tv [untitled] July 16, 2010 6:30am-7:00am PST
one, public comment is closed. supervisor mirkarimi? supervisor mirkarimi: thank you, chair. i just want to say that i again extend my compliments to you and others on the board, as was already said the network of advocates and staff in cities that have helped us to get to this point, over the next week i look forward to the continuing discussion about the financial component of this, modified or set aside. is something worthy of having continued deliberations on. it is an important step, no
matter the perspective there is us trying to figure out the most effective way without implicating the general fund in the dedicated source of revenue for the muni and the mta. supervisor campos: thank you, a supervisor. i believe that we are still in the process of attempting to treat this charter amendment, and i would urge that those who provided public comment, if there are specific changes or language that they have, please provide that to us. there is still an opportunity. we have a short deadline we are dealing with but there is still an opportunity to modify this amendment. there is specific language that people have suggested.
we should continue to have a discussion on that, continuing to engage the authors and the public on that issue. colleagues, because we do not have the technical amendments from the city attorney's office yet, can we come back to this item? madam clerk, if you could please call item no. 3. >> item #3, charter amendment (first draft) to amend the charter of the city and county of san francisco by amending article xvii to change the definition of "voters." supervisor campos: this item was introduced by supervisor mirkarimi. supervisor mirkarimi: without
specifying voter budget -- registration procedures, registered in election day registration, not applying to statewide legislation. the director supports the idea and is confident of the department being fully capable of implementing election day registration. this very idea was attempted in 2002, known as proposition 52. it was a california state proposition that did not succeed but in san francisco nearly 60% of the voters voted for it. the champion on the state level
of getting a bill passed, voting 22 to 12. we believe that with the two funds' strategy, what is being done here in this ugly -- municipal leagy, providing the sentiment from 2002. ultimately speaking california needs to do everything it possibly can to upgrade its techniques. currently california ranks 41st in the nation, which is appalling. especially when you see how sophisticated the electorate is. time after time we have seen a deficiency in those that participate in the ultimate process. i believe that in 2008,
election day voter registration in the united states, it was certainly well participated president's election nationwide. the five highest state turnouts happened to be those with next day election turnouts. that is an asset that would well serve the people of san francisco. we may be adding amendments, but like the last item we are potentially waiting for updates. as it stands, i would be more than happy to entertain any questions. supervisor campos: thank you, supervisor mirkarimi. colleagues, any questions or comments? let's open it up the public comment. is there any member of the public it would like to speak on item number three?
>> i had no idea that this would be introduced. someone has to get up here to say it is a great idea. go for it. supervisor campos: there you go. any other members of the public? seeing no one, public comment disclosed. supervisor mar: i wanted to thank the supervisor for bringing this forward. like at hunters point and the tenderloin mission, some of those areas have the lowest turnout rates. in addition to statewide changes it would help to ensure more equity and true voting rights. thank you so much to the supervisor and those of the state level who are advocating for same day voter registration. thank-you.
supervisor campos: i wholeheartedly agree. thank you for bringing this item forward. if we could move it forward to the board with a positive recommendation? i would take that without objection. thank you, supervisor. colleagues? supervisor mirkarimi: thank you. supervisor campos: please call item no. 4. >> item #4, charter amendment (third draft) to amend the charter of the cityfrancisco by amending section 4.113 to split the power to make appointments to the recreation and park commission between the mayor and the board of supervisors, and amending section 15.105 to provide that the appropriate appointing authority may initiate removal of recreation and park commissioners. supervisor campos: this item has also been introduced by supervisor mirkarimi, with the support of many of us. you in your office have been busy. the floor is yours. supervisor mirkarimi: it is a
flood. [laughter] again, i think we are quite determined to see some changes. i could easily make this argument for all approaches city-wide, to each and every one of us, that we deal with benefits in the diversity and the diversification of this process. the last hearing that we participated in was mostly based on amendments on the floor that strengthens this charter instrument. one is that we allowed for three members of the park commission. and that one member would be jointly picked.
considering that these are the only commissions whose decisions are not able to be appealed, originally there was a provision for the process. i did not want to confuse the intent of us keeping focused on the need for strengthening and diversifying the position, with thoughts of greater access to the general public. but it did not go unnoticed that having that level of access on the commission with some contribution by the board of supervisors, i think it helped us to address those other areas that made the commission feel like a parallel government. many of these decisions are not necessarily decisions that would come before us, and we would not
necessarily want to. the good work of san franciscans are selected and able to serve on the commission, trusting in that level of expertise and participation. from time to time we have noticed a need to upgrade, support, and enhance that level of examination in the parks department that affect us all. whether it be budget, monumentally events where we like to have some level of connection that could be well instituted by as having a diversified commission process. a few weeks ago i had a very pleasant conversation with the president of the commission, approaching him on sidebar,
tlling him i would love to talk with him over the next week to try and foster that meeting of the minds for this piece of law. i would like to thank a number of citizen groups and organizations who have come out in enthusiastic support, with a golden gateway tenet association and the like a boat house coalition, as well as the golden gate autoparts society. really, to pick up on the sentiment produced in 1998 that i shared with folks the last time i was before you on this matter, co-authored with the supervisor to show with -- to show that the commission needs
to be expanded to 11 members, which would be representative of the difference neighborhoods in san francisco. since that has never happened, the sentiment was there, losing the essence that was smartly laid out 12 years ago. that is exactly what this charter amendment does. this charter amendment is a way to intensify the intentions with the mayor? that is bogus. the mayor is poised to be the next lieutenant governor. this has helped to institutionalize the ability of citizens to get involved with decision making.
we know that this particular commission has a very high bar for the board of supervisors to accept or reject. easily it could be supplanted by more of a collaborative and cooperative where we have seen equity in the selection of those commissioners. i think that the artificial tension being escalated too soon to the meaning of the charter as a power grab is really silly. ((y and is really silly. at the heart of this, no matter who is in office, what stance should be a commission process best served by and led by the
citizenry. with that in hand, i will look for your support. supervisor campos: thank you. colleagues, any other comments or questions? i see we have the president of the commission. do you want to add anything to what has been said? thank you. why don't we open up to public comment. if there is a member of the public that would like to speak on this item, please come forward. >> good morning, supervisors. thank you for this charter amendments. by opening of the recreation and parks commission to a wider variety of appointments, this will lead to a more widespread support for the department and its programs. this amendment moves us to more transparency in government and a
more open and successful and balanced rec and parks commission. >> thank you. next speaker please. >> my name is owen o'donnell and i think this is a terrible idea. if this passes and wind in november and we get a progressive mayor, i will predict in 2012 there will be an item on the ballot to reverse this. this does not work. we have a system of a strong mayor. he should be responsible for the departments that he is responsible to. please, do not pass this. >supervisor campos: thank you.
next speaker police. >> greg miller. with the theory of a strong mayor, it would hold water if the mayor was charged with running our parks. i cannot think of any other mayoral election that was determined on whom best run of the parts. accountability does thnot mean o much here. i think parks are important. i think a lot of people in this room to as well, but there are other important matters. what we need is to have this commission, the primary policy- setting entity for our parks systems, to be open to the public, to public discussion,
and have a thorough process of back and forth. we have major constraint on our budgets, and terrible decisions need to be made citywide. within the parks department, this is a time when many the best ideas possible, finding as many resources as we can, to come up with ideas that the public will support. >supervisor campos: thank you. next speaker. >> i just want to thank you for taking the time to adjust the language here and allow for it to continue. also, i appreciate the efforts that are being made to try to distinguish this from the budgetary process. i think that is an ongoing struggle, but i appreciate your
support in trying to keep these charter amendments separated in determining policy versus it becoming a budgetary process. thank you for the effort. supervisor campos: thank you. any other member of the public that would like to speak? seeing none, public comment is closed. again, a lot of discussion has been had about this item. different perspectives have been presented. we have heard from many people in the public about this item, which tells you tell level of interest. i know there are differences of opinion, but i know this is something that will bring more ballots, transparency, and accountability that goes beyond what we have now. i am proud to be supportive of this item. colleagues, if we could take
this item forward with a positive recommendation, without objection? thank you. supervisor mirkarimi: thank you, colleagues. we appreciate your support and contribution. supervisor campos: if you could please call the closed session items next. >> i added regarding existing litigation. supervisor, would you like to adopt a motion to convene in a closed session with the city attorney? supervisor campos: items at fivethrough 8 required date closed session. before we do, is there any member of the public that would like to comment on any of the items on the agenda for closed session, or simply public comment for going into closed session? seeing none, public comment is closed. if we could have a motion --
disclose the other matters and our discussion. supervisor campos: without objection. madam clerk, if we could go back to item 1. charter amendment to amend the charter of the city and county of san francisco. >supervisor campos: 5 previously made a motion to include three types of amendments to this charter amendment. the first set of amendments deals with the office of inspector general, specifically outlining the duties of the inspector general, and outlines the funding mechanism, and ensures funding is provided by
the mta to the attorney general -- inspector general. the second set of amendments improvises clarity about the fact that the mta board of directors must respond to findings from the board in the event that the board of supervisors projects the mta budget. the third set of amendments involves some technical renditions. there is a final set of amendments that relates to the issue of pay set aside, changes as outlined by president david chu. copies are available to members of the public who would like to see this. this is a document from the city attorney's office that, plus amendments to the charter amendment that i just outlined. this matter would presumably come back to the committee for
our next meeting, which is the last chance we have before it goes back to the full board. can we take that notion without objection? i would also make a motion to continue this item to the call of the chair so that we can bring it back to the next meeting. also without objection. thank you for your good work. thank you to all the offices. supervisor mirkarimi, supervisor mar, president chu, city clerk, deputy city attorney f reedlander. do we have any other business before the committee? >> no, we do not. supervisor campos: thank you. meeting is adjourned.