requests of the current permanent work force, 6,200 people that work in the facilities currently? >> right. so in regard to the labor relation issues that have also been a pretty -- pretty hardtopic, tough topic, you know, my sort of legal guidance from the city attorney with the rest of the peers has been that it's very similar to the project labor agreement that it is a labor relations issue between that employer and those unions. so i've not stepped into that. because that contractual arrangement from a labor perspective between those two parties. and the city really has no legal authority. no more than they would if you reversed it. to kind of get involved in their labor relations issues. so i've kind of stayed out of that. and i tend not to get as much in labor relation issues.

because the laws that we have in terms of like local hire or first source don't really take me down that train in other industries except at this point construction. >> right. my understanding and i know we have the city attorney is the l.a. case that's referred to often is we cannot condition the development agreement based on conditions of labor agreement. but we could still talk about community benefits and what's fair to the existing permanent work force. but can i just ask for that advice? my understanding is that we can discuss issues that are related to the impacts of the project. but we just can't condition them kind -- with these labor negotiations, is that right? >> supervisor mar, audrey pearson from the city attorney's office, labor relations are really governed by the federal law, the

national labor relations act and the city is not allowed in its regulatory capacity to condition any sort of approvals on resolution of some sort of a labor agreement. community benefits agreements are something different. and the city is allowed to seek community benefit agreements. and if you have any further questions, i would be happy to talk to you about that. >> i really appreciate that answer. the devil will be in the details as we move forward. not only on jobs in the existing work force and also with health care as it comes up on june 23. and i just like to thank ms. chela and barbara from department of public health and we look forward to a thorough discussion on the details of the health care benefits provided by the hospital as well. i just wanted to wrap up by saying i think this has been a really good overview. and really great discussion of

the need for jobs and pathways for people from san francisco, but also balancing that with the other needs for the building trades and labor as well. so it's been a good discussion. i wanted to agree with dr. browner that i do think that a project, a health care project like this, of its scope, is a great benefit for the city to modernize and to make it more seismically safe for everyone. but i know that there are a lot of other questions that have been raised. not only on the jobs front but in many other areas today by many -- from the community and different workers and labor unions as well. so i'm looking for opportunities to improve the community benefits and to minimize the impacts on neighborhoods from transit as we move forward to that part of the hearing. i also wanted to say that a number of speakers brought up the different other models of how center health has operated in other jurisdictions. and i'm going to look forward to looking at those models and how they impacted health care in those areas. i definitely want to see cpmc,

sutter, but also other institutions be good neighbors that provide high quality jobs that are permanent and also abide by the first source hiring and if possible, local hiring policies of the city. so to be good neighbors, and providing those kinds of benefits. but also training opportunities. as were stated earlier at the apprenticeships and the various programs kind of through city build and other academies in the city. i also wanted to say, too, others raised the issues of cpmc becoming the largest hospital employer, nonprofit employer in the city. after the completion of this project. and i think as the dominant employer in the health care industry, i think employing a large permanent work force, i think it's really important that we focus carefully as a city and as a board on the quality of those jobs. i also just wanted to say that i'll be looking closely, kind of at the health care issues as

it comes up. but for me, the cpmc project is an important one for the city. but we should really be looking at basic standard of strong community benefits based on looking at the lennar project for bayview hunters point and other models in our city so cpmc at least abides by that common standard. but even does better because of its track record in the city, whether it's on charity care or other issues. lastly, a number of people have brought up concerns about enforceability of the d.a. and i know that will come up a little bit later. but my hope is that a community benefits agreement could be a piece of this. i know that had been in the discussions early on. and i think that there's been support from the public testimony that that's one way of making sure that there's strong enforceability of high quality jobs and that the hospital and the construction is really abiding by our city's

standards. it's just basic employee security but also high quality jobs. and the hospital being a good neighbor for our city. we expect or i expect as a supervisor, cpmc to continue to be a good neighbor but to even do better than existing past community benefits agreements. and then the last thing is it's been wonderful to kind of hear about the vision of health care in the city. and cpmc's important role as having one third of the health care service in the city. so i look forward to that continued relationship. but also that cpmc sitdown with community stakeholders including a number of different workers groups and communities so that we could move forward, kind of -- as a good neighbor, but also every stakeholder involved as well. supervisor, -- supervisor cohen, any commebts? >> it seemed from earlier

statements from cpmc that there seems to be some reluctance to expand the commitments to ensure that our cities, residents benefit from a wide variety of permanent jobs. and if this is not the case, there are a couple of things that i would like to see from the project sponsor. i would like to see an increase in the financial investment in work force development so that we can make investments in rhonda shop so we can continue to expand pathways to careers that are sustainable. and i would like to see some response in greater detail that then what you have provided about what is encompassed in your l.b.e. commitment. and what are some of the social enterprise opportunities available to local residents as well as businesses. i'm also interested in seeing an extension of the term of your work force obligations to match the term of the development agreement. and finally, a codification of the commitments in the

development agreement so that public and future decision makers have a certainty that these obligations will be met and can be enforced. the other thing that i do want to comment on is that i'm particularly concerned with the way you distinguish yourselves from other projects that have been mentioned. particularly the hunters point candlestick project. you stated unlike that project, the project that cpmc is building itself, is a community benefit. and as i said in my opening remarks, the need and importance of building a seismically safe hospital is a significant community benefit. however, the development at the shipyard candlestick point project like the cpmc rebuild is in itself a community benefit to neighborhoods that had been neglected. so these comments on your response to some of the questions and concerns that we've raised have made me think that maybe you don't have a strong understanding of some of

the community benefit agreements that have been referenced. or the key role that they have played. and so -- or the key role that they have played. so that when we talk about investment in work force development, in comparison to other projects, it's not to diminish your investment. but rather to demonstrate whether we have success in doing this in the past. and building on success. because what we're trying to do is build. and have -- build on a project that will have lasting benefits for the entire community. not just a neighborhood that will impact but the entire community. and one last thing i want to bring to your attention when we talk specifically about district 10, there has been a lot of discussion and overemphasis if you will on the bayview hunters point community and i would also like to remind people, everyone in the chamber, that the southeast neighborhoods like visitation valley and little hollywood is just in dire straits and has

just as many -- great needs, not just bayview hunters point. and i also want to thank cpmc. i know they make great investment in the clinic nims that serves the portal and visit on-- and visitation valley but looking for support there in -- people forget that community and i want to make sure we don't forget them. thank you, mr. chair. >> thank you. i support the sentiments of supervisor cohen as well. and wanted to say that l.b.e. or the local business enterprise information would be really useful for other -- s.f. general was brought up at 7% but to know some of those numbers. also the project labor agreement or p.l.a., i think there was a question to ask if that could be shared with us. that would be really useful. and my understanding is if there's strong benefits and job security for some trades, kind

of as the construction is done, that it's only fair and equitable if we consider that for the existing work force as well as one consideration, not conditioning the development agreement on that. but just as one consideration of fairness as well. so my hope is that we can get that information before the june 25 health care hearing. so with, that i'll just -- i'll move that we continue this, all the items, until june 25, at 3:00 p.m., monday, for the next hearing. so can we do that without objection? thank you. thank you, everyone, for getting through this stack of kind of cards and for all the testimony and for all the reports from staff. ms. miller, is there any or business before us? >> no, no further matters. >> with no further business, meeting adjourned. thank you.

supervisor kim: welcome to the special meeting of the rules committee. our clerk is one olinda wong. we would also like to thank sfg tv him records the meeting and makes the transcript's available. >> please turn off all cell phones and electronic devices. speaker cards and include any documents to be part of the file. acted -- items act upon will appear on the june 26 supervisors agenda unless otherwise stated. item number one, a charter amendment to amend the ciardi of -- charter of the city and county of san francisco by

amending round-off elections. supervisor farrell: thank you. thank you for being here today. item number one, a charter amendment for the 2012 ballot. it seeks to take away voting for this city offices of around san francisco. rank boating will continue in supervisor races. i want to thank my colleagues to a join me today as co-sponsors of this charter amendment. supervisor of lolague, cohen, and wiener. i know we've had a lot of debate about this, but speaking again to explain why i brought this forward. first of all, this has not

really lived up to its promises that were originally articulate it. one of the initial things is it would promote a lot less negative campaigning in city politics. i think if you look at the 2011 mayor's race, one would be hard- pressed to argue it was not a ton of negative campaigning going on. second, promote higher voter turnout. obviously in some alexian's there is higher turnout, and some elections there is not, specifically with the runoff between gavin newsom and the mayor here in stamford cisco. for me, more importantly, i do have a number of fundamental issues with rank choice of a boardivoting. the simple majority has the

responsibility of -- has the ability to produce results. last year we had people running around asking for people to get there second and third votes. to me, that is not leadership. i want my city leaders, people coming to voters in saying this is my vision for this office. this is why i would ask for you to vote for me as opposed to running around asking people for their second and third votes. second of all, we talked a lot about this the last time around, the notion of voter confusion. poll after poll, voters will say they're confused by this. to me, i think there is no reason why we should have a voting system in san francisco where voters are confused. i think there is a lot of anecdotal evidence for that. there is also a ton of empirical evidence in the form of over

boats and san francisco. buster's mayor's race had 1% of the votes being tossed in the garbage can because of over votes. -- last year's mayor's race had 1% of the votes being tossed in a garbage can because of over boats. lastly, are run off system allows us, and i think we specifically solve this last year, the ability to have a hard look at candidates. last year i attended a number of the debates. there were 8-10 people on the debate. no real clear choice. people did not want to distinguish themselves from each other. people thought that was really a waste of time because she barely got to hear what people had to say. you got to-three minutes to speak. we want people with real choices to be able to articulate clear visions and have voters understand them. in any case, this charter

amendment applies to citywide races only. i realize there is healthy skepticism. there is help the opposition to this initiative. there is also healthy support. i appreciate all of that, but i appreciate that we have this meeting today. i appreciate my colleague summit today for the special meeting so we can put it forward to the board. with that, -- >supervisor campos: thank you. i want to thank supervisor farrell for his comments. i have a lot of respect for supervisor farrell, but on this one i will respectfully disagree. i sank of that the discussion is one where i think a lot of assumptions and allegations are made about a specific voting

system and the more you look into the specifics of what is alleged, the more you see the data in fact does not support some of the assumptions. noah voting system is perfect. ranked joyce boating hazards issues, but as has been demonstrated and the discussion we of had, not only here, but also at the local agency formation system, it has many benefits and the affordable but have been afforded to this have not materialized. in fact, the issue of voter turnout is one where you can see the benefits of rank choice boating, and when it comes to confusion, the data does not support the conclusion that rank choice of voting is the worst system you can have.

in fact, the level of competition is -- that is in some of the other races that is taking place in san francisco, whether it is the board of education or city college shows there is more confusion around those and a higher rate of error then there is with frank choice voting. no system is perfect, and the answer is to implement a system the best way possible, and the issue where i think word -- workmates to be done is on the issue of education. i do have a number of concerns about what is being proposed. i think the top two primary concept is one that creates its own set of problems. in fact, if you look at some of love -- we got information from steven hill who has been doing

great work around these issues for many years and has articulated and outlined the many problems that come with the top two primary systems. one of which is the turnout. you just saw an example in this past primary election in san francisco where you have among the lowest turnout we have had in quite some time, 30%. it is an issue that became more problematic for certain neighborhoods that were disproportionately impacted by that. i think the goal should be to have a system that maximizes boater involvement and voter turnout, and i think sad ring choice of voting has been able to do that. i also think there are practical questions that arise in terms of

the ability of the election department with limited resources to implement some of the things that are being proposed, and i think instead of talking about how we get rid of the system, that we should focus on how we make the system better, and i'd think focusing on that will give us better outcome, because i do think what is being proposed is even more susceptible to some of the criticisms that have been leveled against rank choice but boating, whether it is in terms of voter turnout, but actually the number of over boats that have happened and some of the top two primary elections shows the problems are there as well. i do not think replacing the system with something that may have even more problems is the way to go. i will respectfully disagree

with what has been proposed, and i would ask my colleagues to protect the system we have, and to the extent we make any changes, the change should be to making it better and enhancing voter outreach and voter turnout. thank you. supervisor kim: thank you. i think we have probably heard the comments of our colleagues on this issue, and i have certainly spoken my thoughts on brinrank voice boatichoice voti. i am highly supportive of the system we have now. i understand a lot of education has to occur for a voter to understand any new system, but i believe when we look at most of the office races with supervisors and other city-wide

races that what we of found is a system that i believe works and are able to generate one election with the vast majority turning out to vote for a number of different issues, whether it is about it -- ballot initiatives or a number of different offices. that has encouraged healthy dialogue and far more positive campaigning than what i have seen in the past. i think negative campaigning will always occur. to be able to determine whether there has been less or more, i think there has been far less, but of course as you hear the election date, that is one of the negative issues. from my perspective, i think without a runoff election, we limit it down to the last two weeks or last week of the election. certainly in my race the negative campaigning did not begin until the weekend before the actual general election.

what i have stated publicly at the last board meeting is i am open to the concept of us moving into a different type of system for the mayor's race. i stated that, because i want to be consistent that one of the principles i am looking at as we determine an election system is what generates the highest turnout. what generates the highest engagement in the democratic process, and with every board of supervisors race, what we've seen is a runoff there is far less turnout in the december elections been in the november election, but the one that race that differs is the mayor's race. we actually have increased turnout and the december runoff verses the election because of the status that is citywide, and i think the attention it generates. i think voters are motivated to come out more than once to vote for this office. that is where i left myself open

to dialogue. i certainly do not think that holds true for the city attorney public defender, sheriff, and district attorney races and would not support as having to elections for them. the other factor is cost. conducting multiple election cycles in the year. i think if we're not able to increase this, we should not run up more alexians the necessary to get in canada elected. this represents boaters desires in terms of food there would like to see an office. -- voter's desires in terms of who they would like to see in office. i do have questions on the september primary. i am curious to have the 65 percent signed never came forward, how that was formulated in terms of winning a primary out right verses what we

currently have with the top two, or if we did an rcv. that is one question i did have, and i do not know if you want to move to public comment, and then have discussion about that, but those are some of the issues i wanted to bring forward today. >>supervisor farrell: i appreciate the comments. well-anticipated, but appreciate that as well. i want to welcome the people here for public comment. all of the rank choice of voting advocates. dice to see you again. we can open up the floor for public comment, i have a number of speaker cards. please line up on the other side. i will call in number of names. jones strasser, donimick paris, erik brooks, and adirien.

so first one, joan. please come up to the podium. we two minutes for everyone to speak on public comment. >> i would like to speak specifically to the comment you made about your discomfort about being no. 2. for me, it is a great relief to be at the number two, if i want to choose number-one who has a slight chance of winning. a member of the green party and generally hesitated to vote for green in the elections where i think they have a very small chance of winning for exactly the reason that they have a small chance, and i would rather vote for the lesser of two evils.

you are giving people a really fair chance to get their inner- most needs established, to book their conscious and the person they would like to have to increase the number one focus of someone they are not certain that will be very popular, and you also feel assured if they cannot have the person elected they would like to see elected, that they get to see someone elected that they would like to see an office. i feel opposite from the way you do. i hope you take that into account. thank you. >> hello, supervisors. i am happy to be here to not support ring tories voted. i am not here to support your amendment. i am