chairperson campos: good afternoon and welcome to the february 24, 2012 meeting. my name is david campos. i am the chair of the commission. we are joined today by the commission vice chair, commissioner john avalos, as

well as commissioner pimentel. our clerk is linda wong. i want to thank staff which is helping to cover this meeting. could you please call item number two? >> approval of lafco minutes from january, 2012. chairperson campos: if there is any member of the public that would like to speak on item 2 below? seeing none, public comment is closed. this is an action item. supervisor avalos: motion to approve. commissioner pimentel: second. chairperson campos: without objection. >> item 3, community toys aggregation activities report -- a status update on the clean power program, status update on proceeding at the california

public utilities commission, and status update on state legislation. chairperson campos: we will now hear from michael campbell of the public utilities commission. >> i am the director of clean power sf, through sfpuc. a few things to report on. we are, as you all know, waiting for the board of supervisors to hold hearings, and hopefully approve the shell contract that is before the board, continuing to work forward on finalizing the contract with noble america to support the back office services. while we are working on that, we are also working on developing and figuring out the precise plans for how we are going to target the rollout and how we send up out notices. the ultimate up out estimates have so far -- in public, we have been talking about pretty

conservative numbers, assuming that all parts of the city are the same as the city on average. there may be ways of targeting neighborhoods or other things that could have opt out rates be a bit lower than numbers that have been on the press. we are continuing to work toward that, as well as a variety of housekeeping things that need to get done, and million of them, before launch. before the legislature, if you recall, last year, there was a bill, sb 790, which helped cca a lot. the cpuc is starting a hearings process for the code of conduct to be administrator of with the utilities, which will help level the playing field. we will be actively involved in that. also, the cpuc -- i am in

regular contract -- contact with senior people there, providing a performance bond that is required for cca to post. i made it clear we cannot launch our program without knowing what that mechanism would be and what that amount is likely to be, so we can make sure we are able to satisfy that. back toward the very end of last year, supervisor campos, general manager harrington, and myself met with the commission to make that known. earlier this week, general managers harrington and hale were invited to talk with cpuc commissioner simon. it was a meet and greet. they talked about the program and noted that one of the steps for being able to launch is the cpuc to take action on that. that message was delivered.

we are trying all the different tools to keep getting it to move forward, although unfortunately i do not have any news to report on that matter. that is what i generally have for a report, but i am happy to answer any questions you might have. chairperson campos: any questions for mr. campbell? if i may follow up on a couple of things -- on the issue of the opt out rates, i think it is good you are doing some follow- up additional work on that. i think we should get to as clear a number as we can. i think the rate will be lower than what we have discussed. i think it is good that we are doing what we are doing. my hope -- i do not know if that is a possibility, that we can have a clear idea of what that number will be by the time we meet again as a commission. i do not know if that is possible.

>> we can definitely start getting it more refined, in terms of the final number will ultimately will use. we will frankly be tinkering with that up until the last minute. one item that we are researching -- we had done some market research before to test a different question that we have been trying to apply toward it. we are considering doing some more targeted follow-up to help define that. in terms of the work the team has been doing, it is looking like -- it really depends on what types of customers you have. the lower usage customers, there opt out rate is expected to be the majority of folks sticking with the program. when you get to the higher users, getting over $15 a month premium, potentially, we are expecting a higher proportion of those to opt out. it depends on the ultimate rate.

that largely is why we are looking at the demographics of various areas we might be targeting. chairperson campos: if we can now hear from lafco staff. >> nancy miller, interim executive officer for the local agency formation commission. to follow up, part of the reason we are waiting for the board to take action on the contract is we also have in phase 2 the actual phase two issues that we are trying to make sure when we go to the board we have a complete package of -- not only what we are launching, but what we are expected to do. that is something we are working on. we have regular meetings to try to work that schedule so we have agreement on that. on the cpuc, i drafted a letter for the senator and

assemblyperson amiano. we just have to get on the state service, and one for the commission. we have to get on the cpuc service list, which i have not been able to complete yet. we will get the bond issue resolved as soon as possible. that is where that is. chairperson campos: thank you very much. >> jason fried, lafco staff. last month, we were talking about some of the bills coming up. i wanted to run you through the process. today is the last bill and the bill can be considered for this year. so there is not really a complete listing of all the bills. most bills are produced during the course of this week, going into today. moving forward, all those bills have to sit around for 40 days. we will come back next month with a list of the few bills we

think are higher priority that could affect llafco and chairperson campos: chairperson campos: supervisor avalos: -- lafco and cca. to give you an idea, it will 27 is the last day any bill is heard in committee, if it is a fiscal matter bill. most bills fall under that domain. if it is not a fiscal bill, it has until may 11 to get its final out of committee vote. everything at that point goes to the floor. between may 29 and june 1, all bills will be voted through the first house. all bills go through the assembly or the senate. if it makes it through, they repeat that process all over again, where the have the committee hearing and the floor vote. if there are any bills that get changed between houses, they go

back to the original house for approval of an up or down vote on the amendments. that is what the process looks like. we plan on coming back with any bills or legislation that will be on a watch list for us. he been mined bills can always get changed in the process. -- keep in mind bills can always get changed in the process, in a significant way, were originally it did one thing and gets changed later on. we may change that list over the course of the year. chairperson campos: do you have any questions on any of the items in item three? if i may add a point to the timing of when the shell contract and the resolution that is accompanying it will come before the board, it was important for us to make sure that the balanced a need to move quickly, but at the same time to address some of the concerns

that were raised by the advocates. i want to make sure we are mindful of those concerns. that is one of the reasons the time is working out the way it is. it also allows us to wait and see some of the things that happened at the california puc. that said, i think we are headed in the direction that makes a great deal of sense. i want to thank the staff and think the -- thank the puc and the advocates for their input on this. unless there are comments or questions, why don't we open it up to public comment? >> good afternoon, commissioners. eric curkes, -- burkes, san francisco green party and our city. i want to let folks know that advocates do, when we have been coming together on this and

discussing this -- we definitely do want to see this finalized and under way by the end of august. we have a sense of urgency about this. we do not think waiting until after then would be a great idea. as to the improvements on opt out, it sounds like sf puc is headed in the right direction. however, in advocate discussions, we would see anything that is about a 25% up out rate, we are aiming for something pretty low. to that end, and also with regard to timeline, we know from being in stakeholder meetings with the sfpuc and local power, as the local buildup work matures and as we get toward the rfp stages of that work, we will

learn about the potential, with phase one and 52 -- and face to, bringing in customers that would bring in higher rates and not opt out, whereas concurrent with the buildup rollout, we could have a phase two of customers that would be more likely to opt out at the beginning. between that and the idea of a tiered rate, we need to make sure we take sufficient time that the build out work is completed sufficiently enough, probably in mid to late spring, so that we can elucidate all of that and know where it is at. definitely, we want to get this underway by fall. but we also want to make sure, especially because of the optima rate, so we can get that rate

way down, so we do not lose customers we can never get back. we are at a pleasant place right now, and that is a good thing to say. we will be inviting ground -- we will be breaking ground on inviting projects. chairperson campos: is there another member of the public who would like to speak on item 3? seeing none, public comment is closed. i want to thank the staff, advocates, and everyone who has done tremendous work in moving this forward to where it is. if we can make a motion to continue this item to the call of the chair? a motion by commissioner avalos,

seconded by commissioner mar, who has joined our meeting. we can take that without objection. >> item number four, update on the voting process, including rent-choice of voting -- ranked- choice voting. chairperson campos: last meeting, we directed staff to review the voting process of san francisco, including looking at data and information relevant to the rank choice of voting system. i wanted to take this opportunity to hear directly from lafco staff and to get an update on where that is. >> jason fried, lafco staff. we put together a list of questions and sent them to the department of elections.

they have since responded back. some of the questions, looking at some of the data, has posed some of the other data. i am creating a follow-up list of questions for them to answer. we have been doing a lot of data collection, looking at finding other reports out there on voting systems in general. there has not been as much done, at least on san francisco specifically, looking at data. there was one done a few years ago. i will reach out and see if they might be doing an update on that. this has been mostly data collection on the report. because we were looking at multiple different subject matters, each subject is a report in itself. you are not necessarily going to use the same data as you do for voter turnout. there are a lot of variables in place. i am trying to collect as much data as we can. supervisor avalos: thank you,

mr. fried, for your work on this. we will hear from a member of the public who will talk about another type of approval voting system. i think that could be a new variable, i would like to see us take a look at. may be based on some of his comments we can look at that in terms of a system of voting that is not based on having a runoff, but also a way of calculating a specific way of carrying out an election, different from ranked joyce voting, where voters are able to talk about preferences. >> i would be more than happy to study any other system. let me know if this style has been used someplace else. i know there are some theoretical systems out there. those would be a little more difficult to actually study what they are, because it is a

theory. it has not been put into place. you cannot say whether it is doing better or worse. i am more than happy to get into that discussion. i just want to make sure we are preparing current -- comparing current systems that are in use. it is a reality that you cannot necessarily do the same empirical analysis -- supervisor avalos: i understand. i hope there is a use of this system elsewhere. it could be on another continent, a place called utopia, maybe. perhaps not a real place. >> more than happy to do whatever the commission wishes. chairperson campos: if i may, commissioners, whether it is at a meeting today or subsequent to the meeting, if you want to have a follow-up discussion with mr. fried, i want to make sure he is able to follow up on the

specific issues or concerns that you may have. if there is something specifically that you think it is important that he looked at, if you can make sure that you let him know, whether it is today or any subsequent meetings, we want to make sure the questions that the commissioners want answered are, in fact, answered. just a reminder that the point of this exercise by lafco is to provide information and make sure we have data that sheds light on this discussion. i think it makes sense to include the system the commissioner avalos raised. it makes sense to look at it. supervisor mar: i would be interested in how voting rights organizations look at how the systems impact is in french should -- disenfranchized

groups. in 1986, we were looking at preference voting and how it operates in places like alamogordo, new mexico, and how it impacted disenfranchised communities, whether ethnic or socioeconomic. that would be of interest to me. >> that is part of what i have been collecting data on, figuring out how we do that. in san francisco, unless you do a language-specific ballot, -- it is hard when you have a bunch of english pellets. in san francisco, there are corners of areas with a higher density of a certain population. it is not guaranteed all the people in that area are of that ethnicity. we are trying to figure out how we look at that fairly, so we are not attending the system by bringing other voters because

the happen to live in the same neighborhood as a different ethnic group. the other thing i wanted to bring up on this matter -- i have also been listening to what the board of supervisors have been having some hearings on, on the election process. i am going to bring in some of the questions being asked by some other members of the board that may not be on this commission, looking at whether there is a way to answer some of their questions, so we can have a full study of what the city is looking at in this process. chairperson campos: thank you. i know a number of members of the public are here to speak on this item. i look forward to their comments. if you can please come up, you each have three minutes.

>> good afternoon, commissioners. i appreciate the opportunity to give a little more information. i was with the san francisco voting task force. we spent a couple of years studying voting systems in particular. that report -- i think it is still available on the web. certainly, paper copies are available somewhere. that would give you a great overview of voting systems in general. we also discussed in that report ranked choice voting. there are a couple of high- level things. the most important thing to consider here is transparency. that is to get as many allies on the system, and the things that calculate the votes, as is possible. this is missing entirely with

proprietary-owned vendor operating software systems. essentially, software is proprietary in protected by all manner of rights and secrecy, so nobody gets eyes on it, really. even if it is open, there is a considerable amount of the scientific community that can look at the software code. they will object to looking at it, because of the legal liabilities associated with having looked at the proprietary software, and and creating something subsequently, and running into a problem of being accused of taking the software that may have looked at, using it to develop something new. in the report, you will note that what we recommend is a publicly owned open-source software system with mandatory printed ballots. the reason this is important is

because this gives you the opportunity to have the largest amount of is on the software that calculates the vote, as well as reaching the best possibility of securing a voter intend, because that is important, if a voter is confused by the ballot this side, if a voter is confused by the process. necessarily, the voter's intent can be at risk. "we are talking about here is a security issue. two of them. one of them is the security issue associated with no one knowing what the big black box does. the other is understanding of that a broker wants to know that when they voted for one person, that is the vote that is counted them with. thank you for listening. chairperson campos: thank you very much. next speaker, please.

>> hello. my name is brad turner. good to see you. today, i wanted to hand in a statement i typed up, giving some background on how we got here, and the basic overall. i think many of you know in the democratic state platform, with the good help of christine pelosi, we advised open source systems with mandatory paper ballots, similar to what was just described. we want you to know the ranked choice but to an issue is not the main focus of the election reform community, but it has become an issue, because at this point we are still not obtaining better security within the voting systems. that, in our opinion, is the job at hand, to make sure we have better election systems.

people like allen becker, royce altman, the fellow that wrote the certification process for the federal government. it is pretty much concluded that the current systems are not appropriate. the question is where we go from here. this conversation seems to have been in the direction of talking about ballot design issues, and whether it is prudent to have an instant runoff rather than a follow-up runoff. i think those are interesting questions, and some of them are philosophical. my point today is to say i think we are good with the current ballot design. what we really need to do is focus on the election systems. it should be stated that the ranked joyce algorithms and software additions -- they create an extra muddling of the current systems that are already concluded by the review of the secretary of state to be

inappropriate. we are a little bit ahead of ourselves, talking about ballot redesign. just to be also noted, the open source systems we advocate can handle ranked joyce voting. -- ranked choice of voting. we want the security aspects to be highlighted continually. that is why i am here today. i brought a handout that might give you some background. chairperson campos: thank you, mr. turner. next speaker, please. >> i live in know we valley -- noe valley. i have been studying different voting systems for about 5.5 years. as you know, i have brought up issues of score voting and approval voting in the past. one reason i think these systems are really interesting is some inherent properties make them simpler for voters and the department of elections. with approval voting, you are

using an ordinary ballot. the only change is to count over votes. you do not discard them. if i want to vote for five candidates, i can do that. it is hard for voters to get confused. it is almost impossible to spoil your ballot. in experiments including looking at really contentious political elections, it turns out you get about 1/5 as many spoiled ballots. whereas with ranked joyce, ballot spoils have not been a major concern, but it has been seven times as many. one slightly more expressive form of voting is score voting, where you rate cadets on a scale of 0 to 4. on its surface, it looks more complex, but it is simpler. it is ok to give two can it's

the same score. with rent ballots, you cannot give two candid it's the same rating. there is a simple additive some. -- sum. you can do it on a normal machine. also, they have a property of being additive, so you can take precinct sub totals and add them together to get the final result. you do not have to transport all the bells to city hall, if you do not want to. ranked choice voting is unique. you have to essentially count all the ballots, because it is possible for a candidate to win at every single precinct, but when you some the dallas together, somebody else wins. i find one litmus test is if you talk to a voter and