the street was going to be renamed the fight that broke out how difficult it was to rename the street. there will be always difference of opinion but it's important for us to make sure that we honor and respect those people who have fought not just for the working class but all lgbt people. this also creates a place where we can have heroes that are recognized everywhere to the lgbt community also in a way that their work is honored. thank you >> thank you any other public

comment at this time. >> seeing none, public comment is closed. >> first of all, i want to thank supervisor campos for bringing this ordinance forward to the board and his ability and willingness to listen to the public which there was a suggestion to rename the airport and the reasons why people not be willing to be as supportive of that it's an airport branding issue. so at this point this ordinance states yes, we want a terminal named after harry admissible and this task force will figure out which one. and this task force will provide the public forum for people to provide their input and suggestions. and being somewhat selfish

having that being heard at the board of supervisors and i'm really happy to be a part of this ordinance. as a co- sponsor with you. so i want to make sure that there's some understanding. the airport commission which has a committee also have really fine people on that committee and this task force will have 9 members. there's no yonl i don't believe there's any rules in here that's saying many of the members of the other committee couldn't be on this task force. actually, i'm hoping that there will be some overlap to bring in some the time they spent on this discussion. so i'm going to wait to see if

i'm correct or incorrect. >> deputy city attorney john. the ordinance before you would provide that no member of this committee that you'll be creating can be a member of another board committee or advisory board in the city that 0 would prevent overlap if the committee passes this today >> if i may add in my conversations with the mayor's office and sort of the intent was to not necessarily to exclude the advisory bodies i think we should have this overlap so if that would require, you know, amendment that and taking that wording out i would sincerely ask the committee to make a motion to do

that because that was not the intent. >> thank you. >> i stand corrected and i will hopefully, this committee will make that correction for me. so that's sort of my comments and supervisor breed >> just a point of clarification. i actually saw that part in the resolution and i think it mentioned that no one who serves on any committees i think is definitely appropriate so i'm trying to understand what we would amend it for anything else >> i think what i'm hearing to the stent there's some overlap between the work that the airports advisory committee has done or is doing that it might be appropriate for the advisory

body language to be deleted so that the reference is more think commissions. i know for the mayor's office it was important that folks who were serving on city commissions they focus on that as opposed to this work but the work is short term and it's, you know, a shorter period of time and less consuming. so the reason i'm open deleting the language i see supervisor yees point there maybe some benefit to have the option. the board ultimately and the mayor ultimately decide who gets appointed so the board any decide you that's not a good way to go but that's not an option

>> okay. and if you could let us know which area i'm assuming the voices board par and the seco question i had about the resolution was the lack of an expiration of a fireman. i know the rules in the past we had a situation where we couldn't necessarily remove anyone from a specific committee because there were no expiration date and i know that i'm assuming that most task forces because their for a specific purpose don't necessarily need an extradition date because once they complete their purpose the work is done and we move on. but in this particular case with the idea of potentially looking into naming other terminals i

think this may be a longer are term task force than that we would anticipate and i just wanted to know what their colleagues thought and i as the author of this legislation about potentially adding an expiration to the term >> when i read it was clear that it was a time - let's see - after 3 months from the initial meetings this task force would spe spend. >> deputy city attorney. the 3 months after the inaugural meeting you must send to the

committee which terminal to name for harvey admissible and then there's an additional a 9 months if the board wants to extend the life of the committee you can do that by it's enlightened as a 12 month life >> if i may supervisor it was important for me to make sure that there was a narrow mandate and a set time the work was to be completed. we thought 12 months would be appropriate but if you believe longer i'm open to that. if the sunset date approaches and the board decides we need to have more time then, you know, you can introduce an ordinance extending we can do it by

introducing on ordinance down the road >> i just wanted to know what you all thought about whether or not we should do it and it's a pretty ambitious temp i guess we're going to be meeting with the folks and making recommendations and they'll be going dlots process and once they have that first meeting we expect this passes through the board we're talking about before even that first meeting in another couple of months even. but there will be for clarity i know theries says that there should be full cooperation to support this task force and will there be real paid support to insure the success of the

information of the task - i mean, i'm sure you thought about all those things like i know with the task force there have been challenges with trying to complete a specific task within a timeframe but i thought things through this is an ambitious timeline and i guess when wore looking at the possibility of naming other terminals are we indoctrinate going to rush this task force to come up with names for other terminals or do we want to think about something like that on a long-term basis >> i would be open to provide more flexibility maybe 18 months with the option of adding more time, you know.

like i said i really wasn't we did to a specific time i wanted to have something in this in terms of a sunset. and in terms of creating a couple of the task forces it's important to make sure the right level of staffing the mayor's office and the airport will make sure that happens >> and my final comments i want to support moving this forward i want to commend supervisor campos in working with so many individuals it's been a challenge for you and i just stepped down out on faith. oftentimes we dealt with a couple of years ago our former mayor stepped out on faith and

said you should mayor who you want to marry now look at the effects of everything we as a city have done in terms of stepping out on faith and you taking this role of leadership to push the envelope for san francisco could be something truly amazing for our city. i know it's not always easy and that you have been beat up even with folks of

>> i say we remove the advisory body language in terms of who can be a member of this task force and second to change the section that says that there will be a telephone calendar month to change that to 18 months. so those are the two i would ask the committee >> so move forward. >> i'll second, that. i guess we should have a

>> thanks supervisor cowen is back. >> so this is a motion and a second seeing none, opposition this is for the amendment so the amendment passes. a motion for the to put this recommendation to the full board >> second. >> yes. >> no objection so this moves forward has moved thank you very much supervisor and thank you to the public for your comments. at this point item no. 7 >> new mexico 7 motion submitted to the voters to allow san francisco base employees who are caregivers to ask for certainty rights that are due hardships and given advancement

in work schedules and inter - i am sorry prohibit interference or retaliation against the employees and records with compliance with the office of enforcement standards of the ordinance in an collective bargaining all the time and the election to be held on november 5, 2013. >> at this moment i'd like to introduce president chiu. i want to thank the members of the public who have been patient. i want to thank the supervisors for their co- sponsorship of

this this is the family friendly workplace ordinance and we have a quick presentation to explain this measure >> oh, sftv if you could hit itself power point on the laptop that would be great. so this is the measure to address the challenges the enormous challenges in the workplace. we know in the 1950s that leave it to beaver and the beaver cleaver family was the standard model of our families. with a male breadwinner a wife that worked in the home. this has changed substantially over the year.

we had divorce that changed but over the decades single-family holidays have download. we know how incredibly hard it is for folks to justifiable their work and family obligations. women have entered the workforce in a troublesomely humanely way. when it comes to participation they make up 40 percent of the first names but in most them of of the families care of giving is juggled again. when it comes to the typical chart over the last decades there have been humanely shifts. the traditionally beaver cleaver family only represents one out of 5 families and so what does

it mean to the typical caregiver first year it means the typical parents and employee who has kids are juggling they're doing a lot of juggling their juggling soccer games and other things. studies should that 90 percent of american families are experiencing conflicts between their works and schedules and that includes san francisco that has the least number of children in any city. we started looking around for policies to address that. we're here to talk about a policy that would provide the so-called right to ask for flexible shlg. policy would create a safe place

between employers and employees over potential flexible working arrangements. whether or not to have a job share etc. the policy has 3 simple steps is an employee can request a flexible work she would and there would be a requirement if there is a denial to go over it. and great britain and others mremdz those experiences. in britain in the first year of the implementation of this act over a million asked for the requests and many of the requests were grenade. now given this has worked in

other countries what do american policymakers think there are many policymakers who like this. you may recognize 3 of the 4 folks here sponsored the bills ted kennedy and mr. president, and hill clind. now the president had a summit on this topic and secretary hillary clinton stepped down from her position and talked about those issues. and we have the gentleman from pennsylvania and it's been introduced in every congress but has not passed.

base this hadn't passed in congress advocates are asking us to do this. vermont legislature a couple of week ago passed a measure that will go in effect with a policy like this. why has this idea been popular. it's a very popular idea with employers. this policies has turned anti to be good for employers and why do you ask. if a employee restless a flexible schedule that works for family and their caretaker needs he or she satisfaction with his loyalty and production goes up. the turnover rates for those

employees goes significantly down. my experience demonstrated f this in the early days of our companies we had kids in their 20s and we were faced with the hours of our workplace and we decided we wanted to provide flexibility and it was a bit of a scary choices. and it turned out that our policy we put into place was very successful and our turnover particularly young parents went down next to zero and employees were very satisfied with the

fact they had flexibility. if they weren't working at 89 in the morning or late at night this worked very well >> and, in fact, many studies have shown that there is is significant impact to those types of policies. my office we've put together the paperwork. we know their millions of home care works that are unpaid. and absent costs the country a $6.5 billion. a study from a few years ago

showed the lack of flexibility costs $2,000 a year for employees been absent. and in fact, we'll soon here is ted here? we have our city economists that is our required mandated report but quickly to the punch line. the report states it's highly linkage this will exceed kits costs over benefits. next slide. so under the legislation whose eligible. i need to be physically pled in san francisco working for a employer that has over 20 employees. and it captures the largest 4 thousand businesses.

the ordinance will apply if you work at least 40 hours a week and we decided to limit this in countries they limit the requests per year and we thought two would make sense because parents have to deal with school schedules. now who could be permitted as an employee it would involve anyone in care giving. not just the basketball practices or kids sick at home we're talking about anyone who has to deter a sick domestic partner or spouse as well as seniors. we've heard from many folks in the sandwich jaergs who are taking care of painters and this

allows for the whole idea of care giving. and everyone could misinformed b be in one of those situations. the ordinance starts with the employee to request the change of number of hours or location or the predictability in the workplace. or when our expected to show up at your jobs. then the employer will have an opportunity to accept or deny our questions. my employer could turn down a request based on any reason if there's any identifiable costs if the employer can't meet the demand or if the employees can't

meet the work or if there's not enough work. and the experiences in other countries the have not been requests are granted if the request is denied there's an opportunity for the employer to think about the request. by simply asking for this flexible arrangements the employer shall not discriminate. now our office of labor enforcement would be in charge of enforcing this rule and the permissions states they can't have a specific appeal if there is a bitter employee they can't request the o s e to have a meeting it's in their discretion

to follow up. it would be limited to making sure there's a request that goes through the process of the conversation with the employer other than discretion and there's a statute violation penalty. i want to say since we've introduced this we've made a lot of amendments and colleagues identify circulated to you a summary of many arrangements and there's the predictability ability. we initially had some requests about being able to know when the employees are supposed to show up at work we heard that employees were he needing to have some certainty to go to the

doctor's appointment and frankly the provisions we went through a lot of meaningless and we don't have a resolution on that today we've taken all that language out expect that a employee can request predictability ability. i want to thank the small business community as well as advocates working for families this is a topic for further discussion i intended to convene some more meetings to resolve those but it's not to be resolved in a quick manner. we have delineated and narrowed what we referred to around appeals so the appeals apply to employers for whom osc have investigated and found some