ms. campbell stated, it is to implement the existing provisions of the mou. supervisor mirkarimi: and so, ms. katz, on the question of the $10,000 and us not being able to find that, what would happen? what would be the consequence? >> the supervisor would not take on a department-issued cellular phone. rather he would be at the shelter more frequently to respond to emergency situations, and in which case he would either approve compensatory time in excess of the mou provisions for which he would be paid out, or an assistant supervisor would fill his positions for other duties, and they get paid at time and a half. for some odd reason, the mou that covers the supervisors and assistant supervisors requires that the supervisors get $1 more per page. . they are paid pretty similar. we would ultimately end up incurring greater cost to the department. supervisor mirkarimi: i know this is a negligible amount in the scheme of things. am i hearing from the department head brown that this is something we should correct on the $10,000? >> it would be our desire to have

ms. campbell to show you how much of an increase the department is getting. you only see here the

ms. campbell to show you how much of an increase the department is getting. you only see here the recommended cut. >> the assessor did request an increase from $175,000 in temporary salaries to $300,000 in the current year. reason was 7 positions currently being paid by temporary salaries will be moved to regular status and do not need to be paid by temporary salaries. also, there is a bit of a difference of opinion about the clerical positions. the number of positions in the budget matches what is in on the chart, and my understanding is since they are paying clerical, temporary has some what to do with the department of human resources connecting classification studies so that they have not been hiring permanent into those positions, but there are permanent salary is attached to those positions. that was some of our consideration. i also think we have a difference of understanding about the supervisory level about the principle real property appraiser. they do actually vary from about 68, and adding on these new positions, including one additional principal

ms. campbell to briefly summarize the disagreements, the recommendations that the assessor disagrees with any basis for our recommendations for your consideration. >> good morning. first of all, to answer the questions on the value of the interim exceptions [inaudible] i did not have a page number -- page 42 of our report. supervisor chu: i think supervisor kim would like to repeat the number. >> $53,871. two interim exceptions that were not approved and which they are now agreeing to. in terms of our recommendation, the components -- real property auditors to look at tenant improvements -- we are recommending one of the two based on what we perceive to be their case load and the need for this new function. probably the more significant recommendation is the requested 17 new positions to work on the assessment appeals. we look at the backlog and the case -- caseload change year-to- year. we did acknowledge that there was an increase and a need for more staffing. we are recommending 15 of those positions. seven of them are positions that are working on a temporary capacity that will now be

ms. campbell is here. i know there are a number of folks in the audience who are here for this item. once we hear from the budget and legislative analyst, we will give them the opportunity to speak if they would like to speak. but this item essentially, supervisor, is an item that outlines the work plan for the budget and legislative analyst forepeak areas of focus for the coming fiscal year. the two pieces that are outlined here, we arrive that after discussing the item with the budget and legislative analyst. in respect of the last piece, the governance and city oversight of various museums, we look at the kind of reviews that have taken place and look at what has not been reviewed in quite some time. having some discussion and having a study on how these bodies are being governed at the government's is being provided, the information given to the city is something that would be helpful. as we know, the city has had to step in to help. that is why we thought it would be important. >> i am from the budget and legislative analyst's office. for context, the charter gives the board of

campbell. ms. miller, did you want to add anything to that? >> briefly, through the chair, the plan was that the sfpuc would approve the term sheet, and we would hear on friday any of the changes or comments that they had. since that did not occur, i want to briefly say that that may change my recommendation to you. a number of questions they had related -- i think mike did a good job of summarizing this. the related mainly to risk and what the risk was to the city, so there are some specific questions that the sfpuc is bringing back to them. hopefully, they will be able to meet in august. if that does not occur, we might want to consider meeting with them in a joint meeting in september. the only thing i have been at is if you want to fall -- hear the full presentation, mike is perfectly willing to give it to you. it could be that because the puc did not approve the term sheet, we may be continue each day until such time as they do approve it. given that, i would like to hear your comments or questions. supervisor campos: colleagues, if i may

campbell, the gentleman from north carolina, mr. jones, the gentleman from texas, mr. paul, the gentleman from new jersey, mr. holt, the gentlewoman from wisconsin, ms. moore. we are being very moderate here. we are not saying don't give the pentagon any more money. this amendment reduces by 50% the increase for the pentagon. we are accepting $8.5 billion. by the way, this does not affect the wars in iraq and afghanistan. it just occurred to me, maybe this was said earlier, the budget for afghanistan, which we refuse to cut reluctantly, regret plea, was voted out of the committee before the president announced a 10,000 troop reduction. i think the president was kidding he would bring down 10,000 troops, we funded 10,000 troops that won't be there next year. that's a problem. we're saying to the pentagon, you find it. don't cut military personnel, don't cut health but perhaps some of the bases we maintain overseas, some of the subsidies we give to nato, lip services paid here to an alliance in which the budget is based. unfortunately, mr. chairman, i have to say it's trivial. the obama administration and members of the appropriations committee, the a