tv [untitled] January 14, 2012 7:01am-7:31am PST
here. commissioner riley: here. >> item two. approval of the november 14, 2011 meeting minutes. kraft november 14, 2011 meeting minutes. president o'brien: can i get someone to recommend approval? >> i motion to approve the november meeting minutes. >> second. president o'brien: that was december? november? thank you. approved without objection. >> item 3, approval of the december 12 minutes. the documents on december 12, 2011.
>> i move. >> second. president o'brien: objections? seeing none, approved. >> and general public comment. members can comment on items under the commission's purview. president o'brien: anybody that would like to talk on items not on the agenda? seeing none, public comment is closed. >> discussion and possible action to make recommendations to the board of supervisors on file # 111331. charter amendment, analyzing proposed legislation in relation to a net job loss. this will amend the charter by adding section 2.118 to require the board of supervisors on
limitations of private businesses, require the comptroller to determine if such legislation will result in a net job loss. authorize a small business commission for the board of supervisors consideration, and to prohibit the board of supervisors from taking final action until the small business commission submits alternative legislation or 60 days after the report issues the report. in your binder is the explanatory documents and we have a presentation by jason elliott, legislative director. gosh commissioners, my name is jason elliott -- >> commissioners, my name is jason elliott from the -- it started as a discussion with the director and with chris, so appreciation to them for months and months ago, coming to us
with an idea. the charter amendment that you are considering today and what you have in your blinders is, in principle, what i would like to discuss today. a few minutes ago, we received potential amendments that we are considering making. if i can, we can talk a little bit more conceptually about the idea as opposed to the specific line by line. we are moving away from the exact wording of what is in the packets. but just to take a step back, the idea here that the mayor made clear in his inaugural address yesterday morning, the number one priority is jobs for all people in san francisco. to that extent, having a smart economic development policy, and innovation corridor through the day and through central market, we have tremendous amount of investments that we are making a
citywide. simply put, city government should be a partner in this to create these jobs. jobs of all strata of them, and all skills for all types of keble. city government should be a participant and a partner, certainly never get in the way of what the private sector is doing to move forward on job creation. we have strong ordnances for minimum wage and prevailing wage. we are a city with responsible of employment rules. to the extent you want to keep creating those jobs, city government should be a partner in that. even well-intention the legislation. even from the apartments, they can have unintended consequences. they are sometimes meaning the destruction of jobs or a net
loss of jobs. as the city, when we see legislation like that from ourselves, or from a number of the board, the mayor feels it is very appropriate to take a step back and say that this legislation might fulfill a very important social goals. it also happens to destroy jobs. let's have a conversation very specifically about this question. how does this piece of legislation -- is it worth the- job impact? the charter amendment that we are considering and i will outline for you, it still allows legislation like that to be adopted. we're not saying that you can never have legislation that the comptroller of fines destroys jobs. it is a case through independent economic analysis, they find it is-jobs. is it worth it?
and this commission, and other commissions, other departments will be required to come together and have that conversation to answer that question. some have said in criticism of this that it is all about slowing down the process. in an odd way, i sort of would agree with that. it is about slowing down the process, it means you will bring in voices from this commission, the people of this commission represents, and we can talk about medium and big size programs, we want those voices in the conversation. there is a consensus process, and everybody gets on board with something. that is great. there is not much more required. to the extent that sometimes a slowing down collecting public input, considering options,
those can be positive things as well. it could be people losing their jobs in the private sector. to close on a sort of a preamble here, the mayor made clear that his number one priority is creating jobs, keeping jobs in san francisco. the extent that folks in this building are trying to do the right thing, that is good, that is our job. we should do that and be partners. if i can, very quickly, i didn't bring a copy of this for you because it is still in draft form. i can just outlined in principle what it does. it includes quite a bit of a process about what happens, and on what day this happens on. the feedback that we got from a lot of corners was that prescribing that amount of process in the charter, who
coaches had issues with some of the processes that we set up. in a more overarching thing we heard, it was not on the process. it is a place to set priorities and principles for the city. much like question time that was done to the charter amendment recently, the way that that was done, there was a policy priority set. the mayor should appear before the board. we will leave it to the legislators to work out the details. we have taken very much the same approach of this charter amendment, and we can't forecast what the best process would be. we can't forecast if this step should come before this that, it is hard to predict those things. we wanted to take a step back and say that in the charter, what we're asking for your support, is requiring the board
of supervisors to wait 60 days before adopting an ordinance that may result in significant net loss for jobs in san francisco. simply saying that sometime in the year 2012, 2013, 2012, that the board of supervisors should do what we did at question time, talk about details, work out a process, and that would be through the ordinance. if we set up a process in the charter, we can never change it except for another charter amendment. what if we find out that we need to reorder two steps in the process, we don't have the legislative flexibility to be able to do that. why don't we do this whole thing by ordinance? that was one of our initial feelings that we wanted to do that, for rules need to be done with the charter amendment. the charter amendment itself, taking a lot of that process out
that you see before you, a version we introduced to the board, simplifying its assailants escaped our priority here, to make sure the small business community, the medium business and the big business community can weigh and on legislation if in the controller's calculation, it would mean a net reduction in jobs. under this, the comptroller make that determination and the board would refer it to small business planning, and if there are any other relevant commissions that should hear it or the board feels like they want to have feedback, it will be an option in addition. to the extent that we have lots of departments and lots of expertise, to the extent that we would want their input on different issues, be it on wage
rules or on health rules, or on environmental rules, we would send to those appropriate commissions. leveraging the expertise that we had in the city staff level, really trying to collect that feedback in a legislative way, ultimately, when the board would consider as an alternative to a piece of legislation, that was a charter amendment in a nutshell. i am happy to answer questions. ultimately, we would ask for your support. this will go to the rules committee, amendments can be made there. as i indicated, will likely be putting forward some amendments. and that will go to the full board and hopefully on the ballot. we would ask for your support as we move through the process.
>> commissioners, i wanted to thank the mayor's office for bringing this forward, i think it is an important step for the business community. i am sure we would be able to work out the details, but i think it is a very positive step for supporting an important part of our city. >commissioner riley: this is an excellent idea to give us the time. we did not have the opportunity to see the report, and we have to make a recommendation prior to outbreak of the small business. i think it is great and i support it. >> i would agree with what -- commissioner adams: i would agree with what commissioner riley said. seeing the analytics after.
it is a very important piece of legislation and i support it. president o'brien: i would like to say that when i first heard about this, i was absolutely delighted about it. today, i went back and looked over. we hold the retreat once a year where we hold that somewhere that we are not going to be started. the retreat that we had at the beginning of 2011, one of the items on the air was flagging the concern that we had, we were being sandwiched by legislation that we felt very strongly was going to influence the small business community. recently, we had a very long drawn-out saga on the health care ordinance. the first original renditions of that was by the mayor and by some estimates would cost the
city up to $35 million. which is an example of how important it is to try to get more weigh-in from different stakeholders. it is almost like it is coming full circle to me. i want to give the mansion to the director, to chris for following up on that. the small business commission is a very important function in determining legislation that goes out there to the city. i am delighted about that. i am extremely happy to see that you have taken the idea of using this as a charter amendment and not as a procedural ordinance. i think that is the right way to do it. possibly evidenced by a recent
proposal that supervisor wiener put forward to undo legislation approved by the voters. people said, we don't want you to have that power. this is something that will avoid that down the road. the overwhelming support, the kindness and the objective behind it. if i could, this is a possible action item? with that, if there aren't any further questions from the commissioners, i would like to open it up for public comment. >> i had one question to the president. with the amendments being made,
it would be, in terms of the small business commission's ability to offer alternative proposals or legislation at the same time, will that be part of that? or is that part of the procedural elements that would be developed in the ordinance? >> that would be part of the procedural elements. if we want to take a process out, to the extent that this is a piece of legislation sponsored by the mayor, i can assure you that what he is referring to, mainly the alternative piece of legislation to consider the original legislation, it remains a priority objective. commissioner riley: i have a question for the director. it says here that we have to
have a hearing within 30 days. we meet once a month on monday, and the board of supervisors meet on tuesday. if they met tomorrow and had something to refer to us, what we have enough time? >> i think we will, possibly. it now sounds like those procedural elements will be removed out of the charter with a mandate that when there is a determination of job loss by the comptroller's office, that there is a pause button for 60 days. if there is any other conditions or -- commissions or departments that want to weigh and have the opportunity to do so. this will have the business community have time to read the
legislation, and evaluate it, and weigh in on it as well. the procedural elements that are drafted now in this particular charter amendment are going to be removed and worked out. it may look a little different than what this is. >president o'brien: what is your time frame for how long you think this will be to where you say, we have something ready for the voters in june? >> as far as the charter amendment is concerned, this is on a prescribed time line. we need to be out of the rules committee by with this by the first few days of february. it goes to the board of supervisors and ultimately the board of supervisors with six votes that have the power to place the charter amendment on
the ballot. as far as the trailing the ordinance -- trailing ordinance, is like any other produced by the mayor, and it will go through the legislative process just like a ordinance. president o'brien: we would not have another opportunity to weigh in on the charter that we probably don't need to any way, right? >> probably not, and what you can do is take a motion to approve with the authorizing staff to continue to work with the mayor's office on the final drafting of this. >> mr. president, with this precise issue in mind, we are not done with this, and i tried to describe in much detail as i am comfortable with, if the
commissioners were in client, you could effectively vote to support what i have outlined at to the extent that i will share with the commissioners informally and what i share with them, as described here. >> january 19 is the first date the charter could be heard at the rules committee. is your timeline to have the legislation ready for the january 19 rules committee? >> yes. >> at the commission can come back together before the january 19 meeting to hear this one particular item. either way. president o'brien: all right. i think what we would like here is if somebody was interested in putting a motion forward -- i keep forgetting.
sorry about that. if there are no other questions, i will open it up for public comment. >> public comment will be limited to 3 minutes. kindly state your name clearly and you can live up on the side wall. >> from the san francisco chamber of commerce, happy new year, commissioners. we're supportive of the concept of this legislation and the as you know, porop i requires the city to look at economic impact and beyond what it does in the charter. the ability of this commission to review and recommend alternatives to legislation that can have a negative impact on job growth in san francisco. a second look, a slowdown is not a bad thing.
we have seen positive changes out of legislation because of prop i. we have seen positive changes on the initiative ordinance had given a 45-day notice window for legislation being introduced by four or more supervisors and policy statements. we believe this is a step in the right direction. throughout communities and throughout san francisco, on the impact of legislation. san francisco jose elected officials believe that they are the champions of small local businesses. and you know that the vast majority of legislative actions impact small business disproportionate to any impact on large business. there is the minimum wage and sick leave mandate. it is the fis and requirements,
it all impact smaller businesses much greater than they do economically or operationally. this gives the commission and the community a better chance to review and educate supervisors on unintended consequences. we are clearly support oive of e amendments that have outlined and we look forward to working with the commissioners on the implementation of this ballot measure. president o'brien: next speaker. >> i speak in support of this proposal. a little historical perspective in 1985, a number of us started working on the small business commission. there is an advisory commission
and that is what we started working on, the board of supervisors submitting legislation to select the small business commission. this has been a 25-year project that looks like it is finally coming to pass. just some real quick comments on the proposal. i applaud the mayor, if i understood jason's comments and that will identify whether it impact jobs to the comptroller instead of the president of the board, i think that is an appropriate step. as far as tweaking, you may want to put a provision in the air that is the amount of jobs in impact. -- it impacts. you may want to put a threshold for that. the most concerning portion is
the very last sentence, "the requirements of this section are directly in the failure of the city to comply with them shall not provide a basis to invalidate any city action." i am concerned about that. if i understand it correctly, even if it isn't done, it doesn't invalidate the legislation and that needs to be tightened. all in all, i applaud the mayor. we have seen this could put on the ballot and passed. president o'brien: i thin said both the president of the board of supervisors and the city comptroller would measure the impact on jobs. >> i can clarify. in the version we are working on now, that determination will be
a piece of feedback that we heard pretty universally, that is appropriate for the comptroller to decide and it conforms roughly within the existing obligations anyway. that is the version that will be the controller. [chime] president o'brien: i respect your opinion in you have a very historical perspective. can you help me with the concern of the last line again? >> if i am reading it right, if they don't comply with the provisions, then it shall not provide a basis to invalidate any city actions. if they don't comply, it doesn't make any difference. the legislation will pass. and that is a concern. >> thank you. president o'brien: do we have another speaker on this item?
jason, can we have you come back up, please? there is no further public comment, so we'd like to bring jason up again. >> can you clarify the last sentence that he is referring to? >> yes. no, i can't. yes, i can address that, no, i can't give you the clarity your looking for. it was languages suggested to us by the drafting city attorneys. and the intent of this ordinance, i'm sorry, of this charter amendment is not to fully halt and kill legislation being conproposed. if we proposed a charter amendment that would give
someone the ultimate authority to kill legislation, we would have just done that. we took a more moderated is that -- step, and this language adddresses --- i don't want to expand to much. -- expound too much. i don't think the small business commission we adequateighed -- adequately weighed alternatives, so i will sue to a halt. it was not our intention to create a mechanism like that. this is about public process, not about killing legislation. >> will this mean that if they don't comply in terms of just bringing it to the small business commission, in this
charter, there will be no problems? i am wondering what will make it so that they can't just -- >> as with any board rule or law that governs process for the board of supervisors, what happens if they don't do it? i would refer that question to the city attorney. that is a broad question. it would be the law. president o'brien: does that mean it is standard language? >> i don't want to comment on that because i don't know. >> i did an inquiry within the city attorney on that. it is becoming standard language. commissioner o'connor: