Elections Commission Regular Meeting

Wednesday, May 17, 2023

In this page:


    (See below the agenda for the video with transcript.)


    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. Approval of May 17 Meeting Minutes

      Discussion and possible action on previous Elections Commission meeting minutes.

      Attachments: Final May 17 Meeting Minutes

    4. Director’s Report

      Discussion and possible action regarding the May 2023 Director’s Report.

      Attachments: May 2023 Director’s Report.

    5. 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.

      Attachments: Robert’s Rules Reference Guide (Stone); DVSorder and Dominion Contract Memo; Past Support for Open Source Voting Memo; Department Website Memo (Jerdonek).

    6. Closed Session

      Discussion and possible action regarding the annual performance evaluation of John Arntz, the Director of Elections.

      a. Public comment on all matters pertaining to this agenda item, including whether to meet in closed session. 

      b. Vote on whether to meet in closed session to consider this agenda item pursuant to California Government Code§54957(b) and San Francisco Administrative Code§67.10(b). (Action) 

      c. CLOSED SESSION. Closed Session is held pursuant to Brown Act section 54957(b) and Sunshine Ordinance section 67.10(b) to discuss the performance evaluation of a public employee. (Discussion and possible action) 

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

      e. Discussion and vote pursuant to Sunshine Ordinance section 67.12(a) on whether to disclose any portion of the closed session discussion regarding the public employee performance evaluation. (Action) 

      f. Disclosure of action taken, if any, that must be disclosed pursuant to Brown Act section 54957.1 and Sunshine Ordinance section 67.12(b).

    7. Redistricting Process Initiative

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

      Attachments: Elections Commission Bylaws – Updated April 2023 (Stone); Memo to Elections Commission Regarding AB1248; SFEC Redistricting Initiative Project Plan v6; AB764 Fact Sheet; FIERCE Advisory Panel Charter (Dai & LiVolsi).

    8. Agenda Items for Future Meetings

      Discussion and possible action regarding items for future agendas.

    9. Adjournment

    Date & Time

    Wednesday, May 17, 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: 2508 055 3610
    Event password: MayMeeting (use TBA from phones)
    Join the meeting


    Access code: 250 8055 3610
    Event password: TBA (for phones only)

    For Global call-in numbers: https://sfgov.webex.com/sfgov/globalcallin.php?MTID=m197d9b46acb287128562bae307ffe220

    Meeting recording (Duration: 2:24:32)


    so welcome everyone to the May 17 2023 regular meeting of the San Francisco elections Commission I am president

    Robin Stone The Time Is Now 607 pm and I call the meeting to order

    before we proceed further I would like to ask commission secretary Marisa Davis to briefly explain some procedures for

    participating in today's meeting

    okay checking microphone yes yes okay you can proceed thank you when

    joining by phone you will hear a beep and when you are connected to the meeting you will be automatically muted

    in listening mode only to make a public comment dial Star 3 to

    raise your hand and when your item of Interest comes up you will be added to the public comment line you will hear

    you have raised your hand to ask a question please wait until the host calls on you the line will be silent as

    you wait your turn to speak if at any time you change your mind and wish to withdraw yourself from public

    comment press star 3 again you will hear the system say you have lowered your

    hand when joining by WebEx or a web browser make sure the participant side panel is

    showing by clicking on the participants icon at the bottom of the list of

    attendees is a small button or icon that looks like a hand press the hand icon to raise your hand

    you will be unmuted when it is time for you to comment when you are done with your comment click the hand icon again

    to lower your hand 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 on the meeting of on the day of

    the meetings at elections.commission at sfgov.org it will be shared with the

    commission after this meeting has been concluded and we will include as a part of the official meeting file

    thank you president Stone thank you secretary Davis again this

    meeting is starting at 6 10 p.m secretary Davis will you please proceed with item number one commission roll

    call Commissioners please verbally State Your Presence at today's meeting after your name is called

    president Stone present vice president Jordan pure commissioner

    bernholds commissioner burn holes

    commissioner burnhose has an excused absence thank you commissioner die here

    commissioner Hayden Crowley here commissioner levolsi here commissioner

    Parker commission commissioner Parker will be

    um late but joining us momentarily thank you president stone with the members

    president and accounted for you have your forum thank you and thank thank you everyone

    for your patience um with these technical difficulties at some point we will get it sorted

    um so I appreciate everyone holding off on that um and with before we move on to

    the next item uh commissioner dye has graciously agreed to State the elections

    commission's land acknowledgment resolution thank you president Stone

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

    and working on their traditional Homeland we wish to pay our respects by acknowledging the ancestors and

    relatives of the ramayush community and affirming their Sovereign rights as first peoples

    thank you commissioner dye that closes agenda item number one now we will move

    2. General Public Comment

    to agenda item number two general public comment public comment on any any issue within the elections commission's jurist

    General jurisdiction that is not covered by another item on this agenda secretary Davis are there any public

    commenters great we'll give everyone a

    3. Approval of Previous Meeting Minutes

    okay we will move to agenda item number three or close out agenda item number

    two and move to agenda item number three approval of previous meeting minutes discussion and possible action on

    previous elections commission meeting minutes specifically we'll be talking about the April 19 2023 draft minutes

    and it's just a quick reminder before I open it up um for the commission discussion we

    don't need to take a full vote on any edits that are suggested it's just a

    general consensus so are there any comments

    commissioner die yes just um one correction and a couple

    clarifications on page three there's a word missing in the second

    full paragraph BP journalik move to adopt the dress

    lights and author vice president Stone to make appropriate Relevant Word changes

    ah I believe that was sorry I'll let you complete all right and then

    um a couple of clarifications on page

    5 for the redistricting process initiative I wanted to address one of the

    attachments so I propose a sentence

    commission after this would be in paragraph three

    after the first sentence about ab1248 add a sentence commissioner journalik

    suggested that we defer action on the draft letter to the Board of Supervisors requesting their support for ab1248

    until the dca's complete their legal memo on the same

    and I have this in track changes I'll be happy to send it to Marissa afterwards and then

    the next sentence I wanted to clarify

    uh that the vote the decision not to vote in

    March 15th was for a commission committee

    um not not the advisory panel that we were proposing so I would propose changing

    the elections commission opted not to vote to establish a commission committee

    in the March 15th regular meeting and then a final sentence at the end of

    the paragraph commissioner die clarified that the proposed good government panel

    was an alternative approach to address previous concerns about limited commissioner resources and would only

    include herself and commissioner levolsi

    and I will send it to you thank you yes [Music] I think you commissioner died does

    anyone else have specific comments

    um this is President Stone I don't agree with a couple of the clarifications

    um specifically surrounding the quote-unquote commission committee which

    I believe will be discussing later this afternoon the commission specifically

    voted not to form any sort of group panel committee whatever we call it and

    so I'm happy to agree to adding the word commission committee but it doesn't

    change that the commission did not vote to form any sort of body

    and we can table that discussion until uh like we can re revisit those meeting

    minutes if we'd like after agenda item number seven but I I don't agree that that was what

    had happened and I also don't agree with the final sentence about the good

    government panel I've I've rewatched that discussion at least three times and

    I don't don't agree with that so I'm happy to provide alternative suggestions

    after reviewing commissioner dies feedback and provide my own kind of

    wordsmithing in response and that we can then discuss at the next regular meeting

    which I believe is in June and then just to clarify the word the word choice on

    page three I had a feeling this might cause some confusion and I actually used

    the words though I know I'm a stickler about not being a transcript I use the

    words appropriate rather than appropriate um and I had a feeling in fact when I

    reread the minutes I was confused myself so I'm happy to change it um the language that was used was to

    have President Stone appropriate changes the changes or something to that effect I can't I for some reason can't pull up

    the exact line but I'm also happy to change it so I just wanted to clarify why that was in there but I don't mind

    making that change um so if everyone is comfortable with

    that um and commissioner died if no one else has comments we can also come back to you for a response um but I will provide

    I'll review your uh proposed changes I will provide my response to those and

    then we can revisit it in June does that does that work

    let's let's wait to see if other folks have comments I was there

    okay commissioner die yeah so my only concern is that I may not

    be in attendance in June so which uh

    you know we could we can discuss it beforehand that's fine um I'm happy to email it to you and where's that right now

    um yeah so I my apologies commissioner die

    I I had just that I just um I was not attempting to do it while

    you weren't here I just completely forgot that you had mentioned that so um

    we can also discuss it in July I don't think it's pressing unless you have strong feelings

    okay so we will postpone it until July when commissioner die can participate in

    the discussion

    um DCA Flores were you going to say something else okay great

    um any other comments pertaining to the approval of the previous meeting minutes

    okay let's move to public comment then

    I don't see any hands for public comment great thank you secretary Davis and

    thank you commissioner died for your feedback that will close agenda item number three and we will move to agenda

    4. Director’s Report

    item for the director's report discussion and possible action regarding the May 2023 director's report

    um I will with that I will hand it over to director Ernst thank you president

    Stone I'll take a question I'll just uh one item that I'll provides more

    information on as we did meet with the mayor's office on the on the budget and there will be more cuts to the

    Department's draft budget that uh the the commission reviewed previously and likely the cuts will be around the grant

    fund Monies to community groups to assist with the march in November 2024

    elections um I don't know the final numbers yet but it'll be a significant reduction in

    the in the grant monies uh the monies that will be allocated the department at least from through the mayor's office in

    March will be intended for the Outreach around crossover voting so

    people who are nonpartisan voters who whose affiliation is nonpartisan they some political parties allow the

    non-partisan Affiliated voters to cross over to vote for the contest and of

    president of the parties and usually it's the Democratic uh I can't think of the libertarian uh American dependent

    and there's one more Peace and Freedom the Republicans in green do not usually

    so the Outreach will be around that topic for March and that's where the grant funds will be allocated I think

    from the mayor's office through a discussion and then for November the

    grant monies will be towards non-citizen voting for The Board of Education

    contest in the November 2024 election uh primarily then of course we have the ranked Choice voting uh as well and then

    we did uh with the assistance of the city attorney's office uh prepare trilingual legislation uh to submit with

    the budget that the mayor will submit with its budget to the board and that

    would be on an ab1614 that's the legislation where the proponent and

    opponents for local for State measures for sure but for the local measures uh

    counties can opt out so this trailing legislation that we've with the assistance of the city attorney's office

    uh we'll submit to the board in in conjunction with the budget uh we'll

    seek for the board to pass an ordinance that would uh um what's the word

    uh remove San Francisco from having to uh friend proponent opponents on the

    ballots which would actually increase the the length of the cards by probably

    a card for election which is just the cards alone it's like another 500 000 and so part of our budget cut will be

    the trailing legislation to remove for potentially an extra card per election as we go forward and I think for the

    rest I can I can just take your questions so on the on the director support thank you director Ernst

    open it up for commission discussion yes vice president jordanick okay thank

    you Derek Terence for your report um I just have a couple questions um

    regarding what you just said with respect to the the proponents and opponents was that just for the the

    local ones that you'd seek removal from The Ballot or or were

    you also going to request the state to in the legislation so for the legislation requires the

    state measures to have the proponents opponents still listed on the ballots but allows counties to opt out of that

    requirement for local measures for local right so so the training legislation is seeking the board's vote to allow San

    Francisco to opt out by printing a printing proponent opponent our names on

    the on the ballast for local measures okay and then my other question was in

    the past we've sort of discussed the idea that some of that information is in the voter information guide

    the voter information pamphlet that would normally be printed on the ballot

    correct yeah is that is that the case like all of the information that would would have been pronounced about will be

    in the voter information guide in the format that would be put on the ballot normally

    you know the format on the ballot would be limited to 125 characters and I think

    it expands 135 for other languages but so in the what information pamphlet

    you've got the official proponent opponent arguments and also the paid arguments so at the bottom of each

    argument is a listing of the authors and also within the arguments there's a listing of the supporters of the measure

    or argument so it's not the same format yeah I guess what I mean is like if the

    ballot requires like the top three or something I don't know what the it is but would would that

    you know that condensed form be visible from the voter information pamphlet too or so the proponents the

    names of the proponents and opponents will still be presented in the voter information pamphlet but they won't be

    truncated there will be no abbreviated names or organizations there'll be the

    full names organizations so it's actually a better listing of information in relation to the about local ballot

    measures then what would be print on the balance okay all right thanks and then my last question was around the the

    website this kind of two related questions but um

    one is well they're both around the the archiving of the older site and I know

    you said your um looking at alternatives to the the archive tool

    and um one of those was

    um to keep the old site live in a read-only format is that do you know how long they're

    going to keep it live for no we and yeah I don't it hasn't happened yet so right now I I think only

    archive it is is the is the archive for our old site I'm not aware of it was

    actually transitioning and having the the read-only uh format yet and I don't know I don't know uh

    no I don't know I can't give you any time frames on it right now okay so are what are the other options you're

    considering aside from the archive at any well there so so essentially make

    the old site read only and it essentially would it would live in SF elections and then the links with

    see the thing is the links would go potentially to the new site uh from the

    read-only and if we are and then the links would also go to the archiving site if it was not if the information

    was not on our on our current site so it sort of be a gateway to the old and new sites

    okay and that's just something you're exploring right now yeah all right that's all my questions thank you

    thank you vice president jordanick

    commissioner die yeah so um in the meeting with the

    mayor's office uh you said it was ghostly gonna hit the grants and then working on this printing savings

    um the other thing you mentioned your report was uh staff salaries was the other proposed area for cutting so is

    that going to be oh they're attrition yeah uh yeah so there's no salaries

    themselves are not being uh discussed as for any kind of reductions or or cuts at

    all uh is the position so in the city even when departments

    have authority to hire into positions uh come budget Cycles if

    there's not someone already in those approved positions they become potentially uh attributed and they come

    they become attrition they're called attrition savings so even though departments have the permission they've gone through all the steps to have

    authorizations to hire someone into the positions uh to save money the the the

    city will not allocate funds for those positions in the next fiscal year and those are called attrition savings so we

    will have attrition savings uh for this next fiscal year and we had some

    discussions with the mayor's office on a couple positions we had a couple retirements that occurred in the

    department and those so those positions became vacant right at the time at the but the mayor's office were looking at

    our budget and the mayor's office thought that those could be attributed classifications or positions in a in our

    in our budget uh but we've had that discussion with the mayor's office that those those positions will not be part

    of attrition savings uh we can find savings from from other positions and also since

    uh in in the city when when a position becomes open towards the end of a budget cycle the funding usually isn't a full

    Year's funding it's a like a three-quarter or half depending on the on the timing of the hiring cycle so

    we'll probably have three-quarter funding for those two positions where two people retired the last few months

    so so I don't expect there to be any real hit to the department as far as positions are concerned for Christian

    savings good so I just wanted to make sure you had the staff that you needed so

    um great and then of course I was um pleased to see the results of some of

    the preliminary results from the go green campaign I was curious for the

    for the Thousand or 20 or so who responded to the campaign do you

    have any idea what was the most effective

    the email yeah the email was the moment we had the most responses on on that

    mass email we sent to those and we have email addresses for around 50 of Voters

    we don't have email addresses for all the voters okay great thank you

    uh thank you commissioner died anyone have no

    um this is President Stone I had a couple of things that I wanted to say or

    ask um it was an interesting question that commissioner die brought up about the most effective message because I was

    I was actually really impressed even though maybe a thousand voters doesn't seem like a lot I think a thousand

    voters in a month is a pretty big number um for folks who've stopped the postal

    delivery delivery of their voter information packet so pretty cool

    um the I did have one question about the grant funding so an apologies I I this

    may have been my misunderstanding um so does that mean that there would be a

    reallocation of grant funding or is that separate from the one that you uh speak

    about in the for formerly incarcerated folks in the director's report

    um how do those two things relate to each other they're separate okay that's what I thought okay

    um that was that makes sense um and then this is a question that is unrelated to it's not unrelated but a

    question I have just because it's been a uh kind of national concern recently I

    just wanted to understand if the department is using the electronic registration information center Eric

    no we don't uh and there and that is that there's so there's there is legislation I think in Sacramento that

    that that's I don't know where it is in the in the process but uh for the California to join Eric but in

    California uh registered the the information of record comes from the Secretary of State's office it doesn't

    counties themselves don't generate the official voter information records any longer so the state would need to join

    Eric for that to become part of the official voter registration information

    know what thank you for sharing that do you know why the state isn't currently a part of doesn't currently use Eric

    no and I I don't I don't want to Hazard yeah I don't know the yeah that's fair

    um well there it has been a lot of um there have been a lot of issues across

    the country about folks leaving Eric and so it's just of interest to me that

    we're not we meaning San Francisco but we as a state are not a part of it so

    thank you thank you for um clarifying and then the only other piece which is more just an observation

    than a question was um the Instagram poll which I did see go up because I do follow the department on

    Instagram and I think that's interesting even though obviously I don't know how many people participated in the survey

    that given the age demographic of folks who are on Instagram and use Instagram

    that you know more than half had who participated in this poll who followed

    it um indicated that they wanted to maintain print I think that's just interesting that the commission might

    continue to keep in mind um though I really I do appreciate the element of that multi voter households

    because I think that's a great compromise so um I just wanted to

    call that out thank you thank you for this report

    um were there any other comments from commissioners moving right along let's take public


    there are no public commenters for this agenda item okay

    okay it's unusual um all right well let's close agenda item number four

    5. Commissioners’ Reports

    and move to agenda item number five Commissioners reports discussion and

    possible action on commissioner's reports for topic topics not covered by another item on this agenda meetings

    with public officials oversight and observation activities long-range planning for commission activities areas

    of study proposed legislation which affect elections others um and so I have a couple of items but I

    will hand it over to the other Commissioners first and then I will um I'll go into to mine so

    um vice president jordanick I see you have attachments we'll start with you okay thank you president stone I have

    four things to mention first I just want to let the commission know I haven't forgotten about the annual

    report for 2022 and that's something I'm going to try to finish that this summer and have a draft to present to you

    sometime this summer and then yeah as president Stone mentioned I I did attach three memos to

    the packet now I just want to review them very quickly um the first memo is around the

    department website and I noticed that some things um about an RFI from 2015 were weren't

    carried over but I noticed that that information was put up I guess in the past few days so thank you direct

    Ernst for for putting that up so people can ignore that memo um

    and then there was a second document where I because a lot of the commission is new I wanted to kind of

    present an overview of the support for open source voting over the past several years and this this document I have

    shows a photo from a rally that we had in 2018 where London breeds Scott weiner

    uh then assembly member David Chu Malia Cohen Christine Pelosi and Mark Leno

    were all at this rally and holding open source signs and then the document also

    has some excerpts from resolutions that the board and the commission passed back in 2014 in 2015

    asking the department to collaborate with other organizations on an open source system

    and there's also a quote from former Governor Brown from 2021 in support of Open Source voting that was in San

    Francisco at KQED and then there's also resolution from 2016 from the the Democratic County

    Central Committee that was in support that was unanimous resolution and then the the last memo is

    um it's another member about the DVS order privacy flaw and at the last meeting you might remember that I found

    there's a state law that looks like Dominion was required to notify the department within 30 days

    and at the last meeting I'd asked if our contract has any language around this and I I did review the contract and they

    found that there is language saying that Dominion has to comply with the law

    and then it has some information about what we can do in response and basically we can

    our contract permits us to you know seek them to like fulfill aspects that

    they're not complying with and then I have the experts and experts in the contract but George Curran so I

    was wondering if for the next meeting you could maybe you know look at the information that in that memo and from the previous

    meetings and and let us know if there's anything that you could do you know in response to this

    you know for example I think at minimum Dominion could provide the notification that they were supposed to provide us

    over the summer just confirming that there was this vulnerability and then maybe also assure us that going

    forward though they will notify us some time but um just basically you know just to

    let us know um if you're going to be doing anything in response you know basic because this

    contract language is in there um or or if you're going to do nothing just

    just to let us know but um so that's that's all I have to report

    um yeah so thank you thank you vice president jordanick

    did other commissioners commissioner Hayden Crowley um I just have a question about the

    Dominion um contract memo uh and um thank you

    um commissioner georgonik for your extensive research should the DCA be

    weighing in on this

    um yes vice president jordanick yeah at the last meeting I did ask the

    wcd attorney if if they could look into it so um

    but I don't know if I didn't remind them since the meeting but I would still be curious about it

    commissioner Hayden Crowley thank you president Stone I I think that

    um before uh director Arts provides

    I I think whatever you decide but I do think that the DCA needs to review the

    information that you compiled um commissioner giordanoch

    um before we move forward I think that that would be very important to have the legal

    assessment for better for worse

    DCA Flores um I don't know if you want to do about anything

    um just to clarify I don't know what type of legal assessment I could make um if there's if it's been determined

    that there's a breach of contract then the remedies available uh which is what um vice president

    jordanick asked me to look at and I saw that he posted the remedies available on his uh memo so I didn't think it was

    pertinent to bring it up since he already mentioned it um but yeah if there's a breach of contract there's a determination that

    there's a breach of contract those are the remedies available um we are not in a position to make that

    determination um and so the commission is also not in that position to make that determination

    um and um just a quick reminder that contract entering into a contract administration

    of a contract uh monitoring of a contract and anything having to do with

    Contracting is within the um sphere of what the director of Elections does so

    um truthfully like the commission couldn't take any action on this contract per se it's and if the director

    wants us to um wants to discuss this with us we're open to provide getting

    any assistance possible thank you DCA Flores

    vice president Jordan yeah so that's kind of where I was I was just asking if director Ernst could you know at the

    next meeting just tell us what what you're thinking on it is

    so yeah thank you thank you vice president jordanick and

    commissioner Hayden Crowley um commissioner Heidi Crowley was at it I I'm still confused because when I I

    well I appreciate commissioner Jordana putting out the remedies uh commissioner interdonic with all due

    respect you're not an attorney that's why I think it's important that the DCA uh that that go through the DCA that's

    just my uh I'm not an attorney but that's my assessment

    so thank you commissioner Hayden Grady Point Crowley point of clarification

    um my understanding based on the kind of back and forth here is that vice president jordanick drafted drafted

    these remedies and it seems as though DCA Flores can validate affirmed that

    those were the available remedies okay um but that also re-stated the role of the Commission in

    Contracting in the nuances of our Contracting relationships is that accurate DCA

    Flores okay for the record DC floor is nodded yes that's president yeah

    commissioner Hayden Crowley yeah I would I would assume and hope that director Ernst would consult with the DCA you

    know before getting back to us but it's I think what dcfr's point is that

    you know she's available to assist whoever needs assistance but and that and the stuff I wrote is not official

    it's just my own interpretation but yeah it would need to be confirmed

    thank you um yeah commissioner die

    yeah I just um had some good news to share and it's the reason for my potential absence for the

    June meeting I I was recently uh was

    awarded a fellowship to attend Harvard Kennedy schools program on for senior

    Executives in state and local government so that's in relation to my capacity as a

    elections commissioner so I will be in Cambridge for three weeks in June and

    hope I will learn some skills that I can bring back to the elections commission

    um I would will also be asking uh an agenda item

    eight if the elections commission would consider rescheduling

    uh the June meeting to the last week of June if it's possible and I understand

    if it's not um because I prefer not to miss the June meeting but right now it's smack in the

    middle so thanks commissioner dye congratulations

    um and I guess we'll discuss that in agenda item number eight um in terms of the meeting anyone else

    have comments okay I have a handful

    um so I know everyone loves to talk about Robert's rules um but let me kind of

    contextualize this a little bit so um I

    um I continuously get feedback from Individual Commissioners about how late our meetings go uh I do believe we've

    made improvements but to continue making our meetings run more smoothly fairly

    productively I think it's going to require all of our participation so there are a couple ways I'm I'm trying

    to approach this the first is that I may begin actually I am going to begin using

    time limits for certain discussions where appropriate so for example today I

    will be asking that we follow time limits for the closed session in

    addition to the redistricting item and it is not targeting the director nor commissioner sovulsi and Commissioners

    and commissioner die it is solely looking at Agenda items that are particularly lengthy and seeing how we

    can streamline them a little bit and I will make sure going forward as that happens that I

    will announce publicly and I will also ask secretary Davis to support and I'll talk a little bit more about that

    process later uh second uh after re-watching our past

    meetings as I mentioned earlier I think we are starting to get the hang of Robert's Rules but I do think there are

    ways that um we can still mitigate some inefficient back and forth so

    specifically I wanted to call out page three of that document

    um obviously everyone is familiar with the fact that meeting participants should

    obtain the floor before offering comment and make sure that they're recognized

    and then there are additional rules on that going forward you know getting

    called by name uh and but Pages three and four and

    specifically number six on page four about debate

    I would recommend folks remind or refresh their understanding of that uh

    specifically you know the details included there that each member has the opportunity to comment before any member

    can comment for a second time some members May Seed their time to another commissioner so let's say uh I've

    already spoken and vice president jordanick doesn't want to speak he can say I seed my time to president Stone if

    I wanted to repeat that again not to pick on you either vice president jordanick

    um but I I'm hopeful that that will help kind of streamline things

    so for moments when it is fair to interject out of this debate process

    please you can also refer to page five for Rules of Order excuse me point of

    order point of information slash clarification point of privilege so point of order I will use I have used in

    the past I will continue to try and use it when a rip interruptions become disruptive I'm going to try and not be

    you know too authoritarian about that but I think it also can be disruptive

    when we're just constantly interrupting each other which does sometimes happen when we're talking about something

    that's important to us uh and then point of information clarification can be used I think you

    need information you know you want to clarify something or you want to provide a clarification about something such as

    what just happened point of privilege is addressing the physical needs of the meeting room so for example we talk

    about our discomfort with how cold or hot it can be insect here sometimes but the idea is that these Point requesting

    points of something should be brief and not lead to more back and forth back and forth

    um so the last thing I just wanted to mention about this is that these these rules apply to all discussions including

    when we have our own agenda items so let's say sorry vice president jordanick

    to pick on you again but let's say you wanted your own agenda item on open source voting you will be recognized to

    introduce the topic and the comments and share more about it but once you've introduced the item or once a

    commissioner is introduced an item the discussion process should follow those same rules of debate so that means that

    if vice president jordanick unless it's in terms of a point of order or point of

    information Etc we'll have to wait to respond to

    questions or comments until everyone has had the opportunity to either speak for

    the first time or seed their time so I know that this can be difficult when

    it's your agenda item but to the best of your ability I think that will help us run our meetings more efficiently I also

    can update this document though I know no one really loves it um to specifically state that this is

    kind of the rules of debate when it's your own agenda item as well are there any

    specific questions about that yes vice president jordanick yeah thank you president stone for you know compiling

    all this together um one question I have is when if say like someone is

    speaking and they want to ask someone else a question does does like the person speaking get decide if they want

    to if the person can answer or is it does it go back to the president and the president has to recognize the

    thank you for that question so the the

    if there's a point if someone is at requesting information um

    actually let me ask a clarifying question what are you saying the person whose agenda item it is if I'm going to

    pick on you again if it's your agenda item and you or someone another

    commissioner is talking about something and you want to ask that commissioner a question or can you put it into a term

    so I can understand yeah well just in general like maybe like in the Jenna and

    the in this agenda item when commissioner Hayden Crowley maybe has if she had a question about what I just

    said and then it was her turn to speak and then she said oh can you answer this question can I

    answer does it need do you need to recognize or how does that work probably better to recognize folks in response so

    commissioner Hayden Crowley could say and I honestly don't even remember how life went down so I'm just pretending

    that it happened the way it is in my mind um but commissioner Hayden Crowley can say you know point of information or

    point of clarification and then if you vice president jordanick wanted to respond to the question that

    commissioner Hayden Crowley had presented you would raise your hand and I then as pres as president

    um parliamentarian whatever would say yes vice president or Dominic but if it becomes a back and forth between

    Commissioners that's when I think it becomes going out of order of debate process and that's honestly I'm glad you

    brought it up because that is often in our previous meetings I think where we end up kind of um

    having longer conversations so in an effort to try and streamline uh our

    meeting not streamline but have shorter meetings I think it could be more more productive to or efficient to do it that

    way but if folks have strong feelings against that I welcome your feedback sorry that was long-winded thank you

    I have a comment and question I have to be honest with you I'm uncomfortable

    with what I feel to be a level of control of our discussions

    that I don't think is based in anything that's absolutely

    necessary yes we have had long meetings but I think what has been wonderful and

    Democratic about those meetings is that we have all had the opportunity to speak and to say what we think

    and yes it is important for us to have decorum since I have been here

    I have not seen a situation where we've had a lack of decorum and I would like

    to remind you that it is these types of rules that were used in Nashville to

    silence people and so I want you to just think about what

    I find to be an extreme level of control as opposed to

    what is actually happening here so yes we've had meetings go on for a long time

    and I think you've done an excellent job in keeping us on track and our meetings

    have been shorter but I'm very uncomfortable with

    the level of what I feel to be extreme control in who speaks how they speak and

    I'd like to ask DCA Flores if this is something we are required to do if there needs to be a vote on it and I would

    feel more comfortable if we if we all agree and I'm the only descending vote that's different but I I

    feel this is a level of control that makes me uncomfortable um with how we do things because since

    I've been here I haven't seen a situation where decorum

    has gotten out of control and so I understand your desire to

    streamline our meetings I appreciate it and I think since you've been president we have streamlined but to say who can

    talk when they can talk I'm uncomfortable with that and so I just want to make that clear

    thank you commissioner volsi I appreciate the feedback and I wanted to provide a few areas of clarification

    first of all these are in our bylaws to follow Robert's Rules so I'm just simply

    following the rules I'm not trying to control and I also have not suppressed anyone's voice this is simply just to

    allow everyone the equal opportunity to speak once and you don't have to speak if you don't want to

    these are the these are the Robert's Rules of Order I'm happy I feel as

    though I've tried to be um

    I've tried to use the structure of Robert's Rules while also

    um not being overly controlling with how they're used my observation and from

    other Commissioners is that there is a lot of interrupting and I believe commissioner lavosi you yourself have

    shared that you felt that you'd been interrupted a couple of times so I'm trying to create a

    um I'm trying to establish Fair rules and

    if you feel after we work you know continue to try and adopt to these rules

    that the commission that are within the bylaws um and you feel as though I am in effect

    controlling then I will I welcome that in practice the

    final thing I'd like to share which I can understand the sentiment behind your concern regarding Nashville but that's

    actually not what happened in Nashville and it's

    I take what you're saying very seriously I actually went and saw Justin Joe's

    speak four days ago in person um and I'm very very familiar with what

    happened and I I can commit to reflecting on your concerns and I also

    welcome the feedback that if you feel that you've been silenced or if you feel that folks have been silenced

    while we're working through these rules then

    I will listen to that feedback I've always been open to feedback um it is not an attempt to control or

    silence and I have not controlled nor silenced anyone um I I feel pretty

    um I feel like I've tried to be fair I think there are many people who have interrupted including myself and I want

    to hold myself to a better standard as well

    I have a question for DCA floors sure

    yes thank you so your bylaws adopt Robert's Rules of

    Order and it says at the discretion of the president um unless otherwise

    um directed by the charter um you shall use Robert's Rules of Order so are we required to use all rules it's

    at the discretion of the president okay and so there's no vote it's just at the discretion of the President right okay

    Commissioners commissioner Hayden Crowley um I just uh I appreciate what everybody

    is saying here I um as someone who interrupts

    I like the fact that we are restoring order here and I'm not interrupting as much

    and I really appreciate that because I think that there's a lot of back and forth and while that is great in a in a

    in a conversation we're in a commission meeting and these meetings quite frankly for my purposes just go way too long and

    I just appreciate the fact that we're following a system that has worked well

    for other commissions and other bodies the Board of Supervisors follows it and

    I just think um if we could give it a try and I appreciate all the thought that you've put into it and the research that you've

    done as well as your considerations to commissioner levolsi

    um I just would like I just like the idea of letting everybody speak first

    and then if somebody has something more to say but the back and forth tends to

    go on and on that's my observation and extends the evening when and then and

    then I just think that we that I'm not even making sense anymore but it makes sense I I I like the taking insurance

    thing period end commissioner thank you commissioner Hayden Crowley commissioner die

    thank you president Stone so a couple of comments um I think time limits are a good idea

    and very reasonable as long as it you know announced in advance so that

    um you know uh Commissioners whose agenda item it is can you can plan around that so I think it's a great idea

    um as someone who you know was part of a body that used Robert's Rules of older

    uh to run our meetings uh I would just say that we use it as a guide uh and not you know that

    again it's like your discretion if it makes sense for example the idea of handing handing

    it over to someone whose agenda item it is for example and not having to go back

    each time I think that's a reasonable way to go that's something that the CRC

    did um so you know I do think you know Robert's Rules of Order has worked well

    for hundreds of years so there is a lot of thought behind it but

    um it's supposed to help it's not supposed to constrain it's supposed to help and

    so I think as long as you keep that in mind then I think that's fine

    um and then one last comment um uh as as uh as I learned recently

    uh there are some stronger requirements that our Sunshine ordinance requires so

    for example in the minutes while Robert's Rules says we don't have to say what people said actually the sunshine

    ordinance actually requires um a brief summary I believe

    for example we have public comment so so you might want to just like annotate

    some things here if there's a a stricter requirement by the sunshine ordinance

    so that's one place that I think there's a a little bit of a conflict that

    there's a stronger requirement by the sunshine ordinance for transparency reasons

    thank you commissioner die

    um yeah so yeah sorry vice president

    Jordana um I well I like I like to see everybody happy about things when when it's

    possible but um I think because I I listened to it commissioner

    levels he said and um I I want to try to see if there's some

    kind of common like ground or something but like I think

    from what I in interpreting I think part of the um the reason this was sort of

    spurred on by some people interrupting other people and which which when you prevent people

    from from being interrupted it allows them to speak so I think some of it was motivated by allowing people to speak

    but at the same time it shouldn't be used to suppress people from speaking too so um

    I'm wondering if there's like I don't know how to

    um reach a place where we're all happy completely with with um

    what we decide on doing but like is there are there certain scenarios you see where

    with the rules that people could be prevented from speaking or under commissioner level C or

    um is there certain aspects of it that you're not comfortable with I I would like for us as a group to agree if

    possible to what is that time let it limit what's a reasonable time limit I think that's what

    um concerned me the most because I know that sometimes sometimes we may have

    difficulty articulating our thoughts or we are still

    um thinking about what we're saying and so I want that time limit to be reasonable

    um I think I'm the commissioner who speaks the least so I have watched and

    listened and there have been moments where um other Commissioners have interrupted

    and I think it is important to keep decorum but I'm concerned about

    constraining um

    other members commit ability to speak and I'm concerned that

    our desire to end meetings early um could get in the way of everyone

    having a voice by the way I like going to bed at a

    reasonable time as well but I also like hearing um

    because I feel each of us bring certain skills and experiences that are helpful

    to discussions thank you commissioner levolsey and

    um vice president vice president jordanick was there more you wanted to add no thanks

    um okay I

    I appreciate the feedback everyone's given I also appreciate those who are willing to own how they participate

    um I think that's always a hard thing to do um and as I stated previously

    commissioner ovulsi just wanted to share this with you because you had brought up the initial concerns I will always

    welcome your feedback and thoughts about if things aren't working correctly and

    if you feel that they're not being fair and so this is I this is this can be an ongoing

    conversation that we have I the idea is to make the whole body

    operate better I think we all have nuances in our own particular identities there are Health Equity components to

    having our meetings run very late as well that I'm trying to be considerate of

    um which I've mentioned in the past and so I want to make sure that I can do my

    best to accommodate all of those while still being productive I can understand

    the concerns about the time limits but I also have found found that that's also

    helped us for some folks actually participate better by not being so exhausted that

    they aren't you know operating in the way that they necessarily want as well so there are many ways but um control is

    not the intention if that is the impact I welcome that feedback as we go along

    and that's not just a commission ovulsi that's to everyone um

    okay are there other comments or questions about that specifically

    okay um there were a few other items that I wanted to mention

    um I'll be our uh secretary Davis shared

    a an email with the commission earlier with a um asking folks to participate in

    a survey asking uh for asking Commissioners to Prevail provide their

    availability for the retreat I want to give everyone a good amount of

    advanced notice including the public so if you can complete that by next Thursday that would be great we'll of

    course follow the all the good government guide on Retreat site visits and Gatherings to make sure we're

    complying with um public meeting requirements

    um and then more but more details will follow

    a couple other things I did share the racial Equity slides that we had worked

    through in the last meeting I did share the specific edits with commissioner labosi offline got her blessing

    um and I shared those with the director I did want to also mention specifically commissioner dye had asked about changes

    that I request that the director make in his document which I also

    also shared with the director as well so I wanted to follow up on that um

    so that's been updated additionally a member I believe folks although it may

    have just been vice president jordanick myself and commissioner Hayden Crowley I'm not sure if other folks are included

    so I'm gonna just quickly reshare it here but a member from a professional

    Exchange program uh partnering with the state department who is interested in

    um having a conversation with the elections Commission on the role of volunteerism in Civil Society asked if

    the commission could meet and have a conversation so vice president jordanick and I believe myself will be meeting

    with them next next week to have that conversation and we'll be

    sharing that um we'll share what we learn it may just be vice president Jordan

    um and the last piece that I I want to

    share is that I'm going to be taking the information about the proposal from OPEC

    regarding website demographics and incorporating some of the conversations that we had last time I had wanted to

    share some visuals about how other groups or boards share their demographic

    information in a nice aggregated way but learned from vice president jordanick

    that some things may not be as feasible so I'm actually going to be working with digital services to understand how we can do it it may just have to be listing

    percentages but that is something that is on my on my list

    um I think that is all does anyone have any

    other comments or points that they would like to make

    okay let's move to public comment

    Brian Turner Mr Turner once I unmute you they'll have three minutes


    you should be can you hear me yes okay great your voice by the way before

    um I came on was a little a little distant just just so you know I could hear it but it was in in the background

    more than usual um okay thank you uh Commissioners uh for your attention tonight

    um back at the beginning of this particular agenda item um there was conversation

    uh regarding uh director Ernst and um one thing I think we're seeing is is a

    uh sort of a cat and mouse game with some of the uh information that's to be

    available uh consistently regarding open source on the website

    um so that that should be uh noted um also

    um regarding this Dominion contract I think uh uh commissioner jordanick made

    it pretty clear this is not some sort of a fringe issue

    or Democrat versus Republican issue

    um this work was initially done here in San Francisco um by nonpartisan groups and then

    um supported completely by the Democratic party um Christine Pelosi David Chu

    everyone in the political Arena I don't think anyone was against it because it's

    just common sense that you don't want a corporation in control of your election software and I think we learned

    that in 2016. so it's not just a 2016 verse 2022 issue either

    um so um I think uh the commission would be well served by getting a uh the

    attorney's opinion on this I know it's a tough one for David Chu because he's

    previously supported open source and it appears now that we're just putting in

    complete control into the hands of John Ernst to his shown a predisposition

    against open source and for this proprietary

    brand that we've had for so long thank you for your time tonight and your

    attention to this issue thank you

    okay you're now back on mute and there are no other public commenters

    thank you secretary Davis and welcome commissioner Parker we are just about to

    close agenda item number five on commissioner's reports given that we

    haven't closed the agenda item wanted to welcome in case you had any comments or anything you would like to

    add before we move to the next agenda item um thank you president Stone

    um no I just I appreciate all the work that everybody did when I reviewed all those ahead of time so I don't have any

    questions that I needed answered thank you okay thank you commissioner Parker okay

    um we're going to close agenda item number five and move to agenda item

    6. Closed Session

    number six closed session discussion impossible action regarding the annual performance evaluation of John Arns the

    director of Elections first we're going to take public comment on all matters pertaining to this agenda item including

    including whether to meet in closed session so um secretary Davis would you mind

    taking public comment I have excuse me here's a public comment Brett Turner Mr

    Turner once I unmute you you'll have three minutes

    thank you Commissioners um on behalf of the public at the risk of

    being redundant we just want to mention our disappointment in the director's performance

    um the the biggest issue we see right now in the United States is

    restoring voter confidence in the election systems and make sure making sure that we retain voter confidence in

    the election systems um transparency is a part of that effort and uh this uh particular commissioner

    has blocked efforts toward transparency um for the past 15 years it's been going

    on again I refer to it as a cat and mouse game um unfortunately he's the cat in the

    American public appear to be the mice and and so we have to just tender

    objection uh his relationship with Dominion is inappropriate I'm sure it would be

    inappropriate no matter who the vendor was um but we're just suffering through and

    I know it's there's been a level of Competency regarding the election the

    elections but um this is not tolerable the the the is his uh insubordinate Behavior around

    the voting system contracts his relationship with the Secretary of State the disinformation

    misinformation and and in general um disregard for for the commission uh

    we never brought Dominion in front of the commission when they were in the newspaper disparaging the county and the

    commission and now we find out that they're in uh violations that they're in

    violation of the contract thank you very much for your time

    thank you

    okay I see no other commenters

    thank you secretary Davis we're now going to move to 6B a vote on whether to

    meet in closed session to consider this agenda item pursuant to California government code 54957b and San Francisco Administrative

    Code 67.10 B and we will move to a roll call vote

    will somebody second that oh we don't need a second okay thank you

    president Stone yes vice president Mr Donna yes

    commissioner burn holes commissioner dot i

    commissioner Hayden Crowley yes commissioner levolsi yes commissioner

    Parker yes okay

    um this does pass for a closed session as moved by President okay thank you

    thank you directorants um we're going to take a seven minute break to figure out

    the tech around the closed session um but

    we will re-convene in closed session after we've completed it okay

    the time is 8 25 pm and we are going to

    reconvene um and move to

    item 6E discussion vote pursuant to Sunshine ordinance 67.12 a on whether to disclose any

    portion of the closed session discussion regarding the public employee performance evaluation

    would anyone like to make a motion

    vice president jordanick I move that we disclose no portion of the quiz session

    discussion okay

    um so we don't need to take public comment because we already did so secretary Davis would you mind moving to

    the roll call Vote Yes uh president Stone yes vice president you're done yes

    commissioner bernholds out commissioner die will return to commissioner die okay

    commissioner Hayden Crowley yes commissioner policy

    yes commissioner Parker yes

    vote Absentia commissioner die stepped out so I think

    we can call the vote we have a majority we still have a majority so that passes

    to not disclose okay should we okay

    excuse me here she comes okay there we go how she wants to vote

    about that and closer one okay sorry um my apologies

    um secretary Davis will you call commissioner dies vote

    um there was a motion to not disclose a portion of this meeting um how would you vote

    um I thank you commissioner die and thank you secretary Davis so

    um we have voted to not disclose any portion

    of the procession and we have now closed agenda item number six

    7. Redistricting Process Initiative

    and we'll move to agenda item number seven redistricting process initiative discussion and possible action regarding

    the commission's ongoing redistricting process initiative um so there are a handful of attachments

    and I'm going to hand the Baton over to Commissioners die in the bullsey um I did mention that I would try and

    set a time um it won't be stringent we can set the 30 minutes and then see where we're at

    set another 15. if we want to extend we can extend um before we start the clock though as to

    not take away from the actual discussion I just wanted to ground the conversation because there was a fair amount

    happening offline and online and there was a lot of um my consultation personally with the

    deputies of the attorneys so I wanted to share and there are also some folks who were present or not present at meetings

    so I just wanted to share some of the historical information pertaining to

    some components of creating an advisory committee or task force or group

    um just to get us on the same page and these are not specifically to my

    opinions these are the um this is just kind of a recap of what happened over the last several months

    and then the second piece is some of the considerations or questions that I think we've kind of gotten Tangled in in the

    last few meetings and then the third is some of the insight and direction that

    the W City attorneys have offered the commission and so I wanted to kind of share all of that to ensure

    we're on the same page and I'm being transparent um so at the March regular meeting the commission discussion

    discussed options for how the initiative could and should proceed including the idea of an advisory task force or

    committee or informal group the commission ultimately decided that more information would be necessary to

    consider establishing a body and the commission unanimously voted to have Commissioners redraft the die in the

    policy redraft the project plan and incorporate feedback from the discussion and present a proposal for next steps at

    the April meeting as discussed in that meeting and also offline the commission bylaws require a

    majority of vote to establish committees committees are also inclusive of three members of the commission who are

    participating in the initiative work which has been reiterated and discussed over the last couple of months I know

    that as an aside I know that there was some discussion in the minutes about

    the March meeting so if there's a difference in opinion and how I presented that commissioner diet welcome

    that um at the April regular meeting the commission

    um discussed that and learned that the Advisory Group had already been formed

    and the there were several Commissioners that expressed in addition to the DCA

    expressed that there was some surprise and unpreparedness to have that conversation several Commissioners

    including myself did State though that it was kind of water on the bridge but wanted more information and transparency

    about what the body would entail and asked the Commissioners leading the

    charge Commissioners Diane lavosi to present a document that describes the

    committee's proposed deliverables outputs governance and transparency considerations we actually voted on that unanimously after the last meeting

    uh a meeting was scheduled for this advisory body to be held prior to or a

    meeting with the advisory body to be held prior to today's meeting after a consultation with the dcas regarding the

    sunshine ordinance and brown act I personally asked for the meeting to be postponed

    um and asked the commissioner commissioner die and commissioner volsi to seek commission's vote on formally

    establishing this committee to ensure that the body could comply with state city laws or state and local laws and

    then in addition to the commission bylaws so some of the areas that I believed had come up as questions and

    considerations over the last several months that I think have caused that I I've been striving to kind of untangle

    myself and thought I would kind of lay it out for everyone that I think can help clarify some of

    the discussion going forward first is how the committee has been referenced versus how it operates so I know there's

    been conversation about whether it's a committee or a task force or a group or a panel if it's external if it's

    informal if it's advisory versus a policy body if it's advising a single Commissioner versus the entire

    commission when is it considered sanctioned by the commission those are

    all things that I I believe we kind of had come up as considerations

    and the second component of this is how the rules that we follow so specifically

    implications around the sunshine ordinance and the brown act what is a passive body versus a policy body what

    is the role of one Commissioner versus two Commissioners versus three Commissioners and also what is the

    codified process that are that are included in our bylaws for establishing those committees and the final piece of

    that that I wanted to add myself is just the commission consensus so as a

    democratic body I think we all agree that the consensus and action by the commission is very important and that

    when we agree to things making sure that if we're not clear on what those things are re-watching the recordings or asking

    for clarification um I think those things we can all agree to so those are the things that over the

    last several months have gone on and I think have caused some confusion and so I asked the deputy study attorneys to

    provide some insight ahead of today on how we can move forward knowing that some of this had been kind of confusing

    and um they provided three kind of way three different paths that I wanted to share

    after kind of untangling some of the things that we just um we just talked about and again this is not getting I'm

    not opining on Direction This is specifically just the direction that we

    could go um the there are three paths so first is

    the commission could vote to establish a formal committee um uh which is by majority vote is not

    unanimous majority vote can establish a formal committee and that committee would have to follow the brown act

    Sunshine ordinance all public meeting requirements um and including obviously what's in our bylaws and it would be considered

    sanctioned by the commission so it wouldn't be external to go to the commission other Commissioners who are

    working on this initiative even if they're not in some of those meetings would still be considered part of this

    body it would also include you know using or resources of the of the commission including the secretary and

    establishing agendas meetings meeting minutes Etc option number two is uh one commissioner

    uh to hold a passive meeting uh and have a passive meeting body with the folks

    that were originally slated to be incorporated into The Advisory Group or

    its advisory panel so what does that mean in practice so the idea is that the group would solely advise a single

    commissioner as opposed to the full commission and the meetings must follow passive meeting rules which are a little

    less stringent significantly less stringent than what a formal committee would have to do so specifically and the

    dcas can share more detail on this but generally made in public in San Francisco strive

    to give notice but not required to take public comment the important thing to note about option number two here is

    that both Commissioners cannot work on this at once it would have to be one commissioner holding that passive those

    passive meeting bodies and then the path number three is that again one commissioner works alone to

    gather information through one on meetings with individuals subject matter experts and then develop recommendations

    as the commissioner based on that input that is then provided to the commission for consideration so

    um I think that's pretty straightforward but happy to answer some some um some questions on that and then there's

    one last kind of bucket of things that I want to share before handing this over which is just consideration so a couple

    of things that we've talked about as a body are what's happening at the state level so ab1248 which I imagine

    commissioner Stein lebowsi will also speak to today although don't want to assume um is currently as we know on the

    assembly for floor at the next hearing date is in the Appropriations Committee

    tomorrow and importantly the legislative session closes in September and then Governor

    Newsom has 30 days to potentially veto an important piece of that is that the governor has vetoed a similar bill in

    the past um and the important consideration that I wanted to call out is that there are

    different implications for what San Francisco would have to do as we all know from the document that came from

    the city attorney's office if that passes or doesn't pass second

    piece is kind of the criteria that we're using to evaluate this initiative and kind of how we want to proceed so

    transparency access to the public of some of these discussions you know we did vote last month to make our meetings

    more accessible what does that look like for certain other areas um and then resources we've talked a

    fair amount about not just you know ours as a commission and the agenda time and the secretary but also the advocacy

    organizations that we would be asking to support this initiative and their resources

    um and finally the goals and what what what is it that we we want to achieve

    and the path to get there so I realize that is quite a lot I didn't want to in again opine on my opinion but I did want

    to share a recap I wanted to share the learnings based on the confusion and some of the questions that had come up

    in previous meetings and share that with all of you transparently in addition to

    sharing what had happened offline with the full commission for their consideration so

    um like I said I didn't want to start our timer and suppress the other components of this topic but I can take

    any questions otherwise I will hand it over to Commissioners die and Commissioners liberal and commissioner

    level C okay are there any were there any

    questions okay go ahead commissioner die all right so

    um very quickly I just want to review what the uh attachments are

    um all of you received my little what's new uh thing but for the benefit of the

    public uh the first item is illegal Memo from our dcas uh with their analysis of

    ab1248 the second item is a minor very minor

    revision of the project plan uh which just adjusted the the start date by a

    month given that we didn't have the meeting last month and also replacing the work committee

    with panel it was advisory panel in a couple of instances and

    you know Fierce Committee in a few instances so we just change it all to advisory panel and then finally we

    changed the the header on page six just to clarify that the communications plan was something we would hand over to the

    board which was some of the feedback we got in the March meeting um

    and then the third item is a fact sheet for ab764 which is companion legislation to

    maybe 1248 it basically codifies some of the other recommendations that came out

    of the fair maps report that all of us took a look at so it's a one-pager we're

    not going to discuss it today I'm just posting it early for potentially discussion later and then last but not

    least is the requested document that summarizes what our

    intended purpose was for this advisory panel and operation of course we

    prepared this and posted it before I was advised earlier today by DCA

    floors about the the fact that only one commissioner can be on a passive meeting

    body so um so just to clarify and

    reinforce what president Stone said uh the where we had left things at the last

    meeting was that this would be an informal body we were informed and we

    were told that we could have whatever meetings we want as long as it was informal and not a not a commission

    committee but after the meeting

    um I was contacted by the dcas to clarify that in fact under the sunshine orders we're considered a passive

    meeting body and so uh and the rest of the events transpired

    as president Stone said so we held off on actually meeting um the only thing I wanted to say is

    that the advisory panel was proposed it was in Project plan version five we had

    not met officially we had only informally met to introduce people to

    each other just so that they knew who else had volunteered to sir and so we were waiting on approval from the full

    commission to move forward so having said that I'm going to turn it

    over to commissioner levolsi to run through the content of the two-pager on

    the charter and take any questions so thank you commissioner died commissioner

    levolsi thank you commissioner die so

    this group the intended purpose

    um is to make sure that we have the information we need to

    really come up with an effective plan and also to make sure that

    we are hearing from voices in good government groups that are that have been doing this work for a tremendous

    amount of time and also to make sure that we're hearing from diverse members of the community as well and so

    the goal is to to make sure that we understand that this is purely advisory

    this is not a group that is a making policy this is a group that would be informing us on best practices and then

    that information we would bring to the full commission the other goal is

    because time is of the essence we would like to make sure that the information

    that's given is from reliable sources such as as you can see this is a blue

    ribbon panel of people who have a tremendous expertise that many of us don't have and

    our first meeting was really just as commissioner and I said to come up with

    his name and for us to know who we are and and know a little bit about our backgrounds and at this stage I I'm

    assuming everyone has read it and so next stage would be to move forward as

    to whether we'd like to create this Advisory Group my understanding is now

    that only one of us could meet with this group and that's

    something that we would have to think about as far as our schedules

    um as people who have other responsibilities outside of the commission I

    my feeling personally is that there isn't a need to create a committee

    because of the short length of time that we were considering to meet

    um but that's of course up to us as a as a body to just to decide so

    um I think if there are any questions I think the mission and scope are here and

    and that's what our goal is and to make the the meetings publicly

    accessible um we would just want a space in City Hall

    just to make sure that whoever it is of us who's who is doing

    this has the technology and it's also you know safety um as far as where they are and where

    they're located is there anything you wanted to add commissioner died

    yeah I mean I I will say that um you know thought is we're kind of 90

    there with ab1248 regardless of whether it's passed or it's vetoed by the governor it's model legislation

    and it incorporates most of the best practices that we've been discussing for the past year

    uh really the the thing that differentiates San Francisco and the reason we got caught up in the 1248

    discussion and the reason they they did not exempt Charter cities this time is

    because of our political appointment process and that is the is the main

    thing that we wanted this group to kind of discuss because we also have a higher

    than average number of Supervisors and so uh kind of the the cookie cutter

    approach that 1248 has may not completely work for us and that's what

    we wanted this group to discuss so so I think originally our thought was

    this group would meet you know once maybe twice um so it was intended to be a very

    short-lived Advisory Group uh to just help us tweak the last 10 percent

    and then we would come back and present the recommendations the pros and cons

    what the options are what were less bad options etc for the full commission to to debate and decide on so

    um so that that was the thinking of of having this uh external volunteer group

    kind of do the heavy lifting of of hashing through that last 10 percent I

    would just oh um commissioner Hayden Crowley in the

    interest of time because um I do have to leave at nine uh president uh Stone

    um went through three different ways that this can move forward and I

    think number one is probably off the table number one which is the commit the committee the commission

    would be involved in this process um I'll and I'll jump in there as a point of clarification so option number

    one is to have more than one commissioner participate which at it just based on

    the document that um based on the document and there's a

    there are a couple of lines in there that um say this that it would be this body

    advising the commission not commissioner that it would be advising or to inform

    decisions of the commission that that would be a committee that's not

    um but that is not a um by virtue of it being more than one

    commissioner and operating with two Commissioners and informing you know

    stating as it being a informing the decisions of our policies that would be a committee

    does that answer your question uh yeah I the number two was um having a

    uh one person on this commission uh but having an advisory in a public setting

    and number three was to have an advisory just among the advisory and the one

    person I'll clarify that so option number two is

    um is to have one commissioner oh I I'll I'll say it and then if I get

    it wrong you can clean it up um is to have one commissioner do The

    Advisory Group that would not be required to follow the same rules as a

    committee um but in that regard it would be advising the commissioner who would then

    be advising the commission and then the third option is let's say commissioner levolci or

    commissioner die individually meeting with the individual

    members so miss you know commissioner Louisville c meeting with Mr Arden

    individually and then using the information gathered in fact DCA Flores

    gave a really great example of this to me when we spoke which is that like how I

    um presented all the information from the secretary for the secretary higher position I found you know I pulled from

    HR I pulled from here I pulled from there and then presented the commission with options to consider rather than

    meeting as a group if we meet as a group with one commissioner that would be option number two does that clarify I

    think I like that last one or do I I don't know the less complicated yes commissioner die yeah so actually

    the last one's off the table because neither commissioner levolves you nor I have time to meet individually yeah

    that's not happening yeah so so what I think Mr levolsi was proposing is that

    we take the charter um and we take one of our names off and

    just make it clear that this advisory panel is advising whichever name is left

    um so because the whole reason we wanted to do this was to reduce the burden on the commission and you know commission

    our limited commission resources including our secretary um you know for seeing three of us to

    have to meet uh so that we could be more Nimble in between meetings and kind of get this

    get this done really quickly and be able to advise the commission uh so I had

    originally requested a commission committee because it hadn't occurred to me to do it in some other way and

    actually president Stone was the one who suggested about you know having Community groups and that's how we came

    up with the advisory panel idea so I am leaning towards option two which

    looks like this Charter except one of our names is hacked off and wherever it says advice the commission we change it

    to advise the commissioner so this is President Stone

    um I I appreciate what you're saying and I

    also appreciate why you want to do it this way the concern I have is it's not

    just about chopping it off right you know if you and let's say commission let's say you commission or die are the

    member to hold those meetings if you are then working with commissioner labelsi and also working with commissioner

    Parker on this initiative you've in effect created the committee so

    it's not just a matter of the document it's about how it's and that's why and I

    knew it was I know it was long but that's why I talked about how the name of what we call it and how

    we're referring to it is ultimately kind of irrelevant if it's operating as a policy body

    um which in effect you know if you're having those meetings and then Consulting with commissioner levolsi or

    vice versa or whoever my understanding and DC Flores can interrupt because it took a while to

    untangle this myself I had a lot of questions I think we all did in the last meeting but my understanding is that

    would be that would be a committee do you say flores is that correct

    for the record she said yes um does anyone else before we just jump back in does anyone else want to um

    want to ask a question yeah jca Flores there is a section in San Francisco law

    about passive meetings that you can all read section 67.4 it's in the admin code

    and I mean it says it's essentially what a passive meeting body is is

    um advisory committees or other multi-member bodies created in writing

    or by the initiative of or otherwise primarily formed or existing to serve as

    a non-governmental advisor to dot dot dot a member of a policy body

    that's why if there's two of you then it can't be a passive meeting body has to be a committee let's be a committee okay

    thank you thank you um yeah uh vice president jordanick yeah

    I had a question that was well two questions one is about this committee idea and then another one that's less

    that's on a different topic so I'll do the other one first but um you know since the last meeting we

    got the legal memo and also I appreciate all the information that all of you provided it's been very helpful to

    understand the options but um so since the meeting we we got the legal memo and it was very useful but um is there a

    reason why you didn't bring back the draft letter for this meeting because the um the committee did The Advisory

    panel didn't meet and and the whole point was to was to get their take on it as well so oh so so you wanted to have

    them review it before the commission reviewed it the draft letter to the Board of Supervisors well it's been posted it's been public

    also present Stone um point of clarification we in the last

    meeting the commission also said that we would postpone until we would postpone that right until

    postpone the um letter to the soups until we had the analysis or are you saying once we got

    the analysis well I was in it shared with the yeah I yeah I guess my question is um is

    there a reason why now that we have the legal memo we're not discussing whether to approve the letter or not it's fine

    if we don't but I was just curious occasion I can also take the responsibility for that um if you don't

    mind commissioner die had asked me what I thought um about including the letter I

    specifically said I knew that we would have a lot to talk about in this meeting and that it might be too much for us to

    tackle all of that or not too much but that it could be considered um maybe too much to tackle so I can take

    ownership of that okay thanks and then my other question was and this is to clarify

    um so it sounds like we're leaning we're being forced into the option of making this an official committee you know

    which is fine um but I just wanted to clarify

    if two people makes means it would have to be a committee and then is there another part of our bylaws that say if

    it's a committee it has to have three people so then we that was just an option so a committee per year bylaws has to

    have three people right so it under the passive meeting rules there can't be two

    people that lead a passive meeting body so that's why there's not a middle option of having two people and have a

    committee one or three yes I mean I I should clarify does it have to have three Commissioners or just for a

    committee per your bylaws your bylaws say three members okay so that's and

    then if it's a committee there would need to be a third commissioner editor yes okay yes and point of clarification

    on that as well because I meant to say this explicitly but for example working

    with commissioner Parker on how to work with supervisors on this is also by

    virtue working as a committee um so that's why I presented option

    number one even though I know it is more resources and um you know my I have presented in the

    past not wanting to use those resources I wanted to present it as an option because we are kind of already operating them

    did other people who haven't had the chance to commissioner Parker commissioner will see

    no um I would just like to say that I think at this point given

    resources given time um given our schedules the the question

    for the commission is who's available because I think what

    would transpire if we were to go the route of one commissioner there would

    have to be a trade-off between myself and commissioner die because there are sometimes I'm going to be available due

    to my work schedule there's sometimes she's going to be available so that's not an option yeah

    um because our schedules in order to get the work done within the timeline one of us is not available that entire time so

    at this stage it we should move forward to form a committee my question is does

    a formal committee Can it have a um a short timeline that it exists yes a

    committee can sunset at any time but I just want you to remember that a committee everyone on

    the committee that you're proposing to have this they have to appear in person all the rules of the brown act apply so

    no remote participation you have to have a 72-hour notice period from agendas and

    you also have to give the public an opportunity to comment at your meetings and so and that would also mean that the

    secretary has to attend these meetings uh we normally are our office does not

    normally staff committee meetings so Fisher die

    so if we were to have a commission committee and we wanted to include the

    folks we had invited to be part of this advisory panel um would they

    not be official members of the committee then they would just we could invite

    them to attend because one of the things we promised them since they're donating their time is that they wouldn't have to come in person

    right because it adds a lot of extra time if they have to come in person

    yeah DCA Florence

    because I'm concerned we're creating conditions that this group cannot meet

    um yeah I'll have to do more research on or just get more information from my

    office um because you're bylaws do not state that but I mean

    could we have them all be invited guests as opposed to being on the committee again I'd have to you know I'd have to

    get more information from my office to determine if these folks are going to be

    committee members and if they don't have to be committee members

    um foreign yeah I just have to go back and check

    um what is required at this point for guests if they're not part of this committee commissioner we'll see you at your hand

    up uh it's not a question it's more of a statement I think it it's it's obvious that there that this is

    falling Within some gray area in some ways and how we

    um at first designed it and so the goal is not to obfuscate the rules but was

    really to really make sure that we could get it is very hard to get a panel like

    this to come in as we stated earlier time is of the essence and we felt that

    that there would be trust that we would convey the information in a way that

    would be clear and concise and then the the rest of the commission could make a decision but I think if we move

    towards a committee then we really need to think about the timeline and what's

    realistic because it's not most likely going to be possible that once you um

    DCA Florence have this information if you come back and say

    it has to be in person with everyone involved then that's going

    to change the dynamic and I know that that's just the way it is but then we we

    would have to think about what what are ways that we could pursue this which is of extreme I will speak for myself

    interest on our parts um and I would just remind us I was not

    on the commission um when there was the but I did read and

    see what was happening and so our goal is to make sure that we have a redistrant commission that doesn't

    have political influence

    um yes um so this is President John I I haven't really asked questions or shared yet so

    if it's okay I'd like to jump in um I have a bunch of thoughts

    um and I appreciate the discussion and learning a lot about people's opinions and thoughts on how to proceed

    one of the questions that I keep coming back to is why we need this group it's

    not that and what I mean by that is not that why don't we need these individuals they're phenomenal obviously

    um incredible and many of them have come to present to us in over the last year and

    so you know I I guess my question is if we've had

    redistricting agendaized almost every single meeting for the last year where we've had these wonderful individuals

    members of the community these good government groups all come and present to us every single meeting and we've all

    listened and discussed and debated for like I said about a year now

    is there a reason that you know we can't you know whether it's both

    commissioner die and levelsi or one or the other whatever

    just put together the recommendations at based on what has already been done over

    the last year and ask the um amazing

    panelists to come invite them to speak remotely at a commission meeting based

    on the recommendation that you know perhaps Commissioners level see and I

    put together based on what we've already learned in the last year I guess that's a part that I'm still not sure about and I'm sure

    there's a reason why I just don't really know what it is um and so I'd love the answer to that

    um and I think that would also help move us forward right um if let's say Commissioners die in

    level C hypothetically offline in the next six weeks I do that is not an

    actual number I'm just saying like you know I don't want to assume to know your schedules but let's say you know in the

    next six weeks you were able to put together recommendations of based on

    everything we've heard and also obviously commissioner Tai has extensive experience in this area that then the

    commission could review that final recommendation and we invite those folks to come and present when you present

    those recommendations I guess I'm not sure why that couldn't be potentially like why we why we couldn't do that

    um and I think one of the reasons why

    I brought up resources before without wanting to opine at my opine is that the

    resources of these organizations is that they have already given their time to us in over the last year

    um in addition to that Community I I recall I wrote down in from our past

    meetings that commissioner die you had mentioned that you had asked other community groups

    um I think you specifically mentioned SF Rising you also mentioned having spoken with members of the African-American

    community in San Francisco like Community groups and latinx communities and they declined to participate and so

    that I think kind of stuck with me as to why because their resources you know

    thinking about their resources so I that that kind of stuck with me and it's making me think you know we have so much

    information we've had Community groups come and talk so I'd like to kind of come back to that point

    um and then there was another question I had that was more of a point of clarification from for commissioner

    point of information um that I was wondering about when you said almost there with ab1248 and what

    you mean by that um you said help us tweak the last 10 percent I wasn't clear on what that

    meant exactly so if you could just explain because in the last meeting you

    had said that the first thing you asked the group to do and this is quoting is

    imagine what it would look like to adopt these bills and what it would mean to strike all the provisions in the charter

    um and so is that I guess my question is is that are they already working on the

    recommendations and you want to be able to meet to get to the 10 I think I'm getting confused about what you're what

    you're referring to when you say that so I guess it's a is the alternative just you the two Commissioners working on it

    and B can you clarify um what you mean by 90 10 okay

    commissioner die sure um so if you recall I had already put a

    summary of all the recommendations we've heard from all the speakers uh back in November uh so that's been posted for a

    long time there were still open questions if you recall that I had you

    know put in the right hand column that were questions I had because they're not

    the recommendations were not specific enough for San Francisco and I should

    point out with you know with the exception of the League of Women Voters of San Francisco

    all the other ones are State organizations and they've been looking at legislation like like a b 1248 and

    764 that could apply to every city in the state of California and like I said they're not dealing with

    things that are specific to San Francisco like the fact that we have so many supervisors right so they have

    proposed in 1248 a standard a standard commission what it should

    look like and how it should behave and what the world should be and a lot of the general recommendations

    and best practices are consistent with what we've heard that there's consensus recommendation on but

    um the parts where we kind of stick out like the fact that we have so many

    supervisors their standard their standard format and they may not work

    that well for us right and so that's the the the last

    that's what I mean by the last 10 percent that's where I really wanted to get these big brains in a room and have

    them hash it out with make them think about San Francisco and hash it out with us uh because I do think that we'll take

    thoughtful discussion um I you know am very aware of the

    limited time we have at regular commission meetings and I did not want to impose that burden on the full commission which is why I suggested a

    committee in the first place so that we could hash it out like do all of the thinking through this and you know give

    our best recommendation to the full commission with pros and cons Etc so that's the I think I addressed both

    of your questions yes thank you for clarifying that makes a lot more sense

    so I have a little more information I got in touch with um Brad

    um Deputy City attorney Brad Rossi and um so he did say that um he confirmed

    that you can create your committee um to do the redistricting work however you wouldn't necessarily have this group

    like you wouldn't say hey here's our Fierce group to help us you could invite these folks to the meeting

    um to hear what they have to say but they wouldn't be part of the committee um yeah so they wouldn't be like a body

    that advises you you could just invite them to come and share their thoughts but you can you know you wouldn't invite

    them to every meeting and have them Vote or like they have no authority over the committee right but they could attend

    they could attend like any other like any other citizen of San Francisco or

    resident of San Francisco or a guest speaker yeah as an invited guest speaker so yeah so

    really the whole design of this was to unburden the commission and to let this group of experts kind of do the heavy

    lifting and think through the last that's what I meant the last 10 percent that the specifics where the standard

    you know the standard form may not work perfectly for San Francisco

    um so that you know so that we can hand it over the Board of Supervisors and let them take action before the standard

    form is forced on us so that that was the thinking thank you for clarifying commissioner

    die I actually think that's really helpful and um might I recommend or ask that in

    whatever the next Pro whatever you deliverable you put together is also just maybe mentioning that like what's

    been done and saying why it's why it's important because I I personally a lot didn't remember all that so I think it

    was a helpful reminder so thank you vice president jordanick I think you had your hand up yes so um I've you know I've

    been listening to the discussion it's um I feel like there's got to be a way to

    let this group meet to you know to come up with the recommendations but is there also a

    scenario where these five people could just meet on their own and then

    you know it seems like they're all interested and then come up with recommendations and then just give them

    to us or is that also a passive meeting body or if if it doesn't even have any

    Commissioners on it and then that that way it wouldn't be um you know

    you wouldn't have the scheduling conflicts with between the two of you or is that


    I mean that would be difficult considering the heavy role that both two Commissioners have taken in this group

    um but any member any person who lives in San Francisco or I guess Mr Turner

    doesn't live in San Francisco but anyone that wants to opine on anything about San Francisco I think can come to your

    meeting and and do so like anyone right so these people can all get together and

    come up with something and say hey San Francisco commission elections commission this is like a really great

    idea we think you should back it um I don't see any issues with that

    um but I you know again it it would be like if you'd want them to advise you

    then that's where the problem is at well I

    I appreciate um vice president jordanick your suggestion but this group would be doing

    this at our behest even if we're not there it's at our behest so it wouldn't

    that that would be violating the rules because we're we're asking them to give us best practices for our

    unique situation in San Francisco based on their knowledge and experience so

    it's not a random group coming together it's a group that we've asked to come

    together so I don't think that would help thank you for vocalizing that correctly

    that's what I was trying to say um and and something like this did happen I mean during redistricting like on their

    own a group of like 100 orgs came together and drafted maps on their own right so

    at this point there has been a request already by this body so I think it would be too late to say hey go do something

    on your own um so so there's a phrase for it but you can't undo the you've already crossed

    that line again yes we'll see so we have to decide

    are we going to have a committee or are we going to do some of the suggestions

    that Commissioners president Stone excuse me is suggesting

    I mean I think that's or or you some of the things you said that we might want to consider

    which are we've come we've have information that that has been brought together can we have

    um these members come and provide that information to us directly was that not

    something that you suggested thanks for asking um no that what I meant what I

    was asking commissioner died to clarify kind of what the difference would be between what we've already gotten and

    what the body would be offering um I was just saying initially I had

    said there were three paths to the committee the passive and whatever based on the considerations that we had all elevated over the last several months

    that I think got us into this entangled process um did that clarify no okay absolutely

    yeah um commissioner Parker I saw your hand up um yeah just

    um before we just I mean I think I know what direction this conversation is heading but I do

    just have a clarification question um the passive body um option if there was one commissioner

    leading that then does that also um would that mean

    because if that was the direction to go that no longer could that commissioner then be having any conversations with

    anybody about this because it would turn into like a Serial meeting essentially of some sort yes okay it

    would turn into an unsanctioned commitment unsanctioning so so that would all have so all

    conversation would have to take place here so no coordinating behind the scenes it's anything like that it's so

    it's either a committee where people Commissioners can talk to each other about this or it's

    excuse me one commissioner leading a passive meeting group

    um and then comes back to report back on that to this the full commission and that's that's where the communication

    happens yeah that's part of why sorry this President Stone just to answer that

    that's part of why I know I gave this kind of like long thing but there's so many of these considerations of like

    well what happens if this and I I mean the amount of questions that I've asked the dcas about this

    um trying to re-listen to some of our meetings yes I have a proposal

    um which we you know we can talk about in terms of the things that you know what we some of

    the things we've talked about are individual Commissioners time so commissioner will see commissioner die

    both have um have expressed that you know needs to be assured it can't be just one

    commissioner um understandably um the other thing we've talked about is the commission Resources with the

    secretary and everything associated with that and then the third are some of these other considerations around

    numbers of Commissioners and who can participate so I have a proposal um that perhaps we consider establishing

    a committee a formal committee um that can determine when it needs so

    let's say it's commissioner dye commissioner Parker and commissioner levolsi but you could maybe meet you

    know once once as it could be a short-term commit commission a committee

    it doesn't have to be like you know a long term could be a short-term commission yeah where you have a

    conversation about things you want to do and that way you know you can work offline you know commissioner Parker can

    go off and work with and do some of the supervisor things and then report back to the committee

    um Commissioners die and levelsi can be responsible for doing whatever offline or I guess you couldn't because it'd be

    a quorum so one of you but have that beat in terms of the resources

    um you would have to follow the meeting requirements for yourselves we could you could invite the other folks to

    participate remotely as guests to your idea commissioner die and then the third

    component of that be we can debate this not have the commission's secretary take the minutes

    and do the agenda meaning but have the committee be responsible for the minutes and the agenda and

    um uh yeah the minutes and the agenda and the uh

    I think that's it now my brain's getting foggy so that's that's a seems like maybe a mix of some of the

    things commissioner yeah it seems like um in order for this to the burden to be

    shared we have to go the committee route and if that's the direction we're going

    I would ask commissioner Parker if she's willing

    um and also uh we already have a date which was hard fought to find another

    date that all these people could meet um so if we do that I would ask

    um the commission secretary's assistance in helping us find a room

    um but that's what I was going to say that date may have to change because there's

    a lot of meetings is it next Wednesday yeah there's a lot of Wednesday meetings so if you cannot meet at um City Hall

    then you you can't have a meeting so so it has to be City Hall can't be up any

    other people no that's for Passive bodies for committees you you're essentially like a mini elections

    Commission um looks like commissioner died finished and then I'll hand it over to sorry

    about that no no come on go ahead commissioner die um

    yeah and then there's the other issue that I'm going to be out of pocket for most of June so

    which is why we had said offline to commissioner

    levolsi that if it's a passive meeting body she's gonna have to step up because I can do one meeting but I probably

    can't do them after that vice president jordanick

    yeah I think um I think there's a possibility that in DC4 as you might know but there's

    conference rooms that are smaller than the hearing rooms well I think I know when we had the

    advisory committee for the open source some years back we met in the smaller conference rooms and there's they're

    like rooms that are Maybe a fifth of the size of this room or a third then those might be more available

    than um like 408 and 400 so

    um I I agree there this is a really big building there might be tons of rooms

    but the other thing you know you have to post the agenda through 72 hours beforehand so you know if you missed

    that deadline you can't meet so I don't think the agenda is the issue

    um and we can meet in a closet because there's only going to be three of us everyone else is going to be remote

    so it's just an issue of whatever requirements there are to record or live

    stream the meeting yeah you have to live stream the meeting um and you can't meet in a closet

    because the public is not going to be able to fit so I know so it has to be a

    room accessible to the public thank you

    I was just going to say uh commissioner died the the technology and to

    commissioner uh vice president giovannik the technology piece might not be available in the other conferences

    conference rooms of streaming the meeting

    you know I don't know what conference rooms you're talking about but it's it sounds like all of the technology we

    need especially if the secretary is not going to be available would be in a room

    like this and not in any other conference rooms point point of congregation we might be

    able to help with that we might be able to meaning like if it's a small room you could set up a

    WebEx you know we could help set up a WebEx okay and you could just do it on one of your computers

    um pretty pretty easily vice president Jordan yeah that's actually what I was going to say I was going to say as long

    as you have a laptop in the room you could just put in the center and then people can hear you and you could okay

    that's doable so it seemed presence down here um it seems like really the the big

    thing is just ensuring that you could get a space in City Hall for next um Tuesday and we would appreciate help

    with that oh yeah I um commissioner commissioner bossy sorry

    I'm tired um I I think before we move forward or

    have any other discussions there's a proposal for committee um but we haven't

    I don't think we've given commissioner Parker a time to think and consider

    this proposal so I I think we should maybe

    allow time for for commissioner Parker to to decide that and I I I'm assuming you

    don't want to just decide that right now to be fair to you

    commissioner Parker uh thank you I appreciate that um I mean I wasn't sure how all of this

    was going to go um go down um the the main I mean as with everybody

    else you know the question is always with capacity and so my question for you

    all would be is is how often would we want to meet um some of you know I I'm on my chair a

    couple of other things that are all winding down in the next month or two and so I'm you know finishing those things up if there's not a lot of

    meetings related you know if there's a couple of meetings I can probably do that I will be in town those that that

    is possible but if it was something like we're wanting to meet you know weekly for a period of time like that might be

    challenging for me to be a part of um and majority for a committee would be too and so if there's one I couldn't

    attend then so be it you know yeah exactly but otherwise I'm I mean

    obviously trying to help in ways that are appropriate and that I can and so

    what's up commissioner diet yeah um so uh so I like I said I'm gonna be absent

    for most of June so two out of three of us would have to be

    available uh and then um I I wonder if it'll be helpful for

    everyone if you would just share the update um you know that you you've been working

    with our potential legislative Champions and maybe it's appropriate just to share what the progress is on that and

    um do you want me to show that I mean do you want to I don't know if you wanna to consider this taught this question right

    now about committee or if you want I mean I'm happy to share some updates on conversations I'm having whatever is

    appropriate for the order of things I'm open to what the body wants um

    one thing I would also like to note just as an aside um which may be more of a question that

    I would want to pose to the committee if it's formed is also

    you know I shared a little bit about the what's happening with the assembly bill but

    um I think it would be helpful to also understand the

    the approach to this the assembly Bill like how the commission is thinking

    about that um and whether some of this should wait until you know

    the legislative session has gone through obviously maybe not the letter um in support but

    um if that passes if it won't pass kind of what's the process of that I think that would be a

    helpful just keeping an eye on what's happening with that legislative path I mean I was looking I was quite literally

    looking at the legislative path earlier today um and reading some of the differences

    and there's so many steps that it would have to go through but um just keeping an eye on it at the

    state in addition to the the local kind of work with the electeds

    would be great so but otherwise I'm open I want to hear what other people think

    about talking hearing the update I'd be interested to hear the update vice president

    okay commissioner Parker please go ahead um yeah so um as I shared last month

    I've had some conversations with supervisor Mirna Melgar and supervisor Matt Dorsey

    um we we know that President Aaron peskin is interested and willing to be

    one a sponsor and um and both supervisors Dorsey and Melgar

    are also willing um there there is some discussion about who will be the lead because they want

    to make sure that they are not standing alone because they all have a lot on their plates but they are all supportive

    um and so I think I'm feeling there's still some final I think conversations that need to happen there but in general

    um there is uh support for this and willingness to move forward especially

    if it's done as a team they are all super supportive of the idea that we move this forward in whatever it looks

    like because we don't know what the actual measure will look like yet even though we have some general ideas of the

    broad Strokes um they are interested with the the

    strategy that we've talked about before about trying to get all of the supervisors on board because that just

    by doing the heavy lifting now it's a lighter lift for everyone later um and then also the mayor and I have

    had some initial conversation with the mayor's office as well to try to bring them along and let them know what's

    happening what's coming forward to ask for also advice and questions and things that they might have so that again we're

    starting to lay groundwork even though we don't know the specifics yet that everybody feels included in the process

    so that there's more likely a strong Foundation of support whenever it

    actually comes to fruition so I would say those are all generally moving in a

    good direction and that that is a good approach for us to continue to take is to bring everybody along with and ask

    for questions and suggestions along the way so that it has a better chance of

    success and we all are not having to worry too much by the time it actually makes it to the ballot

    I move that we form a redistricting initiative committee

    that will uh follow the

    um bylaws public Brown act Sunshine all the

    public meeting requirements but seek to use its own resources to

    actually establish meetings and minutes agendas those are details of the motion

    but um work on its own independently and find a

    yeah work on its own independently and it can be a short-term committee as well

    so the motion let me just restate it more clearly is to establish a formal committee that operates independently

    and then will provide updates to the commission based on its its progress all

    appropriate laws

    I have a question about verification um is there an option to have the

    Secretary of available or is it you would prefer that we the secretary is never available for this committee

    meeting if this committee meets um the idea was that we had discussed as a

    group the use of the resources of the secretary I mean as it stands right now

    full full transparency secretary Davis is already working at full capacity

    um and so that would mean it would pull

    um some resources so perhaps maybe we try um without and if it's becoming too much

    we can talk about reallocating some resources but I'm open to the conversation about full transparency yes

    secretary Davis was already working at full capacity of her hours

    president jordanick yeah just one question is there a proposed name for the committee the fears oh Fierce okay

    so the fear is going to be so sad if we couldn't use it of course fierce

    committee or or Fierce redistricting initiative

    committee yeah well that's you're saying it twice right

    let's just call it the fierce committee okay I mean Commissioners die levelsi and

    Parker do you like that you're the potential members of the committee so just their opinion

    so um uh I think we need a second and then once yes of course once um you have

    that going um the president formally appoints the members so you don't vote on who's going to be

    on the committee the the President's duty is to appoint the members and to appoint a chair of the committee

    the the motion though is about forming the committee right so I just wanted to

    make sure before if I need to amend the motion um it sounds like Fierce is

    the motion is to establish the fierce committee the president will appoint members as

    per the conversation do I have a second to that motion second thank you commissioner Parker so

    let's take um public comment yeah Mr Scott to say so let's take public comments

    see any public comment hands raised

    great okay um secretary Davis would you mind

    calling the Roll Call vote for the motion to establish the fierce

    committee yes

    yes I feel like I have to roar or something

    I but only because we retain the fierce name

    yes yes

    great thank you secretary Davis and thank you all I know this is a difficult conversation and I also just really

    appreciate commissioners in their patients and hope and hopefully

    their open mind is definitely not seeking to be obstructionist I want to make sure that all the law and I feel

    really excited to hear what comes out of all of the work that you all do together so with that let's move to Let's close

    agenda item oh actually were there any other comments questions or okay

    um we'll close agenda item number yeah DCF presence

    no but it doesn't where does it say that we have to do that right now do we have to do it right now no

    functions yeah yeah so yeah we have to decide

    yeah um Okay cool so we're going to close agenda item seven we're gonna move to agenda item number eight agenda items

    8. Agenda Items for Future Meetings

    for future meetings a discussion and possible action regarding regarding items for future agendas so

    um commissioner dye had asked specifically about this about the June meeting so I will hand it to her

    yes I would like to participate in the June meeting if

    um it is possible for us to reschedule it to the last week of June

    um if the commission is open to it and if

    not I understand I have a question um yeah commissioner almost so we're talking about the 28th

    oh two um or or the 21st okay

    and um yeah so

    it doesn't have to be any particular day but if there's a day that

    most of us can make it um Ben

    or oh sorry vice president you're noticed I

    can make any day that week okay commissioner Parker yeah I I believe

    that I will be around it would be available and and frankly when I look at my calendar that might if we did the

    20th might even work better for me because I have a big work thing that on the 21st in the afternoon that might build you know bring me right up next to

    our meeting time so okay yeah um commissioner we'll see did

    you have any I am available the week of the 26th

    either um the only date that I can't meet is the 29th

    great um so thank you I

    I believe I can do the 28th um I obvi obviously we need to get the input of

    Commissioners Hayden Crowley and commissioner burning Holtz but um given that they're not present

    um I think we could probably move forward with that I will look into it

    um personally I would love to keep it on a Wednesday just for continuity if everyone is okay with that

    um of our regular meetings and that way it's only just a week um so

    I will look into that secretary Davis and I'll look into that and get back to folks the email

    the other thing I wanted to mention is that in lieu of one of our meetings this

    summer we will do the retreat but that means either maybe our July or August meeting

    we won't meet so folks can keep that in the back of their mind and we can talk about that

    at the next meeting as well was there anything else

    folks would like to include okay

    it is 9 38 p.m oh I was so close

    um and now we'll move to public comment hit the gavel in the hand

    there are no hands raised by the comments great closing agenda item eight and now it is 9 38 still and this

    meeting is adjourned

    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 September 12, 2023