bodies, to be able to read the variables ourselves. get the raw data ourselves. and it's only because we want to also share in the story and understanding exactly what is occurring to make sure that we're getting closer to fixing the systems that are broken, that are challenging our families. and oftentimes, that becomes a hindrance. kevin? >> thank you, commissioners. and so i think for coleman and our work with families, data is a key, fundamental part of it and making sure that that data is something that is understood by people and used to change the outcomes that we see within the public school system. theres a lot of negative outcomes for students historically, so we want to be sure that whatever is happening is working to help solve the problems. i kind of broke my talking

points into three key points around availability of data, accuracy of data, and being -- folks being able to ingest it. a lot of the data that we requested is not available because it's not broken down in ways that are meaningful and helpful to identify the communities that are most negatively impacted. a lot of times that means that we cannot actually get answers to some of the most pertinent questions. there was a situation that we were in a meeting and wanted to know the population of special education students that were of african-american ethnicity or race. and we were not able to get that information, even though we know it's one of the larger groups and most impacted in that. we've had a lot of issues around accuracy. we've requested data countless times before they had a good, computerized system and gave us

800 documents to sort and sift through to discuss whether it's disproportionate suspensions towards african-americans, and there was. we till have struggles knowing if it's accurate and how do we balance that and have a culture of trust and how we're bringing in the input of families and people being served by the system to see if they're experiences really matches what's reported in the data. i know the school system talked about the school climate survey they have. one of the disadvantages is that the students most negatively impacted are least likely to take that survey and most engaged and frustrated with the district are not the ones filling out the survey. lastly, accessibility. for us to get access to

fundamental data and understand what is going on with students, we have to do a public information request to request that data. when we did it last year, it took us over three months to get that data from the district -- six months to get that data from the district and we had to pay over $600 for that data. so that's not readily accessible for families. a lot of stuff we want to know is the intersection between the different services and departments that serve families and a lot of data is not shared together collectively. so the school district doesn't know it. the department of public health doesn't know what's happening. so we're not able to get accurate information about the number of students arrested because that doesn't live in the school district. it's with the police department. for us, we feel that families

need this cross section of information and matching people's experiences and there's not a bunch of barriers for folks to get the information. whatever we can do to push for equity and metrics around that and standards to hold city departments, the school district, and all the actors in the city. we're really concerned about charter schools and the lack of sharing. they have a very foundational role as an educational institution, but they don't even meet the requirements that are enough for the school district to point out. so to figure out how it takes to go beyond city departments and everything that affects the lives of the families in the city of san francisco. thank you. >> so it seems like if we had something like ramsey county has, open access to data

required to be collected, that would be of great use. >> and having that collected across different fields and areas and comparable to make a useful analysis to deal with the inequity and institutional racism that we have here in san francisco. >> and the other thing that i would add, who is holding the folks accountable and where is the oversight? we work more closely with sfusd, but you can say this about any of the departments -- there is limitations to what is shared. for us, we have a resolution around suspensions along with a police mou that is clear about how police should be conducting themselves as well as

suspensions for our students. even though they know what data should be collected and reported out every year, it's a cat-and-mouse chase, and that's why we end up having to use a public request document because we're not getting the bare minimum oftentimes in a timely fashion. >> you just shared with us tonight some of the things that would be helpful for the community and dealing with the issues that our children face. and so, of course, you know that we always want to know if you have specific suggestions about things that you share them constantly and make sure that we're hearing what you're saying. >> thank you. >> commissioner ellington has a question. >> real quick. how's it going? >> commissioner. >> haven't seen you in a while. >> i would just -- and i know we'll go through a series of these meetings and talk more

deeply about data, but i would like to invite coleman back to give a full presentation on some of the innovative measures you are using and what you are doing with the data and specifically speaking about the data that's not available. it's a shame that it takes three months to get -- six, that's right, data and then you have to pay $600 for it on top of that. a lot of this stuff, i'm sure, through casual stories and the work that you do, you know what's going on. how do you take the data and prioritize it into what you then advocate for? >> i think for us in a lot of ways, it's matching the story that we see in the data and trying to uncover what isn't there and matching it from the stories from our members,

parents, students in the school that are having real-life experiences that are not always captured in the data. for us, a big part of it is, we're doing surveys and focus groups at school sites and trying to gather as much of that information. another part for us that's foundational is, how are we educating as a school community about what data exists and what it means and what it doesn't mean. so we can have a real serious conversation about what needs to happen at the school from an informed position. sfusd's graduation is close to 90%, high 80s. if you look at really particular populations like latino and african-americans, it's closer to 60% to 70%, which tells a different story about what's going on. and we understand why the school district would want to lift their successes, but for us, we need to shine a light on what is

not successful, so we can address them and not from a standpoint of, we have experts that we'll bring in to fix our problems how will we embed the community in crafting the solutions and using a feedback process to make sure that we're moving forward and solving things versus spinning our wheels. >> thank you so much. >> thanks. >> this -- so we've reached the conclusion of our scheduled speakers, but we do have several people from city government here in san francisco and oakland that i want to bring up for public comment first, so we get them on the record. i'd like to invite deana rocha, advisor to the mayor. we didn't get you on the agenda, but i'm so glad that you are here. >> thank you, commissioners. i just want to say, thank you, it's an honor to stand before

you. many of you do so much amazing work and thank you for leading the charge about trying to create better data collection in our city. i want to quickly give you a context. mayor ed lee had a direction and vision. and i want to emphasize that our criminal justice forum, which is our public safety departments, chief and deputies have come together after the department of justice recommendations on a quarterly basis. one of the areas brought forth is that we have to look at best practices and adapt two major categories when it came to data collection. one, a separation of where we look at justice information to highlight the latino community and be able to understand through our justice department,

all of our justice departments, how latinos are being impacted by a criminal justice system. equally so, there's middle eastern and north africans that we want to see more intimately as well and desegregate from the white category, so we understand all people of color and how they're impacted by the justice system. in conversations with mayor lee and director davis, the agreement is that we come and start hearing how exactly you would recommend to move forward. we want to absolutely take this charge very seriously, one, because our late mayor wanted to see that we are looking at all ethnicities and how we can capture data and get better at trying to understand how we deal with the issues of disparity, coming up with even investment and programs and how we look at the data across the board in our

justice system when it comes to incarceration and arrest and coming back to our communities. with that, i wanted to make sure that that was highlighted. i want to thank you, all, many of you have worked with our late mayor and current mayor endorsing these efforts and we want to understand the recommendations that you have here tonight and ongoing. >> thank you. >> next, i would lining to ask darlene flynn, oakland's department of race and equity, if she's still in the room. great. thank you for with being us tonight and staying with us to the end. >> no problem. i'm used to long public meetings. 5 -- i want to commend you for having this forum and taking the approach and looking at data and equity. there's a complex issue and making it work well for your

residents in san francisco will require more change work. this is what i do, as the director of race and equity in the city of oakland, is how do we use data and other mechanisms to bring about structural and institutional change? because it just happened, i want to underscore everything that the leadership from coleman said as being absolutely central to making data work for equity. it's really important who is telling the story and that the story being told by the data or that we might understand by looking at the graphs and so on is ground truth with community reality and experience. it's a huge disconnect in government, even where we've collected really good data. and people will share with you from the health department and from -- i'm amazed at how much

amazing work is being done by public defenders here and people using data well. and disrupting structures perpetuating racial inequity. we can use data to design or identify who needs more services. health departments use data to target resources and think about how to do a better job at helping the community be more healthy. the shift that's coming in public health and in other areas is to look at -- let's look at what are the causes of those racial disparities in health outcomes and how can we look at what structures need to be changed in order to not make people sick and then we have to make them well, right?

that's called moving upstream. we've got to bring the community into the conversation. we're trying to go deeper. to go deeper, we cannot just rely on numbers on a piece of paper. we have to think about community differently, with the expertise that is brought to the table. it was interesting to me about the coleman folks that i don't know or anything about their program, it only took that short statement for me to know that they're on the right track. they're saying to you what needs to be understood. this is a huge shift for government. what you are undertaking is a commitment to institutional and structural change. and that means we have to be all hands on deck and that means community. we won't get it right if we don't bring the community in. this is a huge anchor to do the type of work i'm launching. i've only been there for a year,

but i've done this work before in seattle, washington. it's to think about community's role and expertise when we're trying to solve the problems. and people closer to the impacts are closer to the selections. so while well have expertise, myself included, in doing various kinds of work and institutions, we'll not get it right without resenter and placing expertise and holding community expertise differently, so when they say, this is what we need, that's what we need and we can then look at the whys about why we're not doing it that way. and that will tell us a lot about what needs to change in our institutions, because we've not been responding to that for a long, long time now, not just san francisco or oakland, but we collectively as government. it's our challenge to recalibrate and change the paradigm.

data is a big part of it, but there's a reason we don't have realti realtime, flexible data. it's challenging to us. and the other thing, result-based accountability. and that is that we don't just collect data for data sake, but for the end in mind. if you think about it that way, that's why that organization is looking for certain kinds of data. they know the end they're trying to get. they have a clear picture of what equity would look like in public schools in san francisco and they know the data they need to be able to diagnose why we don't have that. diagnosis determines treatment and we need data, we need information. it's working at the problem differently. it's the paradigm is flipped on its head. we don't just look at the data

and say, we have a terrible problem here. let's throw a program at it. so it changes completely how we do problem-solving. so it's an important concept. i encourage you to get familiar with that. and, by the way, result-based accountability does not require that we have perfect data today. it requires that we start to think differently about why we need data, how we use data and what data we'll ask for and build that data out, rather than relying on the old ways we've done it that don't get us where we want to get. so that's probably what i have to contribute. you have a lot of information including some of that. final and last, and i know that cheryl -- if i can address you by your first name -- is thinking about this and working on it. one of the difficulties that we have is our ability to hold data as information and to create a

climate that's nonpunitive, while we're working with that data. that's a huge cultural shift, as you all know. part of the reason that elected officials and others run away from data is because they're used to working in a punitive environment. we have to build up an environment where we can tolerate it and looking at it in meaningful ways. it's not a short-term proposition, but it's an important part of the equation if we want it to stick, want it to work. any questions, i would be happy -- >> i think director davis has some comments. >> i wanted to recognize that as we talk about the changing landscape, not just in san francisco, but the bay area, darlene has been a great partner for what that looks like regionally and what happens when people go there. we know we have a lot of people that still consider san francisco home but don't necessarily live here and what does that look like for us to

have a regional approach? and with regards to her last comment, i want to recognize that that was a conversation that james bell and i had had specifically around if law enforcement does its job well and numbers go down in terms of crime or with the need for public defenders, if they improve outcomes, then they could get less money. so we have to be aware how we consider the impact of data and how it's nonpunitive in the minds of people. >> and what we reward and don't reap ward. it's important. there's a lot of shifts in there that need to happen. >> and for the city to understand that because we move closer to the goals, it doesn't mean that resources should be able away from the departments that are doing the right thing.

>> and there are so many things that the departments could be doing with the resources if they weren't doing the same old things. >> exactly. >> so it would be truly beneficial to the city and county. its about reprioritizing that money. there is never enough money for community policing. if we were not doing minor equipment stops, what can we do with that? if we were spending those resources building relationships and doing community policing, but it takes resources. so we might have to take those from someplace else. police departments are not going out of business. i think we'd like to see them do business differently. >> thank you. so looking forward to this collaboration. >> i'm honored to be here. thank you. >> thank you for being here. we have a card, speaker card, for public comment from tracy garza, who is a member of the

human rights commission lgbt ac, advisory committee. >> thank you very much. like you said, i'm a member of the lgbt ac and disability rights advocate. i would like to bring to the attention of the commissioners and people here on data and equity one of the important parts that has been very much not mentioned during the meeting today that affects lgbt. and specifically when it comes to autism-spectrum disorders, which according to scientific studies affect 10% of homeless people and 10% to 20% of transgender people compared to 1% of the general population, so you can see why in san francisco, there would be disproportionately high number of people affected by this.

and one of the things that this condition entails is a certain life expectancy and drastic life outcomes, between 12 and 30 fewer years than the general population and it has to do with the way that society treats people and there's a high level of discrimination in society, sadly even in places like san francisco that otherwise has a progressive record. i would like to bring this to the attention of everybody today. you cannot address a problem if you don't know what the problem looks like. so for your attention, thank you very much. >> thank you. director davis? >> i just wanted to recognize tracy. as we were talking about data collection, tracy wanted to be sure that we're aware to consider learning differences

and other pieces. so we're working with tracy and the group she works with and we'll have it at a future meeting. >> thank you. it's 8:04 p.m. one of our commissioners has to leave right now and so that will -- that means we're going to lose our quorum. before we do that, i'm going to recognize commissioner chan. >> i wanted to thank tracy for her comment and under this umbrella of the idea of disability, that's around important equity data point to think about and to make have a forum dedicated to that as well, because it impacts work force development and behavioral outcomes in schools, special education, whether or not people have interfaces with the justice system and that i would like that explored more in depth as

well and i wanted to really thank you, again, for bringing the point up to us as well. >> any other comments before we lose our quorum? thank you so much to all the speakers tonight and everyone who came out to hear and to participate. this is the first -- this is the second, actually, of our meetings dedicated to data collection, but it's the first one where we've had a number of substantive speakers, but won't be the last. we'll be inviting all the people that spoke tonight and others to come for more in-depth presentations and discussions and the commission itself along with the agency together will be working on our recommendations and things that will be asked of us and that we'll be asking of the city. very much looking forward to that conversation, particularly

with hope sf and the issue of reparations for people who have been moved out of san francisco explicitally and purposely as well as those who have been moved out in more structurally invisible ways and how we as a city can work on an equity solution to allowing and helping people to come back to the city who have been displaced. so looking forward to that work very much. it's 8:04 p.m. and we're losing our quorum, so i'm going to adjourn the meeting. this meet agassi journaled. -- this meet agassi journaled. adjourned.

>> good afternoon, everyone. this meeting will come to order. welcome to the january 24, 2018 regular meeting of the rules committee.

our clerk is alyssa summerall and i'd also like to thank samuel williamses and high -- maya hernandez from sfgov tv. >> items acted upon today will appear on the january 30 board of supervisors agenda unless otherwise stated. >> great. thank you. thank you, ms. summerall. can you please call item number one? >> item number one is a hearing to consider appointing two members, terms ending november 30, 2018, to the ballot simplification committee. there are two seats and two applicants. >> great. we have two applicants, unless there is any initial comments from committee members.

let's hear from mr. scott patterson first. if he is ok. great. please come forward. >> hello. thank you for having me here today. i'm scott patterson, candidate for the ballot simplification committee. my family traces its roots in san francisco back to when they immigrated from italy in 1881 so we've been around for a long time. i've been a member of the faculty at san francisco state university as a professor of broadcast and electronic communication arts for over 20 years. for 10 of those years, i served as chair of the department. i've also been a member of the national academy of television arts and sciences which has brought me before you today. i'm currently serving as a governor in that organization. i live in the richmond district and my wife and i have lived there for well over 20 years and we're child-free. i look forward to any questions you may have. >> great.

any questions from committee members? yes? supervisor yee? >> i'm sorry. mr. patterson? >> hello, yes. >> yeah. could you -- i didn't get a chance to meet with you or meet with anybody in my office. so, can you just tell -- give a little more background, your background so i could get to know you? >> i'm trained professionally as a music recording engineer. i hold three degrees in the field of communication, ending with doctorate in communication from the ohio state university. i've worked professionally in television and in radio stations across the country. with wgbh in boston being the largest station at which i worked. i currently teach in the becca department at san francisco state university. it is the acronym we use because it is a mouthful.

i teach courses primarily in music recording engineering and electronic media research methods which are the writing intensive courses in the department for required of all students before they graduate to demonstrate their writing ability. >> mm-hmm. and what made you interested to be part of this committee? >> two reasons, primarily. i think voting is the single most important act that any member of a democracy can engage and i always vote. and i want everybody to always vote. and secondly, i believe that the ballot simplification committee work product is an exceptional aid in that voting process. i have had the opportunity to vote in elections in other states and the ballot that is prepared here is just superior. i think the work of the ballot

simplification committee goes long way toward doing that and i'd be very interested in helping with that project. >> ok. sounds good. and i -- i'm asking more about you, mainly because -- mainly because this is a very important committee, as you seem to agree and how we write up the initiatives and the ballot initiatives and these summaries and so forth is to make sure that our voters understand exactly what's going on and with no deceptions is really important for not only myself but probably all of my colleagues. i really appreciate, number one, you seem to have a very good background for this type of work and, number two, your willingness to even do this. thank you very much. >> you're welcome. >> thank you, supervisor. i have a few questions for you. so my question is less and your experience.

i think you're really well-qualified. i just want to know about the commitment and make sure you're prepared for the level of commitment that this requires. have you attended any of the ballot designation hearings in the past and are you -- >> i have not, no. i'm not -- i've read the website and the materials and seen the minutes of the meeting and i've participated in their work product. but i've never been a part of their process. >> right. so i mean, you have wonderful recommendation on behalf of the nominating organization. so, that's important. the thing that i know from speaking with ms. packard and the familiarity of this committee is that this is -- this can be pretty intense. we members of the board of supervisors and others often like to put a lot of things on the ballot. it just ends up happening. that's san francisco culture, as you know. so at times you might be doing 9:00 to 5:00 four or five, six

weeks so this is a commitment and sometimes of about a month of your life without any compensation. so i just want to make sure, since i didn't have an opportunity to meet with you, that you're fully aware going in, eyes wide open, at the level of commitment that this really important body requires. >> i'm prepared to donate that effort to the organization. i think that i understand that it's a lot of work. i've done a lot of writing. and writing takes time. and that it's a committee. and writing by committee takes more time. and i'm aware of that. my work schedule and other obligations allow me to have the time to spend to devote to this committee. >> great. i just wanted to make sure. i think eyes wide open is really important because the amount of time that this takes and the amount of intensity and the amount of scrutiny and the amount of importance of this body requires that level of commitment. so, if you're prepared to make that commitment, i think that

the your background and qualifications are up to the task and you have, as i said, nice recommendations from the nominating organisations. so i appreciate that. any other committee members have any other questions? >> no. >> ok. seeing none, i think what we need to do is hear from the second -- yes. the second applicant. and then we can take public comment. so, thank you, scott. if there is any other questions, we'll call you back up. >> thank you. >> ok. and so now let's hear from our second applicant, ms. betty packard. >> good afternoon. >> good afternoon. >> and shall i say that i have chaired this commission for the last 15 years, been on the committee for now 21 years. i am very proud of this committee. i am very proud of the members on it. i am proud of the work that we have done.

if you want a little bit of my background, i have 63 years of journalism experience behind me, starting when i was very young, as a reporter for the "indianapolis time requests . i have taught journalism, both high school and college. i have been editor of four national magazines. when it comes to the print side. i've been a tv host. i've done a little bit of everything. which is interesting. one year i interviewed peter druker who said to me really creative people change jobs about every five years in order stay creative and i think that probably fits me, exempt when it comes to the ballot simplification committee. [laughter] >> and i know you were giving me a little bit of background. but if you could just talk a little bit about the level of commitment. i think that is important for

the public to hear and some of the work that you do. >> well, by law, we have to be finished 90 days before the ballot is -- before the election. and we usually work for two solid weeks before then. this last election, we had to work for three weeks because of the 25 measures on the ballot. what happens is, as a city attorney comes to us with a draft, sometimes we love it. sometimes we don't. sometimes we tweak it. sometimes we tear it apart. and sometimes we accept it. but in all terms, we wind up rewriting it into legible, 8th grade terms for the average voter. and then from what we do, we go to public comment, people tell us what they think of what we've done. then we go back and review it again. and then at the end of that period, we come up with a draft which is then available for

appeal. and people always try to appeal what they think that they want. and then we reschedule it in 72 hours plus so that it fits the sunshine law. and then we go through it all, the whole series all over again until we come up with a final draft and that is what's on the first page of the every initiative in the ballot handbook. >> all done within 90 days of election. >> it's done within two weeks, three weeks at the max. >> but all your work has to be done prior -- >> 90 days prior. which puts us sometimes in a problematic situation when the supervisors wait until the last week of our session to finalize something on the ballot and then it becomes -- >> ?raoel we don't do that. [laughter] >> oh, yeah! oh, yeah. and then it becomes lots of fun for us.

and really intense and sometimes then we have to ask for a waiver on the sunshine in order to get it all in. but that is how we do business. >> great. well, thank you for that. and as i said, thank you for your continued commitment to this really important committee. you've been on since 1997? >> '97, yes. it seems like i shouldn't even be that old. [laughter] >> ok, thank you. any other questions or comments from committee members? ms. packard? ok. seeing none, thank you, ms. pack ards. if we have anymore, we'll call you back up. we'll go ahead and take public comment on this item. any members of the public that wish to testify on item number one? please come ford want state your name. if you have any developments, you can hand them to the clerk. you have two minutes. >> good afternoon. i'm nancy warfel. i want to tell you what a tremendous public service this committee is and ms. packard is outstanding. i have been before her several

times on issues that every verb, noun and grammatical structure has been examined and i cannot tell you how important it is that the attention that this committee gives to the structure of the english language in order to be clear and accurate is important. even if the people that read the ballots don't understand what went in to put these words on the page. i want to say thank you. and i want to welcome scott over here. if he is successful. this will be the time of your life. we are going to put you through paces like you never believed the public was capable of doing. but that is what democracy is all action and i just want to say i love this committee and i wish it had more coffee, tea, doughnuts or whatever you guys want because you do a public service like nobody else. thank you. >> thank you. any other members of the public wish to comment on item number one? seeing none, public comment is closed. i'd like to entertain a motion

to move this forward. >> sure. i'll go ahead and move that we appoint scott patterson to seat one and betty packard to seat two with positive recommendation to move forward to the full board. >> to the ballot simplification committee. without objection, that item is moved and ordered. thank you. congratulations and thank you again for your commitment. ms. summerall, please call item number two. >> item number two is a charter amendment for the june 5, 2018 election, to eliminate the municipal transportation agency's jurisdiction over traffic and parking legislation, grant the authority to the board of supervise source and create a livable street, commission and department to manage park and traffic. >> hmm. great. thank you. this is my item. i'm going to go ahead and say a few words. so, committee members know this, but general public, just

want to reiterate. we introduced myself and supervisor peskin introduced legislation yesterday, which establishes a procedure for the board of supervisors to review certain m.t.a. decisions. and just to remind members of the public the genesis of that is, after talking to many of our colleagues and working with individuals in the public, there's a lot of general frustration about the -- what i want to call the neighbourhood issues. issues that are more relevant to our constituents in our districts. not to say that they're not city-wide issues. but they are issues that we hear about the most. for lack of a better term. so, issues that revolve around traffic calming, stop signs, parking, preferential parking, curb management, and these impact us and we hear about them, i would say, probably on a daily basis. and so i approach supervisor

peskin and we started a dialogue about the history and the design of taking what was the department of parking and traffic and the sfmta and merging it into one agency and removing any oversight or influence from this body. and i think that there were -- there was good intentions ins that movement. i think that the idea was to allow the experts and policy experts and policymakers and planners to take these policies and implement them without, i guess, political influence and i think some of those things have worked really well. but at the end of the day, i think what has happened, as i've said to you, we've been consistently bombarded in our positions about complaints and about the areas that we've referred to that we ultimately have no authority over. but we get a lot of the responsibility.

so ultimately we move forward with an idea to keep one commission for this agency, all the commissioners still would be appointed by the mayor so we're not getting into and rehashing old debates, but the commission would remain the same. their level of expertise would remain the same. but what we would do is we would create a department of livable streets. and in that department, there would be a certain level of authority that is described, as i've said to you, with regard to traffic calming stop signs, pedestrian safety, vision zero, curb management, bicycle lanes, all the things that are just outside of pure muni and the idea would be that muni could then focus on muni's core mission, which is a first class, world class public

transportation system. in the interim, what we decided to do yesterday is access what is already in the city charter and it allows for, through the legislative process, our body to create a review of certain m.t.a. decisions. with regard to the creation and elimination of preferential parking zones, the creation or elimination of parking metre zones, limitation on the time period for which a vehicle may be parked. disability parking zones, curb space management, private transportation programmes involving preferential parking or curb space management. so these are some of the things that we have interim authority over so we're going to move that legislation through the legislative process. hopefully my colleagues here will be supportive of that and we'll work with them and work with members of the public and sfmta on that. in the interim, we have decided

to postpone our ballot measure and reserve the right to come back for the november ballot. hopefully in the interim, sfmta has proposed some additional stems that they feel will be more responsive to the members of the public. they will be more responsive to our district offices. and they will be coming around to you and you to present this plan that they intend to implement to be more responsive to the needs of the districts. and so we want to see that and give that some opportunity. i'm going to actually ask tom mcguire to come forward and say a few words because they presented us with an interim communication and outreach and follow-up strategy. you don't have to get into the minute detail, but some words on top of the great work that dylan does in keeping our

offices informed. but you have a new strategy and a new design on how to be more responsive to us. in the meantime, we're going to postpone our ballot measure and give some opportunity to see this legislation, hopefully our board will pass that. and we will then begin having the opportunity to review some of the things that i've described. mr. mcguire. >> ok. thank you. tom mcguire, sustainable streets director for the sfmta where i oversee many of the functions and programmes that the supervisor described in his discussion regarding public and traffic regulation around the city. we appreciate the opportunity to say a few words about this whole legislative area today and some areas -- ways in which we think we can do better. we certainly understand that this proposal, as well as the legislation that you and supervisor peskin introduced yesterday, was borne out of real frustration with the way the sfmta is doing business,

particularly at the neighbourhood scale, in terms of responding to requests around things like stop signs and safety areas. safety programmes. it's our intention, as you said, to outline over the next 90 days for each member of the board of supervisors as well as for our m.t.a. board ways in which we can be more responsive, be more proactive, and also be more accountable to you and to all 800,000 users of the transportation system and what you'll see, as we bring out the details of that, will be more proactive community-based planning, an approach that we've seen some success with in areas like the western addition. [please stand by] [please stand by]