government, i don't think you could have to transparency and accountability unless you have the most effective whistleblower program that you can have. i think it is really critical. i think this issue is more complicated than simply pointing fingers. i think that the challenges faced by the program go beyond people not wanting to do the writing. i think that the controllers response is a very thoughtful response, but it doesn't mean -- i do believe we are doing as much as we can within the confines of what we have right now, but i think there are some structural changes and issues that we need to address. it doesn't have anything to do with the comptroller not doing what they are supposed to, it is we as a city and identify and

the priority that we place and making policy choices about how to move forward to enhance a program that is doing a lot of good things. on the issue of retaliation is an issue that i think is really critical. the controller is not responsible for overseeing that, but we need to figure out a more effective way of giving potential whistleblowers some protection and some assurance that by coming forward, they will not be losing their jobs and they will not be retaliated against. clearly what we have right now is not working. we have an opportunity, going forward, to think about ways it can be enhanced. perhaps it can look at other jurisdictions. if other jurisdictions are not doing it well, villainy to figure out a way that we can do

it better. the second issue where i also think that some changes should be made or considered is this issue of who conducts the investigation. it means that the controller is not doing what they are supposed to, but there is a larger question for me. as a matter of policy, we should discuss the potential benefits when a complaint comes and of someone outside the department that is the subject of the complaint conducting the initial investigation. that is a resource issue, but it might be a benefit to that, or something that we should consider. there may be some instances that even before the investigation is completed, you want to have the department know about some of

the things that are going, the need for immediate change. this is an issue of resources. if we really believe there is a benefit to that, we're going to have to make a commitment for providing additional resources. the office is being asked to do a lot. those are my thoughts. i want to thank the civil grand jury for their work. if i ever write a book and i need to think of the title, i will ask the civil grand jury members, because those titles are very clever. i also want to thank the controller for the measured and thoughtful way in which he responded to this report, i think he should be commended for that and for the ability to identify those recommendations that makes sense, and i am

grateful for that to you and your staff. colleagues, thoughts and comments? supervisor farrell: i just want to thank the civil grand jury for their work on this matter into echo everything that supervisor campos mentioned. an effective whistle-blower protection is key to city government. it is complicated and get to a lot of different issues, so we should talk through all these findings and recommendations, but i think the work does not stop here. a lot to commend our controller for his hard work on responses and the ongoing work for the whistle blower program. any thoughts on the findings and resolutions in particular? president chiu: a will defer to my colleagues on the spiriis.

>> finding one. i'll be honest, i could go either way here. i understand the finding, i also understand and appreciate that think it is the right thing given the resource constraints the way that the comptroller's office handles the allocation of the whistle-blower complaints were keeping them in house. we understand the potential conflict issue that is readily apparent. but for lower-level or lower exposure complaints, i see no problem with the current procedures. i would say no to finding number one, but it can be interpreted in many different ways. supervisor campos: i can live with that with the understanding that there is a larger issue here that needs to be

addressed, we are talking about an independent investigation, but there may be additional levels of independence that you have, or just more resources. i think that we need to revisit this issue and i would be interested in legislation -- i know if it is the charter amendment that makes it so that at least the possibility that someone outside the department that is the focus of the investigation is conducting the investigation. supervisor farrell: no on finding numbe rone. -- number one. i'm clear on no on recommendation number one. i don't think there is the ability to do investigations -- to do all of the investigations internally.

supervisor campos: finding number six. i agree that the lack of public reporting of the whistle-blower investigation fails to provide transparency, and i think that we need to -- or we can do a better job of providing more information. it seems that in some respects, it will happen anyway. more information will be provided, and i don't know if under recommendation 5 that the recommendations that are made will fall within what we were talking about earlier. is that too much? >> there is a specific suggestion that is not legal under the state of california,

the name of the respondents. our recommended follow up from the report, you will see this in several weeks with an updated in your report, we are planning to have summaries of each substantiated complaint that we have investigated and closed included with what has previously been the accountability report. >> it has to be somewhat general from our perspective so that they can determine the initial complaint and was. >> yes to the finding, but no to the specific recommendation? supervisor campos: finding seven. the current whistle-blower protections are inadequate. and independent administrative

law judge dealing with retaliation issues. that responsibility should be removed from the ethics commission. i agree with the finding, and i do believe that we need to change the system as it currently is. i don't know if the administrative law judge necessarily is the best solution. my experience is that there are benefits and limitations in terms of what they are able to do and the authority that they have. to the extent that you want the strongest possible tool for investigation and implementation, i don't know if it is the way to go. i would say yes to the finding but not necessarily to the recommendation. supervisor farrell: i will be happy to support that. i would concur with finding number eight.

pretty patently stated by the director, saying the to recommendation no. 7, specifically laying out the remedy here is too specific to get into right now for the board at this point in time. i say yes to a to and no to 7. >> i understand the intent, but i would say that in many respects, not only do not want to specify the committee, but in some respects, it doesn't go far out of. when someone makes a whistle- blower complaint, from the moment in that complaint happens, we in the city should be monitoring whether not any kind of action is taken in terms of the employee. i think from the moment the

complaint is filed, you have to be watching that. findin nine, the independent oversight of the whistleblower program, president chiu, any thoughts? president chiu: i am happy to take the controller's recommendation on that. >> that would be no on finding nine. supervisor campos: recommendation eight. i actually like the recommendation.

>> i apologize to interrupt your deliberation. the chair of the business thought a review board with a year earlier and had to leave to go back to work, but on this recommendation, they have forwarded to the civil grand jury and to use the concurrence with the ongoing this -- ongoing the >> finding no. 11, this is, i think, it seems to me that i am happy to say yes to this, it just seems to be the nature of the beast and nothing to do with how they -- i think it's how

they handle certain cases and taking them inside. i would say no to recommendation number 10. supervisor campos: president chiu, any thoughts on 13? whistle-blower investigation, and establishing the appeals process? president chiu: they seem fairly straightforward. >> the understanding that we will look at whether it is the appropriate mechanism going forward, i don't want to decide that here today. i think there is a process needed to have some type of

appeal here. and the findings of 14 and 13, i would be in favor of saying no to both of those. i think it gives a lot of perverse incentives here. i don't think is something that we want to incentivize in our government. supervisor campos: i don't know if the staff and budget legislative analyst was able to follow that. >> i think i have a summary if you want me to go back through. finding one, disagree. recommendation one, disagree.

finding six, agree. recommendation five, disagree spearhead. finding seveneight, agree. recommendation seven, disagree. finding nine, disagree. recommendation eight, agree. finding e11, agree. recommend 10 xinhua,, disagree. finding 13, disagree. >> no. that's agree. >> that was the one i was not clear on. the finding 14 was disagree. supervisor farrell:

recommendation 12 was disagree. supervisor campos: ok, so -- >> there is one more. recommendation 13 is disagree. supervisor campos: we have a motion from supervisor farrell. thank you, colleagues, for your thoughts on that. before we move on this, i want to acknowledge the work of the budget and legislative analyst. their office has spent a great deal of time working with us going through the civil grand jury report. there are very meticulous and thorough, i want to thank them for their work on this. we have of motion. if we can take that without objection. again, something as important as the whistleblower program, if we don't agree with everything that was said, the kind of discussion

that we just had shows the great deal of benefit that can come from this kind of report. i think a lot of good things can happen because of this. i want to thank the controller for his work and to the members of the civil grand jury and members of the public that have been waiting to speak on this matter. is there any other business before the committee? meeting adjourned.

♪ >> hello, and welcome to the department of elections right choice voting instructional video. it is part of the department of

elections right choice voting outreach campaign and is designed to educate san francisco rig franciscoht choice voting. today we will learn what it is and who is elected using this voting method. we will also talk about with the ranked joyce l. looks like and how to market correctly. finally, we will see how the ranked joyce voting process works and to you an example of an election using ranked choice of voting. so, what is ranked joyce voting? in march 2002 san francisco voters adopted a charter to implement ranked choice of voting, also known as instant runoff voting. san francisco voters will use it to elect most local officials by selecting a first choice candidate in the first column on the ballot and deborah second and third choice candidates in the second and third columns resect to do -- respectively.

this makes it possible to elect local officials with the majority of votes. more than 50% without the need for a second runoff election. in san francisco, ranked choice of voting is for the election of members of the board of supervisors, the mayor, sharon, just -- district attorney, city attorney, treasurer, this is a recorder, and public defender. ranked joyce voting does not apply to elections for local school and community college board members. number the election of state or federal officials. ranked choice of voting does not affect the adoption ballot measures. when voters received their ballot, either at a polling place or an absentee ballot in the mail, it will consist of multiple cards. voters will receive cards with contests for federal and state offices, as well as for state

propositions and local ballot measures. for ranked choice voting contest, voters will receive a separate ranked choice ballot card. it will have instructions to rank three choices, which is new. the ranked choice ballot is designed in the 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 elect their first choice in the first column by completing the aero pointing to their choice. for their second choice, voters selected different wind by completing the arab pointing to their choice in the second column. for their third choice, voters elect a different candidate by completing the arrow pointing to their choice. voters wishing to vote for qualified write-in candidate can write it in on the line provided. and they must complete the arrow pointing to their choice.

keep in mind, it voters should select a different candidate for each of the three columns of the ranked choice ballot card. if the voters elect 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 of voting works. initially, every first choice vote is a candidate. any candidate that receives a majority, more than 50% of the first choice to vote, 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 numbers of first choice votes is eliminated from the race. second, voters who selected the eliminated candidate as their first choice will have their vote to transfer to their second choice. there, all the votes are recounted. fourth, if any candidate receives more than 50% of the votes, he/she is declared the winner. if no candidate receives more than 50% of the vote, the process of eliminating candidates and transferring votes is repeated until one candidate has a winning majority. now let's look at an example of an election using ranked choice of voting. in this example, we have three candidates. candidate a, b, and 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 vote cast. candidate a g-205% ofb the votes% received 40%. and c received 35% of the boats. because no candidate received a majority, the candidate who received the fewest number of first choice votes, a candidate a, is eliminated from the race. voters to pick a candidate a as their first choice candidate will have their but transferred to their second choice. and the voters to pick and a, 15% chose candidate b as their second choice, and 10% chose c as their second choice. these votes are then applied to b and c, and the votes are recounted. candidate b now has 55% of the votes. candidate c as 45%.

candidate b has more than 50% of the votes and is determined as the winner. >> thank you for watching. we hope you have ranked choice learned ranked choice of voting and was elected. you have seen the ballot, learned how to market, and learned how the 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 be good lit place, sentences go, california, 94102. or 415-554-4375. visit our website, www.sfelections.org.