number of candidates who were in the race, and there has been talk about the so called zombie candidate. and one of the proposals that's imbedded in what we have put forward and something that we have worked with supervisor kim and supervisor avalos on is the idea of moving up the deadlines by which candidates have to decide whether or not to file as candidates and to remain in the race. that allows candidates more time to know what the field of candidates actually looks like. so that they can have more information and decide early on whether or not they will remain candidates in a campaign. and i think that that's something that could go a long way in addressing some of the concerns that have been raised about ranked-choice voting. i also believe that it's important for us to recognize that no system of voting is perfect. and i don't know that whether

it's ranked-choice voting or a runoff or some it ration of either that anyone is going to be able to stand here or sit here and say that that system is not going to have problems. there are problems. it's a human created system by definition, there will be issues. because why from my perspective, the approach has been to simply say, you know, how do we make this system better? and that's what we're trying to do. and voter education really goes to the heart of what this charter amendment is trying to accomplish. you know, there has been the point about how we are reaffirming the commitment to enhancing the number of choices that are given to voters, and i believe that to the extent that that's allowed by the technology, we should consider that. but no system is going to work unless we do as good a job as we can in educating the voters about how that system works,

which is why a key component of what we're proposing is this idea that we would have an enhanced voter education plan, and we recognize that work has already been done by the department of elections and we appreciate that work and we know that a lot of time and energy and resources went into that, but i also think that we can always do a better job of that and we want to make sure that we see voter participation and voter understanding of the system across the board. the two polls that have actually been taken where voters have actually been asked about their understanding of ranked-choice voting actually shows that the vast majority of those individuals understand the system. doesn't mean that we cannot do a better job. that's what we're trying to do here. i know there will be amendments that will be introduced with respect to the proposal by supervisor elsbernd and supervisor farrell. i think it's important that we deal with these matters

together. to the extent that -- i know that the matters have to be continued, and if that's the case, i think it would make sense for a continuance to apply to both. my hope, though, is that as that happens, as there is a continuance that all of us were working on this issue, again, different perspective but with the same goal, that we use this opportunity to talk about where there is common ground and commonality, that maybe we can work together. one of the things that is clear to me is that the more time we take to do this right, the better. so one of the questions that i do have is whether or not, including my omit proposal, including the proposal that supervisor avalos and i put forward, whether or not the timing is such that we should move with it for the june

election of whether or not we should wait, and that's something that i think all of us need to think about. because with something as complicated as this, we want to make sure we do it right, and i'm committed to making sure that we do it as right as we can. with that, i want to thank again my colleagues and i want to thank members of the public who have come out. supervisor kim: it is my understanding that supervisor farrell will be presenting amendments to item number four. supervisor farrell. supervisor farrell: thank you, madam chair, and thank you supervisor campos for your comments. there has been a lot mentioned in my campaign finance reform. i think there are a lot of great things in what you're doing. i think our system is going to be improved. hopefully the voters of the board will pass something in that regard. i just want to state for everyone and for the record here

some comments about today's discussion and really articulate my belief about ranked-choice voting and why we've put this forward. first of all, the notion of -- and just to set the stage, this isn't -- people view me sometimes in this town as a moderate or progressive thing. that's not it at all. moderates have won and lost, proaggressive aggressives have d progressives have won and lost. i'm the one who offered this legislation and it wasn't because of them. that is not my concern. people like to use that. that's fine. but i'll just tell you the truth. that's not part of it. the fact of the matter is i was elected with ranked-choice voting. had ranked-choice voting not been this place, i would have been in a runoff. i feel very confident how that would have gone, but i'm sitting here, there's no ulterior motive. i'm an incumbent who will be up for election. ranked-choice voting has been known to be called an incumbent

protection act. it doesn't bother me to go into a runoff system. i am not afraid of that. there is no ulterior motives here that people continue to insinuate. the last part, to be clear, that different people have talked about, about voter turnout, there's a lot of comments. i just want to articulate my opinion on it. some people say advocates of ranked-choice voting say it promotes higher voter turnout. averaging back to the 1950's and hasn't produced it. i think it's interesting. the fact of the matter is it doesn't produce higher voter turnout. that's actually factually wrong. in 2003, the runoff for mayor produced over 50% turnout. the last one was 41%, 4 %. the fact is we had a mayoral election this past year that had almost 10 points -- i think greater than 10 points less

turnout than a runoff did in 2003. and what i would suggest is that the excitement that the electorate has over the candidates that are running as opposed to the system itself that produces or affects voter turnout. so in terms of people talk about voter turnout and keep saying it produces higher voter turnout, it doesn't. it's just factually wrong. i'm not saying a runoff system produces higher voter turnout either, although it has in certain cases. i think it's independent of our voting system and i think it has a lot more to do with and almost everything to do with the candidates that are running and how much people are inspired to come out and vote for them. i've talked about it before, but in terms of my desire and why i really went forward with this ballot initiative, there are three things. the principal majority vote. i do believe that that is

important. the notion of voter confusion is real. and it's funny. a lot of people come up and say gosh, who doesn't understand one, two, three? anecdotally, people are absolutely confused about how this works. i have people e-mailing me saying i didn't vote because i didn't like the system. i didn't know how it was going to be effective. there are obviously a lot of people that like ranked-choice voting, but the fact of the matter is a lot of people are confused. supervisor campos, i haven't seen two polls that say that people understand ranked-choice voting, and i have seen one that was 50/50, that said do you understand ranked-choice voting is the question, and most people said yes. but i think most people say yes when they ask if they're able to understand something generically. the one poll i did see at the end of last year was all right, if your first, second, and third ballots -- choices are not on the ballots, what happens to your ballot?

it's actually a question about ranked-choice voting. doesn't say do you understand it and kind of ask you to stand up for yourself. it says what happens in a scenario -- a pretty simple scenario. 30% got it dead wrong. 30%. 19% got it right. and 51% said i don't know. to me, that's a huge problem. a huge problem. on election day -- and i appreciate mr. hill's personal comments, as all, during these debates. on election day when we introduced this, we had a reporter out on the steps of city hall interviewing people who voted that day in city hall and said can you explain to me ranked-choice voting? all four people got it wrong. all four people came up with different answers. but the most pressing thing for me, and everyone has their own reasons why they do things, but for me, the thing that bugs me the most is the notion of disenfranchisement. the last speaker talked about this a little bit.

precincts from san francisco that are lower sose yo economic precincts, there is a much higher propensity to have their votes cast what are called overvotes. this is when you mark more than one person in the column. your votes are not counted three times. they're actually taken and basically thrown in the trash because they're marked wrong. it is the one definitive way to save voter confusion, when you mark your ballot wrong. your votes, your ballots are tossed in the garbage. and if district 10 was mentioned, in my supervisor race in 2010, almost 10 times more ballots in district 10 than in district two were cast as overvotes. almost 3% of the ballots, 2.% of the ballots in district 10, in 2010 were overvotes. their votes were thrown away. and people talk about -- and i

unction -- understand the argument, people talk about it's better to vote one time than it is twice and it's tougher to come out to vote. i understand that argument. but the argument that it's ok for certain people's ballots to get tossed in the garbage can because of ranked-choice voting to me doesn't hold water. there are groups and civil rights advocates that have fought for decades and so hard in this country for the right to vote and we are telling a number of those minority communities here in san francisco that it's ok that their ballots get tossed in the garbage can. for me, proponents of ranked-choice voting do not have a monopoly on the word democracy. to me, ranked-choice voting is the epitome of a system that is anti-democratic because it's ok that a lot of people have their votes tossed away. to me, that is unacceptable. so i know the debate will continue, but i wanted to make sure i articulated by comments and the real reason behind what i am doing. i am putting forth amendments

today, and to let the public know the three things they encompass. first of all, it is to move to a september 1 ballot and a november runoff. i agree, we've talked with a lot of people, a lot of stake holders who don't like voting in september, and quite frankly, i don't either. and to ruin holidays, to think that people will vote after thanksgiving, i don't want that. absolutely. this is for people who don't know this is exactly what the city of new york does, and so they modeled it after speaking with a number of people in new york and on their system. the second point is that in order for someone -- it is a traditional two-person runoff system. in order for someone to get elected in the september race, it's not just 50%. they have to get 65% of the vote. we likely acknowledge that a september election is going to have less people. we want to have the runoff where

there are going to be more people at the ballot. that that is the election where we have the runoff. and we want to make sure that unless there's a clear, clear frontrunner in september, there is a two-person runoff. and lastly, we made the amendment that it's not going to take place and be effective until the year 2013, so it won't affect this year's supervisor races in november. so colleagues, you have those amendments in front of you, and i'd ask for your support to make these amendments today. supervisor kim: thank you, supervisor farrell. so supervisor farrell has made amendments to his legislation. we have a motion to accept these amendments, and we can do that without opposition. because these amendments are substantive, we will continue it to next thursday's rules committee as well, and as supervisor campos has mentioned, i think it's appropriate to continue both of these items so they can be heard and voted on at the same time. can we have a motion to continue items four and five?

supervisor campos? supervisor campos: excuse me, i have a motion, but i do want to make a comment. and i think it's really important as we go forward with this discussion to keep it in mind. i think that it's important for all of us to recognize that reasonable people can disagree on something like this. and i don't think it's really a good thing for either side to question the motives that are involved. and i think that everyone here has a good public policy reason that they're proposing as to why they're doing what they're doing. and i don't think that we should personalize what someone is doing and why they're doing it. and like wise, in terms of voter participation, i take everyone here in this room at their word

when they say they want the maximum extent of voter participation possible. as a person of color, i support ranked-choice, but i will be the last person to in any way condone anyone's ballots or votes motte being counted. to the contrary. the reason that we are focusing on voter education is because we want to maximize that. so i think it's important for us to recognize that we can agree to disagree, but at the end of the day, the objective, i think, is the same. so i think it's really important to keep that in mind as we move forward with this discussion. supervisor kim: i know that we will be continuing this to next week, so i'll reserve most of my questions and comments then. but i do want to appreciate the point that was made here. i think it's important to

address the actual issue. clearly the issue is are we maximizing voter turnout. do voters understand the voting and election process. how do we make sure that as many people as possible are able to vote, feel educated and comfortable with the voting system and that the candidates that are elected really reflect the top choice of the district or the city. and so i really appreciate all the authors who have put forward amendments here today. furthering how they think we may achieve this outcome. also we'll be looking at the fiscal impacts. do we have a motion to continue items four and five? we do, and we can do that without opposition. colleagues, are there any other comments on items four and five? seeing none, madam clerk, is there anything else on the agenda? >> no, madam chair. supervisor kim: thank you. meeting is adjourned.

>> sanrio famous for the designs for hello kitty. i thought i would try to make it as cute as possible. that way people might want to read the stories. then people might be open to learn about the deities and the culture. ♪ they reached out to make about five or six years ago because of the book published.

they appreciated that my work was clearly driven from my research and investigation. after i contributed my artwork, the museum was really beside themselves. they really took to it. the museum reached out to me to see if i would be interested in

>> all right, good afternoon, everyone. welcome to the thursday, january 26, 2012 meeting of the government and all the site -- government audit and oversight committee. i am supervisor farrell. supervisor chu, out of deference with the other supervisors who want to be here, is in his office walking attentively. i'm also joined by supervisor scott wenner, supervisor olague, and supervisor campos. i want to thank the committee and also the members of sfgtv that are covering this hearing. madam clerk, can you please make any announcements? >> yes, turn off all cell phones.

please present speaker card as there will be included as part of the file. mahnke. supervisor farrell: okay, colleagues, are there any comments to begin? madam clerk, please call the first item. >> item one, hearing of the needs of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender seniors. supervisor campos: thank you for hearing this item today. let me begin by thanking my colleagues at it, supervisor scott wiener and supervisor christina olive new -- olague, who have helped. this is a very important issue, and i want to thank everyone for taking time out of your busy schedules to be here with us.

i think it is a testament to how engaged not only the lgbt community, the entire san francisco community is, and i am very proud of that. there are about 25,000 lgbt people who are 65 years or older. live in san francisco. in fact, given the baby boomer generation, that generation is aging, and we know that number will continue to increase. this is often a population, lgbt seniors, who, frankly, and i say this as an lgbt man, we do not get -- i know it has taken some time perhaps to get the attention this issue deserves, but the reason why i am so proud

that we are here is because we have the lgbt members of the board of supervisors working together to make sure that we shed light on this important issue. and i'm very proud to have been able to work with supervisor wiener, who has taken a very key leadership role in this. and, of course, we have been joined by our newly appointed supervisor, supervisor olague, who has hit the ground running. one of the first thing she did was co-sponsored this hearing. we know that lgbt seniors face a number of issues. depending on their health status, housing situation, immigration status, or family situation, those issues can be compounded and complicated. we are part of a very diverse community, we who are lgbt. today, what we wanted to do in this complicated and important issue, we wanted to frame the

discussion by inviting to the hearing experts on the issue have have been working on this for some years. you'll be hearing today from people who have been doing this for a long time and who know the specific challenges that this community faces. week as a kenyan elite are not monolithic. i'm a gay latino man who also happens to be an immigrant. there are socio-economic issues that come into play. it is important that we are honest about how we talk about the needs of this perverse community. and the beginning of this discussion, not the end. our hope is that out of this discussion we can also think about specific steps that can be taken at the local city government level to address this issue. i like to especially thank bill from the human-rights

commission for helping to coordinate this hearing, and i also want to acknowledge and the audience to recent parks, it was the director of the human rights commission for the city and county of san francisco for her leadership -- to reset parks. and with that, i will turn it over to a supervisor winner. i want to think supervisor winner and supervisor olague for their great work on this. supervisor wiener: thank you, and what a pleasure is to have three members of the lgbt community on the board of supervisors. we have increased our ranks by 50%. when i was sworn in, i had spoken about my aunt who is now 70, and who came out before stonewall. she was helping take care of

people through the height of the hiv aids crisis, some of the worst days, and she was always a mentor to me as a young gay man coming out so many years ago. when i think about all of the people who really were at the vanguard of the lgbt civil rights movement, helping us survive through the early days of a chevy-aids, -- hiv aids, these are people who we actually need to cherish and make sure that as people age, we as a community are sticking together and do with what we need to do. aging is a growing issue in san francisco generally as our population within the lgbt committee, there are some unique issues. we know about issues around and come and jobs. of course, for all seniors,

including lgbt seniors, issues around discrimination unique to lgbt seniors. we heard stories of people had to go back into the closet when they go into retirement communities or nursing homes. issues are around housing, the expense of housing, issues around people losing an apartment and not being able to afford to stay in the city. but also another issue have been trying to raise and have more front and center, issues around architectural barriers. we want seniors to be about to age in place and be up to stay in their homes. for some seniors to have stable housing, they own their homes or have an apartment there secure in, but more and more it becomes difficult for them to stay there because of stairs or other architectural barriers, and i represent other neighborhoods including the castros, which is a huge concentration of lgbt

people, and it is an aging population. castro is expensive. that are not as many young that lgbt people as there were before, and we have a wonderful and beautiful housing stock that is not particularly accessible. i selfishly, as representative to this neighborhood, but to make sure that holder lgbt people can stay in the caster. it is really situated in that neighborhood. i hope that we bring the issue of architectural barriers more to the forefront, because it is a key issue around aging in place. finally, health care. we now have more and more people living with hiv who are aging, and there are some unique issues around growing older, living with hiv, and some of it is learning.

so we need to focus on that. and also the broader issue of hiv, we're going to be really struggling next year with the $4 $25 million -- $4.25 million it cut to the ryan white budget process. we have to fight to make our commitment. before i start bringing up some of our speakers, i want to give supervisor olague an opportunity to make some comments. supervisor olague: thank you to supervisor wiener and campos for giving me the opportunity speak gh