mr. daly's comments to heart. thank you. [applause] supervisor chiu: thank you.t speaker, please. >> hello, supervisors. first of all, just wanted to commend the process you guys are going through in terms of trying to come up with a fair, open, transparent method of choosing the next mayor of san francisco. having listened to you describe some of the possible ways that this could unfold, i wanted to echo some of the comments made by a supervisor daly, in that it seems to me in a representative democracy, when representatives file out of the chamber, the public suffers. any -- i wanted to just express support for the idea that the maximum number of supervisors at any time are voting on new should be the interim mayor of san francisco. it is a weighty decision with a lot of consequences. the legal issues with the california political reform act of somebody coming back into the room after potentially not receiving votes are ones that you will obviously debate and discuss as to what is allowable and what is not and what should be allowable and should not be because

>> [inaudible] just assurances in reviewing what mr. daly commented on. the mayor has set forth an application process that will result in at least one tenet being appointed to the board. i also remind the committee at this time that there are four residents that serve on the community advisory board -- supervisor campos: if i may, a supervisor mar -- if i may, supervisor mar. supervisor mar: do you know when that appointment what happened? >> no, not at this time. we hope to have a wide variety of reasons -- resumes to go through. supervisor mar: but there is a commitment to the -- from the mayor's office to appoint a resident to the committee? >> yes. supervisor alioto-pier: it is also my understanding the major part of the request two weeks ago. is that correct? thus far, we have one applicant, it is my understanding, and i'm just curious -- will we be doing more out reach -- outreach to insure we get more applicants? being out there more than two weeks, it seems we should have gotten more than just one at this point. >> i know that the tenants are ver

daly. supervisor campos: thank you, mr. jackson. if we could now call current commissioner claudine cheng. welcome back to the rules committee. here is an opportunity for you to make a statement about your proposed reappointment. >> i started six months ago. it is amazing how time flies. i think we finally have seen the project going to the stage where we have been looking for, as all of you know, the t.i. project, which has gone through major milestones, starting with the signing

supervisor daly's point about needing to have that conversation out of the spirit of engaging the public in a traps parent way for guest input. with that, back to the chair. >> thank you. mr. had president, supervisor daly. no. okay. colleagues, we have a motion in front of us that we set as a committee as a whole. any discussion on the motion or vote? we'll vote on the motion. roll call vote. >> on item 34, supervisor avalos. >> before i vote on it, could i make a statement? i'm actually >> under the board rules we don't interrupt roll call as i've been advised. >> well -- >> unless we want to vote and then you want to make a statement afterward, i think that would be appropriate. unless we want to suspend. why don't we move to suspend? the roll call vote. no objection, back to the debate. supervisor avalos? >> to continue with my shakespeare theme, it is called on sick of heart and -- i would like to continue there discussion to next time we meet. i'm really in the in the mood to continue at this -- at this time right now. i have an interest in coming to a decision but i don't think we're going to come to it today. is it possible to amend the motion to have a -- it brou

daly. supervisor campos: thank you, mr. jackson. if we could now call current commissioner claudine cheng. welcome back to the rules committee. here is an opportunity for you to make a statement about your proposed reappointment. >> i started six months ago. it is amazing how time flies. i think we finally have seen the project going to the stage where we have been looking for, as all of you know, the t.i. project, which has gone through major milestones, starting with the signing of the charter agreement with the united states navy followed by the release of an eir, which the planning department is working day and night to try to finalize incorporating the input from the public. and of course, we move forward with the negotiations of the development agreement with the prospective developers. the same reason why i was here last year was to continue my service. i believe i have the institutional memory and experience to continue to serve. i have gotten calls from the mayor's office. anything else you are interested in doing in the ci

what supervisor daly requested is we start with the underline amendment yao take out amendment that is would have -- that would have required any vote threshold by the roberts rules. >> mr. president, that's what we did. that's the document. >> of any sort of incomplete document. so supervisor daly, are there things you believe in the document that the clerk provideded us that -- that we should -- >> well, i mean -- i -- i think the cloak yulism would be, we have a situation here that is a cluster mess, but with eight votes we make a good process, we don't have eight votes because we're stymied by a minority of the board that doesn't want to amend the board rules. we're left with attempting to fashion -- to fashion something that -- that works, marry two -- two proposals which i think has -- very fundamental differences between them and i think what mystical hun is trying to do is put things that may be helpful given all of the pitfalls everywhere else in the document. i appreciate her efforts to do that. >> it is still collective. >> given the version we have in front of this is this something you're prepared to offer as an amendment? >> i think if -- if it is a proces

supervisor daly: thank you, mr. president and colleagues. let me say there is at least one director here who i have supported several times, who has done excellent work on tida and who deserves to be reappointed, and i think that there is some merit to some of the other appointments as well, but representing treasure island here on the board of supervisors, having in the rules committee gone to some lengths to block commission appointment in order to get actual representation from residents of treasure island on to the treasure island development authority at this 11th hour, not just of the appointing authority's tenure as mayor of san francisco, but also the 11th hour of this supervisor's tenure here on the board of supervisors and my role on tida. i think that these appointments, especially in addition with the two other appointments considered in committee of the two weary

supervisor daly: find you, mr. president. first, let me thank our clerk for the work she has done over the last weeks. with that said, let me say that the process that is laid out in front of us, colleagues, i find a bit cumbersome. it is interesting. if you look at two very recent posts on the "the san francisco bay guardian," "the san francisco weekly," it seems they agree on this point. one author writes that it makes it difficult for one of the progressives to wind up winning the job. over at the "san francisco weekly," they say david chiu, ross mirkarimi, and david campos, none of them and the voting in the final go around, meaning eight supervisors will have to come up with six votes for one candidate, and since that is not going to happen, you can bet that no one is going to descend from the board -- going to us and -- going to ascend from tehe board. the process before us is flawed. not because of the work of our clerk but just because sometimes when you put together existing board rules and existing charter rules and

to i think to take nominations for a mayor. >> supervisor daly. >> thank you -- $$thank you, mr. president. 10 years of this i think i developed a seamingly unlimited tolerance level for pain. so it is with that introduction that -- you know, i -- i ask you , colleagues, can we please at least spend a moment talking about what we would like to see in the next mayor of san francisco. i know that we spent the better part of the last two meetings here talking about the process that we have finally adopted. i think that probably there is not a really strong interest, probably from any member of the board of supervisors right now to go through and -- make nominations and to -- to test this process out that we have just adopted. i think that if we are going to do that, at our next meeting which is on december 7th, i think that -- we owe it to ourselves and to the city to have it -- a conversation or discussion before we get right into names and sequestration and you know what could be some pretty wild deliberations. even for us here in this board chamber. last week i talked a little bi

mr. o'connor, regardless of what was set up here, it will not affect the outcome. although we are all very grateful that you help supervisor daly in that regard. i think i have no new water problem than chris has. regina think i have known you probably longer than chris has. but me just say, this is a remarkable group of people. we always have remarkable groups of people, but very thoughtful, articulate, experienced. if the entire entertainment commission looks much like what we saw today during testimony, we would be a very lucky city in deed. i want to thank mr. o'connor for his service. the work on the small business commission has been truly significant, and i think that experience would play well in a commission like this. the testimony of mr. hahn i thought was really -- i thought that stood alone, and so did mr. thomas and ms. weissman. the work on the civil grand jury, you have probably worked in learned on many things that most people do not know, which would benefit the commission. but i will be supporting mr. benetti today, for a number of different reasons. aside from the fact that he is truly qualified for this pos

mr. president and members of the board, that would be external to the board roles -- rules and roberts rules of order, and you may consider that. president chiu: further discussion on this item? supervisor daly? supervisor daly: there are some board rules that they are not silent about. the proposal is laid out in front of us. would that not also require the supermajority threshold? sean and i, colleagues, we have been around awhile, and we can go back and forth on procedural points. i win some of them, and he wins some of them, but the question here is not a detail of the board rules or robert's rules. it is about moving forward to hopefully have a discussion. we can either have sean and i go back and forth and pick apart proposals, or we can try to come up, the eight of us, with rules that make the most sense to come up with the best possible results. president chiu: further discussion? supervisor elsbernd: i would very much like to discuss this, but i think it is important that we understand. president chiu: i think based on the presentation, i would move that this would be an 8-vote time. we are, as the clerk suggested, as supervisor daly suggested, with 80 votes. -- 8 votes. >> it would

mr. koppel wrings his hands is not analysis, the great change was the creation of the sanitized image of what men like cronkite and davis and dalygs, polk, and koppel did. these were not glorified st stenograp stenographers. using only the facts as they can be best discerned plus their own honesty and conscience. and if the result this story over here is the presidential chief of staff taking some pretty low-octane bribes, you judge all the facts and say so. and if the other story over there is not just a third-rate burglary, but the tip of an iceberg meant to sink the two-party system, you judge all the facts and scream so. insists that long enough the driving principle behind the television era was neutrality and objectivity and not subjective choices and often dangerous evaluations and even commentary, and you will eventually leave the door open to pointless worship at the temple of a false god. and once you've got a false god, you're going to get false priests. and sooner rather than later in a world where subjective analysis is labeled evil and dangerous, some political mount bank is going to ease is catechism of that false