planning commissioners to sit as a jobs committee. the point of the planning commissioners is to hear from people who would be impacted in the business community, small businesses, big businesses, to hear that feedback and make policy decisions. about how you can accomplish the same or similar policy priorities but doing it in a less job impact full way. these commissioners are not jobs arbiters. there are policy are orders for the expertise they have as part of their duties. in the case of an environmental regulation, we are the do composting. but composting can be an example. we know about what composting means. we know how it works and how and bio-digesters work. as we received -- has received

feedback, we have the ability to consider the underlying policy. supervisor kim: one of my concerns about the planning commission, although i do appreciate broadening the scope -- the spectrum of people we get feedback from, is that they have a very lengthy hearings as it is. i'm not sure if any of the commissioners haven't weighed in on whether or not they would want to check out that charge. and other such policies that they may not view in there for you. >> in service to the city, we often ask them to go above and beyond. i do not have apply numbers, but if these supervisors or anybody have comments on how to change the structure of this for the small business commission and the planning department or any other agency, we would be happy to entertain any ideas. we are totally open to that dialogue. i do have a question -- am i

allowed to address the city attorney from the chair? supervisor kim: you may address the city attorney. >> if we make amendments today, we have until next week as the deadline. we would contemplate a change, as supervisor campos mentioned, i do not know what we would be able to do or not do. hi>> additional amendments could be made to the version that is before you. this would need to be continued for additional public comment at your next meeting when you hear this if you were to make additional amendments at that time. he would have to have one more rules committee meeting to hear a comment on those amendments to. alternatively, amendments could be made if this is the first appearance as a full board. the board would have to sit as a whole to hear those amendments. >> i think we are open to any of those processes. supervisor kim: thank you. this is my last question.

something i've been thinking about. when we talk about the spectrum of people you want for job creation, it is clear we have the small business commission that represents small business owners and those interests. how do we make sure that we get guidance and official recommendations from workers and employees as well? >> that is a perfect candidate to be placed in the trailing ordinance. the mayor's office would be wholeheartedly support of of something like that. supervisor kim: thank you. i know that there are a number of public comment. i will call the first five names on my list. mike, tim, kate, tiffany, and rachel.

>> good afternoon supervisors. i'm the president of the san francisco labor council and the hotel labor workers union. the labor council executive committee has voted unanimously in opposition. this was the same night voted by the broader body of delegates, the highest-ranking body. the council also unanimously voted against this. this legislation is unnecessary. it is in balance. it is divisive bickering it is unnecessary because there is already ample opportunities for legislation to be reviewed by the boards that are believe this is necessary by previous testimony. it has already acknowledged that the small business commission has discussed this legislation that affects jobs in the past. this is a problem -- a solution in search of a problem. it is imbalanced.

the previous board of supervisors, which was conceivable five years ago, said, why don't we require that a new body be created call the labor commission comprised of representatives of organized labor and worker advocates? every piece of legislation that could impact economic development or quality of jobs will go before them. there would have been howls from the business community and the mayor's office of would have shaken his bare walls. why should it only be organized labor that has a purview of this issue? we asked the same question. why is it the small business commission that will be modified as the group that has authority on this? number three, it is divisive. it is unfortunate that we have struck upon a charter amendment that speaks to an issue that will be extremely divided in this coming june's election. we urge that you vote no on this thing. supervisor kim: thank you.

[applause] >> good afternoon. i'm the workers' rights coordinating attorney. i am a member of the progressive workers alliance for writ we object to these additional legislative hurdles will be placed in the way of progress of policy ideas that protect the rights and well-being of low- wage workers in the communities we serve her it in our view, the policy ideas the risk that by bureaucracy protect our economy by keeping money in workers' pockets that they spend to support local businesses. that keeps other workers employed. while such laws may present an additional cost to a business owner, their overall effect spreads power to more consumers, which is healthy for our economy and for protecting jobs overall. such policy decisions require an analysis that goes beyond the impact it may have on one

stakeholder. this legislation, as a body, and gives in one state older greater power, which is not democratic. thank you. >> i am the executive director of the senses the labor council. we represent about 150 unions and almost one-hundred thousand men and women in the public and private sector. president casey talked about the walls shaking a. what we talked about was the -- there were some shaking walls at the delegates council. he is right in. this is going to be a very divisive issue if it goes forward and we are asking you to vote no on this. if it ever gets to the board of supervisors, that this goes down. there is a tremendous assumption that is an affront to working men and women in san francisco

and that is that there was a decision, even in the first draft, yes, the letter was written after the first draft, but we still believe that even with the amendments, the idea that a body of supervisors has to be submissive to all types of different commissions and departments and whatever else is in the brownback, if i was a supervisor, i would be totally outraged as to that type of a process. it is totally unnecessary. even after we come out of a divisive election season, we are going into another crazy election season, not only in census go but in the united states, there is going to be a strange feeling that everybody in the country is moving towards helping the 99% and politics are moving in that direction. somehow, in san francisco, it is crazy that we are moving in the opposite direction and giving the business community more of a kudos than the working men and women who do the work in this city. supervisor kim: i'm going to

call up maria, kim, larry, and frank. >> good afternoon. my name is tiffany with young workers united. we are here to oppose this amendment. in the past 15 years, san francisco has been a leader in the country in passing phenomenal legislation to protect workers and preserve worker rights. we are part of making sure that the previous legislation was passed and got on the ballot. this legislation would not affect the process to get it on a ballot. but we do worry about that and worry about legislation like the health care security ordinance. we do not want to create more

jobs lost. we want to create good jobs. we do not want more bureaucratic process to come in the way and what really important legislation for us to continue to be leaders in this country in protecting workers and giving them the rights they deserve. i just wanted to remind the two of you, which you both know now, a quote, supervisor kim, i remember you saying when we were talking about the loophole that when we consider legislation, we do not want to pass legislation or have policies that would create more jobs that are bad. we want to have good, quality jobs that provide benefits, give a living wage. that should be our focus. not how many jobs there are. what kind of jobs are we creating and what kind of jobs are we preserving?

we do not want to continue to have people coming to our doors with the abuses we see in the workplace. we urge you to vote no. supervisor kim: thank you. >> my name is maria. i am a member of the sciu 1021. i am on the executive committee letter. i am proud to be living and working in san francisco. i am very cognizant that our city is revered because of our external beauty. i'm grateful to know that it is our internal beauty that is really our hallmark. the compassion we display and the steps we take to protect the most vulnerable of all working people and their families are values that are synonymous with san francisco. while some folks in other parts

of the country will take potshots and tried to ridicule us for some of our stance, others that benefit directly and that which they could emulate us consider as very enlightened. to that end, today i brought 11 lit candles that i bought at a small business to represent the 11 most recent pieces of legislation that actually brought light to injustices facing working families. some of them were cited earlier in. minimum-wage increase, paid sick leave, treasure island development, etc. we believe these to be pro- worker improvements occur it is our contention that they have also been good for businesses. there are good for our city image and they distinguish us from other parts of the country that govern with a more impressive right to work mentality. this legislation is necessary --

is unnecessary. it really does favor a particular sector. i do not believe that is what we want to do. what is at stake is the light that shines in our city. please do not extinguish that light. supervisor kim: thank you. >> good afternoon. oops, i lost my notes. i'm with the progressive association, proud member of the progress of society. we work every day with people and sent to cisco who are desperate for a job. willing to take a job at $5 per hour or sometimes even less. people work for $3 per day because they are desperate for a job to feed their families. we know the need for job creation. we are part of a network of

community advocates who care deeply about ensuring there are more job opportunities for the residents of san francisco. we are very excited to work with anyone, the mayor's office, the board of supervisors, any commission, who want to think about how we can create jobs. what we are not interested in is a fight over an unnecessary bureaucratic hurdle that is one- sided and really has no need. hair is no reason given that shows why there is a need, why the current legislative process for development in the city is somehow leaving business owners out. i would argue that there are a lot of other groups that are left out, far more from this legislative process than employers. there is a movement happening in this country. and there are two movements happening. there is the right wing movement and the movement for the 99%.

in this city, last year, we passed unanimously the wayside and prevention ordinance. we were so happy to continue being in the forefront of the fight. at a time when it is more clear than ever that it is a battle of a few who have a lot and the many who do not have very much, we know that protecting worker rights is going to help the entire economy, not just working people. the city should continue moving in a forward direction and not cave in to this rhetoric to the phantom of job loss. if there is job loss, we care about it as much as the next person. our community is the first impacted. this legislation does nothing to address real jobs issues. thank you. supervisor kim: thank you. >> good evening. i'm a teacher on leave and political director of united educators of san francisco

representing 6000 teachers and professionals who provide education to the working families of san francisco day in and day out. in earlier testimony, it was interesting when supervisor kim asked if there was any evidence of job loss. i think supervisor campos asked a similar question. the proponents of the charter amendment were not able to cite one example of any job loss. the other interesting thing that was said earlier was went chairwoman kim said san francisco has a high bar of expectation for the business community. that includes decent wages, job protection, environmental protection, and health access for people who work in san francisco. we know that jobs are important. everyone agrees on that. we also know that, oftentimes,

jobs is used as a red herring to divert the city from doing what it needs to do. the educators of san francisco believe that this charter amendment is unnecessary and would turn us back from the work ahead during a steep recession. thank you. >> i am with sciu 1021. old myths die hard. probably mutt -- probably the most pervasive and it is that small businesses are the engine that produce jobs in the country. this holds sway by numerous studies that show there is no correlation between the size of the company and creation of jobs. we are told that if we try to raise the minimum wage, provide universal health care, tighten environmental regulations, passed legislation, anything the raises working people up for

families out of poverty, we are told it is a job killer because it hurts small business. there are lots of great things about small business. by virtue of their smallness, they are often more friendly, more informal, they add color and culture to our communities. there are a great antidote to the cookie cutter big box retailers. small is not necessarily beautiful. on the whole, small employers pay less in wages than larger employers. they offer less health care. they do not offer pensions often. they do not offer sick pay. this is a sector in the economy that cries out for a legislative fix. one good employer cannot take a step forward and offer something that will equip them at an economic disadvantage. this sector often needs a legislative approach. there are lots of things that this board of supervisors can do for small business. do not hold all of san francisco

hostage. with this piece of legislation. thank you. supervisor kim: these are all the speaker cards i have remaining. scott, keith, gabrielle, connie, jerrod. >> thank you for this opportunity to weigh in. first and foremost, once the bell is rung inion work, they can never be unrung. much is the same for any proposal. once a proposal is made, it cannot be unmade. let's take a close look at why the proposal was made. the state says that its purpose is around jobs. let me make it clear that we support jobs. everyone supports jobs. but that is not what this proposal is about. i'm going to shed a spotlight,

not a candlelight, on the politics behind this and move it away from where supervisor kim campos was correctly identifying. this proposal is not only unnecessary, it is much more than imbalanced and it is divisive. it is foolhardy, disingenuous, and should be rejected out of hand today for the following reasons. when you look at this proposal, it is clear that what is going on today, the context, this is a private sector taking over the public sectors decision making and taking from art elected political representatives and shifting it to appointees. is this the small-business agenda? i do not think so. this is the corporate agenda packaged in a very pretty

package by suggesting that it is small business. even in the presentation by the mayor's office, there is not even an appearance that there was anything genuine that came from any small business. there were discussions with unknown people. lastly, for these reasons and many more, we ask you to reject this in immediately and thank you so much for your time. supervisor kim: thank you. please feel free to line up if you like to speak on this item. >> i am the owner of cal insurance. i did not realize until today the small business was part of the 1%. i do nothing most small businesses are. as far as this legislation -- i do not think most of these small businesses are. as far as this legislation, i've

been involved in a small business commission for years. i was one of the actors of proposition b to create the commission in 1985 and i am still involved. what we have tried, for years, to do is let small businesses have a voice to the board of supervisors. if you look over the years, that has been a constant theme that we would like to have input on legislation that is going to impact us. we continuously push for this. we do not think that this is the small business commission or anybody else trying to take over the board of supervisors. it is a simple process as simple as someone impacting jobs in some manner, dramatically, that the small business commission has the ability to weigh in on this. as far as the outreach to small business, i have an e-mail tree

that grows up to about 500 small businesses. when the legislation was first put forth, i put it out to small businesses around the city. i talk frequently to small businesses and we have met with the mayor's people to talk about this. supervisor kim: thank you. >> good afternoon. i am the president of the dogpatch merchant's association 3 we have 135 small businesses that were members. i would not be standing here to support this legislation if i felt it usurped or undermine the authority of a duly elected body, the board of supervisors, nor would i be here if i felt that this legislation was to further empower the chamber of commerce. what i wanted to do is to allow small businesses the type of small businesses that i represent, 1, 2, 5, 20

employees, to have a better say. we do not feel they have a say in this process. the office of small business does a good job of our reach. i get a lot of notice from them. i find it very frustrating that i received a notice from them about some pending legislation that is radically going to affect my members and want some input from me within 48 hours. if we can have a two-month period to have a voice in this process, that would be very favorable. the type of members i represent are not out to exploit labor, not out to take a bite out of labor, they want to find benefits and good jobs for their workers. we feel disenfranchised in this process and would like a better say in it. thank you. supervisor kim: thank you. >> good afternoon. my name is thani. i'm the secretary treasurer and one of the vice presidents of

the labor council. let me say, really briefly, because there has been much discussion about this, we view this legislation as divisive. it is interesting that, at our executive board last monday, it was a unanimous vote to come out against it and. this is one piece of legislation that seems to be uniting labor across all facets of life. in the end, it is divisive and that does not help anybody agree we think it is bureaucratic. up until this moment, we have not had any rationale as to why people want this legislation. now we are hearing from the small business people and it is they who want this. i would like to submit to you that any board of supervisors can call a hearing at any time and these small businesses can come to their supervisors and request a hearing. there is no point in asking for another bureaucratic method. lastly, i want to say, and i

know that the three of you agree, we all want jobs and we all want better jobs, we are really proud of san francisco and we call them our san francisco values. all the pieces of legislation we have passed, the small businesses and many of our associations have been against many of our initiatives for it they have had time, they have argued, and we have prevailed. we urge you to get rid of this bureaucratic piece of legislation and let the process continue. thank you. supervisor kim: thank you. >> i am here with power of people to organize employment rights. as you already heard, we agree that this piece of legislation is incredibly divisive, unnecessary, and on balance. to look forward and try to predict with a piece of legislation whether or not it will impact a job loss is

incredibly subjective. with everything we have fought for, from the minimum wage increase to the wage theft legislation, the claim is always that there is a fear that there is going to create job loss. it has not played out in reality. when we are looking at the kind of repressive legislation that workers fight for, communities fight for to give the community -- to give the business community and on balance check over that, i disagree with what mike casey said. if we were to bring it before the city legislation to say that any new law has to first come through the progressive workers ordinance, we do not agree with it. obviously, we are representing our interest and small businesses are representing their interests. they should not get an imbalance of power. thank you. >> good afternoon. i am speaking as a member of the community of san francisco but also a member of the small

business commission, the president of the small business commission. a very divisive issue, unfortunately. i regret that that is the case. i also regret that a lot of the points that have been made are kind of deliberately or unintentionally corrosive. this is not about the 1%. i know that that national conversation is taking place. it is not about the occupy movement. it is about people who put their life and soul into a business with every sweat that they can muster up and every last penny they have got, trying to cut a bottom-line profit. it is not about stamping out workers' rights or anything else. it is an attempt to get another input on legislation that might severely affect the small business community.

the comptroller's office is responsible for making a neutral and partial objective assessment on whether or not it will affect jobs or not permit it is not a bad idea to give the small business commission, made up of people from both sides, i argue -- i argue with guys from the small business commission regularly. we plunge -- we launched our ideas off and a lot of times we come together and find common ground. sometimes we vote on the same lines and sometimes we vote differently. but it is a fair and objective conversation and everybody is welcome to participate. it does not undermine the process. it does not undermine the authority of the board of supervisors. that is simply not true. i ask you to give this a hearing to the bigger board so that more people can weigh in here. it is that important and should go to the full board of supervisors. thank you very much. supervisor kim: thank you.