is looking at that, if that becomes unnecessary instead of talking about the occupied demonstrators, we change this to a demonstration so that this is a general statement about the demonstration as a whole so that it does not address any specific instances. >> well, in response to the question, the current language is a categorical -- it asks the mayor to categorically instruct the police department not to use force and that is the problem that i have because we have no idea, 100,000 different things

can happen over time and so that is why i made at the amendment. i don't think that the word change really changes anything. i did indicate earlier that if there are other ways of phrasing, i am completely open. we talked about several different possibilities. this was probably the phrasing, i want to make it as descriptive as possible. if others have ideas, i am game. >> we're trying to address public health and safety concerns. this is implicit in the way the mayor operates and this is urging the mayor to a symbolic

statement. this is about protecting the right of the protesters to be there. i know there have been efforts from the city's part to have a key liaison person and occupiy f is looking for one as well. everything i've seen is that occupy sf and its allies have reacted quickly. i see this as unnecessary and i support the language as is. thank you. >> any further discussion? should we take a roll call on the motion to amend?

>> on the motion -- -- do i >> the motion to amend passes. any discussion on the underlined resolution? >> i meant to speak early before this amendment. i appreciate what the supervisor was trying to state and hours trying to think of another way to say it. i am almost certain that oakland police felt it was necessary for the threat to public safety to allow them to use tear gas. i appreciate that there are things that we cannot predict and i appreciate your

thoughtfulness on that. i really just want also to jump in and say i have been very appreciative both of occupy sf and the mayor's office. they're sitting alongside with the heads to see how we can work together. there is nervousness on both sides. there are the commitments that everything thought that everyone would like to see on the table but i appreciate that everyone is patiently moving along and a ton of progress has been made. a month ago, many of us were nervous about what happened. there have been a few bumps along the way, i think that right now what i am seeing, i am very optimistic about.

>> i want to take supervisor kim for being out in front in trying to have a measure solution enshrine contrast. despite what the resolution it

tends to say, this is non prescriptive to either the mayor or the police department. the general orders is what prescriptive. the orders of the police apartment supersede a resolution that is afforded by the board of supervisors. as it comes to public safety, the place of garmin will be guided in their response as likely to the mayor. -- the police department will be guided in their response. it is important that measured and cool heads prevail and continue to foster the kind of collaboration that has been demonstrated thus far. that makes me proud to see leaders from this body, as well from city hall, community, and law-enforcement work together to help highlight the respect that should be afforded to the

occupied movement. that approach should continue non violently. what we saw should not happen in san francisco. that should never be considered as a first resort. supervisor chu: thank you, president. first of all, i appreciate all the efforts all of the members of the mayor's office. many of us agree we do not condone violence, on both sides. that is not something we ever want to see happen in any protest in san francisco. in terms of the occupy sf movement, reading the resolution overall, i agree with 99% of

what is being said. there are a lot of folks who feel similarly, who feel very frustrated at the movement or lack of movement we seen nationally. there are policies in place that seemed to create a larger divide. i certainly agree with that message. in terms of free speech, i think it is a fundamental right in the united states. i think that really distinguishes us from any other country. that is something very close to our hearts. but unfortunately for me, i want to express what it is a will not be supporting this resolution, because i think it is important. it has nothing to do with the movement or the message of the movement. it has nothing to do with the free speech right.

i do not condone any violence in san francisco with any future action. for me, the area where i have discomfort is what we do around permitting -- term use -- permitting long-term use of public spaces. it could be any other movement. it could be in just herman plaza. it could be somewhere else in the city. i am not sure we have a good idea of what the city is falling to do around these public spaces. the 99.9% of this resolution and the comments about banking institutions and foreclosures -- i think we have a large structural issue to contend with. i wanted to make sure i told you that so it is not misconstrued, or the vote is not misconstrued in any other way. president chiu: thank you.

i want to thank everyone in this room, who i know has been thinking very hard about the events of the last few weeks. i want to thank all the members of the public who have been engaged in these very important discussions about our community, our country, and the inequalities we have today. i appreciate the comment about the 99.99%. i want to say that having visited the joseph herman plaza cite a number of times, i have been very impressed by the conduct of the individuals involved in this movement. i certainly think that what happened last week in oakland was deplorable, and was absolutely praetexta will -- and -- was absolutely pretextual.

the reason i join my colleagues is always concerned, as i think all of us were concerned, about the possibility of an unnecessarily the violent confrontation between folks trying to get a message out and others within city government. i want to thank the folks who have participated, and the department heads that are looking out for the public health and public safety issues we have to be concerned about, as well as the members and leadership of occupy sf. i supported supervisor weiner's amendment for a number of reasons. i was prepared to support supervisor avalos, but i would prefer to build a consensus at the board, and hopefully have a

super majority of colleagues in support of occupy sf. it is important to build consensus. if there is a threat to public safety or public health, i do not been there is anyone involved today who feels that if there is something real we would be concerned about it. but i think the thrust of this resolution, as it is no written, balances of the issues we care about. we want to ensure the first amendment rights are protected. we want to make sure over one has the right to assemble. we want to do this in a way that is safe and takes into concern public health issues that we know and are sensitive about. colleagues urge our support as

well. supervisor campos: let me simply note again the need and requirement to step in when there is an eminent threat, a big threat to public safety. that is what is required. all smut, nothing that we say or do not say here takes away the very fact. we live in a time of limited resources. we have to make sure that as we move forward and how we handle the movement, that we are very careful about how we use the limited resources we have. the fact is that we have neighborhoods throughout the city of san francisco that

require and need attention, such as the plaza where occupy sf is. i hope the administration is very careful in how it deploys the resources we have, whether it is police or any other resource. i think it is important for us to make sure we are responsible in how those resources are utilized. we know public safety is a priority and should be a priority across the city, not just in one part of the city. the second point -- i think it is important to note the facts. cummins around the use of public space -- those are important issues. in terms of history, there has been a precedent here in san francisco for a group that is peacefully assembling to protest

something to be allowed to not only a simple, but to camp out. that is something that happened in 1985, and in 1995. we passed a resolution at the board of supervisors commemorating that important act. at the time, and number of san franciscans other in front of the federal building and were allowed to camp out. they were protesting the inaction of the federal government around the aids crisis. what is happening here at the embarcadero is not new to san francisco, even in terms of magnitude and scope. but we are doing is meeting with them. the fact that the mayor himself is meeting with them is consistent with the traditions and francisco has of protecting the right to free speech and

assembly. i think it is important for us to keep in mind that there has been a precedent for how to handle something like this. president chiu: is there any further discussion? supervisor farrell: i will keep my comments relatively short, but want to thank everyone involved on the board for being involved in this. i know supervisor avalos has been in the lead on this. i agree with almost everything he said. about a right to free speech, we need to do everything we can to protect it as a board. the inequities are real and hit san francisco very hard. we must allow people to demonstrate peacefully. we are all astonished about what has happened in oakland. for me, it is almost to the point where we say we agree with allowing folks to camp out and spend the night there.

i appreciate supervisor campos's comments about president, but i think it is a slippery slope to go down. what groups are we going to allow in tents? that is the reason i will not be supporting this resolution. but i want to say to the other supervisors who have been playing an active role, thank you for doing that on behalf of the board and the city. to the occupy members, we have your support of the movement -- we support your movement, although not all of us support camping overnight. supervisor weiner: i will be supporting the resolution. i understand the concerns about permitting and camping. i know we have all struggled with that on one level or another. clearly, there are boundaries.

but i think we have to have some degree of flexibility when we look at what occupy sf is doing, why people are doing this. it is one of the most extraordinary talent as we have faced in our country in i don't know how long, in a very long time. we talk about the possible evisceration of the middle class and the incredible inequities, and the paralysis in washington and sacramento that is free in our social safety net and ability to invest in infrastructure and create jobs, harming small businesses. it is an outrageous and unacceptable situation in our country. sometimes, you have to push boundaries. we have a permanent system. we have rules.

but there has to be flexibility as well. president chiu: colleagues, is there additional discussion? seeing none, why don't we take a roll-call vote on this as amended. supervisor farrell: no. supervisor kim: aye. supervisor mar: aye. supervisor mirkarimi: aye. supervisor weiner: aye. supervisor avalos: aye. supervisor campos: aye. president chiu: aye. supervisor chu: no. supervisor cohen: aye. supervisor elsbernd: no. >> mr. president, we have eight ayes and three nos. president chiu: this resolution is adopted. [applause] >> thank you, thank you. president chiu: why don't we move to our next item, item 31? >> irresolution supporting

regulated and safe patient access to medical cannabis in the city and county of san francisco. president chiu: if i could ask folks to leave quietly, we would greatly appreciate that as we conduct our city business. supervisor campos: i would like to thank the co-sponsors of this resolution, supervisors mar, avalusos, president chiu, supervisors mirkarimi, kim, and weiner. we are asking the federal government to do what they said they would do and support local law giving patience access to medication they need. -- patients access to medication they need. research has demonstrated therapeutic benefits to the use of cannabis.

many in california have benefited from that. that is the reason in 1996 the voters in the state of california passed a law that allowed for the use of medical cannabis. here in san francisco, its use is very important to specific communities. i will speak for the lgbt community we have in san francisco, with a large number of hiv-positive individuals. many of those individuals are benefiting from medical cannabis. it is about human rights, a civil-rights issue. we are asking our federal government to respect state laws and the will of the voters, and to give access, properly regulated, to medication. on the issue of proper regulation, i am for proper regulation. we have rules that were

instituted a number of years ago. supervisor mirkarimi played a key role in making that happen. we have become a model for how to do this, how to regulate this industry, and that is the solution. this is about giving patients access to medication they need. supervisor mirkarimi: thank you for your leadership on this. we do get to recognize a certain distinction. our city was the first city in the united states that was able to provide for a complete land use, planning, and public health zoning guide to regulate medical cannabis the centuries. there are over 10 states in the united states that have borrowed from what we have implemented. we were the first to provide the comprehensive plan for regulating medical cannabis.

it is astonishing that the obama administration is moving with incredible for righteousness in shutting down dispensaries, or threatening dispensaries. i think the doj is making an incredible mistake. i think our city government should not shy away from the fact that the war on drugs in this country has been an abysmal failure. if it continues, especially given 16 states in the united states who have adopted prop. 215-type regulations, then what we are doing is retreating from a position that has been affirmed by the voters of california multiple times, and affirmed by the people of san francisco. i support this resolution, which is symbolic.

it articulates our support for something that has been on the books for approximately 16 years in the city and county of san francisco's. -- city and town of san francisco. i think this showdown could be avoided if they would reform the categorization of marijuana as a class one of violation, which has been a terrible mistake for a long time. president chiu: roll-call vote. supervisor farrell: no. supervisor kim: aye. supervisor mirkarimi: aye. supervisor mar: aye. supervisor weiner: aye. supervisor avalos: aye. supervisor campos: aye. president chiu: aye. supervisor chu: no. supervisor cohen: aye. supervisor elsbernd: no. >> mr. president, we have eight

ayes, and three nos. president chiu: why don't we go to roll call for introductions? supervisor farrell: submit. supervisor chu: i have submitted a number of items already. supervisor weiner: colleagues, today i am introducing legislation to strengthen and clarify our prevailing wage ordinance. we have the prevailing wage ordinance for city contracts to level the playing field among city contractors, and to have services provided by adequately compensated personnel. it goes to various services, including motor bus services, janitorial services, of street

parking, hauling solid waste, and moving services. earlier, there was a situation where we unanimously passed a resolution supporting the janitors. this legislation consolidates consistent standards for determining and enforcing prevailing wage requirements under certain types of city contracts. it provides an unemployment transition for workers, which are provided for some workers now, but not for all. it provides that all work on contracts are covered by the prevailing wage ordinance, performed by employees as opposed to independent contractors. i look forward to a discussion of this important piece of legislation. the rest, i submit. supervisor mirkarimi: submit.

president chiu: i have a number of items. i want to thank supervisor weiner for his work on prevailing wage a decision. i would like to add myself as a co-sponsor. there is a piece of legislation that i will be introducing. i want to thank supervisors can and wiener for your car sponsorship -- kim and weiner for your co-sponsorhip. we discussed this with the bar association. it will declare the first right to civil council city in the united states. this is a recognition by local government that we need to move toward a fairer and more just system. when president jimmy carter was the president of our country, he stated that 90% of the attorneys in the country served 10% of all americans. put another way, only 10% of

attorneys serve the remaining 90%. that statistic has gotten worse over the decades. there are 4.3 million civil court users in our state that are self represented. for family law, 90% of child support cases were filed by individuals representing themselves. when it comes to eviction defense in san francisco, the lawsuits filed by the housing authority has increased by 400%. domestic violence cases, 90% of litigants are pro se. if you are charged with a minor criminal offense, you have a right to legal counsel, but if you are a parent in a custody case, a tenant in danger of eviction, or involved in domestic violence, you have no right to counsel. the bar association of san francisco calls for a judicial system that will provide

representation in civil proceedings that involved a child care, safety, or health. this legislation would not immediately establish a right to counsel, but would codify the beginning of a commitment to the school on behalf of our city. this is a combination of the pilot program that would be a partnership between the city, the court system, and the private legal community. the cost would be going on a pro bono basis by the private legal community. for decades, lawyers have debated whether we should move forward with a right to counsel system. i believe our city is at our best when we stand up for shared progressive values like universal health care, marriage equality, and i hope the right forcible council. this moves us forward on the pledge of allegiance, that we are a country