this would take care of at least that issue. candidates can still start qualifying in february. that will not change. we know this is a lot of paperwork for the ethics commission to handle. they can start qualifying but will not get public dollars until june. this ordinance will also raise the supervisor or a cap to $250,000. this was brought to the at this commission after looking at the actual cost of our district elections. the previous cap was $143,000. realistically, every race that came before us in the past couple of years, the cap had always been raised because of independent expenditure dollars. we felt this was an average number that reflected what the generally costs to run in a real supervisor election. it would also make public financing continue to be an attractive option for candidates running for office. they could spend time talking to

voters and engaging with voters while also fund-raising. i also want to recognize the department -- our ethics department and our ethics commissioners for working so quickly with office. they were really tremendous, as well as our city attorney kind of dealing last-minute changes and number crunching. it was difficult. i appreciate all the work that went forward. i think we have a much stronger public financing program before us. supervisor weaner does have amendments he would like to introduce today. -- weiner does have amendments he would like to introduce today. this would be held for 30 days before it comes back to us, but i believe we have support for this ordinance to move forward. i will defer to supervisor weiner. supervisor weiner: one moment,

mr. president. supervisor kim: i did have one more comment to make. the question brought up by the member of the public and some of the candidates running for supervisor this year -- this does potentially change some of the dates around the election department putting things together, whether it is the signatures and the payment for filing -- the elections department director is going to speak with any of the supervisory candidates who have questions or suggestions for how this needs to get amended. this does not mean people have to gather signatures by the filing date. we can still keep a separate set of deadlines within the elections department. but they would like to get feedback from the supervisors here on that time line. supervisor weiner: i also wanted

to thank supervisor kim for working extremely hard to try to craft a very complicated piece of legislation that addresses the constitutional issues and at the same time addresses some very practical issues and some flaws that were revealed in our public financing scheme. thank you, supervisor, for that. i will be supporting this measure as amended, assuming the ethics commission signs on to our amendments. and i really want to stress that this measure, particularly as amended, i believe will likely result in fewer or lower expenditures in public financing. we're going to be disbursing the money later.

we are eliminating of the 4 to 1 match. it would max out at 2 to 1, and there would be no match above the cap. while it is impossible to predict how many candidates will run, i think intuitively this scheme as we are amending it will result in fewer public dollars spent on public financing. there are two amendments i am going to propose today. one is to eliminate the increase to the cap for the mayoral race, although the case has been made to increase the super fossorial -- supervisorial cap. i am willing to live with $250,000. for the mayoral cap, i do not think the case has been made for the increase, based on past track record. we would remove that increase.

we would recalculate the mayoral match to max out at the 2 to 1. it is detailed in the amendment that has been distributed to everyone. in addition, an issue that i have raised repeatedly, and raised in the budget season last year, was my belief that we are systematically over funding the public financing fund, and effectively hoarding money there and depriving the general fund of money we could use for road resurfacing, muni, police academy class is, hiv services, etc. we currently have an automatic $2,000 annual deposit. if you project out in coming years, we are estimated to really explode the fund for no particular reason, given what we know we have spent in the past. the current ordinance has an automatic calculation for what

gets deposited on july 1 of the cheer, and then also -- of each year, and then also has the provision that the fund can not contain more than $13.50 million. it is not clear to me why the fund would ever need $13.50 million with the current cap. there cannot be than $7 million occurred in the funds and once we get $7 million, anything else would revert back to the general fund. it would also provide in the year of the mayoral race, the minimum in the fund would have to be $5 million. we spent 4.7 million in the last mayoral. the minimum would have to be $4 million. i will read that amendment into the record because that is not contained in the written material. this would be on page 3. at the top. starting at line three. for each fiscal year during

which the city and county of san francisco will hold an election for mayor, the city and county of san francisco show appropriate funds to the election campaign fund such that the total amount of the election campaign fund on the first day of the fiscal year is $5 million. for each fiscal year during which the city and county of san francisco will hold an election for the board of supervisors, the city and county of san francisco show appropriate funds to the election campaign fund such that the total amount in the election campaign fund on the first day of the fiscal year is $4 million. that is the amendment to that subsection. in addition to the amendment relating to the mayoral account. president chiu: supervisor wiener has made the motion to amend as he described. is there second?

seconded by supervisor kim. -- is there a second? >supervisor chu: i would like to vote separately on different aspects of it in terms of amending down the mayoral cap, i would like to amend -- vote on that separately. with respect to having the first day of the fiscal year, the ballots at $4 million, that is something i would be opposed to. when we first put together the fund we have indicated that there would be $2.75 deposit per resident of san francisco. every fiscal year by ordinance. or by law. so that represented what supervisor wiener spoke earlier. it was meant to be able to catch up so let's just say in one year we expand down that public finance campaign fund. you're one, we would deposit

port -- $2.2 million and year three another. while i support limiting the cap or the amount to $7 million, i would not support starting the first day of fiscal year with $4 million. we intended the fund would build up over time to catch up for the large expenditure years. i would be not supportive of that. i could vote all the other items except for the $4 million start. president chiu: is there any discussion? supervisor wiener. supervisor wiener: i appreciate the comments. the intent is we have an automatic formula that keeps depositing over and over. we get to the same result. we placed a cap on so we are no longer over funding the fund in the extreme. we wanted to put a base line in

there so we do not have to constantly go through supplemental appropriations. it is a pretty modest baseline based on what we know we need to spend in these accounts. it applies in the years when we will actually need to spend in supervisory and merrill. even if there is no public financing that will occur in that year. this is an effort to have an alternate system that is more in line with actual practice. i do respect their marks. -- of the remarks. president chiu: any further discussion? i would like to ask our deputy city attorney given that this legislation would need a palm -- approval by the ethics committee. we can make these amendments

here but we send back to the rules committee after which it would be sent to the ethics committee. >> the board can be -- make the amendment today and then that goes to the ethics commission where it has a 30-day hold. it is acted on by the ethics commission. they make their recommendation and that is forwarded to the rules committee. the rules committee makes a recommendation back to this board. president chiu: understanding that, if there is a supermajority of colleagues -- if these amendments are adopted, you are saying we send these to the rules committee and wait for the third three days for ethics to act -- 30 days for and extract. >> i do not think it matters. it needs to go to the ethics commission where it will administratively be here in town -- internally for the decision. president chiu: why don't we

vote on the motion to amend. then we can decide where this is going to go. is there any more discussion? supervisor chu: i have asked to sever the component related to story of the ballots at $4 million. if our point is not to superfund the campaign fund, starting off at $4 million does that. i request we sever of that compound in and vote separately. supervisor elsbernd: where we adopting the amendments? just move them item back to the ethics commission and the will adopted. we have to vote again. where are we going through this severing? let them adopt the amendments. supervisor wiener: it would be useful in welcoming the commission to have a sense for least where the board is so they do not send us something back and they're not shooting in the dark. president chiu: supervisor

elsbernd, do you want to be on the microphone? supervisor wiener. supervisor wiener: we will end the current fiscal year with $7.30 million in this account under the current scheme. we will have an automatic deposit of approximately $2 million on july 1, will start at $9.3 million on july 1. in terms of the over-funding, i believe we are ratcheting up that back significantly. that is my take on it. president chiu: any additional discussion? why don't we take a roll call on the severed item. the portion around the merrill fund. -- mayoral fund. supervisor chu: the part -- this is the severing out of the part that has a balance of $7 million

in the fiscal year. supervisor wiener: the entire item i read into the record about the $5 million and $4 million. supervisor chu: only on page 3, lines 3 through 5 and on page 4, lines 2 through 8. president chiu: are there any additional questions? why don't we vote on the first item that supervisor chu called out. >> supervisor kim, aye, ceqa biz -- supervisor at delonte, aye. supervisor avalos, aye. to pressure campos, of aye. -- supervisor campos, aye. supervisor cohen, aye. supervisor elsbernd, no. eight ayes and three nos. president chiu: on the balance

of the amendment -- on the balance of the amendments. supervisor farrell, aye. supervisor kim, aye. supervisor a lucky, aye. supervisor wiener, aye. supervisor avalos, aye. supervisor campos, aye. president chu,i, aye. supervisor to, aye. supervisor aye -- supervisor elsbernd, aye. >president chiu: with regards to this item as amended, madam clerk, is your suggestion we send this back to committee? >> mr. president, it would be fine to return it to committee. we would wait the 30 days for the ethics commission to return

the report to the board. of course, public comment could be taken. is that required on this report? >> public comment would be taken when it comes back. if you refer to committee you should refer to the ethics commission where it will have a 30-hole. >> we will refer it immediately. >> i was -- wrsupervisor chu: thank you. president chiu: supervisor kim has made a motion to refer this back to the rules committee. is there a second? supervisor wiener. can we refer this without objection? without objection, that shall be the case. on item 23.

supervisor kim: i would like to re-refer this to committee. president chiu: any discussion? >> supervisor campos: i wanted to make the point i am happy that we have come to what i believe is a resolution of these issues. i think that i know it is a lot of work to get to this point. i want to thank supervisor kim and her office for all the work they have done. and -- as well as the other supervisors, supervisor farrell and supervisor elsbernd to raise the issues about the need to comply with the u.s. supreme court trader want to thank my staff and the folks who worked to have these items come forward. with respect to item 23, the hope is we will not need to go forward to the ballot. i think that it is great that we

are where we are in terms of resolving these issues without doing that. thank you. supervisor elsbernd: this may come as a surprise but i came prepared to boat. it is inappropriate for this board to increase the amount of money individual members of the sport can receive by themselves. i think this issue is one that should go to the voters. while i find -- perplexing it would go to the june ballot, i got lectured a few times last week that measures regarding elections should not go on the june ballot, i was confused but i was ready to vote for this. i think the voters should weigh in. if you look at the history of the public financing program for board of supervisors, it was the voters who created. this with the -- be the first time that elected officials, the board of supervisors have on their own without going to the voters voted to increase how much money is available to them. nine out of 11 of us have the

ability to run for reelection. five of us very well could be doing that this fall. nine out of 11. tell me i'm wrong. supervisor chu and i are the only once turned down. nine of you are available if you so choose. correct me if i'm wrong. i think i can count tonight. i think it is inappropriate, highly inappropriate for members of this board to increase the amount of money they can get from the taxpayers. if you want this extra money, let the taxpayers vote for. do not do yourself. i urge you to vote against this sends back to committee. but the voters decide. -- let the voters decide. supervisor wiener: i respectfully disagree. if i run for reelection, if i take financing, i would be entitled to less money than i got last time because my cap i and my race is exploded.

president chiu would be in the same situation. it is not accurate to say that we are raising our own caps. in addition, it is entirely appropriate for this board to use the authority that the voters decided to give us in passing public financing where we are allowed to amend with eight votes and the ethics commission. there are ballot measures where the voters have not given us that authority. the voters have kept the power to themselves through prop e. in this instance, the voters passed a ballot measure that provided a mechanism for us to make amendments without having to send it to the voters. i think it is appropriate for us to do that. if the voters disagree, we have the initiative power to change that. thank you. president chiu: is there any

further discussion on this motion for this item back to committee. roll-call. >> supervisor farrell, aye. supervisor kim, aye. supervisor mar, aye. supervisor olague, aye. supervisor wiener, aye. supervisor avalos, aye. supervisor campos, aye. president chiu, aye. supervisor chu, no. supervisor elsbernd. aye. president chiu: motion to refer back to committee passes. on march 20 which is the date we have sent the american cup items to three members of our board will not be here on that day. what has been proposed is that we rescind those boats and schedule the items for the 27th

of march. with that information, i would like to entertain first a motion to rescind the boat with regards to item 26. supervisor chu has made the motions -- seconded by supervisor campos. i would like to entertain a motion right now. we had passed the march 20 date. i would -- motion made by supervisor chu, seconded by supervisor farrell. let me ask for -- there are members of the public would like to speak on this rescheduling. seeing none, public comment is closed. with regards to the motion as amended. to amend this to march 27. madam clerk, would you take the role? >> supervisor farrell, farrell, aye. supervisor kim, aye. supervisor mark, aye.

supervisor al-radhi, aye. supervisor wiener, aye. supervisor abels, aye. supervisor campos, aye. supervisor chu, aye. president chiu, aye. president chiu: if we could item -- recall items 20 and 21. if we could intertwine -- entertain a motion to rescind. our votes are rescinded. and now i could entertain a motion to continue items 20 and 21 to the 27th of march. motion by supervisor chui and seconded by supervisor avalos. if we could take that to continue without objection, that shall be the case. madam clerk. please read the in memoriams. >> today's meeting will be adjourned in memory of the following individuals.

for the late mr. chang and for the late mr. hodgson. president chiu: does that include our business? >> yes. president chiu: ladies and gentlemen, we are adjourned.

supervisor kim: we are just waiting for sfgov tv to get

started. >> is good afternoon and welcome to the special rules committee. i'm joined today by supervisors and david campos and supervisor farrell. are there any announcements?

>> please make sure to turn off all sell funds and all electronic devices. all documents to be cleared up as part of the file should be submitted to the clerk. all actions on today's agenda will be on march 4. supervisor kim: could you call items #one and two together? >> ordinance amending the campaign in governmental conduct code and municipal election code to modify expenditure ceilings for the city is public financing program, and to amend at the date on which candidates must file the papers. item number two, a motion submitted to the voters of the rising the amendments of the campaign and the government will conduct code and minutes elections code to add just expenditure ceilings in the public financing program in response to the supreme court ruling in paris on a free enterprise obverses bennett, just public financing deadlines

and threshold and advance canon that filing deadlines that an election to be held on june 5, 2012. supervisor kim: the two items before us are largely is similar. one of them i introduced with supervisor campos and avalos. this was in response to an arizona court ruling, a case periled a trigger that allows for more public financing dollars ticket to a candidate in response to a third-party independent expenditures was now considered unconstitutional under the first amendment freedom of speech. while many of us on the board disagree with a final ruling the supreme court had decided, it does impact the public financing program we have put together in this city and county of san

francisco. i want to acknowledge that a supervisor farrell and supervisor elsbernd where the first to bring this to the attention of the board. i do want to make sure we spend some time working with community groups and those who work together to put together the first city public financing program and our ethics commission to put together something that was a little more comprehensive. the second item is an initiative ordinance to get the balance -- to the ballot on june of 2008. both measures are similar and i can go over the brief differences between the two, but in case we are not able to pass this through the board, because this program is so important to many of my colleagues who want to ensure there is another mechanism that we can make these changes to the public financing program if we are not able to do it as an ordinance. r