- litigation savings act h.r. 1996. do you have that in front of you? >> i do, yes. >> look on these three or four pages i think he will find that there are 46 -- 64 come 65 organizations that are conservation organizations. i started noticing them. the first i put a number one by alaska wilderness and number to the big blackfoot river keeper and number three environmental council. see those numbers? >> i do. >> out of this 100, 65 of them are environmental organizations. now take a look do you recognize any of those organizations? >> yes, i recognize a few of these, yes. they have a position of opposition to this bill. is there a possible rationale you could suggest for this many people that work in the same field that you do or did work in having so different a view from you about the bill that we are discussing today? >> i do, sir. >> please tell me what it is. >> i note that some of our larger and well recognizable environmental groups in the country are on this list such as the environmental defense fund. the envir

in of itself is a litigation synchro you know. it's no reason we had to a country where it is done but in a nutshell they have litigation of the was through on top of occasion from a fundamental perspective they are mired in assets of the preceding. exponentially and even if they attempt to reclaim for recovery it's almost laughable because of the coverage they have with their mortgages and just. make them which is. which is overpriced property at the top of the bubble ok that is dropped to four calls on certain properties. in two thousand and two thousand and eight i ran a study and i found that the bank of america. portfolio was approx the same its market cap. all of its mortgage problems away it was a moderately anymore it just took every mortgage problem way they still probably people about it so that. also means that they're essentially a distressed real estate company versus a pain you know you add on top of the depreciating mortgage yes it's just significant for the litigation on top of that and then you see workers. paid l

for the existing litigation for the county of san francisco. >> we are now back to open session. the announcement is item 15, no action. 16, no action. 17, no action. 18 failed. may i have a motion whether to disclose? >> motion not to disclose. >> second. >> all those in favor? oppose? motion carries. asking our there's any additional business -- asking now if there is any additional business. >> i would like to raise now in the event that we discuss it in more detail later. i see a letter here from larry mazzola jr. regarding matters surrounding leaves of absence and policies. while i do not believe it is within our jurisdiction to deal with the personnel matters at the distribution yard, and i want to be kept in the loop on how we resolve those issues. there are also questions we would have as well. i just wanted to ask that we would have a conversation about that. >> ok. any other business? seeing none, this meeting is now adjourned.

in the existing litigation case oah case no. 20011160521, the board, by a vote of 7 aye's, approved a settlement. in the existing litigation of case no. 2011060361, the board, by a vote of seven aye's, approved settlement in $3,000. in the existing litigation case of jh versus sfusd oah case 2011060553 the board approved settlement in the amount of $3,000. in a public employee discipline release matter the board resolved by a vote of seven aye's to accept the resignation of a classified employee and to waive certain damage claims against the employee in exchange for the employee's agreement to reimburse the district the sum of $14,300.34. we also have -- do you have a question? >> i was at that meeting. i arrived late. president mendoza: you were absent for that vote. yes, thank you. and then we also had a closed session action on today this evening september 27, 2011, the board by a vote of seven aye's approved joining the california school board association's los angeles unified school district turlock unified school district and association of california school administrators in in

these are things that increase our exposure to litigation. for many of our board members who are worried about exposing taxpayer dollars to risk, in many ways, this legislation is the only proposal that i have seen thus far the response to closing the loophole and minimizing our litigation risk. the last thing i will say is that anything can be called a job-killer. we raised our minimum wage. we have one of the highest in the country. that could be called a job- killer. if we have held the san francisco, that could be called a job-killer. when you look at the comptroller's report of the 36,000 jobs that we are projected to grow over the next three years, we may, at most, lose 100-300 jobs. when you think about that in the overall context, i would rather have 35,700 jobs that pay a living wage and that afford health care to our residents because in the long run, that is the most cost-effective way to take care of our residents. supervisor mar: i do have empathy for the many who have been writing to us and calling and the commission's letter wa

this is a conference of legal counsel regarding the anticipated litigation against the city area the anticipated litigation is based on the following facts -- connolly was convicted of two of two people in a drive-by shooting in 1989. he served 16 years in prison. in 2010, the supreme court granted his decision for writ of habeas corpus and granted a new trial. he cannot be retried because the important prosecution has died. he was released from prison and the city anticipates he may bring a lawsuit against the city seeking damages alleging wrongful conviction and incarceration. before we take public comment, i would like to turn this over to commissioner slaughter. commissioner slaughter: i have a conflict of interest. my law firm represents him and so i will not be participating in the discussion. just so there is no concern, i will be leaving the room. i will not be here. if anybody has any concerns, you can raise them in public comment now. president mazzucco: is there any public comments regarding this item? seeing none, let's call the next item. >> item #5. a vote on whether to

for the existing litigation for the county of san francisco. >> we are now back to open session. the announcement is item 15, no action. 16, no action. 17, no action. 18 failed. may i have a motion whether to disclose? >> motion not to disclose. >> second. >> all those in favor? oppose? motion carries. asking our there's any additional business -- asking now if there is any additional business. >> i would like to raise now in the event that we discuss it

the longer we let this lender, the more litigation and money risk we have. the more i am hearing, the more convinced i am that we need to take action today, fix what we need to fix, and then move forward with a good process to update our ordinance. supervisor kim: thank you. i just wanted to respond to comments about the process. it is true that we went through the regular public process for vetting any legislation here in san francisco, but you can do what is the normal course of public hearings, or you can do intentional outreach on legislation. that is what i am imagining. i know that is not the top priority of every office, to do outreach to advocates and folks that originally defined legislation, but that was not foreign to our office, and that is why we are moving forward with a hearing process that would engage all the folks we reached out to. but i do want to acknowledge this did go through a public process, and what we did at minimum. i am more than happy to talk to the ethics about other city races in san francisco. some of our offices, like school

the litigation measures have been agreed to buy the project sponsor and a mitigated negative declaration was appropriately prepared. the department's response to the primary concerns raised by the appellate can be grouped into the four main points. two related to the environmental review process and two related to the fmnd. the department maintains that the preliminary maintained negative declaration was properly circulated. and the city complied with the california environmental quality act, or ceqa, prior to any approval. in response to the substance- related concerns, the department asserts that the project density would not result in any significant impact. and the fmn,'s analysis was inadequate. preparation of an eir is not warranted. in one process-related issue is the circulation of the pmnd. the department circulated it for a 20-day review period, consistent with the ceqa requirements. the project is not a statewide, regional, or area significance as defined by ceqa, therefore it did not require a 30-day review period or circulation to the state agencies cited by the appellants.

i started off in private practice, doing complex litigation. in 2002, i moved to the san francisco city attorney's office, where our work on the trial team, doing trials for the city and doing my own cases and supervising a team of attorneys as well. another huge issue confronting the city is the deferred maintenance on our infrastructure. we have a lot of infrastructure that has been deteriorating because we have not maintained it properly, from our roads to our sewer system to muni. we need to be much more diligent about maintaining our infrastructure. i have been interested in politics since i was a kid. i have worked on campaigns since i was a teenager. i was involved in campaigning against senator jesse helms when i was in college. when i came out here i was not initially involved politically. i was involved in community work, helping to build the lgbt community center, doing neighborhood work, and i eventually started doing campaigns and gradually got more involved in democratic party politics. ultimately, in 2004, i ran for the democrati

. >> you are parties to the litigation, having been sued. you try to find a solution where you can look to the needs of people and what were the needs of the neighborhood already? there is also partial preservation that is compatible. i will reiterate that. there are the need said i will mention that has been brought to your attention. in the past, that church was a free meeting space. this was a methodist church. we are the actual neighbors as opposed to what ever it is that was presented to you. there are many involved in creating more senior housing. one group of be very happy to do that again. another thing that is needed is where -- let me mention the interest of those to litigation and this was the baptist church. i heard about this back in 2007. the solution is obvious. there is still one on nob hill. all they need is a non-profit developer. after the decisions here, i went and talked to be deciding committee. she lit the trade. why didn't they come forward before? i talked to norman and they said that they were trying to do something

commissioner walker: and the litigation committee? rights litigation on november 15. >> we're going to get a report of the tracking system. we get that every month anyway. >> is there any public comment on item 6b? >> i do like the comment made by the public speaker on public comments on each of these items, rather than waiting until the end. i like that idea. >> ok, we can do that at the next meeting. i think it is up to the chair. >> we will put it on the agenda of the next meeting. >> ok. item seven, review and approval of the minutes of the regular meeting of april 20, 2011. >> move to approve. >> second. >> ok. is there any public comment on item 7? ok, the minutes are approved. i'm sorry. is there a vote? all in favor? ok, thank you. item number 8, adjournment. >> motion. >> i second that. >> ok, is everyone in agreement? ok, we're now adjourned. >> meeting adjourned.

our emphasis is on business litigation and insurance bad faith, personal injury cases. we are mostly litigators. i also served half as a neutral evaluator, arbitrator, for finra. they are the alternative dispute resolution program for the securities and exchange. i have covered cases involving corporate dealer and fiduciary cases. i am a native of san francisco, a graduate of sacred heart high school. the relevance behind that, i am interested in serving in city government, proud to be a native of sanfrancisco, and i feel this is a way to give back. my experience as a lawyer and arbitrator can help the board to fairly and accurately decide claims. i believe i am fair and impartial. i think i would definitely be an asset to the board. commissioner farrell: is this your first time appointment? >> yes, sir. commissioner elsbernd: thank you. mr. tham. >> hello, my name is joseph tham. i have been on the commission since 2002. been in the real-estate business for over 20 years having worked as a certified appraiser and also as a regional appraiser manager for four major bank

are facility, consultation the agency chief of security, conference with legal counsel, existing litigation of the defense -- conference of legal counsel, anticipated legal obligation as a plaintiff, conference with legal counsel, existing litigation for the county of san francisco.

and they said we can't comment on pending litigation.epartment of justice and they said they can't talk either. the v.a. called us back and said their chief of staff wants to sit down and talk to me to tell us what they're doing to help homeless vets. >> we've added 700 transitional housing beds, they have medical programs, substance abuse programs. >> reporter: they also have rent vouchers. >> which enable to us put veterans in permanent housing. >> reporter: in los angeles each voucher just for veterans is worth more than $1,100 a month. this year dr. norman says the los angeles v.a. has given out 2,000. of course that's 2,000 vouchers for more than 8,000 homeless veterans. doing the math, there's not enough of these vouchers if they all called you the day after this airs. >> well, it would be shocking. it would be wonderful. and we will figure out a way to give them emergency and advance igsal housing. >> reporter: if they're hearing you right now, what would be their next step? >> the easiest thing is to show up. >> reporter: show up

so during that time, litigation continues, congress ought not to intervene. congress ought to let the courts decide. and then if the only remedy in congress would be to file for a special relief act. and congress could consider it or not. based on the circumstances of the case. so, mr. president, i thank the chair for allowing me to share these remarks. i do believe it's a very important issue. i truly believe that congress is unwise, very, very, very unwise to begin to step in to ongoing litigation involving highly, highly competent parties with large amounts of money and start taking sides in that litigation. i believe it would be wrong. so, mr. president, i thank the chair for the opportunity to share these remarks, would offer my full statement for the record. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. sessions: and note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: quorum call: is quorum call: mr. sessions: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from alabama. mr. sessions: mr. president, i ask th