not a political statement. it's survival and political action we have to break the cycle of devastating impacts of climate change. the money we'll pay for a seawall is exhorbitant. fossil fuels also hurts the environment especially in areas. we need to protect and defend public pensions by making them more secure without fossil fuels and protect and defend our city and residents from environmental damage. thank you. >> thank you very much. up next, we have wayne roth, followed by mary jean robertson. followed by eddie ahn. >> hi. i'm wayne roth. i'm urging you to divest and for

this reason -- if we don't kill fossil fuels, they will kill us. we have very little time before we pass over climate system tipping points that will make it impossible for all of our efforts to try to stop climate change. if you don't get out of fossil fuels and use clean energy, we're leaving a world uninhab uninhabitable for our children and grandchildren for tens of thousands of years. let's make the right move, moral move, the move that divests from fossil fuels now. thank you. >> thank you very much. up next, we have mary jean -- >> mary jean -- [inaudible] >> thank you very much. up next, eddie ahn, followed by john stinson, followed by jonathan coker, followed by betty holiday. thank you very much.

up next, we have john stinson, followed by jonathan coker. >> i'm john stinson. i'm a 43-year member of the pension fund. i came 30 minutes early to this meeting and you started 30 minutes late. i don't think you've ever started a meeting on time. will you meet start meetings on time. and the biggest threat to humankind is not fossil fuel or climate change. the biggest threat is when you have two crazy people that could start a nuclear war. and we have that situation today, one in north korea and one in the white house, unfortunately. if you divest in fossil fuel investments, you will need to divest from hedge funds of the what do you think that they would say if you cannot invest in tobacco or gun companies? please divest from both. >> up next, jonathan coker,

followed by betty holiday, followed by david paul. >> i divest. thank you. >> betty holiday -- [inaudible] >> ms. holiday, if you are going to speak, come to the microphone or yield your time. >> remember the cost of the fossil fuel industry. >> david paul, herbert weiner, john monthread. what is your name? [inaudible] >> i want to divest from fossil fuels, but i want it to be done on a thorough, surgical, precise divestment.

i want the least profitable to go and then the rest monitored closely. you are walking a tightrope between the fund yielding a significant return and also acting responsibly. i want to live long enough to see my returns and i'm sure everyone in the room does. so these are my concerns. i think we have to divest and do it the way new york is doing it. they're doing it on a long-term timeline and they're not wrecking their pension funds. >> time. john monfred. >> we have 20 minutes left before -- [inaudib [inaudible] >> thank you. we have jean walsh, followed by

sally buckman, it looks like. bookman. jean walsh, are you in the room? okay. we still have several speaker cards. anyone who -- >> i worked at san francisco hospital and retiree. divest now. >> there are some people not in the room who are next door. you will all have an opportunity to address the commission. if you have not submitted a speaker card, when i'm done calling on everyone, you will have a chance to come up. please stand by. >> ms. morales?

thank you. >> divest. >> the last speaker card that i have is for tristan bell. if there's anyone else that would like to address the commission after mrs. bell, you have the opportunity to come up. once we close public comment, you will no longer have the ability to address the commission and it's very possible that a vote may not happen before commissioner cohen leaves at 4:00. so just keep that in mind if you yield, if you yield your opportunity to speak to the board. ms. bell, are you present? tristan bell? okay. i don't have any other speaker cards. is there anyone else that would like to address the commission? >> good afternoon. you have heard from some of-colleagu

of-colleagues. 5 want to make a couple of points. we're divided in this. you have the responsibility to maintain our funds, grow our funds. you know that we as retirees depend on our pension. for a number of retirees, this is the only source of income. and when we get the cost of living increases and supplemental colas, it's directly related to the returns on this fund and we expect that would go on for some time. we would like to see that. otherwise we're looking at what we live on that for a lot of us is not very much and that would sustain us for the next 20 or 30 years, we hope. it's your responsibility to do the right thing. we recognize climate change and the problems, but support your right as if ied -- fiduciaries.

>> this is your last opportunity to address the commission. i will give a moment in case someone is next door and working their way over. please identify yourself for the record. >> i'm christine bell. i'm a native of san francisco. and in the interest of time and to help facilitate getting a vote done today, i just want to say, i'm for divestment and i'm going to concede my time. >> thank you very much. anyone else present that would like to address the commission? once we have closed public comment, you will no longer have the ability to speak. mr. secretary, will you announce outside that we're going to close public comment? thank you.

i hear a lot of nos. that was vote. not no. okay. we're going to go ahead and close public comment. as a board, this is our chance to ask questions and open it up to the board. >> would i like to make a motion unless people want to continue to spoke -- >> make the motion. and then we can have discussion. >> would i like to accept staff's recommendation and also add -- i'd like to identify the riskiest, dirtiest fossil fuel assets, and begin prudently, phased divestment as soon as possible, replacing them with better performing, clean assets. staff should report back with

the first set of opportunities by july 1. >> of this year? >> of this year. that's my motion. >> there's a motion. >> i second it. >> i would like to add to that motion. i ask that the divestment plan report give a concrete understanding of how they're defining "riskiest and dirtiest." including benchmarks, financial returns and targets. i would also like to see the financial returns and emission targets. i also want to establish a watch list. a watch list, the way we have our managers under review list, and i want to establish concrete

goals for any company with engagement and i want timelines with the set benchmarks. so these are simple, humble requests, adding to the motion that has been made and i hope that colleagues will be able to support that. >> procedurally -- >> good additions. >> thank you. >> i want to clear up one or two things about the effect of all of this. mr. martin, on page 7 of this 450-page report, it talks about a 22-basis-point reduction,

which is one of the tasks that you must do if we decide to accept that. that is what is in the report, correct? >> expected rate of return. >> would it in any way lower the allowances paid to the current retirees to include their basic cola? >> basic allowance and basic cola? >> we must pay that. >> so that reduction does not affect retirees. >> does not affect the basic cola for the retirees. >> in this plan you have proposed, was to shift $1

billion to fossil-free -- >> carbon-constrained. >> there were several indexes that were fossil-free, carbon-select and combinations of all. if we were to do that, would it immediately shift, sell, $50 million in securities? >> we would do this prudently. >> would it be $50 billion less securities in fossil fuels? >> $50 million? >> million. i'm going off of mr. martin's 5.4% number for how many securities are in this -- >> yes. the answer to that, i believe, is actually probably closer to $70 million. i'm going off the index weight of 7%. actually, no. it wouldn't be quite that much.

>> just give me a number. >> i can't. here's why -- >> i will guess $50 million. >> it will be around -- >> thank you. i'm sorry i didn't give you more time to come up with a number. series of numbers presented to us, in other reports, other index managers in the area, i forget the name, but it was forwarded to all of us. and the question is, how it might affect assumed rate of return to determine how much the active employees will contribute, how much the city must contribute. there's an indirect effect on their pay. retirees are insulated from that outcome. not totally, but 99.99%. what it shows is that there is no significant difference, but

look at adjusted-rate of return. this is the test about the worst significance. divested from tobacco, we did. city made up most of that. now some employees are sharing that cost. when you are going to divest and rule out somewhere between 4% to 7% of the total universe of options, that's significant. it's not something we're trying to avoid, but we have some rates of return based on a series of investment plans, but if we have to lower that rate of return, for us to tell the city, you must contribute, employees, you must contribute, that's a responsibility we cannot take lightly. these are the factors we're trying to take into account so that retirees can count on those checks coming and to help to try

to make this a safer, lovely place to live. that's the balancing act that i'm sitting through -- we've had other meetings on this subject that were public meetings. maybe you will come to the next one. that's why i think the plan with the additions made, i can support. >> the first staff recommendation should not affect the rate of return. we should keep moving. >> so my comment to that is i believe, and staff can remind us, that tobacco cost $62 million. >> cost us. >> cost us. >> over 19 years. >> but it's $62 million.

it's 10 times larger, i understand that, but that's why supervisor i added the prudently. as long as you can do this prudently and not affect the system in the way that would require the additional sums of money, i think we can do this. our focus is the riskiest, dirtiest fossil fuels, divesting prude prudently. and i think by adding in the -- what supervisor cohen described in a revised motion that will make -- lays a little more teeth and facts to it, so we have some figures to use later on. i support that. >> and a report will come back to us on july -- >> yes. >> i want to be sure that's in that.

>> i would like to make a motion to -- >> point of order. theres a motion on the floor. >> so we have a revised motion to include the in additions to my motion. >> are they amendments? >> yes. >> then they can be done. >> can we call for a vote? >> i have some questions. i mean, i'm sure other people on the board have some questions. anyone? no questions? >> i will ask a couple of questions first of all, what is the specific motion now so we thoroughly understand it. >> can we take it in two parts or is it all or nudothing? >> we can take it in two parts. >> we'll call for a vote and then you can make a motion?

>> yes. >> are there any other questions from the board or comments? i have a couple. how much did tobacco divestment cost calpers? >> $3.7 billion. >> your recommendation on the floor, the 6 points we talked about, do you think that will meaningfully affect the return of the system if it's done prudently? >> no. i think it can improve. >> okay. thank you. >> prudently. >> i would call the added language a seventh point. i want to be very clear here. there's some overlap with your language and number six. if you were to just look at the language of hers as stand-alone,

if done prudently, would it affect the return -- >> no. >> all right. so on the floor, we have staff's six-point recommendation as laid out on page 2 of staff's memo. correct? >> with a july 30 timeline? >> hold on. we have staff's six points. i want to be very clear for the record what we're doing here today. and the seventh point is the verbing a that was read into the record. is every single board member clear on the language? does anybody have any questions? >> but it's's july 30 -- >> july 31 report back to the board with options for implementing -- >> want me to repeat it? >> so we have a realtime line,

correct? >> correct. >> i want to make a comment before i call for the vote. i think that philosophically, we all agree with everyonen the room. we want to do the right thing for the earth, the environment. we're all against anything that will harm the environment. as fiduciaries, we walk a tight line for doing what's right for the system, minimizing contributions from the city, minimizing what employees have to pay every paycheck. if we get this wrong, it will result in a pay cut for employees. you had your chance to speak. be respectful of the process. if we get this wrong, it will cost employees money. if we get this money, it will cost retirees in the form of supplemental colas. as we proceed, we have to be very careful that everything

we're doing does not affect returns -- hold on. please. but still trying to fulfill the spirit of the motion. so we're walking a tightrope here. if the motion from the city was divest now, we'll pick up the tab no problem. i support that, as long as you don't affect retirees or active employees. but that's not what we're facing. you have to be patient with us. we want to do what you want to do, but we're trying to balance this and it's not one or the other. would anyone else like to make comments before i call for the vote? >> no. sorry. sit down. >> let's call the vote.

i think we're clear on what the motion is. everyone on the board is clear. it's been read into the record. mr. secretary, roll call vote, please? [roll call] >> motion passes. >> motion passes. >> mr. chair, i would like to make a motion for the next item. to reiterate, i'm making a motion and i'm asking the divestment plan report to give a concrete understanding of how they're defining riskiest and dirtiest, including benchmarks, expected financial returns and emission targets. i want to establish a watch list, much like how we have with managers under review and establish concrete goals for any company under level 2 engagement

and timeline for termination for any company not meeting set benchmarks. again, this is complementary to the motion we just took. >> i'll second. >> thank you. >> there's a motion. there's a second. among the board, any discussion or questions or points of clarification? >> i have a question. mr. coker, is that fulfillable? >> in spirit, i can agree to everything that i just heard. i have three concerns. two of which, i know you are going to agree to. it needs to be a research-oriented, process-driven discovery. the other is resources. that's a big mandate. i agree with it in spirit, but

it's a big mandate. we have tight resources right now. given the scope of a $24.5 billion pension plan. i know it can be done in time, everything that i just heard. the timeline, i have a concern about. >> how many people are at calpers working on these issues? >> i don't know that i know the answer to that. >> i don't know the answer offhand. above 10. in thought it was 20, but it's a wild -- >> between 10 and 20. >> i thought they said it was 20.

>> can i ask this as maker of the motion -- can we ask staff -- i agree with everything you said. if we're going to do this, all of those things have to be done. i echo the concern in terms of staff resources. how much time have you spent on putting together this presentation in the last several months? >> since july, comfortably 800 hours. >> a lot of time. part of the motion was to hire an employee to do this. >> that would be helpful and supportive of the additional resources, but that process is -- >> could we revise it to say something pertaining to you hiring that employee because you are obviously not going to have the resources until you hire that employee. >> yes.

could i make a suggestion? agree in spirit with everything. we have some work to do in terms of a timeline, hiring resources. what i would suggest is that we come back and give you a written report on status, okay? and if we can see timelines and expectations at that time, we will guide you accordingly. but at least we'll give you a written report in july on status. >> and we can bring forward the first point, which is definitions of how we're identifying and evaluating and getting the board support of how we're evaluatings ra riskiest a dirtiest. but going through 200 companies

of who should be on the watch list, that takes more research. and level two benchmarks and timelines, we're getting ready to go into a proxy season. so that will be driven by that. i think we can meet part of -- >> okay. two follow-ups. when is the director of -- >> we haven't begun to recruit for that. >> okay. just a simple, short answer. and what -- is this not something that our consultants can help with? >> certainly, but the purview of the general consultants to help us with this. >> so i don't understand why we can't bring them or engage with them on this research. >> can we for procedures say that they come back by july with a plan on how they're going to

accomplish each of these things so that both the first motion and yours are on the same timeline and we're fought moving in different directions at different times?

>> i don't know if we can deliver all three of your points we'll bring you what we can by july. >> let's do this, i want certainly my first point asap, all right. that's the definition. we need to know how people are defining riskyest and it's an arbitrary definition and i want bench marks and clarity so we work if the same session. you would agree we can get that done quickly? i think we can -- what i'm hearing is i think the establishment of the watch list. that also can get done quickly? and the establish of the concrete goals is what you need a little bit more time in? >> i can't say that the watch list is established quickly, because we have to determine the criteria and the definitions to be approved by the board as far as how we are evaluating who we put on a watch list. i think -- i mean, we certainly

if we can bring that by july, we will be prepared to bring it. if we aren't prepared to bring it it might be pushed for another three months. >> can i speak to this a little bit since i've been working with staff trying to get it done. >> yes, of course you can. i feel like this is a set up. >> what's a set up? >> you take one motion and you say yes and then the second when i'm trying to add meat to the previous motion and now it needs more time. >> i think what is important here -- this is been a monumental task for staff. and there are things i asked staff back in july, to do that have been pushed back several months affect the portfolio, not just a small portion. if we're going to focus on a small portion we're missing the

big picture. governor brown said in the next downturn, pensions will be cut. we have people on one side of the room who hate us and want to cut us to nothing, like in san jose and we have people on the other side of the room that are supposed to support us and want to cut us down to nothing. what we're trying to do is just -- things take a little bit of time. no one here is against what you are saying. we're just asking to give staff wiggle room so it can be thoughtful. that's all. >> excuse me. governor brown is not going to be the governor for very much longer. for those that are going to vote in the governor's race start thinking how you will evaluate who that person is going to be. perhaps instead of july, which is in six months, we give you three months. that way i'm meeting you halfway >> it makes it more impossible.

>> you are absolutely right. >> that was a great compromise. >> no wonder they cheered. >> no, but -- >> we'll do our best to deliver all three but i feel uncomfortable committing, we will without resources, be able to, because a lot of things have been put on the backburner, we'll deliver. you can determine in july whether we're doing a good enough job. >> commissioner cohen, the hiring process in san francisco gets out of our control. there are procedures and a process that can be surprising about how it is. >> i work for the city too, i know. >> very good. but, everything that you conveyed are things that i can agree to and that i am inspired

by. it's just research, process and resources. when we have those three things done, we will come to you with our findings. >> what is uncomfortable to me and it sounds reasonable and it's such a reasonable man. what is hard for me is it's been a long time. it hasn't been the case. we don't have that demonstrated. >> i would like to point out that this pension plan has done more than any other public pension plan in the united states. it's not -- >> please be respectful. >> they diverted $6 million in fossil fuel holdings. $6 million. we're talking $500 million here. you've heard the plan we're presenting is going to -- >> please, from the audience, let him speak. if you can't act like an adult step out of the room. >> you've heard the work we've done putting together a recommendation would be putting us on the van guard.

if we want to say the word leader, we'll be a leader with the seven-point approach. >> ok. >> the fact that everyone says it's not fast enough is not relevant to how much work has been put in and how much actions have been approved by this board i mean this board made the decisions. and we've done more than any other public pension plan in the united states. >> so let's die little bit more. i'm going to go ahead and give you the time you are asking for. i'm going to be not voting or supporting it but i'm going to let this body make their decision to move forward. does staff need more time, that's fine. vote your conscience on this. >> point of order. >> yes. >> you made the motion. >> yes and it was seconded. >> this is a different motion now. >> this is -- >> you want me to withdrawal my second because you have a new motion?

>> i'm happy to restate it. there's anna den dumb to the motion and that is to put a time line on it. they let the staff has asked to come back us on july 31st. it sounds like most of these colleagues want to honor the staff's request. >> i have a question on this behind you. >> i support what you are trying to do, not just the issue and the spirit. i can say in april i would like to see the plan how they identify these issues as one. because, we voted on this thing without it in front of us. i am more than curious to make sure to find out does staff understand what we voted on? because if don't have it they can march down working on stuff and we're not quite in sink. that's a kind of how to plan the workout, that could be sent to

us in april and they figure out it takes six months to hire someone because right now there's no extra capacity in staff to do although work, unless we let them not doing something else. we talked about prioritization by the c.e.o. and the c.i.o. if we have a change in priorities we've demanded more work. and don't lose any money, that's what we told them to do. that's why this work plan to have them tell us how they would execute all of those things you have listed. >> thank you. >> commissioner cohen, we have two really big deliverables to the board coming here shortly. the risk mitigateing strategy, which is in february, and then on march 21st, is the entire strategic plan for the entire planning in the portfolio context. and those are really big deliverables. our calender is really full.

>> there is a motion on the table, there was a second. when you made the motion you didn't give a specific time. >> i'm happy to -- >> wait a minute. >> so i understand -- >> ok. >> i just talked about april, correct? so that would work incorporating that april date. as the second, i would encourage you to support the april date. >> why we would move it up and make it harder on them? >> because what trustee is saying is that we don't want the staff to get too far ahead and it's not what we're looking for. >> is there anything keeping any one of us from touching base or coming to me and making a request and i talk to you? isn't that how this process worked the whole time? >> i think we've heard from the

presenters here that there are different ways of evaluating riskyist and dirtyest and certainly p.r. i. has resources that we would have access to and we would do our own evaluation as to whether or not we hold them, what part if plays in the portfolio and who is invested in it and we would come back and, if you want to make sure we're all in sink to identify these folks, march meeting means we have. >> since i've been president what percentage have we spent on fossil fuel. >> april is too soon and it's unreasonable and staff is saying they need more time. i will not support april, i will 100% support july but we've got to give staff time. this is a monumental task.

i can tell you because i've been working on this every day since july. it's a sum total of almost everything that we talk about. the fact that we even got here by january, is a huge task. for the record, we've now done more than anyone else and we're blazing a new trail. there's a lot of work that has to be done. we just have to give staff time. they're not saying they won't do it and they don't want to but they're maxed out. >> we're saying we can't promise we would have it ready. we'll do our best. >> i think it's really important that we do get this right. when we read the headlines of other pension plans loosing money on this, it defeats the cause. we need to get us that we're doing it right and our turns -- returns are there and we'll have a lot of people that follow what we do. this will have an impact in the whole country. we've got to get this right and tell other plans that we did

perform well by divesting and doing these things. we haven't sacrificed the return and you will get people following what we do. i think, a couple months, is worth that not to take that risk in the plan. >> that's the domino that we need so everyone else follows. >> maybe i missed something. >> and i agree, i missed something too because the fact is we have staff, and i agree with you, i understand what you are saying, but are we also engaging and consulting as well as p.r. i. as an outside so when you have the combination of staff consulting the p.r.i we can't get back to a certain expectations. >> it's hard to believe. >> my understanding, just what i missed, is that what commission er driscoll asked was that we have a clear understanding by april, definition, of what we mean by what we're doing. is that correct?

>> yes. >> but we're asking for a plan by july. i mean they're two different -- there's two tasks that go together hand and hand. i don't think you can have one without the other. why would we try to set two different timelines. you say they're incapable of doing this and we'll have to bring it back or we're going to give them time, they're asking for it. it's a statement. that's a retore cal statement. we have to give staff time watch is three months? staff is asking are few time. how can you ignore that? if you want to meet with staff, they're happy to meet with you. i think share what they're working on. am i wrong? >> unless i'm missing something, i keep looking at commissioner driscoll, you stated that by april, they should come back

with the definition of what we were going to be looking at so that we all had a clear understanding at what was going forward from that point. is that correct? >> yes. and outline how they would plan -- outline how they would plan to do all these additional items that commissioner cohen talked about. not to come back with all these answers. that might take more than six months. just one example, the issue of hiring someone to do this work. i think this may be a job that has to be agreed to by the union , not just human resources, you go through that whole process, that's three months. easy. but you can put that in the work plan to hire someone you go to all those lists of tasks, that's what the work plan is. it's not the answers. >> we're looking by a plan by april 31st and you are asking for an extension of the july 31st, why don't we do that and give you an extra three

months for the final product that we will see. >> that's what we were saying the whole time. >> did we resize that motion? >> >> the first priority is to get a divestment plan report. we would like that report in april. and then, we're going to establish a watch list and establish the goals for the companies under level 2 engagement and we will have that by july. july 31st and i'd like to have the the april 30th, 2018, as the deadline to have the divestment plan before us. >> outlined. the divestment outline, before the plan before us. >> i think you are asking for the july 31 extension to give us

extra time? >> what i'm saying is the first point we all agreed on is simple and it can be done expeditiously and the second plans need more time. >> it may take longer than july 31st. >> we can revisit it. >> we need some hard stops, some timelines. we can't get it all done by july >> so you should come back july 31st with your work product , what you finished and what you need more time to request at that time. >> exactly. >> is that more comfortable for staff? you may get a portion of it done ? >> april 31, we'll have -- >> april 30th, we'll have the definitions and we'll have the outline, the steps that we are recommending to the board to pursue everything. >> correct. >> all seven points, including the watch list and the level 2

bench marks, not saying they would be set up but the points. to make sure we're on track and that the board approves the direction we're going in. >> correct. >> and i thought i heard that we would have six months from that point, where the board has said we're going in the right direction to bring back options for the board to vote on as to who is identified and who we recommend to divest from. >> i'm fine with that. it's reasonable. >> you can tell us we're going in the wrong direction and you can turn the car around and come back. >> hold on, let's get a hold of this meeting again. i made a motion, will you second that motion. >> yes. >> i believe we're all in the same page. i'd like to call a vote. you can do a roll call vote. if you are in agreement vote yes and if not vote no. >> i'm going to vote against this. i think that we have distribute

hardest decision today was the one that we made 30 minutes ago. this is the easiest decision and yet we spent the more time talking about it. from a procedural perspective there's no reason to have two different timelines. we told staff to come in july. we asked them to come back with a plan, it should all happen at once. staff has a ton of work on their plate and this is a real challenge for them and we have made a ton of progress in the last several months. commissioner mackers wanted this a a -- we have worked hard to get this done and i'm telling you, i do not think they have the bandwidth to do this, i'm not vote are for this because it's a matter of process. >> ok. >> i support the motion. i believe this body is given staff every body they want to do

their job. i specifically ask how much bandwidth do you want to accomplish everything we're doing. also what is on that agenda for five years? we know we're talking about this i trusted them when they say this is the team we can put together to accomplish what we want and i believe the budget was passed unanimously for that. just because we're off on occasion, we have our consultants, we have certain lawyers on the team, we can higher someone faster than the city can hire someone. we can't go to a couple of universities and ask their professionors to give us an analysis? i don't believe there's not a rating out there we can take as a beginning point to accomplish all of this.

so i think that we have the team and if they -- the difference is , forgive me for saying it, it's the commitments to do it. to get it done. it's not the time and resources to do it. and i will be critical on what was said from when we voted in 2013 to now. i will be critical that the material that was shared with this body is questionable. for one, the label of the item, just the label of it, said commission information. it's not my motion. >> guys and ladies. >> it was your question. >> it was for the supervisors resolution urging us to devest. >> you made the motion in open session, seconds by commissioner bridges. >> but i put forward the board

of supervisor motion urging us to divest their second motion urging us to divest. i'm not going to go through the whole thing and be critical about a bunch of items in there. i may just do that off line in writing for entertainment purposes. the vote took place and i'm pressure tive. everyone knows if there's a motion to take our worst defenders for five years, i'll support that. if there's a motion it devest from our owe pend fenders, that we made no money in 10 years i will support that. i'm dump the whole thing in the 180 days and we don't have to have this discussion. on how we're going to monitor and how we're going to track the people that are polluteing the world and we're going to track the district of stuff that are

just loosing money for us. so those were easy decisions for me. i'm not going to sit here and say we should plot out what we want staff to do. if staff can't do it they should come back to you and mr. president or this commission at the next meeting and say we need to spread out the time for this reason or come to us and say we want to hire two people or come to us and say we're going to go out to the private sector and ask them to help us. >> but they just did ask you that. >> let's call the vote. >> call the vote. >> anymore discussion on this item? >> i know you have to leave. i made my suggestion trying to bring clarity to what we were trying to do. clarity is one of the key issues to get commitment for action. >> that's right. >> through the whole series of steps. but this effort has made it more confusing. we did this several years ago and we told staff how to do it and step back to do it and

criticize them when we didn't want them to do. they didn't do it the way we thought. we could not agree on what we told them to document i'm trying to avoid that mistake again. they may not have the resources to do it and they have to identify what they understand from us and what they think the work plan would be, the resources they'll need to do it. whether it's hiring someone or contracting out, that's their decision. we'll approve it i assume. but this is gotten messy over an important issue. i want to give staff the time to do it right. it's too important an issue and if you want this done and you don't have the resources and you haven't hired the right people. i don't want to take a risk that we're not going to do the right

thing. i am much more pro giving staff the benefits of the doubt if you want to add a progress report in between, because you don't want to give them the extra six months with an open window, i would be much more prone to vote yes for that, if that was the case. >> i think that -- >> that's what was stated. >> from the april date? ok, i'm fine with that. >> ok. >> i don't even know what the motion is on the table. >> april. >> with definitions and a plan. an outline of a plan and six months later to do what was in the original motion, which is to deliver to this body options for divesting of the dirtyest and riskyest assets on a -- >> the july 31st date has been

moved. >> i thought i heard he was still. >>

adjourned. >> shop & dine in the 49 promotes local businesses and challenges residents to do their shop & dine in the 49 with within the 49 square miles of san francisco by supporting local services within the neighborhood we help san francisco remain unique

successful and vibrant so where will you shop & dine in the 49 my name is jim woods i'm the founder of woods beer company and the proprietor of woods copy k open 2 henry adams what makes us unique is that we're reintegrated brooeg the beer and serving that cross the table people are sitting next to the xurpz drinking alongside we're having a lot of ingredient that get there's a lot to do the district of retail shop having that really close connection with the consumer allows us to do exciting things we decided to come to treasure island because we saw it as an amazing opportunity can't be beat the views and real estate that great county starting to develop on treasure island like minded business owners with last week products and want to get on

the ground floor a no-brainer for us when you you, you buying local goods made locally our supporting small business those are not created an, an sprinkle scale with all the machines and one person procreating them people are making them by hand as a result more interesting and can't get that of minor or anywhere else and san francisco a hot bed for local manufacturing in support that is what keeps your city vibrant we'll make a compelling place to live and visit i think that local business is the lifeblood of san francisco and a vibrant community as a society we've basically failed