like to congratulate the new sheriff in town. i would like to let him know that it was a measure that he had put before this board that is working to get people coming home from incarceration gainfully employed. with my ability as a craftsman, i am quite willing to share that expert knowledge with you. we would be able to have someone

made by the hands of people considered people of no good. once again, mr. scherer, i am willing to work with you. call on me. -- once again, mr. scherer -- sherriff, i am willing to work with you. call on me. i will answer. >> hello, supervisors. thank you for your time. i am and occupier. i wanted to bring in my poster to show you what i normally march with, but apparently it is a weapon, so they are holding it down at the checkpoint. up until this saturday, we have had peaceful marches. every saturday, they have gone off at 3:00 with an escort from the police. for some reason, this saturday, the police decided they wanted

to change their tactics, including corralling us and trying to force us onto a sidewalk we could not fit onto and eventually roadblock us. the response to us taking back the street was having our marchers run over by motorcycles, pushed and shoved and dragged to the ground by officers on motorcycles and additional officers in the area. out of that came a news story that two officers were apparently jabbed with a penknife by a little asian lady and then ran off to the crowd and was not seen appeared i wanted to inform you guys that we have gone through all of our video footage, which includes the three blocks previous to the claim incident and two blocks after. all we can find our cops continually trying to push us down and run us over. i never thought i would have to do this, but i wanted to let you guys know what i now feel i need to march with in the city of san francisco, which is a skateboard helmet, so if i get knocked over or beaten, i am not injured.

swim goggles in the event the sfpd decides to escalate and used tear gas, i am not injured. and also a respirator. i do not really know what is going on in the city at this point with our police. i would just ask that the board of supervisors act on their support of occupy sf and try to do what they can to roll in as mayor and the police. supervisor chiu: thank you. there's a role in the chamber the faults are not allowed to bring posters or other large signs. why don't we hear from our next speaker? >> good afternoon, supervisors. i am the vice-president of clinic by the bay. today is a big day for us. it took 12 years to develop clinic by the bay. it provides health services to the working uninsured. today, we are celebrating our 1-

year anniversary in san francisco. we are part of a national program that has 85 clinics in 25 states. we are serving the working uninsured in supervisor avalos' district and supervisor cohen's district as well as daly city. what is truly remarkable is the diversity of the neighborhood we are serving. thank you for your support and others that have helped our program. we will be there for a long time. you are a real jewel to the city of san francisco. supervisor chiu: thank you. are there other members of the public that wish to speak in general public comment? seeing none -- do you wish to speak in general public comment? ok. >> yes, supervisors. i have to ask one question. before jerry brown, our governor, became mayor over

there in oakland, he changed the form of government to a council form of government. would that work here? no? question. i guess not. i have to go, i left my glasses at safeway this morning. thank you. supervisor chiu: thank you. are there any other members of the public that wish to speak in general public comment? seeing none, general public comment is closed. why do we go to our 3:00 special orders. please call items 12 and 13. >> pursuant to a motion approved on november 8, the board of supervisors has approved to sit as a committee as a whole for items 12 and 13 for a public hearing for persons interested in the proposed amendment as a whole of an ordinance amending the administrative code pertaining to the health care security ordinance. supervisor mirkarimi: thank you, madam clerk.

i will allow president chiu to go ahead first. supervisor chiu: thank you, colleagues, for your consideration of this item. i also want to thank all the members of the public who are here who i know have been working on this issue for many months, as well as supervisor campos and the co-sponsors of his legislation. several months ago, i introduced an alternative version to the initial version of this legislation to hopefully better balance the health care needs of employees in san francisco while at the same time doing what we can to minimize job layoffs. the version we will be considering today -- and i wanted very much thank supervisor cohen for amendments, and i know she has some additional technical amendments she will make -- does a number of things. it requires employers to give adequate notice to their employees of their rights under healthy san francisco. it addresses the surcharge issue, which ensures that employers do not charge an

additional surcharges on their bills and not use such money for health care if that is how it is advertised. it also makes a major step forward with regards to ensuring that additional funds are made available, rather than the current state of law, which is a one-calendar-year approach. we provide a rolling two-year approach to ensure that employers -- employees have access to health care for these two years. lastly, and i think something that is important, is that the legislation ensures that there are -- if there are any legal issues to what we have proposed, and i do not believe there would be, but in case there are, supervisor compost -- supervisor campos' legislation that allows companies to provide 100% of hra's -- that version will then survive any possible legal challenge. i think this legislation does represent a significant

accomplishment for everyone in this chamber who believes, as i do, that there is a loophole that needs to be addressed. i think it adequately addresses that, and i look forward to the conversation today. again, just want to thank everyone for their hard work on this. i guess at this point, why don't we -- i know supervisor cohen has some introductory comments she would like to make. supervisor cohen: thank you very much. i want to thank the colleagues for agreeing to continue this item today so we can hear from members of the public. as i mentioned in my remarks a few weeks ago, the issues that have been raised in months with dialogue with labor groups, health care access groups, small businesses, and our departments responsible for implementing the health care security ordinance are significant. therefore, after the mayor's veto of supervisor campos' legislation, i remain committed to finding a compromise that benefit workers as well and

recognize the impact on small businesses. the amendments that have been previously introduced i believe are the result of significant input from all sides on this issue. after talking additionally with the office of labor standards enforcement and the small businesses commission, i had a few additional non-substantive changes to offer today. these additional amendments accomplish the following -- one, they aggregate all of the new requirements [inaudible] that we have previously discussed into 1 sections so they are easy to find. two, list what specific details are required in an employer's notice to employees. 3, changes the penalties for non-compliance to $100 per employee per violation, as has been reported by olse, to be the most effective way of

implementing this ordinance and makes their imposition required. four, it incorporates two of the three modifications requested by the small business commission to clarify that the timelines for notices are defined as business days and that the reporting requirements for businesses that impose a surcharge is for the entire 12 months. i would like to thank everyone on all sides of this issue and my colleagues especially for their participation and comments on this very important issue. thank you. supervisor campos: thank you. i would like to begin by thanking all of my colleagues for their indulgence on this issue, which has been an issue that has been before us for quite some time. i also like to take the opportunity to thank supervisors cohen -- supervisor cohen and her staff for the work they have done on this issue for what i know is the intent behind the

amendment. let me say that while i appreciate the intent and appreciate the effort, i do respectfully disagree that this is the right direction for us to go down. contrary to what president chiu indicated, i do not think it is something that we as a board necessarily should be proud of in terms of what this amendment does. when i began the effort to close this loophole in the ordinance, i designed by ordinance so they presented little to no legal risk to make sure that not only did we not have a significant legal risk but that we actually, through the amendment, tried to do what we were trying to do, which is close the loophole. you look at the legal history of the ordinance and the challenges

that were filed by the golden gate restaurant association, i think that in many respects, one can say that we got lucky in being successful in that endeavor. if you read the ninth circuit opinion, it is clear that as we make any kind of change that we have to be very cautious to make sure that we are in fact not micromanaging the administration. the amendment i introduced is an amendment that in a very careful way tried to avoid that micromanagement. unfortunately, what supervisor cohen and president chiu have addressed today in the amendment that is before you is an amendment that legally creates problems. it is an amendment that legally would be susceptible to a challenge as the ninth circuit, and depending on what happens in terms of the panel we received at the ninth circuit and depending on what happens beyond the ninth circuit, not

only with the amendment itself be in jeopardy, but the entire ordinance could be in jeopardy. we have to understand the legal context in which this is happening. the u.s. supreme court just granted cert on the federal health-care legislation that president obama and the congress passed. we are now, therefore, facing the very real possibility that a very conservative supreme court and a very conservative court system will take a very different approach to the issues that are underlying this legislation and the issues which the ninth circuit decided in our favor, so we have to tread lightly, but the problem that i have is not only that there is legal risk that is created by this amendment but that ultimately, the legal risks do not actually address the underlying problem, that in fact, a loophole remains if this

amendment is passed. under supervisor cohen's legislation, there will continue to be a loophole because employers will continue to have an incentive to limit the type of services eligible for reimbursement by health reimbursement accounts. we will therefore continue to see employers preventing employees from using their hra's for essential services like vision and dental care, and there will be nothing that we, the city, can do under this amendment to prevent that from happening. i have no doubt that we will continue to see the trend where many of these employers will rely even more on these hra's. we already see that trend happening right now. the percentage of businesses relying exclusively primarily on hra accounts just a year ago was 9%. that percentage a year later was 13%. we anticipate that because of this amendment that essentially codifies the use of hra's as

something sanctioned by the city, that percentage will increase. that, unfortunately, is going to continue to hurt workers in the city andounty of san francisco. not only that, but by failing to close the loophole, we will continue to leave taxpayers to bear the burden of what happens to these workers. the fact is that these workers that are denied access to health care have to go somewhere when they or their children, someone in their family, get sick. we know that what often happens is they go to sf general hospital and we as taxpayers and that paying the bill. let me also say that while i appreciate the effort, the question that remains for us going forward is -- what is the meaningful and effective way of closing this loophole queried --

loophole? we have been working on this for quite some time. the amendment was introduced in may this year. we have a broad coalition that you will hear from today. what is unfortunate about the process that has been followed in terms of the introduction of this amendment is that there has not really been meaningful opportunity for that coalition to sit down with the author of the amendment to really talk about the consequences of this amendment and to really understand what it will do to workers here in san francisco. while i understand the intent and i get appreciate the fact that there is an interest in making something happen and doing something about this problem, we have to make sure that whatever we do does not actually create the problem -- does not even make the problem worse, which is, i think, unfortunately what is happening today. someone said to me that the net effect of this amendment is that it makes healthy less --

healthy san francisco less healthy. in the interest of whether we should allow employers to limit the amount accumulated by these workers, on that issue, the president of the united states and u.s. congress have spoken. under federal law, the federal government has taken the very clear position that there should be no such limitations placed on those workers. on that issue, the mayor, who introduced his amendment, is taking a position that is, quite frankly, to the right of the u.s. congress and the right of the u.s. president. president chiu's amendment is actually even farther right because it provides for less time that an employee can accumulate, so while i appreciate the fact that what supervisor cohen has done improve that legislation, it is simply not enough, which is why the coalition that brought this matter before this board

respectfully today stands against this amendment. thank you. supervisor chiu: thank you. unless there are any other introductory comments, what we open this up to public comment? actually, before we do that, i would like to give an opportunity for city staff from our office of small businesses, if you would like, to say a few words about your office's work on this. >> thank you. earlier this year, as supervisor campos noted, we identified a flaw in the ordinance that provides a loophole for dishonest businesses. there have been varying opinions on recommendations and solutions on how to best remedy this loophole. as noted, we have had many meetings with stakeholders on all sides. the commission wants me to take an opportunity to thank supervisors campos and the labor counsel for raising the issue, for caring deeply about employees and their ability to

access health care. would you, many small businesses are equally as frustrated with many small businesses taking advantage of this loophole. the small business commission also wants to take the opportunity to thank the mayor, supervisor chiu, and supervisor cohen for their dedication in finding a solution that understands the complex nature of how businesses utilize these accounts to meet the mandate of the health care security ordinance. the increased access to health care and minimize job loss. on october 3, the small business commission recommended approval to the board of supervisors with supervisor david chiu's legislation as is. today, you received the recommendation from last night's meeting that we recommend the amendments that supervisor cohen has put before you. we thank supervisor cohen for accepting two of our non-

substantive amendments. before you is a well-thought- out solution that publishes the goals of increasing access to health care while minimizing job loss. the office of small business has consulted with many small businesses, and the small business community recognizes that it is a stakeholder in providing meaningful health access along with noticing, reporting, and finds that the two-year accrual basis rollover will accomplish the goal in improving health access, and the commission strongly in forces the amendment. the small business community also recognizes that the january 1 will poll is a critical issue and must be addressed as soon as possible. the commission thanks supervisor cohen and david chiu for incorporating the recommendation to insure this issue is resolved beginning with calendar year 2012. in conjunction with the broader community, the sbc finds ending

this condition promptly is essential to providing meaningful health care access to employees. the remaining amendments the small business commission support. i and the commission are also committed in working with office of labor standards enforcement as we implement this legislation and monitor businesses so they are utilizing the hra's and work with businesses to increase access to health care. in closing, the small business commission urges you to support -- to support and vote in support of the legislation today to ensure that workers are covered and able to access and utilize their health reimbursement accounts. thank you. supervisor chiu: thank you. why don't we start our public comment on this topic? if members of the public wish to speak on this, please line up on the right side of the chamber

facing us. why don't we hear from our first speaker, please? >> thank you, president chiu and board of supervisors. i am a member of doctors for america, a physician activism group. as independent organizations committed to analyze the impact of policies and protecting and improving the public's health, the equal health network and doctors for america strongly support healthy san francisco. the program is important for providing coordinated health care for women who often work in service sector jobs that typically do not offer health insurance including restaurants, health care, child care, and non-profits. a small number of employers deliberately misappropriate funds contributed by customers that specifically cover san franciscans for the health care they need, averting consumer

payments designated for health the san francisco back into the pockets of business owners is dishonest and a violation of our trust. at a time when there is national agreement that the lack of health care coverage threatens uninsured employees, the practice also shows disregard for the workers who are denied care as a result. employers do not deny that they are subverting the intent of the law and the good will of their clients by paying into health reimbursement accounts, which they used to offer severely limited health insurance products to their employees. they claim that seizing such a misappropriation would be harmful to the economy. the majority of the city's employers to recognize the economic as well as advantages of using the money to help the economic security of low-income san franciscans. we urge the board of supervisors to reject the amendment engage seriously in an initiative to make sure the funds are used as

intended, to provide health-care coverage to san francisco workers. thank you. supervisor chiu: thank you. next speaker. >> hello, board. i wanted to step forward as an employer who is charging a surcharge, as many of the restaurants in the city are, and does put all of that surcharge toward my employee benefits. i am shocked and offended that so many restaurants that i go to have a surcharge at the bottom of their menu, and if you ask your server -- just try doing this -- ask your server, "do you have health insurance?" most will say that they do not or that it is only four full- time people. i asked if they have reimbursement accounts, and they will say they are not sure or have not been told how to use them. it is fraudulent, and my business has been completely

comfortable financially with what our $1 per person charge. we have been able to provide full health insurance through kaiser, completely paid by the business for everyone that works even one day a week. we provide full dental coverage. a 401k with 4% match and two weeks sicklied and two weeks vacation. with the other businesses are doing with that money is beyond me unless it is just going in their pockets. i just do not see that two years of time to spend money that you are not aware you have is going to make any difference. my business is largely staffed by people where english is not their first language or where they feel intimidated to ask for what they are owed. i do not think expanding this one more year so that they can accumulate more that is going to be taken from them is in any way to their benefit. i ask you to turn down the legislation and consider a way

that would really close this loophole and give businesses like mine that are doing the right thing if their footing in this city. thank you. supervisor chiu: thank you. next speaker please. >> i would really like to commend the previous speaker. i am a worker. we need more business owners like her. the problem, as the situation stands right now and as the proposed amendments would make it, is that she is placed at a competitive disadvantage for doing this. these amendments do not fix the loophole, and they do not help me as a worker. if anything, the possibility of a legal challenge places the amendments as having the potential to make the situation worse for me as a worker. it does not matter whether it, january 1, a rolling year, as long as employers have an incentive to take the money back, they will. right now, they are taking 80% back. i am working for my third

catering company so far this year. the employees do not know about this benefit. i asked my boss. i asked my boss' boss pierre they told me it does not exist. i ended up getting health care reimbursement by marching into the vice-president of hr's office and demanding it. since then, i filed a complaint with the city. the company filed a complaint with a lawyer. they are spending a lot of money on a lawyer to say they did everything right when they did not do everything right. because they have an incentive to keep the money, it can be a lot of money, and it is not fair to business owners that give their employees health care to be placed at a disadvantage for that. as long as there's money on the table, employers will want to take it back. i am the only native english speaker at the restaurant, the only one who is college educated, and the only one who would just march up and say, " hey, give me my money."

these amendments do not fix the problem for employees who do not have a voice. the money needs to be there to stay to get employers an incentive to give health insurance or to tell them about the reimbursement accounts. without that, there will always be an incentive for employers to take money back. this does not fix it. the money needs to stay for the employees. thank you. supervisor chiu: thank you. next speaker. >> i work in the intensive care units. every winter, we have people who are young, have small children and were brought into our intensive care unit because of septic shock caused by systematic threat of infection, which is often developed by a simple conditions such as pneumonia, lung infection, or flute -- flu.

if the condition is severe, these patients often face death. life-threatening illness can be avoided if those patients could visit a clinic to get antibiotics or even if they could, in the er before completely collapsing appeared however, most of those patients hesitate to come in for a very long time because they could not afford the $3,000 for the visit. instead of getting medical care, they just hope for a full recovery, which does not happen until after weeks of hospital stay, or sometimes it never happens. it was heartbreaking to see young wives or children at the bedside in fear of losing their husband or father. it is always painful to see these because i know this could have been presented by a single er or clinic visit. their lives could have been saved if they had access to affordable health care, which i believe supervisor campos'