tv [untitled] May 16, 2011 11:30pm-12:00am PDT
policy positions. that is something i am comfortable with. i don't have a perspective on what happens throughout the city. it is the first time really thinking about it. i am not there yet on the part of it. supervisor kim: they don't have a vote on the board of supervisors. they still have to get introduced by a elected member and to go through the full legislative process. i am not sure this group would be hijacking the economic policy agenda for mid market. but advising just based on their experiences, these are the suggestions that they might have. it would be up to individual board members. >> alike to understand what that looks like. again, very happy to consider it.
without hard makes me nervous and i am not there yet. supervisor kim: understanding is that we modeled this half of the stabilization fund. my understanding is that all of those seats are appointed by a district 6 supervisor. >> i have the document of on the laptop. nowhere in the qualifications does it say they are appointed by the board of supervisors. even if there was one, am eastern neighborhoods is not the case. the western that we just had here, and of those had one district supervisor appointing horn dominating all of the members. it is a very unique thing that i
don't think is appropriate. supervisor kim: ok. i am still committed to the legislation as written just because we have spent so much time working with community advocates on the legislation. i am more than happy to split its foreword to the full board. one that has the board of supervisors >> maybe you can convince me. the history of that, there was never a problem. the of these other committees, there was never a problem with the district supervisor. i don't think is appropriate that the home district supervisor guess the ticket to choose their friends. it should be a more open process. maybe you can give me a justification about why the
district 6 supervisor should be the sole nominating person. that way everyone feels like they have got a shot. supervisor kim: i understand that. i think that maybe the group felt comfortable with having our office nominate members of this committee, and we really tried to make this legislation has tight as possible, making sure it was around for a limited number of years in terms of providing a device, feedback, and holding public hearings. it would not actually have any decision making power over legislation and policy moving forward. >> we are setting up a world cup -- rules committee hearing where you have what, seven people? there might be one or two or
three or 10 people that are interested in that. the answer is a you'll have been dominated by a supervisor. what was the district 6 supervisor process? what kind of process will they have for who they will nominee? you're setting this up for a bit of a black market, and it could look like it is not necessarily the most open of government processes. and if you have an open process where anybody who wants to convince these qualifications and appropriately apply to the rules committee and be on the public record, the rules committee can go forward. when this happens initially, you will be the share of the committee. it is very deferential. and if you're thinking beyond that time, we had her supervisor
campos make a recommendation and we are very deferential. i just don't think you want to set up this process for the district 6 supervisor makes the additional nominations. supervisor kim: supervisor farrell, d share the same concerns? supervisor farrell: i never thought about it in that way, but -- >> we based this completely off of the language of the stabilization fund. i don't believe there is an open application process for that. they are split. can we potentially amend it to model that exactly? would you be open to that? supervisor elsbernd: again, i am
relying on the address here that says it is nominated to the board of supervisors. if you would like to continue at, we can pull out the exact. >> it reflected a mix. it encompasses a larger area. the language is taken partially from the neighborhood, the part of the appointment process through the district supervisor. and the confirmation by the board. supervisor elsbernd: but it has a legislative and executive splits. it is just pure legislative. if you wanted to add more seats so there was an executive legislative split, hot -- and
that might make a little bit more sense. >> there were originally seven members, but they did not have to appoint them. i like the suggestion that we go into closed session and we are able to pull oup -- >> not closed session on this. supervisor kim: actual litigation and we can spend some time crafting language around the nomination that would work for all three of us. we have a motion to move into closed session. and reconvene. we will continue this item after the closed session. thank you. members of the public, we are going into closed session to discuss litigation and we will
reconvene on item number 9. thank you. >> thank you for the members of the public for your patients as we put together some amendments reflecting some concerns from colleagues. we have now submitted a split proposal for the advisory committee. are there any comments or questions? ok. i also wanted to respond to
supervisor ferrell's comment about having an advisory body that gave recommendations on legislation. that language was actually listed from several other citizen advisory councils, for example, the local coordinating board and the civilization fund. we're not setting any precedents per se within this piece of legislation. >> i'm happy to take a look at it right now too. >> take a look at? >> precedents. >> you mean for previous task force? yeah, the language for all of that.
>> actually, while we're waiting for the language on advicement on policy for other local task force, i was wondering if there are any comments on this proposal which would amend the legislation to be a split of district six supervisor. >> i still have not heard a rationale why this should be the case and why the process that works for every other committee commission task force
. it has worked just fine. >> just to ensure that there's a diversity of voices that they may not be reflected if other members on the board that are not as familiar with district six have a voting say on that. task force composition. so this is the compromise solution that i put forward. i'm more than happy to submit this. we can take a vote on it. we can forward it with a recommendation or a negative recommendation to the full board. >> at this point, let me just
say why wouldn't we continue this to assess this out? with the language, you know -- i'm open to discussing. >> ok. but to send this forward as is -- >> that's fine. i was worried about our agenda over the next couple of weeks. but if any colleagues are ok to continue it, more than happy to give more time. please continue to give feedback in terms of what would work. i think there's a motion to continue item number 9. >> continuing a version one, amended version that you submitted. >> why don't we continue item, the version one? and we'll continue to our next rules committee meeting. [inaudible]
>> we haven't adopted any of those amendments. we will be able to adopt those two weeks -- >> can we don't them today? >> either way. ok. so there's a motion to move to adopt the amendment and we will then continue this item to the next rules committee meeting which i believe is on the 19th. thursday, may 19. >> just when clear when we say "the amendment" it's not the new composition? >> not including -- not including the most -- what we had earlier today. we will continue this item two weeks from now and have adopted the amendments that were initially proposed of this committee meeting. >> thank you so much, colleagues. the meeting's adjourned.