city, and i thank you all and thank naomi. i know you will confirm her. supervisor kim: thank you. >> we have heard everyone speak on naomi kelly's many attributes petraeus move very appreciative of what she did to me. -- what she did for me. a lot of doors have been closed for people of my community and raised. for her to go out of her way to help me and my peers, to help find employment in give us the resources that a lot of people may not have had access to, to got in their fine worker be prepared when work comes their way. so for everything she has done for us, i would just like to say thank you. [applause] >> good afternoon, supervisors. my name is claud. i did not plan on saying anything today.

i knew there would be plenty of people to say many positive things about ms. naomi kelly. but on the way in here, i ran into a young lady who told me i work with her when she was 14 years old, many, many years ago, unfortunately, the ingleside district. i grew up in the ingleside district. i worked with young people there before moving to work with young people in the baby-hunters point community. the bus in the bay view-hunters point community. as a student at san miguel elementary school, they brought us down here to city hall when i was an elementary school student and showed as offices in a city hall. at that time, the city administrator's office was larger than the mayor's office. so i just wanted to say that you have an opportunity today to make an appointment or to

confirm an appointment. that is a really big deal to those of us who grew up in san francisco. and i want to thank you for this, and i want to thank the mayor for this historic appointment. and i want to congratulate ms. naomi kelly, because i know she will be the best city administrator we have ever had. supervisor kim: thank you. >> a good afternoon. my name is floyd, and i am a member of the executive board of local 798. i want to speak in favor of the selection of naomi kelly and to congratulate her and wish her all the best. thank you. supervisor kim: thank you. >> joshua with brightline. i wanted to join in my support for ms naomi kelly as city administrator.

it is very exciting. she is incredible. i first worked with her a year ago. i got a call saying the mayor wanted to implement the city's new local hire law, and i had to work with stakeholders. he asked if i had time to sit down, so we sat down. she talked with a number of this community advocates, how to make that work. she engaged all the city departments, billions of dollars worth of work. had a very effective committee in place. i think it is a testament to her leadership in doing that. in our first year the new local hiring law, we now have a law that is working, in place, and it covers $60 million worth of construction that is going up right now, with another $300 million for the construction that is open for bids right now. the reason why it is working and what those projects have come in on average under budget, i would point to ms. naomi kelly and her

leadership figures are very excited that this is happening and cannot wait to work with her more. thank you. supervisor kim: thank you. any other public comment on item number one? seeing none, public comment is closed. colleagues, comments? supervisor campos? supervisor campos: thank you. i want to thank ms. naomi kelly and all the members of the public who spoke. i would like to move this forward with a positive recommendation. supervisor farrell: i would also like to thank ms. naomi kelly for being out here and for so many members of the public for being out here. certainly the african american community and the laborers, for so many of your folks to come out as well. i second that motion. congratulations to look forward to working with you in the future. supervisor kim: i also want to abolish the incredible work in public-service you have done for our city, ms. kelly.

i was excited when you call to tell me that mayor lee would be appointing new to this position. prior to actually leaving for the holiday, before i got inaugurated as supervisor, and met with a person i thought was one of the most important people in the city, and it was city administrator. it was ed lee. he was the last person i met before went home for the holidays and then came back to be sworn in. this position is so very important. there is an immense amount of work and responsibility that you'll be able to take a leadership role in. first of all, i really appreciate the support that you have given me in my first year of office. i think you are an incredibly lovely person. beyond that, i think that you are the most qualified person to be appointed to this position. i am really excited to see you soon as our city administrator here. i appreciate your thoughtfulness, your dedication as a public servant, which is incredible -- incredibly

important in this position, and also that you are a mother and a woman of color. this is historic for the african-american community. but really for all of us. we want to have the best people in a position such as this. i am incredibly touched by the amount of support you have in the community and the stories people shared about how you care and are dedicated to the lives of people here in san francisco. we do have a motion to move this forward with positive recommendation. the final vote will take place on tuesday, february 7. i have a second to that. i believe we can do that without opposition. [applause] supervisor kim: thank you. i also know that naomi kelly's

family is here as well peter i am sorry i did not acknowledge her mother and husband who are here. [laughs] i think i have to give them a minute. i am going to take a recess for two minutes, but we do have several more items on the agenda. folks can start to file out and congratulala supervisor kim: thank you. we will be reconvening rules committee. if you could take your discussions outside, we would appreciate it.

thank you. supervisor kim: thank you. again, we will be calling item number three out of order, prior to item number two. for members of the public is what i mean, if you would like to speak in public comment, you could fill out a yellow card. there is a red file folder that you can drop your cards in. i know my colleagues are enjoying the exercise of walking back and forth, but you can actually just leave the speaker cards in the red folder. madam clerk, please call item number 3. >> item number 3, a charter amendment to amend the charter of the city to change the election cycle for the office is

a city attorney and treasurer and to amend the definition of general municipal election so that such elections occur only in even-numbered years and every other odd-numbered year. supervisor kim: thank you. we do have the altar of the charter amendment here with us today. supervisor wiener, would you like to introduce this item? supervisor wiener: thank you. this charter amendment would change the cycle by which we elect our city attorney and our city treasurer, tax-collector, and consolidate those elections with the mural, district attorney, sheriff election cycle. the city attorney and treasurer are two of the most important positions that we lacked in san francisco -- that we elect in san francisco. for many years, they have occupied their own elections, separate from supervisor elections, which have higher turnout, separate from the ural elections, which have higher turnout. traditionally, the city attorney

and treasurer election has been an extremely low turnout election. so we have an extra election, which cost quite a bit of money, and we are electing our city attorney and treasurer with a lower turnout. this amendment would consolidate those elections with the mayor. it would have two benefits. the first would be it would result in not having an election unless we had a special election on that god year. that would be a savings of money. in addition, it would ensure a higher turnout electorate for city attorney and treasurer. the comptroller has done an analysis and estimates that this would constitute a savings of $4.2 million for the four- year cycle. on average, about $1 million a

year. i wanted to note one thing -- two things. first of all, i know this version is also contained in the supervisor campos' voting charter amendment. the second thing is that in doing this consolidation, there are really two options. the city attorney and treasury election was in 2009. that means they would be up for reelection in 2013. what i am proposing, we would hold a city attorney and treasury election in 2013, and then it would stand for election again in 2015 to be consolidated with the mayor and with that election. another way of doing it, which i did not choose in putting this together, would be too, by passing this charter amendment, extend the terms of the city attorney and treasurer to a six-

year term so we would not have the 2013 election. they would go on to the mural cycle in 2015. the advantage of doing that is we're going to be doing our two- year budgefirst time, we would have an immediate $4.2 million savings in that budget. i decided to go with what i am proposing, 2013 and 2015, because, on balance, i thought it would be appropriate that they should serve a four-year term. but that other option is out there, and it does have budget implications. if it is certainly a topic for discussion. i want to make sure all the options are on the table. with that, i would ask for your support. supervisor kim: thank you. supervisor campos: thank you, madam chair. i want to say thank you to supervisor wiener for bringing this forward. i want to thank members of the public who are here for a couple

of the items that are connected to this issue. i support the idea of consolidating the elections for a number of reasons, which supervisor wiener indicated. but for me, the main thing is the simplification of the process and making it easier for the voters to come out and vote, and to the extent that you can have one if your election, i think that makes sense and comes with savings. as supervisor wiener indicated, this specific proposal is a part of a charter amendment that supervisor avalos and i have introduced. we will have an opportunity at the board to decide whether or not to put one or both or all three but i do support the concept of consolidating the elections. in terms of the different ways that this could have been approached, i appreciate the

choice that supervisor wiener made of it is essentially having an election sooner, two years, not so much because i want to put the city attorney and the treasurer through that process, but because i do have a concern about the idea of expanding or extending the term for two years. i do not know that that is, from a public policy standpoint, the best way to approach it. i would rather get voters more options and not. again, nothing against the specific individuals that are implicated here. i just think that in terms of public policy, i would rather approach it the way that supervisor wiener is proposing. but, again, thank you, supervisor, for bringing this forward. supervisor kim: thank you. supervisor farrell: i also wanto supervisor wiener for putting

this forward. is a very simple idea that makes a ton of sense. i look forward to seeing how this develops, for sure. >> thank you, i have won public comment card from richard roth men. if there is anybody else who would like to comment on this item, if he could fill out a yellow card. >> supervisors, thinking for having this meeting. i think it was a good idea. i know it cannot go anywhere in the even year elections, but i think that we will get a higher voting turnout and it will save the city money and people will put this date more rigid and people will participate more. i strongly support consolidating the two elected officers. maybe we should think about having elections mail-only

balance, too. >> i appreciate the sentiment of the proposal. i think it is a good idea to consolidate by der alexian's like you are doing. i don't think -- it is a good idea to consolidate by the year collections like you are doing. we forget that the public does not necessarily care about these details as much as we sometimes think they do. i think if you give them a choice between you want to save $4.2 million or do you want to extend the terms of two incumbents who will win the elections easily as they always have, reelection easily, why not save the $4.2 million? six-year terms are not unusual in the democratic world. the president of france elected

for six years. other presidents around the world are elected for six years. at some appointees are appointed for six-year terms. supreme court justices are appointed for life. i think we have this fetish over the four-year term, and somehow it is sacrosanct and we do not want to break that. given the situation of the city's budget, it seems to me saving $4.2 million is much more attractive than having the city attorney and treasurer have to run twice within a two-year cycle just because we do not want to extend their terms to six years. >> thank you very much. at any other public comment? thank you, i appreciate your comments. initially, when i drafted this, i was very much added that we

should not extend the terms, that the voters would never go for extending the term of the current sitting officer, elected official, but with this issue was raised to me about the immediate savings, it didn't raise an issue for me, -- it did raise an issue for me, especially knowing we would have to attempt to fill the $4 $25 million -- $4.25 million in the ryan white cut. i am glad we are having the discussion. what i would like to request is this committee put this forward with positive recommendations, and in the next coming week or two, have discussions. i welcome feedback on the issue of whether we would have the 2013 election and 2015 for the city treasurer, or save the $4.2 million for the 2013 election. with that, madam chair, i'm

done. supervisor kim: thank you, supervisor wiener. any comments or discussion for college? supervisor farrell: i recommend this moving forward with positive recommendations. supervisor kim: and we have a second to that. i do want to thank supervisor wiener for bringing this forward. this would help us save at least $1 million every year, $4.2 million every four years, and i appreciate the work and consolidating. i think this will also help increase the turnout for each of these positions as well. i will be supporting this item and we will pass this positive recommendations unopposed. thank you, supervisor wiener. madam clerk, please call item two. >> item two, consolidating -- analyzing proposed legislation

in relation to net job loss. tsupervisor kim: thank you, we have mr. jason elliott from the mayor's office 2% on this item. >> thank you, supervisors. i have submitted an amended version of this charter amendment to the clerk. i know that some of you have received this text days if not weeks ago, so hopefully this has been entered into the file. for the sake of brevity, i will not read the amended version allows the supervisors desire me to do that. this is a charter amendment that aims to increase public participation and input into the legislative process here in city hall and aims to do so around one very specific type of legislation, that is very important ordinances that impact the business community, the private sector and the city, and would result in a net job loss that would result in people

losing their jobs. this charter amendment would ensure that legislation that moved through the process here in city hall has ample opportunity for input for stakeholders to come to the table to discuss the positives and negatives, and hopefully come together with a successful piece of legislation that would minimize job loss. this charter amendment explicitly does not restrict the board's ability to make policy choices. it does not restrict the board's ability to pass any type of piece of legislation. that simply calls for a hearing. it calls for a process of public input and stakeholder feedback. we had the original draft, and there have been a number of pieces of feedback we have received about the original draft from all corners. in response to that feedback, we have provided a new draft.

i want to first of all thank everyone who got in touch with the mayor's office with those comments. we took those to heart. this sort of fall into two buckets. if i could explain the difference between the new version at the first version. the first and that we heard was that it is inappropriate to place the small business commission at the center of adjudicating job loss in this city. sometimes, maybe the small business commission is the most appropriate venue, sometimes maybe it is not, so why in the first portion of the charter amendment to we call out the small business commission? we heard that feedback, took to heart, agreed with that, and we changed that. in the second draft, that you are considering today, this actually zommoms out and talks about the commission level more broadly. it's still missions -- it's

still mentions the small business commission, but it also says any agency identified by the board of supervisors. it is using the commission level more broadly as the legislative up venue, not just the small business commission. we heard that feedback and we made changes to reflect that. the second thing we heard is this creates too much process in the charter, meaning the first draft had different time frame stipulated, different triggers that would be pulled of this happens, that happens, and a lot of that process we heard is not necessarily appropriate to do in the charter. in the charter, you state principles and ideas, and then you effectuate those by a trailing ordinance. an example would be with question time. at question time went to the voters, and then it was infatuated by a trailing audience -- trailing ordinance. we took that to heart and we

provided a second draft which we think does just that, which is to say there should be an opportunity for a formal stakeholder processed around the job loss, and then figure out the details and the trailing ordinance. in this version at said said the ordinance is chubby adopted no later than november 1, 2012. it took out a lot of the process of the negative feedback and remove that from the charter. he said, let's have a legislative discussion about that, the board, with the mayor, and work something out on the details. really, just restating the principle, a lot of very good legislation comes out of this building. when it is in discussion around that legislation that is going to cause job loss, that actually does warrant another level of public scrutiny and discussion. finally, one of the pieces of misinformation i have heard is this charter amendment, had been in effect in years past, would

have provided very important legislation, legislation that the mayor supports. it is not quite true. the minimum wage law, we have the strongest in the country, sick leave, these legislations went to the voters in this charter amendment, as the prior version as well, explicitly excludes any legislation that goes to the voters from going through this process. the idea of there being an election, several months of public discourse during an election, is more than sufficient in terms of vetting ideas, and you did not need to do that here in city government. that election actually serves as the public input and outreach time. for legislation that is done through the normal channels, the muammar process in city hall, this charter amendment would simply add one jobs impact hearing to the process. the details of that, how it would get referred to different commissions and so forth, that

would be worked out legislatively via trailing ordinance. it is simple, it is only a page and a half long, and it simply states the idea that with job loss, we need that extra time to have public input and outreach and craft as good a piece of legislation as you can, and the rest will be worked out. thank you very much for considering this. the amendments are substantive, and therefore would have to sit for a week. thank you very much. supervisor kim: thank you, mr. elliott. thank you for listening to the feedback. i'm sorry, there are some questions? i appreciate you taking the feedback on the charter amendment and bring the amendments for today. supervisor campos? supervisor campos: thank you, before i get to my questions, how to ask the city attorney, one of the things it seems that the mayor's office is

suggesting, is that this somehow does not interfere with the authority of the board of supervisors. i'm just trying to understand from the perspective of the city attorney's office, reading the language that is being proposed, section 2.118, it says in subsection a, the last part of that section says that the board may not finally adopt the ordinance for at least 60 days from the date the controller smits the termination. is that language in any way take authority away from the board of supervisors legally? i'm just trying to understand legally the implications. >> the board's legislative prerogative access within the charter. if this measure were adopted in this provision adopted by amending the charter, it would be -- there would reject a

legislative prerogative of the board would exist, as would this requirement. it would be a lot of the equal dignity. supervisor campos: becketts to the point i think there may be differences of opinion from the public policy standpoint, but clearly this is something that would limit the authority that currently exists. it would modify the ability of the board to move with respect to the timing. i i just want to make sure there is clarity on that, because we could have a difference of opinion as to whether or not this make sense, but i think it has an impact on the existing authority of the board. i think it is clear that it does. do you disagree with that statement? >> it does place a time frame. to the extent that it alters the board's power, i would say that nothing in this charter amendment and nothing in the

legislative intent ever supposes limiting the board from passing any type of legislation. that is not our intent. i will be very clear about that today. but to the extent this place is a time frame, yes, that would be an alteration i guess of the board process. supervisor campos: i really appreciate the fact that from the moment this was introduced to this hearing dates, the mayor's office has tried to seek comment from members of the board of supervisors, and i really appreciate that and i do think that some of those comments have been taken into consideration. i appreciate that. no one is disputing, certainly to my knowledge, the importance of jobs, job creation and san francisco. but the question that stands out for me is, what is the reason behind this?