i am trying to figure out how long they have been on the cpac? have they done or this is the third three year term or this is their first three year term? >> no, this would be sharon's last term. >> i guess last is confusing, because if it is last, but they can renew? >> they can apply again? >> i am sorry, i would be specifically to her i would have to see according to the list that i just... i did not bring all of the information that she is eligible for one more three-year term so this will be her final three-year term. back in i believe, 2007, 2008, i don't think that i brought the bi laws, so they can serve up to three, three year terms. >> correct. >> and so, with the other four that are not the new the other four they are all serving their last three-year terms and so they will be on the board for nine years after this three year term if we approved them tonight? >> no, i am sorry. so, all of the members, except for it would be monica this is her first. >> this is her last term. >> so this will be, they will would have been on the commissi

>> what i need to know is what i am trying to get to is the balance of the representation on the cpac and if there are different divisions that we are allocating out, how many of those seats are rotating? verses people staying? seats, or you know going into different categories and then being on the cpac for you know ten or 15 or 20 years, verses having some diversity on the commission which includes representation on the early ed side as well as child care side as well as, you know, all of the different folks that make-up the cpac. and so again, you know, we just have never been engaged to question who comes to us and it comes to us in a slate. which means that you know, we are approving a group of folks without having really had the opportunity that you know the folks that are going to, that we as a board are appointing to the very important committee. and so, you know, i am a little reluctant to... and i will support the slate but i guess that i really wanted to emphasize the importance of allowing the board to think about how people get selected for cpac and wanting them to just b

've of you has at least one appointee to cpac so in terms of our coordination we work with early care and education to ensure that among the various departments as this transition is happening, we continue to work towards making sure there's alignment in the work in terms of surgeon priorities that we've discussed with community and with the departments that we all work together in order to move an event -- the work of ec in the community. >> any other public comments on this issue. seeing none, public comment is closed now. supervisor, would you like to make comments? >> i wan to thank you for your leadership on this issue and i am fully supportive of this item and i would ask that i be added as a cosponsor of the item. i wan to thank members of the committee who came out and spoke in favor of this. i think this makes a great deal of sense. i make the recommendation with move this forward. >> no objection, the item is moved. >> thank you. item three >> this is a hearing to discuss [inaudible] homeless families to provide proof of residency to gain access to shellers. >> thank you. th

i would mention for the committee that in the last -- since 1998 when we did the cpac needs assessment and supervisor yee chaired that on behalf of cpac, we've been able to grow the number of licensed lots. it takes a lot of effort to do that. child care really doesn't pencil out and it takes a lot of strategies to make child care work on the capital side and the operating side. this is really one strategy in our toolbox to make sure that we have affordable care options for families in their neighborhoods and we still have a number of unmet needs in the city rehated to child care and we plan to incorporate this along with the other strategies to make sure that we're meeting families' needs. >> it's really important to know that in particular, with development in the pipelines and discussion of the development, that we have the right expertise to look at this. i'm thinking in terms of whether or not the stadium will be built in san francisco. whether or not that can house a child care center. we're looking at issues at pier 70 that's going to be a humongous development and also the prop

. >> we know what the cpac does is our point. >> we are going to find out of that out at the committee. >> commissioner murase has a question. >> i don't even know what it was. >> and i wanted to say, erica for your first visit to the show, you did great. let me just acknowledge that. and you did great. let me just say that. on behalf of all of us because i believe that we think that. and clearly there is an opportunity for you to get further up to speed for an upcoming meeting. and because we are definitely interested in you participating more as commissioner mendoza has brought up. and all of us think that these things she actually articulated them. >> you are right we think them but she was able to arctic you tlait tonight and not let it go. that is another thing. and so i appreciate her tenacity and yours for hanging in there. i know that we will have further conversations with you and miss bryant who is not here tonight. and we will definitely be pow wowing with you both. >> thank you so much for your passioner patience. >> miss ly? >> fewer >> yes. >> mr. haney. >> yes. >> murase

he used it during his speech at the cpac convention this year. he told the crowd. let's let him do it. here he is. >> don't tell me democrats are the party of the future when their presidential ticket for 2016 is shaping up to look like a rerun of the golden girls. >> what a satisfied smile he gives you with that. the golden girls. >> except betty white is the most popular entertainer across the country, across the ages. and so, again, come with that. >> yeah, i know. i just think the golden girls is pretty risky behavior here, because first of all, you know what old people do? they vote. and guess who lives longer than men? women. they sit around, and they have plenty of time if they're retired, and they talk about this stuff. you think anybody is not going to know what they said about hillary being too old? >> of course. mcconnell's crack is exactly what the republicans do all the time with her and in these kinds of situations. they overplay it. his joke i'm sure is really funny to everyone on the right wing base, but to everybody outside the right wing base, whi

an early preview of this strategy was seen at cpac this past march when mitch mcconnell, there he is,in, poked fun at the ages of both clinton and the ages of joe biden. >> don't tell me democrats are the party of the future when their presidential ticket for 2016 is shaping up to look like a rerun of the golden girls. >> that, by the way, is 70-year-old senate minority leader mitch mcconnell. hillary clinton will be 69 years old in 2016, which is the same age that ronald reagan, when he won in 1980. so, my instinct to say, well, you know, reagan, hillary clinton, that takes the issue off the table. i do remember dole and mccain certainly took grief for their ages. it does make you wonder a little bit how we think about age and politics. >> john mccain was 72 when he ran. biden will be 73 and hillary 69 and reagan in the second term was 73 when he was running for re-election. i think it will be an issue. remember in '08 obama, he said something similar to what karl rove said about generation and i'm a part of a new republicgenl politics. therefore, i think it cuts away from the, she's

. >> ever spoken at cpac? >> stephanie: there was a poll earlier.ake being a very valid point in that she said what's the general american consensus on it? not separating black and white. it is funny they're going we ask black people whether they thought it was a racial issue and we asked white people whether they thought it was a racial issue. do you think it is a racial issue, black person. do you think this is a racial issue, white person. 80% thought it was a racial issue. based on race. so i think there is something to -- the perception of how it's going -- that's what i think the president was speaking to. i think he would be foolish not to. i think alan west, for example in his quote looking at just those statistics, the president i think brings great value to look, you may not understand what the other group is upset about. i'm going to tell you what they're upset about. not to validate anything. you just need to know -- >> stephanie: if i were in an elevator with alan west, i would clutch my purse not because he's black but because he's cra

you say, the cpac was going on. nobody is mentioning we're in the middle of a crisis over marriage.fraid some of our friend are drifting into the notion that it's not prudent to talk about these things in public. republican will not win with them. this recalls lincoln saying we can't talk about slavery in the churches. it is too divisive. it is too agitating here. that is what people care about but we can't find a place of people to talk about them. the task of statesmanship come to understanding of issues that are in fact central and as the style of lincoln, give us a way of talking about it. so ordinary people can speak again. we have a, we have a political leadership that teaches, that is legitimate to talk about these things to the public and show you how to do it. >> next question. yes, ma'am? >> hi. thank you so much for taking the time to come and talk to us today. i'm sure you all three have really busy schedules. i was wondering what your response would be to the question, if someone were to ask you, or say that there is no legal or moral precedent to deny marriage to a law