no, ma'am, i used to. >> which one were you in? i state at [speaker not understood]. >> okay. what are you doing now? i am like going between place to place, shelter things. it's not working for me. >> do you have ideas and things you'd like to change about the shelter? i have a lot of ideas i'd like to change about the shelter. >> okay. tell me one idea. well, like the staff attitudes, the way they treat us, like, you know, we're always down and out and they treat us like we're just nothing. >> really? yeah. like trash, like they walk on and it's ridiculous. >> okay. so, how long do you plan to stay in san francisco? until i set some goals that i have. i'd like to get stable. >> so, you want to make san francisco your home? yes. >> all right. okay, i have no further questions. >> any other questions?

okay, thank you. next speaker, raija freeman, are you here? good afternoon, supervisors. my name is raija freeman, and i am applying for seat number 6 for the shelter monitoring committee. i'm applying because i've worked in the field of social serve is he the last 15 years. most recently i actually was a manager at one of the shelters here in san francisco for hospitality house. i'm currently still with the agency managing the drop-in center, still working with the homeless population. i'm interested in being a part of the [speaker not understood]. i'm interested in being part of the monitoring committee because i had the opportunity for a little over two years,

been on the receiving end of all of the inspections and policies. so, i'm interested in working with the committee to better some of the goals and policies that the shelters actually have in place with minimal funding. so, with my experience, i'm interested in bringing that to the table, but also bettering some of the standards that are there currently. >> okay. any questions? supervisor cohen. >> thank you. ms. freeman, good to see you. good afternoon. good afternoon. >> i see, too, you have a residency waiver requirement. what city do you live in? i live in the city of vallejo currently. i have been a resident of san francisco for over 30-year. i recently moved out of the city. >> okay. and you said you've been

working in social service here for 15 years, worked with the homeless population. can you talk to me a little bit about the work you've done in the homeless population? yes. so, i've worked in the field of corrections. also i was a social worker within the corrections department. i also worked with probation. i worked with mental health and substance abuse, substance users. also within the shelter system of placing clients directly into treatment. i've done primarily mental health and then the last few years direct services with the homeless population for housing, treatment of all natures. >> and are you currently sitting on this body? no. >> okay. tell me why you're interested in being appointed. i'm interested because, like i said before, i managed a shelter. it is a very different experience on the receiving end of the complaint process and

implementation of all of the standards of care. so, i'm interested in being part of the body that monitors that and have a different perspective as a person and individual who had to manage that from the agency perspective versus an individual who is kind of coming into shelters and not understanding what all the work entails. >> okay, thank you. >> thank you. thank you. >> is there any public comment on this item? speak to us. you have two minutes and please indicate if you support the appointment or not. great, i'm here to voice my support for ray a freeman. as she said she was a long-term resident here. and the reason i think she'd be great i worked with her when she was the shelter provider. i worked with her in my day job as shelter advocate.

it is a long laborious search to try and get people to fill the shelter monitoring committee seats so i think it would be -- the fact that she's actually asking to be seated would be great. like she said she has a great perspective being a service provider. she is a long time community advocate, hospitality house who we work with closely. they still own the shelter -- still run the shelter, i should say. i think it's important to have people of color. as single-family [speaker not understood], however the single adult shelter side, their perspective is definitely necessary on the shelter monitoring committee. i would definitely recommend her for seat 6 and also support deborah mulse as a candidate for seat number 2. thank you. i'm joyce crumb, human services agency. i'd like to speak to the nomination of raija freeman.

i think raija bring a world view to the shelter monitoring committee. she's degreed, she's professional, and i think she looks at it in a different manner because she's on the giving side of services that individuals are receiving. i think one of the things that nick said was that we need more diversity. we certainly do. 65% of the shelter population is african-american and we currently -- i think we might have one african-american that sits on that committee. so, i think the mere fact that when someone goes out to a shelter to conduct a site visit and they can connect with someone that looks like them, opens them up to being real honest about what they feel about the shelter and the things that are going on in the shelter. so, i do definitely support raija's nomination even with

the residency requirement. thank you. >> thank you, ms. crumb. is there any other public comment? seeing none, public comment is now closed. [gavel] >> colleagues, any thoughts? supervisor breed. >> thank you. i did review ms. freeman's application and i found -- i was interested in hearing from her and i'm glad that i was able to. i think that she is -- a uncomfortable as i am with residency waiver requirements, i'm happy to take a chance on moving forward with this recommendation and i'm happy to support a residency requirement because of her work in the shelter community, because of -- i'm familiar with hospitality house and the work that they've done. and clearly we know this is a

different environment. and i really would -- i want someone who has the ability -- someone who has a history with this, who has an understanding and who has a life commitment to this particular cause. and clearly from her resume, from her letters of support, it's clear that she will bring that to the table. and she definitely has a history with san francisco, which i really respect. so, i'm happy to support moving her name forward for seat 6. and also ms. deborah mulse, i'd like to recommend that we move her name forward for seat 2. >> supervisor cohen. >> thank you very much. i wanted just to give a little discussion about the reason why i'm interested in supporting ms. freeman and the residency

waiver requirement. throughout the course of my questioning, i'm trying to extrapolate the breadth and depth of the candidates' experience as well as ascertain their commitment to san francisco. and although mr. burgin lives in san francisco, like you heard in his discussion, just moved here from atlanta and has been in san francisco one year and he's working to find himself, whereas ms. freeman has been working, has been a former san francisco resident for 30 years and just recently moved out of san francisco. and also i think was able to articulate her position and her desire as opposed to in the previous items with ms. hernandez, who was also considered for residency waiver requirement. i am going to support the motion that supervisor breed is discussing and support ms. deborah mulse for seat number 2. and ms. ms. raija freeman for seat number 6. thank you.

>> before we make a -- finalize a motion, i'd like to see if we can accommodate all four of the people who came today. i feel like all four of them have qualifications that could be fairly positive for this committee. and -- because i realize if you look at what they apply for, it didn't work out. if you look at seats 4, 5, and 6, they're identical qualifications. so, if it's a matter of saying whether or not we want to move to a different seat -- i'm sorry, supervisor. ms. wong informed me that those item would not be heard today, seats 4 and 5, because they had not been posted on the web for sfgov for 10 days. so, i told applicants that because you had to submit your

application within a certain time period, i understood miss wong -- unless i misunderstood her -- because the vacancy notification wasn't on the web 10 days -- >> can you speak on the mic? >> yes, sorry. because the agency notification wasn't on the web 10 days prior to today's date, which is the 18th, so, wasn't there on the eighth, that people weren't eligible to apply for seats 4 and 5. >> ms. wong? >> mr. chair, the vacancy notice was posted on march 28, 2013, and it was my understanding that it was communicated to ms. casey. >> the notifications were quite a while, but that was only for seats 2 and 6. the first time that i saw it up was on april 9th and that's when i circulated it. i'm not opposing the candidate, but i'm just letting you know -- usually this item there are several people applying. but the committee specifically

told people that the only seats that would be heard were seats 2 and 6. >> okay, thank you. here's my thoughts for the four people that spoke today. there's four openings and i feel comfortable with all four. so, it's a matter whether we want to accommodate them for a particular seat. i think what we have to do if we wanted to is to ask ms. raija freeman whether she'd be interested in seat 5. and [speaker not understood] and there is strong recommendations for seat 4 ~ tony faataui [speaker not understood]. and [speaker not understood] for seat 6.

i'm throwing it out there for a discussion matter. >> clearly we've heard from candidates that were applying for seat number 2 and seat number 6. i think that's what we should opine on. if there was discrepancy and misinformation on seat number 4 and 5, we can continue those items and allow them an opportunity to come before this body so that we can more, you know, more fair and judicious way hear whether or not they should be appointed. that's my thinking. >> i guess my thought is when you look at the qualification for 4, 5 and 6, they're the same. >> i understand they're the same. but for example, tony fa tau aloe, he's not here because he was under the impression it wasn't going to be heard. he may be as qualified on paper allowing him to come to -- dais, microphone, talk to us about why he's a valid

candidate. i think we shouldn't rob him of that opportunity. ~ i don't know, supervisor breed. do you have any thoughts? >> i agree with you, supervisor cohen. i think my desire is to move the names forward that i originally mentioned and to continue seats 4 and 5 to the call of the chair, and that will allow for more time for the positions to be posted. and at that time, if there are any other members on this list whose names have not been moved forward, they can apply for other seat positions and we will hear this again at a later date. >> okay. in making a motion, would you like to also waive -- motion to include waiving the residency requirement for seat 6? >> yes, i would. >> okay. >> second. >> second? >> um-hm. >> with no objection, then, motion passes. [gavel]

>> so -- >> we're continuing seats -- >> 4 and 5. >> 4 and 5. >> that was part of supervisor breed's motion to continue those seats as well. >> just want to make sure that it's clear. thank you. thank you for people coming and choosing to serve the city. and we're -- i guess, madam clerk, item 4, 5 through 8? >> yes, mr. chair. item 5 through 8 are regarding litigation. would you like to adopt a

motion to move into closed session? >> is there a motion? >> before adopting a motion to go into closed session, the committee should invite public comment on whether to go into closed session on the substance of any of the settlements that the committee will be considering in closed session as well as on whether to disclose confidential information. >> thanks for reminding me. before we entertain a motion to convene into closed session, is there any member of the public who wishes to speak on items 5 through 8? if there are, please come on up and you have two minutes. good afternoon, supervisors. my name is harry lehman. i've worked as a trial lawyer. i've done a lot of 42 usc 1983 work, for example, for 35 years.

i've been deeply involved in the issue with regard to cell phone hazards because of the deaths of four kliegsclose friends. one was particularly close, from [speaker not understood] of west some a. so i've pretty much devoted my life to this at this point. i in substance have seen that this committee is interested in objective study before taking action. i think you should be aware that there have been startling new developments in the area of peer reviewed science in this area that dramatically affect the whole fees motion in terms of the application of 42 u.s.c. 1988. and my job here to you today is to give you straight answer to any question. and in addition to that, point out to you that the general accounting office has directed the f-c-c to conduct a new study because of these indications which is underway now, which drastically affects the whole underlying scientific body of data with regard to this. furthermore, i am going to tender for you for your attention a copy and i have

several here of the february 8th, 2013 letter from a board certified pediatric neurologist at the harvard medical school, strongly showing, which is not the previously perceived science, that nonthermal severe damage does occur. i have here a july 12, 2012 letter from the american academy of pediatrics. i have here a december 12, 2012 letter from the american academy of pediatrics and copy. and i have here the full harvard 60-page study. my request is first that i do think that this should be disclosed, but most importantly i think that this should be continued, just continued because there's been such a development in the peer review data that i believe that it would be improper for this thing to be approved at this point. that's all i have to say. i'll answer any questions. thank you. >> thank you. any questions? thank you very much. [speaker not understood] cards here. arthur davis, are you here? and leslie [speaker not

understood] is next, and james johnson after that. thank you. i'm a scientist. i'm the writer on this book on cell phone safety. i was a professor at mount sinai. [speaker not understood]. i won the nobel prize with al gore and a group of scientists and i'm here today to tell you as the president of the environmental health trust why i believe that this law that you passed is very important. it has already had a major impact. the law being considered environmental health trust work with the supervisors with harry lehman who just spoke, distinguished attorney, ellie [speaker not understood]. it should send a message to you this is an important public health measure. last week i testified before the d.c. city council on the same issue. you actually have inspired the world. i have met with mayors in helsinki alone and people are taking up the message that people have a right to know about cell phone safety. you've set a very shining

example. jackson hole, wyoming, and poem broke, florida passed a law about the right know about cell phones. but it didn't require posting information at the point of sale. your information is widespread. i am releasing to you today a new study that is just today about the galley written with [speaker not understood] the chief of neurooncology at the university of california san diego as well as some of the world's top epidemiologists and we find in that study something quite important to the bill that you passed, which is that those who began using cell phones as teen agers have four to eight more times brain cancer by the time 10 years has lapsed. rosemary has seeded her time to me if i may continue. >> you only have two minutes. thank you. the science today is stronger than it was at the time you passed this law. i will read you a quote from the directeder of the international agency for the r on cancer, christopher wild who said, on behalf of the world

health organization which decided that cell phone radiation is a, "possible human carcinogen," he made this remark. "given the potential consequences of public health of this classification it is important that additional research be conducted. pending the availability of such information it is important to take pragmatic measures to reduce exposure such as hand-free device or texting. >> thank you. and that advice has been echoed -- >> do you have a written of ha? >> i can send this to you by e-mail. i have the article that was published today. >> okay, thank you. and i have been given two minutes by another speaker. >> i'm not giving it. you're not? >> no. everybody has two minutes. sorry. thank you. good afternoon, supervisors. my name is leslie [speaker not understood] and i am a san francisco resident. i wish to express my gratitude to the board of supervisors who voted unanimously passing the

right to know legislation. your action has encouraged other cities and states that have a desire to pass similar legislation. the cell phone right to know fact sheet is a vital part of the legislation as it provides essential information to an unknowing public and it has potential to save live. i urge you to stand firm on this issue and allow san francisco to retain its authority to govern without corporate interference. i respectfully request that you vote against the proposed settlement. san francisco need to retain the right to know. thank you very much. >> thank you. and then joe johnson, maya cain, morgan [speaker not understood]. timer going off right here, i have two minutes? >> um-hm. james earle johnson. i am the chairman and founder of a company called borders technology. you have a paper in front of you that i submitted. i have been in this project for

about 10 years developing new antenna technology. we have been acknowledged by the fcc as advanced technology who supported us in the development of new technology. without your help, this new technology may not make it. the invisible hand of the economy doesn't work without regulatory force. san francisco and california has lead the industry and the world in an environmental and ergonomic issues. this issue is an environmental ergonomic issue next to the head of billions of people. i won't get into the technology, but i've spoken in helsinki, in china, in europe, and i can tell you i can also represent some of the telcom executives who say this is right on. just keep the pressure going and don't put it behind doors. thank you. >> thank you, mr. [speaker not understood]. [speaker not understood] for san francisco word of life.

i've given my time to ellie marks. i'm here to tell you i was made an electrically sensitive person. [speaker not understood]. i have memory problems so bad i couldn't speak after only three months. now there is so much emf and rf in the atmosphere that what you are considering today really, really is important to everybody who is being washed over by all this wi-fi. i just -- i really wish that i could have given my time to ellie markses. i can't tell you, because right now i'm sleeping in three different places in the city. one is a warehouse in hunters point because the place that i own has 24 smart meters on it. i'm like four stories up and half a block away and i can't sleep. after half an hour i have a

headache and [speaker not understood] is sky high like right now because i was sitting in this room for so long waiting to speak. i really wish you would listen to your [speaker not understood] and know that you have a huge opportunity here for the rest of the world to just lead, okay. thank you. >> thank you. lloyd morgan. and then tony stein, and rose marie [speaker not understood]. hi, i'm a senior researcher with environmental health trust. i'm also a member of two international scientific organizations, the epidemiology consortium and bio[speaker not understood] society. i'm also a board member of the [speaker not understood] of the united states. this june the bioelectric magnetic society has invited me, in fact, a key person who is the architect of the exposure limits has invited me to talk about how children receive more radiation than adults do and cell phones.

even if industry is shifting its position concerning the increase risk to children, but san francisco is going to cave to the industry, i would urge you not to cave to the industry. the ctia is forcing this agreement upon the city, the city passed it unanimously and we have a right to know. i would also suggest that you should not go into closed session because the settlement is already publicly available. thank you. good afternoon. thank you. my name is tony stein, and i have a ph.d. in environmental engineering and i work for the state of california in the department of general services and environmentally preferable purchasing. i worked three years in the

department of public health and environmental quality. i'm here to tell you that it is so important for the local government that you are to be aligned with the federal government's work and the federal government ha on its own website, sec website, everything that is in the signage that is in the right to know. and we really need to pass the message along to the public for public health service, to provide them with the information that is aligned with our federal government. it is so important for us as local agencies to inform the public and what is the fcc puts right into the phone. here's my iphone which i safely use and follow. it's right in our own iphones. yet, if you don't know how to access that information, you won't know. most people don't know what i know and what you all now know. it's so important for us to

give people the right to know and make choices when they use their phone to use it safely. apply best practices. it is so important for us, especially i have a child 14 and a child 12, that we need to pass this along. thank you so much. bye, now. >> thank you. and rosemary and then stephanie thomas, ellie marks and stephen krolig. hi, i'm rosemary binsco. i would also like to come out in favor of the right to know and ask you not to cave in to the industry. there's so many things that the cell phones do even if people are trying to use them as safely as possible. for example, if you're riding in a train in an enclosed metal area, then it affects everybody around the person using the

cell phone. these kind of things i think are important for people to know, especially if they have a pacemaker or anything that's going to weaken them. so, that's really it for me. i think it's very important to let people know. >> thank you. hello, good afternoon. i'm stephanie thomas. speaking on item 8 and against any settlement. i'm in favor of the right to know, favor of having a fact sheet such as this at the point of sale. i think it's very important educating people about how to protect themselves about the radio frequency from the cell phone. it's very important. people lead very busy lives, complex lives and are also not informed how they can protect themselves against many of the increasingly toxic