Alone will not be enough. We have to complement those efforts with a thirdparty investigation appointed by the board of supervisors, tasked with effecting change. We will continue to provide direction where the focus of this special investigator will be and better defining this scope of work, but this is the next step in terms of actually moving forward. The motion allows us to move forward with the process of procurement, and i ask for everybodys support. President yee okay. Seeing no other name on the roster, can we take this same house, same call . Without objection, motion passes. [gavel]. President yee next item. Clerk item 16 is an ordinance to amend the health code to require the medical examiner to report the information to the mayor and board of supervisors once every four months of deaths arising from Drug Overdoses. President yee supervisor haney . Supervisor haney thank you, president yee. I want to thank the cosponsors of this, supervisors walton, fewer, ronen, and mar. As weve spoken about a number of times, the drug epidemic is the most deadly crisis facing our city. Its critical we have this data as soon as it is available for us to respond quickly to prevent additional people dieing from overdose. This is a responsibility that we have to be vigilant and proactive, and to receive data is not it is available. Right now, there is no requirement for us to regularly report and make public Drug Overdose deaths, and as i said, this is something that has sky rocketed the last few years, and in order to save lives, having that Data Available is critical. So i hope that we will support this, and i want to thank the medical examiners office, the department of Public Health, for their partnership in making this available and in how quickly we can get this data and in using this data proactively to save lives. President yee okay. Can we take this same house, same call . Without objection, this item is passed on First Reading unanimously. [gavel]. President yee madam clerk, lets call item 17. This is to grant applications for discharge for accountability filed by the Tax Collector for the delinquency of property taxes on any property. President yee colleagues, can we take this same house, same call . Without objection, the item is passed on First Reading. [gavel]. President yee madam clerk, can you call item 18. [agenda item read]. President yee supervisor peskin . Supervisor peskin thank you, president yee, colleagues, and thank you to the members of the Rule Committee for forwarding this, and chair ronen for cosponsoring this. Its an interesting story in and of itself, but the board of supervisors has long had the power to compel testimony pursuant to this bodys Unlimited Power of inquiry in the form of subpoenas. It is not something that has been used lightly, it has not been used often, but was last used a few years ago in and around the Millennium Tower sinking and tilting matter where a number of parties ranging from architects to engineers to geotechnical engineers that did not want to voluntarily come to these chambers to talk about the infirmities of that structure, which we actually already voted on today relative to a settlement where in im not bringing up a past item, madam City Attorney, but where we all agreed to different them portions give them portions of our sidewalks for no money. That resulted in the issuance of a number of subpoenas. Those subpoenas, as we all know, took quite a long time to issue, and i at that time proposed a change to the board rules to expedite that process and to delegate that authority to the government audit and Oversight Committee. It would have been a change in the board rules, a change in the board rules requires a super majority of eight out of 11 votes. I came one vote shy of that. I think a few of us are still left from those days. I think the one vote is a cosponsor of this, supervisor ronen, who is sitting to my right, but to my left in political leanings. Given the revelations that we are all very clear about, because the mayor just addressed them relative to additional alleged corruption that has resulted in the suspension of another Department Head, which will take on its own life the reason i am here before you is the instrument that is before us is almost item cal to what this board voted on a couple of years ago save for the fact that there is the additional provision with regard to issuing an oath under penalty of perjury to Department Heads. The municipal executives association, not a union insofar as they are not members of the aflcio, but a legitimate bargaining unit, they have asked to meet and confer with d. H. R. I was at the first of those meets. They will be at an additional meeting on march 24. We anticipated this. We duplicated the file in committee pending any potential meet and confer. So i am rising to remove the only things that are different between this board rule change and the board rule change that i voted for that not to all yall out, but that supervisor fewer voted for, that president yee voted for, that supervisor safai voted for, and that supervisor ronen voted against. I believe that everybody else, including supervisor stefani, was not on the board at the time that it won with seven votes but lost because at that time it did not have eight votes. So i would like to make a motion to remove at section 3. 3. 2 in paragraph one from lines 5 through 7, the clause that the provision that the clerk of the board could administer an oath to a Department Head. Id like to remove the corresponding provision in section 6. 7. 1 that started at line 24 on the second page and goes to line 1 on the third page. And then, after meet and confer happens, i would like to resurrect the duplicate file in committee and bring those two provisions back. And with that, that is my motion. President yee supervisor ronen . Supervisor ronen can i ask the deputy City Attorney a question about supervisor peskins motion . So i understand that we have an obligation to meet and confer with unions or bargaining unions when its an ordinance that perhaps would change their work conditions. But what were doing here with this motion is changing our own internal board of supervisors rules, and its not clear to me that anyone but the board of supervisors should have the right to weighin on those rules. Can you explain why, when we were deciding how were going to conduct ourselves as a body of elected officials, why anyone else should have a right to weighin on that . Deputy City Attorney ann pearson. Under state law when proposed legislation will have an effect on wages, hours, and conditions of employment, the city has to provide an opportunity for meet and confer. And whether or not a legislation triggers that you know, a change that would give that opportunity for meet and confer is something thats within the discretion of d. H. R. In this case, i know that m. E. A. Has concluded, in fact, in their opinion, this has an effect on their members, the effect on their working conditions. And based on that, d. H. R. Has granted the opportunity to meet and confer which is still in progress. And until that is completed, our advice that the board may not take action on this legislation until that process is done. Supervisor ronen this board, if we impact another departments working conditions in any way, we cannot change our board rules without conferring with the union. Is that what youre saying, and thats state law . Its a matter of state allow, and its a part of our m. O. U. s. When we enter into m. O. U. S with the union, its a matter that we would not change the rules without a meet and confer. Supervisor ronen i really take issue with this. It doesnt make sense to me that any other department should weighin on this board decides to conduct its business. We are a governing body. We are an elected body that sets rules for ourselves, and while i appreciate and usually respect the rights of our governments and unions to departments and unions to weighin on any sort of legislation that might impact them, im not sure that that is prepa appropriate for the rules themselves. Im wondering if there were other people in the office that were consulted or if this was your call, and your call alone . I consulted many attorneys in the office on this . Supervisor ronen and this was the unanimous decision . This was the call of the office. Supervisor ronen and im not sure if im allowed to ask the clerk a question . Is that proper . President yee why dont you ask the question and well determine if its proper. Supervisor ronen okay. Great. So if im wondering if there has ever been a situation in your tenure because youve been the clerk of the board for quite a long time, if the board has proposed to change their rules and theyve had to meet and confer before doing so. President yee madam clerk, if youd like to answer. Clerk supervisor, in my 21 years in the department, generally, if theyre changing rules and they impact other departments, just out of courtesy, i work with them. I will leave the legal interpretation to the City Attorneys office and d. C. A. Pearson, but this is the first time that ive seen the interaction with the m. E. A. Association or any union of a board rule. Supervisor peskin mr. President , if i can rise to a point of information. President yee supervisor peskin . Supervisor peskin i do raise this as a matter of a shared history although she has been here continuously, and i have not. I cannot think of another rule thats been subject to meet and confer. Having said that, i totally respect, and i think we all should, relative to a governments relationship with organized labor. But i do want to standup im not picking on the deputy City Attorney. This is not a union, this is a bargaining unit that consists of some 1,000 people who are our Department Heads, who are our Deputy Department heads, and i dont want to politicize this matter, but the fact that they do not want to have their members readily come and tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth pursuant to the penalty of perjury is mildly annoying, and thats my reservation. President yee supervisor ronen . Supervisor ronen the reason why i ask this is because ive been here ten years, and i think we have a right to investigate this law. I think the right to subpoena someone and take their oath under penalty of perjury, a penalty that could lead to criminal consequences, is serious. And i thought it was better that a board, under a majority of six people, make that decision and not under g. A. L. I have reservations, and i continue to hold them. But ill tell you whats changed my mind. Its that every day, a new Department Head by the f. B. I. Or our City Attorney or some other entity has been charged with engaging in corruption. Today, we learned that the head of d. B. I. Met with a restricted source for dinners, that he estimated cost 30 that he never reported. But its relatively potentially low level, although the fact that there were private communication between the d. B. I. Director and one individual where no other member of the public had that direct line to him is more serious. Its that we have a culture of corruption in this city. For the first time, and after three times, the f. B. I. Had to come in to catch someone on wiretap saying that in order to do business in San Francisco, you have to pay to play, that is so tremendously serious, and its tremendously serious because people are going to lose faith in what we do in government, government that i believe is the best party to meet peoples basic needs when they arent able to meet those needs themselves, is extremely serious in this condition. We would like to engage in the City Attorneys office, with the f. B. I. , to the extent that theyre engaged, to change this rampant culture of corruption in the city and county of San Francisco. When were finally about to do that, for the first time ever, we have to meet and confer with managers who are being dismissed left and right in order to pass a law changing our own rules. Its very curious to me that we have to go through this extra step that ive never seen on the board of supervisors. Im an attorney myself, and i find it extremely curious that we cant have this motion. Weve had two meetings at the Rule Committee before we even heard for the first time that this was even an issue in the first place. So i find the process curious, and im frustrated by it, but i guess it is what it is. I will be voting in favor of this today, but i will make sure that we bring before us a followup version of this ordinance including Department Heads as soon as possible so that we can be part of the process of rooting out this rampant corruption in this city once and for all. President yee supervisor safai . Supervisor safai i want to thank supervisor peskin for bringing this motion forward. As supervisor peskin noted for the record, i did support this initially when i was first introduced. I have a little bit of reservations only because i know that theres two objectives ive heard the supervisor state. One is to save time, and one is to move the process forward. One i could not have contemplated at the time when we were first doing this is what objective are we trying to solve for . And this is just an honest question. I think at the end of the day when we have a City Attorney, when we have outside attorneys, when we have u. S. Attorneys, when we have different legal processes going forward, we would not have the ability or would want to subpoena anyone involved in an ongoing investigation, so thats one thing. But the other thing is, right now, we have the ability i think youve said that on the record, so the second piece of what im trying to understand is how much time are we actually saving by transferring all of the boards authority, and i mean that by saying a majority of the board currently now can approve a subpoena, and were qi that go to the government audits and oversight. If we stayed with the current process, and we wanted to do exactly what you wanted to do, we would still go through the government audits and oversight, and five days later, it would come to the board of supervisors for a final approval. So this isnt by no means this is honestly to ask you these questions and understand what were trying to solve for ultimately. So if you could explain this, that would be helpful. And then, the second one, which i initially said, was in terms of impeding or initiating any ongoing investigation. President yee supervisor peskin, would you like to answer that . Supervisor peski supervisor peskin president yee, through you to supervisor safai, thank you for your comments. Let me address this in a number of ways on all of the issues that supervisor safai has asked and asked in good faith. First around the objective. The objective is satisfying our Unlimited Power of inquirely not because were interested in salacious details, but the branch of our government, in order to understand what legislative fixes we need to take, need to understand whatever actions we need to take, whether its the millennium and the settlement that we need to take, or whether its City Government, whether its going to inform us to changes to the administrative code, changes to the charter that may be proposed, the use of that Unlimited Power of inquiry so that we can actually do our fu fu fundamental job of legislating is important. [please stand by]. Supervisor peskin we compelled them pursuant to the bodys power of subpoena. That gets me to the next question, which is why would this body which has this power and the power to delegate it want to delegate it to a committee . And i would say for the same reason that the chair of the house intelligence committee, mr. Schiff, was delegated the powers in the investigation that led to impeachment to subpoena individuals to that body, and ultimately, we vote for a board president. That board president actually assigns committee members, can remove them at his or her pleasure. And if, god forbid, a committee was out of control and was misusing that, which is precisely what supervisor ronens concerns were, that were not supervisor safais concerns a number of years ago, then, the board president who a majority of us elect, could yank members, reappoint members of a committee. The answer is, we want to get that information, whether its about corruption or sinking and tilting buildings in as close to realtime as a government can get. So understand a supervisor, they would have to come in here and introduce something on a tuesday. If that supervisor wanted to put something on without reference to the city calendar, they could do that. For instance, if there was pressure from the m. E. A. , the chief executive officer, and then, it depends on how fast it gets a committee hearing, how fast it comes to the board. So the answer is depending on how the system is played or gamed, it could be as much as five or six weeks as compared to and the City Attorney is quite insistent that notice is very important as compared to one week. I am happy to answer any and all additional questions through the president. President yee supervisor safai . Supervisor safai yeah. So supervisor peskin, you and i agree 100 on the motive. Were absolutely in agreement on that. This body always has Unlimited Powers of inquiry. We want to strengthen that. What i would go back to is some of the things that ive learned from you in your time on this board, and the thing that you always talk about consistently is checks and balances. The check that this authority plays on, the executive. And it feels as though and i understand, with all due respect for the objective about expediting the process, im just not sure about the proposal. The example that you gave in the house judiciary, it was the power of the speaker of the house to invest someone in that particular position in it. I would feel more co