tv [untitled] October 8, 2011 1:30pm-2:00pm PDT
of women voters. i am here to have a discussion of proposition d on november's ballot. proposition d is a charter amendment that would change the way that the city, current and future employees share in funding. it will also require an elected officials to pay the same contribution rates as a city employees. it would increase retirement contribution rates for most current city employees based on city cost. for future city employees, and prohibit the city from paying any employee contributions. proposition c and d, if voters
approve of measures, only the one with the most votes will become law. >> i am here with the treasurer of the campaign and a former member -- why should voters vote for proposition d? >> it had its origin a year ago. the origin of proposition b started with a grand jury investigation of the retirement system in san francisco. i was a member and during those years, i worked with other members of the grand jury. we issued reports in 2010 and 2009 with the expectation that
public officials to propose legislation. there is only one public official that approached us and was willing to work on crafting legislation. and that was a public defender. 115,000 voted yes last year. a very strong constituency. we hope they will be back. the difference between proposition c and d is basically cost savings. d will save over $400 million over the next 10 years. prop d was crafted with exempting lowest paid city workers from any increase in
contribution, at the rates that are part of proposition d are progressive. proposition d is also a disruptive force in city politics. there is a very strong special- interest group that has fought against any pension reform in san francisco. that is later. we hope that they will look at it in a positive way. >> opponents argue that it was done not in a collaborative lateway. that it was done unilaterally.
how do you address concerns? >> the origin of proposition b and d was a civil grand jury investigation, a group of 19 residents of san francisco, who had a very diversified group of people representing unions, representing retired people, representing middle-class and minority groups. the fact that this is a criticism is not valid and the collaboration of the opposition talked about who was a collaboration for special interest groups. >> opponents have alleged that even if it is passed, it will be held up in court and perhaps not even implemented. how do you respond to concerns about proposition d?
>> i read about prop c, 8225 page document that was totally incomprehensible to me. i am familiar with legal documents. the d measure is 25 pages, simple to understand. i fully expec tboth me -- expect both measures will be challenging. especially those that oppose proposition c, and there are many, it will be brought forward. >> up next, we will talk to an opponent of proposition d. i am here with the executive director of the san francisco labor council and an opponent of proposition d.
why should voters voted against proposition d? >> i was telling people why they should vote yes on measure c. d is the opposite way of the way people should be doing business. this is a scott walker wisconsin initiative. it was done with no input from the workers. it was financed by a key party republicans that have financed the this and got $5 a signature to put this on the ballot. none of the city workers were involved, it was unilaterally put on. it is the wisconsin way of doing things. it does not accomplish what is supposed to do. it is legally challengeable. i am asking everyone to vote because there will be legal
challenges with what it purports to do. >> proponents say it will save $400 million more than a proposition c. why should they not go with a measure that is going to save more money? >> the process was done without any input on those numbers. they are way over bloated in terms of the numbers, it probably does a little bit more money than what we did, but it was done by the same type of republicans that are attacking public workers and wisconsin, san jose, other areas around the country. it will not save that type of money. we worked with the city comptroller, we talked to workers, we had major analysis. everybody agrees, this is the way that the city will run better, it will save money and
jobs. yes on c commonality. -- no on d. >> the increments they used to determine a contribution are smaller >> is a bogus argument. people claymore during bad times and not so much in good times. it is sensitive to workers that make -- police and fire and up paying more. it was done with a thorough analysis of different employee organizations in the city. >> thank you so much, mr. paulson. for information about this and other ballot measures, go to the san francisco league of women voters website at sfvotes.com.
early voting is available at city hall monday through friday from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. >> i am columnist who writes about san francisco politics, and a member of the san francisco league of women voters. i am here with the league and sfgtv to discuss proposition e on this november's ballot. ♪ propositioned e would allow the
board of supervisors and the mayor to amend or repeal initiative ordinances and declarations of policies that are passed by the voters beginning in january 2012. initiative ordinances and declarations of policy are the only kinds of measures that would be subject to proposition e. for three years after a particular measure takes effect, the board and the mayor may not amend or repeal it. after the first three years, the board and the mayor may amend or repeal the measure with a two- thirds vote at the board. after seven years, the word and the mayor may amend or repeal the measure with a simple majority vote to the board. proposition e will not allow the border mayor to amend or repeal. measures that the voters approved before january 1, 2012, or measures that the voters place on the ballot by collecting required signatures or charter amendments and bond measures. ♪ i am here with supervisor
wiener, a member of the san francisco board of supervisors, who is also a sponsor of proposition e. thank you for being here. why should we vote for proposition e? >> it is very basic reform of our ballot measure system but our system in san francisco in california as a whole is broken. they're too many things that belong to the ballot. other measures that on the ballot that should be handled at city hall, that we should not be throwing at the voters. and then, one measure they are passing on the ballot, they have a rule in california, we're the only state in the country that does this come aware that measure can never ever be touched, not even moving one comma after 30 years without going back to the voters for another ballot measure. it is a completely rigid system that does not benefit anyone. it is bad government. prop e would basically balance that out a little bit by saying that for ordinances that are put on the ballot by the board or
the mayor does not in any way affect signature drive ballot measures. or the mayor put an ordinance on the ballot that, for the first three years, it would be untouchable by the board. for the next four years, the board could amend the measure with a supermajority two-thirds vote. after seven years, the board could read the legislation like any other piece of legislation, subject to the legislative process that is how it is done in every other state that allows voters to legislate, except california, and i think it is just a good government measure. >> can you think of an intense where, had we had proposition e in place, the voters would have not had to go back and vote again on some cleanup legislation? >> yes, if you look at prop f right now, we're asking the voters, among other things, should political consultants have to file with paper or electronically? should they have to file every
month or every three months? but the most voters, if you ask them, would say that should not be on the ballot. that is the kind of legislation that should be handled by the board, but we have to put it on the ballot because the boaters that the original ordinance. i also have been working with both tenant and landlord advocates to clean up the rent control ordinance so that it reflects accurately what courts have ruled. they have started on some of our provisions, but the municipal code is inaccurate because it does not reflect those rulings. i regret that it is to try to come up with cleanup legislation, and it turns out we cannot do it because most of those provisions were enacted by the voters. even if a court strikes something done, we cannot even clean up the municipal code to reflect that without going back to the voter. that does not make sense. >> what do you say to voters who are nervous about giving the power over to amend something
that have passed at the ballot to politicians, to members of the board, and to the mayor? >> first, prop e only affects a small percentage of ballot measures. italy impacts, at most, 20% of ballot measures. 80% are completely off limits. it also does not in any way allow us to minnesota measures that were placed on the ballot -- allow us to replace measures that were placed on the ballot by voters. what it does do is say that when the mayor or the board put something on, we need to have some flexibility after the fact. a lot of times, we see the board of supervisors but measures on the ballot that are not well thought through, that have come out of no public process, with no prior scrutiny, and then the >> if they vote yes, they shouldn't be amended again, it goes back to the voters.
in reality, it's too difficult to run a campaign for it. this is a very, very limited, very, very modest good government measure that really does continue to respect the will of the voters. >> thank you very much. up next, we'll hear from an opponent of proposition h. i'm here with eileen hanson, a former member of the san francisco ethics commission where she served for six years. ms. hanson is an opponent to proposition e. >> why should voters vote on proposition sthench >> it takes away the rights of voters. it's a perfect example of the voters able to have their say and vote and proposition e is a measure that once the voters have spoken, amend that decision or repeal that decision. so this measure actually undoes what the voters have said and that's not appropriate, in my
view, or in the view of many, many, many who have come forward to oppose proposition everyone. >> persons who are in favor of proposition everyone argue that it's limited in scope. it doesn't apply to amendments put on the ballot of voters signatures and it's 20% of the measures passed by the voters. how do you address that snitch >> it applies to e issue that was put on the ballot by the mayor or board of supervisors. while it doesn't apply to measures put on the ballot through signature gathering, it applies to very important measures that came to us through our elected officials. again, once the voters have spoken, regardless of how the measure ended up on the ballot, who are we as elected officials, anyone who is elected to undo the voice of the voters. i believe that democracy is about the voters' choice. once the voters have spoken, that is the end of the story.
there are plenty of measures that i personally disagree with that i wish haven't passed and what i do need to do about it? i need to work to get those measures to come back to the ballot. i need to work my elected officials. i do not expect my elected officials to undo what the majority of voters have said. >> certain officials who have endorsed proposition e said they have done it to voter concerns and anger to have vote for so many propositions over and over. the idea behind the proposition is to allow them to clean up certain propositions so we can cut back on the frequency and the number of ballot propositions that voters have to contend with. how do you address that issue? >> certainly, some people are concerned that our ballot in california is too long. i have not heard any good government advocates say that. i actually haven't heard many individuals or haven't seen any organized opposition to our ballot, so i'm concerned that
this measure comes really not from voter advocacy or voter concern, but comes from people who believe that the voters should not be the folks who have the ultimate choice. and to me, that's arrogant. it's patronizing to voters. the message about proposition e sponsored by supervisor weiner as well as f sponsored by supervisor weiner both come from the place saying that elected officials know better than the voters. whether there is too much on our ballot or not, the voters, it seems to me, should not be talked down to, should not be told that they need a measure like this because as supervisor weiner has said, the voters go to the ballot. it's a complicated ballot. they don't know how to understand the ballot. there hasn't been a lot of vetting of the issues. there hasn't been a lot of discussion before things get to the ballot.
so the poor voters get to the voting booth and don't know what to do and it's not fair to them. >> i believe that the voters particularly our voters in san francisco are very educated, are very knowledgeable. they believe in democracy. they want to vote on measures and they don't want to be told that they're not smart enough to figure out what to vote for and what to vote against. so once they have made that choice, we need to respect that choice. >> thank you. >> thank you. we hope you found that informative. for more information about proposition e and the other ballot arguments, please visit the website of the league of women voters at sfvotes.org. remember early voting is available monday through friday at city hall, 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. if you don't vote early, be sure to vote on tuesday, november 8.
♪ >> prop f we change the registration, filing, and fee requirements for campaign consultants. under the city's campaign consultants ordinance, campaign consultants working on local campaigns must register with the city's ethics commission and file periodic reports. prop f would redefine a campaign consultant to mean any individual who earns at least $5,000, instead of the current $1,000, for campaign consulting services within a 12-month time span. require that campaign consultants file reports monthly, instead of quarterly reports. other is the commission to require electronic filing of all required information instead of paper reports. and finally, and the fees payable to the city for they no
longer depend on the number of clients. it would also allow the city to change any of the campaign consultant ordinances requirements without further voter approval. ♪ ♪ impossible. announcer: when you open a book, you can explore new lands... [bird screeches] meet new friends, and discover new adventures. there are amazing possibilities when you open your mind to reading. [roar] you can log onto he library of congress website and let the journey begin. >> i'm melissa griffin, i write
about city politics and a member of the league of women voters. i am here to discuss a proposition g, voters will be faced with on november's valid. -- ballot. proposition g would increase the sales tax rate by 0.5% for a total tax rate of 9%. this would only happen if the state does not increase the sales tax by either 1% before november 30, 2011 or 0.75% before january 1, 2015. the city would pass a tax increase to pay for public safety programs and the other half for programs for children and seniors. the city will start collecting this additional sales tax on april 1, 2012. it would apply for 10 years.
prior to july 1, san francisco had the sales tax rate of 9.5%. the city decreased by 1% when it allowed to expire. san francisco only gets a fraction of this 8.5% sales tax. 7.25% goes to this day, the city receiving about 1%. -- goes to the state, the city receiving about 1%. i'm here with -- thank you for being here. please tell us why you are in favor of proposition g. >> i believe the low income children, seniors, firefighters, and police
officers are worth half a cent. it will restore funding that was cut from these programs. proposition g " restore $30 million so the children will have a better start in life and a better chance of succeeding in high school and college. >> san francisco has one of the highest sales tax rates. are you concerned that the passage will affect our tourism or adversely affect the economics? >> i am not concerned with that at all. tourism accounts for 40% of the revenue. it will still be lower than the sales tax prior to july 1 of this year. >> my understanding is that it will be eliminated if the state
raise the sales tax within the next year. in light of that, palace of the city is able to plan, budget, and expect those revenues if it passes. >> that's a good question. it is about local control. they can decide where their tax dollars go, in light of lack of leadership of politicians in sacramento, but we are not counting on that type of leadership occurring any time soon. it would be helpful that the politicians will listen to the need of san franciscans and act accordingly when they enacted the next sales tax. up next, we will be talking with an opponent. i'm here with howard, former chairman of the san francisco republican party. he is an opponent of proposition
g. thank you for being here. why should voters vote against proposition g? >> in this age of high unemployment and high high unemployment -- of high unemployment, a regressive sales tax will hurt everyone. just to give you an idea, in 2000, the budget was $4.2 billion. in 2010, the 2011 budget is 6.8 $3 billion. that is more than the budget -- $6.83 billion. that is more than the budget of any other states. if you look at the way city hall is, there is over 100
commissions, boards, advisory boards, so on and so forth that overlap. they can combine a lot of them and save a lot of money. >> in light of the fact that this tax has already been proposed, it recently expired. how can you see consequences as a result of increasing the sales tax just .5%. >> it takes money away from the people that needed them most. if you are an upper-middle-class person, it won't harm you. but on lower end, it does harm you. that is why we should not pass if. >> proponents say that we have to do this to offset the tax at the state level. how do you propose that the city