amended. item 71. >> item 71 is a motion for establishing a process for official misconduct meeting at the board of supervisors. >> thank you, mr. president. colleagues, i pulled this item because i think it might be good for us to have a brief discussion about this. one of the points i found to be a point that deserves some consideration is how matter is presented as this moves forward. specifically, the point about the current proposal that would essentially allow each party 20 minutes to make a presentation and it would allow the ethics committee 20 minutes to do its

presentation. when we have seen this process play itself out in land use context, you have the planning department to its presentation, what usually happens is that the planning department sides with one of the parties. you have a situation where you have whatever the amount of time given to each one of the parties and to the extent that the planning department gets the same amount of time, you have more time that is ultimately used for one side or the other. i want to be mindful that to the extent that the ethics commission rules in one way or another, by giving them 20

minutes, are you giving one side, whatever side the ethics commission decides to agree on, more time to make the case. my hope would be that whatever is presented by the ethics committee, that would be a factual presentation, that would speak for itself. i don't know that is necessarily precluded by what is before us. that is the reason that i raise this issue. i know all of us want to be as fair as we possibly can. >> is there any additional discussion? are you making a motion? supervisor avalos. >> i actually concur with

supervisor campos. i believe that having the ethics commission present in 20 minutes to us will create a preponderates of support from either side. i believe that having a written document from the ethics commission, that will be a product of proceedings. that will be something that will have a lot of public vetting through various media outlets. it would be available publicly on line before we actually go into those proceedings.

that would be sufficient to have before us. a document that can engage us in discussion. either side can present their point of view if we were to take this out from the ethics commission. we could ask questions of the ethics commission as to their product. we could go onto presentations from the mayor's side and the sheriff's side. i would like to propose a motion to change that language in the resolution. taking out the ethics commission presentation in 20 minutes. allowing the ethics commission

to answer questions they may have. >> supervisor avalos made a motion that instead of having a potential presentation of up to 20 minutes that there not be an opportunity. that is seconded by supervisor campos. >> i would like to speak to the motion a little bit. >> we have an established pattern here. we have a formal way of doing business. planning would make a presentation. a lot of the time is regulated. i would not have an opportunity

to listen to some of the reason that the ethics commission may have. that they would be able to articulate that there written document would not reflect. their written document would not necessarily reflect. i would be interesting to -- interested to hear from the ethics commission. >> i raised this issue because, as i noted, we have a process. what we are dealing with is something that is very unique. i don't know that the same process applies. maybe this is a question for our counsel. i do not know the extent to which the ethics commission

would make a presentation and how it what happened in a land use proceeding. there might be limitations on what ethics can actually say. to the extent that ethics acts as a body, i don't know that one individual can come down here and make the presentation. i like what supervisor campos is talking about. in some ways, it speaks for itself. that will be a question to our counsel. >> thank you. the issue here is a little different from a planning

commission hearing. the ethics commission does not have a staff member with expertise in misconduct that can answer questions in expertise. they make recommendations and pass those on to you. it is an issue as to whether or not you could ask them questions. those recommendations were voted on by the body. somebody may not be comfortable or be in a position to explain beyond what the written document is. it is a unique situation. as i have been council for the ethics commission, my interpretation of what the ethics commissioner would do when it comes to you is provide you with a written record, be

here to describe the process that they went through if you have any questions about the process that they went through, answer any questions. i think it would justifiably be uncomfortable trying to explain or expand upon any recommendations or findings made. those findings were made by the body as a whole. as a background, the fundamental issue is the party is being provided with due process. i do not think this issue is a due process issue. whether you want to hear from the ethics commission, whether you do not want to hear from them. whether they talk to you for 5 minutes or 20 minutes, i do not think it is a due process issue. >> if i could follow up with one question, you said the amount of time, five minutes or 20 minutes, does not necessarily

affect the due process issue. you could have a 5 or 810-minute presentation instead of a 20- minute presentation. i would throw that out there as a possible idea. supervisor tells burned. -- elsbernd. >> you took the words out of my mouth. i appreciate the theoretical legal discussion we're having. let's also consider the practical. i have heard supervisor campos and supervisor avalos. supervisor cohen nailed the point of what we are doing. we would be asking them questions to understand their rationale there is probably going to be an hour, 2 hours to question. they are still going ot speak.

i am all for cutting it down from 20 minutes to 10 minutes. they are going to be talking for a good deal of time. i would expect us all to have questions. that is one of the reasons they should present, especially for the public. we have all experienced the way the media summarizes things. they are not necessarily right. the public would very much benefit from their presentation. the broader sunshine. and disclosure point would be better served. let's be real. they would be up there for a

very long time. >> i would not be supporting the motion by supervisor avalos. it might do understand -- i do understand his point. i do not see any downside to a provided for a presentation by ethics. it could be a very brief presentation. there is not very much they can answer depending on the questions that counsel has raised. it could be very beneficial for us to hear the rationale orally, or whenever it is that they can say. for the public to hear that and not just to have to go on line

somewhere and find a document and read it. we want to make sure that whenever we are doing that it will be broadcast as widely as possible. people understand the recommendation and not ultimately understand the decision of this board. the supervisor is ultimately right. any member of this board can say, and ethics commission, can you please describe to be your recommendation and the rationale for it? they would have a 20-minute presentation. having a structure in place where they get a maximum allotment of time with the ability to communicate that information would be useful.

i do not agree with that for a couple of reasons. i do not want to predict how ethics will communicate its recommendation. it would be healthy to speculate one way, that could be talking about both sides. i do not want to presuppose about how they make a recommendation. this is a board of experienced, sophisticated elected officials who make decisions. there are plenty of times when you have public comment or emails in one direction. i am not concerned that we will be unduly influenced if there is more time based on the

recommendation of ethics. >> colleagues, i appreciate the discussion. i want to first say thsat the challenge and the structure is that we want to hear that the ethics commission does not use their time to argue. they are simply laying out what is potentially in their written record. i also agree with the sentiment that if we don't give the ethics commission any time to present, it will be confusing to the public as to what will be an contextual. that is clear as stated in the right -- resolution that the ethics commission may make an oral presentation is not to

exceed 10 minutes. at that point, we can ask as many questions as we want. it can extend the time. i want to mention for the public watching this discussion that it is our practice that as long as colleagues can ask that. i would like to make that motion to move this conversation along. >> is there a second? at second by supervisor weiner. >> i am willing to reese in my motion. i would like you to restate years. >> the only thing that would change about my amendment is changing the time frame from up to 10 minutes to up to 20 minutes. the rest would remain the same.

>> that is only pertaining to the ethics information, correct? >> just to be clear, that is only pertaining to the ethics commission. both the mayor and the sheriff would continue to have their opportunity to make presentations up to 20 minutes. >> this is a question to our counsel. we are talking about 20 minutes versus 10 minutes. that could be extended. what would they be saying if bay are not going to spend a ton of time arguing? >> i do not know who would be making the presentation. i would anticipate that if the ethics commission made findings and they had written explanations as to why they

found that and they transmitted that to you, if you asked a represent-representative of the ethics committee, what is really meant by x, this is the way they want to transmit their findings to you, the representative might say we cannot really tell you anything more about that. that doesn't mean there aren't a range of questions about the process. the qualification i am giving you is you may not have somebody feeling comfortable collaborating upon a finding that has been voted on. the collaboration might not be voted on by the majority of the body. >> i agree with supervisor

winner. we are experienced in dealing with these issues. i do agree that to provide context is important. they might only be reading from a written record to begin with. something close. >> it is hard for me to speculate. i will not be making the presentation. one would expect that they might not want to stray very much from the written findings. they might not want to stray from the findings by the commission. >> supervisor campos. >> i am grateful to my colleagues for this discussion. i think it has been a very thoughtful discussion. i do not know what the right answer is. i think the point that supervisor avalos makes is a good one. i think the approach that president chiu has outlined is

good for many reasons. there might be a benefit to a presentation. the second point is that it recognizes that it is a different kind of a presentation. it does not need the same amount of time. i think that it is a good way of compromising and addressing some of the concerns. >> any additional discussion? at this point, supervisor avalos' motion has been rescinded. can we take my motion without objection? the amendment is made. unless there is further discussion, can we take a roll

call vote on the memo to be approved? >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. . aye. >> it aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> there are 11 ayes. >> item 72. >> a motion cauterizing preparation for written proponent and ballot arguments for some middle to the voters on the november 6, 2012 consolidated municipal election. >> colleagues, we have circulated an amended copy of this particular motion. i just want to summarize the assignments as they are laid out, which are the various

sponsors of the amendments for the proponent and the proponent rebuttal arguments for the consolidated elections. it was suggested that supervisor weiner be in charge of those arguments for the housing trust funds. i am happy to handle that. for the motion regarding the citizens united related measure, we have united supervisor avalos with rebuttal ballot arguments. colleagues, unless someone would like to be assigned to any of the measures that do not currently have an assignment, i would suggest that we strike items on page 4 through the end

of page 6 and state that supervisor elsbernd will handle that. do i have a motion to that? we have to take the amendments and then vote to approve. can we take those amendments without objection? on the underlying motion, can we do this? the motion is approved. i understand we have one imperative hide them from supervisor mar. >> it is a resolution commending the chinese progress of revolution and declaring august 4, 2012 as chinese progressive day in san francisco. >> colleagues, supervisor mar has provided us with the

resolution. they have made a motion to that of fact. seconded by supervisor campos. any public comment on this item? colleagues, can we take this item? without objection, this should be the case. with that, could you read the en memorials. >> this will be adjourned for will lakevil -- late violet b. king. >> i know we have had a long seven months. i hope everybody gets a chance to take a break. ladies and gentlemen, we are adjourned.