please repeat. >> [inaudible]

>> and do solemnly swear that i will not supplant -- support and defend the constitution of the united states and constitution of the state of california against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that i will bear true faith and allegiance to the constitution of the united states and the constitution of the state of california, that i

take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion, and i will well and faithfully discharge the duties upon which i am about to enter during such time as level the office of -- for the city and county of san francisco. congratulations. thank you very much for your service. [applause] ladies and gentlemen, please welcome all of our newest 31 commissioners for the city and county of san francisco. thank you.

>> the only item on the agenda is consideration of amendments to legislation. >> hopefully, this is a great simplification over what we expected to do today. i will ask you to more or less ignored them, what we had earlier this week, and look at what is in front of you. although the board of supervisors passed out a version of the public finance proposal that the ethics commission adopted, there were a number of amendments included. even though it passed the board, since then, there has been some dissension among board members

on that language. so in some fairly frantic negotiation going on this week and into last night, members of the board have come to an agreement on this, the ones that are actively involved. what that means is, the proposal that ethics has adopted with the two changes in front of you, reducing the overall cap of the amount in the election campaign fund, from $13.5 million to $7 million. the purpose of this is to escalate concerns and there has always been a surplus and that money is idle when the city could be using that money in other places. this is certainly acceptable to the staff. the second change is the ethics commission adopted an increase in the cap for the mayoral race

, and the board had decided to leave that where it is. this is something that's that is fine with working with. there is a third technical change that recreates the formula at which the commission staff wants to notify the board and the mayor there will be a shortage in the fund. because of the way it is written, there will not be a shortage when the trigger hits, we are changing the trigger so that it matches the mathematical intent. that is really it in a nutshell. you have before you what you already adopted with those two changes, which are simple to understand, and those are the technical changes. >> could you describe, procedurally, what happens if we adopt this, these changes in the legislation? >> the rules committee, likely

will hear this on april 5 -- >> possibly late march. >> at that point, it goes back to the full board come first and second full of reading. our understanding is there is sufficient support that this would be adopted with the changes. >> we have sufficient confidence -- if we do not vote on the version that was sent to us by the board originally, but instead, vote on this version that was negotiated over the course of the last week, we are not running into any procedural problems? >> no, if the commission were to adopt these last set of changes the director just presented -- and these were last minute changes -- there should not be

any holdup in terms of how quickly it could be enacted at the board and how quickly the ethics commission could implement. >> procedurally, we are also ok with this regarding the version that had originally reidy that had originally come down from the board. >> certainly within the ethics commission purvey to make any changes that you see fit, frankly. even if it is something that several members of the board at least initially expressed support for. although, that seems to have changed a little bit. >> so your review is that this was satisfactorily noticed that we reluctant changes to what was done, that there were visions to that and the public was on

notice that we were addressing this topic in this level of detail today? that is another procedural issue. >> yes, in terms of noticing this item on the agenda for the special meeting, the notice is sufficient. the ethics committee can also make changes and still pass it out the same day, or evening, as it usually is. >> thank you. commissioners, comments regarding the proposal? >> briefly, on the $7 million, can you tell us more about what the staff thinking was when you came to the conclusion that that was adequate? >> the most we have ever spent

in a single race is the past mayoral race, $4.8 million. that is too close to $5 million for what we are thinking about next. in projecting forward the anticipated inflationary costs and everything, we wanted to make sure there was enough money looking for to at least the next mayor's race. we costed it out and just under $7 million. we started at $5 million, but there was concern that that would not be enough, so we recalculated and moved up in that way. >> a question about the conforming changes in the last paragraph. previously, the trigger was much further away from the cap, giving more time to find money in the budget, if necessary,

make other changes that would allow that to work. i am just wondering what the thinking is about having the cap at $6.9 million, which seems pretty close and not allowing as much policy room. i know this does not speak to timing. what is the background on that one? >> i was not in the room when this figure was arrived at, actually. the fact is, even though this stipulates a time when we are to go in the case of a supplemental, there is nothing constraining us -- >> from doing it early. so it is required at this point, but could be done at any time when we believe it is proven in the cycle. >> yes. -- prudent in the cycle of. >> commissioners, any other

questions or comments? >> if i could just add a lot more on the question presented by commissioner studley. the ethics committee needs a signal prior to the election. the possibility that a commission may request a supplemental appropriation is permissive. if that extension was close, $6.7 million, for example, we would still be required to notify the board of that, but it is not clear that the ethics commission needs to go through all the groups to ask for that money -- hoops to ask for that money. >> in the words, it is possible there may not be $7 million in the fund, but at the extent not have the obligation necessarily to ensure that there is $7

million. >> the ethics commission would be required to notify the relevant authorities but is not required to actually go through the steps of requesting that money. it is not practically required. >> is there any mechanism for the board or mayor to put money in the fun without a request from ethics? >> yes. >> it is in their budgetary authority. >> further questions or comments from the commissioners? public comment? >> good morning. i have not seen this before. i walked in the room and you were talking about it. mr. hill said he was vaguely aware. would have been helpful if this was available yesterday, to let the public know. i am not sure i can digest the

changes right now. i think that is a problem in terms of public notice and consideration of further changes to what was already a complicated proposal. i was prepared to talk about what was made available in earlier this week. i am sorry. i am a little bit unhappy right now. >> at the beginning of the meeting, we addressed these changes and the procedural mechanism for how they came about. perhaps you can provide another recap -- >> perhaps staff could have let the public know that this document was available yesterday? >> the document was written last night after 6:00 p.m. >> and we are considering in this morning? >> this proposal was with the ethics commission adopted before with two changes that are simple to understand and one technical correction. >> the negotiations continued

into evening last night, and this was prepared immediately after those. >> we sought for the first time this morning as well. >> i will try to restrain my unhappiness, but i expressed it. the technical changes that i had here on what is now paid 18 subsection b, with respect to insufficient funds, in addition to notify the commission and the board of supervisors, i would suggest adding the mayor on line six, line 16, 17. to the extent this suggests a supplemental appropriation that could originate from the border or the mayor, or as suggested by this commission. i think notify the commission, board, and mayor would be useful.

i have no policy objection to the changes in the program structure. as i have testified before, i would use different figures, but i think these figures work as well. this is an evolving program. it is possible there could be a future court decision that says a non-incumbent candidate cannot be treated differently. we may have to go back and revise the formula to that end. to my knowledge, there is no such decision in that regard right now. i think it is fine to handle incumbent, non-incumbent candidates in the manner proposed. whether or not my concern about the single subject rule is still pertinent, i still think, on a policy basis, moving back the filing deadline 58 days has the

effect of extending the campaign season for two months, which i actually think works against one of the goals of the commission with respect to financing of campaigns, which is to limit the expenses. by extending the campaign season, that will increase expenses of running for office, not keep them level, which i think is not a good idea. why candidates should have to file in june 4 in november election rather than august seems to me there are other approaches to deal with the zombie candidate issue, or reducing the number of candidates -- limiting the number of candidates that may seek public financing under a reasonably separate -- structured program. i will leave my comments there for the moment. >> thank you.

>> good morning, commissioners. steven hill. it has been a long road. yesterday was a pretty furious day. lots of people were involved trying to tweak anything at the last second. it was not an attempt to hide anything from the public. there were just a lot of concern from members of the board that we are doing the right thing here. as someone who has come here before, an advocate for public financing, i am not 100% happy with everything in this, but, on balance, it is a good effort. the standard that you are charged, to look at changes like this, does this further the goals of the campaign finance reform ordinance? that is what any changes meant to do. looking at it that way, this document does that. it does a number of good things, including dealing with the zombie candidate issue, and will

make the program itself more stable because it is making us more conscious of the use of public dollars. it is going to make sure there is enough money in the fund, we hope, to finance all the candidates based on past elections, but it is also going to make it a love it harder to get the public financing, as we know. on balance, we have struck a good package here. i would urge you to support it. we know we need a boat from the board of supervisors. that is a high threshold. when you need at high of the threshold, sometimes everybody can get what they want. the major substantive change that was made yesterday is a very good one, after all the back-and-forth. the amendment that came to you

was going to put money into the fund in june, in the middle of campaign season. that would have allowed the program to become a political football. that would have used up a big lump sum, instead of doing it year after year. those of us that have been around this issue for a long time remember in the past mayoral administration where they raided the fund and turned it into a political football. this was alarming to thing that money would be injected into the fund in the middle of a campaign, in june. i am pleased we were able to get agreement to go back to the year to year allocation, and to keep it that way, where it has already been. and it is also true the ethics commission itself is overseeing this program, which is funded by that. the lower that amount gets, the

less funding the ethics commission has. if you are getting in a lump sum, i imagine it allows more difficulty in planning for staffing and all the other needs of the commission. doing it year by year seems to be a better way to do the sorts of things, to allow the commission and staff to plan, knowing that the money is coming each year and plan accordingly. not everything i wanted, but on balance, it furthers the goal of the cfro, and i would urge your support. >> commissioners, any further comments, questions? is there a motion? --is there a motion to pass the provisions to the cfro? is there a second? >> second. >> all those in favor?

opposed? the motion passes. >> that being the only item on the agenda, the meeting is adjourned. when a resident of san francisco is looking for health care, you look in your neighborhood first. what is closest to you? if you come to a neighborhood health center or a clinic, you then have access it a system of care in the community health network.

we are a system of care that was probably based on the family practice model, but it was really clear that there are special populations with special needs. the cole street clinic is a youth clinic in the heart of the haight ashbury and they target youth. tom woodell takes care of many of the central city residents and they have great expertise in providing services for many of the homeless. potrero hill and southeast health centers are health centers in those particular communities that are family health centers, so they provide health care to patients across the age span. . >> many of our clients are working poor. they pay their taxes. they may run into a rough patch now and then and what we're able to provide is a bridge towards getting them back on their feet.

the center averages about 14,000 visits a year in the health clinic alone. one of the areas that we specialize in is family medicine, but the additional focus of that is is to provide care to women and children. women find out they're pregnant, we talk to them about the importance of getting good prenatal care which takes many visits. we initially will see them for their full physical to determine their base line health, and then enroll them in prenatal care which occurs over the next 9 months. group prenatal care is designed to give women the opportunity to bond during their pregnancy with other women that have similar due dates. our doctors here are family doctors. they are able to help these women deliver their babies at the hospital, at general hospital. we also have the wic program, which is a program that provides food vouchers for our families after they have their

children, up to age 5 they are able to receive food vouchers to get milk and cereal for their children. >> it's for the city, not only our clinic, but the city. we have all our children in san francisco should have insurance now because if they are low income enough, they get medical. if they actually have a little more assets, a little more income, they can get happy family. we do have family who come outside of our neighborhood to come on our clinic. one thing i learn from our clients, no matter how old they are, no matter how little english they know, they know how to get to chinatown, meaning they know how to get to our clinic. 85 percent of our staff is bilingual because we are

serving many monolingual chinese patients. they can be child care providers so our clients can go out and work. >> we found more and more women of child bearing age come down with cancer and they have kids and the kids were having a horrible time and parents were having a horrible time. how do parents tell their kids they may not be here? what we do is provide a place and the material and support and then they figure out their own truth, what it means to them. i see the behavior change in front of my eyes. maybe they have never been able to go out of boundaries, their lives have been so rigid to sort of expressing that makes tremendous changes. because we did what we did, it is now sort of a nationwide model. >> i think you would be surprised if you come to these clinics. many of them i think would be your neighbors if you knew that. often times we just don't

discuss that. we treat husband and wife and they bring in their kids or we treat the grandparents and then the next generation. there are people who come in who need treatment for their heart disease or for their diabetes or their high blood pressure or their cholesterol or their hepatitis b. we actually provide group medical visits and group education classes and meeting people who have similar chronic illnesses as you do really helps you understand that you are not alone in dealing with this. and it validates the experiences that you have and so you learn from each other. >> i think it's very important to try to be in tune with the needs of the community and a lot of our patients have -- a lot of our patients are actually immigrants who have a lot of competing priorities, family issues, child care

issues, maybe not being able to find work or finding work and not being insured and health care sometimes isn't the top priority for them. we need to understand that so that we can help them take care of themselves physically and emotionally to deal with all these other things. they also have to be working through with people living longer and living with more chronic conditions i think we're going to see more patients coming through. >> starting next year, every day 10,000 people will hit the age of 60 until 2020. . >> the needs of the patients that we see at kerr senior center often have to do with the consequences of long standing substance abuse and mental illness, linked to their chronic diseases. heart failure, hypertension, diabetes, cancer, stroke, those

kinds of chronic illnesses. when you get them in your 30's and 40's and you have them into your aging process, you are not going to have a comfortable old age. you are also seeing in terms of epidemics, an increase in alzheimer's and it is going to increase as the population increases. there are quite a few seniors who have mental health problems but they are also, the majority of seniors, who are hard-working, who had minimum wage jobs their whole lives, who paid social security. think about living on $889 a month in the city of san francisco needing to buy medication, one meal a day, hopefully, and health care. if we could provide health care early on we might prevent (inaudible) and people would be

less likely to end up in the emergency room with a drastic outcome. we could actually provide prevention and health care to people who had no other way of getting health care, those without insurance, it might be more cost effectiti >> so the regular meaning of the unified school district for march 13th, 2012 is now called to order. roll call? >> miss fewer? miss maufas? ms. mendoza? dr. murase? mr. yee? >> present. >> ms. chong. >> here.