>> our clerk is victor young. do you have any announcements? >> there is a remote meeting through videoconference as though you are physically present. public access to city services is essential and invites public participation in the following ways. comment will be available on each item in the agenda. we are streaming this. there is the public calling

number across the screen. each speaker will be allowed up to two minutes to speak unless otherwise stated. comments are opportunities to speak during public commentary that are available by phone by calling (415)655-0001. the meeting id is 2-486-850-0703, then press pound then pounded again. you will hear the meeting discussions and you will be on muted and listening mode only. when your item of interest comes up, i'll start three to be added to the speaker line. speak clearly and slowly and turn down your television or radio. speak from a quiet place. you may also apply for public comment by e-mail. if you submit public comment by e-mail it will be forwarded to the supervisors and included as part of the file. it can also be sent to u.s. postal service.

>> thank you, mr. young. can you please read the first item? >> the first item is item number 1. charter amendment, second draft to amend the charter of the city and county of san francisco to expend funds in the public education to support the unified school district and to submit a certificate of compliance with government requirements before the city appropriation funds not otherwise required by the charter or state law and to be held on june 7th, 2022. members of the public who wish to provide public comment on this item should call the number on the screen.

if you haven't already done so, please dial star three to line up to speak. >> thank you, mr. young. colleagues, we have heard this on monday and on wednesday, and amended it and the amended version is before us. i do want to remind you that we did have the controller speak to the fiscal impact analysis, which with the creation of a new commission was about $350,000 a year, not a huge amount of money in this well-to-do city. on the other items, i will be asking the controller to read their reports and is there anyone from the mayor's office on this? as a matter of courtesy i realize that this point that

that is unlikely. and if not, why don't we go to the first -- mr. power, good morning. nice thai. >> good morning. i am here and happy to answer any questions. >> great. and then the first of the two coast sponsors, supervisor melgar joins us this morning as well as cosponsor supervisor mandelman who sits on the committee. the floor is yours. good morning. >> good morning to the supervisors. i really want to appreciate all the members of the public who came out on both days on monday and wednesday last week to provide their feedback. and particularly, i want to thank the early care educators who i have been working with all year on the first five mergers for their thoughtfulness and for putting in all the work.

last week this committee amended -- adopted the amendment to split the children's agency and the children's commission on hold for now because we heard a loud and clear that we needed broader stakeholder community input and that we needed to have both at the table to help craft such a bold change. so right now the committee is focusing on the change on how the city appropriates discretionary funds to the public education enrichment fund baseline fund that the sfusd gets. to be clear, this does not impact the set-aside funding for the peace. that goes directly to the school district to support libraries, arts, music, and enrichment. the general consensus is that we need to be a stronger partner with the sfusd and that perhaps

the way this charter amendment is crafted, you know, we not -- we don't all agree on. before the committee makes its decision today, i want to take the time to clarify the position. i did not crack the original amendment. there are some things that i do strongly support in this amendment. so when people ask why now, i think it is a dire sense of urgency about what our families are going through and the support that they need. this week i have been inundated with e-mails and calls from parents to make sure elementary schools in district seven, which is a little elementary school right next to the high school, it is getting a 20% cut to its staff. it is the most diverse school in our district and it reflects across the board the population

of san francisco and we are cutting classes and we are cutting staff. i think, you know, year and a half ago we were talking about the muni spiral. how the loss of ridership and the loss of income that came with that was going to pull down the system into further and further losses. i feel, colleagues, our school district is there now. we, although we don't have the control over the school district, i feel a sense of urgency in doing everything in our power to make sure that we don't lose a generation of kids and families in our city. so, while the circumstances of this unprecedented pandemic make things worse, the last two years just exposed the vulnerabilities in our broken system and showed the cracks that have always been there. i feel like districts across the

state are facing the same things, but we as a san francisco, as a progressive city, have the response -- responsibility to do things for our kids and our families. it goes beyond who sits on the school board. i think we have a system and a culture that is rigid and challenging to families, nonprofit providers, and even citizens who are trying to collaborate and serve kids in our public schools. i think the system has failed us. i think one thing -- one key element of what is needed, and i support the comments that were made by my colleagues, supervisor ronen last week, that we need to reinvest as many public dollars into our school system as possible. however, money will not save some of the structural issues. the governance issues at -- that the district have. i want to respect the school district's autonomy. i do think it is appropriate to have accountability measures on

our money, the money that we control, that we collaborate and set goals with our school partners. so governance matters. transparency matters, accountability matters, and we owe it to the most vulnerable kids in our district, and frankly, to all the kids in our district. what we are asking for is pretty basic. a data sharing agreement. i'm sorry, i think you lost me for a second there. >> we did. >> sorry about that. my internet is a little bit spotty. so just to wrap up, colleagues, i think that i will continue to work on this issue. whatever happens at the committee today, and i commit to continuing to work with the mayor and with my dear colleague, supervisor ronen, on these issues that are so important to families in all of

our districts to the next generation. and i just want to make clear that we have to do everything in our power to support the district from a death spiral, which is where we are, which we predicted because of the loss in enrolment from kids all across the district. thank you very much. >> thank you, supervisor melgar. why don't we go to committee members and then we will go to supervisor ronen and supervisor chen. >> thank you, chair peskin. i really want to thank supervisor melgar and supervisor ronen for their leadership and for all the hard work that they have put in. not just for this measure, but really for our kids and families, especially during the last two years during the pandemic. i have said this before and i will say it again. i am coming in more as a point of view as a former sfusd student, and now a mom of a

public elementary school student to is a third grader, and having that experience in the last two years during the pandemic has been really hard on all of our kids and families. with that, i do understand the spirit -- the spirit and the intensity of this measure. it is ultimately really an example of the frustration that we all have experienced as city leaders and parents and guardians of the kids of our sfusd in early education. i understand the intent of this measure. i agree with it. we need to find solutions, we need to have accountability. however, what i do not agree with is the approach and the policy solution that is proposed. i think the earlier version, frankly, with all due respect, even the amended version. i want to quote the information

that is being given by our former department of children and youth and families department head. i think she would make a good point even with the amendment amended version. with eight pages of prescribed behaviour for the board of education, it is a significant overreach of the city and county of san francisco into the management of another branch of government. i really look forward to seeing renewed leadership for the board of education. there's no doubt i think we can do better. honestly we all can do better as elected officials. doesn't matter if it is for education or on the board of supervisors. so i do understand. how can we be better city leaders? i think that when you put that into a charter amendment, to have a prescription of how they should behave, that is an approach that i disagree with.

ultimately, my question will be, does this approach really prove better quality education for our kids? that is ultimately our goal. it is better education for our kids. is this the right approach, is this the right policy approach to give better education? and i frankly don't think so. today i'm ready to propose a motion to table this measure, to really give all of us the opportunity to really sit and think about how we can work together for a better solution with everybody involved. i urge colleagues that you will consider that motion to table the discussion today. thank you so much. >> thank you. before we go to supervisor ronen, why don't we hear from committee member and second cosponsors supervisor mandelman? >> thank you, chair peskin. i am afraid that i strongly disagree with the sentiment that

i've heard from my colleagues on the committee and from supervisor ronen, respectfully. last week we heard, and i think supervisor ronen said democracy works. i believe that democracy works when you ask the right questions. i don't think most members of this border most members of the school board are familiar with the education code provisions related to governance of school districts. i think if they are they would not have paved the way that -- behave the way that they have over the last several years. i don't believe this is a one-time problem, having come from the city college board of trustees which has been beset by similar types of issues, and having observed the functioning or does functioning of the san francisco school board over many years, i think there is a governance problem on the community college board and on the school board.

i think it is endemic. i think having the san francisco board of supervisors and the voters of san francisco describe minimum government standards that are prescribed in education code and best practices that are routinely flouted by these bodies couldn't hurt. i will vote against the motion to table. i don't think it is strong enough medicine, but it is something. >> all right. let's see -- let's hear from supervisor ronen. >> thank you, so much colleagues. i want to take us back to the couple hearings that we stepped through. i think is extraordinary the brats and the depth of the public speakers. there was not one speaker in favour of this amendment. not a single one.

we had former school board members who are often touted as the example for more moderate politicians of what an exemplary school board member looks like. we had -- they opposed this measure completely, who served for 24 years on the board of education under only three superintendents. which is extraordinary that our superintendents last so long. we never really brought it up in the discussion. we had two former supervisors. norman e. and sandy lee fewer. she was on the line waiting to speak against this charter amendment. we had parents and former directors. we had the union.

i have never seen so much unanimous unanimity against a single piece of legislation a against something in my entire experience at the board of supervisors. when you have something going so wrong, you need to start over. and that is where i stand. again, i want to appreciate supervisor melgar because you put so much work into it trying to salvage what was there. that led to the direct benefit of the kids because there wasn't much in that charter amendment that led to the direct benefit of the kids, and it had some feelings of openness to it. you did it in an extraordinary way. i tried to do the same thing that you guys did in i couldn't do it. i was impressed with the work that you did because i see some benefit to what is there. i think that the process behind

closed doors over nine months, two people who did not consult anyone, who drafted this piece of legislation just sets the wrong tone and we need to start over because of that. on that note, i have started over. i have been talking to the coalition -- coalitions and all the parents with children that we are really trying to serve better in our public schools. we are unanimously against this charter amendment. they are ready to sit down with us and work on a new one. i have talked to the union, i have talked to supervisor melgar, i have talked to -- i was supposed to talk to someone else, but she had an emergency, so we are talking tomorrow. i have talked to carol hill who

leads our community school beacon initiative. basically all the players in the system that worked directly with children, about getting together and brainstorming and putting together a charter amendment for november, that not only helps with buy-in, but that directly leads to the benefit of the children because that is the number 1 thing that we are all trying to do. i want to thank you, supervisor chan for motioning to table this item. i think it is the right move despite supervisor melgar's extraordinary work. i think we need to start over. i think we can accomplish some of the good intentions. i think there were good intentions on behalf of the mayor, but do it the right way so we can begin to rebuild the school district. it is in really dire trouble,

and get it back on the right path to excellence because our kids deserve nothing less. >> thank you for those constructive comments, supervisor. why don't we go to public comment and see if it changes anybody's minds. with that, mr. clerk, could you please open item number 1 up to public comment. >> yes. we are checking to see if we have any callers in the queue. if you have not already done so, press star three to be added to the cue to speak. for those on hold, continue to wait until the system indicates you have been on muted and you may begin your comment. it appears we have 12 callers on the line with six in line to speak. >> for speaker, please -- first speaker, please. >> good monday morning, everyone. it is jordan davis. on this item, i do not support

this charter amendment. this is just -- this is just bullshit. the mayor is just putting this on the back burner, not for any back recent -- good reason. not to help our children, but just to fucking play some political football. it is bullshit. i would vote this down if it ended up on the ballot. thank you for hearing me out. i don't want this to fucking come out. this is bad policy. this is bad. i don't want any interference peers .

fuck this. thank you, i yieled my time. >> hello, san francisco neighbourhoods speaking on my own behalf in opposition. advocates of the january 26th meeting of the rules committee oppose this amendment. most of the advocates commented on the plaza -- possibility, some spoke on the positive process, including this being made into a charter amendment. i support the motion to table this item. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. >> good morning, members of the rules committee. i am the political director with united educators of san francisco. i am urging you to pleas vote this proposed amendment. it will not help the district.

the supervisors have mentioned, yes, the district is in dire need and we need to work together to come up with better solutions to ensure that we are serving our children and not playing political games, as someone else stated. we need your help, we need your support, and the most important thing is we need to come together. the union has asked various times that every leader in the community, that we come together and work together because we need to work together for the interest of our children. thank you so much and please vote this down. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good morning, supervisors. i work with early care educators throughout san francisco.

i want to start with the appreciation for the solidarity i have seen across early care and education and education communities and opposing this major thing. i also want to appreciate the work to amend on behalf of supervisor melgar and her agent in the availability of 70 supervisors to hear our concerns in the comments. especially last monday. as well as comments again today. in recognition of supervisor ronen's comment last monday, i want to appreciate her notice in the historical context that we are in. i ask we be careful in reaction to this we don't offer up political slops that sends our fragile education and early education community into a tailspin while struggling to survive a worldwide pandemic. and start instead from a place of what so many in the early care and education community have in their bones, caregiving.

i want to offer what is so important to remember as an early care educator. best practice starts with listening deeply, observing, nurturing, and scaffolding where it is needed. i support taking this opportunity to slow down this measure as well, but not slow down the process of taking notice of what is working and needed in community processes in place of community input, and what would most benefit the community and providing the essential work for learning. including what would most support, but not prescribed the department's and school board to best administer the funds for children's education and caregiving to better collaborate. i thank you all for taking the thoughtful time and ask that it not end here but work with the community to create a learning, nurturing community for our children. thank you. >> thank you for those very constructive comments. next speaker, please.

>> good morning, supervisors. i want to think supervisor ronen for her kind words, and i have some remarks drafted, which i will summarize because i want to speak in support of the motion to table. i think slowing this down and starting over is the most important thing we can do. i thank you for that. my remarks really talk about my reverence for democratically elected governance of public education in america. how important it is and how we should not play around with it at a moment of anger, which we all understand. i also wanted to summarize my lengthy discussions with a number of attorneys in california with expertise in this area about the likelihood that the measure, as now drafted, could very well result in legal action. the last thing we want to do is put in this charter something which might lead to further

problems between the school district and the city, and also to say that the governance requirement, governments -- government principles are important. those are the things we should talk about. encouraging and supporting in the proper way which might make them effective. last i want to say, and i'm happy we table this because that would work very well, the last thing we want to do now in the most progressive city in the country is to undermine the authority of a democratically elected body when progressives all over the country are working as hard as they can to support the power of elected majorities. i think you and i support the proposal to table this and hope you will too. i thank you very much. >> thank you for those comments. very much appreciate it. next speaker, please. >> hi.

happy lunar new year. want to wish everyone a happy lunar new year and note that when there is a rush to put something on a low turnout ballots, primary elections, like this effort is moving towards, we lose voices. today we are losing the voices of many folks who are out for the sfusd lunar holiday. i want to thank supervisor melgar for her comments about the need for a broader community input and supervisor chan for recognizing this will not address the underlying needs of students, and for the motion to table. i strongly support that effort. we don't have the broad community input needed to make changes and i'm concerned about the rush to get this on a low turnout primary election when diverse families are left to vote. nothing in the amendment will increase funding or protect schools from the cuts that are looming. the city of san francisco doesn't control the district, but it does control school

funding or the lack thereof. we have had to fight for funding and haven't had any erath funding from the city over the last two pandemic years other than the mayor's previous commitments for bonuses for staff working in high turnover schools, which, apparently, is going to be ended soon. this measure would reduce accountability to communities. it increases the power of the executive branch within the school board and within the mayor's office. it interestingly makes it easier to write large contracts without board oversight, which makes me wonder whether this initiative is in the interest of students or if it is in the interest of school privatization folks who have been investing in san francisco and trying to increase their access here. this initiative doesn't increase funding and i find it really

hard to imagine if there is any effort to improve student -- >> thank you. next speaker, please. sorry about that. everyone gets the same amount of time. next speaker. >> good morning, supervisors. i am a public school parent and i live in d1. i deeply appreciate supervisor chan's leadership and her motion to table this. i quite, quite frankly think the amendment is unnecessary. what i do think is necessary is that the city hall funding to pay our board members. la and miami give school board members full-time jobs and as far as accountability, i would like to see some accountability with city hall and the city and county of san francisco not having our school board

positions be full-time paid positions with benefits. if miami can do this, certainly san francisco can. i don't feel comfortable having mere breed having more say or power in the school board. bloomberg was a big supporter of charter schools. we have seen over million dollars of billionaires coming in for a recall election. i asked people to be mindful. i would love to see a more people forward school board. quite frankly, i have seen our school board scapegoated. these are unpaid folks that work full-time jobs on top of what they do for the school board already. please, i would love to see an amendment or some sort of action taking over the first time in

overseeing our schools. thank you for your consideration. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good morning. i may be an outlier on this, but that is nothing new. i support this measure. i appreciate the comments from the supervisors on this one. i think this is about funding conditions, governance, and money. just a minor wording issue on page 5, line five, where it says the superintendent of general counsel, and i think it should say or general counsel. minor typo. anyways, the language that i read would treat the school district more like how city departments operate or should operate. i didn't see anything outrageous in the conditions for

governance. it seemed pretty straightforward listening to people and adopting budgets and shipped -- separating policymaking from day-to-day operations and not interference. pretty standard stuff. while i agree that the school district is independent and it's board members directly are elected, they need ongoing funding from the district to the city and i think this city, through the voters, through the charter can place reasonable conditions on that funding, which this does. entirely reasonable conditions i support the measure as written. thank you for listening. >> next speaker, please. >> my name is carrie. i am in sfusd parent and in sfusd educator.

i am calling in to support the idea of tabling this charter amendment right now. i know that many of the families of the kids in my class are not able to be here this morning to speak. i know that we are putting this up at a low turnout election. we will just decrease the democratic participation in the running of our schools. and i am not sure about this, so how -- i will have to look it up, but i am worried that noncitizen voters are not able to vote for mayor, so that decreases the say that noncitizen families of students have in the oversight of our san francisco board of education, which, you know, worries me a lot on behalf of democracy. thank you to those who have

asked to table this. i hope that it will happen. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> thank you. i work with schoolkids week in and week out. i am calling in support of this proposal. we cannot put our kids' futures off any longer. i am seeing firsthand the damage that is being done over the last couple of years. when need to stop the hemorrhaging somehow. it makes absolute sense to do this. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. >> we are doing one final double check to be sure that there is no other speakers. that was our last public comment online to speak. >> okay. public comment is closed. there is a motion before us.

supervisor ronen, i see you there. do you have any comments? >> let me just say a few words. everything that needs to be said has been said. but when you are undertaking, 11 is undertaking a major piece of public policy like this that requires a vote of the people and amendment to the charger, it is best done in a collaborative fashion. that doesn't mean that everybody agrees after this process. it takes place and that is how we inform the development of good public policy. this started out as a major realignment of early childhood education functions in our city.

and well supervisor mandelman and i say this respectfully, it was very clear last week that that process was inadequate. and salvaging this by dumping 90% of it and keeping 10% of it isn't a good process either. that wasn't done collaboratively with the school district. we all agreed that the district is in trouble. i want to associate myself with the words of the former school board member which is, at a time like this, it is best not to act out of anger. that will take place in 15 days. if we really want to help, i think we want to help on a collaborative and mature and constructive fashion. that doesn't mean that this city

will find through the mayor shouldn't have additional oversight over funds that we give them to the school district or that those funds shouldn't be augmented. perhaps they should. i will parenthetically add that if there is a dedicated stores of revenue, the words that we have heard are very important. this was cooked up in the back room by somebody who thought he knew better. how it got from the individual who cooked it up, and was done without asking the fundamental questions of, have we checked in with a very robust ridge, historically mature group of providers, is beyond me, and how

they sold this to room 200 without them asking that same fundamental question is equally befuddling but here we are. i think a couple of the public commenters, as well as supervisor ronen for what i think is a very constructive admonition, which is let as to regroup, let us start that process in a truly transparent and open democratic way. i think that the notion of trying to salvage a piece of this is actually antithetical to really going about that process in a way that might result in some good results that everybody or a lot of everybody buy into. and with that, i think that supervisor chan's motion is in order and if there are no further comments from committee members, why don't we call the roll.

>> on the motion to table the matter... [ roll call ] the motion to table the matter passes with vice chair mandelman dissenting. >> next item, please. >> next on the agenda, item number 2, charter amendment. amendment to revise the duties and compositions and methods of assignments for members of the voting group and applying the determination under the california college act and its elections to be held on june 7th, 2022. >> thank you. colleagues, i am not sure if we did this or not, but why don't we get the controller's statement on the record. is there someone here from the

controller's office who wants to speak to the controller's statement for the ballot should it get to the ballot? >> good morning. >> good morning, supervisors. we did submit a letter on this, which i hope got into your pocket. >> it did. i just wanted to do this for the record. last week was weird because the comcast cable got cut and then everything got goofy. i just want to make sure i am crossing my tee's and dotting my eyes. >> right. thank you. i appreciate that. again, in this case, some of the adjustments might cause changes in the building inspection costs

because it does adjust some of the ways that deputies are appointed in some of the other administrative procedures, but those things in and of themselves are not properties of the charter amendment. it would still be subject to the normal provisions of the charter and you would have your normal processes for my oral proposal and board adjustments the budget. no material cost is our message. >> thank you. for that, i will turn it over to the primary sponsors and note that it is a moment of collaboration for people who disagreed on the last item as it is cosponsored by supervisor mandelman, ronen, and myself. there you go. >> thank you very much. thank you to the committee for considering this. i do have one further amendment and request that you extend it if you approve it next week at the committee report. i just wanted to give you a

little background for the record for this amendment. i am trying to be collaborative and make sure that we include the voices of everyone who is concerned about building in our city, which is pretty much everybody. between the building inspection commission and the planning commission, i conserved -- i served on the commission for almost a decade and was in the nitty-gritty and nuts and bolts from everything from entitlement to certificate of occupancy and everything that the departments do, including the important work that everyone does to ensure that they have a bit have ability of rental units in the city. i think that's the way that we approved this proposition set us

up for some unfortunate things that have created a culture in the department that is insular, that is sideload, and we don't really have to listen to anybody, we can do our own thing. that has resulted in some of the faults within the system and people who can get away with that. we have seen the outcome of that. it has affected the safety of our residents and it also has created a backlog in addition to a fee that does not allowed for the things that we need from our department. mainly transparency, openness and sufficiency and leading to the construction of buildings i am very proud of the measure

that is before you. i do have one amendment. i want to thank the supervisor for having taken the time to talk this through and help with the drafting. so -- and also chair peskin for his analysis and advice.

thank you. >> thank you.

thank you for your work on this. with that, are there any comments from committee members? seeing then, why don't we go to public comment on item number 2. >> members of the public who wish to provide public comment on this item should call the number on the screen. if you haven't already done so, please dial star three to line up to speak. at this time, we have 13 colours on the line with two on the line to speak. >> for speaker, please -- first speaker, please. >> good morning again. jordan davis here. pronouns are she and her. i once served on an advisory committee. it no longer exists. it was under the department of building inspection.

i do want to appreciate supervisor melgar's collaborative approach to this and i think it is very thoughtful that we need to really reform this part of the building inspection because there has just been so many problems that i barely can even grasp. i do have a bit of a hangup about this, and this is something that i will speak to in another item is that why are we allowing one person to control the majority of seats on a commission? i really don't like the idea of giving majority mayoral appointments. and the reason why is back in 2016 when the planning commission was considering short-term rentals, christine johnson, who was one of the main oral appointees who originally supported the short-term rental regulations eventually -- the

mayor texted her and told her to change her vote. i fear that is what will happen here. we need real oversight. i think that 11 egos controlling the majority of seats is better than one ego controlling the majority of seats. for that reason, should this go on the ballot? i will be unable to support this. thank you very much. i just want to say, it is really windowdressing. it is just windowdressing if the mayor controls the appointment. thank you, i yieled my time. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> coalition from san francisco neighbourhood speaking on my own behalf in support. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. >> good morning. member of san francisco tenant's union. i support the amendment that

supervisor melgar has made. we do need to tenant representation on the building inspection commission. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. >> good morning, supervisors. i oppose this allocation of the executive branch to the legislative branch. our station of government thrives on a balance of power between the three branches, not consolidated in one branch. thank you. >> the current appointing system is for by the mayor and three by the board president. he posts -- the proposed system is the same. next speaker, please. >> once again, i support this idea, although i prefer a

staggered four-year and not two-year term, and again, i would move all of the relevant text from the appendix of the charter to section 4.121. all of the building inspection provisions are in the same place. i spoke last week about the timing of nomination appointment and approval of commission members. i stand by those remarks and i note in the existing language that is not proposed to be changed, current section d. 3.750-6 would be number-4 requires five votes of the commission for budget approval and i think that is an interesting idea that could be duplicated in other charter amendments for bodies would split appointments. even if there is a 3-2 appointments with the mayor and the board, seven members requiring a super majority of

approval budget or other ideas would require collaboration between appointees from different sources. thank you for listening. >> next speaker, please. >> we are double checking the list just to see if there are any more speakers. that was the last public comment on this matter. >> public comment is closed. any comments from committee members? seeing none, i will make a motion to adopt supervisor melgar amendment on that motion. a roll call, please. >> on that motion... [ roll call ]

the motion is adopted without objection. >> then i will make a motion. thank you again, to continue the item to our meeting next monday, february 7th. as amended, on that motion roll call, please. [ roll call ] motion is adopted without objection. >> thank you. colleagues, supervisor melgar, mr. clerk, next item, please. >> item three is charter amendment to amend the charter of the city and county of san francisco to split the power of appointments to the following bodies between the mayor and the board of supervisors. [ indiscernible ]

any agency under the ministry to be designated by ordinance or city administrator to review city programs and services and employee practices and to make recommendations to the mayor and the departments based on those reviews and prohibit the mayor from placing functions on the city administrator without authorization, by ordinance and authorize the city and many department heads to the commission and require the mayor commission to act on the

commission within 30 days and be held on june 7th, 2022. members of the public who wish to provide comment on this item should call the number on the screen. if you haven't already done so, please dial start three to line up to speak. >> supervisor chan? >> thank you, chair peskin. thank you for hearing this item. we also want to thank the legislation's cosponsor and all the people who e-mailed and called in for public comment for the discussion last week. as i've said from the beginning, there is a lack of transparency that has festered a long time. we are doing that by bringing a

balance between some of the most powerful nonelected policy bodies in our city and standardizing functions, processes in the commission in our department. to that end, based on the feedback we have heard last week, we are interested to hear about further standardizing operations for commission members to four years. colleagues, you should have a copy of this that you received from myself earlier today. you can find the changes on the following pages and lines. page 1, line 16 through 18, 14, page 14, lines 22-25, page 15, line 1-2, page 28, line 14 and

16. page 30, line 12 through 25. page 31, line one through 13. page 42, line one and three. as with the previous version, all current members will continue to serve through the remainders of their term before the changes go into effect. ensuring a smooth transition. i hope we can make these amendments today and can continue to make -- continue until monday, february 7th. >> thank you. and he comments from supervisor mandelman? if not, why don't we open this up to public comment. >> yes, we are checking to see if there are any callers in the queue. if you haven't already done so, please press start three to be added to speak. if you are on hold, wait until the system indicates you have been on muted and you can begin

your comments. it looks like we have 17 callers on the line with two in line to speak. >> for speaker, please -- first speaker, please. >> coalition for san francisco neighbourhood speaking on my own behalf. in strong support. when cheryl brinkman was a member of the sfmta board, she stated that she saw her role on the board as supporting staff. sfpuc commissioner tim paulson has stated from the dais that he saw his role on the commission as deferring to staff for the profession -- professionals. is this a closed-loop? thank you. [please standby for captioner switch]

>> supervisor peskin: i will say that many of these charter amendments for including the police commission, the planning commission, for any number of commissions. next speaker, please. >> caller: good morning. i oppose this charter amendment on a number of grounds but

largely because this significantly changes the balance of power in san francisco and significantly changes the structure of the way our city is run and i know on wednesday, there were a lot of arguments made by the proponents of the people who had called in saying that other cities do it this way, well, other cities are different. most of those cities that you called upon have five to seven supervisors. so if we want to cut down significantly, then that might make sense. our city is structured

differently. if you want to talk about changing the structure of the city, at least be honest about it. but don't try to do death by a thousand paper cuts. it's not that big of a deal ifation a little change, but it is a big deal and you're fundamentally changing the way this city is run. you're waking up to what a terrible job the board of supervisors has done over the last couple of years and is tired of it and you're looking for a way to hang on to your power. please stop, just stop. the citizens are waking up and i urge you, i urge rational supervisors to oppose this charter amendment. thank you. >> supervisor peskin: next speaker, please.

>> caller: good morning. you know what, they're always talking about checks and balances like all these people opposing these measures. the mayor has too much god dam fucking power. she has more power than her own federal executive. hell, if san francisco was an independent country, i think amnesty international would have a problem with how much power is concentrated in our executive. i want to say this amendment doesn't go far enough because let's face it i think we need to we need to have a point for each majority commission that way the mayor can't just ram things through without really serious scrutiny. and another thing, let's talk

about some park appointed commissions. we need to elect our rent board berkeley and santa monica's board. of that's what sacramento does with the municipality utility district. i don't think this charter amendment goes far enough and if you think somehow the board of supervisors doing a power grab, i believe in checks and balances, but this is not checks and balances. this is preserving a mayor who thinks she wants to be a fucking dictator. so please. i'm going to yield my time. >> chairman: next speaker. >> caller: good morning supervisors. kathryn howard. i happen to think that the board of supervisors does a great job, but the board is limited because it doesn't have

anywhere near the power the mayor has. the power grab happened years ago when the power changed to the mayor. the importance of inclusivity and expanding the role of citizens in our government. city commissions are responsible for multiple decisions that affect the lives of san franciscans. and it's clear many take their directives from whoever is mayor or so closely in line with the mayor's use there's no possibility of the commissioners considering diver gent viewpoints from the public. attending meetings is like talking to a brick wall. many people do not participate because of this because they'll be ignored. you know, that happens every four to eight years and nobody ever votes for against the mailer just on the basis of a commission appointment. seriously, if we want to include more and a very group

diversity in the population, this measure will help revive interest for the public getting involved in our city government and hopefully lead to commissioners to reflect a broader diversity of opinions. please support this charter amendment. thank you. >> chairman: next speaker, please. thank you. >> caller: good morning. thank you rules committee for hearing my comment. my name is meredith dotson and i've heard from thousandings of public school parents over the past two years. i'm commenting on the children's first charter amendment -- >> chairman: i'm sorry. my apologies, but we heard that item already. we are on a different item and public comment on that item has been closed and the matter was tabled. >> caller: okay. >> chairman: my apologies. next speaker, please.

>> caller: good morning honorable committee members, board of supervisor members. my name is simon kennedy, sf native. i want to thank you for your conversation and candor in these proceedings. i am calling to oppose a charter amendment first regarding appointments. i look at it like this, the mayor is accountable to the entire city and supervisors to their own constituents. it doesn't make sense to me. i also feel like this will make aspects of the democratic process within our city government highly dysfunctional, so i just want to take a step back, breathe, look at it big picture because how this will play out with the mayor past future may not necessarily likely agree with how that will affect it. so, again, calling to oppose

this. i thank you also very much for the way this is being handled. thank you. >> chairman: thank you. next speaker, please. >> clerk: we are getting a message that was a silent caller. we'll come back to them later in the meet figure we can. can we have the next caller. >> caller: good morning, supervisors. this is theresa flanderek. i'm clearly wanting to identify myself and talk about supporting this charter amendment. i think it's long overdue and i appreciate all the work that you have done on this, supervisor chan. so, again, my very strong support of this charter amendment. thank you so much. >> chairman: thank you, next

speaker. >> caller: hello. my name is brandy markman. i'm calling in support of this amendment. i too think that it is long overdue. i think it is time for san francisco to get in line with other cities that more equally distribute power in decision making. so i thank you very much for bringing this to the rules committee and i hope it will pass. thank you. >> chairman: thank you. next speaker, please. >> caller: david pillpell again. once again, i generally support this, but perhaps it should be limited to only some of the boards and commissions at this time and do a measure in the future to pick up more of them. in my few, some of the most important boards and commissions in the city are the m.t.a. board, the public

utilities commission and the recreation and park commission, there may be others, but i wouldn't necessarily do the complete list at a single election. i worry that this could be too big and fail perhaps starting by deferring i generally support a staggered four-year term. so i i think heard member chan say that was part of today's amendments. i also spoke last week and i'm also thinking about the workloads in the future. i think it's doable, but i'm just thinking about what that change would mean in terms of workload of this committee.

once again, i generally support this and thanks for listening. >> chairman: next speaker. >> hi, my name's julie. i wasn't planning to weigh in on this item, but i am in support of it and wanted to make an important point about democracy at large elections. i want to remind callers who say supervisors only represent one eleventh of the city. and that some important queer asian american specifically chinese american and black voices had a voice in the city. so i think that have been supervisors have more voice actually give voice to communities which may be in the

and i want to make sure we hear from all of san francisco's diverse communities in listening to this decision. thank you. >> chairman: thank you. next speaker. mr. young. >> clerk: yes. most likely it's a silent caller. yes, it is a silent caller and we'll move on to our next speaker and get back to this caller in the future. >> chairman: thank you. >> caller: hello. this is annastasia yovonopolis for boards and commissions. and i like the amendments and

hope that my district supervisor will support this charter amendment. thank you. >> chairman: thank you. next speaker. >> caller: hi. this is erica spike and i'm speaking for myself and an organization in the outer sunset, district four. we strongly support this good government amendment, we think it balances the there should be a balance of control there because it often very -- we're

not listening to very often, the community. is please support this amendment, these amendments and get this charter on the june ballot. thank you very much. bye bye. >> chairman: thank you, next speaker. >> hi, i didn't plan to do any public comments for this item, but i think given some of the previous comments, especially comments about board of supervisors, about how many board of supervisors exist in other counties, i feel like there needs to be some perspective in place, you know, san francisco is a city and a county, so technically our supervisors kind of function like city council. so when you look at other cities, i think looking at los angeles, they have 15 city council members and so i think there's some perspective on

that around whether, you know, to compare our city to our city county to other counties and how many county members there are in other counties, given that counties have oversight over a number of cities or as san francisco only has san francisco. another thing. it's an example of how this measure would work out is look at how chair peskin has mentioned how the commission so much so that the public was very disappointing by how

unqualified were and that appointee chose not to withdraw their application. but i think that was a really good example of oversight from the public. those are my perspectives. thank you. >> chairman: thank you. next speaker, please. >> caller: hi. thank you for having this conversation. i didn't plan on weighing in but as i was looking at these comments. i did want to highlight something that's important. the board of supervisors already have the veto proof majority. so that doesn't make sense additionally, i can't imagine a city that becomes more ungovernable and that is

because each district only has to respond to their own district and the mayor has to consider every district in mind when making these decisions and commission appointments. we see right now when you have voters who don't have enough information voting for a citywide position and the board of education recall and for the district attorney's recall. these are city wide positions and what we're seeing is that we want checks abalance system in place. we do want it to be able for citizens to recall their citizens. so all of these amendment proposals, all together as a package are not good enough for our city to be governed moving forward in the future and you

guys won't be held accountable for these crap decisions and unfunctioning boards and grid locks. thank you again for thinking through the process, i appreciate it very much. >> chairman: next speaker. >> caller: hi. i am calling in as a concerned resident. i'm just calling to respectfully urge you all to oppose the amendments and they're just going to create more grid lock in government. an attempt to change our balances in city hall. and giving all that power to the supervisors who are only individually elected by 111th voters. having a say in the direction of the city and it would permanently consolidate control for the board of supervisors

over the voters and the executive branch in a way that's never been done in the city before. so thank you. thank you for taking my calls. >> chairman: next speaker. >> caller: yes. hi. this is paulina fair. as other callers pointed out, broadly many of us in the city elected our mayor london breed. she has the power now to make these important decisions and taking that power away from her i think is, you know, a power grab, essentially, that's what it is and the timing of this could not be anymore concerning to me given the recalls that are, are you know, the current recalls from the board of education and the recalls that are actually going to appear on the june ballot. thank you for your time.

>> chairman: next speaker. >> caller: hi, i actually hadn't planned to speak on this either, but i did want to point out first of all, i completely oppose this split appointment authority charter amendment. someone earlier had said that l.a. had 15 board members, they have four million people and we have 850,000 people. so i wanted to add that piece for people to think about and i strongly oppose this measure. thank you. >> chairman: next speaker. >> clerk: we are double checking to see if there are anymore speakers on the line. that was our last public commenter. >> chairman: okay. public comment is closed. supervisor chan has proposed an amendment which would trigger a continuance if adopted. any final comments from

members. if not on the amendment to item number three as shared with committee members and previously discussed by supervisor chan, a roll call please. >> clerk: on that motion, [roll call] the motion to amend passes without objection. >> chairman: and then we will make a motion to continue the item a week. on that motion, roll call please. >> clerk: yes, on that motion, [roll call] the motion passes without objection. >> chairman: next item, please. >> clerk: yes.

item number four is a charter amendment, second draft to amend the charter of san francisco. after the official has assumed office. if the subsequent recall election would be required to be held within twelve months of a regularly scheduled election with the office held and provide that any person appointed by the mayor to fill any vacancy in a subsequent vacancy election and election be held on june 7th be, 2022. members of the public should call (415) 655-0001. the meeting id is 2486, 850, 0703 and then press pound and pound again. if you haven't done so, please press star three to line up to speak.

>> chairman: thank you, mr. young. colleagues, as you'll recall, i made some amendments that you all voted for at our last meeting. we received comments at the last meeting that have led to some more amendments that i'd like to introduce today and are in front of you and i will describe the further amendments accomplished to goals. first to clarify the measure would take effect and the interim officer provision would apply to any vacancy created due to a recall held on or after june 7th, 2022, when this charter amendment would appear and expanding the caretaker interim officer provision to appoint the office of mayor which is something i believe supervisor mandelman brought up at our last meeting. if that office becoming evacuee cannot because of a recall, that is at page two, lines 14 through 18. so just to go through it, the

long title would be changed at line nine to read and provide that any internal officer appointed to fill a vacancy called on or after june 7th, 2022, and that is reflected in page two at lines eight and nine and lines 13 through 18 and that language is before you and if adopted will be the subject of further discussions. with that, are there any comments from committee members, supervisor mandelman. >> supervisor mandelman: thank you, chair peskin. i'm wondering if you could talk a little bit about why apply this to the june election, but not february, why not have it just start up after the current batch is through? >> chairman: we certainly could do that. it would be on the june election. so it would not be retroactive

to february because it has prospective in so far as it is on. this is a clarification, it actually did not even need to be stated. the city attorney says this is what it needs to do and i thought everybody should know what it should do. so it's actually just a clarification. >> supervisor mandelman: okay. thank you. >> chairman: you bet. with that, why don't we open it up to public comment. item number four. >> clerk: yes, just a reminder, did you want to have the controller's office make any statements on these items? >> chairman: thank you very much, victor, clerk young. i surely did. ms. stevenson, my apologies.

>> no worries. again, board members, peg stevenson from the controller's office. we noted in our letter that depending on what other elections are scheduled and when the timing of any vacancy occurs, this measure could impact the number of elections that are held in any given year. it's a little bit difficult to model it, but an election is expensive as you know. a city wide election is on the order of $10 million. once you've finalized your amendment, we can do a little bit of looking at past election occurrences and see if we can come to a closer number, but the general gist of our letter is that any election that is avoided because of a measure like this would be savings to the city in any one fiscal year, it's not necessarily material because you spread it out over a longer period of time, certainly any election

that's avoided is a cost savings to the city. that's the simple message. thank you. >> chairman: thank you. all right. with that, why don't we go to public comment. >> clerk: yes. we are checking to see if there are any members of the public in the queue. if you have not already done so, please press star three to be added to the queue. for those already on hold, please continue to wait until the system indicates you have been unmuted and you may begin your comments. operations, please let us know. we do have public commentors. we have 17 people on the line with 6 in line to speak. >> chairman: first speaker, please. >> caller: eileene bogan. once again this would prevent mayoral appointees from running for re-election as encumbents. thank you. >> chairman: thank you. next speaker. >> caller: hi, this is

michelle. i am a voter and resident in san francisco. i urge you to oppose these charter amendments and not let them through. they subvert voters rights and severely limit our ability to recall errands in competent politicians. the right to recall is a democratic principle that protects the voters from corrupt and irresponsible politicians. the barriers to getting a recall are really quite high and were only met in 2021 because of the utter failure on the part of elected officials during global and local crisis. i oppose this change to our recall rights. thank you. >> chairman: next speaker. >> caller: good morning again. this is joren davis, pro nouns are she and her and, yeah, i want to speak as a san

franciscan who is originally from new jersey and spent parts of my adult life in new jersey and pennsylvania. why do i mention this? we do not have recalls out there. recalls are not a -- an essential part of democracy, that's why we have elections and it's basically never worked out for people. anyway, on this item, i'm upset that this was watered down and i cannot support this item unless the -- unless if the election does get recalled, their fellow members of the board that they sat on makes a pick instead of the mayor. contrary to what these grow sf types say, these wealthy millionaires, we don't have checks and balances. we have a strong mayor system

and it needs to fucking stop. she needs to give us some power because putting all the power in the hands of one person, that's fucking dictatorship. thank you. i yield my time. >> chairman: next speaker, please. >> caller: hi, my name's julie. i support this effort. recalls are a billionaire's game in the case of a school board election, they would have not been able to get on the ballot without several billionaires pitching in. they couldn't even hire san francisco residents to gather signatures and get the effort on the ballot. however, these billionaires don't pay for the election. instead of paying for restorative practices program that we recently reduced recidivism by 30% or nurses for schools. one of 40 schools with no nurse during the pandemic. recalls create special elections with smaller, more

affluent and less electorate elections that makes it easier for people who couldn't get elected to be appointed and it makes it a bargain for billionaires, an expensive distraction who deserve the right to elect our own representatives. this is an important first step in addressing anti-democratic recalls and i support it. thank you. >> chairman: thank you. next speaker, please. >> caller: charter amendment four is obviously a reaction to the current district attorney and board of education recalls. this charter seeks to make sure that the most incompetent and destructive cities are free. so many people are newly paying attention and have become aware of and are alarmed by what certain people in power are doing. this bald faced power grab

attempt by supervisors peskin and chan would cripple the city and the mayor while cynically protecting themselves and their colleagues. do not dilute the voice of san francisco residents like me and many thousands of others with these amendments. i strongly oppose. thank you. >> chairman: sounds like the commercial they're going to run. this would not have affected the recall of mr. boudine as it started after he was in office for one year. next speaker, please. >> caller: hello, my name is brandy. i'm a public school parent. i very much appreciate the leadership from supervisor chan and supervisor peskin. these recalls are undemocratic. we have -- we should go and have voters deciding who serves

us and i do see just very disappointed by so much money coming in for recall elections. they are specifically set up to save our wealthy folks especially when we've got a general election coming up so close. i furthermore feel like the fewer recalls we have would be better and especially because this year none of the people up for recall have committed any crimes. secondly, i don't think especially in this current climate our mayor is a good person to do the appointing because right now a number of her former directly ports, muhammad nuru and oar folks are sitting in jail on corruption charges. so i just really appreciate the leadership that our supervisors are showing this morning to make sure that we have good

sensible government practices in our city. thank you very much. >> chairman: thank you and the last two speakers reminded me that while it is true that i am the primary sponsor of this and that supervisor chan is a cosponsor, i have neglected to thank and acknowledge the additional co-sponsors supervisor melgar, walton, ronen, and preston, the majority of the board of supervisors. next speaker, please. >> caller: good morning, again, supervisors. kathryn howard. i'm not opposed to recalls in general. the public should be able to recall their representatives when there's a really strong reason for doing so. however, i support this charter amendment. i hope that the voters and the other callers will understand that modifying the recall process is not the same as taking a position on the current school board recall,

whatever anyone's feeling about the current school board, the current call is costing a great deal of money for special election and this is out of scale with the time and money being spent. this leaves the process open to undue influence to the very sectorses of our economy that already control so much of the public process to over-the-top campaign process and i'd like the other callers who oppose this to think about how they're going to feel when the candidate they like gets into office they like. think about it. please, i encourage everyone to support this charter amendment.

thank you. >> chairman: thank you. next speaker. >> caller: this is lori literman speaking in support. thank you supervisor peskin and co-sponsors for crafting these corrections. they have lately become a tool used by well-funded interest, specifically the right to subvert the will of the voters and provocal distrusted government. the recent state of recall elections around the country has exposed flaws in the process. this legislation corrects those flaws. while recall elections aren't a democratic tool, appointing an interim place holder resolves this quandary. the time for submitting recall petitions are responsible and practical. the existing provision allows for initiation of a recall a

mere six months after an official is in office. the changes to these and legit mately elected officials intentionally undermines their ability to we've seen petitioners flown in from out of state and paid $8 and more per signature by the wealthy sponsor of these campaigns. and there are no limits on recall campaign contributions to the super rich. i echo others who have also and

gender by a plethora of amendments. i suspect the charter amendment. thank you you. >> chairman: thank you. next speaker, please. >> caller: thank you. we can't move the goal post in the middle of the game when you don't like the rules and that seems like what's happening here so if this were something happening and a evidence by the time of then i would absolutely back this proposal. but voters have been given air to now actual misconduct, bad

behavior voters are using their very democratic mussel to flex. i'm not a billionaire. i'm just someone who works with students it's really adversely affected our future generations i'm not a billionaire just someone seeing my hometown deteriorate. we have more sf voters who signed to support the june 7th recall. just keep what we have in place for something like this a little short sided. please don't cut off the nose. i thu again for your consideration and conversation. have a good day. >> chairman: thank you, next speaker. >> caller: hi.

this is erica slide speaking for myself and d-forward and we support this measure revision of the city recall. i think we've seen a rest recall having nothing to do with the recall started the day before the -- the day after the aand i've been other a number that have been on that topic. the threat of recall was brought up to the elected official. so i think it's making it. it strengthens the voter voice, because we elected these people

that's coming up and we need to stop the waste of money and the big money coming into the city to change our politics here in san francisco. thank you very much. >> chairman: thank you. of next speaker. >> caller: good morning, this is samantha and i'm a member of the d2 unite. i'm calling to viamently oppose this charter amendment. elected officials should always be subject to voter oversight and the proposed amendment decimates the power of the recall as an avenue to make political change in extreme circumstances. this is a political reaction to the current recall efforts. any vote of putting this on the

ballot conveys the clear message the officials are more concerned with power than they are than serving the people. the b.o.e. recalls are successful, the b.o.e. itself would select the replacements for collins, lopez, and moliga. it's clear the result would be a slap in the face to voters. furthermore, the change to filing b.o.s. vacancies makes no sense in the ten remaining supervisors. the mayor is elected on a city wide basis and so it makes sense for the person in that position to fill the vacancies. please listen to common sense. thank you. >> chairman: and with regard to the comments of the last speaker, she is referring to an earlier draft. that's not what is in the draft before this committee. next speaker, please.

>> caller: david pillpell again. so i oppose this particular proposal as i said last week. a core function of the mayor is to fill vacancies, i like that. i think that recalls properly handled are fine. i think the current system works okay for a 40 year term, the recall window is the middle three years. only 6 months in and prior to six months before the end of their elected term. otherwise, an elected official can be insulated from accountability unless properly suspended and removed to the ethics protigss of the charter. following government for a long time if i have, i don't question the motives here of the proposers and co-sponsors, i disagree with this idea and even with several recalls, that

doesn't mean that that trend will necessarily continue. i don't think that this particular part of our government is broken and requires this particular fix either with regard to vacancies or with regard to recalls. thanks for listening. >> chairman: next speaker. >> caller: good morning, supervisors. veronica veer calling again. i'm strongly opposed to this amendment. it is a clear reaction to the b.o.e. and the d.a.e. recalls and i wanted to comment that someone commented earlier that this should only be reserved for illegal activity. first of all, i disagree, but it should be used when the person's not doing their job whether they've behaved illegally or not, but in the case of all of the current

recalls, they have behaved illegally. in the brown act violations, several other violations and in the d.a.'s case, it's now clear he's withholding evidence and he's clearly not doing his job. so these recalls are very rarely used. this is the first time in many years that san francisco voters have put a recall on the ballot. and in this instance for the board to react in such a way as to essentially try to protect very poor performing, incompetent and/or rule and law violating elected officials by severely restricting the

opportunity to recall these officials is such a clear first of all slap in the face to voters and second of all scramble to protect their own hides. i strongly urge you to not put this on the ballot. the voters are watching. the voters have woken up. i know that the supervisors got all their people to call in on wednesday and today, but the -- >> clerk: speaker's time has elapsed. thank you. we have one more caller on the line. can we have the next caller. >> chairman: and, for the record, believe me, i don't do anything to elongate public comment. next speaker. >> caller: hi. i am a p9 resident and i want to say i clearly support this

charter reform brought by supervisor peskin. i want to say thank you for doing this. i wish there were even more reforms we can make to the recall process we have as well. i think it's kind of preposterous when recall measures fundraise over millions of dollars and being able to use all that as well. i know that's something we can't think about the local front, but i also think that's something we can advocate at the state level that when people are pushing recall measures, there's at least a campaign cap as well. thank you so much for doing what's right and the other callers and voters are watching and the majority of voters are against recalls, thank you. >> chairman: thank you, speaker. and to that last comment, let me just say that the speaker is correct in recall elections unlike the elections to office whether it's the mayor or members of the board of

supervisors or any elected position where there are campaign finance limits of $500 per person per contribution, in other words every contribution from any source is limited to $500, in the case of recalls, there are no limits and that is fundamentally undemocratic. unfortunately, due to case law, we were unable to impose campaign contribution limits and hence we have what is before us but that would be the most preferable, the most democratic group except for citizens united and our united states supreme court have rendered that not possible at this time. next speaker, please.

hi. i spoke last time as well. i just want to address some things brought up in public comment. i don't know where this outrageous claim where people outside of the city came in to vote to sign on to the petition. every signature has to be verified and and some writings, ill lelgable, that's not allowed to be validated. it's incredibly hard for recalls to happen. it's very much done on the ground, boots on the ground. i also want to say that for the person who said that if they should only be recalled if they do something that's illegal, if they do something illegal, they should be thrown in jail. the recalls happen for misgovernance and incompetency. you've put a lot of citizens in jeopardy from misgovernance.

i strongly urge that you do not forward this to the full board and that we can work together. i totally understand the citizens united comment, but we really need to work on something else other than to limit the time and the already hard availability of how recalls are to happen and i am myself a strong proposen't of control over the budget limitations over campaign contribution limitations and if there's somehow a way. as it stands, this is not a fix. i guarantee you, this is not a fix. thank you so much.

>> caller: good afternoon. i'm calling in support of the opposition to the will of the voters when the recallers and out of state money to influence our local election we've seen the prop 22 paid lobbyists. where they've spent millions of dollars purchasing signatures where they were claimed to offer covid tests where the petitions were being potentially mislabelled to gather signatures. we've documented cases where alcohol was given to minors to bribe them for their signatures

in public, in our parks. and this was just in a run up to we've seen fraudulent disz information used time after time. whether it's our most recent conversation about a whiff l bat or our longer term conversations about a drier. we can see that facts aren't important in this recall. and so, i'm asking you today to take not only this measure, but more stringent measures to limit the cases where candidates can be recalled and i agree with previous callers. only in serious cases should we be recalling public officials. these cases i think are limited to crimes. if the public official didn't commit a crime, we shouldn't be recalling them. i think it's undemocratic. >> clerk: speaker's time has

elapsed. >> chairman: thank you. next speaker, please. >> caller: hello. hi. i'm calling in to support this measure. i want to state that, you know, many of these recalls, they had boots or tables in the district one area to raise money from wealthy people to drown out marginalized community voices. they hired people from likea and detroit to come here and

for and they played for their ticket to gather signatures and they were told things about san francisco and they really didn't have any really knowledge about our history or about actually what they were getting signatures for. it really offended me. one of these -- one of the people gathering with the african american man who had been unemployed for almost two years who was brought here from arkansas to gather signatures when i told him he was recalling a black woman, a samoan man, a latino woman. and she said they did not open schools and i said the schools are open and they're just by virtual, but they will be open soon. he did not have enough information. so to me, these people who are funding these recalls and are for the recalls have been doing a lot of lying and then using

money to marginalize our voices. it's been very disappointing. they could have used the $2 million that they got to fix ventilation in schools and to help with masks and testing. >> clerk: speaker's time has elapsed. >> chairman: next speaker. >> caller: after i gave my comments a little bit earlier supervisor peskin responded that this would not -- >> chairman: i'm sorry. you've spoken. my apologies, but everybody gets one chance to speak for two minutes. next speaker please. >> clerk: we're checking the speaker line at this moment. give me one moment. can we have the next caller, please. >> caller: hi.

i'm a 40-year resident of san francisco and i am appalled that you're trying to take power away from the people and give it to yourself. the people have pitch forks out for your policies and they're only avenue right now is to take. >> chairman: go ahead, speaker. >> caller: everyone only gets one chance. i can't believe that you're turning down the mayor's proposals because they're made in the back room without enough public to cut discussion and you're turning right around and putting yours up with changes over the weekend that we didn't even know what they're about. allow the people to speak. they're coming after elected officials because of your bureaucracies because of your policies. thank you. >> chairman: are there any additional speakers for item

number four. >> clerk: yes. we're checking. yes. can we have the next speaker. it appears to be a silent line. oh. >> caller: supervisors, what i've noticed in this recall is that the money is coming from sources, large amounts of money and for everybody to see. $49,000 given by two people, but i know that more than that

for alternative motives. if we go ahead with this, we're encouraging those who have a lot of money like they have in san francisco, people have a lot of money to simply frame some ballot measure in order to attain some alternative motives. this is a very bad trend. we have put measures before for very serious reasons and we have followed protocols and procedures. we are people collecting signatures who are not even citizens. check that out. you ask them a question about why are they gathering signatures and they can't speak english?

check that out. so this is going to set a very bad trend. [please stand by]

amendment and continue the item for a week. i would combine those two motions into one to adopt the amendments and continue the item one week and we can discuss timing at our next meeting. on that all-encompassing motion, roll call, please. >> we had one caller jump into line as we opened public comment. >> we will take public comment and accommodate that commenter. >> hello, supervisors. i am in agreement with you to hold off on this end until more of the public understands what is going on. san francisco has been called

right now, and the cup -- on the public has gotten behind them. any amendments to those recalls in the charters should be fully understood by the public. also, any amendment to the power to the mayor should also be fully understood. i am in agreement for you to put this off until next week when we can review it even further and possibly not bring this on any ballot, or if you do bring it up, it isn't until november. thank you for your time. >> thank you. with that, public comment is closed. on that motion, roll call, please. >> on the motion to adopt the amendment and continued the matter to the next rules committee meeting... [ roll call ] the motion passes without objection. >> all right. next item, please.

>> next on the agenda is item number 5. the charter amendment first draft to adapt a ticklish policy urging the retirement board to amend the charter of the city and county of san francisco to require that one of the members that is currently appointed will be appointed by the board of supervisors to experience with the manager -- [ indiscernible ] >> thank you, mr. young. why don't we start with mr. stevenson from the controller's office as to the controller's statement. >> thank you, supervisors. thank you for this evening -- thank you for this item. no impact on the cost of government given its nature. >> thank you. all right. with that, colleagues, as for

this item, i will be making a motion to continue this item to the call of the chair. i would like to thank the cosponsors, supervisor preston, melgar, and our committee members, supervisor carly chan for the cosponsorship. over the last month and a half since we introduce this measure, progress has been made further in support as a universally health goal, fully divesting the city's pension funds from fossil fuels. we have welcomed a new member to the retirement board who is a member of the pension himself and an active member of the international federation who has been part of the movement around divestment related issues and has been building consensus within the house of labor around

divestment and hopefully we will build the same consensus as the member retirement board. i have also become aware of a couple of additional opportunities that we can make progress on this year, absent the ballot initiative, to move our city beyond that zero emissions, to negative emissions, and in the more immediate term, to expand the impact of environmental, social, and governance fund management on the retirement board. and in the wake of the departure of the retirement board's executive director and chief investment officer, i think there are unique opportunities to strengthen our pension, ensure that pension liability remains funded, while we are charging responsible paths towards divestment and helping the future of this planet that we live on. so after public comment, i will be making a motion to continue the motion to the call of the

chair. absent any progress, we may well want to bring it forward for the november ballot. i intend to remain engaged with the coalition of advocates through the existing legislative budgetary and political means that we have at our disposal and i want to thank the mayor and the mayor's office or their collaboration and their shared desire to move quickly to five vestment from fossil fuels, and with that, let's open this up to public comment. >> members of the public who wish to provide public comment on this item should call -- >> i'm sorry. i didn't look at my special chat button. supervisor mandelman, my apologies. before we go to public comment. i'm sorry. >> i just want to thank the chair for your dogged pursuit of this goal of divestment ongoingly, and thank you for moving us closer. i hope we get there soon.

thank you. >> i will take that as a late cosponsorship request. i'm teasing you. all right. sorry for failing to look at my chat button. mr. clerk, public comment, please. >> yes, members of the public who wish to provide public comment should call the number on the screen. press pound and pound again. if you haven't done so, press star three to line up to speak. it appears we have one caller on the line. >> for speaker, please. >> as i said last week, i still don't like the idea of a declaration of policy and the charter amendment in the same

measure. if this comes back, i would strongly encourage the declaration policy language be just included elsewhere in the charter language. one second. perhaps in 12.100 sub 5050 or somewhere else. i'm just thinking back to an earlier measure. budget approval could be imported here to require at least five votes for certain requirements and that maybe a concept to use elsewhere and finally to chair peskin if you could clarify if next week's rules committee meeting is back to 10:00 regular time or 9:00 like the last two? thank you. >> are there any other members of the public here for public comment on item number 5? >> i believe we have one more.

>> go ahead. >> good morning, supervisors. today i am calling for you to include this in their list of renewable resources. we do extract rhenium that we need to generate our power from seawater. we can now generate usable carbon neutral fuels to get power. the navy is doing so already. and through this path, as recommended by rolls-royce to modernize aviation, we can manage to use and solid infrastructure and produce a carbon neutral path. we could recapture some of the carbon. thank you very much. i am calling in support of neutral power.

>> are there any finer spee -- final speakers on this item? >> we do have additional speakers. >> i am not necessarily opposed to the idea of making a declaration around fossil fuels divestment. i am really opposed to this being a charter amendment that you are forcing taxpayers to pay for because the fact of the matter is, they have no control whatsoever over the retirement investment as determined at the state level. one has to wonder why you would make this a proposed charter amendment. it seems to me that it is a smokescreen. you can declare sport for fossil fuels without expense of the measures. it seems to me the true goal is

to take power from the executive branch and give it to the legislature. thank you. >> next speaker that was our last -- last public comment. >> public comment is closed. i would like to make a motion to continue this item to the call of the chair. on that motion, a roll call, please. [ roll call ] the motion passes without objection. >> okay, colleagues. if we can take a little bit of a recess. is 50 minutes okay? we will get to the balance of

the calendar. we will sit in recess until 11:30 am.

>> we will reconvene the rules committee for today, january 31st, 2022. thank you for agreeing to that brief recess and thank you to the members of the public for your patience. mr. clerk, can you please call the next item? >> yes, item six is a hearing to consider appointing a member term under does -- ending december 13th, 2022 and one ending december 13th, 2024 housing stability fund oversight board. members of the public who wish to provide public comment on this item should call the number on their screen.

if you haven't done so, please dial star three to line up to speak. >> thank you, mr. young. so we have had one withdrawal, is that correct,, mr. young? >> that is correct. my understanding is that one individual has withdrawn. >> reporter: we now have two applicants. is that correct? >> that is correct. >> and the applicant for seat for, i assume we'll hear from them shortly. the residency waiver is requested and would be required. is that correct? >> that is correct. >> okay. colleagues, are there any and they -- are there any other questions or comments from committee members as to item number 6? if not, we can go to supervisor preston, the author of the housing stability fund oversight

board. supervisor preston, good morning. >> good morning. thank you, chair peskin. thank you supervisor mandelman and supervisor chan. thank you for getting this on your agenda. i know you have a packed agenda so i very much appreciate that. i am here to share a brief background on the housing stability fund and offer context for the candidates we are supporting and for the oversight board. in november 2020, my office put forth and voters overwhelmingly approved proposition i can increase on the tax rate for the highest value real estate transactions in our city. those values were set at over $10 million. in conjunction with the ballot measure, we created the housing stability fund. the purpose of which is to create a dedicated funding stream with proceeds from prop i for the creation of permanently affordable social housing. the concept for the housing

stability fund is to provide revenue source to pursue a range of affordable housing strategies, particularly those that lack access to other funding. strategies like small sites accusations, community land trust, land banking, and limited equity co-ops, municipal housing or others. rather than being prescriptive on what housing strategy to adopt in the ordinance, we decided to create a body of steak quarters -- stakeholders to provide recommendations for how the funds should be allocated. the oversight board is designed to report to the mayor's office of housing and the board of supervisors will incorporate the recommendations in the budget. this past fall, the oversight board unanimously recommended a -- recommended for it to be allocated to housing acquisition. and the board of supervisors,

thank you for your support on this, they heeded the oversight board's recommendation. voting to allocate $64 million to get hundreds of units off the private market and to become permanently affordable houses. simply put, this is an important policy body and if we are to follow the will of the voters, this will continue to influence how we allocate hundreds of millions in affordable housing dollars in the coming years. so for that reason, i wanted to express my support for the candidates that you have referenced. a seat that is reserved for a person with experience owning, operating or developing social housing developments. and the political director at the united educators in san francisco for a person with

experience in the organized labor community. miss bailey and mr. van he has are supremely qualified. a long-standing commitment to affordable housing and i understand they are both here today to describe their qualifications to the committee. i believe the committee members are familiar with their work to some extent and understand why they would be a tremendous asset to the oversight board's work. in addition to their experience and insight, the appointment of these candidates will constitute the oversight body and women lead body with six or seven members. it is important to my office and two other members of the board of supervisors. we really want to express our gratitude to all the applicants all the way through the process. from the initial seats that were before the committee, and the applicants for this round as well for these vacant seats.

we appreciate their interest in serving on this body. we want to encourage everyone interested to continue to be engaged in the process as it moves forward. i think the future of affordable social housing in san francisco really is at stake, along with the hundreds of millions of dollars. i believe a broad range of experience and expertise is needed to guide these funds to their best purpose. chair peskin and rules committee members, thank you for your time and cooperation. i appreciate it. >> thank you for your ongoing work on this matter and initiating it to begin with. with that, why don't we go to the two remaining applicants in the order that they appear on our agenda? go ahead, miss bailey. the floor is yours.

i know we have already your submission and note your qualifications for seat number 4, but the floor is yours if you would like to share any additional information with members of this committee. >> thank you so much, supervisors. supervisor preston and supervisor peskin, i want to say, thank you for this opportunity to present my candidacy for seat for. i believe my background in law, nonprofit housing development, policy, and research make me a good candidate. which must be held by a person with experience owning, operating or developing social housing developments. as mentioned, i am the executive director of san francisco community land trusts. housing developer that pursued two underfunded housing strategies for the creation of affordable housing, the land trust and the limited equity housing corroborative.

they operate 14 permanently affordable properties for those low and moderate incomes throughout -- spread throughout the city. from chinatown to the mission, the richmond district, south of market and two russian hill. seventy-three% of our residents are below 80% a.m.i. and 50% below 60% a.m.i. and the 250 residents living currently in our 151 units have housing and represent a diversity of race and ethnicity's was 75% of our residents identifying as by paek -- as. bipoc as an attorney policy advocate, researcher and published author on shared equity ownership models based on my six years of international research, i believe i offer unique perspectives on the theory and practice of community land trust and other social housing levels.

particularly regarding the legal formation and regulation. i serve on the board of the california land trust network and in that capacity worked overseas statewide for leases for the cop model, as well as the design and execution of an unprecedented statewide survey in 2021. and finally, i acted as chair of the subcommittee in 2019 and 2020, which is responsible for incubating and drafting the house justice tax equity act, which benefits them by expanding the eligibility of the tax exemption. i believe my experience and education makes me qualified and that i can contribute meaningfully to the activities of the oversight board. thank you so much. >> thank you, miss bailey. i concur. why don't we move on to seat

eight, which is somebody who has experienced or expertise in organized labor. she definitely does. >> good morning, chair peskin and members of the rules committee and supervisor preston. thank you so much for this opportunity. my name is annabel and i am the current political director of united educators of san francisco. i also served on the executive board. my experience as a labor leader places me at the forefront of awareness of not just economic issues impacting san francisco, but also around issues of affordable housing and housing access. i have worked to protect vulnerable populations against economic inequality, included in the areas housing policies, environment to health disparities and health outcomes

and intake -- educational disadvantage. i have also am an elected officer of the san francisco demographic party and the latin x demographic party. i served on the executive board with justice, which i mentioned is to show that i am someone who can work collaboratively and bring the diverse forces together to meet the needs of this committee. with that, i thank you for all of your support. >> thank you. are there any questions or comments from committee members? why don't we go to public comment on this item number 6. >> yes, operations is checking if there are any callers. if you haven't done so, dial star three to be added to the cue to speak. for those on hold, continue to wait until the system indicates you have been an muted and you can begin your comment. we currently have four callers on the line and one online to speak. >> all right. first speaker, please.

>> this is jordan davis again. my pronouns are she and her. i am speaking in favour of annabel to this very important board. that is all i wanted to say. i yieled my time. >> thank you. next speaker. >> we are double checking. >> can you hear me now? >> please proceed. >> great. i do not know these two applicants, but i have heard miss bailey speak. she made a presentation about the community land trust. i was very impressed with that. i think they are very qualified applicants and would do well as appointees on the new oversight board. thank you very much. >> are there any other members of the public for this item? >> that was our last public commentary on this matter.

>> all right. public comment is closed. colleagues, if there is no objection, i would like to make a motion to send miss bailey and annabel to the full board with positive recommendation. i see supervisor chan is nodding and supervisor mandel -- mandelman is nodding. we still have to take a real vote. could you please call the roll? thank you, supervisor preston. >> can we include a residency waiver? >> yes. i mentioned that at the beginning but failed to include that in the motion. that would include a residency waiver for miss bailey. >> on the motion to recommend miss bailey to seat four with residency waiver and annabel to seat eight, on that motion... [ roll call ]

the motion passes without objection. >> okay. thank you, colleagues. mr. clerk, can you please read item seven through 11 together? >> seven is a motion approving or rejecting the nomination for the reappointment of shorter to the commission. [reading the items]

>> thank you, mr. young. colleagues, just by way of background, the juvenile commission is a charter established a commission under the executive branch and it is set forth in section seven-point 102 of the charter. it consists of seven members all appointed by the mayor, but subject to hearing and possible potential rejection by the board of supervisors within 30 days of appointment. the full commission meets monthly, and this is our opportunity to ask the

commissioners, i believe all of whom are being recommended for reappointment. any questions that we may have? president walton asks that we calendar this hearing. i have a set of questions to ask each of the appointees, and colleagues, feel free to jump in. we will start in the order that people appear on the agenda, starting with miss shorter and moving down. good morning. it is still morning for 13 more minutes. may be we can start with a little bit of background as to when you were first appointed at the commission and what your accomplishments have been since you were appointed, and speaking

a little bit to your engagement with juvenile justice work, both as a member of the juvenile probation commission, as well as outside of your work on the commission. good morning. >> good morning to you, chair peskin, and to the other supervisors and to my colleagues that are serving. hopefully we will be reappointed to the juvenile probation commission. i have been serving on the juvenile probation commission since may and i was appointed, i believe in may of this year. let me tell you, my involvement with juvenile justice reform extends to over 30 years.

whatever your disposition is with regards to my reappointment, i hopeful -- i certainly will urge that you reappoint our commission members that are here present today, including our newest commissioner. the commission is one that i am very familiar with. having gone back to the formation of the commission, and prior to the formation of the commission had been working since 1993 on the codevelopment and i have had nationally replicated and award-winning and highly successful detention diversion models. this is a model that is in place not only in san francisco, but

is replicated in oakland and washington, d.c., and philadelphia, and maryland, seattle, and other jurisdictions. the aim of that particular model at that time was certainly to look at the disproportionate rates of incarceration of minority youth for various types of nonviolent crimes, which we only use that word very much entrenched in the system. we were able to not only have a very successful implementation of that particular model to divert youth into community-based services, which i have a number of years working with community-based organizations collaboratively, along with the department to make sure that their needs are better served, rather than waste

full detention. we have not only enabled to have implemented a successful model, but it has been sustained for many years. to that end, we now arrive at a very credible point and an exciting point, i think, for this commission and the department, and that is to fulfil the mandate by ordinance to close juvenile hall and reorganize, refashion, reform the land in which youth are received in the system, treated in the system, and better served in the system. it has certainly, in the time it has been a brief period of time, but i think that i have been able to contribute to that movement through the commission on the juvenile probation commission, and this is in a

variety of ways. certainly a number of years having served as a commissioner as a commission member on the status of women. that has also benefited this commission and being able to share different approaches to moving such an initiative forward. so with that, in addition to develop directed and replicated in national model programs, one that has been cited by the kennedy school and is full of governess -- governance as a good model and has been cited by the department of justice and continues to be, but also highlighting issues relative to issues in the system. we were able to provide an assessment, analyses that are,

still to this day, as some basis of policy development and certainly how to better work with community-based organizations. so i am delighted to serve on this commission. one could say it is kind of full-circle as someone who stood from the outside really pushing for the kind of reform that we are looking at now in terms of the closure of juvenile hall, but doing it in a responsible way, and one that would produce the kinds of outcomes for youth, our families, and our communities in the years to come. i thank you for your time and your ear. i know you have other commissioners. again, i'm very proud to serve with this body in this constitution of commissioners and i look forward to continuing

to service with them. >> thank you. thank you for embracing and supporting the goal that president walton introduced indeed as an ordinance that i think every member of this committee supported relative to the closure of the youth guidance centre, commonly known as juvenile hall, and you spoke to wanting to move that initiative forward and do so in a responsible way, and i wanted to delve in that a little bit with regard to the reports, the closed juvenile hall report, and ask you what you think of it and what parts of it you support, and are there parts that you oppose? should things be different? i just wanted to ask you that question as we get on the topic of the closure. >> i appreciate that. and certainly we still, as a commissioner, we are still

reviewing the report and having discussions. i appreciate that you are just asking for my particular opinion. i am certainly not speaking for the whole of the commission. i think it is a good report. it is a report that certainly has had a great deal of inclusion of the various voices, various perspectives in terms of what is the best path forward. what i like about the report is it is centred and grounded in the idea of well-being and really what rehabilitation is essentially about. as we know, we have somewhat veered away to a large extent and i'm thinking generally, i am not talking just about san francisco specifically from the tenants and the ideas, the applications and practice and supports for holistic rehabilitation of any

individual, and certainly for our minor offenders. i won't speak specifically to what i don't like about the report because we are still considering and that is still in discussion. i am looking forward to the other commissioners, and certainly our department chair and her staff, as well as some other community members as we continue to vet the attributes and where the report may not meet the goal, the initial goal. i do think that however this report, as it stands right now, what it needs is certainly a teasing out of whether things -- whether there are things we can move forward on most immediately, and what are perhaps things that may have to

come in second tier. there are a number of very good policy recommendations. some of which are redundant, and things that have been voiced and discussed over the years, and finally, perhaps they are coming to some fruition as embodied in the report, but nonetheless, i think it is a good report and i think that one it does become -- come before the board of supervisors, i expect it will have a verbal review and investment from the commission and the department to implement it. >> thank you. and just scoping out the larger perspective, what issues would you like to see the commission address, what kind of policies

would you like the commission to approve, what kind of policies have been approved by the commission during your relatively new and brief tenure? >> a good deal of the focus of the commission, since my brief tenure has been on the compilation of the report, so that has been a top priority for this commission. as far as the commission's function, we have not necessarily advocated for, nor forwarded any resolution or policy that was outside of the scope of the discussion about the report, it's compilation, the program community, et cetera that have been working on for community input. certainly one thing i would say is that what needs to be better spelled out is the role of the

commission and what it will be in the implementation of the plan, as it were. so then certainly under discussion with the commission, certainly there is the jurisdictional issue, and that is brought in general, and in some cases, very specific, but as it relates to the ordinance, it is something that needs to be clarified what is this particular commission's role, mandate, charge and responsibility, including liability in the implementation of such a plan. seconds to that, is also the budgetary issues or the financial issues. they do -- i do serve on the finance committee along with our current president. that is the budget or finance

committee for this particular commissioner or the department. i do think what is absent is something perhaps that will come to fruition or be better spelled out once the plan is presented to the board of supervisors is what -- how do we best finance and direct resources to this undertaking of closure of these guidance centres. [please standby for captioner switch]

. >> chairman: i noticed the application from four years ago, 2018 and this is going to change. but many of the commissioners unlike members of the board of supervisors another elected officials don't have to file electronically, so it's not like i can go on the internet and determine there's a more recent form. i haven't gotten a chance to do that. but the question was have you.

do you know if you've filed form 700 more recently? >> yes. and, in fact, i believe the last time i submitted the 700 electronically and it was upon my appointment to this commission. >> chairman: interesting. well, what's in our board packet was

i was able to work with city partners and city leadership on the response to a federal grant that allowed for what we call hope homes and that would basically mean that members of the community could basically have homeless youth stay in for

instance an additional room in their home and that was organizing supports to necessarily on board and maintain a healthy and productive stay within those homes so that's one thing the other with the san francisco realtors foundation, the nonprofit arm that was to work with the foundation on its program and as a welcome home project to retool and finesse that particular project, what that project does is that as people are moving into permanent home placement from the streets that our homeless population, we often don't have, they're not likely to

have some of the goods that you and i might have, for instance, just, you know, bed sheets, a number of other appliances or just goods or just toiletries etc. in order to set up a new home environment. so that's what i was working on with that association. currently, i do serve as a on one of the recall efforts of one of our did i believes here in san francisco. i think that that is well-known and i expect that that is of interest to you and so i serve there and a spokes person and certainly one of the organizers and strategists for that

effort. >> chairman: thank you for your candid response. and i am not in any way calling into question the legitimacy of that employment. and i think our prerogative is to encourage rather than discourage political advocacy in san francisco and beyond san francisco, but specifically the question i wanted to ask in so far as and you're correct, it is widely known and it is available on the sf ethics website as to that engagement by the committee to recall the district attorney and how much you receive in compensation or semimonthly is all public record. but in so far as the juvenile

commission which oversees the chief probation officer ms. weinstein miller is in essence a law enforcement body that has matters that are under the jurisdiction of the chief law enforcement official who is the district attorney, do you think that that is and i'm not speaking to a legal conflict, but does that make doing your job as a commissioner more difficult in so far as you are a commissioner over a law enforcement agency on the one hand and involved in political advocacy as it relates to and the chief law enforcement officer on the other and how do you reconcile those? >> no. i do not think it provides any

in this particular case and certainly i do understand how it is structured and what the constitution of the department is and its role as a law enforcement agency of sorts. i'm not going to go in to pick any particular comment with regards to what my particular position is or opinion. the current serving district attorney, but certainly structurally, i am very well aware of what my role is as a commissioner and what the role of this body is and how to make

sure that there isn't any particular conflict with my role as a commissioner in that and elsewhere. >> chairman: thank you, ms. shorter, for that response. and i'm sorry to bring up sensitive history, but i just wanted to ask whether you have ever been fined or admonished for failing to disclose sources of outside income while serving as a city commissioner? >> as you recall, supervisor peskin, you along with another member of the community have, in fact, several years ago, how long ago was that? commissioner peskin? i mean supervisor peskin. that was some 12, 13 years ago. >> chairman: i think 2012.

>> yeah. so that was a while ago in another engagement in terms of dissatisfaction with a member of the board of supervisors at that particular time and there was a complaint that was filed. yes, they did receive the minimum fine for i guess a late submission and they advised me there had been a series of complaints that you and your associates had filed on all sorts of things and considered it not to be valid, but certainly enough to find the minimum. i think that the particular

complaint was to have a -- the highest fine level, i don't know when the thousands of dollars or something, but they called me themselves and said that we are dismissing this and also the local ethics commission dismissed it as well. so that was two years ago and that was a result of that particular complaint. it was not only myself, but as it was revealed that made perhaps a misstep in the type of file or when to file, but there were several other commissioners that had apparently received similar information or guidance in terms of if you have to file under certain circumstances. so, yes, for the record i was

fined in 2012. if not we'll go on to mr. arellano. all right. mr. arellano, let me ask you the same questions i asked ms. shorter relative to your involvement with the commission where i think you've served as president for quite some time. so the same questions as to when you were first appointed and when you think your major accomplishments have been and your work engaging with juvenile justice work both as a member of the commission and outside of that work. >> thank you, chair peskin and members of the rules committee for considering my appointment and considering my qualifications.

my name is joe arellano. i'm a born and raised san franciscan. that was raised by parents in. i attended lowell city college where a botch lor's in political science. i've been a district eight resident since 2007. first living in noe valley then living as well as my 5-year-old son. i started my career working for jackie spear during her time working in san mateo and san francisco counties. i moved over to the mayor's office and served as deputy communications officer for gavin newsome for almost five years. for the bay area county and also went on to help jim and tom stier focused on children, families and climate change.

and then in 2012, started my own public agency handling my own media strategies. my firm has worked on many of the largest projects in the bay area including the entitlement of chase center, super bowl 50. in 2010, i joined the juvenile probation commission upon leaving the mayor's office because of my experience working in his administration with with the san francisco juvenile system. since then, i've been reappointed to the commission by mayor lee and now mayor breed. i've served two terms as president. i've worked with three chiefs. now chief katie miller. in the twelve years that i've served on the commission, i've worked with my colleagues on the commission as well as the

staff from over 150 youth when i first started on the commission to now just over 20 total youths. to reform juvenile hall in san francisco. i would like to continue serving on the commission to help oversee the transition to ensure we find the balance for youth and custody and maintaining public safety for the residents of san francisco. my wife and i are committed to

raising our son in san francisco. we believe despite the challenges the city faces, we can be part of the solution in helping shape the next generation by our families and the city that we love so dear. thank you members of the rules committee and chair peskin for considering my reappointment to the juvenile probation commission today and i'm happy to answer your questions. >> chairman: thank you, mr. arellano. let me just continue with the same initial questions i asked ms. shorter relative to the parts you oppose and you just want to speak to that matter. >> sure. i would echo some of the remarks that my fellow commissioners mentioned. the focus on well being is a huge emphasis that i found to be the most impactful on reading the report. in the report, there is a

statistic that i think has been at the forefront of our commission since my time which is 30% of the youth in the hall have a reduced diagnosis. mental health and mental illness is something we have tackled through our work over the years in trying to secure more mental health beds for youth and trying to find ways to really get at the root causes of mental illness in the community that are obviously caused by ptsd and the nature of abject poverty in many parts of the city that lead to this type of situation. and so i felt like the well being focus and the early addressing early interventions was an important part of it, but obviously i know the board has a meeting coming up i believe in the next week or two to look over the recommendations and there will be obviously more discussion and debate to be had. i think the overall focus which i believe is a big part of it

on well being i think stood out the most to me. >> chairman: thank you. and then what kind of policies has the commission approved under your ten year as president, what would type of policies would the like the commission to approve? >> sure. again, i point to the mental health, our former commissioner montahano as well as commissioner broadkin worked together to tackle this issue at the forefront of the commission probably it seems, i forget with covid now, but i believe it was 2018, 2019 when i first took over and just helping to usher in a new way we can find partnerships with dcyf and d.p.h. and seeing those linkages come together to find more mental health beds. i think that's probably one of the best things our commission has done over the last two and

a half, three years. i've overseen the finance committee for it feels like i believe now the entire ten year on the commission and also working to reduce the department's budget in a way that's mindful of the new charge that the board of supervisors has given us in terms of reducing and reducing to right size the budget. i think we still have more to do obviously when we figure out what the motto will look like moving forward, but obviously right sizing the budget to align with the reduced number of juveniles as well is something that i have overseen in my time and i'm proud of. >> chairman: does the commission actually adopt these policies? i cannot recall, i mean, there are commissions that vote on policies that end up on the mayor and board of supervisors' desks.

i cannot recall ever seeing anything like that out of the juvenile commission, but maybe i'm wrong. >> you are right in the sense that our commission is one of many commissions that obviously works in this space. there's the juvenile justice commission that works on juvenile hall in the standards and practices there. our commission is really tasked mainly with obviously the hiring and firing of the chief as well as really the budget every year and so to your point, we have a programs committee that meets regularly. commissioner spingola and moses along with commissioner brodkin and it has been more energized with their presence to tackle. you are absolutely correct. since i have been on the commission, it's really been more of a budgetary charge and

i think that where we have been able to make changes has been through our ability to shine a light on many of these issues could use debate and partnership from different city departments. so finding ways to get dcyf and d.p.w.. finding ways for d.p.w. and rec and park to work with the department to identify potential work opportunities for youth and the hall and also opportunities for families of youth. those are the types of things that we've done in my ten year because it just has been difficult from our perspective to advance policies, i think because it seems as though the charge of the department, of the commission has been more budgetary in nature. >> chairman: thank you. and then, not to touch on a sensitive subject and i appreciate the fact that your form 700s are up to date, but i

just want to ask and i have not had the chance to research this, but three of your listed sources of income are just initials and so i just want to get clarity on what is f.m.s.f. and p.r.m. >> yes. so fmsf and what was the other one? >> chairman: bcsf. >> yes. so those are cannabis dispensaries that you may know as pipelines. so there's one in the sunset pipeline and also one in your district in north beach that recently opened. north beach pipeline that we just opened in partnership with jeremy fish. >> chairman: so that is barberry coast is the b.c. >> yes. recently, the ownership group has split somewhat and so the

barberry coast dispensary on mission which i probably think is the most well-known is no longer affiliated with the other two dispensaries so they have now been separated and rebranded as business entities as pipeline and barberry coast still exists on mission. but my form 700 -- apologies for interrupting. my time when i filed it on my form 700 was still working for barberry coast when they were still barberry coast as one entity. >> chairman: understood and all of our 700 forms from last year are not due until the first day of april. so i get it. and last was g.r.m. >> g.r.m. was an ownership group that at the time reached out to me in march of last year right when covid hit and they have ownership of several hotels in the bay area and at

the time, this was when governor newsome was still working to identify motels and hotels to identify covid positive patients and so i worked with them at the time to i believe it was called the fairfield inn in san carlos to work as an intermediary to help with strategy and media relations as they were working to transition the fairfield then in san carlos to work with the governor's office as a site for covid positive patients that were for instance coming up the princess cruise and so forth and thankfully didn't have to house many parties at the time. but you may recall at the time it was trying to identify locations where we could house those types of covid positive individuals. >> chairman: gotcha. thank you for your candor. and why don't we move on to the next appointee, james spingola.

mr. spingola, same questions for you relative to how long you've been on, what your major accomplishments have been, your work relating to juvenile justice work both as a commissioner and outside of your commission work and comments on the closed juvenile hall report. what you think of it what you support. and what kind of policies you would like the commission to approve. >> thank you, chair -- >> chairman: i'm sorry for that mouthful, in so far as you're number three on the list i'd thought i'd put all the questions together. >> that's fine. just cram it up in there. thank you, chair peskin, supervisor mandelman, supervisor chan, thank you all for having us here today. kind of a little insight

because my fellow commissioners that i just got out of surgery. on wednesday, i had major back surgery. >> chairman: commissioner. i did tell you you did not have to come today, i was very clear with you, but you're here anyway. >> i appreciate it. this is all part of the healing process so i've got to go. i mean, this is the work. so we have to do the work. i want to talk about how i got involved in the justice system and working with young people. i am currently the executive director for collective impact, l.a.o.s. community center and i always tell everyone, the work that i do i didn't choose, the work chose me. so i've been at l.a.o.s. for the last 17 years. what made me want to kind of get on the commission because i don't do the politics piece of it all, but i am -- i'm not a politician, but i do politics. so at the end of the day, are i

realized rest in peace in 2017 mayor ed lee came down to do a budget meeting at the community center and what i realized in this that budget meeting was these are where the decisions are being made at and that process after a few years go by, i'm fairly new to the commission, as a few years go by, i did assign to mayor breed. but for me, it's kind of like -- excuse me because i'm feeing something go through my back. for me, it was kind of like i do this work, what made me -- the more i do this work and the more i sit on the commission i realize that, you know, 98% of the time -- 90% of are young black african americans that

really touches me in the heart of the work that i do. i am pretty much embedded in the work i do. everybody would tell you that. for me, people always ask me what do you do. hopefully my work is impact. hopefully the at the end of the day, i'm making an impact in communities all around san francisco. in the mission, in the bayview. hunter's point, in the mission, chinatown. japantown. i'm all over the place. so my main concern is just making an impact in communities where community doesn't have the resources. during the pandemic, we actually never closed l.a. community center and we became our own kind of community operation center, so it gave me an opportunity to see and i've been on the commission for the last year. i think it's a little over a year now, but i've been on the commission and it gave me an opportunity to see that, you know, where the resources are

going and where the young people needed support at. so, you know, just doing this work and being on the commission just gave me, the insight on trying to make a change when it came to how do i hand my young people off. how do i support my young people in doing this work. that's pretty much of why i do this work. excuse me for trying to be short. i'm working with that and the pain at the same time. >> chairman: thank you. seeing knowledge questions from my colleagues, why don't we move on to commissioner toye moses. i saw you out there with that big white beard that you must have grown during the pandemic because i don't remember that thing or i don't remember it being as white as mine. same questions to you, toye. >> good afternoon, supervisors.

i'm just like james. i've been having some health issues too, you know. so i'm going to do the best i can. so i have my statement prepared if i can read to you. good afternoon supervisors. thank you for the opportunity to speak to you about my reappointment to the probation commission. my name is toye moses, i have been a resident of san francisco since 1974 and a member of the bayview community since 1981. i want to take this opportunity to learn for the appointment from provisions because i have been a long-time outlook for juvenile justice reform.

i retire in 1916. i take for young permitted developers for three years and was in mental health walk out for i have been on the in the

commissioners. my with the committee. that has always been my passion. when their parents are not able to provide for them. but the high percentage and he's finally used in the juvenile and we need to support them and their care givers in order to produce so thank you commissioners. so i i'm just really concerned

about the concern for that especially their grandparents who really cared. because they don't want to i mean, they don't have any money and they're just taking care of their grand kids. that's always been my question. we have four kids and most of them are they were from bayview and they don't really do well. so i want to leave a very good example so that they can follow that. so that's all i need to tell you and if you have any more questions that you might have. >> chairman: thank you, mr. moses. commissioner moses.

and i don't see any additional questions from committee members. so last but not least, why don't we go to commissioner locoe and if i did not say that correctly, my apologies. the floor is yours. >> thank you, supervisors for the opportunity. my name's johanna locoe. and i'm an applied scientist with the association. my primary area of research is juvenile and criminal justice. so i often conduct work at the intersection of the justice system. and other relevant systems like housing, employment and training and the social safety net. my work on juvenile justice includes a multi-year study to keep youth out of the deep end of the juvenile justice system and as part of that study, i worked with communities across the country to understand and to document and to evaluate

juvenile probation reforms to address racial and ethnic disparities with the juvenile justice system and to improve youth outcomes. i worked within an juvenile incarceration program in new york and i volunteered teaching debate in rhode island and that's really where i got interested in juvenile justice in the first place many years ago. in that role, i lead research and partnership with state and local agencies. my research is quantitative, uses administrative data and try to answer research questions that are actionable and important to state and local agencies throughout california. i look forward to leveraging my training and expertise including my data and

background analysis to really support the juvenile probation department and improving the lives and youth of san francisco. so thank you for considering my appointment and i'm happy to answer any other questions. >> chairman: thank you, commissioner locoe. any questions or comments from committee members? if not, why don't we open this up to public comment on this item. >> clerk: members of the public call (415) 655-0001. meeting id is 24868500703. pound and pound again. we currently have three members of the public in line to speak.

>> chairman: first speaker, please. >> good morning. i know i've been speaking a lot. i'm speaking in opposition to the appointment of andrew shore to the juvenile probation commission and to any other commission. you just google the name andrea shorter and she's one of the reasons why we need to do governmental reforms. because she's basically nothing more than a hack to the i'm

really suspecting that she does not have favorable youth be about the transgender community. and i really want you to ask this has she done anything for transjaernd and so she got some ties to a former school board candidate who had history of making transphobic because her views on justice are whack and we don't need that. thank you, i yield my time.

>> caller: dr. moses has been a great part of i also want his dedication and his services, he has been the voice and the i also work in the bayview, so

i'm ournd. >> chairman: thank you. next speaker, please. >> caller: supervisors. my name is francisco decosta. i way i'm looking at this situation we are having here is linked to a discussion have had too many of the appointees are appointed by the mayor. and this must stop we have to have the board of supervisors play alone in appointing in the future with new and innovative

programs. the juvenile probation commission has been known for because i don't want tarnish anybody's name, but i'm looking forward to good actions and i don't want to name them. but i can name them at the appropriate time. our children our youth have to have the best for the future. and no politics and

appointments. >> chairman: are there any other members of the public for public comment on item seven through eleven. >> clerk: i believe there are additional speakers. >> chairman: go ahead. >> caller: good afternoon. david pillpell again. last time today. so i know three out of the five appointees despite occasionally policy or political differences, the appointees know the city and i believe serve us well in this capacity. you can approve them if not and

if no action's taken we need to work with all kinds of people to govern with this city. nationally, that doesn't seem to be working, but we have always done better here and should continue to do well in that regard respecting our differences. finally, i believe that all form 700 filings for members of boards and commissions are available online as sfxs.org. in some cases, they may have information redacted, but they should all be available. it's only employees of departments that file with their department head or have and that too is in transition, but i believe all of the board

and commission members should be available in any event at least for the three that i know. i support their reappointment and approval by this board. thanks for listening. >> chairman: thank you, next speaker. >> caller: hi, this is cheryl davis from the human rights commission. i'm calling in to yield support for folks embedded in and i

would say the community center were instrumental enough engaging with community partners, with young people. mr. singola did not talk about his lived experience, but the work that he's done in the community which is extremely valuable and also challenging because he comes with a different perspective that sometimes academics and folks who feel like they're a little more educated or well versed may not agree with. i think that that perspective, that viewpoint is critical to this work. i want to recognize also former chair or current chair for his leadership and providing and asking for the human rights commission to be able to come and share and to be able to do that work. so i appreciate the work and the partnership with the juvenile probation commission. i do think it's important to have diversity of experiences, voices, and viewpoints and look

forward to working with the commission and whatever its make-up to advance the work. thank you so much supervisors. >> chairman: thank you, dr. davis. next speaker, please. >> caller: hello, supervisors. i've been listening to a lot of these meetings. today. andrea shorter will serve well in the work to reform juvenile hall thank you for your time. >> chairman: thank you. are there any other members of the public for items 7-11. >> clerk: we are doing a check of our system. that was the last public commenter on this matter.

>> supervisor peskin: thank you. public comment is closed. i want to colleagues, i would look to you i am troubled by what i think is an inherent, not legal conflict, but operative conflict as it relates to being on a commission that oversees law enforcement at the same time as and as i said earlier, i absolutely respect and encourage political advocacy

but in so far in the current dynamic, by somebody who is making decisions and setting policy over an that does not feel right to me. but i think this would benefit from further dialog amongst the board of supervisors. what i was going to suggest is that we forward item number seven without recommendation to the board for discussion when this was originally brought to us by president walton, there was -- i was unclear on a date by which the board had to act. that date is not until our next meeting. so to give our colleagues as

is, e.i. not supporting register or approval on february the 8th. and see what comes of that, but i defer to you, colleagues, for your input. supervisor chan. >> supervisor chan: thank you, supervisor peskin. colleagues, i have the fortunate experience in my public service career to serve as an intensive home service case manager specifically with community youth center and formally known as china youth town center and have worked with probation officers.

specifically chinese speaking youth especially those as immigrants and just then i also have the opportunity to service aid and the then district attorney kamala harris. but often time to really think about youth involvement and those youth who are either in juvenile probation or foster youth just that often times frankly got touched by the system so to speak, means once they're in the system, the

criminal justice system is thinking about how to support them to get back on track. at the d.a.'s office and that's how i worked with now juvenile poe probation julie miller. as a very critical time of really thinking be about where we're heading with youth on probation. and i really appreciate everyone today resubmitting your application and willing to serve time and time again. and i'm grateful for your service. and really try to dive deep into issues that really impact our community and our city.

juvenile probation. let's be honest on what the commission has made and think hard about the narratives and the optics we had today we really were talking about reform our criminal justice system because and community that the structural racism that communities of color have experienced and how it really impacts our youth and you see

that the juvenile probation system time and time again especially for those who work in the trenches, you know that and you know that deeply. and yet today in 2022 and in the last six months of 2021, somehow that optic has been co-oped by right wing thinking about criminal justice reform. i think we really need to think deep and hard about where we are at at this moment. if we are for criminal justice reform and if we where we're heading with this commission and what our agenda is really about and i urge you to think deep about that and it's the reason why i'm here to really think about my decision and my

support of your appointment today, all of you, in fact, and to really have an honest conversation about the work that you have done and to really think about, you know, where we're and the impact we're going to make with new leadership. kind of passing on the torch to the next generation of leaders and helping some to think about where we're heading with juvenile probation or really reform and youth leadership and youth development in san francisco. and san francisco has been leading that narrative of criminal justice reform for a very long time and i feel like right now, this is a moment we're facing a setback and i want to be very honest about

that. so i pose to you, commissioners, just about your appointment in the event that, you know, we're moving this forward is to have an honest conversation with my colleagues on the board be about where you're heading next. so thank you for your service, but i want to hold you accountable, just my constituents, hold me accountable to really think about reform in san francisco. thank you. >> chairman: thank you, supervisor chan. supervisor mandelman. >> supervisor mandelman: thank you, chair peskin. and i will be respectfully dissenting on the motion. nothing that i've heard this morning or this morning and afternoon has led me to believe that any of these nominees ought to be removed from the commission. i am noting that we're getting wild diver jensen in the form 700s that are coming in from lots of folks to this committee. so that may be a thing we want to work out with the mayor's

office in terms of what we're seeing when we look at nominees. but i will be particularly leary of at a time when i have offered our colleagues, the only queer san francisco happens to be a white gay man and who is also the only queer supervisor in the bay area and when our queer representation on city commission has declined, i would be quite weary of removing an african american, lesbian accomplished in the community formally on the city college board. so and well-qualified for the position. and i don't imagine that juvenile probation commissioners are having a ton of conversations with the district attorney's office at least in their role as commissioners.

we'll find that out going forward. those are my thoughts. >> chairman: all right. so i threw out a suggestion. supervisor chan said some comments that i appreciate the tone and tenor of. supervisor mandelman has made a suggestion, what is the will of this committee? sorry, mr. spingola, we're down to the three of us now. so i was going to make a motion which has not been made to send item seven as is and table items eight through eleven, but okay. i will make that motion. send item seven to the full board of supervisors. table items eight through eleven. on that motion, a roll call, please. >> clerk: yes. on the motion to refer item number seven without

recommendation to the board of supervisors next being on february the 8th and to table items number 8-11, [roll call] the motion passes with vice chair mandelman descenting in committee. >> chairman: thank you and we are adjourned.

>> the city has undertaken a pilot program to hook up private privately -- owned hotels. >> the community members say this is helpful for them especially for the seniors and families with kids from seniors being able to connect with the family during the pandemic and too watch the news has been really helpful during this time where they are stuck inside and

are not able to go outside. for families it is important to stay connected to go to school, to get connected so they can submit resumes to find jobs during the pandemic. [speaking foreign language] >> challenges that might seem for the fiber in chinatown is pretty congested. the fiber team found ways around that. they would have to do things such as overnight work in the manholes to get across through busy intersections, and i think the last challenge is a lot of buildings we worked on were built in the early 1900s and

they are not fitted with the typical infrastructure you would put in a new building. we overcame that with creative ideas, and we continue to connect more sites like this. >> high-speed internet has become a lifesaver in the modern era. i am delighted that we completed three buildings or in the process of completing two more. i want to thank our department of technology that has done this by themselves. it is not contracted out. it is done by city employees. i am proud and i want to take a moment to celebrate what we are doing.

>> my name is alan schumer. i am a fourth generation san franciscan. in december, this building will be 103 years of age. it is an incredibly rich, rich history. [♪♪♪] >> my core responsibility as city hall historian is to keep the history of this building alive. i am also the tour program manager, and i chair the city advisory commission. i have two ways of looking at my life. i want it to be -- i wanted to

be a fashion designer for the movies, and the other one, a political figure because i had some force from family members, so it was a constant battle between both. i ended up, for many years, doing the fashion, not for the movies, but for for san franciscan his and then in turn, big changes, and now i am here. the work that i do at city hall makes my life a broader, a richer, more fulfilling than if i was doing something in the garment industry. i had the opportunity to develop relationships with my docents. it is almost like an extended family. i have formed incredible relationships with them, and

also some of the people that come to take a tour. she was a dressmaker of the first order. i would go visit her, and it was a special treat. i was a tiny little girl. i would go with my wool coat on and my special little dress because at that period in time, girls did not wear pants. the garment industry had the -- at the time that i was in it and i was a retailer, as well as the designer, was not particularly favourable to women. you will see the predominant designers, owners of huge complexes are huge stores were all male. women were sort of relegated to a lesser position, so that, you reached a point where it was a

difficult to survive and survive financially. there was a woman by the name of diana. she was editor of the bazaar, and evoke, and went on and she was a miraculous individual, but she had something that was a very unique. she classified it as a third i. will lewis brown junior, who was mayor of san francisco, and was the champion of reopening this building on january 5th of 1999. i believe he has not a third eye , but some kind of antenna attached to his head because he had the ability to go through this building almost on a daily basis during the restoration and

corrects everything so that it would appear as it was when it opened in december of 1915. >> the board of supervisors approved that, i signed it into law. jeffrey heller, the city and county of san francisco oh, and and your band of architects a great thing, just a great thing. >> to impart to the history of this building is remarkable. to see a person who comes in with a gloomy look on their face , and all of a sudden you start talking about this building, the gloomy look disappears and a smile registers across their face. with children, and i do mainly all of the children's tours, that is a totally different feeling because you are imparting knowledge that they have no idea where it came from,

how it was developed, and you can start talking about how things were before we had computer screens, cell phones, lake in 1915, the mayor of san francisco used to answer the telephone and he would say, good morning, this is the mayor. >> at times, my clothes make me feel powerful. powerful in a different sense. i am not the biggest person in the world, so therefore, i have to have something that would draw your eye to me. usually i do that through color, or just the simplicity of the look, or sometimes the complication of the look. i have had people say, do those shoes really match that outfit?

retirement to me is a very strange words. i don't really ever want to retire because i would like to be able to impart the knowledge that i have, the knowledge that i have learned and the ongoing honor of working in the people's palace. you want a long-term career, and you truly want to give something to do whatever you do, so long as you know that you are giving to someone or something you're then yourself. follow your passion and learn how to enrich the feelings along the way.

>> manufacturing in cities creates this perfect platform for people to earn livelihoods and for people to create more economic prosperity. i'm kate sosa. i'm cofounder and ceo of sf made. sf made is a public private partnership in the city of san francisco to help manufacturers start, grow, and stay right here in san francisco. sf made really provides wraparound resources for manufacturers that sets us apart from other small business support organizations who provide more generalized

support. everything we do has really been developed over time by listening and thinking about what manufacturer needs grow. for example, it would be traditional things like helping them find capital, provide assistance loans, help to provide small business owners with education. we have had some great experience doing what you might call pop ups or temporary selling events, and maybe the most recent example was one that we did as part of sf made week in partnership with the city seas partnership with small business, creating a 100 company selling day right here at city hall, in partnership with mayor lee and the board of supervisors, and it was just a wonderful opportunity for many of our smaller manufacturers who may be one or two-person shop, and who don't have the

wherewithal to have their own dedicated retail store to show their products and it comes back to how do we help companies set more money into arthur businesses and develop more customers and their relationships, so that they can continue to grow and continue to stay here in san francisco. i'm amy kascel, and i'm the owner of amy kaschel san francisco. we started our line with wedding gowns, and about a year ago, we launched a ready to wear collection. san francisco's a great place to do business in terms of clientele. we have wonderful brides from all walks of life and doing really interesting things: architects, doctors, lawyers, teachers, artists, other like minded entrepreneurs, so really

fantastic women to work with. i think it's important for them to know where their clothes are made and how they're made. >> my name is jefferson mccarly, and i'm the general manager of the mission bicycle company. we sell bikes made here for people that ride here. essentially, we sell city bikes made for riding in urban environments. our core business really is to build bikes specifically for each individual. we care a lot about craftsmanship, we care a lot about quality, we care about good design, and people like that. when people come in, we spend a lot of time going to the design wall, and we can talk about handle bars, we can see the riding position, and we take notes all over the wall. it's a pretty fun shopping

experience. paragraph. >> for me as a designer, i love the control. i can see what's going on, talk to my cutter, my pattern maker, looking at the designs. going through the suing room, i'm looking at it, everyone on the team is kind of getting involved, is this what that drape look? is this what she's expecting, maybe if we've made a customization to a dress, which we can do because we're making everything here locally. over the last few years, we've been more technical. it's a great place to be, but you know, you have to concentrate and focus on where things are going and what the right decisions are as a small business owner. >> sometimes it's appropriate to bring in an expert to offer

suggestions and guidance in coaching and counseling, and other times, we just need to talk to each other. we need to talk to other manufacturers that are facing similar problems, other people that are in the trenches, just like us, so that i can share with them a solution that we came up with to manage our inventory, and they can share with me an idea that they had about how to overcome another problem. >> moving forward, where we see ourselves down the road, maybe five and ten years, is really looking at a business from a little bit more of a ready to wear perspective and making things that are really thoughtful and mindful, mindful of the end user, how they're going to use it, whether it's the end piece or a wedding gown, are they going to use it again, and incorporating that into the end collection, and so that's the direction i hear at

this point. >> the reason we are so enamored with the work we do is we really do see it as a platform for changing and making the city something that it has always been and making sure that we're sharing the opportunities that we've been blessed with economically and socially as possible, broadening that

shop and dine on the 49 promotes local businesses and challenges residents to do shopping and dining within the 49 square miles of san francisco by supporting local services within neighborhood. we help san francisco remain unique, successful and vibrant. where will you shop and dine in the 49? san francisco owes the charm to the unique character of the neighborhood comer hall district. each corridor has its own personality. our neighborhoods are the engine of the city. >> you are putting money and support back to the community you live in and you are helping small businesses grow. >> it is more environmentally

friendly. >> shopping local is very important. i have had relationships with my local growers for 30 years. by shopping here and supporting us locally, you are also supporting the growers of the flowers, they are fresh and they have a price point that is not imported. it is really good for everybody. >> shopping locally is crucial. without that support, small business can't survive, and if we lose small business, that diversity goes away, and, you know, it would be a shame to see that become a thing of the past. >> it is important to dine and shop locally. it allows us to maintain

traditions. it makes the neighborhood. >> i think san francisco should shop local as much as they can. the retail marketplace is changes. we are trying to have people on the floor who can talk to you and help you with products you are interested in buying, and help you with exploration to try things you have never had before. >> the fish business, you think it is a piece of fish and fisherman. there are a lot of people working in the fish business, between wholesalers and fishermen and bait and tackle. at the retail end, we about a lot of people and it is good for everybody. >> shopping and dining locally is so important to the community because it brings a tighter

fabric to the community and allows the business owners to thrive in the community. we see more small businesses going away. we need to shop locally to keep the small business alive in san francisco. >> shop and dine in the 49 is a cool initiative. you can see the banners in the streets around town. it is great. anything that can showcase and legitimize small businesses is a wonderful thing.