Elections Commission Regular Meeting

Wednesday, March 15, 2023

In this page:


    See below agenda item #1 for a PDF version of the agenda and the remaining items for the agenda packet documents.

    Meeting recording (Duration: 3:27:39):

    (Also see below the agenda for the video with transcript.)

    A Notice of Amendments to Commission Bylaws for the March 15, 2023 Elections Commission meeting can also be found under agenda item #1.


    1. Call to order and roll call

      A member of the Commission will state the following (from the adopted 10/19/22 Elections Commission Land Acknowledgment Resolution):

      The San Francisco Elections Commission acknowledges that we are on the unceded ancestral homeland of the Ramaytush Ohlone, who are the original inhabitants of the San Francisco Peninsula.  As the indigenous stewards of this land and in accordance with their traditions, the Ramaytush Ohlone have never ceded, lost, nor forgotten their responsibilities as caretakers of this place, as well as for all peoples who reside in their traditional territory.  As guests, we recognize that we benefit from living and working on their traditional homeland.  We wish to pay our respects by acknowledging the ancestors and relatives of the Ramaytush Community and affirming their sovereign rights as First Peoples.


    2. General Public Comment

      Public comment on any issue within the Elections Commission’s general jurisdiction that is not covered by another item on this agenda.

    3. Director’s Report

      Discussion and possible action regarding the Director’s Report.

      Attachments: March 2023 Director’s Report.

    4. Commissioners’ Reports

      Discussion and possible action on Commissioners’ reports for topics not covered by another item on this agenda: Meetings with public officials; oversight and observation activities; long-range planning for Commission activities and areas of study; proposed legislation which affects elections; others.

    5. Possible Closed Session Concerning Director of Elections 2022 Performance Evaluation (Continued from February 15), and Public Employee Appointment/Hiring: Commission Secretary

      a. Public comment on all matters pertaining to agenda item 6(d), including whether to hold item 6(d) in closed session.

      b. Public comment on all matters pertaining to agenda item 6(e), including whether to hold item 6(e) in closed session.

      c. Vote on whether to meet in closed session to consider Item 6(d) and/or Item 6(e) pursuant to California Government Code § 54957(b) and San Francisco Administrative Code § 67.10(b). (Action)

      d. POSSIBLE CLOSED SESSION REGARDING PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION. Discussion and possible action regarding the performance evaluation of Director of Elections John Arntz. This item may be held in closed session under Government Code § 54957(b) and Administrative Code § 67.10(b). (Discussion and possible action)

      e. POSSIBLE CLOSED SESSION REGARDING PUBLIC EMPLOYEE APPOINTMENT/HIRING. Discussion and possible action regarding the hiring of a Commission Secretary. This item may be held in closed session under Government Code § 54957(b) and Administrative Code § 67.10(b). (Discussion and possible action)

      f. If closed session is held, reconvene in open session.

      g. Discussion and vote pursuant to Administrative Code § 67.12(a) on whether to disclose any portion of the closed session discussion regarding Item 6(d) and/or Item 6(e). (Action)

      h. Disclosure of action taken, if any, that must be disclosed pursuant to Government Code § 54957.1 and Administrative Code § 67.12(b).



    6. Proposed Amendments to Elections Commission Bylaws

      Discussion and possible action regarding proposed bylaw amendments that include the Commission’s remote public participation and parental leave policies.

      Attachments: Remote Public Comment + Parental Leave Bylaw Amendment Notice; 030423 Amendment Proposal – SF Elections Commission Bylaws (Stone).

    7. Redistricting Process Initiative

      Discussion and possible action regarding the Commission’s ongoing redistricting process initiative.

      • Guest Speaker: Nicolas Heidorn, owner of policy consulting firm Heidorn Consulting and author of “The Promise of Fair Maps” report.

      Attachments: Nicolas Heidorn Bio; The Promise of Fair Maps; California Local Redistricting Commissions Report; Proposed Redistricting Initiative Plan (Dai & LiVolsi).


    8. Letter to Secretary of State Regarding Security Issues

      Discussion and possible action regarding the DVSorder privacy flaw affecting San Francisco's Dominion Voting System and reporting of potential, similar voting system security issues to the Department of Elections.

      Attachments: Draft Letters to California Secretary of State, Dominion, and U.S. Election Assistance Commission / Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (Jerdonek); October 7, 2022 Dominion Customer Notification; PDF of security.txt website: https://securitytxt.org (Jerdonek)


    9. Agenda Items for Future Meetings

      Discussion and possible action regarding items for future agendas.

    10. Adjournment

    Date & Time

    Wednesday, March 15, 2023
    6:00 pm

    City Hall, Room 408

    1 Dr. Carlton B Goodlett Place
    San Francisco, CA 94102
    View location on google maps


    Event number: 2497 773 3667
    Event password: voter (use 86837 from phones)
    Join the meeting


    Access code: 249 005 89640
    Event password: 8683 (for phones only)

    Meeting recording (Duration: 3:27:39)


    wonderful we're ready to begin welcome everyone to the March 15 2023 regular

    meeting of the San Francisco elections commission I'm the president Robin Stone The Time Is Now 602 p.m and I call the

    meeting to order this meeting is being held in person at City Hall Room 408 one Dr Carlton B

    Goodlett Place San Francisco California 94102 and on WebEx as authorized by the

    elections commission's February 15 2023 vote members of the public May attend the meeting to observe and provide

    public comment either at the physical meeting location or if you have fallen or online I'll briefly explain some

    procedures for participating in today's meetings the minutes of this meeting morphe but

    this meeting is being held in person at City Hall room 408 Juan Dr Carlton uh B goodlet

    Place San Francisco Public comment will be available on each item on this agenda each member of the public will be

    allowed three minutes to speak once your three minutes have expired staff will thank you and you will be muted when

    providing public comment you are encouraged to state your name clearly as soon as you begin speaking you'll have

    three minutes and six minutes if you're online with an interpreter in addition to the physical

    meeting location opportunities to provide public comment are available via WebEx and phone details and instructions

    for participating remotely are listed on the commission's website and on today at the end of today's meeting agenda

    in addition to participating in real time interested persons are encouraged to participate in this meeting by submitting public comment in writing by

    12 pm the day of the meeting to elections.commission that's sfgov.org it'll be shared with the commission

    after this meeting has concluded and it will also be included as part of the official meeting file I will now proceed with item one

    commission roll call Commissioners please verbally State Your Presence at today's meeting after your name is called vice president jordanick

    here commissioner burn holes here

    commissioner die here commissioner Hayden Crowley here commissioner lebowsey here commissioner Parker here

    and I president Stone and present with seven members president and account

    for we have a quorum commissioner Parker will now State the following or will now State the land

    resolution from the adopted October 19 2022 commit elections commission resolution

    the San Francisco elections commission acknowledges that we are on the unseated ancestral homeland of the ramaytush

    aloni where the original inhabitants of the San Francisco Peninsula as the indigenous stewards of this land and in

    accordance with their Traditions the ramay tush aloni have never seeded lost nor forgotten their responsibilities as

    caretakers of this place as well as for All Peoples who reside in their traditional territory as guests we

    recognize that we benefit from living and working on their traditional Homeland we wish to pay our respects by

    acknowledging the ancestors and relatives of the ramayi tush community and affirming their Sovereign rights as first peoples

    thank you so much commissioner Parker I just wanted to make one quick announcement about the agenda today

    which is that we will be moving agenda item number eight letter regarding

    security issues from eight to number five so it will come after the

    commissioner's reports I just wanted to give everyone a little bit of a heads up on that and with that we will move to

    item number two general public comment public comment and any issue within the election commission's General

    jurisdiction that is not covered by any other item on this agenda

    so we have uh one person with their hand raised

    or Mr Turner Commissioners uh thank you for uh being

    here tonight um I just wanted to real quickly refer to a couple articles I tried to have

    included in the package for the Commissioners and I attempted to gather as many signature uh as many uh email

    addresses as I could find to send over uh to um reports basically one being the

    little Hoover report uh making a good system better which recommends that the

    state of California immediately moved toward open source election systems and the second was an article recently

    coming out in gov Tech magazine called our open source elections more secure

    and I just want to read from that into the record real quick uh it says uh open

    source activist Brent Turner previously served as Secretary for the California Association of voting officials and

    communications director for open voting Consortium in contrast to The oset

    Institute Turner advocates for providing open source election software under a an

    agpl license that prevents them from being incorporated into closed Source projects He told gov tech for the U.S he

    told govtech the U.S should ensure election systems are primarily handled by non-profits and governments that can

    focus on Democratic goals rather than by vendors that need to make profit Turner

    believes election officials can pull off adopting open source themselves in the spirit of the effort you have to endure

    these growing pains in transitional pains for the good of the Democracy Turner said this is all doable this

    isn't necessarily difficult there's a political will issue and a push by proprietary interest to create fear

    uncertainty and doubt in the environment that includes within the procurement Departments of different governmental

    jurisdictions my point here is that there is a group oset and I believe one

    of the Commissioners is currently involved with them or previously that is pushing for a licensing scheme

    to position themselves for monetary interests regarding the eventuation of Open Source election systems and for

    those reasons the public requests that commissioner bernholz recuses herself on issues surrounding open source election

    systems thank you okay thank you

    there are no other commenters with their hands raised great so we'll close uh agenda item

    number two and move to agenda item number three the director's report discussion and possible action regarding

    the director's report March 2023 and I'll hand it over to director Arts thank you thank you president Stone

    just I'll just highlight so this Friday is the deadline to respond to the RFP the department issued in relation to uh

    people having their votes restored who were Justice involved so the RFP is

    actually posted under front page of our website it's also on oca's RFP site so

    we've we sent the RFP out to around 50 organizations I think

    it's but again I just want to put out there that the the the the the time frame ends on Friday to submit if

    someone if a group is interested in doing Outreach to these folks that's 100

    000 totals in the hour in the in the grant uh no group would be eligible for

    more than fifty thousand dollars so like take any questions from there on the report

    uh yeah thank you for your portrait currents I just had one question on the

    under Roman numeral 3B the office of racial Equity report and because this is

    going to come up later for us but in terms of what the commission needs to prepare I know in the past there were I

    think two documents that you posted as part of your update there was the um I think it was more of a narrative and

    then also the spreadsheet are you going to be providing both of those as part of an update or just

    so uh so the office of racial Equity is streamlining its process this time

    around so it's that office actually sent a PowerPoint slideshow and so

    departments and then also commissions will need to input their information into that that PowerPoint slideshow and

    then the office of racial Equity will consolidate the the content from all the

    various departments and commissions for presentation to the Board of Supervisors and I thought that I already sent that

    to the commission if I haven't did I you did okay so then yeah so that's that is the document on from to which you'll

    input your content okay and then will our will the PowerPoint for that week give you will that be just like a second

    PowerPoint or would it be included into yours it'll be included in ours okay right all right great and if I've if

    there are any questions and the details we'll just reach out to you thank you

    commissioner Parker um thanks for all of these uh for all this

    information I really appreciate all the specific voter Outreach the marginalized communities that you highlighted again this time

    um and you know that I'm happy to see the Outreach to high school students I'll always be asking about that

    um I was just curious a couple of small questions um one is yeah I was just going to say maybe I'll move that chair so I can see

    you um I know that you said that the max grant

    for 50k is 50k for those two awards for the RFP that's due this Friday is it

    likely there will be just two organizations who are supported or is it are is it likely there would be smaller

    grants to multiple organizations even though the max is 50. it really depends on the number of bids we receive and the

    type of services those bids Encompass so I can't answer that question until we see until we see the bids okay

    um and then uh one other note or question was with the high school

    Outreach um have you all ever parted partnered with the youth commission or the student advisory Council on efforts to get more

    students connected with that High School elections Ambassador internship program not on the Ambassador specifically we

    have I think we've reached out to them initially I don't know if we've actually met yet we're trying to actually uh work

    with them this time around oh great but specifically on the student ambassadors I don't think we have directly with

    those two organizations those two groups okay they might be they might be good connections because they're so connected to so many of their peers across the

    city um you know not through schools necessarily that might be useful um and then I just wanted to ask if

    there's any way that any of us can be helpful in all of these Outreach efforts you know that you've you've listed here you know sharing with our communities or

    those we're connected with um you know and the best way to do that

    if you have if there are events if there's Earth you know that we could attend if there's if we can provide any

    sort of information tabling uh if there's topics potentially that are

    neutral that we can we can cover at an event that we provide information yeah that's kind of that we always want that

    sort of information if there's a group that potentially we is new that we haven't had any contact with that we you

    know would appreciate that so we reach out to them and probably try to establish your relationship so yeah and even if you even if you're

    not sure if we work with a group or attending event or if we have certain materials just let me know and just ask okay and even the specific ones

    like one detailed out here um if we want more information on those so that we can share those out with our networks um do we just reach out to you

    for details do you like the contact info yeah I'm I'm looking through which ones specifically because I there were a

    couple that I noted that oh I might like to send that out to some people that I know um I can't recall what it was

    specifically um but just more details just reach out to you if we wanted to forward some of

    the efforts that you all are doing sure okay great thank you

    commissioner die thank you um to reach a little bit here uh uh

    director Arts I enjoyed our little brainstorming session last time about the voter digital information pamphlet

    um glad to see your go green uh campaign um

    have you considered leveraging your high school ambassadors to help get the word

    out since they're digital natives at this point now we're more focused on

    the ambassadors uh providing information to their peers on on registering to vote and voting we're

    not really we're not trying to add right now uh go green into those conversations

    into that into that Outreach um we could consider it but right now the impetus of of that program is to

    really get the young potential young voters registered and get them engaged yeah I think you know it might be a

    really good demographic since they're already online and they probably think everyone else should be and maybe they

    can come into their parents to be um and uh you're going to include in the

    messaging like we talked last time what the the total cost the savings would be to to the city if if people convert like

    what the total cost of mailing out the voter information pamphlet in paper form potentially we haven't we haven't

    finalized to that detail yet potentially yeah we have I I can't say

    for certain okay and then I think we had a discussion last time about um we were talking about voters getting

    information versus per residence so right now if somebody

    um uh I saw your report mentioned 300 000 email addresses so this is to individual voters so if an individual

    voter says yes you know sign me up for the digital vote information pamphlet

    does that still mean that people other people in the household will get a copy yeah so the state guide is per household

    the local guide is per voter so another thought would be to include

    messaging around you know you can opt in and someone in your house can still keep it in that way

    you can kind of naturally get it down to per resident um and then I don't remember if you

    answered this question last time what was your estimate on what percentage now have opted in for the digital voter I

    think I think the numbers around say 30 000.

    so out of 500 000 voters uh what is that

    yeah okay eight percent it's not bad you

    haven't really yeah without promoting it it's probably organically we've had previous times we've we've

    outreached and try to give voters to to go to the digital book so it's not the first time we've done this

    thanks you're welcome to anyone else

    I had a couple of things um this is President Stone um so obviously I was very excited about

    several components of this month's um report I just had a few specific

    questions well I had one question about um the RFP that you mentioned which I

    did you know full disclosure I did share with some Community groups that I knew um and was really excited to to read it

    um I just was curious how many folks have applied thus far you may not know off the top of your head I I'm not gonna

    say actually it closes on Friday so I don't want to ah there makes sense actually thanks

    um so then just moving on to um the page three the the voter notification program so I had a bunch of

    questions pertaining to this um obviously I think this is phenomenal

    um we've talked about this a lot over the last several months or even the last year um and I'm also very glad to see the

    multilingual full component of this um so the methods for notification there

    were a couple things that I specifically wanted to call out one is just folks who may be housing insecure and to who may

    not have digital access so there were a couple things I was thinking about as it pertains to the like the tool

    um because that sounds really phenomenal the you know the yes no questions

    um the link to being able to you know you get the notification card and then

    you go onto a website and you answer a bunch of questions and says are you eligible um

    I am curious if you are considering also doing a paper version of that that's like a tree of some kind like you know

    one of those silly things like yes you go here no you go there um that can be distributed to folks like

    the prisoner prisoner legal services and some of the Community Partners and same

    goes for the notice cards as a kind of not so much personalized to

    um hey Robin Stone you are did you know that you might be eligible to register to vote but more like a general thing

    that people can may be eligible to vote and don't know

    um so would those maybe more paper-based resources potentially be available for

    Community groups and other departments um to distribute as well yes awesome

    yeah and we can just email the templates um that's great because I do know a lot

    of folks you know may not not may not be using digital you know using email and things

    like that so anything that's printed you know that we can distribute would be awesome and then the other question I

    had is um the oh about data so I know in the last

    election in the primaries we talked about um how the you know this type of data we

    didn't have access to yet um does this now mean that in let's say

    2024 we will be able to see um how many folks were eligible how many

    folks registered and how many actually voted is that something we would be able to review in you know in the new kind of

    numbers that the commission had asked for prior to the primaries for justice yes

    I think so yeah because we I haven't seen the files from the state yet I

    think last week was actually the first time they were received the file if it wasn't last week's week before so

    so I'm assuming those are discrete files that we could continue to pull data from

    so I would think so okay cool um obviously if it's not feasible

    you know it's not feasible it just would be now that we are you know now that the department is getting access to this

    information I thought that would be um that would be great those were my those

    are mine but I'm very very happy to see some of this stuff so thank you

    commissioner Hayden Crowley hi thank you director arnson for your comprehensive report as always

    um just a quick question about the department has been exploring the use of local city approved marketers to assist

    with the reach of the go green campaign and future elections messaging is that around social media that you would be

    doing or is that more comprehensive it'd be a common it'd be more

    comprehensive okay right okay and so are you looking at issuing an RFP do you

    have the it in the money in this budget or you or was it going to go in next year's or how's that going to work we would try to do it this year and we need

    to know what options are available and what is possible right uh as far as vendors are concerned so I don't I don't

    have a lot of concrete okay information to give you right now okay about that okay

    um it'd be great if you could do it just for social media just to dip your toes in you know because if you don't have

    somebody on staff doing that it's it's hard because and even if you do though that person gets pulled in different

    directions so it would be great if you had a more robust social media campaign for those that are

    that look at that sort of thing not me of course thank you you're welcome

    anyone else I actually had one more question director Ernst um this is President Stone again I

    was just curious how those in person the some of the Outreach team

    things in the neighborhood um some of the uh fares and things like

    that how that's going in terms of registration knowing that it's so far out um are you seeing folks register are you

    getting actually some pretty good participation I'm just mostly just curious we hit some registrations uh we

    don't I mean a lot of people that go to the fairs and then events are already

    registered or they don't want to register and what the what the main thing is people have they have questions

    about the process about the election that's really the main takeaway that people get from this more so than being

    registered is just us being available to answer questions and provide information

    you know consistently at those sites that's awesome

    thanks does anyone else have any questions or comments for the director

    okay very Swift um thank you director Arts we will CL we will now take um public uh comment on uh

    the director's report

    okay I do not see any hands raised

    awesome I will then close out agenda item three and move to agenda item

    number four Commissioners reports discussion impossible action and Commissioners reports for topics not

    covered by another item on this agenda meetings with public officials oversight and observation activities long-range

    planning for commission activities and areas of study proposed legislation which affects election and others and I

    will open it up yeah vice president jordanick so I have

    a few things to report um for starters or actually had you already announced

    the book no not yet but you can go go ahead okay so uh I guess the current

    plan is for the boat pet committee to be meeting um

    you know sometime soon so my current plan is for the the boat pack to meet before our next

    meeting in April and one of the topics where that meeting will be to um discuss

    the racial Equity update that director Ernst mentioned in the previous item and we can also start discussing other

    topics like um things like how any website changes we

    would like to have or um how to conduct our our performance evaluations in the

    future and um on a separate topic I wanted to just say

    one thing about our new meeting page one of the new features I just learned about is that the um when it comes to posting

    our recordings on our meeting pages that the new sfgov website supports

    um transcripts for accessibility which is unique to the um when you have a YouTube

    video it actually displays the transcript alongside so if you go to our last

    meeting you can see that how that's displayed there but you have to scroll down to the end of the agenda

    and I also double checked about the topic of web page translations which

    came up at the last meeting and I think the way it works is that automatically it will show a Google

    translate version at the top which is I believe an auto-generated translation so it's not totally accurate but if you

    would like to have um a better translation you could just manually request that and they kind of

    do that on an as needed basis so um so that's a little update there and then

    lastly I just wanted to mention some news is that in this past I think it was in the past week the city of Redondo

    Beach was which is in Southern California adopted rank Trace voting I think the vote was around 70 percent

    and one of the interesting things there is that they're um voting vendor voting

    system vendors heart and or Civic who has recently submitted a system for

    state certification so that could be the second voting system vendor in California that

    supports hearing Trace voting and it's a little bit indirectly related to what's happening in San Francisco

    because um in the past heart has been not been allowed to bid on our rfps maybe Direct

    parts maybe you can um confirm this if it's true that because

    they're based in Texas the city's not allowed to do business with them is that right correct yeah but I also read recently

    that in the media the borders I guess reconsidering some of those laws around

    the city Contracting um but it's not super relevant

    um just I'm not sure if the board would actually change things and also they're not they're not an open source vendor

    but I just did want to mention that to the commission so thank you awesome thank you vice

    president jordanick I'll share

    um a few items um this is President Stone so as vice

    president jordanick mentioned we did call bopek meeting which for

    um uh for folks that are not familiar that is the budget and oversight

    Committee of the elections commission and vice president jordanick will chair

    that committee for the year with Commissioners levoci and commission and

    Hayden Crowley as members as well and I'm really excited to have them join and

    be able to work on some of these issues that we don't have necessarily all the time on our one Wednesday a month

    meetings including racial equity and obviously I've also broadened Matt in

    many meetings to include diversity inclusion belonging and Justice so hopefully that can be incorporated as

    well but also looking at some of the areas that we had prioritized over the

    last year in addition to thinking about um upcoming priorities um the second was the website and then

    the third is the was the process which vice president jordanick had already mentioned um but release one of the processes that

    I've been kind of mentioning over the last few months um as it pertains to thinking about how

    we operate um is that by the end of the year I hope to have a little bit of at least a

    framework of some rules of order for our body so thinking about you know how do

    we operate how what is the structure of things that we can have um a lot of these processes all in in

    one place it may be ambitious to think that that can happen by the end of the year but um at least we'll we'll give it

    our best shot um and then um yeah so that that's it as it pertains

    to bopek the remote public comment as a city-wide issue is something that came up in

    conversation in the last meeting so I did draft a letter that I had considered

    Distributing to other commissions that also vice president jordanick had reviewed

    but after following the Board of Supervisors discussions and reviewed the recommendations from

    that came down from the city administrator's office ultimately I

    think that where the city is in a good position to for people to follow those

    rules and the Board of Supervisors it doesn't appear is to be focused on

    making any changes that would apply to all commissions it really their focus has been on what they're going to do

    within their own body so I ultimately made the Judgment call to focus on us and if it comes up again I will I will

    raise that and welcome anyone else to raise that as well the last thing I wanted to just give

    everyone a little bit of a heads up on is that I I'm I'm considering calling a

    special meeting in the summer um I know everyone is probably rolling their eyes but um the idea is to have it

    be not um not strenuous but more of a opportunity for us to have some time

    together so usually um from my understanding although I've only had one summer on this body uh

    there may be one month over the summer where the commission does not meet and whether it's that month or a

    different one the idea is to call it something to the effect of a retreat and

    something previous commissions have done especially in really kind of pivotal moments in the body

    um and it's no secret that in the last year there's been a lot going on and so I thought this might be a good

    opportunity for us to kind of do some do some casual bonding and also potentially

    maybe tour the warehouse at Pier 31 with the director who I've spoken to briefly

    about this and potentially talk about some other strategic priorities um

    this is there is no definitive date I wanted to give everyone a heads up that this may happen and I would like to hear

    from folks if there are you know weeks or months that absolutely won't

    work I know we all have really busy schedules so um I welcome you to share those now

    um or or offline um that's that works and obviously I will provide

    um proper notice to the public and everyone here but you know it's March and the summer is many months away so

    okay any last comments okay let's move to public comment

    okay so there are two hands raised or three hands raised so let's take we

    have a commenter calling by phone

    so you are unmuted

    and you have three minutes can you hear me yes we can hear you

    great thank you uh hello to elections Commissioners and director Arts my name is Stephen Hill I've been involved in

    the ranked Choice voting issue for many years um and the um the thing I wanted to

    bring to your attention um we have a new project where we're going around

    um getting input from any political leaders political organizations asking them how can we improve local democracy

    um you know should we add public financing to things like School Board elections it's a whole big agenda not

    just having to do with ranked Choice voting but one consistent message that I'm hearing from a number of different

    organizations and individuals is that there are still quite a few people especially in different communities that

    are confused by ranked Choice voting and when you dig down and ask you know what is it the confusion about

    um I mean it used to be they knew how to rank they just didn't really know how the ballots were counted but now there seems to be a fair amount of confusion

    um in some communities like if you put your favorite candidate three times does that help them if you put more than one

    candidate in your first ranking does that somehow weight your ballot a certain way and so voters when they walk

    in to vote are are just really kind of confused particularly I've been hearing that uh from some people uh in the

    Chinese community and other communities and so what I wanted to bring to your attention is whether there would be some

    way uh that the elections Commission in conjunction of course with director orange and his Department to do an

    evaluation of how the educate what what is being done for educating about rank

    shows voting I I mean we did a lot in the early years of ranked Choice voting and then um I think you know after the

    initial few elections we thought okay we can let that go a little bit um and and I think now we have a lot of

    new voters people who have moved to San Francisco don't know how ranked Choice voting works and it might be time to

    just really re-examine what has worked for voter education what hasn't worked

    what can we do better um you know the department has been doing a great job in many ways and and

    so I think it's more a matter of like you know we've been using ranked Choice voting now for believe it or not almost 20 years it will be 20 years in 2024 and

    it's just time to maybe look at it and see how can we make it better how can we

    make it make sure it's it's up to date for for now rather than 20 years ago

    um you know uh for example the Department's used to I'm not sure if it still does it used to do a mailing to

    communities and of course when you do a mailing you reach a lot of people but you can only get so much on a postcard

    with three or four languages so you reach a lot of people with the quality information is not so great but if you

    give money to community groups the quality information and presentations is much better but you don't reach as many

    people so what combination of mailings and Outreach to community groups is

    really the ideal combination these sorts of things I think would be really good

    okay and so and if there would be some way to have an

    agenda item on this I'd love to be able to participate in some way and hear uh uh what everyone thinks about this thank

    you Mr Hill thank you okay so we have

    I'm just trying to mute okay we have um Mr Turner I'm I'm meeting you

    yes thank you uh three minutes commissioner jordanick I just wanted to

    uh second uh the caller in front of me uh Mr Hill and uh but but also with an

    adjunct to that um it we we should also be uh educating

    not only the public but also as the commission goes through changes it would

    be great if um the Commissioners also were presented the up-to-date information about ranked

    Choice voting um and also its interaction with open source software there are many experts

    in the election system of community that uh want to make sure that if we are

    using ranked Choice voting which obviously we are in San Francisco that it is not placed

    um within a proprietary software code environment as we know that recounts are

    more cumbersome in a ranked Choice environment if not impossible and so

    you're completely Reliant upon the software account and we want to make sure that software is appropriate

    software um back to the little Hoover Commission report if the Commissioners are not

    familiar with that I think that's should be mandatory reading at this point along

    with um the current information I'm regarding heart inner Civic which was

    mentioned you know what what could possibly go wrong with a secret software voting system company out of Texas

    um you know coming into San Francisco other than um you know obviously we're not going to

    make the difference in 2024 with the uh Trump uh coming up for another election

    but we want to set precedent for the United States and and get California in

    order now we're seeing other states move ahead of California which has done

    a lot of the work on the open source front regarding elections and now we're

    seeing a New Hampshire uh moving in front of us Mississippi and and it to be

    candid it's it's embarrassing that we're in this position where we still can't get ourselves together around this issue

    in San Francisco like Los Angeles Bears a lot of responsibility if the

    commission is also not familiar with what happened in Los Angeles 35 was

    dedicated toward an open source project there at the urging of open voting Consortium and that 300 million dollars

    went missing and again uh back to commissioner bernholz recusing herself that that was oset that came into Los

    Angeles burned through that 300 million and a lot of people have cried foul and

    fraud regarding that 300 million going south and Los Angeles still does not

    have an open source voting system so um thank you very much for your time and

    your dedication to democracy thank you okay thank you

    okay so um if if any colors had their hand raised please raise it again I put one

    down but I don't know if that was Mr Hill or not I don't

    see any other hands raised I think we're

    okay Panthers that will close out

    um the agenda item number four commissioner's reports and so as I mentioned uh at the beginning of the

    meeting we're going to move an earlier sorry agenda item number eight uh to

    agenda item number five letter regarding security issues so discussion impossible

    action regarding the DVS order privacy flaw affecting San Francisco's Dominion voting system and reporting of potential

    similar voting systems security issues to the Department of Elections and I will hand it over to vice

    president jordanick okay thank you president Stone so for this agenda item there were there were two parts to the

    conversation that I wanted to discuss the first part is the um the idea of a

    security.txt file which came up last month and then secondly

    was the letter to the Secretary of State and some similar letters so first on the

    topic of the security.txt and I attached to the packeted document that describes

    what it is and it basically it's an internet standard that provides a way to

    um publicize how security researchers can communicate security issues to an

    organization like the department and I did check that in either the city's website sf.gov or the

    department's website have one so um so this is something that the um the

    department could set up um I I guess director Ernst the SF

    elections domain is under the Department's control is that correct correct yeah and then the um of course

    the city's domain is not under the Department's control so if we wanted the city's website to do it we would need to

    talk with them separately so um I know just recently across the

    bay on the city of Oakland was hit by a ransomware attack so um I mean I think it could be good

    from a city-wide perspective so if we wanted to we could maybe um

    discuss the idea of of also communicating with whoever's responsible for the the city's domain

    but um and then secondly at the last meeting we uh

    when I started the agenda item I had raised the idea of writing a letter to the Secretary of State and based on the

    discussion we had and in talking with Dr halderman and director Ernst it's it's not just the

    secretary of state that didn't inform the department about the vulnerability but there was also um Dominion who had

    sent an advisory to the department which did not actually mention the vulnerability and also the federal

    agencies the EAC and ciso the cyber security agency didn't notify the department so I

    thought what we could do is we could um discuss the idea of sending a similar letter to to those two organizations or through

    organizations so um I I mean partly I think it's important

    for the federal agencies to know that if they have a process for getting this information down to the

    local jurisdictions that in this case their process didn't work and if they don't have a process it

    would be good for them to know that um you know it might be worth having a process

    so um so I thought we could just maybe discuss the draft letters they were posted to

    the packet on Thursday and then I did make a couple edits since then

    um the most recent ones are underlined if people had seen the letters before that

    so I guess you just open it up to commissioner Clements

    commissioner die yeah I just um wanted to clarify with this who who

    would be signing this letter since there's a reference to the commission authorized me

    I I was thinking the president um okay

    I think that's appropriate and then the other question I had is will you be snail mailing it as well as

    emailing it I mean that's that's up to are you

    asking me or okay that's up to us taking notes I missed you looking at me apologize I was I was thinking just for

    ease we could just mail it or sorry email it but I think there's no reason we couldn't do both

    but um it's it's certainly it's also what people have time for but

    or whatever people prefer commissioner Hayden Crowley thank you commissioner um

    pres president Stone and commissioner jordanick question there's a lot of

    material here and um I am a little bit confused uh but

    um it seems like this letter uh you have the questions at the very

    end and I think then you have a bunch of stuff before

    about our position on open source voting was that the agreement that that the

    letter was going to talk about open source voting or were we just going to talk about the the questions that we had

    about um the specific lack of notification

    so I think what the last meeting I suggested the idea of drafting a letter

    and this is what I came up with I thought that I mean we could take this letter as an

    opportunity to educate the agencies about open source and how you know one of the advantages is that

    issues like these would be caught a lot earlier and if people don't want to include that information we could remove

    it but I do think it's a good opportunity to educate these

    organizations okay but it's not what we talked about at the previous

    meeting that we would incorporate that or did we did well we did we did talk about

    with Dr halderman House it had been open source we would have caught that issue but um

    we didn't really spend a lot of time talking about what the letter would contain the con well we I think we did

    we did just say that you would talk that the letter would would address these questions which I think you've done a

    very good job of addressing the flaws in the system

    um I'm not totally comfortable with the whole open source issue I think I I understand your point completely

    commissioner jordanick but um because I'm still somewhat new to

    this commission I we haven't had a full hearing on open source unless you want

    to count all of um uh the public comment we've received about it and I and you know I I I see

    your point of view on the open source but I've not heard the other side at all and so I'm not sure also okay let me

    just say I'm not sure that that this is what we agreed to number one and number two

    um if you want to get your point across I recommend making it one page and going

    straight to the very end on the elections commission with the questions because it just takes too long to get to

    the point um it's just my experience that these are very busy people their staffers are

    the folks that are going to read it we want an answer I don't think it's I don't I mean we'll be educating their

    staffers I'm just going to tell you they're not going to read it if they read it they'll read these questions and

    if we want to get to get a prompt response my recommendation would be to

    give a brief um you know like the second paragraph is good

    um I mean I don't want to pick this whole thing apart I because you've spent a lot of time on this and I I really

    appreciate all the time that you spend on all of these things you're extraordinarily thoughtful but I do

    think that my understanding is we agreed that you would write a letter that would ask about the flaws and my feeling is

    that's what the letter should be and my recommendation is is that it should stay to one page

    okay yeah I just in terms of agreeing I mean we didn't we discussed it but we didn't have a

    vote or anything on on what it would include um I'm certainly open to

    you know revising in the letters um if if we don't want to include those paragraphs about open source we can we

    can remove them but it has been our policy since 2015 to support

    open source voting so it's consistent with you know what this body has been in

    support of but um in terms of the length of the letter I mean these are agencies that

    have many many people working for them they routinely review very long documents on all kinds of subjects I

    don't think it hurts to include more information in the first paragraph it does say the questions are at the end so

    they could skip through that stuff if they want to but um and also part of this is for the public

    record I mean it you know when people are seeing this information it's a chance for us to

    educate people reading the letter on things that are important to this Commission

    vice president jordanick I don't mean to be rude but I want to give other folks an opportunity to also jump in who

    haven't had the chance to yet and then obviously I would love to come back to you as well did anyone else

    um yes commissioner burn holes thank you I'd like to Second uh the

    comment made by commissioner Hayden Crowley I think what uh commissioner johnik here has done uh and he's done it

    very well um has uh

    has actually led to a letter that might result in less attention not more

    because it's too related but not similar sets of content and I would very much

    agree that a letter that includes paragraphs one and two one two and three and the

    questions is what we agreed to support at the meeting and

    um the the information about open source is accurate important and a good

    opportunity to educate but what it actually is is slipping into a document

    agreed to do one thing a set of points and information that I think will simply

    distract from that end um I also not not sure that uh

    I there are comments in here which I don't believe this commission has

    a has um in any way endorsed so I think it would

    be better to just remove it thank you and thank you commissioner Sonic for drafting the letters

    thank you commissioner burn holes

    anyone else like to comment commissioner die

    yeah I I personally don't have an objection to the inclusion of some of

    this although I do believe something more succinct would get more attention so I I don't disagree with my

    the previous commissioner's comments on that point um a suggestion might be

    to um take some of the uh reference references to

    um voting system standards for example which they ought to know

    and and just refer to them by their code number and

    maybe included as an appendix because you're really coding their own

    code back to them and so that would shorten it

    by quite a bit

    um and then I also

    think it would not hurt to put the questions up front

    just to be real clear hear the questions that we're trying to seek an answer to and then here's some

    background and we are referencing

    the state's own code and just include it I mean include as an appendix maybe after the letter

    so I think that would accomplish the goal of making it tighter

    thank you commissioner die um vice president jordanick did you want to

    respond I know I kind of cut you off earlier um I'm fine with all the suggestions

    um you know I do appreciate that you know people are supportive of the

    the idea of the letter in the questions you know I'm happy to remove the paragraphs that are

    about open source um and then I can also move the

    the references to the um the voting system standards to to an

    appendix that that's that's information slowly in the Secretary of State letter yeah but um yeah I'm happy to make those

    changes and I think it's clear which paragraphs

    are about open source it's you know the ones starting incidentally and then on

    on basically until before right before the questions start

    and I can also move the questions up to the towards the beginning commissioner died yeah I mean I think you can still

    reference open source because that is something that Dr halderman said and I think that point is

    still valid but probably some of the more detailed stuff may not be necessary and

    in in the interest of brevity could be could be taken out but I I don't think

    it's wrong to make the point that if this were an open source system it would have been found

    yeah well so I'm happy either way you know obviously

    um I would prefer there to be more but I think because commissioner bernholds and commissioner Hayden Crowley raised the

    point I would kind of want look to them to see what they would be comfortable with if it's mentioned at all

    but um it's kind of up to them I think commissioner Hayden Crowley I I don't

    feel like it's up to me I was just a recommendation but I I I don't

    I hear you what you're saying commissioner jordonic that we have a policy of supporting open source voting

    but the fact remains we don't have an open source voting system in San

    Francisco So speaking to them about open source voting is not um we're not a first person

    experience I guess is my point and then maybe that's what commissioner on bernholz I'm I just I don't want to even

    say anything more because I think I I totally get what you're doing and and I and I respect it I just think we agreed

    to a letter that would ask questions and we should stay on topic and I also think in my experience as a communicator and I

    know people go through a lot of different you know read a lot of letters but I've read a lot of letters and I

    just like people to get to the point because I don't have that much time in the day and that this is what we agree to that

    would be my recommendation

    so this is President Stone um thank you everyone for the discussion and I've been taking a lot of notes and

    thinking about it um I want to just clarify also what

    folks are if we're focused on just the letter to the Secretary of State

    um because obviously there are other um recipients included in the in the packet

    um and I I think that those that's a separate conversation that we should also have of

    should we be directing who should we be directing these two um one way or another

    um I at this point I'm not comfortable with as president with this specific

    letter um just based on the conversation but also some of the language

    um definitely does not align with how I would necessarily position something to

    the Secretary of State state's office and so I would just want to be kind of clear about that one recommendation I

    have that I would like the body to consider is um if uh and vice president

    jordanick as well like your input on this if you want to based on the conversation we had here

    um and perhaps you and I working offline um do another draft for the commission to review

    um and approve before the next meeting I recognize that you probably want to move faster on this but

    um you know knowing that we're not we don't have an immediate election coming up where we need to be immediately

    concerned um I I thought that might be a good

    approach where everyone can we could take the feedback redraft I can also

    provide thoughts on you know tone of voice from me and so that we can present

    an alternative to everyone um so there's that and then also I'd

    like to talk just a little bit about the idea of um reaching out to Dominion

    um because I want to be I want to be kind of careful about this and I would like to hear everyone's thoughts

    um I I yeah I'd like to hear what people think about reaching out to Dominion I

    obviously want to be considerate of the fact that while we are

    um we do want to ask questions we also are and similarly with the Secretary of

    State's office like we do also want to work with these folks um I mean Dominion is our provider and

    um being thoughtful of how we talk to them and how that could affect the relationship with the director and the

    department I think is in the best interest of the city and so I would like to hear what other people have

    um to say in regards to that it's not to say that we don't reach out to them it's just being mindful of how so I would be

    interested to hear what what folks think about that in addition to the proposal for the draft letters

    what are your reservations to dominion and the reason for not

    putting it in oh it this is present Stone um it wasn't so much the letter like not

    writing a letter it's more just what I was exactly what I was saying about the relationship with the Department

    um because they are our election system provider and we they are the only one

    that we are currently working with and you know having those types of relationships and contractor

    relationships we want to be mindful of a the impact on the director and the department and

    their ability to work with Dominion if we're making sure we're not and I'm not suggesting that this would undermine it

    but just being thoughtful of that um which I think probably goes to what commissioner dye had brought up at the

    last meeting about having the director's input um but recognizing that there is a

    relationship there that we have to be kind of cautious of um and um knowing that

    you know relationships and contractor relationships are a give and take so it's less like reservations about this

    specific letter it's just a consideration that I think hadn't been brought up that I'd like people's input

    in and also um I invite Dirk Ernst if you have additional thoughts as well does does

    that help yes okay thank you yeah thanks commissioner we'll see commissioner die

    so first a comment on the election assistance commission and um

    I do think it's appropriate to send them a letter as well because they are

    responsible for these issues at a national level and they were also informed by Dr halderman and they also

    did not inform the department so I think that's completely appropriate with

    regard to Dominion I mean we're their customer and it's very reasonable for us to

    expect you know software that it's not defective and I personally you know this

    was the first time I actually saw the notice from Dominion which um I agree with with vice president

    president jordanick's comment at the last meeting I hadn't seen it at that time but he commented that it was really

    vague and I completely agree I mean after reading that note it would not have been apparent to me that I would

    have had to do anything where I in director Art's position I I thought it was

    deliberately obfuscated and so I think it's quite reasonable to

    demand that a vendor be transparent if they have a bug you know let us know

    about it let us know when you're going to fix it you know that's a very reasonable request and and don't put out

    a really vague notice that I you know really don't understand what to

    do right so you know to me this is a customer vendor

    relationship it's not something we need to tiptoe around

    um I will come back to you vice president jordanick at commissioner burn holes head um her hand up

    thank you president Stone um I I on the letter to Dominion itself

    I agree with commissioner die I also think there's some power in sending a

    letter to dominion and noting that similar letters have been sent to the

    Secretary of State in the EAC I think it's important to let them know the

    degree to which we're paying attention to this um

    so I just that's my comment thanks thank you commissioner Bruno's

    commissioner Hayden Crowley I thank you president Stone I would agree with um

    commissioner dye and commissioner bernholz um I think just um if I'm to extrapolate

    from your comments I just think we need to be respectful of the relationship with um director Arts I think that's all

    you were saying but I think it's totally reasonable to ask the vendor and keep director arms in the loop

    thank you commissioner Hayden Crowley I'm oh sorry I also skipped you vice president Jordan I apologize okay yes I

    I just wanted to mention because this may have been before you're on the commission president soon but I think it

    was a couple years ago that the um the commission wrote a letter to Dominion it

    was sent by commissioner bernholz this was in reference to uh

    the a reporter that for the San Francisco Examiner quoted the dominions are sales representative at Dominion

    saying something that was um disrespectful towards San Francisco

    voters so then we wrote a letter to Dominion asking the representative to

    explain and I think we may have invited him to a meeting or something so it would it's

    not without precedent for us to send a letter to Dominion but that's all I wanted to share thank you a point of

    clarification I voted on that letter so I was on the commission I do recall

    great okay yeah no no problem um does anyone else

    so this is present Stone again um I really appreciate everyone providing that input and glad there's

    some general consensus um how do folks feel about the second question or it was really the first

    question I had asked which is um the idea of um vice president jordanick taking some

    of the feedback that we had had that we've discussed today potentially drafting a new version and working with

    me offline on that new version and then presenting it for the commission's review and approval of the next meeting

    commissioner Hayden Crowley I make a motion that we accept your suggestion to

    uh work with commissioner jordonic offline following this meeting not directly

    following this meeting and uh edit the draft and uh disseminate

    it I guess to the commission prior to the next meeting so that we can are we

    allowed to do that DCA or you'd have to make it part of the packet we would just include it as a package okay and then

    would we be would we be voting on it at the next meeting or can we agree to send it prior to the meeting

    um we I think we would have to vote on it okay unless unless your motion is if

    unless we're going to make an amendment to your motion which is that why I haven't finished my mind oh okay well an

    alternative so to answer your question we could you could also motion that the

    body does not need to vote on it and just that there is interest in the vice

    president and myself to uh work offline and and work in the interest of what was

    shared today I would include that in my motion because I think that is the most

    efficient way of handling this so let me restate the motion I I am moving that

    uh president stone work with commissioner jordanick offline to

    redraft the letter and distribute it to the commission following this meeting and that uh

    we have the opportunity to provide feedback but that ultimately president

    Stone and vice president jordanick will

    make the decision based on our recommendations to uh agree on the letter and send it to

    the Secretary of State and to Dominion so and to the various ccs so I have um

    just want to make one point of clarification or point of information which is just that we won't be able to

    have feedback provided to us outside of the meeting because of the brown act so

    it would have to be either authorizing us to take what was shared today and

    then giving us you know authority to draft it based on that or the two of us work on it and present a new draft that

    would be voted on at the next meeting all right I'm going to put a lot of

    trust in you [Laughter] know I just don't want to talk about this at the next meeting

    let's just that's my motion that we get this done uh following the meeting

    second thank you um just before we

    um take public comment I just want to confirm with vice president jordanick that you agree to do that

    um what was motioned which was that we would work offline to incorporate the

    feedback provided today and then the commission would give us authority to

    send the letters without having to vote on what those new letters are

    you asking me yes um yeah I think yes I think that's good

    okay thank you any other discussion before we move to

    public comment okay let's move to public comment

    okay so there are two hands raised it's unmute you Mr Turner you have three

    minutes thank you Commissioners um because of my health issues I'm

    unfortunately not um prone to attend uh meetings in the

    future um with this commission um but I I do want to mention in this

    moment that sometimes you just have to be brave and the conversations I'm

    hearing here uh appear to be fear-based um Dominion has already said

    uh that they think San Francisco voters are stupid and that the election

    commission doesn't know anything about elections so it doesn't get much worse than that I I think you should probably

    not be in fear of offending Steve Bennett and uh the folks at Dominion

    um that that's my personal opinion on this regarding your letters yes send it to the EAC to sisa to the DHS they can

    always be reminded um though they're very familiar with the battle between Microsoft and op open

    source systems regarding commissioner Hayden Crowley I I would just caution

    the Commissioners to not fall into the Trap that is set up here by oset to

    remove any conversation amongst the Commissioners or on agendas regarding

    open source um we this is the biggest issue in the United States right now how to secure

    our election systems so that we have voter confidence and this we're spiraling downward here we're never

    going to have public confidence with bad voting system software and San Francisco's had the ability to lead a

    lot of people spent 20 years setting this up for you to do the right thing and for everyone to cower now is is

    again embarrassing it's not what San Francisco county or city stands for

    nationally we're supposed to be the beacon on the hill for democracy and and this is uh unfortunately I I just have

    to say embarrassing conversation uh Professor halderman was candid and Frank

    when he said this would not have happened in an open source environment um to to cower away from telling the

    truth just plays into the hands of some very bad people that desire instability

    for the United States that includes not only possibly inside interference people

    that are corrupting this process but also outside interference folks in other

    countries so please stand up be brave do the right thing consult your own consciences

    self-educate on the issue of Open Source software regarding elections since

    you're on this commission and you're in the hot seat on this and can show leadership not only to the county but to

    the state and to the rest of the country so please try to stand up sometimes

    you just have to be grave and and we're seeing this affectation of this

    commission Mr Turner of corporate corruption and I applaud you for your

    dedication to democracy thank you thank you thank you

    um next public commenter the name is George you're you're unmuted

    you have three minutes

    hello yes we can hear you okay excellent um

    I said uh a month ago um well I requested that

    um you know I wanted to to take a look at Dr halderman's solution and I talked to Chris about this two weeks ago in San

    Leandro um and then look and I just wanted to I said I would get back to you and I got back to Chris but I wanted to reiterate

    to the the commission um it's a really good solution I I looked at it I don't really see any downside

    and and I I had an election expert that I talked to he looked at he was very much in favor of it knows Dr Holliman

    knows the credibility of his work so it's it's excellent because it does exactly what he said it it effectively

    scrambles the order of the ballot records in the cast vote record database so for example

    um president Stone well let's say that you have um you know you have you say the ballot

    stuff so there's still a and you have four ballot stubs in an election you know and you wrote down the numbers you

    can still look them up and the caspot record database but they might be for example the first one might show up in

    line 1000 of the database and the other the next one might show up in line uh 23

    506 of the database etc etc so it effectively scrambles the order which

    protects gives a level of security um from people being able to reverse

    engineer who voted when um which is which is what he was talking about but at the same time it's still uh

    preserves the the transparency while while preserving privacy so that you

    um uh president Stone can look up in the caspot record uh database you can still look up by the the ballot ID that you

    have on your stub and uh and verify so can any citizen of Silence because verify that your boat was recorded the

    way you cast it or for everything you cast it for so I fully support that and

    I just want to go out back let you all know it and I want to thank the commission um for going to the trouble of inviting

    um Dr halderman to present this excellent um first to make people aware of the

    problem and also present what is an excellent solution thank you

    okay thank you thank you

    okay there are no other hands raised okay thank you um we are going to now vote on the

    motion um on commissioner Hayden Crowley's motion that I present Stone will work

    with vice president jordanick offline to redraft the letters based on the feedback shared today and grant us the

    authority to send it to the three recipients included in the packet so vice president jordanick yes

    um commissioner burn holes commissioner dye

    I bet I think they're four recipients thank you

    thank you commissioner diet um commissioner Hayden Crowley yes commissioner bolsi yes commissioner

    Parker yes and I president stone m a yes so with all seven

    Commissioners voting yes we the motion passes

    great thank you everyone so is there any

    further discussion before we close out this agenda item vice president I just wanted to see how

    do people feel about approaching the city's Department of Technology about the security.txt would would that be

    something that um like one of us should do just on our own or did we want to

    um oh sorry I didn't see uh commissioner die yeah I nominate you Chris to go and

    approach I believe his name is Mark matz metzman who's our ciso for the city of San Francisco I

    think it's a pretty simple solution I'm sure he would welcome it okay and I don't think we need to vote

    on that just I could just reach out okay and I just want to thank everyone for you know the discussion today and I

    think everyone's feedback was very valuable so thank you Ms president Stone I would like to add

    one one quick item um so there's been some conversation about

    the open source voting obviously on this body over the last x amount of months

    but also many many many years and so I I wanted to make everyone aware that one

    of the items that vice president jordanick and I have been discussing is perhaps in that special meeting over the

    summer we do a little bit more of a deep dive to make folks particularly folks who might be new to open source voting

    to the policy but also just the system to be able to give kind of a full

    landscape of of um of the policy in a longer format so

    hopefully that should also be helpful for folks to kind of get up to speed and

    then also perhaps provide additional documentation that you know should

    Commissioners come and go that will be easily accessible for

    um for the next body to to kind of pick up where we left off so I thought that

    might be a value yes commissioner Hayden Crowley I think thank you president Stone I I just my just pet peeve we

    don't have and I'm going to lose my train of thought because I'm tired tonight so I apologize for the fact that

    I'm so tired uh long day at the office but um

    back to what were we talking open source voting um we

    swear The Retreat open source voting uh doing a work an overview of it

    okay oh open source voting it's it's not the whole open source voting per se and

    and learning more about it it's the actual power we have to do anything about it and that's a discussion that we

    need to have with the DCA here because we can talk about it till kingdom come but we really have no money we don't

    have any kind of authority um to do certain things and so we can

    endorse it but we spend a lot of time on issues that we really have no Authority on and we're here till midnight and I

    really do think that if one of the discussions we need to have at some point is particularly with the DCA

    weighing in and maybe we need to hire Authority even in the city attorney's office what power do we have because I'm

    seeing us drifting into areas and and we'll we'll talk about this as we go

    um you know I think there's some overreach going on here and while our intentions are really good and admirable

    at the end of the day we're I remind you we are the appointed body

    of seven different electeds who all have different agendas and they were elected by the people we were not elected by

    them and we have a certain amount of privilege and Authority but it is

    contained and so we're spend a lot of time on things that at the end of the day I don't know how I mean I do think

    that we need to have uh honest conversation about what we can really

    what we really have authority over is what I'm saying because we are investing a lot of time into things that may go

    nowhere because of the way that the bylaws are set up and the city Charter

    is set up so that's thank you Hayden commissioner Hayden Crowley

    is anyone else and I welcome that feedback

    um okay so we're gonna close out agenda item number five um and with that we're going to move to

    agenda item number six um possible closed session concerning the director of Elections 2020 2022

    performance evaluation continued from February 15th and public employment

    um sorry Public Employee appointment slash hiring of the commission secretary

    um so first we're going to move to public comment and also um we're gonna move to public comment and all matters

    pertaining to both of these uh both uh the 6D and 6E pertaining to closed


    okay there's one hand raised Mr Turner I'm on meeting you

    you have three minutes yeah thank you again Commissioners for indulging me and

    I realize I am just speaking on behalf of the public but I do appreciate you bringing in experts like Dr Holderman

    and also uh we would encourage you to pay attention to

    um not only your own vice president here and his great working knowledge of the open source election system issue but

    also the group voting Works who is the first in the country to actually deploy

    an open source system in of all places Mississippi instead of San Francisco the

    reason why I'm commenting at this point is because the regarding the director's

    evaluation the um flaw in the ointment unfortunately here because he does to seem to do a

    decent job administering elections um is uh director arnst director honest

    his personally stalled the open source voting system

    um uh deployment in San Francisco and the and the uh trial of the system by

    providing disinformation to the Secretary of State's office and basically slowing everything down we

    believe at the direction of dominion and of course that's why we talk about corruption

    um Microsoft and dominion and the vendors and people that sell secret software with licenses uh proprietary

    they they don't want open source anywhere in any conversation ever this

    creeps into our own Board of Supervisors previously we had the luxury of people like Tom amiano who would stand up and

    more recently Shimon Walton but it's a tough road and I mean just all hell

    breaks loose upon the politicians to try to advocate for open source software and

    elections it's the third rail but the reason it's important is we have to have public confidence in our elections San

    Francisco is the best and the brightest in the country arguably if is probably

    not going to completely happen out of Mississippi but Mississippi went ahead

    and did the right thing because they they needed to in that moment we may not need to maybe we're okay hanging out

    with Dominion even though they call it stupid and ridiculed the population of San Francisco but the fact remains if we

    are brave and do the right thing sometimes you have to do that in certain moments of history like Winston

    Churchill when he was fighting the Nazis you have to stand up to my Supremacy corporate control over elections and uh

    I I Look to You to to again consult your conscience and and work hard to try and

    figure this out thank you all again for your time okay thank you

    there are no other hands raised okay

    so we're now going to move to succeed vote on whether to meet in closed

    session to consider item 60 and or item 6E pursuant to California government code

    54957b in San Francisco Administrative Code 67.10 B

    so moved um vice president jordanick

    yes commissioner burn holes yes

    commissioner die aye commissioner Hayden Crowley yes commissioner labelsey yes commissioner

    Parker yes and I president Stone vote Yes so we are now going to move into

    closed session and um return yeah it will take a minute just

    to to move into closed session so thank you everyone thank you we are back in Open session at

    8 39 PM um so we

    we have to do G discussion and vote pursuant to administrative code

    67.12a on whether to disclose any portion of the closed session um just regarding item 16 and E so

    yeah I moved not to disclose anything in our closed session second oh um my apologies

    um you are disclosed yes okay so and outside of what I so all provide provide

    will rescind the motion for a moment just to disclose that the commission

    will a be but but I need the review we're making

    to be making a positional offers and then about the review continue on the item yeah okay

    um sorry uh we I would like to disclose that the commission authorized me to

    provide a conditional offer to um a potential um candidate for our commission

    secretary so commissioner die would you like to make that motion again

    uh I move that we not disclose um anything regarding our continued

    performance evaluation of the of the director

    second okay um uh vice president jordanick

    uh yes commissioner burn holes yes commissioner die

    I commissioner Hayden Crowley yes commissioner lavosi yes commissioner

    Parker yes and I present Stone vote Yes so thank you all and and

    um I really appreciate it I just want to uh we're going to close out that uh agenda item and I need to make another

    adjustment to the agenda item which is we're going to swap uh the current item

    seven with eight so we're going to go straight into the redistricting process initiative and I just want to say thank

    you to our very patient guest speaker for um for waiting until we got back into

    Open session we really appreciate it so agenda item number eight redistricting

    process initiative discussion and possible action regarding the commission's ongoing redistricting process initiative and I will hand this

    over to commissioner levolsi and commissioner die thank you president Stone and perhaps um

    well um we're getting promoting our guest speaker to a panelists uh the the

    bio for guest speaker Nicholas heidorn is in the packet while he has a very impressive

    background the reason we invited him is that he is the author of two reports

    that were included in the packet the one that uh was included in the packet last month the promise of fair Maps hot off

    the press and then also the original California local redistring commission's report which was published in 2017 and

    was included in the July 2022 commission packet we've asked him to

    join us here very briefly so that he can give us some brief remarks but really

    he's here to answer any and all of our remaining questions before we move on to

    the next phase of our redistricting initiative so with that

    can we make sure that Nicholas can be heard by us

    are you there yes thank you commissioner die can you guys hear me okay

    yes which is great wonderful thank you uh uh president and Commissioners for

    having me it's a pleasure to be here so uh for the record my name is Nicholas hidor and I run my own consulting firm

    and as was mentioned I recently completed a Statewide report on local redistening on behalf of the league one Motors of California ACLU of California

    California common cause and Asian Americans advancing Justice Asian law caucus which I'll discuss very briefly

    with you today as part of my background previously I worked for California common cause on local redistricting

    reform including on the fair Maps act which is the main state law affecting local redisting and I also co-founded a

    common cause and majority School of Law the California local redistricting project dedicated to studying local

    redistan best practices um I'll try and limit my remarks to about five minutes if that's okay I'll

    briefly go over some of the results of our recent study talk a little bit about Trends with irc's independent

    redistricting commissions and then talk briefly about some proposed state legislation going through the process

    now um so in terms of the study the promise Fair Maps which is linked to the agenda

    came out in January of this year uh this was a study where I interviewed

    around two dozen voting rights Civic and good government organizations across the

    state to that were active in the local redistring process to hear about their experiences and in addition to those

    groups also spoke with demographers resisting Consultants as well as local government staff to

    kind of get a perspective really on a Statewide level of how local redistricting went so I do want to

    emphasize that part well there's a small part of the report touching on San Francisco my view is really broad

    looking and low reducing broadly and says more focused at that high level than speaking specifically to your

    experience here in San Francisco uh the general findings of the report which are outlined in the executive

    summary is that on the positive redistring was far more participatory and transparent this cycle than it has

    been before those in part because of state laws requiring more transparency more public Outreach but also because of

    remote participation which was used in many cities in response to the pandemics that allowed

    people with family and work obligations to more fully participate in the process which is a good thing

    uh also we saw much more group mobilization in the cycle as people become more aware of the importance of

    reducing and how it has uh 10-year long impacts on the quality of representation at the local level

    another finding more mixed finding that we saw was that the fair Maps Act created new redistration criteria that

    really emphasized trying to keep communities whole and we saw some mixed results on that and some communities

    these criteria did lead to Bringing communities that had been split and bring them uh together so that those

    communities and neighborhoods would be more likely to be listened to in political process of Fuller representation but not in all

    communities and in fact repeatedly what we heard is that incumbency protection

    often thwarted keeping communities of Interest whole in spite of clear

    criteria prioritizing keeping communities whole the states and really nationally there

    was a rather prominent behind the scenes example of that with the leaked audio from Los Angeles's redistricting process

    where people got seeing comments openly discussing or putting people's districts in a blender to chop them up to hurt a

    political opponent as well as discussing how empowering certain communities are splitting them could impact the

    interests of those incumbents and their allies uh another major finding I want to

    highlight from the report is the the success of politically insulated independent redistring commissions or

    ircs California is undoubtedly the national leader on redistricting

    commissions independent redistration commissions at the local level inspired by the state commission we saw a huge

    explosion which I'll go over next in the use of independent commissions the groups that were active this cycle

    particularly those that were active in local resisting where incumbents control the process as well as where an

    independent commission control the process really uh emphasize that the sense that

    an IRC insulated from the flow process was much more deliberative much more

    responsive to public comment and ultimately much more likely to adopt maps that were reflective of communities

    of interest in particularly of communities of color uh no I don't want to overstate irc's

    not Flawless redistricting involves very very difficult trade-offs and often uh

    these tough decisions mean that it's it's pretty rare that everyone will be happy and indeed some of the groups that I talked to we're not always happy with

    the decisions even of independent resisting commissions but one of the things that I heard in these discussions

    is because the process was open deliberative there was often more trust and acceptance of that process than a

    congress legislative process um finally just to to finalize the last

    finding of the report we looked especially at advisory commissions which tend to be uh done through political

    appointments uh as well as obviously some a small number of ircs have some

    political appointees including San Francisco's and uh one of the other findings that came

    through is that when political appointments are part of the process it diminishes some of the independence from

    commissions it's particularly noticed in advisory commissions uh some of the leaked audio in La even emphasize that

    people were directing their Commissioners how they wanted them to go on certain ways Commissioners were being

    pulled in Los Angeles for not following the desires or sufficiently

    advocating for the desires and comments and so the political appointment can reduce some of the hope of commissions

    creating a more independent process it really allows communities to view the

    guiding force behind how districts are drawn terms of recommendations the report has

    a number of recommendations many large and and many kind of micro related to

    the fair Maps act but a few to highlight uh one of the major ones is recommending strengthening the state fair Maps act to

    prevent incumbency protection gerrymandering and to make that more expressed in state law another is to require independent

    redistricting commissions politically insulated independent redistration Commissions in all large jurisdictions

    in the state uh increasing the number of mandatory public hearings and continuing to allow

    remote testimony in the future and finally extending the fair Maps act to apply to all local governments not just

    cities and counties now briefly I want to discuss just two more things the trend of ircs and what

    that's looking like in the state and then I'll I'll end by just discussing some State legislation so at the local

    level as I mentioned at the outset we've seen the real huge explosion in the use

    of independent redistricting commissions at the local level in the 2010 cycle there were only three ircs that existed

    uh and that's counting San Francisco's and that whereas in this 2020 cycle

    there are 22 cities and counties that had independent redistricting commissions so a huge explosion and that

    includes Los Angeles County San Diego County cities like San Diego Oakland

    Sacramento Long Beach so a lot of the major jurisdictions have shifted this last cycle to Independent resisting

    commission and that's a trend that is highly likely to continue Los Angeles is

    in the process of going through its own uh examination of creating an independent commission after scandals in

    that City and there are three bills in the legislature to create independent

    redistrant commissions for individual counties and cities at the state level there's also a bill that I'll touch on

    later Abu 1248 by assemblyman O'Brien which would require old jurisdictions

    with a population of over 300 000 to adopt ircs uh the popularity viruses uh is is also

    evident just in how they fare at the ballot locally most ircs are created by Charter Amendment the 2017 study I

    co-authored found of 17 ballot measures include either an advisory or an independent commission 15 of those 17

    were successful and since that 2017 study there have been at least a half

    dozen additional primarily independent redesign commission measures and I'm not aware of any of them failing and the

    last point on that in terms of voter support or interest in this reform there is a 2022 poll so just last year by

    Capital weekly which found that 90 of California voters including 90 of

    Democrats and 86 percent Republicans agreed with the statement that quote all

    local redistricting should be done by independent Commission uh in terms of where uh local reducing

    and irc's are headed uh really modern commissions have started to follow a

    pretty clear pattern and in terms of good government organizations there are also certain best practices principles

    that have emerged at the top you see this reflected in state legislation and in most of the modern IRC Charter

    Amendments have gone about some commonalities would include with no elected official appointments or

    Commissioners using some type of independent process having qualifying and disqualifying criteria

    for appointees to the IRC to try and ensure that they themselves have some

    degree of impartiality and are unduly connected with an elected official or political faction

    Post Service restrictions on Commissioners to ensure that drawing the lines are not kind of looking forward to

    potentially drawing lines to benefit themselves and finally re-entry districting

    criteria generally prioritizing keeping communities and neighborhoods whole uh has also been the Modern Trend as

    opposed to just having a list of criteria actually indicating push comes to show which Criterion should dominate

    now the last thing I wanted to end with and then I'll open for questions and I'm happy to discuss the recent report or

    the prior report but the last thing is talking about ab1248 so as I mentioned this is proposed state legislation going

    through the process currently what it essentially would do is set a deadline of March 1st 2030 for any jurisdiction

    with the population over 300 000 to establish its own IRC and if a jurisdiction fails to do so then it

    establishes a default commission so a state imposed default Commission on that jurisdiction

    the legislation includes all jurisdictions including Charter cities and counties like San Francisco

    uh if jurisdictions want to adopt their own commission uh if this legislation of

    course were to pass there are certain requirements that that commission would have to meet that is specified in the legislation including an independent

    selection process not including incumbents as well as some qualifying and disqualifying criteria as well as

    post-service restrictions uh jurisdictions can go stricter than those but it does establish some baselines in

    those areas so again uh thank you for inviting me to speak you know I I wanted

    to also end with a little bit of historical context San Francisco was the

    Second City to establish a commission as opposed to having incumbents to draw its

    lines so at the time that San Francisco did it it was way ahead of the curve in

    the almost three decades since then obviously a lot of other people have also moved to the IRC model and there's

    been a lot of innovation in this space and different types of best practices

    that has emerged so I think it's great that you are re-examining how reducing should go in San Francisco

    and looking at these other models and I wish you luck in this examination thank

    you thank you so much Mr hydearn I'm going to start with the maybe the obvious

    question that's on everyone's mind given that all the recommendations that you talked about San Francisco does not comply with

    um as if ab1248 passes would it require us to uh

    I mean we're going to take action on this anyway but if we didn't wouldn't that law require San Francisco to put in

    place all of those best practices recommendations that you talked about

    yes but the law will also make some default choices for you and so some of

    that you may wish to have more control over or you may wish to try and find what works best for your jurisdiction I

    think perhaps maybe the most significant one is the default commission is a 14-member

    commission and the way it would work is you'd first randomly select one person from each district so in San Francisco

    with love and supervisorial districts you'd have 11 randomly selected members the final three would be selected by the

    initial 11 and so you'd essentially have three commission selected members now that

    that approach of random selection by district and then self-selection of the

    final members is very has become quite standard in this model of IRC what is

    maybe a little unusual is San Francisco has 11 districts and most other jurisdictions to do RCS have fewer and

    so that means that your balance of random selection versus self-selection would be much more skewed towards the

    random selection model versus the self-selection model and one thing I

    would just highlight with that is the commissioner self-selection model is in

    part designed to ensure that the commission as a whole will reflect the diversity of a whole jurisdiction and

    obviously when you're doing random selection uh it's random and so you will hopefully get a random distribution that

    is reflective of your jurisdiction but you may not and commissioner self-selection is one approach to remedy

    that but that does require enough Commissioners for it to make a difference okay with that um I wanted to open it up

    to other Commissioners who had questions remaining from our study of

    this uh of best practices local redistricting here's this is this is the man he can answer your question

    thank you thank you commissioner dial I'll take it from here in terms of moderating go ahead I'm commissioner

    Hayden Crowley so much um

    oh sorry

    okay uh vice president Jordana yes so

    Nicholas it's good to see you Nicholas and I actually know each other going years back so um Nicholas this is

    um can't see me um so

    um just to clarify commissioner dies question if if the bill passes

    San Francisco would need to comply without any changes to our Charter it like sets a minimum or it doesn't

    is currently structured the legislation says if you do nothing by a certain date and that's March 1st 2030 then the state

    imposed commission will be created and there are the legislation kind of defines what that would look like but if

    you act earlier than that you get more flexibility in designing how Commissioners are selected the number of

    Commissioners there are still certain kind of minimums that the legislation

    says would be required for an IRC and that includes no direct appointment by

    incumbents for example and it also includes some of those minimum uh uh

    commissioner qualifications and post-service restrictions but the the overall design number house selected

    within those parameters can be done by the jurisdiction as long as you act before that date and again that's only

    if the legislation passes yeah and then my next question is when do you when do you think

    we would know as to whether the bill looks like it's going to pass like what's is it this year or would it

    be next year um that that is a little Beyond me but I

    will say it's a two-year session um typically uh bills can pass either in the first year or in the second year

    where it's passed in the first year I think it's the session ends somewhere around September or October of this year

    uh and then if it doesn't pass this year but isn't defeated it would also be possible it can pass next year with a

    similar time frame okay yeah I'm just wondering if because I think the charter amendment that we're working on

    we would want to complete this series so I think we would kind of want to make it so that it would fit with the bill if it

    were to pass I'm not sure how we would do that but um those are all my questions so thank you for uh

    being here and presenting to us this year thank you vice president commissioner Hayden Crowley uh does the

    legislation in its current form have many sponsors uh yes some of the

    one of them I'm not entirely sure everyone who's supporting it but I do know it is

    supported by a good government organizations uh in building rights organizations I believe including common

    cause and League of Women Voters well I'm actually more so it's it's in the

    assembly right now or the Senate do you I I when I ask you about the

    sponsors do you have many responses yeah so it's introduced by

    something remember Brian and it's the principal co-author is Senator Allen okay and do you have many people on it

    uh point of clarification so from my and please correct me if I'm wrong

    um but I my understanding is that assembly member Brian is the chair of

    the elections Committee of the Assembly of the State Assembly so he that I

    imagine it's in is it in committee right now uh I believe it has been and I can

    double check uh yeah it has been referred to committee yeah okay all

    right thank you I I actually would love to ask a

    follow-up question which I think maybe is part part of where you were going and this is President Stone

    um and apologies if this is what you were already saying um but uh do you know beyond the you know it being

    introduced by assembly member Brian um how much support it has in the

    assembly um and specifically given all of the components of the of the bill

    um that it would include you know they're pretty specific requirements how you know just thinking

    about the two-year legislative process in Sacramento and what it would require

    in terms of potential amendments on the floor um and then it would have to go to the

    Senate State Senate so do you have a sense of the amount of support that

    exists in the assembly and also the um if there's a sponsor in the state senate how much support there is in that

    legislative branch as well yeah I

    I primarily view myself as kind of an expert on on the structure of local

    commissions so I'd probably prefer to mostly talk about that as opposed to speculate on the politics of it but what

    I can't say is uh one of the co-authors uh Senator Allen did introduce a prior

    legislation prior to the redistricting cycle which also would have required uh

    counties I believe over 400 000 to create independent redisciplined

    commission that did pass the legislature but was vetoed by Governor Newsom and

    that was in 2019. so just to give information I think for members of the

    public I think uh Folks at a commission were also in meaning to ask about the

    governor's level of support for this as well but it seems as though um vice president jordanick you were going to

    say something well I just had an idea and I'm not sure if um Nicholas would be

    the one to answer this but like it would be possible for our County

    to support this bill if we were um you know so inclined

    but um I mean would that help I mean or is this not really your

    your realm what point of clarification we as body if you're talking about us we

    can't support anything no I said the county the state level no and we can't the board of students I thought that but

    the elections commission no you can request the county to support the ability of it there's a process for them

    assuming we clean our own house first yeah so um Mr heider do you is this

    outside of your scope or or do you know if the bill it would be helpful to have County support the bill

    uh I'd probably prefer to get my comments to my reports that's true okay

    oh sorry commissioner Parker just a further clarification if you know sorry we're pummeling you with all these questions that are probably a little

    more political in nature but um do you know are there any Appropriations associated with this bill good question

    um um so I'm looking in ledge info it does say uh

    it has a appropriation no fiscal committee yes um okay

    is what let's legislative council is capable okay my apology sorry to interrupt but

    this was not on the agenda um so

    let's specifically sign me Jennifer this assembly bill it's part of the presentation

    um and so just from the brief reading I don't know if this would apply to San Francisco because we do have an

    independent redistricting Commission um so I you know I I'm not this is the

    first I've just briefly glanced at it um so I do think that we should

    perhaps go back to the agenda item which is our own redistricting measure or process that

    we're discussing um and you know as just to briefly remind

    um the body if you'd like the city to take a position on any legislative

    action Statewide or federally you'd have to request that the mayor

    um because she is the head of the city take that position not this body thank

    you thank you DC Flores so I'll speak to the agenda since I drafted the agenda

    um I think the line of questioning is specifically asking about the state bill just from the context of how that would

    maybe inform the process initiative that we're going to talk about today um which I don't think we specifically

    stated but at least my line of questioning is based on what's going to

    be happening at the state level how that would affect the process initiative that is on the agenda today so just to level

    set on um what that on that specific piece so let's just make sure that when

    we're I guess asking these questions we put it in the context of why we're asking those questions if that's if

    would that work okay um I mean yeah thank you for that

    information that's helpful and for people who don't know why I would have asked that question is just we're in a it's a hard budget year at the state and

    so I asked because it might give us some inkling to whether or not it has a chance of passing if there was an

    appropriation associated with it but um that that's why and and for the same

    reason you just said it's this could have some implications you know with us perhaps we don't know so much about the

    details here but it could have implications which is why I'm curious

    uh well I I my only comment is if this has been if this ends up getting passed

    and the governor worked to sign it it would supersede any effort that we would make here

    that's why we're that's why we're I mean obviously there would be criteria that that we might want I mean things that we

    would want to do to refine but that the momentum would come from the state I shouldn't die oh so I so I believe Mr

    hydearn had said that if you if you have take action before the the deadline then

    you'd be given a lot more flexibility yeah so that's correct that's incentive for us to move on this

    thank you for clarifying that because I missed that point um I know that commissioner bernholtz

    had a couple of questions last time so I'm just going to direct them to you last time she had some questions about

    um enforcement for transparency Provisions for example

    and correct me if I'm wrong commissioner bernholtz if you want to weigh in I

    believe you had asked about enforcing like you know prohibition ex parte Communications and

    and things like that for Commissioners I'm wondering do you have any comments

    on that uh that's a very good question I'm not

    aware of any enforcement actions being having been done in any ircs around

    exporte Communications um you know La had a pretty extensive

    requirement for documenting ex parte Communications but I'm not sure if any

    objections were raised or followed up on that um so sorry I don't have a great answer

    on whether or not there's any models of enforcement in that regard

    and then just channeling commissioner burnhouse bernholtz once more she had asked a little bit about were some uh

    some of the recommendations were they dependent on each other or mutually exclusive you've already mentioned one

    which is the requirement for random selection for

    um for the the supervisors business they sorry the commission members who are from

    districts versus the size of the commission and I had mentioned that of

    course that affects a super majority vote as well can you think of any others

    that where there's some dependencies or things that we need to think about

    certainly I think if you're looking at like a random selection model will you just keep in on are some of the most

    important elements um so who does the screening how do you create the sub pool what are the

    requirements for the sub pool and then the random selection is done from the sub pool and you have a self-selection

    to perhaps adjust based on what random selection gets those are very dependent in terms of other elements where

    choices really depend on each other maybe I'll think of of some more by the

    end of this conversation but none none immediately come to mind a lot of these requirements are often additive so

    building on each other so uh lots of different protections for ensuring commissioner Independence there are many

    different ways that you can do that most of them are not mutually exclusive but build on each other

    okay um I think those are all of our questions comments

    um commissioner die and Commissioner of voltese is there anything else you wanted to ask the speaker before we

    stop taking up his precious evening

    you know this is really an opportunity for everyone else if there was anything else these are last expert uh witness

    here thank you so much we really appreciate it and again apologies that

    it was so much later than anticipated we really appreciate you staying up and answering our questions

    thanks again thank you very much and uh great luck with your process thank you thank you

    um Okay so I know that we also should talk through

    the initiative plan so um

    no we can go straight to I mean we can go straight to commission discussion and then before the item closes we'll go to

    public comment is that okay yeah sorry I'm not wearing my glasses is that okay

    okay sorry I couldn't see you so I wasn't

    yeah okay cool um so Commissioners lavosi and I did you want

    to say anything specifically about the document before we talk we go into any

    discussion yeah um just a couple of highlights as I mentioned the new material basically

    starts on page four the rest of it is historical um and this timeline you know I

    consulted with Board of Supervisors President Aaron

    peskin I also consulted with City attorney David Chu on this timeline and

    and that's how we put this together we

    uh we are recommending targeting the March 2024 primary as opposed to the actual

    presidential election because there's a concern and we've discussed it in this body before that there might be a

    zillion propositions in the presidential one trying to hit the the very high

    turnout election even though the primary is expected to be high turnout election as well and so and for not to get lost

    that it would be better to to shoot for March and that also gives us an option

    if we think it doesn't look favorable even though um as uh as Nicholas pointed out all of

    these have seen great popularity among voters that they they almost always pass

    um but if we run out of time or we're not happy with the draft and still need to

    work out Kinks out at least there's a second opportunity um to go in front of the voters in November so the the timeline is the most

    important thing it gives us you know

    some you know not not a lot but enough time we believe to do adequate Outreach

    and at least a couple of public input hearings to hear from the public what

    they think about these uh different aspects of of best practices and

    recommendations and then it gives the commission a couple of meetings

    to discuss and deliberate and decide what we think the best package ought to

    look like for San Francisco uh and then uh it would give the city

    attorney's office enough time to draft the actual legislation they would be working with the

    legislative Champion or champions from the Board of Supervisors uh you know there are a number of

    Supervisors who may be interested in carrying this for us depending on what it looks like at the

    end and so when we know what it looks like after the public input you know we will

    you know find out who our champion will be and they will be the sponsor to work with with the city attorney's office to

    actually draft the final language it has to be introduced at the Board of

    Supervisors by September uh and then they will go through their

    process and hopefully you know we get a majority of the Border supervisors to

    refer to the ballot hopefully much more than a majority uh and as a

    indicated later on we're actually recommending going through that route as opposed to asking the mayor or the

    person in community organizations to to run a signature gathering campaign so

    we think this is the best way to get broad support and um and engagement at the least amount of

    cost and effort so uh so we put in here A bunch of

    questions to kind of guide the out guide the public input

    so items that you will recognize were in the kind of questions comments column on

    the summary before that I think we could use some guidance from the public on what they think

    um you know there may be more but uh you know we certainly welcome additional input we're actually recommending that

    we form a temporary committee to kind of uh you know run the public input hearings

    and kind of hash out you know what we would like the full commission

    to consider as a group just to do um a lot of the heavy lifting

    because it's kind of a tight time frame to stay on the schedule so uh so there are

    I think a couple emotions that we'll need one is to approve this plan

    um and one is to form a committee to actually do the public and problems I

    think that's that's all that we need in terms of motions

    any questions um I before that I just wanted to make sure Commissioner of OC did you want to

    add anything because I know this was a collaborated collaborative got it she's got it all okay

    commissioner um Ian Crowley so I I do have I've seen

    this all at once kind of um I have a lot of questions

    um so you spoke with supervisor peskin and he is number one I guess

    is it is it within uh um DCA is it within our jurisdiction

    to do this kind of work I guess because

    I would think we're not resourced for this so like we're going to hire a

    secretary is she going to have to go to all these meetings because I mean this

    is a valid question um I can tell you right now I I'm on bopek and that's all I can handle we're

    not asking you no but but this is a lot you're right it's a lot of heavy lifting so I I would want us like my first

    response to this was what I've kind of been saying all along which is this needs to go through the Board of

    Supervisors so I'm glad that you've you've had the conversation with peskin I and their resourced for hearings and

    their resource for all the kinds of things that we're talking about doing here at this commission level I don't

    know that there's precedence maybe um vice president Jordan can can speak to

    that for us us shepherding something like this I mean it just seems to me like this like

    we should be finding our Board of Supervisors Champion now and that's where it needs to go and I know we don't

    want it to die like does it go there and then die but that's where the neighborhood groups come in and put the

    pressure on because I don't know that we number one that we are that I mean like

    is this outside our scope of work number one and number two

    um for I mean for it to have the best I I just think it needs I I think it

    belongs at the Board of Supervisors that that's and and so I would like DCA to to

    weigh in and let us know if this is if if following this plan is within our

    purview um number one and number two um you know where what what did peskin say about

    this does is this what he told you to do and what did David Chu say

    let's let DCA floors respond first I don't know what peskin said about this um

    I wasn't at that meeting um so this is election related

    um adjacent so if this is the course that the commission wanted to take you

    could take it um in exploring what you could do but

    the commission cannot itself put a ballot measure on the ballot

    um and um our office would assist in drafting

    keyword assist not right the redistricting plan

    um we it's a collaborative effort so whenever we get a request to draft

    something we work with the requester to get as much information about what

    they'd like on in this legislation but we don't come up with the plan for you

    especially if you have specific things that you want on the plan so as soon as this Commission

    has identified a sponsor um we can discuss what our office can do

    for this process thank you I'm commissioner did I just quickly

    would you mind answering Hayden commissioner Hayden Crowley's question and then allowing other folks to also

    give their feedback before going into absolutely okay cool yeah so just to answer your question

    um what uh president peskin said he expects from us is a it's a set of

    conceptual recommendations he does not expect us to draft it he said that's their job but he wants to hear what the

    commission recommends and then they will take it on whoever the champion is and

    that's you know that's why he said we need it by this date and you need to give the city attorney's office time to

    work with us to draft something and then we need to introduce it by September and your boss

    City attorney David Chu you know I just gave him a heads up that about the

    timeline and was it right and he said yes and he he said you know thanks for letting us

    know it's coming yes so just to clarify again we do not help draft until a sponsor has been

    identified right um not before like

    a sponsor has been identified and requests that we help them draft this

    right thank you the request will come from the board um did you want to jump in did you have a

    point if you want to I don't know if there's more to talk about related to um capacity questions but if we're

    moving to different questions then I have a different question you can say whatever you would like

    oh I'm sorry um I just wondered if there was more to talk about related to what you you post commissioner Hidden Valley

    um I um in general like I I generally

    um support this you know I think that it looks good to me I can unders appreciate you know questions about capacity

    holding hearings and things like this but I think that um the list of you know uh where did it go

    um you know who to reach out to and all of that if there's good partnership with folks On The Board of Supervisors and

    other organizations who were in touch with I mean what we wouldn't want to be accused of is that people don't know about the hearings and so that's super

    important um to do in the whole trust and transparency thing

    um but I think you have a pretty good list of of how to get that out there and it certainly would be a heavy lift but

    in general I um I think that it's they support a lot of what you have here

    um and one thing I just wanted to clarify um because I recall from our last conversation about these hearings

    um there was a suggestion of of having

    Community groups bring forward full proposals at a hearing and what I'm seeing and I if this is what I'm

    interpreting then I'm glad because I think this is good um is that I'm understanding this proposal to mean that the hearing would

    just allow members to speak on individual pieces that they've heard at the different meetings that um that you

    all have held like before I joined and all of that um and that they don't have to come with a full proposal that it's just speaking

    to little pieces that resonate with them that they care about related to this list of questions so I'm seeing I'm

    seeing you not um and I'll just add one more thing and then I can I'll I'll stop

    um so that's the clarification that I uh that I had and then within that list of

    um of topics to bring forward to the to the

    public I wondered under operations and decision making if you wanted something

    also more explicit about ways the public might participate in a redistricting

    process because I see them mentioned you know the timeline the the draft map deadline in order to enable adequate

    time for Meaningful public input and collaboration I see that um and there are a few things that kind of refer to it but I wondered if we

    wanted anything more explicitly calling out how might the public be um involved in the process you know it's

    just a prompt for people to think about when they're coming to give comment um and that's it for now

    thank you commissioner Parker um I also would like to um share some

    thoughts uh I I wasn't sure if other folks had things they wanted to

    do that that did you have something nice present I'm sure done it well I did want to say something as part of this conversation but I wasn't sure if it's

    on this document or not that's so I don't know if I should hold it off until afterwards or is it about this agenda

    item yeah it's about the agenda it's just not on this the document so it's kind of in response to Mr

    hydron's presentation but um if you mentioned the state bills and I was wondering if you know between commissioner died and commissioner

    levolsi maybe like take a look at the state bills and see like for example if one of these

    bills or all of them were to do 80 of the types of things we're thinking about

    then it would be good to know that and maybe um if you know one of part of our

    legislative plan can be going through the County's process to see if our account we can ask our County to support

    when are all these bills I've been through through that process

    at least once and there's something called the State Legislative committee that's combined of I think seven

    different people from parts of the city government one of the seats is the mayor and so on but we could go through that

    process to you know support one of these staples and um does that would that fit in or

    probably after we get our own house in order like I said I think that um

    you know we want to be one of those counties that fixes it before the

    deadline in this proposed legislation so that we we have the flexibility to do

    something that we think fits San Francisco uniquely that would be the pitch also to supervisors that we

    want to be in control of our own train as opposed to having State impose it on us point of order

    um I just want to make sure we're letting people finish if you don't mind I know I I don't mean to be a stickler

    but I just want to make sure we're like everyone is having a chance to share what they wanted

    um I'm sorry I don't mean to be a stickler I just in the interest of time because we could go back and forth on

    every single point but I think everyone has to have a chance to like share their thoughts

    so vice president jordanick did you have more that you also wanted to add um

    no just just to see if if they would have time to take a look at the bills okay

    sorry again I don't mean to be sickler was your hand up commissioner levelsey

    okay um um commissioner die was there more you

    wanted to say before I then pass it over to someone else who's spoken I do want to know would this new

    secretary would you be relying on the new secretary and would that would that be part of her is she full time I mean

    how's that work she's not full-time yeah so how I mean and then like some of your marketing

    plan how does that all work so um we are hoping to Leverage The

    Department's resources on that because they're already doing all this Outreach anyway they already have a database of

    all these you know so so the committee would you know draft the information but we're really asking

    the department to send it out

    oh sorry I I I'm commissioner Hayden Crowley have you I'll just if you guys

    want to have you had the conversation with director Arts about leveraging the Department's resources

    we will okay so

    um sorry um commissioner diversary organist or

    commissioner Wilson okay um I commissioner bernholz you have not had

    the opportunity to um participate is there anything you wanted to contribute

    and not to put you on the spot no no I no that's fine I'm following it all and

    it's all good okay um so I would like to share my thoughts

    um so I have several but in the interest of

    time I'll try and be kind of brief I I strongly agree with commissioner or vice

    president jordanick about um looking at the state bills um and one of the things that I actually

    let me take a step back I really appreciate a couple of things one the work that was put into this and two the

    passion and conviction with which there is a belief that we should work on this and the commitment that we have provided

    to this topic to this issue that is so important um to the city and to the members of the public so thank you for that I should

    have said that up front um I strongly do agree with vice

    president jordanick about looking at the state bills um and one of the challenges I had or

    questions I had was about you know I I know commissioner die you said we want

    to get our house in order first I think that's something we should talk about if that is what we want um and if that is what we all feel

    um because it is an enormous undertaking to do all of this um and you know if we're going to form a

    committee or vote on forming a committee if we're going to put that as a priority on the secretary on the department

    um you know would we be potentially duplicating efforts that yes while the

    benefits of flexibility might be there like let's talk about that let's weigh if that's even something we we believe

    um and then my second point is is kind of tied to that which is I'm I am Gravely concerned about the

    timeline I went through this um and I it's not to say that I don't

    deeply value the the passion with which we should get this done but you know one

    of the big things we heard from the League of Women Voters in the last meeting who is that is how much time

    matters for Community input um and in fact I specifically recall

    that um Lauren Gerard and the the person who spoke from the League of Women Voters

    said that one of the one of the things that the redistricting task force failed on this year was not giving Community

    time um the time to either do the Outreach or

    um or even to sorry for the task force to do the Outreach but also time for them to respond and I think I actually

    had I went back to my notes and there were a couple things that she had said that I just want to elevate you you know

    that Community groups have different meeting cadences sometimes they meet monthly sometimes they meet every other month especially when trying to

    coordinate between those two those groups also especially in an organization like the League of Women

    Voters when mostly it's volunteered volunteers it can take even longer when it comes to newsletters with the Board

    of Supervisors you know there's a very specific schedule and you would maybe miss one month and so you know just

    looking at this schedule like really detailed you know the it's I see it as incredibly ambitious to try and have

    public hearings next month at the end of next month based on even just hearing that from the main stakeholder from the

    League of Women Voters and the only reason that I see that this time this

    timeline is so expeditated from my from what I read and I'm sure that you have more thoughts is that it going on the

    November ballot risks voter fatigue um and I don't personally I I'm one

    member obviously everyone has different thoughts but I don't necessarily believe that that's more important than giving

    time to community participation the other thing I will add is when I

    went through the timeline in the process I mean I I there were a bunch of steps I felt Maybe

    need to be included and I'm happy to draft um or not need to be but I would

    recommend are included um so I I got actually I think commissioner Parker raised this I got

    very confused actually between what the goals of those public hearings were

    um so you know walking through the requests for Community output you know

    what is that Outreach period what what are the what's the structure of the input that they provide how are we going

    to maintain those records how are we going to review them before the public hearings and make sure they're

    accessible to the public um and then after that review period ends like giving time for the commission

    or the advisory committee to review it and then what is the Forum of the public hearings is it you know what's the

    format what is the main goal is it to discuss what has been provided by

    members of the public whether it's the full plans or just specific pieces of feedback and then we discuss it and ask

    for input um and then after that you know once we get the public hearing I see that

    there's another step of okay we've got we have this public hearing let's ingest the feedback that we had from the public

    let's discuss it as a commission um and someone would then have to draft

    that proposal um and then there's a whole there are all these steps around the amendment

    process um that incorporates working with the city attorney's office and I believe and

    this is another point that I'll come to in a moment you know working with the sponsors to do that

    um including also the mayor's office um and so you know that step alone I

    think has multiple steps and I do see that there were two months included for that um but then also the the process of the

    bout measure so I just I and I'm happy to share this I hand wrote it just because that's how I tend to process

    things but I can put this into a document um if it's if it's helpful but I think

    what I am trying to say is I think that there's oh there are a lot of steps that

    I feel I'm worried that with this this like very ambitious deadline we

    wouldn't be able to hit and then we risk not having the necessary Community input

    that we've been at people have been asking us to provide and the other thing I'll say is I I had

    one like very specific thing that I would I think is important from the beginning which is I think we need to

    figure out who that sponsor is now um and I'd be curious um commissioner died I'd love to hear the conversation

    with peskin specifically because you know I'm curious as to why if he was supportive of the timeline why he didn't

    say he would sponsor it um and so oh so he did say he would sponsor it so you already have he suggested others too

    okay great Okay cool so I think the fact that we have a sponsor is definitely

    something that's important I'm glad to hear that um and it sounds like you already have a

    partnership I think being able to have that partnership has to be like embedded in every single one of those steps um so

    I'm really really glad to hear that um and the other thing I just wanted to mention is when I was looking at

    the um tactics um I

    I had a very similar question and I don't remember who raised this um but I had very similar thoughts I

    mean when I looked at that I thought I thought it was a marketing plan right like this is a cohesive marketing plan

    like a landing page on the website um form to you want like I just made a list off the top of my head of the

    deliverables you know a form to prefer the feedback to um for public feedback

    advice or you know Etc tool to store all of that feedback to collect it to store

    it and then be able to distribute it or disseminate it to um on that landing page a press release

    compiling an email list developing the content for the email developing social content developing an

    Outreach plan to Media groups personal invitations to Neighborhood groups to good government groups working with

    supervisors I mean this is like a significant I mean so and the reason I say all this is in my past life I was a

    marketer and this was my full-time job so I just I understand the desire to

    have a an advisory committee but everyone has like that we're still a

    volunteer body so who's going to do office work and I don't know if I would support asking the department to do that

    for us so I just I I don't want to be a stickler but I also think that you have

    done so much work and this is so important and I would hate to not do it

    um with without the best that we can put into it so I I apologize I know I've

    been talking for quite a while but I did put a lot of thought into your the work that you had already

    um developed because I felt it was deserving of that so um with that I will shut up

    um I would be happy to hand that over if you

    want to respond to some or not all or we can also table it to the next time whatever whatever you would prefer but

    if so I think the main thing is we would like um

    you know General agreement on this direction we basically have built in the

    possibility that we may need to go for November instead

    which would just give us more time to do everything so what what I'm showing here is the the fast timeline in case we can

    try to hit March for the reasons that I talked about um but it's possible we won't

    because if we have feedback that we need to do more community Outreach and we need to you know have

    more hearings than it means we won't make March right so

    basically what we're showing is this is what it would look like if we tried to shoot for March understanding that if we

    miss at least we have the ability to shoot for November

    I mean November is going to be an even higher turnout election so the only concern about that is I mean in general

    in general for these kinds of measures higher turnout is better because people tend to vote for it

    um but uh but yeah there's the balancing issue of

    they will have you know 25 other propositions to look at as well yeah

    commissioner Hayden Crowley I would just see the the very last paragraph to me was the most important paragraph of the

    entire document because it is the political strategy and

    that's the most important thing that you do which is getting the sponsors and get and what are they going to do and so

    forth and you know you're if I mean if it goes on the ballot

    you do need a strategy around like who who's going to run the campaign I mean who are these neighborhood groups going

    to raise money for it I mean who are you going to be your spot you know like you kind of have to have a political advisor

    right off the bat that costs money and so I

    I it's all doable and I hope you do it uh I it's like I'm doing this for a

    client right now I just like it's going to take me a year and and I I mean it is

    it's going to take me a year so I'm looking at it like thinking oh my gosh this is so much

    um and that that that's my skepticism because I think it's it's a great plan but I also think that you need to flesh

    out the political strategy in much more detail incorporate Robin's suggestions

    as well and thank you for them I mean you've done a remarkable amazing job in a short period of time and given an

    incredible amount of thought but I do think having the sponsors on board that's like the most important thing

    because it's got to run through the Board of Supervisors and like if there's going to be somebody that's going to

    carry it I guess from a strategic point of view you may probably I mean this uh

    supervisor peskin's probably president peskin's probably not going to run for another office

    so he's I guess I'm just being like out there but you you probably want someone

    who could could get something out of this I mean I I you know that that will bring some bring

    some some people to the table that will pay for we have that discussion but there's also someone who has the

    capacity and the passion behind it is right and I so he did suggest other names but he said he didn't do it he

    said he has he said he has the passion and the capacity for it he considers

    himself a good government guy um uh uh I just and and he can bring in

    money because you're going to need money for this and your neighborhood groups are going to need to I mean that's a

    whole other piece of it but I would not I guess I guess my point is is that the

    marketing to get the community group input so so important Robin's got that cut you know is is added so much to what

    you've already done which is fleshed out which is just so much work but the whole political strategy that is

    an entire other piece and and and that involves consultants and in a campaign

    and all of that and like where's that coming from I guess that's gonna come from our sponsor because like I said we

    are basically recommending a set of reforms based on what we've learned through this

    educational process and based on the community input that have helped refine it and we are going to hand it to our

    letters legislative Champion or champions and they're going to take it from there

    okay so um I sorry did someone have a handle over here

    um this is President Stone um I was just thinking based on what you were just saying commissioner die you

    know what if and I know this might seem radical but what if I mean we focused the current

    what if our Focus rather than you know our volunteer body doing all of this

    work what if we presented the robust plan to a sponsor and say Here's the

    path and we will support and help throughout the process you know maybe we identify the right Committee of the

    supervisors a sponsor who's on that committee who can who has so many more

    resources than we do and we just get deliver the plan we deliver the plan the

    reasons why it's important here's what needs to be done and so there's pretty

    much very little that they would have to do in terms of architecting what that

    would look like I mean it's a recommendation from the elections commission to the Board of Supervisors we can identify I mean you could

    identify a committee that you think it makes sense but then you know we're not

    doing this like ignore I mean I think I think this this would be requires a lot of

    resources I think we've talked about that that I'm not certain we all have like half the capacity or bandwidth to

    do so what if we what if we adjusted to

    have it be our Focus be delivering a plan and helping to

    Shepherd the execution or implementation of said plan with a sponsor in a

    committee like a subcommittee or committee that's a committee first I mean commission I

    think that really that really is what we're planning to do and and if you notice we only suggested

    um you know a couple of uh and we put some dates down a couple of public input

    hearings mostly to refine uh you know what we might recommend because again

    we're just providing conceptual you know we're not drafting anything we're providing conceptual high level

    recommendations like no political appointments for example and again a lot of this stuff has already been laid out

    as best practices in the reports you know even in 2017 if you look at there

    were what I don't know 25 best practices recommendations of which San Francisco only only abides by like a couple of

    them yeah the first one right we have an independent commission and then we have nothing else do it by population right

    so so I mean so a lot of it has actually been

    we just need to as a group agree that we agree with these best practices

    um and get some feedback from Community organizations on

    what might be some tweaks that are important for San Francisco so that we deliberately only propose a

    couple of community input sessions to to again um

    come up with a set of recommendations of best practices that we we as an

    elections commission endorse so I'd like to respond to that this is present Stone because you were responding to my direct

    comment and then also I I have cut off vice president jordanick so I'll hand over to him

    I'm just going to be very honest I feel as though that was a Twist of what I said because I don't

    agree I don't believe that we should that I don't believe that we have agreed to these recommendations and I

    personally will not support them unless or until we have people from San

    Francisco participating in the process and I I what I'm saying is even having the

    hearings that you say we're just going to have these public hearings in my mind that's actually making something quite

    large seem very small and you know you haven't even in this process that you want to do an Outreach plan so it's

    either big or it's small but we can't have it both ways and I think what I'm

    trying to say is rather than us doing all of this to determine to get these

    communities participating to make sure that their space and transparency with

    people who are held accountable as elected officials by their by their constituents have them lead to the

    charge have them you know deliver them the recommendation of the plan not the

    recommendation of how to reform redistricting it's we we've heard all

    these things this is what we recommend the committee of the Board of Supervisors would do to to have a good

    process for getting this on as a charter amendment I want to be very clear because I feel as though that got

    changed in in after I said it and that is not what I meant I am not comfortable

    saying that this is what I recommend because I haven't heard from Community groups Community groups haven't had a

    chance to participate we they even told us in the last meeting explicitly that

    they want more time like repeatedly said that we want more more and more time and

    so I'm not personally I am not going to agree to going against that um so I just I want to be very clear

    about that vice president jordanick I apologize I cut you off that's no problem yes so one of the things

    I mean one of I I support the idea of a charter Amendment um and you know kind

    of the general ideas I mean one of my concerns is I'm not it's not clear to me from the document how much of the tasks

    are going to fall in the full commission versus like the individuals that are leading it

    um because I mean my one of my concerns is we do have a lot of other things that we want

    to work on this year like one of them is you know the the racial Equity initiatives

    um there's stuff around the um the different department goals that we might want to set for the Department

    you know having discussions about those um about

    let's see oh and then like the director evaluation process that's something that took like

    a year for us in the past and then or about like you know open source voting is a topic that we we haven't had on the

    agenda for a while so I I would kind of like to have assurance that with whatever path we go forward we do have

    like time and energy left over to to work on those things too so we don't

    you know what I'm saying like just one more thing just to follow up and in the past when when open source

    voting was something that um I personally was spending a lot of time on one one tactic that we did it as

    a commission was we authorized like me and another individual to kind of like

    do Outreach on behalf of the commission outside the context meeting so it wasn't

    involving the full commission's time but we but they had the force of the commission when they're out in the

    community I was speaking before groups and with members of the Board of Supervisors so that's the way to kind of

    get the most best of both worlds of having the commission behind you but you're free to like do a lot in what

    time you have

    Crowley so there's precedence in other words you answered my question from earlier which was have we ever done

    anything like this where we're out there in the community and what you're seeing vice president jordanick is we have

    okay well that is reassuring because I'm questioning about the scope of work in terms of our bylaws and everything else

    if this Falls within it but I guess too when you are talking about hearing more

    from the community I'm not that is what the Board of Supervisors does they have committee hearings and they so a lot of

    these people that would maybe come and talk to you are going to have to come again and talk to the Board of Supervisors because they're not going to

    take your word for it they're going to have that those hearings so I just wonder are we building redundancy into

    the process to a commissioner to a president Stone's point point is

    um they they have the resources they're resourced for it I I just think the

    political strategy comes first and also here's another thing that I just get

    concerned about is we get promises from people that they're going to do this and they're going to do that and you go out

    there and do this work and then September Comes and oh you know something else came up um

    you know I I just and also they're off all of August by the way you know and then they come back and

    there's something else but we really need to see how committed they are I mean we really need to have uh somebody

    that wants to take this and run with it and I think we need to put do that first that has to be I think that has to be

    the number one priority to do that first because you want it to be successful and

    I would hate to see you be out there and and no I'm sorry oh you know

    hasn't had the chance to participate so I I really appreciate your feedback because I think that that is

    um commissioner Hayden Crowley a really important point because things do come up and people

    say they'll do things and then when it comes to the date things change so I think that your feedback is is is well

    taken and something that commissioner die and I have to

    really think about yeah commissioner you've been very patient thank you yeah so I mean the reason they

    need six months is because they will be doing these committee hearings and and presumably public input

    um as well the reason we built in some public input for us is

    to help us as a group refine what we would want to recommend to the Board of

    Supervisors because again we're just recommending broad conceptual changes

    for example you know one of the questions I have in there is like

    who should be the trusted entity that does the vetting and you know supervises the random selection process I don't

    know that we know and it would be good to hear from

    you know some suggestions from members of the public to help us think about that and so the intention of these

    public hearings and the reason we're not having a ton of them is because we expect the Board of Supervisors to have those what we're trying to do is refine

    to help us as a body figure out what we want to recommend

    to our champion so that they can carry it and and take it you know to the

    finish line so that that's why we built in the community because I like I said I think we could debate some of the stuff

    but I think on some of these items you know we really don't know and there may be a range of answers that are

    acceptable um was are was there more oh no that's

    that's commissioner Hayden Crowley just to that point they'll be doing it again at the supervised I mean we can make

    those recommendations but to Robin's point I mean to the if I'm sorry president Stone's point

    it's a process we're recommending that you do this there's also going to be a there's also obviously a template at the

    state level that you could just like what he said I pointed that out 80 that

    you could just like I like this is not a lot of drafting because people have done it before I I think you know I think

    you got to see what you gotta see what who's gonna do it who's really going to do it and and can they because because

    somebody who well I don't want to say anymore so

    um so I mean I can obviously we're gonna have another conversation

    um with supervisor peskin and others like I said he he had suggested some other names

    um you know I had envisioned that again that we as a body

    could endorse a package of you know these are the best practices that we recommend that you incorporate

    it has the endorsement of the elections Commission and and then they're going to work on

    whatever you know they're going to work on and they're going to have their own hearings and people will react to very

    specific things that will be drafted at that point not just some high-level thing about no political appointments

    right so so the thinking was that we we have a

    couple of public input hearings just to refine our own thinking so that we can put forward this package and that we

    will identify the legislative sponsor as we're doing it because it's actually we're talking you know end of next month

    right so that's enough time to get the word out and say hey you know here are some questions we're

    answering and if anything it will be the precursor to involve people

    at the time the Board of Supervisors are ready to do full committee hearings so

    it was never intended to be the only you know public input hearings

    commissioner Parker um a few things um

    uh let's see which one should I do first um with the timing um I recall the last one

    I also had expressed some concern around timing and I what I also recall is that the feedback we were hearing from the

    community at that time was around proposing an entire plan ready not not just weighing in on specific pieces of

    it um I do think it's super super important for us to do so I agree with that

    um and if we it it does make sense for us to hear from the community to come up

    with some recommendations I'm just wondering if we if we didn't do any hearings as a um

    as a commission then what would we hand as a starting off

    point to the sponsor they might feel a little bit there there's some there's some Direction they would probably

    appreciate because this is part of why we decided to own this here right as opposed to saying what a supervisor should do it they've got a lot on their

    plate so it seems to me when I'm thinking of relationships that I've had with electeds in the past that they

    appreciate some direction and so we have to have some way to come up with that direction and whether that is we all

    just say actually we're just going to hand you this Fair uh this Fair Maps floor maps report here go but they're

    going to say it's 80 pages long like can you just give me the the summary right so there's I think that they will want

    some kind of direction from us and then they should take it from there in an ideal world like the best chance of this

    thing passing is if you can get um if you get supervisor president peskin you know he's president of the

    board and if you get a wide range of kind of political representation on the board and they are the co-sponsors right

    and then when they bring It Forward you get the sign on of all of the you know the rest of them who are not in there so

    you have 11 supervisors sponsoring this so when it goes on the ballot it

    will say entire board supported by League of Women Voters and then there's very little money you actually have to

    raise because every time we have a measure like that on the ballot it passes it passes because there is the

    mayor the board so the work is the political work but that is that is the range you want if you see that on the on

    your ballot guide it's done everybody will be like oh they all agree okay fine like that's it like

    you just don't have to spend a lot of money like building a whole other campaign so that definitely deserves work and if uh it does happen though

    where people will say I have other priorities I can't put a whole bunch of effort into this but if we can help build the Coalition so that there is an

    entire board behind this um then it's going to be harder for them to say I'm not going to put it on now

    because they're like oh this is easy everybody agrees let's have a win they want to win too they like having

    everybody support something and so so that feels important so to sum up I I

    think we do want to give some guidance to the board before the sponsor takes it and so I think it is good for us and

    maybe this is too rush of a timeline and we need to just aim for November that might be realistic um but I do think we need a couple of

    opportunities for the the public to just focus on this give us some reactions to things they've heard

    um put a few links out for them to review so that we can say here's some guidelines you know just just a few just

    to give some recommendations to get them started because it'll it'll be too overwhelming if we give them the whole 80 pages and plus it won't go anywhere

    that that's my opinion so thank you commissioner Parker I just

    wanted to add um I this is President Stone I did not

    intend to say that I don't want to do this I'm more just have expressed can

    like significant concerns about doing it in the short amount of time with the

    resources that we have so I just want to clarify because I think I obviously have strong opinions always

    um and I don't want that message to get lost in all the other things I said I I

    genuinely believe that we can there are

    things that we can do and I agree with commissioner Parker totally being able to hand them something and I don't

    disagree that public hearings is the could be the way it's just

    thinking about the fact that we're a volunteer body we would be taking away time

    from or we be allocating a lot of time to this we have other priorities in

    addition to thinking about our website and thinking about processes and you know preparing for the election next

    year I mean there are lots and lots of things um and so thinking about all that and also yes the secretary I mean

    I personally and ultimately like as president like the secretary is like I'm

    accountable right and I don't personally think it would be responsible for me to

    say to this new person coming in who we have so many things as a commission that

    we need support from a secretary and I think we can all agree onboarding was a challenge so there are many things that we need

    minutes need help organ organizing things that are in our buy lots that we

    haven't done there's so many things and this person is part-time so I'm just you know as I'm thinking about okay we're

    putting links on the website we're creating forms who's going to do that um and so it's not that I'm a naysayer I

    want to I genuinely believe I mean I'm a huge supporter of trying to do this it's

    just a matter of how um and how long and also following the

    guidance that we were given directly from the League of Women Voters and

    perhaps before we go further on um on this plan but if we don't make a

    vote today um maybe you could reach out to to um to Lauren gerardin and some of the

    groups who are working on this because I remember she specifically said she's leading from her side

    um and ask does this timeline work for you do you think that this is enough time um and so I I think it's great I'm

    really glad to hear that you already have a sponsor um but I think I'm concerned about this body having the

    time and the bandwidth in such a short in such a short amount of time and there was one other thing I was going to

    mention something we can hand them um

    well anyways I I rest my case

    um commissioner Hayden you're acting like an old person like

    um now again I think I've lost my train of thought but actually what I would say

    is that we do have a lot of other things and I you know looked at this and was

    overwhelmed but I'm easily overwhelmed um I would say that when we talk about

    Dei which is not something I'm even going to pretend that I'm good at

    um I think this map this is part of Dei definitely and so as we talk about see

    so I got it right [Laughter] see so I do think like if if you achieve

    this this would be a major accomplishment for achieving you know

    for supporting Dei and like this could go into our plan so um I I do think that but um and I

    think that what everybody has said is I just want to say is very helpful so even though like I may say something but when

    I hear your feedback like he changed my mind instantly and I agree with that person Noah so it's very very helpful I

    just want to say each and every single one of you thank you for your input um and then I was going to say something

    else oh I do want to just be like a broken record once again and say that

    those sponsored things like after this that's what you have to do because we got to know that they're in place that

    they're on board and that they want to hear from you and you can do your public hearings and then you're going to come back and to Robin's Point talk to those

    other folks in the community but um again I just want to thank everybody for

    their input I really like having my mind changed but then I'm always worried that you're going to think I'm crazy because

    I changed my mind again but anyway thank you

    yeah president Stone um I wonder if we can take some public input

    and I'm sorry um you know again I just want to

    Telegraph you know I kind of want approval in this direction like I said the plan the plan accounts for the fact

    that we might have to hit November I just presented the most accelerated

    you know timeline if we want to try to hit March

    but yeah I'd love to get some public input on this um and on the dates that we proposed and

    noting that these are just dates that commissioner labels that make and if we actually form a committee

    which is what we recommend so it is not a burden on the full commission so that you know we're able to

    you know make some decisions in a smaller group um and you know work with

    legislative sponsors Etc then you know then we then we'll be kind of

    in power to move forward right by the full commission to kind of push this forward a bit

    the commissioner one of one more point of information I do believe that if you would access the Secretary of that

    individual would be eligible for overtime I but that also depends on if they're

    able to give that time yeah right yeah you know yeah for sure I mean I I could

    definitely look into that but I again I don't know I'm not comfortable saying you know I

    sorry this is President Stone um commissioner Hayden Crowley was there

    more you were going to say no no I just I I just am putting it out there as a possibility for negotiation

    you know because I know the whole thing is so overwhelming and it was the first question I asked because the resources

    are real issue but if that's an option to offer potentially if that individual

    that we were able to bring on has the time

    um so this is uh president Stone I think before I could agree to

    like our eye could vote in favor of that of this plan at this point I would want

    to understand what the expectations are of the commission secretary and also the expectations of the advisory committee I

    know I can't join that Committee in terms of my timing and so you know I think actually

    um vice president jordanick I thought I think that's actually really help it was

    a helpful suggestion to say you know what if we just give the two of you we authorize you to do what you need to do

    I don't I don't know if we need to form another committee I mean I I can be convinced of course

    um but I definitely am not I definitely want to know what the expectation of the secretary

    would be um and yeah I I think maybe

    in the um in in the next whatever if you want to share with us like maybe there's a

    racy document so a responsibility like thinking about who's accountable for what um but you know as someone who's

    managing the secretary I definitely you know I I'm just going to be up front for

    her sake or their sake or his sake that that

    you know there there isn't going to be a free-for-all like that this there have to be very clear boundaries and

    parameters because she works for the you know the whole commission or he they

    um they work for the whole commission and I after reading through all of this and

    also the expectations on the department I I don't first of all I don't I don't think that we're allowed to do that ask

    them to do things for us um we can't direct them to do things um

    and second of all I don't think that yeah I'll just leave it there I don't think that we I think we have to be

    considerate of who's going to do what but I also don't think we need a committee to do that I respect and Trust

    the work that you two have already done I think I don't think it necessarily needs a third person

    um but again I could be convinced commissioner die yeah I mean I think the

    thinking of having a committee was just to add another commissioner when we do

    public input hearings rather than just having the two of us

    um oh one of clarification so you're saying the public hearings would not be

    we would not hear them as a full body it would just that's why I was recommending a committee

    because we if you notice we've suggested a couple of dates there already yeah yeah and I saw those that was based on

    the policy in my availability um

    so okay and and when we put this plan together you know we had no idea where

    the secretary search was going to be so we didn't we didn't have any expectation of of that

    but you know if there is a secretary sure we could use some help but you know but it has to be sorry present

    Stone Point of information it it can't be like well we could use their help like I'm I'm literally saying

    I I would need to know what the expectation is um yeah because we've talked to you about it okay

    um like I said we didn't have any expectations since we don't have a secretary right now

    um vice president actually this this is kind of related but would would either of you

    um be open to handling like the website tasks for these hearings and like posting

    you know documents from the public and stuff if the secretary doesn't have time

    yeah yeah okay I just want your help to put the first page up

    yeah um so in the interest of time I just

    wanted to share one quick thing because we're already at 10 11. I will be postponing the next agenda item until

    the next meeting so this um this that will be an open Agenda item

    and we will talk about it in April um after we're done with this agenda item so I just wanted to make a quick

    announcement um that everyone knows because I obviously am a proponent to not staying late

    um so I'm going to practice what I preach here um Commissioners die in the policy is

    their specific action that you like what is the final kind of takeaway that you

    want to have understanding you know we have talked about this for more than an hour

    so my original thought was to just get a emotion to you know agree on this

    general direction so that we're kind of authorized to move forward on this and and take action

    um our thinking was to have a committee so again that the committee could could

    hold the public hearings just so that we have another commissioner available you know another

    pair of ears for that if you don't think that's necessary

    it sounds like there's been precedent before where we've just been authorized as a what a

    task force or something or continue to work informally the way we have been

    a little different commissioner lavalsi sorry okay I

    I would like to for us to take some time to absorb the feedback that we've gotten and then really think

    about um how how we're going to deliver this what

    our capacity is um you and I and

    you know it's I don't know if it's possible but could that be something that we could deliver to you or

    how could we do that before the the next meeting I'm uh I guess from a brown act

    perspective I probably can't um or one of us to live uh but if you

    had worked on it it would be a serial um yeah we could I mean we could have a

    uh we could consider a brief um special meeting if that's

    um if that's with you I think let me see let me think on let me think

    of that can I say something yeah I'm reluctant to ask for us especially I

    know excuse me it's commissioner I love all sees everyone's time is limited yeah

    so what I'm saying is perhaps we need to commissioner and I take this feedback

    and think about it and come up with a plan that has incorporated this feedback

    but I'm so sorry I'm vice president jordanick I know he had his hand up

    yeah well I just wanted to clarify what I said earlier about I said the commission had delegated me

    and another person to like work on an issue I think at that time it was more after the commission had passed a policy

    then we had then delegated to people to kind of they had their marching orders go work with the board to implement this

    so this might not quite be the same because here we're we don't know what the marching orders are yet

    so um but also I I just had a question for this maybe for you DCF was

    like I know there's a distinction between like there's there's a different kind of a meeting where you know it

    doesn't need the same noticing requirements if it's you can have like a gathering where

    that maybe you have an event where the public shows up you know provide feedback on something

    but it's not like it's not considered a meeting that complies with the brown actors that

    um I think if a commissioner wanted to meet with a community group they could

    um but could two members do that or I think that that would

    I'm looking at your committees and I think discounting more than two minutes no it

    um if it's if it's three members so um yeah I guess two people wouldn't be a

    committee but you wouldn't be able to post it like you wouldn't be able to say

    elections Commission meeting or elections commission committee

    um it would just be too it would just be like you on your own random time like

    but I mean you want to go to be like announced on the commission website saying there's this book okay

    you could go on your own though and like hold these Community meetings if you wanted to I mean what what I I think we

    want is you know authority to to work on identifying you know the

    sponsor and kind of nailing that down um and

    you know that the general direction of this is is what the commission agrees to

    I mean like I said the actual timeline May differ what we're presenting is

    you know if we were going for March this is what we would need to do my concern is if we don't have the support of the

    commission to move forward on this then we're going to lose a month and we there's no way we'll make it right so

    this is um president Stone oh sorry were you done a commissioner die yeah okay um this is President Stone so I was

    actually just thinking about the open source um task force and one idea might be in terms of

    thinking about precedent maybe you form a task force with you know Lauren Jordan I mean I keep using her name but that's

    just because she's she self-identified as the person from The League of Women Voters leading the charge maybe you form

    a task force and ask her for other folks that she thinks should participate in that and it is you know YouTube plus her

    plus maybe a couple of other community groups that you know come forward or you can do Outreach in that way and then

    that's the task force and then you can have hearings together that's more of a joint effort and also have folks like

    the sponsor you know them participate with the people who are on the task force who are their constituents

    um that might be one route to also divide and also potentially find resource like outside resources

    um that might be one happy medium oh yeah commissioner president

    um Stone I think that was an excellent solution because not only is that um

    a way to to involve the community groups without all of the uh rigmarole but you

    can tell how late it is um but I have said from the get-go that you need to keep these Community groups

    in your hip at in your hip pocket and and you know it's as important as we are

    here at the elections commission to the Board of Supervisors well not as important as those Community groups and

    so you know I I know getting our you know our official mark on things to give

    them Direction well nothing's going to matter more than those Community groups those are the ones that bring the votes

    and um I know I put things in such Stark terms but um but that that is an

    excellent solution I mean to bring them on board as part of The Advisory Board I I really think that that's and that's

    how you're gonna that's how you're gonna do this yeah well and that actually was kind of the plan is that you know that

    we have the endorsement of all these good government groups and Community organizations and and work on this

    together so um so I I like that idea like I said I I think

    what I want from this body is just you know endorsement to authorize this

    to move forward in this direction um so that you know we're not just acting on our own in our individual

    capacities but we actually have the endorsement of the elections commission to kind of move forward and and try to to enact this you know plan with with

    these with these excellent suggestions Incorporated

    but like I said I I would actually recommend taking some public comment and just see what the reaction is

    because I think we have people on well commissioner Hayden Crowley the interest

    of time I would move that you uh put together a group of a an Advisory board

    if you will that would take public comment that is not part of this commission that that you and

    commissioner levolci if you so wish are part of that but that it would include

    um probably two to three members of the community and if you can get your sponsoring supervisors uh who might want

    to be part of this um The Road Show for lack of a better term that that that

    you've moved forward to collect to collect feedback with the goal of

    um then at a certain point bringing that process to the Board of

    Supervisors with the feedback and that's where we'll go as far as the elections

    commission making an endorsement of all of what that is going to look like we won't know until you've done that piece

    with the community and you're sponsoring supervisors so we're not going to vote

    on what that's going to look like until you until you have done you know you're you're taking a little

    road show out yeah and again this might be a preliminary Roadshow sorry DCA Florida I'm sorry DCA Florence

    you were going to say something yes I just wanted to clarify um to the commission that um if you decide to go

    that route just a reminder that only those two Commissioners could be present

    at the meeting at any point no other Commissioners could be involved in this process because then that would create a

    committee and that meeting would essentially violate all the rules

    commissioner die you were going to say something um no I mean I I think that's similar to

    what we had planned um just with a committee instead so I I

    think that's a a fine way to to move forward so is the

    motion that the the commissioner die and

    commissioner labelsey form a task force with incorporating members of the community

    and good government groups um as a part of their membership to

    discuss this plan just to make sure I understand the motion to discuss this plan and establish what the like

    what the path is is that to get feedback from the community the goal would be

    they they have the ability to hold a couple of of meetings if you will where

    people can provide feedback to gather feedback from the community which will we will then hear at a later point in a

    in a public hearing and then we can decide at that point where what we want our recommendation to look like as a

    body as a body but we as a commission are not going to be putting resources

    against your efforts your actions will be independent

    of us so I would love to

    hear some public comments and some named individuals are actually on the call yeah

    I just put motion out there so sorry um commissioner livosia I think you had

    your hand out okay um Can we is someone gonna second promotion or where's it gonna die

    can I before you guys um make um second that motion I'm reviewing your

    bylaws um I'm not quite sure you can create a

    task force um there was one in the past the open

    source sorry this is present still my computer is literally two seconds away from dying official right I got it

    um vice president Jordan can share more but there was one in the past actually I mean it was actually just to

    be honest it actually was a lot of work to have a tip this advisory we we had bylaws for the advisory committee and we

    also had to do the same noticing requirements but it was just that there was only one commissioner that was

    sitting on the body and we had like a whole application process we invited

    members of the public to apply so it's it's probably going to be more work than just having a committee so I move that

    we that Commissioners die in lumbulsi take a lot of what we just talked about

    over the last hour and a half and maybe process it and tell us at the next

    meeting I know I know you want to move forward but I think given that we haven't immediately found a perfect

    solution um sorry that's a caveat to the motion just you know spending time to think

    about the feedback and come back based on what you heard and tell us what you what you think makes sense based on like

    resources and timeline and other input so I move that you that that feedback is

    reflected upon in the next month and then a new draft proposal and also sorry one other

    caveat is to say I don't think that that means that you can't also start working on some of this stuff in the meantime

    that doesn't bind you from not starting to work on a lot of the things we talked

    about it's just presenting what the what the plan will be at the next meeting so that's my motion sorry it was long

    what happened to my emotion and it just died I second your motion after 10 the

    president is done so so can we here's some public input

    um yeah was there anyone else who wanted to comment um I just wanted to add that our office

    is me specifically because I'm the DCA that comes to these meetings please reach out to me to discuss the options

    for meeting outside of here absolutely yeah so that we're not answering these

    questions yes yes as in real time like you know um so I would really appreciate

    that so I'm here for you we will definitely seek your Council as

    we move forward and um deciding on how we reach out to the

    public and what meetings happen you also

    um let's move to public comment

    okay there's one hand raised this is Miss gerarden

    you're unmuted you have three minutes when you begin speaking

    hi can you hear me yes we can hear you I'm wonderful that's so weird as soon as I hit I meet you all went so so quiet

    for the first time in over an hour um if this has been a great conversation

    um thank you so much for having it thank you for all the shout outs uh tonight uh

    I do want to clarify I am leading the charge with my fellow volunteer and the

    League of Women Voters of San Francisco's advocacy chair Jenny say who is also observing this meeting and may

    chime in um I wanted to thank a while ago but Nicholas heidorn for his thoughtful work

    on the report and for being here tonight and thank him for including our

    recommendation letter that we sent to the elections Commission back in May of 2022 in his report

    um which is on I think page 75 or so um now there are things that we didn't

    include that letter when it was released some recommendations for reform and that might be something we can update

    um but tonight's conversation I've just been remembering the work that went into getting the ordinance to convene the

    redistricting task force and how well let's put it this way the process with

    the board took the time it took uh that it was not something that we seemed to

    be able to hurry along they did act as quickly I think as they could but it it is a Time intensive process to get

    things through the board um and I totally understand your feelings of overwhelm uh the

    redistricting process that we went through was overwhelming for everyone involved

    and I think one of the top goals is to make the redistricting reform process

    less overwhelming so our next redistricting process is less overwhelming and

    I think that starts with this process that you've been talking about here so it's a really worthwhile conversation

    and the time that you're taking um I do think that means November is

    most likely um given all of these factors um you know not that we shouldn't set

    ambitious goals and then if have a backup plan I love a backup plan um one suggestion that the league has is

    to consider requesting DCA to do a legal analysis memo of what parts of the State Assembly Bill might apply to San

    Francisco that way you can consider that within the recommendations that you make

    to the board part of the charter Amendment things that can be pulled out also you don't

    have to recommend one thing if you have two choices that you're not sure which is the best for San Francisco you could

    recommend it to your sponsor and that with the pros and cons so that might be

    an option for how you go forward thank you and look at the reports that are already out there there are really great

    recommendations that have been thought through other jurisdictions that have done this and you have mentioned uh not

    copy paste someone else's uh legislation but look for inspiration from folks that

    have already kind of gone through this so best of luck and look forward to

    hearing more about this soon thank you thank you thank you Mr Jordan foreign


    are there any other commenters um there is yes there's one more Henry's

    that's um yeah okay okay oh it's I mean it's

    okay um let's say say I'm unmuting you

    good evening this is I guess I just wanted to build on top of

    what Lauren has brought up and about how um yes this process can be over it well

    actually will be overwhelming and I think maybe an other another another way

    to think about it especially based on reading uh the report and what's mentioned about San Francisco within the

    report especially on page Sunday 2 to 73. um I think is to understand what we what

    what is the minimum that maybe we can do um and trying to make ourselves make San

    Francisco more fair Maps uh more applicable to the fair Maps act and you

    know regardless of whether ab1248 passes or not um kind of similar to previous Charter

    amendments something like you know deleting uh the San Francisco Chargers

    um they're fairly minimal but existing uh

    mapping criteria might actually be helpful given that one of the issues especially was um you know mentioned the

    report is that you know under a fair map the chart Charter cities you know may

    use their own redistricting criteria instead of uh Fair math fact if the city has adopted comprehensive or exclusive

    redistricting criteria in the city Charter uh but you know based on the

    district's City attorneys report we we were exempt and trying to

    possibly think of you know subtraction rather than addition might help us be

    more fair Maps um more applicable to Fair math fact and also be able to um

    not write ourselves into a hole again where we don't benefit from State reform in the future especially given that

    there's um State um that there's you know State bills down the line that might you know impact

    us and might actually help us something to think about thank you

    okay thank you that is all the public commenters

    commissioner die yes I have a question for you ladies um would you be interested in being part

    of a task force yeah

    are we allowed to address public commenters reference

    oh that was my fault I she did ask me and I said let's finish the public

    comments yeah that was my week can we let them respond

    could you like to respond first um Lauren I guess okay Miss Jordan I'm on

    meeting you so to respond to questions uh great uh thank you um I yeah this

    this would be something the league would be interested in um we have a shared volunteer model so

    just just a moment yeah foreign

    so I guess sorry just just to clarify

    um I'm sorry um members of the public um just to clarify where we were just

    making sure we understood the rules of asking a member of the public a question so if you're hearing some Rumblings

    that's what's happening or don't intend to be rude um so vice president Jordan I will hand

    it back to you whatever you were gonna say hahaha did you already asked the question yeah

    so I was waiting for your response and you had started to say the League of Women Voters yeah we okay yes the answer

    is she said the League of Women we need a yes or no answer is the is the was what we're hearing from the city

    attorney's office yes yes with the caveat of our own capacity and availability yes fair enough of course

    thank you for everyone's patience

    for the suggestion um that is a simple way that

    we may might be a good suggestion to our sponsor who said we simply eliminate the rules that we have and then fall under

    state law there are no questions

    um okay is there any other discussion or was there any other public commenters no okay is there everybody else oh we have

    to take about us we have to take a vote okay so we're what are we voting on what

    is your emotion yeah but then we ultimately um I the question about the task force

    oh no no sorry I told you I'm not good late at night um okay so we're voting on the motion

    that um Commissioners will both see and die will take the feedback that came from

    this discussion and um reflect on that and incorporate that

    into an updated plan and in also in tandem perhaps start to make progress toward some of the goals that are

    outlined in the um in the plan so let's run through the

    roll call vice president jordanick yes uh commissioner bernholz

    uh commissioner die aye commissioner Hayden Crowley yes

    commissioner lavalsi yes commissioner Parker yes and I

    commissioner Stone vote Yes so the motion passes unanimously

    um let's just quickly move to agenda item number nine their agenda for future meeting so one item that has come up

    that um I wanted to raise and I'll hand it over to commissioner lebowsi is the um is the timing for the next meeting so

    I'll hand it to a commissioner that we'll see sure um I have a prior obligation that I cannot change uh

    I will not be in the state of California on April 19th you just get an excused

    absence yes so there was that's what I would like to know what what are my options oh

    oh yeah so you can you can miss a meeting um the other question is you know being

    open to moving the meeting a week based on folks is availability I at first when

    commissioner Wolsey mentioned this to me I said I didn't think I would be in town but now I believe I will be but

    um I think it would require everyone to uh per share if they would be available

    to push the meeting a week and we would also have to look into obviously the room scheduling otherwise also one

    absence is obviously an option as well okay

    um our vice president Jordan sorry sorry I'm pretty flexible I can meet at all

    other times thank you hi um commissioner Hayden Crowley

    um I'm not that flexible I'm put all the meetings in my calendar and I I have a

    new job and it's just difficult um but like I gonna be gone two weeks in May and I moved my vacation after I got

    appointed to this and paid more on my airfare so I wouldn't miss the meeting because so I I do think that stuff comes

    up and I may have to have an excused absence down the line and that's so there are times when I do think we

    should talk about moving the meeting like now in December we should be moving that meeting yeah but it's nothing it I

    just think stuff comes up for all of us and it's okay to miss a meeting sure that's all when you get an excused

    absence but we'll miss you [Music]

    commissioner Parker do you have any input that you would like to add

    um you know I'm open to looking at other dates but if it causes someone else to miss the meeting then I say we refer to

    our standard date commissioner Burger um I am flexible also trying to make

    some plans so definitely would want to decide now because that would affect all of that

    um I think so I am flexible um and I think in general for the public

    it's good to keep things on the same predictable time that's my experience with public

    meetings is that it's it's pretty helpful to keep them standard if at all possible

    thank you yes point of um information or clarification of whatever

    um it is in our bylaws that we hold these meetings at this time we do

    basically I I had said that there are three options the way I see it is um you know we missed you know if we

    have an obligation we miss a meeting no big deal um we can discuss it as a body or

    um I think the other one was remote but that isn't an option so I do think it is

    I agree um consistency is important but if it were easy for everyone maybe adjusting

    but um commissioner burnholz I don't know if you had anything else you wanted to add

    okay oh sorry I think I'm accidentally muted her

    sorry um commissioner burn holes you may have been muted if you were responding otherwise no problem

    can you hear me yes I have I'm flexible I have no issue with

    the dates okay so um I it seems like I will have to make a

    decision and I'm not going to do that in this moment but I will provide notice

    um and I will probably ask uh from a non-uh from just Logistics of

    planning the meeting I'll probably follow up with the body so in terms of agenda items for future meetings I

    actually would like to I'd like to just kind of close this item

    I think there is a process of I've been reaching

    out if people have things they want to add I think obviously we'll review um we'll review some components of what

    we talked about today as continued items but if there's anything explicitly someone wants to mention right now I think I'd like to just move to

    adjournment just really quickly yeah annual report

    um he it that will be discussed when um it's

    ready yes okay let's move to public comment I got

    excited sorry

    okay there are no hands raised okay and with that I'm closing agenda nine and

    first using that gavel yay 10 42 p.m this meeting is now adjourned thank you

    English (auto-generated)

    View transcript

    Call in and make a public comment during the meeting

    Call in and make a public comment during the meeting

    Follow these steps to call in

    • Call 415-655-0001 and enter the access code
    • Press #
    • Press # again to be connected to the meeting (you will hear a beep)

    Make a public comment 

    • After you've joined the call, listen to the meeting and wait until it's time for the item you're interested in
    • When the clerk announces the item you want to comment on, dial *3 to get added to the speaker line
    • You will hear “You have raised your hand to ask a question. Please wait to speak until the host calls on you"
    • When you hear "Your line has been unmuted," you can make your public comment

    When you speak

    • Make sure you're in a quiet place
    • Speak slowly and clearly
    • Turn off any TVs or radios
    • Speak to the Commission as a whole, not to specific Commissioners

    Make a comment from your computer

    Make a comment from your computer

    Join the meeting

    • Join the meeting using the link above

    Make a public comment 

    • Click on the Participants button
    • Find your name in the list of Attendees
    • Click on the hand icon to raise your hand
    • The host will unmute you when it is time for you to comment
    • When you are done with your comment, click the hand icon again to lower your hand

    When you speak

    • Make sure you're in a quiet place
    • Speak slowly and clearly
    • Turn off any TVs or radios
    • Speak to the Commission as a whole, not to specific Commissioners

    Commission packets

    Commission packets

    Materials contained in the Commission packets for meetings are available for inspection and copying during regular office hours at the Department of Elections, City Hall Room 48. Materials are placed in the Elections Commission's Public Binder no later than 72 hours prior to meetings.

    Any materials distributed to members of the Elections Commission within 72 hours of the meeting or after the agenda packet has been delivered to the members are available for inspection at the Department of Elections, City Hall Room 48, in the Commission's Public Binder, during normal office hours.

    Cell phones, pagers and similar sound-producing electronic devices

    Cell phones, pagers and similar sound-producing electronic devices

    The ringing of and use of cell phones, pagers and similar sound-producing electronic devices are prohibited at this meeting. The Chair may order the removal from the meeting room of any person responsible for the ringing or use of a cell phone, pager, or other similar sound-producing electronic devices.

    Disability access

    Disability access

    The Commission meeting will be held in Room 408, City Hall, 1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place, San Francisco, CA. The meeting room is wheelchair accessible.

    The closest accessible BART station is the Civic Center Station at United Nations Plaza and Market Street. Accessible MUNI lines serving this location are: #42 Downtown Loop, and #71 Haight/Noriega and the F Line to Market and Van Ness and the Metro Stations at Van Ness and Market and at Civic Center. For information about MUNI accessible services call (415) 923-6142.

    There is accessible curbside parking adjacent to City Hall on Grove Street and Van Ness Avenue and in the vicinity of the Veterans Building at 401 Van Ness Avenue adjacent to Davies Hall and the War Memorial Complex.

    To obtain a disability-related modification or accommodation, including auxiliary aids or services, to participate in a meeting, please contact the Department of Elections at least 48 hours before the meeting, except for Monday meetings, for which the deadline is 4:00 p.m. the previous Friday. Late requests will be honored, if possible.

    Services available on request include the following: American sign language interpreters or the use of a reader during a meeting, a sound enhancement system, and/or alternative formats of the agenda and minutes. Please contact the Department of Elections at (415) 554-4375 or our TDD at (415) 554-4386 to make arrangements for a disability-related modification or accommodation.

    Chemical based products

    Chemical based products

    In order to assist the City's efforts to accommodate persons with severe allergies, environmental illnesses, multiple chemical sensitivity or related disabilities, attendees at public meetings are reminded that other attendees may be sensitive to various chemical-based products. Please help the City accommodate these individuals.

    Know your rights under the Sunshine Ordinance

    Know your rights under the Sunshine Ordinance

    Government's duty is to serve the public, reaching its decisions in full view of the public. Commissions, boards, councils, and other agencies of the City and County exist to conduct the people's business. This ordinance assures that deliberations are conducted before the people and that City operations are open to the people's review.


    Sunshine Ordinance Task Force
    1 Dr. Carlton B. Goodlett Place
    Room 244
    San Francisco, CA 94102-4689
    Phone: (415) 554-7724
    Fax: (415) 554-5163
    Email: sotf@sfgov.org
    Website: http://sfgov.org/sunshine

    Copies of the Sunshine Ordinance can be obtained from the Clerk of the Sunshine Ordinance Task Force, at the San Francisco Public Library, and on the City's website.

    Lobbyist Registration and Reporting Requirements

    Lobbyist Registration and Reporting Requirements

    Individuals that influence or attempt to influence local policy or administrative action may be required by the San Francisco Lobbyist Ordinance (San Francisco Campaign and Governmental Conduct Code sections 2.100 – 2.160) to register and report lobbying activity.

    For more information about the Lobbyist Ordinance, please contact:

    San Francisco Ethics Commission
    25 Van Ness Avenue
    Suite 220
    San Francisco, CA 94102
    Phone: (415) 252-3100
    Fax: (415) 252-3112
    Email: ethics.commission@sfgov.org
    Website: sfethics.org

    Last updated March 17, 2023