city attorney ann pearson may be able to weigh-in. i was brought into this process, how do we involve data sharing for people involving homelessness. it's a much larger conversation beyond this issue, so i'm not sure what the delay was in doing it, but it's become clear that this is a simple and necessary first simp to ensuring our privacy and accountability for the departments that are covered. so certainly, the time is now. we shouldn't delay further. i would like to speak quickly to your point, chair ronen, that this is absolutely a big deal to help us improve how we share data and how we protect data. this is not the only privacy law that many departments are hopeful to you. there are other state and federal privacy laws that departments need to comply with. >> if i could just take a moment to supervisor stephanie's question, so just for the public and members of the board, we have been complying with san francisco general, laguna honda. i don't think this was needed when it first came out, but as things have come along, it's been

>> deputy city anne pearson. i haven't seen the amendment but increase amount of money being accepted? >> decreasing. >> oh, decreasing. that will not require a continuance. >> that's great. thank you. >> no public comment and i would move this to the full board with a positive regulation as amended. can you please call items 13 and 14 together. >> 13, resolution authorizing the issuance from time to time in one or more series of not to exceed 1.4 billion agre aggregae privilege among not to exceed 225 million to be designated as the city and county of san francisco and series of 2020-r1. item number 14, approving the controllers office of public finance policy in accordance with government code section 855 and determining other matters in connection. >> thank you. and i think this is anna vandegna. >> yes. >> and i ab understand you're requesting a continuance? >> i would have a couple of words i would like to share to anna and public finance would like to request we continue items 13 and 14 to february 26th bud

>> deputy city anne pearson. i haven't seen the amendment but increase amount of money being accepted? >> decreasing. >> oh, decreasing. that will not require a continuance. >> that's great. thank you. >> no public comment and i would move this to the full board with a positive regulation as amended. can you please call items 13 and 14 together. >> 13, resolution authorizing the issuance from time to time in one or more series of not to exceed 1.4 billion agre aggregae privilege among not to exceed 225 million to be designated as the city and county of san francisco and series of 2020-r1. item number 14, approving the controllers office of public finance policy in accordance with government code section 855 and determining other matters in connection. >> thank you. and i think this is anna vandegna. >> yes. >> and i ab understand you're requesting a continuance? >> i would have a couple of words i would like to share to anna and public finance would like to request we continue items 13 and 14 to february 26th bud

>> deputy city anne pearson. i haven't seen the amendment but increase amount of money being accepted? >> decreasing. >> oh, decreasing. that will not require a continuance. >> that's great. thank you. >> no public comment and i would move this to the full board with a positive regulation as amended. can you please call items 13 and 14 together. >> 13, resolution authorizing the issuance from time to time in one or more series of not to exceed 1.4 billion agre aggregae privilege among not to exceed 225 million to be designated as the city and county of san francisco and series of 2020-r1. item number 14, approving the controllers office of public finance policy in accordance with government code section 855 and determining other matters in connection. >> thank you. and i think this is anna vandegna. >> yes. >> and i ab understand you're requesting a continuance? >> i would have a couple of words i would like to share to anna and public finance would like to request we continue items 13 and 14 to february 26th bud

>> deputy city anne pearson. i haven't seen the amendment but increase amount of money being accepted? >> decreasing. >> oh, decreasing. that will not require a continuance. >> that's great. thank you. >> no public comment and i would move this to the full board with a positive regulation as amended. can you please call items 13 and 14 together. >> 13, resolution authorizing the issuance from time to time in one or more series of not to exceed 1.4 billion agre aggregae privilege among not to exceed 225 million to be designated as the city and county of san francisco and series of 2020-r1. item number 14, approving the controllers office of public finance policy in accordance with government code section 855 and determining other matters in connection. >> thank you. and i think this is anna vandegna. >> yes. >> and i ab understand you're requesting a continuance? >> i would have a couple of words i would like to share to anna and public finance would like to request we continue items 13 and 14 to february 26th bud

city attorney ann pearson may be able to weigh-in. i was brought into this process, how do we involve data sharing for people involving homelessness. it's a much larger conversation beyond this issue, so i'm not sure what the delay was in doing it, but it's become clear that this is a simple and necessary first simp to ensuring our privacy and accountability for the departments that are covered. so certainly, the time is now. we shouldn't delay further. i would like to speak quickly to your point, chair ronen, that this is absolutely a big deal to help us improve how we share data and how we protect data. this is not the only privacy law that many departments are hopeful to you. there are other state and federal privacy laws that departments need to comply with. >> if i could just take a moment to supervisor stephanie's question, so just for the public and members of the board, we have been complying with san francisco general, laguna honda. i don't think this was needed when it first came out, but as things have come along, it's been

>> deputy city attorney ann pearson. may i ask a question? there is a restriction to administer an oath to a city employee, but i don't see a restriction currently on the power to issue a subpoena. i want to clarify that to the extent that you are trying to make clear that you may issue a subpoena to a department head, the restriction is not currently there. >> supervisor peskin: good point. i think what we would like to do is make sure the subpoena is applicable to a department head. >> chair ronen: can you explain that again, supervisor peskin. >> supervisor peskin: thank you for that catch. why don't we make it clear that the committee could administer the oath for a department head but not other city employees. >> chair ronen: okay, great. before we move on, i wanted to open this item up for public comment. is there any member of the public who wishes to speak? seeing none, public comment is closed -- oh, wait, sorry, yes, we do have. come on up. >> good morning. my name is jerry dratler, and i served on the civil grand jury twice. we do

deputy city attorney pearson, do you have any -- >> deputy city attorney ann pearson. it might be simpler to take those two things one at a time and accept the amendments that have been introduced by supervisor haney with the exception of those made to section d, and following those, make a motion to accept the ones that you have suggested. >> chair mar: okay. >> supervisor haney: no, you can't -- >> clerk: supervisor haney? >> supervisor haney: maybe my question might answer the public's question. so what we are going to do is take all of the amendments that i have proposed, except for the amendment that relates really to the type of shelters that would qualify, which would be 10 -- can you read the section that we're -- and what -- we'll read it for the public. >> the motion that i heard articulated was limited to amendments that have been introduced to section 106.3-1, and i understood the amendment to be a motion to accept the amendments that you have made, supervisor haney, to that section, with the exception of those amendments introduced to subsection d as an in

>> deputy city attorney ann pearson. may i ask a question?here is a restriction to administer an oath to a city employee, but i don't see a restriction currently on the power to issue a subpoena. i want to clarify that to the extent that you are trying to make clear that you may issue a subpoena to a department head, the restriction is not currently there. >> supervisor peskin: good point. i think what we would like to do is make sure the subpoena is applicable to a department head. >> chair ronen: can you explain that again, supervisor peskin. >> supervisor peskin: thank you for that catch. why don't we make it clear that the committee could administer the oath for a department head but not other city employees. >> chair ronen: okay, great. before we move on, i wanted to open this item up for public comment. is there any member of the public who wishes to speak? seeing none, public comment is closed -- oh, wait, sorry, yes, we do have. come on up. >> good morning. my name is jerry dratler, and i served on the civil grand jury twice. we do kn

deputy city attorney pearson, do you have any -- >> deputy city attorney ann pearson. it might be simpler to take those two things one at a time and accept the amendments that have been introduced by supervisor haney with the exception of those made to section d, and following those, make a motion to accept the ones that you have suggested. >> chair mar: okay. >> supervisor haney: no, you can't -- >> clerk: supervisor haney? >> supervisor haney: maybe my question might answer the public's question. so what we are going to do is take all of the amendments that i have proposed, except for the amendment that relates really to the type of shelters that would qualify, which would be 10 -- can you read the section that we're -- and what -- we'll read it for the public. >> the motion that i heard articulated was limited to amendments that have been introduced to section 106.3-1, and i understood the amendment to be a motion to accept the amendments that you have made, supervisor haney, to that section, with the exception of those amendments introduced to subsection d as an in