commission was seeking was information which the alioto campaign had, correct? >> the information which the commission was seeking, the supporting documentation? >> yes. >> yes. >> it had nothing to do with netfile. they had it themselves. >> well, sir, a lot of the documentations -- so the netfile issue was documentation that they had, yes, that could be uploaded. but the thing was is the way it was conveyed on the spreadsheet was that there was an error, so, for example, proof of residency, right? so the alioto campaign had documentation that they uploaded that properly ticked all the boxes to establish san francisco proof of residency, and that's what prompted the call to ethics when the -- the woman who was repairing out the

treasurer contacted amy lee of ethics and said, look, i submitted this stuff to you. >> it wasn't a question whether you submitted it. you were being asked to submit it now, not some earlier date. now, and why wasn't it submitted immediately? >> it was submitted. >> well, and then, according to the report by -- that's attached as exhibit -- what is it, the may 2nd letter to you, attached to it is a schedule. it says, there are insufficient documentation to verify san francisco residency of 40. why didn't you, on the 27bd, say here's the documentation -- on the 2nd, say here's the documentation? >> well, there's a lot of proof of residency that people will speak to that that needed to be cured that

was verifying residence information for a number of our donors. the issue has been that residence information which was submitted in good faith by the donor and by the committee was then rejected by the ethics commission staff. for instance, there are five donors who submitted as proof of their residency, when they were rejected after giving their correct street addresses,

a rental receipt from their landlord. now, we all know that there's a housing shortage in san francisco. we know that a verbal rented agreement is accepted as legally binding. we learned that in the case of the dover club a few years ago here. these folks live here in rooms rented from a homeowner. the receipt was from that homeowner. there were four brothers in one situation. in another, there is a merchant sailor who i know personally as a member of the sailor's union where he is active, who is often as sea for as long as a year at a time. so these individuals in this m

previously referred to, there are 46 missing -- or 46 fewer -- >> rejected names. >> commissioner kopp: yeah, than are required, and the question from commissioner renne, do you have all those 46 with the requisite residential proof? >> we have many. the names that i was assigned, which was about a dozen. we do have. even with the 46 rejected -- >> commissioner kopp: but do you have 46? >> yes. >> commissioner kopp: okay. >> we only need 11 to meet your requirement. we don't need the whole 46 because we have, still, over 500 san francisco donors.

the 46 did not -- >> commissioner kopp: excuse me for a moment. madam chair, through the chair to miss pelham, is it 46 or 11? >> i do not understand the 11. i have not seen a list of 11. there were 46 instances where contributions on the april 25th submission were insufficient for eligibility purposes. i'm not sure what the subset of 11 is referring to. >> commissioner kopp: yeah. miss horstfeld, what did the 11 refer to? >> with the 11 additional donors, we would reach the $50,000 threshold. we have exceeded the 500 donor threshold. >> commissioner kopp: i don't want to want -- i want to go back to the 46. >> yes. >> commissioner kopp: did you have the 46 at noon on april 25th? >> i don't have a yes or no to

that because a couple of those names -- >> commissioner kopp: does somebody know, and have a yes-or-no answer? >> a couple of those were not rejected on april 25. >> commissioner, angela alioto. we had 46, and of those 46, we had 15 where the person clearly lived, and that was the problem with the software not uploading all of the documents in the first place. we were reworking those same proof of evidence, and so as a consequence, we have the $50,000 threshold plus two or $300. we don't need the 46 to qualify for the 43, we only need 11 to qualify, and we have those out of -- we actually have 15. and if you take a good look at who they are, you will see that they do, in fact, qualify.

>> commissioner kopp: thank you. >> thank you to each member of the ethics commission for their service and for the city and for taking the time to hear us today. my name is annika steg, and impart of the team for alioto for mayor. based on the commission requirements, we asked san francisco voters to send us copies of their proof of residency in the form of driver's license licenses, recent pay stubs, electric bills, and even voided checks. between staff and volunteers, we spent hundreds, maybe even thousands of dollars asking for proof of residency. one such contribution was done by a donor who listed a business address. it has a unit number. it is where this business owner

both lives and works. we reached out to him for business residency. we reached out to him, and he sent us a copy of his california license. it has that same unit number and this was rejected because it was technically a business address. based on a simple google search, you will see this is a place where their residences above businesses. this is a place where many business owners live and works. another one was a business owner, and he was able to send us proof of residency in the form of a california driver's license. he understand that address is registered as an absentee voter. we have confirmed his voter i.d. number, and we believe if the address is good enough for a voter registration, it should be good enough to proof prove of residency in the city of san

francisco. these generous donors do not have other proof of residency documentation to provide. they are in fact san francisco residents and deserve to have their contributions recognized as such. >> thank you. >> good afternoon, honorable commissioners. my name is ali devari. i'm a resident here in san francisco. before i start i want to really thank each of you for your city to i love. this is a city that my husband and i chose to live in before he escaped iran during the ayatollah revolution. and my husband and i -- just give you a little brief background, we're the owners of focaccia bakery. i was here on april 20 to share my story, and i'm here to share it again. we've got locations all

throughout san francisco. we're also owners of san francisco florists, a premier floral boutique located in financial district, but i think what our biggest joy is that we are parents to our single child who's 18 years old, sophia, who was born in the heart of this city. so as you can imagine, we're very invested in the city that we love. we chose to support angela alioto because we believe that she loves the city as much as we do, but that is not the reason i am here. the reason that i am here is that a few months ago, i made a small contribution. i wrote a check, i filled out the donor form as i was supposed to, and i made this contribution to angela alioto's campaign. on april 16, i was notified -- on i believe it was either a friday or a saturday -- from the campaign committee that my donation was rejected as a nonresident. i didn't make a fuss about it. i decided to take a copy of my

california driver's license which happens to have the same address as on my check. i took a picture of it, i looked at it, and given that i am impaired in my vision as you can see, i made sure that i could read all the digits on the photo that i sent. well, a couple of days later, i was told -- i got a call back -- and i sent it, and everything, i thought was fine. a couple of days later, i was called by the campaign and told that the ethics committee had rejected my california driver's license because they stated it was blurry. now i was heart broken, to be honest with you. this is the first time i was to reiterate that i'm persian. in my culture, we are taught to keep our heads down and not get involved in polictics. seeing angela alioto for the first time was what got us

excited and decided to support her for mayor. now to live in this city is every persian girl's dream, but right now, this persian girl standing in front of you, all i'm asking of you is that i be allowed to participate in the democratic process that i tried to escape iran from, a democratic process that did not allow us to support angela alioto for mayor. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> commissioner kopp: let me ask a question of director pelham. >> commissioner kopp? >> commissioner kopp: if your driver's license and these other documents show the place of business, that's it, right? you have qualified. >> committees, in order to qualify somebody when there has been a driver's license submitted shows an address that is consistent with a voter identification or with some

other proof of residency, if for san francisco. >> commissioner kopp: yeah, well this driver's license is a business address. >> that is our understanding. >> commissioner kopp: all right. so that doesn't qualify. so then what? >> so it was rejected -- >> commissioner kopp: yeah. >> i apologize. i want to make a clarification -- >> commissioner kopp: no, i'm sorry. don't interrupt me. >> okay. i apologize. >> commissioner kopp: so then, what do you do? do you tell -- i don't know, do you tell the alioto campaign this doesn't qualify because it's a business address? you only have two of those on this letter you sent. >> actually, to clarify, the two from may were contributions that were drawn -- >> commissioner kopp: all right. so those aren't the -- to include this woman's application. >> i would have to --

>> commissioner kopp: hers was in april. hers was in april. all right. so those two are irrelevant, but how do you convey as soon as possible to the submitter that this doesn't count because it's a business address? >> we provide a detailed list on an excel spreadsheet by the contributor's name with the information that was lacking. we tell them it was rejected, we tell them the basis for the rejection. >> commissioner kopp: and is the burden on the submitting campaign? >> yes. the committee -- the candidate acknowledges -- >> commissioner kopp: the commission doesn't have to do the campaign's work. >> the public financing program confirms it's the burden of the candidate and committee to determine straight proficient contributions. >> commissioner kopp: all right. because this woman is a registered voter in san francisco. assume that to be a fact.

isn't it simple to just check voter registration? >> we do check that when the committees supply documentation of that. committees are required under regulations to provide proof documenting residency. it is not the job of this commission, and i'm not speaking to this particular matter. i don't know this individual's name, but it's not the job of the commission to take a list of 5 or 600 contributors and check proof. when we look, we do look, for example, to make sure that the contributor listed is the contributor for whom the i.d. is being provided. in some cases, we found a contributor listed with a supporting documentation being a voter i.d. we looked at that voter i.d. and found that, for example, the person associated with that voter i.d. on the city records was born in 1993. the contributor listed was in

law practice much, much prior to that. so there were a couple of inconsistencies where the voter i.d. did not match the contributor, so those are another examples of where voter i.d. is important. >> commissioner kopp: wait. what's the voter i.d.? >> the voter i.d. is the number registered to the individual registered to vote in the city and county of san francisco. >> commissioner kopp: and we have those. okay. am, you wanted to say something? >> yeah. commissioner kopp, honorable, i wanted to say this was not a residential address, this was a business address that was the same as the one on my check. so i just wanted to make that clear. thank you for your time. >> good afternoon, honorable commission.

my name is jeffrey wong. i'm a resident of san francisco. i've lived here for 32 years. i was recently discriminated at my workplace due to the fact that i have hiv. i contacted several lawyers here in san francisco to try to resolve my problem at work. i came to miss alioto with my issues. she solved the problem. she not only solved my problem but she saved my life. we've all been working very hard on this campaign. we thank you for your time today, and we're hoping there can be some clarification to rectify the situation that we're in right now so we can continue to bring miss alioto to the mayor position. thank you very much for your time. >> thank you. [please stand by for captioner switch]

>>speaker: i will leave it to the leal professionals to add on any other tags that they so choose. secondly, the ethics commission misinforming the alioto committee concerning the last day to submit contributions was such an error that these considerations should have ended aat that point of discovery. when we had the proper software in place we came up $1,100 short with 76 cases to dispute. search for 46 to fix. -- thank you. >> my name is nick.

i have been a lifetime resident. i want to talk about public trust because that is what this commission is supposed to stand for. i sat through two of these meetings and listening to this and nothing give mess trust in e department. there was no continuity and understandably with everything that was rushed and all it can happen, but that shouldn't be a candidate's problem. that should be on the department and the department should understand that. number two, residency, you keep going back and forth on what a definition of a residency is. even your commissioner was backed off because he didn't have a definition of residency for san francisco, yet, he is a commissioner. now we are talking about a

software glitch that wasn't told to any of the campaign. commissioner chiu, you asked why the commission should tell each and every campaign about that, it's called trust. as a person of the public and a person who has lived in this city for 44 years, i see no trust here so that is what i have to say. thank you. >>speaker: my name is ed and i am a an attorney practicing over 40 years in san francisco speaking for the second time to this committee because i'm

concerned about the public profile and that equity and public policy be recognized. i am sure this, this committee must give the campaign one more day for fundraising because it's clear that they were cut short. so as they an initial mat their seems to be black and white -- >> >> supervisor ronen: commissioe donor. >>speaker: it's clear in this

technological data day that is all that needs to be done is to search a simple as a google search and one could see one's residence and if one is a verified voter in san francisco, so i implore the commission to do equity and do justice. thank you. >>speaker: thank you. >> my name is michael davis and i am a resident and voter in san francisco and an attorney who practiced here for 15-20 year. i wanted to address two of the contributions on the list of 46 that were disqualified because they were drawn on the accounts on the business account as opposed to a set from a personal

account. with respect to these two contributions they were each made my sole proprietors and under the law a sole proprietorship isn't a business entity, and the funds in the sole proprietorship are personal funds and as personal funds, they should have been counted. i understand that in the instance in the case of a corporation or an llc where you don't have a voter, you would disqualify those, but to broadly disqualify any contribution because it's drawn on a business account, well that business account may be that of an individual. i think you have to make those distinctions and these were personal funds of the contributor even though they were drawn on the cri contributs

personal account and not their checking account. thank you. >>speaker: my name is peter. i am here speaking to you a second time and here initially on april 20 to discuss some of the claims and issues that we were experiences while going through correcting the initial, let's say, rejection from the commission. the first time we were doing it, it took us a group of ten of us about three days. the second time it took us we had the full 4.5 days plus the two days on the weekend and again it was a team of about ten of us. that is hundreds of man hours and woman and everybody's hours included to get this information verified and corrected. through that process, we drove

out to individual's homes to see if they were home if they could provide us with pictures of any type of. [bell] utility bill or copy of driver's license. while doing this we were aggravating our donors and contributors and finding out today it was for naught. if we had find out there was a glitch in the process we would have been able to limit the number of people we were actually contacting but due to tethic's megs inability to contact us about this, we had to go out and get every single item. this can be summed up as a process of terrible communication from one side to the other and inacceptance to accept errors and mismudgement and a lack of transparency thank you for your time today.

>>speaker: my name is jeff brown rand and i am a residentd former employee of city of san francisco. in the six elections that i have experienced where there have been problems or new information not available for candidates. the department of election and in this case, the ethics commission, has gone out of their way to allow the candidates to rectify the problem. we are faced with a situation where there has been an information glitch and i would think out of substantial equity we would allow this candidate a day to rectify what has been an understandable problem. i think we can stand on ceremony, we can stand on arbitrary deadlines but we have an important election here with

the candidate who has substantially complied in almost every respect and i think under these circumstances san francisco would be well served in what i think is an equitable remedy. thank you very much. having been in this courtroom as an advocate, i would have to say this is not a good place to hold a hearing you can't even see the commissioners from way back there. >>speaker: so moved. >> i will second it. [laughter] >>speaker: good afternoon commissioners, i am charlie and not necessarily today speaking for friends of ethics, by will in thi willin the future.

i think we discovered today while microsoft calls one program word and the other one excel because if you were a word contractor you would not confuse in any way that with excel, so it seems to me that there would be a natural confusion inherent with the utilization of the terminology of mr. montgomery and his two firms with similar names so, the campaigns would probably assume compatibility which may or may not exist or may otherwise confuse the users. the other thing is it's not every day that they are going to be tapping into the public financing law and attempting to qualify for matching funds.

this is something that we do every four years and not necessarily the same people are involved. when the legislative intent was formed, we considered it would be a user-friendly system and that we would have the ability to work with the public in making sure that the system worked, and i see that as a dual responsibility. i would say that in keeping with everything i've said, this is a little bit also like the situation you have when you're filing signatures for a ballot measure, you generally don't go right to the line to qualify those signatures when you're threshold is 50,000 signatures, you generally go up and over substantially because you would

expect disqualifications or troubles, so i think the campaign should really have been more aggressive and submi submia greater number of persons and their contributions they felt were qualified for public finance and matching funds, so as a result they would have that margin they needed for safety that was absent. it should be in the future we might want to advise the campaigns not to confuse these two program systems and also to submit an excessive number of potential applicant. if they are ready to go, i would say let them submit their documentation now.

>>speaker: commission, i didn't plan on talking because i just had a root canal done and half of my face is numb. we are just asking for one day to ask for the 50,000, we believe that they are the correct addresses for the 11. the example of the italian music plan who has his music store on bush street lives right on top and that is his home and those were sent back. we have many more than 11, but not up to the 43 that would have in fact qualified, so we are just asking in this situation will we be able to show to the commissioner that in fact 11 of them are their homes and as such we should have qualified. we are talking about a situation where a lot of people depended on this funding. we did hand in 53,000.

we can't expect teem t people tl us they live in fa san franciscf they don't. hopefully the commission will consider helping the candidate and the committee to help. we have salaries. we have all sorts of debt because we were dependent on this knowing that these were these people's homes and it would be really wonderful if we were given one day to show that indeed those 11 names are where those people live. >> i have heard two afternoons campaign rhetoric, 80% of it, and 20% of it is fact. you told us you have 11 donors

whose proof of residency can be establish and that will meet the dollar requirement, correct? >>speaker: correct. >> can you do that in a couple hours tomorrow? >>speaker: yes. >> so if we adopted resolution of that that gave you until noon tomorrow, would that give you that time? >>speaker: yes. >> that is the end of the case unless somebody just wants to be on television and that is what i'm going to move. >> speaker 1: i would remind you as you noted at the top of this meeting of our session that the determination of the executive director of the eligibility of the campaign to receive public financing was final and at least in my mind for the purposes of our discussion today was to understand the allegations from the campaign about the software problem which she alleges were

fraud on the part of the commission director and staff and what problems flowed from the software problem, which i understand was fixed on the date of the 25th that the campaign was able to submit all of the documents that they wanted to submit to support their application for public financing and confirmed that and then the executive director made her determination and determined that as noted in his letter that they were short by $1,076. >>speaker: my question is, this is on the agenda just to hear talk so that we can understand the system and not give relief to a an apply can't. >> yes, to understand where or

not there was fraud on the part of the commission with regard to the software problem that pre vented the campaign from submitting the required documentation and what i have heard is that the software problem did not pre vent the campaign from submitting all the documents and that the documents fell short separate and apart from the relief that i would be considering today. >>speaker: that isn't true. we learned the day before. we learned on the 24th that while amy lee was speak with the treasury leah, we learned that amy did not have the backup. we thought amy had it. they knew it had malfunctioned. in order for us to come in here today and prove fraud that would require discovery, depositions,

subpoenas and everything else. we are here today with new information is that we didn't know what the department new and as such we overworked ourselves on the documents the department could have had uploaded if the question they had as a subcontractor had uploaded it. we are just asking for relief in this room today. this isn't a trial on fraud. as i have said i have spent 18 years of my life not suing san francisco. that's very important to me. i turn away cases monthly because i don't want to sue the city. i have to tell you here the injustice that we have been through where the amount of investigating of these people where the department has intentionally investigated ways to find us ways not able to apply. we are the citizens the department should be investigating reasons we are

able to apply. we are supposed to be on the same team which is why i haven't taken a case against the city and couny of san francisco for 18 year. you are supposed to help us as we help you. >> speaker 1: so you are saying that you are not here because there was fraud on the part of commission? >>speaker: we are here because there was new information learned after the fact and we didn't know it, so that new information enabled us to have another appeal when the department asked nothing had ever been appealed again. again, we are not here to fight we are here to try to get along and work together such that this system work. what's wrong with the system working? >>speaker: president chiu: your letter to me addressed grievous letters and

omissions -- >> exactly. >>speaker:.if you would like tot on those causes of action, i don't back away from anything. i'm hesitant to do it, yeah, but do i put something in a letter of a chairwoman of a commission of ethics and not believe it with my heart and soul? no, i don't. i believe that the don't has done everything to not help us and indeed omitted telling us that they had an error in the system i know something about that you all commissioner covingtoned with.

contracted with.>> i don't cares you didn't sue or sued the city. i resent this, this has turned into a quasi campaign rally. number two, the letter sent to you by the deputy city attorney makes no mention of having to prove fraud. i have never seen any allegation of fraud with respect to our staff or with respect to this wanted net file or whatever it is david montgomery. the letter asked for evidence of malfeasance. i don't know madam chair if you want to take testimony from

other people. i see a couple other people standing as if they want to testify. i say we have spent enough on this matter. the appellant o or respondent, also, i raised the question why this was on the calendar and madam chairwoman, you stated upon receipt of the letter from ms. alioto that you ordered it put on the calendar and it's on calendar notwithstanding the april 20 action it's there to be acted on and i make a motion to extend until noon tomorrow the time which the applicant for public financing can submit proof of residency of the 11, 15, or 25, i don't care how many

you have residencies in san francisco that donated money between the amounts required by law. that is my motion. >> i will second my motion. before you leave, i still don't understand why we are here today when you were on notice late april, 18th of april, that your submission was insufficient and your campaign supposedly had the supporting documents and they should have had them here on april 25. i wasn't here at the meeting that gave the cutoff and said no further appeal, so i'm willing to go along with commissioner kopp but it's not the fault on

any of the commissioner's staff, that put you in this posture. it's the fact that when you were put on notice by the latest april 19 that you didn't put up with the documentation that you should have been able to come up with in 24 hours. it's you that's supposed to keep these records. >> it was on the april 24 that the commissioner didn't have it because they were not uploaded. >> you knew they didn't have it because they told you they didn't have it. i think all of this stuff about net file is throwing sand at an elephant. i am willing to give you to noon tuesday and the staff is to supply the same criteria that they have used for every other

candidate in determining whether or not the information you supply meets the requirement. the statute and we are not interested in playing favorites and part of the reason i will support this is that i think public financing is a good thing, and i would like to see you have it, but you have to comply with the law. >>speaker: .>> commissioner leek several comments were made today about trust in the commission staff and this is the second time we have discussed the issue and i think we need to go back to how we got here. this committee is not the only committee that filed for public financing and other committees that file under the same rule, same set of expectation.

i think some of them filed earlier expecting there would be the expected requests for additional information. in this particular case, i think the committee admitted they filed at the very last possible minute. i think out of abundance of fairness, this commission at the last meeting had granted extra time which to me was pretty unprecedented to one committee to submit additional information with the expectation thatauld of us agreed that would be a final decision, and i remember we asked the committee could they live with that condition and they said yes, the executive

director's determination would be final. my understanding was there was an allegation that net file or -- two different things -- there was a serious allegation against the staff of fraudulent behavior, that's why we had this item. my concern was that it was agreed upon the decision was finalized based on the conditions and the second thing was i am very concerned that we are shifting the goalpost. we are giving them an additional days that has nothing to do with the staff and the commission's duties. it is not the commission's

responsibilities to inform every of what the issue is because if that is the case we owe everybody, all the applicant. if we were to again allow the extra day then other folks could come in and say it happened to us too and we want an extra day. i haven't heard any new evident to show the reason why the committee requested additional time, which originally was based on the allegation against the staff. going back to the decision that the staff made at the april meeting which was the additional time was granted for the committee to provide all the information for the staff to review and the staff decision

would be finalized, and i haven't seen any compelling new evidence to show that agreement could be abandoned. >>speaker: thank you. i would like my own motion to affirm the final decision regarding the committee to achieve public financing. >> second. >.>> we have a motion pending. >> mine is to affirm the second motion of the director regarding the eligibility of the campaign to receive public financing, so

we have two motion there any further public comment. commissioner kopp your motion was seconded by commissioner renne and that was to grant the committee until noon tomorrow to submit documentation in support of their financing. all in favor? >>speaker: i did watch the hearing ohearing on the 20th ane read the staff reports for the earlier meetings and this one. i do share the remarks of

commissioner renne and i do believe this is a problem of the documentation for the $50,000 and i agree with commissioner lee that over the time there has been plenty of opportunity to correct those submittals if at this hearing the committee had come in and submitted the 11 or 15 and the documentation and put them on the record, then i would be be prepared to say that we should consider it because it's in the record, but at this point to give an extra day, i feel that it's not appropriate -- i just wanted to explain why i

wasn't concurring with the motion of commissioner kop p. >> chair chiu: could you take a roll call. rul[roll] the motion fails on a 2-3 vote with commissioner ambrose, chiu

and lee on the dissent. second motion is to sustain the final determination of may 2 about the alioto ineligibility to receive public funding. commissioner ambrose. >>speaker: aye. >>speaker: commissioner chiu: u? >>speaker: aye. >> clerk: that motion passes on a 3-2 vote with commissioner's kopp and renne in the dissent. >> madam chair, before we leave this subject, i have a statement to the executiv executive direc. i have been on this commission a little short of 16 months now,

and i would have thought that there would have been a session to education commissioners who are new to the commission about the public finance responsibility. including the details which are discussed. in both the applicant's documents and your documents, and i don't know if the other commissioners who have been appointed have received such a lesson or indoctrine nation but it should be done. i would like to schedule a time for the staff that are dealing with this subject to educate me on the details of it.

>>speaker: thank you commissioner kopp. as you know we provide as many sessions as possible and certainly we can make a detailed session available to any and all commissioners individually or as a group if that is useful to you. >> the other question i have is how long have we had a commissioner covington with this, whatever it is, net -. >>speaker: we have had a commissioner covington with them about seven or eight year. >>speaker: is that renewed annually. >>speaker: no a commissioner covington of term. >>speaker: i would like a memorandum on when it began and when it was renewed and whether it expired and whether competitive bidding was used or

whether a request for proposals was used or whether neither was used and who was was executive director seven or eight years ago simply selected this company. >>speaker: items 7, 8, and 9 are all policy matter. policy prioritization plan. supervisor kim's proposed amendments. [reading agenda items] i would propose holding these over to the june meeting to allow the newest commission member who was only appointed this meeting to allow a more

robust conversation at the next meeting. so holding over those item. >>speaker: i just want to clarify as far as items 7, 8, and 9. it was staff's understanding that only 7 and 9 would be continued and we would hear supervisor kim's attempt. >> because commissioner ambrose was just appointed this morning to the commission and to give her the benefit of coming up to

speed i was proposing that -- would be held over to the june meeting. item 8 is someone from supervisor kim's office, is someone here? >>speaker: i did read the proposed legislation and am familiar with supervisor kim's proposal. if they are prepared to go ahead there is no need to continue it. >>speaker: staff has requested a brief recess to confirm with supper visor kim's office. why don't we break public comments on items a