Everyones information there will not be endorsements from the panelists today one important thing i want to clear up because i think it is important for context of this discussion is that the impression you have in organizations in working on this because in washington d. C. People say on the 6 00 news on the sunday talk shows where is the compromise . Where are the people in the middle that can split the baby and come up with legislation . I think that youre going to hear loud and clear from us but is this about compromise or is this about working towards shared values of principled people on both the left and the rig right . All the reasonable people thought this was the way to respond to everything. Left right coalitions and criminal Justice Reform have been successful. Work because curved led so if they led the same fight it wouldnt work. Im not sure i trust everybody but on a right Left Coalition there is no compromise on principles. We are working to do the same thing perhaps for
Not apply to this proposal. The lady was referring to elected people who became automatic members and then didnt show up. This proposal adds to the number of at large delegates that are state has. And the state sets its own rules as to how to the elected at large delegates. This is a metly different set of circumstances. At large delegates do not notoriously refuse to come to the Republican National convention. So it really, what she said does not apply. The principle of awarding states bonus delegates, or at large delegates, is well established in the rules of the Republican Party. The current rules, if you have a majority, or at least half of the house of representatives from your state, you get one bonus delegate. It would seem to me states that elect a large number of republicans to the house of representatives deserve a bonus. This is a fair bonus and it is awarded and in those places where republicans have elected a lot of u. S. Representatives, they should have some recognition
That does not account for others that come into the area that work here, who have a 49 square mile city. So these people do the odds. There are some bad apples everywhere. If we have them have this background check, we can eliminate some of the bad apples, it will be good for both industries, im urging an aye vote here. Supervisors, we are your City Industry and were being thrown under the muni vote. If they start putting taxicabs out of business when theyre really close, they can do whatever they want because they have no 1 regulating, thank you for your time. Thank you. Next speaker please. Good evening, thank you for allowing us to speak, my name is marcel. I have been driving a taxi full time in this city for 28 years. I came here to urge this board to support supervisor peskins resolution urging the cpuc, to adopt fingerprinting, for all drivers, its a noncontroversial safety measure for drivers. It is the most reliable way to confirm a persons, identity. If i could have the overh
Officers, of citizens, complaints, is that correct . And real estate. Somebody said real estate. Okay. No. The original proposal, if i may madame president , had both the office of labor standards and enforcement nocc under the public advocate, the amendment made in committee was actually with respect to both offices not have them been under public advocate, but to have the public advocate appoint the heads so the officers, were not moved under public advocate, actually, the public advocate had the ability to appoint. So that was different. But you didnt pull them out, you just changed it . I dont understand the question. For some reason, i was under the impression for example, office of citizens, complaints, was removed from public advocate in committee, and now placed back in but in a different form. What happened in committee is the way the olsc and the occ were left after i amended. After the committee made the other amendments, is those 2 offices were not under public advocate, th
Complaints, is that correct . And real estate. Somebody said real estate. Okay. No. The original proposal, if i may madame president , had both the office of labor standards and enforcement nocc under the public advocate, the amendment made in committee was actually with respect to both offices not have them been under public advocate, but to have the public advocate appoint the heads so the officers, were not moved under public advocate, actually, the public advocate had the ability to appoint. So that was different. But you didnt pull them out, you just changed it . I dont understand the question. For some reason, i was under the impression for example, office of citizens, complaints, was removed from public advocate in committee, and now placed back in but in a different form. What happened in committee is the way the olsc and the occ were left after i amended. After the committee made the other amendments, is those 2 offices were not under public advocate, they remained where they