reason why the mayor's office has decided to move this forward now? and why do it in a charter amendment? why not pursue other options and why now? >> if i take the second part of your question first. but why now? because as soon as possible was the direction that we had for protecting the most important policy priority of the mayor, and that is creating jobs and protecting jobs and the city. why a charter amendment through meetings and advice through the attorney, when mr. the leeway to effectuate a change like this project we understood that the only way to effectuate a change like this was three charter amendment. there is no mechanism by which we can create something like this, the stakeholder feedback process come through an ordinance. if there is a desire on the board to accomplish this goal legislatively, the mayor is more

than happy to entertain that course of discussion. supervisor campos: let me put it to you this way, to the extent that the mayor says that we have to take job creation into consideration before we move forward with specific legislative proposals, is the mayors and that the board of supervisors as a kurdistan's is not taking job creation and consideration as we do -- that the board of supervisors is not currently taking job creation and consideration? >> absolutely not. there is the committee process, and if in your opinion you believe that is sufficient to receive the amount of public feedback need to make decisions about legislation that creates jobs lost, that is a valid decision to come to. and american opinion, adding another opportunity for people who are -- in the mayor's opinion, adding another opportunity for people to come to city hall and a formal way, brown act, sunshine, open

process, that is beneficial. that is in no way harmful to the endgame of making good policy. supervisor campos: when we talk about jobs, the number of hearings we have had since i have been here where the issue of jobs has been raised, one of the things that i hear from people, not only from the business community but from workers, that it is not just the number of jobs that you have but the quality of those jobs. so here in this proposed charter amendment, you are simply talking about the net loss of jobs. why not focus on the quality of the jobs that we are talking about? >> i think that is a very good point, and certainly something that could be incorporated into the discussion when you have the hearings at the commission level. that is a good point that quality jobs with quality benefits and all the pay is something we support, and jobs that support a family and offer opportunities for career advancement, this is what you

want to see. you can discuss those things as part of the dialogue as you bring in stakeholders in an expanded form talked-about jobs lost. supervisor campos: does that mean that the mayor's office is open to adding that to the charter amendment? >> in principle, we try to keep as much detail out of the charter because that was the feedback that we heard. i would certainly be open to discussing and sharing what the mayor and the line with proposals that you have around that specific issue. i think the data as we got both from people we heard feedback from and the folks will work with to draft up with was the less they put in the trailing ordinance, the clearer the charter states. i did not want to say no to that question, because in principle the answer is yes. supervisor campos: legally, is there a problem with adding language the talks about the quality of jobs that are implicated? >> no, there is not.

what you would be doing is essentially casting a broader net in terms of the legislation covered by this measure. >> and just to reiterate, i am not a tear question by saying no. i would be happy to share with the mayor any ideas you have and talk about that one which, certainly. supervisor campos: i think one of the concerns, and we have a letter from the san francisco labor council -- i don't know if you have seen this letter? >> yes, i have. supervisor campos: did you have a response to this letter? in this letter, they note that their concern is that aided long concern -- that a long list that has been passed by the board, had this charter amendment been in place when the legislation woulas presented, that would not have passed. it includes the health for security ordinance, this would

free ordinance, the minimum compensation, six days, minimum- wage. >> thank you, yes, i have seen the letter. we cannot have a written response. i know the small business commission refuted some of the facts in the letter. from the mayor's office perspective, i believe the drafters of this letter might have been working off an old version. the person that i just submitted to the clerk at the mayor's office -- a version that i just submitted to the clerk a is con, the current draft very explicitly excludes any legislation that goes to the voters, be it through signature gathering petition, the supervisors signing, the mayor signing, anything that goes to the voters is explicitly excluded from the structure process. that includes a number of these pieces of legislation. more broadly, looking at this letter, we contend that if we

had been proposing a charter amendment that said the board of supervisors show never adopt legislation that has a negative job impact, this letter would be warranted and would be on point. but that is not what our charter amendment says. our charter amendment says that any legislation that has-jobs impact will undergo a steckel process to receive feedback. and shall continue to the process and maybe pass or not pass by the board of supervisors. it to the extent this letter is off base, that would prohibit these, important progress of social policies from occurring, i think that might be a little misreading of the charter amendment. i will give the benefit of the doubt that maybe the folks who of the signatories of this letter were working of an old draft of the charter amendment that did have more process in it. part of the feedback loop that we have been part of is that less is more in the charter. we pulled a lot of that out. it does not. the board from finally -- it

does not prohibit the board from adopting any piece of legislation. supervisor campos: i think we will hear from folks who i think will be very much -- who think will provide their feedback in terms of what would have happened, say, to the health care security ordinance that was introduced by then-supervisor, passed unanimously by the board of supervisors. specifically taking that as an example, does the mayor have a problem with the passage of that ordinance in the process that was followed? >> we have not discussed that hypothetical. again, this is just about having an opportunity for people who are impacted by that legislation to come in and give their thoughts and have a dialogue about it. it does not prevent the board from adopting any piece of legislation at all. supervisor campos: i understand that, but if you are proposing to change the process that has been followed, which you are, i would think that before you propose that change would have a

discussion with the mayor about the process that was followed with something like health care security ordinance. i'm surprised you have not had that discussion. >> ok. in the past, we were practically looking to make sure that legislation protects jobs. this is about creating a venue for that to occur in a formal way. supervisor campos: again, i know this is the beginning, but if you are proposing to change what has been done before, i would think it would have had a specific discussion about what actually has been done before with something like the health care security ordinance, taking that as an example. some surprise that discussion has not happened. let me read you a quote i was reading the other day. this is a quote thazt rick perry said about the epa.

the in farm to protection agency. -- the environmental protection agency. he said, epa regulations are killing jobs all across america. then there are people who joined mr. perry, michele bachmann, member of congress, he talked about how environmental regulations are job killer. and then you have newt gingrich who basically said that that if he were elected president that he would shut down the epa because it is killing jobs in america. again, the rhetoric that we are hearing from some leaders in some parts of the country is that certain things that some of us think are a good thing are labeled as job killers. so how is that kind of rhetoric different from this concept that is before us, where underlying

this concept is that somehow we are talking about legislation that is not -- i don't know that it was used out, killing jobs -- >> we don't use that shot. we do not use that term, no, sir. supervisor campos: what is the difference between that? >> that is a hard question, because the difference between people running in a republican presidential primary and a charter amendment to add steckel to feedback on legislation in the city are completely different things. supervisor campos: i know the rhetoric is different, but is there a difference in substance? >> i'm sorry, i'm not sure i understand the question. supervisor campos: ok. well, i think that is part of the problem. if you look at the epa, you have organizations like the sierra club who can give a lot of information as to why the existence of the epa has been a good thing. to the extent that has been

criticized as destroying jobs in america, i think we have to be very careful when we talk about some legislative efforts that have taken place in the past year in san francisco and talk about them in the context of not creating jobs or getting in the way of job creation. i think that is why many people are here today, because they have a concern about the way in which this is being presented. >> again, we're not talking about eliminating any agencies or departments or to the with the board's power. this is simply to create a level of stakeholder feedback to improve legislation to the extent that legislation needs to be improve during the process. this is about public participation and feedback, not eliminating agencies or striking loss for the book. supervisor campos: in terms of the small business commission, you are fundamentally changing the way that you are proposing

the charter amendment, the role of small business commission. what is your vision for what role, to the people try to understand proposal, the small business commission would apply? >> i appreciate the question. any vision that we would have for what that would be it is ultimately the board of supervisors' authority to pass an ordinance that would effectuate that. ultimately, it is up to you and your colleagues to decide that. to the extent that u.s. about the vision of the altar of this, -- to the extent that you asked about the vision of the author of this, it would alter the way the private sector works in some way that would result in real people losing their jobs, and we would take a look at those pieces of legislation and say, what is the substance of this, what are we trying to change, what is the boy tried to accomplish, what is the mayor

trying to accomplish, what is the substance of the policy. did you would have a referral to the appropriate commission and department that matches the policy intact. i'm sorry if that is not a clear way to state it, but basically looked at a policy, say, what will this create job loss? what is the policy, is it a planning issue, isn't a health issue -- is it a health issue, is a small business, environmental? what is the issue at hand? that would be referred to the appropriate committee or committees, and there would be accomplished of that policy in a public and open way, where everyone can weigh in on alternatives. that commission would have the opportunity but not the requirement to submit back to the board of supervisors within 60 days either comments or some sort of alternative proposal or nothing at all. it would be entirely allowable under the author's intent that the commission to look at this,

have hearings or not, and say this is it, this is as good as it will get, here is back, that is entirely plausible. there is no requirement to come up with alternatives. there is no requirement to zero at the job loss number. would simply be a venue for public participation and outreach. supervisor campos: you do allows and cities to comment? i know with the health care commission or dennis, this went to the commission more than once. you don't think the existing process allows that to happen? >> my thoughts notwithstanding, the mayor believes that in a very narrow case has legislation that would result in people losing their job, and that very specific case, you want to add an extra layer of participation. to the extent other people may have parties that they believe leads to that extra level of

scrutiny, that is valid, but the mayor believes job loss would create the need for that additional participation. supervisor campos: this is my final question. in terms of the small business community in san francisco, will come of the outreach to the mayor's office due to the small business community before putting this proposal forward? >> this was driven in part, the concept was driven by, the search faces -- by conversations the mayor had with members of the small business committee who said they wanted a greater voice in city hall. start contemplating different ideas and ways of w to achieve that. supervisor campos: in my district, in the mission alone, we have about 800 -- 1800 businesses that employ 1-5

employees. the know if any of those businesses were contacted by the mayor's office about this matter? >> offhand, i do not know which districts. i do not know that information. supervisor campos: i see the executive director of the small business commission for a could you talk about the outreach of was done to small business owners? >> director of the office of small business. our outreach, we do do communications with all our merchant organizations. also, we have our e-bulletin that announce matters that have been introduced by the board of supervisors that affect small business. conversations began to be had with primarily our merchants association.

at this point, not with all of them. supervisor campos: another concern that i have, this is the last fall a lot, i appreciate the work that the small business commission does. any time that somebody serves the city and county of san francisco, you want to be grateful for their service. it is all volunteer work. i do hear repeatedly from a number of small-business owners, certainly in my district, that there is a disconnect between the small business communities and many parts of the small business commission. in fact, the small business commission is not necessarily representing the interests that these small business owners have. that is something that i hear from a number of folks in my district. do you have any comments or thoughts on that?

>> the board of supervisors does have an upcoming opportunity to -- there are two seats coming opening where the board of supervisors can take that into consideration as they interview the candidates. in terms of their commitment to our reach and communication with businesses, especially businesses that are not connected through the traditional means, because we do have, even in our merchant corridors, we have some businesses that are not necessarily members of a merchant organizations. i would encourage you to ask the question of future commissioners what their plans are so that we, the commission, is improving its outreach to our businesses and our hard-to-reach businesses. supervisor campos: thank you. supervisor kim: really quickly,

just because the health care security ordinance of 2008 was brought up, do you happen to know what the recommendation by the small business commission was on this ordinance? it was passed unanimously by the board in 2008. do you remember the recommendation of the small business commission on the health care security ordinance passed by the full board unanimously in 2008? >> yes. the small business commission did take its vote and unanimously chose not to make a recommendation to you to approve the health care security ordinance. when matters come before the commission, if there is not an opportunity to be able to have input, dialogue, exchange, working with the legislative sponsor and recommendation, the option for the commission is a straight up or down recommendation. that does not mean -- if the

commission does not approve, that does not mean that the board of supervisors can still move forward and improve the ordinance just as it did. supervisor kim: did you say they took no recommendation or a negative recommendation? >> and negative recommendations. supervisor kim: thank you. my next question is for mr. elliott. i appreciate you listen to the considerations. small-business owners are not the only -- small-business owners are not the only holders. they also have large businesses. what the -- what was the process the mayor's office took in selecting the small business commission and planning department to be the main bodies to which these legislations would be referred to? >> once we move away from the idea of having just the small business commission being the venue for this, it became a question of what is appropriate? you can create an infinite

number of hypothetical that and in an infinite number of permutations for the commission. the idea was that the small business commission often times -- these matters impact small businesses because small businesses represent a large share of workers in the city grit the planning commission, in reviewing and brainstorming, talking, we thought a lot of the potential legislation you might have would be around zoning, controlling how you plan neighborhoods in the future, what neighborhoods can and cannot do around the city. the planning commission, they already have a quasi--judicial function. they are sort of used to this. there commissioners to understand the legislative process. that sort of makes sense. the supervisors have suggestions about redoing this, we would be certainly open to that. supervisor kim: but it said the

planning department and not the planning commission. >> that was an oversight that was pointed out to me yesterday. that was an oversight on my part. supervisor kim: whatever de you feel the planning commission will have in job creation? -- what effort to you feel the planning commission will have in job creation? what you feel they will give us, feedback? >> i am glad you asked. the purpose of these hearings, at a commission, the planning commission, is not for the 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