refers a complaint you sit here and kib etz and talk about the fact this isn't clear and this isn't clear so when are you going to do something about it? >> we just did. >> with all due respect commissioner keane this discussion has been going on for five years, the discussion on who is gets included on the complaint. i did that and i had the task force take that off. the reason is they went through two years of discussion and we're the ethics commission and according to the sunshine ordinance the only people we can discipline are elected heads and officials and so if you have a complaint against a line employee your response from the staff is we can't do anything, so these things go back and forth and you know. you can say the task force knows what it's doing but every single time the task force sends awe

recommendation you find or the staff finds a reason to find fault and if you think it's at fault and you acknowledge the fact that part of the responsibilities as a body is the enforcement of the sunshine ordinance then i would think that there would be a moral imperative to do something to get together with the task force and come down with something meaningful where you can do something instead of these pointless arguments whether they charge the right person or crossed the right t or .ed the i and the issue is let them go to public meetings and let them speak and i went to the police commission and told by the the president you're not allowed to talk about certain things. i was told the same thing by the president of the arts commission. and the library

commission and they all knew it wasn't true but they did it anyway. why? because they got away with it because they knew it would go to the task force and for some reason you want people to believe that the sunshine ordinance task force is a group that doesn't know what they're doing and you're more clever than they are because you can find a way there is something they did in some way that made it wrong and you're unwilling to do anything to correct the situation and there's never anything on this report that indicates you ever will. >> david pilpel again speaking as an idea. the report is good, comprehensive as usual. i think it would be helpful for the next few months up to the november election to include a category

here for public financing. i believe there is only one candidate qualified but i think reporting on payments under the finance program would serve the public's interest and if there is anything else to report on the disclosure for november. i anticipate a lot of activity for . >> candidates and ballot measures and heightly contested so if you can provide that in addition to the website and the dashboard with all of that that would be helpful. thank you very much. >> all right. turning to agenda item number eight. items for future meetings? commissioners have any items that they would propose for future agenda? >> well, i am a newer commissioner so hearing from the public how often we talked about

the commission and the sunshine ordinance task force is talked about this referral process i am wondering if we just can't have a conversation about it, and see if we can get to the bottom of it because in less than six months we had this issue come up twice and i feel like we never get to the actual substantive component of what is being brought before us because we're busy trying to figure out who to attribute it to, the violation. >> unfortunately chairperson hur isn't here but he would indicate we talked about possibly doing that and he indicated he would schedule something before the end the year we would have that discussion. >> is it possible to have a joint meeting with the sunshine ordinance task force? >> it's been done but they're difficult to schedule. >> could you try?

>> of course. >> i speak for myself. i don't know whether my colleagues would also be in favor of that. >> well, we had joint meetings with them. i certainly wouldn't oppose another to see if we can smooth out some of the problems. i guess one of the questions i have though a lot of the procedural things we deal with i would assume that the city attorney who is advising the sunshine ordinance task force is dealing with those problems. >> well, we heard tonight that whoever that person is -- >> we don't know. we have hear say about it. >> the hear say indicated that the advice given was not the greatest advice in the world. >> i guess i could ask the

city attorney do you think it would be beneficial to have a meeting -- >> you weren't here when -- >> i apologize i wasn't here. >> -- for the counsel assigned by the attorney to for the sunshine ordinance task force meeting with that representative to find out who that -- we had two cases in the last months that have come up where the sunshine task force has charged the department head even though in the proceedings the department head was never named but gets named or she gets named in the referral up to us, and then the question comes what is the due process? the department heads never had a chance to respond to it. all of the

people responding are people below them and the argument is made with some merit that the department head is responsible for the people working for him, but insofar as dealing with the task force the task force has never confronted that issue and we're making a finding against the department head for this reason. simply finds there is a violation and names the department head at the end of the game and not the beginning so what i think commissioner andrews and we're talking about is there some way that we can smooth out, so that we don't have the procedural problems to deal with but dealing with the substance of the complaint. >> right. deputy city attorney. i wasn't here for tonight's sunshine referral but was it represented during that matter that they had weighed in on that issue?

>> it was represented that the deputy city attorney at the time with the task force advised the task force to name the particular underlings in the department as being the responsible ones for the violation, and that's what they did and i see in the language itself of the ordinance it says specifically that the underlings cannot be held to be the responsible parties. it says that. that the responsible party is the department head, so then at some point it's understood with this well, we should really name the department head and the representatives of that department come here before us and say you're violating due process. our department head is just named now at this stage of the proceedings after the task

force has already made a finding of the violation relating to those underlings and he was never named so we had it twice. we dealt with this tonight but last time we punted it. we shouldn't have. >> sounds like an issue that came up several times and certainly in conjunction with a future agenda item on this issue i am happy to coordinate with my office and get to the bottom of this. i am certainly happy to do that whenever this is calendared. >> i would recommend that we consider putting how the staff -- how we want to address the agenda item, but you know what the problem is we want to try to resolve and see what is the most sensible way to resolve it and put it on an agenda item and

take public comment on it. >> yes. >> and get comment from the sunshine task force. all right. yes? >> [inaudible] jack, do you keep a record of requests or recommendations that we make? >> yes. . >> microphone please. >> do you keep a record of requests and recommendations for future agenda items? >> >> yes. >> because i think we made recommendations at different times and i would like to see what those are and know when they're agendized. >> they're agenda diezed at the discretion of the chair but i can go back and look and see what's out there. >> all right. is there a

motion to adjourn? >> you have to have public comment on this item. >> all right. public comment on the discussion that we just had? >> new agenda. >> ray hart. i will keep repeating it. i would like my case against louis herrera brought back before the commission. i filed another complaint against him for the same exact reason so i don't think the task force having decided he was in violation. you unanimously -- well, not unanimously. mr. pilpel voted against it, will have problems getting it back here. the bottom line is mr. herrera as i talked about this oofng evening hid funds he was receiving from friends of the library and

gifts he knew he had to report and we had to take him to the f bbc in sacramento and find him in violation and he's a convicted perjurer and said he got nothing when he got $5,000 a year and he lied to your faces and you don't seem to be worried about that at all. he told you this isn't a first amendment issue and it's always been from the 150 word summaries they started six years ago to telling people they weren't allowed to talk about certain things at library commission meetings to our criticism of the financial relationship with the friends and with holding documents and using the public position as city librarian to violate the law and with holding documents for more than two years. hi t -- i had to go to the

superintendent of records twice and found in violation of the task force for not doing their job and says if they don't comply it's supposed to be sent to the district attorney or the attorney general and they pretend like that isn't happening so basically what i am saying is this is not the first time you've had a case against the library commission or somebody with the library that was referred here. this is the fifth time and every single time you have found a way not to have a hearing or to find the person not in violation, and i have to ask you honestly do you want the public to believe that the sunshine ordinance task force is so inept and vote five times that the person is in violation, order them to follow it and they not follow it and refer to you and every damn time you find a way of kicking it out. the

reason i think you do that is because of what happened to jewel gomez that you recommended unanimously she be removed to the mayor and he ignored you. it's hard to have authority when the person you recommend to ignores your recommendation. doesn't even give you an answer. >> and if you have refiled your complaint and it comes back to us i assure you there will be a hearing and you will be present. >> [inaudible] >> it's awfully racist of you. >> [inaudible] >> mr. pilpel. >> david pilpel again speaking as an individual. just as clarification yes, there have been joint meetings between the

commission and the task force in the past. there can be in the future and i believe one that one of the grand jury findings and recommendation i believe number 20, talked about the relationship between the task force and the commission so you might address it in part to the responses to the grand jury report if you intend to do something in the future you could indicate in your responses that the task force is certainly considering the responses to that grand jury report as well. thank you. >> thank you. now can i have a motion for adjournment. >> i move for adjournment. >> second. >> all in favor? opposed? stand adjourned. [gavel]

>> all right. i am calling the small business commission to order. it is monday, july 28th at 2:00 p.m.. and i'd like to thank sfgov-tv for taping our commission meeting. item number 1 is call to order and roll call. commissioner steve adams is absent. commissioner mineta white. >> here. >> commissioner kathleen dooley? >> here.

>> commissioner mark dwight? >> here. >> commissioner william ortiz-cartagena? >> here. >> commissioner yee riley? and commissioner tour-sarkissian. >> here. >> madam president, we have a quorum. >> perfect. >> item number 2, general public comment, allows members of the public to comment generally on matters within the commission's purview, and suggest new agenda items for the commission's future consideration. >> do we have any members of the public that would like to make a general comment that is not on the agenda today? seeing none, next item. >> item number 3, presentation and discussion of the city economist's economic analysis of a potential san francisco minimum wage increase. today you have a presentation by ted eagan, the office of economic analysis and chief economist. and in your packet is a printed

out -- is the printed out version of what is on the controller's website. >> thank you, ted. welcome. which one would you like? >> thank you very much, and good afternoon, commissioners. ted eagan with the controller's office of economic analysis. on july 17th our office issued an he can no, ma'am ~ impact report on the legislation introduced by supervisor kim in june. and i will walk through that report and happy to take any questions you have at any time. feel free to interrupt me. the minimum wage legislation requires all employers to pay employees a certain amount per hour. currently that minimum wage is 10.74 an hour indexed to inflation. the legislation that we analyzed would raise the

minimum wage incrementally to $15 an hour by july 1st, 2018. beginning july 1st, 2019, the minimum wage would then be indexed to inflation and annually rise in line with cpi. this is showing the increments that i allude to. the first increment -- i should say that the first increment which will happen on january 1st, 2015 is the normal cpi increase that would go up from 10.74 to whatever the cpi would. the first scheduled cpi minimum wage increase happens on may 1st, 2015, which would raise the minimum wage to 12.25. then to $13 an hour on july 1st, 2016, $14 an hour in 2017, and as i said, $15 an hour july 1, 2018. there are a couple other provisions that are -- was noted in the legislation. there is a lower minimum wage that is set for category of

worker called government supported employees. this essentially includes youth who are under 18 who are employed in a subsidized employment program or adults over 55 who are also employed in a subsidized employment program by a non-profit organization that provides social services to adults who are over 55. there are some complicated language that i won't spend time going into relating to how additional growth in this category is covered under the minimum wage, but that provision is in there as well. specifically the government supported employees minimum wage begins to increase only by cpi as of july 16 -- i'm sawyer, july 1, 2016, which is two years earlier than other employees. ~ sorry the minimum wage would apply and not as government supported employees. the minimum wage would apply to those who are employed through the san francisco in-home supportive services authority, which is essentially a public

authority that distributes city state and federal funds to home care for seniors and the disabled. the controller's office has done some calculation as to what thev city's share of that additional cost would be. it would begin at about 12.8 million in fiscal 2015-16, rising to 56.3 million by 2018-19. just a bit of background before i proceed with the economic analysis. the proposed legislation, san francisco is the first city in the country to establish its own minimum wage when the voters approved proposition l in 2003. that established a minimum wage of $8.50 for 2004 with a one-year delay for small businesses and nonprofits. that was the highest minimum wage in the country and it still is, and as i mentioned at the beginning it's also indexed to inflation annually. this is a chart that shows minimum wage levels that have been essentially applied to san francisco.

the federal, the state, and then starting in 2004 the city's minimum wage. the -- i'm sawyer. the line that's hard to see on this, it's even hard for me to see, but it's the dotted green line at the top is where the federal minimum wage in 1968 would have been were it indexed to inflation. the federal minimum wage and the state minimum wage are not indexed it inflation. had the federal minimum wage gone up by inflation since 1968 it would be slightly, very slightly above what san francisco's minimum wage is today. another factor that affects the context around san francisco's minimum wage is that the state has already acted to raise its minimum wage. it went up to $9 effective july 1st of this month and will go up to $10 an hour in 2016. both of those state increases are higher than a typical minimum wage adjustment so that

means that absent any local action the gap between the state and the city minimum wage will, will shrink in the next couple of years. this is a chart indicating the relationship between san francisco's cpi adjusted minimum wage and median rent paid in the city. the cpi adjustor is calculated on a bay area wide basis. that's what the bureau of labor statistics provide and it doesn't reflect necessarily the cost of living within the city of san francisco. the red line indicates the median rent paid from the u.s. census bureau from 2005 to 2012, and it is specific to san francisco. and that number, which is one component of the cost of living for renters in the city, has gone up about twice as fast as the city's minimum wage during the same time period. i should say that this is inclusive of rent control. this is not the market rent. this is the rent that renters actually pay. and obviously the market rent for vacant goes up quite a bit

faster than this. we have estimated, and it's been to some extent confirmed by research that's been done at u.c. berkeley, that really no more than about 11% of san francisco worker or maybe 60,000 people earn the minimum wage as of 2013. they're heavily concentrated in the food service and personal service occupations. we believe the industries where minimum wage workers are heavily concentrated include restaurants, retail trade, manufacturing, personal services, and also non-profit organizations in the social assistant sector. those will be the five industries that the bulk of our analysis is focused on in term of how would this minimum wage increase affect wages in these industries and how the wages in those industries affect employment in those industries and spending across the city as a whole. when we look at the economic impact factor, the minimum

wage, we really see it like a lot of economic impact issues. it's essentially a seesaw of counter veiling positive and negative factors. the minimum wage to the extent it raises people's earnings does put more money in the pockets of people who predominantly live in san francisco and will spend the money in the city. that expansion of consumer spending tends to expand the city's economy. however, to the extent that the minimum wage raises labor costs it creates disincentive for employers to hire people or to main people in employment. that tends to contract the city's economy. so, the net economic effect that we will get to is really the relative weighing of these two factors, the expansion of spending and the contraction of employment. there has been a lot of interest in san francisco's experienced in its 2004 increase of the minimum wage. it was quite a large one year increase of the minimum wage of about 26%. however, if you look at the

employment numbers, and i'll go through both the employment and wage numbers right now, some of the low-wage industries in the city which would have been expected to hit hardest by the minimum wage increase like retail trade and restaurants actually declined more slowly than the city as a whole in 2004, were actually added jobs despite the minimum wage increase. san francisco as a city was still recovering from the recession in 2004 and across the board there were job losses. but as you'll see in a moment, the job losses he were either slower than some of these industries or these industries actually added jobs despite a declining city employment base and despite the minimum wage increase. so, what we've tried to do here is adjust thea sort of raw employment change numbers, accounting for both what's going on in the adjacent counties in those industries and also in the city as a whole to get the kind of a net concept of how did the industry

in the city do after the minimum wage was increased relative to what the same industry did in surrounding concounties and relative to what ever industry in the city did ~. for example, in 2003 and 2004 food services in the city increased employment by .5%edthv that was a good deal slower than the adjacent counties ~ which grew by 2%. but you have to factor in the fact that the city as a whole is declining 2.3% and the adjacent counties were only declining .2%. so, the 2004 recession was much deeper in san francisco than it what in the surrounding counties. so, when you net out both of those effects, it's actually a relatively stronger performance for food services in san francisco. thea are the two right columns under net industry change. food services actually on a net basis doing more strongly in san francisco in that time period than it is in the adjacent counties. the same is true for retail trade which lost jobs, .9%

decline when the minimum wage went into effect. that's still quite a bit more than -- quite a bit less loss than the city as a whole. on a net basis, the city retail trade was stronger than it was in the adjacent counties. the same is true for social assistance, the same is true for personal services. the only real exception is manufacturing which did decline more rapidly than the city as a whole and considerably more rapidly than it did in the surrounding counties. so, that's really the only five industries where you saw a negative employment effect the year the minimum wage went into effect relative to the rest of the city and relative to surrounding counties. it's important, however, to keep these employment effects in context and relationship to the wages because just because the minimum wage went up 26%, that doesn't mean everybody's salary and those industries went up 26%. we also wanted to do the same

analysis looking at the impact on wages. for example, in 2003 the year before the minimum wage went into effect, the average city restaurant worker earned about $350 a week, 353 and worked 36.4 hours for an average hourly wage of 9.70. 9.70 was 43% higher than the minimum wage that was in effect at the time. you'll notice that it's also over a dollar higher than the minimum wage that would go into effect with 2004. now, food services is the lowest paid minimum wage industry in the city. so, if the minimum wage only took wages to something that was more than a dollar below what people were making in the industry already, it raises the question of to what extent did the minimum wage that year actually raise wages. and, so, we did a similar analysis to kind of look at that. if you take again food services, the average wage, the

average weekly wage in restaurants went up 5.4% the year after a 26% increase in the minimum wage went into effect. that was higher than the adjacent counties, restaurants in the adjacent counties, only went up 3.%. but the minimum wage -- the average wage for food services was actually lower than the city-wide average wage increase in the private sector, which was 7.1%. so, what was going on in san francisco that year is you were starting to see a recovery in wages before you were seeing a recovery in hiring. and, so, overall there was very robust wage growth, both in san francisco and in the surrounding counties, but in particular in san francisco. and one of the things you'll notice if you go down the column on the left, industry wage change for these low-wage industries, food service 5.4, retail trade 3.1, social assistance 0. personal services 4.4, manufacturing minus 0.1.