>> good morning and welcome to the rescheduled rules committee for today, valentine's day, february 14th, 2022. i am the chair of the committee, joined by the vice chair. >> --, can we hold for a moment. i am hearing from your office that we may have an online issue with san francisco government t.v. not working. if you don't mind pausing momentarily while we check on that. >> take your time. >> i believe the issue is on san francisco government t.v., the online version. whoever is checking on that.

chair peskin, a quick update. it looks like the live streaming on san francisco government t.v., we are getting network errors and they are checking on that right now. >> okay. >> everything is working, it is just not streaming on our website. they are addressing the issue right now. we will give you an update momentarily. >> okay.

>> chair peskin, --

>> supervisor peskin: february 14th, 2020. due to technical difficulties, we are starting now. i'm joined by supervisor mandelman and supervisor chan. and your clerk is mr. victor young. do you have any announcements? >> clerk: yes. the minutes will reflect the members of this meeting participated in this meeting remotely. the board recognizes that public access to city services is essential and invites public comment in the following ways. either channel 76, 28, 99 and sfgovtv.org are streaming the public call-in number across the screen. each speaker will be allowed up to two minutes to speak unless otherwise stated. or call (415) 655-0001. the meeting id is 24950524358

then press pound and pound again. best practices are to call from a quiet location and turn down your television or radio. or you may submit public comment to myself, victoryoung@sfgov.org. written comments may be sent to city hall, 1 dr. carlton b. goodlet place. and just a word for the streamers at sfgovtv.org. for today's session, you will be redirected to a youtube

website for streaming services for this meeting. that concludes my initial announcements chrment thank you, mr. young. and we are joined by supervisor mar for the first item. mr. clerk, can you please read the first item. >> clerk: yes. item number one is a motion ordering submitted to the voters at an election to be held on june 7th, 2022, an ordinance to amend the police code to require employers to provide public health emergency leave during a public health emergency. if you haven't already done so, dial star three to line up to speak for public comment. >> chairman: thank you, mr. young. and. >> supervisor mar: supervisor mar did we hear the controller's statement last week? >> supervisor mar: i don't

believe so. >> chairman: okay. why don't we start with the controller's statement as we do with all the items in front of us. ms. stevenson, good morning. >> good morning supervisors. peg stevenson from the controller's office. i submitted a letter which is in your file just providing likely basic staffing costs that would come with this measure. in our lingo this is a moderate cost to government and then reminding people that the eventual development would depend on where yourself and approve a budget through your normal processes and future mayors and boards of supervisors to a particular cost. so that is typically how we

advise these measures and that's what our letter reflects. happy to answer any questions, but it's pretty straight forward in that way. >> chairman: are there any questions for the controller's office? seeing none. supervisor mar, i believe you have some additional amendments this morning that you've circulated to the members of this committee. the floor is yours. >> supervisor mar: thank you so much, supervisor peskin, and supervisor mandelman. also i want to thank supervisor chan for your co-sponsorship and your support. so i do have a second addition to the amendment this morning, but i did also want to state the first set of amendments introduced last week these additional amendments were created through our continuing engagement with labor and employer groups towards the

goal of finding the right balance of protecting and supporting workers during the current and future health emergencies while also preventing unreasonable burden on our employers. i want to thank council and sf building and construction trades. the chamber of commerce and the golden gate restaurant association in advance for their constructive engagement on this with this important measure. to briefly summarize the four amendments that were circulated to you and that i'm hoping the committee would adopt today. the first one is on page five, line 17 to 21. and for purposes of allocating the hours available to part-time workers, employers will now look back at the hours over the prior six months rather than the prior three

months with the look-back provisions in a statewide supplemental lead. we added language to the office of labor enforcement standards to count other hypothetical forms of supplemental leads that employers may have offered for the offsetters and, thirdly, on page nine, lines 18 to 22, we specified that employers can request a doctor's note using public health emergency for air quality to confirm their status as a member of a vulnerable population and then fourth and lastly on page 17, line 25, we added the ability to amend public health emergency leave and scope of coverage for air quality emergencies because this is the new sort of policy provision in this proposal. again, thanks again, colleagues

and i request that you adopt the amendments that i've shared with you. >> chairman: thank you, supervisor mar, and thank you for sharing those on friday so we can read them over the weekend. i am fine with them. why don't we if we don't have comments from committee members open this up to public comment. are there any members of the public who would like to comment on item number one? >> clerk: yes. if you have not already done so, please dial star three to be added to the queue to speak. for those on hold, please continue to wait until the system indicates you have been unmuted and you may begin your comments. it looks like we have 14 callers on the line with four on the line to speak. >> chairman: first speaker, please. >> caller: hi there. i'm waiting for a different agenda item. so i'll go back in the queue. thank you. >> chairman: next speaker. >> caller: can you hear me?

>> chairman: mr. pillpell, please proceed. >> caller: i'm sorry, i didn't know that i raised my hand. i'm trying to juggle the technology here. we don't seem to have captions on the youtube feed which is the redirect from from the channel one live item and i guess i'm -- i didn't have anything substantiative on item one. but i'm guessing these will trigger continue this to a special rules committee meeting or continue this to the 28th. i'm trying to juggle all the things going on this morning. it's very complicated. thanks. >> chairman: next speaker. >> hi, good morning, supervisors. this is lori camas calling from

the golden gate restaurant association. i wanted to call and thank supervisor mar and his staff for the super helpful that have resulted in these amendments and so we appreciate that very much. we do want to say that we still have the side and would suggest if possible we continue to relook at that sizing. [please stand by]

>> it is expensive to clean the docs and maintain the high standards. i appreciate this one amendment. i also appreciate anything that is done to help our nurses, our doctors, those on the front lines. we know a lot of them have reached saturation point. totally stressed out.

so whatever we can do to lessen their stress, we appreciate it and we thank you. >> thank you. are there any other members of the public to make public comment on item number 1. >> we are doing one last final check. that was the last caller on this matter. >> okay. public comment is closed. colleagues, given that the 21st is president's day and a holiday, i have asked the clerk's office to convene a special meeting of this committee the following day, th. i believe it is at 10:00 am. is that correct,, mr. young? >> yes. that is the correct request.

may i ask if we can continue the matter to the call of the chair with the intent to schedule while i work out the logistics with all the other bodies? >> absolutely. i just want to be able to let the public know that the next meeting is almost certainly going to be on tuesday, february 22nd at 10:00 am. as a technical matter, we will continue after we make amendments this item to the call of the chair. please, as it relates to this and other measures on this agenda, know that it will be heard almost certainly on tuesday, february 22nd at 10:00 am. with that, i would like to make a motion to adopt supervisor mar's aforementioned and discussed amendment. on that motion, a roll call, please. >> yes, on that motion... [ roll call ]

>> the motion passes without objection. >> then i would like to make a motion to continue the item as amended to the call of the chair, noting that it will likely, almost certainly be heard on february 22nd at 10:00 am. on that motion, a vehicle, please... [ roll call ] -- on that motion a roll call, please this. [ roll call ] the motion passes without objection. >> i will note, colleagues and members of the public, that any item that we take action on on february 22nd can be forwarded to the board in the normal course of business, not as a

committee report to be heard on march 1st which is the first day -- last day for the board of supervisors to put initiative ordinances on the ballot. i wanted to announce that so everyone is aware. please read item two through five together. >> yes, item two is a motion submitted to the voters of an election to be held on june 7th, 2022 amending the refuse collection and disposal ordinance to replace a hearing for the department of public works with a requirement that the controller and administrator regularly monitor the rates and appear before the refuse rate board to recommend adjustments. item three is motion submitted to the voters to be held on june 7th, 2022 and amending the refuse collection and disposal ordinance to restructure the refuse rate setting process should replace hearings before the department of public works with a requirement that the

controller, as refuse rate administrator, regularly monitor the rates and appear for the refuse rate board to recommend rate adjustments. item four is a hearing to propose an ordinance submitted by supervisors to the voters for the june 7th, 2022 election entitled ordinance amending the refuse collection and disposal ordinance to restructure the rate setting process. item five is a hearing to consider the proposed ordinance i proposed by voters for the june 7th, 2022 election entitled ordinance amending the refuse collection and disposal ordinance to restructure the refuse rate setting process. >> thank you, mr. young. thank you, colleagues. when i say thank you, colleagues, i am referring not only to supervisor chan and mandelman on this panel, but every member of the board of supervisors and the mayor as it

relates to this somewhat monumental undertaking. candidly this is the culmination of a total choice past couple of years and i'm not talking about the pandemic. in many ways this measure, and actually the measure that we are closing today's meeting with, it aims to bookend a year's long continuing to unravel corruption prices in the city and county of san francisco. that corruption crisis has been, i think we all know, incredibly costly. as it relates to recology, that cost has been borne by the ratepayers and residents and businesses of san francisco to the tune of at least $94.5 million, which, thankfully, has been refunded. you might ask why we are

considering foreign measures. hopefully this entire episode will end with one measure being on the ballot. the measures before us revisit the waste management ordinance that we commonly referred to as the 1932 ordinance which has been largely unchanged in our laws for almost 100 years, 90 years to be exact. it was amended a couple of times in the fifties and sixties. it can only be amended or rescinded at the ballot. there has been a couple of unsuccessful attempts to revoke the 1932 ordinance on the balance -- on the ballot with proposition a in 2012. all of these measures amend the long-held monopoly on waste management in san francisco and create a more dynamic regulatory oversight relationship between the city and our company.

let me explain a little bit about why there are foreign measures and talk a little bit about the process that god is here. over a year ago, as the revelations of overcharging and the corruption in and around the ratemaking process as related to mohammed new roux, under the 1932 ordinance, the director of public works ultimately issues some orders. at that time, together with mayor breed, we convened a working group. you will hear a little bit more about that from the controller's office. it spent the last year looking at the current regulatory scheme and explored other options. ultimately, we landed on a well

thought out and reasonable ordinance that is item 220052 in this packet, which we brought to recology on december 9th. we gave them an advanced copy of an early draft to discuss with them the working group which had a broad group of stakeholders ranging from the building owners and managers' association to representatives of tenant's interest, to the apartment association. they did not, by design, include recology. but as that group and the city's internal group run by the controller's office came to a consensus, we brought the draft ordinance to recology. recology expressed a number of

concerns and we committed to continue conversations with recology. unfortunately, and i have never actually seen this by a corporation or anybody that i have negotiated with in the almost 20 years that i have been a member on this board of supervisors, rather than negotiate in good faith, recology, 11 days later decided to collect signatures for their own ordinance, which would not allow any future amendment by the city by and through the board of supervisors and the mayor. and that resulted in my coming forward with the next item that has already been called, file number 22053 which would put

their franchise out to bid upon passage by the voters, and also would lead to an introduction as allowed by the charter to -- two identical measures directly to the ballot. thank you two supervisors chan and mandelman for signing on to those, along with supervisors ronen and walton. hopefully on the first day of march we would draw our signatures from those two instruments, which are the hearings that are items four and five on today's calendar, but what i would like to do is go over both items. i have a number of amendments to the full board. i wish it weren't this way, but based on recology's behaviour in december and january, i do not trust them. i would like to maintain

leverage until the end. with that, unless there are any introductory remarks from colleagues, i really would like to thank and acknowledge the deputy city attorney who has done an extraordinary job of defining what i was thinking and working with for the task force. i want to thank and acknowledge been rosenfield and his team and others in the controller's office for doing all of the hard work and analysis to get us here. and i would like to thank the mayor's office and the chief of staff for their hands-on participation and help all along the way, and if there are no comments from committee members, i like to turn it over to natasha from the controller's office who can run us through

all of the high points of the legislation and then, colleagues, i will speak to a number of pretty straightforward amendments. with that, the floor is yours. >> thank you, supervisor. good morning. my name is natasha. i am in the controller's office. there is an echo. maybe supervisor peskin, go on mute. that would be helpful. i will assume it is okay to share my screen. i have a few slides to go through here. as the supervisor mentioned, earlier in 2021 the controller's office worked with supervisor peskin and the mayor's office to understand what are some of the key concerns particularly around residential rates. these were our guiding questions around accountability and transparency.

does the public truly understand how the process is managed? what is the quality of service? is a cost-effective, does it meet our stated environmental goals, our performance standards, and are the rates the customers are paying appropriate and fair for residential refuse service? these were the questions that we took a look at the existing system and how we might be able to make changes. some of our findings are the ratesetting timeframe may be too long to correctly estimate the cost. there is an ad hoc nature to this. every four to five years there is a rate sitting process. staff have to drop what they are doing and relearn and build expertise. the rate calculations themselves are very complicated. they are not transparent and there is an opportunity to improve the methodology to make sure that what rates are being paid actually match revenues and expenses. also a lack of ongoing monitoring. there's low public confidence

because we don't have independent audits. there is an ongoing moderating which are environmental and customer service goals and the rate board is not involved in the monitoring of the ratesetting process. as the supervisor mentioned, this measure does date back to 1932 which limits the city's ability to make changes to the system when issues are identified. the proposal that is before you today would establish the controller as the refuse rate administrator. a team in the controller's office would be responsible for administering the ratesetting process and proposing rates to the rate board. this group would work with subject matter experts in public works, in the department of environment to come up with those proposed rates for the rate board to take and review, listen to, and approved. that new group would also do ongoing financial and performance monitoring of the residential refuse provider for right now in the annual

balancing of expenses, revenue, performance monitoring which would actually happen. the rate board memberships and responsibilities would change so in order to ensure full transparency and any perceived conflict of interest, the controller would not be on the board anymore and we would add a ratepayer representative. the rate board would also proactively approved rate applications and also oversee ongoing financial and performance reporting. as part of that, the board would conduct an annual financial audit, independent financial audit with a contractor that they have selected. and the measure allows flexibility for the future. the measure does authorize the regulation of commercial rates and allows changes to the ordinance with a board super majority and mayoral approval. that is the end of my presentation.

>> thank you so much. thank you for your work along the way. seeing no other comments from committee members, thank you again, supervisors mandelman and chan for your constant support and help. i want to thank and acknowledge the day to day men and women who do the work at recology. i'm not talking about the corporate management that i have had a very unfortunate experience with over the last couple of months. i'm talking about the people who drive the tracks and collect our refuse and i want to say that they have been burdened by the corruption scandal. it is not of their making and they have continued to carry out their duties, they're very

difficult duties everyday with pride and care. i really want to acknowledge the employees, almost 1,000 of them from the teamsters. colleagues you are in receipt of a letter from the teamsters local 350 from john bouchard, today, this morning, in support of the efforts that we have been undertaking. i want to thank him for his help and support. at the end of the day, what this is about is the consumer. i hate to use the win win term, but this is a win for the consumers and a win for san francisco residents and it is also a win for commercial ratepayers as they have historically not been regulated under the 1932 ordinance and this ordinance does provide the ability for the city to regulate

commercial rates and residential rates. to put it simply, it is trash day in san francisco and it is time for us to take out the trash. i think that is what we are doing. as to -- sorry, that is low hanging fruit. as to the amendments, to both file 22 and 53, on page 3 of both measures, strike the word residential in front of refuse service because the principles set forth as a cost-effective service standard, they applied to both residential and commercial service on page 4, insert language clarifying the definition of refuse. it includes recyclables and compostable's and crop -- and trash but does not include waste materials.

as those terms are defined in chapter 19 of the environment code, which may be amended from time to time. these were not thoughts. this is a commonsense update. on page 5 of those measures, around line 10, insert the word, in accordance with the law and then at line 11, move the word daily and add at the end of that sentence, at a frequency in accordance with the law. this is reflecting reality relative to the amount of service that people need. at page 6 of those measures, and i will note for my colleagues, here is when the measure starts to deviate, just slightly, but in the interest of providing additional clarity to the rate board regarding what it may consider when determining an applicant's ability to minutes might -- minimize disruptions in service, i want to show a

certification that the applicant has appointed one or more employee representatives to a board that may suffice to make the showing. in file 52 page 6, lines 14 through 18, the section regarding constraints on the director of public health authority to issue permits that are already being adequately served and we are making similar cleanup amendments in the file ending in 53 at page 7, line two, inserting the language that if the director finds there is inadequate service, which specifies the director of public health is an entity charged with determining whether inadequate services exist, which would warrant modification or replication of the permit. on page 8 of both measures, inserting language that the refuse rate administrator, the controller, in the new scheme, in the context proposing new

rates, monitoring the financial operation and performance of refuse collectors, performing studies and add investigations and advising the rate board, may take into account, this is the new language, any applicable service standards in the environmental call is established by law. and page 9, file 52 and page 10 of file 53, recommend authorize with the refuse rate board as authorized to perform audits that are regulated with revenues and in subsection six, at audits and performance standards applied to the refuse correctors just collectors and refuse disposers. on page 12 of the file, ending in 52 and page 13 ending in 53, increasing the amendment threshold for the board of supervisors to amend section 290 of the health code from seven supervisors down to eight supervisors. and both measures we are providing them to adopt

legislation concerning permits that should not be interpreted to affect or change the authority that public health currently has with absence of legislation with regards to absence or renewal. colleagues, that concludes the amendments. if there are no questions or comments, let's odom items two through five. supervisor chan? >> thank you. i want to thank you for bringing me along on this journey to reform a critical service for the entire city, both for the resident and for the city itself. it is monumental work. i learned a lot through this process, both strategically thinking about how to make this reform and get on the ballot is

no small feat. i thank you for that. most importantly is the critical work that you have put in to truly make this a better process. and continue to maintain the quality of service. i think the question is really about the people who have been providing the city and county of san francisco this management service. we're not doubting the quality of it. is more about the transparency and accountability of ratesetting and how to be efficient and also catch errors in time. i appreciate all the work on this. i want to be on the record to thank you for your leadership but also thank everybody that has been putting their hard work, including the controller's office and many other stakeholders that you put together for the task force and putting their effort into this reform. thank you. >> thank you, supervisor chan. i sincerely appreciate it. i have not actually asked the

controller to make their statement on these items. my bad. miss stevenson, if you would like to do so now. >> we can speak to these. we have estimated that this would be a team of 2-4 people in the controller's office, with other costs associated with providing public hearings where we are estimating it is roughly 500,002 $1 million a year. >> miss stevenson, is that moderate? in your lexicon, what is that? how does that score? >> moderate is correct. >> okay. so with that, seeing no other members of the committee, let's go to public comment on items to

through five. >> members of the public who wish to provide public comment on items 2-5 should call 4156550001. the meeting id is 249-50524358 then press pound and pound again. if you haven't done so, please dial star three to line up to speak. for those on hold, continue waiting until the system indicates you have been on muted and you may begin your comment. we have 16 callers on the line with three in line to speak. >> first speaker, please. >> supervisors, you do understand this is a very complicated situation. so the controller's office has

been in the cockpit fast asleep all these years. and in transparency that you want to establish, what role do the workers play? the company is owned by the workers. is that input that would be given to you by the workers, be at the teamsters or other unions. that is question number 1 what role will we constituents or residents play. nobody gave you the permission to speak for us. for me, you are behind. this nonsense has been going on because you have all been looking the other way. what role will the department of

environment play the controller's office has been fast asleep at the cockpit when it comes to corruption. in fact,, if you are a whistleblower and go to the controller's office, they don't give a damn that position is they are there to save the city and therefore, they adhere to the norms of being a whistleblower, that will put them in some liability when it comes to helping the whistleblowers. >> your time has elapsed. next speaker, please.

>> hello, supervisors. i read an article about how the building that recology sold to amazon they bought with ratepayer money, therefore the ratepayer should be reimbursed, in that same vein, i'm wondering why recology -- it is all paid for by the ratepayers and they are the ones who are responsible for all the advice in the first place. i'm really confused on why they are allowed to keep doing these things. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good morning and thank you for your time and effort on this matter. i am from teamsters local 350. we represent 900 refuse workers in san francisco and we are in full support of the proposed amendment. they would help protect our

members, the ratepayers and the city of san francisco from further corruption. more oversight in the rate setting process is clearly needed and these changes provide that while creating a more transparent process for all involved. thank you for your time and effort again and have a good day. >> thank you for your help along the way. next speaker, please. >> can you hear me okay? >> please proceed. >> great. could i get a 32nd warning. good morning. on these issues, i haven't spoken to anyone at recology on this and i haven't been able to reach them in months. the issues with the former dpw director and a rate miscalculation that resulted in a rebate to customers have been conflated here. [please standby for captioner switch]

>> supervisor peskin: -- continues to investigate whether there have been additional overcharges. -- when they manage to get all the information they need from recology, which has been slow to come, but recently, last

week, the controller said some encouraging words with regards to recology last week, so hopefully, the controller will be able to finish his work and issue his report. when it comes to final words on the department of environment. let me say concluesively that they have been involved with the drafting of the documents that are before you, and with that, i would like to make a

motion to file the last two items and continue two and three to our next meeting. and mr. young, are we now certain that that meeting will be on february 22 at 10:00 a.m.? >> clerk: i haven't checked logistics. i would still continue to request that you continue to the call with the caveat that we will most likely meet on february 22 at 10:00 a.m. >> supervisor peskin: okay. so it is a tripartheid motion to amend the files in 5-2 and 5-3 as previously discussed, to file items 4 and 5, and to continue the items 2 and 3 as amended to the call of the chair, noting that they will

most certainly be heard at the next meeting. roll call, please. >> clerk: yes. on that motion -- [roll call] >> clerk: the motion passes without objection. >> supervisor peskin: next item, please. >> clerk: item number 6 is a hearing to consider the proposes initiative ordinance submitted to supervisors entitled hearing to consider the proposes initiative ordinance submitted by four or more supervisors to the voters for the june 7 rngs 2022 election, entitled ordinance amending the administrative code to establish the office of the victim and witness rights, and to establish a right to

counsel for domestic violence victims in civil proceedings related to limiting the economic, familial, and other harms resulting from domestic violence, and a pilot program to provide civil counsel in such domestic violence related proceedings through legal services and pro bono attorneys. >> chair peskin: supervisor chan, do you want to make comments? there was a hearing submitted to the charter by four or more members of the board. the primary sponsor is supervisor stefani, and the cosponsors are mandelman, safai, and haney, and if there are no questions at this time, i will turn it over to staff for supervisor stefani. supervisor chan, you look like you want to say something although i don't see your name on the screen. go ahead, please.

>> supervisor chan: my apologies, i do have questions, but i think it would be good for mr. mullen to go ahead and do his presentation. my questions are just for clarification. >> chair peskin: okay. andy mullen, the floor is yours. >> thank you, chair peskin, and supervisors mandelman and chan for having me here today. i have a short presentation, and then, i'm happy to answer any questions that you have. i want to start this presentation by talking about the need. the need is very acute. approximately 20,000 times per quarter, a san francisco resident is the victim of a crime according to police department data, and as high as that is, it's probably an undercount. the estimate by social sciences is that 40% of crimes are

reported to law enforcement, and only about 3,000 of the reported incidents result in an arrest, and charges are filed in about 1,000 cases. the victims of crime in san francisco are primary women and people of color. in 2020, people of color were victimed in 73% of aggravated assaults, 73% of battery cases, 83% of robberies, 63% of burglaries, 88% of homicides, and 66% of sexual assaults. in particular, the need of domestic violence victims was particularly acute during the covid-19 pandemic. during that period, we saw calls to crisis lines increase by almost 40%. calls to the cooperative restraining order clinic which provides some pro bono work for people, increased by 66%, and

the turn away percent for people seeking emergency shelter was 79%. there was also a 79% decrease in cases solved by injure trial for people seeking or charged with domestic abuse. services for victims are spread out across various city agencies and often require significant legwork on the part of victims in order to access. there are victim services programming currently located in the district attorney's office and the office of economic and workforce development, and the bulk of these services sort of sit at the back end of lengthy law enforcement processes, meaning that you typically need -- not always, but typically need an incident, a police report, an

arrest, particularly an incident before you can access any of these services. so the situation before you today aims to address some of those issues. it does two things. it creates the office of victim and witness service rights. i'll begin by briefly explaining the office of victim and witness services. it will create a victim-first model for services in san francisco because we don't really know what all of these victims of crime need yet. what this initiative will do is it will create an office outside of law enforcement to meet victims and witnesses where they are, at the front end of victimization. the mandates in this initiative that this office will have to

meet at the outset should it pass, is that they will be mandated to provide comprehensive services to victim and witnesses, including culturally competent and linguistically appropriate services, including translation services, including ensuring translation services are readily available. and there are two ways to meet that mandate. one, streamline and strengthen the existing offering of services, and they need to develop new services. and so on the first prong, consolidate and streamline existing services. one year after the appointment and passage of a director, the director shall submit to the board of supervisors all the services offered to witnesses and proposing a plan for how to consolidate and streamline them, and that proposal will help form the office and help

the board of supervisors determine what funding would be appropriate for this service. the other purpose is to mandate new services. they will survey all victim and witnesses and get quality and feedback on all the services provided and it will be used to generate a work plan. the reason this initiative came into effect was because we heard a woman was a witness to a pretty violent gun shooting. because she wasn't a victim, she was treated as a witness to a crime even though she felt that she was a victim. the other prong and mandate

from this office will be to house and help victims of domestic violence. domestic violence remains a problem in san francisco. victims are primarily women and people of color. despite being only 5% of san francisco's population, african americans are 29% of the victims of domestic violence in the city, and, of course, the vast majority of those cases were women. this office will house and hold a right to civil counsel for victims of domestic violence

[indiscernible] cut, child support, marcy's law, alimony, applying for social service benefits, health care, employment, and housing. we estimate in the early years there will be about 500 to 800 clients, and services will cost the city for the civil counsel piece alone, between $1 million to $3 million, subject to funding by the mayor and board of supervisors. studies by the robin hood foundation indicates that that provides $2 million to $3 million back to the city, and this measure was crafts in collaboration with a diverse group of providers, including

the justice and diversity center, jewish family services, a.p.i. legal outreach, the brady campaign, the san francisco coalition against human trafficking, the american indian cultural district, and the national coalition for rights civil counsel, and that is the end of my prepared remarks, supervisors, and i'm happy to take any and all questions you may have. >> chair peskin: thank you, mr. mullen. why don't we go to supervisor chan, and then, i've got some questions. supervisor chan? >> supervisor chan: thank you, chair peskin. mr. mullen, i think my question is just a point of clarification and trying to understand -- like, just help me -- you know, the details about the office, you know, establishing this office and the logistics around it. and then, if you don't have answers, i totally understand because it looks like it would

take an ordinance to consolidate some of the services. but my -- my first question is currently, i agree many different services exist. how would this affect the services that currently exist? >> we didn't want to turn out the lights in any office before we had turned on the lights on a new, hopefully better, home for many of these functions. so this initiative ordinance requires the creation of a director, and it requires the director to come up with a

service consolidation and streamlining plan a year after enactment. and should that be any impact to sharp, it would be on that plan, and it would be voted on by the board of supervisors. the real goal is to make sure sharp's services, should sharp move into these offices, we'll have plenty of chance to discuss that and any other services moving into this office. but it was very important not to close down sharp before something else could be reopened, so that was what governed this approach. >> supervisor chan: all right. and then, my follow up, i appreciate -- some of the language talked about it's not just translation services or, like, let's also make sure there's hearing impaired and other challenges that face victims with disabilitied that

we could address. and help me understand, too. i think you kind of talked a little bit about this, and i agree, because when it comes to victims, often time, as the system currently exists, you would have to file a report. you have to be already in the law enforcement system to already quote and quote be identified as a victim, but oftentimes, witnesses to a crime or some other circumstance, actually, those folks also need help. maybe not in the eye of the law, but could actually be deemed as victims. how do the victims get in touch with this office or how does the office provide victims who are not in the law enforcement system services? >> the goal -- thank you, supervisor chan. that's an excellent question, and that gets to the heart of what we're trying to do here.

it talks victims services, which is basically at the back of the services, a one-stop shop and make it available at the beginning. if you call them and say, i've been victimized, you could use them if you so chose, and they could help abate some of the things that you've experienced based on trauma or they could help you. so the idea that you now have a place that you can call without a case and tell them what happened, and they can give you sort of a buffet of options, but that's something, again, that has to be built out. i don't want to overpromise and say june 2, this thing flies up, and every victim of

violence will be helped. if they hear from victims about what they need, then, they can fill it out with what victims need acutely. >> supervisor chan: and i think the translation and victim services, i know that we're trying as a city to provide language services and most definitely victim services, but in my humble opinion, i think that my opinion, language access and cultural competency is significantly lacked. when it comes to victims experiencing any type of trauma, especially domestic trauma and what are actually happening in their -- and what is actually happening in their homes, cultural competency is a huge component to successfully be able to help victims. so just want to say that as my

thoughts, and in the event that it does get out and pass by the voters, i look forward to seeing the ordinance and learning more about it. >> thank you, supervisor chan, and i agree completely. >> chair peskin: i neglected, colleagues, to have the controller's office read the controller's statement. miss stevenson, if you would like to do so, please proceed. >> good morning, supervisors. peg stevens from the controller's performance group. you have a letter in your packet probably just reflecting basic start-up costs for the basic start-up activities that are outlined in the ordinance. so this would be a director for the office and some staffing and operational support to carry out the service and

needs, and our estimate for those costs are right around $1 million, which would be a director and staffing support for those activities. and then, as mr. milan alluded, the rest of the costs would come in the form of ordinances, proposals that come through your normal budgetary and fiscal processes. happy to answer any questions, but it's fairly straightforward that way. >> chair peskin: yes, miss stevens. it is in our packet, but just wanted you to say it so the public could hear it. so i guess these are more comments than questions, and i want to thank supervisor stefani and the other individuals who signed onto this and say that i think this could be passed by this board probably unanimously well

before june. i think if you introduce this at tomorrow's board meeting, it could probably be law by the end of march, and obviously, the charter allows this to go directly to the ballot, but insofar as the first phase of this is an exploratory phase, as we've done with many other offices, racial equity, cannabis, you name it, they were created by the board; and further, insofar as because this is a chart amendment, the ordinary -- charter amendment, being approved by the voters only guarantees funding for one

year. it just seems like this is good stuff, and we could actually have it be law several months before the june election. supervisor mar, one of the things that i asked him about his ordinance, why can't we just put this before the board, and he actually had a cogent response was that no, he had been advised by the city attorney that previous ballot measure occupied this field. it could only be done at the ballot, and at that point, i understood why it was before us. so it just seems like we could do this under the dome, and the

next couple of items with regard to surveillance, i hope, if everything works out, and cooler heads prevail, we will do it under the dome. but those ballot items haven't been called, so i won't speak to those for another moment or two. but those are my thoughts, which doesn't need to be on the ballot. >> did you want a response, supervisor peskin? or i don't need to -- i'm not trying to. >> chair peskin: yeah. >> the path -- you are not wrong on this issue and many others. the path that was chosen was just a parallel path to the right to counsel. when enshrining a right, we have to go to the voters to ask

them if that is a worthy right to enshrine. >> chair peskin: tenant right to counsel was not actually put on by the electeds, that was put on by the voters, so that was an exception to admittedly my own self-imposed rule, which is if you want to go out and get 9,000 ballot signatures, you can do whatever you want, but the folks who were elected to pass laws did not actually put that on the ballot, so there's a -- there's a difference there. >> there is, but i think that was probably a choice that seems like the board would have been ready and interested in passing that. >> chair peskin: i would tell you that i know, but i don't know because that was in my glorious seven-year hiatus, so

i don't know why that was put to the voters and not to the electeds. all right. supervisor mandelman, anything you want to add as a cosponsor? okay. you've got a lot of words this morning. supervisor chan? >> supervisor chan: yeah, i just want to say that i am thankful to supervisor stefani's leadership on this, and especially many others that concern victims of crime, that i did, too -- that i do, too, agree with chair peskin. many of the things that i'm working on, i thought better of it, and how can i better do the legislative process to look at it here. especially when it comments to charter amendments, i take it seriously, and i agree with chair peskin.

last week, when we had questions about supervisor mar's legislation, just double-check and triple check with the city attorney after the meeting, just to make sure that there are no paths with the existing legislative process, that it just goes through as a legislation we can pass, knowing that we will likely have to vote. in fact, i think this is a very worthwhile endeavor that we can take on right now before june. [please stand by]

>> my apologies. is this item eight? what item is this. >> item six. >> item six. thank you. i will wait for a later item.

thank you. >> are there any additional speakers for this item number 6? >> that was our only color for this item. >> okay, if there are no final comments, i will make a motion to file this hearing. on that motion, mr. young, a rule call, please. >> the motion to file... [ roll call ] the motion passes without objection. >> thank you, supervisors. happy valentine's day. >> likewise. can you read items seven and eight together, please? >> yes, item seven is a hearing to consider the post initiative

ordinance submitted by the mayor to the voters for the june 7th, 2022 election entitled ordinance amending the administrative code to authorize the police department to acquire and use surveillance technology with respect to certain criminal events as defined and criminal activity that is concentrated in certain geographically distinct areas. item number 8 is the hearing to consider the proposed ordinance performed by supervisors to the voters for the june 7th, 2022 election, entitled ordinance amending the administered of code to adopt with minor changes as a voter approved measure the ordinance which currently requires the city departments acquiring surveillance technology or entering into agreements to receive information from noncity-owned surveillance technology and submit a board of supervisors approved surveillance technology

policy ordinance based on policy or policies developed by the committee on information technology. >> thank you, mr. young. why don't we start with the controller's statement for items seven and eight, which i believe have no financial impact, but miss stevenson? >> that is correct. just affirming your statement. no significant costs to the government. >> thank you, miss stevenson. i will give mr. power, from the mayor's office, as well as chief scott who is here, an opportunity to present, but before i do that, i want to set the stage and remind everybody how we got to where we are, and that really begins with a law that i authored a number of years ago in 2019. thank you, supervisor mandelman, for your vote in support of

that. the law was crafted in collaboration with the coalition of advocates who i want to acknowledge, ranging from the american civil liberties union, the electronic frontier foundation, secure justice, open privacy, council of arab and islamic relations, media justice, and the first amendment coalition, as well as dozens of other civil liberties, privacy and free-speech organizations. a total of 36 organizations submitted a letter last thursday reiterating their support of the 2019 surveillance oversight ordinance. and by way of background, it operated and new framework for public oversight of government use of surveillance technology. and by the way, it was not a san francisco first. i think we were the seventh municipality to pass this kind of legislation. ours was unique and so far as it

did, and was the first to ban facial recognition technology in surveillance -- in the use of surveillance technology. that was in the midst of the trump presidency. we really put forward a plan to provide digital safety and sanctuary in san francisco, and just because the political climate has improved under the current administration, that doesn't mean that the rest of the civil liberties have magically disappeared overnight or they will not reemerge in ways that everyone should find quite disturbing. in the past few years since we have passed that policy, dozens of other jurisdictions across the country have adopted similar policies in the age of technology, and here locally, dozens of our departments have submitted surveillance technology policies, which you

are aware because we have reviewed and approved every single one which pertain to family technology ranging from the use of security cameras, to automatic license plate readers, to radiofrequency identification, there are dozens of technologies outstanding. and many departments that still have yet to come into compliance with the 2019 law. i believe the ordinance has already been a fledgling success for the first time in our city's history. members of the public can go online and see a list of every technology own or used by the government here in san francisco. they can view policies for how that technology is used, how long it is shared, how long it is stored, and they can hold the government accountable for deviation from those policies. to me this represents a significant and important cultural and policy shift from

where we were a decade ago when revelations of mass secret surveillance by the nsa made headlines around the world. and yet, three years after we collectively celebrated the passage of the surveillance oversight policy law, we find ourselves contending with a proposal that could do aspects of that law. i have been quite consistent in my thinking about the pallet, which i just expressed in the last item, which is that we should use it as a port of last resort when we -- [ indiscernible ] -- or need to amend the charter or pass a bond. as i have expressed to the chief and the police department and the mayor's office, i would like to see us try to exhaust a legislative remedy that is available to us before

proceeding to the pallet. that remains my position this morning and we have had -- proceeding to the ballot. we have had productive conversations to the mayor's office. i have remained committed to working collaboratively and hope we can mutually agree on a path forward. in response to the mayor's measure, along with supervisors preston, chand, ronen, and walton, we put forward another ballot measure, which is item eight, where we are hearing with item seven, which would reinforce existing and subjection to a higher threshold for amendment by the board of supervisors. for a law like this one which effectively regulates the regulators, gives members of the public additional confidence that it will not be subject to manipulation when opportunity presents itself. before i turn it over to mr. power and chief scott, i want to note that the p.d., this

past week, drafted a policy governing the use of third-party security cameras. and while it needs some work, and should be publicly vetted, as we have done with other policies, it is a gesture of good faith and i would much rather spend my time in my office's time working to fine tune that policy and move it through the established process. i will conclude my remarks on a cautiously optimistic note. we have some work ahead of us. that work can be spent in a tough public battle over the next three months or it can be spent working together to bring departments, including the san francisco police department, into compliance with the surveillance oversight law. i happen to think that our efforts are better spent in the latter category, but that, of

course,, will require pulling both measures from the ballot on or before march 1st, which is the last day to pull it. march 4th is the last day to pull it. we will see what transpires over the next couple of weeks, but hopefully cooler heads will prevail and the people of the city and county will see is all working together. with that, i will turn it over to mr. power and chief scott for their remarks. inc. you. >> -- thank you. >> thank you. i will speak for one minute because i know the chief has another commitment at noon that he has to run to and i want to get him to speak on this as well. very briefly, i echo your sentiments, supervisor. it is our goal and desire to move this forward legislatively. there is an ordinance currently pending. we have been working with your office collaboratively and i appreciate that collaboration. i'm optimistic that we will -- cooler heads will prevail and we will move forward a policy that we can all support.

with that, i would like to turn it over to the chief to get some context as to what specifically is needed. i am speaking to item number 7. that this measure is intended to support. chief? >> thank you. >> good morning, chair peskin. good morning, supervisor chan, supervisor mandelman and mr. power. first of all, supervisor peskin, i want to thank you for listening and working with us on this very important issue. i also want to thank mr. power from the mayor's office and the mayor for also listening and agreeing to work together cooperatively. basically, i will give you the very short version of the issue for the police department. we understand and respect they don't intend to breach that. we thank you for your work to

get us to this point in terms of identifying all the surveillance technology policies. the police department feels we can better use technology to address some of the challenges as a relates to acrylic -- criminal activity in our city and county. and specifically there are things that we believe we can be more efficient at in terms of life access to camera feeds when crimes or occurring or where there is information, credible information that gives every indication that crimes are about to occur. we are talking about serious crimes and we're talking about things like what happened in union square on november 19th. that is the spirit that we are working within. we do believe that there is room to improve our existing policies and look forward to working with you and the mayor's office to give our input on what those things might look like. and the law is saying too that as we work together on this, we

are all about equity in the city. we believe that a thoughtful discussion about the policy issues, they will give us a better opportunity to address issues city wide. not just we saw on november 19th, but areas in the city that have been continuously, and traditionally hard-hit by violent crime, drug dealing, drug overdoses as a result of those dealings. i truly believe from a policing standpoint, smart, thoughtful and boundless use of technology can help us get to a better place in addressing those issues. that is the spirit from which we are working on. i want to thank you for your willingness to work with us and we look forward to coming up with a policy that makes sense for our city. >> thank you, chief. i have any number of questions, but it sounds like we are on the right path.

you are under a time crunch, which is not your fault or our fault, it is the fact that we were delayed in our and 20 minutes and starting -- in starting our meeting this morning. i will reserve those questions and god willing and fingers crossed, we will work on that before the end of the month, unless there are any questions for you from committee members, go to your meeting, chief. okay, supervisor chan? >> thank you. >> chair peskin, i just want to thank you. i am pleased to hear that we will continue on what we have been talking about in terms of the way we are treating these ballot measures and initiatives. we can find ways to work this out through legislation. i think that it is all the better for the policymakers and for our voters that we are not -- we are doing our job and making the decision that we are

elected to make and do. think you. >> thank you. why don't we open item seven and eight to public comment. are there any members of the public who would like to comment on these items? >> yes, members of the public who wish to provide public comment on these items should call (415)655-0001. the meeting id is 24940524358 and press pound and pound again. if you haven't done so, dial star three to line up to speak. if you are on hold, please continue to wait until the system indicates you have been on muted and you may begin your comments. we currently have 15 callers in line to speak. >> first speaker, please. >> good morning, supervisors.

on behalf of the organization and lockstep with our partners at the aclu and other civil rights and social justice organizations, we oppose any efforts to got the san francisco surveillance law which protects the community from abuses by sfpd and we know that these concerns are also shared by members of the board. at a time when the executive branch has used harmful rhetoric to criminalize broad swaths of our most vulnerable neighbors and in a time when the police selected to draw from the m.o.u. with the district attorney's office, which helps hold the department accountable, and in a time when the findings for the most recent ripple report once again found black san franciscans are overrepresented per capita in all interactions with sfpd. the mayor is proposing to roll back civil rights and can encourage continuing police abuse. the department was unable to answer the most basic questions in a culture that is unwilling

to change. so many of our communities have been harmed by over policing and under no circumstances should sfpd have virtually unchecked this. san franciscans have the right to know about and regulate the surveillance technology that they have access to and how it is utilized. thank you. >> thank you. next caller, please. >> good morning. i am speaking today as a 32 year resident of district eight. especial good morning to supervisor mandelman. i'm here to express my strong opposition to the mayor's measure to weaken san francisco teacher surveillance ordinance. during the george floyd protest, i went to every march and rally i could find, did you? we were there to demand justice and accountability.

instead, the san francisco police department unjustly, unaccountably and illegally subjected us to surveillance. the department's actions speak louder than their words here today. now the mayor wants to reward and institutionalize this unacceptable behaviour. i agree with chair peskin. the mayor should immediately withdraw her measure, but failing that, all board members who have not already done so, and yes, i'm looking at you, supervisor mandelman, should add their names to the countermeasure and sign the ballot argument against the mayor's measure and in support of the countermeasure. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. >> hello. my name is tim kingston. i am a member of the san francisco public defender for racial justice committee. i helped pass this legislation. i know what is in it. the problems with the mayor freed and chiefs got with the

surveillance ordinance for not accurate. the legislation already allows for low enforcement access in the event of circumstances. i repeat, this is already in the legislation. the mayor is driving a bulldozer through the back wall of the legislation to knock it down when the front door is welcoming. or proposal is unnecessary and must be withdrawn. why is she lobbying a grenade when she has a key to the house? the mayor is succumbing to a moral panic about crime, like most moral panics, it targets a solution. it was put in place to prevent such a mistake. surveillance tech makes mistakes. we know that surveillance tech frequently misidentified as people of color. we know that surveillance technology is invariably concentrated on and targeted on the poor and communities of color. we know this is why the country has more people in jail than any other industrial nation. the ordinance as it stands

protects our constitutional rights, our privacy and civil rights. the mayor said during the george floyd black lives matter protest that she wants to reform the police and protect black lives and civil rights. white she going back on her word. the wind has shifted. she should not. withdraw this legislation and please stop browbeating the supervisors to participate in this. thank you. >> thank you, speaker. >> good morning, supervisors. i am with the foundation and i am a resident of the district eight. along with a diverse coalition of organizations across the city and region, we have supported the landmark surveillance technology ordinance when it passed in 2019 because of its key goals of transparency, democratic control and public input. that is why we oppose the

mayor's initiative which would get the ordinance and allow police to evade oversight. the sfpd has a long history of surveilling marginalized communities, including the lgbt community, labor activists, and communities of color. we should not give them a blank check to determine when and where to deploy surveillance technology. there must be guard rails to hold the police accountable and allow the community to be heard. that is why we support the ballot initiative which seeks to maintain oversight of surveillance. ultimately, we urge the mayor to pull her measure from the ballot. the police must follow the law, not tried to evade it. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. >> good morning. i have lived in the castro district for 22 years and i worked downtown in the design district. i strongly oppose giving them

unchecked surveillance powers without any public oversight to hold them accountable. our city will be forever changed if the sfpd has the unlimited authority to secretly monitor us for any reason they choose, including our constitutional right to protest. i believe that it is invasive and it will be used to unfairly target activists and marginalized communities, so i urge the mayor to withdraw this measure from the ballot. thank you very much. >> thank you. next speaker. >> hello, i am the senior government relations court nature for the council on the mayor of islamic relations. as part of a diverse coalition of community members and organizers and organizations who advocated for the surveillance ordinance originally. we urge mayor breed to pull the proposal that would get the city's surveillance. san francisco must not give the

san francisco p.d. virtually unchecked surveillance powers. in her proposal that feeds on the fears of crimes and it is an excuse to push for dangerous legislation. the fact that it can virtually give unchecked authority to and realtime surveillance footage, in any other surveillance technology without oversight is really concerning. and this also includes technology like drones or microphones that record our voices from afar. the sfpd has the tools in order to access the information. they just need to go through the proper process of doing so. this proposal is a way to go around that and it causes significant damage to our community. what it will do is, you know, the technology has never been more invasive and we know that without this oversight then this could be used for activists of people in color and people in

poverty. we urge the commission, the committee to reject this. we want them to fully support the ordinance in its full authority and to reject the mayor's proposal. thank you, so much. >> my apologies. thank you, next speaker. >> good morning. i am a staff attorney with san francisco. together with 35 community groups, we submitted a letter to the board opposing the mayor's ballot measure. we also support the existing law and we commend supervisors' efforts to defend it. we already know in san francisco what happens when the sfpd deployed surveillance without safeguards. for decades sfpd targets

activists and demonstrators. they kept intelligence files on law-abiding residents and engaged in discriminatory surveillance. as a supervisor peskin said, the community came together and a near unanimous board past the surveillance oversight law in 2019. for nearly three years, sfpd has defied that law. even today, they are out of compliance on a number of things. the mayor's measure would reward the sfpd for refusing to submit to this oversight. it would turn back the clock the police cannot be trusted with this unchecked power. surveillance technology has never been more invasive and there needs to be guardrails. we all want san francisco to be safe, which includes being safe from police abuse. mayor breed seizes upon fear to massively expand surveillance that will harm the very people most affected by serious

crimes. make no mistake, as this grows, civil lights -- civil rights and civil liberties shrink, and it is black and brown people and people in poverty who bear the brunt of the violence. the mayor should pull the measure and come into full compliance with the city's existing surveillance law. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> hello. >> please proceed with your comment. >> can you hear me? >> yes, we can. >> thank you. i opposed this and any attempt to make this an oversight law. surveillance technology is invasive and disproportionately negatively impacts people of color and low income communities. we need to hold high standards

of public transparency and oversight for all police surveillance in san francisco. thank you. >> thank you. can we get the next speaker, please. >> good morning, my name is ashley morris. i work in the financial district for the last 15 years and commuted on barth. i support the 2019 ordinance and i opposed the mayor's attempt to got it. i urge her to withdraw the measure from the ballot. thank you. >> thank you. can we have the next speaker, please? >> hello, excuse me. my name is christina. i have lived in district nine for 25 years and i am adamantly opposed to allowing the sfpd to get a blank check on surveillance. that makes us all less safe, not more. they have already got a record

of discriminatory treatment for people of color, towards activists. they have broken the law but illegally spying on black lives matter activists, and giving them unfettered access to technology without any oversight is just going to make us all less safe and destroy our civil liberties. please remove this from the ballot and i support the other supervisors who are trying to keep the existing law in place. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. >> can you hear me? >> yes. >> hi, my name is ajay. i am a resident. i am in d6 right now and. [ indiscernible ] -- my statement is to oppose the

measures and to get the ordinance. just for a few reasons. quickly to help enforce the ordinance which has taken a lot of work to get into play -- [ indiscernible ] -- dealing with external forces, and to protect individual liberties free of charge. thank you very much. happy valentine's day. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> yes, good afternoon, this is tracy from oakland privacy. i am calling to ask the supervisors to please affirm and support the current existing surveillance law. in 2018, san francisco voters passed prop b., overwhelmingly saying yes to transparency and

accountability in the interest of protecting privacy. oversight is not an impediment to public safety or to anything else. this is a strong argument that should not fall. we ask for the mayor to remove her or to withdraw her efforts. we ask for san francisco p.d. to come into full compliance with the ordinance and we ask for all the supervisors to endorse the countermeasure if it proves necessary to move forward with it. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. >> good afternoon, supervisors. i am a constituent of district 10 and i'm calling today to object to the current level of surveillance.

we know that in accessing the national network of surveillance, they have access to a variety of f.b.i. and d.o.j. sources that are questionably illegal, in addition to the regular utilization of surveillance technology that is against this. we have seen and demonstrated their unwillingness to comply with elected authority, whether it be their unwillingness to comply with oversight or oversight by the supervisors, or oversight by anyone. they are violent, they are destructive to society. today i am calling supervisors to ask you to please continue your efforts to limit their ability to survey everybody and continue to increase efforts to

bring into oversight. it is definitely called for. it has spilled over into our security of democracy. we can see that they have already demonstrated their usage of surveillance and at one time they were willing to break the law. we can see that they intend to do it and oppress our ability to speak and to politically oppress those they disagree with. with that evidence already here, i thank you for the measure and the mayor's actions here are deplorable. i hope we will save voters on the ballot. thank you for your efforts to negotiate a way out of this and to bring the lawless sfpd. >> your time has expired.

can we get the next caller, please? >> good morning, i am from d2 and urging that the mayor withdraw this absolute travesty of a ballot measure. urging the supervisors to support the current in-place technology surveillance law. there are ways for the p.d. two, with compliance, use surveillance, which is ridiculous, but they violated it and they were supposed to report in november what they had done, and here we are in the middle of february and we don't have a report. there's no transparency, there's no accountability. no, we cannot support a surveillance proposal that takes up all the -- takes off all the guardrails. happy valentine's day. let's show our city and the people of our city some real

love and support what is currently in place. thank you. >> thank you. next caller, please. >> chair peskin, honourable supervisors, my name is brian. here on behalf of unsecured -- of secure justice. we ask that the mayor withdraw her ballot proposal. we appreciate the comments made earlier by chair peskin and chief scott about working together on a youth policy without having to introduce competing ballot measures. this board has proven it is reasonable by unanimously approving almost 19 separate camera policies, submitted by other departments. in addition, sfpd has proven it is capable of navigating the existing framework and having submitted policies. we provide free training to municipal staff as they attempt to navigate these mechanisms in the beginning and we did work

with police on this to approve policy. providing the sound place to discuss potential red flags and how to mitigate them. we are happy to continue working with the team as they submit future proposals. none of what the police have said rises to the level of a charter amendment. they are seeking approval of specific uses for particular technologies. that is best suited for a use policy discussion and we are happy to hear the administration acknowledge that this morning. we agree it is time for the rhetoric to calm down. no one condones a violent crime or what is happening in the tenderloin. the police can submit the request of the existing framework and we will work together to ensure it is created. thank you for listening. >> thank you. thank you for all your work on this item. next speaker.

>> good afternoon. i have been a resident of district six for the past five years. i'm not an expert on legislative verbiage, but it seems unnecessarily broad. i don't understand why mass firearms and burglary are in the same category. furthermore, public safety crisis includes areas where there has been a documented increase in violent crimes over a 14 day period or longer. spike in crime over a short period of time is likely to be an anomaly, giving sfpd to use limited or misleading data to target areas they see fit. chief scott also made a comment that certain things can be more efficient in the process, but sometimes processes can't be more efficient or streamlined. to me it sounds like we are using a bizarre and uncommon burglary event to justify spending surveillance. i strongly oppose this new ordinance. thank you. >> next speaker.

>> good afternoon. i am a community advocate with the asian-american law caucus. we are one of 36 letters that were submitted on february 10th to the board of supervisors. sharing serious concerns with the mayor's measures to undo it. the asian law caucus has long worked with civil rights and civil liberties of the bay area residents, including immigrants and people of color on house populations and -- unhoused populations and religious minorities. the board has recognized before that sfpd has and continue to disproportionately and unduly target these communities through the use of surveillance technologies, making the ordinance critical to protect their privacy. surveillance impacts all of our lives. this is why the ordinance must

be protected. communities must be given the opportunity to engage in oversight and transparency to policing and surveillance activities that impact them and the mayor and the sfpd should not be allowed to sidestep the city. our communities in san francisco and across the bay area have long asked for less, not more surveillance reflected in the campaigns are organizations that have severed the city's relationship to the joint terrorism task force and other federal agencies that have targeted and harassed our communities without suspicion. what we have long asked for is more investment in housing, healthcare, and education programs that help our diverse communities to thrive. we ask you to do all in your power. reiterate the sfpd must comply with the law and that any and all exceptions be subject to the democratic processes provided under the ordinance.

thank you for your time and consideration. >> thank you. next speaker. >> good afternoon. i am a resident of district five in san francisco. i strongly oppose any attempt to scale back the city's surveillance technology ordinance. is concerning that mayor preet has seized upon fear about crime as an excuse to push for dangerous legislation. it gives the sfpd unchecked authority to use realtime surveillance footage in any technology without public oversight. in 2020, the police even broke the law to illegally spy on black lives matter activists and this new proposal by the mayor rewards the police for lawless behaviour. san franciscans have the right to know what surveillance technology the police have and how they are using it, and the strengths to put in place to protect their rights. we must uphold the current law. i support the counterproposal. this is authored by the

supervisors, and my own supervisor to maintain oversight of police surveillance. there must be guardrails to hold the police accountable and ensure transparency. thank you. >> thank you, next speaker. >> hi, i am the northern california organizer with california immigrant policy centre. i am calling because i, along with other organizations submitted a letter to oppose this new law that gives virtually unchecked power to sfpd to use these new technologies. i strongly encourage the supervisors to oppose this law and keep the previous law. there is really no reason to

give unchecked power and surveillance data. the use of fear and fear mongering for crimes. this is an argument that has been used for a decade to crack down on communities of color, and for communities and activists. we already have proven records of sfpd abusing power. i strongly urge the supervisors to oppose this new law. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. >> greetings. i am calling -- i don't need to echo all of what has been said. everyone has been very articulate in what has been said. one of the things that i do want to say is if there is checks in

place, what would be the reason for removing them? the only reason we would want to remove them is because -- [ indiscernible ] -- that is not rocket science. i am going to say that i reject the mayor's attempt -- [ indiscernible ] -- i ask that you not supported as well. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. >> hello. i am not a district eight resident, but i will also say hi to supervisor mandelman and support -- urge him to support the measure to strengthen the surveillance technology ordinance. i commute into the city to work and also to see my adorable 18

month old niece. i really want her to grow up in a city that supports civil rights against backlash and that's what we are seeing right now is a backlash of civil rights. we saw it in the eighties and nineties and they gave us the system's mass incarceration that our country is dealing with right now. we also sought after the movement for black lives. we saw blue lives matter, the thin blue line and that gave us donald trump. now the city of san francisco is facing a backlash against the civil rights protections for surveillance and just as it did under the previous president in time for the city to stand up for civil rights and take the difficult but ultimately correct stand against the backlash and to protect its residents. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. >> good afternoon, i am head of library users association.

i like to comment on item eight, file number 22, concerning acquisition and the use of surveillance technology. first of all, i would like to say that we appreciate the motives and much of what is in this, but are concerns that its focus leaves out certain very important intrusions and surveillances on the public. what is proposed talks about basically controlling what departments may do with respect to the purchase of surveillance technology or accepting and expanding grants to purchase

such material for the purpose of the department and surveilling certain people in the public. what this leaves out is the public's cost on certain technologies that are very surveillance rich or expensive. this does not take into account, apparently and i am concerned that it may not. business models which are in use that involved renting or using this software, such as youtube that is being used to transmit this very meeting, youtube is owned by google. they announced recently that there is no anonymous view on youtube because google owns it. it doesn't, and it also excludes third-party use of information that has been gotten such as, for example,, zoom for library virtual programs. the people using it are surveilled on in the library doesn't get the information, but the vendor of the supplier does. we hope that you can include those dangers of surveillance as well. thank you. >> next speaker. >> we are doing our last double check to see if there are additional speakers one moment

that was our last color. >> public comment is closed. we will see what the next couple of weeks hold. hopefully, as i said, we will work it out under the dome and it will come back to the board in the form of the approval of future use policies and tweaks to this section of code. thank you, supervisor mandelman for your support in 2019. supervisor chan was a member of this board, but we will have an opportunity to vote on some amendments undoubtedly in the future unless we all end up on the ballot, in which case, the chief and i get to go to a lot of democratic clubs. okay. with that, i will make a motion

to file items seven and eight. on that motion, a roll call, please. >> yes, on that motion... [ roll call ] the motion passes without objection. >> could you please read the last item? >> yes, item number 9 is a hearing to consider the proposed initiative ordinance submitted by supervisors to the voters for the june 7th, 2022 election entitled ordinance amending the campaign and government code conduct to expand their prohibition on the solicitation of behest of payments to include city contractors seeking the board of supervisors' approval and to require approval by the ethics commission and super majority approval the board of

supervisors for future amendments to local behest a payment restrictions. >> thank you, mr. young. colleagues, and members of the public, sorry for our late start, but it looks like we are going to get done here after this item and i will keep it brief. i think we are all familiar with the substance of this item as it has been passed unanimously at the board of supervisors just a couple of months ago. i won't call on the controller, but just represent the fact that this measure would not increase any costs to government. i want to thank the cosponsors who signed to put it on the ballot. supervisors chan, preston, mar, and president walton. for members of the public who have not been following this issue of public policy, what has been put forward for the june ballot, unless removed on or

before march 4th is virtually identical to what the board of supervisors passed in december. that is an ordinance that prohibits city officials, including ambers of the board of supervisors elected to department heads from soliciting payments from parties to have matters pending. it is an area that was ripe for corruption and as with earlier items regarding refuse disposal, the intent of this measure is to book and a disastrous and embarrassing corruption scandal. in fact,, among the high-profile instances that we have cited in the context of passing the legislation, or payment solicited by the public works director from recology.

it is all quite connected. this is yet another anticorruption measure. frankly, because i talked a little bit about my code of using the ballot as the last resort, the reason this has been set for the ballot is because i worry and have seen these types of policies and laws watered down in the past. and the reason we are putting it on the ballot is because it would create, if approved by the voters, a much higher threshold for watering it down or causing other mischief. that said, there is a potential path to avoiding the ballot for this measure. i think that must include using our legislative power and that of the ethics commission to move these provisions from one chapter of the code to another chapter specifically chapter 2

of the campaign governmental conduct code where it would be subject to a higher vote threshold to amend by the board of supervisors, in essence, protecting the integrity of the existing ordinance. as regulators received to regulate themselves, those are often the easiest regulations to unravel, one way or the other whether at the ballot, or through collaboration with the ethics commission. i would like to subject us to a higher threshold for amendment. that is the reason it is before us and i wanted to share it publicly and get any feedback from committee members. are there any members of the committee who would like to comment on this item? supervisor mandelman? >> thank you, chair peskin. i will say that i was surprised to see this in my binders. as i was looking over the agenda

for today because i did think that one of the reasons we had done this at the board was to avoid the necessity of having to go forward to the voters. we still have some items and concerns. there will be a duplicated file floating around there that we would have tried to further address. i'm curious about what prior examples of watering down there has been of prior ethic -- ethics laws passed by the board. >> yes. i can tell you that. as a matter of fact, the class of 2,000's board late in the two thousands passed a comprehensive ethics reform that were gutted, in part by the board of supervisors that was seated in

2009. that changed the threshold for lobbyists, lobbying reporting, and they have sins largely worked themselves back into the law. they largely gutted something that a lot of people worked on together in a collaborative fashion and was watered down. the file was duplicated. there are some movements afoot that i am engaging in, but dubious about. i think what i am signalling here is if we make any final tweaks or changes, that we move it to chapter 2 of the campaign in the governmental conduct code and make it more difficult for future boards of supervisors and ethics commissions to water it down or otherwise got it.

>> got it. >> why don't we open this up to public comment. are there any members of the public would like to comment on item number 9? >> members of the public who wish to provide public comment should call (415)655-0001. the meeting id is 249-50524358 and press pound and pound again. if you haven't done so, dial star three to line up to speak. for those on hold, continue to wait until the system indicates you have been an muted and you may begin your comments. it looks like we have eight callers on the line. let me double check if there is anybody online to speak. there are no callers online to speak. >> public comment is going once, going twice, public comment is

closed. i will make a motion to file this item. >> on the motion to file the matter... [ roll call ] motion passes without objection. >> do you have any confirmation before we adjourn in the february 22nd, 2022 at 10:00 am meeting? >> i just need to get final confirmation from various parties, san francisco government t.v., tech chat and farther -- final approval from the department of the board. my thought is it will proceed as scheduled for the february

22nd meeting at 10:00 am. >> okay. colleagues, mar your calendars. members of the public, it is virtually certain that the items that we continue today as amended will appear on tuesday, february 22nd, 2022 at a special meeting of the rules committee at 10:00 am. we are adjourned.

>> i try to start every day not looking at my phone by doing something that is grounding. that is usually meditation. i have a gym set up in my garage, and that is usually breathing and movement and putting my mind towards something else. surfing is my absolute favorite thing to do.

it is the most cleansing thing that i'm able to do. i live near the beach, so whenever i can get out, i do. unfortunately, surfing isn't a daily practice for me, but i've been able to get out weekly, and it's something that i've been incredibly grateful for. [♪♪♪] >> i started working for the city in 2005. at the time, my kids were pretty young but i think had started school. i was offered a temporarily position as an analyst to work on some of the programs that were funded through homeland security. i ultimately spent almost five years at the health department coordinating emergency programs. it was something that i really enjoyed and turned out i was

pretty good at. thinking about glass ceiling, some of that is really related to being a mother and self-supposed in some ways that i did not feel that i could allow myself to pursue responsibility; that i accepted treading water in my career when my kids were young. and as they got older, i felt more comfortable, i suppose, moving forward. in my career, i have been asked to step forward. i wish that i had earlier stepped forward myself, and i feel really strongly, like i am 100% the right person for this job. i cannot imagine a harder time to be in this role. i'm humbled and privileged but also very confident. so here at moscone center, this is the covid command center, or

the c.c.c. here is what we calledun -- call unified command. this is where we have physically been since march, and then, in july, we developed this unified structure. so it's the department of emergency management, the department of public health, and our human services hughesing partners, so primarily the department of homelessness and supportive housing and human services agency. so it's sort of a three-headed command in which we are coordinating and operating everything related to covid response. and now, of course, in this final phase, it's mass vaccination. the first year was before the pandemic was extremely busy. the fires, obviously, that both we were able to provide mutual support but also the impact of

air quality. we had, in 2018, the worst air quality ten or 11 days here in the city. i'm sure you all remember it, and then, finally, the day the sun didn't come out in san francisco, which was in october. the orange skies, it felt apocalyptic, super scary for people. you know, all of those things, people depend on government to say what's happening. are we safe? what do i do? and that's a lot of what department of emergency management's role is. public service is truly that. it is such an incredible and effective way that we can make change for the most vulnerable. i spend a lot of my day in problem solving mode, so there's a lot of conversations with people making connections, identifying gaps in resources or whatever it might be, and

trying to adjust that. the pace of the pandemic has been nonstop for 11 months. it is unrelenting, long days, more than what we're used to, most of us. honestly, i'm not sure how we're getting through it. this is beyond what any of us ever expected to experience in our lifetime. what we discover is how strong we are, and really, the depth of our resilience, and i say that for every single city employee that has been working around the clock for the last 11 months, and i also speak about myself. every day, i have to sort of have that moment of, like, okay, i'm really tired, i'm weary, but we've got to keep going. it is, i would say, the biggest challenge that i have had

personally and professionally to be the best mom that i can be but also the best public certify chant in whatever role i'm in. i just wish that i, as my younger self, could have had someone tell me you can give it and to give a little more nudge. so indirectly, people have helped me because they have seen something in me that i did not see in myself. there's clear data that women have lost their jobs and their income because they had to take care of their safety nets. all of those things that we depend on, schools and daycare and sharing, you know, being together with other kids isn't available. i've often thought oh, if my kids were younger, i couldn't do this job, but that's unacceptable.

a person that's younger than me that has three children, we want them in leadership positions, so it shouldn't be limiting. women need to assume that they're more capable than they think they are. men will go for a job whether they're qualified or not. we tend to want to be 110% qualified before we tend to step forward. i think we need to be a little more brave, a little more exploratory in stepping up for positions. the other thing is, when given an opportunity, really think twice before you put in front of you the reasons why you should not take that leadership position. we all need to step up so that we can show the person behind us that it's doable and so that we have the power to make the changes for other women that is going to make the possibility for their paths easier than

ours. other women see me in it, and i hope that they see me, and they understand, like, if i can do it, they can do it because the higher you get, the more leadership you have, and power. the more power and leadership we have that we can put out