>> i am going to give my comments here. >> i would like to thank everybody who showed up tonight and gave your comments on both sides. supervisor chiu, you have always been there for us for small business. and on this one, though, i have to agree with my colleagues i do feel that it was rushed and i still am not coming to grips as to why we can't do this legislatively, i don't understand why we need to do it to the ballot. and i know that they do it in these other country, if that is the case let the federal government deal with it. i do believe that most companies including my own and everybody in this room, we all do it. and this is something not right about this at the moment for myself.

so we need to step back and i think that if it was what several people said tonight and if was just as simple as an employee asking, and an employer, you know, for flex time that is it. we don't need to have this, you know, scheduling a week out, two weeks out and all that have other stuff. i do appreciate you talking with the chamber and other small business groups on these amendments but to me i don't think that is enough and i think that we need to just step back and relook at this and come up with another solution, so, you know, it is palatable to everyone. >> commissioner rilely? >> i have a question for supervisor chiu? >> after hearing all of the comments and all of the speakers, would you consider changing the process to go through the legislative process instead of putting it on the

ballot? >> i will think about it as i answered to commissioner dwight, i think that it is important to have a public discussion about this for the reasons that we are talking about it. and i have a lot of several thoughts that i would like to respond to some aspects of this. first i want to take a moment and thank not only the commission for your consideration, but the members of the public. and on both sides of this issue, i know that a lot of people have strongly held views and i appreciate the views even though we may not always agree on these things and i want to appreciate the comments from the business comment in support of the very simple idea that an employee should have the right to ask. and why many of us think and hope that in all of our businesses that is the case, that is not the case, it is not the case in san francisco, and every place of employment, not the place throughout california and not the place in our country. and i have also heard the idea that we should do this nationally and i will say part of the reason that i am here is that this very proposal has

been proposed in four congress and not passed. so advocates have us to come up and step up because in san francisco we have thought differently and we have progressive employees that know that this is important. let me also to say to commissioner yee riley comments, i am willing to consider amendments and i would love to hear the thoughts about what they may be and let me throw out the thoughts. i understand that while predictbility and scheduling is a real issue with employees in the city and around the country, i appreciate that the provisions that we put in may not do it exactly as clearly as we would like and so i would love the feedback on that. the definition of the family, i think that commissioner dooley raise thiseds and others and needs to be tightened up. the city economist has raised a number of issues that we are happy to look at. the threshold for the size of the business that this ought to

apply to. if that is something that is important to this commission i am willing for that. >> i would like to address a couple of things from the audience, the painter case or the restaurant, who all of a sudden does not have enough people coming some night and the concern that if there is a predictable schedule that was committed to that would create liability for an employer, we put in the language to address this when unmet with the advocates in the network this issue was raidsed our legislation says that for employer who is granted a predictable arrangement if they have insufficient work for the employee and provides reasonable notice to the employees nothing in this ordinance requires them to compensate the employee during such a period of insufficient work. and we put that around reasonable notice, we know for different reasons it means different things, in the law you use the adjective for a

particular industry how do we make it fit. for the restaurant industry it is this number hours or for the painting industry it is that many hours but we put in that phrase because we think that people understand what reasonable might mean. but again, i appreciate that there are issues or questions around that and so i am open to thinking about that. there is an issue that we are discriminating in favor of one class of folks, say the parents with kids and let me just suggest that the way that the legislation is currently drafted i think that everyone in this room that some day if you don't have kids that you need to take care of. you will have somebody that lives in your family a spouse, a partner, a brother and a sister and a father and a grandfather, who you need to take care of. and so this legislation now is drafted in such a way to allow anyone in that situation because i think that everyone will be a care taker or giver some day and we wanted to make it flexible for that. >> now, let me just also make a couple of broader points.

i have to say that some of you know that this has been a bit of a painful conversation as president adams pointed out i have been for the past ten years in san franciscan advocate for the small business community and i think that at our board of supervisors i have passed more legislation for the small business community than anyone on the board. to eliminate dozens of fees and stream line invoicing and to insure that we are providing contract to local businesses and ada lawsuits, and last year we all worked for aner tire year to pass the business tax reform so that our business tax break will not apply to certain companies that come to the tech community but all of the companies in particular from the small business community. i also want to address the fact that someone who ran a small busy ran a business fof nine years. we had 30 and 40 employees during the course of those five years, we made a decision in the first couple of years because we had the young employees who were starting to

have kids and starting to ask us could i work at home? could i work at night as posed to in the morning. and we face aid tough choice, but decided that we wanted to provide more flexible working arrangements for our employees and this led to incredible dividends for our company. we had many of the parent employees never left our company and stayed with us for the entire tenure that i was with the company because we knew that they were working hard, when they were not at the job, they figured out a way with the flexible work arrangement to be productive and that was something that we saw worked within our company. now, i also hear that a lot of folks say, hey, if you want to do things for families, there are other things that you can do, and i acknowledge that, but the board of supervisors we don't have any jurisdiction over the schools but i have worked to insure that the city is developing a record number of housing than we have seen in years, last year we passed a

major trust fund to develop more housing a top concern for families. i have been working hard to how to make the transit system better, for families. this i am not going to claim this an idea that will turn everything around but this has to be part of the equation, how we as a city can create a workplace that is bet foreall of the working family and how we define the families is important. and then the last thing that i want to say is a suggestion that this is going to continue to drive the businesses out of the city. and iment to say, that we have heard this when it came to other policies that the city has passed. this policy unlike sick leave or healthcare or minimum wage, does not cost businesses any hard dollars. but, even though we have all of those other policis in place if you put this next to those it is very modest. even with those other policis in place, right now in san francisco we have a booming economy, we are the envy as at city. and not only to the rest ofthe

state but to the rest of the country with the policies in place and so i will submit that the opportunity for us to say as a city that we want to allow for flexible working arrangements for families and it is a modest idea and i think that if we stand up and do this, i actually believe as i said that hopefully in the near future, that this will be the case throughout the country and i think that we need a nudge to be able to do that and i hope that we can start that? san francisco and let me just close by saying, that i certainly understand the sentiment of this commission but i would like to have some more direct feedback if you want in the coming days and what specifically you think should be addressed and i will take that into account and consider it seriously. >> commissioner dwight. >> that i think we all

appreciate the spirit of your proposal. i don't know that anyone here as questioned the spirit or questioned the economic and human tar an incentives for accommodating employees not only in flexible work schedules but in the myriad of other benefits that frankly have been pioneered in this area. whether it be flexible schedules or bring your dog to work or having gourmet food to work or whatever it might be. there are benefits and they vary by company as competitive tools to try to attract the young employees and families and employees as old as i am. but, i find it difficult to get my head around passing a law to validate something that we already do. because i think that laws beget all sorts of unintended consequences i think that it

sets a precedent for just creating more laws, laws upon laws, and laws, in our society have a down side, as well as an upside. and we are in a extraordinary letigus society and this will come with a certain cost and i don't think that you can't say that it will come with a cost but to say that it is going to make san francisco more attractive is a read herring, we are an attractive place to be and we are moving it every day and our economy improves daily and people want to come here and companies want to locate here and the employees are demanding that they want to be in the city now and not in the suburbs at least some of the young ones and i think that the flights of the suburbs is a natural flight and sometimes, it is a temporary one for raising children and people want to have a yard where they can have the kids who want to run around and have a fence and want to live in the apartments and that is typically not a

characteristic of housing in the city. it is just not. it is vertical and not horizontal and i think that some of those things just are natural. it is not about whether we are friendly or hostile. it is about we are different. and we are different at different phases of life. and so, i just don't feel that passing a law to assert something that we are already well known for is really necessary. i think that is much of the opposition. again, i don't think that anyone here has argued with the sentiment and with the spirit of the proposal. so, that is kind of about it. i mean, everyone seems to are unanimous and one thing that is troubling is the speed at which it progressed and it has been progressed and sort of the process from here on out and the idea that it will get

forced on the ballot regardless. and that there is just going to happen and i think that we feel that we are being the small businesses, the businesses in general are being characterized as somehow not family-friendly by the mere marketing, of this proposal. and that, i think, is offensive to many of us. because we are very family friendly, we are just people friendly. that is san francisco, that is our heritage and many different dimensions not just business. so here we are. tonight, with a sort of litany of proposed changes that we hope that you will consider and kind of an impass as not knowing how to proceed from here. and whether some of these suggestions will be implemented, and whether the process is going to become a little more or a little less kie on chaotic and a little

more tempered and so i am at a loss as to what kind of a motion to make. >> commissioner o'brien? >> i am reminded of probably two years ago, supervisor campos came before us with proposal and legislation and forgive me for not remembering the exact specifics but there is a lot, commonality with that and it was unanimously rejected by the commission from both sides, people progressive and people that are conservative or moderate. and it was about implementing for the small few employers that did not implement some program and the question was asked that how many of the bad people are you trying to tackling here and you can see that most of the people are good and it is not going to impact anybody because most of the people are good and so it

kind of regards to the logic and it is just a few bad apples and you can't legislate to deal with a few bad apples and president chiu, this is kind of reminding me of that discussion, the way that i see it, going down, frankly, and discuss in the terms of which way the legislation is going to go. and i am not crazy, about the idea of give me some amendments, feed me the amendments about because i think that there is some fundamental issues with the idea in the first place, i mean that there are questions about the requirement of it. is it something that is needed? how many bad people do we have? i mean, it sounds like you have conversed with some people that have convinced you that this is legislation that is needed. and qualified by saying, you know, most of the people are

gooded people, we like to just cotify this and just put something on the ballot. and i am kind of saying that it is a moderate proposal and not convinced that this is moderate and i know as a person who runs a small business, every time that i have to deal with an issue, it burns up band width on my day to when i work to go to work and go home, it is not going to be light or moderate, i think that it is going to be serious. it is very hard to make it happen any other way. and i want to work with people that are, you know, i want to be part of the solution and not part of the problem, but i am kind of with my fellow commissioner dwight here, and i don't know, we like to, and we never like to throw something out and throw it back at somebody and say forget it. we never like to and we try to get everybody to come in on

unumbrella and we work really hard, we are almost like a jury and we try to get everybody behind something, and we are clearly struggling with this one. that is really wearing me a lot. and i am like martha and i am kind of, we are, how do i get to find something that is allowing the process forward, to the amendments and the amendments not as crazy. and i think that the legislative process might be a better way to go and that might come up worse who knows. but at least it gives it the chance of there is more time for this to weigh in and more, and the idea of the public has to get into to involved in the ballot measure and i am not convinced by that argument. and i do agree that the people that leave in the business sf san francisco and that does not impress me any more when there is a development, when there is going to be parking and a lot

to the community and i am never convinced by that, i believe that the business will still be? san francisco, but there could be a price to be paid that we don't know about the people who make that decision to leave, so i don't think that it is going to kill the economy but it would be in spite of it. i will stop there. >> commissioner dooley? >> supervisor chiu? what would you be interesting from us in terms of do you want us to give you our long list of amendments? >> you know, whatever the commissioner would like to do, i know that the hour is late and a lot of folks are waiting this evening. i am happy to receive that feedback f one of the things that you want to do is direct the staff to gather the feedback that is a different option than trying to hash the different issues. i had run down a number of issues that i had heard to be addressed around predictbility and family definition and economy issues, we will be looking at all of that.

i think that i have a sense of what the issues are. but this matter is in your hands. >> how much time do we have you know, in terms of if we want to with the business community go through all of these amendment and make the changes and i am trying to figure if there is a time frame. >> i will tell you that i am planning to introduce a raft of amendments at our committee on thursday. they will sit in committee for another meeting or more, depend og where that legislation goes, and we are having the first hearing and this coming thursday, and i would like to be able to incorporate good feedback from this commission and others. and in the coming days, by thursday. and then, of course, you know, after that, we will continue the conversation, but, i will also say that while we have been doing a lot of... i mean

the fact of the matter is that over the past month we have done a tremendous amount of work and we have taken more meetings and given feedback and trying to find it in the last month and any single piece of legislation that i have carried with this year and i am continuing to do that and i have had a conversations with a number of you and business leaders and small business leaders here in this room and beyond. and we will continue to do that in the coming days. >> commissioner dwight? >> i just want to say, when we leave this room that i have been a support of you, and i acknowledge and appreciate and applaud all that you have done on behalf of business but on behalf of sound government in san francisco and goodness knows that we have needed some adults in the city hall. and you were definitely one of those people who have good, sound, thinking. this is where, i think that some of us have sort of our cognitive dissonance is that despite all of that, this one

we don't feel, is in the same, is in the same realm. and that is why we are struggling. >> the fact of the matter, that we all see this issue in the different ways and i just personally had hundreds of conversations with employees who struggle every day in this city, and now they may not work for your company and they may not feel comfortable bringing it up with companies that you are a part of. for whatever reason, the situation exists and so, we may have a little bit of a discriminate on the need for it and i do feel that it is important for us to say that with the legislation or about the measure that we need to do something in this area and this is not an issue that i am going to back off on. but i am more than willing to take the feedback on how we take a step in the right direction to try to address what i see, and i think that most folks see asen issue. and by the way, we do appreciate by the way for the comments on that and i have the

honor of working with many of you on the issues that we agree are sound policy for san francisco. >> we are having the conversation, thank you. >> director? >> just to provide you maybe with a little bit of options on direction. you may not want to make a formal, you know, recommend not recommend, because you know, the legislation is still being worked on. you could provide a list of that has already been discussed by you have whether the concerns, and ad this point, why you may not support it. and you have heard direct comments from the business community on things that they specifically would like to see addressed being, you know, i think, striking, language around the predictable work

environment. and the definition of family, the number threshold, how, when a change is made to the legislation, that there is two different requirements between the employee and the employer. so, you could provide some direction, and in terms of listing some of the specific concerns that the business community has brought to you, without giving a formal recommendation one way or the other and so i am not sure if i am making myself clear. but i think, for, the supervisor, and to provide this will be in committee, and to provide any direction or comment to other supervisors that are in the committee in terms of what this commission thinks. and in terms of the legislation and where it is now and then

also, providing, direction to the board of supervisors, on what is clearly has been expressed from the small business community here tonight. >> if that makes sense? >> commissioner dwight? >> yeah, i think that we are sort of duty bound to state our position and we do that in the form of a motion so that we can express our position and see if we can, and you can gauge how we all come down on that and i think that if there is a motion to be made then i would move, i move, that we have expressed that we do not support the legislation or the ordinance as presently drafted. and that we request, a number of changes which i would rather

not have to enmerate in the motion but they come from us and other con stit entcies of yours and that we will reconsider this ordinance after we see the amended document. >> i think that given the sentiment, that probably captures. >> i might have done something different if i were on the commission but i understand it. >> i would like to see the reference to the possibility that you said that you consider going to the legislative route as opposed to a ballot initiative? could we just ask that that be considered? >> and and as part of the motion that we express our preference, that this and through the process and not through the ballot process.

period. >> i feel that the concerns that are raised are equally aimed at about measure or a piece of legislation and i understand that it has a slightly different process, but i would like to just have a little bit more of a sense of if you are saying the legislative route it really makes a difference, does that mean, i am not sure if that means, commissioner dwight, that you would end up supporting this at some point. >> i think that the legislative process makes a huge difference and i think that it, i don't think that... i just don't see that the legislative process verses the about process and either one preempts having or even prefers having a public discussion. and i think that we are benefit by having a longer public dialogue in the form of editorial and the terms of the public and we could have a

discussion. and it is an interesting issue and one that has been dealt with in other country and one that has attention at our federal level and one that we think are a stand up city, and when it comes to this. and so, maybe it is a celebration, can begin with the public dialogue that will happen through you taking this through the legislative process rather than the ballot process. i for one would be more supportive if we have that process. >> go ahead. >> president, i wonder if we should instruct the staff to capture all of this suggestions? key suggestions tonight? and forward that to supervisor chiu? >> yes, i would agree with that. >> commissioner o'brien? >> i just want to and i think that it is a fair question, president chiu asked, so for me, fundamentally i worry about

the case of city government, regulating how businesses operate, i mean, i will be honest with you i start out with that because, as all things be neutral, i prefer for the businesses to make their decisions to be good, corporate citizens as much as possible and i know that there has to be laws. that said, if i believe in my heart, that i could be convinced if i were to witness a fully engaged dialogue through the legislative process and i listened to the likes of supervisor weiner or supervisor campos and others all hearing this out and then other people having an opportunity to weigh in to it and there was not the rushed feel that maybe i could get behind it. so, that would be my answer to that question about going through that legislative process, it would make a difference for me. >> do we have a motion and do

we have a second? >> can chris read the motion back? >> i did have one, and i will read the first part and i have a question. part of the motion that i have from commissioner dwight was do not support as presently drafted requesting the number of changes and we will considering the following amendments and preference through the legislative process. now, i believe that commissioner yee riley. and requested the motion that staff compiled the key amendments from the business community and incorporate in the response and do you want to make that part of the motion? >> i think that is yes, if you need to make it specific, that is fine. >> i just want to make sure that is captured. >> i just want to be sure. >> my desire to have the supervisor's office consider the changes that have been recommend and if we want to include in the motion that our staff that the office of small

business staff enumerate those that is fine. directors does that work for you? >> yes, it does. but, i'm not sure, i mean, it does to a point. but i'm not sure if it captures the current sort of discussion that is happening, around the ballot measure verses the legislation. >> i don't know how we will do that other than to ask president chiu and he said earlier that he would be willing to consider that right. and so, beyond, making the recommendation, that he would give preference to that and i think that is a better way to go based on the amount of time that i have, right now i feel a bias towards that and i would like to see the recommendation to try to consider that. >> one step that you can take is taking a vote on this particular motion and then doing a second motion saying that