broadcast on tv, but we audio stream all the important ones, like ethics. president chiu: there is a motion they should be subject to -- supervisor elsbernd: on page two, line 19, add the clause, taken from the work on item 24, that says "within the constraints of the budget." if we are going to do it on one, we should do it on the other. president chiu: without objection, the motion passes. supervisor avalos: actually, i would like to keep it -- i do not want to support that language. i would like to go to roll call vote. i think it has been before us over and over again in this body whether to televise the ethics commission. a lot of us have said it should

be. i think we should make that statement clear. it always comes down to a question of whether we have money. i think we should make that determination. but i like the language without the amendment. president chiu: with that, i think supervisor avalos would like to rescind that last boat. seconded by supervisor elsbernd. on the motion to amend, is there further discussion? if i could speak for a moment, i absolutely support our colleagues that want to make sure these meetings are televised, and i understand we are going to find the budget to do that. i think it is appropriate, what supervisor elsbernd has stated, but i am also supporting supervisor campos's legislation.

supervisor campos: i understand what supervisor avalos is saying, but i do not think it prevents us from moving forward to ensure these are televised. i think the ordinance i am introducing will get us to that. but i certainly appreciate the perspective. supervisor avalos: i just think it makes a more definitive statement without the extra language. i have been asked over and over again about whether the ethics commission meetings should be televised. i just want to make it clear. president chiu: on the motion to amend? supervisor cohen: aye. supervisor elsbernd: aye. supervisor farrell: aye. supervisor kim: aye. supervisor mar: aye. supervisor mirkarimi: aye. supervisor weiner: aye. supervisor avalos: no.

supervisor campos: aye. president chiu: aye. supervisor chu: aye. >> there are 10 ayes, one no. president chiu: the motion to amend passes. on the underlying emotion, a roll-call vote. -- motion, a roll-call vote. 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: adopted as amended.

>> item 26, acknowledging and accepting the union square business improvement district gift of a, not -- of a promenade. president chiu: why don't we skip over our special orders at 4:00? and moved to -- move to the non-controversial item 43. >> this was referred to the board without recommendation as a committee report. it amends the administrative code to clarify that only amounts actually paid to provide employee health care services shall satisfy the employer expenditure requirements of the health care security ordinance. supervisor campos: thank you, mr. president. i guess yet another unanimous

court -- vote at the board of supervisors. this item has been before us many times, debated over and over again. i am going to spare the discussion -- i am happy to engage in the discussion, but i believe the facts are clear. we introduced the original legislation in may of this year. this has had a number of hearings, not only at the government audit committee, but at the health commission, the small business commission, and the board. people have tried to complicate this issue, but it is simple. it is about protecting the right of workers to have health care. it is about protecting consumers. i would simply ask for a vote. before i do that, i want to make a clarifying amendment. it is an amendment that clarifies that when we talk

about the termination of these accounts -- the closing of these accounts happening 18 months after termination of employment -- clarifying that it is a definitive amount of time, at 18 months past employment, whether or not there is activity in the account. that is in response to a number of concerns that have been raised by the business community. i want to make sure there is certainty and clarity on that. on the spirit of compromise that has guided our approach, i make a motion to amend the legislation along the lines of this document that i am circulating to all of you, which makes it clear that the accounts will be closed 18 months passed termination of employment. i make that motion. president chiu: is there a second?

seconded by supervisor farrell. any objection to the motion to amend? without objection. supervisor farrell: i will keep my comments short, because the writing is on the wall with the amount of co-sponsors. for those of us who will be voting against this today, it is not because we do not recognize the need to cure what ails us, or that there are problems with the current ordinance. i will speak for everyone in saying it is about protecting jobs. for me, our report we received in city hall about potentially losing up to 400 jobs in san francisco is unacceptable. a job killer is not something i want to support. i wish it had gone through more of a process. but we are where we are. it will be interesting to see where we go with this, legislatively. i appreciate what supervisor

chu has introduced, and mayor lee. i look forward to the dialogue, going forward. supervisor weiner: one of the great things about having passed a health care security ordinance to the board several years ago, instead of passing it on the ballot, which has happened with some other pieces of complicated economic regulation, it is it gives us enormous flexibility as the time for change -- as the times change or loopholes become apparent -- to fix those, and to do it in a way where we are bringing everyone to the table, working with labor, the business community, large businesses, small businesses, unions, and to

find something that works economically and protect the values we cherish. that is this opportunity. there is a way to fix this loophole, and to do it in a way that does not unnecessarily harm businesses, particularly small and midsize businesses. it has been disappointing to me that the middle ground that president pi -- chiu has been advocating, that i have been advocating -- that it has not happened. we have lines drawn in the sand. i appreciate supervisor campos's dialog and changes, but it is not enough. i continue to support the position that we fix this loophole in a way that works for

all involved, including workers and businesses, where not everybody gets everything they want, but we are able to address the issue. i will not be supporting the ordinance today, and i will be supporting a future effort we have all been talking about to address this in what i believe is a more reasonable way. supervisor elsbernd: thank you. i just want to follow up a little bit on supervisor weiner's points as one of two members of this board that served during the passage of the health care security organs. that process was extraordinary. we work with everybody. i was one of the last people who agreed to support it. labor and community representatives came to talk to me. how many visits do you think i got on this? not one.

the process on this is not comparable. whether you have a good process or bad process -- i just want to make the comparison is nowhere close. when the sponsor of the legislation tables their own item right before we go on recess, and that motion passes 9-2 -- it was safe for me to assume it was not going to get jammed through after that. i think a lot of other people recently assumed that. i think there is a question of timing, and the elephant in the room. there are a lot of people who may disagree with this point. but i do not think it is a coincidence there is a mayor's race five weeks from today. it is what it is, but let us not say this has been a great process comparable to the

original legislation. that was a great model. i give a lot of credit for that. there is not any credit to the process here. this does poor service to the issue of process. i do think supervisor -- thank supervisor campos for making mention of the hearing at the small business commission. i will add that they unanimously rejected this item. not a single vote from the small business commission. that was not the case when we pass universal health care. we are not talking big business downtown. small businesses, the people hurt in the most, unanimously opposed this. the last piece -- working on the pension issues, we spent eight months. that is a billion dollars sacrifice for labor. we spent eight months getting there, and we are not quite there. this measure, should it be

approved, is half a billion for the business community, and it will be thrown through with very little discussion, very little discussion. $50 million a year times 10 is half a billion dollars for business over the next 10 years. look at this process. not the best way to encourage jobs. not the best way to encourage a business climate in san francisco. i really think if the intent is to fix this, we can do a lot better. supervisor campos: i heard from a number of colleagues who asked me to keep the presentation short, because there has been a lot of debate. what is interesting about the discussion of the process is that everyone has a right to their opinion. i think assembly member amiano would have a different perspective in terms of the process we have followed, and

the five months we have introduced this legislation. there are two points that at the end of the day come down to explaining why this is the right approach to fix what everyone acknowledges is a serious problem. i point out that for quite some time folks in the chamber of commerce and the business community were not saying there was a loophole. in fact, the word loophole was not being used for some time. i am glad that now people admit a loophole exists. but there are two points that go to the heart of why this is the right approach, and why, notwithstanding the efforts to modify and compromise, there are fundamental differences of opinion. one has to do with whether or not we actually cap the amount of money that a consumer pays for and an employee is entitled to when it comes to health care.

the chamber has proposed that we cap that amount at four quarters, or one year. the problem that many of us, including a coalition of labor and business, have with that approach is that if you cap the amount that is accumulated in these accounts, it means that at the most an employee who is lucky enough to accumulate the entire amount, $4,300, is only able to accumulate $4,300. that is a problem, because if you look at the cost of health care in san francisco, you are talking about a situation where very little could be provided to that employee if that is the only amount available to them. the average night at a hospital in san francisco is $20,000. the average mri in san

francisco costs $7,875. $4,000 would not cover any of that. if a woman gets pregnant and wants to have a normal delivery in san francisco, assuming there is no see section -- c-section, that woman has to pay $16,097. the amount of coverage would not cover that. god forbid you have kidney stones or a urinary tract infection in san francisco. that is $40,000. i personally believe that what consumers are paying, as consumers are being charged to pay -- the expectation is that workers will have basic coverage. i do not think you can say basic, adequate coverage is being provided, when all you are giving is $4,000. that is the first fundamental

difference of opinion. there are those of us who believe it is not right and does not make sense from a public policy standpoint to tell a full-time worker you cannot accumulate more than $4,000, given what health care costs in san francisco. that is the first thing. the second thing is that my proposal is the only proposal which requires that when a consumer pays money, as they do at restaurants, that every cent the consumer pays is spent on health care. i believe that when you go to a restaurant and the owner makes a representation to you as a customer that they are going to provide health care to the workers of that restaurant, that every cent that you pay on that bill should go to health care, as represented. mine is the only proposal that does that. this is not just about protecting workers. it is about consumer protection.

the law is very clear. you should meet the representations'. you should fulfill the representations' you make to consumers. -- you should fulfill the representations made to consumers. i hear from san franciscans who are shocked that money does not go to health care, but is pocketed by these businesses. i do not think that is right. in a sense, those of us who are taxpayers in san francisco and go to these restaurants are paying twice. not only are we paying as talks -- as customers, but as taxpayers. when a worker does not get health care, the worker goes to s.f. general, and the taxpayer must foot the bill. those are the fundamental differences of opinion. that is why this coalition is moving forward. we have tried to negotiate. we have met many times with the

business community. at the end of the day, there is a fundamental difference of opinion. i believe that at the end of the day this legislation not only complies with the letter, but the spirit of the original law, which is why i am proud to have support of the original author of the ordinance, tom amiano. supervisor avalos: i would like to thank supervisor campos for bringing this measure back. i was with a lot of community and labor organizations that worked on the original ordinance passed in 2006. if we had known this would be an issue, that there was a potential loophole, we would have made sure it was closed at that time. i look at this as fulfilling the original promise of the health care security ordinance. i will be supporting the measure. i think it is important also to say that a lot of the work, the

fund is being developed, -- funds being developed, were made because workers made the work to make that happen. they are contributing to the success of the businesses that i think they should be able to share in the ability to have health care with everyone else in the city of san francisco that has it. i want to make sure we honor the workers and what they are able to produce. and to make sure they have that access that has been somewhat denied in with what is available to them to spend on health care. supervisor wiener: i want to respond to one thing the supervisor campos said about the purported health care charges that people pay in some restaurants. when you have a restaurant that is charging a charge and labeling it as going to help the san francisco or for employee health care and it is not going

there, that is not defensible. i certainly do not defend that. if there is valid legislation, i am all for that because restaurants that do that should not be doing that, they should call it something else and not mislead consumers into thinking it is going to health care. it is not doing that. it is really important to keep in mind, and i do not know if anyone has done the analysis when you talk about all the businesses that are paying into our health care security ordinance, the percentage of them at the restaurants that apply that charge is a very small percentage of businesses. not all restaurants do it. i have yet to see a non- restaurant. the businesses that i patronized, food or otherwise, the percentages that do that are exceedingly low. the fact that there is a small percentage of covered businesses

that are doing this is not a reason to support this ordinance. the other businesses that are not doing it should not be swept in with that kind of conduct. if we want to address that, we should address it. these are, in my mind, issues that i understand there are some overlap. but they are not completely overlapped. supervisor kim: thank you. i do appreciate all the comments that were made. it is a very complicated issue and i think that we have gone through several months trying to figure out the best solution to address this loophole in our health care ordinance. i want to say a couple of things. when this ordinance first came out, i was on the fence about it korea i was worried for many of our small businesses who want to support in their ability to meet this legislation hand closing the loophole. there are a couple of things

that turned my mind toward supporting this. one was meeting with many of the workers to -- whose businesses opted into --hra for health care. during the workers knowing they did not have access for funds and being told that they could not spend it on basic health care needs like dental visits, which was, to me, astounding. the comments about this being a sledgehammer way of approaching this instead of finally tuning a more nuanced piece of legislation, i will bring up a conversation we have been having extensively about increasing our exposure to litigation. unfortunately, we live under federal laws as well which limit our abilities to mandate employer-employee relationships. the purpose solution would have been mandating that employers had to spend -- had to allow

their employees to spend on these basic things. and to enforce notification. these are things that increase our exposure to litigation. for many of our board members who are worried about exposing taxpayer dollars to risk, in many ways, this legislation is the only proposal that i have seen thus far the response to closing the loophole and minimizing our litigation risk. the last thing i will say is that anything can be called a job-killer. we raised our minimum wage. we have one of the highest in the country. that could be called a job- killer. if we have held the san francisco, that could be called a job-killer. when you look at the comptroller's report of the 36,000 jobs that we are projected to grow over the next three years, we may, at most, lose 100-300 jobs. when you think about that in the overall context, i would rather have 35,700 jobs that pay a

living wage and that afford health care to our residents because in the long run, that is the most cost-effective way to take care of our residents. supervisor mar: i do have empathy for the many who have been writing to us and calling and the commission's letter was very helpful. but to the broad coalition of labor and community groups that have worked with supervisor campos, it is not a complicated issue. it comes down to protecting consumers and making sure that every single penny gives access by workers to their health care. i like how supervisor campos broke down costs involved from pregnancy to a basic night in the hospital. that makes it very clear why this proposal is the one that is really about fairness and protecting consumer rights and

especially workers' access to healthcare, which they need in this economy. i will be supportive of this ordinance and applaud the effort of the coalition. thank you. president chiu: first of all, i want to reiterate my appreciation for the work of supervisor campos as well as the coalition that has brought these issues to our attention. i have always strongly supported our help the san francisco program as well as the original legislation. i am proud, as we all are, to live in a city where our employers have a legal obligation to provide health care to their employees. that being said, i do a thing that there is a way for us to accomplish the goals of making sure that all of our employees of health insurance but doing it in a way that does not result in fewer jobs. i just want to lay out -- i have introduced an alternative that would be heard at our g.o.

committee in several weeks that addresses some of the problems we have seen today. employers who have not provided adequate employee noticed. employers to have a defense -- have deceived consumers. also, the litigation risks that supervisor kim and referred to. if anything happens legally to this health care security ordinance structure, supervisor campos' legislation would be the default. the real issue is, when you're talking about $50 million, as supervisor elsbernd has targeted to be $500 million over the next 10 years, we are not -- as he has pointed out, we know that not all of this money is going to be used for health care. we know that this money will sit in health care reimbursement accounts, but tens of millions of dollars of year will sit in

those accounts not necessarily used to employ san franciscans. of the last two years, san francisco have lost 30,000 jobs. while it is true that the economic analysis shows that we are calculated that there will be 230-460 jobs lost next year, i do not think we can afford to lose those jobs here. what i'm hoping for is some kind of balance. a balanced approach to we can move forward with. that being said, i look forward to continuing to work with our colleagues, the labor community, the advocates, and the business community to move this to a better place. supervisor chu: i want to thank supervisor campos for bringing this problem to us. i think it really opens our eyes to some of the things that we had not anticipated with the original legislation. as you have mentioned, $4,000 does not go very far. coming from a family where my parents and i did not have insurance for the most part, it

really does not go very far at all. i can appreciate how this is a problem, especially for folks who really needed to do not have coverage anywhere else. i am not convinced that this is the right strategy but i look forward to working with you to figure out how to tailor it in a way that could work for us all. it is an important issue. i am interested in taking a look at whether we have any ability to ask whether we can do an accumulation method unless certain providers or businesses allow the money to be used for premiums. i do not know if that is an option at all. i was wondering if there was a way to accumulated over and 18 deaths month. -- an 18-month period. there -- i agree there needs to be a fixture.