they'll not -- unquiveably they won't accept the nominations. even if their nominations are still on the table and they have not specifically renounced their desire to be interim mayor they can't participate. if the end game is to add people, that doesn't do it. and that's why i think we should follow the precedent we have always followed with the board presidency. so why don't we just vote on supervisor daly' motion. i urge a no vote on that. should that motion fail, we could adopt the amendment which supervisor -- with clerk -- with clerk change. >> i like to have the question of supervisor daly, because i believe the process we have makes sense because we're force when we vote to look at choices in front of us, as opposed for example if we had three supervisors or three individuals and we were voting a, b, c, you're suggesting closing not only nages and have three separate votes on a, b, c, and a doesn't succeed, then the vode could change to cre c and that's instead of having each of us to decide between those and then another vote after tha