please call item no. 6. >> item number six, introduction of new items. supervisor wiener: i see no information -- introduction of new items. seeing no public comment, the item is closed. item number seven? >> public comment. supervisor marsupervisor wienern public comment. >> once again, for 45 years i have focused on infrastructure. it was a key role. now we see a lot of money has expanded on the van ness corridor and central subway. for those who are distant, and some of you are, you see the

way that jumping from the frying pan to the fire, the central subway, at a particular juncture, is not going to get the amount of money to expand, but we still think, you know, that we have people in congress who are somehow going to deliver some money. so, some of us come here and we speak to you all and we tell you all this, you think that is good, but we are not. the businesses in of beach are going to suffer a lot. they are not even told that this, that, and the other is going to happen. i do not know. i have been attending these meetings for a long time. but we have reached a point now

where some of the supervisors are nonchalant. they think they can do as they please. i do not know what is happening, you know? it is like in a supervisor, i can do is i please. no, businesses are hurting. these are dire economic times. i know that some of you look at the muni budget and think it is incorrect, and i am saying be sensitive to the concerns of the constituents of san francisco. thank you very much. supervisor wiener: any additional public comment? seeing no one, public comment is closed. we are adjourned.

>> the right to vote allows us to vote for candidates or party and it is a significant way to have our voice heard. exactly 100 years ago, women were given the vote in

california. the battle for women's suffrage was not an easy one. it took more than 70 years. a woman could run for president in new york. >> organizing this conference, basically it modeled itself on a declaration of independence for women. it marked the beginning of the women's equality movement in the united states. >> at that time, women were banned from holding property and voting in elections. >> susan b. anthony dedicated

her life to reform. >> suffrage in the middle of the 19th century accomplished one goal, it was diametrically opposed to this idea. >> many feared it would be corrupted by politics. >> women in the 19th century had to convince male voters that having the vote would not change anything. that woman would still be devoted to the home, the family, that they would remain pure and innocent, that having the vote would not corrupt them. >> support gradually grew in state and local campaigns.

>> leaders like ellen clark sgt come repeatedly stopping these meetings -- , repeatedly stopping these meetings as a politically active figure. doing everything they could to ground the campaign in domesticity. >> despite their efforts, the link made it tough whenever voters were in the big city. a specialist in francisco. >> the problem with san francisco is that women's suffrage as an idea was associated. >> susan b. anthony joined the provision party. a deadly idea in san francisco.

liquor was the foundation of the economy. and >> anything that touched on the possibility of prohibition was greatly and popular. >> the first campaign was a great effort, but not a success. >> the war was not over. less than one decade later, a graphic protests brought new life to the movement. >> women's suffrage, the republican convention in oakland, this time it was the private sector response. 300 marched down the streets of the convention center.

women were entitled to be here. >> joining together for another campaign. >> women opened a club in san francisco. it was called the votes for women club. if she could get the shopkeepers to have lunch, she could get them to be heard literature. the lunch room was a tremendous success. >> it was the way that people thought about women willing to fight for a successful campaign. what happened was, the social transformation increase the boundary of what was possible,

out word. >> there were parades and rallies, door to door candidacies, reaching every voter in the state. >> the eyes of the nation were on california in 1911, when we all voted. it was the sixth and largest state in the nation to approve this. one decade later, we have full voting rights in the united states. helping newly enfranchised women, a new political movement was founded. >> starting in the 1920's, it was a movement created by the suffragettes moving forward to getting the right to vote. all of the suffragettes were

interested in educating the new voters. >> non-partisan, not endorsing candidates >> -- endorsing candidates, getting the right to vote and one they have their voice heard. >> the 100th anniversary of women's suffrage is taking place throughout the state. bancroft library is having an exhibit that highlights the women's suffrage movement, chronicling what happened in california, bringing women the right to vote. >> how long does this mean going on? >> the week of the 20th. people do not realize that women were allowed to vote as early as the 1920's.

in the library collection we have a manuscript from the end of december, possibly longer. >> in commemoration of 100 years of voting in california. 100 years ago this year, we won the right to vote. around 1911, this is how it would have addressed. and here we are, dressed the same.

[chanting] >> we have the right to vote. >> whether you are marching for a cause or voting in the next election, make your voice heard. thank you for watching.

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 tin