget. we made severe cuts to service providers, homeless advocates, adult aid health care centers. we have fewer resources to squander away on a potential lawsuit that is an uphill battle that we cannot win. can you believe this?

i hope, for those of you that get up and start making public comment, you take this into consideration, and remember which supervisors are voting on this issue. all we are doing is complying with what the united states supreme court has already brought down. thank you. supervisor campos: thank you. i want to agree with a couple of points that were made by supervisors farrell and eslbern -- elsbernd, in terms of the scope of the legislation. i support what supervisor kim is proposing, but we must have a broad peace of legislation addressing what happens in the mirror -- mayor's race, the sheriff's race, and any others.

i will support this, assuming there will be changes were needed. i believe the mayor pay for race is one of them. -- mayor's race is one of them. supervisor chu: i want to think supervisor -- thank supervisor cohen for your comments. i think it is spot on. this issue of us not having a process or not a complete one -- to be honest, the process we went through to have this initial proposal was a public process. it initiated from the ethics commission. the ethics commissioners voted on it. it came to our board. it was vetted to our process and had public comment period to behave as though this was not a process that was complete or thoreau is inaccurate. i want to make that point.

about process -- even if we voted for this, that does not prevent another public process to figure out how to improve public financing. using process as an excuse to not deal with an impending litigation risk is irresponsible and inaccurate. that is the comment i would like to make. president chiu: supervisor cohen, are you still on the roster? supervisor cohen: i am back on their roster. it is going to be a long night. this is only item 11. in the interest of transparency, when we cast our vote -- pay attention to some quick math. who is up for reelection? where do they vote? do not get me wrong. public financing should be revisited. the point i do not think i made

earlier -- supervisor kim is interested in assuring the discussion around public financing. it is a very important. i agree with supervisor farrell about being equitable in which offices we consider, if we are going to offer public financing. an equal playing field should be equal for everyone, not just supervisor races. i am not sure which races are up for reelection. actually, i do. but i do not want to call up my colleagues. trust me when i tell you that those who are in favor will be voting with supervisor kim on her ordinance. i am asking you to be mindful of that when it comes time for elections, like supervisor elsbernd said, being self

interested. i think it is deplorable. the issue is we are out of compliance. we as san franciscans, the city and county are not following the law. we need to cast a vote so we can follow the law like other jurisdictions are doing across the country, like supervisor chu said, and then we can have a conversation about public financing. it is critical that those who are not connected and do not have family money can run for office as well. that is the true spirit of public financing. supervisor weiner: i want to disagree with a couple of the comments that have been made. with some of my colleagues i will be voting with today, i disagree with the viewpoints made. it is worth -- we should be looking at our public financing

statute to see how it can be improved. the fact is, the board of supervisors -- we are the ones who ultimately have to legislate it. if that means raising a cap or doing whatever we have to do, it is our responsibility to look at that legislation. even though people will call us self interested -- part of being a supervisor is you get called every name in the book, with no basis. we have a responsibility to take a look at the ordinance from time to time and see if it needs to be updated, if the cap needs to be changed. i am comfortable doing that. i think supervisor -- thank supervisor kim for raising that issue, which is worthy of discussion. what supervisor campos said made me nervous. i appreciate wanting to broaden

the discussion and look at every aspect of the public financing ordinance -- supervisor, mayor -- that make sense as a global approach. it also makes it a more complicated, long process. we have what is apparently an unconstitutional provision. the longer we let this lender, the more litigation and money risk we have. the more i am hearing, the more convinced i am that we need to take action today, fix what we need to fix, and then move forward with a good process to update our ordinance. supervisor kim: thank you. i just wanted to respond to comments about the process. it is true that we went through the regular public process for vetting any legislation here in san francisco, but you can do what is the normal course of public hearings, or you can do

intentional outreach on legislation. that is what i am imagining. i know that is not the top priority of every office, to do outreach to advocates and folks that originally defined legislation, but that was not foreign to our office, and that is why we are moving forward with a hearing process that would engage all the folks we reached out to. but i do want to acknowledge this did go through a public process, and what we did at minimum. i am more than happy to talk to the ethics about other city races in san francisco. some of our offices, like school board, are also state offices. i believe they are under different legal boundaries. if my colleagues would like to look at other races, like the sheriff and the dna -- the da, i

am happy to look at that and have an overall discussion. i think raising the ceiling would have happened anyway, without us having to legislate it at the time. unfortunately, the supreme court ruling made the trigger unconstitutional -- not the amount, but the trigger. we have to move forward with this now, coupled with removing the trigger portion, which is unconstitutional, to protect the intent of our public financing law, which is to bring on members of our community who felt they did not have the capital to win office in san francisco. i appreciate the comments about services for the homeless, seniors, and the poor, but it is grass-roots candidates who them advocate against cuts for the homeless, the poor, and working families. i do think public finance is integral in the whole process.

supervisor cohen: yes. supervisor kim is correct. the folks that benefit or could potentially benefit from public financing are the ones that could advocate on behalf of those that need the most advocating. but, again, we are talking about a simple constitutional issue. we are out of compliance. public financing. two separate issues that should not become an old or brought together. we need to vote -- that should not be combing gold -- be

comingled or brought together. we need to vote and come into compliance, and then talk about a public financing structure. today, i hope i have articulated -- maybe i have not. but i want to make sure we drive home the point it is not to coaming goal -- it is not to mingle two separate issues. one is not necessary to the other. our counsil has advised us. supervisors kim, weiner, campos, farrell, chiu, and elsbernd are graduates from law school. six attorneys. president chiu: do not forget

eric. supervisor cohen: supervisor mar is an attorney. you would think they would understand the importance of the supreme court. i am just a graduate with a policy major. i think we have some overachievers, people with policy majors and law school. it is kind of sad we have all these folks with a legal education -- from harvard. i do not know where eric went. they are questioning the united supreme -- the united states supreme court on what? and theological -- an ideological principle that has nothing to do with compliance and can be debated by the public in a transparent process.

supervisor kim: my legislation would comply with a supreme court ruling. supervisor avalos: my mother taught me that if i had nothing nice to say, i should not say anything nice at all, so i will ask for 10 seconds of silence right now. president chiu: i want to bring all of this together. hopefully, i am the last person to speak on this topic. first of all, i do support, as i think we all do, fixing the provisions in our public financing system that the arizona case showed to have legal issues. because of that, as i indicated last week, i support supervisor farrell's legislation, and the aspects of supervisor kim's

legislation that do the same thing. i think all 11 of us want to address the constitutionality. in order to minimize the legal and budget exposure, we should do this as soon as possible. that is why i am prepared to vote on that today. that said, and support efforts to amend public financing rules to adjust to the new reality. i look forward to the work the ethics commission will do. hopefully, in a few weeks, we will have another version we can consider, based on what happens today. it is important for the public to know i think every member of this board does support addressing the constitutionality issues that were raised. regardless of the outcome of this boat, that should be clear. whether we resolve that today or in a couple of weeks, i believe that will get resolved. i want to and with that. are there any further comments?

supervisor cohen: no comment. president chiu: unless there are other motions, could we take a roll-call vote on the ordinance as proposed? supervisor cohen: aye. supervisor elsbernd: aye. supervisor farrell: aye. supervisor kim: no. supervisor mar: no. supervisor mirkarimi: no. supervisor weiner: aye. supervisor avalos: no. supervisor campos: ho. -- no. president chiu: aye. supervisor chu: aye. president chiu: given that this ordinance would have required eight votes, the ordinance fails. supervisor kim will be introducing her ordinance, which includes many aspects of what supervisor farrell proposed

today, as well as other changes to the public financing system that the ethics commission will be reviewing in a few weeks. let us move to the next item, item 12. >> ordinance authorizing settlement of lawsuits involving mitchell engineering, and authorizing bonds and appropriation of funds not to exceed $15.75 million. supervisor cohen: aye. supervisor elsbernd: aye. supervisor farrell: aye. supervisor kim: aye. supervisor mar: aye. supervisor mirkarimi: aye. supervisor weiner: aye. supervisor avalos: aye. supervisor campos: aye. president chiu: aye. supervisor chu: aye. >> there are 11 ayes. president chiu: items 13 through

15. >> resolutions authorizing the general manager of the public utilities commission to execute various amendments to increase engineering project design services in amounts not to exceed $14 million, up $15 million, and $16.50 million. president chiu: without objection. >> 16 and 17 authorize the general manager of the public utilities commission to execute amendments to increase the new tunnel construction management services agreement, not to exceed $17.50 million and $34 million. president chiu: same house, col. -- same house, same call. >> 19 authorizes designated officers -- 18 and 19

authorized officers and employees of the city to examine sales and transactions and use tax records. president chiu: this item is adopted. >> item 20 authorizes the department of public health and the purchaser to contract with the community health authority to provide payment services for the healthy san francisco program. president chiu: same house, same call. >> item 21 authorizes the department of public health to except and expand a grant to fund -- i accept and expand a grant to find a health services through august 31, 2012. president chiu: this item is adopted. >> item 22, making findings

under the california environmental quality act, approving a new market tax credit agreement with the community development corporation in connection with the new sf jazz building. supervisor mirkarimi: i would be more than happy to defer to supervisor kim. supervisor kim: i want to introduce an item amending item 22, thanks to our budget adviser, harvey rose, who did a report on this item. we agree with his amendments and are offering them to the board. president chiu: is there a second to that amendment? seconded by supervisor mirkarimi. any discussion? without objection, those

amendments are made. supervisor mirkarimi: i would like to note that in the budget committee i pointed out that this is a very important, i think, addition to this part of our city. it rests in district 6, but borders district 5. it is the building of sf jazz, which i think was very important that it build a relationship with the fillmore jazz corridor and businesses, and the academic interest, and trying to resuscitate that corridor. if that had not been the case, that this institution that is proposed to go on franklin street be more vigorous in the establishing of the relationships with those in the fillmore area -- people should be reminded, if they have

forgotten, that west of mississippi, san francisco was the jazz harlem in the united states. that is something i do not think we should undermine, and should capitalize as much as we can. this addition to this neighborhood helps do that, as long as it is well done. i put on pause the community benefits agreement, which i thought was insufficient for this particular building. i have asked both redevelopment and the architect to this proposal to come back with a better community benefits agreement. if i could through the president bring up redevelopment to speak on this? >> good afternoon, supervisors. i am the deputy executive director of the san francisco redevelopment agency. i am also chief operating officer of the san