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.

president chiu: good afternoon. welcome to the board of supervisors meeting, november 1, 2011. please call the roll. supervisor avalos: present. supervisor campos: present. president chiu: here.

supervisor chu: here. supervisor farrell: present. supervisor kim: present. supervisor mirkarimi: present. supervisor weiner: present. >> all members are present. president chiu: please join me in the pledge of allegiance. >> i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. president chiu: we have our act september 27 board meeting minutes. motion by supervisor farrell, seconded by mar. are there any communications? >> we have a communication from

the mayor which would amend -- about his veto, which would amend the administrative code. items one through 10 comprise the consent agenda. there will be considered by a single roll call vote unless a member wishes and item be severed, in which case it would be considered separately. president chiu: seeing none. 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. supervisor cohen: aye.

supervisor elsbernd: aye. >> mr. president, we have 11 aye. president chiu: those are passed and resolutions are adopted. colleagues, we had countered items 11 through 13 until 4:00 p.m. today, if we can pass over those items until those time. i am sorry. items 11 through 13. >> item 14 adopts findings reversing the planning department determination that a project on sansome street is exempt from environmental review. president chiu: can i have a motion to continue item 14 for one week? without objection. to november 8. next item.

>> item 15 is an ordinance amending the administrative code regarding the health care security ordinance. president chiu: thank you. on item 15, supervisor cohen. supervisor cohen: today, i am introducing a series of amendments to president chiu's legislation, the result of many months of conversations with many stakeholders -- labor groups, coalitions, business groups, small business groups, health access organizers, and community-based organizations. the amendment will do the following. it will increase the time by which employees can accrue fund is in a reimbursement account from one year to two years, require that if employees have a balance in their account at the end of the year that those funds

are rolled over and made available to them the next year, so they are not starting with a zero balance the beginning part of the year, increase the protection for consumers are requiring businesses that impose a surcharge to cover the cost of health care, but spend less than the amount on health care for their employees, to pay the difference to the employees for care for health-care costs. third, require businesses to report to olse not only the amount of their expenditures on health care, but also what expenditures that are allowing to be reimbursed -- they are allowing to be reimbursed under their health care plans. this is important so we can gather more details about the numbers and ways of businesses are being restrictive. i would like to thank everyone for their time, attention, commitment, and effort on this issue. it has been extremely

complicated, and has impacts on our workers and our businesses. however, i believe we have identified a critical problem that we all agree exists, and that we must -- and i believe these amendments strike a balance between all of these interests. i understand these amendments are substantive and will need additional public comment. i would like to continue this until november 15. supervisor elsbernd: is there a second to that motion? supervisor chu has seconded that motion to the amendment. supervisor campos: i want to thank supervisor cohen and her staff for the work they have done on this issue. i know this is something we have

been grappling with for quite a few months. i welcome the amendments that have been made. i am still trying to understand the implications of the amendments, but i think it is a positive step forward. it is certainly a step in the right direction. i know a great deal of thought has gone into the specifics of the amendments. for me, what i would like to do is simply have a better understanding as to what the implications would be relative to individual workers. again, i think this may be the right place where we need to end up, but i think we need to do a little bit more analysis to see if that is the case. i will be happy to support the amendments, with the understanding there still needs to be more analysis to understand the implications. with that in mind, i think it is appropriate, in light of the fact that some of the issues are very complicated, that the

matter be sent back to committee so that analysis and work can be done. but again, i want to thank supervisor cohen for her work. supervisor elsbernd: i would like to first vote on the amendments. you would like to refer it to committee. we will do that after we adopt the amendments. president chiu: i would like to thank supervisor campos for your leadership, and supervisor cohen. i believe there is a loophole that needs to be closed and we need to figure out the best way to do that, a way that ensures we are getting health care to our employees in a way that minimizes job loss. i think the direction of these amendments is exactly what i appreciate and would support. a big 82-year time frame makes

sense. i appreciate -- i believe a two year timeframe make sense, particularly given that president obama's health care legislation will go into effect. it absolutely covers us to ensure those moneys will be used for the health care of our workers. i also appreciate, because my staff and i have thought about provisions to deal with consumer fraud around restaurants and other organizations that charge a 4% surcharge but do not give that to health care -- i think strengthening that provision makes sense. that is what i will support those amendments. supervisor elsbernd: see no other comments, could we have a role call on the motion to amend? 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. supervisor cohen: aye.

supervisor elsbernd: aye. the amendments are approved. supervisor campos: a point of clarification -- what is our last meeting in november as a board? >> november 26. supervisor campos: so we do not have to have a back-and-forth on whether it goes back to committee, instead of continuing it to the 15th, i suggest we do a committee as a whole on november 22, so we have more time to analyze the issues involved. that is a way of splitting the baby between the two approaches. supervisor cohen: i actually disagree. i think we need to have the first reading on november 15 and the second reading on november 22. i would motion we sit as a

committee as a whole. i think this is an important issue that we as an entire body need to sit as one family and address collectively. it would allow people from all sides on this issue an opportunity to speak to each and every one of us in the most fair and most transparent part of the process that we have. supervisor elsbernd: supervisor cohen has made a motion to continue to the 15th and sit as a committee, as a whole. supervisor campos: i would like to make a motion to send it back to committee, if that is the approach a supervisor wishes to take. supervisor elsbernd: city attorney, what do we take first? >> the motion to move to a date. supervisor kim: why do we have to call the committee as a whole based on the 15th instead of the 22nd? is there a scheduling

constraint? we could have the second reading in december and still make it in time for the mayor to sign it. supervisor cohen: i thank you for your question. there are a couple of reasons. in the beginning part of this health care security ordinance conversation, there were four signatures that pulled up the piece of legislation to the board. it was deemed important for us to sit as a committee as a whole to do with that issue. the second point, the timing issue, i believe there is a lot on the schedule. in terms of protection of consumers and workers, we need to make a decision before the end of the year so we can implement at the beginning of the year. the reason i am urging we sit as a committee as a whole is to protect the very people that we are looking to protect. supervisor kim: i just wanted to

clarify, if i may. i agree we can meet as a committee as a whole, i just do not see a reason why we cannot give people an extra week, if they want it. we could have the first reading on the 22nd. it would come back december 6. the mayor would have plenty of time to sign. is there a problem with 30 days? that is the issue. now i understand the time constraint. supervisor mirkarimi: through the chair to supervisor cohen, i agree with supervisor kim's question. hasn't the mayor signaled that even though the amendment language is fresh, that he also signaled he was looking for this level of compromise as well? have you not heard from the mayor's office that he is also supportive of this path? >> i will defer to jason elliott to speak on behalf of the mayor.

>> thank you, supervisor. mayor's office, through the president. we did receive a briefing and text of these amendments. while it is a fresh idea, the mayor is supportive of these amendments and looks forward to the board taking action as soon as possible. supervisor mirkarimi: back to the question on the 15th or the 22nd -- if we are trying to accommodate parties within the chamber and room 200, i still do not hear the answer as to why the 15th versus the 22nd. president chiu: there is a very simple answer. it takes 30 days for a piece of legislation to go into effect once it has been signed by the mayor. we all understand this needs to get done by the end of the year. if we don't have a final read by the end of this month, given the things given break, it will not give enough time to get -- given the thanksgiving break, it will not get enough time to get

things done by january 1. supervisor elsbernd: the motion is to continue to the 15th and to sit as a committee as a whole. supervisor farrell: aye. supervisor kim: nio. supervisor mirkarimi: no. supervisor mar: no. supervisor avalos: no. supervisor campos: no. president chiu: aye. supervisor chu: aye. supervisor cohen: aye supervisor elsbernd: aye. >> we have six ayes, five nos. president chiu: mr. clarke, why don't we go to item 16? >> impertinence to who provide reconstruction of buildings damaged by fire or acts of god. supervisor elsbernd: thank you

for the board for giving me the two weeks with the planning department. i spoke to the zoning administrator, mr. sanchez. the concerns i had, he has allayed. i think we should move forward with this legislation. we are ready to go. president chiu: roll-call vote on this item. 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. supervisor cohen: aye. supervisor elsbernd: aye. >> mr. president, we have 11 aye. president chiu: i have been reminded with item 15 that after the vote on the motion to continue, the chair did not state that item 15 will be

continued to november 15. with that, that is what will happen with item 15. we can move to items 17, 18, and 19. >> item 17 amends the administrative code to adopt the binding financial policy providing that selected non- recurring revenues may only be spent on nonrecurring expenditures. item 18, he adopts the certificates of participation and commercial paper. item 19 updates budget rock -- budget procedures to accommodate two year budget cycles and five- year financial planning requirements and eliminate duplicate of reporting requirements. president chiu: can we take this same house, same call? supervisor avalos: could we think about two more weeks on item 17?

i am not saying i will vote against it, but i want to consider that separately, with a little more time. i would like to see if we can have that heard on 15 november -- on november 15. president chiu: a motion to continue this item to november 15 by supervisor avalos. any objection to the motion, seconded by supervisor campos? without objection. on items 18 and 19, same house, same call? without objection on the first read. >> item 20 who is an ordinance appropriating approximately $1.8 million of the children's fund contingency in the department of children, youth, and their families to fund subsidized child care for low-income families. president chiu: same house, same call, passed on the first raid.