Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    November 22, 2010 5:30am-6:00am PST

5:30 am
successor mayor. these provide great latitude in how to do this. so, my recommendation is that the sports sets up a process, received a draft, and then make modification to this and then call this a special rule to order which would be subject to the board's rules threshold. >> according to our legal with vice from the office of the county council and the county of santa clara, the current board rules can be used to effectuate disappointment. the we had four meetings in the
5:31 am
last session. if the motion passes, then we essentially have wrangling over details and a supermajority requirement for the adoption of new rules. 8 members of the board need to vote to adopt. even if we had agreed, the best case scenario is that we have a process that can begin on december 2nd. under this route, that would be the quickest for us to actually get to deliberations under a process that we agreed to and adopted. i would be willing to come to a special board meetings but
5:32 am
perhaps this is premature. if the existing rules are adequate, what we need is legal advised about how to utilize existing rules while avoiding the pitfalls of the california conflicts law. we should move forward to allow maximum flexibility and to get along this road sooner rather than later. the timeline is complicated by a scenario where we are unable to chief the threshold on a new board role for a process to appoint a mayor next week. what happens if we have an item that comes forward and the details of it but there are only seven votes to pass.
5:33 am
four votes can stymie that process. we have flexibility within the confines of state law. >> perhaps the council would like to opine on any of the inferred or conspicuous questions. >> this is whether or not you can use your current rules. it your current rules did not speak to the appointment of an interim mayor. they do speak to an interim
5:34 am
process. yes, you can use that process of you're not required pentode this is what your card has been speaking to. that adequately answers the question. >> i think the challenge with the rules committee process right now -- a number of nominations are made and the opportunity for people to raise questions and that comes before the full board. the process would create issues because nominated individuals cannot take part in aspects of that decision or have conversations with anyone else.
5:35 am
county council advises the court to advise us on which aspects are required by state law and which are discretionary so that we can figure out what we can get an easy consensus. >> very good. >> if i ask the question a little differently. is there a way for anything under the current rules of the board that would preclude this board from electing an interim mayor under the existing rules that we have? >> there is nothing in your roles which are precluded from selecting an interim mayor.
5:36 am
you have to wait until there is an actual vacancy. >> is there a way that this board not can make this election understanding that this has to occur before becomes effective? this anyway that precludes the board for making their selection without having to amend the rules? does the amendment requirement? >> we would have to look at the rules. under the current rules, all appointments to ability to go to the rules committee. -- typically go to the rules committee.
5:37 am
you have a set of rules for which your responsible for interpreting. the president or supervisors can send the legislation to committee. those are about the only roles that you have. everything else is by your own rules. >> for me, the point have been making is that we need to have an open and transparent process. i don't read this as requiring an amendment of the rules. i would have a problem with the motion if that is what it was interpreted to mean. i think that we can act on both
5:38 am
without having to meet the threshold so but the process can go forward. we can do that and still comply with the rules and we can do this and still comply with what the state law has. >> the board of supervisors is responsible for interpreting the rules and ordinarily you have relied upon the clerk to help you. the reason why this has become a question is because the political reform act will play a much more significant process. this will not be the situation if this is voted upon. this will influence the process in many ways.
5:39 am
it is importance to that we focus on the reform act. >> part of the reason why i believe we need to amend the board rules and create a standing rule? his face upon the charter section which they said the board shall meet and transact its business according to rules which it shall adopt, this is as adopted. however, this is a bit ambiguous on how we would proceed in this process. >> the board rules made up half a specific process for appointing a successor. we have device from our legal
5:40 am
counsel to which i will read. the board has an option of the committee of the board for purposes of confirming a successor mayor. the committee of the hole could be charged by emotion with conducting a public hearing and affording to the board in motion for the appointment of the successor mayor.
5:41 am
there is considerable flexibility to the rules regarding how the board should structure the process. we're the board rules and the rules of order allow the flexibility, we can speak by motion with in those roles and within those rules of order. the shell of the processes their turn to where the skits complicated it is on the conflict. politics, now go not like we have ever not dealt with this before. if you are nominated, all of a sudden you have a conflict. which have fallen the
5:42 am
information about the california political reform act in writing so that we can follow along and make sure no one violates state law. in terms of having this process, we are now two weeks after the election you're talking about where we have a meeting. five weeks after the election. we are using time that we don't have and we really don't need to do we need legal guidance about any potential pitfalls through that process and we should ask our clarke and council for that guidance and i would like to have a discussion about the quality.
5:43 am
i will like to have a discussion with this about the meat or the process with the public. we don't need to get caught up in the process. >> i am not detecting any conflict. >> they could use the process of going to the rules committee. you could also go to the committee as a whole. that would be a change to the process. that would require a vote to
5:44 am
suspend or modify your rules. as noted above, the board may create a process for the selection of the successor mayor. i would like to clarify our memo and up to the board of supervisors for you to interpret and apply your own rules. >> in the prior times that the board of supervisors appointed to the chair and the inter- american, did that require a change of rules of the board of
5:45 am
supervisors at the time? >> we did attempt to find a prior process for this was done and unfortunately we were unable to locate the process. the last time that happened there was a vacancy. >> here is anything in the current rules, charter, or state law that requires and 8 vote threshold to making nomination? if the interpretation that we are getting is that you can only go to this process by changing the rules, then this would require a vote is that needed to make a nomination? >> that will be your process and your rules.
5:46 am
i cannot really give a legal opinion. that is a parliamentarian shoulissue. there is nothing in provide advr question. it does not seem satisfactory, but that is all we have to go by. supervisor campos: i think this is complicating things in a way that i do not think the state law. i do not think the charter or board rules require. i would respectfully submit that. there are ways we can comply with a lot of the applicable rules and statutes. i will just stand by that.
5:47 am
supervisor mirkarimi: i want to remind you we have to take a vote on 54 and on 55 with comment. president chiu: and after that, item 55. i agree with supervisor campos that my motion does not require us to change our process if we do not have to change our process. obviously, there are lots of complicated issues that are buried under what we are talking about right now, and i do think this is exactly why we need to allow counsel and the court to propose something to us. again, i think they have heard the message loud and clear. what we are looking for is a simplicity a process that abides by the laws of governance, whether they be city charter, our own board rules, or robert's rules. hopefully by next week we will
5:48 am
have something we can move forward with and work with. using the rules committee, a three-person rules committee with three individuals, whether it be the current or others, would not seem to be a proper way to do this. we ought to properly set as a body of 11 to consider this. if that is the one thing we have to agree on, i have a feeling we would all be able to get there. if there are details beyond that we need to work out, i will let the county clerk know what those are and we can hashed through them one at a time. just to move them forward i would like for us to vocally vote on setting a process. if we do not have a process, it creates all the issues we're talking about now. then we move forward with supervisor avalos's movement that we sit as a committee as a
5:49 am
whole to consider what the public thinks. in the ensuing days, we will work through these issues. to make sure the process is transparent and we have thought through what we need to before we make a decision. supervisor mirkarimi: there is nobody on the roster. there is no further comment. would you please will call on item 54? supervisor maxwell: aye. supervisor mirkarimi: aye. supervisor alioto-pier: aye. supervisor campos: aye. president chiu: aye. supervisor chu: aye. supervisor daly: aye. supervisor dufty: aye.
5:50 am
superviser elsbernd: aye. >> supervisor mar is absent. on item 55 as amended -- supervisor maxwell: aye. supervisor mirkarimi: aye. supervisor avalos: aye. president chiu: aye. supervisor chu: aye. supvervisor daly: aye. supervisor dufty: aye. president chiu: that motion as amended is approved. if we can go back to item 45, which is a public hitting -- a public hearing, given supervisor avalos's motion, we
5:51 am
will convene to take public input and to discuss the process by which the board of supervisors may exercise its exclusive jurisdiction under the charter as it appoints a mayor for the city and county of san francisco. >> mr. president, i think you have covered it. president chiu: we will sit as a committee for the public to weigh in on this matter. if you could please step up to the microphone, and each member of the public shall have up to two minutes for public comment to this committee as a whole. >> you can use the microphone to your right. >> you are a representative of district 3. i want to thank you for all your support.
5:52 am
i don't care who individually is mayor. avalos, campos, ross. [laughter] these guys have a record. i am happy to be in city hall. frankly, i know i am not that sharp with politics. i will take this guy over here who is laughing on the right. anyway, i will give up my time and thank you for all your work. >> julien davis. it seemed like some of the principles that were spoken of today were transparency and deliberation, and also fairness in the process. but as wanted to say to the
5:53 am
extent that that is a goal you are all seeking to achieve as well, it makes sense for you to consent on a process that is the proper way to go forward. the political reform act was passed in 1974 potentially because of the tragic nature of the events. at the time, mayor feinstein got the votes by unanimous vote. perhaps that did not come up at the time. but we have now situation that is quite different. there are issues at the state law and local rules, etc.. it seems like it makes perfect sense to figure out a process that works. i hope this process can go forward with public input. thank you. >> and gabriel holland. i want to thank you for moving
5:54 am
forward what is probably the most important issue in my years in san francisco around politics. i think there is a tension and i think you are all trying to figure out of how to move forward with a good, clean process that also recognizes the need for a mayor, and for someone to take the helm, start a transition team, and begin the process of governing our city. to the extent that you can weigh those out in a way that makes sense and is logistically functional, we appreciate it. the cities of san francisco will appreciate it. we wish you the best on one of the toughest decisions will probably make. thank you. >> my name is jeff henty. i want to talk about legitimacy. i am old enough to remember gerald ford becoming president of the united states without
5:55 am
ever attaining elected office. he was not reelected. he was defeated by jimmy carter. i think you have a lot of challenges in that area. let me bring up some of the things i have read that concern me. i am going to name the person who said this even though the message should go to all of you. it was supervisor campos who said we have to do what is right for the progressive movement. i think your job is for the people of san francisco, not to facilitate your own political faction. supervisor daly said there was a once in a generation opportunity. what is the opportunity? but we are selecting a mirror
5:56 am
without a citywide vote for the chief executive officer? president chiu: please keep your comments to the general, to the full board. >> i am trying. president chiu: i appreciate that. >> in terms of legitimacy, and no lot of people have differences with mayor newsom. he was reelected with 64% of the vote, and last week's 72% asked the -- ask him to become lieutenant governor. we should find someone with similar policies. we are trying to find someone on the other end of the political spectrum. i think there would have serious implications for legitimacy. the current mayor was an apple. you cannot replace him with an orange. president chiu: thank you. next speaker. >> in 1989, our first date may
5:57 am
are right in candidate, i got eight votes. they have a stanchion with my name on it. i think where we are now is that you all are going to have to bring forth candidates and put forth someone in term for a year who can work with you all, the people, the business. i always felt that san francisco should have three committees. you need the people's committee. you need the board of supervisors. you need the mayor, you know, and his committee. this would have -- we would already have this ironed out. it is really important that you know the next mayor. just take time and relax. there is no set in law for
5:58 am
anyone. he will be sitting as lieutenant governor. you must go back and do the things that have been done. it seems he has been the wrong politician for the people. you have the chance to weigh in on this. i have been telling people we are going to have two chinese mayors in oakland and san francisco. one thing i like about asian government -- the execute and put politicians away when they do that. i was thinking maybe some of this is a joy to come to us here in the bay area. so i am looking forward to embrace all of my culture. [speaking multiple languages] president chiu: thank you. next speaker.
5:59 am
>> i am a person who firmly believes that we should have america for the people, by the people. and i feel that we need to bring spirituality to san francisco, the values of america that have been lost. we have this law and order that can kidnap a person like me and take us off to -- gestapo, you know? where does this police syndicate, which i have asked you to shut down the hall houses -- where does this end? we have this chaos about to maybe take off. it is an important feature and factor that we bring in and put some iq on the problem, that we expand the envelope, as the dollar llamas said. maybe the answer to happiness is outside the box -- as