because the number of, you know, there was a lot of people who were very concerned with its removal for a number of reasons, so i feel like in many ways i had made some commitment to consider pulling my name from the legislation, but in retrospect, i feel that, well, i put my name on the legislation initially, so it seems it would be in bad faith to pull my name at this point, and also my intention initially for placing my name on it was so that we could preserve right choice voting on some level and that the voters would have the opportunity to reconsider it in many ways. my reason for wanting to limit it to the mayor's race is because i think still the

mayor's race has more voters and more people that are focused on that race than the other subsequent races. so i think that would be a good opportunity to say the runoff elections, and i think that three years ahead of the mayoral race gives the department of elections and the city enough time to prepare with how they're going to respond to that type of voting, so we have time to prepare and are not waiting to the last minute and responding at election time. chiar: thank you, supervisor. supervisor mar? supervisor mar: thank you. my approach to this is i am looking at election reform. i was a strong supporter of choice of voting will what we are calling it because i thought it would increase participation, especially of disenfranchised communities and to have maximum

participation in any election, whereas others have said runoff tends to be at the time of lowest possible turnout, except for unusual situations, like the gonzales race or the ammiano write-in campaign. i am appreciating that we're talking about the mayor's race only now, but still i do not want to see a system that is going to be based on two different elections, which privileges the more wealthier, funded candidates over grass roots or cancel it may be mass support but not much money, so i think we are moving away from maximum democracy and against civil-rights, so i feel very uncomfortable about how this discussion is going. i appreciate the intent of supervisors and my colleagues in

discussing this, but i worry removing away from a more democratic voting system. chair: ok. supervisor farrell? supervisor farrell: thank you, supervisor elsbernd. i want to thank everyone for these points. in the spirit of compromise with what the supervisor has put forward, i specifically, again, do not support what president chiu is suggesting. i appreciate his point, but i think this would promote so much confusion that we would be worse off than we are today. to the extent that confusion is a subject that bothered folks to sign onto it to begin with, i think the president's proposal will produce confusion in a much worse way than where we are at

today, but i will support supervisor olague's amendment. again, to me, this is something that is not ideal, but in the spirit of compromise, i think that is why we brought it back to the board of supervisors. i think we do a good job of disagreeing with each other sometimes and also with finding common ground, so i will be supporting that. supervisor elsbernd: : supervisor campos? supervisor campos: i want to know what the difference is between the two set of amendments are. i am wondering if maybe supervisor olague or president chiu can talk about these so we can maybe understand what their

differences are. supervisor elsbernd: supervisor kim? when you turn your microphone on, supervisor? supervisor kim: i would like to give opportunity to answer my statements. supervisor elsbernd: president chiu? president chiu: i will answer that. our proposals have some overlap in that we are changing it to simply the mayor's race. the difference is she would keep it such that the top two individuals in a first race in september would go on to a november runoff, whereas with my proposal, in the mayor's race, we're talking about a november 1 election whereby you would use rank choice of voting -- 48 november first -- for a november

first election whereby you would use rank choice voting. i think this has been proved. our electoral system has insured that more people are engaged, that candidates are reaching out to multiple constituencies and overlapping constituencies, and i think it has led to a more diverse body that we have. to supervisor mar's comments, we have seen at the history of our country, electoral systems that do not use rank choice voting that frankly have shut out disenfranchised communities, and i do think when the choice of void -- voting helps set for the first election but not for the second of this the because you only have two individuals. with the issue of the time, i want to hear more about why folks think we should go to a september system, because i think most voters do not really

focused on elections until really after labor day, and what we are seeing is that labor that happens, election happens, which will be one of the major decisions that are voters have to make. so from my perspective, particularly giving the past experiences, the november- december time frame makes sense, but, colleagues, i will be interested to hear your feedback if others think it, as well. supervisor elsbernd: supervisor chu? supervisor chu: this is the first time i have heard this, so i appreciate it. i disagree with the premise that rank choice of voting is confusing. anytime you have a new election system, there is going to be confusion, but i actually think over the last election cycles, there has been a lot of outreach, and i think far from that, when you look at the data, what we're finding is that

voters understand the process and are utilizing it. of course, when i was running, like everyone, i would find some voters who were confused, but once you explained it, i never had people continue to tell me that they did not understand the process, and as i think about it more, i think it is less confusing when the others are ranked choice. that is the primary, and that is a system that people are already familiar with. it also makes sense to have been in november because that is when people would be voting. this is assuming the amendment that passes that was brought forward by supervisor scott wiener. i support that. i would also like to hear the rationale about september. i have not seen the data. i know there are several municipalities that have a september primary, and it would be interesting to say how the turnout is for those municipalities. i will probably support one of

these amendments to the charter, but i think over the next few weeks, i would like to spend time talking to a lot of groups that are engaged around election and of course increasing civic engagement and to get their perspective on how they feel about this step process for the mayor's race. supervisor elsbernd: supervisor campos? 'supervisor campos: thank you. i was not thinking of this when i came in, but if i could ask the attorney, through the chair, when we have to act on a charter amendment regarding this item, what is the deadline? and i am just following up on what supervisor kim was saying. >> july 24, but we have an option. >> so i think, to that chair,

what are the meetings in july that we have for the board of supervisors? supervisor elsbernd: 10, 17, in 24. supervisor camos: i would certainly like to hear more time to hear the merits of these. i think taking the time to make sure we understand implications of what is being proposed makes sense, so i make a motion to continue this item to july 17. supervisor elsbernd: as a procedural reminder, if it is continued, upon amendment, it needs to be amended and then to the call of the chair. there would only be the opportunity to amend one time. perhaps if folks want more amendments, the 10th is the

better date. supervisor campos: so i will amend the amendment until the 10th. >> and if they are listening, i would suggest that we make the amendment today and then amending them so you have both of them before you for the 10th. supervisor campos: so i make a motion to divide the file and -- >> amended version a and amendment b. supervisor campos: so moved. >> supervisor campus has made a motion. a second. supervisor cohen. supervisor cohen: my question

is, i believe this is directed to you, supervisor olague. when would that be? to the end of september? supervisor olague: let me look. i forget. i think it is the second week in september. it is the second tuesday. supervisor elsbernd: supervisor avalos? supervisor avalos: thank you. i appreciate all of the back- and-forth. the proposal to amend the file and move both versions ford, i think that is the right way to go. actually given my choice right now of the two of them, i would probably choose the president's

measure, and i approach this whole thing with personal experience, like david chiu, as well. i think going through the whole round choice vote election last year was actually a very positive thing for the city, and a very positive thing for the way the candidates had for the most part engaged. there are exceptions, of course. but what i saw in terms of the part of the electorate that was very engaged, it was something i felt was really unprecedented in san francisco. in my district, there was an office that the ed lee campaign had that was abuzz and did a god job getting out the vote. and then the office closed down

and was empty. and the results came in, and we saw a high voter turnout supporting mayor lee. and it felt strongly that this system -- it was one people understood, voting how they wanted to vote and in high numbers, resulting in the outcome we came up with. i looked at the outcome of the election. the way the tabulated votes came out, split by about 60-40%. the way the election was divided in 1999. in a lot of ways, the demographic ways people voted, it made sense this outcome was the way it was and i felt like

the way it came out was validating in terms of what the voters wanted to express. i also have the opportunity to -- i wondered what it would be like to be in a runoff election. i don't know, in terms of personally, the way that my family could continue another month and a half, i did not see how this was going to be possible. i thought the right choice was going to be one that would help to assure that candidates like myself could be part of the election. for the mayor of san francisco. i also felt that there was discussion about whether we had missed the opportunity to have a real policy discussion about how the city could move forward by not having a runoff election.

i actually do not tend to agree with that. there was some incredible policy discussion that happened in last year's race. president chiu understands the nuance of public policy and i think that this gave him a lot of positive feedback for the voters about how to look at this. as a candidate for mayor. i truly believe that. my positions support that and, i do believe that we have that if you were paying attention. we have other changes that happened, -- to help to obscure what the elections are about. they cannot all be tied to the number of candidates that we had that made it difficult to

understand. i believe this is a disservice on voters, and so i am in support of trying to give a rambling speech but support the amendments that the president has put forward. i am in support of the right choice of voting. i would -- will continue supporting that, with one exception, on july 10. president chiu: it sounds like we will move these proposals out to july 10 for consideration. just talking about last year's experience with the mayor's race, i have heard supervisor avalos said that he was fine without the runoff. this is a complement to supervisor avalos. many would have benefited from a real discussion between the

supervisor and merely -- mayor lee -- the reason people want to have a little change is to see the different visions fleshed out in a different setting than 16 mayor -- male or zero candidates. it would have been a long and exhausting time -- but one that would have benefited the city. the second thing is on the issue of september vs. november. as i look at these dates, it is clear that this would fall in or around labor day, or close to september 11. as i look at the state, if we had that this year, it would be september 11, 2012. those may not be ideal days of us to focus political campaign attention on us. it would probably reduce some

interest on the part of the electorate. i think what we would want to see it -- we all share the goal of wanting to make certain that the dates maximize the turnout. for me, this is the paramount issue. i think that november or december is what i hope we end up doing. supervisor campos: i will keep these comments brief. on the issue of what the benefits of the runoff would be, i think that there are differing opinions on that. i know that within the progressive community, there are different perspectives, and as much as i can see the benefit of a runoff, i also know that when we have those runoffs, that the progressive candidate has been outspent, and i am not convinced that this is necessarily the

best thing to do. with respect to the amendments that have been made, i am not convinced that these amendments are necessary, and i am not certain what i would do if i was going to vote on them today. i do believe that in terms of the marriage of these amendments, president chiu's amendment is better than that of olague. i have concerns about the elections in september. with the practicality of the department of elections being able to manage that, there are many questions around that and i worry about the voter turnout, especially in certain communities, if we were to have the election in september. the times we see a runoff, where we have seen the voter turnout increasing, this has been where

we have had the general election in november, and i think if we go by what we have done before, that what he proposes would be a better option. i am not convinced that this is the way to go. i think we need time to think about the marriage of these proposals. i would respectfully ask for your support, of my motion to continue. >> this is just a point of clarification to the city attorney. if we divide the file into a charter amendment going forward, can you support both? i ask that question because -- what if two of the charter amendments get six votes or more? do we have been going forward to

the voters? >> both items would go to the voters, and if they are inconsistent you have been consistent measures. you would go to the version where if they just pass, we will be in favor of the one that got the most votes. >> what if they both get six votes each? >> they would both go to the voters. >> i suggest that i hope that from between now and july 10, that we just have one measure but we will see what happens. >> i was not able to share my thoughts. i will save it -- i will say most of them for two weeks from now. september and november, i would like to throw out a few thoughts to consider. this is why i think september is appropriate.

having lived through all of these elections and paying attention -- to the runoff, december, you have thanksgiving, you have the holidays and absolutely horrible weather. you have a lot of people not paying very much attention. september 11, you mentioned this as a concern. september 11, 2001 was election day. they have not changed their election -- and if it is working for them, respectfully, i think he can work for us on that issue. i would also ask everyone to consider the transition -- you will not find out if your the mayor until the middle of december. if this is september or november you get a couple of months, a

real time of transition. you get to prepare to take office. he has raised the concern that if he had to have gone through an extra month, you would not have had to go through that extra month. he would have had the runoff in september and you would have been done the same day. you raised the issue of people not paying attention to the campaigns until after labor day. if you run for mayor you get people to change -- to pay attention. they will pay attention if you run the good campaign. this is the way that it works now. if you move the election day a couple of months, the voters will pay attention. >> supervisor -- >> i am happy that we have continued this, and we have a couple of weeks to review everything.

in my mind, agreeing to this was a way of reaching compromise. going with it -- the majority of the city-wide offices, and -- you know, just considered for not the choice -- but the runoff elections. and so now, after hearing from more members of the public, i am willing to propose this amendment to the mayor, and i have a question about the september date, if this was a good day, as far as voter turnout is concerned. in my dialogue to the public, i think that november is a good day for the final election, and the concern with november and december only with -- i think that this would -- this may have an effect on the turnout because

of the holiday season. thanksgiving is on the 24th and after that, you have the christmas holidays. i have been concerned in the past and mention it here, with the september date for the election. new york is the only other place where this is done. there is a lot that we can consider when reviewing that choice. i am happy we have the opportunity to least have the discussion and complicate -- contemplate this a bit more. i feel pretty good about limiting -- the amount for the may oral election at this time. supervisor kim: this is a request -- my understanding is that new york city has a low turnout, but just because they

have a low turnout primary does not mean we have to the same thing. i would love to see that same information. >> i want to thank you for a very good discussion. supervisor campos says that we should divide this into three separate files. duplicated, twice. one of them is the original version, and the second is olague's version. is there a second to the motion? can we do that without objection? they will be continued on july 10. with that, supervisor, wiener? item 41. >> the item is called. supervisor wiener: i hope this is much less controversial.

i did send this back to committee, so that this could occur in the november election, and the june election. a reminder of what this would do, this would be to eliminate the low turnout of the election for city attorney and treasurer, to consolidate the election of those offices to the other odd-year election for city attorney, with much higher turnouts. these are very important offices in san francisco. and this election is antara as low turnout election. and so the idea is consolidation. and making sure that we have a much higher level of voter participation. in addition, every four years, this will save the taxpayers approximately $4.3 million by upholding the election.

in addition, this is in the original form, before the last discussion where the state attorney will stand next november, and it will become synchronized by standing again in november, 2015. i would appreciate your support in sending this to the voters. >> colleagues, is there any discussion? let's have a roll-call vote. elsbernd? aye. farrel? aye. kim? aye. mar? aye. olague? aye. wiener? aye. avalos:/ s? aye. chuiu:? aye. chu, aye. cohen,