2014. san >> hello. okay. let's get started. welcome to our rules committee meeting for thursday, june 5, 2014. i'm supervisor yee and i'll be cheering this meeting. i'm joined by supervisor tang and supervisor campos. the clerk today is alisa miller. the committee would like to acknowledge the staff of sfgtv, mark bunch and tom loftus who recorded each of our meetings and make the transcripts available to the public online. we're joined by supervisor wiener who

will be discussing the first item. in fact, madam clerk can you please, are there announcements. >> make sure to silence electrons and cell phones. complete speakers cards to be included as part of the file. items will appear on the board of supervisor's agenda unless otherwise stated. >> madam clerk e please call item number one. >> ordinance amending the municipal elections code to prohibit any person from submitting more than one ballot argument per measure for selection as either the proponent's argument or opponent's argument; and to require each author of a proposed proponent's or opponent's ballot argument to swear that the author is not an official or paid advocate for the contrary position. >> ordinance amending the municipal elections code to prohibit any person from submitting more than one ballot argument per measure for selection as either the proponent's argument or opponent's argument; and to require each author of a proposed proponent's or opponent's ballot argument to swear that the author is not an official or paid advocate for the contrary position. >> thank you. so supervisor wiener is the author of this ordinance and he's here to discuss it. i'll turn it over to wiener. >> thank you for providing me the opportunity to discuss item number 1 which is a basic common sense

and long, long overdue reform of our ballot, official ballot argument process to make sure that the system is not gamed as it has been in the past. under our law as you know, the voters receive a voter handbook and for each ballot measure, in addition to paid arguments, there's an official proponents argument and official proponents argument. this is one of the few ways that a balance measure regardless of how much money they had to spend, regardless if they have an army of volunteers or paid operative, can make their argument to the voters about why they should vote for or against a particular ballot measure. it's the only opportunity for that to happen regardless of how much money a campaign has. and the voters frankly when they say the quote on quote official proponents argument or quote on quote

official opponent argument, the voters understandably assume this is actually the campaign in favor of the ballot measure or the campaign against the ballot measure. in terms of the integrity of the process, it's important that we have the proponents and opponent arguments be made by proponents or opponents. we have seen over the years, the current process be abused and the process has always been that one person can submit as many -- if there's more than one opponent or proponents argument being submitted, there's a lottery conducted to select which will be the official argument. over the years we've seen people submit sometimes dozens of proponents or opponent arguments and they'll take the same arguments and tweak it and

submit 20 or 30 or more of the same argument, so if you're the actual opponent or proponents and you in good faith submit one argument thinking, okay, i'm going to go into the lottery, little do you know, that someone else submitted 50 and they're going to swamp you in the lottery and they're going to win. so we've seen that happen a number of times over the year, but even when the gaming was occurring, it was the case as far as anyone can recall that the person who was selected to be on the official proponents or opponent or proponents or opponent of the ballot. the process leading up to the selection of the official proponents and opponent, somebody who was very -- was ultimately the campaign

manager submitted 25 arguments as the official proponents and selected as the official component although he was the campaign manager for the other side. that makes a farce of our process. it misleads the voters and it absolutely does not serve democracy well. so this legislation would do two simple things. it would require when you submit an official proponents or opponent argument, you have to certify under penalty under perjury and you are not in a define group of people with the opposite campaign. that you're not campaign manager on a campaign committee, either being compensated or promise of compensation by the opposite side. a very simple certification under penalty of perjury. and then the second thing it would do is require that people submit no more than one. that if you want to submit an official proponents or opponent argument and you

want to be considered to be the official proponents or opponent, you should submit one argument and get it right in that one argument and no more of the submitting dozens and dozens of arguments and then if more than one person submits an argument, there's a lottery and one is selected. colleagues, as i stated at the beginning, it should have been adopted a long time ago, but better late than never and i would ask for your support today. john director of elections is here and i would like to invite him up to address the legislation. i understand that he may have an amendment that he would like us to consider. >> yeah, thank you. good afternoon, supervisors. as far as the language in the amendment is concerned, the department is fine of it. we can implement it, i think, rather easily, so one amendment that i suggests is section 530-e. it

talks about the consent required if someone is named. an argument is being for a measure or in agreement with an argument. i'm suggesting that we amend that so we include that someone is foor against a measure. and being named in the argument. the department's practice currently is asking for consent and now in these situations so the change in the ordinance would track the department's current practices. >> just to be clear, this is an existing section of section 530 that we're not -- that is not apart of the legislation, but while we're doing the legislation, you're requesting that we make this tweak to the subsection e? >> correct. >> can you just briefly explain when the consent requirement is triggered for the benefit of the members of the public. >> if i submitted an argument and i named you as being in support of a measure our against a measure that i would ask that you sign

a form saying that you agree with your name being mentioned in the argument. >> oh, and -- okay. right now only -- it's only required for people who are in favor, but not against, and it should be clarified that it is really both. >> correct. >> the department's practice has been to require it for both. >> right. >> great. i'm supportive of that, and so colleagues, after public comment i would offer an amendment to reflect what mr. arms just described. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> so i guess that's -- i'll take public comments. do you have cards? >> are there public comments on this item? come up. you have two minutes. >> good afternoon, my name is karine wood and i was an

opponent on prop b on the last ballot and i support this change because it was extremely frustrating and absolutely -- i don't know -- we couldn't believe that the actual supporters of the measures were trying to make the official argument against the measure, and it just wasn't fair, and having legislation, if that's what we need to stop this kind of trickery, i think is very useful. thank you. >> okay. any other public comments on this item? >> good afternoon, i'm peter, executive director of library's user association and i didn't come here to speak on this and i'm

not familiar with the legislation, but as i described, it's an important matter how a ballot book is composed. i think it's extremely important issue. as someone who have provided a number of ballot arguments and paid, official, the importance of who gets to say what and where i think is very, very significant and needs to be studied and dealt with very carefully. with respect to item 1 that was described, in terms of the two elements, having to square the person is not on the opposite side, i would be careful how that's laid out and people might change their mind. how do you get evidence of that? i'm not clear how that is measured in terms of what is somebody's actually position. that's partly a question, but

certainly an alert. again, people may change their mind and change sides, how do you, you know, the thread of perjury is a strong one and needs to be done with care. item 2, people submitting no more than one. it one clear from me from the supervise's description how one person in the past can submit more than one on one item, but what i'm concerned with is a person should be allowed to submit into lottery or be interested in commenting on more than one ballot measure. it wasn't clear to me when you say "no more than one that a person can submit a ballot argument for measure a and b." that should be allowed in my opinion. as for the endorsements, i think those are sometimes overly complicated especially when somebody has made endorsements. >> your two minutes are you up.

>> sir, can you -- can you repeat your sentence for the endorsement? >> i have had ballot arguments where i had to get the permissions from the person who people that i was naming as endorsers and we did that successfully but if it was the political club or the sierra club or someone who had written an argument in the newspaper, i think to it would be burden some to have the bargain arguer to dig up that person and get their signature when in fact you could say in an article in the chronicle dated may 1st, supervisor scott wiener said blah, blah, blah, blah, which supports my side.

>> thank you. >> any other public comments? seeing none, then public comment is now closed. supervisor wiener, can i ask you a clarifying question? in regards to the officers, it's related to the officers, and i probably have to answer this because i want to make sure i have the right answer, so if the board for instance submits something for the ballot, and there's a board member that doesn't agree and would that somehow be related to officers at all and that they couldn't make a ballot argument? >> thank you for that question. no, this is limited to committees which is a campaign committee that has been formed under the campaign finance laws so it wouldn't

count for a someone who put in the ballot. i'm glad he asked this question. it's limiting people to one argument per ballot. if you want to do one for a, and one for b, and one for c, but no more that's gaming the system but submitting 25 nearly identical ballot arguments for one ballot and swamping everyone. there's no limit that you can submit 300 if you want and it's a gaming of the system. and in terms of, i think we tried to be very precise in how we design who is considered a non supporter of a particular position, to be limited but to at least try to address the problem that we had in the past elections with the campaign manager for the f side, mr. gullenger

hijacking the opposite side. and hopefully the city attorney's office was able to allow him to withdraw that fraudulent ballot argument that he submitted. with that colleagues, i do support the amendment and so i would ask that we amend section 530-e which is on the second page at the end of 23. after the phrase "which is represented as being for" and then insert the two words "or against." so that would be the amendment i would offer. and then to the city attorney, i would ask whether that's a substance amendment that would require continuance? >> deputy city attorney, john, that would be require a continuance. in keeping with mr. arms recommendation, it goes onto say "which is represented for supporting or

endorse." you should say with supporting or opposing endorsing." after the phrase "which is represented for supporting." we insert, comma, opposing, comma, and then it would continue or endorsing the views. and are there any other phrases that need to be adjusted in that subsection. just those two. so those two amendments would be my request that the committee adopt. >> okay. any comments about this? >> supervisor tang. >> thank you supervisor wiener. i think we were surprised about what happened in light of the ballot measure and what highlighted this motion, so i would like to accept the amendments and move it to the

board for full recommendation. >> for amendment -- to accept the amendment, if there's no objection, we pass it. moving onto recommendations. before we do that, i also -- and i'm thankful for supervisor wiener for bringing this ordinance to us. this makes sense to me and one of these things were maybe an oversight when the original ordinance was put in there and never thinking that one would actually abuse the system that much so. thank you for closing that loophole. >> thank you. >> i neglected -- i wanted to thank my legislative jeff for working on this. so thank you. >> there's a motion on floor to pass out with positive recommendation. without objection, the motion passes. >> thank you colleagues. >> madam clerk, can you please

call item number 2. >> motion confirming the mayor's reappointment of leslie katz to the port commission, for a term ending may 1, 2018. >> okay. mrs. cats, come on up. and would you like to make a brief comment about why you're reapplying. >> thank you, supervisors. it's an honor to be here before you and it's fun to be on this side of the desk. i'm very pleased and honored to have have been reappointed by the mayor to serve on the port commission. i was initially appointed to an unexpired term and have been there and have seen firsthand, how extraordinary the port is than i realized before. it's one of san francisco's jewels and one of the things that i think is particularly exciting having had a number of activities taking place along the water front in recent years is that more residents and people throughout san

francisco recognize the incredible beauty and opportunities to partake in all of the activities down at the port. we've over seen the opening of the exploratory museum, and there's an incredible photography museum there and we're working on the green way which is an extension of path and walkways from south of the bay bridge down to the southern boundary of the city area and it will link in with the bay trail, but every half of mile, somebody walks along, they'll be able to find open space, so in this part of the city, we have the opportunity in terms of expanding open space to have as much open space as we have in the -- in golden gate park. it was a figure that you just recently learned that i'm excited about. we have a variety of different activities all along the water front and i've been honored to be able to assist in the different front from leasing our properties to working with the

maritime uses, the fishermen, the tourist activity and all the other venues along the way, so i'm honored to be there and one of the things we've been doing that i'm proud of is the port has been working very hard to figure out new ways of reaching out to members of our community, particularly those that are more disadvantaged and working with our lb's to figure out better ways, not just having the traditional lb requirement to participate with contractors but figure out ways we can work with other lb's on the refb of purchasing, and helping them become sub contractors and getting more involved in the fabric of the port. and we recently held a meeting with several minority chambers of commerce and everyone walked away very excited about the dialogue that has been opened up. so i pride myself on being able to work well with colleagues. i've been involved with the community for many

years and i'm excited and to be reappointed would be an honored. >> any questions. >> i have a real basic one and you probably -- if you could elaborate. if you were to serve a new term, what would be your goals? >> that's easy. one, i want to continue to see the expansion of the blue green way, certainly including dog parks which my staff -- my port staff laughs about every time, but i'm excited to continue efforts to build more parks and open space. we have something with pier 70 and it will provide opportunities for those in the water front and hasn't seen it live. and the water front insuring

that we maintain good relationships with our tenants and make sure the residents of san francisco have access to the great opportunities all along the water front and then certainly continue our maritime activities as well. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> i have a few cards for public comments on this. jillian chang. kareen woods, and christine palosy. speaker: good afternoon, mr. chairman, supervisor's campus and tang. my name is jillian chang and i ride today in support of leslie's reelection. i met leslie when she was the supervisor for the equal of same seshgs partners in san francisco extending into the corporate world. at that time it was a controversial and innovative

thought to make parity for same gender couple to be treated and now we know that it is the norm in san francisco and it has led the nation in thought leadership. leslie has a vision for the city. she's a great stewart of all the resources making sure the oldest time resident of san francisco to the newest worker and also the companies that provide the vitality and the economic power for san francisco to continue to grow are all taken in and given consideration with our san francisco progressive valleys. i can't think of a better stewart for this jewel of our port and our water front than leslie cat, so i respectfully ask for your aye vote in reaffirming her appointment to the port commission. >> thank you. >> thank you.

>> commissioners, my name is kareen woods and i'm the co-chair of the port central water front advisory group and a 25 year port watcher. leslie cap has done a nice job on the port commission. she's got tremendous background that she brings to the ports desperate capital and other needs. she has spent a tremendous time and energy investigating and learning about the port's issues. i think -- i hope that you will support her reappointment. i think we really need leslie and her background to stay with the port. thank you. >> thank you. >> good afternoon, supervisors.

my name is christine and i'm a water front resident and a friend and colleague of leslie cats. i'm here to urge your support for her renomination for a couple of reasons. one, i've known leslie since 1987 and i've known her to be a strong leader in the community well before she was on the community college board and the board of supervisors, and port commissioner and president, leslie was active in the community and known as a strong, ethical and fair advocate and attorney. in addition, i know her family. i actual loo -- i actually went to law school where her father was the general -- he taught law and ethics and i know that ethics run in leslie's blood line. she's very, very popular in the community because she always listens to people and i can tell you as a water front resident, there is such a strong fight as you

know over the people's water front and the life blood of our community and balancing the fact that our city needs more affordable housing, more tourism, more business and at the same time need to retain our essential character and part of which is open space and access to all. leslie is perfectly temperamentally suited to sit there for debates. thank you. >> any other public comments on this item? seeing none. public comment is closed. colleagues, supervisor tang. >> i just want to thank commissioner cats, the former san francisco commissioner. i'm happy that you are interested in continuing to serve on the port commission. of course, we all know there has been so much talk and activity in

the last year about our water front and i'm happy to recommend mrs. cats to the full board of recommendations. >> supervisor campos. >> thank you very much. thank you mr. chair, and i want to thank former supervisor cats for being here. we certainly have had a lot of debate in the last few months about the debate of the future of the water fronts and there's a number of us at times have perhaps taken a different perspective of what the port commission has taken in the types of projects that have come out from that commission. but i think that having legitimate disagreement is part of the process and you certainly want commissioners that are going to be independent and i have worked with leslie. we have not agreed on everything, but i certainly

respect where -- how she approaches the job, and my hope is with the most recent passage of prop b, i think that there's a very clear message that voters are sending to the city and in particular, i think to the port that the projects that have been the focal point of discussion and they lead us down the path that you have a water front that if the projects go forward, will it be more beach -- they'll be rethinking about how those projects are approached and i think that leslie is someone who can help to bring people from different perspectives together, so i'm happy to support you today. >> thank you. i also will be supporting mrs. cats for

reappointment. i've known of her and known her for a little while and everything else i've seen of her and seen her do has been -- can be very professional and she always thinks about what the balance is and maybe sway more to the balance of what the actual people living in san francisco really care about, so she's one that i definitely am excited about reappointed. the motion passes. congratulations, ms. cats. >> thank you very much. >> okay. madam clerk, item 3. san motion confirming the mayor's reappointment of linda richardson to the treasure island development authority board of directors, for a >> okay. madam clerk, item 3. san motion confirming the mayor's reappointment of linda richardson to the treasure island development authority board of directors, for a >> okay. madam clerk, item 3. san motion confirming the mayor's reappointment of linda richardson to the treasure island development authority board of directors, for a >> okay. madam clerk, item 3. san motion confirming the mayor's reappointment of linda richardson to the treasure island development authority boar d