under the impression that they were glad to have us, but in reality, most of the men did not want the women there. so the big challenge was constantly feeling like you had to prove yourself and feeling like if you did not do a good job, you were letting down your entire gender. finally took an inspector's test and passed that and then went down to the hall of justice and worked different investigations for the rest of my career, which was fun. i just felt sort of buried alive in all of these cases, these unsolved mysteries that there were just so many of them, and some of them, i didn't know if we'd ever be able to solve, so my boss was able to get me out of the unit. he transferred me out, and a couple of weeks later, i found out i had breast cancer. my intuition that the job was killing me. i ended up leaving, and by then, i had 28 years or the years in, i think. the writing thing really became intense when i was going through treatment for cancer

because i felt like there were so many parts that my kids didn't know. they didn't know my story, they didn't know why i had a relationship with my mother, why we had no family to speak of. it just poured out of me. i gave it to a friend who is an editor, and she said i think this would be publishable and i think people would be interested in this. i am so lucky to live here. i am so grateful to my parents who decided to move to the city. i am so grateful they did. that it never >> chair: good morning, and welcome to the rules committee of the san francisco board of supervisors for september 27, 2021. i'm joined by vice chair raphael mandelman and connie chan. our clerk today is

ms. alyssa samera a. do you have any announcements? >> yes, mr. chair. the minutes will reflect that the committee members participated in this meeting remotely throughvity conference to the same extent as if they were physically present. we invite public participation in the following ways: public comment will be available on each item on this agenda. either channel 26, 78, 99, and sfgovtv.org. comments or opportunities to speak during the public comment periods are available by calling 415-655-0001 -- again, 415-655-0001, meeting i.d. 24944243217. again, 24944243217. then pound and then pound

again. when connected, you will hear the meeting discussions, but you will be muted and in listening mode only. when your item of interest comes up, please dial *3 to be added to the speaker line. speaker clearly and slowly and turn down your television or radio. you may submit public by e-mailing the rules clerk, victor young at sfgo.org. written comments may be sent u.s. mail to city hall, 1 carlton place, san francisco, california. finally, items acted on today are expected to appear on the board of supervisors' agenda on

october 25th, 2021, unless otherwise stated. mr. chair? >> chair: thank you. can you please call the first item. >> clerk: item 1 is an ordinance amending the campaign and governmental conduct code to include city contractors, persons seeking to influence city officers and employees, registered contact lobbyists, and to prohibit elected officials, department heads, commissioners, and designated employees from soliciting payments from the interested parties. members of the public who wish to provide public comment on this should dial the meeting i.d. 24944243217 and please dial *3 to line up to speak. the system prompt will indicate you have raised your hand. please wait until the system indicates you have been unmuted, and you may begin your comments when we get to the public comment period. thank you, mr. chair. >> chair: colleagues,

we're joined by supervisor haney, who is the chief sponsor of this legislation, which we cannot vote on today because it is still under the meet and confer period. so we will need to continue it to october 18th, as far as we don't have a meeting on october 11th, but before doing so, i have a number -- this is our third legislative draft. i have a number of amendments that provide further clarification as to solicitations from lobbyists and permit consultants that i think will help clarify the existing language, which i would like to make, but before doing so, and, colleagues, you're in receipt of that language, i would like to turn it over to supervisor haney. >> thank you so much, chair peskin, and thank you, committee, for your attention to improving and

strengthening this legislation. i really want to appreciate your leadership, chair peskin specifically, and the whole committee. i'm definitely in support of these amendments and appreciate both the work to strengthen them and also to get them right. i will look forward to the continuation of the meet and confer process, which hopefully we'll be able to resolve as quickly as possible and hear from our city employees and their representatives. and i hope to be back here and have a vote on this soon. but these amendments absolutely have my support. >> chair: thank you, supervisor haney. so let me just go over these amendments that i would like to offer today. at page three, lines seven through 14, subsection "d," at the end of that provision, i would like to further clarify, if not narrow, the definition

here to add the words "if the contact lobbyists or expenditure lobbyist is set to lobby the designated employees or officers' department," so in that instance is somebody is registered to lobby the department of public works, it would apply only to that department. it wouldn't apply necessarily to a department where that lobbyist was not registered to lobby, say the library department. in subsection "e," also in that same area, to add similar language, which is "if the permit consultant contacts the designated employees or officers' department to carry out permitting services," again, clarification narrowing. page four, lines 16 to 17: "permit consulting services will be set forth in article 3, chapter 4."

on page five, lines 18 to page six, line two, same language for lobbyists, to add at the end of subsection 4: "if the contact lobbyists or expenditure lobbyist is designated to lobby, to the officers' department." and at the end of that provision, "if the permit consultant contacts the designated employees' department to carry out permit consulting services," and i am working with the city attorney to further clarify and define what "indirect" means in the legislation, which right now is a term of art. we're trying to get more specificity on that. hopefully they will be non-substantive and not require any additional meet and confer as they

will further narrow. so i would like to offer those, but before we vote on those, why don't we open this up to public comment. thank you, supervisor haney, for the original legislation and for support of the amendments. madam clerk, can we open this item 1up to publicup to the public comment. >> clerk: yes. we are checking to eif see if there are any callers in the queue. operations, please let us know if we have any callers that are ready. it does look like we have two callers in the queue. so if mr. atkins could please put the first caller forward, that would be great. >> can you hear me now? >> chair: we can hear you now. >> good morning. david filpo. i support the continuing

amendments, including the amendments offered by chair peskin as they were read and subscribed. i understand there is a meet and confer under way. i look forward to additional amendments at the hearing in three weeks. i still think that we should find a way to eliminate the friends of city department groups. i think that just continues to provide more -- i think that there are benefits at this point -- ie benefits at this point are outweighed from the negatives that have arisen from those entities. so i think we should find a way in practice or legislation to move on past them. thank you, chair peskin, supervisor haney, attorney attoy attorney, and anyone else for making this legislation better and better again. thank you for the time. >> chair: next speaker, please.

>> hi. this is debbie lernman from the human services network. and i want to thank you for your continued efforts to get this legislation right and as said before, this is nuanced stuff and it can have side effects or unforeseen consequences. one is how difficulty it will make it for non-profit representatives who serve on city commissions to balance with the responsibilities they have to their organizations, particularly when they play executive roles that volve fundraising. and this is exacerbated by the much broader definition of interested parties, and that includes grassroots advocates, and non-profit board members and contractors. the city values the non-profit expertise for those who serve on commissions, and we ask you to mitigate the impact of these effects on fundraising. for example, by looking at indirect fundraising to

ensure that the non-profit organization itself won't be prohibited from fundraising. and to spell out the exceptions in the legislation, rather than having them buried deep in the regulations around things like what is and is not an interested party, around grassroots activities, what happens if someone signs a petition, goes to a rally, sends a tweet? and also around public appeals. that stuff should be in the legislation so it is clear for everybody to see. thank you for considering this, and we look forward to continuing to work with you over the next couple of weeks. >> chair: thank you, ms. lernman, and hopefully we will tweak it just rye. next speaker, please. >> good morning. bruce wolf, chair of the sunshine ordinance task force. and like the previous speakers, i really appreciate your ongoing

efforts to try to wrangle up this topic and these activities. on behalf of the members in the sunshine ordinance task force, we request that the item be continued after october 6th, as the task force and legal counsel will not have time to consider this before then, and they want to provide additional input. the task force has specifically requested to have ongoing reports and presentations when the original ordinance was introduced and approved by the board of supervisors in 2017. if there were to be further amendments. we had not received any notifications to date, and we ended up finding out about this through community members. a 2017 ethics official written opinion that may expend other types of bodies stated to "determine whether the members of the task force

would be subject to recording requirements in code section 3.610. we must determine if the task force has been endowed to preside over proceedings. to determine whether the task force has been endowed with powers to preside over proceedings involving administrative enforcement, licenses, or other entitlement." it goes on to say, "as a general matter, they are limited to general procedures which (indiscernable) and three result in deterrent (indiscernable).

(indiscernable) -- >> clerk: thank you for your comments. >> chair: bruce, your time is up. and i look forward to what the sunshine task force has to say. the point person in my office is mr. lee hefner, so please be in touch with him. next speaker, please. >> caller: as i constituent, i wanted to call and say thank you to matt haney for this excellent resource. i think this conversation is vital at this moment, given the obvious and public corruption of our p.u.c., and the obvious and public corruption of our parks and recreation departments. between these two sets of obvious corruption, i think this conversation legally needs to take place, and i appreciate my supervisor for doing it. >> chair: thank you. next speaker. >> caller: linda chapman. again, i wanted to thank

you for this important initiative. i have a suggest: as i said before, i'm not the smartest kid in the room, but i work for five federal departments. i would suggest looking really at the federal regulations regarding, you know, ethics and controls and so forth. federal departments' heads and program managers like me and so on do not solicit payments for their favorite charities. and, in fact, when i worked for the navy, one civilian manager was soliciting people for a table for some kind of event. i don't know if pern -- with personnel regulations, i don't know what the outcome was, but he could have been fired for that.

[inaudible] and also the group that call themselves the nobb hill coalition, even worse that they were just for one particular project. i'm going to tell you about that later. both these operations needed rico investigations. 540,000 dollars they are getting extracted. on top of all of the money they have extracted from other projects, including all those bar licenses, that caused the destruction of our neighborhood commercial district, and how much did it cost in policing and so forth.. you know, the epitome of corruption, things we had never seen in the past happening, and under the theguise of being non-profit.

>> clerk: your time is up. thank you for your comments. >> chair: are there any other speakers? >> clerk: i believe that -- >> mr. chair, there are no further speakers. >> chair: okay. that concludes public comment. on the motion i previously made with those clarifying amendments, seeing no members, any final words, supervisor haney or members of the committee? supervisor mandelman? >> thank you. i am going to be grateful for this additional week. and i think this legislation is two weeks, so thank you. this legislation has changed quite a bit since

supervisor haney introduced it. that may be all for the good, but there is quite a bit to process and think through, i think, including the role of elected officials in fundraising for various causes. and it may be that we want to get away from using our elected officials as community fundraisers. but it seems like this legislation, at least with the amendments that i understand them, is moving maybe far in the direction of that, and maybe that is a great thing. i just wanted to sort of think about it and understand it a little better, and i want to thank supervisor haney and chair peskin for their work. >> chair: thank you, supervisor mandelman. and as i stated earlier, the attempt here with these amendments, and i think the underlying intent of supervisor haney in the legislation as originally presented, is

to prevent officers, whether they are appointed department heads or elected officials such as ourselves, from soliciting behested payments from individuals or organizations that have businesses before their respective departments or this board of supervisors. and so i know that people think that this is sweeping, but it is actually intended to be relatively narrowly targeted. and the amendments that you've seen in the intervening weeks, this being the third iteration, and soon to be the fourth iteration, are aimed at doing that. for instance, as far as the board of supervisors actually approves very few contracts, only contracts over $10 million or 10 years in duration, it would be a very narrow universe of where behested

payments were prohibited in the case of the board by board members. or in the case of a department, it would be limited to that department's contracts. but i think the fundamental notion here of getting -- i mean, as i said to you earlier, it is bizarre to me that somebody like muhammad nuru could solicit a payment from somebody he was doing business with, and that's exactly what happened. so i don't think this is a radical notion. i think it is a pretty common-place notion. i think as ms. lernman said, the devil is in the details, and we continue to wrestle with those. but thank you for those comments. seeing nobody else on the roster, madam clerk, could you please call the roll on the amendments, and then we will continue the item as amended to 18 october 2021. >> clerk: on the motion to amend: [roll call taken]

>> clerk: there are three ayes. >> chair: all right. and on the motion to continue the item as amended to 18october, roll call, please. >> clerk: on that motion: [roll call taken] >> clerk: there are three ayes. >> chair: next item, plea. >> clerk: item 2 is as an ordinance to repeal central privacy ordinance. members of the public public wh wish to provide public comment, please dial 415-655-0001 and then i.d.

24944243217. mr. chair? >> chair: supervisor mandelman. >> thank you, mr. chair. colleagues, thank you for considering this ordinance. lgbtq people, until recently, have largely been ignored in the collection of information by all levels of government. thanks to legislation in (indiscernable) san francisco now requires many city departments to collect sexual orientation or gender departmentcation idenn on their clients. it will help us to determine if we're effectively and equitably meeting those needs. the ordinance today will

expand (indiscernable) to collect sogi data. the city and account of san francisco is the largest employer in san francisco, with approximately 37,000 employees who reflect the diverse communities that constitute san francisco. the city currently collects certain anonymous demographic information, but we do not collect data about the sexual orientation or gender identity. this is due in large part to chapter "e" of the city's code which prohibits it city from inquiring into sexual orientation, practices, or habits of city employees. chapter 12e was necessary at the height of the aids epidemic to protect lgbtq employees from potential discrimination. at the time, it was often

assumed that any member of the lgbtq might be living with hiv/aids, and it had a tremendous sigma attached to it. fortunately, the perceptions have shifted over time, and the discrimination and harassment has since been prohibited under federal, state, and local law. the ordinance we are discussing today would amend the administrative code to repeal chapter 12e and would allow us to begin to collect sogi data on future applicants. by collecting this data, we can better track our citywide equity goals, address any gaps, and identify strategies to attract lgbtq employees interested in public service. we have paul walters who can talk about this ordinance in greater detail. >> chair: thank you, supervisor mandelman. who are we going to start

with? >> i believe pou. >> thank you, supervisors. i'm going to share my screen. i'll be sharing on behalf of both of us today. here we are. good morning, supervisors. thank you so much for having us here. i'm the director of policy and programs at the office of transgender initiatives. and i prepared this with my colleague who is the chief of policy at the department of human resources. in this presentation, we'll cover a little bit about the city and county's current workforce data, the changes proposed by the legislation, the importance of collecting this sogi data, and how we will ensure the privacy of city employees, and next steps for implementation. so as supervisor mandelman mentioned, the city and county of san francisco is the largest employer in san francisco, and we do currently collect some data on our city employees

and applicants. for example, we collect information on racial and ethnic identity, gender identity in a binary way, as well as some other helpful information around appointment type or disciplines, promotions, etc. currently, we don't really know how many city employees identify as lgbtq, plus what type of city employment they have access to and how they perform or are perceived to perform in these positions because as supervisor mandelman mentioned, the city collects no information from its employees or applicants on city employees or applicants. the legislation before youtoday is intended to address these gaps, to repeal the sexual privacy ordinance. this was necessary at its time in order to address potential discrimination

against lgbtq people and people living with h.i.v. but it is no longer necessary because we have other protections based on h.i.v. status, sexual orientation, and gender identity. the last thing i'll say about this change to the employees' sexual privacy ordinance is that the current employee sexual privacy ordinance inflates inquiring about and discussing sexual practices, meaning currently we understand sexual orientation as an identity and a way to be part of -- and claim being part of the lgbtq community, but the employee sexual privacy ordinance does not allow those lgbtq identities to be acknowledged in our workforce data. the second change is this legislation would direct h.r. to request the applicants and employees voluntarily provide sogi data, including more nuanced gender identity information than what we

currently have, and would also develop systems to anonymously collect and retain that information for aggregate reporting. this legislation also would direct city departments to add voluntary sogi questions to ask about other demographic information from our employees or applicants. so why is it important to collect sogi data for employees? basically it would allow us to document inequities in accessing and remaining in city employment, address possible bias trends, address the unique needs of lgbtq city employees, and better retain lgbtq talent. i have on this slide a graph that is an example of how helpful city workforce data can be. this shows the breakdown of city employees by race

and compares it to the rates of corrective action and discipline. so on the graph, you can see that black and latino city employees are disciplined a lot more than other groups. and this comparison wouldn't be possible without the data on the racial identities of city employees. so in summary, this legislation would be a first step towards identifying and addressing similar issues with regards to lgbtq equity and city employment, and hopefully eventually being able to look at our city workforce data in a more comprehensive way and hopefully comparing racial identity and lgbtq identities together as well. and then, finally, our next steps for implementation will be that d.h. r. will add the sogi questions to its applicant tracking system, and will develop standard systemsto collect and retain ths

information anonymous. d.h.r. in my office will develop guidelines on how these questions will be asked to city employees and applicants, and to communicate and reassure city employees that these questions are voluntary and anonymous and will only be in used in aggregate forms. and then the legislation will go into affect on january 1st, 2022. so i would be happy to take any questions, if you have any. >> chair: no questions from members. so why don't we open this up to public comment. are there any members of the public who would like to comment on this item. >> clerk: yes, mr. chair, operations is checking to see if there are any callers in the queue. if they have not already

done so, please press *3 to be added to the speaker line. it does appear we have three members of the public lined up to speak, if mr. atkins could please put the first caller through. go ahead, caller. hello, caller? >> caller: can you hear me? >> clerk: yes, we can. >> caller: hi. i'm from the city of san francisco, and i was just wondering why we're still using sexual and orientation together. can't it just be orientation? can we take "sexual" and just make it "orientation" as a form of identity? because i think that would encourage people to volunteer information about their orientation

and their ethnic background without it being attached to their sexual identity. >> clerk: does that conclude your comments? >> caller: yes, it does, thank you. >> clerk: thank you so much. may we have the next caller? >> caller: can you hear me now? >> clerk: yes, we can. >> caller: great. david filpo again. on item 2, first to the clerk, if you could please check and possibly correct attachments three and four. it appears that the wrong legislation was attached. it looks like it was filed 210740, and it should have be 210739. the d.h.r. should be able to request and report aggregateed anonymous sogi data. i think that data is

useful to know if the demographics of the city workforce is similar to the public at large, if that is our goal, that the city workforce, to the extent possible, mirrors the public that it serves, then it is useful to know that at an aggregated level, not to an individual employee, but certainly to the city's overall workforce. i hope that is useful. thanks very much. >> clerk: thank you for your comment. do we have any callers left in the queue? >> there are no further callers. >> clerk: thank you. mr. chair? >> chair: thank you, madam clerk. with that, vice chair mandelman, would you like to make a motion? >> yes, i'd like to move that we forward this item to the full board with a positive recommendation.

>> chair: on that motion, a roll call, please. >> clerk: yes, on the motion for item 2: [roll call taken] >> clerk: there are three ayes. >> chair: thank you. the motion passes. would you please call the next item. >> clerk: yes. item 3: a hearing to consider appointing one member, term ending september 5, 2022, and four members, terms ending september 2, 2024. there are five seats and five applicants. >> chair: thank you. why don't we hear from each of the applicants in the order they appear on the agenda. if you guys can -- there

we go. mr. spirtzel. >> thank you for your time. i am scott spirtzel. i'm up for reappointment for the assessment appeals board number one. i have been a member for the past 12 years. i'm a certified fraud examiner. i believe with my c.p.a. background, it is different than many of the other members of this board and provides some unique experience. and i look forward to, hopefully, serving for another three years. with that, i'm available for questions. >> chair: thank you. any questions? i don't see anybody on the roster. why don't we move on to john calper. if i pronounced that correctly? >> actually.

no. can you hear me? >> yes, sir. >> it is pronounced "kiper." i'm a commercial real estate licenser. i'm a certified general in the state of california. and i have quite a lot of experience with appraising property in san francisco. and i'm doing three san francisco appraisals right now. so i think i probably bring a pretty fair amount of knowledge to the assessment appeals board. and with that... >> chair: thank you for that. i appreciate your words and your applying. why don't we go on to

elizabeth zoria. >> i'm an attorney and i serve as a pro tem in superior court. i'm obviously an attorney of 23 years, with doing litigations both in real estate and commercial business. i have my own practice here in san francisco. i've been on the board for many years. i started with board 2 and then changed to board 1, and now it is time for reappointment to the board 1. and we've had a lot of legal hearings and legal issues that needed to be dealt with, and i've been trying to provide the board with my expertise. >> chair: thank you, mr. zoria. why don't we move on to christine nelson. >> okay. i'm putting in my picture. hi, i'm christine nelson. i, as well, started on

board 2. i'm now on board 1. i'm a certified general appraiser and involved in real estate. i've been appraising since the '80s, and been in real estate that long as well. so i understand real estate values and hope to continue and help with board 1. >> chair: thank you so much. and that takes on to paul beller. >> thank you. i appreciate it. i am residential appraiser here in san francisco. i only focus on san francisco county. i have about just over 10 years' experience, and i have enjoyed the past three on the board, the assessment appeals board, and i would like to continue. thank you. >> chair: thank you. ms. nelson, if you could turn your camera off, that

would be great. and why don't we open this up for public comment. >> clerk: thank you, mr. chair. >> there are no callers. >> clerk: thank you, mr. atkins. >> chair: there are no callers for this item. okay. colleagues, i want to thank all of the ap applicants for board 1, the complex assessment appeals board and make the following suggestion to keep things fresh, which is as follows: some of these seats are regular seats and some of them are alternates. i hear good words about

all of the folks that i was thinking that we might want to elevate, if you will, some of the alternates into the permit seats and do a little switch around. and to that end, i would make the following recommendation colleagues: john calper, whose name i continue to mispronounce to seat number two. christine nelson to seat number four. paul beller to seat number five. elizabeth zoria to seat number six. and scott to seat number eight. and if that is okay with you, i would request a roll call on that motion. >> clerk: on the motion as stated by chair peskin: [roll call taken]

>> clerk: there are three ayes. >> chair: and then we will send that to the full board with recommendation. does that require an additional roll call? >> clerk: you just created the motion in committee and then passed the motion as recommended. >> chair: okay. so we can move on to item 4. thank you all again. >> clerk: item 4: a hearing to consider appointing one member, term ending september 4, 2023, and four members terms expiring september 2, 2024, to the assessment appeals board. there are five seats and two applicants. >> chair: okay. as with the previous item, why don't we hear from the applicants in the order

they appear on the agenda. ms. mendoza for seat number one. and a new applicant, mark wilson for either seats five, six, seven, or eight. ms. mendoza, good morning. >> good morning. good morning to everyone. my name is luisa mendoza. i'm a long-standing member of the board. i really enjoy being on the board. and i'm an alumni of golden gate university. i've been a real estate broker for about 18 years, in the real estate industry, though, for more than that. i'm also a mortgage broker and a property manager. and these days property management is very, very challenging.

and i look forward to continuing to serve on the board. i take lots of pride in serving the community and the city. as a result i am asking to be able to continue my seat on board 2. thank you. >> chair: thank you so much, ms. mendoza. mr. wilson. >> hi. mark wilson. you have my resume. i'm applying for board 2. i spent 35 years as a real estate broker, representing buyers and sellers of apartment buildings. i owned an apartment building management company that managed 500 units for 35 years, and i have been buying and managing my own buildings during this time. i'm a past president of the san francisco apartment association.

i was on the board there for 15 years. i provide expert testimony, expert witness testimony, in property disputes and housing provider tenant litigation, that kind of stuff. and i'm looking forward to doing some quality volunteer work. >> chair: thank you, mr. wilson. and are there any members of the public comment for this item number 4 who would like to make public comment? >> clerk: there are no speakers, mr. chair. >> chair: all right. public comment is closed. and thank you, ms. mendoz arks for your service, and mr. wilson for your willingness to serve. i would like to make a motion to recommend that ms. mendoza be reappointed to seat number one, and that we appoint mr. wilson

to seat number five. on that motion, a roll call, please. >> clerk: on that motion as stated by supervisor peskin: [roll call taken] >> clerk: there are three ayes. >> chair: all right. the next item, please. >> clerk: item 5: is a hearing considering appointing three members (indiscernable) to the ballot simplification committee. there are three seats and three applicants. for those who have not already done so, please press *3. please wait until we call for public comment and the line indicates that you have been unmuted. mr. chair? >> chair: thank you, madam clerk. colleagues, i just want to thank the members of the ballot simplification committee, particularly

ms. packard, who is applying yet again and has been nominated by the national academy of television arts and sciences northern california chapter for her years of very good service, for a thankless, grueling job, as well as mr. scott patterson, who has been nominated by the same organization to succeed himself in seat number one. and then thank ann merrill for her willingness to serve in seat number three, and has been recommended by the league of women voters. with that, why don't we take those applicants in the order that they appear on the agenda, starting with mr. patterson, ms. packard, and then ms. merrill. before we do that, we will go to supervisor chan. >> thank you, chair peskin. to save everyone's time, i have the general question

for all candidates, and i would like them to add it to their comments individually. so the general question is: what will be your approach to understand the intent of the ballot measures, whether to work with the legislature that put forward -- the policy-maker that put forward the ballot measures, as well as the petition for the ballot measures? if you could add a little bit of a comment on your approach, i would really appreciate it. thank you so much. >> chair: thank you for that great suggestion. all right. mr. patterson? >> hi, folks. can you hear me okay? i'm not sure you can hear me. you can? >> chair: we can hear you. >> thank you. thank you very much, supervisor peskin. i'm scott patterson, and i'm looking forward to serving on the ballot simplification committee

again. it is a committee close to my passion, which is encouraging everybody to vote. and that's my driving intent by being on this committee, is by the work we do, hopefully being able to encourage greater voter participation in the elections for the city and county of san francisco. as to supervisor chan's question, yeah, it is really hard. the charge of the committee is to write a digest that explains what the intent of the legislation is in language that you would hear on television on read in the newspaper. and in some cases, that is very easy, and in other cases, it is very difficult. where it is easy is where the legislation is written very clearly.

and where it is not easy is where the legislation is not written very clearly. it gets real hard, especially if those things are in conflict with each other. the goal for me is clarity with an eye towards helping people make informed decisions when they're completing their ballot. i hope that addresses your question, supervisor chan. >> chair: thank you, mr. patterson. ms. packard. are you there? >> clerk: mr. chair, i believe ms. packard is out of the country or out of the state right now. she did send an e-mail she was not going to make it. >> chair: okay. i didn't see that. but ms. packard is an awesome, very long-term member of that body and deserves her vacation. so we will go on to ms. merrill.

>> good morning, chair peskin, supervisors chan and mandelman. my name is ann merrill, and i've been nominated by the san francisco league of women voters to fill seat three. i'm a member of the san francisco board, and my focus is on voter service initiatives, which includes registering voters, and then more relevant to this conversation, to providing them with non-partisan materials during each election cycle. it dove tails very nicely with the work. in addition to my experience in the league, i bring my experience of many years working as a professional technical writer, where my job was to communicate complex

information in simple, accessible language for a wide range of audiences, from construction workers to "k" through 12 educators, to chemical engineers. so i have a lot of experience that i can bring in this skill set, from bringing that translation from very technical -- in this case it would be legislative language, to straight-forward language that is accessible to voters of all sorts. if i'm confirmed, my goal would be, once again, to continue the excellent and important work of providing voters with these concise summaries of the propositions before them. i personally know from my experience as a voter in san francisco, that having access to these summaries raises voter engagement. it certainly has raised my engagement in the topics that are covered by these propositions, and enables us to be able to make more

informed decisions when we vote. and not everyone across this country has access to these kinds of summaries. i've heard from friends and colleagues across the country that they are jealous of us having these kinds of summaries available to us. so it would be a great honor to be me to participate in this and make this kind of contribution, just turning out the vote and enabling our voters to take responsible votes when they cast their ballots. thank you for your time and consideration. i welcome any questions you may have. >> chair: thank you, ms. merrill. indeed, the ballot simplification committee is a unique san francisco feature that our colleagues in other municipalities do not have, or share, or benefit from, or have to go and argue with you as to why a comma should be changed or sentences not conveying to

the voters that we intended. so we look forward to spending a lot of time with you as december approaches. treat us well as we beg and grovel before you. with that, are there any members of the public that would like to comment on item 5 on today's agenda? >> clerk: mr. chair, we are checking to see if there are any callers in the queue. mr. atkins, if you could please put the forward through. >> chair: i'm sure he is going to have something to say. >> clerk: it appears we have two members of the public in line to speak. >> chair: mr. filpo, we can hear you now. go ahead. >> caller: how did you guess? wow! if you know the lottery numbers for this week, feel free to share it because that would be nice

to know as well. david filpo. i attend ballot simplification committee meetings, i support these appointments, and i ask that the appointed members and the other two members be open to public input. that is generally the case. there were some instances in the last cycle where i found the members to be slightly defensive about the language that was proposed, or that the city attorney had drafted orthat they had drafted. while the members are ultimately responsible for the content, but the overall goal should be to make the information as clear and simple to the public, and it should be a collaborative effort to try to get it right and as best as possible with input from all. and so -- but i do support

these proposed appointments, and to chair peskin and the other members and the clerk, thank you for handling this now and not close to an election, as has happened many times in the past. i think it is good to have the members seated so there is clarity about the appointments, since we may have one or more special elections next year, for which we'll need to be prepared with the people and resources in place. thanks again. >> chair: yeah. i suspect that there might not be anything goes to ballot simplification on those measures. but neither here nor there, thank you for your comment. next speaker, please. >> good morning, supervisors. thank you for taking the time to hear this item. i'm a board member of the women league of voters of san francisco. we're very enthusiastic in nominating merrill as our

lead representative for the ballot simplification committee seat three. she has been an active member and contributor to our membership and voter services committee since 2019. prior to her leadership role with the legal women voters in san francisco, she has decades of civic engagement and volunteerism, with vote like a woman and democracy action, and brings a wealth of experience and a variety of research and dedication to the demographic process. she will be an active and effective representative. lastly, i would like to thank our current representative, lauren hardin, for her hard work and dedication on the committee. thank you. >> chair: thank you. are there any other members of the public for this item?

>> mr. chair, there are no further callers. >> chair: okay. public comment is closed. any comments from committee members. supervisor chan? >> thank you, chair peskin. i just want to thank everyone for your previous service and also upcoming, you know, services as well, should you be confirmed by the full board. i do want to say one thing about the ballot simplification language, how much i appreciate it, that also as a language voter, even though i vote in english, i also check the chinese. and it is so good to see that the language is clear and translated really well in chinese. i think that really helps a lot of chinese-speaking voters in san francisco, to both increase their

participation -- i think the better you understand it, the more you will participate because now you understand it and you can engage. so i really appreciate your work. thank you. >> chair: thank you, supervisor chan. and seeing no comments from our third colleague on this panel, i would like to make a motion to send these applicants to the full board with positive recommendation. on that motion, a roll call, please. >> clerk: and just to clarify, we're putting scott patterson in seat one, betty packard in seat two, and ann merrill in seat three? >> chair: that is correct. >> clerk: on that motion: [roll call taken] [please stand by]