around because it helps the economy, city revenue, it helps us stay employed. we are not opposed to job creation. i think there are ways it could be done that are more inclusive. honestly, do not stack the deck against workers rights. right or wrong, that is how it is perceived pretty unanimously. to the extent that the board of supervisors -- i would request that you reject this legislation and look for more collaborative approaches. thank you. >> recently a private citizen area i want to make about three different points. my academic background is in the drafting of government documents carried my recent experience as a little bit to do with bureaucracy. i wanted to agree with mr. elliott regarding the assertion that the more simple amendments to mcgovern -- to a governing document, the better amendment is. the more simple a government document is, the more effective it is. that is three reason alone to reject this. who are you going to refer the city budget to? we talked about jobs and job creation. are you going to send that to small business? are you going to send it to planning? are you going to add 60 more days to the budget process? how does the city budget affect the small business community? that is number two. number three is the 99% part. let me just say that you should reject this committee on jobs bill. thank you. supervisor kim: thank you and welcome back to city hall. i want to clarify that the provisions to not apply to budget legislation. that was a good point. >> i am with the construction trades council. we are at least as concerned about jobs as anyone and we oppose this legislation. i believe you know that the small business community has the same rights as the rest of us right now. they can approach you as citizens and can talk to you about it and testified here as we are testifying here. they have the same rights as the rest of us. supervisor campos began to imply early in his questioning that there is a genuine infringement on the separation of powers and city government in this measure. you can carry out -- and jobs are foremost concern right now. police activities work our foremost concern. we asked the police commission to crack alternative legislation for the city as well. it has become ridiculous to appointed bodies to take the place of legislatures in any regard. beyond that, there is one point i have to make. as you might guess, i testified frequently before the planning commission. i cannot tell you how many times i've been reminded that i cannot bring up workers' rights and issues in front of the planning commission. you are asking that they weigh in on jobs. [applause] >> thank you for the opportunity to speak before you today. i am here on behalf of professional and technical engineers, local 21. we want to echo the concerns about this proposal the other half and ask that you reject it. we think that, among the 11 supervisors, on virtually any topic, there will be some supervisors will easily be willing to call additional hearings on any topic as needed. thank you. supervisor kim: thank you. >> i am with the united public workers for action. first of all, i want to address why the mayor, one of his major things is putting in an issue that would actually allows small businesses and big businesses to hurt working people in san francisco. i think that is basically an assault on working people in san francisco. i have to ask, and it should be asked, if the mayor is so concerned about small businesses, why is he not putting an initiative for to have rent control for small businesses so they are not pushed out by the banks and corporations in san francisco? that is a question we have to ask. they're being driven out of business by big corporations and the 1%. that should be addressed by people of san francisco as well. what we have to look at is, this is a continuing attack similar to proposition c, which places the blame on working people, the public workers for the crisis. they are the problem of this economic crisis. the fact is there are 16 billionaires' in san francisco and 88 billionaires' in california. there is lots of money to take care of public workers and to defend small businesses. this government is being directed towards representing the interests of the corporations and banks to benefit from attacking working people and public workers. this should be rejected. why do we not have a labor commission in san francisco? we have a women's commission, a human rights commission, why is there no labor commission? that is a step that we need to address for the city of san francisco and for working people. supervisor kim: thank you. >> good afternoon. i have been a grass-roots organizer since i moved here 18 years ago. a lot of the speakers have said a lot of important things about the kind of bureaucratic and divisive process this creates. i want to expand on this to get to the kind of rhetoric it creates in san francisco. in my 18 years, i have not seen it come to the floor like this. this job-killer rhetoric. we have all seen, based on what is happening in washington d.c. around things like the oil pipeline and other critical things that need to be opposed -- proposed for environmental or social justice and reasons, that the radical right wing of this country has used this job-killer rhetoric shtick to beat the out of -- to beat the hell out of progressive movements in this country. as soon as i saw this legislation and what was called and what it was describing, i thought, wow. since when the san francisco get into this kind of divisive, vicious, right wing rhetoric about job-killing. i am sure the sponsors would claim it is more benign than that. i think it sets us down a path to start having that kind of discussion in san francisco around really key community and worker values. i am sure you have seen me get up before and argue vociferously to make sure that we get local hiring and other things to make sure that we are hiring more workers. this will not do this. this will get radical right- winger in the city a schtick with which to go into the media and beat on good things. we should stop right here. supervisor kim: is there any other public comment at this time? >> yes. i know there are no more martin luther king's, but i was here recently for the lgbt oversight about people needing services. last week, i was here. this is something about jobs coming to the central market. people here have been cut for jobs creation. this man, they are telling us to come out and create jobs on market street. it says, "you are invited to a public hearing of the city. the know they are getting tax on central market? these give back to the community. on january 10, our voices need to be heard. community benefits truly reflect our priorities and the tenderloin residents. it seems like this is bad because some people did not come in to create jobs, but there'll be a 24-hour business. on here, it is talking about that they are creating less jobs. we are not putting it all together. i know i am not a pink-bearded person, but if you add things up, it is time that we have the thought that no job is a job unless someone needs it. there are a lot of needs in the world. those are solutions to create jobs. i hope that we can bring this together. it seemed like -- it seems like we have a lot of communities coming together. san francisco is a special place. we have the baby boomers, a lot of lgbt baby boomers who are looking for houses who cannot stay in a hotel. let's work together. supervisor kim: is there any other public -- public comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is now closed. colleagues, we do have some amendments. this will be continued to rules committee for thursday, february 2. any other comments? supervisor campos. supervisor campos: i want to thank the mayor's office for the presentation as well as the small business commission. and for all the members of the public, including small business owners and workers, labor partners who came to this hearing. let me say this -- i believe that there is agreement here that job creation is important and that is a priority. i do not think there is a difference of opinion on that. i think that the question that i have as a member of this body is, what is the best way that we, as a city, can collectively work on that issue? i will respectfully submit that i do not believe that this kind of a measure is the best approach to do that. i do think that the mayor's office is coming from a good place. i office is trying to approach this in a way that leads to as many jobs being created. as we have heard here, and the mayor's office itself acknowledges, the number of jobs should not be the only focus. it is the quality of the jobs that are created. and the as important as the small business community is in making public policy in san francisco, there are many other stakeholders have to be at the table. certainly workers, but beyond that, it is not just jobs. there are number of issues connected to jobs that have to be taken into account. health care is an important issue. it is directly connected to a job. does that mean matter should go before the health commission? that is a consideration. if you are looking at working conditions, we passed unanimously wage theft legislation and yet, that remains a very important and serious problem in san francisco. i do not know that we have everything in place that we need to to fully address that issue. what i would suggest is that there is an interest in working in a collaborative way in this issue. there is a discussion that can be had between the mayor and the board about how we do that. i do not believe that that is a discussion that requires a charter amendment. i think there are things that are embedded in the way that we do business here in san francisco here at the board of supervisors and in the mayor's office that allow us to do that. when legislation comes in, it is my understanding that legislation that is proposed is referred to a number of commissions, including the small business commission already. any supervisor and the mayor himself can direct that any department be involved any time a legislative proposal happens. that mechanism is there to the extent that we need to strengthen that mechanism. we can have that discussion. i do not believe this is a constructive or productive approach even though the intent is good. i think there's a better way for us to get to where we want to get to. i do think that in san francisco, we do things a little differently. i do not think that we talk about job creation here the same way that others talk about job creation. i do not believe the intent here is to engage in some of the rhetoric that is used in other parts of the country. that is now with the mayor is doing. i think how we go about doing that is important. i think that to do that, we need to bring everyone together. i saw commissioner o'brien who was here and he is very genuine and i think he makes the point that many in this small business community want to work with the labor community. let's bring people to the table. and figure out a way that we can in a constructive way and collectively make that happen. i do not believe that a charter amendment of this type is the way to go. i hope that between now and the time this matter comes back to the rules committee that we can have that discussion. i think we can make that happen in a way that addresses everyone's concerns. grex thank yosupervisor kim: th. i want to appreciate the mayor's office for looking -- listening to the feedback they got from supervisors on the initial draft of this amendment that may initially be brought to voters. i do know that mayor lee's number one priority is jobs and he has made this clear in this campaign and in his work as mayor for the past year and month and i want to appreciate that. i want to state some a grievance -- agreements. when we make an amendment to the charter you do it to address the problem or a gap or deficiency and i think our office compiles the economic impact reports from the last two years and there were 19 economic impact reports. out of 19, two were stated to potentially cause job loss. that was the amendments to the health care security ordinance which we were discussing this past year and establishing the alcohol mitigation fee. two out of 19 and i think both of those also have other objectives and goals. that came out in the public comment today. we talked about creating jobs we have to ask what kind of jobs are we creating in san francisco. i am cognizant of the fact that loring the minimum wage to $1 an hour would be a job creator. we would create plenty of jobs if we decide to lower minimum wage but at what cost and what cost to the residents in san francisco? i support the intent. i do want to see that if we are making an amendment to the charter that we're doing it in a way that is addressing an issue or gap that is happening here. while i think there are good intentions here, i am not quite sure that there is an actual problem that we're trying to address in the legislative process. all legislation does go through a 30-day hold and typically takes another 30 days once it goes through committee and to the full board so there is a good 60 days at least for the public to comment on ordinances and legislation. impacting economic development. typically we engage much longer. those are some of my initial thoughts. i do appreciate the mayor's office will work with us in the next week to gather more feedback. i do think it is important that we have a focus on job development. what would be better is to look at the legislation that is coming out of the board of supervisors to see how many are creating jobs versus creating more jobs that does not address the problem. i would say that during this time when we are passing legislation, i want to give kudos to the mayor's office and the board. we did create 17,300 jobs in the past year. january 2011, the unemployment rate was 9.5% and today we sit at 7.6% and it is important to note there has been progress made and i want to note on that. we do have a motion. >> i want to thank everyone for coming out. members of the public. i agree with the comments here. there's a lot to think about. we're going to accept these amendments and continue for a week and i think i look forward to having more comments and substantive dialogue when we do that. i make a motion to accept these amendments first. supervisor campos: we have a second and we can do that without opposition. >> i have a question. i you accepting the additional amendment to change planning department to planning commission? supervisor kim: yes. that was not in the draft that was given to us. mr. elliott would like us to make this changes. under item b. if we change to planning commission. i am not sure if planning department is referred again in this charter amendment, is it? the motion would be to accept all those amendments. we have a second or we can do that without opposition? >> do we need a motion to continue or is this automatic? >> you are required to continue but you should make a motion. >>supervisor kim: will be hearig this on thursday, february second. i do look forward to continuing to work with the mayor's office on this. thank you. thank you to the members of the public that came out. can you please call item 4 and 5? >> item 4, charter amendments that a man to charter -- the charter to replace boating with a runoff election. clarifying implementation of ranked choice votin. >> supervisor kim: i thought that although they have different outcomes intended in each charter member proposal i thought it would be important to hear those together and to get public comment on both together. i imagine they would be similar. we do have item number four. the author of that legislation is here, supervisor farrell. if you would like to make a presentation and colony members to speak on this item. supervisor farrell: thank you. i think we should open up to public comment. supervisor kim: would you like to do a quick introduction of the charter member for the public? >> supervisor farrell: this is to repeal ranked choice voting and returned to a runoff system. -- return san francisco to run off system. i have several memos i will circulate. this item will be continued as soon as these are accepted for a week or so. i would love to hear public comment. just to set the town, i want to thank everyone on both sides of the aisle who have come forward that i have spoken with, debated with, and a lot of advocates on both sides of since we introduced this amendment last november. the dialogue has been great. it has brought out a lot of great ideas and thoughts about our voting process in san francisco. thank you to all those who participated that are here today. that are coming to speak in public comment as well. supervisor kim: why do we -- don't we hear from the author of no. 5, another charter amendment. we have supervisor campos here. i am not sure if he wants to call anyone to prison on this item. supervisor campos: thank you. i want to thank supervisor farrell and supervisor elsbernd who have proposed the prior or the item four on the agenda which takes a different approach to the issue of right choice voting than the proposed charter amendment that i have introduced along with supervisor avalos. it is important that we as san franciscans have a discussion about the voting system we are using. i think the more we discuss that, the better we are. and i welcome the opportunity to have this form to hear different perspectives on this issue. -- poor, -- forum to hear different perspectives on this issue. as i have indicated, as someone who is proposing a charter amendment that reaffirms our commitment to keep right choice voting -- ranked choice voting, those of us who support it do believe the system is working very well and this is a system that has done a good job for the city and county of san francisco in terms of voting -- increasing participation and to the extent that there are issues with respect to the system that the better approach is not eliminated but to make a good system even better. i know that a number of points will be made during public comment on that point. i look forward to adding to that discussion. i know there are differences of opinion here. i want to thank everyone who has come out to speak here today. supervisor kim: thank you. to reiterate the two items before us and the charter amendments go to the voters of san francisco regarding ranked- choice voting. one would eliminate ranked- choice voting as we have it and go back to the previous form. unless a candidate gets 50% plus one. the second charter amendment we are considering is strengthening rcv elections by increasing the number of candidates that a voter could vote for, as many as the machine would allow. also to increase our reach in the 10 neighborhoods with the lowest turnout -- outreach in the 10 neighborhoods with the lowest turnout. we will open up for public comment. i have a number of cards in front of me. i will ask folks who asked to speak. please speak once. barbara, jeff enty, carlo de la cruz, carolyn shu, and others. supervisor campos: if i could make the point about one of the items to our charter amendment. with respect to maximizing the choices i have provided -- our charter amendment in a sense is not introducing anything new. it is a reaffirmation of something that is embedded in the original proposal. i want to make sure that that is something that is a part of the policy we have in place. thank you. supervisor kim: thank you for the clarification, a supervisor. >> good afternoon. i appreciate the fact that i am here and able to address some of these issues are around ranked- choice voting. many of us here who are here to speak about it today are people who have worked on it from the beginning. that we actually moved to bring ranked-choice voting to san francisco 10 years ago, maybe more. we certainly saw that it is very important for our society to continue with a boating and to work on -- of votivoting. it is my -- i am suggesting that ranked-choice voting is superior to the runoff in that as has been stated earlier, we have the chance to vote at one time rather than wasting time especially at the end of the year on two different voting times. it is a saving of money that we really need to do. we have seen in san francisco we have had ranked-choice voting for the board of supervisors since 2004 and we have seen amazing results from it. more diversity, a saving of money, etc.. i would like to say that it is important for us to educate. i agree with the second charter amendment. it is something we have always been working on. that we bring out the good things from this discussion, it is that we get out a better education to our citizenry. and that i can see it is important. thank you. supervisor kim: thank you. >> good afternoon, supervisors, committee members. i am strongly against their current system of -- the current system of ranked-choice voting. i believe democracy works better when people go to the polls to say who they want to have as their leaders and not who they are willing to settle for. i'm not that crazy about the results i have seen, either. i look at this past election where we had all the controversy with mayor lee. we had so many exciting asian- american candidates. we had bevan dufty, a gay leader of the community. we had a perfect storm for good turnout. i do not remember these numbers but the turnout was something like

Related Keywords

United States , California , Washington , District Of Columbia , San Francisco , American , Carolyn Shu , Martin Luther King ,