if a board member withdraw his or her nomination, then the nominators may nominate another. a board member who has been nominated may not participate in the discussion or vote on competitor nominees. if the nomination of a board member nominee has been withdrawn, the board member may not have a conflict and could return to the room to participate. once he or she participates in the process, he or she could no longer be considered for the position of successor mayor. as you will hear the outside counsel discuss in a moment, these principles result in the nomination procedures outlined on page two of exhibit 8, which i will not go into, as i would like to remain as brief as i can -- can --a -- of the exhibit -- of exhibit a. discussion shall be limited to only those members who do not have a financial interest of the appointment. the board will are clear on the limitations on speaking, and while the appointment is pending, reopening nominations can be down with a majority of six votes. for clarification sake, the proposed process states that votes will be taken in order in whi

nominations. but i would think that we would not try to make a second nomination if we had made a second one, and we would not accept ourselves as nominees, and in that way, we can move forward. we have members to what to see the work to get done, and we have members who want to do subterfuge. that is fine. that is part of the politics. but with six votes, and six members, we can do this, and i think it responds to supervisor campos' question about six members of the board affecting an appointment for the office of mayor in san francisco when it becomes vacant, and we can do that. we do not do the kind of violation things they seem to do in 1978. we are left with discussing it. i think that is a better way of doing it, and we can do it, but we do not want to fall into a trap and the subterfuge to hamper the ability to make a decision. is that filibuster long enough? president chiu: she is almost done. madam clerk: supervisor daly, through the chair, the next item is on page two. nominations do not

nominations. president chiu: ok, for that, we will revert back to the original language and klerk's proposed process. continuing on. -- and the clerk's proposed process. madam clerk: page 3, supervisor daly has added a part about it being automatically withdrawn and the floor is open for another nomination. robert's rules of orders does not state that nominations are automatically withdrawn. a member can decide if they chose to to withdraw their nomination. so the original language states -- supervisor avalos: no. 3? madam clerk: page two, three. -- line 3. president chiu: section d. madam clerk: i am so sorry. page three, item d3. supervisor: this is absurd. we are doing this on the fly, not knowing what we are voting on? i am not feeling good about this process at this point. president chiu: one thing that i can propose, colleagues, is that we take a quick 10 to 15 minute break that incorporates supervisor daly's amendments that do not involve changing robert's rules, unless anyone has some othe

who wishes to nominate, and then once of the nominations are made and the president closes nominations, -- president chiu: again, just to recap, i think the language in supervisor daly's is the language which required the a to-vote threshold. -- the 80-vote threshold. madam clerk -- the eight vote threshold. madam clerk: there are other issues. there is one issue that has been redacted, indicating that they're ready obviously more nominations be allowed on the floor at one time. in the clerk's process, there is a roberts rules of order which indicates that upon a time when there be any more nominations made than positions are available, so in my process, i am indicating that -- supervisor daly: if roberts rules states that it is silent, that would apply, right? madam clerk: pres., forgive me. i have not had the opportunity to read this, and i am looking at it now for the first time. supervisor daly: as the clerk goes through this, if i may, through the president for the members who support it, if we go through this process and take a look at what we can do with six votes and leave out

once the nomination is made, nominations are closed. we refer to roberts roles. they talk about them being closed. this is a proposal to change that. president chiu: ok, if i get asked a clerk to comment on that? -- if i could ask the clerk to comment on that? >> 3 the supervisor, -- through the supervisor, as it may consider necessary for the conduct or consideration for any business. the committee as a whole is a committee, so i believe that will applies to -- that rule applies to it. i think the question you're asking is because roberts will specifically states that you're going to force close nominations, it is not in order. therefore, the parliamentary for the board is the board rules, and in my opinion, 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

i was intended to -- intending to nominate him myself. i think we should consider that nomination and vote as a motion and second and then we can separately consider the vice president position. commissioner dejesus: you have a screen in front of you. president marshall: i thought you had already spoken. commissioner dejesus: i think before we vote we need to discuss what we're looking for and the qualities in a president. i want to point out, when prop h. passed over eight years ago, it did provide for broader reputation in the leadership. to that end, the commission, whether they did it by agreement, which i was told that they did, but they did select members from the board of services as well as commissioners supported by mayors commission of leadership. they did have gender diversity on the commission leadership. i believe louise renning was the president of the newly formed prop 8, the newly formed police commission. and then when she left, david campos was the vice president. you had a reputation from the board as well as the board

commissioner dejesus: i have nominated angela chan. commissioner slaughter: i would like to nominate commissioner kingsley. new hampshire i think the chair can call it how the chair wants. meaning there can be multiple nominations. whatever the chair chooses. commissioner slaughter: i would like to nominate commissioner marshall to be my vice president. i would like to have dr. marshall as my vice president. i would like to nominate dr. marshall. president marshall: second. does anyone have public comment on the nomination for vice president. commissioner dejesus: we haven't had any discussion. president marshall: i was waiting for -- commissioner dejesus: i think we have the leadership of marshall and mazzucco this year, and i think there were a lot of things that were lacking. one of them was information and the other was strong leadership. i think commissioner mazzucco understands our intent and understands that we want to be included, but i also think it is important that this leadership reflect, as i said, to affect the make-up of

vote total for each nomination will be one. i mean, i think that the average vote total would be higher if the question was yes or no. that's why i prefer it. >> i admit, supervisor daly, i didn't completely -- could you give an exam bell of -- an example of vote abc. >> assuming there's electorate nominated and then under the procedure of naming a name like we do the board president, there would be an average of one vote per candidate. however, if you had the ability to vote yes or no sequentially on the order that they were made then there's going -- no set average number of votes that -- that one of those candidates ko receive. you may want to vote no if you prefer someone later on, and then i think that you could get around to vote again -- i don't think that subsequent round of voting is barred or banned. i think that at average -- i think the average would be higher than one. >> i think you could use the argument it would work the other way if someone chose to vote no for all of those candidates, then, the vote total woul

so that's who can nominate. point b is the initiation. initiation of a landmark site or district can be made by one of the following methods. so for individual landmarks, it's a resolution to initiate by the board of supervisors, a resolution of intent to initiate by the h.p.c., an actual resolution to initiate by the h.p.c., or for individual landmarks, upon a submital ever a complete nomination application to the department pursuant to the section above. and then to caveat that, -- i should back up. so to just actually reiterate that. for an individual landmark, if somebody, a property owner, a neighbor or what not, submits a complete application to the department so that we have to open up a file, we have to schedule it for the commission, it actually starts the initiation process. it then, in turn, starts a clock of terms of permitting and hearings schedule. as a check for that, so it wouldn't go unbridled and people couldn't just constantly throw in applications, we do have to schedule a hearing in front of the historic preservation

again, i am still open to this nomination. supervisor alioto-pier: i will support it, but typically, because we are the committee and we are supposed to do the job of the committee which is supposed to pass out a decision of some sort and not take what is printed in our agenda and move it to another agenda -- it is not something that i am particularly fond of doing, but i will defer to you as the chair of the committee. supervisor campos: thank you. >> supervisor, would you like to send both items to be full board? supervisor campos: yes, please. without objection. without objection. now we are going to take a supervisor campos: we are back, my apologies. please call item seven. >> item 7. motion confirming the appointment of f.x. crowley to the port commission, term ending may 1, 2014. supervisor campos: thank you. commissioner crowley. good morning, welcome to the rules committee. >> thank you, chairman campos, it has been great to work with you, supervisor michaele alioto- pier. we are going to miss you. on my way back yest

if you are nominated, all of a sudden you have a conflict. which have fallen the information about the california political reform act in writing so that we can follow along and make sure no one violates state law. in terms of having this process, we are now two weeks after the election you're talking about where we have a meeting. five weeks after the election. we are using time that we don't have and we really don't need to do we need legal guidance about any potential pitfalls through that process and we should ask our clarke and council for that guidance and i would like to have a discussion about the quality. i will like to have a discussion with this about the meat or the process with the public. we don't need to get caught up in the process. >> i am not detecting any conflict. >> they could use the process of going to the rules committee. you could also go to the committee as a whole. that would be a change to the process. that would require a vote to suspend or modify your rules

they nominated coolidge by acclaimation, and the campaign was launched from there. i'll talk in a minute when we got to davis about how the opposite was true for the democrats, but coolidge did a masterful job of getting ready for the elections. he entered the -- the results of the campaign in 1924 was that coolidge, without question, had been dealt a winning hand-but you'd have to say also in looking at it, he certainly played it flawlessly, and the result was that he won a resounding victory. coolidge's popular vote was approximately 53 or 54%, and davis, who was the democrat, garnered about 30%. and then the progressive third-party candidate got between 16 and 17%, and the title of the book comes from the fact that his was the last time both parties nominated a conservative, and if you look at it in that context, 83 or so% of the popular vote win to the two conservative candidates. coolidge came in, in 1925, with huge popularity, and he immediately implemented, began a continuation of harding's policies. he and mellon went to the congress for further tax cuts, fu

they nominated coolidge by acclamation in the campaign was launched by mayor. i'll talk in a minute when we go to davis about how the opposite was true for the democrats. the coolidge did a masterful job of getting ready for the election. he entered the president. the results of the campaign in 1924 was that coolidge, probably without question, had been dealt a winning hand. but i think you'd have to say also unlucky not if but he certainly played it flawlessly. and the result was the one a resounding but very. coolidge's popular vote was approximately 53% or 54%. and davis, who was the democrats at about 30%. the memo fallen, who ran as a progressive third-party candidate got between 16 and 17%. in the title of the book comes from the fact that this was the last time both parties nominated a conservative. and if you look at it in that context, 83 or so% of popular vote went to the two conservative candidates. very much in the summary, coolidge came in in 1925 with huge popularity. and he immediately implemented, began a continuation of harding's policies. he a

are made, complications that occurred when in nomination is made.the california political forma -- aligned this document is a very interactive way. i know in the draft, a number of those items are required by the california state law. others are required by the city charter as well as the board rules. i have zero perspective on what the process should be. that is a discussion that we have to have. if the board chooses to go as closely as we have, i think the challenge is that we have a process by which we can selected board president. we also have a process by which we have the rules committee. right now, the city charter is silent on how we would select the interim mayor. this is really met to set up the conversation for us. i asked outside counsel to let us know which aspects of that process, from the various governing authorities that take us through the day. that is something that we need to consider in the coming weeks. >> i don't know if you really answered my question which is if our advise from the legal counsel is that under the current rul

i respect all of them who have been nominated. i am rising to express a general concern about the process, this process, and redevelopment commissions, generally speaking. these commissions wield tremendous power. there is a lack of meaningful competency criteria for selection. these appointments can transcend the administration's that. them. you have no meaningful criteria for judging performance. they are more often popularity parties than they are real performance reviews. with no disrespect to any city commissioner or the commissioners themselves, they shield project from accountability. the shield elected officials from the responsibility and accountability that are rightfully theirs. we need policy discussions in the city about the status of the commission, about the purpose of the commission, and about the commissioners themselves. thank you. supervisor campos: thank you. next speaker, please? >> good afternoon. my name is ruth. i have no comments on the individuals before you. as a group, they possess many of the qualifica

can you tell us about what he will nominate to be filling up? >this is part of the economic development organization or expert in small business finance? where do you consider yourself? >> can you repeat this? >> category number seven, the members of the commission either need to be owners or officers of san francisco small business. i'll not believe that this time in that category. what if you are the officer of a neighborhood organization. do you consider yourself an expert in small business finance? >> i understand what all of this is about. >> you talk about how you have worked closely with small business, but it was not clear that you have worked in the small business in san francisco. what's i have been working in a number of them. >> can you talk about this, because it appears you were working in more national cells issues rather than small business. can you tell us what you think about the small business community in san francisco? >> what is happening over the economy, there are a lot of people in small business communities that need to

said, i have to say that i do think that each one of the people that has been nominated brings something unique and something that is very useful. i respect and appreciate the importance of maintaining some continuity. the question for me is, what does that mean in terms of moving forward? we have a request. the supervisor that represents that district said that all nominations should be rejected because of the absence of a resident representation. that is the choice we have before us. supervisor alioto-pier? supervisor alioto-pier: thank you. i just want to say that i think the mayor's office probably could not be more public in the way they have committed to putting a resident on treasure island. doug's position as one that the mayor can move around that will -- at will. it is the position that the mayor can move around. it is a commitment that he is made to us in committee and it is a commitment that has been made outside of committee over the last few weeks. it has been an open seat that people can apply for from treasure island residents. i think we should say publicly that if you a