committee approved a work plan that said "provide policy analysis research reports, as requested by individual members of the board of supervisors. these reports may be confidential documents, at the discretion of the requesting board member." this violates the brown act and the sunshine ordinance. the board of supervisors should not approve a work plan that allows secret reports on the behalf of individuals. thank you very much. >> ray hart, director of san francisco open government. more and more citizens of this city are becoming aware of the fact that this board of supervisors and other city bodies choose to follow the law when it suits them and ignore the law when it does not. excuse my french, but we are getting screwed by some sort of process. i sat and watched many of the

hearings regarding parkmerced. 8000 citizens of this city had their lives dismantled. most of these people have no idea where they are going, what they are going to do, how it is going to affect them. they were told not to worry, we put stuff in there to protect you. of course, we did not show it to you until the very day it was voted on, and passed the same day, by the board of supervisors. it was disgraceful. somebody earlier talked about a center for children at risk in the bayview hunters point area. one of the things i learned, growing up in the southeast during the civil rights movement, is the damage to institutions is seldom done by people on the outside trying to get in. it is normally done by people on the inside trying to keep other people out. that was aggrandized improperly. i had to go through 62 pages of supplementary material to find

out that zoning issue was really a health center for risk at youth. then i heard not only was it next to a sewer plant, but railroad tracks and a bunch of other things. i am going to say this out loud and people are going to chastise him for it. bottom line is something i learned in the 60's, the fact that no other community in this city would put up with the fact that their children were going to be sent to a health-care facility where they had to worry about no parking, railroad trains coming through constantly, air pollution, sewage smells. if this were a white community or an asian-american community, it would not even have made it to the point it made it. i think it is nothing but racism. you can say no. when you go back and try to look at some of the things the city does, what they do is they fight you. how do they fight you? the refuse to give you access to public records, records that do

not belong to the apartment -- the department, that employees, or the city, but the citizens of the city, records they need to make their case. the first amendment provides for an opportunity to petition government for redress of grievances. how can a city -- how can a citizen petitioned the city if we cannot get hold of the documentation that shows what we are talking about because individual members, working in collusion with the city attorney's office, evade, obfuscate, and do everything they can to keep public records from the public? >> good afternoon. here is from las vegas. i will show you.

this is the tv show "pawn stars." i might be on the show. i don't know yet. we will see how it goes. ♪ i left my heart, board of supervisors, president chiu in 1962 high on a hill it still calls to me and we're going to be free little cable cars still climb halfway to the stars and the morning fog may still chilly air -- chill the air, still ♪ happy anniversary to that song. somebody who first comes to the city might say this after a month of bad luck. ♪ nobody told me about this city

i thought i knew and i tried through and through it is too late to say you're sorry how would i know and why should i care please don't bother trying to find any help it's not there the way she acts, the way she looks and the color of her mardi gras here we are still looking for help somehow ♪ president chiu: thank you. if there are any other members of the public who wish to speak in public comment, please step up right now. the final speaker. >> good afternoon, members of the board of supervisors. i am with the laborers' international union local 261, on behalf of ramon hernandez and

those we represent in the community. i am here to talk about the america's cup. because we have excellent relationships with each of you, we are not here to cast blame. but we are prepared to have hundreds of workers on the steps of city hall this very day to celebrate jobs for the community. we commend the efforts of the america's cup authority. we commend the mayor's office and all of you who worked hard on the original plan. we had a private sector agreement on the table that was going to voluntarily engage in local hiring. we are going to hire people in the private sector with contractors that are signatories to our agreements. that is not going to happen now. i represent awesome men and women. the labor movement in san francisco has an awesome reputation. the america's cup was on its way to be an awesome party that was going to benefit not just the

workers, but all of san francisco. we have lost that now. we are here to appeal to you. it is a less heavy lift to see to it that things do not happen. it is not awesome to see piers fall into the bay. in fact, it is awesome to make things happen. that is the heavy lift. the america's cup is going to be great, but it is no longer going to be awesome. we have lost tons of hours of work. we have lost thousands of paychecks. all we ask you to do in the future is try to be awesome. thank you. president chiu: of any other members of the public who wish to speak in general public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. if we could go back first to supervisor of the los's item, --

to supervisor avalos's item, item 18, which has already been called. supervisor avalos: i ask for your support of this resolution to establish the balboa park station advisory committee. one of the first things i had done in coming to office was to go to the work of the previous supervisor in the community that was around balboa park station, that created the station area plan. that included funds from various districts, including district 11. since that time, the mta has also conducted a capacity study of balboa park station area. there are land use decisions. there are decisions around transit that are sitting in desks on paper. that are not giving in acted as quickly as possible. this is -- that are not getting enacted as quickly as possible.

this is not adequate for the needs of people in the southern part of san francisco. we have wanted to make sure we can have improvements done in a timely way, knowing the timelines are stretched out to a great length. with this advisory committee, it is about making sure we can have a partnership with the mta, with bart, with other entities around the area, to ensure they are accomplishing the much-needed goals of improvement around transit, pedestrian safety, commercial space, commercial development. these are all key aspects of the work of the cac to ensure we are making our timelines. i have a small amendment to this resolution. it is on page 3, at the tail end of that paragraph, the first paragraph, the result clause on that page. it is as follows.

the rules committee shall apart a body that collectively ensures good representation of communities served by the balboa park art station. such members shall maintain regular attendance at cac meetings, and the term shall be set for two years. this is where the amendment begins. the cac show sunset two years after the day of the first meeting unless the board of supervisors extend its term, based on community need and progress on projects. we are taking out a clause as well. that will be the amendment. just insuring that we have a clean date for sunset of the cac. i would love to have your support on this. thank you. president chiu: a motion to amend, suit -- seconded by supervisor chu. we take the motion without

objection. on the underlying resolution, as amended, roll call vote. >> on item 18, as amended -- supervisor farrell: aye. >> supervisor kim is absent. supervisor mar: aye. supervisor olague: aye. supervisor weiner: aye. supervisor avalos: aye. supervisor campos: aye. president chiu: aye. supervisor chu: aye. supervisor cohen: aye. supervisor elsbernd: aye. >> there are 10 ayes. president chiu: adopted as amended. why don't we go to our 3:00 p.m. special order, with regard to the america's cup? please call item 26 from the adoption calendar. >> item 26 is a motion scheduling the board to sit as a committee of a whole on february

28, 2012, 3:00 p.m., to hold a public hearing on of programs to a resolution approving the america's cup program and related transactions, and to form the waterfront infrastructure financing district. president chiu: as we know, this motion was placed on the agenda to hear the approval items for the 34th america's cup. obviously, as we know, over the last 24 hours, things have changed. i would like to invite mike martin, who has been leading the efforts on the america's cup for the city, to give us a status update. at the end of his comments, i would like to ask for a motion to amend this item to reschedule at 3:00 p.m. on our meeting on tuesday, march 20. mr. martin. >> thank you, president chiu. mike martin, of the office of

economic and workforce development. as was announced as today, our partners at the event authority have informed us that are no longer interested in pursuing the use of piers 30 and 32 for the team-based activities. this--- this includes unwillingness to move forward on the long term peace that involves those particular piers. that changes the framework of bringing the events forward. i want to emphasize there is still a commitment on all sides to bring the america's cup event to san francisco in 2012 and 2013. as noted, we would like to come back to this body on march 20 with a revised set of agreements. what we are doing now is looking at what was in effect a subset of what was before you already, the same framework established in the house to the new agreement, where if improvements are made by the event authority they would be reimbursed through either payments or assets.

we are looking at what their space needs are in relation to moving the team bases to pier 80, as well if anything changes in terms of permit and mitigation measures, so we can come to you with a clear statement on the cost of doing events and how we move forward on most cost effectively and efficiently paying those costs back. our goal would be to lodge a revised set of documents with the board on march 13 and move to a hearing on the 20th, to hopefully move ahead with this exciting set of events. that is generally the summary, but i am happy to answer any other questions if there are any. supervisor avalos: thank you, mr. martin. i did put a call in yesterday to the port. i did hear that a lot of folks there are pretty crushed about the decision. i just want to say i do

appreciate all of your hard work putting this together. i know it has been about a year and a half of your time. i think the city is better for it. but i acknowledge the loss that you have expressed their. -- there. it was unclear to me, the condition of moving forward for seawall lot 330. was that pulled back as well? >> the original host venue agreement had a cordele, where in exchange for $55 million of substantial improvement, development rights to see wall lot 330 and perce -- piers 30 and 32. since that is not happening, we are back to square one. we need to understand. are there more efficient ways to finance the needed improvements to get the events that would not require the development right,

which is a value in excess of $20 million? i do not want to rule anything out. but i also know our goal is to be as streamlined as possible, based on the new set of circumstances. >> any other questions, colleagues? >> -- president chiu: any other questions, colleagues? there were three members that joined the budget committee. i think it makes sense to keep our consideration of the america's cup items at the full board. can i am and item 26 to schedule the committee? a motion seconded by supervisor farrell. can we amend without objection? is there any public comment on the motion to reschedule this committee as a whole to tuesday, march 20? any members of the public wish

to speak to that? seeing none, public comment is closed. if we could not take a vote on the underlying motion, which-- could now take a vote on the underlying motion to schedule on march 20. >> on item 26, as amended -- president chiu: aye supervisor kim: aye. supervisor mar: aye. supervisor olague: aye. supervisor weiner: aye. supervisor avalos: aye. supervisor campos: aye. president chiu: aye. supervisor chu: aye. supervisor cohen: aye. supervisor elsbernd: aye. >> there are 11 ayes. president chiu: we will sit at 3:00 on march 20 for this item. madam clerk, if we could call items nine -- actually, and this time, item 19.

item 19 is no longer before us, but if you could call item 19. >> the hearing of persons in interest of amending the approval of the america's cup resolution, and the proposed resolution of intent to form the infrastructure waterfront financing district. president chiu: we have continued that item. if you could call items 20 and 21. >> from the budget and finance committee without recommendation, approving the america's cup product and related transactions. and intention to establish an infrastructure financing district at the port of san francisco. president chiu: we cannot act on these items because we have not yet heard public comment. if i can entertain a motion to continue to a committee as a call at 3:00 p.m. on march 20? motion by supervisor chu, seconded by supervisor farrell.

these items will be continued. we go to the rest of the adoption calendar. >> items 27 through 36 are being considered for immediate and unanimous adoption without committee reference, acted on by a single roll call vote. a member requests discussion -- >> re-line -- president chiu: does anyone wish to sever? roll-call vote. supervisor farrell: aye. supervisor kim: aye. supervisor mar: aye. supervisor olague: aye. supervisor weiner: aye. supervisor avalos: aye. supervisor campos: aye. president chiu: aye. supervisor chu: aye. supervisor cohen: aye. supervisor elsbernd: aye. >> there are 11 ayes. president chiu: those

resolutions are adopted. we have two items left. we have already called 22 and 23. the amendments? supervisor kim: they are being walked over. i can introduce the ordinance. everyone has copies of the proposed amendments in front of them. there is a slight change we will be reading into the record. it is being walked over. i will speak overall on the ordinance in front of us. again, as i stated at rules committee, this ordinance was brought forward in response to the supreme court ruling that took place regarding our public financing program, specifically the court ruling that a trigger which will allow publicly financed candidates to receive more public funds due to independent expenditure was deemed unconstitutional as a restriction on the first amendment right of independent third parties spending. although many of us disagree with that ruling, we understand

we still need to comply with that. i want to recognize supervisors farrell and elsbernd for bringing this to our attention and bringing forth legislation earlier this year. over the last couple of months, we have been working closely with the ethics commission and our co-sponsors to do general improvements for our public financing program, on top of bringing us into compliance with the u.s. supreme court ruling. this ordinance would remove the actual trigger, which the supreme court deemed unconstitutional. it also takes away a couple of other portions of the program that perhaps some folks had issues with, including a 4 to 1 match. we also moved of the filing date for candidates to declare for office to the month of june, after the primary elections take place. this was in many ways to address concern around the zombi

candidate. the other day we are moving forward is the date of the actual disbursement of public funds. that will not take place until after the filing date and all candidates know the full breadth of the candidates running against them, so they can make a decision whether they want to stay in the race or not. in last year's mayoral race, there are candidates that would have dropped out but did not because they have already received public financing dollars and were not able to pay those back to the city, and stayed in the race even though they no longer wanted to run. 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