here in the city of san francisco that my salary is set by the city charter. i know that i'm paid equal pay as my male colleagues on this board of supervisors. however, i'm fully aware that if and when i leave city hall that i may make less than my male colleagues after i leave for the same work. and i think it's ip credibly important that as we take this major policy stance that we believe in equal pay for equal work, that we really do that, particularly with the actual entities, our contractors that are paid public dollars, our taxpayer dollars, to make sure that they are pursuing the work of making sure that women get equal pay for equal work. these are organizations and for profit and nonprofit entities that are getting public taxpayer dollars and i believe that we absolutely have a right in those cases to know whether

or not women are getting paid the same rate men are for doing equal work within the organizations. i also want to really emphasize the parameters of the ordinance that we are approving today. this ordinance nearly knishates this process. it sets up the equal pay advisory board which will then spend the next several months actually defining the specifics of the final recommendations that would put together how we would do the data gathering for this work. everyone in this room agrees with this policy. in fact, it's something that has been called as one of the top national priorities both by our president and, of course, by our leader pelosi most recently in her luncheon last monday with previous secretary of state hillary clinton. it was one of the biggest calls that our country is making to make sure that 50% of our population make the same pay for the same work that they do here in our country.

often on a national level we find that things move to a gridlock in d.c. and that often things -- policy calls like raising the minimum wage have to be taken on at a local level because it can't be taken on in washington, d.c. because of the gridlock at congress and senate. here in this case the president was actually able to move forward the same policy for contractors to the government to make sure that they report whether they payee equal pay for equal work, and i think it's absolutely appropriate for san francisco to follow and do the same. now, if this ordinance and legislation actually embodied the recommendationses and the specifics of how we do data gathering, ~ i would support a continuance. i absolutely believe in a full fledged process to make sure that all stakeholders are heard and that we are able to incorporate a lot of different concepts, whether it's from dcyf, the chamber of commerce,

our small business commission, department of women and status. if this ordinance just knishates the process and sets the equal pay advisory board who then over the next couple of months go through the process of getting all of this input, specifics on how we can treat nonprofits, how we can treat organizations with 20 to 50 employees or 20 to 100 employees, how we can treat larger organizations that may have a greater capacity to report, all of this will get worked out in the next several months. and the actual date by which we request these reports won't be until september 2015. so, i think being that this ordinance just sets out the process, i think that it's important that we start it as early as possible so we can give maximum time to the process to make sure that we can maximize our input from our stakeholders and make sure that we have a really good process

in place by september by which we can collect this really important reporting. women deserve to be paid for the work that they do and they deserve to be paid at the equal rate that men do. and i feel like we just can't wait to get this process started so that we can make sure that those that are making -- our taxpayer dollars are absolutely accountable to this revision we all believe in. >> supervisor avalos. >> thank you. i just want to thank supervisor campos for bringing this forward and for all the co-sponsors as well, and i want to thank supervisor campos and his staff for doing the work to bring this together. i know it was a very involved process, did a lot of work working with many, many stakeholder to make it happen. i actually have worked over the years in nonprofits and i've seen women don't get the equal pay that men get in a setting and i think nonprofits should be held accountable to be able to follow this legislation. so, i don't see a real problem

in that whatsoever. and i'm not going to speak much longer than this, except that a continuance really doesn't make any sense especially when this should have happened 20 years ago, so, we can't wait any longer. >> supervisor yee. >> thank you, president chiu. i want to thank you -- thank supervisor campos and the other author, coauthors of this legislation. i'm going to be fully supporting the intent of this and it really is an intent to get going, further momentum to really figure out how we're going to collect data. and if it were a little more complex in terms of what we're asking, i would say yes, let's continue it, but what i'm reading into this is that everybody believes that women are getting the same pay and we

could just go as slow as molasses on this. i come from the nonprofit world. i did it for 40 years. some of us in the nonprofit world would feel very proud to actually show that we give equal pay. so, whether i came from the ywca or attending clinic or children services, the people that i'm surrounded with would be proud to say that, yeah, we give equal pay and we can prove it. here it is. what i like about this legislation that's built in is that you have an opportunity to express or articulate some of the difficulties that one group of business or organizations might have, then hopefully this group of people that's putting this together will take that

into consideration. but it's very upsetting. after all these years we're still dealing with this, so, i'm supporting it. >> supervisor breed. >> thank you. i have a question to the city attorney on clarification of the proposed amendment to the legislation and wanting to understand whether or not that's possible. and can you explain how it's possible to avoid, for example, all of this information is subject to the sunshine ordinance from my understanding, and i just want to get a clear understanding of how it's possible to ensure that some information isn't. >> sure, deputy city attorney jon givner. but before i get to your question, supervisor breed, just one clarification on the amendment. supervisor campos, i believe, had circulated written draft of the amendment. the language in the written

draft doesn't exactly mirror the language that you had, supervisor campos, but it reaches the same point, so, i just wanted to clarify for the benefit of the public. the amendment essentially says that when contractors turn over information to us, if the information they are providing to us is a protected trade secret or proprietary information that's confidential under the law, the hrc or any other city agency cannot disclose that to the public. so, this ordinance can't override the sunshine ordinance. whether information -- whether a particular piece of information that's provided by a contractor is a trade secret or is proprietary is really a factual determination. so, the hrc will be looking at whatever data they have if there is a sunshine request, working with my office to determine whether any -- whether that information is

protected trade secret or protected proprietary information. and if it is, hrc won't disclose it. so, this amendment, i think, could be described as clarifying that hrc will not turn over information that's protected from disclosure, but the ordinance would not override the sunshine ordinance. >> thank you. and i have some questions about the legislation. from my perspective, it's clear that this is a board of supervisors that supports equal pay as supervisor kim ha stated. i just want to make sure that whatever we choose to do it's responsible, it's substantive and it doesn't just pay lip service to the problem. ~ has i know that several years back when sexual harassment cases were coming before the courts there were a number of sexual harassment cases, a number of changes to a lot of policies in the city to now require that we

go through i think a 2-1/2-hour sexual harassment training to ensure that we understand what the rules and regulations are as it relates to sexual harassment in the workplace. and i think that it is appropriate that we look at doing something that significant as it relates to equal pay in our city. a couple questions i guess i had, this is unclear to me because specifically as a former nonprofit director who ran one of the city-funded nonprofits who would be -- who would fall under the category to report, i don't understand what's expected of me or what would have been expected of me to report. so, i guess i've been -- supervisor campos explained that part of this process involves this committee or task

force or advisory committee being put together. i don't see a nonprofit agency representative listed, but more importantly i guess i'm just not understanding how the systems will be put together in order to actually collect the data in a way that builds a case against someone who is violating the law. so, i'm trying to understand where that exists in the legislation. i'm also trying to understand the specifics of the resources from the various departments who will be required to actually implement what we're asking to do. so, it would be helpful to know if hrc is going to -- are we going to add another fte to hrc in order to help facilitate this process? i don't want to just pass legislation to pass legislation. i want to pass legislation that actually works for the people that we're trying to make it work for.

i think that i'm unclear as someone who is being asked to support this, i'm unclear as to how this is actually going to help with the situation. and i do appreciate supervisor kim's comments especially because, you know, it's definitely something we should be doing, we should be moving in this particular direction, but i also appreciate supervisor tang's comments in that -- in being responsible about how we implement this because we may not have to reinvent the wheel. and i just don't understand from my perspective, i'm not understanding how this is going to work and how it's going to work for making sure that we're holding those entities accountable for taxpayer dollars by making sure that they are providing equal pay to their employees, and how do we go after them if we don't understand what kind of data we're collecting. so, i have a lot of questions

which is why i wanted to make sure -- which is why i seconded supervisor tang's recommendation because i do think it's important that women from the commission on status of women who are involved in these sort of issues and the small business commission who made comment asking that the commission on the status of women as well as hrc have an opportunity to review and to make a recommendation because i look to them as entities that could help us understand how we can actually effectively make this legislation work because right now i think that there's holes in the legislation that may or may not allow it to be effective for the purpose intended. thank you. >> supervisor campos. >> thank you very much, mr. president. i do want to thank my colleagues for their comments and i just want to make a couple of points. first, i think that it was

important for us to make sure that we actually followed best practices in the rest of the country which is why the legislation the way we drafted it was to reach out to the president of the commission of status of women. that's why we emulated what president obama has done. so, you know, i am open and remain open to any specific amendments. we have asked for amendments and happy to incorporate any amendments today or going forward. the second point that i would say is that based on the experience of new mexico and other places, it was important for us to provide as much flexibility to the advisory board so that they could actually devise a data collection system that was impactful in terms of giving us the information in a way that we could actually ensure that

it leads to women being paid equally. and then the second point to make sure that the concerns that businesses are taken into account, and to the extent that there are comments and thoughts about the makeup of that board, i'm very open to that and i definitely -- my intention was always that a nonprofit person be included. if we want to specify that, i'm very happy to do that. but in term of responding to supervisor breed's question about could this be impactful, i think that the reason why president obama has gone down this path of trying to provide transparency and bring sunshine into this field is because the reason why this has been an issue is because we don't really talk about it, because it is, it is sort of -- it is a

forbidden subject in the work setting. and by requiring the collection of data we are basically making sure that this is no longer a hidden secret. and the second point that i would say is that it is not the first time that -- probably not the last time -- that san francisco will go down the path of actually creating a requirement for vendors that contract with the city as a way of actually impacting public policy. and the first time that we did that there was actually a great deal of success that came out of that, and that was on the issue of domestic partner benefits. the domestic partner benefits ordinance was basically very similar to this. supervisor ammiano essentially created requirement that

vendors that do business with the city and county of san francisco provide the same benefits to same-sex domestic partner couples and we actually fought by the city on that. in fact, united airlines took us to court. and when we prevailed, the way in which the business community not only in san francisco but in the rest of the state and the rest of the country responded to that, led to a very real and dramatic shift in how these businesses he interacted with these employees. it actually meant that companies doing business with san francisco provide -- started providing equal benefits to lgbt couples and because they had to do it in san francisco and saw the benefits of that, that actually led to other jurisdictions doing the same. so, i think that's the hope and that's the goal here.

so, i briefly spoke to supervisor tang and i appreciate her comments. and one suggestion that i would have -- and by the way, you know, we believe that we want to be -- have this be as effective and as successful as possible. we do believe that we have given an opportunity to allow these players provide their feedback. we approached the status of women 30 days ago and they actually met before we voted on this in committee, but did not discuss this at their meeting. in any event, i want to give them an opportunity to provide their feedback. so, one suggestion that i had, and i think it achieves the same objective, is that instead of sending it back to committee we actually continue this to a meeting in november to give the different folks involved an opportunity to comment on this.

let me say this, i say that with a heavy heart because i know that many folks want us to move on this quickly. i believe that the way this legislation is structured, it allows for the kind of interaction that we envision and, in fact, the point of the advisory committee is to address some of the questions that supervisor tang raised. if we're already collecting data, do we really need it to add any requirements? so to take those kinds of things into account. so, that would be my suggestion. and again, i thank my colleagues for their support. >> supervisor kim. >> thank you. i actually wanted to appreciate supervisor breed's comment about how there isn't a person on the advisory board with nonprofit experience. and speaking to what supervisor katy tang also brought up, i

think it certainly make sense that we have a nonprofit member on this advisory board. and, so, an amendment that i would proffer is that seat 7, which was really a general seat, could be a person that works in the nonprofit sector that has a contract, i assume, with the city to be able to give advice on how this would impact nonprofits that would fall under this category. i just want to reiterate, just because our office did spend quite a bit of time putting together a policy that impacted many of our employers, the fair chance act which i coauthored with supervisor malia cohen, that was a ten-month process to put together the actual specifics of what the fair chance ordinance would look like, and this is how it actually impact our employees in not doing the background checks at first application. and because of the length of time it took to meet with all

of our stakeholders and make sure that we were taking everyone's input into our ordinance, for me i guess why i would push on why we should pass this now and get the process started is that in order for a ten-month process to work out between now and september, we really need to get the equal pay advisory committee going in november. that would really give them about ten months to meet with all the stakeholders and take in all the input and feedback that we're both hearing at the board chamber from our colleagues, but also from the multiple stakeholders, commissions and departments that would like to have feedback. no one disagrees with the intent of the policy. everyone agrees in equal pay for equal work, and everyone also agrees that the entities that we contract public dollars to should report to the city and should be accountable to this and maybe they'll learn there is some unconscious bias in how they pay women and male employees. and i actually believe most of

our small businesses and nonprofits through the process if they discover there is pay inequity, that they will move quickly to rectify that issue because no one wants to be responsible for something that we all believe in. so, i still think that this needs to move forward merely because i think to set up the process and time for the recommendations to be ready and for the process to take place in september that it makes sense to get the advisory board as much time as possible. ~. obviously i will defer to the author on this, but that's just my quip for why we should pass it today. but the recommendation that i would make is to change that seat 7 for a person that works in a nonprofit organization that contracts with the city. >> supervisor tang? >> thank you. i don't know if there is an opportunity to second that motion, but i fully agree with supervisor kim's suggestion and thank you for that. i also want to acknowledge that, yes, i did have an opportunity to speak with

supervisor campos and really the goal is just to get a few more departments or commissions ability to provide some of those suggestions on this legislation. so, for example, the department of children youth and families, you know, were not consulted about this and i think they have a huge role in this legislation. so, i would actually like to withdraw my motion and make a motion instead to continue this item to the full board for the november 25th meeting instead, giving some time for some of those other stakeholders to participate in the process. and also if by that time, you know, issues have not been sorted out we would still have to entertain another moment to continue potentially the full board. but i want to respect supervisor campos' desire not to send it back to committee so that is my motion. >> okay, supervisor tang has withdrawn her initial motion and she has made a motion to continue this item to the 25th of november. with that, supervisor cohen. >> thank you. i support that motion. >> second by supervisor cohen. >> and i also want to just adi,

too, wish this process to unfold. the last week-and-a-half i thought about the fair chance ordinance that supervisor kim and i have worked on and it was a year long intent, almost a year long process. for me what made me uncomfortable, i'm now happen that i we're going to be continuing this item, but i what uncomfortable because i felt like the intent was very narrow and that we hadn't talked to all of our community partners. and advocates on the -- that's on the front line. i support supervisor kim's motion as well to see that seat number 7 is changed to require a nonprofit representative on the side of an important voice that what left out. thank you. >> supervisor farrell. >> thank you, first i want to thank supervisor campos for bring this item forward. i want to thank everyone for their comments and supervisor tang for her leadership in identifying some of the issues

and questions about the logistics here. i think supervisor kim and everyone else mentioned they support this legislation, and just logistics that need to be worked out. i want to thank supervisor tang and supervisor campos to find a solution today that will hopefully move this forward in short order. >> colleague, i believe at the time i think we have supervisor tang's motion to continue this item to the 25th of november and i believe i had heard a motion to amend from supervisor kim which supervisor tang had seconded as well as a set of motions to amend by supervisor campos which i believe have also been seconded. is that correct, madam clerk? >> yes, mr. president. >> okay. so, typically the motion to continue to a date certain would take precedence over the motion to amend. what i'd like to ask is can we without objection take the motions to amend first and then consider the motion to continue to a date certain? >> i'd like to propose a different alternative. >> supervisor avalos. >> i'd like to propose that we

divide the file, [speaker not understood] back to committee and vote today on the existing ordinance before us so that we can actually move something forward and we can bring um the divided file to -- after it goes to committee with any language we want to clean up so that gives us the opportunity to set something in motion right away because we cannot delay equal pay for women. and we cannot -- should have follow-up legislation that could do any clean up work that needs to get done. so, split the file, vote today on one file, send one back to committee. >> okay. so, supervisor avalos is making i believe a motion that we duplicate, that we duplicate the file and we vote on one and then refer one back to committee. that's been seconded by supervisor mar. okay. so, at this time we have two files. madam clerk, do you recommend

we amend one or vote on the existing one and potentially amend the other and send it back to committee if that's what we're going to do? >> i agree with that, mr. president. >> okay. so, the two files have been duplicated. one file -- why don't we take a first roll call vote unless -- is there further discussion on this? supervisor campos. >> thank you. i want to again look forward to working with my colleagues with the comments. i do support the idea, you know, i think this gives us an opportunity to make a statement, move something forward but at the same time make sure we have a process for these other bodies to look at this. thank you. >> stanchion. >> sure. i just wanted to clarify i do stand by my original, i guess amended motion to send it to the full committee on november

25th. ~ supervisor tang i think dividing the file defeats the purpose of exactly what i was trying to state earlier which is the whole process with all the various departments, thank you very much. and, so, i just wanted to say that i would like to reiterate, i know that [speaker not understood] the city attorney dividing the file takes precedence as well? >> madam clerk? >> mr. chair, it is a single supervisor's privilege to duplicate the file. >> thank you. and, so, i don't know how that would work, but i would still like to make that motion that we continue this to the full board for november 25th. >> so, madam clerk, if that motion has been made that we continue it so as we would vote on either portion of the duplicated file, i believe the motion to continue both of these items to the 25th -- would we need to vote for each item to continue to a date certain? >> yes, mr. president. the motion to continue to a date certain continues to take precedence. >> okay. if that is the case, then, unless there is any further discussion, supervisor wiener? >> just for further

clarification. right now duplicated two versions of this and it is a motion to continue applicable to both or just to one version? >> i believe, supervisor avalos, one version. >> one version that i would like to amend with the amendment of the whole to send back to committee and my intent was to -- the one that stays at the full board gets voted on today. so, i won't support a continuance. >> my understanding is supervisor tang would like to continue if we have a duplicated file, continue both of these items to the 25th. is that right? okay. supervisor breed. >> so, we haven't approved the amendments. are we going to do they have simultaneously? >> we have not approved the amendments yet. at this time, supervisor avalos has duplicated the file so they're two identical fightxv. supervisor tang has made a motion that i guess -- sorry. ~ files to our clerkv, we need to take separate votes for each of these? >> yes, mr. president. >> separate votes for the amendments?

>> no, we're going to -- the motion that has precedence right now is to continue each of these items to the date certain to november 25th. >> so, we're not going to take any amendments horn either item? i just want to clarify. ~ on either >> because there is a motion to continue, that takes precedence over any motion to amend. >> okay, thank you. >> supervisor campos. >> thank you. i will support the motion to continue, but i also, you know, will support the idea of bringing -- approaching an item forward as well. i think it allows us to do both, so, i don't know how it works in terms of how we take each motion, but i just want to -- >> i think what supervisor tang -- >> let me resolve this. i'm going to withdraw my motion. my motion was to actually vote today on the existing ordinance to have something that could be put on the books as quickly a possible because we cannot delay equal pay for women any more