don't want that efficiency to lead to any worker being deprived of a fair wage and the benefits that are due to them. so with that in mind, i would simply note that it might be helpful moving forward to figure out how these kinds of contracts can be structured moving forward in such a way that addresses that issue. and there may be other way of need for legal change. i know city law protects certain workers rightly so. janitors provided prevailing wage. there may be a need to, i think, to explore the need to do that for our security officers. so i think it's something that we want to do. and i know that we have been working on that issue in the context of other contracts and that the director of public transportation is very committed to making that happen. so that's something i hope that we can work on moving forward.

and with that, to the chair -- i don't know mr. rus kin if you want to add anything to that*. instructor: if i may briefly* to the chair -- i fully agree with you. it was something we recognized -- in fact, initially we did procure this under a low-bid methodology. and for reasons that may or may not be related to that, we had to reinitiate second procurement. and doing so, we did switch to a cost and qualifications-based selection process for some of the reasons that you said. what we also did was sought and receive board of supervisors approval to extend some of those prevailing wage protections that currently exist in admin code such as custodial to extend that to security personnel for the purposes of this contract. it wasn't a general extension of the admin code. it was specific to this contract. which

allowed us to incorporate some provisions to protect the workers for particularly in terms of retention and in terms of prevailing wage. so it is something that we, i think, were able to do successfully with this contract. and we'll be happy to work with you and appreciate the offer on contracts going forward where we might again need board of supervisors support in order to incorporate that in the future competitive solicitations. >> thank you very much for that. and i would simply end by saying that i don't know what's going to happen with this contract, but my view is that the right result would be for this proposal to be rejected for the existing contract with cypress to be extended so there's a renewed process that addresses some of the concerns that have been raised about this process. but again, thanks to everyone involved. and thank you to the workers especially who've come out to provide their comments. >> thank you supervisor

campos. supervisor wiener. >> thank you very much. madam president. first, i want to thank the mta also for answering the questions from last week. and i'm glad to hear that -- from what i've heard that some of my colleagues are, have come around to understanding that it doesn't make sense to turn our bear collectors into sitting ducks* who are often waiting around at night collecting large amounts of money with basically no security other than someone to chaperone them around. as much as we would like to see guns disappear from as much of our planet as possible, that unfortunately victimization does happen, and people who are -- whose job it is to collect and carry around large sums of money need to be protected. it is a public safety issue. it is a worker safety issue. i think the various arguments --

and we've heard st this, against this contract -- have all been in my view addressed. we -- the mta is not some sort of aberration in using armed guards to protect employees who are collecting some of the cash. we see that all these other major transit agencies are doing exactly the same thing. mta is simply doing what appears to be very well established best practice. it is not the case that mta is sort of willy nilly arming security personnel. since as mr. ris kin noted* 80% of security personnel do not carry arms. it is only those guards for whom it makes sense -- for whom as a matter of worker safety, they need to carry arms that do so. and 80% do not. that we do not want these guards engaging in some sort of gunfight on the streets.

23469, that hasn't happened*. that is an unfounded fear. this is a deterrent so people who might be thinking about robbing these san francisco employees know that they are protected and that hopefully they'll be less likely to do so. and the fact we have not had a problem with robberies -- i think in my mind -- shows that the deterrent has worked. we've heard before that there was some sort of inadequate training. and we now see from the mta these security personnel receive 70 hours -- if i add up the numbers correctly -- 70 hours of training. including significant training on use of force. and in addition, they have to every six months take an additional 16 hours of training at the firing range and re-qualify at the firing range every six months. in terms of the issues around the process, as we've heard the city attorney has determined that there

was no ethics violation. so someone can be of a view that the process should be different or that the law should be different -- and that's a poa blik policy decision* that is totally appropriate to have. but to reject the contract for some sort of ethical problem when it's been determined there was no ethics violation, that doesn't make sense to me. so, you know -- no process is perfect; no contract is perfect. but this is an existing contract that has worked well for the agency, as shown by the fact we haven't had some sort of epidemic of robberies. it's worked well. it's protected these workers. it's kept them safe. it's allowed them to do their jobs in a safe environment. and we should approve this contract. >> thank you supervisor wiener. supervisor mar. >> thank you. i appreciate the concerns raised by supervisor kim and campos.

and generally my philosophy is also not increasing guns among public employees and reducing it wherever possible in creative ways so that their jobs are protected and that they fulfill their functions. but on this one i'm convinced by -- especially by testimony from many of the guards themselves and sciu* and others that the armed protection for the night -- the 18 of the security guards -- the 20% -- is a necessity. and i'll just read kind of one of the quotes from one of the security workers from the mta. she says that she and her coworkers are really concerned about this -- the heading is that she wrote to many of us -- "armed security is a must." and i think she's talking about the narrow amount of people that need this defense. she says, "if the contract is

eliminated by april 30th at midnight, my coworkers and i will be defenseless against robbery attempts. without armed guards, the likelihood of violent offenses could increase putting mta employees and the community at risk." i'm appreciative that we've heard from a number of staff of the mta about this issue pch but also mr. ris kin has answered every single question not only for the budget committee and following up with what the budget and budget analyst has given us as well. but i'm appreciative of the training ris kin has gone through including training at the firing range for the narrow officers. training is continuing even after the initial training. on this cypress contract, i think it's the right thing to do. the question of whether armed guards in public institutions should be continued is a broader question that we'll hopefully address at another time. for this

contract, i'm really supportive of the comments from the workers themselves. thank you. >> thank you. supervisor cohen. >> thank you, madam president. i have a couple questions for the director of security. thank you. in the letter that director riskin drafted and said to us, talks about -- in a section talks about the training of our armed security guards. you make a reference that the armed security guards receive training that is extensive and beyond the minimum requirement that the state puts out. i'm curious to know, "what is that minimum requirement that the state puts out?" >> madam president -- director of security enforcement at mta. forgot that last time. the state requires six hours of class

time and four hours at firing range that's followed by a test. >> is that a written exam? >> it's written exam and they have to pass the firing test. >> my question is to director riskin now. thank you very much. director, has there been any internal internal policy changes* to ensure that the potential of i guess the process out of which the contract was negotiated -- the discrepancy -- whether it was a fair process? is there internal policy put in place to ensure this doesn't happen again even though the city attorney found there's no violation, it just -- doesn't quite pass the smell test. >> well, i guess what i would say is that the city attorney did at our request investigate and found that there was nothing that he did that was not

compliant with the relevant laws. i think to the extent the board feels the law was required -- i believe it's a 12-month waiting period -- for somebody transitioning from the private sector to the public sector to have dealings with their former private sector employee. to the extent the board feels that 12-month is not good enough -- i think somebody said that's a good debate to have and change the ethics code accordingly. recognizing there are optics associated with this even though the city attorney has confirmed what we believe to be the case that the process was fully legitimate. i think it's something we would definitely consider as we're thinking about, "who's going to be involved in a procurement going forward?" we always check to make sure we're within the law to the extent that this procurement has raised issues, we might consider whether we want to do something above and beyond the law until a such

point in time as board of supervisors might want to change that law. but our practices are cognizant of the law, have followed the law, and in this case as in all others (indecipherable). >> another question -- has your department ever considered -- has your department ever considered arming guards but with a non-lethal weapon? >> it's not something that at least in my time that we've looked at. i think as a result of this conversation, that's something we'd be happy to explore. that we did confirm that using armed security for -- to protect the folks who collect revenue is an absolute industry standard. so i think we would have to think hard about willing to deviate from that standard. it's something we can look into. at the end

of the day we're going to defer to our security experts. work with our employees for potential changes to make. it's something we can look into. >> the reason i'm a little uncomfortable with this item is that i understand there's an industry standard to arm guards, but we're all human beings, and we're all subject to make mistakes. and when an armed guard makes a mistake, it has cost and can cost a person their life. and i don't think that we are in a position to take this gamble. and i don't think that we're in a position to take the safety of the worker and their concerns of -- and a desire to see some level of armed security. i would very much like to see a proposal that takes into consideration arming security guards but with a non-lethal

weapon. thank you. >> thank you, supervisor cohen. supervisor far el. >> thank you supervisor breed. colleagues, i would just say two points. first of all, i appreciate your comments about the process here. it does seem strange. i will say this contract was up before us budget committee in 2014 with -- and there were only two bidders. and the other bidder was the one who won the contract for the first time. and we were prepared to vote on them and approve it. and so, all of this what lately has been discussed came to light after we budget committee. so i do share some concerns. look forward to amending the laws so we don't even have these potential for optics. i think it's well-worth it as a board of supervisors. will be happy to work on that. in terms of the conversation around armed guards, i appreciate that conversation. i wish we could do everything to

eliminate armed weapons in every facet of our city life. i think after listening to certainly labor and also mta staff, you know, at times there is a reason for this. and certainly carrying currency late at night from my perspective -- that is something that is a job that is incredibly risky. and one could again -- there's no data to support that, of course, but there's an argument to be made that the reason we haven't had incidents is because they are armed. and we could debate that around and around. but from my perspective, i would er on the side of caution and allowing -- especially since there have not been any serious incidents and all the training that has been outlined earlier to continue to allow that. so i will be voting in favor of this today. in terms of voting on contracts, we have to work on those issues. >> thank you. supervisor avalos. >> thank you. i will be

voting against the contract for armed services. and but i do appreciate the explanation i got. last night from director riskin. i can understand the need. i can understand why they feel there's a need. my concern -- i'm voting "no," but i do vote "no" saying, "if there ever was a change where armed services were dropped from security services but security services continued, security workers keep those jobs and they actually get paid the same amount of money they got for carrying arms in the new jobs where they're not carrying arms, that to me is really important that the workers do not see any loss in take-home pay. just want to put that out there that my "no" vote includes that comment. >> thank you supervisor avalos. supervisor kim. >> i just want to say i do appreciate all the answers and response from sf-mta. i just want to

concur with supervisor avalos and cohen. i'm still not convinced. i'm not saying i'm against it 100%. i actually could see how it's useful and how armed services is a deterrent. i just don't see feel like i have all the needs* to vote the contract moving forward today. in general for our taxpayer dollars to make sure we're spending it the best we can and to make sure everyone is safe doing that. i'm confident moving forward we'll have this conversation. but in weeks time as sf mta did as best they could response to all these questions. i just don't think industry standards means it's necessary or that it makes us safer. but it i'm not saying it doesn't make us safer either. i just wish we had more options in terms of non-lethal options. and we explored daytime versus nighttime. i get the nighttime obviously. that off the bat i

understood immediately. i just wish we had time to explore less guns on the street and other non-lethal options. we weren't able to do that in this time. i appreciate they get more training than was initially presented to us last week. firing range is different from a moving target in a very busy city. i would like to understand that a little more as we move forward. but i certainly think safety is a top issue for our employees. if we look at safety, we have to look at our bus drivers, because they're the ones where we have a history of demonstration of attacks and assaults on our bus drivers. we haven't seen it yet with our fare collectors. this is where the questions come up -- if our goal is really ut most safety for our* what are we doing with our bus drivers where we do have demonstrable assaults with our drivers. i think this is an ongoing dialogue. i won't be able to support the

contract today. i am appreciative that this will continue. >> seeing no other names on the roster, mad 8 clerk can you please call the roll. >> on item nigh 19 -- supervisor breed aye -- campos -- no. chris 10 sen ksh aye. cohen -- no. far l -- aye. kim -- no. mar -- aye. tang -- aye. weern -- aye.* ye -- aye. avalos -- no. >> there are seven ie's and four no's* with supervisor campos, kim, avalos with the dissent. >> this resolution is adopted. mad 78 clerk, can you call the next item. >> 20 -- resolution to adopt the city's 5-year plan for fiscal years 15-20. >> madam clerk.

>> breed -- aye. >> can i make a comment? >> oh, sorry about that. take it back. supervisor mar. sorry i missed your name on the roster. >> that's okay. this is on the financial plan. actually, i'm sorry. i wanted to speak on item 21 -- sorry about that. >> okay. can you call the roll please madam clerk. >> on item 20, madam president? >> supervisor breed -- aye. campos -- aye. chris 10 zen -- aye. cohen -- aye. far l -- aye. kim -- aye. mar -- aye. tang -- aye. wiener -- aye. ye -- aye. avalos -- aye. there are 11 aye's. >> this resolution is adopted unanimously. next item please. >> item 21 is a resolution to adopt the city's 5-year information and communication technology plan

for fiscal years 2016 through 2020. >> supervisor mar. >> thank you. i first wanted to thank our city's chief information officer miguel and the quake committee for the great presentations they've given and their ambition for a 5-year communications technology plan. i wanted to also acknowledge the great work of our budget and legislative analyst office that last week revealed a major report showing the huge gaping and potentially widening digital divide that exists within our city especially for low-income neighborhoods -- seniors, the homework gap for many low-income kids at home that are not part of the high-speed internet revolution that's sweeping across this world. i think some important concerns that i have about our 5-year plan were raised at the budget and finance committee recently as we heard talk about the findings of the report from

the budget analyst. i wanted to say that well over 100,000 san franciscans do not have internet access. and the fcc has recently upped the definition of what high speed to the home access is. and i think it's way more than 100,000 people given the numbers from a survey done by the controllers office. and 50,000 people in san francisco still use the -- some might call it archaic dial-up -- which is really really slow. you can't access audio or vid yul like many others can*. the new york times editorialized and we reiterated what our budget analyst found in the study that was done that local governments really must play a critical role in increasing broadband so nobody is left behind -- especially low-income communities. i want to thank assemblyman am yeah know* task force for digital inclusion that advocated not only for not leaving anybody behind in the digital highway but also

for the potential of a municipal fiber network like chattanooga, tennessee and 100 other jurisdictions around this country. i think the 5-year technology plan is really a good vision, but it's not adequately addressing digital inclusion -- and that we bridge the digital divide as strongly as we can and leave nobody behind. i look forward to working with mr. gamino and other stakeholders that ensures our digital divide and struggles for digital inclusion as strongly as we can. i think a divide that includes creative and strongest solutions should support digital inclusion in our city and action plan as well like we had in 2007 and few years ago. so i look forward to coordinating my efforts with supervisor mark far l who's* also been active in this looking at financing fur expanding our city's

broadband network* and to facility these goals i directed the city attorney to form a digital inclusion task force so we can ensure senior organizations and low-income groups can have a say as our city develops information technology plan for the future. >> thank you supervisor mar. supervisor wiener. >> thuch madam president.* so i'll be supporting this today. but there are two items i want to raise. and expand the access to broadband, a really critical component is that the city actually have the infrastructure in place to do that. and i'll be honest that i think the city is falling behind. and i don't think our city government has done what it needs to do. so we are in the process in san francisco of digging up almost every city street in the city. we are accelerating our road

resurfacing, replacing our sewer system, our water mains. pg&e is doing an enormous amount of natural gas line work. we're doing all of this. and our city departments are not laying conduits in the street before they close it back up to be able to expand our existing municipal fiber network. it's -- i've never understood why this isn't happening. i hear excuses, but it's not rocket science. and it should have been happening for many many years. last year then-supervisor david chew authored legislation* that i cosponsored and we headed unanimously to require that our city department with some exceptions, lay conduit as their opening and closing* streets.* we learned that the budget committee that despite the fact that law has been on the books -- for i believe at least six months if not more -- maybe eight months -- not one inch of conduit has

been laid. not one inch of conduit has been laid. dt has been formulating protocols. i don't know to me those protocols don't need to be complicated. it's not rocket science. protocols apparently are going to be done next month. and then they will go into departmental review. well, we've all seen that movie before. i have no idea how long that's going to take. i could see it taking years if other examples are any indication. and there will be objection after objection from departments. and meanwhile we'll be repaving miles and miles and miles of road that we could have been laying conduit in. so i've asked the city attorney to draft legislation to basically remove all departmental discretion overlaying conduit and to amend, i believe, what would be the excavation code to mandate, "if

you're digging up the street, you shall lay conduit." i'm hoping we don't even have to introduce that legislation. i'm hoping all departments can work together and move this forward so we start laying conduit knew. not in a year*. not in five years. not one block per year. but actually start getting it done. we are seeing enormous missed opportunity, and we need to fix this. instructor: i also want to say that we are* expanding free wifi access in public spaces. i don't think it's where it needs to be. the wifi access particularly in on market street is particularly bad. if we're going to try to give people access, we have to have the infrastructure that actually supports that access. i will be supporting it today, but i think these are significant infrastructure challenges that the city has not adequately addressed. >> thank you supervisor wiener. supervisor campos. >> thank you. i don't want to belabor the point. but i do think that one of the things that

struck me about the issue of the digital divide that exists is the timidity with which the city is addressing that issue. and i want to thank supervisor mar for raising the issues he's raised. and i know that there's going to be work that's going to be done. in the near future on that issue.* i know that supervisor far l has actually done work around this as well. and i think that supervisor wiener noted is also very important. so i think that's progress. but, you know, what struck me and has struck me about this is that we tout ourselves as being a city that is, you know, technology-driven, and yet, when it comes to the digital divide, we are lagging behind many cities. and it's interesting, because san francisco the last few years has rolled out the red

carpet for these tech corporate giants. and i wonder "where are they in this picture?" you know, the tech chamber of commerce as is it city touts all the things it's done for san francisco. well, what has it done to close the digital divide? i have yet to hear anything about what they've done on this issue. and the fact that i haven't heard anything tells me they probably have done very little. mr. con way is not shy to talk about all the things he has. so i think that has to be a 2-way street. i think the city has to do more, but i also think that these corporate partners should do more as well. we certainly have gone out of our way to provide financial benefits to a lot of these companies -- a lot of these corporations -- and yet, it doesn't seem that we're really getting much, and

certainly in this area, san francisco -- the heart of silicon valley -- is lagging behind places like chattanooga nn where they have made investments that far outpace anything we're doing here. >> thank you supervisor campos. supervisor chris 10 zen. >> i just wanted to point out that if we said "yes" to google ten years ago, we wouldn't be having this discussion. >> thank you supervisor christensen. colleagues, can we take this item -- same house same call? without objection this resolution is adopted unanimously. mad l clerk, can you call the next item please. >> item 22 is a resolution to adopt the city's 10-year capitalization plan