linnette peralta haynes was a recommendation as i was on my way to the lafco event with an attorney but i was already terribly late for that event. >> ok. and then the next part of this passage after the part that says they made a couple calls to find an attorney. the next part is, and he said lopezed that idea of having their friend, linnette peralta haynes a domestical violence advocate with the our family coalition to reach out the madison about why she had gone to police and what could be done at that point. is that accurate? >> not entirely, no. it's not. >> how is it inaccurate? >> that i only had learned later in the day when my wife, eliana had informed me of her conversations between she and linnette, and their contact then with the next door neighbor. >> and did your wife have the idea of having linnette peralta haynes contact ivory madison? >> i am not sure about that. ifs that the case, that is something that my wife had simply exchanged with ms. haynes, but i don't know. >> so did you have any part in the decision to call ivory madison? >> not at all. >> ok. so to the stern

. >> item two, approval of the lafco minutes from the june 15, 2012 special meeting. supervisor campos: colleagues, we have before us the minutes of the june 15, 2012 meeting. i like to open it up to any member of the public who would like to speak on this item. seeing none, public comment is closed. if we could please take a motion. motion by commissioner schmeltzer. second by commissioner olague de. we can take that without objection. madam clerk, please call item three. >> item 3, community choice aggregation activities report. status update on cleanpowersf program. and a status update on proceedings at the california public utilities commission. supervisor campos: i will turn it over to michael campbell of the san francisco public utilities commission, as well as jason fried from lafco. >> hello. michael candidate, director of cleanpowersf at the sfpuc. i have a short update. hopefully a sweet update. in terms of where we stand, as you know, we have been waiting for the board of supervisors to act. during that interim time, the good outcome of that time has allowe

>> i remember i was walking feverishly to the lafco meeting. i was getting calls that i was late. i did have a phone call with miss peralta haynes while i was on the way. >> was it in one of the conversations before you got there that she told you about the conversation she had with ivory madison? >> maybe. there was only really one phone call i had with her where we connected. there had been attempts. only one atomic out there. >> was there some point in the late afternoon or evening of january 24 that you learned from peralta haynes she had a conversation with ivory madison earlier that afternoon? >> yes. >> what did she tell you about the content of the conversation with miss madison? >> it was very brief. she said that miss madison was apparently trying to -- she was not listening to eliana. eliana was very concerned, scared, and bought the neighbor was crazy. >> this was miss peralta haynes? she ime

>> i remember i was walking feverishly to the lafco meeting. i was getting calls that i was late. i did have a phone call with miss peralta haynes while i was on the way. >> was it in one of the conversations before you got there that she told you about the conversation she had with ivory madison? >> maybe. there was only really one phone call i had with her where we connected. there had been attempts.

the hope here is that lafco can add to the ongoing discussion. i think it is important to get something out there with the understanding that it is not the end of the analysis. if you could please call item number 5. >> item #5 is public comment. supervisor campos: this is an opportunity for any member of the public to speak on any item that is not on the agenda. item number 6? >> item #6, future agenda items. supervisor campos: future agenda items? >> i wanted to make a quick note that we normally meet on the fourth friday of the month. next month, we will be taking a recess. we will be meeting again in september. supervisor campos: by that time, there will have been action. >> that would be my absolute hope, yes. supervisor campos: any member of the public wish to speak on this? >> item #7 is adjournment. supervisor campos: the meeting is a we wish everybody a happy friday and a good weekend. meeting adjourned. >> san francisco recreation and parks department offers classes for the whole family. rec and parks has a class for everyone. discover

i would ask that the lafco give mr. fried's some time to continue to do his work. supervisor campos: thank you. any other member of the public who would like to speak on this? public comment is closed. colleagues, do we have any questions? i am wondering if you can respond to some of the points that were made in terms of adding more work to this report, whether or not he is think that is necessary. i'm wondering if you have any thoughts. >> i will start off with mr. hill's comments. i lived for the top 20 cities in the united states with a system that had was separated. i could go back and look at that. that is also tied to state offices. since we have our mayor and other citywide office is elected in a separate election, i did not incorporate those cities into this mix. i believe there were three at of the top 20 that have a scenario where there are separated. if it was the desire of the commission, i could go back and add in all the other cities. i purposely excluded those because i wanted us to be more about a scenario like san francisco, where it is separated c

since that time, i was placed on the lafco board, and there have been a number of studies conducted by cory cook and others to sort of evaluate it, and that is information i did not have at the time that i sponsored the charter amendment. that being said, i went back and forth as recently as a week ago, and i seriously considered pulling my name because the number of, you know, there was a lot of people who were very concerned with its removal for a number of reasons, so i feel like in many ways i had made some commitment to consider pulling my name from the legislation, but in retrospect, i feel that, well, i put my name on the legislation initially, so it seems it would be in bad faith to pull my name at this point, and also my intention initially for placing my name on it was so that we could preserve right choice voting on some level and that the voters would have the opportunity to reconsider it in many ways. my reason for wanting to limit it to the mayor's race is because i think still the mayor's race has more voters and more people that are focused on that race than the other s

the information analyzed by lafco clearly shows that people understand how the system works. if you compare ranked choice of voting and how we elect members of the board of education and the board of trustees of city college, there is less confusion when there comes to link choice of voting than there is in those elections. in terms of the three items before us, my preference would be that neither of them goes forward. if i had to choose, i think the item introduced by president chiu is the most reasonable alternative here. let me be clear. taking votes on those three items, whether it happens today or next week, this will be a very important vote, and a defining moment. for those of us who have been involved in progressive politics for quite some time, the ranked choice of voting was about trying to make the democratic process in san francisco more democratic. we have seen more people look involved and come out to vote and be engaged in san francisco politics then we have seen before. it is for this reason the vote is so important for those in the progressive movement who fo